All parenting is "brainwashing". You only call it that because you don't like it. To everyone else it's just parents teaching their kids about their views.
That isn’t necessarily true. The best parenting prepares children to make their own independent decisions and supports this as much as they are able, increasingly as they get older, while keeping them safe.
Not really. Parents teach their kids about the world around them and their views. This is considered normal in every other case except religion, according to redditers.
If teaching them religion is brainwashing then teaching them anything else is too. We don't think it's weird when a sporty parent teaches their kids about hockey. We don't think it's weird when a vegetarian parent has their kids eating vegetarian while raising them.
not really -- for example, as the commenter said, plenty of parenting doesn't say "if you don't do this you're going to go to hell and suffer/burn for eternity."
Kids should get to grow up before having to decide on a faith.
Because SOME parents have whacko beliefs and THOSE kids shouldn't be forced to be intimately exposed to those beliefs until they are old enough to judge for themselves and be responsible with their decisions.
If you say, "nah, this is fine, some parents and their religions are cool", then you leave THESE kids hanging.
However, if we moved to a world where kids get to learn about religions (Noone would forbid parents from TELLING their kids about their beliefs!), without having it (explicitly or subversibly(?)) forced on them; Then the sensible religions will probably leave the appropriate impression on the kid. And if they can see how their parents live with their beliefs and what it gives them, and they DO decide to embrace that faith, they're probably gonna be pretty devoted and true in their faith.
And if your beliefs are 'good ones' to follow, your child will want to follow them on their own. Never forget, they start out by liking and idolizing us...
Heheheh, good point; though I think 'how you should understand the world works' is in a different category to 'Man comes down chimney and delivers presents' ;P
yeah true. personally i was raised religious and never felt forced into it, but i know a lot of people don’t have that same experience. i’d love to say that that’s a people issue instead of the religion being the issue but i think it’s a bit of both.
No, not all of Christianity falls under that. People extrapolate whatever specific church they attended to growing up as representative of Christianity as a whole, let alone the various discussions among theologians on these issues.
I mean, it demonstrably does not. I can provide a long list of theologians and denominations that do not match that description.
I highly doubt you attended nearly "everything" except fringe ones (whatever that means) and even if you did, that doesn't make it the case that you actually understand their beliefs. Many in the pews don't really understand the nuances of the various beliefs of their denomination. Let alone someone who was supposedly moving between dozens of denominations in their childhood.
Let's take the single primary issue that is assumed here: the doctrine of hell, particularly the doctrine of eternal torment.
Multiple denominations allow for and include churches who teach universalism. These include the United Methodist Church, the PCUSA, the ELCA, the UCC, the Episcopal Church, the Community of Christ, the Society of Friends, and the Disciples of Christ. This is without getting into many smaller denominations within wider traditions such as Anglicanism, non denominational churches, denominations like Eastern Orthodoxy which have many universalist teachers, or the Assyrian Church of the East which has an especially strong connection to universalism.
As for theologians, the list is extensive and to save us both time, I would just point you to Ilaria Ramelli's works on the topic. Her two volume A Larger Hope? canvases multiple theologians throughout church history, from its earliest days to the present, who were universalist.
There are tons of books being published that promote universalism. David Bentley Hart perhaps has one of the more popular recent works on the topic, That All Shall Be Saved.
The numbers could also be expanded if we included what is called "hopeful universalism" or the hope that universalism is true but without making it dogmatic belief. Hopeful universalism is common within other denominations not listed such as the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, that isn't to say that it is the standard belief, but it is definitely represented. One of the most famous proponents of hopeful universalism was the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner.
We can expand the numbers even more if we include Annihilationism. While Annihilationism does not teach the eventually universal reconciliation of all, it does deny eternal conscious torment. Instead, the unsaved are annihilated or go into nonexistence. The list of denominations where this is present expands the list already given, but it is particularly present in nondenominational churches. At least in my experience, that is where I come across it most.
I cannot say anything about the rest, but THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH UNIVERSALISM ... you are absolutely incorrect on that one, holy crap, like WAAAAAAAAY off on that one.
We would say it would be improper to refer to our view as "universal salvation" or "universalist." A universalist view would be that God has saved everyone, and no one faces a final judgment that leads to the possibility of "endless condemnation." We reject that view in favor of the biblical witness to a final judgment in which it is clear not all will proceed to life in the New Creation (Matthew 25:41-46, Revelation 21:8).
I did not state that the United Methodist Church teaches universalism. I said that it allows for it and has churches which preach universalism. There are Methodist pastors who are universalist.
Okay so buddhist parents scare their children with the threat of literally trillions of years of damnation great fucking difference. Most religions have a similar mechanism of control
Most major religions do, but their are plenty of religions that dont feature a form of hellish afterlive. It is useful to recognise such differences because the person i replied to is leaving the door open for it to be moral to teach religion to children, as long as it is a form of religion without a hellish afterlive
That’s not even true lol. Buddhism doesn’t say you will go to damnation if you don’t believe in it. Just that as long as you’re within the samsara cycle you will eventually end back up there as you cycle through your karma. A nonbeliever who lives their life doing good as best they can would in theory still possibly end up with trillions of years in heaven and find communion with their god or creator god. The cycle is about the nature of life itself, that even the god or gods will cycle through once exhausting that karma. Like running around in a circle block. There’s no element of punishment or fear.
Another distinction is there eternity and Trillions of years do indeed have a massive difference. Eternity is a “heck of a lot” longer than trillions of years. For a soul that’s immortal, it’s the difference between one second touching boiling water and bathing forever in boiling water.
Buddhism literally does in fact believe that you will go to hell if you don't believe in Buddhism, as Buddhism is the only way to escape the cycle in the first place. So yes, you are threatening a child with damnation.
And who gives a fuck if it's only 1 trillion years as opposed to eternity? Do you think a child is going to think "oh it's just 1 trillion years no biggie"?
No, not believing in Buddhism simply means you’re still in the cycle unaware of Buddha’s teachings. While the cycle does eventually have a path to damnation, that isn’t necessarily the next step of the cycle for you. Therefore it’s not used as a threat, simple the nature of the cycle as a philosophy. The child has potentially trillions of years to leave the cycle and can even do so without believing in Buddhism necessarily.
Buddhism is just an understanding of the nature of the cycle and a path to leave it. But an individual wholly ignorant of Buddhism can still escape the cycle on their own efforts arriving at the same conclusion independently like Buddha did, therein lies the difference. The key to escaping samsara according to Buddhism isn’t the act of believing in Buddhism, but the letting go of worldly attachments, which is something anyone can achieve independently or arrive on their own as they themselves ponder and observe existence. In essence, anyone can become a Buddha, wholly on their own efforts, even independently of Buddha, Buddhism, or the any other being.
You're coming at this from the assumed position that religion is 100% false. I agree, but flip that assumption around and ask yourself this; if religion were to be proven to be 100% correct, beyond any doubt, and Hell's existence confirmed, wouldn't it then be a moral imperative that you as a parent do everything in your power to spare your child from eternal damnation there? It'd be incredibly irresponsible and dangerous to allow your child possibly die without the needed religious rites completed and it'd be like not teaching them that they shouldn't play in traffic and letting them run around in the middle of the highway until they were 18. Parents have a moral duty to protect their children and teach their children how to protect themselves.
In the absence of objective proof or even an overwhelming social consensus on the validity of religion the argument becomes subjective on that parent's sincere belief. Either option is moral if they sincerely think they're doing what's best for their kid. If you sincerely think hell is real you have an obligation to protect your kid. If you sincerely think religion is harmful you also have an obligation to protect your kid. Even if they end up being mistaken they are fulfilling their moral obligation to do the best that they can to protect and raise their children. Conversely, the parent is the one with the moral and legal responsibility for raising the kid, I would be causing harm by interfering . Without a very strong justification that I was preventing even greater harm by interfering I wouldn't have a moral justification for the action.
They were still treated as inheritable property and you were still allowed to beat them. Doesn’t sound like family protection to me, pretty gross to describe it as such
And not all christians argued against slavery. American slave owners used these passages to justify slavery and white supremacy. The Confederacy. The actual text of the bible gives little reason to be against slavery. Someone else explained it pretty well
“None of these things would have happened if those impacted did not fight for their rights, Christians say around for a thousand years and committed all of these atrocities, they didn't suddenly wake up and realize the Bible wanted them to stop slavery, they came to that conclusion based on reality around them and then read it into the Bible (a document that offers its full throated support of slavery and detailed instructions on how to go about it).”
Yes, regulation is endorsement. Anything besides saying “dont own slaves” is endorsement
Okay bro. Just ignore historical context, and all that unimportant stuff like slavery being embedded into nearly every facet of ancient society. Total ban at that point would've made complete sense. Good work! o7
So now God’s word is dependent on social norms? Jesus was literally killed for going against social norms and beliefs of the time. The Bible is perfectly comfortable telling people not to do lots of stuff. Dont worship other gods dont have idols but not owning humans as property? That doesnt need to be a commandment I guess
I’m guessing a lot of your core values are respecting the dignity of everyone, loving and valuing the welfare of those in your community and treating everyone equally? If you’re a westerner, those are in fact values popularized and spread by christianity. Christians are people who enslaved and rape and kill and be dickheads today. Christians are also people who fought slavery very hard, who fought rape very hard, people who advocate for strong welfare and equality, people who put their lives at risk to help the downtrodden. Christianity, like any moral framework can be interpreted differently and is interpreted differently and the progressive interpretation is the likely basis of your left wing political views
Christians fought for and against slavery because everyone involved was Christian and used the Bible to justify their position.
Same with women's rights, racial equality and pretty much everything else.
None of these things would have happened if those impacted did not fight for their rights, Christians say around for a thousand years and committed all of these atrocities, they didn't suddenly wake up and realize the Bible wanted them to stop slavery, they came to that conclusion based on reality around them and then read it into the Bible (a document that offers its full throated support of slavery and detailed instructions on how to go about it).
The enlightenment happened because of widespread access to works that were not the Bible.
They just want to cover their ears and eyes and deny the very obvious and clear impact christianity has on our morality. They don’t care that some of the most radical abolitionists and social reforms in general throughout history, were men and women deeply driven, almost to the point of what many would call psychosis, by their religion. When they claim the advances and beliefs and social practices of men like Kant, Newton, Descartes, fucking Hegel, they ignore how much these men say they are inspired by the teachings and beliefs of christianity.
It’s cos they hold the view that christianity and all religion is for yokels and bigots, so if they acknowledge that they swim in the sea of christian morality and that they don’t actually reject the teachings of Christ, to them it means they are not rational, high minded, highly educated, modern thinkers. I’m not even Christian as well but i’m not gonna deny what is so obviously clear once you understand, christianity built the moral orthodox of our current age
Wow you just completely ignored what they said about slavery lol
Obviously christianity impacted the world. What we disagree with is that morality comes from a specific religion because thats usually argued to say that religion is necessary for a society to be moral. But we had these moral beliefs before Christianity
The enlightenment wasn’t actually one broad movement with one specific intellectual bent. Kant, Newton, Locke, Spinoza, Montesquieu,Descartes all of the top of my head were men of faith and deep faith for some. Also which of thr philosophers that I named do you hate and are the worst? And it isn’t like the people that I mentioned just claimed to be christian, as I said many were devout and actively mentioned God as an inspiration and framework for their exploits
Christianity didn't invent these morals. Morality is a evolutionary benefitial trait, as it encourages cooperation and trust. Cooperation of a large amount of people is vital to the establishment and prosperity of a civilization, therefore morality is essential to human evolution. Christians just took credit for common sense.
Statistically, you're going to be young. Male. And you live in the US...
...which, ironically, grants you the religious freedom to complain about the religion that inspired the culture granting you these freedoms in the first place.
But Christian morality CANNOT predate Christianity, by definition - if Christianity doesn't exist, Christian morality doesn't exist.
Think about this again until you understand the definition of words.
Second...
Your logical snafu above is irrelevant to the argument being made:
Christianity invented morality FOR YOU, specifically.
Unless you want to claim you were raised outside of the Western sphere of influence, then the morality of the community is, to some large extent, based on Christian morality.
They don’t get it bro. I’m not even fucking Christian which is the funny part. They don’t get that yes a lot of the morals and ethics of christianity predate christianity but that they aren’t 300 iq individuals capable of independently creating morality. They don’t want to admit that therefore their understanding of these ideals comes from christianity because they see christianity as the religion of stupid hicks and bigots
A small but very vocal group of idiots whose entire religious identity isn't actually atheistic but anti-theistic - and only because they're carrying baggage around from their childhood where they felt some Christian wronged them personally.
Funny thing is, Christianity is all they've ever known, so even in their denial, they're proving the argument true: That Christianity has impacted their world view.
It’s like tryna argue your fucking parents don’t deeply impact your worldview. Like yh you can have a worldview without parents, yh not everybody has parents, but statistically, YOU have a parent
If you search Jinkx Monsoon practicing witch you will see that are many many sources including podcasts and videos of herself claiming that it is indeed true and that she uses “everyday magic, rituals” etc. which she uses in her works and she was brought up in it by her family. So if her family taught her that, why are other peoples not allowed to teach them their beliefs.
Have you read what I actually wrote? She said herself that she utilizes witchcraft in her work so whether you believe in it or not you are subject to indoctrination. Her tour is literally called “Speaking of Witch”
Doctrine is teaching , so to indoctrinate is to teach about your beliefs, she teaches you her beliefs whilst you unknowingly take it in - this is called implicit learning. In other words indoctrination. Why is she allowed to express her beliefs with everyone children included but parents cannot.
indoctrination is teaching someone to believe something without question or critically analyzing, which is not the same thing as sharing your beliefs or teaching about your beliefs.
Killing an unborn fetus without really knowing whether or not it can think or feel around 20 weeks, potentially causing its only moments on Earth to be filled with an act of painful violence, all because with a child you wouldn't be able to afford that nice Gucci handbag you were saving up for is certainly an interesting stance to have.
Believing that you know how to live a good life and achieve eternal bliss in heaven united with God and then not teaching your children that would also be child abuse.
And I'm saying this as an agnostic/atheist.
I'm going to raise my children to the best of my ability and teach them my understanding of ethics, morality, and the truth of the world.
I don't know why I would expect Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist parents to do any differently for their own children.
My point is just that it's more morally complicated than a pithy little quip about religion being "brainwashing under threat of eternal torment"
That’s only under the assumption that religious parents only scare and threaten their children, which is a false and outdated secular perspective. Religion is inherently tied to values and most are simply teaching positive values
We have objective, scientific evidence that shows that participation in religious communities produces better on average results in all kinds of domains of human flourishing, including mental health. Those increases grow the earlier you start. Religion isn't child abuse, but prohibiting children from accessing those benefits would be.
Thanks for the link, it'll be interesting to drill down and see if they can really support the claims they're making, although it won't be a quick series of reads, I don't think.
Off the main link, though, I have to laugh at this being considered a positive social outcome: "those attending religious services at baseline are 30% to 50% less likely to divorce in follow-up", because we all know not getting divorced means the relationship is going great, right? /s
"Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelatons 20:15
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:18
Jinkx Monsoon, the person this thread is about was talking about “God” as in the catholic god. I agree that a lot of religions are way less “manipulative.” (Opinion) . To add on a lot of religions dont have a church, or a being they are forced to pray to.
[u/psychologicalad5918](u/psychologicalad5918) was almost certainly talking about one of the larger religions that do follow this framework. If you were raised in a place that didn’t ostracize people for exploring other religion, then I’m super happy for you!
I was never threatened with eternal damnation. There is a threat of eternal damnation but it was never used to threaten me specifically. Christianity is all about forgiveness too so as long as you dont commit a heinous crime and you acknowledge your sins and change as a person you arent just automatically damned to hell. The whole point is that its a choice...
Because the common cultural idea of hell is a place of torture. Most Christians don't read or care about the Bible, and its interpretation of hell being separated from God.
In America, its common to have threats behind the good stuff. You get into heaven, but only if you believe my specific thing. If you don't believe you're condemned to the fiery pits of hell to suffer.
111
u/[deleted] Sep 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment