|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evangelical Indoctrination of Children | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ochaye responds to Rahvin:
quote:quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to Percy:
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5270 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:There is no such thing, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Biblical Creation Society - Wikipedia
quote: Seems that they call themselves evangelicals and creationists. I also get a lot of hits on google for "evangelical creationism" so a lot of people think there is such a thing. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : t Edited by RAZD, : clarity by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ochaye writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
evangelical creationists There is no such thing, of course. Huh? You mean discounting the 600 in my wife's church?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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.quote:Hold it just a second. quote:Absolutely not, in my experience (see Message 28). Do you have any evidence for your bald assertion? Edited by kbertsche, : added ref to msg 28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Good question, but I thought I already answered it. I believe it is defined by the statements in the broadly-accepted creeds (e.g. Apostles', Nicene, Chalcedonian, etc.). quote:I believe it's primarily a matter of biblical interpretation. If someone could demonstrate a responsible, alternative interpretation which was consistent with all relevant biblical data, there would be a possibility of convincing people to change their views. To be accepted, the new interpretation should be superior to the old in some way (e.g. provide explanations for things that the old one can't). Then there is the secondary issue of church history; Christians are reluctant to deviate from historical interpretations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
kbertsche writes: quote:Good question, but I thought I already answered it. I believe it is defined by the statements in the broadly-accepted creeds (e.g. Apostles', Nicene, Chalcedonian, etc.). And these all condemn most of humanity to hell? Also, I expect that just as the Bible is variously interpreted, so are the "broadly accepted creeds."
f someone could demonstrate a responsible, alternative interpretation which was consistent with all relevant biblical data... The Bible's contradictory stance on many, many points means no such interpretation is possible. Which interpretation one accepts is an individual decision. The question again is why some people not only accept the least compassionate, least humanitarian interpretation possible, but won't acknowledge or cannot perceive that the Bible conveys no single consistent message on many issues. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5270 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:So liars are acceptable, but those who tell the truth are sociopaths!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:You seem to believe that biblical interpretation is purely subjective, with no objective data or principles. Not so. If one approaches the Bible with the belief that it is the Word of God (as theologians do), one will try to fit the biblical data together. Things may not fit perfectly and may leave some tensions; this is where a new interpretation has a chance to displace it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The unquestioning, mindless acceptance of these notions in atheist circles exposes atheism in the USA as a deep and nasty well of bigotry and indeed stupidity, even puerility. When will America grow up? It's a damn good thing that you're above all that mean and nasty name calling. Wouldn't want you to fall in to that well of bigotry. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
kbertsche writes: You seem to believe that biblical interpretation is purely subjective, with no objective data or principles. Not so. Yes, you're right, it's not so, and that's not what I believe. As far as the Bible goes, what I was talking about wasn't a belief. It's a simple fact that the Bible contradicts itself on a number of issues, universalism being one of them. When evidence is contradictory and insufficient then it is only rational to recognize this fact. Anyone who instead reaches firm conclusions while citing this kind of supporting evidence is telling us much more about themselves than about the Bible. Why is it so important to you to believe that the Bible is unambiguous on points where the ambiguity and ambivalence are obvious?
If one approaches the Bible with the belief that it is the Word of God (as theologians do), one will try to fit the biblical data together. Things may not fit perfectly and may leave some tensions; this is where a new interpretation has a chance to displace it. Well, yes, new Biblical interpretations emerge all the time, that's why new religious sects are born and old ones die out. Rather than timeless truths, what you describe is more like the tentativity of science. Because the underpinning of Christianity is not the real world but a book upon which anyone can imprint any interpretation they like, like all religions it follows the currents of social and cultural change. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024