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/

[SiNcE_1985]

I wasn't born last night.

......but you did fail to grasp the exact meaning of this thread, that most Christians were indoctrinated as infants.

Apparently, the point I've alluded too hasn't been made clear enough.

What I'm saying is..

1. Nothing wrong with being indoctrinated or brainwashed with an idea, concept, or proposition that has proven to be true (or, the likelihood of it being true is more probable than not.

2. Christianity is an idea, concept, and proposition that has proven to be true (or, the likelihood of it being true is more probable than not).

3. Therefore, nothing wrong with being indoctrinated with Christianity.

And the contention lies with P2, obviously.

The word 'indoctrinate' does not have just your meaning. See below including a short thesaurus which does include your translation but not only that translation..... here you are:
indoctrinate
/ɪnˈdɒktrɪneɪt/
verb
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
'broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses'
synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate, persuade, convince, condition, discipline, mould, instruct, teach, school, drill, ground

I understand what the word means, brethren.

Well I wouldn't need that word to show how Christianity is indeed a mish mash of various religions and cultures which Christianity reversed itself into.

The day that you can successfully show this, is the day I'll ride a pig down hell's frozen mountaintop.

Even as one reads the surviving gospels (Mark first is best) the person of Jesus changes from a man on a mission against corruption and greed of the Priesthood in to a lord and finally a God

1. Jesus was a man on a mission against corruption and greed of Priesthood.

2. Jesus was also Lord and God.

You guys who raise this kind of argument, don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of two propositions can be true at the same time.

#1 doesn't contradict #2.

1. Mob member, Michael Franzese, was a notorious killer-criminal.

2. Mob member, Michael Franzese, was also a loving husband and devoted father.

Two things can be true at the same time, and I don't know what part of that some of you don't understand.

If you have indeed come to some conclusion that the thread claims Christianity to be false, then maybe you can answer that effectively?
But trust me when I tell you that indoctrination can mean teaching.

I understand that, but if Christianity was viewed as a true teaching, then this thread wouldn't have been made.

So again, indoctrinated is just code word for brainwashing and mind-control, for children.

That's all it is.

[benchwarmer]

I wasn't born last night.

......but you did fail to grasp the exact meaning of this thread, that most Christians were indoctrinated as infants.

Apparently, the point I've alluded too hasn't been made clear enough.

What I'm saying is..

1. Nothing wrong with being indoctrinated or brainwashed with an idea, concept, or proposition that has proven to be true (or, the likelihood of it being true is more probable than not.

Wow, so brainwashing is cool? I guess it helps when it comes to religion so it's all good?

What's wrong is that instead of carefully teaching children to think for themselves, some prefer the easy route and simply declare things to be true until the child finally goes with it. I call that lazy/bad parenting/educating. I realize that religions don't like a more structured, critical thinking approach for obvious reasons, but blatantly admitting brain washing is fine is quite .... interesting I guess?

2. Christianity is an idea, concept, and proposition that has proven to be true (or, the likelihood of it being true is more probable than not).

Look, there's an attempt at brainwashing right there! I guess that's to be expected. Unfortunately, this is a debating site and you are expected to provide evidence for your claims. Otherwise, readers are likely to just dismiss your claim as easily as you made it.

3. Therefore, nothing wrong with being indoctrinated with Christianity.

That was quite the logic tour de force.

So we have:

A. Brainwashing is fine.
B. I'll make a claim with no evidence and expect you to just believe it.
C. Therefore brainwashing people with my idea is acceptable.

Well I wouldn't need that word to show how Christianity is indeed a mish mash of various religions and cultures which Christianity reversed itself into.

The day that you can successfully show this, is the day I'll ride a pig down hell's frozen mountaintop.

I hope you have your pig standing by.

For a simple start, what religion was Jesus? i.e. Which religion did Christianity directly spring out of (and still uses their scripture)?

Can we get video of you riding this pig?

[SiNcE_1985]

Wow, so brainwashing is cool? I guess it helps when it comes to religion so it's all good?

If the religion is true, it's cool.

You conveniently ignored the true part, huh?

I guess you ignored it because it doesn't fit the "being indoctrinated with religion is terrible" narrative that the thread insinuates.

What's wrong is that instead of carefully teaching children to think for themselves, some prefer the easy route and simply declare things to be true until the child finally goes with it. I call that lazy/bad parenting/educating. I realize that religions don't like a more structured, critical thinking approach for obvious reasons, but blatantly admitting brain washing is fine is quite .... interesting I guess?

Here's what I'd like you to do; use that same methodology and energy that you are using with religion, and apply it to those same children who are being taught evolution in schools, with impunity.

So, have that same energy when it comes to that, as well...because as far as I'm concerned, evolution is a flat-out, bold faced LIE and it is being taught to children in schools.

Look, there's an attempt at brainwashing right there! I guess that's to be expected. Unfortunately, this is a debating site and you are expected to provide evidence for your claims. Otherwise, readers are likely to just dismiss your claim as easily as you made it.

Easy, there.

I was just clarifying my position, since it seemed as if it wasn't clear enough.

I understand you're ready and can't wait to pounce on whatever that is to be said on the matter; but not now, not here.

That was quite the logic tour de force.

So we have:

A. Brainwashing is fine.
B. I'll make a claim with no evidence and expect you to just believe it.
C. Therefore brainwashing people with my idea is acceptable.

Disingenuous take on my position.

I hope you have your pig standing by.

For a simple start, what religion was Jesus?

Jesus seemed pretty Jewish to me.

i.e. Which religion did Christianity directly spring out of (and still uses their scripture)?

Can we get video of you riding this pig?

Have you ever heard of Judeo-Christianity?

[benchwarmer]

Wow, so brainwashing is cool? I guess it helps when it comes to religion so it's all good?

If the religion is true, it's cool.

You conveniently ignored the true part, huh?

No, I absolutely did not ignore your baseless claim that Christianity (or any other religion) is true.

My point is it doesn't matter if the proposition is true or not. Brainwashing is BAD in ALL circumstances.

Example:

-> Don't touch the stove when it's hot, you will burn yourself.

Should we simply brainwash a child to believe this or should we teach them how to think so they can apply some reasoning skills to other situations?

You seem to be fine with brainwashing as long as the proposition is true (or at least you think it's true).

My take is that we should teach critical thinking and reasoning and help people learn how to come to their own conclusions.

In the above example:

1) Use progressively warmer and warmer water (not to the point to potential injury of course!) to show that as things get hotter, it starts to become painful.

2) Explain that pain is how we know something may not be good for us.

3) Show how to safely check if something is hot. (use back of hand near the object, use a thermometer, if in doubt ask someone else's opinion, etc.)

In other words, teach how to think and reason. Otherwise, they only 'learn' about that specific thing and have no capacity to apply it to anything else. Is the fridge hot? The toilet?

I guess you ignored it because it doesn't fit the "being indoctrinated with religion is terrible" narrative that the thread insinuates.

Nope, see above.

What's wrong is that instead of carefully teaching children to think for themselves, some prefer the easy route and simply declare things to be true until the child finally goes with it. I call that lazy/bad parenting/educating. I realize that religions don't like a more structured, critical thinking approach for obvious reasons, but blatantly admitting brain washing is fine is quite .... interesting I guess?

Here's what I'd like you to do; use that same methodology and energy that you are using with religion, and apply it to those same children who are being taught evolution in schools, with impunity.

They absolutely should be taught critical thinking in ALL areas. Note that evolution is generally taught in biology class which normally has a lab component. In other words, a science class where questioning and testing are already part of the curriculum (unless it's some bogus 'creation science' class I suppose).

I absolutely encourage people to examine the theory of evolution. Just make sure you are not examining the typical straw man version found in some creationist apologetics. Examine the actual science, the actual data, and use the actual scientific method.

So, have that same energy when it comes to that, as well...because as far as I'm concerned, evolution is a flat-out, bold faced LIE and it is being taught to children in schools.

See above. You are welcome to your opinions on evolution. I fully support and encourage teaching critical thinking in biology class and every other class. Teach children about the scientific method, peer review, data collection, data analysis, statistical analysis, all of it. Bring it all on for everything (including Sunday school at church!)

I hope you have your pig standing by.

For a simple start, what religion was Jesus?

Jesus seemed pretty Jewish to me.

Correct. So Christianity got it start partly based on Judaism.

Next: What is the earliest religion that has a figure that dies and comes back to life?

I hope your pig has a saddle. I hear they can be quite slippery to ride

[SiNcE_1985]

No, I absolutely did not ignore your baseless claim that Christianity (or any other religion) is true.

Oh, it wasn't touched on so I thought it was ignored.

My point is it doesn't matter if the proposition is true or not. Brainwashing is BAD in ALL circumstances.

Then we simply disagree here, like we do on most things.

Example:

-> Don't touch the stove when it's hot, you will burn yourself.

Should we simply brainwash a child to believe this or should we teach them how to think so they can apply some reasoning skills to other situations?

You seem to be fine with brainwashing as long as the proposition is true (or at least you think it's true).

My take is that we should teach critical thinking and reasoning and help people learn how to come to their own conclusions.

You are insinuating that there is no correlation between brainwashing/indoctrination, and critical thinking and reasoning skills.

I reject this insinuation.

Come to think of it, speaking of children; back in the 80's, in the U.S. (don't know the country you were raised in), there was an anti-drug program (Just Say No) for children, which was spearheaded by the Reagan administration and with Nancy Reagan leading the charge.

I will say, that program was about the closest I've ever seen to the mass-acceptance of the indoctrination of children...not to mention the D.A.R.E program.

Those programs, aimed at/for children, had television ads flooding the screens, and drug awareness was raised on child-friendly TV shows and cartoons, and school anti-drug programs had drug awareness in full effect.

Now, I'd say this was all child indoctrination...and while critics say the campaign didn't work, the effort was certainly there and if studies had shown that it did work, the program would probably be hailed as the best thing since sliced bread.

Long story short..

1. If you agree that those anti-drug awareness programs were a form of child indoctrination, and you are fine with those efforts..

Then..

2. You agree with me that indoctrination (in general) that is riddled with truth to bring out the greater good (subjective, but all things equal) in society, isn't something to be frowned upon, generally speaking.

They absolutely should be taught critical thinking in ALL areas.

I agree, they should. Even with religion.

Note that evolution is generally taught in biology class which normally has a lab component. In other words, a science class where questioning and testing are already part of the curriculum (unless it's some bogus 'creation science' class I suppose).

That's the problem, you can't necessarily "test" the theory of evolution in a classroom, so when you are teaching it to children, it is based solely on conjecture.

I absolutely encourage people to examine the theory of evolution. Just make sure you are not examining the typical straw man version found in some creationist apologetics. Examine the actual science, the actual data, and use the actual scientific method.

If they do those things, they'll find out that it's a lie.

See above. You are welcome to your opinions on evolution. I fully support and encourage teaching critical thinking in biology class and every other class. Teach children about the scientific method, peer review, data collection, data analysis, statistical analysis, all of it. Bring it all on for everything (including Sunday school at church!)

Well again, to do those things is to actually disprove evolution.

Correct. So Christianity got it start partly based on Judaism.

Next: What is the earliest religion that has a figure that dies and comes back to life?

Not so fast.

Anyone can conjure up the idea of a dead person coming back to life...and I'm sure in the history of mankind, many people have imagined such a thing.

But don't know of any religion who has had its God come on earth and abide with man, predicts his own willful death and resurrections himself, all for the redemption of mankind.

It's not enough to point out an earlier-than-Christianity religion that has a figure die and come back to life, you need more than just that.

But maybe you know something I don't know.

Enlighten me.

I hope your pig has a saddle. I hear they can be quite slippery to ride

Maybe.

But the white horse that I ride into Heaven won't be slippery.

[oldbadger]

What I'm saying is..
2. Christianity is an idea, concept, and proposition that has proven to be true (or, the likelihood of it being true is more probable than not).

3. Therefore, nothing wrong with being indoctrinated with Christianity.

But I find Christianity to be nothing at all to do with what Jesus wanted. I think it's a complete fabrication.

The day that you can successfully show this, is the day I'll ride a pig down hell's frozen mountaintop.

So many clear examples.......
One easy example of how the young church focused upon other than the words and actions of Jesus is within Paul's letters......apart from engless referrals to last meal-communion and death-resurrection Paul didn't write a single sentence about anything that Jesus ever did of said.

[benchwarmer]

You are insinuating that there is no correlation between brainwashing/indoctrination, and critical thinking and reasoning skills.

Correct, there isn't.

Brainwashing and indoctrination tend to be uncritical endeavors where people (especially children) are simply asked to believe something. When we are young we tend to trust those who care for us and thus believe what they tell us. If we aren't taught how to think critically, then we are missing a skill in our toolbox of learning.

It's analogous to learning by rote (memorization) versus understanding how to arrive at the answer yourself. In fact it's exactly this.

Example:

7 x 3 = 21

Do you teach children to memorize this and that's it? That's uncritical thinking and simply being asked to believe what they are told is the right answer.

Instead, after showing the above equation, they should be taught how to come to the answer themselves so that they can answer 9 x 4, 16 x 23, and every other multiplication themselves. They should be given every tool and a full understanding of what it is they are learning about.

Now, don't get me wrong. Once you understand the entire process and what it actually means, then by all means memorize SOME basic things to make your life easier. You probably don't want to engage in counting toes or other simplistic methods that may have been used to demonstrate the concept and what's happening

I reject this insinuation.

That's nice. Care to show readers why or are you going to just hope they fall into the camp where people should just uncritically believe what you say?

Come to think of it, speaking of children; back in the 80's, in the U.S. (don't know the country you were raised in), there was an anti-drug program (Just Say No) for children, which was spearheaded by the Reagan administration and with Nancy Reagan leading the charge.

I will say, that program was about the closest I've ever seen to the mass-acceptance of the indoctrination of children...not to mention the D.A.R.E program.

Those programs, aimed at/for children, had television ads flooding the screens, and drug awareness was raised on child-friendly TV shows and cartoons, and school anti-drug programs had drug awareness in full effect.

Now, I'd say this was all child indoctrination...and while critics say the campaign didn't work, the effort was certainly there and if studies had shown that it did work, the program would probably be hailed as the best thing since sliced bread.

Long story short..

1. If you agree that those anti-drug awareness programs were a form of child indoctrination, and you are fine with those efforts..

Then..

2. You agree with me that indoctrination (in general) that is riddled with truth to bring out the greater good (subjective, but all things equal) in society, isn't something to be frowned upon, generally speaking.

While I'm aware of the 'Just say no' campaigns of the past I'm not sure how this is helping your case.

I've already made it very clear that simple brainwashing and/or child indoctrination are NOT the best way to teach children about truth.

Just like a broken analog watch is right twice a day, that doesn't mean it's useful most of the time or the best way of accomplishing something.

Can brainwashing and indoctrination work? Sure it can, it's the lazy way to play on emotions rather than using a superior method of teaching. That's why it's employed and heavily relied on when the actual truth is often far different that what is being pushed.

I think it's quite telling when a religious person is promoting brainwashing and/or indoctrination. We all know these are the methods heavily used in religious teaching. Critical thinking is often very frowned upon. Sure, they will encourage questions, but only to a point. Once things become inconvenient or start displaying obvious faults, it's back to 'Just believe me!'.

They absolutely should be taught critical thinking in ALL areas.

I agree, they should. Even with religion.

I felt a small ripple in the time/space continuum when we both agreed on something

Note that evolution is generally taught in biology class which normally has a lab component. In other words, a science class where questioning and testing are already part of the curriculum (unless it's some bogus 'creation science' class I suppose).

That's the problem, you can't necessarily "test" the theory of evolution in a classroom, so when you are teaching it to children, it is based solely on conjecture.

If it's a proper biology class you explain what the theory is and the methods that were used to arrive at the current understanding. You explain how to examine the data and compare things between different organisms. You usually have lab work where you get to start looking at things yourself. If the students have questions like "isn't this just conjecture?" then the teacher hopefully gives them homework to find and study the data themselves (with some help on where to get started of course).

Granted, it likely won't be until university level that you can do DNA experiments yourself as this requires equipment beyond what most earlier education classrooms have. However, you can certainly look at all the data that was collected and peer reviewed. There are tools available to anyone to further examine this collected data. Difflugia has a thread in the Science and Religion sub forum on this very thing: [Let's prove evolution!]

If at any point students think they are just being forced to believe what they are told, they are encouraged to acquire all the skills necessary and perform the experiments themselves. Again, that will likely involve many more years of learning as we didn't discover DNA sequences overnight. However, at no point are students expected to 'just believe'. They are expected to understand what the material is and what would be required to falsify the theory. They are then free, even encouraged, to research and find some data that will modify any existing scientific theory.

I absolutely encourage people to examine the theory of evolution. Just make sure you are not examining the typical straw man version found in some creationist apologetics. Examine the actual science, the actual data, and use the actual scientific method.

If they do those things, they'll find out that it's a lie.

Claim with zero substance. Care to share with readers (and the entire scientific community) your methodology and data for peer review? You might have a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can knock down the current theory of evolution. Given that at this point it's essentially fact (like the earth is round), most research is around finer details. Just like the earth isn't a perfect sphere, there are further details upon closer examination, but it all starts with what is now a basic fact.

I have no problem if someone is unsure about what the science says or what it means. However, people simply claiming (uncritically and essentially making an emotional appeal) that something is true or not is unlikely to sway readers.

See above. You are welcome to your opinions on evolution. I fully support and encourage teaching critical thinking in biology class and every other class. Teach children about the scientific method, peer review, data collection, data analysis, statistical analysis, all of it. Bring it all on for everything (including Sunday school at church!)

Well again, to do those things is to actually disprove evolution.

Great! This must mean you did it then. Where is your methodology and data published? Did it pass peer review?

Correct. So Christianity got it start partly based on Judaism.

Next: What is the earliest religion that has a figure that dies and comes back to life?

Not so fast.

Fast? Sorry that was too fast for you. It's called building a case. Step one: You agreed that Christianity is based on Judaism. So one other religion is part of the makeup of Christianity. Step two: Lets find another religion that's in the mix. I'm guessing at this point you realize where this is going and have to start finding out how to pick up those goal posts and start shifting them around.

Anyone can conjure up the idea of a dead person coming back to life...and I'm sure in the history of mankind, many people have imagined such a thing.

But don't know of any religion who has had its God come on earth and abide with man, predicts his own willful death and resurrections himself, all for the redemption of mankind.

So you are telling us all you haven't bothered to look? Well, I'm not doing your homework for you.

Readers who are curious are already looking and I'm betting the case is starting to build against your position for those who may have been on the fence or unaware.

It's not enough to point out an earlier-than-Christianity religion that has a figure die and come back to life, you need more than just that.

I already have more than that. Judaism. That was step one. Remember the claim that was made and that you dismissed and said you would ride a pig? All we have to do is show that Christianity is built on more than one previous religious idea and we should be expecting you to go for a pig ride if you really are a person of your word.

Now you are realizing that there are many other previous religious ideas pulled into Christianity and busily trying to sweep them away. It's ok. We are not really trying to convince you, though it sure would be fun to watch you ride that pig. We are simply building a case for readers to examine.

Step three (for readers, since you are stuck on step two and have some homework): What is the earliest version of a creation story we are aware of that is very similar to the two versions of creation we have in Genesis?

Step four: What is the earliest global flood story we are aware of?

I think that right there is enough to satisfy the original claim that Christianity is essentially a mish mash of previous religious ideas. Once readers have done their homework I'm betting many will be expecting a pig ride from a certain someone.

[SiNcE_1985]

You are insinuating that there is no correlation between brainwashing/indoctrination, and critical thinking and reasoning skills.

Correct, there isn't.

Brainwashing and indoctrination tend to be uncritical endeavors where people (especially children) are simply asked to believe something. When we are young we tend to trust those who care for us and thus believe what they tell us. If we aren't taught how to think critically, then we are missing a skill in our toolbox of learning.

It's analogous to learning by rote (memorization) versus understanding how to arrive at the answer yourself. In fact it's exactly this.

Example:

7 x 3 = 21

Do you teach children to memorize this and that's it? That's uncritical thinking and simply being asked to believe what they are told is the right answer.

Instead, after showing the above equation, they should be taught how to come to the answer themselves so that they can answer 9 x 4, 16 x 23, and every other multiplication themselves. They should be given every tool and a full understanding of what it is they are learning about.

Now, don't get me wrong. Once you understand the entire process and what it actually means, then by all means memorize SOME basic things to make your life easier. You probably don't want to engage in counting toes or other simplistic methods that may have been used to demonstrate the concept and what's happening

I simply disagree.

That's nice. Care to show readers why or are you going to just hope they fall into the camp where people should just uncritically believe what you say?

I already explained why, and if readers refuse to rock with my POV, I won't lose any sleep over it.

While I'm aware of the 'Just say no' campaigns of the past I'm not sure how this is helping your case.

I've already made it very clear that simple brainwashing and/or child indoctrination are NOT the best way to teach children about truth.

We'll just have to disagree.

Just like a broken analog watch is right twice a day, that doesn't mean it's useful most of the time or the best way of accomplishing something.

Can brainwashing and indoctrination work? Sure it can, it's the lazy way to play on emotions rather than using a superior method of teaching. That's why it's employed and heavily relied on when the actual truth is often far different that what is being pushed.

I think it's quite telling when a religious person is promoting brainwashing and/or indoctrination. We all know these are the methods heavily used in religious teaching. Critical thinking is often very frowned upon. Sure, they will encourage questions, but only to a point. Once things become inconvenient or start displaying obvious faults, it's back to 'Just believe me!'.

Opinions.

I felt a small ripple in the time/space continuum when we both agreed on something

Welcome to 1%.

If it's a proper biology class you explain what the theory is and the methods that were used to arrive at the current understanding. You explain how to examine the data and compare things between different organisms. You usually have lab work where you get to start looking at things yourself. If the students have questions like "isn't this just conjecture?" then the teacher hopefully gives them homework to find and study the data themselves (with some help on where to get started of course).

All of that, and it still wouldn't get you to "evolution is true".

Granted, it likely won't be until university level that you can do DNA experiments yourself as this requires equipment beyond what most earlier education classrooms have.

DNA doesn't even get you to "evolution is true".

However, you can certainly look at all the data that was collected and peer reviewed. There are tools available to anyone to further examine this collected data. Difflugia has a thread in the Science and Religion sub forum on this very thing: [Let's prove evolution!]

If at any point students think they are just being forced to believe what they are told, they are encouraged to acquire all the skills necessary and perform the experiments themselves. Again, that will likely involve many more years of learning as we didn't discover DNA sequences overnight. However, at no point are students expected to 'just believe'. They are expected to understand what the material is and what would be required to falsify the theory. They are then free, even encouraged, to research and find some data that will modify any existing scientific theory.

Voodoo science.

Claim with zero substance. Care to share with readers (and the entire scientific community) your methodology and data for peer review? You might have a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can knock down the current theory of evolution. Given that at this point it's essentially fact (like the earth is round), most research is around finer details. Just like the earth isn't a perfect sphere, there are further details upon closer examination, but it all starts with what is now a basic fact.

Not now.

I have no problem if someone is unsure about what the science says or what it means. However, people simply claiming (uncritically and essentially making an emotional appeal) that something is true or not is unlikely to sway readers.

I agree.

Great! This must mean you did it then. Where is your methodology and data published? Did it pass peer review?

My methodology is a lifetime of seeing animals only producing what they are, not what they aren't.

So, my methodology is "sight/vision", based on what I observe.

And all of my "peers" have "reviewed" the same thing in their lifetime.

So my "methodology" has passed "peer review".

Fast? Sorry that was too fast for you. It's called building a case.

Oh, is that what it is?

Step one: You agreed that Christianity is based on Judaism. So one other religion is part of the makeup of Christianity. Step two: Lets find another religion that's in the mix. I'm guessing at this point you realize where this is going and have to start finding out how to pick up those goal posts and start shifting them around.

Obviously, I am willing to grant that Christianity derived from Judaism.

Nothing beyond that though.

So you are telling us all you haven't bothered to look? Well, I'm not doing your homework for you.

Well, I'll make it easier for both of us; you asked if I knew any earlier religions that had a figure dying and coming back to life.

My answer: No, not under the same circumstances as the Jesus figure in Christianity.

So my answer is no.

End of discussion.

Readers who are curious are already looking and I'm betting the case is starting to build against your position for those who may have been on the fence or unaware.

?

I already have more than that. Judaism. That was step one. Remember the claim that was made and that you dismissed and said you would ride a pig? All we have to do is show that Christianity is built on more than one previous religious idea and we should be expecting you to go for a pig ride if you really are a person of your word.

Usually, when naysayers accuse Christianity of "borrowing from other religions", Judaism isn't included in those "other" religions, because it is granted that everyone knows that this is the case so there is no point of contention.

I'm not arguing against that point.

Now you are realizing that there are many other previous religious ideas pulled into Christianity and busily trying to sweep them away.

We've only discussed one. What else you got?

It's ok. We are not really trying to convince you, though it sure would be fun to watch you ride that pig. We are simply building a case for readers to examine.

Step three (for readers, since you are stuck on step two and have some homework): What is the earliest version of a creation story we are aware of that is very similar to the two versions of creation we have in Genesis?

Show me another creation story where a God, who did not begin to exist, created the universe, the animals, and mankind in 6 days.

Step four: What is the earliest global flood story we are aware of?

Tell us.

I think that right there is enough to satisfy the original claim that Christianity is essentially a mish mash of previous religious ideas. Once readers have done their homework I'm betting many will be expecting a pig ride from a certain someone.

Notice that no specifics are given. You are on a roll, benchwarmer. So, let this hot streak continue...since you act like you are so mindful of "readers", share with the readers your source for the stuff you speak of!!

Don't do it for me, do it for your beloved "readers".

[benchwarmer]

Claim with zero substance. Care to share with readers (and the entire scientific community) your methodology and data for peer review? You might have a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can knock down the current theory of evolution. Given that at this point it's essentially fact (like the earth is round), most research is around finer details. Just like the earth isn't a perfect sphere, there are further details upon closer examination, but it all starts with what is now a basic fact.

Not now.

In other words you haven't done it or you would be slamming it on the table. You should be trying to convince readers of this debate why they should believe you, but you can't be bothered. Oh well...

Great! This must mean you did it then. Where is your methodology and data published? Did it pass peer review?

My methodology is a lifetime of seeing animals only producing what they are, not what they aren't.

Ummm, you realize the scientific theory of evolution says the same thing right? Right?? Or are you assuming a straw man version of the actual theory?

So, my methodology is "sight/vision", based on what I observe.

And all of my "peers" have "reviewed" the same thing in their lifetime.

So you are admitting that you don't know what the scientific peer review process is to everyone...

So my "methodology" has passed "peer review".

I'm sure readers are impressed with your grasp of the actual science.

Step one: You agreed that Christianity is based on Judaism. So one other religion is part of the makeup of Christianity. Step two: Lets find another religion that's in the mix. I'm guessing at this point you realize where this is going and have to start finding out how to pick up those goal posts and start shifting them around.

Obviously, I am willing to grant that Christianity derived from Judaism.

Nothing beyond that though.

Based on... nothing? Well, readers that care are already researching the questions I asked and likely finding the preexisting religions and their similar stories. Hopefully they are learning some interesting things to take into consideration.

From your side they get... well just blanket dismissal. Works for me.

So you are telling us all you haven't bothered to look? Well, I'm not doing your homework for you.

Well, I'll make it easier for both of us; you asked if I knew any earlier religions that had a figure dying and coming back to life.

My answer: No, not under the same circumstances as the Jesus figure in Christianity.

So my answer is no.

End of discussion.

Great, so we've established you haven't found the similar stories and are happy to keep it that way. Understood. Not convincing to those finding these other stories, but you do you.

Readers who are curious are already looking and I'm betting the case is starting to build against your position for those who may have been on the fence or unaware.

?

They are likely finding what you can't be bothered to look for.

I already have more than that. Judaism. That was step one. Remember the claim that was made and that you dismissed and said you would ride a pig? All we have to do is show that Christianity is built on more than one previous religious idea and we should be expecting you to go for a pig ride if you really are a person of your word.

Usually, when naysayers accuse Christianity of "borrowing from other religions", Judaism isn't included in those "other" religions, because it is granted that everyone knows that this is the case so there is no point of contention.

I'm not arguing against that point.

Now you are realizing that there are many other previous religious ideas pulled into Christianity and busily trying to sweep them away.

We've only discussed one. What else you got?

I already told you where to look. Like I said, I'm not doing your homework for you. It's all easily findable on that wonderful website Google.

It's ok. We are not really trying to convince you, though it sure would be fun to watch you ride that pig. We are simply building a case for readers to examine.

Step three (for readers, since you are stuck on step two and have some homework): What is the earliest version of a creation story we are aware of that is very similar to the two versions of creation we have in Genesis?

Show me another creation story where a God, who did not begin to exist, created the universe, the animals, and mankind in 6 days.

Again, do your own homework. Then if you like, compare those stories with the one in the Bible and show how they aren't similar. If you can't be bothered to look, I can't be bothered to do it for you.

Step four: What is the earliest global flood story we are aware of?

Tell us.

Again, the answers are easily found. Readers that care are already looking into it. So far you aren't offering anything to sway them.

I think that right there is enough to satisfy the original claim that Christianity is essentially a mish mash of previous religious ideas. Once readers have done their homework I'm betting many will be expecting a pig ride from a certain someone.

Notice that no specifics are given. You are on a roll, benchwarmer. So, let this hot streak continue...since you act like you are so mindful of "readers", share with the readers your source for the stuff you speak of!!

Don't do it for me, do it for your beloved "readers".

No need, those that care are already finding what I asked them to find. I found it after about 10 seconds with Google. If you're happy to not bother doing this yourself then I'm happy to let you show that.

[SiNcE_1985]

In other words you haven't done it or you would be slamming it on the table. You should be trying to convince readers of this debate why they should believe you, but you can't be bothered. Oh well...

I'm not really in "evolution" mode. That's not where the spirit is leading me now.

Ummm, you realize the scientific theory of evolution says the same thing right? Right?? Or are you assuming a straw man version of the actual theory?

If modern day canines originated from non-canines of the past, then the scientific theory of evolution ain't saying the same thing.

So you are admitting that you don't know what the scientific peer review process is to everyone...

You asked me about me, and mines..and you were supplied the answer.

I'm sure readers are impressed with your grasp of the actual science.

Cool.

Based on... nothing? Well, readers that care are already researching the questions I asked and likely finding the preexisting religions and their similar stories. Hopefully they are learning some interesting things to take into consideration.

Hopefully.

From your side they get... well just blanket dismissal. Works for me.

From my side they get...well, salvation through the cross.

Works for me.

Great, so we've established you haven't found the similar stories and are happy to keep it that way. Understood. Not convincing to those finding these other stories, but you do you.

I wasn't looking. You brought it up, so you tell me.

They are likely finding what you can't be bothered to look for.

We'll just have to see about that.

I already told you where to look. Like I said, I'm not doing your homework for you. It's all easily findable on that wonderful website Google.

I care enough to ask you what do you have.

I don't care enough to look for it.

Again, do your own homework. Then if you like, compare those stories with the one in the Bible and show how they aren't similar. If you can't be bothered to look, I can't be bothered to do it for you.

No prob.

Again, the answers are easily found. Readers that care are already looking into it. So far you aren't offering anything to sway them.

,.......

No need, those that care are already finding what I asked them to find. I found it after about 10 seconds with Google. If you're happy to not bother doing this yourself then I'm happy to let you show that.

I got bigger fish to fry.