Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[historia]

some nontheists come perilously close to implying outsiders should decided what religious beliefs parents should teach their children.

Are any of those nontheists part of this discussion? If not, your claim is "perilously close" to being a straw man.

I thought TRANSPONDER's comments earlier in the thread implied this:

In a way, parents are (or ought to) caretakers of the state. The State leaves parents to bring up their children, indoctrinating them or training them up to a lifetime of ser...to function in society. The parents have a lot of leeway and especially in matters of religion. But we know that the state and law will step in when parents are considered to cross the line, and the law supersedes parental rights, at need.

Schools have a similar role and duty. Bottom line is that parents and schools have to duty to train the kids right. That means what the State thinks is right.

I'm not sure he intended this to sound quite as Orwellian as it does, but I certainly grimaced when I first read this. Did you?

[We_Are_VENOM]

When someone can accept micro-level changes but not macro-level changes, both of which have the same essential causes at a molecular level, then they do not understand evolution regardless of their innate intelligence.

One is an observable fact, while the other one isn't.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... Nobody was tallking about censorship before you brought it up.

So I'm particularly perceptive, and yet ... no "thank you"!

Bottom line is classifying the teaching of information believed by some to be false, to one's own children in the privacy of one's own home as ...."abuse" opens a whole can of worms, which I do believe is relevant to this discussion. If you disagree you can state your case or ignore me.


JW

[Difflugia]

I thought TRANSPONDER's comments earlier in this thread implied this:

In a way, parents are (or ought to) caretakers of the state. The State leaves parents to bring up their children, indoctrinating them or training them up to a lifetime of ser...to function in society. The parents have a lot of leeway and especially in matters of religion. But we know that the state and law will step in when parents are considered to cross the line, and the law supersedes parental rights, at need.

Schools have a similar role and duty. Bottom line is that parents and schools have to duty to train the kids right. That means what the State thinks is right.

I'm not sure he intended this to sound quite as Orwellian as it does, but I certainly grimaced when I first read this. Did you?

I certainly would have worded it differently and may even disagree with it, at least in degree. If that's the comment (or even broad idea) that JehovahsWitness was responding to, though, then it can only be asking for more special treatment for religion than is already implied in TRANSPONDER's "a lot of leeway and especially in matters of religion." The claim, then, that "outsiders should decide what religious beliefs parents should teach their children" is at best a misleading characterization of that claim.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #133]

Again, you're trying to use emotional language to reframe the discussion as something it's not. I agree that the argument is about whether certain forms of education (or "teaching of information") can be considered abuse, but it's not a question of when, where, or whether the abuse is to one's own children.

Bottom line is classifying [something abusive], to one's own children in the privacy of one's own home as ...."abuse" opens a whole can of worms, which I do believe is relevant to this discussion. If you disagree you can state your case or ignore me.

Try filling in the blank Mad Lib-style and seeing which abusive things sound less monstrous if they're "in the privacy of one's own home." I guess I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the answer is "not many."

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #133]

I agree that the argument is about whether certain forms of education (or "teaching of information") can be considered abuse...

Then in the frame of the discussion my comment was, I believe, relevant. (For the most part comments were not about classroom teaching (which is regulated), but private parent-child communication, which is not).

But it is abusive to teach them to hate, to be racially prejudiced,to believe in ghosts, the supernatural or some specific religious nonsense. ...

Want to teach your child about your religion? No problem, but don't do it like "<insert favorite god concept> exits! We must pray to it because <insert favorite holy text> says so and I say so!".

... I think is abusive and harmful is when parents teach their children things that are factually incorrect, such as the age of the planet or univerise, or that there is no such thing as evolution, or that the Earth is flat.

[Difflugia]

one must have the knowledge of the actual details on a genomic basis to be able to discuss it intelligently.

Hovind does.

No, he doesn't. He knows a few of the words.

Here is another sequence of statements that is so egregiously bad that it stuck with me for almost twenty years:



The debate format involves much more back-and-forth than Hovind is used to. His debate opponent also knows his stuff, has a good memory, and isn't easily sidetracked. The combination starts to fluster Hovind a little and he starts spouting weirder and weirder "facts." Anything that's esoteric enough that someone would need to look it up usually works for him, but he seems to forget here that he's debating a biology professor, the audience includes biology students, and the debate is being recorded.

2:32:31 "If you want to compare, uh, cytochrome C, then we're closest to a sunflower."

Nobody that's read any phylogenetic research would ever make that mistake, at least not honestly. The cytochrome C gene is an extremely common sequence to use for molecular phylogenies. The reasons aren't particularly important here, but what is important is that anyone in a position to know what Hovind's statement means knows that it's wrong. It's so specific that there's no easy way to brush it off as a misstatement or honest mistake. Whether Hovind just made it up or got it from somewhere else, he either doesn't know just how badly it's wrong or he does know and says it anyway. I'll leave it to you to decide which is more flattering to Dr. Hovind and his arguments.

Here are the cytochrome C amino acid sequences for a human, a chimpanzee, and the common sunflower:

Code: Select all

Homo sapiens:
  MGDVEKGKKIFIMKCSQCHTVEKGGKHKTGPNLHGLFGRKTGQAPGYSYTAANKNKGIIWGEDTLMEYLENPKKYIPGTKMIFVGIKKKEERADLIAYLKKATNE

Pan troglodytes:
  MGDVEKGKKIFIMKCSQCHTVEKGGKHKTGPNLHGLFGRKTGQAPGYSYTAANKNKGIIWGEDTLMEYLENPKKYIPGTKMIFVGIKKKEERADLIAYLKKATNE

Helianthus annuus:
  MASFAEAPAGNPTTGEKIFKTKCAQCHTVEKGAGHKQGPNLNGLFGRQSGTTAGYSYSAGNKNKAVIWEENTLYDYLLNPKKYIPGTKMVFPGPKKPQERADLIAYLKTSTA

The human and chimpanzee cytochrome C molecule are identical. I hope I don't have to explain what "closest" means in this context.

[Difflugia]

That is blatantly false and for you to speak so boldly but yet so inaccurate about it...I find it quite disgusting, actually.

QFT

[We_Are_VENOM]

I already know you deem them to be false. And I will (again) ask you what I asked you many posts ago...

(Paraphrased) If you had not been indoctrinated early in life, and if you truly do understand what the presented 'evidence' at least represents, would you still think 'evolution' was false? (yes or no)? FYI. Please commit to a yes/no. I think you 'know'

Maybe, maybe not.

No. The (3) aforementioned questions under examination. The ages of the earth, of humans, and the flood. How were you able to discern/infer their ages? Thus far, pure assumption?

That question; not only was it already answered, but it has nothing to do with your asking me of how do I know God created the universe.

BTW, you would have to first prove that any state of a "Heaven" exists before you could even begin to shoehorn the Kalam in there We know the "universe" exists. Don't we? Unless we wish to apply solipsism...

In the context of Genesis 1:1, "heavens" is synonymous with "universe".

So, as I said; The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I guess you stand corrected again?

No, I wasn't correcting myself, but clarifying myself.

I would have thought that you would have known that Jesus wasn't included in that...but apparently I gave you too much credit and will think twice about giving you that much credit next time.

I'm asking you how you came to the conclusion of the ages of the following below. I could care less if Kent mentions all three of my topics or not. I'm asking you for good reason. I'm trying to get you to align the claims of Genesis with your own logic. If your own logic and Genesis no longer align, then you must either reject Genesis <OR> apply pure blind faith to everything. Telling me you will instead abandon your own logic, means you must then abandon any logic given for Kent H., Christianity, etc You must then merely appeal to blind faith in everything. So, how exactly were you able to assess the age(s) of:

1. earth
2. humans
3. the flood

I already answered this and will not do so again. Now, if you have something to say against what I already mentioned, then lets hear it.

Did you just pull them out of your keaster? The person you keep mentioning states that everything is 6K. I state they are much older.

So basically, I am saying that both of you are wrong.

Yup, that's what i got out of it.

You state they are somewhere in the middle. You apparently used logic here? If 'science' is wrong, and Kent is also wrong, then the answer could also be that the earth is 5 minutes old or 50 billion years old. So HOW the heck did you come up with (100K - 1M) exactly? Assumption, blind faith. other?

I already provided an answer to you on this question, and you not liking my answer doesn't change the fact.

Geology, geography, paleontology, astronomy, archaeology, cosmology, biology, etc etc etc are all in cahoots in the same lie(s)? Why?

The answer to that question is the elephant in the room.

The answer; because it is no coincidence that most in those fields are naturalists/materialists/atheists.

And most of them are also evolutionists...and since evolutionary processes need hundreds of millions of years to occur (according to the theory), you will obviously need a universe that is older than the life on earth that is taking so long to evolve.

It is simple, actually.

Negative.

Disingenuous. You just said that you disagree with Kent as you believe the universe is much older than 6k years old.

Now, see if you can correct me on that one.

How do you decide when to apply logic, vs faith?

You somehow, using your logic presumably, concluded (100K - 1M). Your logic apparently also told you it is NOT Kent's claims and it is NOT 'sciences' claims. So are you using logic or faith here? If it's faith, then again I ask... How do you decide when to use logic vs faith?

And once you square that little pickle, I then re-ask the same question above and before...

Give me a scenario and i will tell you which one is to be applied.

If your own logic does not jive with Genesis, do you discard A) Genesis or B) your own logic? If it's B), then what mechanism did you use?

It wont be my "logic" that would need to be discarded, but rather the evidence I used to draw the conclusions.

Negative. You have excluded 6K and 4 billion Apparently, for you, it is not anybody's game.

I wasn't (and don't) look at it that way.

LOL. Kent used pseudoscience, not science. They are not the same

And evolutionists use voodoo science, not science.

And I have to ask.. What is your definition of "scientific theory"?

A theory that is of scientific nature.

Then not only can Jesus contact me, under any circumstances, but your intercessory prayers should be mere formality.

Aight. Case closed.

So why do I not know a postmortem Jesus exists? Am I stupid, am I lying, or is the Bible false?

The Bible isn't false. So whatever you fall under after that, is on you.

Please re-read what I stated.

It goes more like this...

1. Jesus answer your prayers.
2. This means Jesus answers your intercessory prayers as well.
3. You prayed for me.
4. I will likely never perceive any contact from a postmortem Jesus.

Then, work on your perception game.

Thus, I ask again:

A) I'm stupid?
B) I'm lying?
C) The Bible is wrong about prayer?

I'm going with C), until you can demonstrate otherwise.

Go ahead. Go with C.

[Diogenes]

In a way, parents are (or ought to) caretakers of the state. The State leaves parents to bring up their children, indoctrinating them or training them up to a lifetime of ser...to function in society. The parents have a lot of leeway and especially in matters of religion. But we know that the state and law will step in when parents are considered to cross the line, and the law supersedes parental rights, at need.

Schools have a similar role and duty. Bottom line is that parents and schools have to duty to train the kids right. That means what the State thinks is right.

I'm not sure he intended this to sound quite as Orwellian as it does, but I certainly grimaced when I first read this.

I did as well.

I fear the day when the 'State' controls all learning. I'm sure Transponder does as well. The problem today is that the State actually does a better job than many parents in terms of education. The 'State' does not teach:
White Supremacy
Flat Earth
That someone's favorite 'god' created everything.

The State does not teach hatred of immigrants or the latest vile 'replacement theory.'
The State does not teach that God does not exist... or that He does.
The State does not teach tribalism or that one religion is better than another.
The State does not teach religious creationism instead of science.

Where does racial bigotry come from? It comes from the home, not the State.

You refer to an "Orwellian" society. We must be on our guard against this, but currently it is not the State, but individual families that teach divisiveness and hatred of immigrants, hatred of change. It is religion that teaches hatred of the LBGTQ+ community and 'replacement theory.'

Seattle Pacific University is currently embroiled in a controversy made of their own hypocrisy. They invite LBGTQ+ students to attend,* but their parent church (Free Methodist) refuses to allow the university to hire those students when they graduate.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/30/11018367 ... t-protests

We should forever be on guard against the 'tyranny of the State,' but at this moment, the greater threat comes from private actors.
I confess there is an exception, an important exception to my thesis; the Supreme Court.
6 of 9 current Justices are Roman Catholics (7 of 9 if you include Gorsuch). Because of their religious views, the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus imposing their personal religious views on everyone.

Although we should be ever vigilant about the oppression of The State, currently it is private racist, religious, and anti science views that present a greater threat.



_________________
*"Seattle Pacific University is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion for our undergraduate and graduate students, welcoming and supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students in all academic pursuits, faith practices, and life together in community."
https://spu.edu/undergraduate-admission ... -resources