Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
I think attempting to control behavior by evoking fear of reprisal in the afterlife is one of utter futility when dealing with kids. Who among us has never sinned using whatever criteria we have been taught to identify sin? And once you're headed for hell anyway, you don't have much to lose.
In my decades of observing the phenomenon though, I am convinced that those who reject a rigid fundamentalist religion tend to reject all of it and become sometimes antisocially rebellious. Or, if they reject it, they just go through the motons later on without any conviction behind it.
Those raised in faiths in which the basics are taught but independent questions and thought and logic and reason are encouraged are much more likely to stay with it their entire lives and encourage their children to follow suit.
It is a fact that children on average who grow up in the church are more likely to graduate highschool, obtain at least some higher learning, stay out of serious trouble, and achieve a degree of success in life. That is not to say that all will or that no children raised as Atheists will likely succeed.
But you don't wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves before exposing them to reading, writing, arithmetic, science, social studies, music, arts, sports, or anything else that might be important in their life. And yet each kid, exposed to these things, grows up with his/her own unique interests and focus.
Why would you wait to give a child opportunity to learn about something as important as religious faith?
I'm a bit curious as to what makes you think that fundamentalist religions and those that teach questioning and independent thought are somehow mutually exclusive.
Also, I refrained from all kinds of sins as a child because I didn't want to go to Hell. Admittedly, it didn't make me perfect, because it's not designed to. It certainly did provide me a strong, simple moral structure to fall back on at a time in my life - childhood - when my own reasoning skills were still shaky and immature.
Really? You were a sinless child? I applaud you. I thought there was only one of those, but hey, whatever. . . . (Teasing. . . .)
I DID say it didn't make me perfect. Just better. Children actually respond very well to negative motivators such as, "Don't do that, because this bad thing will happen." They are simple, straightforward, and easily understood.
There are perhaps a few exceptions, but Fundamentalist religions usually don't allow a whole lot of wiggle room about what is and what is not acceptable belief.
Oh, wiggle room on tenets, no. There's no point in a belief that's vague and infirm. On the other hand, life is complicated, and application of beliefs is a lot different from stating them. Christianity very much enshrines the idea of thinking and questioning for oneself, because the relationship with God is personal and individual, which means you aren't going to get to blame someone else if you screw up.
Though they may differ among themselves what is 'the way', they are more likely to teach religious doctrine as irrefutable fact.
Is there another way to teach religious doctrine? Does it work to teach it as "not necessarily a fact, it just sounds good"?
Some pentecostal groups are convinced a person isn't 'saved' unless they speak in tongues. Some groups put far more importance on a physical baptism or the form of baptism than others. Some require a specific statement of faith to ensure and/or verify one's salvation, etc. etc. etc. There are a few who place one's salvation within a particular church itself and consider all others to be damned. Some group teach predestination; most hold to a free will doctrine. Some have certain food or beverage taboos.
Yup. And they all came up with those personal interpretations and applications of God's will through individual thinking and questioning of what they were being taught. What's your point?
I spent an entire dinner with a pleasant young man who was convinced that if somebody was baptised without specific words being said, that person wasn't baptised.
Stuff like that sets the fundamentalists apart from the free thinkers who are open to revelation and don't attempt to confine God to a specific fixed doctrine or teach that we know all we need to know.
Sorry, I fail to see how you think any of this makes someone "not a free thinker". Free thought in religion means deciding for yourself which teachings are right, not refusing to choose anything as right or wrong at all.
Personally I don't think God cares one way or the other so long as people are interested in seeking and doing what He knows we should be about.
Yeah, except that's exactly what those people you mentioned are doing: seeking to do what He wants. Just because you don't agree with them on what that is doesn't mean they aren't free thinkers just as much as you are.
I am not and have never been of the fundamentalist group though I appreciate and respect the faithful there very much. But I think I tried to behave, at least most of the time, because I loved God. And not because I feared hell.
Which brings me back to why you think one is somehow superior to the other. Do you know that the Bible mentions Hell many, MANY more times than it does Heaven? Why do you suppose that would be, if God disdains people being motivated by a desire to avoid Hell?