There is a Heaven

[Big RR]

Sean--I think there are various catechisms used by different religions, but they differ. For example, I recall one question/answer in the RC catechism saying that a RC who marries someone of another religion (I believe without a dispensation by the bishop) was not married in the eyes of god; I doubt the Luther catechism says that. Likewise for forms of confession/reconciliation, priest and bishop powers, and the authority of the pope. I don't think there is a single christian catechism.

[loCAtek]

Don't worry, there is absolutely no confusion on my part on what being indoctrinated means... Indoctrination does not allow for questioning of what one is 'taught'; it is a completely blinkered and closed-minded form of 'education'. It is exactly what one might expect to find in a household where the parents are deeply religious... say a Pastor and his wife for argument's sake.

Again assuming that being taught anything about faith or religion, is being 'indoctrinated', while you can be taught that faith and religion are spiritual. Such as not teaching fear, but love and respect in an open-minded way; which is the basis of this pastor's ministry.

If it's close-minded it's not spiritual, and more likely dogma, and that's what's used for Indoctrination.

[loCAtek]

Aslo although most often used by the church today, catechism precedes it in history by the Greeks;

Catechisms are doctrinal manuals often in the form of questions followed by answers to be memorized, a format that has been used in non-religious or secular contexts as well.

cat·e·che·sis (kt-kss)
n. pl. cat·e·che·ses (-sz)
Oral instruction given to catechumens.
[Late Latin catchsis, from Greek katkhsis, oral instruction, from katkhein, to teach by word of mouth; see catechize.]

cat·e·chize
verb \ˈka-tə-ˌkīz\
cat·e·chizedcat·e·chiz·ing
Definition of CATECHIZE
transitive verb
1
: to instruct systematically especially by questions, answers, and explanations and corrections

In other words, catechism means to question. In the religious context, it may either teach spirituality or dogma, but it is a teaching method, not an indoctrination per se.

[Big RR]

Perhaps that is how it is defined, but I think most catechisms are lists of questions and answers that are committed to memory. Not a method that encourages questioning as far as i know.

[BoSoxGal]

I believe the wiki definition of religious indoctrination posted earlier contradicts that assertion, loCA - that is, indoctrination is teaching.

Religious indoctrination is, quite simply, the instilling into new members the beliefs of a religion. Setting aside whatever negative connotations the word has been given over the years, it's a very simple definition and it is absolutely what is done to very young kids in every Christian denomination that I have participated in services of over the years.

As a very young child, I recall coloring pictures from the Good News Bible while our Sunday school teacher indoctinated us on the accompanying Old Testament or Gospel stories. By the time I was 4, I was absolutely indocrinated into the basic beliefs of Christianity - I believed in Jesus with the same fervor as my belief in Santa Claus.

Over the years as a young adult, I participated in the indoctrination of other very young kids by teaching/assisting in Sunday School classes.

Ever heard of Awana? http://awana.org/about/about-awana,default,pg.html

I recall very distinctly being told by my beloved 4 year old niece that I was going to hell because I wasn't saved - I was then a confirmed Episcopalian, she a member of the First Baptist Church. She was distraught over my fate, as she loved me very much. But she was absolutely convinced of the things she'd been taught in her church since birth - and she is the g'daughter of the Pastor, to boot. (I'm happy to say that as a teenager, she now questions the certainty of those religious tenets she once avowed.)

As for the book; I skimmed it at Borders this weekend and was wholly unimpressed. Interestingly, the back cover notes that the reader will hear about Colton's story not in his own voice, but told by his dad, who understands him and can give voice to his experience. But of course . . .

Incidentally, the actual author, Lynn Vincent, also gave voice to Sarah Palin in ghost-penning Going Rogue. Here's a taste of her political/religious views: http://www.worldmag.com/search/?q=lynn%20vincent

[Big RR]

BSG--don't you think ther is a big difference between presenting dogma as an absolute, unquestionable truth, like your niece being taught all who do not believe what she does are damned, and beginning a dialogue about religion where questions are encouraged and discussed? That's the difference I see between indoctrination and teaching; and while many religious groups prefer the former, many others prefer the latter and encourage people to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

[thestoat]

BSG--don't you think ther is a big difference between presenting dogma as an absolute, unquestionable truth, like your niece being taught all who do not believe what she does are damned, and beginning a dialogue about religion where questions are encouraged and discussed? That's the difference I see between indoctrination and teaching; and while many religious groups prefer the former, many others prefer the latter and encourage people to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

I have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the religious indoctrination of young children involving the questioning of the stuff they are indoctrinated with.

They learn maths - presented as a fact
They learn reading - presented as a fact
They learn religion - presented as a fact.

The only difference as I see it is that the first two are justifiably presented as facts.

4-6 year olds don't question what they are taught - they simply accept. I have actually had a 5 year old telling me Jesus loves me! That has to be wrong (not least because if there really was a Jesus he'd hate my guts )

[dgs49]

What many find discomfiting about the Catholic Church is that it seeks the correct answers to moral and theological questions, then publishes its conclusions authoritatively.

While it is nice to think that one ought to be able to read the Bible and draw one's own conclusions about what it means (like, for example, the late Herbert W. Armstrong), that ignores the work of thousands of scholars and theologians who have been studying the same questions for literally thousands of years.

If I were to look around at nature and say, "It is obvious that this world was created by an intelligent being, who created an integrated natural world," many of you would call me an idiot for ignoring a scientific consensus (a counterintuitive consensus) that the world as we see it came about through complex interactions and natural phenomena, with no central plan or intelligent causation.

And you would be right. What seems "obvious" to me may be totally off base. I must defer to a mountain of historical scientific investigation.

But some of the same people will say, "I can read a few excerpts from the Bible [not seriously study it] and figure out exactly what God's intentions are."

If there are correct answers to theological and moral questions, then one has an obligation to seek them out. And to ignore a mountain of existing scholarship is folly.

[Big RR]

stoat--they also learn science by questioning--why do we have ears, how do they work,etc.; ditto for history and social studies. True, their questions aren't in depth, but they are there. And I have seen the same with religion, becoming more in depth questions as they grow; theological principles are presented as theories, not unquestionable facts, and students are expected to ask questions. Students are encouraged to develop their own beliefs through their faith and understanding, and not because "it is so". My church has done it that way for years;confirmands are encouraged to write their own statements about what they believe, and these differ widely, as they should--religion is taught as something gradually revealed and discovered throughout one's life. some buy this,some don't, but they decide for themselves; other religions teach the same things.

dgs--indeed, one can learn much from the writings and opinions of others,and they should be consulted; but one must ultimately decide for oneself. this is quite different from just reading a few bible verses and saying you've figured everything out; indeed, few people would say that even after a lifetime of study. The only people I know who would do that are those who choose to substitute another's opinions for their own.

[Gob]

"Jesus loves you little child, so do as we tell you, think as we think, and behave as we behave, or our loving god will burn you in hell...."

[Sean]

Don't worry, there is absolutely no confusion on my part on what being indoctrinated means... Indoctrination does not allow for questioning of what one is 'taught'; it is a completely blinkered and closed-minded form of 'education'. It is exactly what one might expect to find in a household where the parents are deeply religious... say a Pastor and his wife for argument's sake.

Again assuming that being taught anything about faith or religion, is being 'indoctrinated', while you can be taught that faith and religion are spiritual. Such as not teaching fear, but love and respect in an open-minded way; which is the basis of this pastor's ministry.

If it's close-minded it's not spiritual, and more likely dogma, and that's what's used for Indoctrination.

Okay, clearly you are the one who doesn't understand what indoctrination means Lo. You notice that I put the words 'taught' and 'education' in inverted commas? Using them left a nasty taste in my mouth as these words shouldn't really be assocoated with indoctrination. Indoctrination is not teaching in my eyes (or in the eyes of anyone with eyes), it is drumming information into somebody. Information which they are to accept without question.

Any clearer now?

BTW

If it's close-minded it's not spiritual

I'll let you be the one to tell the pope and his followers that they are not spiritual. Lucky you're here to make that call for us...

[Sean]

Aslo although most often used by the church today, catechism precedes it in history by the Greeks;

Catechisms are doctrinal manuals often in the form of questions followed by answers to be memorized, a format that has been used in non-religious or secular contexts as well.

cat·e·che·sis (kt-kss)
n. pl. cat·e·che·ses (-sz)
Oral instruction given to catechumens.
[Late Latin catchsis, from Greek katkhsis, oral instruction, from katkhein, to teach by word of mouth; see catechize.]

cat·e·chize
verb \ˈka-tə-ˌkīz\
cat·e·chizedcat·e·chiz·ing
Definition of CATECHIZE
transitive verb
1
: to instruct systematically especially by questions, answers, and explanations and corrections

In other words, catechism means to question. In the religious context, it may either teach spirituality or dogma, but it is a teaching method, not an indoctrination per se.

Try reading it again... There are questions in catechism but they are ALWAYS asked by the indoctrinator and NEVER the indoctrinated (I'm not sure if indoctrinatee is a word and I really can't be arsed looking it up right now...). The indoctrinatee (fuck it, I'll use it anyway... you all know what I mean...) is not allowed to question ANYTHING to do with the catechism and the answers they give are memorised and have to be spouted back word perfect (in my day not being word perfect led to beatings...).

Bottom line... catechism is indoctrination. The catechism is the Christian doctrine for fucks sake! How is this hard to understand? From your own quote:

Catechisms are doctrinal manuals

NB: This definition of catechism is from personal experience rather than some definition I found online and didn't understand. You would do well to bear that in mind if you wish to continue debating from your current stance...

[Sean]

Sean--I think there are various catechisms used by different religions, but they differ. For example, I recall one question/answer in the RC catechism saying that a RC who marries someone of another religion (I believe without a dispensation by the bishop) was not married in the eyes of god; I doubt the Luther catechism says that. Likewise for forms of confession/reconciliation, priest and bishop powers, and the authority of the pope. I don't think there is a single christian catechism.

If I recall correctly Big RR there are two versions: the generic Christian one and the modified (to suit their own nefarious ends) Catholic one. I could be wrong on this though... there could well be more that I am unaware of.

[Big RR]

the three I am aware of is the RC catechism, Luther's catechism (for some Lutherans), and the heidelberg catechism (used by the Dutch Reformed Church and some Calvanist denominations.

[BoSoxGal]

The church I attended as a very young child was a Community Church - Dighton Community Church, in fact:

http://dightoncommunitychurch.com/



Pretty, huh? Founded 1769.

Pretty progressive, as Christian churches go.

That being said, I had absolutely no knowledge that other religions besides my own existed until I was 10. I also had no idea that other Christians had nuanced or differing beliefs than the ones I was taught in Sunday school. These things might have been discussed in the adult sermons, but the kiddies left after the first few songs and readings and went downstairs to Indoctrination School - held on Sundays and thus commonly called, 'Sunday School.'

Later, as an adult Episcopalian, I was encouraged to question and explore my faith and other faiths and the overall question of whether faith is necessary, and consequently came to the place of being largely an atheist - albeit an occasionally uncertain athiest. I admit I often long for the comfort that simple faith brings; I just can't get there intellectually.

[thestoat]

stoat--they also learn science by questioning--why do we have ears, how do they work,etc.; ditto for history and social studies. True, their questions aren't in depth, but they are there. And I have seen the same with religion, becoming more in depth questions as they grow; theological principles are presented as theories, not unquestionable facts, and students are expected to ask questions

That is actually good to know - it doesn't happen here. Though my experience with RE teachers have been that they don't understand the subject that well and thus wouldn't want to be questioned on it. Now someone like Meade, who has obviously thought through the subject and come to a considered conclusion (however wrong ) would be a good teacher imho. Science is all about questioning. That is why it exists. Social studies is, as far as I understand, pretty woolly with no single answer, so that obviously invites questions too.

History - now that is similar to RE. All about someone who may or may not have lived in the past and associated deeds they may or may not have done. It seems to me it doesn't particularly invite questions. You are invited to ask for further detail, like RE, but not to dispute what you are told.

[loCAtek]

So, many catechisms so little time.

Bottom line... catechism is indoctrination. The catechism is the Christian doctrine for fucks sake! How is this hard to understand? From your own quote:

Catechisms are doctrinal manuals

Yours is the only definition? Seems very close-minded.

My quote in it's entirety BTW;

Catechisms are doctrinal manuals often in the form of questions followed by answers to be memorized, a format that has been used in non-religious or secular contexts as well.

So a few of the religious ones:


The Buddhist Catechism

Islamic Catechism

Wiccan Catechism

Kundalini (Yoga) Catechism

Confucion Catechism

Jewsih Catechism
As I told you it was the Greeks who were one of the first to teach this way: Catechesis as a term for instructing persons, particularly proselytes, in the principal parts of the faith before admitting them into the fold, was probably in use among the Greek-speaking Jews in pre-Christian times (see, for instance, Acts xviii. 25)

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... z1IAQ3Z3h7

ETC.

Secular:

Civic Catechism

political Catechism

labor catechism

Communist Catechism

The German National (Nazi) Catechism



As for Doctrine:

Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.

Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine. In some organizations, doctrine is simply defined as "that which is taught", in other words the basis for institutional teaching of its personnel internal ways of doing business.


Wiki

One size does not fit all.

[loCAtek]

Any clearer now?

No, the OP was about Colton Burpo and his Near Death Experience that included seeing and hearing things, stated explicitly stated by he and his father, that he was not taught.


Ergo, if he was not taught them, then he could have been indoctrinated in them.

[Sean]

Now where did I say that mine was the only definition? All I said is that it is a fairly accurate one as opposed to yours which showed no understanding of the meaning of the word.

You're doing it again Lo... You obviously didn't quite understand what indoctrination meant but rather than admit that you're digging ever deeper and making a bit of an arse of yourself to be frank. There is no shame in admitting that you are not the fountain of all knowledge. People tend to respect you more...

[loCAtek]

Well, if there is more than one definition, then mine is only a different understanding; that's what we're discussing: the differences.

My point was that Coltan was not indoctrinated, the OP;

Consider: the boy was too young to be indoctrinated, and he spoke of things his parents hadn't mentioned;

One boy’s astonishing account A small child, brought to the brink of death, describes his experience in the afterlife:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42154263/ns/today-books/

Again, if he was not taught about what he states he experienced, then even by your definition he was not indoctrinated.