A serious question for evangelical christians

[DeletedUser14029]

well, just as a side-note:
early on there's the Catholics. They edited some contents within the Bible (Including praising Mary as the 'Holy Mother'. According to the Gospels she's a normal woman conceived by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus), set up the Roman Catholic Church and wrecked havoc during the medieval ages. Against Muslims, then all the time the Inquistions, witch-hunts, you name it.

Later on there's the Protestants. They broke away from the Catholics because at the time the Church was corrupted and faulty. They are nonsensical and refuse to set themselves right. The Protestants are now the 2nd largest 'faction' of Christianity with the Catholics.

then as time develops, various wonder dudes picked up (somehow) missing chapters of the Bible that gave them exclusive rights. To sum it up, they are false.

Note: I AM NOT AGAINST ISLAM HERE. I AM NOT ABOUT TO START A NEW CRUSADE BY MEANS OF THREADS AND POSTS AND WORDS >.<

As we all know Islam came from Christianity. Jesus was also a figure in the Islam belief, but He is recognised as a prophet rather than the Son of God. then there is this prophet that were given exclusive missions by Allah (or God in our terms. . .) to spread the religion far and wide and crush oppositions. It must be noted that he's given exclusive rights also, as he took many wives and concubines than usually allowed for a Muslim. So some say that Islam belief is false (since it originated from Christianity, and even more so unbelievable, some will say). Religion differences ended up in the Crusades, as far as I know. . .

 

[DeletedUser]

There is a subset of people out there trying to spread their faith that I just don't get.

Before I go on I would just like to clear up a simple misconception that most people have. Even though faith and religion is used interchangeably, they represent vastly different ideas.
Faith is a belief system, in this case, that there is a God.
Religion is the history, rules etc. around this belief.
The church is the organisation and people that promotes this religion and faith.

With these definitions 'clear', my reply to the OP is as follows:
In modern times, for most people, religion is more of a lifestyle choice than a choice based on faith. (No I have no research statistics or a credible news source for this statement, it is merely my observation.) This can be compared to picking a sports team to support (look through this thread alone at the I'm right, you are wrong arguments and spot the similarities between it and the I'm right, you are wrong conversations between supporters of different teams in a pub) Very few people (that I come in contact with) actually follow a religion because they have faith.

Because this is a lifestyle choice, you want others to follow your lifestyle choice. And then you start to advertise your style of life. Just like you would get involved in a conversation with a complete stranger about your choice of sports team.

But just like you are not likely to convince that person to support your team just by telling them that "your team is the best" or "their team will not even make the playoffs", you are not going to convince anyone that they should follow your religion.

Some people follow sports teams because they are winning this season, and they get sad if the team loses and happy when they win. But those true supporters; you can see it in their eyes how much it hurts when their team loses and you can see it in their smile when their team wins.
Just like that you can see in people's lives when they truly believe in the deity of their religion. These people almost do not have to say anything to promote their religion. This is preaching by example. This is spreading your faith, rather than spreading your religion. Those people shouting out in the subways are trying to spread their religion (lifestyle choice) and not their faith. (bold part is the simple answer to the OP)

On a side note, those that are shouting out their religious believes in the subway are only slightly more irritating than those that feel the urge to try and debunk religion/faith every time the topic comes up.

And then I'd to to touch on one (of the many) logical errors in reasoning in this thread (and I do so at the risk of getting thrown with wet cookies)

Amazing how you can lie to yourself just as quickly as you can lie to us. Completely ignoring the Inquisitions of the past...

If we hold to that, can we then hold to the idea that the US still supports slavery? (Off topic, so I do not expect an answer nor am I likely to respond to an answer)

 

[DeletedUser]

If we hold to that, can we then hold to the idea that the US still supports slavery? (Off topic, so I do not expect an answer nor am I likely to respond to an answer)

oho, you stepped into a minefield buddy.

They do...

Granted, not so much in their own borders, but by proxy and by overseas exploitation of indigenous and otherwise foreign inhabitants of other countries far less economically rich. This is a can of worms ir.ufis, one in which most Americans (and Western Europeans for that matter) would prefer to be left unopened, largely because of the passive capitulation of the mainstream majority. Truly, do you even care to know where your bargain purchases are made, and by whom, or under what circumstances? The old adage, "out of sight, out of mind" is still very much in effect.

You see, slavery is an economic utility and economics is no longer limited to a nation's borders.

Mindless bible-thumping chatter

As I indicated in an earlier post, Pro, and of which you quickly took offense and then dismissed altogether, you are indeed one of those children that has been indoctrinated into a belief system. That you think you had some "choice" in the matter is rather amusing, sad, and simultaneously -- quite telling.

 

[DeletedUser14029]

I don't remember typing THAT.
are you sure I wrote that or someone edited my post. . .?!

now I am DEAD Sure I didn't type that. lmao a mod had to go as low as that . . .


just quote what I have really written.
and I am also sad to see you are brought up as a proud atheist that might be too late to receive the message of God
a great pity YOU are the kid indoctrinated into disbelieving anything you can't see with your naked eyes.

*sigh*

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe he was trying to paraphrase what you had written in your post.:unsure:

 

[DeletedUser14029]

which he summed it up in so bad a way I can quote all he said into one world 'Atheistic-Rubbish' in return.

and he's a mod - lol

is quoting what I have written so hard? Let the latter post readers read what I have really typed.

 

[DeletedUser]

which he summed it up in so bad a way I can quote all he said into one world 'Atheistic-Rubbish' in return.

and he's a mod - lol

The fact that Hellstromm is a moderator is completely irrelevant to this discussion. A quote from The Forum Rules:

They have as much a right to post in the capacity of a player as any other user on the forums: Remember that they are volunteers, and are players just like you. This means that outside their realm as a moderator, they are to be treated as you would treat any other player.

is quoting what I have written so hard? Let the latter post readers read what I have really typed.

Anyone who wishes to see your exact quote merely needs to click on the arrow beside your name.

 

[DeletedUser]

oho, you stepped into a minefield buddy.

They do...

Granted, not so much in their own borders, but by proxy ...

You know what I meant, just chose to ignore it.
"By proxy" you can reason that just about any person supports just about any cause or crime in existence.

 

[DeletedUser]

I
and I am also sad to see you are brought up as a proud atheist that might be too late to receive the message of God
a great pity YOU are the kid indoctrinated into disbelieving anything you can't see with your naked eyes.
*sigh*

Pro, I was brought up by a Christian and an Agnostic, neither of which tried to force their views upon me. I read the Bible and many religious texts, something I'm damn sure you have not bothered to do. I was brought up to think for myself, of which I still do today. But in most of your posts in this thread, you don't speak for yourself. Instead you write, "the Bible says this, the Bible says that." Look back upon your posts in this thread and tell me otherwise, or see what is self-evident. In very little are you a participant in this, merely regurgitating what has been drummed into you through your very short life.

You know what I meant, just chose to ignore it.
"By proxy" you can reason that just about any person supports just about any cause or crime in existence.

Is it by willful omission, or a failure to read and comprehend, that you not only missed entirely the rebuttal I provided, but also failed to note "... and by overseas exploitation of indigenous and otherwise foreign inhabitants of other countries far less economically rich."

Slavery is still very much alive, and the U.S. and Western Europe are very much culpable in the act of slavery. The slavery is being done outside our borders, but it is being done, it is documented, videotaped, and largely dismissed by the American and Western European citizenry.

Once again, slavery is an economic utility and economics is no longer limited to a nation's borders. On U.S. alone, that we have created laws to penalize for slavery inside U.S. borders does not mean U.S. no longer participates in slavery. Illegally within the U.S., and legally outside of the U.S., Americans are participating in, and fostering, slavery for economic gain. Sorry, but it is the horrible truth and if you were not aware of this, then now be informed.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hellstromm, you are going off topic

Lets change my failed term of slavery to public executions then. Or public duels to the death. Or any of the many things that the US used to do but not do any more.

My point was that it is a logical error to take events that happened very long ago and use that to claim that it still happens today. And I am referring to

Amazing how you can lie to yourself just as quickly as you can lie to us. Completely ignoring the Inquisitions of the past, the ostracizing of other religious beliefs, the denial of rights and privileges to non-Christians (or non-Catholics, for those who want to argue that tangent), the beatings, torture, hangings and wars against those of other beliefs (or no beliefs), you stand there and say Christians don't force others to join.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hellstromm, you are going off topic

Lets change my failed term of slavery to public executions then. Or public duels to the death. Or any of the many things that the US used to do but not do any more.

I would like to make a point that what the U.S. does is not a direct comparative to what Christians, Muslims, and Jews have done. In fact, the U.S., as a nation, has repeatedly had to battle the agendas of these religions/faiths, and in many cases they have lost, compromising on what is humanely right for what is religiously right (which in many cases is humanely wrong, such as laws preventing homosexuals from becoming married). But, as well, the U.S. as a nation has had to battle archaic and otherwise beastly practices. As to whether religious folk fought for these changes is debatable, but not applicable to this particular debate.

My point was that it is a logical error to take events that happened very long ago and use that to claim that it still happens today. And I am referring to

Ah right, so you grabbed the one paragraph talking about history (some if it most recent btw) and then ignored the paragraphs following, in which I discussed the present:

"Completely ignoring all of that, completely ignoring thousands of years of history, it is STILL being forced upon us.

Through legislation, social deprivation, parent-mandated Sunday schools, even holidays, people are STILL being forced to join. But the worst is how children are being indoctrinated into these religions. Do you honestly think they have a choice at their age? No, they're force-fed this stuff, chastised by their parents, by the teachers in their respective private Christian/Catholic schools, even by their siblings. So, do you honestly believe your children have a choice? Would you give them the opportunity to choose for themselves? No, more than likely you would respond with something like, "at their age they don't know what's best for them, so I'll tell them."

Well, guess what --- that's FORCED."
​

 

[DeletedUser]

Interesting conversation here. I am puzzled by your approach to the discussion. You are basing your argument on children being force fed and that they have no choice in the matter. Do you then believe that I as a parent should not stop my child from placing their hand on the burner of an electric stove that is hot because they don't know any better yet? Of course not, I am going to "force feed" my child that touching a stove when it is hot is a bad thing. Of course that child still has the choice to touch it anyway and curiosity may cause him or her to do just that. In my opinion, parents should "feed" their children things that the parent believes is in the child's best interest. If a parent thinks it is in the child's best interest to introduce him or her to Chrisianity or any other religion I think they should have that right.

Outside sources will influence us in all aspects of life. Whether it be parents, officials, friends, etc. I don't quite understand your use of "force feeding" children and/or people. No one has to listen and children seem to have that problem often.

Actually in my case it happened opposite of your description. My parents had no religious preference nor talked about it much. However, years later I became a Christian because of admittedly, outside sources in my life. But I had the choice to listen and act or not listen and not act upon it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't think any abstract idea like religion should be spewed by any one. I'm an Agnostic but I don't argue about religion with my Christian friends (mostly because there is more of them than me) It's like arguing about which is better, cats or dogs, no one will ever really know the real answer. I don't like being confronted at the bus stop by missionaries or whatever they call them selfs. And parents definitely shouldn't force their religion on their children, let the kid believe what they want, without threatening they will burn for eternity if they don't (also happened to me)

 

[DeletedUser]

Ah right, so you grabbed the one paragraph talking about history (some if it most recent btw) and then ignored the paragraphs following

If you read my statements again you will note that I have not disagreed with the notion that people are forced to join.

I have simply put forward the notion that the start of your (that specific) argument had a logical error. I pointed that out because if you start your argument with a fallacy, it either puts the rest of your argument in doubt or on the other side puts the reader that buys the fallacy at a disadvantage through the rest of your reasoning.

I purposefully did not discuss the forcing of people. But if you really want me to I will gladly do so. We may want to move it to it's own thread though as I think that this discussion is already way off topic. Frankly I am amazed that someone has not stepped in in with locks, warnings and/or infractions already.

Edit:
Let me ask this about forcing: Would you as a atheist support your child's choice to go to a Christian church if they choose to do so, at whatever age? Would all other atheists do so? Does atheists (someone who denies the existence of god) not force their (lack of) religion onto their kids too?

 

[DeletedUser]

You assume I'm an atheist. And yes, I would not allow my child to attend any religious institution alone, because I will not be able to supervise what they are taught. You see, just because I am willing to allow my child to determine his/her own beliefs (or non-beliefs) does not mean I'm going to be stupid enough to hand him/her off to some institution whose primary objective is to indoctrinate youth to their belief system. There's a big difference between respecting a child's choice and relinquishing responsibility. While I may respect the child's choice, I'm damn sure a church or christian school won't hold to the same respect. So, I would either attend with the child, or I would not allow my child to attend until they are an adult.

And for the record, as a youth I attended church on many occasions, but I was always accompanied by a parent or responsible adult. I can't say the same for my little sister though, who spent years in a private christian school.

As to your other comments --- I don't believe what we're discussing is off topic, as it centered around evangelism and people attempting to indoctrinate others into Christianity via fear or threats (i.e., forced). We're still very much on topic, and have merely allowed the discussion to evolve.

 

[DeletedUser]

You assume I'm an atheist.

define:atheist
From these definitions and your postings here it is not a far fetch to assume you are an atheist. I am not going to try to figure out your exact orientation or what subsection of what term you subscribe to.
Your basis is that there is no god, that places you in the atheist pool.

And yes, I would not allow my child to attend any religious institution alone, because I will not be able to supervise what they are taught ...

So, in essence you are controlling the information that the child receives, removing that which you do not agree with, basically forcing your view/beliefs onto the child. Why then is it wrong for a christian (or other) family to force their religious views/beliefs onto their children?
If you vote for the red party (politics), you will raise your children to think like red party people. If you are vegetarian, you will raise your children to not eat meat. If you are a drug addict, chances are very good your child will go the same way.
The "you" here is general, and may not necessarily refer to you, Hellstromm.

The other part where you go wrong in your argument is that you, personally, may allow your kids to follow whatever way (if supervised), yet you suggest that every christian parent and/or school will force their absolute views on every kid that pass under them. That, my friend, sounds a lot like the holier than thou christians with their attitude of "I am perfect and everyone else that do not agree with me is utterly wrong, without exception". The very people that you protest about so much.

We must be careful not to group everyone that do not agree with us in the same group.

...off topic...allowed the discussion to evolve

Then by all means, let us continue. Some previous events led me to believe that evolutions of threads was considered off topic.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your basis is that there is no god, that places you in the atheist pool.

That's your assumption, but I never said that. Regardless, it's irrelevant, which is why I'm not wasting my time providing clarification to this. The discussion isn't about me, and trying to make it about me is inappropriate.

So, in essence you are controlling the information that the child receives, removing that which you do not agree with, basically forcing your view/beliefs onto the child.

Explain to me how "preventing my child from attending church without me" is controlling the information? What I would do is ensure nobody ELSE tries to force their views on my child. Preventing OTHERS from forcing their views on my child does NOT translate to ME forcing my views on my child. And again, you're trying to muddy up the waters with changing everything that was said or discussed here.

At no point did I say I would deny them the information. I simply won't allow others to use emotions (fear, love, hate, hope, etc) to sway my child in one direction or another. I will encourage my child to make a logical examination of all information available and allow them to apply their emotions as they see fit, rather than have others attempt to manipulate my child's emotions to ignore the available information and abandon logic.

Why then is it wrong for a christian (or other) family to force their religious views/beliefs onto their children?
If you vote for the red party (politics), you will raise your children to think like red party people. If you are vegetarian, you will raise your children to not eat meat. If you are a drug addict, chances are very good your child will go the same way.

In this part of the argument, you're pretty much making the case for me. But to address it, just because others do something wrong does not justify you doing something wrong too.

you, personally, may allow your kids to follow whatever way (if supervised), yet you suggest that every christian parent and/or school will force their absolute views on every kid that pass under them.

I said, "children are being indoctrinated into these religions," which is true. Trying to reverse this and say I was indicating EVERY christian parent does this is simply false. A chihuahua is a dog, but a dog is not necessarily a chihuahua.

In this latest post of yours, you used a minimum of four different fallacious arguments, which is quite a lot and either means you're trying to win an argument, or you simply don't realize how you're distorting our discussion. If you're going to continue with this discussion, please refrain from further posing of fallacious reasoning.

 

[DeletedUser]

As you mature, you lose your faith in god. I am currently Agnostic, going on Athiest.

 

[DeletedUser]

As you mature, you lose your faith in god. I am currently Agnostic, going on Athiest.

Some do, some dont. The fact that you do is not a sign of maturity. Neither is a loss of faith a requirement for maturity.

The discussion isn't about me, and trying to make it about me is inappropriate.

You brought it up. I was merely explaining my reasoning.

Explain to me how "preventing my child from attending church without me" is controlling the information?

Because as soon as they present the child with information that you deem to be false or that you consider to be indoctrination you will remove the child. Even if that is well within your right as a parent, it is still controlling the information.

What I would do is ensure nobody ELSE tries to force their views on my child. Preventing OTHERS from forcing their views on my child does NOT translate to ME forcing my views on my child.

But it does. If you only eat potatoes and prevents your child to eat carrots whenever anyone wants to give it to him, you are essentially forcing your child to eat potatoes.
The same goes with control of information. If you prevent your child access to information that you do not agree with, your child's only connection to information comes from you and that which you approve of. So you are forcing your views onto your child simply because they have no other frame of reference.

And once again, this is a general "you". This is not some personal attack on you as a person.

And again, you're trying to muddy up the waters with changing everything that was said or discussed here.

I am merely trying to put down the fact that parents all over, from all kinds of backgrounds, control information flow to their kids, as they should do. If you are christian, that information will be of a christian nature. Ditto for any other religious or a-religious motivation.
This is simply to show that christian people raising their children as christians is not necessarily wrong (extremists not included - but they come in all walks of life). It is no more wrong, or indoctrination, than an atheist teaching their kid that there is no god.
Using the teachings of christians to their children to try and put the christians in a bad light, is wrong.

At no point did I say I would deny them the information. I simply won't allow others to use emotions (fear, love, hate, hope, etc) to sway my child in one direction or another. I will encourage my child to make a logical examination of all information available and allow them to apply their emotions as they see fit, rather than have others attempt to manipulate my child's emotions to ignore the available information and abandon logic.

Are you devoid of any emotion when you teach your kid anything? (This is a direct question to you as a person).
Your emotions on some topics also has an influence on your child. You also use emotions to influence your child and that plays a big part in swaying them in one direction or the other.
Your only reasoning here is that when other people, that do not share your point of view, do the same thing, they are wrong. It has very little to do with the method of delivery, but more with the message.

In this part of the argument, you're pretty much making the case for me. But to address it, just because others do something wrong does not justify you doing something wrong too.

On the contrary. My claim has never been that they are wrong, or you are wrong. I was showing you that people from all kinds of life, including you, are doing exactly that which you attempt to use to put the christian teachings in a bad light. And that it is not wrong (again, extremists excluded).

I said, "children are being indoctrinated into these religions," which is true. Trying to reverse this and say I was indicating EVERY christian parent does this is simply false. A chihuahua is a dog, but a dog is not necessarily a chihuahua.

Your whole argument here suggests that when kids go to church/christian school there will be attempts to indoctrinate them. "..some institution whose primary objective is to indoctrinate youth to their belief system.." Christian parents will send their kids to some christian institution.
So it may not be 100% absolutely EVERY single one of them, but your suggestion still holds that this is the norm.

In this latest post of yours, you used a minimum of four different fallacious arguments...

Simply claiming that does not make it so. You need to provide concrete reasons why any of my comments was fallacious.


The simple fact is: All parents (and institutions) influence the views, opinions and beliefs that their kids take into the world. Claiming that when christian parents (and institutions) do this it equates to indoctrination and is then a bad thing, is wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

Because as soon as they present the child with information that you deem to be false or that you consider to be indoctrination you will remove the child. Even if that is well within your right as a parent, it is still controlling the information.

Again with the fallacious arguments, again you are stating what I would do, without me presenting statement as to what I would do. Putting words in my mouth is false argument, and it's crappy debate.

By what I'm reading, your definition for deem means the same as believe (i.e., belief). I already indicated many times in the past that I don't hold to beliefs, of any kind. If someone says something, and it is being presented as "truth," but they do not provide supporting evidence, you'll be sure I will indicate such to my child. If I hand you a box and tell you it holds millions of dollars in diamonds, are you going to take my word for it, or would you like see supporting evidence?

But it does. If you only eat potatoes and prevents your child to eat carrots whenever anyone wants to give it to him, you are essentially forcing your child to eat potatoes.

Again, fallacious reasoning. If I prevent someone from forcing my child to eat carrots, I am not preventing from eating carrots, I am preventing someone from forcing them to eat. If my child wants to eat carrots, they can eat the carrots without outside pressures. And ... what makes you think I'm going to force them to eat potatoes?

Nothing but your desperate effort at painting a false picture imposes the circumstances you present above. Give it up man, it's not the case and trying to make the case doesn't make the case, it only weakens your case, because in doing so you are showing how you view things.

I am merely trying to put down the fact that parents all over, from all kinds of backgrounds, control information flow to their kids, as they should do. If you are christian, that information will be of a christian nature. Ditto for any other religious or a-religious motivation.

And here is your assumptive error. You think parents should, and do, control the flow of information to their kids. I don't. I don't think they should, nor do I think they do, at least not by default.

There are those, such as the ones we discussed earlier within the Christian community, that try to control what a child learns, even force a child to learn select material, and this is not appropriate. Whether you choose the assertive action of controlling what a child learns, or the aggressive action of forcing a child to learn select material, it is not appropriate. It does not encourage the child's development, merely the child's indoctrination into preconceptions held by others; a stifling of free will.

Get it yet? Do you understand the fallacy of your perceptions in these discussions with me?

Are you devoid of any emotion when you teach your kid anything? (This is a direct question to you as a person).

You have a distorted perception of how teachers think. When I teach, I teach with interest and enthusiasm, but I don't push an agenda. Don't confuse my arguments in this community with how I teach, for they are different things altogether.

Reasoning skills are a necessary part of comprehension. Teaching a child to develop their reasoning skills encourages them to evaluate available data, evidence, proof and lack thereof. Perhaps you did not have good instructors, or you were subjected to the anvil of false argument as a means to push your belief (by the amount of fallacious reasoning you present, I'm inclined to think the latter), but whatever the case, what you need to understand here is that "how" you think differs substantially from "how" I think. Where I may apply deductive reasoning, you seem to apply abductive reasoning, and thus end up with seemingly valid answers that are, in course of fact, often invalid.

On the contrary. My claim has never been that they are wrong, or you are wrong. I was showing you that people from all kinds of life, including you, are doing exactly that which you attempt to use to put the christian teachings in a bad light. And that it is not wrong (again, extremists excluded).

Oh come off it. That's circular reasoning by convenient omission. You presented examples of indoctrination, de facto and imposed, some of which would be wrong in your book. Now you're trying to argue that it is not wrong (a poor tactic considering people are able to read back at the posts presented). But, more to the point, you're also avoiding altogether what I presented, which is that you argue others forcing their children, indoctrinating them, somehow makes it okay for you to do the same. It does not. This is another fallacious reasoning, in which two wrongs do not make a right. Just because others do it, does not make it okay to do.

Simply claiming that does not make it so. You need to provide concrete reasons why any of my comments was fallacious.

Dude, trust me, you really don't want me to do that. I am trying hard to not point out all the fallacious arguments you presented. Why? Because it obnoxious. If you know what fallacious reasoning is, then you know when you're using it, so stop it and argue without that dependency.