Socialization & Religion

Originally posted by whodey
I would think that I would have a moral obligation to teach my children what I thought was right and what is true.

Do you think that parents have a "moral obligation" to tell their young children things like how God supposedly will reward suicide bombers for their martyrdom with eternal life in heaven?

Is it enough that the parents are convinced that such a belief is right and true to turn the act of inculcating young impressionable children with it into what you call "a moral obligation"?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think that parents have a "moral obligation" to tell their young children things like how God supposedly will reward suicide bombers for their martyrdom with eternal life in heaven?

Is it enough that the parents are convinced that such a belief is right and true to turn the act of inculcating young impressionable children with it into what you call "a moral obligation"?

Society would probably benefit if all parents taught their kids to love their enemies and love their neighbor as they loved themselves.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Society would probably benefit if all parents taught their kids to love their enemies and love their neighbor as they loved themselves.

Children need to be sensible and cautious about neighbours and strangers and about the motivations of such people, especially if they might be "enemies" of their parents or their families or communities. Parents certainly have a moral obligation to protect their children from risk and danger. Little slivers of fridge magnet style Christianity may not always be in a child's best interest.

Abstract notions such as 'loving one's enemies' and 'loving one's neighbour as one loves oneself', a couple of cliched 'principles' that very few Christians I have ever known have put into practice, probably need more mature intellectual and emotional ability to understand and put into action sensibly on the part of the child.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't see it as being a case of waiting until children have achieved independence, per se. I see it as a case of waiting until an ability to weigh things on their own bat starts to develop. What do you think about the idea of maybe 12-13?

That is why I said 'independence of belief' and not just independence. The issue is 'independence of belief', i.e. the ability to form their own beliefs, instead of parroting others, after all.

I think 12-13 may be well past the 'independence of belief' stage and more into a 'maturation of belief' stage (even though some people do not come into this stage even at a well-advanced age), but I assume that's just me. But I do not have kids, and there is a reason for this. Any opinion I have of children's development is merely intellectual and in no way 'experiential'. I do know that many religions such as the Latter-Day Saints and others suggest that children be at least 8 before they are baptized, and I assume this is because they feel that the child doesn't really have an understanding of the reasoning for baptism before this age. Others, like the Baptists, usually encourage families to wait on baptizing their children until age 11 or 12. They usually cite this as an age of more 'mature' belief. Under Jewish law, the 'age of accountability' is 13, and so the bar-mitzvah or bat-mitzvah is held then. So it varies among various belief systems, I think it should probably be an individual thing, based on the parents' consideration of the child's maturity level. Certainly some children would develop an 'independence of belief' earlier than some others. And certainly some cultures believe 12-13 is an acceptable age for this consideration.

Originally posted by Suzianne
...I think it should probably be an individual thing, based on the parents' consideration of the child's maturity level. Certainly some children would develop an 'independence of belief' earlier than some others. And certainly some cultures believe 12-13 is an acceptable age for this consideration.

So you agree with the idea that it might be a good idea for parents to hold off until a certain level of maturity is reached by their children ~ at whatever age that might be ~ before 'pushing' (so to speak) their belief or lack of belief explicitly?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Society would probably benefit if all parents taught their kids to love their enemies and love their neighbor as they loved themselves.

Do you think parents should teach their young children that "no one is capable of righteous actions" as well?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think parents should teach their young children that "no one is capable of righteous actions" as well?

It all depends on how you define 'righteous'.

Originally posted by FMF
Correction: The proposal here, though, is that - in the case of religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs - it should be postponed until the children at least have the ability to weigh such beliefs with some degree of independence.

I think the problem here is to decide what is 'belief' and what is 'reality'.
Do you postpone their education because its all just 'belief'?
Do you postpone teaching them how to cross a road because its 'belief'?
To postpone teaching your child something in the case of religious beliefs specifically would be an admission that you don't think those beliefs reflect reality. Is that what you are suggesting?

FMF: Do you think parents should teach their young children that "no one is capable of righteous actions" as well?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It all depends on how you define 'righteous'.

Do you think parents should teach their young children that "no one is capable of righteous actions" where "righteous" and "actions" are defined in the way you want to define them?

Originally posted by twhitehead
To postpone teaching your child something in the case of religious beliefs specifically would be an admission that you don't think those beliefs reflect reality. Is that what you are suggesting?

I am not suggesting that religious people make any such "admission" and I don't think postponing discussion of the specifics of religion amounts to that.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think parents should teach their young children that "no one is capable of righteous actions" where "righteous" and "actions" are defined in the way you want to define them?

Tell me what you mean by 'righteous' and then I shall attempt to answer your question.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Tell me what you mean by 'righteous' and then I shall attempt to answer your question.

I am using it in its conventional native speaker English sense. You said - not me - that "no one is capable of righteous actions". What do you mean when you say that?

Originally posted by FMF
I am using it in its conventional native speaker English sense. You said - not me - that "no one is capable of righteous actions". What do you mean when you say that?

Dictionaries define righteousness as “behavior that is morally justifiable or right.” Such behavior is characterized by accepted standards of morality, justice, virtue, or uprightness. The Bible’s standard of human righteousness is God’s own perfection in every attribute, every attitude, every behavior, and every word. Thus, God’s laws, as given in the Bible, both describe His own character and constitute the plumb line by which He measures human righteousness.

The Greek New Testament word for “righteousness” primarily describes conduct in relation to others, especially with regards to the rights of others in business, in legal matters, and beginning with relationship to God. It is contrasted with wickedness, the conduct of the one who, out of gross self-centeredness, neither reveres God nor respects man. The Bible describes the righteous person as just or right, holding to God and trusting in Him (Psalm 33:18–22).

The bad news is that true and perfect righteousness is not possible for man to attain on his own; the standard is simply too high. The good news is that true righteousness is possible for mankind, but only through the cleansing of sin by Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We have no ability to achieve righteousness in and of ourselves. But Christians possess the righteousness of Christ, because “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). On the cross, Jesus exchanged our sin for His perfect righteousness so that we can one day stand before God and He will see not our sin, but the holy righteousness of the Lord Jesus.

http://www.gotquestions.org/righteousness.html

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

Dictionaries define righteousness as “behavior that is morally justifiable or right.” Such behavior is characterized by accepted standards of morality, justice, virtue, or uprightness. The Bible’s standard of human righteousness is God’s own perfection in every attribute, every attitude, every behavior, and every word. Thus, God’s laws, as given in the Bible, both describe His own character and constitute the plumb line by which He measures human righteousness.

The Greek New Testament word for “righteousness” primarily describes conduct in relation to others, especially with regards to the rights of others in business, in legal matters, and beginning with relationship to God. It is contrasted with wickedness, the conduct of the one who, out of gross self-centeredness, neither reveres God nor respects man. The Bible describes the righteous person as just or right, holding to God and trusting in Him (Psalm 33:18–22).

The bad news is that true and perfect righteousness is not possible for man to attain on his own; the standard is simply too high. The good news is that true righteousness is possible for mankind, but only through the cleansing of sin by Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We have no ability to achieve righteousness in and of ourselves. But Christians possess the righteousness of Christ, because “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). On the cross, Jesus exchanged our sin for His perfect righteousness so that we can one day stand before God and He will see not our sin, but the holy righteousness of the Lord Jesus.

You have plagiarized this.

Passing off someone else's writing as your own, I hope, is not an example of what you consider to be "morally justifiable or right" behaviour. 😕

Originally plagiarized by Fetchmyjunk
The bad news is that true and perfect righteousness is not possible for man to attain on his own; the standard is simply too high. The good news is that true righteousness is possible for mankind, but only through the cleansing of sin by Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

So, the way you see it, if you do something, it can be righteous because you believe the things that some people claim about Christ, but if I do the same thing, it is not possible for it to be righteous because I don't believe the things that some people (like you) claim about Christ, is that right?