Hey Rob, take a number and get in line. At least two of us are still waiting for our questions to be answered.

Oh sorry, my bad

I would love to know which christians understand the difference between teaching their children established facts about their religion, sharing and owning their personal beliefs, and teaching their personal beliefs as fact. These are three completely different things.

That they are. I even included the definition of the word "indoctrination" in my post on page 12 (?), since there seemed to be confusion about teaching not being the same thing.

(March 11, 2016 at 5:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Indoctrination? please, Since when is teaching a child to love their fellow man indoctrination?

Quote:Matthew 22:36-40
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The second commandment is like the first because in loving your neighbor, you love God.

Quote:Matthew 25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

If everyone loved their neighbor as themselves we'd all be living in an utopia.

If "indoctrination" makes a child a good human being, how is that a bad thing?

---

As far as not eating unclean meats are concerned:

Quote:1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Matthew 22:39 is BS because it's talking about Jews loving their Jewish neighbors.  On top of that it was just a run-of-the-mill law copied verbatim from Leviticus 19:18.

Leviticus 19:17-19 (CEB) = "17 You must not hate your fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your fellow Israelite strongly, so you don’t become responsible for his sin. 18 You must not take revenge nor hold a grudge against any of your people; instead, you must love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.

19 You must keep my rules. Do not crossbreed your livestock, do not plant your field with two kinds of seed, and do not wear clothes made from two kinds of material."

The First Commandment tells the Israelites to be malicious thieving bigots.

Exodus 34:12-16 (ERV) = "12 Be careful! Don’t make any agreement with the people who live in the land where you are going. If you make an agreement with them, it will bring you trouble. 13 So destroy their altars, break the stones they worship, and cut down their idols. 14 Don’t worship any other god. I am Yahweh Kanah—the jealous Lord. That is my name. I hate for my people to worship other gods.

15 “Be careful not to make any agreements with the people who live in that land. If you do this, you might join them when they worship their gods. They will invite you to join them, and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 You might choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons. Those daughters serve false gods. They might lead your sons to do the same thing."

They had zero love for their non-Israelite neighbors.  

You can bet that if the fairy tale was true you, as a Gentile, would never set foot in the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:37 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Wouldn't be the first time he's simply dropped a subject.






I won't suggest any reason for his doing so...

[/suggestiveness]

First of all, I already addressed the issues you posted in a previous post, you just refuse to listen.

secondly, I didn't drop anything, I just get burnt out repeating myself and need to take a break.

You seem to have totally avoided my post about teaching being the same thing as indoctrination.

(March 22, 2016 at 10:46 am)Nymphadora Wrote: You seem to have totally avoided my post about teaching being the same thing as indoctrination.

Words tend to change their meaning or become obsolete over time, for example "Gay" meant happy back in the day, not now.

"Indoctrination" carries a much more negative connotation than "teaching", Maybe that's what it meant back in the day, not now.

It is still the same principle. To indoctrinate means to teach. The definition I posted, with a link, is a definition that is used in the present time. I don't see where it is any different than in the past. But in either case, you were making the statement that teaching is not the same as indoctrination, and I showed you proof that it is the same.

(March 22, 2016 at 12:35 pm)Nymphadora Wrote: It is still the same principle. To indoctrinate means to teach. The definition I posted, with a link, is a definition that is used in the present time. I don't see where it is any different than in the past. But in either case, you were making the statement that teaching is not the same as indoctrination, and I showed you proof that it is the same.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/indoctrination

Quote:Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant. By the 1830s it came to mean the act of forcing ideas and opinions on someone who isn't allowed to question them.

Be that as it may, if you go to college to get a "Doctorate", you're being TAUGHT in the subject that the doctorate degree is being sought after.

So, regardless, my point still stands.