OK Groomer...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm not certain you actually know what Christian parents teach their children.

I am responding to what seer wrote with regard to teaching his child about hell:

It does not matter the word you use...

The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom every cause of sin and all who practice lawlessness. And they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.…


It should be avoided at all costs....

And I repeat that to present such a post mortem scenario to a young child in order to coerce them by terror and fear into compliance with an abstract construct and belief system in which their parents believe, is emotional and psychological abuse.

[seer]

And that verse was the one selected by seer [Matthew 13.42] Although that verse and those preceding it refer to sin and evildoers and have nothing to do with punishing those who refuse to accept a very much later [by several centuries] particular belief system and its alleged post mortem punishments.

What are you on about? The whole chapter is about those who accept the teachings of Christ and those who don't. And of course the punishment is post mortem, the weeping and gnashing is happening in the fire. But in a sense you are correct because they aren't dead that is why Christ describes the fire in other texts as everlasting.

[seer]

Who is this "someone" ? And for what purpose would they go into "a class full of children" and announce that transgender is "super cool"?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But I'm not teaching my child really anything different than what most Christian parents or churches teach. Or what Muslim parents teach for that matter. Or different than what I was taught growing up. This is all emotional abuse by your lights?

Or Hindu parents or ultra orthodox Jewish parents. If a child is raised in fear and coerced through terror and indoctrination into uncritically accepting and [with regard to religions] believing what they are told, that is emotional and psychological abuse.

I want my child to experience everlasting life, which far surpasses any temporary emotional distress.

You believe that such a post mortem situation exists and that those who accept certain religious beliefs and behaviours will experience it.

However, that is quite different from actually knowing about such a post mortem existence.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And that is wicked in IMHO.

Perhaps this lady should not have intruded into another family's parental decisions. It seems that parents are entitled to abuse their children according to some comments made here.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/timothy...e-needed-help/

An Orlando man been found guilty of abuse after a waitress noticed concerning signs and helped save his stepchild. On Monday, a jury found Timothy Lee Wilson guilty of 2 counts of false imprisonment on a child under the age of 13, three counts of aggravated child abuse with a weapon, four counts of aggravated child abuse and one count of child neglect, according to a news release from the state attorney's office.

On New Year's Day 2021, police received a 911 call from waitress Flaviane Carvalho, who worked at the Mrs. Potato restaurant. She noticed a family of four enter the restaurant at around 11 p.m. and saw one child was being secluded from the rest of the family. He was being denied food and Carvalho noticed bruises on him.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What are you on about? The whole chapter is about those who accept the teachings of Christ and those who don't. And of course the punishment is post mortem, the weeping and gnashing is happening in the fire. But in a sense you are correct because they aren't dead that is why Christ describes the fire in other texts as everlasting.

You forget that Jesus of Nazareth was not a Christian.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The second individual was clearly born with ambiguous genitalia.

The first individual struck me as a little giggly and immature but if children are talking about things, I cannot criticise teachers for encouraging that. And prepubescent children are not [contrary to some opinions] asexual. They are interested in their own bodies and the bodies of others.

[tabibito]

A highly commendable attitude. Yet in your very next sentence you admit to using indoctrination. The exact thing from which you wish to shield your grandchildren.

Indoctrinate does not necessarily indicate brainwashing. As with discriminate, the word does not invariably denote something negative. (when you refuse a stranger permission to use your car, you are being discriminatory.) Note Websters' second sub-definition of indoctrinate, which can also be presented as "inculcate".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate

indoctrinate

verbDefinition of indoctrinate

transitive verb
1 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

2 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach

Perhaps you could explain in what regard your method of indoctrination [a term generally accepted today to refer to the process of inculcating certain ideas or beliefs in an individual until they accept them without criticism or question] differs from any others?

The thing that I attempt to most thoroughly indoctrinate people about is the need to approach any introduced concept with scepticism (including my claim that it should be done). Of course when I use the word, sceptic, I am using the definition "a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions," not "a person who rejects contrary opinions without due consideration." The latter seems to have been missed by dictionary editors.

However, that is not the same as telling a child that if s/he does not comply with an abstract concept and belief system to which her/his parents adhere s/he will suffer post mortem eternal agony and torture in some fiery furnace. And that verse was the one selected by seer [Matthew 13.42] Although that verse and those preceding it refer to sin and evildoers and have nothing to do with punishing those who refuse to accept a very much later [by several centuries] particular belief system and its alleged post mortem punishments.

Hell is a big topic, and yes, certain teachings about hell do seem to be detached from any scriptural foundation.

[tabibito]

The second individual was clearly born with ambiguous genitalia.

Where does that assessment come from?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Obviously the only rational explanation is all those verses in the Gospels where Jesus makes explicit references to Hell were in fact later interpolations inserted into the text after the "author of Revelation and their febrile imagination" wrote that text

Those texts do not refer to Hell as such nor do they need to be taken in a literal sense.

Furthermore, contrary to your apparent naivety no one was following Jesus of Nazareth around recording his every word. As for Revelation, I seem to recall it was E O James who described it as that "happy hunting ground for mystics and fanatics" although I may be incorrect in that attribution.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Where does that assessment come from?

The second person mentioned that at birth their genitalia were ambiguous.

[rogue06]

A highly commendable attitude. Yet in your very next sentence you admit to using indoctrination. The exact thing from which you wish to shield your grandchildren.



Perhaps you could explain in what regard your method of indoctrination [a term generally accepted today to refer to the process of inculcating certain ideas or beliefs in an individual until they accept them without criticism or question] differs from any others?

Mountain Man also confuses indoctrination with teaching a child things for their own safety. He gave perfectly valid examples of wearing cycling helmets, playing with matches, and wearing a seatbelt and accompanied those with sound reasons as to why the child should comply with parental wishes in those situations.

However, that is not the same as telling a child that if s/he does not comply with an abstract concept and belief system to which her/his parents adhere s/he will suffer post mortem eternal agony and torture in some fiery furnace. And that verse was the one selected by seer [Matthew 13.42] Although that verse and those preceding it refer to sin and evildoers and have nothing to do with punishing those who refuse to accept a very much later [by several centuries] particular belief system and its alleged post mortem punishments.

Who is this "someone" ? And for what purpose would they go into "a class full of children" and announce that transgender is "super cool"?

Indoctrinate can also mean to simply teach or providing instruction. As Merriam-Webster puts it in their second definition:

to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach.

So it can mean imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view, but it can also mean to simply teach or instruct the basics.

[tabibito]

The second person mentioned that at birth their genitalia were ambiguous.

not according to the transcript provided by Gondwanaland in post #2 of this thread, and not in the video linked by Seer.

So something that’s really cool and unique about who I am is that I am transgender. So we touched a little bit about that at the beginning of this week in the book that Miss Hammond read, but I’m gonna give you my explanation about what it means to be transgender as well:

So when babies are born, the doctor looks at them and they make a guess about whether the baby is a boy or girl based on what they look like. Most of the time that guess is 100% correct; there are no issues whatsoever, but sometimes the doctor is wrong; the doctor makes an incorrect guess. When a doctor makes a correct guess, that’s when a person is called cisgender. When a doctor’s guess is wrong that’s when they are transgender.

So I’m a man, but when I was a baby the doctors told my parents I was a girl. And so my parents gave me a name that girls typically have; they bought me clothes that girls typically wear, and until I was eighteen years old everyone thought I was a girl. And this was super, super uncomfortable for me because I knew that wasn’t right. The way I like to describe it is like wearing a super-itchy sweater. The longer you wear it the itchier it gets and the only way to make the itching stop is to have everyone see and know the person that you really are. So when I was eighteen I told my family and my friends that I’m really a boy and it was like this huge weight had been lifted off of my shoulders and I had the freedom to be who I truly am. And even though this experience is super-challenging sometimes it made me the person I am and I’m super-proud to be transgender.

[rogue06]

Who is this "someone" ? And for what purpose would they go into "a class full of children" and announce that transgender is "super cool"?

Take a look at Libs of TikTok which is mostly a collection of videos posted on the internet by teachers themselves. You can see that and a whole lot more, including some teachers telling their young students to keep it a secret and don't tell their parents.

This was why a livid WaPo doxxed the person behind the site so they could receive death threats and hopefully stop. It is impossible to handwave off when it is the teachers themselves boasting about what they are doing.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Indoctrinate does not necessarily indicate brainwashing.

No one referred to "brainwashing" aka psychological conditioning.

As with discriminate, the word does not invariably denote something negative.

The word indoctrinate also comes from the Latin verb to teach but as your source also states

By the 19th century, indoctrinate was being used in the sense of teaching someone to fully accept only the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group.

If you wished differentiate between your usage and the now more generally accepted application you should have defined the two terms separately in your initial post.

The thing that I attempt to most thoroughly indoctrinate people about is the need to approach any introduced concept with scepticism (including my claim that it should be done).

That is not indoctrination. That is education and education should never be confined to indoctrination.

However, using the definition you have provided which option are you adopting?

Definition of indoctrinate

transitive verb
1 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

2 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach

And if you are adhering to option 2 on what grounds are your particular "fundamentals or rudiments" to be considered correct?

Given the position you have adopted in various previous exchanges I must beg to differ that you exhibit evidence of someone who is sceptical, particularly with regard to your Christian texts and beliefs

Hell is a big topic

It certainly is and as with alien abductions, angelic visitations, prophecies, and other eccentric notions, needs to be treated with scepticism and incredulity.