Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Indoctrination of Children
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 181 of 295 (525534)
09-23-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Percy
09-23-2009 4:39 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
Any evangelical you disagree with you accuse of not being a true evangelical.
I have to say that I have only rarely come across such behaviour. There are ceratinly disagreements between charismatic and non-charismatic, prosperity vs non-prosperity, and some may even accuse extreme groups of being non-Christian (Benny Hinn and cronies come to mind) - BUT this is rare. Ochaye's opinion amusingly places him within a subset generally regarded as sufficiently exclusivist as for his own Christianity to be questioned

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 09-23-2009 4:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 09-23-2009 5:27 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 182 of 295 (525535)
09-23-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by ochaye
09-23-2009 5:18 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
Still verbose in your replies, I notice.
So Ochaye, the "christian", claims that there are no creationist evangelicals, and that Pentecostals are a fringe group
Have you met Smooth Operator? You and he would have much blinkeredness in common...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ochaye, posted 09-23-2009 5:18 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ochaye, posted 09-23-2009 5:33 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 183 of 295 (525538)
09-23-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by cavediver
09-23-2009 5:20 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
I'm surprised to hear you say this. My primary interaction with evangelicals is through the Internet, and I know you must have much broader experience, but in my experience here it is very common for Christians to question whether other Christians they disagree are "true Christians." Here's a post from Trixie last year in Message 72:
Trixie writes:
So, I'm in agreement with Taz, that we should stand up and be counted, so to speak. We don't and the simple reason is that we immediately disqualify ourselves from commenting by commenting - we become not true Christians - in the eyes of those we comment against. After a while, you tend to get sick of it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by cavediver, posted 09-23-2009 5:20 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by cavediver, posted 09-23-2009 5:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 184 of 295 (525539)
09-23-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by kbertsche
09-23-2009 5:04 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
kbertsche writes:
But I would agree with Ochaye that Pentecostalism and "Jesus Camp" represent a fringe group and are NOT representative of mainstream Evangelicalism. I stated similar things earlier in this thread; see Message 5 and Message 38.
I wouldn't call the Pentecostals a fringe group. Like Ochaye you seem to be trying to discredit, to delegitimize, Christian groups you disagree with.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by kbertsche, posted 09-23-2009 5:04 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by kbertsche, posted 09-23-2009 9:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 185 of 295 (525544)
09-23-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by cavediver
09-23-2009 5:23 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
If we are to be reduced to having to read classic false arguments like argumentum ad maiorem we are surely come to a pass.
And when people can't even attribute quotes correctly, it might seem better to pass!
Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by cavediver, posted 09-23-2009 5:23 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 186 of 295 (525548)
09-23-2009 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
09-23-2009 5:27 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
My primary interaction with evangelicals is through the Internet, and I know you must have much broader experience
My internet perspective is primarily through EvC and related sites (on both sides) - and based purely on that, I would have to strongly agree with you. But my wider experience dwarfs that perspective. Evangelicals play together very well in the real world, and to suggest that one isn't a Christian - that one is not "saved" - is exceptionally bad form.
As ever, the net breeds bravado and strongly defensive behaviour - we see repeated use of No True Scotsman to squirm out of a corner. Ochaye is just an extreme and rather foolish example of this. I have come across his type every now and again in real life, and it is typically best to simply point and laugh from a respectable distance. His viewpoint is such a minority that his complete dominance of this thread is one of the biggest red-herrings on this site at the moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 09-23-2009 5:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 187 of 295 (525583)
09-23-2009 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by cavediver
09-23-2009 5:13 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
Pentecostalism fringe???
This is the Wiki entry for the Assemblies of God, a *SUBSET* of Pentecostals:
Yes, apparently the Assemblies of God are considered a Pentecostal group, though they are quite mild or moderate compared to many other Pentecostal groups. And they are also considered to be Evangelicals, though we could quibble as to whether or not they are "mainstream" Evangelicals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by cavediver, posted 09-23-2009 5:13 PM cavediver has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 188 of 295 (525584)
09-23-2009 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
09-23-2009 5:29 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
I wouldn't call the Pentecostals a fringe group. Like Ochaye you seem to be trying to discredit, to delegitimize, Christian groups you disagree with.
Yes, I agree that my wording of Message 178 was too broad. The Assemblies of God should probably not be called "fringe." However, they do have some unusual doctrinal distinctives that separate them from most other Evangelicals. Perhaps I should have said that "extreme Pentecostalism" is a fringe group. (Here I am thinking of the groups that handle live snakes and other such extreme behavior.)
As I mentioned in Message 5 and Message 38, Pentecostal and charismatic groups are much more emotionally-based than other evangelicals, and I believe it is this emotional emphasis which leads to the problems with children that are noted in this thread.
Here is how Elmer T. Clark described charismatic and Pentecostal sects in his The Small Sects in America (Abingdon, 1965):
They flourish mainly among the ignorant and nervously unstable sections of the population, and differ from the common variety of holiness groups in the extreme degree of their emotionalism. Primitive traits and the experiences of frontier revivalism make their last stand among these groups, and one encounters "tongue talking," shouting, visions, trances, jerking, dancing, "gifts of prophecy," and various other radical motor automatisms or "blessings" as by a familiar psychological process the starved emotional natures of people less cultured escape rational control and run to extremes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 09-23-2009 5:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by cavediver, posted 09-24-2009 3:14 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 193 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-25-2009 11:18 AM kbertsche has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 189 of 295 (525633)
09-24-2009 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by ochaye
09-23-2009 8:32 AM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
Thanks. I think. I couldn't stand it for long.
me either
quote:
Now my question is, is that Christianity, or something else?
Well, they're talking about things in and from the christian mythos, it's within the christian code of ethics as far as I can see and they would say it was.
Me? I don't know - but I can't think of a clear reason why not other than "that sort of shit makes me sick".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ochaye, posted 09-23-2009 8:32 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by ochaye, posted 09-24-2009 5:38 AM greyseal has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 190 of 295 (525636)
09-24-2009 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by kbertsche
09-23-2009 9:35 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
charismatic and Pentecostal sects in his The Small Sects in America (Abingdon, 1965):
1965?? I'm not surprised. I would hazard a guess that in 2009, the MAJORITY (if not, the VAST MAJORITY) of UK evangelicals would be described as charismatic to one degree or another - maybe not by church, but certainly by congregation. To an anti-charismatic, anything beyond the hymn-prayer sandwich and maybe some controlled clapping along to "thank you Jesus" is considered the slippery slope. These evangelical churches have lost out considerably to the charismatic baptists, anglicans, methodists, house churches, and especially the modern church ministries. It is the minority that have gone to the extreme of embracing say the characteristics of the Toronto Blessing, but if we're talking just speaking in tongues - well, it's as common as prayer these days

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by kbertsche, posted 09-23-2009 9:35 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 191 of 295 (525655)
09-24-2009 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by greyseal
09-24-2009 2:01 AM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
it's within the christian code of ethics as far as I can see and they would say it was.
Of course they would not admit it was not Christian. And why not?
The Christian code of ethics is the same as the Hindu code of ethics, the Muslim code of ethics and the atheist code of ethics. Everyone thinks that theft and murder are wrong. What makes a religion is a means to clear the conscience due to the code of ethics, or common morality, we all perceive and indeed rely on. The means that Hindus use is worshipping at shrines. Muslims pray five times a day to placate Allah. Christians differ, saying that there is nothing one can do to gain a clear conscience. A wrong done is a wrong done, and it can't be undone, they say. But this lady has been quoted as saying, in effect, that you have to gabble incoherently if you are to get a clear conscience and be acceptable to God- or is it Allah? It's anyway no different from the Muslim or the Hindu, and completely invalid, as far as Christianity is concerned. It's no different from the instruction of Pharisees that Christians be circumcised, that Paul said would make faith useless. It may look Christian, but it's disastrous, to Christians.
From that detailed statement of faith read here, there is obviously awareness that Christianity requires no 'works', as they are called, but the statement insists on works nevertheless, thereby making faith worthless. So it is actually a flat contradiction of Christianity, or at least of Protestantism (Catholicism promotes works-justification also). So of course the writers of the statement would not admit that it is not Christian, because it is carefully nuanced, and the error must be deliberate. Indeed, it's somewhat blatant, to the theologically aware.
So, while your and my gut feeling is a very good initial guide, to understand that feeling, people still need to be more careful and nuanced regarding the words that people use to describe what they believe. What we see in this thread is accusation made of Christians made on the basis of the behaviour of their opponents. It's an easy mistake to make, if there is insufficient theological erudition, because humanity is crafty and able to deceive.
But gut feeling is still important. Initial reactions are usually the right ones, and I think people should go with gut feeling, and not be swayed- if one's gut is good, of course. The rest will sort itself out in time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by greyseal, posted 09-24-2009 2:01 AM greyseal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 4:57 PM ochaye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 295 (525706)
09-24-2009 10:36 AM


Deep down, everybody knows that the Catholics are the only True ChristiansTM.

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 295 (525972)
09-25-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by kbertsche
09-23-2009 9:35 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
The Assemblies of God should probably not be called "fringe." However, they do have some unusual doctrinal distinctives that separate them from most other Evangelicals.
Perhaps they do, but what is being questioned is who is the arbiter of such things? All Christians claim to be "true Christians," the whole "no true Scotsman" theory.
Perhaps I should have said that "extreme Pentecostalism" is a fringe group. (Here I am thinking of the groups that handle live snakes and other such extreme behavior.)
Is it extreme or are they Christians led by faith? In Acts, Paul was bit by a snake and didn't die. On account of that the natives of Malta revered him as a God, to which he attempted to dissuade them.
In the gospel of Mark it says that you will be able to handle snakes on account of your faith. So is it "extreme" or is your faith weak and their's strong?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by kbertsche, posted 09-23-2009 9:35 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by ochaye, posted 09-25-2009 3:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 201 by kbertsche, posted 09-26-2009 8:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 194 of 295 (526031)
09-25-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Hyroglyphx
09-25-2009 11:18 AM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
Perhaps they do, but what is being questioned is who is the arbiter of such things?
Theologians- and no-one else. Skeptics can say to believers, "You are choosing to exclude, because it is in your interest." But believers can reply with equal validity, "You are choosing to include, because it is in your interest." So, one way or another, one must reach agreement as to what an evangelical is before one can progress at all. That means that one must get involved in theology.
quote:
In the gospel of Mark it says that you will be able to handle snakes on account of your faith.
It's very doubtful that the author of Mark wrote that. It's part of the Marcan Appendix, that is not used by anyone of repute to formulate theology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-25-2009 11:18 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-26-2009 8:55 AM ochaye has replied
 Message 196 by cavediver, posted 09-26-2009 9:29 AM ochaye has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 295 (526218)
09-26-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by ochaye
09-25-2009 3:27 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
Theologians- and no-one else. Skeptics can say to believers, "You are choosing to exclude, because it is in your interest." But believers can reply with equal validity, "You are choosing to include, because it is in your interest." So, one way or another, one must reach agreement as to what an evangelical is before one can progress at all. That means that one must get involved in theology.
Which still leaves the question, who arbitrates such things?
It's very doubtful that the author of Mark wrote that. It's part of the Marcan Appendix, that is not used by anyone of repute to formulate theology.
So then by your admission the scriptures really aren't free from human influence, and therefore cannot be trusted as "infallible."
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ochaye, posted 09-25-2009 3:27 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ochaye, posted 09-26-2009 10:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024