Tag Archives: science

Do people become believers because they where indoctrinated as children?

UNBELIEVER : Again, statistically, chances are great you believe in Jesus for no better reason than that is what u were born of Christian parents Your baby/child brain would have believed anything your parents & surrounding culture exposed you to, content is meaningless

MBOFANA : Christianity does not owe its truth to the process by which any body claims or is alleged to have been converted to Christianity. The mode by which i became a Christian does not determine the logical validity of Christianity. Thus the assertion raised by the unbeliever doesn’t amount to a valid objection against the truth of Christianity. After all the unbeliever does not even understand how one becomes a believer according to the bible and i will not even attempt to explain this.

However lets examine the claims of this unbeliever below, we have already determined that his assertion is not a valid objection against Christianity but a mere assertion.

Having asserted that the only reason why I am a Christian is simply because I was indoctrinated when I was a child, the unbeliever also added yet another assertion stating that as a baby my beliefs where born out of indoctrination by parents and society. We must never commit the mistake of assuming we know what the unbeliever means, we must also never assume the unbeliever knows what we mean by terms such as “God”

Here we must fully expose the faulty pressuposition of the unbeliever, He clearly pressuposes observation as basis for His claim, The claim is based on previous experiments and research that came up with the conclusion that children take up the beliefs of parents and society in which they are bred in.

However this is not always the case, first of all even if children are “indoctrinated”, it so often happens that they turn away or from beliefs or they will even question these beliefs, even while still under the care of parents. In fact parents teach their children that stealing, swearing and lying are habits to be avoided yet we know that children despite age, lie and steal. The unbeliever however never mentions this and doesn’t realise that, even in a strictly Muslim country a devout Muslim may become a Christian and, while in a Country that is predominantly Christian a “devout” believer may become an atheist.

Therefore whenever a believer asserts anything of such a nature as the that assertion above we must ask questions and He must answer for if he fails to, we cannot proceed, the debate must end if we cannot understand what the unbeliever is saying.

The unbeliever must be questioned as to how he came up with that assertion, As for the assertion above I have already assumed that the unbeliever’s assertion is based on previously gatherd data as to how children acquire beliefs.

This must therefore mean that this unbeliever either observed all of the brains of babies, and he must show us how. Did He take the babies/children to an operating theater in order to have a full view of each baby’s brain? and if He did what exactly did he see that proves that proves his assertion to be true in every case? Yes this sounds rediculous a question but well if the question is ridiculous what about the assertion?

The assertion must not be accepted as it is, we cannot assume we know how the unbeliever came to the conclusion that children’s brains accept whatever parents and culture expose them to.

The questioning must be intensified, Did the believer obtain basis of his assertion pertaining children’s brains from phsychologists, scientists and neurosurgeons or both, and even if got it from whatever place, what reason do we have to accept his claim, how do we know its true if other equally qualified nerosurgeons and scientits disagree? Why did He take the opinion of the particular scientists who concluded that the brains of children take in anything that parents and culture expose them to?

If its true for religion, how is this not true for science, if you are exposed to either science and religion, it might just be you will either turn to science or religion or both to come up with a position on metaphysics, ethics and epistemology. However if we go by the statement above what the unbeliever actually means is children dont think and cannot believe anything except those things the society and thier parents impose on them.

[ the following websites provide further resources in the study of the defense of the Christian Faith | vincentcheung.com | tektoniks.org | trinitylectures.org]


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Christ, real historical fact, not mere myth!

Have you ever been confronted by non believers? who claim that the basis for the Christian faith is a myth.

 Many non believers out of pure hatred for the faith will say such things even though they themselves either have biased evidence against Christianity or no evidence at all.

On 20th November 2016 Va Ndoro in His article “Religion incompatible with truth, science” he wrote ” Christianity is based on assumptions. That is, according to Va Ndoro, Christianity is based on mere claims that are not backed by proof. We Christians take the Person, Ministry, Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ, to be basis for our Faith.

According to Va Ndoro therefore Christ is a mere assumption, they is no proof that He was ever born, lived, died & resurrected. According to Va Ndoro Christ never had a ministry, he never did what the bible says He did, in fact Va Ndoro indirectly attacks #Scripture for Scripture in its entirety points to Christ.

Therefore since Va Ndoro says Christianity is based on assumptions, what this means is that The Ministry, Life, person, death, resurrection, teachings, gospel of Christ is a mere assumption without #proof and therefore a lie. Wait a minute dont we have proof for Christ, also what kind of proof does Va Ndoro need?


The valid form of proof that Va Ndoro requires must be from actual experience or observation. That is va Ndoro implies that Christ will only be real to Him if Science can prove, this is despite the fact that science uses inductive logic which draws probable not certain conclusions based on what the premises provide evidence for.

Now the the birth, life and ministry of Jesus Christ is a historical fact, but since Va Ndoro wants only evidence in form of things He can touch, sniff, see, hear and taste, he wont accept historical facts as valid evidence no matter what source shows it to have been a real event in history. Since Historical events themselves can neither be tasted, sniffed, seen, heard or touched, Va Ndoro being an #empiricist will not accept the Historical Jesus.


When Va Ndoro says that Christianity is based on assumption what he actually means is that Christianity is based on claims that cannot be proven by empiricism. Therefore what He means is:

Claims that cannot be proved by observation are false

The basis of Christianity is a claim that cannot be proven by observation

Therefore the basis of Christianity is false.

Clearly Va Ndoro is being inconsistent, here is why: He discounts historical accounts of Jesus in His articles as mere myths not worth taking any look into.

 Yet Va Ndoro Himself explains the word “truth” according to how its essence was named and explained in extinct languages such as Sanskrit, ancient #Egyptian… The question is, how did Va Ndoro prove that indeed these languages once found use in the past? Its quite obvious that Va Ndoro read history books or referred to authors who made use of historical records to prove that Sanskrit and Ancient Egyptian are ancient languages. Va Ndoro would love to believe that #Sanskrit was once a language found on the face of the earth, that is a Historical fact. Yet Va Ndoro discounts Jesus in spite of overwhelming evidence in historical records chief of which is the bible.

Enough of the illogical and and therefore invalid objections of Va Ndoro, Below is what Charles Spurgeon says about the #resurrection.

“The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is one of the best attested facts on record. There were so many witnesses to behold it, that if we do in the least degree receive the credibility of men’s testimonies, we cannot and we dare not doubt that Jesus rose from the dead.

 It is all very easy for infidels to say that these persons were deceived, but it is equally foolish, for these persons could not every one of them have been so positively deceived as to say that they had seen this man, whom they knew to have been dead, afterwards alive; they could not all, surely, have agreed together to help on this imposture: if they did, it is the most marvellous thing we have on record, that not one of them ever broke faith with the others, but that the whole mass of them remained firm.

We believe it to be quite impossible that so many rogues should have agreed for ever. They were men who had nothing to gain by it; they subjected themselves to persecution by affirming the very fact; they were ready to die for it, and did die for it. 
Five hundred or a thousand persons who had seen him at different times, declared that they did see him, and that he rose from the dead; the fact of his death having been attested beforehand.

 How, then, dare any man say that the Christian religion is not true, when we know for a certainty that #Christ died and rose again from the dead? And knowing that, who shall deny the divinity of the Saviour? Who shall say that he is not mighty to save? Our faith hath a solid basis, for it hath all these witnesses on which to rest, and the more sure witness of the Holy Spirit witnessing in our hearts.”

Charles H. Spurgeon, vol. 2, Spurgeon’s Sermons: Volume 2, electronic ed., Logos Library System; Spurgeon’s Sermons (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998)., No 66 (exposition)

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized