Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Indoctrination: The Fear

Being a good, law abiding citizen I have never been to prison. I don't think I'd ever like to go either. It seems like a dismal place that doesn't just take away one's freedom, but crushes their very soul literally obliterating all hopes and dreams. One word comes to mind when picturing the cold grey walls in a prison cell: institutionalized. And, when that eerie word creeps into my mind, a very moving film follows in my trail of thought. Shaw shank Redemption tells the story of a bank accountant falsely convicted of murdering his wife. It describes his time in prison, and of course, his heroic yet very rebel act in escaping from incarceration while taking the law into his own hands. It's a great movie in number of even greater ways. However, it isn't necessarily the protagonist that comes to mind when I recall the film. It's the librarian in the prison named Brooks Hatlen. The "old man" had been a member of the prison population for over 42 years when his parole finally came up and he was "set free". He bids farewell to the last group of friends he made during his strenuous stay there and heads out into world to find a job bagging groceries. Shortly after, Brooks hangs himself. On the surface it is the most confusing act one can take about after being granted their freedom back. However, if you dig a little deeper you can see that, after such a long time of confinement one develops a certain feeling of appreciation for their surroundings and grows comforted by the day to day schedule they are engrossed in. Sometimes it really is hard to change something when it literally becomes your life and everything about it.

Call me crazy, but there just might something in this admittedly extreme comparison between the dynamics of religion and prison life. Anyone will tell you that the way children are raised will greatly influence who they will become, what they will do and even how they will do it. This is one of the main facets of religion that I tend to strongly dislike; the indoctrination of young minds. I could even go as far as to say it's a form of brainwashing. I won’t slam on Christianity like I am usually inclined to do because every religion is guilty of this "sin". When you go about telling a child what to believe, you steal any and all forms of logic and objective reasoning from them. It goes without saying, but those are two key tools needed to get by in today's world.

I remember a few weeks ago watching the documentary series "30 days" by Morgan Spurlock. On that particular episode a women with atheistic convictions was sent to live with a Christian family in the hopes of breaking some barriers that exist in today's society by forcing the two groups to learn about one another. I won’t go into the details of the episode (although I strongly urge anyone interested in watching the episode) as only the beginning of it concerns this post. Before the women left her family to join her Christian hosts, the show filmed her having one last dinner with her family and also documented the last dinner the host family was having. Obviously, the Christian family said grace and played up to the camera while talking about Jesus and all that good stuff with their children. This didn't astound me as am cognizant of the indoctrination that occurs within religion. What amazed me was the so called "free thinking" atheist family was discussing the fact that there is no God to their 3 year old toddler! This blew me away in ways mere words will fail to describe. It sickened me. No child should have their parents' convictions forced down their throats at an age they cannot possibly comprehend such things as a God and the complexities of religion. A kid should be busy playing with Legos and being mischievous, not learning that there is no god or that if you don’t ascribe to calling him a particular name you will not be saved. There is something fundamentally wrong with this.

Best selling atheist author Richard Dawkins made a great point in his book "The God Delusion" when highlighting this phenomenon. He discussed the idea of labeling children with such terms as "Christian child" or "Muslim child". To me, it seems terribly mistaken to figuratively give each and every kid on Earth a name tag with their name, favorite color, whether they like Barney and, not neglecting the all important one, which god they supposedly adhere to! Think about it this way; minors, that is any person under the age of 18, aren't allowed to vote for the obvious reason that their minds aren't matured enough to comprehend such important matters as healthcare, taxes and going to war. But, what about most important issue of all: God! How can a minor be possibly able to decided what they believe about god if they can't decide whether Obama's healthcare reform was a good idea or not!? This troubles me greatly because I think there is strong evidence to indicate that it has harmed society greatly.

When someone mentions the word "hell", the first things that usually come to mind are a butt naked man with red skin and a goatee wielding a pitchfork surrounded by molten lava, fire and his demons, who all probably resemble him somewhat. To me, it's comical. For most people it is something obviously fashioned together by popular culture, such as television and the general media, and a couple religious verses here and there. But to children, it is the darkest of dark where the worst people of all go because they didn't listen to Jesus or Allah. I can't imagine what my current perception would be had I been coerced into contemplating the depths of hell an early age. The sad fact is that too many children today are forced to deal with that and comprehend that vile place created ever so beautifully by the master “story tellers” of religion. I believe it is terribly wrong and even "evil" to some extent to scare a child, willingly or otherwise, into a certain realm of belief. Apart from prematurely stealing the innocence I believe we should cherish and nurture for as long as society will allow, it distorts a person's reasoning in later life when they are forced to deal with the finer aspects of god and religion. Literally scaring a person into believing something will make them defend that particular conviction not because it necessarily makes sense to the logic God himself provided us, and most likely wants us to use, but because it is the one thing they have been "suffocated" by from as early as the time mommy told them about Satan and what he does to the "bad little boys and girls".

I remember hearing on a television documentary series that religion was, in all literal senses, the "enemy of logic and rationality". I also distinctly recall thinking that was a very bold and rather extreme statement for one to propose. Then I began debating some of the issues that seemed to stick out for me about religion in hopes of finding some sort of answer or explanation. Needless to say, for most of these issues, there was none. All I encountered was a bombardment of different interpretations by different denominations and, my personal favorite, the argument of context. I was astounded to find that so many people had to resort to such measures to defend what they believed. Surly, I pondered; there must be something more concrete and factual than this? There wasn't, or has not been yet. This was when I finally understood what that apparently extreme statement was trying to convey; once you indoctrinate a person into one, fixed set of beliefs, they won’t ever defend what they intuitively grasp by nature, but rather what they have been "trained" to adhere to. For example, a Muslim or a Christian will openly claim that they are prepared to defend anything in the Koran or Bible, even if they have not heard what it is yet, just because it is in their holy book. Normal reasoning and common sense must bow down before that particular person's "word of god". This goes back to the point I have tried to bring fourth in the blog as often as possible: in a world where everyone knows they possess the ultimate truth and all other possibilities are utterly mistaken, we will arrive at every possible outcome except "truth", all the while parading our arrogance to the world no matter how powerful the contradictory evidence may be.

Now, I would be foolish to claim that every religious person is this way. It's a matter of fact that there do exist, however small in number, a certain amount of open minded people who adhere to some sort of religion or other but do not make any claim to ultimate truth and inerrancy in their textual doctrine, but simply believe. This, I have no problem with. This is a display of grace and willingness to cooperate with other human beings and scientific evidence in arriving as close to "truth" as the big Guy in the sky will allow. I have no problem with calling God "Jesus" or "Allah" or "Buddha", but when one goes as far as invalidating everyone else's beliefs and claiming they know it all, that is when the world is faced with a problem. I don't see anything wrong with the idea that all the religions in the world are attempting to describe the same God, our creator. After all, don't they all claim he is "indescribable"!?

If all religions are as confidant in their truthfulness as they would proclaim, then why can't we spare the children of Earth the pain of indoctrination? I mean, if a religious family really does believe they have the ultimate truth, why not let their new born find it on their own? This is where the problem lies. All these people of faith seem to have everything but that. They don’t trust that a normal, rational and logical adult will arrive to the conclusions they have without "a little helping hand". Now, I’m sure many believers will cite "the great number of people who have converted to their way of thinking in adult life". To this I refer them to the equally great number that has converted away. All that proves is the message I brought forth in an earlier blog which said that we all need a father figure or protector in our lives and are willing to believe any number of theories or absurdities to gain that comfort. Indoctrination, as I have come to discover from talking and debating with religious people, is a tool used by religion to "boost membership" and keep everyone believing that faith has to be blind.

18 comments:

  1. I speak for myself when I say that I was not forced in any way shape or form to be a christian. That descision was mine, and mine alone. Sure I had influences, I would be a complete liar to deny it, but never, I say again, NEVER have I in any way been forced to think a certain way, or have information "stuffed down my throat". My parents have always been open with me, and willing to share if I ask, but NEVER have they attempted to FORCE any kind of belief system into me. Sure they brougt me to church, shared some amazing stories about the Bible, and even talked about hell; but not even once did they force anything into my mind. I am fully aware that such people exist, and I also am aware that most of the time, parents who force ideas and such into a childs mind, are the ones who often have their kids rebel and turn away from those teachings. I am against FORCING a child to think a certain way. Now the Bible does instruct parents to TEACH their children about God. In Deuteronomy 6:5-8 we see clearly that God wants us to teach the Bible, and its rules to our children, I am not ignoring that point. But nowhere does it say to force this information into their minds. But rather, to raise them in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord"(Ephesians 6:4). Here is a link that I suggest u take a look at to understand Christian perspective about teaching a child about God: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-education.html The second paragraph is the one that talks about it, but u might want to read the first just to know what they are talking about. Now teaching and influencing is not to be confused with forcing, those are two completely different animals and I'm sure that u understand the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And here are some other links from the same site that I think will be good for u to be able to understand the difference, somewhat, of christianity and all others, and why it is the best of the bunch: http://www.gotquestions.org/true-religion.html (now this particular one is telling us what true religion is and what bad religion is.\); http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-religion.html (and this one is the one that shows why christianity is the best one). Hope u read these because I think that they will help.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey, friend.

    Nowhere did i say anything about force. Elird says, "Anyone will tell you that the way children are raised will greatly influence who they will become"

    This i will admittedly have to clarify for you, "No child should have their parents' convictions forced down their throats..." <<< Here I am being metaphorical in my use of the word force becuase i am trying to shed light in the MANNER AND TIME WHICH INFORMATION ABOUT GOD IS DISPLACE onto a certain human (in this case, children). I apologize for any misunderstanding it may have caused, but understand, im passionate about this stuff so i may go over board at times. Just bring it to my attention and il clear it up or ya ;)

    Elird says, " I believe it is terribly wrong and even "evil" to some extent to scare a child" <<< This i stand by 100%.

    (I cant really find any more quotes that may have upset you with the wording, if there are more, let me know)

    Heres smth i think will help you understand where im coming from a little better: you CAN force someone to physcially do and say something, but you CANNOT force or influence one's mind. Only influence. Now, im sure you werenent "force", thats just a silly tactic that wont work (religions have figured that out, trust me ;) ). But you WERE raised to beleive that the Bible and "all that jazz" is the only way. The only truth. The one religion that "is true". And hell...... i wont even get into why its was utterly wrong for you to have been told aboout hell at that time. So, with ALL those things being "forced down your throat" by the ppl that DO care about you and love you....how could you NOT be a christian today!? Its absurd, im sorry.

    The bible verse you provided, " Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads" is EXACTLY what im talking about. It tells you to engross your kids with everything that has to do that that religion and suffocate them with ideologies. Its wrong.

    Ive come to discover you are a person of strong faith and also very strong minded. Its commendable. But that knife cuts both ways, i know you will out right disagree with this and say you would come to "truth" eventually, but i would bet my house if your mom n dad were muslim and raissed you in this same way, you'd be arguing with me about allah and mohhamed and what not.

    THAT is why it is a burden on society. Indoctrination, NOT force, is wrong. Its also the main reason there arent more christians in the world!? Ironic, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok. So what are your thoughts on influencing a childs mind about good and bad. Act nice and not mean, throw toys at people, don't throw toys at people;swear in public/at home, don't swear in public/at home? Because I think we both know that I could go on forever about how discipline is ESSENTIAL in a childs upbringing. Because according to u, influencing and scaring a child to believe and act a certain way is evil and wrong, which is kinda hypocritical if u believe in any kind of dicipline for your kids. And if u do believe in disciplining a child and teaching them rules about good behavior and such, then what better place to find rules for behavior and discipline than the Bible? Another thing is that kids do NOT fully understand what u are talking about when u say "heaven" or "hell". All they could possibly think of is that its a place where either the good(heaven) or bad(hell) kids go. You give too much credit to the intellect of a child, they only understand a good spanking or solid NO; and if need be a good scolding. U cannot reason with a child in any way shape or form, they are simply to naive. That is why it is COMPLETELY appropriate to teach a child how to act according to the Bible. There is nothing spiritual a child can gather from it, because they don't even understand it. That is why the rules of the Bible are good rules to lay down. Example: Mom - "Jonathan! Stop hitting your sister!" Jonathan - "Why? She stole my favorite toy!!" Mom - "We don't hit other people or yell at them because it makes God/Jesus sad when we act mean to and hit each other Jonathan, Jesus teaches us to be nice to each other. We need to learn to share our things(toys) with each other." And Susan, u need to ask next time before u borrow one of Jonathans' toys." Susan - "Why? I was going t give it back." Mom - "Because the Bible teaches us to ask before we just take smth that doesn't belong to us, even if u are just going to borrow it for a little while." How u can gather that that is evil Elird, I do not know.

    And the Bible verse I provided is one of the best ones concerning the teaching of God to a child. Do u not enforce the rules of your home to your child EVERY time they do wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  5. And another thing; if u think that the goal of christianity is to smother people with all of this "Jesus stuff" to make them be christians, you have sadly misunderstood what christianity is about. And unless I'm mistaken, the vast majority of the world population is some form of christianity. 33% I think is some form of christian, about 20% is muslim, and about 12.7% are non-religious. So if anyone is converting, its unbelievers to christianity, not so much(or as much as u like to think)the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nathan says, "Because I think we both know that I could go on forever about how discipline is ESSENTIAL in a childs upbringing" I agree, fellow bretherin. I will most definately dicipline my kids, however, i will NOT indoctrinate them. That is the purpose of this post, not dicipline. Now, you go on further to say......

    "And if u do believe in disciplining a child and teaching them rules about good behavior and such, then what better place to find rules for behavior and discipline than the Bible?" I can think of one: common sense (the one god ACTUALLY provided). If you wanna teach ur kids that if a women gets raped she'll get stoned or has to marry her attacker, be my guest. I refuse to use a book that contains such things as the backbone of my families dicipline.

    Nathan says, " All they could possibly think of is that its a place where either the good(heaven) or bad(hell) kids go" <<< It;s the criteria for good and bad that causes the indoctrination of which i has blogged about. Not believing in jesus DOES NOT equal bad, but the bible (or should i say the ppl using it) sure would like to think so and teach their kids so.

    Nathan says, " Do u not enforce the rules of your home to your child EVERY time they do wrong? " << I do, i just wouldnt indoctrinate and brainwash my kids while going about that tast.

    As ar as ur facts and figures are concerned, i kindly refer you to the post entitled "Arguemntu ad populum". The point i was trying to make was that ppl DO (And they do, just to be clear) deviate from christianity. And not coz they "werent ever REALLY jesus lovers" but coz they say the flaws which im trying to bring to your attention.

    One last point, the situation u provided with the kids and the mom. Great. Def teach those morals, but why say Jesus? Why "suffocate them" with smth they cannote comprehend so that when they grow older they will believe in smth and not know why. And then when challenged, defend they're faith not coz it makes sense to the god provided logic we all have, but because they have been raised in that way. Indoctrination is wrong and i think you know it, which is why u haven't really challenged the core message in this post. You've merely claimed that christiantiy is not guilty. It is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have already given u a valid,valid mind u, explanation for the stoning stuff, so get off it already. Just because it(argument of context) is used often doesn't mean that it isn't true. And the Bible IS the best place to find a set rules for ur children. U are being hypocritical of urself when u say that we shouldn't 'brainwash'/'indoctrinate' our children, its just wrong; because if u believe in any form of discipline, u must "indoctrinate"/"brainwash" your child with the rules of the house to make sure that they follow them because u can't reason with a child, u tell them its wrong, give them a spank, and that's it. They don't have common sense/logic to use; they are children dude.

    Elird says "Why "suffocate them" with smth they cannot comprehend so that when they grow older they will believe in smth and not know why. And then when challenged, defend they're faith not coz it makes sense to the god provided logic we all have, but because they have been raised in that way." Teaching them morals and giving them explanations as to why u think they are wrong is not suffocating them. U are basically saying to tell your child 'no' because u said so and not tell them why u think its wrong other than 'its not nice to be mean to people', which may work until they are 16/17 but when they reach that age they simply won't care if its nice or logical, they will start to ask u questions as to why u believe what u do. And it is at THAT age, when children, in Biblical Christian homes, are taught about religion because they CAN understand much much better what going to hell means as opposed to when they are 4/5/6 when they think that hell is a place 'where mean people go'.

    By opposing the teaching of religion, u are opposing the teaching of morals because morals come from religion, not logic. Logic is simply a feeling u get that tells u that smth is/isn't right. Not everyone thinks the same exact way, and therefore, logic is an improper way to teach your children rules because what u think of as common sense, someone else might think of as a bunch of silliness. U understand what I mean here?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nathan says, " u must "indoctrinate"/"brainwash" your child with the rules of the house " <<< i STRONGLY suggest you read the definition of indoctrination before clutiching at straws, as u are doing now, in defending your position. I wont even go into detail about why your comparison of house rules and brainwashing kids is ludicrous and mistaken. I'll leave that for anyone who reads your comments.

    Nathan says, "Teaching them morals and giving them explanations as to why u think they are wrong is not suffocating them" <<< teaching morals, i have no problem with. Passing off mere unproven, yes UNPROVEN, beliefs as facts of life is what i have a problem with. Please re read that and finally grasp what im saying here and stop going on about morals. Its a weak argument and is not doing you any favours.

    Nathan says, "which may work until they are 16/17 but when they reach that age they simply won't care if its nice or logical, they will start to ask u questions as to why u believe what u do." <<< YOU HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT BUD! when they are 16/17 and the normal explanations dont work TEHNNNNNN tehy can start comprehending god at the approprate age. I know you were unintentional in your comment, but you proved my point in a way even my blog couldnt.

    Nathan says, "By opposing the teaching of religion, u are opposing the teaching of morals because morals come from religion, not logic." <<< you are VERY inncorect here. VERY. If you want me to explain why, ask. Coz i shouldnt have to waste tim clearing up these things.

    Nathan says, " Not everyone thinks the same exact way, and therefore, logic is an improper way to teach your children rules because what u think of as common sense, someone else might think of as a bunch of silliness." <<< Nathan, use your head here for a sec. its called COMMON sense and logic for a reason bud. Its common amongst us all. Cmon, i REALLY shouldnt have to hold your hand thru these things....

    ReplyDelete
  9. I beg ur pardon, but I believe I know the english language well enough to understand what indoctrination is. If I'm clutching at straws, then u are grasping at thin air. U just undid urself with this comment:"when they are 16/17 and the normal explanations dont work THENNNNNN they can start comprehending god at the approprate age." I am highlighting the DON'T WORK part here. U just admitted that previous discussions mean nothing to a child, contradicting urself once again.

    And dude, u really need to stop using fancy vocab in ur posts if are going to try to debate this with me(we don't want u holding my hand, now do we?). Just use the K.I.S.S.(Keep It Simple Silly)method; it has worked just fine for me.

    Morals DO come from religion; THAT is common sense. And for the record, common sense is obviously FAR from common BECAUSE we are arguing ; that is a solid fact my indecorous friend(would ya look at that, ur not the only one who can use fancy words :)). And before I comment further, let me refer u to your argumentum and populum post, in which I gave a definition of what true religion is. U are very confused about Biblical Christianity(aka Protestantism which is what I MYSELF believe in) and other religions in general. Take a look at that before we continue further.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nathan theres a reason u dont ever argue the points i raise but circle around to the same old apologetic tactics you've grown accustomed to.

    To clarify, i did not contradict myself. I did not in any way say they "dont mean anything" (show me where i said that before pulling words out of thin air to help your dying argument?), they DO. They mess up a kids brain (read the blog, will ya). With the quotation u have raised, i said that only at that age are they able and is it correct to begin comprehending god. Your making like an atheist and putting words in my mouth coz u have absolutely no solid argument for my indoctrination blog. Its unfortunate.

    As far as fancy words, i wont engage in these low blows you have resorted to in the face of the deep abyss of utter mistkenness that has befallen you. Please refrain from such comments as, "(would ya look at that, ur not the only one who can use fancy words :))", because they are childish and immature (when your wrong, what else do you have, eh). I refuse to engage in your games, and, unfortunatley, you are proving to not be the worthy adversary i had once pictured you as, but instead are acting like a troubled teen pouting his lips and throwing a fit, NOT debating. Again, most unfortunate.

    Nathan says, "Morals DO come from religion; THAT is common sense" << they dont, read me previous comments coz i wont hold your hand anymore by repeating myself a thousand times.

    Nathan says, "U are very confused about Biblical Christianity" <<< your indoctrination has led you to believe that ANYONE who doesnt see things the way you do is "very conused". Thank you for proving my point with your shallow and narrow minded view on my knowledge of Christianity. How very unfortunate.

    I would like to remind you that in our last conversation, i asked you to compile a case against the message in my blog and present it to me when you are calm and rational again. You have failed in doing that but have stooped to childish mind games that may work on your other freinds, but like ive said time and again my freind: it WONT fly around here. Grow up. Make a case. Present it. Had enough hand holding? I sure hope so. These debated have dwindled to mere playground banter. Please come to your senses. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I DO try to argue the points u post but whenever I try to catch u online and try to give u my understanding, u interrupt and don't let me finish and quote near every sentence I put up and make it sound like it said smth I didn't. So I decided I would give u a taste of your own medicine and obviously its really starting to piss you off since u are resorting to calling me a "troubled teen pouting his lips and throwing a fit, NOT debating." And lets not forget how "narrow minded" and "shallow" I am. When u are finished venting, let me know and we can start from the top again(on msn or skype that is). I am willing to move on and forget all this crap ever happened, it has done neither of us any good in arguing points, in fact, it has shown whoever reads this that neither of us is mature enough to actually have a decent debate(which I know is not true, but that is what we are both conveying to any readers who take a look at this blog). So can we finally move on from childish arguing, and start to debate like honest people? Because if u are not ready to, than I refuse to acquiesce to the participation of these quite unsatisfactory squabbles.

    And Elird, morals did actually come from religion. U can accept that, or not, but it is a fact. And u ARE confused(just like countless others) about Biblical(Protestant) Christianity and what it is all about. Because if you DID understand it, you wouldn't be directing your arguments toward it because u would know that they "don't fly around here" as u so eloquently put it. And I want to start again by showing u the difference between Christianity in general, and TRUE Christianity. But thus far, u have ignored my pointing out the differences, so its up to u man.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And now back to the part where I "saw the light". You pulled that completely out of context and u didn't even copy the whole sentence. I said:"U are basically saying to tell your child 'no' because u said so and not tell them why u think its wrong other than 'its not nice to be mean to people', which may work until they are 16/17 but when they reach that age they simply won't care if its nice or logical, they will start to ask u questions as to why u believe what u do."
    And my VERY NEXT SENTENCE says:"And it is at THAT age when children, in Biblical Christian homes, are taught about religion because they CAN understand much much better what going to hell means as opposed to when they are 4/5/6 when they think that hell is a place 'where mean people go'. I think we both know very well that that doesn't agree with your blog; yet another example of u taking my sentences out of context(which is more and more becoming the backbone of your comments). CAN WE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM DOING THAT? And YES I mean 'WE' because I TOO took a few of your sentences out of context to make u understand how its a bad way to try to prove a point. LETS MOVE ON FROM THOSE DUMBO TECHNIQUES PLEASE!!! All they do is cause more unnecessary controversy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm the one that needs to vent? lol, i have the msn convo saved freind. Maybe you wanna read it sometime and rephrase.

    Nathan says, " it has shown whoever reads this that neither of us is mature enough to actually have a decent debate..." <<< Speak for yourself freind. You were the one losing ur mind on msn coz u couldnt get anywhere with your case.

    Nathan says, " u have ignored my pointing out the differences." <<< I have read and considerd everything you have said (and carefully, mind you, so i dont contradict myself coz i wasnt concentrating on my opponents ideas. Ring any bells?). Christianity is JUST like everyother religion and you havent shown me (or anyone reading this blog) otherwise. I have lisntened, to dont attatch your failure to defend your case by aluding that i have been "ignorant".

    Nathan says, "yet another example of u taking my sentences out of context(which is more and more becoming the backbone of your comments)" <<< I dont. Stop saying that about ur foes. It old. It boring. It may serve as satisfaction to you, but it makes no sense. Give it up. Learn to debate and quote ur opponent when they flop. Which is what i do.

    Nathan says, "LETS MOVE ON FROM THOSE DUMBO TECHNIQUES PLEASE!!! " <<< Again i urge you to take notice of your own mistaken ways of "debating" (if w ecan call your manner of talking that) and speak for yourself.

    As far my apparent "misquoted" passage: YES, i did read your next sentence (despite the numerous amount of times you would like to tell yourself that ppl misquote you and ur bible, so THATS why it "seems" wrong) and i simply highlighted what my blog already said. By THEN, its too late. Once you brainwash a mind, its no use even bringing up "other gods". That was my point, not a misquotation but a misunderstanding on ur part in the hopes of actually gaining some ground in this debate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please send me that conversation and I'll be happy to point out to you how nearly EVERY time I started to say smth, you very rudely interrupted and didn't let me finish so that my sentence fragments would make sense to your biased view of christianity. I kept my composure just fine until near the end, U were the one interrupting me in an effort to elicit smth contradictory out of me(very knowingly I might add).

    I don't mind if u quote me, u just make sure that when u do, you copy the full sentece and make sure u explain to your readers the context.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have found that u simply are very biased against apologetics and the arguments they use. Now back to this stuff again *sigh*: "If you wanna teach ur kids that if a women gets raped she'll get stoned or has to marry her attacker, be my guest." That was Mosaic Law. Jesus put an end to it by fulfilling the Law so that we wouldn't have to be binded to it anymore. This is the 3rd time(I think, not sure) that I have given u this explanation. What isn't getting through dude?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I wont get into another playground brawl with words again here with you nathan. I will just repeat, for the readers' sake, that i didnt not, willingly or otherwise, try to elicit a response from you to "win the arguemtn and make u look like a fool". You did that on your own and i most certainly dont need your fiery emotion that brakes up ur whole case in proving you wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And about the Mosaic Law? If u r silent than I will assume that u agree.

    ReplyDelete
  18. After reading this post, I really think you'd enjoy the Fowler book.

    ReplyDelete