Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[sojourner]

It's not the superstition that causes harm - it's the idea built into the ceremony that a non-Christian baby is deserving of eternal torment. Even if the ceremony has no effect at all, this isn't exactly a healthy mindset for a parent to have for their child.

Not even the Catholic Church believes this anymore. Neither do the Anglicans, Orthodox, or protestants who baptize infants.

 

[sojourner]

You have a country of 90% Catholics where nobody believes in the necessity of baptism? I find that hard to believe.

The "necessity of baptism" isn't tied to the immanence of hell, Penguin. Don't be obtuse.

 

[Koldo]

You think people really know themselves always on all or even most circumstances?

This is probably the different premise we have.

That's vague. What do you mean by 'know themselves'?

I think that behind every conscious action there is a certain line of reasoning that is best known by the person himself/herself. If there is sufficent reason to cast doubt on their take on it, then we ought to evaluate whether they are telling the truth. Otherwise, if there is no reason to doubt their words, then we have to accept it, or else we will have to forget about ever determining their motivations.

You talked about empathy. Can we have empathy in a world where we gave up on understanding people?

 

[idav]

As I already explained, my point wasn't that we should stop kids from taking on commitments they choose fir themselves; it's that we shouldn't push kids into supposedly lifelong commitments knowing that they're going to change significantly as they grow.

I can relate to that, Christian denomination often refer to covenants of God which are supposed to be forever. Then they god created stiff penalties for leaving the denomination, making people doubt their own doubt. "You can't leave this religion or else your definitely going to hell" or something like that. Often times people are encouraged to not doubt there faith or else.

 

[sojourner]

The official position of the Catholic Church on the issue is (paraphrased): "we hope there's a way for unbaptized babies to be saved, but you'd better baptize them just in case there isn't."

Uh. No. Read this:

While no one can be certain of the fate of unbaptized babies who die, Christians can and should trust that God will welcome those babies into heaven, said members of the International Theological Commission. The commission, a Vatican advisory board, met Oct. 2-6 to continue work on a statement explaining why the concept of limbo entered the common teaching of the church, why it was never officially defined as Catholic doctrine, and why hope for their salvation makes more sense, said Father Paul McPartlan, a member of the commission and a professor at The Catholic University of America in Washington. "We cannot say we know with certainty what will happen" to unbaptized babies, Father McPartlan said, "but we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children and brings them to salvation."

From Catholic theology moves from limbo – Vatican commission sees unbaptized babies welcomed by God in heaven - International - Catholic Online

No, the blood is a metaphor for literally torturing an innocent man to death. Much nicer.

No, the blood is evidence of a self-sacrifice of love. Much nicer.

 

[idav]

The "necessity of baptism" isn't tied to the immanence of hell, Penguin. Don't be obtuse.

Depends, Catholics do believe in original sin.

 

[Falvlun]

Why's that? It's the inescapable logical conclusion from the premises "unbaptized babies might end up in Hell" and "God is perfectly good and would never punish someone in a way they didn't deserve." Even though the first premise doesn't align with many Protestant beliefs, both are not only believed but considered unquestionably true by many mainstream Christians. It's a direct implication of the teachings of any denomination that preaches the necessity of infant baptism: that when babies are born, they may be so evil that torturing them forever is good and just.

Things on the outside look different on the inside.

The vast majority of Christians simply won't and don't view their infant as a tiny ball of evil, despite that following (perhaps) from some of their other beliefs.

It truly takes someone outside of the religion-- like an atheist-- to make such a a connection, and particularly with such objectionable wording.

Hence, your contention that the above is not a healthy view for parents to have of their children is pretty much a made-up scenario: Parents, including Christian parents who choose to baptise their children, usually won't have such a view.

EDIT:
And also, as others have noted, "saving infants from hell" likely isn't the biggest motivating factor for most parents getting their child baptized. And even if it was, it could be argued that they were therefore showing their child such love that they wanted to save it from that fate-- after all, they simply believe hell exists. They weren't the ones who created it. While the belief itself is unfortunate, the act of baptism is one of love and caring. Hardly that of an "unhealthy" method of parenting.

 

[sojourner]

Her testimony is all one could possibly have as evidence for her reasons. And that is exactly we have.

The testimony of an overwrought, unbalanced little girl. Gee, boys and girls! Let's do the responsible and just take this bit of evidence at face value, because, after all overwrought and unbalanced adolescents really do always tell the truth about what's going on in their deepest, emotional selves...

 

[idav]

Uh. No. Read this:

From Catholic theology moves from limbo – Vatican commission sees unbaptized babies welcomed by God in heaven - International - Catholic Online

Well good for them, and here I thought their god was mean. Denominations must think baptism is very important if they feel that baptism is a requirement. Which would mean that people have to meet requirements to get to heaven.

 

[Koldo]

Suicide is what she did. According to most Christian teaching, she was guaranteed not to see her father in heaven. According to no Christian teaching was she guaranteed to see her father in heaven. You can just as easily chock this up to teaching Christian doctrine poorly as you can Christian doctrine.

I said what I said. Nothing less, nothing more.
I never said that suicide as a mean to reach heavens is a christian teaching.
However, isn't it a christian teaching that good people will go to heaven?
I am not saying that is a christian teaching on every denomination, just so you know.

 

[sojourner]

Again, this is less than ideal itself.

So is denying a child an appropriate spiritual dimension to their upbringing.

 

[idav]

Parents, including Christian parents who choose to baptise their children, usually won't have such a view.

Do you think such parent only baptize their kids just in case or they feel baptism is required. They doing pascals wager baptisms now?

 

[sojourner]

Curiously you are being extremely vague on what this clear context entails.
Just sayin'.

What's "vague" about it?

 

[Koldo]

The testimony of an overwrought, unbalanced little girl. Gee, boys and girls! Let's do the responsible and just take this bit of evidence at face value, because, after all overwrought and unbalanced adolescents really do always tell the truth about what's going on in their deepest, emotional selves...

Oh no. Let's ignore it because we are so extremely biased that we can not accept that a religious belief might have corroborated with her depression to the point she has actually gone through with it. We can't stand that!

 

[sojourner]

Do you mean that 'I will meet my father on heavens when i die.' is not within the scope of christian teachings?

No, I mean that "I will meet my father in heaven when I kill myself" is not within the scope of Christian teaching.

 

[Koldo]

What's "vague" about it?

The reader can literally understand anything at all from that quote.
Different readers will have completely different interpretations when applied to any actual situation. That is why it is vague.

 

[sojourner]

What evidence do you have to conclude that?

The fact that she committed suicide.

 

[idav]

No, I mean that "I will meet my father in heaven when I kill myself" is not within the scope of Christian teaching.

Do have the verse that says suicide lands you in hell?

 

[Me Myself]

That's vague. What do you mean by 'know themselves'?

I think that behind every conscious action there is a certain line of reasoning that is best known by the person himself/herself.

We have a fundamental disagreement then. Me and many people including psychologists will tell you that often times people lie to themselves. Sure, they may know it deep inside so to say, but consciously, they ignore a. Lot of crucial things.

You talked about empathy. Can we have empathy in a world where we gave up on understanding people?

Empathy is a normal reaction in a psychologically healthy human being. Whether is person conscious tries to "give up" on empathy is unlikely to completely shut down his empathic capabilities.

In any case, there is a difference between trying to figure out what is behind a persons reasoning by being empathic and by taking literally and at face value everytng they say about themselves.

 

[Curious George]

No, I mean that "I will meet my father in heaven when I kill myself" is not within the scope of Christian teaching.

This is a generalization. It could be in the scope of some Christian teaching.