Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

the scriptures really aren't free from human influence

---

I repeat, the Marcan Appendix is not accepted as Scripture, along with a few other obvious accretions of the centuries.

quote:

---

you mean the Catholic theologians

---

... and anyone else who is technically competent. Atheists can be that. If skeptics are going to start and contribute to threads of this nature in a constructive manner, they had better be that.

quote:

---

criteria for technically competent

---

The criteria are those agreed by 'the Catholic' expert theologians, Protestant expert theologians and uncommitted expert theologians. Party bias is irrelevant at this level.

quote:

---

In Christianity we have some creeds which have been accepted by both Catholics and Protestants

---

Christianity cannot be represented by both Catholics and Protestants, because they are opposed at fundamental level. There are today many Catholics posing as Protestants alleging that this is not the case, because there is a very strong desire to obscure from the public the fundamental difference between them.However, basic technical terminology can be agreed in theology, just as chemists can agree on the meaning of the word 'amphoteric', and economists can agree on the meaning of the word 'fiscal'.

quote:

---

Might it be fair to suggest that one is 'technically competent' - whether regarding Levitical Catholicism, Levitical Protestantism or Levitical Evangelicism in general, as long as they maintain their theological submissions within the boundaries of apologetic discourse as it relates to the magik of a blood sacrifice?

---

It might be, though it seems hardly likely that very many involved would regard the word 'magik' as fair! And the word 'blood' is a decontextualised pejorative, in the context. But at least it is a beginning, and one that reaches towards the nub of the matter.Even liberals may agree that Christianity has something, however vaguely, to do with sacrifice, even crucifixion; even liberals would agree that an evangelical makes these concepts of central importance, or he is something more like themselves.So getting a link between concepts of sacrifice and hell in the evangelical/Protestant framework, as distinct from the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or liberal contexts, seems to be the next step.

quote:

---

One fundamental thing you are overlooking. There is actual physical evidence to support a theory.

---

There is a major confusion here, one suspects. We are not discussing the subject-matter of a discipline, but its terminology. Physicists are agreed about the meaning of the word 'proton', for instance. It is used by physicists world-wide in communicating with each other, referring to the same concept. Likewise, there is an objective meaning to the the word 'evangelicalism'. It is used by theologians of widely different traditions in communicating with each other, and they all agree as to what the word means, perhaps not with quite the same precision as the physicist with the proton, but with sufficient precision to easily enable conduct of a meaningful discussion.

quote:

---

Who decides what evangelism means is subjective.

---

Far from it. Those who use a word, any word, have the necessity, if required, and if they want to be noticed by serious people, of making clear what they mean by it! It has to be said that, at present, there are few signs in this thread of skeptics wanting to be noticed. The word 'evangelism' is quite easily investigated by use of a dictionary. The same may be said of the word 'evangelicalism', for that matter. There is a very significant difference in their meanings, it should be said.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Christ said that salvation is through works

---

'They asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."' Jn 6:28-29 NIV'"Just as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the desert, in the same way the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. Because God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may not die but have eternal life."' Jn 3:14-16

quote:

---

So since these theologians all agree that these groups are Christian

---

They don't, as it happens. But spiritual status is irrelevant. Expertise is relevant. Even the expertise to read a good dictionary might suffice.

quote:

---

Thank you for the exchange ochave.

---

Always a pleasure, sir. Even with the smoke. It's 'ochaye' btw. The underlining tends to obscure that version.

quote:

---

I hope things are well with you ...

---

Indeed they are, thank you. I hope things are well with you, too.

quote:

---

I may be better at simply calling a spade a spade, and so, if you were the ref and vocabulary was the rulebook, how would you make the call?

---

My minimalist version, that imv should meet with the widest agreement, would be as follows:'Might it be fair to suggest that one is 'technically competent' - whether in the context of Catholicism, Protestantism or evangelicalism- as long as one maintains theological submissions within the boundaries of apologetic discourse related to the sacrifice of Christ?'(This in no way presupposes that there was/can be a Christ, or that there was/can be a sacrifice. It is merely to set the limits for the identification of evangelicalism.)

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that a liberal may sense themselves as something more like an evangelical or vice versa?

---

I meant that a liberal sees the evangelical's emphasis on sacrifice, even crucifixion, as what makes that person an evangelical, and not a liberal. Liberals tend to suppose that there is nothing for which a sacrifice is necessary.

quote:

---

As an aside, I get the basic sense that they are both embarrassed catholics.

---

Perhaps a liberal may be, but the evangelical is too far from the catholic mindset to be an embarrassed catholic. The catholic is like the lady in the video whose motive was to oppose the spread of Islam, and to use, one suspects, methods similar to those of Islam. The catholic believes in volkskirche, the mass conversion (indoctrination?) of whole nations, the individual suppressing personal choice in favour of the best interest (as supposed) of the many. The evangelical, otoh, is essentially a pluralist, a democrat who believes that individual choice is of paramount importance.

quote:

---

Curiously, catholics often seem so embarrassed by themselves that they appear to make attempts towards posing as christians in general. I think you may have touched on a similar dynamic within Message 210.

---

Indeed they do seem embarrassed, though there are still to be observed odd Catholics who openly advocate a return to Latin, inquisition and direct papal rule. Catholic embarrassment is much more likely than that of Protestants, either liberals or evangelicals, because Catholicism as a hierarchical institution runs counter to Western zeitgeist. Then, added to that unavoidable disadvantage, the concept of a hierarchy that seems incapable of setting a good moral example hardly diminishes the glow of its red cheeks. Also, modernism puts some of the claims of Catholicism into the unenviable category of superstition, and there are senior Catholics today who deny transubstantiation. So it's little wonder that catholics attempt to borrow some of the credibility of the evangelicalism that it unsuccessfully competes with, particularly in South America and Africa, where modernism and democracy are on the increase. And, one greatly suspects, to attempt to infiltrate Protestantism and turn it in a catholic direction.

quote:

---

Do you think evangelicals, protestants or catholics make any distinctions in the concept of hell, aside from disputes in which ones are on their way?

---

No, I don't think that there is serious dispute at top level about the concept or nature of hell among traditional theologians. Current thinking is towards a view of hell as being as much as one of one's own making as one externally imposed. Literal flames are left to the fundamentalists of the USA. There is debate among liberals, yes, where the existence of hell is admitted. Membership rules are almost always related to the means of avoiding hell rather than its existence or its nature.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

quote:

---

some information

---

Information? If readers have to be told that posts offer information, posts are liable to be considered disinformation, surely. So let's see, shall we?

quote:

---

that might be relevant.

---

It might be a deliberate red herring, too. We shall see about that, too.

quote:

---

From what I know, evangelicals believe in the hell of fire and brimstone.

---

Now, isn't that strange? The previous post, referring to all traditional theology, contains the comment: 'Literal flames are left to the fundamentalists of the USA.' There appears to be an overwheming desire to confuse evangelicalism with fundamentalism at the earliest sign of danger. But perhaps that's a misleading appearance, and this comment should not be taken as an irrational attack on a religious movement that cannot be dealt with in an academically respectable manner.

quote:

---

Judaism, from which Christianity is derived

---

This is not information- it is fundamental ignorance. Judaism gets its name from Judah, and its modern character from Mosaic Law. As is clear from the New Testament, Christianity is founded upon the promise to Abraham, who lived before either Judah or Moses, and is premised upon the failure of Mosaic Law! It is Judaism that is liable to be the modern upstart, the wayward sect, if either religion is. Pull the other one.

quote:

---

there is no hell in the Christian sense.

---

If Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, then hell is quintessentially Christian, because Christ, descended from Judah and David, spoke about hell like no-one before or since- and there is no record of any Jew questioning his statements on hell, as there is of others. Even in the Old Testament/Tanach, there are unmistakable signs that there would be punishment for evils committed in this life in an afterlife. Indeed, the whole rigmarole of Tabernacle and Temple worship, the 600+ laws of Moses, the promises to the patriarchs, are meaningless if there is no afterlife, with consequences of the actions of this life to be met with in that afterlife. This is what Jewish contemporaries of Jesus believed, and if modern Jews back-track on that issue, they may do so for less than admirable reasons.But this is truly a culpable red herring, because the topic concerns evangelicals, who are by no means alone in believing in hell. Hell is built into the creeds that all but evangelicals recite weekly! As has been stated before in this thread, the topic does not concern the correctness of evangelical belief, but the manner in which evangelicals (or people mistaken for evangelicals) apply this belief in their dealings with others. Poster, read the forum section heading before you think fit to throw in your 'information'.

quote:

---

If the soul exists and is immortal, who wouldn't want to avoid eternal punishment.

---

If one actually believes that the soul exists and is immortal, one will think that the use of hell as a 'recruiting tool' is perfectly irrelevant, to absolutely everyone. We have much better things to think about than recruitment, if that is true. So think about that. It's relevant information.

quote:

---

I don't understand why the current discussion because a simple list of all the world's various religions proves theologians have no consensus about anything, not even who God is. Some seem to think that only Christians can be theologians.

---

As has been stated already, anyone can be a theologian. One does not need to believe that a theosof any sort exists. As has further been stated, it is not belief that matters, but expertise. In order to qualify to define the word 'evangelicalism', one needs to have expertise in Christian theology, simply because evangelicalism is, supposedly, a Christian phenomenon. That is, if one does not avail oneself of a decent dictionary- though dictionaries are unreliable when it comes to religious matters, and theologians are a safer resource. But that is not a consideration that normally troubles the typical internet writer. Remarkably, not one contributor to this thread has, apparently, taken the trouble to open a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a history book, or even Wikipedia!

quote:

---

But this is all off-topic.

---

On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the OP to accurately state what the thread is about, and that task has still not been carried out. Without a definition of evangelicalism, this thread can become a free-for-all for any who dislike real evangelicalism to make or take up any malicious accusation that comes into their heads. Which surely looks, to any impartial observer, like a large white flag.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what term you apply to the people who engage in scare tactics with children

---

How about 'fifth columnists'? There seems very little doubt that these people are a mixture of atheists and Catholics who seek to give evangelicalism a bad name by calling themselves evangelical, using what might be supposed to be evangelical language and styles.

quote:

---

If you want to discuss who the true "evangelicals" are

---

You mean there's someone who doesn't know?