Not quite. The intent of my thread is to wonder aloud why one form of indoctrination is acceptable while another is not.
If you'd like, I'll group them into Nazis and everyone else, too.
Justify this.
That is an incorrect statement. People have differing beliefs on what is "best." Even if a person happens to understand what is "best"--a rare occurrence--that person may not choose to embark upon that path.
Neither do I.
I am doing no such thing. While I do believe that--how terribly sithsaber of me--I am merely inquiring as to why some indoctrination is considered "good" while some is considered "bad."
And why would you say that this is wrong?
I don't see how he wasn't particularly understanding, but that's not really relevant anyway.
The one that gives you as much right to be an atheist as it does for me to be a theist?
And why is brainwashing wrong?
You don't even know my thoughts on the actual movie.
The "niceness" of the things written in the Bible has little to do with this discussion, although many people consider the idea that homosexuality is wrong as anything but nice.
Don't ask me. I don't picket, harass, or act violently.
I disagree. People are flawed. If all people followed the Christian lifestyle exactly as it is presented in the Bible, there would be no wrongdoing. There would be no violence, no war, no theft, no murder, no poverty, no STDs, no teenage pregnancies, no rape, no child molestation, no torture, no starvation, etc.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
I really hope you're trolling. Do you really find the concept of forcing a point of view via mindbreaking techniques in order to furthur any agenda acceptable?!
Fine, then. Tell me your thoughts on the film.
And this is usually from a religious point of view. I am yet to find one logical reason why homosexuality is detrimental to anything, without it having a religious base.
I'm sure you don't. However many do.
There you are wrong. Ask the bible what you do about rude children, homosexuals, individual disobedience, rape victims, or (I love this one) a wife who grabbed a guy's nads to help her husband fight said guy. Please reply to this requst.
You presume far too much. I merely asked a question.
Although I have not seen all of it, I found the majority of clips I found on YouTube to be goofy rather than detrimental. For instance, bringing in a cardboard cutout of President Bush. Goofy? Yes. Harmful? Praying for our elected leaders as Paul tells we ought to...no.
Another example: Fat chick yelling about how "you don't make heroes out of warlocks." How is this harmful, exactly? J.K. Rowling doesn't sell an extra two hundred books or so.
Thirdly, the part where the fat chick is dumping water on the kids' hands. Goofy? Yes, especially considering that it was just something like an Aquafina bottle. Harmful? A symbolic act that is analogous to baptism...no.
What's your point?
I asked the Bible. The Bible said, "'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'" Then it said, "In the past, the [Mosaic Law] held us like prisoners, but our old selves died, and we were made free from the [Mosaic Law]. So now we serve God in a new way with the Spirit, and not in the old way with written rules."
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
I think the answer is obvious. It sounded as if you were challenging my view on brainwashing.
I'm not saying the film is harmful at all. I'm saying the practices depicted in the documentary were.
You are challenging society's view of right and wrong, correct? I am saying those who believe homosexuality is wrong and/or immoral are in turn wrong in the point of view due to the lack of logic behind it.
But, tell me. What's your view on the subject?
God said kill them with rocks. Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Who are you going to listen to? God or Jesus?
I should clarify that last point: While the death penalty was prescribed for adultery, Christ came to give humans grace, that our sins might be overlooked and saved--that way we, who deserve the spiritual death penalty, might be forgiven.
In addition, the Pharisees were being extremely hypocritical and downright evil. Their entire purpose for bringing the woman before Jesus was to try to trap him--and they were willing to kill a woman to do so! (Notice that the man involved was not present at the time, despite the woman being "caught in the act" of adultery.)
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
The road to hell blah,blah,blah. My point is that you've lumped the whole of society into us v. them. This simply is not the case. And, more over, it isn't the case because you've decided that society is an institution against which Christians need to protect themselves. That's obvious since you've said a number of times that Christian certainty trumps all other forms of irrational certainty. One form isn't acceptable.. But neither is it acceptable to imagine an institution of indoctrination when there isn't one. And in this case, there isn't one becuase you've decided that it's Christians against everyone else.
I'm sure you'd like for me to say that isn't far off from the facts, but I don't believe it is. I'm not comparring Christians in America to Nazis. I'm saying that the Nazis in America have as much right to exist as do the Christians. I'm sorry if your religious views prevent you from seeing the seperation of church and state, but it exists nonetheless. And, more importantly, it exists despite the ardent religious views of many people in this country.
Spoken like someone who hits the pedal and drinks the kool-aid. Not very well played. Did you not reach your religious conclusions after independant thought and much doubt? If not, then there is no justification for my statement.
And there are 2000 years of Christian history to prove you right. So, one might conclude that one doesn't choose the "right path", be they Christian or a member of the greater society, simply because they've decided that Jesus is right for them.
Were that the case, I doubt there would be Christian missionaries in the third world...or waking down Market Street. You wouldn't utilize what you consider to be a lifetime of study and conclusions to legitimize telling people they're wrong for not believing as you do.
No, what you're doing is comparing two things, one of which doesn't exist. How you can say you aren't is a mystery to me.
I didn't say it was wrong. If anything, I said they were wrong.
Because he's a total bastard, that's why.
Once again you seem to be WRONG! It wasn't Christian graciousnss that founded this country. In fact, it was logic and reason that allowed this country not to end up as a theocracy, despite the irrational wishes of a number of the founding fathers. The fact that you would actually attribute my freedoms to your religion is exactly at the heart of your issues.
I understand you think I'm only painting myself as an example of the hypocrisy you suppose to be addressing. But I don't consider myself absolutely right, well-informed or blessed among my fellow humans. The inherrent arrogance of your position shows through in a number of your posts. And the bad part, is that you seem to actually enjoy being called out on it.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
Like I said, I didn't intend to do so, and, if I could edit, I would have added in stuff about neo-Nazism and the KKK...it's just that Christianity came to mind because I was thinking about Jesus Camp.
Just because something is considered "mainstream" doesn't mean it is not any less a form of indoctrination. It's just a more subtle form.
I don't believe I ever said otherwise.
My own "ardent religious views" do not prevent me from seeing the separation of church and state.
All I asked for was a justification of why what you said was superior to "brainwashing." If you cannot justify it aside from "it just is," then you have fallen into the trap of a form of absolutism--much like if I were to say something "is just wrong."
I would agree.
I forgot that salvation is an unworthy goal.
How you can say that mainstream culture doesn't act as indoctrination is a mystery to me.
Then, rather than playing the semantics game, why are they wrong?
Again, irrelevant, although I would say that he wasn't.
Support this claim with evidence, although I made no claim that it was Christian graciousness that founded the country. Although, I could say that the Declaration of Independence clearly shows a theistic mindset--one that was a part of the creation of America as a democracy.
Again, I have done no such thing. You seem to have issues with seeing things where there are none...I recall in another thread where you accused sithsaber and myself of desiring the Rapture so that the heathens would be tormented--which is, of course, an incorrect statement that demonstrates your beliefs about the evangelical Christian mindset.
I do not consider myself to be absolutely right, only the Word.
Of course not, although I'm quite certain that I've gone over this in other threads.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Not really.
Well. PVS said that Jesus Camp and Societies kind of indoctrination are similiar. And they are if you don't see any moral absolutes, now aren't they? On a grander scale that is.
Zeal loses credibility from his very first comparison.
"Don't believe anything without proof"... well, for a start, he means evidence, not proof. But what the refers to here is the scientific method, which is the apporach that most fundamentally clashes with religion and inspires many of the other points.
But this approach is not indoctrainted. if it ever was that would be a very very bad thing indeed. People should not- and generally are not- forced to adopt the scientific view as it is the single view drummed into them.
Instead, the scientific method has been demonstrated and its superiority accepted- it has, after all, given us all the technological comforts of the modern world from medicine to computers.
To say it has been indoctrinated into people is nonsense. Basic science classes are thererto demonstrate what Science is, and why it works, not to force it down people's throats with no alternative. It's done well because it is right, not because there was no choice involved.
People forget that science does not have a pre-built view or agenda that would make it suitable for such a criticism. it is simply the deduction of how the world works by observation and experimentation of and in that world. Scientists can have agendas, that's fine, but that's different from saying Science itself is one that can be so overliad onto people's minds.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Oct 10th, 2007 at 09:49 AM
LMFAO! zeal, STOP! seriously. this has to be about the worst way of rationalising such negetive beleifs and practices. i mean, you CUD have played a more tolerant and apolegetic angle to give the impression of positivity. seems like your getting more clueless. all kind of thought originates one way or another. the fact that you targetted the idea that all ideas are spread through socialisation as a base to consider that there is no difference between jesus camp and the alternative is silly. simlpy because the difference is in the CONTENT of the messages, one is logical and the other one is not. now before you start with the whole. "logic is also defined by a certain part of society", the answer is simple, logic, as defined currently{by that brand} fits in sensibly with reality and practical world where its affects can be seen and reasoned to be positive as opposed to the content of godmatic indoctrination at jesus camp which is negetive and not based in any way on logical bases{even if at times, segments might resemble sumthing apparently logical. that is necessity of SOME practicality and coincidence, or the rare good intention of the author perhaps}
yup, in a sneaky way{no offence}. its like the usual anti logical arguments "if in formal logic no premises takes priority over another in the spirit of unbiased rationale, then its impossible to have right and wrong, or good and bad, or any moral development based in logic."
alternately "if any premise doesnt take precedence over another, then why prefer life over death? just goes to show how stupid this logic of yours is". forgtetting that infact we as humans, do and SHOULD have biases in favour of the axioms which give rise to us and propositions that supporyt them{i.e. self preservation, desire for happiness, avoidance of suffering etc etc} as we logically know it to be true that we ARE based on those biases.
Please let him know that the early settlers came to the "new world" to flee persecution and to have religious freedom. Not start "Jesus Land" where people are indoctrined and not free to express themselves as they see fit.
It's superior to brainwashing because it isn't brainwashing. I never said "it just is" superior. I can't justify the superiority of something I don't see existing.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
Last edited by Devil King on Oct 10th, 2007 at 05:28 PM
KMC Community Forums
Oct 9th, 2007 11:43 PM
