Indoctrinating Children

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Praestigiator (with typo corrected)

And if God loved us, wanted us to love Him, and wanted us to understand the truth so that we could love Him, would He allow the truth to be hidden from us? No.

So you are saying the truth is not hidden from us. So why all this disagreement about what the truth is, even among Bible scholars?

The Church believes that God guided the writers and the councils to compile the Bible in of the most important religious texts out there.

Which writers? This document was not created by a publishing house, it comes from very disparate sources separated by lots of time and distance. This was not a coordinated effort, unless you are referring to later on, when all was gathered into the text we know today. I tend to believe that the church guided the writers, and had the last word.

[feel the light]

This guy Bart makes almost all his $ talking to Christians. He is not a preacher though, he scares all his critics off with his knowledge of ancient writings (reputed to be the go to guy to read Coptic , Mr. Detail). He has no critics who can point to his historical errors. For people who want to learn about the creation of the bible, I suggest a you tube check on a guy who makes his $ as an expert on ancient writings.

Proof of the Bible changing- Bart Ehrman [FULL] ...

[Michaelgoround]

Originally Posted by SqueakyOnion

Pardon me if I misunderstand you, but this remark seems to indicate that you do not feel the force of the No True Scotian fallacy.

No human being will ever live up to the dictates of any religion. If they act against those principles, they cannot be a "true Christian", you seem to be suggesting. But since everybody will eventually act against the principles they believe in, there can never be a true Christian as long as absolute adherence to principles is required for being a "true" Christian. If the bar is set so high that nobody can get over it, there never will be a true Christian.

Can someone be a true Christian if they hate the drink driver ("neighbor") that ran over their children?

Redefine or reinterpret who counts as neighbor, and your contradiction vanishes!

Or, redefine what actions are permitted while retaining "love." (e.g. "I love you, neighbor, so much so that I want you to go to heaven. I love you and hate your sin. But since you are so wicked and your sin consumes you, you must be "purified through pain" to get there, Inquisition style. So you see, I torture and execute you out of love").

Sorry to be argumentative, but perfect adherence to rules is not apart of any religion due to the imperfection of humankind. No religion can require perfection because no man is perfect and if no man is perfect then no man would subscribe to the religious belief of perfection being a requirement.
Let us look at Christianity specifically Mathew 9:9-13. Here Jesus clearly state who the "Kingdom of Heaven" is for. It is for the sick, not for the perfect. It is a hospital to make people better.

And it is pretty hard to misrepresent what Jesus (as an example) meant by enemies. He said:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may [ap]be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Therefore [aq]you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
That means that you must love and care for everyone no matter what they do. And what you mentioned is not love. I often think that we hardly understand the words we use. What is love? I think a man can have no greater love than this then to lay down his life for his friends. Great love gives up self for others, but is also correcting and attempts to lead someone down the "correct" path (I use parents as an example of correcting love).

[Michaelgoround]

Disregard that last message. I did not realize how old the post I was replying to was. Interesting thread. Nice hearing from all of you guys and seeing the forum is not so different from what I remembered.


Just to kind of get back to the main topic a little. I think that not "indoctrinating" people is impossible. All doctrine (or knowledge) comes from a previous source. We do not have any knowledge without influence of past knowledge. I subscribe to what a man called "the preacher" said "nothing is new under the sun". Although sometimes I wonder if something can be new (when it comes to human thought).

[nick]

Originally Posted by SqueakyOnion

I suppose what I'm getting at is, if one believes in God, it is perfectly rational to subordinate intellectual independence to salvation, since salvation is ultimately what's most important. How would you advocate your position to someone who doesn't value intellectual independence for its own sake, but rather as merely an end to eternal salvation?

The point of this thread is that once people reach that point there isn't much that can change minds. That is kind of the point of this thread. Children need to be free to use that intellectual independence when they are mature enough to actually do so (for most kids that comes around the time they realize that Santa and the Easter bunny are not so much real).

As an aside, I think the future looks bright for a godless world.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by nick

The point of this thread is that once people reach that point there isn't much that can change minds.

There is always only one thing that can change a persons' mind, and that is their own decision to do so. The challenge is to not get so entrenched that you aren't even willing to consider ideas contrary to your beliefs.

Children need to be free to use that intellectual independence when they are mature enough to actually do so.

To best support them, I suppose it would help to work toward a teaching environment that promotes an open minded approach to things, and somehow addresses the problem with people not want to admitting error by changing their minds.

Over the years I've developed an (incomplete) definition of what it means to be an adult. Part of it includes being able to admit when you're wrong, and also being willing to consider other points of view. Some people never seem to make it.

[BillyTheMountain]

Jesus' parents did a poor job of indoctrinating Him.

He was a Jew who thought 90% of Jewish Law was BS, and he made a career of smashing the orthodox rules on keeping the sabbath, ritual cleansing, associating with women, etc. Rumor has it He didn't even have separate plates for serving meat vs dairy.

[Heretical Rants]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Reminds me of an episode of the Big Bang Theory, where Sheldon actually has a girlfriend, until he finds out she believes a different version of the Big Bang Theory. Exact same situation.

Agh, I'd seen that, but I'd forgotten about it. Wah, I'm not original

I think it was actually String "theory*" vs. some other less popular hypothesis about the fundamental nature of particles and natural forces (based on the same kind of mathematical trickery). There's really zero contention about the Big Bang (at least, after the very first few moments, ya know, the part that our current understanding of physics actually works on) at this point.

But yeah, that was a parody of what sometimes happens when people from different sects of Christianity marry each other. Presbyterian vs. Methodist vs. Lutheran vs. Baptist vs. Catholic. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT RAH RAH RAH. Nah, usually one of them just converts.

*"string theory" is not a proper scientific theory. I suppose "string hypothesis" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, though.

[BillyTheMountain]

Did your parents do a good job of indoctrinating you?

are you doing a good job of indoctrinating your children?

[Michaelgoround]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Jesus' parents did a poor job of indoctrinating Him.

He was a Jew who thought 90% of Jewish Law was BS, and he made a career of smashing the orthodox rules on keeping the sabbath, ritual cleansing, associating with women, etc. Rumor has it He didn't even have separate plates for serving meat vs dairy.

I feel like this is a repetition from the "Jewish thread". The doctrines of men can be very oppressive; even if meant for good. Jesus came to make the "burden light". It didn't take long for men to make it heavy again.

Heck, if you read the Bible people were making Jesus's doctrine heavy just after his death. What does it matter? That a man be circumcised outwardly or inwardly? True circumcision is of the heart.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Michaelgoround

That a man be circumcised outwardly or inwardly? True circumcision is of the heart.

Who said that? Is it true? Or indoctrination? Or both?

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by nick

So, in another thread I started thinking about the kids.

I really think it is evil to indoctrinate children into any kind of religion. And while religion is some of the worst of it (not as bad as raising them as racists or bigots, but close, and sometimes overlapping).

Why not have a class in school that teaches kids about many sides of as many issues as possible. I would say start as young as possible (first grade, age five, six?). Discuss things like religion, politics, vegetarianism, bigotry, marriage, etc.

The classes wouldn't take a side on any issue, or even argue the points. They would just be a wide variety of facts.

Of course, some people would home school so they could indoctrinate their kids anyway (which is the reason for many kids being home schooled already). But I also think that all kinds should be in school for a mandatory 1/2 day, every day, until they can legally drop out at 16 or so.

I think you indoctrinated Nick!