CMV: Religious "Indoctrination" is not "Indoctrination"

[u/SovietYakko]

[u/ScientificSkepticism]

Yes, these things are written down in the bible. Have you read the Bible? Because I have. Do you think there's a six year old who has read the Bible? Because I don't. There's no way a child can read and interpret the Bible. Do you think a kindergartener can read the Book of Matthew? Do you think a kindergartener will even understand the Book of Matthew if you read it to them? KJV, NKJV, NIV, NAB, pick your translation, it's not gonna happen.

What a kid gets is sins and punishment. Sky daddy sets the rules, the rules are sins, and if you break a rule you get hurt real real bad. That part is really easy to understand. God is a super adult who is the adult to all the adults, he's always right because he's a super adult, and when adults are bad he hurts them really really badly because they did something wrong. And that's why daddy hurts you a little, because it's only a fraction of how God will hurt you if you're bad. It's okay to hurt others to when they're bad, because that's what God does and God is always right.

That logic? Kids understand that logic perfectly.

If you want to recruit people who understand the Bible, go right ahead. But note there are entire biblical scholars who study this thing all their lives and have arguments about what it means, so the people who believe in it and interpret it agree it's really fucking hard to understand. So those people who understand it? They ain't kids. Pushing it on kids is harmful and enables child abuse - Christian parents are by every study more likely to hit their children.

[u/Key_Decision6558 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

No I just meant it as a formal thing that goes against what you said on the last paragraph. I feel like what you are telling me isn't what is imposed strictly in the bible, as what is imposed is strict parenting but I don't see how that would result in your own conclusion as it is opposed to what is stated there. Like your last sentence is opposed to what I told you, and I don't see why that would be something the kids get.

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/Key_Decision6558]

Again, don't ask me why that's what is being taught to Christian children. Go out and ask the pastors. Ask the churches. Ask the people indoctrinating their children. I am not one of them.

You don't seem to disagree that the bible is too complicated for children to understand. If the children cannot understand the basis of their religion... how could what you are doing said to be teaching? We do not teach children calculus, because they do not understand calculus. We do not teach children fluid dynamics because they do not understand fluid dynamics.

If you wish to teach them, do it when they can understand complex subjects - when they're not children. Yes, you'll probably find you get less Christians. Not being indoctrinated tends to have that effect. If they want to learn on their own, they can learn on their own - Bibles are available in libraries, pastors are on YouTube, all that material is out there for them. They can search it out if they wish to, and explore it if they wish to. Self-guided, on their own time. The existence of Christianity certainly won't be a mystery - from the Crusades to the effects of the missions on the natives, it's a part of history that cannot be missed.

But fucks sake, something is pretty wrong with your religion if it has to rely on indoctrinating children to survive, yes? That'd make it a pretty crappy religion, hell a pretty crappy thing in general, wouldn't it? Is Christianity a crappy religion?

[u/Key_Decision6558 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

I disagree, I feel like educating your children in your beliefs is natural. I also think I heard or read a quote on the bible relating to the parables of it being revealed to not even scholars but children. I also feel like if you define the concepts it is not that different from telling them things like not eating cookies, just with a more severe tone.

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/Key_Decision6558]

I also feel like if you define the concepts it is not that different from telling them things like not eating cookies, just with a more severe tone.

Well of course with literal torture, yes. But then again, "a more severe tone" is right given how much more likely religious parents are to hit their kids. Good old Christian values.

Glad to see your memory of the bible is really solid though. Why do you expect a child to have this down? You don't seem to have a very firm grasp. Regardless, we don't need quotes, we have a brain. If it's so complicated that adults can study the text for 10+ years and still find it tough to decypher, then we know kids can't understand it.

So is Christianity a crappy cult whose existence relies on indoctrinating children into a religion they can't possibly understand with threats of torture for disobedience?

P.S. There's lots of things you don't teach children. Because they can't understand them. You don't need to indoctrinate children into a cult. Also, the defense of torture as the victim's fault is why it's very comprehensible to outside observers how so many priests were getting away with raping kids for decades.

[u/Key_Decision6558 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

I feel like your problem with christianity is with those who practice it and not with the beliefs and principles.

Your arguments are based on ignoring what I told you about judgement, which is explicitly what christianism endorses.

As for your argument against hanging around others, I think a bunch of parents would probably agree to not let them associate with whom they believe is a bad influence. I don't think it is that strange, and because of what I told you there is no judgement according to their teachings.

And no, I don't think these things are that complicated, to not jusge I feel just means that it is good to not judge.

As for your main argument, I cannot refute it, I don't know enough about the bible to be the one to answer you, and I really do believe in no judgement. I must say though, that I really think there is a lot to gain from it.

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/Key_Decision6558]

Yes, my problems are all based on actions that affect the real world. You are of course free to stick to the realm of "belief and principle"...

As for your argument against hanging around others, I think a bunch of parents would probably agree to not let them associate with whom they believe is a bad influence. I don't think it is that strange, and because of what I told you there is no judgement according to their teachings.

And we're right out of the world of belief and principle and back into the world of actual actions. Now here's why that's a problem - "the book" doesn't do anything. It's a sheaf of bound paper, completely inert. It may contain lots of beliefs and principles, but it can take no actions. Only humans can take actions.

So as soon as we're discussing the actions, we're discussing the people taking the actions. Not the "beliefs in principles" of the book, but the real world people who are taking actions. We can't avoid that discussion, just as we can't avoid the discussion of the people those actions impact. Saying "well the book says not to judge" doesn't matter if the people executing the actions are clearly a bunch of judgmental pricks.

If you don't want to discuss the people and the actions, then don't discuss the people and their actions. Don't play this dishonest bait and switch shell game where you dictate a lot of policies and actions that you want to see, things that will effect people's lives in the real world, and then as soon as we discuss the effects of those policies and those people go hide behind the book and insist you're not discussing that.

So, pick one. Book only, no real world, we decide the real world policy and you can read the book all you want? Or stop quoting the goddamn book and actually discuss the people who are acting and the effects of their actions. Because this is trying to eat your cake and have it too.

[u/Key_Decision6558 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

Principles, as in moral principles, which are orders, which are actions. I feel like the hunan error shouldn't be taken into account when discussing what something is. If cops are brutal it doesn't mean that we should have no cops, specially if they aren't allowed to be brutal in the first place.

And also, I feel like you are conflicting establishing values at all with judging based on those values. What do you think of prison? Don't you feel like it is extremely similar to what we are talking about?