Why is it OK to indoctrinate children?

[Nihilist Virus]

Teaching children, or what you call "indoctrination", is acceptable and, indeed, unavoidable. All people are always teaching their children all of the time. The question is: "what are we teaching them" and "is our curriculum intentional"?

It's necessary to teach children because they're not born with knowledge and wisdom. So we're given the responsibility of teaching, guiding, and correcting them so that they would grow in knowledge, wisdom, and maturity and hopefully become the people that God intends for them to be.

Teaching children is one of the most important normal means that God has ordained for advancing his kingdom on the earth. It's one of the ways that God is at work in the quiet, slow, and mundane processes to transform the world. In fact, education of children is probably the most effective means of changing the world.

This is not addressing the question. Indoctrination is not the same thing as teaching.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are using negative words in association with the good teachings of God.

The fact that I can do so while being factually correct is quite telling.

Also, Eternal Torment is not Biblical, nor is Calvinism. For they are both immoral constructs.

This belongs in the controversial theology thread.

Anyways, if something you believe is good for your child, then you are going to teach them those things. Pure and simple.

Straw man. I'm discussing indoctrination, which is not the same as teaching.

For you see the teachings of Christianity to a child as in-doctrination (i.e. something negative) because you see true Biblical Christianity as false (When it is not).

Wrong. 2+2=4 is true. Does that mean I cannot indoctrinate someone into believing it?

My claim that Christians indoctrinate their children is not a comment on the truth value of the religion itself. Indoctrination as a method is what I have a problem with, as it is not a pathway to the truth. Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus all indoctrinate their children as well and I'm sure you would agree that their beliefs are false. Thus, the method of indoctrination does nothing to ensure that the beliefs being instructed are actually true.

Yet, I see Atheism or Macro-Evolution as false and I would consider a child being taught these things as in-doctrination because I see these things as false and wrong. For there is no standard of Morality in Atheism or Macro-Evolution. Nobody has to answer to God in Atheism or Macro-Evolution. For in Atheism, morality is subjective and you can do whatever you like.

I don't know why you're making evaluations on whether certain things are indoctrination or not when you don't even know what it means.

Evolution is not indoctrinated into children because it is taught along with the wealth of evidence that supports it. That is the opposite of teaching ideas uncritically.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The fact that I can do so while being factually correct is quite telling.



This belongs in the controversial theology thread.



Straw man. I'm discussing indoctrination, which is not the same as teaching.

Wrong. 2+2=4 is true. Does that mean I cannot indoctrinate someone into believing it?

My claim that Christians indoctrinate their children is not a comment on the truth value of the religion itself. Indoctrination as a method is what I have a problem with, as it is not a pathway to the truth. Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus all indoctrinate their children as well and I'm sure you would agree that their beliefs are false. Thus, the method of indoctrination does nothing to ensure that the beliefs being instructed are actually true.



I don't know why you're making evaluations on whether certain things are indoctrination or not when you don't even know what it means.

Evolution is not indoctrinated into children because it is taught along with the wealth of evidence that supports it. That is the opposite of teaching ideas uncritically.

Well, I sure felt indoctrinated when I was tricked (as a child) into believing in Macro Evolution for a time. There is no evidence to support it. It is just a crazy theory that is not true in any way. No direct observable science supports it.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Even a newborn experiences rain whether they want it or not. So does every person on earth in cognitively active state. Objective.

Religion is mostly subjective, meaning, other people may not experience the same or similar thing.

Religious experience is dependant on your learning certain ideas (indoctrination). If you do not learn those ideas, or you learn a different set of ideas, then you either don't have those experiences or your experiences differ or you express them in a different terminology.

Your religious experiences are true to you. They might be true, false, non-existant, or seemingly very different to others - depending on the ideas they hold as true.

No. A child can be kept locked up in a room with no windows and not experience rain.

And you can repent of your sins and accept Jesus and know that He is real.


...

 

[dzheremi]

I didn't ignore your post. I thanked you for it. However, I find none of it applicable.

See, when I bring up something like, "Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow Jesus" I'm promptly told that the statement was meant only for the rich young ruler. Therefore, I understand Deuteronomy to be only for the pre-Messianic Jews. I understand the epistles addressed to Timothy to be for Timothy. I understand the epistle to the Ephesians to be for... well, you get the point.

There is such a thing as establishing a principle to be more widely implemented than in the literal context in which it is given without therefore being rejected or falling into disuse. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

It has been reported since Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century) that the Alexandrian ascetic and Biblical scholar Origen read Matthew 19:12, took it literally, and castrated himself. Given that Eusebius himself reports this deed (in an otherwise glowing review of Origen in his Church History, book VI) as being evidence of "an immature and youthful mind", we can surmise that this is not how the scriptures were to be understood even in ancient times, and that such an understanding ran afoul even of those people who admired the commitment shown by the act itself (as Eusebius seems to, and as Origen's superior, Demetrius of Alexandria, did for a time). And yet in no way can it be said that the principle by which Origen reasoned that he ought to castrate himself is violated due to his extreme action, at least not any more than we can say that St. Paul's exhortation that it is better for those who can handle it to remain unmarried likewise violates the same saint's writing to the Hebrews that "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled" (13:4). Things do not work that way just because some people see everything in black and white. Please give the ancients a little more credit than that, or at least attempt to refrain from reading modern reasoning into ancient texts.

How any particular verse or command ought to be interpreted is not a simple matter, since there are various schools of ancient provenance that emphasize some aspects or methods more than others, so there is not now nor has there ever been complete unanimity regarding how to interpret the Bible. Origen's own tradition, that of the School of Alexandria at which he once served as dean, tends toward allegory, though not to the point of denying the historical reality of the personages found in the scriptures or anything like that (we just don't stop at affirming the existence of people and places). The Antiochian tradition, by contrast, tends to be more historically-minded. The preexisting philosophical traditions embraced in each region (not just as concerns the reading of the Bible, but every part of the faith which is touched by the dominant philosophy, e.g., also Christology) has occasionally led to conflicting interpretations even during those times when their respective churches were in communion with one another, e.g., the conflict between St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch over the acceptability of the other's Christological formula in the years preceding the Council of Chalcedon.

So, again, it's not as simple as saying "You either do/believe this or this, based on this and this". For something to be shown to be wrong, full stop, it needs to be shown to violate what is held in common, throughout the whole, not simply be a different interpretation. So I wouldn't have any problem with someone who sells all they have and gives it to the poor (as monks in my own Church do to this day), in accordance with the verse you're looking at, or with someone who does not sell all they have, but perhaps reads the verse as an exhortation concerning how far they should be willing to go should the right circumstance and opportunity present themselves. The scriptures also tell us that greater love hath no man than that a man lay his life down for his friends. This does not mean that we may only recognize martyrs who have done just that as saints or people otherwise worthy of emulation. The principle remains unviolated and still worthy of being internalized even if it doesn't result in the same action from every person who hears or reads it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, I sure felt indoctrinated when I was tricked (as a child) into believing in Macro Evolution for a time. There is no evidence to support it. It is just a crazy theory that is not true in any way. No direct observable science supports it.


...

A bit off topic, but I will say that I'd be quite a bit confused about biology if evolution were false. Particularly with our advancements in understanding of the cell and of DNA. When a zygote stops being a blob of cells and partitions its cells into defined roles, I would think of that moment as being the perfect time to maybe have the cells in the eyeball stop copying information pertaining to the toenails. The reason this cannot occur is because the process by which DNA is replicated was evolved over trillions upon trillions of generations in single-celled organisms where it is necessary for all information to be copied.

The main hallmark of design is the elimination of things that are not needed. There is no need for cells in the eyeball to copy and carry information about the toenail. I don't understand why this process would exist in us if we were specially created and designed.

 

[rjs330]

Thank you. I totally understand. In a previous post here I said exactly the same.

But then, there are other opinions. Do you allow even a little bit of doubt? If you are wrong, you are committing a grave mistake. At least in some things, not in everything of course. Nobody is wrong or right entirely.

As you read even on these boards that believers do not always agree on,every point of doctrine. Its,because of a number of reasons which I won't go into here. However we all,do,agree that Jesus is the only way to eternal,life in heaven. It's not my duty as a,parent to,help my child doubt. I want them in heaven. So I am going to,teach them without doubt. Now, as we parents all know children as they grow older will,begin to form their opinions on all matters including the,matter of salvation. Some will stray for sure. Some will stop believing. But that is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to teach and train. When they teach the stage of life where they truly set their own belief I am no longer responsible. I have done,my part and the rest is between them and God. But I hope that they have enough of a foundation that they will choose to believe. It's my job to,come them the foundation. I can only do,what God has told me to,do.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

A bit off topic, but I will say that I'd be quite a bit confused about biology if evolution were false. Particularly with our advancements in understanding of the cell and of DNA. When a zygote stops being a blob of cells and partitions its cells into defined roles, I would think of that moment as being the perfect time to maybe have the cells in the eyeball stop copying information pertaining to the toenails. The reason this cannot occur is because the process by which DNA is replicated was evolved over trillions upon trillions of generations in single-celled organisms where it is necessary for all information to be copied.

The main hallmark of design is the elimination of things that are not needed. There is no need for cells in the eyeball to copy and carry information about the toenail. I don't understand why this process would exist in us if we were specially created and designed.

If you don't accept Christ, your never going to understand.

I am moving on.


...

 

[rjs330]

I agree. Giving your physical life is the ultimate sacrifice a human being can give on this earth...

Not to argue, but just to say that there can be other opinions about Christ's sacrificial death. For example, there are those who think it was not a real sacrifice because He knew in advance He would be raised from the dead and because He had supernatural abilities to tolerate suffering. Etc. All kinds of other views that, for those who hold them, completly nullify His act on Golgotha.

Easy to say for those who,did not walk in his shoes and bear the stripes on his back. There is 0 evidence in scripture that Jesus had a supernatural tolerance for suffering. I'm fact the scriptures indicate otherwise.

The scriptures do indicate that Christ knew he was going to,be raised in three days. How that nullifies his sacrifce I don't know. You have to understand that his dying for our sins and providing a way to heaven had nothing to do with the amount of suffering he would go through. God places the sins,of the,world on his,shoulders and he died to provide a way of salvation. It matters not whether he knew he was,coming back because that wasn't the point of his sacrifice. The point was to die and be raised again in order to,provide salvation. Yes he suffered a great deal. But his suffering was not limited,to physical pain. It was also the suffering he felt emotionally for the separation from the father and bearing our sin. Neither you nor I can ever grasp that part of the sacrifice. Crucifixion was horribly painful and Jesus didn't even suffer as,long as a lot of people did who,were crucified. But he bore our sin upon him which no,man ever experienced and he bore the pain of separation from his father which we also have never experienced. So it's the height of ignorance to suggest such nonsense you mention that some say. Even Jesus said Father forgive them for they know not what they do. The people that suggest such foolish notions have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[Rescued One]

Then either you don't bother to look or to listen. It's really very simple. I am a person, you are a person. As such, you deserve the same respect I do...and your race, belief (or lack), sexual orientation, gender identification, immigration status don't matter. Unlike some "Christians" who think that respect is predicated on whether or not you are judged to be "worthy"...IOW, if you're a minority, illegal immigrant, gay, not Christian, transgender, poor, etc. you don't deserve to be treated decently.

Personally, the most moral people I've ever met were NOT Christians.

I guess you don't know a true Christian from a false Christian.

The true Christian FIGHTS sin. The false Christian EMBRACES it.

 

[ev-8891]

But your buddy there is saying that God has given them the framework regardless of whether they are a Christian nation, so could he not find Myanmar?

That's what he's saying, NOT me. Why should I care?
Yet you didn't answer my argument.

How can you be so sure of that? I can also argue that the murder rate in Myanmar (no Bible) is almost 30 times higher than in Norway (related to the Church of Norway).

Let me repeat it for you. Your argument was:

And yet the murder rate in China is 5 times lower than that of the US. No Bible but less murder. Hmmmm.

And mine was:

How can you be so sure of that? I can also argue that the murder rate in Myanmar (no Bible) is almost 30 times higher than in Norway (related to the Church of Norway).

 

[rjs330]

I didn't ignore your post. I thanked you for it. However, I find none of it applicable.

See, when I bring up something like, "Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow Jesus" I'm promptly told that the statement was meant only for the rich young ruler. Therefore, I understand Deuteronomy to be only for the pre-Messianic Jews. I understand the epistles addressed to Timothy to be for Timothy. I understand the epistle to the Ephesians to be for... well, you get the point.

So I need you to either:

1.) Sell all that you have and give to the poor, and then cite any passage you like.

2.) Give me original arguments that come from you.

3.) Flesh out that treatise on morality we discussed so I know why you're allowed to cherry pick the Bible.

Let's start with the rich,young ruler.
I assume you've read the story.
First of all Jesus did not go to him he came to Jesus. I ask you the following questions.
What did the man ask Jesus?
What was Jesus first response?
How did the man respond to Jesus first response?
What was Jesus next response to him?
Where in that passage is it indicated that Jesus was speaking to everyone and not just the man?

How does this passage mesh with John 3:16?
Is there any other point in any salvation message or gospel where selling all you have is a requirement of gaining eternal,life?

If you understand the scriptures the way you,say then you really haven't understood the scriptures.

Read Ephesians chapter 3. Paul's ministry was primarily to the Gentiles and what he says is primarily for them (us). Eph 4:11 says the apostles were sent to equip the body of Christ. Not just the Ephesians. Peter wrote to God's elect scattered about. There is more but that's enough.

And I will,sprak,in the morality thread you started. But it will,take more time than I have right now.

But you might take,a look at Galatians 3:23-25. Note vs 25 says Now that faith has come we are no longer under a guardian (referring to the law).

You might,be better off pointing,out exactly what part of the law people are demanding we follow. Because I don't believe we are required to follow it at all anymore. Yet I,am sure there are things that I,say,that make it seem like I think we still need,to,follow it.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

The true Christian FIGHTS sin. The false Christian EMBRACES it.

So the "true" Christian can treat those who are different from him like excrement and it's ok because it's "fighting sin"? Ok, you and I obviously have MUCH different definitions of a "true" Christian...and if you think it's ok to treat people like rubbish, just remember, you are no better.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

No. A child can be kept locked up in a room with no windows and not experience rain.

And you can repent of your sins and accept Jesus and know that He is real.


...

Oh good grief, PLEASE tell me you're really not that ignorant!!!
OBJECTIVE reality does not need to be experienced to be real and true. It IS true.

Subjective reality, even if experienced, is not a universal experience.

Go back and re-read the definitions...and this time, attempt to understand them, mmmkay?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh good grief, PLEASE tell me you're really not that ignorant!!!
OBJECTIVE reality does not need to be experienced to be real and true. It IS true.

Subjective reality, even if experienced, is not a universal experience.

Go back and re-read the definitions...and this time, attempt to understand them, mmmkay?

I am not going to reply candidly here because I don't think you would like what I would have to say.

May God bless you.
And may His love shine upon you.

Moving on.


...

 

[Just_a_Joe]

No. A child can be kept locked up in a room with no windows and not experience rain.

And you can repent of your sins and accept Jesus and know that He is real.

Yes, most babies these days are kept indoors or in cars, and it's absolutely wrong. They should be experiencing the world to the fullest. No need to indoctrinate in a limited understanding. Give everyone complete freedom.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

Easy to say for those who,did not walk in his shoes and bear the stripes on his back. There is 0 evidence in scripture that Jesus had a supernatural tolerance for suffering. I'm fact the scriptures indicate otherwise.

The scriptures do indicate that Christ knew he was going to,be raised in three days. How that nullifies his sacrifce I don't know. You have to understand that his dying for our sins and providing a way to heaven had nothing to do with the amount of suffering he would go through. God places the sins,of the,world on his,shoulders and he died to provide a way of salvation. It matters not whether he knew he was,coming back because that wasn't the point of his sacrifice. The point was to die and be raised again in order to,provide salvation. Yes he suffered a great deal. But his suffering was not limited,to physical pain. It was also the suffering he felt emotionally for the separation from the father and bearing our sin. Neither you nor I can ever grasp that part of the sacrifice. Crucifixion was horribly painful and Jesus didn't even suffer as,long as a lot of people did who,were crucified. But he bore our sin upon him which no,man ever experienced and he bore the pain of separation from his father which we also have never experienced. So it's the height of ignorance to suggest such nonsense you mention that some say. Even Jesus said Father forgive them for they know not what they do. The people that suggest such foolish notions have no clue what they are talking about.

Being God in the flesh, Jesus did have supernatural abilities. He spent 40 days fasting in the wilderness. He walked on water. Etc.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't know that this is the case. If religious experience were all about learning certain ideas, then it would be enough to simply study them out of a book with no direct experience of their application or 'what they mean' (in a broad sense). I can name the five pillars of Islam, but that is not the same as going to a mosque. It seems pretty fundamental that learning about something and experiencing that thing are not the same.

And simply knowing or learning about ideas says nothing about their truth either way, so the bit about things being true for you and false for others cannot be dependent upon the degree to which the person judging them knows about them. Certainly there are many atheists who have studied the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, etc. and still remain atheists, and likewise many Christians, Muslims, and Jews who probably don't know their scriptures as well as they'd like to think they do and yet remain convinced that they are true.

It's a problem of epistemology that is not solved by the accumulation of knowledge. If you ever want to make the claim that anything is true, eventually you have to put the books down and pick a street, whether that means rejecting all of them, or all but one, or whatever. And that still likely won't say anything about their truth so much as what you are personally persuaded by. But are things 'true' or 'false' because we think they are? Not if we're talking about objective truth.

This is why I think it is better to say that there is no objective truth behind religion(s) -- at least not objective in the sense of being something that everyone can agree on, like water being wet (I don't think objective actually means 'universally agreed upon', but that's another discussion). There is only the lived experience of given communities that testify to what they have believed based on those experiences for X number of years/centuries. Religion is experiential in this way, not based on a secular idea of objective truth. The claims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah, or that Muhammad is the messenger of God, or that God chose Israel as His people are some of the least objective things I can imagine. Hence the atheist or agnostic who cannot believe in anything unless they are shown objective proof of its veracity will continue to not believe in religion, while the religious person is wise to not wait around for such proof that they should know will never materialize. It is only because of the pervasiveness of the modern secular mindset in today's world that objective proof is prized as being more valuable or trustworthy than experience, though, and since religious people by definition don't share that mindset (though plenty have been influenced by it; cf. the modern atheist who nevertheless lives in a formerly religious society will nonetheless often show some interest in religion as a sociological object...hence threads like this one), that doesn't really come into play for the people you are trying to talk to/about.

Hence we will forever talk past each other because to each of us the people on the other side don't know what truth is (you think it's objective facts like water being wet while the religious think it is shared and mutually confirmed experiences), so talking about what is true and what is false and why is ultimately useless.

So if, hypothetically, the Bible said something to the effect of, "Trust in the Lord your God with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding," would you then stop leaning on your own understanding of the text and take it for what it says?

 

[Far Side Of the Moon]

Do you think it is a good practice to send children to school to be indoctrinated? Is it not important to teach children factual information? It seems to me that people mostly object to indoctrination when they don't agree that what is being taught is factual.

Right! I was just about to say that..school indoctrinates too.. And imo I feel they should add practical life skills to their teaching curriculum..bc I think itd be helpful if kids knew how to budget and spend and save wisely. BC for my degree , I wont ever use algebra nor is history required..still its good to learn about the world you live in...

Just my 2 cents

 

[Far Side Of the Moon]

Do you think it is a good practice to send children to school to be indoctrinated? Is it not important to teach children factual information? It seems to me that people mostly object to indoctrination when they don't agree that what is being taught is factual.

Right! I was just about to say that..school indoctrinates too.. And imo I feel they should add practical life skills to their teaching curriculum..bc I think itd be helpful if kids knew how to budget and spend and save wisely. BC for my degree , I wont ever use algebra nor is history required..still its good to learn about the world you live in...

Just my 2 cents