Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

The discussion of methodological naturalism isn't really on-topic. The premise of this thread is that it is evangelical indoctrination during childhood that produces adults who have no compunction against condemning most of humanity to an eternity of suffering in hell. Rebuttals to this premise have so far consisted only of examples of the very attitudes we lament, e.g., that this *is* God's unambiguous Word, that most of humanity *does* deserve to be condemned to hell, etc.For the sake of discussion, this thread assumes that the Bible is ambiguous and open to many interpretations, including about the conditions for being saved. Those who would like to argue that the evangelical position *is* what the Bible unambiguously says and to discuss the Biblical support for this theology should find another thread.--Percy

It's hardly a question of whether evangelicalism reflects what the Bible unambiguously says. It is what evangelicals say, or rather, allegedly say. No quote has yet been provided. It is common knowledge that certain people in the USA of low reputation, self-describing as evangelicals, adopt methods that get them that reputation. They are disowned by others calling themselves evangelical, with a much longer history than those in the USA. As has been proposed already, the pre-requisite seems to be to come to a consensus about how evangelicalism is to be defined. If that proposal is not taken up, it seems unlikely that the thread can make any progress regarding its narrower topic.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

I think what Percy is arguing is what the bible says about damnation and how evangelicals push this on to children. He is saying that it ties a heavy burden on young children's minds and is questioning if this could be considered indoctrination. An example might include the fairly recent documentary concerning bible camp.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

quote:

---

I think what Percy is arguing is what the bible says about damnation

---

It is of no concern to others in this thread where evangelicals or anyone else might get the notion of hell. It is the 'Social Issues' aspect that applies here.

quote:

---

and how evangelicals push this on to children.

---

That has yet to be demonstrated, though. It's a statement akin to 'Atheists indulge in pornography.'

quote:

---

An example might include the fairly recent documentary concerning bible camp.

---

This is an advance that might lead us to the definition we require. Can we read more about this camp, to that end?

duplicate deletedEdited by ochaye, : No reason given.

Not trying to speak for him, but I think Coyote should have worded that as saying that those results are counter to the evangelicals' theology, to their sectarian interpretation of revelation and scripture.My own blasphemous view is that theology is Man-made, being fallible humans' doomed-to-failure attempts to delineate in detail the nature and intentions, etc, of supernatural beings and forces that are completely outside our ability to deal with and completely outside our ability to verify in any way. To further that blasphemy, my view is that when that fallible Man-made makes pronouncements about the physical universe, which we can verify, and those pronouncements are found to be wrong, then (and here's perhaps my greatest blasphemy) the fault lies with that theology and not with the universe. In that case, that theology needs to be re-examined and corrected. Attacking science instead is nothing but self-delusion.When one's theology does not conflict with reality, then in that case they should feel no conflict with science.

Yes, exactly. Is Jesus Camp a demonstration of the psychological effects this has on children?

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

quote:

---

Not trying to speak for him, but I think Coyote should have worded that as saying that those results are counter to the evangelicals' theology, to their sectarian interpretation of revelation and scripture.

---

I don't think that will make any difference. For one thing, Faraday and other scientists such as Asa Gray, the Presbyterian botanist, were evangelicals, and at a time when that description was much narrower than it is today (in the USA, anyway). But there is no such thing as evangelical theology. Evangelicalism takes the same Protestant theology that other Protestants state in their official documents, making only a difference of emphasis (or taking it seriously, according to your pov). Remember that evangelicals are and have been spread throughout most Protestantism; in Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregational, Brethren, Independent bodies, in others, and in informal or temporary groups. There is not much of a sectarian aspect to them, at formal level, anyway. One might even argue that it is evangelicalism that makes a Protestant denomination credible.The findings of science are surely as applicable to the Roman Catholic who believes in virgin birth and the resurrection as they are to the evangelical; moreso, in fact, as Catholicism holds to miraculous events that Protestants do not accept have occurred. It is Catholicism that has had the most difficulty with the advance of science in every century since Galileo, due to its dogmatic pronouncements. Science certainly produces results, but those results have not been found necessarily counter to revelation and the Bible. Indeed, many working scientists are believers in a supernal being who has used the natural laws he created to make his existence known to mankind by breaking those laws, such as by making water into wine.

quote:

---

Is Jesus Camp a demonstration of the psychological effects this has on children?

---

Possibly. Unfortunately the evidence is no longer available: 'This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Magnolia Pictures.'Perhaps there is another site to try?

But you forget that everybody builds their own theology. Sure, they take some established "official" theology as their starting point, but then they only partially learn it (it is, after all, impossible to instantly learn an entire complex system, but rather that would require years of intensive study), imperfectly understanding (and even misunderstanding) many parts of what their teachers present of their own partial and imperfect understanding/misunderstanding of that official theology -- of course, one of those teachers is their minister through his sermons and other communications. Then they develop their personal theology further as they incorporation new ideas and as they try to harmonize the every-day real world with their imperfect understanding.The room for misunderstanding of the official theology becomes greater when it's learned as a child, whose potential for imperfectly understanding what he's being told is far greater (like the young child who was afraid of the Pledge of Allegiance because of the witch, as in "for witch it stands"). Many people's religious understandings don't mature as they themselves mature, so many adults still hold childish ideas about God.So, is it the official theology that everybody believes and tries to live by? Or is it really their own personal theology? Should they blindly hold to their personal theology and denounce the universe for not complying to it? Or shouldn't they examine that theology and seek to correct that which proves to be wrong?

quote:

---

So, is it the official theology that everybody believes and tries to live by? Or is it really their own personal theology? Should they blindly hold to their personal theology and denounce the universe for not complying to it? Or shouldn't they examine that theology and seek to correct that which proves to be wrong?

---

I quite take your point that people should change their beliefs according to real world evidence, from science, history or any other discipline, if they find contradiction between the two. In the USA there is every kind of strange belief that does not make sense to the rational, learned, scientific mind, and there is much scope for improvement. But there are well-paid practical working scientists who find no need for correction, because there is, they say, no conflict between real-world evidence and their spiritual beliefs. Take the miracle claimed in the Bible for the change of water into wine. Now the witnesses to the event took this to be a miracle, not an ordinary event. Without having the first clue about chemistry, organic or otherwise, they knew that something was different. They knew from practical everyday experience that water didn't change into wine; we know, beside that, that water can't change into wine. But the advance of science makes no difference to the significance of the alleged event. The miracle, if that is what it was, actually confirmed the normal law that water stays as water. But for the existence of the norm, there could have been no sign, no indication, of a supernal influence. So agreed, there are those who surely ought to modify their beliefs, but believers in the Bible don't feel at all that they have that need.

I do nto know if it is me we misexpressed myself, or an unintentional strawman on your part, but that is alsmot the complete opposite of what I said.I said that I was against Naturalism as a philosophical point of view, but all for methodological naturalism as a the method for scientific inquiry.But to be back on topic, I really think the 'children camp' thing will become a dead-end, since atheists have equally started their own children camps. They even 'debaptized' kids of 9 years old.Anyways, it is impossible to, as a parent to be neutral in the education of our children, Their are numerous adults here who have expressed their own concerns with their own kids, and how they are worried their own children might turn out religious 'like their mother' and so own. I have no doubt all these parents have all the best intentions for their children, and so they will not stay 'neutral' on this issue with them, even if it is not explicit. And I have no problem with that, because that is how they should react. Same happens with christian parents. To avoid indoctrination, however, parents should teach them how to think, and not what to think. This is why threatening childrens about hell is bad, and telling children religious people are idiots and so to believe in religion will make them stupid, is equally bad.

quote:

---

The premise of this thread is that it is evangelical indoctrination during childhood that produces adults who have no compunction against condemning most of humanity to an eternity of suffering in hell.

---

This is in contrast to the Catholocism that I was brought up with. I don't remember priests or Sunday school teachers dwelling on hell or its punishments. Therefore I just never thought about it much when I was a child -- I could see how it related to me, in the sense that I needed to behave, but the implications for non-Christians were always skirted over somehow. There is of course the Catholic notion of Purgatory, though I think that is meant to apply more to Christians who have sinned to certain degrees.People who actually rejoice in the thought of most of humanity being sent to hell, and who pass this on to their children, display the same psychology as racists and all others who set themselves up to be elite superior groups. It's rooted in fear -- personal insecurity, perceived lack of power, a desire to project undesirable emotions onto others who can then be condemned. This black-and-white thinking also removes the responsibility to think for oneself and weigh moral decisions; all you have to do is what the Bible says, and those who don't (or those who don't believe) will go to hell. Unfortunately this psychology appeals to some people, especially when it is reinforced in closely-knit groups. Parents will pass the doctrines on to their children, and so it goes on down the line. In order to break that chain the children face the challenge of beginning to think for themselves, to question, and to face the fearful possibility of having to leave their families and their social groups if those groups subsequently reject them. Not everyone has that kind of courage. It would be interesting in this thread to hear from more people who have had this experience.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle,

quote:

---

This is in contrast to the Catholocism that I was brought up with. I don't remember priests or Sunday school teachers dwelling on hell or its punishments.

---

A lot of Catholics do, though. Medieval European religion, with its superstitions and ignorance, was founded upon fear of hell. In living memory, there were commonly found Catholics who lived in fear of their priests, on that very ground. But Catholicism has buckled under modern pressure, and no longer talks about hell unless really necessary. It apes the 'nice' bits of Protestantism now. Purgatory suddenly shrank from the long, drawn-out pain of Newman's Dream of Gerontius to the split second spasm of Ratzinger!Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle.

That's true, Christianity before Protestantism (i.e. Catholocism) pushed the fear of hell. Many religions do. Personally I have a problem with being asked to a) believe in a god that is not much different from a parent, and b) believe that this god loves us all until we hack him off enough, at which time we will be eternally tormented.Care to respond to the rest of my post?