NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't God's son. I don't believe he was, and I don't believe the Bible is the word of God but I'm not here to debate God's existence.

It is my belief that Christianity as a religion is sustained only through the indoctrination of the young by their parents, preying on the depressed and down'n'out (Most religious groups,Alpha for example, target people who are depressed and are so low on self-esteem and will-power that they'll believe any baloney. It is also sustained through evangelism and through Missions. Now, tell me that flying to Africa or another third world country and promising them material things (books, food etc.) in exchange for becoming part of the Christian faith is not wrong?

I have no problems with spiritualism, but I do have a problem with the Church. I don't believe these people have the right to impress their values upon others.

This isn't a flammatory thread, just curious to see if many people agree with me that the RELIGION itself (not the faith) is only sustained through the means above and overly-generous government grants (in some countries)?

What you're talking about is true of nearly every movement that wants to spread itself, religious or otherwise. They find those who aren't happy with what they currently have, so they get offered an alternative.

As my Greek philosophy professor (not a Christian) said, there were three main reasons why Christianity spread as fast as it did in the Roman world. It was the only movement at the time with a mandate to spread, it helped provide for material needs in a decaying system, and it offered people hope in a world which seemed to be going downhill.

Dude, it's their right to do and feel as they believe.

If I say its "wrong" or "right" doesn't mean anything except to yourself, its subjective, but I am against indoctrination.

I accidentally answered yes when I meant no on the poll. In any case:


[snip]
It is my belief that Christianity as a religion is sustained only through the indoctrination of the young by their parents,
[...etc]

That is incorrect. Many people come to church seeking answers. They stay because they find those answers.


preying on the depressed and down'n'out (Most religious groups,Alpha for example, target people who are depressed and are so low on self-esteem and will-power that they'll believe any baloney.

If you offer people who are depressed a solution that brings them out of their depression, and gives their life a new meaning, I dont see how that is a bad thing. Christianity does not target depressed people, it provides them with the key to overcoming their depression when everything else fails.


It is also sustained through evangelism and through Missions. Now, tell me that flying to Africa or another third world country and promising them material things (books, food etc.) in exchange for becoming part of the Christian faith is not wrong?

That would be wrong if it happened, but it does not. You do not need to be a christian in order to recieve anything from any legitimate christian relief organization.

I looked up the definition. If by "zealous," you are thinking "shoving it down people's throats or randomly telling them that they are going to hell, then I think it is wrong. However, if someone asks or has an openness to it, then there is nothing wrong with telling them.

I see nothing but futility in screaming it out to ears that will do nothing but look for a reason not to believe it. Basically, as a preacher myself, I would not go out and try to trick someone into becoming "saved" by scaring them into some "fire insurance" to keep them out of hell. That is not the point of Christianity. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a gospel that is hypocritical, though I think I may ruffle too many religiocratic feathers on here if I was to go into why that is the case.

It is my belief that Christianity as a religion is sustained only through the indoctrination of the young by their parents, preying on the depressed and down'n'out (Most religious groups,Alpha for example, target people who are depressed and are so low on self-esteem and will-power that they'll believe any baloney.

While there were those who tried to indoctrinate me at times, it certainly wasn't my parents. I came to Christianity on my own, through my own spiritual journey, so your belief is wrong for many people.

It is also sustained through evangelism and through Missions. Now, tell me that flying to Africa or another third world country and promising them material things (books, food etc.) in exchange for becoming part of the Christian faith is not wrong?

That absolutely is wrong, but is not how the majority of missions work - especially these days because the poor example set by many in centuries past makes it difficult to even be able to talk to someone about religion without them assuming you are trying to convert them.

Stop preying on me!

It is my belief that Christianity as a religion is sustained only through the indoctrination of the young by their parents, preying on the depressed and down'n'out (Most religious groups,Alpha for example, target people who are depressed and are so low on self-esteem and will-power that they'll believe any baloney. It is also sustained through evangelism and through Missions. Now, tell me that flying to Africa or another third world country and promising them material things (books, food etc.) in exchange for becoming part of the Christian faith is not wrong?

I have no problems with spiritualism, but I do have a problem with the Church. I don't believe these people have the right to impress their values upon others

Imposing would imply force. These people do no use any kind of force. Also your implication with the mission ideas of Africa implies that there is a trade, IE that the missionaries actually offer the resorces in exchange for them converting. Thats not true. Christians do not withhold resorces from people who refuse to convert. The Alpha course is volentary and so people have a choice to come.

I would be more concered by the Islamic faith, where any conversion from Islam is often resulted with death threats or expulsion from communities.

Stop preying on me!
You mean praying, don't you? :p

I don't like prosletyzing (sp?) by any faith, since I believe that religion, given its personal nature, should be determined by the person, not by missionaries.

One thing I am always interested in knowing the answer to, yet no-one will ever give me a straight answer to:

Why do atheists (and I mean some atheists, not all) think that it is their goal in life to go on a personal crusade against religion? Why do they make threads like this which more often than not turn into a religion flaming match, when they don't get any real answers anyway?

If you don't like religion, or the way Christianity is sustained, then ignore it and leave it to get on with its own business. If you are a leading Christian who is responsible for encouraging Christian growth, then ask this. But why ask it if it doesn't concern you?

I don't like prosletyzing (sp?) by any faith, since I believe that religion, given its personal nature, should be determined by the person, not by missionaries.

Its not determined by missionaries. Missionaries do not "force" people to join a religion, they explain a religion to people, and what it means.

That would be wrong if it happened, but it does not. You do not need to be a christian in order to recieve anything from any legitimate christian relief organization.

There is a fine line, I suppose, between seduction and coercion.

I think it depends strongly on the manner in which it is done, I voted yes, because I seriously dislike evangelism personally. I beleive that spirituality is an intensley personal thing.

Eitherway, all I know is that if someone reserves their right to attempt to convert me to christianity, I'll reserve my right to simultaneously attempt to convert them to satanism. Just for kicks of course, but if you can't take the hint...

One thing I am always interested in knowing the answer to, yet no-one will ever give me a straight answer to:

Why do atheists (and I mean some atheists, not all) think that it is their goal in life to go on a personal crusade against religion? Why do they make threads like this which more often than not turn into a religion flaming match, when they don't get any real answers anyway?

If you don't like religion, or the way Christianity is sustained, then ignore it and leave it to get on with its own business. If you are a leading Christian who is responsible for encouraging Christian growth, then ask this. But why ask it if it doesn't concern you?

I can give one answer to your question, although there are many different reasons why some atheists go on a crusade against Christianity. If someone sees Christianity as a damaging organisation to human society, then they can be very motivated to fight it.

I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't God's son. I don't believe he was, and I don't believe the Bible is the word of God but I'm not here to debate God's existence.

It is my belief that Christianity as a religion is sustained only through the indoctrination of the young by their parents, preying on the depressed and down'n'out (Most religious groups,Alpha for example, target people who are depressed and are so low on self-esteem and will-power that they'll believe any baloney. It is also sustained through evangelism and through Missions. Now, tell me that flying to Africa or another third world country and promising them material things (books, food etc.) in exchange for becoming part of the Christian faith is not wrong?

I have no problems with spiritualism, but I do have a problem with the Church. I don't believe these people have the right to impress their values upon others.

This isn't a flammatory thread, just curious to see if many people agree with me that the RELIGION itself (not the faith) is only sustained through the means above and overly-generous government grants (in some countries)?

I wouldn't expect you to understand, you're not Christian. A blind man cannot tell the sighted what he sees, as they say.

One definition of an evangelist is someone who tries his best to pass on a message (via persuasion, etc.) to others because he feels that his message is both true and critical to their well being, and the well being of the community. This definition can be applied to the Hindu's, the Muslims, the Communists, as well as the Christians. In fact, I am reminded of my years at University when many of my aquaintances tried numerous times to persuade me towards the pleasures of excessive drunkeness, and hallucinating chemicals. One could perhaps define them as a type of evangelist, although I seriously doubted that they truly cared about my wellbeing, both now and then. Should that sort of 'evangelism' be outlawed? Maybe it would help some poor people avoid making such a mess of their lives.

Simply making evangelism illegal is another way of restricting people. You have a right to be able to persuade others, both to good or harm, within certain limits, if you live in a democratic society. If you restrict the evangelism of Christians, you should also restrict the evangelism of every other religion, even of those who consider themselves to be so 'enlightened' to have no religion. In fact, you should possibly ban persuasion in any form. At least that would get rid of the TV adds and billboards.

Evangelism should obviously be only within certain limits, but making it illegal is simply illogical and inconsistent with liberty and individual freedom.

One thing I am always interested in knowing the answer to, yet no-one will ever give me a straight answer to:

Why do atheists (and I mean some atheists, not all) think that it is their goal in life to go on a personal crusade against religion? Why do they make threads like this which more often than not turn into a religion flaming match, when they don't get any real answers anyway?

If you don't like religion, or the way Christianity is sustained, then ignore it and leave it to get on with its own business. If you are a leading Christian who is responsible for encouraging Christian growth, then ask this. But why ask it if it doesn't concern you?

Let us put this into some kind of perspective.

The OP is not criticising Christian faith or belief, but the evangelistic practices of the Christian church. This is not a crusade against religion as you put it, but a questioning of the methods and tactics used by a portion of society to try and impose their beliefs on others who do not share these beliefs.

Impose, does not mean force physically, it means to require the other to do as desired, whether by physical or psychological means. I impose my will on my son frequently, but not physically. (For his health and safety usually, but occasionally just so I get some peace and quiet.)

Is it not hypocritical to criticise a non Christian for making public these concerns. The church makes its position public at all opportunities, and is in fact required to do so by its own texts. To criticise a dissenting voice is to want a hegemony of the means of persuasion, which the church does not and should not have. If it is OK for the Christian church to push its message at all and sundry, requested or not, then it has to be OK for this strategy to be questioned.

If you do not like some public activity, some way of behaving that others consistently use, you have every right to object. If you do not think that pornography is acceptable, then you have a right to object to being exposed to it. If you do not think that communist propaganda is acceptable you have a right to object to this as well. The same applies to Christian propaganda. If you are not a Christian the constant evangelism by the church can concern you, negatively. Thereby you have a right to ask and complain.

Let us put this into some kind of perspective.

The OP is not criticising Christian faith or belief, but the evangelistic practices of the Christian church. This is not a crusade against religion as you put it, but a questioning of the methods and tactics used by a portion of society to try and impose their beliefs on others who do not share these beliefs.

Impose, does not mean force physically, it means to require the other to do as desired, whether by physical or psychological means. I impose my will on my son frequently, but not physically. (For his health and safety usually, but occasionally just so I get some peace and quiet.)

Is it not hypocritical to criticise a non Christian for making public these concerns. The church makes its position public at all opportunities, and is in fact required to do so by its own texts. To criticise a dissenting voice is to want a hegemony of the means of persuasion, which the church does not and should not have. If it is OK for the Christian church to push its message at all and sundry, requested or not, then it has to be OK for this strategy to be questioned.

If you do not like some public activity, some way of behaving that others consistently use, you have every right to object. If you do not think that pornography is acceptable, then you have a right to object to being exposed to it. If you do not think that communist propaganda is acceptable you have a right to object to this as well. The same applies to Christian propaganda. If you are not a Christian the constant evangelism by the church can concern you, negatively. Thereby you have a right to ask and complain.

You have a right to critise
But that doesnt make the critisism correct

You have a right to critise
But that doesnt make the critisism correct

Correct meaning what?
The criticism here is based on the facts, it is not one based on "Christians eat new born Baies OMG" or any other such flamming. It is based on the evangelistic principles of the Christian church. That this is irritating and annoying is factual.
Why is the criticism not correct?

I voted "yes" that it is morally wrong, as people who are seriously looking for answers will find them by themselves. A friend recently went to do some volunteer work in Cambodia...however it was done in the hope of attracting more people to their faith - I thought that was extremely arrogant as I am sure most people in Cambodia already *have* a faith that they are quite happy with...

Correct meaning what?
The criticism here is based on the facts, it is not one based on "Christians eat new born Baies OMG" or any other such flamming. It is based on the evangelistic principles of the Christian church. That this is irritating and annoying is factual.
Why is the criticism not correct?

Correct meaning accurate, meaning close to the truth

It is not true to say that Christian charities and missionaries go out to help tribes in some sort of exchange. Christians do not go to Africa and say to tribes "we will give you X resorces if you all convert"

Nor is it true to say evangalism as described by the Bible is somehow indocrination. Indocrination would imply that the people who are listening have no option but to not listen. However there is nothing beyond peoples own personal convictions stoping people leaving the Church. People may react personally but to treat them deferentially because of it is not right.

The original poster suggested that the Alpha course targets the weak and vunrable. I ask this, vunrable to what? To make these critisims of something like a Neo Nazi/Stalinist group I could undertstand as they are trying to draw people into something evil (I assume we can agree Stalinism and Nazisim are evil). However Christianity is in no sense I can see "evil".

Also, the word "targeting" implies that somehow the Alpha course can force people to come to it. They cant.

The original poster also sugested that it is somehow wrong for religious parents to bring up their children into that religion. Now while I agree that the state teaching religion as fact in their education system is wrong but I dont believe anyone should critise anyone elses style of parenting unless the life of the child is at risk. By this logic, parents should teach nothing to their children as it may be indocritination.

Correct meaning accurate, meaning close to the truth
So in saying it is not correct you are saying that the Christian church is not evangelical in principle. Check the facts.

It is not true to say that Christian charities and missionaries go out to help tribes in some sort of exchange. Christians do not go to Africa and say to tribes "we will give you X resorces if you all convert"
Again check your facts. Christian missionaries do, and always have provided welfare. There is nothing wrong with this, except when such welfare is tried to adopting a Christian belief system and abandoning proven methods of survival in the lands concerned. Look at the Jesuit reductions in South America as a clear example of this.

Nor is it true to say evangalism as described by the Bible is somehow indocrination. Indocrination would imply that the people who are listening have no option but to not listen. However there is nothing beyond peoples own personal convictions stoping people leaving the Church. People may react personally but to treat them deferentially because of it is not right.
Evangelism is the process of attempting to persuade others to adopt the doctrine of the church. That means it is indoctrination. You may not like the word, but it is the fact of the matter of evangelism. Try finding out what a word means, in this case indoctrination, before denying that it is being done. There is nothing whatsoever about indoctrination that makes it permanent or its effects unavoidable. It simply means attempting to inculcate a particular doctrine.

The original poster suggested that the Alpha course targets the weak and vunrable. I ask this, vunrable to what? To make these critisims of something like a Neo Nazi/Stalinist group I could undertstand as they are trying to draw people into something evil (I assume we can agree Stalinism and Nazisim are evil). However Christianity is in no sense I can see "evil".
I did not comment on this part as I have no knowledge as to what the Alpha course is. As such I still decline to give any opinion on that aspect.
Christianity can be seen as "evil" by those who are not Christian. Obviously for those that accept its doctrine it is not, but for those who do not, the concept of "suffer now to be rewarded later" can easily be seen as an evil principle. I see it that way, personally, but do not normally comment as it is a private view. I am only commenting now to illustrate that your vision may be limited.

Also, the word "targeting" implies that somehow the Alpha course can force people to come to it. They cant.
Targetting is a term used in marketing. It does not imply coercion, it implies that the message is tailored to resonate with a certain group. Beer advertising is generally targetted at young males. This does not mean that young males are forced, by the advertisers, to drink beer, does it?

If any other religion were to push its message as hard as Chrisitanity does then the Christians might be more capable of seeing the situation. The only other ideology that I can think of that uses as hard a sell as Christianity is capitalism in the USA. It works by arguing that only capitalism is good, that other systems will make you suffer. Sounds a lot like evangelism to me. (I am a capitalist though)

So in saying it is not correct you are saying that the Christian church is not evangelical in principle. Check the facts.


It is evanglism, but not indoctrination


Again check your facts. Christian missionaries do, and always have provided welfare. There is nothing wrong with this, except when such welfare is tried to adopting a Christian belief system and abandoning proven methods of survival in the lands concerned. Look at the Jesuit reductions in South America as a clear example of this.

Most likely an extreme minority. The vast majority of Chrisitian charitiy outreach I know of (I have friends who are actually on some of these missions ATM) are not dependent on joining the faith. Of course they teach people about the faith but they dont force people to join it.


Evangelism is the process of attempting to persuade others to adopt the doctrine of the church. That means it is indoctrination. You may not like the word, but it is the fact of the matter of evangelism. Try finding out what a word means, in this case indoctrination, before denying that it is being done. There is nothing whatsoever about indoctrination that makes it permanent or its effects unavoidable. It simply means attempting to inculcate a particular doctrine.

Indocrination means repeating the same ideas so often that they can be said to be true. Thats not what evangalism is. Indocrination is a forced tool, IE you force people to hear that message over and over again so that they believe it. This is not the case in evangalism. Evangalisim means teaching about what a religion says in no uncertian terms, but it does not imply forcing it on people. Indocrination does mean forcing it onto people. Evangalism is simpley informing people, not forcing.


I did not comment on this part as I have no knowledge as to what the Alpha course is. As such I still decline to give any opinion on that aspect.
Christianity can be seen as "evil" by those who are not Christian. Obviously for those that accept its doctrine it is not, but for those who do not, the concept of "suffer now to be rewarded later" can easily be seen as an evil principle. I see it that way, personally, but do not normally comment as it is a private view. I am only commenting now to illustrate that your vision may be limited

The "Suffer now, reward later" logic is not a pillar of Christianity. It does say "bleesed are the persecuted for theirs is the kingdom of God" (paraphrase) but it doesnt encorage persecution on Christians. It does not say that your suffering in this life is somehow spiritual colatoral. Suffering can be helpful in the sense that it can build spiritual charachter (such is the case for many Christians in Africa) but it is not encouraged, you are not encouraged to seek persecution. Christians do say it is not a punishment from God. I am keen to hear what else you may think of Christianity being "evil".


Targetting is a term used in marketing. It does not imply coercion, it implies that the message is tailored to resonate with a certain group. Beer advertising is generally targetted at young males. This does not mean that young males are forced, by the advertisers, to drink beer, does it?

I still would disagree with the original posters sugestion that the alpha course is targeted at the weak and vunrable. The slogen is simpley "whats it all about" and is followed by a picture of a man carrying a very large red question mark.


If any other religion were to push its message as hard as Chrisitanity does then the Christians might be more capable of seeing the situation. The only other ideology that I can think of that uses as hard a sell as Christianity is capitalism in the USA. It works by arguing that only capitalism is good, that other systems will make you suffer. Sounds a lot like evangelism to me. (I am a capitalist though)

Christians are under no illusions in this regard. Christians do not believe that if you become a Christian, your life will suddenly improve a great deal. On the contary, its likely to get worse. Christians do believe that if you do not do the following 5 things however, you will not be saved

1- Accept that you have sinned/done wrong/been bad etc
2- Accept that you cannot deal with the implications of said sins yourself
3- Accept that you need a power beyond your understanding (God) to deal with it
4- Believe that there is a God beyond your understanding who wants to and can deal with it.
5- Having accepted that you are in the wrong (sinned) you need to do something about it (IE attempt to change your lifestyle).

*snip*
Indocrination means repeating the same ideas so often that they can be said to be true. Thats not what evangalism is. Indocrination is a forced tool, IE you force people to hear that message over and over again so that they believe it. This is not the case in evangalism. Evangalisim means teaching about what a religion says in no uncertian terms, but it does not imply forcing it on people. Indocrination does mean forcing it onto people. Evangalism is simpley informing people, not forcing.
Factual arguments about missionary methodologies I am going to leave aside for now, except to say that you ought to check the history thoroughly, rather than rely just on onesided reports.

Main Entry: in·doc·tri·nate
Pronunciation: in-'däk-tr&-"nAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
Etymology: probably from Middle English endoctrinen, from Middle French endoctriner, from Old French, from en- + doctrine doctrine
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
Evangalisim means teaching about what a religion says in no uncertian terms
Conclusion: Evangelism is indoctrination.

The "Suffer now, reward later" logic is not a pillar of Christianity. It does say "bleesed are the persecuted for theirs is the kingdom of God" (paraphrase) but it doesnt encorage persecution on Christians. It does not say that your suffering in this life is somehow spiritual colatoral. Suffering can be helpful in the sense that it can build spiritual charachter (such is the case for many Christians in Africa) but it is not encouraged, you are not encouraged to seek persecution. Christians do say it is not a punishment from God. I am keen to hear what else you may think of Christianity being "evil".

It may not be an explicit pillar, but Christianity is clearly what I chose to call a "pie in the sky" religion. You state later on that you have to accept that you have done wrong (or sined/transgressed or whatever term you care to use). No, I do not have to suffer guilt, I have not sinned, the church has simply decreed that I have. I disagree with the church, but a Christian can not disagree.
The Christian church sets out to make the faithful feel guilty for being human, and then says that the person can be forgiven for this imaginary guilt by adopting the precepts of the Church. This mortal life is one of sin and suffering. Redemption is only to be found beyond this world. It is a theology of resignation, and as such I find it evil. It is a social control mechanism. Don't complain about the bad things that are being done to you and you will obtain a mythical eternal happiness. Complain and you will be condemned to eternal suffering. It argues that you should be more concerned with pleasing some authority figure than with improving your life. Anything that dissuades people from doing things to make their lives better is, by definition evil. I include the Christian churches ethos as something that dissuades people from helping themselves.


Christians are under no illusions in this regard. Christians do not believe that if you become a Christian, your life will suddenly improve a great deal. On the contary, its likely to get worse. Christians do believe that if you do not do the following 5 things however, you will not be saved

1- Accept that you have sinned/done wrong/been bad etc
2- Accept that you cannot deal with the implications of said sins yourself
3- Accept that you need a power beyond your understanding (God) to deal with it
4- Believe that there is a God beyond your understanding who wants to and can deal with it.
5- Having accepted that you are in the wrong (sinned) you need to do something about it (IE attempt to change your lifestyle).

What is it to be saved? It is an unsubstantiated promise of some future benefit if I obey now and I blame myself for my suffering. Sorry, that is plain wrongheaded and malicious manipulation of the "unwashed masses" by the monied and elegant clergy. (Yes I find the church hypocritical.)

What is even stranger to me, is that I have observed that those who do not profess to be Christians are often far truer to Christ's principles of how to treat people than those who belong to the church, and nearly always more so than those who run the church.

I blelieve that all religions that take part in Evangelism are annoying, possibly damaging to induviduals, and occasionally hypocritical. That said, I would never, never support any move to suppress them beyond encouraging them follow common standards of decency.

They have a right to exist and spread their ideas and faiths, no matter how many times they interrupt my meals with their salesmen. I take comfort in that, and my own right to tell them that I'm too busy for their particular brand of salvation.

I would mention that I have seen indocrination and seduction, at its worst and most disreputable in my time. Once I actually left a resturant/diner in disgust, unable to concentrate on anything else, because I was hearing a verbal shakedown by two churchmen talking to a depressed lady. They were using every cheap con and trick in the book to get her to join up, and some were so utterly bad that she caught them in their tricks.

Such events disgust me, but I realize that you cannot stop them actively. You can warn the lady that she's being taken advantage of, you can enter the debate yourself, but you can't/shouldn't legislate or mandate that they stop.

As somebody who was raised as a catholic, I can definitely say that it is incredibly wrong to teach children all that crap. I remember nearly fainting when I got my First Communion (it was actually scary to me that I was becoming one of God's children, I thought it wouldn't let me have so much fun any more) and I did behave differently afterwards: I felt great guilt whenever I did something that was deemed wrong by the Church, so I did all I could to stop myself from doing those things. It took me years, years to come to the thought that maybe God didn't really want me to be miserable all the time.

Well, maybe I just was an easily manipulated child. Oh wait, all children are.



(I do agree that I took the world a bit too seriously as a child though :D)

Its not determined by missionaries. Missionaries do not "force" people to join a religion, they explain a religion to people, and what it means.

Wel, not currently. In the past it was considerably different, especially in the New World under the Spanish. But in today's context, they do not.

Why instruct your child in your beliefs? I think parents should put religion on hold in order to raise a child. Indoctrination and induction into a certain religion at a young age can put a severe damper on a child's spiritual side. Spirituality may or may not be an important part of your life, but a child deserves the right to choose. And also, the child must be aware of all the consequences of his/her actions. I was baptized into the Mormon church at the age of 8 because I basically didn't have a choice. I was taught, not only by my parents, but my religious leaders as well that I was going to Hell, If I did not accept Jesus Christ as my savior. Being 8, I didn't know how to do that. I lived in constant fear, and drew away from not only my family, but also my schoolmates and close friends. I became a recluse because I was so afraid of going to Hell. I still have trouble speaking with people, and I feel it was because of my traumatic childhood. If I ever have children, I will not instruct them in the ways of religion, I will let them come to terms with God if they wish it.

What you're talking about is true of nearly every movement that wants to spread itself, religious or otherwise. They find those who aren't happy with what they currently have, so they get offered an alternative.

As my Greek philosophy professor (not a Christian) said, there were three main reasons why Christianity spread as fast as it did in the Roman world. It was the only movement at the time with a mandate to spread, it helped provide for material needs in a decaying system, and it offered people hope in a world which seemed to be going downhill.

In the early days of Christianity it was the dramatic change in the character of the Christians that impressed people and convinced them that Christianity was real--not the miracles that modern-day Christians are so taken with. This is the real test of truth for religion and the Prophets. Can the Words change people-- make them new, or reborn. That is the real proof of who Christ was and is.

Conclusion: Evangelism is indoctrination.

By that logic, any kind of teaching whatsoever is indocrination. That simplely isn't true. Evangalism does not force people to accept what they say as true. It simpley explains it, its up to individual people who have heard it to accept it or not.


It may not be an explicit pillar, but Christianity is clearly what I chose to call a "pie in the sky" religion. You state later on that you have to accept that you have done wrong (or sined/transgressed or whatever term you care to use). No, I do not have to suffer guilt, I have not sinned, the church has simply decreed that I have. I disagree with the church, but a Christian can not disagree.

By the biblical definion of sin, everyone has done it. You dont get arround that by saying "I dont beleieve in it, therefore I have'nt done it". If I dont believe in shoplifiting does that mean that when I take something from a shop without paying for it I have commited no crime. If you look up the kinds of things that sins are then you will know you have done them in your life. However the great thing is, via Jesus's death we can be removed of those sins.


The Christian church sets out to make the faithful feel guilty for being human, and then says that the person can be forgiven for this imaginary guilt by adopting the precepts of the Church.

Firstly, your guilty of sin, not being a human.

Secondly you dont have to "adopt the preceptes of the church" as you say. You have to accpt the precepets of the Bible. You dont have to belong to a Church to be a Christian. Going to Church makes you as much a Christian as going to PC world makes you a piece of anti virus software.


This mortal life is one of sin and suffering. Redemption is only to be found beyond this world. It is a theology of resignation, and as such I find it evil. It is a social control mechanism. Don't complain about the bad things that are being done to you and you will obtain a mythical eternal happiness. Complain and you will be condemned to eternal suffering. It argues that you should be more concerned with pleasing some authority figure than with improving your life. Anything that dissuades people from doing things to make their lives better is, by definition evil. I include the Christian churches ethos as something that dissuades people from helping themselves.

The Bible says you shouldnt blame God for the bad things that happen to you. Thats all. You can attempt to make yourself better all you want, as long as you dont sin.


What is it to be saved? It is an unsubstantiated promise of some future benefit if I obey now and I blame myself for my suffering. Sorry, that is plain wrongheaded and malicious manipulation of the "unwashed masses" by the monied and elegant clergy. (Yes I find the church hypocritical.).

Being saved is not unsubstansiated. It is substansiated by Jesus's death and what he did there. You can refuse to believe it if you so choose but it happened. The man without sin still died. Thus breaking the sin death cycle forever.


What is even stranger to me, is that I have observed that those who do not profess to be Christians are often far truer to Christ's principles of how to treat people than those who belong to the church, and nearly always more so than those who run the church.

Ever heard the phrase "no-ones perfect". Often people try to aspire towards what God wants and fail. Now I wont deny that there are many arrogent and misguided people in the Chruch today, but that doesnt change the meaning of Christianity.

stuff

I hope you researched and know what you are saying, if you didn't I can proudly say you are wrong. If you did, then you'll have to prove it to me

*Warning Atheist Commie Pinko Hijacking relgious thread where he has no right to be !!!!1111!* ;)

Neo Cannen
You see its the entire idea of sin, that i find so very repugnant, the idea that another being has the 'divine' right to impose a moral code on me, any who now that’s out of the way.

Christianity has always been a conversionary faith, and while its been though various stages of liberal and authoritarian behaviour, its method of conversion has always been one generally based on the principle of fear.

Don’t believe in god, fine go to hell.
Believe in God and Jesus, Go to heaven eternal bliss.

Sounds a bit like coercion to me.

This has always been the primary maxim of all the near eastern religions.
Islam, Judaism(to a lesser extent) and Christianity.

I’d be happy to debate this.

By that logic, any kind of teaching whatsoever is indocrination. That simplely isn't true. Evangalism does not force people to accept what they say as true. It simpley explains it, its up to individual people who have heard it to accept it or not.
Any teaching of doctrine is indoctrination. True. There is nothing in indoctrination that makes the acceptance of the teaching compulsory. Do not misunderstand the word Indoctrination is teaching of doctrine. Brainwashing is not indoctrination.

By the biblical definion of sin, everyone has done it. You dont get arround that by saying "I dont beleieve in it, therefore I have'nt done it". If I dont believe in shoplifiting does that mean that when I take something from a shop without paying for it I have commited no crime. If you look up the kinds of things that sins are then you will know you have done them in your life. However the great thing is, via Jesus's death we can be removed of those sins.
Shoplifiting is an action, it is not an evaluation of an action. The bible tells you that this action or that action is wrong, that these actions are sinful. It is not the action itself that makes it a sin, it is the judgement of the action. Now the law judges shoplifiting to be a crime, and it is only a crime if the law applies to you. If you were to be living in anarchy, then shoplifiting would not be a crime. There you could take something from a shop without paying for it. The reaction of the shopkeeper would also not be a crime mind you.

If I choose to accept your value system then I can use the bible to make such judgements. However I choose to use my value system, not one that is imposed upon me by other people from other cultures at other times. The bible saying it is a sin does not make it so for anyone other than those who use the bible to judge by, in the sameway the law only makes shoplifitng wrong for those who respect the law.

I know the majority of things that the bible calls sins, and I have done many, but not all of them. I do not however make my value judgements on what other people tell me I should and should not do. I have not sinned, as I have not broken my value code.

Now we come tpo the hypocrisy. You believe the bible, it gives you a code of behaviour, you disregard this, but it does not matter as Jesus's death can free you of these sins. Where does it say this? In that same book that you have just disregarded. Why do you believe only the parts that mean you can do what you want? If it is to be that selective then forget the whole thing, and just decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.l

Firstly, your guilty of sin, not being a human.
The Christian doctrine of original sin says otherwise. I am a sinner because I descend from Adam and Eve. Even if I make no action whatsoever I am a sinner by doctrine. Know your own religion Neo.

Secondly you dont have to "adopt the preceptes of the church" as you say. You have to accpt the precepets of the Bible. You dont have to belong to a Church to be a Christian. Going to Church makes you as much a Christian as going to PC world makes you a piece of anti virus software.
I don't have to accept anything to be a good person. Being good does not mean being Christian, being Christian does not mean being good. One is about your actions activities and attitudes. The other is about your beliefs.

The Bible says you shouldnt blame God for the bad things that happen to you. Thats all. You can attempt to make yourself better all you want, as long as you dont sin.
If that is all it says it is extremely long winded about it. I can attempt to make myself better if I want, regardless of any religion, church or belief. Sin is part of your belief structure, not mine, stop pushing it on me.

Being saved is not unsubstansiated. It is substansiated by Jesus's death and what he did there. You can refuse to believe it if you so choose but it happened. The man without sin still died. Thus breaking the sin death cycle forever.
It is believed but not substantiated. The Christian doctrine on this is contradictory and you know it but refuse to see it. Jesus was born of a woman, who descended from eve. Jesus therefore carried original sin, like it or not. Then he is claimed to be the man without sin, and this is given as doctrine. Which doctrine do you chose to discard. Original sin or the purity of Jesus?
There is no fact of the matter established for you to be able to say "it hapened". That is just your belief. If you wish to believe it, do so. But do not try to persuade others that they "have to" anything.


Ever heard the phrase "no-ones perfect". Often people try to aspire towards what God wants and fail. Now I wont deny that there are many arrogent and misguided people in the Chruch today, but that doesnt change the meaning of Christianity.

Ever heard of the phrase "power corrupts". I do seperate in my mind the concept of Christianity from the concept of the Christian churches. However devout Christians seem to be willing to forgive their church leaders anything from mass murder through to pedophillia. Not a religion for me.

As much as I would love to get involved and hopefully hold my own in a debate with Alien, I am at school and cant. How about in ... 2 hours

i'm insulted. if ur not a christian, u probably don't know this, but nearly all of my christian friends who were raised in the church turned away from God, the church and their parents around the age of 15, and then rediscovered God and made the decision to believe for themselves, myself included. it's actually harder to believe if u've been raised in the church than if, like most of my christian friends, u come from an atheist familly.

Get in the real world. You're argument that I should not be allowed to teach my child Christianity is the same as saying I should not be allowed to teach my child to say "please".
After all, they are both forms of "indoctrination". :rolleyes:

Come to think of it, aren't you trying to indoctrinate us? Your target is quite clearly people who frequent the board, no?
Oh, do you have some sort of right to indoctrinate that the rest of us do not?
Meaning that you really have a superiority complex?


According to me: Quit the hypocrisy. There is no strict adherent moral standard, meaning that you cannot tell people what is right with anymore legitimiacy than what Saddam can.

One thing I am always interested in knowing the answer to, yet no-one will ever give me a straight answer to:

Why do atheists (and I mean some atheists, not all) think that it is their goal in life to go on a personal crusade against religion? Why do they make threads like this which more often than not turn into a religion flaming match, when they don't get any real answers anyway?

If you don't like religion, or the way Christianity is sustained, then ignore it and leave it to get on with its own business. If you are a leading Christian who is responsible for encouraging Christian growth, then ask this. But why ask it if it doesn't concern you?

1) You people breed and vote. And many of you vote based on religious notions. If you stopped doing that, we'd happily forget you exist.

2) You people have members who won't shut the hell up and let us go about our lives without interference. I can't go on Campus on Monday without hearing this one psychotic jackass saying that everyone who isn't part of HIS church is going to hell. His voice echoes across HALF the campus.

3) Most of us really don't. But a lot of us like to use argumentation skills when we're wasting time at home to keep our minds sharp. How many of these atheist crusaders have knocked on your door lately?

i'm insulted. if ur not a christian, u probably don't know this, but nearly all of my christian friends who were raised in the church turned away from God, the church and their parents around the age of 15, and then rediscovered God and made the decision to believe for themselves, myself included. it's actually harder to believe if u've been raised in the church than if, like most of my christian friends, u come from an atheist familly.

What's up with the shorthand?