₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
We are talking about Christianity and you are talking about the catholic church . But if I mention the atheist tyrants who killed people for questioning atheism and acknowledging God's existence ,will you accept that atheism rejects skepticism ?

When your own logic comes back to bite you

I was a catholic before you were born, sippy.

And the catholic church was christianity in the early century. No church present today has an older history.

4kings:
Just strolling in...
This point does not disprove the fact that it could have been orchestrated.

Of course. But it does prove that it was not an omniscient or all mighty being from the bible that orchestrated it.

butterflyl1on:
When your thread is destroyed by a single comment from me you start chanting liar liar

Sorry for your buthurt . Your thread was dead before it took off.

Yes, yes, you are right.


*doctor, butterflylion is off his meds again, he thinks he is making sense*

butterflyl1on:
Goal post shifted by 100 kilometres

No shifting. just pointing out that;

1) Christian evolution is still dogmatic indoctrination

butterflyl1on:
What skeptics were killed? Are all skeptics dead? Did that stop religious skepticism even among the religious?

Keep on shooting blanks.

What is this religious skepticism you keep talking about? If one was truly skeptic about religion, one wouldnt remain religious.

How many atheists did you know in Europe in the early centuries?


What you call "religious skeptiism" is actually "theological differences". Meaning that these theologians/clergy men were believers- they just differed on the level of belief.


For instance, there are two people. One says that the sky is green. The other says that the sky is dark green. Both are skeptic of each others claims but both are wrong.

butterflyl1on:
If the meaning changes then remove DOC which is it's original Latin source meaning from it. As long as DOC is there the meaning remains unchanged.

Even you should be able to realise it.

Hope you are going through the link so your intelligence can be updated

Simple "yes" or "no", my guy dey blow grammar.

KingEbukasBlog:
You do realize that Thomas didn't face any disapprobation from Christ because he was skeptical and wanted to see Him first . Christ proved Himself to Him and then told him not to doubt since the evidence is right there.

Again , if Christ discourages skepticism , one of his disciples (followers of His teachings ) wouldn't have been skeptical in the first place . In fact , anytime anyone doubts , Christ proved Himself to Him .

"Blessed is he who believes and has not seen"

Does the above bible quote inspire skepticism?

Is being called a "doubting thomas" a good thing or is it derogatory?

KingEbukasBlog:
Kaboom ! Atheist dogma , when you shoot yourself in the foot

cc: butterflyl1on , felixomor

If you were skeptical , you would have been open to evolution being orchestrated by God

Unless you want to admit that your God is quite a reetard, you wouldnt want to credit God for evolution. As a mechanism for change in life, evolution is brutal and at times ineffective.

butterflyl1on:
What has that got to do with skeptism? If they were killed and tortured did that stop their skeptism?

Are you okay?
What skepticism does a dead man have to offer?


That was the point- the church could not stand criticism and skepticism and so, it killed its skeptics.

Remember what happened to Corpenicus and Galileo?

butterflyl1on:
Totally true.

They should also go through the words that came from DOC its Latin source here and see how they are all linked to TEACHING


">http://wordinfo.info/unit/660/ip:4/il

Do words change meaning over time? Yes or no?

KingEbukasBlog:
He has already . His defence is very weak . From my post , its very obvious that Christianity permits us to be skeptical .

Bro, there is a guy called doubting thomas in the bible. "Blessed is he who believes and has not seen" (John 20;29)


Don't let your biblical ignorance show.

KingEbukasBlog:
You are making my point bro . If Christianity called for uncritical acceptance of beliefs there wouldn't be heretics . In short , I think I've made my point . I gave you myriads of reasons why you are wrong about indoctrination in Christianity . There is no shred of evidence for that .

In addition , there are Christians who accept evolution while taking the allegorical view of the creation story . And what could be the reason ? Oh yes ! Skepticism .

lol.....the same heretics that were tortured and killed by the catholic church?

The religious evolution that churches teach still remains false. They teach that evolution is guided by God. False. Evolution is a chaotic mix of precision, chance and strength.

KingEbukasBlog:
I was once in the system . Most of the childhood , I was a deeper life member . And you know what that means . I spent enough time in Sunday School . There was no where we were taught not to question what was taught . We asked questions as children and our teachers never discouraged us from asking questions .

Wait, the same deeper life that the members are indoctrinated not to wear make up and not to watch TV?

You like lies abi?

budaatum:
It's called Humpty Dumptyism. ‘When [he] uses a word,’ ‘it means just what [he] chooses it to mean — neither more nor less'.

Makes discussion impossible, but Paul advocated the same thing when he wrote:

"I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." 1 Corinthians 9

He'll say anything to win.

The guy has already lost the argument. Thank Gawd his dishonesty is there for everyone to see. He even posted a picture that negated his false definition.

The picture clearly stated that the definition is a 17th century definition that changed in the 19th century.

KingEbukasBlog:
First , there is a problem we have to identify and that's the presupposition from the OP that there is indoctrination(to accept something uncritically ) in Christianity . There is not , if there were we won't have different biblical interpretations , sects in Christianity , and schools of thought in Christian theology . And why is this so ? Because Christianity allows for skepticism .

Example :
Being skeptical about the literal interpretation of the bible , we have St Augustine's allegorical exegesis
Being skeptical about the divinity of Christ led to Arianism
Critical examination of God's providence and freewill led to Molinism
Critical examination about the book of revelation led to preterism
Critical look at how God establishes His presence with man led to Sandemanianism

The list is endless ...

Christian theology in fact allows for rationality while studying the tenants of Christianity and the bible .

As a child I wasn't told to take whatever being taught to me as facts . Look at me moving from creationism , progressive creationism and now to special creationism .

If Christianity allowed indoctrination as the OP claims, there wouldn't be Christian theology , St Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have made arguments for God's existence to defend his belief . Irish priest George Berkeley's profound argument for idealism - Esse est percipi - wouldn't have been made . George Lemaitre , the Belgian priest wouldn't have developed the Big Bang Theory , Christian archaeologists wouldn't bother to verify the stories in the bible etc . The list again is endless ...

How are children taught about religion in schools and churches (sunday school)

Have you forgotten the christian history? What happened to heretics in the early centuries? What about the times where the common man couldnt even own a copy of the bible?

Ogbeni, I like how you ignore all the troubling parts of your religion to blow big grammar in a nonsensical defense of your religion

butterflyl1on:
You are leaving because your thread has been trashed. Simple as ABC.

From the very first screenshot you see where it says ITS MEANING ISN'T ALWAYS NEGATIVE and not WASN'T always negative Before it went on to talk about source.

This shows what you call ARCHAIC isn't. Saying it means brainwash TO MANY PEOPLE does not mean TO EVERYBODY. This is what the source says which is why they said IT ISNT always negative and not IT WASN'T always negative.

You can cop out if you like. After all your thread is a no brainer.

You can't even read. The meaning in the 17th century was "to teach". It then changed to "brainwash" in the 19th century.

Now, oga, are you so dishonest that you fail to realise that we are in the 21st century?


Ogbeni, move on. Your lies are too much.


Lie Mohammed
Nelson ManDeyLie
suLIEman
Carolus LIEnus
Okonjo IweLIE.

Your lies are too much.

chemystery:
JackBizzle, no need. This guy will erupt fallacies all over that thread coupled with lies, insincerity and goalpost shifting. Don't say I didn't tell you. I am already following the thread...

You said it.

The guy has already started with his lies.

KingEbukasBlog:
One of the smartest theists I've seen . Respect sir! Now watch him flounder with this exquisite reasoning

honour among liars?

butterflyl1on:
I believe this was your opening comment





You have already broken Your Own rule right at your second comment. An apology is required before we proceed.

Saying that a sentence is Nonsense/rubbish is rubbish?


Ogbeni, thread closed. You want to lie this night. Good night.

#unfollows

No need to debate again.

I am leaving this thread if the other participant wants to lie and be dishonest. How can one maintain that indoctrination simply means to "teach". That definition is outdated mennn.


Butterflyl1on, do you accept that you have the wrong and outdated definition?

butterflyl1on:
So let me break it down for you

Indoctrination simply means TO TEACH!

In no place did I say religion is not indoctrination (belief through teaching) what I said was that atheism is ALSO caused by indoctrination.

False. As many have pointed out, "indoctrination" means the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically

You have already started failing. Please, stop using an outdated and archaic definition. Thanks

butterflyl1on:
A major causal factor of atheism is the "secular indoctrination of a generation". A generation being found in each individual. For example, a man becomes an atheist and from him a future generation would spring forth so this man who is the first atheist represents a generation. He in turn would begin TO TEACH (indoctrinate) about what and how he arrived at being an atheist.

In 2013, a study found that academia was less likely to hire evangelical Christians due to discriminatory attitudes which in turn aided the indoctrination of atheism in schools.


https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/06/10/suspicions-confirmed-academia-shutting-out-conservative-professors-n1616406/page/full

Some of this indoctrination was carried out through force as declared here by the university of cambridge

I am dismissing your link. It is from an unreliable source and it doesnt point to a study, just describes some book that has claims of discrimination in academia against conservatives.

Furthermore, if even it were true, one of the hardest places to indoctrinate people is in the university. The students there are mostly adults who have freedom to do what they want.

Compare this to religious indoctrination of children.

butterflyl1on:
From the immediate past to today, Atheists have focused considerable efforts on the public schools in order to indoctrinate young people into atheistic beliefs.

The new atheists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss claim that children need state protection from religion/religion of children's parents.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/richard-dawkins-the-government-needs-to-protect-children-from-religion-and

Here is an extract from the website



In a nutshell what Dawkins said is that we need to teach (indoctrinate) our children with science over the Bible despite his first saying THERE SHOULD BE A BALANCE.

We have seen atheists even here on nairaland who hold firmly to evolutionalism over creationism simply because THEY HAVE BEEN INDOCTRINATED INTO DARWINISM.

Pure rubbish. Teaching science is not indoctrination. Science can be challenged. It can be tested. For instance, if you disagree with gravity,one can test it by jumping up and down.

How do we challenge that god exists in a sunday school without receiving punishment from the religious teacher?

butterflyl1on:
Indoctrination is not a religious thing but indoctrination is found in ALL AREAS OF life including atheism. Just as I started off saying, indoctrination simply means TO TEACH and when one is not allowed to be taught a certain thing he or she would be thought something else as a replacement and in this case, atheism speaks of science, philosophy, etc and some are self indoctrinated while some are third party indoctrinated.

Pure nonsense. Indoctrination does not simply mean "to teach". This is the 21st century and not the 18th century. My guy update your dictionary.

You are right that indoctrination is not a religious thing. Yes, indoctrination can happen anywhere if people are taught things as fact without critical examination. The unfortunate truth is that religion, especially christianity involves a lot of indoctrination.

butterflyl1on:
To further buttress my point, right here on nairaland a thread was opened talking about an atheist convention. Here is the thread


https://www.nairaland.com/4099120/official-announcement-board-atheist-society

In that convention a certain bill flavell (a white man) has been specially invited to help TEACH (INDOCTRINATE) Those who would attend and I believe that the reason a white man was specifically invited is because the host believes he knows something they do not know or he is more enlightened so needs to come and pass on the knowledge aka TEACH aka INDOCTRINATE about ROAD TO REASON.

so anyone who claims atheism is not indoctrination is simply deceiving his or herself

Nonsense. Therefore every intelligent or qualified white man who hosts a convention is indoctrinating nigerians.

butterflyl1on:
Unlike some of you I am no coward. Create the thread make I end your lean career.

Here is the thread

https://www.nairaland.com/4136342/atheism-vs-christianity-which-one

JackBizzle:
Its a date. Bring ishilove too. I hear say she get assets front and back


Abeg....email me so I can give you my no for whatsapp

Sorry, I meant that you should give me your email, sonofluc1fer

My first argument

There is a lot of indoctrination in christianity. I say this because it is a religion that is taught to young children at a stage where they are gullible. Christianity is not taught with logic and open-mindedness. It is usually taught with visions of hell for the disobedient and it is taught as fact, whereas it is just one religion out of hundreds.

Facts
1. The fact is that most christians today are people who were born into christianity. The only exception to this is South Korea where it spread like wildfire, but it is changing as the youths there are leaving religion.

2. Christianity is taught as fact. Children are not allowed to question dogma. As a catholic child questioning the trinity will get you stern chiding or evasive answers.

3. There is a study that shows that religious children are less likely to separate fact from fiction
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149

As discussed earlier, Butterflyl1on and I are going to have a debate on the topic;


Atheism VS Christianity, Which One Is A Result Of Indoctrination?


I believe that there is steep indoctrination in christianity while Butterflyl1on believes it is the other way around. So, let the debate start.

Please, no insults.

butterflyl1on:
Unlike some of you I am no coward. Create the thread make I end your lean career.

Start writing your obituary. Challenge accepted.

The thread is coming soon

sonofluc1fer:
Yeah. Free on weekends, and I stay close to that area.

Its a date. Bring ishilove too. I hear say she get assets front and back


Abeg....email me so I can give you my no for whatsapp

sonofluc1fer:
Mr. Man, e don tey i dey vex for you.
Think say we for don meet for shoprite fight small .

If you dey lagos, we fit meet for that shoprite. IKEJA abi?

Dalam0n:
He won't take it. He'll prefer some topic that is about evolution or creationism so that he can go and plagiarize from creationist websites .

You might be surprised. They have been brave of recent.....oh and they have paid for it. Felixomor got decimated on his tithe thread and then kingebukasblog was exposed as a lying fool by superhumanist.

Here is the thread https://www.nairaland.com/4129849/dear-christians-why-developed-educated/1#61653729

The thread dey sweet my body. Kingebukasblog posted a picture from a link stating that Japanese follow shintoism and buddhism (in order to debunk the op by proving that japanese are religious) however, superhumanist exposed him as a liar by pointing out that kingebukasblog omitted a paragraph that clearly stated that religion does not play a big role in japanese life.

Superhumanist posted a bigger picture with the full paragraph showing that kingebuka omitted it because it contradicts his point. Gaddem liar

KingEbukasBlog:
Please I need meaningful contributions and such can't come from the likes of JackBizzle.

JackBizzle, should we play a game ? Dare me to refute your post . I'll do that (very easily of course ) but you'd have to open a thread and apologize for the stupidity you displayed on this thread and for making me use my time to educate you .

I dare you to refute my post

sonofluc1fer:


e don tey..

Bros, you no even look my side.

Dalam0n:
Of course he knows for a fact that he has been indoctrinated. How else will he have become a christian? Christianity isn't natural. You have to be systematically indoctrinated for it to make sense to you. And it gets worse for him, because christianity isn't a single set of universal belief system. It is various belief systems all hiding and masquerading under the umbrella called christianity. It's not even enough to be indoctrinated into christianity, you'll also have to be indoctrinated into the right sect of christianity.

cc Butterflyl1on. I swear, you are annoying. I however want to put an end to your lies. Lets open a thread to debate this issue of indoctrination. The thread should contain no insults but just sensible arguments.

"WHICH IS THE INDOCTRINATION, ATHEISM OR CHRISTIANITY". Should we open the thread?