Is it ethical to teach your children that people who do not believe in God are going to Hell?

[twa]

3. PM a mod (especially if you can figure it out based on your threads) and apologize.

4. Create a Paypal account ,they cannot be bought,but renting is a possibility

maybe you can buy a indulgence

[jobaga]

I don't see a problem with it. I would imagine if you don't believe in GOD, you don't believe in heaven or hell. I have a major problem teaching your children to hate a group of people based upon religion, but that is another conversation for another day.

[alexey]

I don't see a problem with it. I would imagine if you don't believe in GOD, you don't believe in heaven or hell. I have a major problem teaching your children to hate a group of people based upon religion, but that is another conversation for another day.

From the perspective of psychology, teaching any negative out-group bias would probably be inappropriate.

[Springfield]

I don't see a problem with it. I'm not a believer but I respect those that do believe. Most religions state that if you do not believe in God then you will go to hell. I don't think that it should be made a big deal of (or bigger deal than any of that particular religions teachings). It's just a fact.

I think it's wrong and in my own beliefs I'll go to heaven if such a thing exists but you're free to instill whatever beliefs you want in your children. There are literally hundreds of other beliefs that one could instil in their children that are much worse though. Things that are common place in society.

[PeterMP]

From the perspective of psychology, teaching any negative out-group bias would probably be inappropriate.

Why?

[frostyj]

My mom's church believes anyone not in their church is going to hell. She even told my son that my ex and myself were going, he was 4 at the time. That didn't go over really well.

[authentic]

My mom's church believes anyone not in their church is going to hell. She even told my son that my ex and myself were going, he was 4 at the time. That didn't go over really well.

this is at the extreme from the religious POV... i can't say for certainty that your mother is part of a cult, because i really don't know.. but i know most cults function like that.. Everyone but their little church is wrong and the judgement of God is upon them.

[Destino]

No one knows who is going to hell. It is perfectly ethical to communicate the rule book however... Which I might add contains a great deal more than suggesting who may face damnation.

---------- Post added June-7th-2012 at 01:22 AM ----------

From the perspective of psychology, teaching any negative out-group bias would probably be inappropriate.

Isn't that human nature? Humans have always formed groups and in doing so looked suspiciously upon outsiders. Races, religions, nations, cultures, regions, wealth, neighborhoods, careers, gangs, sports teams, and even our family units. We live to create groups and usually find a group to squabble with.

[alexey]

Why?

Isn't that human nature? Humans have always formed groups and in doing so looked suspiciously upon outsiders. Races, religions, nations, cultures, regions, wealth, neighborhoods, careers, gangs, sports teams, and even our family units. We live to create groups and usually find a group to squabble with.

There a lot of things that are natural to humans, including gruesome violence.

Psychology provides knowledge of the human nature, and it clearly shows the effects of teaching negative out group bias. Therefore I do not think it is ethical to teach negative out group bias.

[Bliz]

I would say it depends on the purpose of that teaching.

If the reason you are teaching your kid that is they seem skeptical or uninterested in religion, and you are trying to scare them into believing what you believe and becoming a churchgoer, then no, I do not think that is an ethical thing to do. [i would suggest also, if one is only going through the motions and going to church out of fear, you are not going to "get one over" on the big man. If anything, that is a bigger affront than not going at all]. If you are raising your child with a religious education, and that is part of the belief system, then there is nothing wrong with teaching them that aspect of the belief system at the appropriate time. It's not the right thing to introduce first or at a young age. There's a level of maturity and understanding required for that concept.

[gbear]

This would be hard if you are a Calvinist who believes in predestination. Do you tell your kid they are going to heaven but all of their friends are not, and nothing they say or do will change the outcome because they can't join the in crowd who lineage believe in the true (nature of ) God? Ouch.

Way to tell them their friends are damned...No, I wouldn't put it as ethical in that situation.

However, teaching your kid to tell their belief to others so they may share knowledge is something with which I have a hard time find fault. I often find that which I thought I knew turned out to be wrong or only partially understood. Maybe my kids beliefs would be changed or strengthened by sharing them. If that sharing saved someone's soul, then a net good has been achieved.

I say this as an agnostic whose daughter just wrote one of the best part of her time with daddy is praying. lol. We do still pray every night before bed and make sure to say things from the day for which we are thankful. I just laugh because one of the most religious people I know is my 6 year old daughter, and I wouldn't change that for the world. After a stroke and numerous heart surgeries, I figure she is in a better spot to know than I.

[PeterMP]

There a lot of things that are natural to humans, including gruesome violence.

Psychology provides knowledge of the human nature, and it clearly shows the effects of teaching negative out group bias. Therefore I do not think it is ethical to teach negative out group bias.

We shouldn't teach our kids that skin heads, KKK, neo-nazis and people that believe in creationism are wrong and "bad" for the country?

[JMS]

It's certainly ethical. Ethics after all is subjective as far as religioius issues go. Ethics is quite literally dealing with right and wrong based upon morality. Morality as far as religion go is totally subjective. Which is why moralality across the board is a poor basis for laws in a multi cultural and religious society like ours...

If you are a fundimental Christian, Hindu, Moslem, or Zorastrian; it's certainly Ethical to convey to your kids what you believe... But if you are trying pass laws a Hindu might try to outlaw the consumption of Beef, A Catholic might try to do so on Friday, A Moslem might try to outlaw the keeping of Dogs as Pets... Each is ethical from their own perspective...

So certainly telling your kids most of the people on earth are going to hell is ethical if that is what your religion teaches you; it's also bigoted, intellectually indefensible, and backwards; as well as entirely ethical.

[alexey]

We shouldn't teach our kids that skin heads, KKK, neo-nazis and people that believe in creationism are wrong and "bad" for the country?

You are correct, we should not teach any out group negativity at all. We should teach that each person is an individual. We should teach how people acquire belief systems, how different belief systems are supported by evidence, what outcomes such belief systems have, etc.

This is why I think it is not ethical to teach that all atheists will go to Hell regardless of their character, actions, or lives.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

The ethics revolve around how they are told...not that they are told.

Believe it or not, it's possible to discuss concepts and beliefs like Heaven and Hell without sounding like a street corner preacher.

[PeterMP]

You are correct, we should not teach any out group negativity at all. We should teach that each person is an individual. We should teach how people acquire belief systems, how different belief systems are supported by evidence, what outcomes such belief systems have, etc.

This is why I think it is not ethical to teach that all atheists will go to Hell regardless of their character, actions, or lives.

What about basic stranger danger?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_danger

Do you suggest not teaching kids that?

Is it really a negative?

Aren't you teaching them an outcome (i.e. atheists go to Hell)? Going to hell is an outcome.

[Destino]

You are correct, we should not teach any out group negativity at all. We should teach that each person is an individual. We should teach how people acquire belief systems, how different belief systems are supported by evidence, what outcomes such belief systems have, etc.

This is why I think it is not ethical to teach that all atheists will go to Hell regardless of their character, actions, or lives.

This entire question comes down to Hell existing or not. If it exists it is entirely ethical to teach children what leads to damnation and what saves them from it. One could even take it further and say that NOT teaching them these things would be unethical.

[GibbsFactor]

Just do the loophole which is baptism just to be sure.

I don't want to hear about the "you much believe in Jesus" stuff either. It is clearly stated that baptism forgives all sin.

[alexey]

What about basic stranger danger?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_danger

Do you suggest not teaching kids that?

Is it really a negative?

Aren't you teaching them an outcome (i.e. atheists go to Hell)? Going to hell is an outcome.

I am suggesting teaching children things that are useful and ethical. I see teaching the dogma of the poll question to be the opposite of useful and not ethical.

---------- Post added June-7th-2012 at 10:38 AM ----------

This entire question comes down to Hell existing or not. If it exists it is entirely ethical to teach children what leads to damnation and what saves them from it. One could even take it further and say that NOT teaching them these things would be unethical.

Yeah you could take it much further and call that ethical. Many people do just that.

[SnyderShrugged]

I am suggesting teaching children things that are useful and ethical. I see teaching the dogma of the poll question to be the opposite of useful and not ethical.

are you the arbiter that determines what is useful and ethical?

[PeterMP]

I am suggesting teaching children things that are useful and ethical. I see teaching the dogma of the poll question to be the opposite of useful and not ethical.

Great

That's your opinion. Other people disagree.

Other people think it is both useful and ethical.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Just do the loophole which is baptism just to be sure.

I don't want to hear about the "you much believe in Jesus" stuff either. It is clearly stated that baptism forgives all sin.

I dunno...I found this online and it's how baptism was explained in sermons back when I used to attend church:

Baptism always follows belief in Jesus Christ as one's Savior and baptism is not necessary for a person to be saved and born again. It is not an act that one does to obtain salvation and no one in the New Testament was baptized who did not first believe and put their faith in Jesus Christ. After a person is saved, as the New Testament plainly shows, they then were baptized. The Bible does not refer to baptism as a sacrament which has any saving properties, or as a part of salvation.

[GibbsFactor]

I dunno...I found this online and it's how baptism was explained in sermons back when I used to attend church:

Acts 2:38, “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).

"Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21).

[PeterMP]

Acts 2:38, “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).

"Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21).

In each case, there is something other than Baptism going on.

Repent, calling on his name, and appealing to God for a clear conscience.

In none of the cases, do they suggest that the event will carry forward to future sins.

[LadySkinsFan]

Teaching children that there is some really extra special bad ephemeral thing that could happen if they don't behave a certain way is unethical. Going to Hell is the really extra special bad ephemeral thing to which I am referring. Hell is a mythical concept that relies on faith alone and not any kind of empirical data. So teaching Going to Hell is something that they can't even get their minds around, and thus ultimate fear is born in this child. Teaching real life consequences for bad behavior is much more ethical and something that a child can deal with, not some abstract thing that may or may not exist.

I think that Hell may just exist right here on Earth, at least for some people it does.