Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

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?

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.

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.

quote:

---

That's true, Christianity before Protestantism (i.e. Catholocism) pushed the fear of hell.

---

Whether Catholicism is Christianity, or, as the Reformers unanimously stated, antichristianity, is another debate. What is hardly debatable is that Catholicism pushed the fear of hell as its means of existence for a millennium, after the Reformation into modern times, and quite possibly still does in less developed countries, right now. It is somewhat absurd for any Catholic to express distaste for the concept of hell, when Catholicism itself could hardly exist without that concept. The absence of that belief in hell is one reason why Catholicism is dwindling. No-one should be in the smallest doubt that the Vatican would rapidly return to hellfire and alleged priestly absolution if it possibly could.

quote:

---

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.

---

Check out your current Catechism, got up largely by your present leader, and I think you will have to agree that this is precisely what you are called upon to accept. It's just that sotto voce is the thing these days.People who rejoice in the thought of most of humanity being sent to hell are evidently ignorant of the view of Paul that the Christians' deity wants the death of no-one, and wants all to be saved. But then, in America, ignorance is almost de rigueur.Edited by ochaye, : Clarification

quote:

---

I'm not a Catholic.

---

I beg your pardon. It must be because you sound like one.

quote:

---

Anyway, you seem to be sidestepping the main points of my original post.

---

I'm unaware of that. Please explain.

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.

---

Post #151:People who rejoice in the thought of most of humanity being sent to hell are evidently ignorant of the view of Paul that the Christians' deity wants the death of no-one, and wants all to be saved. But then, in America, ignorance is almost de rigueur. Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

quote:

---

non sequitur

---

Does that mean 'impossible to reply to'?

It is obvious that there is no reply possible. People who rejoice in the thought of most of humanity being sent to hell are evidently ignorant of the view of Paul that the Christians' deity wants the death of no-one, and wants all to be saved. But then, in America, ignorance is almost de rigueur. So the accusation made in the OP is actually absurd, because whoever takes the attitude that is alleged (and there has even now been no substantiation of that accusation, anyway) cannot be obedient to Paul, or to Jesus, who commanded his followers to love their enemies. If skepticism and atheism are to make any advance, if they are even to be taken seriously and avoid ridicule, they must be credible.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The biblecamps are several weeks of intensive fire and brimstone fed to kids when they are away from their parents and at their most vulnerable - this is their reason d'etre, to "save" sinners from hellfire.

---

Can we see some detail about this, please? Who runs these camps, and where? Is there evidence of 'several weeks of intensive fire and brimstone' that we can inspect for ourselves? The concept of this experience in today's world may well seem as unlikely as can be imagined to Europeans and others.

quote:

---

Sure!

---

Thanks. I think. I couldn't stand it for long.Now my question is, is that Christianity, or something else?

quote:

---

This is off topic

---

The first two voices that I heard expressed great doubt that the Jesus camp movement was Christian, and both opinions were from claimed Christians, who may have been evangelicals. With this 'off topic' sort of approach, one might be suspected of wanting to bring into disrepute people who have no connexion with those seen on the videos. Such groups might even be each other's opponents. A very serious charge, that would be, and one must give no indication that it might justly apply.It seems a very unsafe way for skeptics to proceed anyway, for intellectual reasons. Identification of those responsible is basic to the topic, unless it is to be conducted as a general gripe against anti-social elements, aside of the religious context. If one is to assess a particular belief, one must examine its underlying character, not accept whatever presents itself as representative of that belief. There are 'countless' species of Marxism, each claiming to represent the true views of Karl Marx, and it would be naive indeed to assess Marxism on the basis of the interpretations, let alone the behaviour, of claimed Marxists. For another thing, one would quickly arrive at incompatible conclusions, considering Marx a prodigious schizoid. And so it is with other beliefs, in particular, Christianity, which is well known for the great variety of interpretation and practice of those laying claim to be its followers. One cannot make a serious study that deserves any respect at all unless one is prepared to carefully scrutinise all manifestations that claim to be Christian that one pronounces upon.In this particular thread, one must establish a common agreement as to what evangelicalism is before one can sensibly assess the video or other real world evidence, as I have mentioned twice already. So there is perhaps very much work to be done in this thread before a meaningful and respectable conclusion can be reached.Now one can perhaps at this stage readily reach agreement that the video evidence is of an undesirable phenomenon, but nothing more than that.

quote:

---

These people obviously believe the conditions stipulated in being titled "Christian", which is:

​

Christian n. -
a person who believes in Jesus Christ

---

That, however, is not a satisfactory definition, because even those who believe in Jesus Christ do not accept it- and infamously fail to accept it, moreover. No denomination has a statement of faith anything like as brief as that- most run to several pages.And with very good reason. What does the phrase 'believe in' mean? That traditionally evangelical phenomenon, the university Christian union, that normally contains a mixture of members of several Protestant denominations, has a statement of faith of approximately twelve detailed points which must receive assent before membership is permitted. Now whether the people seen on the videos could get membership is difficult to say, but unless one can reach an answer to that sort of question, there can be no progress here. As a video commentator observed, there may be far more 'political entanglement' to Jesus camps than Jesus.

quote:

---

We believe in healing, deliverance, and prosperity for the whole man: spirit, soul, and body.

​

I think most people would be comfortable with that being called a Christian denomination.

---

Most rich people, sure! The salient question is, would evangelicals be comfortable with it? Would Protestants be comfortable with it? I don't think so, because neither has ever included 'healing, deliverance, and prosperity for the whole man: spirit, soul, and body' in their historic statements of faith. Prosperity teaching has been highly controversial, and condemned by evangelicals and many besides, including Catholics, as a modern perversion.

quote:

---

We believe in water baptism, in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as distinct from the New Birth, in speaking with tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance (Acts 2:4), in the gifts of the Spirit, and the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit. We believe that all of these are available to believers.

---

Again, this is highly controversial, and likewise has been condemned as cultic, by evangelicals particularly, who believe that teaching of two spiritual baptisms is heretical, especially in this form, which strikes at the basis of Protestantism, sola fide. But read what it says. It is highly deceitful (if not highly brainless) to assert that the fruits (i.e. the evidence) of the Holy Spirit is evinced by gifts! It's a hypocrite's charter. No wonder it is small children who listen to this gibberish. Nobody with any theology, anyway, will give it a second glance!Both of these teachings are modern novelties, bred in that hot-house for folly, the USA. Theologians do not take them seriously, any more than Mormonism is taken seriously. If this is the highest level at which the Jesus camp people think, they are not even worth our time, as far as their religious thought is concerned. If these are their beliefs, they are firmly opposed to evangelicalism and Protestantism. With their brain-washing, they are indeed a social menace, and their political inspiration is what needs investigation, because they are incompetents in theology. They were identified as the Religious Right in one of the videos mentioned, and right-wing politics would seem to be their true inspiration. In this they would share the same outlook, and methods, too, as Emperor Constantine, medieval popes and secular rulers, and others subsequently entangled in religion, whose interests were and are entirely mercenary, yet who saw and see fit to fabricate their own versions of Christianity.

quote:

---

If Becky were here she would likely argue that her Bible camp is an honest reflection of mainstream evangelical beliefs.

---

Along with a hundred other species of evangelical belief, these days. It's quite the fashion, de rigueur to call oneself evangelical, today. There are evangelicals in works-justification Pentecostalism, Roman Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism, YEC fundamentalism, in liberalism of every variety, don't y'know. Even the immovable, immutable Eastern Orthodox have made the odd evangelical noise just lately! In the USA, the word has become meaningless, except to people who are theologically aware and adept. Fifty years ago or less, the word was a dirty one, and with the very same people. Sly- not clever. But a mighty compliment to real evangelicals.Now I've said that, they'll do an about turn! All good fun!

quote:

---

But the text doesn't talk of "spiritual baptisms."

---

If the claim is to evangelical belief, it does. 'We believe in water baptism, in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as distinct from the New Birth.' Evangelicalism does not hold to new birth by water baptism- that's a view of Catholicism.

quote:

---

She clearly describes water baptism as being "distinct from the New Birth."

---

If that is so (and the wording seems ambiguous, imv), it confirms a belief in three baptisms, not two, as is the evangelical and indeed Protestant view.

Size is not relevant.