Scientology

karen3212

I'm sorry but I need PDN to clear up a misunderstanding I have.

Are you an evangelical in the European sense or in the US sense. I mean which church is it you talk about. I would like the full name of the church please.

Thanks

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

I'm sorry but I need PDN to clear up a misunderstanding I have.

Are you an evangelical in the European sense or in the US sense. I mean which church is it you talk about. I would like the full name of the church please.

Thanks

I am under a pen name because, in the past, I have received extremely abusive & threatening phone calls from people on message boards who appear unable to tolerate anyone believing different to themselves.

As I have already mentioned in these forums that I am a pastor, then I have no wish to share the full name of my church as that would open the door to similar actions. The spleen I have encountered here does not inspire confidence that this is a safe board on which to identify myself. It's no fun for my secretary when she has to open death threats (no joke!). I belong to an evangelical Pentecostal Church which has congregations around the world (including in the US). We are part of the Evangelical Alliance in Ireland, a loose association of various churches with similar beliefs.

PDN

PoleStar wrote:

Unless of course you do something like..............

Practice in an abortion clinic. Then is ok for them to blow up your practice and attempt to kill you. As has happened in the US where pro-life evangelical Christians went nut over some doc who had an abortion clinic.

I never stated that you don't get the odd nutjob who joins an evangelical church, just as you get the odd atheistic nutjob as well. While I consider the killing of unborn babies to be abhorrent, I would totally condemn any such attempted murder as you describe. That would be contrary to the beliefs of every evangelical Christian I have ever met either in Europe or the US.

By the way, that's got nothing whatsoever to do with forcing people to convert at the point of a sword, but I guess if you're trying to build a case of violence against a peaceable group of people you have to grab every irrelevant point you can to try to fudge the issue at hand.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Why would your child be already trying to follow Christ's teachings if you weren't instructing her to?

I certainly encouraged her to do so, as is my basic human right to raise my children in the religion of my choice. Now she is 18 years old and she is free to choose any religion, or none. She knows I would love her just the same whatever her choice.

Do you believe that a person should make up their own mind about religion when they are old enough to actually educated and understand religion, without being biased to a particular religion simply because they are born into it?

I think every child will almost inevitably be strongly influenced to follow their parents' beliefs or lack of beliefs. That is entirely natural and proper. Every child grows up with a bias to something, even if it's just a secular indifference to all religion. When they are old enough then they should be free to make whatever choices they wish.

Yet you fail to see that in doing so you are indoctrinating your daughter into your particular religion.

For your daughter to continue to believe that her sister is in heaven she must continue to accept the religion of her parents.

Do you not see the problem with that?

No, she is perfectly free to decide that heaven is a myth, or to believe in some New Age idea that everyone goes to heaven. When my 6-year old daughter asked me, "Where did my sister go?" Then I am not going to lie to her. I tell her exactly what I believe to be true.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

No, she is perfectly free to decide that heaven is a myth, or to believe in some New Age idea that everyone goes to heaven.

And free, therefore, to join an "NRM"?

PDN wrote:

When my 6-year old daughter asked me, "Where did my sister go?" Then I am not going to lie to her. I tell her exactly what I believe to be true.

You could, of course, explain that some people believe her sister is in a magical place called heaven, that some believe she is rotting in the ground, and that while you subscribe to the former the objective evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter. That would be a balanced and fair response to give to a child.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

So are you saying you don't share a faith with other christians?

I can see why the distinction is important to you, because you wish to disassociate yourself from other believers in your faith who you perceive to be less worthy than yourself. But to me it's irrelevant because it's the same faith, based on the same flawed literature and teachings. It sounds like you're trying to convince me you're not the same as those bad others, but your arguments betray the fact that in reality you're just like them.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I think you've already decided what you want to believe and your mind is closed to anything different. That would be fine if you weren't quite so intolerant of the beliefs of others.

I share certain parts of my faith with other Christians. For example: the birth, death & resurrection of Christ; the Trinity; heaven and hell etc. I certainly would not share the faith of those who believe a child becomes a Christian by having water sprinkled on it, or that a forced conversion is anything other than a sham and a farce.

Your argument is false because I am simply saying that my faith carries with it an explicit duty not to oppress or hurt other people. Therefore to accuse those with this belief of somehow being guilty of bloodshed by those in the past who used the name 'Christian' is hysterical nonsense.

It's hard to have an adult conversation with somebody who relentlessly insists there are fairies at the bottom of the garden but can't show them to me. It's much more like talking with a child, in fact.

Very mature.

All of these are of course only possibilities. None of us know what would have happened. We do, however, know what did happen, which is that your religion attained supremacy on the back of extortion and bloodshed. You can try as hard as you like to spin it differently, but them's the facts. To argue otherwise is pure speculation.

My religion has never attained supremacy. Where it is growing it is growing through non-violent means. The fastest growth is currently in China where Christians suffer, but do not practice, violence.

The fact that they were persecuted neither supports the truth of what the early christians had to say nor singles them out for special treatment. How is this relevant? As for them being pacifists, I can't comment as I wasn't there.

Duh! Nobody said it proved the truth of anything. It shows that Christianity began as a persecuted, not a persecuting, movement until it was distorted beyond recognition by an unholy alliance with the Roman Empire. Again, the modern growth is primarily in the face of persecution. The idea that evangelicals have ridden to prominence on the back of bloodshed is claptrap and a laughable rewriting of history.

So are you saying your church's expression of christianity takes no modern advantage or benefit from the fact of the catholic church's historical supremacy? That's self-delusion. How do you think you would get on in these times if you were a new faith? Any way you cut it, modern churches owe the fact they are taken seriously at all to the catholics.

No, what we get from the Catholics is a legacy that allows people like you to use Catholicism's sins as a straw man instead of assessing us on our own practices and behaviour. We are, however, taken seriously in cultures where Catholicism has never been anything other than a minority religion.

Stalin didn't commit his horrors in the name of atheism

Oh yes he did. Read your history. Of course I would not use that to attack modern atheists in Ireland because I am tolerant and broad-minded enough to judge people on their own actions and beliefs. I prefer to leave it to zealous, narrow-minded bigots to judge others on the basis of what happened long before they were born.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

And free, therefore, to join an "NRM"?

If that is her choice, she is free to do so. She is an adult and able to make her own mind up.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

You could, of course, explain that some people believe her sister is in a magical place called heaven, that some believe she is rotting in the ground, and that while you subscribe to the former the objective evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter. That would be a balanced and fair response to give to a child.

Remind me to give you a call when a bereaved 6-year old needs comforting.

Do you really believe that such comments advance your cause?

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Remind me to give you a call when a bereaved 6-year old needs comforting.

And there in a nutshell you have the reason why humans were compelled to create heaven.

Edit:

PDN wrote:

Do you really believe that such comments advance your cause?

I have advocated telling the truth to a child... and you react like this? You couldn't have made a more telling statement about your relationship with the truth.

BrianCalgary

rockbeer wrote:

I have advocated telling the truth to a child... and you react like this? You couldn't have made a more telling statement about your relationship truth.

So, rockbeer, you have the truth?

Funny, the scientologists tell me they do, the Mormons tell me they do, the moonies tell me they do, the Muslims tell me they do.

I can now relax, knowing that they are all wrong and in fact it is rockbeer who has it.:rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

We have had this discussion before. I would only be arguing by analogy if my argument was to make an analogy, and then to say "The analogy is true, therefore my original proposition is true".

That is not what I have done. I made a point and then used an illustration to try to make it clearer to some of those who obviously struggle with logic. The
proof of my proposition in no way depends on the analogy. Are you really unable to understand that distinction, or are you just taking the mickey?

That's ridiculous. Your analogies try to make a point of view sound rational and reasonable when they are not, they are tricking people not helping people.

Not so, my argument is valid even if Christianity is wrong. Christians, in that case, would still be sincere in telling others what they believe to be true. The same would apply to Scientologists and to Muslims providing they avoid dishonesty and violence.

So they are all the same. I agree.

I can only speak for my own church here, but we would never use hell as a stick to scare children or the vulnerable (mentally handicapped, for example) into making a faith step. As for the not very well educated, I think one of the beauties of the Christian faith is that it is accessible to all and not just an educated elite. Having said that, our church concentrates much more on the positive aspects of becoming a Christian. Quite often we only get to talk about hell with someone after they have received Christ as their Saviour. It is noticeable that in the Bible Jesus spoke about hell primarily to His disciples - an incentive to them to reach out to others, rather than a stick to scare unbelievers.

As a matter of interest at what age do you tell kids about Hell? Do you have Church policy on this?

rockbeer

BrianCalgary wrote:

So, rockbeer, you have the truth?

Taken out of context yet again... sigh.

What exactly is 'untrue' in "some people believe her sister is in a magical place called heaven, ... some believe she is rotting in the ground, and ... while you subscribe to the former the objective evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter."

Is there anything there you actually take exception to? Or are you just being a smartass?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

So they are all the same. I agree.

And you want to lecture me about logic? ROTFL

As a matter of interest at what age do you tell kids about Hell? Do you have Church policy on this?

There's no official policy as such. I know that our various children's classes have a policy of concentrating on positive issues - teaching kids how God can answer their prayers, learning to forgive others, teaching them positive self-esteem etc.

When they reach 14 they get to sit in the adult services and listen to the sermons, so hell will be mentioned occasionally. When they reach 16 they are allowed, if they wish, to apply for church membership. At that point all applicants would have all our church doctrines, including heaven and hell, carefully explained.

If a kid asks specifically about hell we will try to answer their questions fully and as honestly as possible. I have never heard of any instance in our church where hell was used as a stick to coerce anyone, child or otherwise, to become a Christian. There would be no need to. Every week we see people accepting Christ for entirely positive reasons.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's ridiculous. Your analogies try to make a point of view sound rational and reasonable when they are not, they are tricking people not helping people.

So, when Richard Dawkins uses analogies to illustrate his points (such as using the quality of parts in a Model T Ford as an analogy for natural selection) do you think he is tricking people?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

And you want to lecture me about logic? ROTFL

Not lecturing but questionin you, and I encourage and welcome you to challenge me back. I certainly make mistakes and have no problem admitting that.

There's no official policy as such. I know that our various children's classes have a policy of concentrating on positive issues - teaching kids how God can answer their prayers, learning to forgive others, teaching them positive self-esteem etc.

When they reach 14 they get to sit in the adult services and listen to the sermons, so hell will be mentioned occasionally. When they reach 16 they are allowed, if they wish, to apply for church membership. At that point all applicants would have all our church doctrines, including heaven and hell, carefully explained.

If a kid asks specifically about hell we will try to answer their questions fully and as honestly as possible. I have never heard of any instance in our church where hell was used as a stick to coerce anyone, child or otherwise, to become a Christian. There would be no need to. Every week we see people accepting Christ for entirely positive reasons.

Well that's good to hear. Your Church is perhaps on the more progressive or liberal side of Christianity, what would you think?
Excuse my ignorance does your Church indoctrinate i.e baptize kids when they don't know?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

So, when Richard Dawkins uses analogies to illustrate his points (such as using the quality of parts in a Model T Ford as an analogy for natural selection) do you think he is tricking people?

I don't actually know the analogy you are referring to but it sounds like he is using an analogy to explain something not argue something.
You don't argue natural selction, it's a valid scientific theory. Simple as that.

I think the problem with your analogies is that they are not simply valid. Every one you give someone can pick a hole with it and I just don't see the point of using inaccurate analogies. Why not just argue logically?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I certainly encouraged her to do so, as is my basic human right to raise my children in the religion of my choice.

You have a "basic human right" to indoctrinate your children into the religion that you believe in?

PDN wrote:

Now she is 18 years old and she is free to choose any religion, or none.

Would it not be better to wait until she is 18 then before you start encouraging her to follow your (or any) particular religion, considering that children are very impressionable particularly towards what they are taught by their parents?

PDN wrote:

She knows I would love her just the same whatever her choice.

She does?

What if you told her that her sister was in heaven because she was raised a Christian? You don't think that would influence her choices in later life as to which religion to follow?

There is a big difference between simply picking a religion that makes sense to you and rejecting the religion that you have been raised in and taught to believe is true by your parents.

PDN wrote:

I think every child will almost inevitably be strongly influenced to follow their parents' beliefs or lack of beliefs.

Only if the parents teach them to follow it.

My father is a Catholic but I was not raised as a catholic child. I went to an non-denominational primary school and was exposed to a wide range of other religions. My father always respected that what ever I thought about religious issues was ok, he never told me I was correct or that I was wrong, and he never taught me that his religion was the one to pick.

He believes in what he believes in because of his decision towards religion.

PDN wrote:

When they are old enough then they should be free to make whatever choices they wish.

But they aren't PDN, that is the point.

If someone wanted their children to be truly free to choose they wouldn't spend 18 years teaching them that their religion is correct and others are wrong.

PDN wrote:

No, she is perfectly free to decide that heaven is a myth, or to believe in some New Age idea that everyone goes to heaven.

Except if she does decide that heaven is a myth she has to reject what you have already taught her.

You seem to be greatly underestimating the relationship between parent and child. Children believe what their parents teach them. To reject that in later life can often be very hard.

An extreme example of this would be children how have been physically abused by their parents yet simply cannot accept that that is what happened to them.

With the powerful bond between parent and child comes equal responsibility not to abuse that bond.

Sending 18 years teaching a child a particular religious outlook and then saying afterwards that they are perfectly free to reject this religious outlook is ridiculous.

They can reject that outlook but not without difficult, often traumatic, soul searching.

There is a clip of Dawkins on a lecture tour in America where he was asked why did he think that people who reject the religion of their parents are caused feelings of anger towards their parents. Dawkins rather confused asked the audience "I don't know, do you feel anger towards your parents for teaching you this stuff?" and he got a large roar from the audience.

PDN wrote:

When my 6-year old daughter asked me, "Where did my sister go?" Then I am not going to lie to her. I tell her exactly what I believe to be true.

Do you tell her that that is what some people, including yourself, personally believe and then explain different religious ideas of the after life to her and (heaven forbid) ask her where she thinks her sister is?

Or do you simply tell her that that is where her sister is.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well that's good to hear. Your Church is perhaps on the more progressive or liberal side of Christianity, what would you think?
Excuse my ignorance does your Church indoctrinate i.e baptize kids when they don't know?

I would say our church holds standard evangelical doctrines but is progressive in style, certainly when compared to ritualistic forms of Christianity such as Catholic or Orthodox churches.

We don't baptize infants. We only baptize those who claim to have made a voluntary faith commitment to Jesus Christ, who request us to baptize them, and can demonstrate that they possess an adequate knowledge of Christian beliefs.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't actually know the analogy you are referring to but it sounds like he is using an analogy to explain something not argue something.
You don't argue natural selction, it's a valid scientific theory. Simple as that.

I think the problem with your analogies is that they are not simply valid. Every one you give someone can pick a hole with it and I just don't see the point of using inaccurate analogies. Why not just argue logically?

Come off it! You might not "argue" natural selection, but Dawkins argues stuff all the time, and he frequently uses analogies and illustrations to illustrate his points. Now let's look at my example again:

Now this raises a point that I always find fascinating. Christians, of various stripes, get roundly abused for telling others what they believe to be the truth about hell. For example, a recent Irish newspaper editorial blasted the Pope as "severely lacking in compassion" because he restated his belief in hell. Yet, if we leave aside the actual matter of whether hell exists or not, surely it would be a lack of compassion to keep quiet about a danger that you sincerely believe to be imminent?

Let's use the movie "Jaws" as an example. If you really believed, as Sheriff Brody did, that a Great White Shark was lurking in the waters ready to devour bathers, then what is the compassionate course of action to take? If you keep silent, believing that by so doing you will cause someone to be eaten, then that would certainly demonstrate a lack of compassion.

My argument is contained in paragraph one. It makes sense and expresses my argument whether you omit paragraph two or not. Paragraph two is simply an illustration of paragraph one, no sane person is ever going to think it is an argument by analogy. I even give you a whopping big clue by using the phrase "as an example". Do you realise how irritating is when you then start (quite falsely) rabbiting on about arguments from analogy?

Using illustrations and examples to illustrate points is a teaching device used by every teacher that ever lived. Jesus used it particularly well, and Richard Dawkins is quite good at it as well. It has nothing to do with tricking people. Please try to get that into your head as I am getting really, really, tired of this.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

You have a "basic human right" to indoctrinate your children into the religion that you believe in?

"Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." (the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

The raising of children is a basic part of almost every world religion. Every Jew is entitled to raise their child in the Jewish faith, every Muslim is entitled to raise their child in the Islamic faith, and (much as it may irk some on this board) Christians have the right to raise their children in the Christian faith. Where this right is denied by totalitarian regimes, it is protested as a breach of human rights.

[Disclaimer: This is an example for illustrative purposes only. It is NOT an argument from analogy. :rolleyes: ]
For example, let's take the most secular state in the Middle East - Israel. In Israel only 25% of the population actually observe Judaism. Most Israeli Jews believe that living in Israel and speaking Hebrew is enough to make them Jewish. Let's imagine that Israel passes a law forbidding children to receive religious instruction from their parents. This law applies equally to Jews and Palestinians. You know what happen next. Amnesty International would begin jumping all over the case and as fast as you can say "Shalom" a Resolution would come thundering down from the UN condemning Israel for yet another human rights violation.

Raising your child in the religion of your choice is a basic human right, just as you have a right to give your child Richard Dawkins' books as bedtime reading.

There is a clip of Dawkins on a lecture tour in America where he was asked why did he think that people who reject the religion of their parents are caused feelings of anger towards their parents. Dawkins rather confused asked the audience "I don't know, do you feel anger towards your parents for teaching you this stuff?" and he got a large roar from the audience.

I did something similar with a crowd of people. I asked them if they wished that their parents had taught them that Christ loved them, that their parents had taught them Christian values. Their response was very vocal and very positive.

Of course this was a partisan crowd. Many of them had been through drug addiction and other trauma before they discovered the truth about Christ. I guess Dawkins was speaking to a partisan crowd as well. If I used every cheer and shout of support that I receive from a congregation each Sunday as a point of debate on this board then I don't think that would qualify as reasoned debate! "When I spoke about the resurrection, the applause increased by ten decibels - therefore it must be true!"

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Taken out of context yet again... sigh.

What exactly is 'untrue' in "some people believe her sister is in a magical place called heaven, ... some believe she is rotting in the ground, and ... while you subscribe to the former the objective evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter."

Is there anything there you actually take exception to? Or are you just being a smartass?

Actually Brian is spot on the mark, and totally in context.

I had argued that, if Christians sincerely believe in hell, they can hardly be accused of being judgmental or lacking compassion, because they genuinely believe they are warning people of an imminent danger. This would hold true even if they are genuinely mistaken in their belief.

Your response, as with others, was that for Christians to share their belief is harmful because of the emotional impact it might have on others, particularly children.

Then you advocate telling a six-year old bereaved child something that you sincerely believe to be true, even though it would cause immense distress to that child.

When I point out that to share that belief would have a harmful emotional impact on a grieving child, you respond with the following:

rockbeer wrote:

I have advocated telling the truth to a child... and you react like this? You couldn't have made a more telling statement about your relationship with the truth.

So, let's get this clear. Christians should keep quiet about their beliefs because it might have a negative emotional impact, particularly on children. We should be free, however, to speak your beliefs no matter how negative the emotional impact on children. Anyone who sees a problem with this somehow has a twisted relationship with the truth.

Such an argument could only be posited on the understanding that you have the truth and that everybody else is wrong. Therefore other people, such as Christians, should only speak what you believe to be true, not what they believe to be true.

Brian is not being a smartass. But I think you are being either a sophist or a fascist. Which is it?

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

That would be fine if you weren't quite so intolerant of the beliefs of others.

You have repeatedly accused me of intolerance - "zealous, narrow-minded bigot" was another phrase you used I believe (is this sort of thing ok round here, mods?) Please understand I am entirely tolerant of your right to believe anything you like. However, if I think what you believe is nonsense I'm perfectly entitled to say so. If you can't take the heat... The fact that your beliefs are sincerely held does not render them any more deserving of respect than any other.

If you are a peaceful and peaceable person, that's great. I have no issue with that whatsoever. And in fact you do sound reasonably open-minded for a theist. Believe me, if you were simply on here advocating peace and tolerance I would be backing you to the hilt. But for you to claim that's what you are doing whilst simultaneously promoting evangelical christianity is disingenuous in the extreme. I don't doubt that you consider yourself a good, honest, well motivated person... but your faith (like all monotheistic faiths) is inherently dangerous, divisive, damaging to adherents and actively hostile to dissenters, and for you to claim it is a faith of tolerance is self-deception at best.

Right, glad we got that cleared up.

PDN wrote:

Your argument is false because I am simply saying that my faith carries with it an explicit duty not to oppress or hurt other people. Therefore to accuse those with this belief of somehow being guilty of bloodshed by those in the past who used the name 'Christian' is hysterical nonsense.

Well I didn't think I was being hysterical - but is it not in your faith that you have a duty to 'spread the word'? And is it not true that 'the word' includes much that is insupportable in a modern society? Your faith is contradictory in this respect, so like every christian you elect to pick and choose the bits that apply to you. Well, OK, but I never realized christianity was an a la carte menu kind of arrangement. It's very handy for you to be able to pick out the stuff that suits you as a tolerant, open-minded kind of a person, but as soon as we get near the dark stuff you beat the retreat.

"Hell isn't that important to us" I think you said. Or something like it... Not that important at all, except as a place where people endure hideous suffering for all eternity. Certainly not so important that you feel it necessary to warn people of what they're facing until after they've joined up.

PDN wrote:

often we only get to talk about hell with someone after they have received Christ as their Saviour

Another fine example of ethical evangelising.

PDN wrote:

Very mature.

Maybe, maybe not, but once again you refuse to engage with the actual issue and resort to a personal remark. This is getting tiresome.

PDN wrote:

The idea that evangelicals have ridden to prominence on the back of bloodshed is claptrap and a laughable rewriting of history.

You quote me so totally out of context here that I won't dignify this with a response other than to note that you don't even attempt to address my valid historical points.

PDN wrote:

No, what we get from the Catholics is a legacy that allows people like you to use Catholicism's sins as a straw man instead of assessing us on our own practices and behaviour. We are, however, taken seriously in cultures where Catholicism has never been anything other than a minority religion.

Possibly because they haven't suffered quite as much at the hands of christians, so perhaps haven't yet learned to be more wary of you.

If you really want to disassociate yourself from your fellow christians, why not call yourselves something else entirely? Put your money where your mouth is and see how you get on as an NRM?

PDN wrote:

Oh yes he did. Read your history.

"Oh no he didn't"

Now this really is getting tiresome. Do you really want to get into a debate on Stalin and atheism? The accusation that Stalin committed atrocities because of his atheism is often thrown around but holds little currency amongst many serious historians. It still holds influence amongst those with an axe to grind against atheism. Do you really want to go there?

PDN wrote:

Of course I would not use that to attack modern atheists in Ireland because I am tolerant and broad-minded enough to judge people on their own actions and beliefs.

I am also tolerant and broad-minded enough to judge people on their own actions and beliefs. I think it's the fact that I consider some of your actions and beliefs objectionable that you really don't like. However, that makes me neither intolerant nor a bigot, just somebody you disagree with who takes a dim view of your faith.

(Edited for typos)

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

"Hell isn't that important to us" I think you said. Or something like it... Not that important at all, except as a place where people endure hideous suffering for all eternity. Certainly not so important that you feel it necessary to warn people of what they're facing until after they've joined up.

I don't believe I said that at all. Please find the post where I said that. Surely we can have a debate here without putting words into other peoples' mouths? Is that allowed, mods?

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Actually Brian is spot on the mark, and totally in context.

I don't accept this at all, and nor would you if you thought about it. Brian deliberately attempts to give the impression I have laid claim to the whole truth. I in fact suggested attempting to give the child a balanced response to a question to which nobody has a definitive answer. If you can confuse this with fascism then may your god help you.

PDN wrote:

I had argued that, if Christians sincerely believe in hell, they can hardly be accused of being judgmental or lacking compassion, because they genuinely believe they are warning people of an imminent danger. This would hold true even if they are genuinely mistaken in their belief.

And I pointed out that to attempt to fill people with lifelong fear of something for which there is no objective evidence could be construed as an act of violence rather than of compassion. I note that you still havent responded to this point.

PDN wrote:

Your response, as with others, was that for Christians to share their belief is harmful because of the emotional impact it might have on others, particularly children.

Where did I say this?

PDN wrote:

Then you advocate telling a six-year old bereaved child something that you sincerely believe to be true, even though it would cause immense distress to that child.

I don't accept this either.

Firstly, adults consistently underestimate the ability of children to handle the truth. The healthiest, most balanced and enquiring adults I know are in general the ones who were not over-protected from the harsh realities of life as children.

Secondly, you still haven't told me precisely which parts of my suggested answer you don't believe to be 'true'. So spell it out. Are you denying some people believe in heaven? Are you denying some people don't? Are you denying that you believe in heaven? Or are you denying that the objective evidence tends not to support the idea of heaven?

A straight answer would be appreciated, although it isn't expected.

PDN wrote:

When I point out that to share that belief would have a harmful emotional impact on a grieving child...

I've already stated that I don't accept this would have a harmful impact on the child, obviously depending on how it's phrased and presented. I don't advocate being brutal, but neither do I advocate wilfully protecting a child from difficult emotions.

PDN wrote:

So, let's get this clear. Christians should keep quiet about their beliefs because it might have a negative emotional impact, particularly on children.

Again, show me where I said this. I think you'll find I didn't.

PDN wrote:

We should be free, however, to speak your beliefs no matter how negative the emotional impact on children. Anyone who sees a problem with this somehow has a twisted relationship with the truth.

You're fee to speak whatever you like. I'm just advocating trying to give children a balanced view of the varying beliefs about death to better help them make up their own mind what they themselves believe.

Why are you so reluctant to tell them that many people don't believe in heaven?

PDN wrote:

Such an argument could only be posited on the understanding that you have the truth and that everybody else is wrong. Therefore other people, such as Christians, should only speak what you believe to be true, not what they believe to be true.

Brian is not being a smartass. But I think you are being either a sophist or a fascist. Which is it?

Your argument is based on the completely false premise that I have advocated you not telling the child your beliefs. Since I have never said this, I think I have a strong claim to being neither a sophist nor a fascist. However I think you could do with reading my posts more carefully before you start throwing accusations of that type around. It doesn't make you look very convincing.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

I don't believe I said that at all. Please find the post where I said that. Surely we can have a debate here without putting words into other peoples' mouths? Is that allowed, mods?

Correction accepted - you actually said that your church prefers to concentrate on the positive aspects of being a christian than bang on about hell or use it as a coercive threat.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Right, glad we got that cleared up.

Yes, I think it is cleared up. We have established that you are extremely predjudiced against all monotheists, that you believe that all monotheist religions are dangerous and hostile, and that you believe any monotheist is being disingenuous if they profess to seek peace and tolerance.
I, on the other hand, believe in a secular society where all religions and none can co-exist peacefully, I also am perfectly prepared to accept those of other faiths, such as moderate Muslims, without somehow accusing them of belonging to a violent or hateful religion. I also freely accept that anyone can be an atheist, and still be a peaceable person, without accusing them of hypocrisy or self-deception.
OK, cleared up then. I think most readers of this thread can judge for themselves which of our philosophies is most damaging and divisive.

Well I didn't think I was being hysterical - but is it not in your faith that you have a duty to 'spread the word'? And is it not true that 'the word' includes much that is insupportable in a modern society? Your faith is contradictory in this respect, so like every christian you elect to pick and choose the bits that apply to you. Well, OK, but I never realized christianity was an a la carte menu kind of arrangement. It's very handy for you to be able to pick out the stuff that suits you as a tolerant, open-minded kind of a person, but as soon as we get near the dark stuff you beat the retreat.

Sigh. Evangelicals base their beliefs and practices upon the Bible, and strive to interpret the Bible correctly using standard hermeneutical principles. We obviously are not committed to accepting everything in "Christianity" if by that you mean everything that every denomination or movement that uses the name of Christ has taught or practiced throughout history. You might not agree with our beliefs, or indeed our interpretation of the Bible, but you are wrong in accusing us of picking and choosing what applies to us.

Possibly because they haven't suffered quite as much at the hands of christians, so perhaps haven't yet learned to be more wary of you.

If you really want to disassociate yourself from your fellow christians, why not call yourselves something else entirely? Put your money where your mouth is and see how you get on as an NRM?

There is no reason to be wary of a group of people who neither advocate violence or practice violence. Incidentally, do you feel the same about the Quakers and the Amish (extremely pacifistic groups of Christians)?

We call ourselves 'Christian' because we seek to follow Christ. Actually, the Catholic Church has frequently labelled evangelicals as an NRM. When I built our first church in Ireland the local priest called me a "cult leader" and we were identified as a NRM in a booklet bearing the seal of approval of the Bishop of Galway (yes, that Bishop of Galway). In China evangelical Christians are regularly labelled by the authorities as an evil cult. We're getting on just fine, thank you. Thousands of us in our church (or NRM) in Ireland and over 100 million "evil cult" members in China.

Now this really is getting tiresome. Do you really want to get into a debate on Stalin and atheism? The accusation that Stalin committed atrocities because of his atheism is often thrown around but holds little currency amongst many serious historians. It still holds influence amongst those with an axe to grind against atheism. Do you really want to go there?

If you want to start a thread on Stalin I will gladly engage with you there. I will be happy to quote my sources (by the way, I read real history books instead of obtaining dubious information by googling) and to draw on the personal stories I have heard on my many travels to the former Soviet Union.
By the way, I never stated that Stalin did anything because of his atheism. I asked you, Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of Stalin because he was an atheist? and I also stated that Stalin commited atrocities in the name of atheism.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Using illustrations and examples to illustrate points is a teaching device used by every teacher that ever lived. Jesus used it particularly well, and Richard Dawkins is quite good at it as well. It has nothing to do with tricking people. Please try to get that into your head as I am getting really, really, tired of this.

Listen, if you are going to go into a public forum arguing your points people are free to argue back.
Your arguments are invalid and the only purpose they can serve is to tricking people into thinking you have a valid argument. I am not accusing you of doing this deliberately, you are sincere and respected poster in my opinion.

The problem I think with a lot of Christians is they want something to be true so the find any sort of argument which sounds reasonable to support their view point. However, when logic is applied to this argument the fall to pieces.

Something isn't true just because you want to be true. I and many other people on this forum think differently. We would like to know what is true not just what we would like to be true that is why a lot of people here will try to use logic more strictly. Now we (myself included) make mistakes, we're not infallable noone is.

The theological hypotheisis of Hell is only one of many, none of which have any evidence. It has as much evidence of Thor chasing us with his hammer from a scientific and objective perspectic.

Now in the Jaws film, (it's been a while since I saw it), the coast guard had good knowledge of the area, probably actually saw a shark and has been professionally trained to make calls. Was there thousands of other hypotheisis with the exactly the same amount of evidence?

There is also dramatic license taking by the Director. Why not deal with the real world?Do a survey of coast guards and ask them what process they follow for telling people there is a shark? Do they go off 2,000 year old scripture or use something else. I think you will find quite quickly why your analogy falls apart and is not logical.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Listen, if you are going to go into a public forum arguing your points people are free to argue back.
Your arguments are invalid and the only purpose they can serve is to tricking people into thinking you have a valid argument. I am not accusing you of doing this deliberately, you are sincere and respected poster in my opinion.

I have no problem with people arguing back. I do have a problem with you accusing me repeatedly of arguing by analogy when, in fact, I am using an example or illustration. The two are quite different.

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote:

So, rockbeer, you have the truth?

Funny, the scientologists tell me they do, the Mormons tell me they do, the moonies tell me they do, the Muslims tell me they do.

I can now relax, knowing that they are all wrong and in fact it is rockbeer who has it.:rolleyes:

Thats a bit of a cheap shot Brian.
The point we've tried to make regarding PDN's comforting of his six year old daughter after the sad loss of his daughter is not that we know the truth.

The truth is that we don't know the truth. Now I can imagine that both PDN and his daughter were both very distressed. Now telling her that her sister was lying in a box decomposing isn't going to help anyone, neither is saying that she is definately in heaven as described in the bible by Jesus (dictated as fact).

Telling her that "I would like to think that she is in a place where she at peace, but I don't know, we just have to hope" is a better way of saying it. This is more in line with my understanding of what faith is.

Instead, I seem to get the impression from theists that faith is a revealed truth that emparts absolute undeniable knowledge.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

I, on the other hand, believe in a secular society where all religions and none can co-exist peacefully,

Me too

PDN wrote:

I also am perfectly prepared to accept those of other faiths, such as moderate Muslims, without somehow accusing them of belonging to a violent or hateful religion.

Yet you still attempt to evangelise them, you still consider their beliefs to be wrong, and presumably believe them condemned to eternal damnation. We are back to where we started - I perceive this as a contradiction and therefore feel you are being disingenuous. You do not and do not. Based entirely, I think, on nothing more than your own personal conviction that what you believe is true.

Just to be clear, I would never accuse the adherents of any religion of being violent or hateful people without knowing this to be the case. It's quite a different thing to observe that the teachings of those religions are rooted in hatred and divisiveness, and that the effect of practicing those religions is ultimately divisive and dangerous. Regardless of the intentions of the adherents, which may be and often are entirely positive, as I'm sure they are in your case.

It's not personal.

PDN wrote:

I also freely accept that anyone can be an atheist, and still be a peaceable person, without accusing them of hypocrisy or self-deception.
OK, cleared up then. I think most readers of this thread can judge for themselves which of our philosophies is most damaging and divisive.

See above - it isn't personal and it isn't about individuals.

However, I find it astonishing that you can say this with a straight face in a world that is torn apart by religious strife, where people suffer the daily effects of religious intolerance, and where, on a personal level, people are enduring the consequences of being bound to certain courses of action by ancient superstitions.

You make a persuasive case that these things are perversions of faith, but ultimately that flies in the face of all the evidence, which points to religion and the practice of it as a primary cause of division, violence and misery, regardless of the actual tenets of the faith in question.

PDN wrote:

There is no reason to be wary of a group of people who neither advocate violence or practice violence. Incidentally, do you feel the same about the Quakers and the Amish (extremely pacifistic groups of Christians)?

Agreed, there is no need to be wary of pacifists, however danger may arrive in disguise. Is your church committed to pacifism?

As regards Quakers and the Amish, I respect their right to their beliefs, as I do yours, but remain unconvinced that their beliefs aren't ultimately divisive.

PDN wrote:

We call ourselves 'Christian' because we seek to follow Christ. Actually, the Catholic Church has frequently labelled evangelicals as an NRM. When I built our first church in Ireland the local priest called me a "cult leader" and we were identified as a NRM in a booklet bearing the seal of approval of the Bishop of Galway (yes, that Bishop of Galway). In China evangelical Christians are regularly labelled by the authorities as an evil cult. We're getting on just fine, thank you. Thousands of us in our church (or NRM) in Ireland and over 100 million "evil cult" members in China.

This is quite interesting. IMO it is indefensible that you should be persecuted for your beliefs in this way. This is no way to go about dealing with issues of faith and I would not want you to imagine that I support such repression.

But can you see why to non-believers the idea of your sects fighting among themselves over who are the real christians only increases our sense that the whole show is a malign influence in society?

PDN wrote:

If you want to start a thread on Stalin I will gladly engage with you there. I will be happy to quote my sources (by the way, I read real history books instead of obtaining dubious information by googling)

Are you suggesting I don't read history books? Or that I'm one of those people who believes everything they read on the net? I hope this isn't going to turn into a "my bookshelf > yours" kind of debate. I'm happy to quote sources too, but not sure I have time for the whole Stalin thing. Where will it end? Mao? Pol Pot?

It could go on forever

PDN wrote:

By the way, I never stated that Stalin did anything because of his atheism. I asked you, Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of Stalin because he was an atheist? and I also stated that Stalin commited atrocities in the name of atheism.

That's an important distinction and I'm glad you made it. Yes, 'the name of atheism' was my choice of words and probably not the most appropriate.