(Un)Acceptable Forms of Indoctrination

Originally posted by Devil King
The whole point of your thread is to discuss (or illustrate) how one form of indoctrination is the result of another (or is somehow better?).

You think you have absolute certainty in your beliefs, but so do others. And you've made the mistake of lumping the many groups into two: Christians and everyone else.

Well, sorry, but making up your own mind is superior to being told from the age of 3 that Santa Claus is floating in the sky, watching everything you're doing, and that if you don't believe it, totally, that you're going to burn in hell for all eternity.

Besides, if it's an absolute that Christianity is the best path, then they'll figure that out. Unless you think coming to the same conclusions you have is impossible for another independant, intelligent human being.

But I don't need everyone to agree with me to make me feel better about my beliefs or morals.

Remember, you are arguing that different morals equate to inferior morals.

But any number of popular Christian personalities would condemn someone who understands it's just as much their right to do so, as it is the Christians.

Because for someone who suffered persecution, he wasn't awfully understanding. Again, speaking from a position of certainty doesn't make him right.

This isn't the Roman Empire. For lack of a better term, Christianity is the state faith of the United States of America. And certainly no Christian has a problem with this notion, despite the rule of law we're supposed to enjoy in this country.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Zeal Ex Nihilo... I think it's great you have something to believe in, I really do, but how could you not see that the practices in Jesus Camp would screw a kid up in two seconds? It's a form of brainwashing.

Don't kid yourself, you're obviously biased. If you saw people speaking in tongues and brainwashing sobbing children, and it was in the name of a different religion, you would be offended as well.

Also, it matter not what the bible says, I'm afraid. You list all the nice things that the bibles says,

but how many devout American Chrisitans actually practice these? For many it doesn't stop with just "Homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle. It is impure in the eyes of God. We will not be afraid to speak the truth." It goes on with picketting, harrassment, and sometimes violence. Where is "Do unto others" while this is happening?

Sorry dude, but Christianity is far too flawed of a religion to be held so highly.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And why is brainwashing wrong?

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?!

You don't even know my thoughts on the actual movie.

Fine, then. Tell me your thoughts on the film.

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.

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.

Don't ask me. I don't picket, harass, or act violently.

I'm sure you don't. However many do.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You presume far too much. I merely asked a question.

I think the answer is obvious. It sounded as if you were challenging my view on brainwashing.

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.

I'm not saying the film is harmful at all. I'm saying the practices depicted in the documentary were.

What's your point?

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?

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."

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?

Originally posted by Bardiel13
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.)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Not quite. The intent of my thread is to wonder aloud why one form of indoctrination is acceptable while another is not.

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.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
If you'd like, I'll group them into Nazis and everyone else, too.

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.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Justify this.

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.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
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.

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.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Neither do I.

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.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
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."

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.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And why would you say that this is wrong?

I didn't say it was wrong. If anything, I said they were wrong.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I don't see how he wasn't particularly understanding, but that's not really relevant anyway.

Because he's a total bastard, that's why.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The one that gives you as much right to be an atheist as it does for me to be a theist?

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.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
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."

So you asked th bible and it said that god second guessed himself.

Originally posted by Devil King
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.

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'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.

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.

So you asked th bible and it said that god second guessed himself.

Originally posted by lord xyz
He thinks it's funny to not be.

Originally posted by Devil King
Could you be more specific?

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.

Penis is a moral absolute.

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.

You confuse the scientific method with the idea of extreme skepticism.

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}

Is he trying to say nothing is right or wrong?

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.

Agreed. Don't really have anything to add to that.

Innately though, no one would be more "correct" than another simply from the basis of believing "more" or some crap like that.

Originally posted by Bardock42

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.

if you are running with the 'feceman is PVS's sock account' gag (possible truth): hahahaha poop

if you are attempting to interpret what i said: wrong.

Originally posted by Devil King
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 [b]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. [/B]

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.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
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."

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.