Why do Christians have such a warped view of parenting?

[Sledge]

I've wondered this a few times. Christians seem very fond of comparing God to a parent, and yet their examples always horrify me. Yes, we can agree that parents sometimes need to punish children, but this gets extended to it being acceptable for a parent to punish a child for all eternity over a minor transgression. Plus, and this is where it really bothers me, the punishment God supposedly doles out isn't intended to correct behaviour as a good parent would do, but as everlasting revenge. That's not punishment, that's child abuse.

On a slightly lesser note, some Christians will attempt to justify God's "mysterious ways" by saying that a parent tells a child what to do without having to justify it. Maybe I'm a rare case, but my parents didn't do that, they always explained things if asked.

So I'm left with the question of: are these Christians the result of bad parenting, or are they just scrabbling for flimsy justifications for their nonsensical beliefs?

Oh, and yes: I know not all Christians act like this.

 

[Fnord]

... So I'm left with the question of: are these Christians the result of bad parenting, or are they just scrabbling for flimsy justifications for their nonsensical beliefs?

Yes.

Oh, and yes: I know not all Christians act like this.

It also matters not how deep their devotion to their religion may be; only which Bible verses they consider the most important.

"Suffer the children..." can be taken one of two ways: (1) make them miserable for the sake of your beliefs, or (2) don't inhibit their own interests in Christianity.

Then again, there are some twisted people out there that would use any excuse to "justify" abusing children, and religion just seems to be the most popular.

 

[Trent Wray]

I think it's actually a complicated issue with multiple layers, but most of those layers deal with (imo):

1) fear / control (especially when a person chooses freely to cherry-pick "god's laws" to justify their own actions)

2) an inherited existence in a Stockholm Syndrom type of scenario (where the person parenting is almost brainwashed to parent that way from their parents, and would require almost de-programming like tactics to change their mind on anything)

In the fear/control circumstance, I think the person who actually knowingly chooses what they are doing uses religion to justify, more or less, their own shortcomings and cruelty. It's much easier to use religion since you can pick your own and not be held accountable since your teacher is invisible and absent. Thus, you never have to really face your own shortcomings because the "invisible one" has the same as you do.

In the second case, where it's inherited in almost a cult like fashion (even though it's in an open society), I think it's almost impossible to reverse without damaging the actual psyche of the parent and their emotional state. The "truth" is so ingrained in them that to face their own falsehoods means they have to face not only their own life that was violated and taken from them, but that their "entire world" was built on an illusion and that they are also passing this horrific system onto their children.

 

[sadhatter]

I've wondered this a few times. Christians seem very fond of comparing God to a parent, and yet their examples always horrify me. Yes, we can agree that parents sometimes need to punish children, but this gets extended to it being acceptable for a parent to punish a child for all eternity over a minor transgression. Plus, and this is where it really bothers me, the punishment God supposedly doles out isn't intended to correct behaviour as a good parent would do, but as everlasting revenge. That's not punishment, that's child abuse.

On a slightly lesser note, some Christians will attempt to justify God's "mysterious ways" by saying that a parent tells a child what to do without having to justify it. Maybe I'm a rare case, but my parents didn't do that, they always explained things if asked.

So I'm left with the question of: are these Christians the result of bad parenting, or are they just scrabbling for flimsy justifications for their nonsensical beliefs?

Oh, and yes: I know not all Christians act like this.

One of my favorite examples follows.

God is refered to as a father constantly, so the parent analogy holds, and it is not something we merely pulled out of thin air.

Now is not one of the major functions of a parent to stop their children from doing stupid things, because they are children? And as a secondary point to this, isn't a major part of being a parent making sure things that can harm your child are not around, especially those that do not have a direct use.

To explain we lock parents up for lets say leaving loaded handguns, or drugs, or what have you in reach of their children. It is a very simple obvious fact, a good parent does not leave things that can harm children around.

Now let us look at sin, sin is what i would call the gun of the universe. It has no use to us ( from a religious standpoint) , it only harms us. Now god could have locked sin up in a cabinet, made sure we were no where near it, that our dumb little fingers couldn't pull the trigger on the gun.

But he dosn't , what god instead does is leaves the gun out on the table, fully loaded, safety off, not only that, but he makes sure there is a gun in every room, loaded. ( i can't think of a single situation where i couldn't sin if i wanted to)

We would lock someone up, throw away the key and make a big news story if a real parent did this. Let alone if after the kid eventually did blow off a part of his body, the parent locked the kid in a basement for a couple of years. ( which is nothing compared to eternity.)

So when it is so plain that this is wrong, why does god get a free pass? I can understand the "he is god" argument, but that is simply saying because he can beat us up we have to listen. God by any definition is a crappy parent, a neglectful, sadistic one if you want to get specific about it.

 

[Manopolus]

I've wondered this a few times. Christians seem very fond of comparing God to a parent, and yet their examples always horrify me. Yes, we can agree that parents sometimes need to punish children, but this gets extended to it being acceptable for a parent to punish a child for all eternity over a minor transgression. Plus, and this is where it really bothers me, the punishment God supposedly doles out isn't intended to correct behaviour as a good parent would do, but as everlasting revenge. That's not punishment, that's child abuse.

On a slightly lesser note, some Christians will attempt to justify God's "mysterious ways" by saying that a parent tells a child what to do without having to justify it. Maybe I'm a rare case, but my parents didn't do that, they always explained things if asked.

So I'm left with the question of: are these Christians the result of bad parenting, or are they just scrabbling for flimsy justifications for their nonsensical beliefs?

Oh, and yes: I know not all Christians act like this.

That's my only point in this thread. Your whole point is a gross generlization. Consider also that even those that you may be able to judge as horrible parents based on external evidence may do something entirely different than you would expect under other circumstances... and your judgement would be inaccurate to those circimstances.

In other words, the whole premise of this thread is nothing but prejudice.

And.... I am not a Christian who makes this judgement.

 

[Sledge]

Given that I'm clearly not talking about all Christians, I can't see what your point is.

 

[Manopolus]

Given that I'm clearly not talking about all Christians, I can't see what your point is.

Got one thing to say:

No true Scotsman.

 

[Sledge]

Nope, you're going to have to explain. Or go away. Doesn't bother me which.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Got one thing to say:

No true Scotsman.

Huh? A No True Scotsman fallacy would be if someone said "no true Christian has a warped view of parenting" or "no true Christian has a reasonable view of parenting." That doesn't appear to be what Sledge said.

~~ Paul

 

[sadhatter]

Given that I'm clearly not talking about all Christians, I can't see what your point is.

I hate that, no matter what, if your statement dosn't fit to all christians , every last one, then it's dismissed. Regardless of how much you state that your not intending your commentary to be toward all christians.

It is not our fault that christianity has more flavors than baskin robins, and that your average christian is about as religious as a car stereo. And it does not make basic contradictions found with a non fringe segment of the religion suddenly invalid.

 

[TimCallahan]

Yes.

It also matters not how deep their devotion to their religion may be; only which Bible verses they consider the most important.

"Suffer the children..." can be taken one of two ways: (1) make them miserable for the sake of your beliefs, or (2) don't inhibit their own interests in Christianity.

Then again, there are some twisted people out there that would use any excuse to "justify" abusing children, and religion just seems to be the most popular.

With regard to the word "suffer," it means "allow" in this context in the Elizabethan English of the King James Version In luke, when when people bring infants to Jesus in hopes he will touch them, his disciples start to rebuke them. Jesus responds as follows (Luke 18:16, 17):

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

In the more modern English of the Revised Standard Version, Jesus says "Let the children come to me."

 

[Manopolus]

Nope, you're going to have to explain. Or go away. Doesn't bother me which.

All right, I'm not clear that my own concern is a No true Scotsman fallacy, under further consideration.

However, I do think that you are unfair in specifically linking an authoritarian child rearing philosophy with Christianity. The authoritarian attitude exists outside of the group which can be called Christians... and I'd like you to prove to me that it is even specifically more prominant in that group. Do you have any studies that show this?

In terms of causation, I would say that the language in The Bible which appears to reccomend this sort of approach (which is mostly in the OT, not the NT) merely reflects an already existing attitude in the culture. Also, note the story of the Prodigal Son, and tell me how that is authoritarian.

 

[Sledge]

All right, I'm not clear that my own concern is a No true Scotsman fallacy, under further consideration.

Excellent.

However, I do think that you are unfair in specifically linking an authoritarian child rearing philosophy with Christianity. The authoritarian attitude exists outside of the group which can be called Christians... and I'd like you to prove to me that it is even specifically more prominant in that group. Do you have any studies that show this?

I'm not sure what it is you think I'm claiming. I'm pretty sure that I ended my post with a question. I can provide proof that I asked the question, if that's any help.

In terms of causation, I would say that the language in The Bible which appears to reccomend this sort of approach (which is mostly in the OT, not the NT) merely reflects an already existing attitude in the culture. Also, note the story of the Prodigal Son, and tell me how that is authoritarian.

I have absolutely no interest in discussing the Bible in this thread, and cannot find the relevance of your comment. The impression I have is that you're responding purely to the thread title without reading the post.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Manopolous,

"However, I do think that you are unfair in specifically linking an authoritarian child rearing philosophy with Christianity. The authoritarian attitude exists outside of the group which can be called Christians... and I'd like you to prove to me that it is even specifically more prominant in that group. Do you have any studies that show this?"


I don't think that is what the poster is trying to do. I think what they are referring to is something you may not even be aware of:

On posts on JREF and other boards that deal with religion, it is very very common for a Christian poster to compare God to a parent when discussing why God has to punish the way he does in the Bible. Now maybe you weren't raised that way, or weren't raised a Biblical fundamentalist, so you have no idea what the original poster is even talking about! For instance I was raised in a very liberal church and we were NOT Bible fundamentalists, so I never experienced this either. So if you don't have a point of reference, Sledge's post may be very confusing.

As I understand it (and Sledge can correct me if I'm wrong) he is not asking "why do Christians raise their kids this way?" He is asking, SPECIFICALLY, how a Christian can claim that extreme acts of violence or punishment by the Biblical God to parenting techniques. He is specifically speaking about Christians who do this, not to Christians as a group.

So here's an example: when the earthquake in Haiti happened, Pat Robertson made the statement that Haiti was being punished because some Haitians made a deal with the devil over a century ago to free them from Napolean, and the reason their country has suffered so is because God is punishing the Haitians for that deal.

I saw several internet threads in which Christians made the argument that this was true, but not because God WANTS to punish the Haitians, but just because, like a parent must punish their child, so God must punish us.

To me, this is a ridiculous statement on parenting. Pat Robertson's contention was that some haitians over a century ago made a deal with the devil for a favor. Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that this is actually true. According to Pat Robertson, God is punishing Haitians, even good Christian Haitians, for the actions of people they could not control over a century earlier just because they happened to live in the same country.

To say this is a parenting technique, as was claimed by some Christians that I saw, is ridiculous. That would mean that a good parent, if their child misbehaved, would not only punish that child, but ALL THEIR children, even their children who had nothing to do with the original bad behavior, and their descendants, forever. So if my sister steals my dad's car, fifty years later, my dad shows up at MY grandchild's house, and punishes them, because fifty years earlier their great aunt sinned against my dad.


So this is the sort of thing (I believe) Sledge was talking about. How can people think this way? How can *these specific types of Christians* look at parenting this way. Not: how can Christians as a whole raise their children this way. \

 

[Sledge]

Schrodinger's Cat may or may not be alive, but they're on the money. I doff my metaphorical cap to you, sir/madam.

 

[ScannerHead]

Oh, and yes: I know not all Christians act like this.

Any yet you paint a wide, sweeping brush stroke with the opening title.

Maybe ask a question like, "Why do some Christians drive Fords?" or...

"Why do some Christians wear tennis shoes?"

In other words, your whole point in starting a thread is to talk about "Christians" with a vague generalization with the hope people will jump on yet another 'bashing bandwagon' with the opening ignorant generalization, then try to end with that quote above.

 

[Sledge]

I would hope the good folks of the JREF read posts rather than responding purely to titles. Yes, the title is a broad generalisation. It is intended to give an idea of the content without necessarily being a totally accurate summary of the contents. I can only apologise to those people too busy to read anything but thread titles for any confusion caused by their laziness.

 

[Manopolus]

Ah, the parenting style is a justification for the religion, not the other way around. OK, I can see that upon re-reading the post. I guess I just put more emphasis on the title than on the place where you ended up with the reasoning. All I can say is, title your threads with a little less of a prejudicial statement,

As to why authoritarian parenting is somehow a justification for God? Well, God was modeled on this principle in the first place... the whole thing is circular, historically -- if you start from the position that the religion is fiction.

(added) I will admit that the title slanted the way I read your post, but I did read it... just didn't quite comprehend it as well as I would with a more neutral beginning statement.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Why do forum posters have such a warped view of generalizations?

 

[Manopolus]

Also note that the notion of vengence and punishment are not often separate notions in the minds of the deluded. Punishment is intended to change behavior, while vengence is not. Some unfortunately don't understand the difference.