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.

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.

Take it up with the Latin source, the other 5 or 6 dictionaries which support me and the thesaurus which also supports me.

Maybe I wrote those dictionaries or I DOCtored them.

DOC In doctor should make you wonder where the word doctor was derived from and why it isn't archaic since its Latin source is found in its spelling.


Doctor is an academic title that originates from the Latin word of the same spelling and meaning. The word is originally an agentive noun of the Latin verb docēre [dɔˈkeːrɛ] 'to teach'.

This is same with DOC in indoctrinate isn't it?

JackBizzle:



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.

It's no secret you can read but what you lack is INDEPT understanding

butterflyl1on:


Take it up with the Latin source, the other 5 or 6 dictionaries which support me and the thesaurus which also supports me.

Maybe I wrote those dictionaries or I DOCtored them.

DOC In doctor should make you wonder where the word doctor was derived from and why it isn't archaic since its Latin source is found in its spelling.


Doctor is an academic title that originates from the Latin word of the same spelling and meaning. The word is originally an agentive noun of the Latin verb docēre [dɔˈkeːrɛ] 'to teach'.

Sir , you don't need to bother them about the true meaning of indoctrination . Whether is to teach , or to accept something uncritically it really does not matter ( we all know it means originally to teach )

Let's see it this way :

If it is to teach , yes we were indoctrinated in Christianity

If it is to accept what is being taught uncritically , no we weren't in Christianity : https://www.nairaland.com/4136342/atheism-vs-christianity-which-one/1#61737386

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 . ...

O good. Now we have a definition of indoctrination. But there is disputation as to whether Christains are indoctrinated.

Op, you must prove Christian indoctrination!

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:

O good. Now we have a definition of indoctrination. But there is disputation as to whether Christains are indoctrinated.

Check the post that precedes this , I mentioned it .

Op, you must prove Christian indoctrination!

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

KingEbukasBlog:


Sir , you don't need to bother them about the true meaning of indoctrination . Whether is to teach , or to accept something uncritically it really does not matter ( we all know it means originally to teach )

Let's see it this way :

If it is to teach , yes we were indoctrinated in Christianity

If it is to accept what is being taught uncritically , no we weren't in Christianity : https://www.nairaland.com/4136342/atheism-vs-christianity-which-one/1#61737386

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

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.

JackBizzle:


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

You like lies abi?

I had TV as a deeplifer . Even deeper life now has their TV station . See ? Christianity permits skepticism

I think the discussion about Christian indoctrination should end . Your "rebuttals" are becoming more untenable .

It is high time we discussed atheistic indoctrination, its so true that it is actually called "atheist dogma"

KingEbukasBlog:

If it is to accept what is being taught uncritically , no we weren't in Christianity : https://www.nairaland.com/4136342/atheism-vs-christianity-which-one/1#61737386

Sir, it does matter. The above is what the op means when he started the thread. Stop wriggling unnecessary!

KingEbukasBlog:

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 ...

Good evidence. You gave a similar argument for different beliefs held by atheists in the thread
There Are Atheists Who Acknowledge the Existence of the Creator of the Universe. I assume your position is not that atheists are indoctrinated(?)

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.

JackBizzle:




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.

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

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?

JackBizzle:



Do words change meaning over time? Yes or no?

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

JackBizzle:
They teach that evolution is guided by God. False. Evolution is a chaotic mix of precision, chance and strength.

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

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?

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

Classic indoctrination

JackBizzle:


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?

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

Keep on shooting blanks.

JackBizzle:



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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

JackBizzle:



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 .

Goalpost shifting spotted . I won't even bother refuting this because it has nothing to do with the argument .

And you are being dogmatic again , that evolution is true . And secondly , evolution has to with imaginative thinking . The claims that the process is brutal ,cruel , blind etc are all born out of imagination not observation

JackBizzle:



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

You do not deserve a yes or no. You deserve proper INDOCTRINATION aka Teaching

JackBizzle:



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.

Goal post shifted by 100 kilometres

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:


Goal post shifted by 100 kilometres

No shifting. just pointing out that;

1) Christian evolution is still dogmatic indoctrination

JackBizzle:



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.

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

JackBizzle:




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

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

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.

JackBizzle:


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

Yep.