Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Indoctrination of Children
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 16 of 295 (523663)
09-11-2009 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ochaye
09-11-2009 6:22 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
Is it uncompassionate and unloving to throw out the trash? Is it compassionate and loving to force decent people to live with people who are not decent? Everybody has a choice of how they are going to behave, and if they choose to go to hell, then their choice should be fully respected. Democracy, I say.
You, sir/madam, are a sociopathic nutjob.
That "trash" is a group of human beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ochaye, posted 09-11-2009 6:22 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ochaye, posted 09-11-2009 7:37 PM Rahvin has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 17 of 295 (523664)
09-11-2009 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rahvin
09-11-2009 7:32 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
quote:
That "trash" is a group of human beings.
Are most human beings not trash, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2009 7:32 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2009 7:53 PM ochaye has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 18 of 295 (523667)
09-11-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ochaye
09-11-2009 7:37 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
Are most human beings not trash, then?
You continue to reaffirm my previous estimation of your character.
No, ochave. Most human beings are not trash. They're people. They have hopes, dreams, opinions, feelings, philosophies, flaws, and merits just like you an I do. Nobody's perfect, but very few deserve to be referred to as "trash."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ochaye, posted 09-11-2009 7:37 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ochaye, posted 09-11-2009 8:16 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 19 of 295 (523668)
09-11-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rahvin
09-10-2009 8:08 PM


He's obviously never been to a Southern Baptist Hellfire and Brimstone Tent Revival meeting. Scare tactics was EXACTLY what it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 09-10-2009 8:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 20 of 295 (523670)
09-11-2009 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rahvin
09-11-2009 7:53 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
quote:
Most human beings are not trash. They're people.
Is there a reason for people not being trash?
quote:
They have hopes, dreams, opinions, feelings, philosophies
How is this relevant?
Is there logic and fact, rather than meaningless rhetoric, in support of this pov?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2009 7:53 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2009 8:46 PM ochaye has replied
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 09-11-2009 8:53 PM ochaye has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 21 of 295 (523675)
09-11-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ochaye
09-11-2009 8:16 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
quote:
Most human beings are not trash. They're people.
Is there a reason for people not being trash?
...I don't believe we can find common ground on this, ochave. Your system of ethics is too different from mine. I value all human life, and devalue only those lives that cause catastrophic harm to the rest of us.
You seem to place a very low value on the majority of people.
quote:
They have hopes, dreams, opinions, feelings, philosophies
How is this relevant?
Is there logic and fact, rather than meaningless rhetoric, in support of this pov?
Value assessments (ie, person A is not trash, person B is trash, etc) are by their very nature subjective. There's nothing objective about the process.
All value of human life is arbitrary - we decide what we do and do not value. We decide what system of ethics to follow based on the convictions of our own consciences.
I am primarily a Utilitarian, and I view ethical distinctions in terms of net harm or benefit to society. I would consider only those individuals that cause overwhelming harm to society (Hitler, etc) to be "trash." Most people seem to cause no more or less harm or benefit than anyone else, including me. This causes me to value all human life equally...and in teh vast majority of cases I can no more call one person "trash" than I can call myself a "saint."
This ethical system appeals to my basic sense of fairness and empathy. It causes me to treat others in a way that I would prefer to be treated were our roles reversed. It causes me to be tolerant if not always accepting of other people's views and choices (ie, I may express disagreement or even revulsion at another person's beliefs, but I don't advocate banning opinions or religions simply because I strongly disagree with them).
I'm not sure what ethical system you use...but any structure that identifies most human beings as "trash" is repulsive to me, and that's all you've given me so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ochaye, posted 09-11-2009 8:16 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ochaye, posted 09-11-2009 9:50 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 22 of 295 (523676)
09-11-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ochaye
09-11-2009 8:16 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most human beings are not trash. They're people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a reason for people not being trash?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have hopes, dreams, opinions, feelings, philosophies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is this relevant?
Is there logic and fact, rather than meaningless rhetoric, in support of this pov?
quote:
Most human beings are not trash. They're people.
Is there a reason for people not being trash?
quote:
They have hopes, dreams, opinions, feelings, philosophies
How is this relevant?
Is there logic and fact, rather than meaningless rhetoric, in support of this pov?
Good, now we are getting somewhere.
You think people who do not believe as you do are trash (in a religious way). Is this a correct statement?
If so now we can get to Percy's topic.
Why do you feel this way? What is the basis?
When did you develope these feeling? What was happening in your experience to produce these feelings?
Was this childhood indoctination? Some social norm from your peer group?
What was it that led you to conclude people different from you are trash?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ochaye, posted 09-11-2009 8:16 PM ochaye has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 23 of 295 (523682)
09-11-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rahvin
09-11-2009 8:46 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
quote:
I don't believe we can find common ground on this
I think all should agree that we share common ground in that statements are to be supported with logic and facts, and not with personal abuse. Now is there fact and reason to support the opinion that most people are not trash? I think that all will agree, even if they refrain from saying so, that if humanity's answer to this question is personal abuse, then there is excellent reason for believing that humanity is indeed trash.
quote:
It causes me to treat others in a way that I would prefer to be treated were our roles reversed.
So it's fine if I cast aspersions on your character the way you've done to me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2009 8:46 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 5:15 PM ochaye has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 295 (523684)
09-11-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ochaye
09-11-2009 6:22 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
Hi Ochave,
Providing real time expressions of uncompassionate, unloving evangelical attitudes toward those who believe differently from themselves isn't really what this thread is about. We already know the attitude exists. This thread is exploring where the attitude comes from. If you'd like to discuss why most of humanity should be condemned to an eternity of suffering in hell then you should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ochaye, posted 09-11-2009 6:22 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ochaye, posted 09-11-2009 10:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 25 of 295 (523687)
09-11-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
09-11-2009 10:00 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
quote:
We already know the attitude exists.
But you haven't provided a scrap of real evidence that it exists.
quote:
If you'd like to discuss why most of humanity should be condemned to an eternity of suffering in hell
It's you who has to justify why humanity should not be so treated, Percy. You wrote this:
'We're given what sounds to us a very contradictory explanation, that God is love, that God makes the rules that condemn most of humanity to hell'
So you start a thread that is based on mere hearsay, then, when challenged about it, you refrain from justifying anything you wrote, and then, when what you wrote is questioned, and not one poster can justify it, you want to cut it out of the thread! It's farcical, Percy. Do you want to debate, or do you just want a soap box to stand on, with any who disagree being carried off by heavies?
Face the fact that the love of a deity does not preclude punishment of his creation for deeds done. There is no necessary contradiction. Now if we can agree on that, we can move on to whether or not the reasonable view that hell exists for wrongdoers, that has been the official view of every alleged church group for 2000 years, is presented in a way that is unreasonable and even objectionable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 09-11-2009 10:00 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 26 of 295 (523688)
09-11-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
09-11-2009 6:11 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
quote:
As I've said before, you name it, the Bible has been used to justify it.
Yes, but this is not unique to the Bible. Science has also been twisted to support crazy ideas. There are still flat earthers, geocentrists, and all sorts who try to support their views with "science." You and I recognize these as misinterpretations of the data, but how does a non-scientist recognize this? About all he can do is to ask whether these are fringe or mainstream views, and assume that the fringe views are probably wrong.
Likewise, the non-Christian or non-theologian can ask whether or not certain interpretations are orthodox or heterodox, and can assume that the heterodox views are probably misinterpretations of the Bible.
quote:
So claims that the Bible unequivocally condemns most of humanity to hell gives us much more accurate information about the claimant than the Bible. 1st Timothy 4:9 says, "We have our hope set on the living God, who is the savior of all men, especially those who believe." And 1st John 2:2 says, "Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
You make a valid point. There have been some Christians who have held to "universalism" but this is an unorthodox view. One who held to a version of universalism was George MacDonald, the fantasy writer whose writings strongly influenced C.S. Lewis.
quote:
That God condemns most of humanity to hell isn't what the Bible unequivocally and inarguably says, it's just what evangelicals want to believe, and nothing can talk them out of it. This thread asks whether it's something in childhood that causes this.
Again, it's not that we want to believe it; it's that we feel that a proper interpretation of Scripture compels us to do so. Your OP quotes support this tension.
Perhaps you are asking if there is any sort of psychological need for children to believe in hell? I don't believe so, but it could be an interesting question. Or perhaps you are asking why orthodox Christianity feels compelled to interpret Scripture this way, whether or not there is something naive or childish driving this interpretation? Again, I don't believe so, but this could also be an interesting question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 09-11-2009 6:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 09-12-2009 7:17 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 27 of 295 (523717)
09-12-2009 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by kbertsche
09-11-2009 10:35 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
kbertsche writes:
quote:
As I've said before, you name it, the Bible has been used to justify it.
Yes, but this is not unique to the Bible. Science has also been twisted to support crazy ideas. There are still flat earthers, geocentrists, and all sorts who try to support their views with "science."
Yes, of course. As I've said before, it's what people do, find post facto rationalizations for what they believe anyway. These rationalizations are not the reasons they formed the belief. They're the reasons they've invented to justify their beliefs.
The reason science works is because it employs a method by which beliefs can be measured against the real world. There's no such method in theology. For instance, this is not even a method:
Likewise, the non-Christian or non-theologian can ask whether or not certain interpretations are orthodox or heterodox, and can assume that the heterodox views are probably misinterpretations of the Bible.
Not only will religious sects argue endlessly about which beliefs are orthodox and which aren't, many will simply define orthodox as what most people believe, others as what they or their group believes.
Again, it's not that we want to believe it; it's that we feel that a proper interpretation of Scripture compels us to do so. Your OP quotes support this tension.
I guess this is the whole question of this thread in a nutshell. How can your certainty about an equivocal Biblical interpretation override your compassion for your fellow human beings? Our suspicion is that you don't actually have that compassion.
Good people in good conscience treat other people shabbily every day. The only way this can happen is if these other people have become dehumanized in the eyes of their tormentors. This is how slavery happened. This is how the Holocaust happened.
The thesis of this thread is that evangelicals use childhood as a period of indoctrination whereby they dehumanize in the child's eyes all those who believe differently from themselves.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2009 10:35 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 09-12-2009 7:41 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 28 of 295 (523723)
09-12-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
09-12-2009 7:17 AM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
quote:
Not only will religious sects argue endlessly about which beliefs are orthodox and which aren't, many will simply define orthodox as what most people believe, others as what they or their group believes.
Yes, just as "orthodox" science could be defined as the mainstream concensus. In both science and theology, it is helpful to identify the orthodox position. Orthodox Christianity is much easier to identify than orthodox science, since there are a number of broadly accepted Christian creeds which one can refer to.
quote:
quote:
Again, it's not that we want to believe it; it's that we feel that a proper interpretation of Scripture compels us to do so. Your OP quotes support this tension.
I guess this is the whole question of this thread in a nutshell. How can your certainty about an equivocal Biblical interpretation override your compassion for your fellow human beings? Our suspicion is that you don't actually have that compassion.
I don't believe "equivocal" is a good word to describe any interpretation which reflects orthodox Christianity.
quote:
Good people in good conscience treat other people shabbily every day. The only way this can happen is if these other people have become dehumanized in the eyes of their tormentors. This is how slavery happened. This is how the Holocaust happened.
The thesis of this thread is that evangelicals use childhood as a period of indoctrination whereby they dehumanize in the child's eyes all those who believe differently from themselves.
The indoctrination that I remember as a child was the frequent reminder that God wants me to obey my parents, help others in need, be truthful and honest, etc. What I remember is the exact opposite of dehumanization. But I can't speak for how other Christian groups may train children.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 09-12-2009 7:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-12-2009 2:48 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 295 (523775)
09-12-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by kbertsche
09-12-2009 7:41 AM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
kbertsche writes:
I don't believe "equivocal" is a good word to describe any interpretation which reflects orthodox Christianity.
Which Christianity is orthodox?
What you *can* reasonably claim is that some Christian beliefs are so widely shared among all Christian sects that they cannot be accurately characterized as equivocal, but this thread is not about such beliefs. It's about beliefs on matters where the Bible equivocates, such as that most of humanity will be condemned to hell for all eternity. Evangelical Christianity will not concede that the Bible is equivocal on this particular belief (and on others), and I contend that such beliefs tell us more about the person holding them than about what the Bible says.
The question is, what makes evangelicals this way?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 09-12-2009 7:41 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 3:12 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 39 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 1:13 AM Percy has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 30 of 295 (523778)
09-12-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
09-12-2009 2:48 PM


Re: Asking the question a different way...
Maybe they are not contemptible liars?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-12-2009 2:48 PM Percy has seen this message but 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