When is too young? How to decide?

[Eightball]

Okay, it sneaked in, wasn't necessary, I'll give you that. Think of me as having male mental menopause, I keep having these hot rhetorical flushes.

 

[TAS]

1. Do you think it is right to teach a young child a single religion when they know no alternative?

2. What do you think would happen if children were taught in depth about all religions and left to decide for themselves when they mature?

3. How many non religious children grow up and convert to a religion of their choosing?

4. Is it necessary to teach young children because they will not believe when they are grown?

I think that religion shall not be "inherited". I think that every individual shall search for the "truth" by himself. So, when he finds it, whatever it is, God or no God, Islam or Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism, he would be comfortable, convinced, and devout in it rather than something that was given to him by circumstances.
Religion shall not be something like race, sex, or place of birth where you have no option in choosing which to pick.

But to take the discussion another level, I think that people really change their religion, whether they know it or not, when they grow up and start living.
What I mean by that is that I don't include only what is considered to be a religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, for ex) as what constitutes a religion. I define religion as "any sets of beliefs and values a person follows, lives by, and would die for". Anything that a person would serve, and he will serve somebody as Bob Dylan said, is his God.
So I believe that any ideological belief, not necessarily a spiritual one, is a religion. For ex, I think that Communism is a religion, Capitalism is a religion, materialism is a religion, and Secularism is a religion.

So, in the end, we really do choose our religions.

 

[Diuretic]

I think that religion shall not be "inherited". I think that every individual shall search for the "truth" by himself. So, when he finds it, whatever it is, God or no God, Islam or Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism, he would be comfortable, convinced, and devout in it rather than something that was given to him by circumstances.
Religion shall not be something like race, sex, or place of birth where you have no option in choosing which to pick.

But to take the discussion another level, I think that people really change their religion, whether they know it or not, when they grow up and start living.
What I mean by that is that I don't include only what is considered to be a religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, for ex) as what constitutes a religion. I define religion as "any sets of beliefs and values a person follows, lives by, and would die for". Anything that a person would serve, and he will serve somebody as Bob Dylan said, is his God.
So I believe that any ideological belief, not necessarily a spiritual one, is a religion. For ex, I think that Communism is a religion, Capitalism is a religion, materialism is a religion, and Secularism is a religion.

So, in the end, we really do choose our religions.

I'm a secular humanist. I'm not religious. Secular humanism is my personal philosophy, not my religion.

 

[Superlative]

So I believe that any ideological belief, not necessarily a spiritual one, is a religion. For ex, I think that Communism is a religion, Capitalism is a religion, materialism is a religion, and Secularism is a religion.

So, in the end, we really do choose our religions.

Kids dont choose, and its harder for them to make choices when they grow up if they've been indoctrinated by one "religion"

Millions of north american children grow up consumers, they don't choose it, they develope in a social environment where that is the norm, Television advertising is so engrained that it would be impossible for our system to function with out it.
Its very difficult to break out of societal norms, without becoming an outcast.

the same goes for organized religion.

If I tell a 3 year old God is real, and that they are a true evangelical christian guided by the hand of God, and continuously tell them that for their entire life, they arent likely to change their mind when they are 25.

In most cases, NOT ALL, convincing adults religion is a farce is like tearing engrained truths from their brains, they wouldnt be able to to function without the dependance of God, there would be too much missing, so they cling to it.

 

[hjmick]

I'm a secular humanist. I'm not religious. Secular humanism is my personal philosophy, not my religion.

Jimmy Buffett is my religion. Margaritaology.

 

[Diuretic]

Jimmy Buffett is my religion.

Okay that I can work with - damn too early for a Marguerita......Parrotheads unite! You have nothing to lose but those damn jobs interfering with your having a good time!

 

[TAS]

I'm a secular humanist. I'm not religious. Secular humanism is my personal philosophy, not my religion.

For me, this makes Secular Humanism your religion. Religion, philosophy, ideology have similar meaning to me if they become what guides a person in life. Thus, I believe everyone on this earth have his own customized "religion" by what he believes in, lives by, and would die for.

To support my point, looking at how Webster dictionary defines religion, it is similar to what I mean :
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

[Diuretic]

For me, this makes Secular Humanism your religion. Religion, philosophy, ideology have similar meaning to me if they become what guides a person in life. Thus, I believe everyone on this earth have his own customized "religion" by what he believes in, lives by, and would die for.

To support my point, looking at how Webster dictionary defines religion, it is similar to what I mean :
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

TAS - for me a religion has to have a godhead, it also has to have a believe in an afterlife, after all, what is the point in worshipping a godhead if after death there's nothing?

 

[Eightball]

I think that religion shall not be "inherited". I think that every individual shall search for the "truth" by himself. So, when he finds it, whatever it is, God or no God, Islam or Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism, he would be comfortable, convinced, and devout in it rather than something that was given to him by circumstances.Religion shall not be something like race, sex, or place of birth where you have no option in choosing which to pick.

But to take the discussion another level, I think that people really change their religion, whether they know it or not, when they grow up and start living.
What I mean by that is that I don't include only what is considered to be a religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, for ex) as what constitutes a religion. I define religion as "any sets of beliefs and values a person follows, lives by, and would die for". Anything that a person would serve, and he will serve somebody as Bob Dylan said, is his God.
So I believe that any ideological belief, not necessarily a spiritual one, is a religion. For ex, I think that Communism is a religion, Capitalism is a religion, materialism is a religion, and Secularism is a religion.

So, in the end, we really do choose our religions.

So are we saying that "truth" is relative? Therefore there is no actual objective, valid truth in existence when the topic of a creator, or creation in respect to the various belief systems are discussed or compared or investigated?

This premise is very fuzzy. It allows people to basically make up whatever they want God to be, and also denies in a way that there is a specific Creator, with specific attributes, and nature and leaves it to the whim of creation to define the Creator?

I would say you would have to prove without a doubt that God or a specific Creator has not revealed Himself to mankind in an clear, and, obvious way.......then you would have a myriad relativistic followers. You would also have strong philosophical ground to stand upon a relativistic view.

Now if a man claims to be God or God's Son, and gets genuinely killed and lays in a grave for 3 days, and whose tomb is ordered guarded by Roman soldiers ( under penalty of death for neglecting their duty) to protect pilfering or stealing of the body by alleged Jesus-zealots, and then shows up with healed scars on that 3rd day, and says I'm the Way, the Truth and the Light, and no man shall come unto the Father except by Me. I'd say that's pretty impressive, objective evidence. Now if it was just limited to 11 male Jew's and a couple female Jew's testimony, I'd say........Hmmmmm, but when this person's death was witnessed by myriads (Jews and gentiles alike) on Golgotha, and three days later He's up and about like a new spring chicken, and that is witnessed by myriads as well as his Ascension into the clouds by hundreds just before Penatcost,..........then am I supposed to take the pessimistic route and call it mass illusions or mass hysteria or maybe consider this evidence?

What did these Jewish witnesses have to gain by propagating this alleged lie or hoax? Absolutely nothing positive for their lives, but potential stoning to death, excommunication from the the Jerusalem temple, loss of family ties......wives, parents, uncles, aunts, their children......etc... Yet they stuck to their claims......

Even that scoundrel, Saul of Tarsus chased them down after Pentacost, and was hauling these Jesus believing Jews back to Jerusalem for trial before the Sanhedrin and often receiving death sentences by stoning.....i.e. Stephen was of note in the book of Acts, and Saul of Tarsus stood by and watched in joy helping those tossing the killing stones by holding their robes/tunics so they could have a better ease stone throwing and killing Stephen. Saul gave hearty approval.

Saul of Tarsus didn't believe in this Jesus fellow as being God in the flesh, but believed that these persons were blasphemers, and turncoats to Israel, and their religion. Saul was so zealous that he received special written orders to take basically posse's with him throughout Israel, all the way to Syria even to pursue and bring back any Jew or Jews who had embraced Jesus as the messiah.

It was on one of those missions that the very scoundrel, Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee of Pharisee's was struck down from his horse in the desert on the way to Syria to arrest more Christian Jews. When he was struck down, it was a totally unexpected phenomena. Paul claims that he audibly heard Jesus say to him, "Saul, why are you persecuting or pursuing me?". The other riders in the posse' didn't hear the words, but heard audible thunder. At that same moment that Saul heard the voice he also was struck blind by a piercing light.

Anyway, Paul was made a helpless man, and was taken to Damascus where a Christian Jew reluctantly came to the home where the blind Saul was staying. This man laid his hands on Saul and prayed for him, and Saul regained his eyesight. For the next three years Saul, whom God renamed Paul stayed in Arabia and little is know about his life for that time, except that the scripture says that he/Paul was taught of God during that period.

After those 3 years and the earlier desert episode, Paul was a 180 degree changed man. He no longer wanted to pursue Christians, but humbly sided with their belief and founder, Jesus Christ of Nazereth. Paul gave up prestige in the Sanhedrin, public pride, and much power. He/Paul now became one of the alleged blasphemers of Israel. Now it was Paul that endured and survived amy attempts on his life because of his new found belief.

Why would men who had it made embrace such an unpopular belief system if God or belief or non belief is just a relative thing to all of us?

Why would people walk calmly into the colliseum and let wild animals and gladiators slay them without giving protest? For men and women to die for a person or a God that simply said, "I am the the Truth and the Light, all that follow Me shall not perish, but have everlasting life.". Where did the objective reality come from?.........There were witnesses, and lots of them.........People saw a man named Lazarus walk out of a tomb after being dead and buried for days.......Jesus simply said, "Lazarus! Come out!" Lazarus came out. Who was this Man who had mastery over the waves and could calm mighty bodies of water with just a word or words, "Be still!"? We had witnesses. Nowadays it takes but a couple witnesses to send a man to the gallows or life in prison, yet the bible records that there were myriads of witnesses to miracles, and phenomena that science can't even figure today.

People think that His followers were uneducated fishermen and other sorts, but it is known that most of his followers were highly educated, literary men. Peter was a fisherman, but he belonged to a wealthy fishing family/enterprise. He walked away from that enterprise and followed this man named Jesus.......so did many others.

Jesus didn't promise eternal sexual intercourse with 70 virgins, but a loving, relationship with these men's Maker through His crucified, and ressurrected life; something the Jews had been striving for, for hundreds of years through following the Law, and missing the total spirit of the Law. The strove to be close to God through being "doers" instead of "believers". It was by faith that man was saved from his enmity with God, not by works. The good works would follow as a result of a changed heart after salvation, but man had the cart in front of the donkey as usual.

People want evidence, but often it's a smoke screen for wanting to avoid the possibility of the reality that there truly exists a Creator, not a human spawned, relativistic god of sorts, that provides relativistic truth.

A real specific Creator sends a relativistic-believing individual into quivers, as the former shouts loudly that, "accountability" follows closely on the heals of accepting the possibility of the existence of a true, objective Diety.
****
Come to think of it.......if we all became self-centered, and relativistic as a nation, the result would be anarchy. Everyone's truth would be supreme to the detriment, or subjugation of another's. I don't think this reality called life and creation was spawned and relegated to this kind of future by it's Maker.
*****

 

[Eightball]

I'm a secular humanist. I'm not religious. Secular humanism is my personal philosophy, not my religion.

Doesn't humanism meet the criteria of a religion..i.e. system of belief or belief of what is reality or objective to that individual?

 

[Diuretic]

Doesn't humanism meet the criteria of a religion..i.e. system of belief or belief of what is reality or objective to that individual?

It depends on how you define religion. I'm not fussed if someone wants to define secular humanism as a religion. I know it isn't so I'm not worried about it.

One thing I want to make clear is that I'm not anti-religion. I find religious beliefs and rituals interesting and that's not meant in a condescending way.

I do have a system of beliefs, I'm not totally a nihilist but I do strongly lean that way. Anyway my beliefs aren't important, so I will leave it there.

 

[TAS]

Kids dont choose, and its harder for them to make choices when they grow up if they've been indoctrinated by one "religion"

Millions of north american children grow up consumers, they don't choose it, they develope in a social environment where that is the norm, Television advertising is so engrained that it would be impossible for our system to function with out it.
Its very difficult to break out of societal norms, without becoming an outcast.

the same goes for organized religion.

If I tell a 3 year old God is real, and that they are a true evangelical christian guided by the hand of God, and continuously tell them that for their entire life, they arent likely to change their mind when they are 25.

In most cases, NOT ALL, convincing adults religion is a farce is like tearing engrained truths from their brains, they wouldnt be able to to function without the dependance of God, there would be too much missing, so they cling to it.

Hi Superlative

But don't you think that an adult person should by himself, if he was indoctrinated by a society into believing into something, that he should start questioning and searching for what is right and true, at least for him?

I think that people must ask these questions to themselves. Life would be so meaningless, empty, and un-free for a person without questioning by himself with his own independent thought what the purpose and meaning of life is, what is true and what is not, what to believe and what to disbelieve. I say, don't be a sheep. Don't be a blind follower. Search, question, think, feel and what makes your mind and heart comfortable, believe in.
You say that a person won't likely change their mind when they become 25 years old. But I think that over a life of a person, some kind of crisis would happen to him that could prompt him to start searching and questioning. This is the time where a person needs to ask these questions. For example, if someone starts having a mid-life crisis, that would be a good opportunity for him to question his beliefs, his purpose of life, the point of life itself, etc.
But if people don't question these issues, and I agree with you that most don't, that doesn't exempt them from their personal responsibility. I think that every person shall be accountable and responsible for the beliefs and values that he carries with him. If he chose not to question, and to follow and to comply with what his parents, community and society tells him, then he is not really free.

I have thought about how I am going to teach my children this issue.
I think that I am going to bring them as Muslims but at the same time, inform them about the religions of the world. Whenever there is an opportunity (for example, like seeing the Dalai Lama on the TV), I will push the idea of knowing about that religion (of course, from objective and trustworthy sources like the holy book of that religion, encyclopedias, etc. rather than subjective and bigoted ones). I don't want Muslims by birth. I want people with conviction. We are born free. God made us free. I am not going to force religion on them or on anyone for that matter. If they chose Islam, good for them. If not, I won't be very happy, but at the same time, it's their lives, it's their choice. They should live it as they wish.

 

[TAS]

So are we saying that "truth" is relative? Therefore there is no actual objective, valid truth in existence when the topic of a creator, or creation in respect to the various belief systems are discussed or compared or investigated?

This premise is very fuzzy. It allows people to basically make up whatever they want God to be, and also denies in a way that there is a specific Creator, with specific attributes, and nature and leaves it to the whim of creation to define the Creator?

I would say you would have to prove without a doubt that God or a specific Creator has not revealed Himself to mankind in an clear, and, obvious way.......then you would have a myriad relativistic followers. You would also have strong philosophical ground to stand upon a relativistic view.

Now if a man claims to be God or God's Son, and gets genuinely killed and lays in a grave for 3 days, and whose tomb is ordered guarded by Roman soldiers ( under penalty of death for neglecting their duty) to protect pilfering or stealing of the body by alleged Jesus-zealots, and then shows up with healed scars on that 3rd day, and says I'm the Way, the Truth and the Light, and no man shall come unto the Father except by Me. I'd say that's pretty impressive, objective evidence. Now if it was just limited to 11 male Jew's and a couple female Jew's testimony, I'd say........Hmmmmm, but when this person's death was witnessed by myriads (Jews and gentiles alike) on Golgotha, and three days later He's up and about like a new spring chicken, and that is witnessed by myriads as well as his Ascension into the clouds by hundreds just before Penatcost,..........then am I supposed to take the pessimistic route and call it mass illusions or mass hysteria or maybe consider this evidence?

What did these Jewish witnesses have to gain by propagating this alleged lie or hoax? Absolutely nothing positive for their lives, but potential stoning to death, excommunication from the the Jerusalem temple, loss of family ties......wives, parents, uncles, aunts, their children......etc... Yet they stuck to their claims......

Even that scoundrel, Saul of Tarsus chased them down after Pentacost, and was hauling these Jesus believing Jews back to Jerusalem for trial before the Sanhedrin and often receiving death sentences by stoning.....i.e. Stephen was of note in the book of Acts, and Saul of Tarsus stood by and watched in joy helping those tossing the killing stones by holding their robes/tunics so they could have a better ease stone throwing and killing Stephen. Saul gave hearty approval.

Saul of Tarsus didn't believe in this Jesus fellow as being God in the flesh, but believed that these persons were blasphemers, and turncoats to Israel, and their religion. Saul was so zealous that he received special written orders to take basically posse's with him throughout Israel, all the way to Syria even to pursue and bring back any Jew or Jews who had embraced Jesus as the messiah.

It was on one of those missions that the very scoundrel, Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee of Pharisee's was struck down from his horse in the desert on the way to Syria to arrest more Christian Jews. When he was struck down, it was a totally unexpected phenomena. Paul claims that he audibly heard Jesus say to him, "Saul, why are you persecuting or pursuing me?". The other riders in the posse' didn't hear the words, but heard audible thunder. At that same moment that Saul heard the voice he also was struck blind by a piercing light.

Anyway, Paul was made a helpless man, and was taken to Damascus where a Christian Jew reluctantly came to the home where the blind Saul was staying. This man laid his hands on Saul and prayed for him, and Saul regained his eyesight. For the next three years Saul, whom God renamed Paul stayed in Arabia and little is know about his life for that time, except that the scripture says that he/Paul was taught of God during that period.

After those 3 years and the earlier desert episode, Paul was a 180 degree changed man. He no longer wanted to pursue Christians, but humbly sided with their belief and founder, Jesus Christ of Nazereth. Paul gave up prestige in the Sanhedrin, public pride, and much power. He/Paul now became one of the alleged blasphemers of Israel. Now it was Paul that endured and survived amy attempts on his life because of his new found belief.

Why would men who had it made embrace such an unpopular belief system if God or belief or non belief is just a relative thing to all of us?

Why would people walk calmly into the colliseum and let wild animals and gladiators slay them without giving protest? For men and women to die for a person or a God that simply said, "I am the the Truth and the Light, all that follow Me shall not perish, but have everlasting life.". Where did the objective reality come from?.........There were witnesses, and lots of them.........People saw a man named Lazarus walk out of a tomb after being dead and buried for days.......Jesus simply said, "Lazarus! Come out!" Lazarus came out. Who was this Man who had mastery over the waves and could calm mighty bodies of water with just a word or words, "Be still!"? We had witnesses. Nowadays it takes but a couple witnesses to send a man to the gallows or life in prison, yet the bible records that there were myriads of witnesses to miracles, and phenomena that science can't even figure today.

People think that His followers were uneducated fishermen and other sorts, but it is known that most of his followers were highly educated, literary men. Peter was a fisherman, but he belonged to a wealthy fishing family/enterprise. He walked away from that enterprise and followed this man named Jesus.......so did many others.

Jesus didn't promise eternal sexual intercourse with 70 virgins, but a loving, relationship with these men's Maker through His crucified, and ressurrected life; something the Jews had been striving for, for hundreds of years through following the Law, and missing the total spirit of the Law. The strove to be close to God through being "doers" instead of "believers". It was by faith that man was saved from his enmity with God, not by works. The good works would follow as a result of a changed heart after salvation, but man had the cart in front of the donkey as usual.

People want evidence, but often it's a smoke screen for wanting to avoid the possibility of the reality that there truly exists a Creator, not a human spawned, relativistic god of sorts, that provides relativistic truth.

A real specific Creator sends a relativistic-believing individual into quivers, as the former shouts loudly that, "accountability" follows closely on the heals of accepting the possibility of the existence of a true, objective Diety.
****
Come to think of it.......if we all became self-centered, and relativistic as a nation, the result would be anarchy. Everyone's truth would be supreme to the detriment, or subjugation of another's. I don't think this reality called life and creation was spawned and relegated to this kind of future by it's Maker.
*****

Eightball,
I respect your faith and as a Muslim, I have to believe in Jesus, Moses, Noah, Abraham and all the Prophets and Messengers of God that he sent to humanity.
But as there are believers, there are non-believers. Taking the example of Jesus you mentioned, there were many Jewish people who witnessed Jesus' life with all the miracles in it, yet they didn't believe. The same case happened with Moses and the ancient Egyptians, Mohammad and the Arabs, Noah and his people, and every other Prophet. This tells me that there will always be non-believers no matter how many miracles that prophet performs. There will always people who believe and people who don't believe, no matter how much you try to convince them.

So what shall be done?
I say live and let live. Let people choose what they want to believe in. Let's inform people about the different religions, belief systems of the world. Let them explore. Let them make their own decisions even if it contradicts mine. They should think independently for themselves and take responsibilities for their own choices. If they made the right choice, then they will be rewarded. If not, then not. It's their life. They should live it as they wish.
That doesn't mean that one should not call people to the way he believe in, or to go on a missionary trip as long as it is respectable for people's choices.

 

[Superlative]

Hi Superlative

But don't you think that an adult person should by himself, if he was indoctrinated by a society into believing into something, that he should start questioning and searching for what is right and true, at least for him?.

Not if every time there was an question to be asked, they were taught from birth the answer is God.

Evangelical Christians are taught to seek God for answers to EVERYTHING.

If you are taught to NOT seek answers and to resort to God as an answer for everything, than how can someone ever truly and reasonably question anything?

 

[Diuretic]

Not if every time there was an question to be asked, they were taught from birth the answer is God.

Evangelical Christians are taught to seek God for answers to EVERYTHING.

If you are taught to NOT seek answers and to resort to God as an answer for everything, than how can someone ever truly and reasonably question anything?

Fatalism is probably common in all the major religions I think.

 

[TAS]

Not if every time there was an question to be asked, they were taught from birth the answer is God.

Evangelical Christians are taught to seek God for answers to EVERYTHING.

If those evangelical Christians accepted and became convinced by the answers that they got (whatever the answers may be), then it became their choice. They let it be their guide and then they are accountable and responsible for it.

If you are taught to NOT seek answers and to resort to God as an answer for everything, than how can someone ever truly and reasonably question anything?

When one becomes free, breaks free from the chains that are enslaving him.
When does that happen? When a free and a courageous one finds that the current belief system that he believes in is not providing him with satisfying answers to his mind and to his heart. Then is the time to look for something else. For example, the European societies before the Enlightenment were taught that Christianity is the answer, but when they weren't mentally and emotionally satisfied with the answers that they got, they changed their "religion" to secularism. People need to do that individually for themselves. Are they mentally and emotionally comfortable in their current belief system? If yes, continue. If not, look for something that does.
But first, one needs to be a free and courageous person beforehand. Free from society, free from conformity, and brave enough to go on such a quest.

 

[Superlative]

But first, one needs to be a free and courageous person beforehand. Free from society, free from conformity, and brave enough to go on such a quest.

Its not hard to be free and courageous when what you have been indoctrinated with is, Jesus makes you free, and God makes you courageous, and you must fight for him and he will take you to heaven.

Evangelical Christians make up over 80 million people in the US, nearly a quarter of the U.S. population.

And they are very good at instilling lasting indoctrination, or else there would be far fewer that hold such strict beliefs.

 

[TAS]

Its not hard to be free and courageous when what you have been indoctrinated with is, Jesus makes you free, and God makes you courageous, and you must fight for him and he will take you to heaven.

Evangelical Christians make up over 80 million people in the US, nearly a quarter of the U.S. population.

And they are very good at instilling lasting indoctrination, or else there would be far fewer that hold such strict beliefs.

Then the only way is through people believing in freedom. First, be free and let others be free. Then choose what you want to follow and let others choose even if what they chose contradicted yours and even if they were your children.