Disturbing Christian material . . . . . . . .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
edit X-posted with NYE

Truthfully I don't know NYE. It's not up to me to decide. All I can say is that Christ will judge and this is the standard that we are taught that he will judge by.

Thing is, Ben, your standard and your belief piss a lot of people off.

Sort of like a bunch of people are pissed off about schools where men are taught that many virgins await them if they do certain things, and preach that women should be treated in a certain way.

There is a problem with beliefs that have negative effects on others. Xtian fundies are not outside the set of people who can do harm with their dogma.

Preaching hell-fire for the unbelievers is at best annoying, and at worst harmful. Why continue to do it?

No I don't. I should think you would be rather glad to have Christians in your midst since the worst that you will get from us is some fire and brimstone. The Muslims would be rather less tolerant of unbelievers.

I know many Muslims whose company I would prefer to anyone who wants to discuss my eternal damnation for failing to believe as they do.

At the same time, there are more fundamentalist Muslims I could not be happy being around.

Do you begin to see the point?

Fundies can annoy, and worse, no matter what deity they worship, or what colour robes they deem fit to worship said deity.

Everyone has their beliefs that they believe to be true. For the Christians, their faith in Christ. For others, it is their faith that all religions are no different from one another. Now when you say that it bothers you that someone would claim what he believes is true, well I think we all do that for different things. Why should what I believe be less true to me than what you believe be less true to you?

The problem, Ben, is when you proclaim that I, who do not share your beliefs, am bound for some negative consequence, AND THAT'S A FACT!

It's not a fact, Ben. It is what you believe. There's a difference.

People who state such 'facts' are little different whether you worship in a Cathedral or teach in a Madrassa. You're both full of hooey, and both of you are doing harm to civil society.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well not quite. Yes we believe that the bible was inspired by God, and yes we believe that the church can accurately interpret the bible, as it is one of the offices of the magisterium.

However, by no means is the magisterium including the pope infalliable in such interpretations except in very limited circumstances.

The pope can speak infalliably, the last time he did so was in establishing the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

That doesnt really contradict what I say (I am a catholic too btw)
Also, most controversial issues in the bible, have been "infallibly defined" by the church centuries ago, so there is not a lot of room for the church to not be infallible when commenting the bible.
Many issues protestants discuss nowadays were defined in ecumenical councils more than 1500 years ago.

Actually the last time the pope spoke infallibly was to make a dogma the assumption (spelling?) of Mary (which pissed of many protestants) like 50 years ago if I recall correctly.
Some groups want the pope to infallibly declare Mary mediatrix and co-redemptrix which would piss of protestants even more (and it would be hard to accept for even many catholics)
Sometimes the vatican refrains from doing stuff that could annoy many people, for example the reason why Queen Isabella has not yet been declared a saint is that she expulsed the jews from Spain, so, jews would go antisemite! antisemite! antisemite! if she is declared saint.

[Barnabas]

NYE, do you believe in hell?

If not, why do you care?

[notyoueither]

I care to the extent that the dogma is attempted to be enforced on others through threat or deed.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So an education in one of these places would be less rigorous then the average public school?

From what I've seen the products are Christian private schools perform consistently better than students who attend public schools and consistently worse than students who attend secular private schools.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's quite common among schools to say that they will expect Christian students to conform to a Christian lifestyle. Now as you put it "students who have been put their by Orthodox parents", that's hardly the case for most. For most parents, this is a way for their kids to get and education at the same time as reinforcing their child's faith.

The problem is , they expect every student to conform to a Christian lfestyle , even if they're not Christian .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I'm not sure why you believe that most kids would resent a clause like this, most would not even bother to look at it or feel constrained. Young people do choose to be Christians and enjoy life as a Christian, and would actually welcome a school that would help them in their journey as Christians.

For Christians , this school is ideal - ir reinforces their views , and is thus not in any way detrimental to their desire to express themselves .

But I'm not talking about the many . Most students won't care , but the few who care and are not Christian are bound to feel stifled in such an atmosphere . If you're studying in a Christian school , you are going to feel intimidated by the prevailing atmosphere is you happen to disagree .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Indoctrination and intimidation? Who says the children are not going to such schools willingly?

Most children do not choose their school , they are sent there either by their parents or by the state .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Well you have to remember that while your experiences with such a school were negative, many students see just the opposite, that they are encouraged by such a school.

How could my experiences with Hindu liberal fundamentalists who simple REFUSE to discuss religion rationally ( for fear that you might end up judging or criticising religious ideas other than your own ) be anything but negative ? I could understand them and respect them if they were simply Hindu fundamentalists , because then I could disagree civilly ( that's one thing I like about the more rational fundamentalists , such as you - they actually listen to you , even though they might not agree ) , but because they were alo liberal fundamentalists , who refused to entertain any criticism of any religion other than Hinduism , and labeled you a bigot/fascist/hate-monger/etc when you did try to discuss any non-Hindu religion critically , no discussion was possible , whicl led to a skewed and messed up experience for students . My education is a multi-layered , complex , and messed-up experience for me and many other students .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So in a sense you found the desire to necessarily rebel against the teachings of such a school. I'm not sure why you reject the rebellion in adopting a more orthodox faith, such that Hinduism was a superior religion to others, and deepening your faith. That to me seems a perfectly plausible reaction to such a watered down school.

Each generation rebels against its parents . This is usually a healthy thing - by the time they reach their parents' age , they have retained the better parts of what their parents taught them , but rejected the relatively worse ones . This school made it very difficult to rebel - how do you rebel against something which embraces all beliefs ? The only two options were to either cut links with religion altogether , or to become more orthodox that these people would like .

In fact , the lament of many parents is that the current generation is not rebellious enough , absolutely weird and incomprehensible though that might seem . Academic pressures have left them no time to really rebel or even bother with anything much more than studies . Most are without any ideology or beliefs whatsoever . And that is a very , very bad thing , because they are the elite of the country , and they have nowhere to lead the country to .

You don't understand the atmosphere in which we were living . The whole of the printed and television media of India is blindly aping the West - they apply criticisms to Hinduism which do not make sense whatsoever , simply because that happens to be the criticism applied to Christianity in the West . The prevailing intellectual amosphere in the country among the English-educated elite ( of which I am a member ) is one where even being a devout Hindu is looked down upon . Hinduism is considered somehow "dirty" . Thus , if you became more devout , you would be laughed at by your own peers .

In America , it is possible to be a devout Christian and still be a respected member of society . In India , this is not the case . Devout Hindus are looked down upon .

As for how someone would become if they became more devoutly Hindu - they would stop caring about other religions altogether as long as they do not interfere with India and Hinduism . A devout Hindu ( a RSS member ) I know does not care about other parts of the world - his dream is that India , Afghanistan , Pakistan , Bangladesh , and Indonesia reconvert peacefully to Hinduism , form a Hindu federation/coalition , and become a world superpower . As for the rest of the world - he maintains that as long as India is strong enough to crush and annihilate any attacker , we shouldn't bother about anything else ( unless someone asks for our help , of course ) , nor should we try to spread Hinduism beyond the historically Hindu territories . What happens to the Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists is not our business , is his opinion . The question of superiority or inferiority usually does not enter his mind at all .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So you look at the criticisms of one student as an accurate account not only of this one particular school, but of all similar schools in the United States? That to me requires a little more careful examination to test and see whether such things are actually true, and not just the difficulties of one student.

I'm not making a generalisation about such schools in the USA . That is explcitly asked about how prevalent such education is in the USA in the opening post .

This student said that his teachers bacisally tried to scare him into accepting Christ . As I said before , this usually backfires , and instead of trying to work out , on his own , the kinks in his religious experience , he left religion altogether .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So lets see. The liberal folks 'miss out on learning what religion is all about, and in my words, miss out on the joy of learning to live in faith.'

I use liberal in the currently accepted meaning - that of a religion-denying , political-correctness-obsessed , incoherent and usually ineffectual effete pseudo-intellectual . If we use the meaning of the word liberal as it was originally formulated - a person who supports liberty in both the personal/social as well as economic spheres of life , then I am a liberal by tha definition . It is perfectly possible to be the latter type of liberal and still be strongly religious .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I agree with you here. Now what I am not sure of is why you feel the fundamentalists are coloured in their religion as 'regressive'. Such a perception will seem natural to anyone from a liberal and secular viewpoint.

I am not saying that all such places promote regressive tendencies . I am saying it is more probable that regressive tendencies find root in such places than others . Not all fundamentalists are regressive - Hindu fundamentalists such as Swami Shraddhananda and Swami Dayanand were so progressive and reformist that it is said that fanatics killed them for upsetting orthodoxy . Some Christian fundamentalists re-interpret dogma in such a way as to be progressive .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If religions are in fact regressive, then there is nothing to miss out in not teaching them, and you have nothing to learn from religion in general.

If in fact religions are valuable, then devotion to such religion can hardly be termed 'regressive.'

It is practices associated with religion - such as the Christian sale of indulgences , or the perversions of the Hindu caste system , or the Muslim system of instant triple divorce - which are in fact regressive . If it is possible to separate these practices from the religion without compromising the core dogma of the religion , then it is possible to reform that religion ( as was/is the case with Hinduism , Judaism , Buddhism , etc. ) , whereas if it is difficult to do so , then in that religion there will always exist a tension between regressive and progressive forces ( as in Christainity , as seen today , or in Turkish Islam ) , but if it is impossible to do so , then a religion is beyond reform and will have to be dumped altogether when it becomes too problematic ( as is the case with today's Islam ) .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Very interesting Aneeshm. I'll have to think about replying to your point here.

You are right that Christianity of all religions ought to be willing to 'test all things and hold onto that which is good.' There are scores of devout Christians that have reinforced their own faith through the examinations of their precepts and tenets.

The dominance of the West today is because it was able to critically examine itself . A believer's critical examination usually strengthens the faith , it does not weaken it . When , however , religion is forced on someone , the first time they examine it , it will crack .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

My only criticism of such an approach is that a critical examination of Christianity is usually only done to tear down faith rather then encouraging faith to be built up. I'm not sure whether these fundamentalist schools suffer from a lack of introspection and examination of questions of the faith, as there are a great deal of very orthodox Christian writers that have spent considerable time in such activities.

Of course . That is a valid criticism in this day and age , where the majority of people have an anti-religious bias , which does inevitably make its way into even the most sheltered environment . At least the liberal fundementalist school which I attended suffered from a complete lack of introspection - maybe because the faith of liberals is so fragile ?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I would disagree with such approach. If there is a demand for very faithful hindu teachings then there should be schools built privately for such purposes. Then again, this also tends to be a very western idea of freedom of religion, so that perception is most definitely not common elsewhere.

The problem is , the so-called "secular" ( which usually translates to anti-Hindu ) government will not tolerate even private schools imparting Hindu teachings . Notice that even secular schools run by Hindu organisations are criticises simply because they are run by Hindu organisations , whereas madarsas which have been a proven breeding ground for terror are not even scrutinised .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If such schools are to issue certificates of graduation then they should be permitted to operate provided that they examine the students with the same tests as everyone else.

Other then that, I see no need to restrict such schools from operation.

I agree completely .







Ben Kenobi , I am thankful to you for actually making an effort to understand my point - that I object to this not because it is Christian , but because it makes people miss out on the wider Christian religious ( or simple religious ) experience . Most people assume that I am anti-Christian - you are a person who could see that that was not the case .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't see the folks saying to all the peace activists who show pictures of dead children and mourning families as not contributing to a civil society in attempting to tell the truth.

Read the 2003 threads again then, pre Iraq war.

I was forbidden for posting pics of WW1 corpses. They weren't graphical (just dead people lying in the mud with their clothes on), but they didn't fit in this place's gunghoism. MtG deleted the pics and explicitely barred me from posting others.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Oerdin
1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

That one is some scary fundie stuff. Especially since it can be shown that the Bible, like the Koran, is full of contradictions and demonstrably false statements. Infallible my foot.

Well the scary thing is that that line you've quoted is a paraphrasing of the definition of fundamentalism. Personally I feel that Christianity lends itself to fundamentalism every bit as much as Islam except it doesn't have to as Christianity has so much influence behind the most powerful countries in the world anywhere whereas Islam does not.

Personally I find religion a scary concept with no rational basis, and I find it shocking when this level of indoctrination is allowed to occur. The people trying to force this crap down the necks of the vulnerable should seriously be taken to task.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by aneeshm


The problem is , they expect every student to conform to a Christian lfestyle , even if they're not Christian .



For Christians , this school is ideal - ir reinforces their views , and is thus not in any way detrimental to their desire to express themselves .

But I'm not talking about the many . Most students won't care , but the few who care and are not Christian are bound to feel stifled in such an atmosphere . If you're studying in a Christian school , you are going to feel intimidated by the prevailing atmosphere is you happen to disagree .

But the whole point of the idea of a Christian school, is that you are arround others who are (or are acting) Christian. Otherwise, would it be a Christian school? Once more, if you don't want to be arround Christians, don't go to a Christian school.

And somehow I missed quoting it, but if the state sends students to a Christian school, that is wrong. I am firmly against that. It should be the students themselves, or their parents, who decide (because like it or not, parents are responsible for their kids education, and that includes moral).

You, and others, are basically enforcing your beliefs down these people's throats. That is why they have their own schools, and they don't (or they shouldn't, and in the US they don't) force you to go to them. You go to them by choice (and that appears to be the case with this one as well, despite being in India, where apparently they don't have the freedoms of thought that we enjoy here).

Jon Miller
(also, states do a poor job of bringing up kids..)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The problem, Ben, is when people think their belief is THE TRUTH.

Dead people are facts. Your interpretation of what will happen to people like me who do not agree with you is not.

It pisses people off when fundies of any stripe begin holding forth on heaven, hell, and the merits of 42 virgins.

I'd ask, 'can't you see that?' but I venture to guess that it would be wasted bandwidth.

You are doing right now what you are upset about other people doing.

Jon Miller

[Provost Harrison]

A child could be thrust into a Christian school by overzealous parents...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Read the 2003 threads again then, pre Iraq war.

I was forbidden for posting pics of WW1 corpses. They weren't graphical (just dead people lying in the mud with their clothes on), but they didn't fit in this place's gunghoism. MtG deleted the pics and explicitely barred me from posting others.

I highly doubt that was the reason MtG didn't want you post pics of dead people.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
A child could be thrust into a Christian school by overzealous parents...

It is the parents responsibility to educate their child. Yes, that means that some parents will educate their children in ways I don't agree with.. but I don't want others forcing my child to be educated in ways I don't agree with either.

You have to allow a wide range of expression, otherwise you become to restrictive.. and you will end up finding yourself on the restricted side at some point. And yes, that means allowing people who wish to restrict expression also.

JM

[Provost Harrison]

All children should be ensured an education free from indoctrination...

[Elok]

What qualifies as indoctrination is highly subjective, y'know. For children to be taught to believe in anything at all without doubt--including, say, human rights--could be called indoctrination. I suspect you wouldn't mind if they had a nice long shpiel by Bertrand Russell on the decline of faith under a new age of reason and blahblahblah forced on them...