Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

Hi Ochaye,As I've already explained, all you evangelicals do the same thing, just as you're doing now. Any evangelical you disagree with you accuse of not being a true evangelical. Were Becky here she'd be telling you that it is you who is not the true evangelical. My, my, who to believe? She clearly describes water baptism as being "distinct from the New Birth."It's nice that you agree that those Bible Camp tactics are poor form, but as to who's the true evangelical, well, why don't you request the other evangelicals here to post that they agree with you that those Bible Camps are a distortion of what evangelicalism truly represents. It wouldn't be definitive, but it would bolster your cause. Of course, I only suggest this because I doubt you'll find many agree with you.--Percy

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: --Percy

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

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.But this is all off-topic. Some evangelicals think that telling children they'll go to hell if they believe in evolution is okay, some don't. The evangelicals who happen to be participating in this thread find the practice abhorrent. But that's not the issue either.The question is whether the practice is responsible for the intransigent irrationality we see so frequently here at EvC. The manner in which Kbertsche and Ochaye who are participating here differs markedly from, say, Peg and Archangel. Peg manifests an simplistic understanding and Archangel a passionate antagonism. I wonder if there was any fire and brimstone in their upbringing.--Percy

This is a "rose by any other name" type of issue. It doesn't matter what term you apply to the people who engage in scare tactics with children, this thread is about whether such tactics are the cause of the type of intransigent irrationalism in the adults that we see here. If you want to believe they're not true evangelicals then that's fine, but who are the true evangelicals isn't the topic of this thread.If you want to discuss who the true "evangelicals" are, or how much in agreement theologians are over the definition of "evangelicals", then you should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.--Percy

This thread's premise is that fire and brimstone scare tactics cause children to grow into adults with an irrational antagonism toward any knowledge that threatens their beliefs. While this seems a realistic possibility, no real evidence supporting this premise was offered beyond anecdotal stories.Upon further reflection I think the reasons for the peculiar creationist way of looking at the world must be as varied as the individuals themselves, plus my personal acquaintance with adult converts to evangelicalism testifies that there must be other causes beyond a fire and brimstone upbringing.If the other participants in this thread would like to continue discussing who gets to decide who's a true evangelical then I have no problem with it as long as the moderators don't mind. My only objection to it was that it is off-topic for this thread - it's still a very interesting topic.--Percy

Objective research methods give the same answers to anyone using them. Since theological answers are highly dependent upon who's giving them, since they vary from person to person (the definition of subjectivity), theology and its research methods are subjective.When you have a method that gives the same answer to everyone everywhere, then you'll have an objective method.--Percy

Science has an ever growing body of natural phenomena about which there is objective agreement because it has an established method for gathering evidence and objectively establishing the way nature behaves, the scientific method.But even when you bring the strength of the scientific method to bear on evidence and phenomenon that are subjective (or don't exist), such as ESP or God, you never reach agreement. What you're lacking is objective evidence, not objective methods, and that's why theology is subjective. When you get the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Jews and the Moslems to agree with you about God and Jesus you let us know because then we'll know you're on to something.--Percy

Let me make very certain I understand what you're saying.When you say that "Everyone knows what the Bible says," you're saying that everyone understands and agrees about what it is the Bible says. Do I have that right?If I have that right, then my only question is how you can say this with a straight face.--Percy

If you want to claim theology applies methods equal in objectivity to those of science then I simply grant your claim for the sake of discussion, because it is irrelevant to the point. Even if your claim were true, the difference between science and theology is that science has an ever growing body of natural phenomena about which there is objective agreement. Theology, on the other hand, is as splintered today as 2000 years ago.This is because science studies things that are real, things that make their existence known to us because they impinge upon our senses. If theology studies anything real, and I'm talking about things like gods and heaven, it has not been established yet, as the multiplicity of worldwide religions attests.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Yes, of course, but put it in historical context. What happened to the canals on Mars or to the observed volcanic activity on the moon? We once thought they might be real, but now we know they are not. This is what I mean by an "ever growing body of natural phenomena about which there is objective agreement."If you have some similar body of theological ideas about which there is increasing objective agreement then please let us know. As far as I am aware, a variety of research approaches ranging from revelatory to scientific have not generated any consensus on any theological topic, even at the most fundamental level about the nature of God, and indeed in some theological quarters even whether God or any gods at all actually exist.--Percy