Why is it OK to indoctrinate children?

[Nihilist Virus]

Teaching isn't religion based. You teach your child to use the toilet? Eat? Drink? Speak? Make good/bad decisions?...etc right? If so then you are teaching and hence cannot say you are not teaching.

You don't appear to be following the conversation.

You said, "From our view atheists are 'Teaching a person to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.'"

I said, "There are no teachings in atheism. Atheism is not a religion."

Now all of a sudden you're talking about using the toilet.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Well to you "beliefs" is something only religion teaches. But belief just means something that someone believes is true. Like I believe steak is better then burgers. You belief not teaching your children about God is the right thing to do. Or teaching them, yes, how to poop in a toilet is the right thing to do. Hence you have beliefs to. So when you talk about indoctrination, you are in fact being ironic since you to are indoctrinating your children/future children and won't be critical of what you teach them. Kettle meet pot.

 

[rjs330]

You don't appear to be following the conversation.

You said, "From our view atheists are 'Teaching a person to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.'"

I said, "There are no teachings in atheism. Atheism is not a religion."

Now all of a sudden you're talking about using the toilet.

I know that atheism isnt a religion. But I have difficulty believing that athiests don't teach their kids about atheism. I mean don't they ever say "I don't think there is a God" to their kids? Don't the kids ever ask why? At some point most kids run,into someone who,believes in God. Don't they ask their parents about it?

I,don't know. Maybe not.

 

[rjs330]

I'm not sure what your point is in asking all those questions. I see no ultimate point you're trying to direct me to, so it's not like you're enacting some kind of automated Socratic method. Failing that I can only see this rudimentary line of questioning as condescending, as if you are suggesting that I need to be walked through the dialogue because I cannot understand it otherwise.

The Bible says to "trust in the Lord your God and lean not on your own understanding" (which essentially renders the entire discipline of exegesis as heretical) and the Bible also says to sell all that you have and give the money to the poor. It's not complicated. It's not even difficult to do. Jesus isn't asking you to master confusing theories on economics; he is making economics quite simple. This is a task that literally anyone is capable of fulfilling, and yet your hearts are so hard that you not only refuse to do it but you'll say anything to wriggle and slither your way out of it like what the serpent would do.

With regards to your last question, though, I'd say this: the author(s) of John were not present for the conversation between Jesus and the rich young ruler, so either Jesus or the Holy Spirit essentially sat them down and said, "Ok, you need to write about this exchange with the rich young ruler." What is the point in the conversation being recorded if it's not meant for the reader?



The conversation with the rich young ruler veers off course from salvation. Jesus clarifies that his suggestion of selling all earthly possessions will result in treasures in heaven, implying that it is not a requirement of salvation. John 3:16 explains that we can attain salvation by believing in a certain proposition.

It always baffles me that people are disinterested in obtaining extra rewards in heaven. Do they think Jesus will be handing out wooden nickels? Will Christians not be rewarded fairly? Is it just a natural Republican hatred of the poor? Or do you just not care about obtaining riches in heaven?



Again, no, and the only other time the issue of selling all that you have is ever brought up is when Jesus is addressing his disciples in Luke 12:33-34.



I know the Bible better than 95% of the people on this site and 99% of the people in any given church any given Sunday.



I'm disinterested in reading that unless you have an extremely important point to make.



Thank you.



Then why is Paul against homosexuality?



Well, the laws on homosexuality, for one.



Please reconcile that claim with 1 John 3:4.



I do not understand your position.

I asked the questions for a purpose. It wasn't to be condescending. You made it sound like We are ignoring Jesus words and that they applied to all,believers and since we don't do that we ignore because we don't want to sell all, our stuff.

I was trying to guide you into why that verse doesn't apply to all people including Christians.

This thread really isn't the place for a deep hermeneutics study on that so we best move on. Perhaps a thread in the scriptures topics would be better served if you are really interested. I guess the same,goes,for your other comments.

Since you know the,bible then you also know that The truths in it are spiritually discerned. The natural man cannot comprehend the scriptures as the wisdom of,God is foolishness to them. To have a head knowledge,of the,scriptures is one thing. To fully understand them is another. You know that. But since the word does tell the believer to also be ready to answer then we should be ready to do so,when questioned. The believer also has to be willing to,acknowledge that the unbeliever may just not get it. But at least we did our part. The rest is between the unbeliever and God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well to you "beliefs" is something only religion teaches.

When did I say that? Do you always put words into people's mouths? Or is that only in your interaction with atheists?

But belief just means something that someone believes is true.

Other than using the word to define itself, sure.

Like I believe steak is better then burgers. You belief not teaching your children about God is the right thing to do.

Once again, you don't understand how "indoctrinate" and "teach" differ. Refer again to the definition I provided above.

Or teaching them, yes, how to poop in a toilet is the right thing to do. Hence you have beliefs to.

As a nihilist I have no beliefs, but I won't get into that because it's a complicated epistemological issue and we're having trouble communicating basic ideas as it is. So suffice it to say, for here, that I do have beliefs. So what?

So when you talk about indoctrination, you are in fact being ironic since you to are indoctrinating your children/future children and won't be critical of what you teach them. Kettle meet pot.

I don't see the irony here. I think you are mixing up "irony" with "hypocrisy." I assume that's what you meant by the "kettle meet pot" part. Before you go calling people hypocrites, though, you need to actually spell out the correct word, string together some coherent ideas, and also - most importantly - know what the person's actual position is. I don't think you've done any of that.

If I had children, I would not indoctrinate them into atheism. I know of no atheist parent that would disown their child for becoming a Christian. But there are many Christian parents who disown their children for things such as interracial dating, homosexuality, and, yes, atheism. Just to name a few.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I guess I am trying to figure out if this section is about "exploring Christianity", then I assume that means people interested in Christianity. Like the might become one in the future. If so then why is this a topic that sounds more like someone whos just trolling (which is normal here) and had no real interest in exploring anything.

Side note I know of plenty of atheist who do disown their children for various reasons including becoming Christians. Or they if they have their children over they debate them. So we have bad apples in both groups. NOthing new there.

 

[JM]

Ev

I'm fairly liberal myself and lately the above is simply not true.

Classical Liberalism...no Progressive Liberalism. There is a difference.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I asked the questions for a purpose. It wasn't to be condescending. You made it sound like We are ignoring Jesus words and that they applied to all,believers and since we don't do that we ignore because we don't want to sell all, our stuff.

You do ignore it because you don't want to sell your stuff. If instead of that, Jesus said that you would get riches in heaven if you eat a muffin every day then I think that nearly 100% of all Christians would eat a muffin every day.

If you think this does not apply to all believers, then please explain what is applicable to whom. You can explain each verse of the Bible exhaustively or perhaps devise an algorithm for this. Why has no one done this in 2000 years?

Maybe John 3:16 doesn't apply to me and I'm going to heaven no matter what because God likes the cut of my jib.

I was trying to guide you into why that verse doesn't apply to all people including Christians.

The only thing noteworthy about the person asking was that he was rich. Westerners are quite rich by worldly standards. I don't think Jesus wants you to watch TV when you could sell the TV and feed starving children for a month.

This thread really isn't the place for a deep hermeneutics study on that so we best move on. Perhaps a thread in the scriptures topics would be better served if you are really interested. I guess the same,goes,for your other comments.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-have-give-to-the-poor-and-follow-me.7940452/

Since you know the,bible then you also know that The truths in it are spiritually discerned. The natural man cannot comprehend the scriptures as the wisdom of,God is foolishness to them. To have a head knowledge,of the,scriptures is one thing. To fully understand them is another. You know that. But since the word does tell the believer to also be ready to answer then we should be ready to do so,when questioned. The believer also has to be willing to,acknowledge that the unbeliever may just not get it. But at least we did our part. The rest is between the unbeliever and God.

Why did Paul reason with the Greeks if it all has to be discerned spiritually?

 

[Strong in Him]

Let me start by saying that I've never, not even once, seen the indoctrination of children explained to be a bad thing by any Christian.

Indoctrinating a child - as in, "you will believe this, you will learn, and repeat, verses from Scripture and be punished if you get them wrong, you will not doubt or question", is wrong; of course it is. It may even be abuse.
Taking a baby/toddler to be baptised, taking them to Sunday school and explaining why you believe what you believe, is not indoctrination.
Force feeding a child vegetables, nothing but vegetables and not allowing any alternative, would be wrong. Bringing them up on a vegetarian diet, explaining, when they are older, why you don't eat meat and don't want to cook it, is ok. A wise parent would still give their child the option/freedom to explore for themselves.

Therefore I will assume, until told otherwise, that all Christians are of the persuasion that indoctrination of children is acceptable. I am curious as to why this is found to be acceptable.

Sounds to me as if you believe that baptising a child and taking them to Sunday school is indoctrination. But I doubt you'd say that taking a child to school was indoctrinating them into the academic life. Or that letting them play football or go swimming was indoctrinating them into a life of sport. So why do you think this way about Church/Christianity?

I also am curious as to why this practice is necessary, since, if we suppose that Christianity is the one true religion, there should be no dire need to perpetuate the religion by means of indoctrinating young minds.

I don't believe anyone's indoctrinating young minds; explaining your beliefs, why something is important to you and bringing your child up accordingly, is not the same thing.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I know that atheism isnt a religion. But I have difficulty believing that athiests don't teach their kids about atheism. I mean don't they ever say "I don't think there is a God" to their kids? Don't the kids ever ask why? At some point most kids run,into someone who,believes in God. Don't they ask their parents about it?

I,don't know. Maybe not.

Indoctrination vs lending an opinion. I am baffled that you equate the two.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I guess I am trying to figure out if this section is about "exploring Christianity", then I assume that means people interested in Christianity. Like the might become one in the future. If so then why is this a topic that sounds more like someone whos just trolling (which is normal here) and had no real interest in exploring anything.

Please don't judge my intentions. 1 Corinthians 5:12.

Indoctrination is a huge issue in Christianity and I'm exploring it. I'm trying to get a feel for how prevalent it is.

Side note I know of plenty of atheist who do disown their children for various reasons including becoming Christians. Or they if they have their children over they debate them. So we have bad apples in both groups. NOthing new there.

Name one.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Indoctrinating a child - as in, "you will believe this, you will learn, and repeat, verses from Scripture and be punished if you get them wrong, you will not doubt or question", is wrong; of course it is. It may even be abuse.
Taking a baby/toddler to be baptised, taking them to Sunday school and explaining why you believe what you believe, is not indoctrination.
Force feeding a child vegetables, nothing but vegetables and not allowing any alternative, would be wrong. Bringing them up on a vegetarian diet, explaining, when they are older, why you don't eat meat and don't want to cook it, is ok. A wise parent would still give their child the option/freedom to explore for themselves.



Sounds to me as if you believe that baptising a child and taking them to Sunday school is indoctrination. But I doubt you'd say that taking a child to school was indoctrinating them into the academic life. Or that letting them play football or go swimming was indoctrinating them into a life of sport. So why do you think this way about Church/Christianity?



I don't believe anyone's indoctrinating young minds; explaining your beliefs, why something is important to you and bringing your child up accordingly, is not the same thing.

Indoctrination means to teach something uncritically. That is, without allowing skeptical questions. Many Christian parents do this. I don't find that point to be up for debate. I'm simply asking why this practice is acceptable.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You do ignore it because you don't want to sell your stuff. If instead of that, Jesus said that you would get riches in heaven if you eat a muffin every day then I think that nearly 100% of all Christians would eat a muffin every day.

Sorry; no, and no.
But we are not even close to being allowed to discuss this on this forum.
It also is not advisable (due to the huge worldwide audience and over 100 bots recording EVERYTHING EVERY DAY).

So, IF you really want to find those who have sold everything,
OR
IF you want to find those who actually do what JESUS said,
you
will have to seek and keep seeking, and depend and rely on and trust YHWH (NOT ANY MAN).
as HE SAYS
over and over and over and over (ALWAYS) in SCRIPTURE.

 

[Strong in Him]

Indoctrination means to teach something uncritically. That is, without allowing skeptical questions. Many Christian parents do this. I don't find that point to be up for debate. I'm simply asking why this practice is acceptable.

It's not. I said that teaching and not allowing questions is not ok.
How do you know that many Christian parents do this? How do you know that, if they disallow questions, it isn't because either the child is too young to understand or the parent doesn't feel that they are able to answer them?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's not. I said that teaching and not allowing questions is not ok.
How do you know that many Christian parents do this? How do you know that, if they disallow questions, it isn't because either the child is too young to understand or the parent doesn't feel that they are able to answer them?

Even if I did not know this from personal experience, you can simply read through some of the responses here to see how many Christians are in favor of indoctrination.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...many Christians are in favor of indoctrination.

Did anyone claim otherwise ?

 

[rjs330]

You do ignore it because you don't want to sell your stuff. If instead of that, Jesus said that you would get riches in heaven if you eat a muffin every day then I think that nearly 100% of all Christians would eat a muffin every day.

If you think this does not apply to all believers, then please explain what is applicable to whom. You can explain each verse of the Bible exhaustively or perhaps devise an algorithm for this. Why has no one done this in 2000 years?

Maybe John 3:16 doesn't apply to me and I'm going to heaven no matter what because God likes the cut of my jib.



The only thing noteworthy about the person asking was that he was rich. Westerners are quite rich by worldly standards. I don't think Jesus wants you to watch TV when you could sell the TV and feed starving children for a month.



http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-have-give-to-the-poor-and-follow-me.7940452/



Why did Paul reason with the Greeks if it all has to be discerned spiritually?

I'm afraid its,fairly obvious you don't really understand. That's ok. You may know a lot about the bible, but you don't understand.

I did say by the way that we are advised to try and reason with people just like Paul did. Just like we are doing now. Did all the Greeks understand? No and neither will everyone we talk to. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. There are things you will not understand without the spirit. Your complaint about the rich man verses are a prime example.

 

[rjs330]

Even if I did not know this from personal experience, you can simply read through some of the responses here to see how many Christians are in favor of indoctrination.

Yep absolutely we are. As defined by the dictionary and there is nothing wrong with that and you can't say there is. Your opinion is yours if course but that's all it is an,opinion of an atheist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Did anyone claim otherwise ?

Catherineanne claims the practice does not exist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yep absolutely we are. As defined by the dictionary and there is nothing wrong with that and you can't say there is.

Ethics aside, true ideas need only be perpetuated via indoctrination if they cannot be demonstrated as true. And if something cannot be demonstrated to be true, then what is the justification for believing it?

Your opinion is yours if course but that's all it is an,opinion of an atheist.

And of course as we all know, atheist opinions don't count.