The Electric/Spiritual Universe of Jesus Christ

[BashfulAnthony]

For me, I do not want myth described as fact.

So no teaching my children that gods exist, and I have not told them they don't.

I just never mention it.

I see. So, rather than give them the opportunity to make up their own minds, you condemn them to ignorance?

[Nearly Sane]

Your entire post suggests strongly that you have no wide experience of dealing with young people.  And while we're at it, lets cut out all the fairy stories and make-believe stories of childhood, in case they harm or indoctrinate young minds.  We don't want them growing up believing in giants and witches, do we?  Though I guess there are some not far from here who do believe in such!

You seem to be missing the difference between teaching things as myth, and teaching them as true

[BeRational]

I see. So, rather than give them the opportunity to make up their own minds, you condemn them to ignorance?

Of course not, did you not read.

You tell them these things when they are able to critically examine the claim.

When they are children you tell them facts and truths as they are known.

You condemn them to nonsense by indoctrinating them perhaps even with the fear of hell if they later question.

[SusanDoris]

Young children do not question.

They are evolved to accept what they are told at that age as it's good for survival.

They should not be told that god exists until they are 20.

Neatly said. Even at 20 or any other age all professions of belief should be prefaced by something like: 'many people believe that *insert name of god of choice* is real/true, but none can provide verifiable, testable evidence'

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Given that many eligious people see believing in their god to be s part of being saved for eternity, is it surprising that they want to tell their kids about it?

If the parents go to a regular service are they meant to find a friendly atheist to baby sit and lie about what they were doing to their kids?

Might be a good idea if they did, but that's not the point. We live in a society in which in most areas we only teach as facts those findings that satisfy certain basic tests. We don't therefore allow, say, Marxist-Leninist schools. For some reason though religious teaching (at least in faith schools) gets a free pass from that approach.

My sense is that when Christianity was the dominant faith and most people were Christians anyway no-one thought it much of a problem. With the arrival of other faiths though reserving that special space in education just for one faith was untenable, and so it was extended to other faiths too. What that gives us is a suite of faiths allowed to educate children according to their various (and often mutually contradictory) dogmas as if those dogmatic beliefs were facts.

What could possible go wrong there then eh?   

[NicholasMarks]

Sparky,

No there mustn't. The current prevailing cosmological model is that the Big Bang was the beginning of space-time. There was no universe before then, and nor for that matter was there a before. 

You're trusted to use sharp equipment unsupervised?

Blimey.

Just quickly, before I go on another important mission...see how you have condemned the big-bang as scientifically presented and now resort back to giving it full scientific credibility...sorry...I must fly...

[Nearly Sane]

Neatly said. Even at 20 or any other age all professions of belief should be prefaced by something like: 'many people believe that *insert name of god of choice* is real/true, but none can provide verifiable, testable evidence'

Even those who actually believe? Does that mean that when your child does something you regard as wrong you should say, 'Punching your sister is something some people think is wrong'?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Might be a good idea if they did, but that's not the point. We live in a society in which in most areas we only teach as facts those findings that satisfy certain basic tests. We don't therefore allow, say, Marxist-Leninist schools. For some reason though religious teaching (at least in faith schools) gets a free pass from that approach.

My sense is that when Christianity was the dominant faith and most people were Christians anyway no-one thought it much of a problem. With the arrival of other faiths though reserving that special space in education just for one faith was untenable, and so it was extended to other faiths too. What that gives us is a suite of faiths allowed to educate children according to their various (and often mutually contradictory) dogmas as if those dogmatic beliefs were facts.

What could possible go wrong there then eh?

But BeRational's post covers parents teach their kids, not just school system.

[SusanDoris]

Even those who actually believe? Does that mean that when your child does something you regard as wrong you should say, 'Punching your sister is something some people think is wrong'?

I suppose I could have said, '... professions of belief in some kind of religious god'...' but I think my post was clear that the professions of belief I was talking about refer specifically to God/god/s.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Isn't that funny!  I was thinking of posting that exact post to you!  And no, I am not being evasive.  When I taught, I taught as the National Curriculum demanded:  it was not a question of what I thought personally.  So, what about you? How do you respond to that same question?

Differently to you - I do not think that dogmatic beliefs should be taught to children as if they were facts.

You told us here though that you think this is fine, albeit with reference only to your particular faith - hence my question. And no, children do not necessarily just grow out of it in later life. Far from it. Before their reasoning abilities are developed children are highly susceptible to being told by authority figures that what they're taught is true. If they're in the environment of a school and one teacher tells them about maths, the next about geography and the next about god why would children question the authority of just one of them?

That's why religious faiths are so keen to get them young - "give me child until seven and I'll give you the man" and all that. 

[Nearly Sane]

I suppose I could have said, '... professions of belief in some kind of religious god'...' but I think my post was clear that the professions of belief I was talking about refer specifically to God/god/s.

But the same logic applies to right/wrong, so why are you treating that differently?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But BeRational's post covers parents teach their kids, not just school system.

All the more reason I'd have thought for schools not to re-inforce the notion that personal beliefs are also factually true. If a school says, say, "some people believe that Jesus was resurrected" rather than "Jesus was resurrected" the pupil could think, "my parents are among those people" but wouldn't have the resurrection opinion buttressed in a fact-based environment.   

[Sebastian Toe]

Like anything that happened through history and was witnessed, it is the evidence of those witnesses who tell us it was true.
You and I, cannot go back in time. But we cannot discount the testimony of witnesses because it does not suit your choice of what you believe. 

Here are some first hand witnesses to some events.

i.e. those astronauts who actually went to the moon, they can and have talked about it often.

Some of them are even Christians.
Are those Christians liars Sassy?

For example;

James Irwin , Apollo 15 astronaut,

For two decades, Irwin traveled the world and presented small flags he carried from the moon to the leaders of various countries. “These flags were so powerful,” says Bill Dodder, a close friend to Irwin. “He took flags to each country as a means to witness for Jesus Christ.
http://www.godreports.com/testimony-view/1249

Sassy, did he lie when he said to all of those people that the flags were from the moon?

or

Buzz Aldrin Apollo 11 astronaut;
Here he is writing about his path to being the first and only man to take communion on the moon.
https://www.guideposts.org/faith/stories-of-faith/guideposts-classics-buzz-aldrin-on-communion-in-space?nopaging=1
Quote
And so, just before I partook of the elements, I read the words which I had chosen to indicate our trust that as man probes into space we are in fact acting in Christ.

I sensed especially strongly my unity with our church back home, and with the Church everywhere.

I read: "I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me, and I in him, will bear much fruit; for you can do nothing without me." John 15:5 (TEV)

Is Buzz a liar Sassy?

or


Eugene Cernan,the last man to walk on the moon said;

We launched off that pad in a big Saturn V rocket that took us to the Moon. People had dreamed of leaving the cradle of civilisation – this Earth of ours – and we did it. Fortunately, I was one of the guys to go out there, to look back at the Earth and try to comprehend the meaning of it all.

When I left the Moon and started up the ladder, I was really at a loss. I didn’t want to leave and I looked down at my last footsteps and realised I wasn’t coming this way again

I searched for that answer, I needed more time. I wanted to press the freeze button, stop time to give myself a chance to think about it. I had an opportunity to sit on God’s front porch looking at the small part of the civilisation of this universe that he created.

Is Eugene a liar?

Sassy?




Sassy?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

All the more reason I'd have thought for schools not to re-inforce the notion that personal beliefs are also factually true. If a school says, say, "some people believe that Jesus was resurrected" rather than "Jesus was resurrected" the pupil could think, "my parents are among those people" but wouldn't have the resurrection opinion buttressed by a fact-based environment.

except I'm not arguing in favour of faith schools, I'm talking about parents and what they are allowed to teach their children.

   

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside #734

Wouldn't it be wonderful if that information did not need to be repeated and repeated and repeated daily?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

except I'm not arguing in favour of faith schools, I'm about parents and what they are allowed to teach their children.

Not sure about the "allowed" bit. What business is it of anyone else to interfere in what parents teach their children? It's an interesting question though - if a parent teaches his child to be violently racist say, can that of itself cross into abuse and, if it can, who decides?

We were though talking about the education system, and that freedom that parents have is all the more reason I'd have thought for schools to avoid the dogma = facts line.

 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not sure about the "allowed" bit. What business is it of anyone else to interfere in what parents teach their children? It's an interesting question though - if a parent teaches his child to be violently racist say, can that of itself cross into abuse and, if it can, who decides?

We were though talking about the education system, and that freedom that parents have is all the more reason I'd have thought for schools to avoid the dogma = facts line.

And BeRational brought parenthood into it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And BeRational brought parenthood into it.

I thought you did (Reply 719), but no matter - I merely argue that the very freedom parents have means that schools have to be all the more vigilant and restrictive in their approach.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I thought you did (Reply 719), but no matter - I merely argue that the very freedom parents have means that schools have to be all the more vigilant and restrictive in their approach.

His reply 715 made it wider than  just schooling.  Indeed it makes no sense if it is just about schools

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

His reply 715 made it wider than  just schooling.  Indeed it makes no sense if it is just about schools

ippy concluded: "The way the church, religions in general do their best to grab these youngsters spells it out rather obviously unless of course you don't want to see it."

BA responded: "Point me to the adverse effects this supposed indoctrination is having" etc. "This supposed indoctrination" etc referred to ippy's comment.

In reply 715 BR responded to that thought with: "Young children do not question.

They are evolved to accept what they are told at that age as it's good for survival.

They should not be told that god exists until they are 20."

I don't see any reference to parenting there - just to the way "the church, religions in general" behave. You could I suppose think that BR implied it, but that's interpretation rather than BR's "introduction" of it.

Either way though, does it matter much? 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

ippy concluded: "The way the church, religions in general do their best to grab these youngsters spells it out rather obviously unless of course you don't want to see it."

BA responded: "Point me to the adverse effects this supposed indoctrination is having" etc. "This supposed indoctrination" etc referred to ippy's comment.

In reply 715 BR responded to that thought with: "Young children do not question.

They are evolved to accept what they are told at that age as it's good for survival.

They should not be told that god exists until they are 20."

I don't see any reference to parenting there - just to the way "the church, religions in general" behave. You could I suppose think that BR implied it, but that's interpretation rather than BR's "introduction" of it.

Either way though, does it matter much?

It's a clear implication and if you remove it, you then need to posit that BeRational thinks that there be some school people will enter at the age of 20 to be told god exists, which makes no sense.


As to it mattering, if the implication of that post is that parents should not have the freedom that they do now, then yes it matters.

[NicholasMarks]

I love how many pussyfoot with such a serious issue as child indoctrination. From the cradle to the grave brain-washing takes place. Some of it is political brain washing for others it is constitutional brain washing...others it is the status of the police in our society, for others it is aided by the strength or the weaknesses of the teachers...but  the only doctrine with any substance in reality and in our health is the righteous teaching of Jesus Christ which teaches us how to behave in a responsible rather than a hit or miss sort of way.

This day and age, as far as the followers of Jesus Christ are concerned, is a test bed. We can see where the abstainers of righteous decency is leading us....we only have to look at what is all around us today. We can't prevent it but we can make it a little bit better by telling our story...we will safeguard our own children even in opposition of those who want to prevent honest and responsible teaching of them...but the thing is that just around the corner is a new heavens and a new Earth and those jammed up with brain-washing aren't going to be involved at all. It is the penalty of being fooled by false doctrine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It's a clear implication and if you remove it, you then need to posit that BeRational thinks that there be some school people will enter at the age of 20 to be told god exists, which makes no sense.

Not sure why he picked 20, but he does no such thing. Rather he suggests I think that they should make up their own minds when they're of an age to make informed decisions, just as we do with politics and elections.

As to it mattering, if the implication of that post is that parents should not have the freedom that they do now, then yes it matters.

I don't think it was. Maybe we should let BR tell us though rather than try to second guess him.

[Nearly Sane]

Nick that last post reads as if you are blaming people who are indoctrinated for being indoctrinated

[Khatru]

Only one of these has the grand unification of all the unified field forces etched into its teaching...and so we can see...with every respect to all the others...that...excluding Christian iniquity...the teaching delivered by the son of their God is the ultimate and correct teaching...because none of the others had to achieve such a high righteous standard.

Sorry.  I don't understand your banter.