Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
You are using negative words in association with the good teachings of God.
Also, Eternal Torment is not Biblical, nor is Calvinism. For they are both immoral constructs.
Anyways, if something you believe is good for your child, then you are going to teach them those things. Pure and simple.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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.
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.
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.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.
I guess you don't know a true Christian from a false Christian.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.
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?
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).
And yet the murder rate in China is 5 times lower than that of the US. No Bible but less murder. Hmmmm.
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).
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.
The true Christian FIGHTS sin. The false Christian EMBRACES it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...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...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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?