When Should a Care-Giver Teach a Young Child About Hell?

[Curious George]

You don't think there are -- or at least could be -- religious beliefs a society has the right to suppress? If you do not think there are any such beliefs, what do you make of the Thuggees?

Whoa there. I did not say that at all.

But your question leads us right to the question of when, if ever, is it appropriate to do so.

I answered yours, are you turning mine back around?

My answer would be it is appropriate to do so when significant harm can be proven.

 

[Sunstone]

My answer would be it is appropriate to do so when significant harm can be proven.

Good response, I'd think.

 

[Curious George]

If they are abusive, yes I do. My evil paternal grandmother beat religion into her own children and threatened me with the tortures of hell from the age of two.

But that is really what we are discussing with @Sunstone and my question. They are two sides to the same scale, no?

I think most people will draw the line at abuse. What is abuse and how does teaching of hell so the kids might or likely believe it cross that line?

The other line at which we can take @Sunstone s question is the line of developmental appropriateness. This likewise raises questions regarding what developmental level makes such a concept appropriate. This however is likely to be more subjective and case by case. It is a harder standard to gauge.

 

[JJ50]

But that is really what we are discussing with @Sunstone and my question. They are two sides to the same scale, no?

I think most people will draw the line at abuse. What is abuse and how does teaching of hell so the kids might or likely believe it cross that line?

The other line at which we can take @Sunstone s question is the line of developmental appropriateness. This likewise raises questions regarding what developmental level makes such a concept appropriate. This however is likely to be more subjective and case by case. It is a harder standard to gauge.

There is no evidence to support any religion and this should be pointed out to children, and they should be permitted to make up their own minds on the topic.

My husband and I allowed our children to decide for themselves about religion. They are moderate Christians, the eldest girl is and Anglican priest. Fortunately they are very moderate in their views and not Biblical literalists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So you think that a group should be able to dictate which religious beliefs parents teach to children?

See my amended answer - after realising my incorrect interpretation.

 

[Curious George]

There is no evidence to support any religion and this should be pointed out to children, and they should be permitted to make up their own minds on the topic.

My husband and I allowed our children to decide for themselves about religion. They are moderate Christians, the eldest girl is and Anglican priest. Fortunately they are very moderate in their views and not Biblical literalists.

The problem is in asserting something is abuse. It is fine to say that you believe parents should not push a specific religion on kids, but it is different when you say that we should be able to stop them from doing so. We should be able to stop abuse. Telling a kid something that is not proven true is not abuse. We still need more.

 

[stvdv]

For me it's simple. Kids are smart, I was. Got very angry finding out the lie about Santa Claus.

Imagine finding out the hell-lie after being scared for 80 years

So, unless you have SEEN hell, better don't claim you KNOW it is real.

Those claims are: "not smart", "not scientific", "silly", "foolish", "stupid". Or just "gullible".

If you do feel offended by me saying "stupid", I advice you don't claim "hell exists".

Jesus:"what do you believe?". You:"I believe in hell". Jesus ""

 

[stvdv]

1 more very good point I think.

Why the "hell" tell someone about hell? What do you in Devil's name try to achieve?

Don't you believe in heaven? Why not in God's name teach about "Love is the highest command"

 

[Mock Turtle]

The problem is in asserting something is abuse. It is fine to say that you believe parents should not push a specific religion on kids, but it is different when you say that we should be able to stop them from doing so. We should be able to stop abuse. Telling a kid something that is not proven true is not abuse. We still need more.

I think the main issue is in parental rights versus the rights of a child to grow up without undue influences that they are unable to combat at the time, such that they might lose an essential freedom - the right to have an unbiased life, or relatively free from such interference - that is, essential freedoms over rights of parents to indoctrinate. I feel myself very fortunate that my mother never insisted on such religious teaching, and during school RI lessons I was mostly yawning - or playing the fool - which perhaps came more naturally. A career I have obviously chosen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't think there are -- or at least could be -- religious beliefs a society has the right to suppress? If you do not think there are any such beliefs, what do you make of the Thuggees?

So you’re talking about suppressing teaching about belief in Hell?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

When, if ever, should a care-giver teach a young child (seven or younger) about hell in such a fashion that the child might come to believe they could be subjected to eternal torment?

Never. "Teaching" a child about "eternal torment" and the idea that people who believe the wrong things go to hell is abusive, plain and simple.

 

[Sunstone]

So you’re talking about suppressing teaching about belief in Hell?

How did you get that?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

then you can explain them.

There's nothing I, nor anyone else could say to someone who doesn't and won't believe. Some people need physical/visual evidence before they will believe, they only believe what they can see or makes sense to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's nothing I, nor anyone else could say to someone who doesn't and won't believe.

If you can’t convince others of it, isn’t this a sign that it might not be reasonable to believe it?

Some people need physical/visual evidence before they will believe, they only believe what they can see or makes sense to them.

Well, sure. Why would you expect people to accept something that doesn’t make sense to them? I think that accepting nonsensical ideas is a problem; don’t you?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

If you can’t convince others of it, isn’t this a sign that it might not be reasonable to believe it?

Because you don't believe in something, I shouldn't?

I think that accepting nonsensical ideas is a problem; don’t you?

If it's nonsensical to you, it should be a problem for me?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How did you get that?

The conversation went from whether the teaching was harmful to whether harmful religious teachings should be suppressed. It seemed like you were trying to draw a line from one to the other.

 

[Sunstone]

The conversation went from whether the teaching was harmful to whether harmful religious teachings should be suppressed. It seemed like you were trying to draw a line from one to the other.

I see. Nope. I was just humoring Curious George, who made the leap between the two back in post #35.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because you don't believe in something, I shouldn't?

That depends whether you’re accepting it for bad reasons or I’m rejecting it for bad reasons. We can’t tell which is happening without looking at the arguments for the belief.

If it's nonsensical to you, it should be a problem for me?

Not just me; many people.

When I see that a large number of people disagree with some position I hold, it makes me stop and think, “hmm - maybe they have a good reason for disagreeing with me. I should check out their position and see if there’s anything to it.” You don’t do this?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Yep. Along with all the other religious stuff. Why? Because it is abuse, and especially so to expect a young child to have any defences against wrong information - since there is hardly any consensus on religious views. It is mainly down to a parent's prerogative or bias, which just shouldn't be passed on to children. Let them decide when they are old enough - like about age 30!

I hate this "religion is child abuse" crap. Suppose we said forcing a child with joy of life to see the world as a cynical secular type who always sees death as the end, and sees alot of loved ones dying. Which of these is abuse?

Atheism and Child Abuse

Warning children not to stick their fingers in electricity sockets does not constitute child abuse; neither does warning children about the consequences of rejecting Jesus.

The doctrine of Hell is the flip side of the doctrine of Heaven, and both doctrines testify that life is not only meaningful, it's serious. Christians should give some serious thought to how (and what) they teach about Hell, especially to children; but atheists should give some serious thought to the fact that without Heaven and Hell, their worldview offers neither justice nor hope, in a Godless universe that fails to provide any moral grounds for the condemnation of child-abuse.

That said, hell is unbiblical.

Chapter 20 - The Absurdities of the Doctrine of Hell – Gods Plan for All

There is NO reason why a loving God would wish his creation to be eternally punished. In light of this, there are two possibilities:
1. A loving God does not exist.
2. Hell does not exist.

One of these approaches makes sense. The other basically does nothing to the real problem, instead attacking the entire concept of religion, when only one issue must be resolved. Hell doesn't exist. But it has sway over us, because we think it should.So, honestly, the problem is with our minds, not with God.

You don't need to teach Heaven and Hell. Heaven and Reincarnation would not only produce the same effect (wanting to try harder to live one's life right), but would be in line with what most Hindus and Buddhists believe.

 

[Sunstone]

I hate this "religion is child abuse" crap. Suppose we said forcing a child with joy of life to see the world as a cynical secular type who always sees death as the end, and sees alot of loved ones dying. Which of these is abuse?

Clearly, it cannot be considered "abuse" to teach a child that death is the end, but it can be considered abuse to terrify a child with tales of his or her possible consignment to eternal torment. The two things are not even remotely comparable outside the feverish minds of a few fundies.