What is the difference between indoctrination and teaching? Do we indoctrinate our kids to brush their teeth, eat healthy, work diligently? This is a real question, I’m asking.
There may be none. Parental "teaching" on fundamental issues such as religion is inevitably indoctrination of a sort because of the influence parents inevitably have on impressionable toddlers. This is true whether the parents are sincere Christians, Mormons, Hindus, Scientologists or atheists.
My parents - THANK GOD - were neither religious nor non-religious and left me to go my own way. I consider this one of the great blessings of my life. A great deal of all religion - and certainly Christianity in America - is the product of parental indoctrination and social and cultural conditioning. To the extent it produces "Christians," you may think it's wonderful. I think quite the opposite.
Kierkegaard, the great 19th Danish philosopher and theologian, lived in an era when the Danish Lutheran Church was the official state church of Denmark.
Everyone was a "Christian." Kierkegaard asked whether it was even
possible for an individual to actually become a Christian in such circumstances.
This whole thread saddens me that after five pages of debating about big words that I have to look up in order to even try to understand, just what is the whole purpose of this thread. Are we arguing for true faith or against faith just by how these philosophers through their points of views cloud the minds on the unlearned.
Does any Christian that is indwelled with the Holy Spirit need to even question if Christianity is true or false. If they have to question this then I would say they have no personal relationship with Christ nor have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If I was a new member and either a very young Christian or a non-Christian trying to seek answers about what salvation is all about and read all these posting I would be more confused and probably led to not even wanting to consider being a Christian.
There is no edifying or anything that is uplifting in this thread, but only not so sound arguments seemingly because of what some philosophers have written. IMO this thread is nothing more than Satan unaware wanting to plant doubt in the minds of those who only question their own faith. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Do any of us have to question that!!!
1Cor 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Since you feel free to question whether I may "have no personal relationship with Christ nor have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit," perhaps you won't be offended if I question whether you have the intellect to participate on this thread, especially if you have to look up the "big words" that are pretty standard stuff in philosophy and theology. (Perhaps questioning other participants' faith is one of your prerogatives as an Administrator?)
This thread, which at least some others have found interesting and worthwhile, you declare to be "Satan unaware wanting to plant doubt" - whatever
that is supposed to mean. (Goodness, are Administrators completely immune to the Terms of Service?)
Your understanding of faith likewise saddens
me. I don't go so far as to question whether your understanding might mean you "have no personal relationship with Christ nor have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit." I'm not that arrogant, nor is my understanding of Christianity so one-dimensional that I'm threatened by those who have a different one. Whether anyone "has no personal relationship with Christ nor has received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" is, it seems to me, strictly up to God..
This is - or should have been- a pretty straightforward thread about a narrow but important topic Epistemology isn't some satanic discipline. It's the very foundation of what it means to claim we "know" something.
The fact is, on ultimate metaphysical issues such as the existence of God and whether Christianity is true, we don't and can't know. When you or I claim we "know," the atheist says "You're delusional" and the Buddhist and Hindu say "Yeah, well, we know too - but what we know is different from what you claim to know." This is because we all simply hold convictions. When we say the truth of Christianity has blossomed inside of us, the Buddhist and Hindu say the same for their religions.
A sane and rational believer of any sort accepts this reality. He lives with his convictions and accepts the epistemological fact he might be wrong. His level of conviction might be 99.9%, but he might be wrong.
Literally
every Christian theologian, leader, writer and believer who isn't stuck in perpetual Vacation Bible School accepts the reality of doubt. It's part of what it
means to have faith. It isn't something to be afraid of. I have quoted Josh McDowell and an article in
Christianity Today. I could fill 100 pages here with similar leaders making the same point throughout history.
Here is an excellent little Orthodox meditation entitled "Doubt is not unbelief":
https://www.orthodoxroad.com/doubt-is-not-unbelief/ ("Doubt is not the opposite of faith, but rather the vehicle by which we are challenged to go deeper into the Mystery that is true faith. Nothing keeps we true believers from struggling with uncertainty, for it is this very uncertainty that keeps us from complacency.")
Perhaps you question whether
all of these deep Christian leaders and believers "have no personal relationship with Christ nor have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit." Really? Are you that arrogant? Are you that afraid?
Please, be my guest, claim you "know" to an "absolute certainty" the truth of Christianity. Epistemologically, you
don't. In reality, you
don't. If you witness with this attitude, you will immediately lose credibility with those you hope to convince. You have a high level of conviction, that and no more. As
Dorothy Mae has pointed out, in one's Christian walk there is probably no meaningful difference between a "high level of conviction" and the "certainty" you claim.
This thread became controversial only because those with your understanding of faith felt threatened and angered when there was no reason for them to do so. The very fact they felt threatened and became angry is rather a strong indication their "certainty" isn't quite as certain as they claim. God isn't threatened or angered by honest questioning and doubt. If Christianity is true, it should be open to honest questioning and doubt even by believers.
You removed one of my posts here that seemed pretty innocuous to me for "making derogatory remarks about another member." You then proceeded to question whether I have a personal relationship with Christ or have experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You characterized the thread I started as Satanic. Let's see if you have the courage and honesty to face yourself.