quote:In the less emotionally-based Evangelical groups
Hold it just a second.
They aren't "less emotionally-based." They're differently emotionally-based. Rather than using outright scare tactics, they use other emotional techniques such as peer pressure, social isolation, leveraging of parental authority, etc.
The entire concept of a "children's ministry" is nothing but emotional manipulation.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This demonstrates the intellectual level of the USA.
That's it? That's your entire response? No discussion over the very real existence of Christians who seem to think that the only way to save someone is to scare them? Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church don't exist? Christian Identity, Christian Patriot, Lambs of Christ, none of these terrorist organizations exist?
Why do you really think this kid is up there preaching about hell?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:Why do you imply that evangelicals (including myself) are "creationists" who "reject scientific theories for unscientific reasons?"
Logical error: Affirming the consequent ("If P, then Q. Q, therefore P.")
That is, all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. You reversed the implication and wound up in a place that isn't true.
What Percy was saying is that one way to get to a creationist who rejects science is through evangelical fear. That doesn't mean all evangelicals are anti-science creationists. Just that many anti-scientist creationists are evangelicals and came to their anti-science creationist viewpoint because of their evangelism.
quote:It's not that we like these ideas. But we have established the source and statements as true, so must try to incorporate these ideas into our theology, uncomfortable though it may be.
So it never occurs to you that you made a mistake? That what you thought was true isn't really as accurate as you might have thought? Your ability to judge is perfect and without error?
This has nothing to do with god. It has everything to do with you and your ability to make judgement calls.
Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?
quote:At some point, we must allow our likes, dislikes, and aesthetic notions to be overruled by truth and reality, both in science and in theology.
Indeed.
So where do all of these evangelical creationists come from?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:Now is there fact and reason to support the opinion that most people are not trash?
Of course.
It is a huge failure that you don't know what it is.
Think for a moment: If you can delcare that other people are trash, why can they not turn around and do the same to you?
Are you trash?
Hint: Resorting to your religious beliefs will not save you as they have theirs and by their standards, you do not measure up.
So which one of you is trash? Might the entire question be faulty in the first place?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:They aren't "less emotionally-based." They're differently emotionally-based. Rather than using outright scare tactics, they use other emotional techniques such as peer pressure, social isolation, leveraging of parental authority, etc.
Some Evangelical groups put more emphasis on emotion, others put more emphasis on the intellect, and some put more emphasis on the will. In a theological sense, all three aspects are necessary for conversion or for living the Christian life.
That doesn't respond to the point, though. That there are intellectual aspects to faith doesn't change the fact that they're using emotional manipulation.
quote:Do you have any evidence for your bald assertion?
How does one "minister" without emotional manipulation to a child regarding something so significant as belief in god when they haven't even managed to acquire post-operative logic? You can get a kid to believe in anything, including that they've been sexually molested while participating in satanic rituals involving mass murder, all through emotional pressure. No need to talk about things like hell. You just need to make the kid that Mommy and Daddy won't love them anymore, that they're the only ones who can stop "bad things" from happening, play on a child's fear of being wrong, wanting to be good, their trust of authority, and you can get a kid to believe anything you want.
Why do you think kids get so anxious about Santa Claus? It's hardly like there's any real consequences for getting on his bad side. But they do go nuts over it because of all the emotional manipulation put upon them by their parents, their friends, and society around them. It certainly isn't because of "intellectual" or "will" arguments being used. It's all emotion.
Please explain how you administer to a child without manipulating them emotionally.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:So liars are acceptable, but those who tell the truth are sociopaths!
And we can determine that you're telling the truth because of what, precisely?
Two-thirds of the world think you're lying. Why should we believe you over them?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:That there are intellectual aspects to faith doesn't change the fact that they're using emotional manipulation.
What if they are?
That you don't understand why that is a bad thing is quite telling.
Playing off of the emotions of people, manipulating them into doing things they would not rationally do, is one of the slimier things that people do to each other.
quote:whereas saying there is a hell and then denying it
Huh? Who is denying hell? You seem to think that because someone doesn't share your vision of what "hell" is, that means it is being denied.
You do understand the distinction between difference and denial, yes?
quote:because people who do that can't be Christians.
Oh, so you've been given divine knowledge as to what it means to be a "true Christian"?
There are plenty of Christians who disagree with you. Why should we believe you over them?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:Fair enough, Rrhain, but in all fairness when does a parent or a teacher technically not indoctrinate a child? If young minds are generally impressionable, where lies the critical difference between instruction and indoctrination?
By allowing for the fact that said parent or teacher just might be wrong. By understanding that children are naturally like this and not exploiting it for their own purposes.
Just because someone is gullible doesn't mean you have to prey upon it.
quote:What the skeptical position amounts to on this issue, though I'm sure they mostly don't realise it, is that Christians shouldn't have children.
Huh? Where on earth do you find anything even remotely approaching that?
Are you saying Christians are incapable of raising children without abusing them? You do understand that most skeptics were raised in households headed by religious people, yes?
Of course parents teach their children in their vision of ethics, morality, faith, etc., but when you know the child is incapable of questioning what you say, is dependent upon you for existence, and will do or say anything to please you, then you hold a great responsibility in your hands and you must tread carefully.
Do you really think an eight-year-old is in any position to shout at anybody regarding hell?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
"In your view"? Are you trying to tell us that you have divine powers to recognize who is and who is not a Christian?
You do know what the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, yes?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:Is bad-mouthing with inventions the only tactic you have? It's getting boring.
I'm sorry, was there a rebuttal in there somewhere? And all the more ironic, you're complaining about my not having a rebuttal. So rather than actually discuss the question at hand, you'd rather play a game of "Woe is me."
Get down off the cross, already. We need the wood.
Hint: You still show yourself to be incapable of understanding why emotional manipulation of a person incapable of granting consent, dependent upon the one "teaching" him, and in no position to contradict the authority is not exactly a "good" thing.
If it were anybody else, we'd call it "torture."
quote:
quote:Who is denying hell?
Read the thread before posting.
Non sequitur. Please rephrase. Let's try it again, shall we?
Who is denying hell?
quote:
quote:Oh, so you've been given divine knowledge as to what it means to be a "true Christian"?
So lying is ok?
Where is your evidence of lying? You have divine knowledge as to who is and who is not lying when it comes to the question of god's will?
quote:If the sentences that contain the word 'you' in Rrhain's posts were to be snipped, would there be much left?
Oh, I see...when faced with the prospect of putting up or shutting up, it becomes extremely difficult to actually respond with anything coherent and thus an attempt to turn it around and cry about oppression and "ad hominem" attacks become the only defense left for the response that is made to me.
Will an answer to the questions be forthcoming or should we expect nothing but deflection and avoidance from now on?
Who is denying hell?
You have the ability to determine who is and who isn't a Christian? Why should we believe you over them?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:It seems like "preying" to you because you have an aversion towards it
You mean emotional manipulation of a person incapable of consent, is dependent upon the one "teaching" him, and in no position to question authority isn't "preying"?
If it were anything else, we'd call it "torture."
quote:but the people who are allegedly preying don't see it that way.
Of course not. That's because they don't trust other people to be able to make their own minds up. They feel the need to "save" people who might just think they don't need saving.
quote:The people telling their kids about the rapture think they are doing them a huge favor. People such as yourself, however, feel those people are causing tremendous harm.
Incorrect. Telling somebody about it is one thing. Manipulating them while doing it is something else.
When was the last time you ever heard anybody preaching about the end of the world finish up the sermon with, "But I could easily be wrong"? "That's just me; your mileage may vary"?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote: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).
And thus, we see the problem.
You're not a Christian. You're a Paulian. Christ said that salvation is through works (after all, as a Jew, that is the law: It is by your actions that you show yourself to be righteous.) But Paul, since he was trying to convert people who didn't really want to be converted, started playing fast and loose...circumcision didn't really mean actually cutting off your foreskin, faith was good enough, etc., etc. Especially given his rivalry with the Jamesians who were not as compromising. "Faith without works is dead," and all that.
Are you sure you're a Christian?
See, this is the problem with you're approach. I'm sure you'll dismiss it as an argument from popularity, the very fact that you're dismissing the Catholics from being Christians due to their emphasis on works is telling. You're so deep in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that you can't see that it can easily be applied to you.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:The criteria are those agreed by 'the Catholic' expert theologians, Protestant expert theologians and uncommitted expert theologians. Party bias is irrelevant at this level.
So since these theologians all agree that these groups are Christian, who are you to contradict them? Why is your opinion better?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote: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'.
And since your own group of vetted "theologians" all agree that these groups are actual Christians and not "posing" (your word), then who are you to contradict them?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
