Christianity Is Dangerous

[Paprika]

I think he was speaking in an obvious generalization.
But for fun, let's say you're correct and he was making an absolute statement.

With all the things he's said why on earth would we want to pitch the battle at that statement?
I'm speaking from a crass, purely materialistic debate-centric perspective here.
His point is at best a rabbit trail that puts his opponent on the defensive with absolutely no decent tools with which to counter the assertion.

At some point you'll do what Bill The Cat has done and admit that you believe teaching children about hell is a good thing while at the same time denying that it happens - or claiming that you do it the right way. To the skeptic you've just lost the debate and you'll look like an idiot. In short, if FirstFloor is being honest in his pursuit of Christ you're wasting time defending nonsense and if he's dishonest you've just given him the troll food he desires. You lost before you started.

I'm not talking about the issue of teaching hell to children.
I'm talking about how to talk to skeptics, which was the point of the OP.

So you're basically advocating not addressing the point brought up at all? A wonderful strategy.

[firstfloor]

I'm talking about how to talk to skeptics, which was the point of the OP.

I can tell you are a sensible fellow just like me. You play with a straight bat. This is an admirable trait regardless of which side you take. I do not think that anyone can decide what to believe or decide to go after a particular belief. You know what you know and that is all there is to it.

Skeptics are exactly like you except that they do not feel like they are being watched. We tend to pity people that feel they cannot be good without being watched. The watching is what we would call self restraint, common civility or good manners and is taught to us as children. We are not taught to associate God with that behaviour. So if we are good, it is because we want to be good, not because we think that God wants us to be good. It is a subtle but important difference.

[Trout]

@Trout: "Someone who can never comprehend why a mass slaughter can be necessary sometimes will never become a Christian ~ Mother Theresa Darthy"

Totally swamped, just surfin' past before I head in today ... but I just HAVE to know. Is that for real?

BANG

[Meh Gerbil]

So you're basically advocating not addressing the point brought up at all? A wonderful strategy.

If he's a troll, your answers won't matter and there is a good chance you'll be made to look foolish.
If he's sincere, then the chances are he'll need to see love in action, in person, to be willing to give the gospel a hearing.

Whatever his motivations, telling him these things don't happen in your particular sect isn't effective.
Such a claim is perfect troll food if that is his objective, and if he's sincere it marginalizes his pain and suffering.
I just don't see a win scenario for engaging at that point - other than demonstrating God's amazing love and compassion.

[seer]

Skeptics are exactly like you except that they do not feel like they are being watched. We tend to pity people that feel they cannot be good without being watched. The watching is what we would call self restraint, common civility or good manners and is taught to us as children. We are not taught to associate God with that behaviour. So if we are good, it is because we want to be good, not because we think that God wants us to be good. It is a subtle but important difference.

So instead of being good because God wants us to be good, we are good because our parents or society wants us to be good.

[Darth Executor]

Okay, now this would be exactly the sort of thing I was addressing in the original post.

Why is it that when a skeptic makes an observation of what we all know to be true that he's waved away like he's some kind of dingbat? Yes, I understand that not all sects participate in scaring children but then I wouldn't expect a skeptic to be responsible for handling our marketing campaign for us. He's not making the claim that every freakin' Christian participates in this sort of behavior (1) but he would be accurate to claim it is common enough for it to be alarming, and frankly, a bit creepy and manipulative.

Now if you doubt me on this point I'd be happy to give you a tour of the churches of the USA where this sort of thing is common practice.

Maybe you can take him on a tour of Scripture where Jesus threatens people with hell. Jesus is now creepy and manipulative. MehGerbil Christianity in a nutshell.

Pointing out a common practice that is abhorrent doesn't make FirstFloor a dingbat - it merely makes him observant.
Somehow, children must not know about sex until they're 21 but Darth's Big Book of Torture Porn is great reading material for bed time.

You mean Scripture?

And FirstFloor, you really need to find some Christians who are going to be honest with you.
I'm not sure TWEB is the place to find that.

I'm honest with him.

[Darth Executor]

You do realize the New Testament is bigger than a Chick tract, right?

[Bill the Cat]

Bill, there are 6 million Mormons in the USA and over 1 million Jehovah's Witnesses - that is a lot of abuse.

But they are not Christians. They are wanna-be's.

That aside, I've experienced the horrifying and ridiculously fantastic descriptions of hell as a child from multiple churches in Michigan and I saw the practice in churches in Tennessee - mainline Baptist Churches - on more occasions than I can enumerate.

I've been to Baptist (Southern and Dover), Methodist, CoC, COGIC, COGP, Roman Catholic, Nazarene, and a host of other denoms. I've never seen any church teach the kids about hell, let alone use fear as a motivator.

Please visit www.exchristian.net for some de-conversion stories. They can get a little rough but if you're willing to actually read what some people go through at their local church you'll understand it ain't all unicorns and flowers. The skeptics don't even have to invoke the Inquisition - they just have to show you their own scars.

Oh, I have no doubt. I could tell you some stories that would make you shudder. People can be cruel.

The children are expected to sit in the regular church service in every church I've ever attended. There they hear about fantastic descriptions of hell and all the wonderful carnage of Revelation.

Very few churches even teach on Revelation. And the churches I have attended all have a childrens' church. And Revelation isn't set in hell. There are only 3 references to it in the entire book

Reference #1: Visit exchristian.net and read some of the de-conversion stories. You'll find dumb reasons for leaving the church but you'll find plenty of evidence for FirstFloor's assertions as well.

Reference #2: Me. I've seen it on several occasions. In fact, at about age 10 I told my cousin what I'd heard in church and he was so terrified that we got a call from his mother because he was refusing to go to sleep at night. I was so used to hearing of torture by age 10 that I didn't even occur to me that other children might be horrified by it.

Refernce #3: I have you talk to my wife and she can tell you about her brother who is now a Fundamentalist. The stuff he tells us about his church in Washington State, with pride, would stretch my credibility here. This is stuff said from the pulpit.

I'm sure there are SOME that do teach things like that. But, again, stupidity knows no borders.

How many times does it have to be true for it to be true?

It isn't true. "Christianity" is not a sum of the actions of its purported adherents. Even if every professed Christian acted contrary to the teachings of Christ, it would not mean that Christianity, which is based on the teachings of Christ, would change to the actions of mankind.

I'll given you references - I understand it may be outside of your experience but it isn't for millions of people.

Then FF committed the fallacy of a hasty generalization based on his own anecdotal experiences.

I don't see where anyone is against teaching a child about salvation.

FF seems to be. He calls it "indoctrination" and "inhumanity"

I think we're both probably against scaring children into making goofy professions of faith in a vain attempt to avoid seeing anymore of Darth's Big Book of Torture Porn.

Yes. And I think it is a rare occurrence that it is actually happening.

When we act like he's a dingbat for pointing out abuses that actually happen we're being dishonest.

When he acts like a dingbat and absurdly generalizes all of Christianity based on rare occurences, then it is quite honest to call him that.

The curt dismissal is an attempt to cover up a very real problem - pretending it isn't there is a lie.

In some cases, yes. In others, it is sufficient to dismiss an absurd claim. Should we really waste our time responding to every absurd claim that others make? Even when it CAN be a true claim in rare circumstances?

And yet, when FirstFloor notes a problem instead of admitting it the PR machinery kicks in and we pretend he's insane for talking about something that is demonstrably true.

It's also demonstrably true that mothers kill their children. Just look at Casey Anthony, Susan Smith, Susan Eubanks, Frances Newton, Andrea Yates, or Dianne Downs. So, should I make a case that mothers kill their children based on anecdotal evidence of a few people who did? FF made a sweeping argument based solely on perceived fanatacism and intentional inflamatory twisting of terms.

Now it doesn't mean YOU are doing these things but expecting a skeptic to follow us through the process of dicing/slicing/categorizing real and fake Christians is a bit much.

Not really. If you want to associate people with a group, then you need to understand how one becomes a member of that group in the first place. For instance, a certain Sandro Duval was recently arrested for impersonating a football player. How do we know he wasn't really a football player, despite his claiming to be one? Because we know what makes a real football player.

[Bill the Cat]

The high birthrate/lack of abortion by the conservative denominations is always a bright light in dark times.

The fallacy of composition hard at work...

[firstfloor]

So instead of being good because God wants us to be good, we are good because our parents or society wants us to be good.

We are trained as children to appreciate for ourselves the benefits of good behaviour. We are good because it pays us to be good. A smile instead of a frown is all it takes. No threats of damnation or physical punishment are needed.

[Bill the Cat]

We are trained as children to appreciate for ourselves the benefits of good behaviour. We are good because it pays us to be good. A smile instead of a frown is all it takes. No threats of damnation or physical punishment are needed.

So, you agree that teaching about the rewards of good behavior is superior to teaching of the punishment of poor behavior, correct?

[seer]

We are trained as children to appreciate for ourselves the benefits of good behaviour. We are good because it pays us to be good. A smile instead of a frown is all it takes. No threats of damnation or physical punishment are needed.

FF, you are still being good to please someone else, and to conform to the ethical standards of others. The degree of consequences are not relevant, the principle is the same.

[firstfloor]

FF, you are still being good to please someone else, and to conform to the ethical standards of others. The degree of consequences are not relevant, the principle is the same.

I disagree. I am sure you must have heard about mirror neurons? It is about synchronizing pleasure, not doing it for someone else. It is possible that the self pleasure experienced would be assumed to be a pat on the head from the invisible God but it complicates the psychology quite a bit.

[seer]

I disagree. I am sure you must have heard about mirror neurons? It is about synchronizing pleasure, not doing it for someone else. It is possible that the self pleasure experienced would be assumed to be a pat on the head from the invisible God but it complicates the psychology quite a bit.

Oh stop! If being good could be pleasurable in itself then that could be the case whether we get our ethical standard from God or society. And yes, I do find it quite rewarding to obey God - when those rare moments happen.

[firstfloor]

Oh stop! If being good could be pleasurable in itself then that could be the case whether we get our ethical standard from God or society. And yes, I do find it quite rewarding to obey God - when those rare moments happen.

I think we understand each other a little better. Your patience is appreciated.