Why do Christians have such a warped view of parenting?

[iknownothing]

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 can't say that in general Christian parents are more likely to have this approach to childrearing. However, there is a particular strain in Christianity that does specifically endorse authoritarian/disciplinarian parenting.

The Babywise books are promoted heavily in certain churches. With lots of social pressure on members with new babies to join the study group and learn what the books teach. Michael and Debi Pearl also have a book that is influential in some Christian circles, "To Train Up a Child."

I think an otherwise decent parent can doubt their own instincts and feel like they need to listen to what their elders are telling them. And anyway, God's ways are not man's ways, so just because something feels wrong to a human doesn't mean much -- people are taught to do what God says despite their better judgement.

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.

One of those 2 books I mentioned, I think the Pearls', specifically uses the line "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" to show that God set an example that parents sometimes should forsake their children.

 

[Sledge]

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.

Which really is why I posted in the first place. I'm curious as to whether these people actually believe what they're saying, making them some of the last people I'd entrust with a child, or if they're just trying to justify their god and hoping the parent analogy will work.

I guess I'm hoping it's the latter. I'd hate to think that anyone was brought up by parents who thought God was an example of a good parent.

 

[Manopolus]

Which really is why I posted in the first place. I'm curious as to whether these people actually believe what they're saying, making them some of the last people I'd entrust with a child, or if they're just trying to justify their god and hoping the parent analogy will work.

I guess I'm hoping it's the latter. I'd hate to think that anyone was brought up by parents who thought God was an example of a good parent.

I've often seen the lack of a distinction among parents in my former vocation, which included working with children and their parents quite closely.

A parent often seems to try to justify anger by saying that they are punishing for bad behavior. But it is obvious to the observer that the real reason they are slapping some kid upside the head is because they are pissed off. There is no reasoning whatsoever behind it.... strangely, in this case, they actually ARE trying to modify behavior... but only because the child is annoying them. What the child is actually DOING is not, often, anything wrong.

In this case, they aren't trying to influence the child overall, so much as trying to establish authority.

Anyway, there's another mutation of the same type, in my opinion... I'm not sure whether it is pertinant to the subject, exactly, but there it is.

 

[Manopolus]

Actually, it probably is... those particular attitudes, as supposedly expressed by God, are perhaps a way of establishing the authority of God, in their origional context.

 

[cannotthinkofaname]

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.

Well if you read the Bible (I know big if) it was in the Old Testemant that God went around smiting and turning people to pillars of salt.

This was meant to be when humans were still basically cave men and propably could not understand it any other way when natural disasters happened.

But in the New Testemant when Christ come to earth he preached that even if your in hell it is not to late to repent and have your punishment reversed.

I know it may not make much sense to everyone but that is the difference between both testemants in the Bible

 

[Andronicus]

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate, but at it's best a religion (of any faith, heck of all faiths if Unitarian) should help in creation of a good parent-child relationship, not hurt. I believe this even though I'm not a religious person. I do attend church with my family (occasionally), and love of family and how to treat one's own children with charity is a frequent theme of the local parish priest.


"Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule." Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2223.

 

[mikeyx]

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.

Do what I did, partially appilicable, reject the method and accept the fallout, being the black sheep aint the worst thing. It's actually kind of a familial ******** filter.

 

[Trent Wray]

Well if you read the Bible (I know big if) it was in the Old Testemant that God went around smiting and turning people to pillars of salt.

This was meant to be when humans were still basically cave men and propably could not understand it any other way when natural disasters happened.

But in the New Testemant when Christ come to earth he preached that even if your in hell it is not to late to repent and have your punishment reversed.

I know it may not make much sense to everyone but that is the difference between both testemants in the Bible

So can we start referring to them as the Bible's Testes?

 

[quixotecoyote]

But in the New Testemant when Christ come to earth he preached that even if your in hell it is not to late to repent and have your punishment reversed.

I wonder if you could find the verses for this, I've never heard of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think a few high profile Christians like Falwell and Dobson have bizarre views of child rearing. I don't believe they represent the majority.

 

[devnull]

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

Only because they haven't read/don't understand/don't think about the bible.

 

[Sledge]

I wonder if you could find the verses for this, I've never heard of it.

I'd second that request, this is new to me as well.

Only because they haven't read/don't understand/don't think about the bible.

I'm never sure whether to respect the person who sticks to what their religion says even in the face of common sense or being a nice person (homosexuality is immoral, women are second class citizens, don't eat pork), or the person who picks and chooses the good bits from a religion and ignores the stuff that's incompatible with modern society. I think the best answer is to not respect either of them, but acknowledge that they are wrong for different reasons.

 

[Trent Wray]

I'm never sure whether to respect the person who sticks to what their religion says even in the face of common sense or being a nice person (homosexuality is immoral, women are second class citizens, don't eat pork), or the person who picks and chooses the good bits from a religion and ignores the stuff that's incompatible with modern society. I think the best answer is to not respect either of them, but acknowledge that they are wrong for different reasons.

I hope this isn't too far o/t for your thread, but it's something this post made me just think of.

In a similar fashion, I usually respect those who try to "walk their talk" if you will, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are at least trying to live by something they believe, and are trying to make it work, etc etc. In many ways, it's no different than a child who grows and has to experience certain things to learn, or it's no different than any person learning anything through experience, trial and error.

But when your "trial and error" comes at the expense of children, or those who might happen to be working in the Twin Towers on 9/11, or the expense of anyone really .... at what point is it no longer even "respectable" and how should the differences be distinguished?

I mean ... if a person has no family, ties, or responsibilities and they are "living by faith" and end up homeless on the street, they're not really effecting a close nit group of individuals that are depending on them. But if they have a wife and kids and choose this route, those dependants may or may not suffer if that faith doesn't produce something. So if I know someone like that (which I don't) for example, and I try to talk sense into them, but they genuinely believe what they are believing and are even willing to admit they might be wrong but at the same time they want to "give faith a chance," ... at what point do you cut off respect and even emotional support because you just don't believe in what they are doing?

This might be easier to answer when the person in a similar scenario is not a family member, perhaps. But what if they are your own grown child for example?

 

[iknownothing]

Thinking about this some more:

I think Christians are less able to accept the idea of moral progress. The Christian viewpoint is that we are heading toward utter ruin and the culture is getting worse all the time. People in the past spanked, switched, etc. their kids and the past was supposedly so much better than today. So modern non-violent parenting is part of the general decline of culture and leads to out-of-control kids.

Whereas if you actually look at history, people in the past have been atrociously violent to their children and everyone else. If you aren't stuck on some religious timeline to armageddon, you can feel like a lot of the changes in recent decades have been positive improvements.

 

[pgwenthold]

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?

If God is not considered a parent figure, then why did Jesus say, OUR FATHER, WHO ART IN HEAVEN..."

Man, you have to be in some serious denial to deny the "God as a parental figure" perspective of Christianity.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

The thing is you haven't shown any parents christian or otherwise act like this. What you are harping on is that gods activities in the bible do not fit with modern ideas of parenting, and that some Christians have difficulty admitting this. So they have some cognitive dissonance, that does not make them bad parents.

 

[Sledge]

The thing is you haven't shown any parents christian or otherwise act like this.

My point wasn't about parents, it was about Christians justifying God's behaviour in terms of parenting. What point do you think I was making?

If you don't think Christians on this forum have attempted to justify God's actions by comparing them to those of a child, that's fine. It's something I've seen a fair bit, your mileage obviously varies.

What you are harping on is that gods activities in the bible do not fit with modern ideas of parenting, and that some Christians have difficulty admitting this. So they have some cognitive dissonance, that does not make them bad parents.

No, that's not what I'm "harping on about." I refer you to the post you quoted, and to Schrodinger's Cat's excellent post later in the thread.

 

[Trent Wray]

Thinking about this some more:

I think Christians are less able to accept the idea of moral progress. The Christian viewpoint is that we are heading toward utter ruin and the culture is getting worse all the time. People in the past spanked, switched, etc. their kids and the past was supposedly so much better than today. So modern non-violent parenting is part of the general decline of culture and leads to out-of-control kids.

Whereas if you actually look at history, people in the past have been atrociously violent to their children and everyone else. If you aren't stuck on some religious timeline to armageddon, you can feel like a lot of the changes in recent decades have been positive improvements.

The thing is you haven't shown any parents christian or otherwise act like this. What you are harping on is that gods activities in the bible do not fit with modern ideas of parenting, and that some Christians have difficulty admitting this. So they have some cognitive dissonance, that does not make them bad parents.

I know anecdotes don't count for much here, but I can write a book worth on abusive parenting techniques where Christianity / God was the excuse used to justify the actions of the parent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I know anecdotes don't count for much here, but I can write a book worth on abusive parenting techniques where Christianity / God was the excuse used to justify the actions of the parent.

I don't doubt that you could. But I am not sure that Christians are more likely to be abusive either. Maybe they feel more pressure to have kids than non religious people, so people who should be parents have kids.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd second that request, this is new to me as well.

I'm never sure whether to respect the person who sticks to what their religion says even in the face of common sense or being a nice person (homosexuality is immoral, women are second class citizens, don't eat pork), or the person who picks and chooses the good bits from a religion and ignores the stuff that's incompatible with modern society. I think the best answer is to not respect either of them, but acknowledge that they are wrong for different reasons.

You are assuming wrongly that "homosexuality is immoral, women are second class citizens, don't eat pork" wasn't also cherry picked out of the Bible.