Why is it OK to indoctrinate children?

[Bible Highlighter]

Uh, so are you saying that RedPonyDriver is your enemy?

I am saying that by the way he is treating me, it makes me think that he believes that I am his enemy. Anyways, an enemy for a person in Christ is someone who is opposed to Jesus and His good Kingdom. For they are of another Kingdom. But we are told to pray, do good, to make peace if possible with all men, and to love them (Despite them being opposed to Christ or in being enemies of the cross).


...

 

[Rescued One]

In theory, yes. In reality, no. And a true Christian, someone who actually does treat others as they want to be treated, is the exception and not the rule. I have no doubt whatsoever about that, knowing the devastating effects of cultural genocide on Native American children and adults at the hands of Christians. And please do not fall back on the No True Scotsman to excuse the behavior of these Christians or their attempts to stomp out anything remotely Indigenous out of countless Native American children.

I believe the Bible and will use it to show you that a so-called Christian is not a Christian if he doesn't love other humans. He can claim to be a Christian and he can say that he loves God, but in reality, he is a liar.

1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I believe the Bible and will use it to show you that a so-called Christian is not a Christian if he doesn't love other humans. He can claim to be a Christian and he can say that he loves God, but in reality, he is a liar.

1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

No, they were definitely Christian. In fact, I am more than convinced they thought they were doing God's will in their mindset of the old belief 'Kill the Indian, Save the Man'. And I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that these Christians actually thought they were being humane toward these native children by stomping out the Indian in them.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I am saying that by the way he is treating me, it makes me think that he believes that I am his enemy. Anyways, an enemy for a person in Christ is someone who is opposed to Jesus and His good Kingdom. For they are of another Kingdom. But we are told to pray, do good, to make peace if possible with all men, and to love them (Despite them being opposed to Christ or in being enemies of the cross).


...

But @RedPonyDriver is not opposed to Jesus Christ or His good Kingdom and she is not an enemy of the cross. From my interaction with her and from reading her posts over time, I would say that she is part of the exception I spoke of earlier in my previous post. However, I know she is rather fed up with Christians who only talk the talk.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But @RedPonyDriver is not opposed to Jesus Christ or His good Kingdom and she is not an enemy of the cross. From my interaction with her and from reading her posts over time, I would say that she is part of the exception I spoke of earlier in my previous post. However, I know she is rather fed up with Christians who only talk the talk.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Anyways, my point is that she is treating me like I am her enemy. But that's okay. I am going to love and pray for her regardless.

...

 

[Shiloh Raven]

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Anyways, my point is that she is treating me like I am her enemy. But that's okay. I am going to love and pray for her regardless.

...

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I think I understand what you are saying now after re-reading your previous post.

 

[Rescued One]

No, they were definitely Christian. In fact, I am more than convinced they thought they were doing God's will in their mindset of the old belief 'Kill the Indian, Save the Man'. And I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that these Christians actually thought they were being humane toward these native children by stomping out the Indian in them.

You will never ever convince me that 1 John 4:20 is wrong. Those weren't Christians who thought they were being humane. They may have thought they were Christians, they may have thought they were doing Gof's will, but their god was Satan.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

You will never ever convince me that 1 John 4:20 is wrong. Those weren't Christians who thought they were being humane. They may have thought they were Christians, they may have thought they were doing God's will, but their god was Satan.

And you will never ever convince they were not Christian. So, it seems we are at an impasse now.

 

[dzheremi]

You don't need to be in agreement or disagreement with a particular interpretation of any given verse to be able to acknowledge that people acting on behalf of/motivated by their Christian religion and/or God did things like kill Indians. The two are not logically related. Of course some people did those things as Christians. Christianity is what Christians do, for better or for worse.

Now is it something that you personally would have done? I don't know. I'd like to hope not. But that doesn't change the fact that when it was done, at that time, it was with a Christian missionary/conversion imperative in mind. And I've brought up in the past in conversation with Voices That Carry and others counterexamples to the usual 'European comes to the Americas and kills/subjugates people under the guise of civilizing and Christianizing them' (e.g., in Alaska, among the Eastern Orthodox Aleuts), so I don't think it is a matter of disparaging Christianity or anything. It's a matter of recognizing what happened, why it happened, and not shying away from it because it's repulsive to you now. That's good that it now is, after all. But there's nothing to be gained by simply washing your hands of history by saying "these people who did things I don't agree with weren't Christians".

When a mob of Copts in Alexandria killed the pagan polymath Hypatia for standing in the way of their community's reconciliation with the emperor, they were Christians. When the Byzantines killed the Coptic people in Egypt for being suddenly of the wrong confession after Chalcedon, they were Christians. When later on they and the Roman Catholics killed each other with various massacres in Asia Minor for the same reason, they were also Christians. When the Germans killed and subjugated the native Namibians in East Africa in the process of colonizing their lands and setting up their Lutheran Church in this new colony, they were Christians.

There. I think that just about covers bad deeds done by every major confession in Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant), during which time all of them were Christians.

Maybe now we can get back to the OP, instead of playing this "spot the true/fake Christian" game...?

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Got a bit of a migraine so I haven't read all the responses. But the short answer is what in indoctrination? Isn't it really just a word to say to someone who we disagree with on how they raise their child? Maybe a more harsh way really using the word. I mean all humans raise their child with values right? Whats good, whats bad...etc. Don't touch fire it burns. Don't steal. Believe in God. Worship buddah. Eat junk or eat healthy and so on.

So its not indoctrination. Its teaching. Atheist teach their children to. Also indoctrination would imply the kids never EVER stop doing what they are taught. And we all know as humans your parents can raise you however they want, but it doesn't mean you stay that way or even accept it when young. Many christian kids will leave the home and become atheists. And many atheists will leave their home and become christian. So on and so forth. We can only guide them.

So is it ok to "indoctrinate" them? Yes. If we didn't then all kids would be directionless in life. Such as lazy parents (christian or atheist) who aside from religious views don't teach their kids how to eat right, how to handle emotions right, how to think right, how speak right and so on.

As for:

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. Christianity, supposing it is true, will withstand the furious scrutiny of any academic nonbeliever, so there is no threat of extinction looming over it. Furthermore, indoctrination should be unnecessary simply because either 1.) apologetics suffices to convince any rational person, or 2.) the Holy Spirit will reach out to everyone, or at least to those who are called, and since this comes from God it will be more effective than human means (indoctrination, apologetics, etc).

It may be the one true religion, but it doesn't mean humans listen to it. We have free will. Now biblicaly we already know the world will become more evil over time. And christianity will start to become hated more. So its more reason to teach it. And that and we are told to go out and preach the gospel. Because every person that dies not knowing Christ goes to hell. We do it to save lives. Granted it will never die out because the bible says how the world ends.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rescued One]

And you will never ever convince they were not Christian. So, it seems we are at an impasse now.

Okay.

 

[Rescued One]

You don't need to be in agreement or disagreement with a particular interpretation of any given verse to be able to acknowledge that people acting on behalf of/motivated by their Christian religion and/or God did things like kill Indians. The two are not logically related. Of course some people did those things as Christians. Christianity is what Christians do, for better or for worse.

Now is it something that you personally would have done? I don't know. I'd like to hope not. But that doesn't change the fact that when it was done, at that time, it was with a Christian missionary/conversion imperative in mind. And I've brought up in the past in conversation with Voices That Carry and others counterexamples to the usual 'European comes to the Americas and kills/subjugates people under the guise of civilizing and Christianizing them' (e.g., in Alaska, among the Eastern Orthodox Aleuts), so I don't think it is a matter of disparaging Christianity or anything. It's a matter of recognizing what happened, why it happened, and not shying away from it because it's repulsive to you now. That's good that it now is, after all. But there's nothing to be gained by simply washing your hands of history by saying "these people who did things I don't agree with weren't Christians".

When a mob of Copts in Alexandria killed the pagan polymath Hypatia for standing in the way of their community's reconciliation with the emperor, they were Christians. When the Byzantines killed the Coptic people in Egypt for being suddenly of the wrong confession after Chalcedon, they were Christians. When later on they and the Roman Catholics killed each other with various massacres in Asia Minor for the same reason, they were also Christians. When the Germans killed and subjugated the native Namibians in East Africa in the process of colonizing their lands and setting up their Lutheran Church in this new colony, they were Christians.

There. I think that just about covers bad deeds done by every major confession in Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant), during which time all of them were Christians.

Maybe now we can get back to the OP, instead of playing this "spot the true/fake Christian" game...?

I prefer to believe the Bible.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Got a bit of a migraine so I haven't read all the responses. But the short answer is what in indoctrination? Isn't it really just a word to say to someone who we disagree with on how they raise their child? Maybe a more harsh way really using the word.

No. It is not a harsh word. An idea being indoctrinated may be true or false. The word has a specific meaning:

 

[dzheremi]

I prefer to believe the Bible.

So do I. But believing in the Bible and recognizing the actual history of what has gone on/goes on in the world are not mutually exclusive. Does the Bible set down certain standards by which Christians should behave in order to best live their faith and bring other people to it? Absolutely. But the key word in that is 'should'.

Even the Holy scriptures themselves recognize this, as in the candid words of our father St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans, wherein he shares his own struggles to live according to the 'inward man':

7:21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Is this not also part of our lives in Christianity -- that we do not always do as we should? It doesn't excuse it, of course, but it does show that if even our fathers the holy apostles also struggled to live rightly, then things cannot be as simple as taking individual verses to use as shields against criticism for doing things that we really shouldn't be doing anyway. "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" is self-reproach, and hence certainly not as easy to read as verses that tell you how to spot a liar, but it neither contradicts those verses, nor allows the believer to substitute one for the other such that if you know you don't fit the description of one verse, then you can be sure you do not fit that of another that is more inwardly focused. "These you should have done without leaving the others undone", remember?

We harm ourselves and our ability to progress and have healthy spiritual lives by selectively focusing on those things that make us feel better, or that we do not personally have problems with. Again, it's good that you have a verse that you say allows you to distinguish a true Christian from an untrue one, but that does nothing to address the problems created by the behavior that Voices That Carry mentioned, which are deep, long-lasting, and largely unresolved precisely because it's not possible to have an honest conversation about them if every reply is essentially a salve to make Christians feel better about the reality that some of their coreligionists killed people, subjugated people, etc. And I know that the Holy Bible encourages honest talk and sincere inquiry. ("Let your yes be yes and your no be no", "Come, let us reason together", etc.)

Lord have mercy.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

No. It is not a harsh word. An idea being indoctrinated may be true or false. The word has a specific meaning:

From our view atheists are "Teaching a person to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.". You may say no but thats because your biased towards your sides, as we are ours. Just look at humans in general. We criticize pretty much anyone who does different then us.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

From our view atheists are "Teaching a person to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.". You may say no but thats because your biased towards your sides, as we are ours. Just look at humans in general. We criticize pretty much anyone who does different then us.

There are no teachings in atheism. Atheism is not a religion.

 

[Rescued One]

So do I. But believing in the Bible and recognizing the actual history of what has gone on/goes on in the world are not mutually exclusive. Does the Bible set down certain standards by which Christians should behave in order to best live their faith and bring other people to it? Absolutely. But the key word in that is 'should'.

Even the Holy scriptures themselves recognize this, as in the candid words of our father St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans, wherein he shares his own struggles to live according to the 'inward man':

7:21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Is this not also part of our lives in Christianity -- that we do not always do as we should? It doesn't excuse it, of course, but it does show that if even our fathers the holy apostles also struggled to live rightly, then things cannot be as simple as taking individual verses to use as shields against criticism for doing things that we really shouldn't be doing anyway. "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" is self-reproach, and hence certainly not as easy to read as verses that tell you how to spot a liar, but it neither contradicts those verses, nor allows the believer to substitute one for the other such that if you know you don't fit the description of one verse, then you can be sure you do not fit that of another that is more inwardly focused. "These you should have done without leaving the others undone", remember?

We harm ourselves and our ability to progress and have healthy spiritual lives by selectively focusing on those things that make us feel better, or that we do not personally have problems with. Again, it's good that you have a verse that you say allows you to distinguish a true Christian from an untrue one, but that does nothing to address the problems created by the behavior that Voices That Carry mentioned, which are deep, long-lasting, and largely unresolved precisely because it's not possible to have an honest conversation about them if every reply is essentially a salve to make Christians feel better about the reality that some of their coreligionists killed people, subjugated people, etc. And I know that the Holy Bible encourages honest talk and sincere inquiry. ("Let your yes be yes and your no be no", "Come, let us reason together", etc.)

Lord have mercy.

Thank you for your perspective. Everyone has one.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Thank you for your perspective. Everyone has one.

If denial makes you feel better and helps you be more comfortable with your Christian faith, then that is fine. However, your denial and persistence to fall back on scripture does not negate the lifelong effects and damage of cultural genocide experienced by so many Native Americans or the centuries of forced Christianizing and forced assimilation among Native Americans and among other Indigenous people worldwide. Your denial does not negate any other atrocities committed by Christians throughout history either.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

There are no teachings in atheism. Atheism is not a religion.

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.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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?

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?

How does this passage mesh with John 3:16?

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?

Is there any other point in any salvation message or gospel where selling all you have is a requirement of gaining eternal,life?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Thank you.

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).

Then why is Paul against homosexuality?

You might,be better off pointing,out exactly what part of the law people are demanding we follow.

Well, the laws on homosexuality, for one.

Because I don't believe we are required to follow it at all anymore.

Please reconcile that claim with 1 John 3:4.

Yet I,am sure there are things that I,say,that make it seem like I think we still need,to,follow it.

I do not understand your position.