Woo's Woo in Christianity

[Oldfarmhouse]

One of the problems for those who adhere to Christian doctrine (any doctrine, really) is the existence of people who were at one time strong believers in the faith and then at some point abandoned it. The reason that this is a difficult issue for the believers is that former members often provide detailed coherent descriptions of how they came to question, doubt, and eventually reject the doctrine.

Almost invariably the reasons for leaving differ between ex-members and current members. Former Christians often describe a process of investigation into the claims made by the group and ended up with very unimpressive answers. Ex-Christians discuss education and how the increase in knowledge and exposure to different cultures and ideas renders the theology useless to accurately describe the world.

On the other side Christians give very different reasons that people leave the faith. Invariably members of the faith will blame the person who left the church and never admit to the possibility theat the doctrine is inadequate. I will say that there are exceptions -- if they dont blame the person who left then its that crafty devil who led them astray.

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

[catalyst]

One reason is probably that they were never intellectually grounded in the first place. Popular philosophies that are kind to the careful analysis of theology and metaphysics it takes to be an intellectually grounded Christian are very few. It is just a fact of our age that a popular philosophy happens to be the decrepit scientism you see pushed by so many even here on the forum.

Nice dishonest dogma.. Intellectually grounded usually means posting intellectually honest arguments with some sort of intellectual integrity.. This you seem to have a problem adhering to here on this forum in many of your arguments. To claim someone is not intellectually grounded for leaving Christianity is a pretty bad argument, and is merely just a social control tool..:/ Hence it just makes you feel better about them leaving if you can dehumanize them... It's the same method used in training soldiers for war...It's easier to kill if you are trained to think of your enemy as less than human.

However, I for one was a Christian for 20 years. And guess what, it wasn't science that changed my beliefs.. Science had little to nothing to do with it as I hadn't bothered to get a science education till 5 years ago.. I used to do advertising for Churches by making pamphlets, posters, flyers ect.. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian.. What changed my beliefs? I read a few books on brainwashing, how it's done, and later did some research on how cults trap and brainwash people.. Often without them knowing or caring. Every aspect described in those books were found in how my once religious beliefs operated, and how I was told to advertise ect. Reading the bible after reading books on brainwashing became the first seed of rational and critical thought of what the bible actually says, and how religious people act and behave.. Organized religion became clear as to what it actually is.. It's nothing but the fleecing and control of the masses by preying on their ignorance and vulnerabilities... And it's not just Religion that uses these tactics.. I learned a hell of a lot about advertising in general and how it works and operates.. I can look at a commercial and see it for what it really is.. It's psychological and social manipulation found in subliminal programming. You even find clicker training techniques used with sounds and music in both advertising and in religious cults.

Your comments on this are quite interesting to me, TheJackerLantern. When I was with my church I did assorted marketing stuff too, but purely for OUR church. I came up with a Tee design which read as a slogan "Our CH_ _ CH is not complete, unless UR there.... I also didn't have to read about the techniques as I was also sent to seminars to LEARN them.. "lovebombing" was one I used over and over when dealing with those bereaved due to a death in the family and our church was being used for the funeral services, or even when at AA meetings...especially to seek out "newbies" there. It was a matter of picking strictly the vulnerable and "working it". Soon enough, another little sheep to add to the flock.... in actuality though, I didn't care about the individual at all, I just cared that Jesus would have another follower. I had the "grace" AND the "works" bit down pat... .just in case...*shaking head*.

Cat.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

Look Educhris, I know you have some obstruction...perhaps in the rectal region about me, and have ever since I called you out on your "Principles of Charity" thread. I get it.. I hurt your widdle feewings.

Don't you reckon it's time you grew up and got over it? Seriously?

I reckon the only one you are making look a fool here, is you. *shrug*

Please review our Rules.


Personal and insulting remarks about other participants has no place in civil debate. Stop it! This is particularly unexpected from someone who claims to belong to the Tolerant, Respectful and Civil group.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Oldfarmhouse]

Hi Oldfarmhouse,

I realise there is only one point up for discussion, but I would like to comment to you on the points you made in your OP.

One of the problems for those who adhere to Christian doctrine (any doctrine, really) is the existence of people who were at one time strong believers in the faith and then at some point abandoned it. The reason that this is a difficult issue for the believers is that former members often provide detailed coherent descriptions of how they came to question, doubt, and eventually reject the doctrine.

Indeed that is the case and I have noticed, not only on this forum but also in RL situations, my reasons (not excuses) pretty much fell on deaf ears. The still believers just did not want to hear anything that MAY get them to question their "faith", too.. so it is a matter of being confronted with people with fingers near in their ears "la la la la laing" so they cannot hear what you have to say.

Almost invariably the reasons for leaving differ between ex-members and current members. Former Christians often describe a process of investigation into the claims made by the group and ended up with very unimpressive answers. Ex-Christians discuss education and how the increase in knowledge and exposure to different cultures and ideas renders the theology useless to accurately describe the world.

With me, the beginning of the end was a visit to Israel and Palestine. I was there ON a trek the church I was part of (was at the time a christian counsellor and "womans" minister). The depth of my belief was HUGE and I thought nothing at all could interfere with what I perceived as "TRUTH". A lot did. Nothing really teed up in reality as the NT had inferred.. even geographically.
The fact is, not too may self-professed christians GO those extra yards to explore themselves.. to be ACTUAL seekers of "TRUTH". Interestly I know I am not the only at the time DEVOUT christian to come back from such a trip a little more than jaded and in fact MANY christians that did much the same as I did have come back scratching their heads, which in turn, eventually leaded to them leaving christianity behind as a bald faced lie.

On the other side Christians give very different reasons that people leave the faith. Invariably members of the faith will blame the person who left the church and never admit to the possibility theat the doctrine is inadequate. I will say that there are exceptions -- if they dont blame the person who left then its that crafty devil who led them astray.

That is what happened in my case. The fact I questioned ANYTHING during the "holyland" trip or after was an issue for them. It seems that my faith to them was NOT "enough" so it was my fault that I pointed out the clear to all discrepancies...and yes... the whole "devil" thing was also brought into the equation too. As I WANTED to still "believe" and didn't want to be thought of as THEY (the only people I interacted with anymore)..I stayed with the church for 3 years then after... trying to push aside the OBVIOUS and GLARING discrepencies.

It's like a very insular society in and of itself.. this christianity thing. When push comes to shove it IS CULT behaviour, whether those IN IT want to realise it or not. I know I didn't when I was part of it.

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

I can only speak for myself and frankly my own personal story to tell would take up too much bandwidth and probably exceed the post limit.

As such in a couple of paragraphs.. TRUTH actually set me free..the truth that ALL CAN physically see. There is no secret, no interpretation required. All you have to do is take your little Book (bible) and do a FULL physical trace of what all the NT dudes allegedly DID and you will find that NOPE.. NONE of it could have happened the way the bible claims it did....from there... after you have done that.. is then see how viable all the other "stuff" mention in there is. You will find it is NOT viable at all.

Not too many christians have the gonies to do that, or even THINK about doing it. In a way I see it as a lack of dedication OF their belief to NOT want to actually walk where the bible jesus is claimed to have... to see where he was allegedly when the people tried to push him off the "cliff" (I still laugh to myself about the "cliff"....it's a gleeful little "roly poly" that any kid would giggle being rolled down). lol I also laugh about the mass run the "demon possessed" pigs would have had had to do...etc...

Just to name a few.

The fact is, I have found that many people DO stay in christianity due to emotional ties to others but more so, not wanting to admit they are WRONG about something. The EGO is a hard thing to get past. Not too many WANT to accept that the stuff they have put their heart and mind into for DECADES can be shown in one fell swoop to be absolute bollocks.

IMO, only those truly WANTING to seek the truth, whatever it is... lets go of their ego.

As I have stated on here before Oldfarmhouse, not ONCE has ANY theists asked me on here WHY I left christianity. The reasons are.. as you stated above and as I have elaborated on. They really don't WANT to know.

Catalyst

There is an old quip from an unknown author -- What is the difference between a cult and a religion? About a million registered voters.

When I read the responses from Aquinas I found them very typical. He stated that he was not interested in the sociological or psychological aspects of religion. That, I find rather strange because that is such a major part of religion I really don't see how it can be avoided by anyone who wants to investigate the subject. To me it would be like a person who claims to be interested in airplanes and aviation -- "except stuff about the wings, wings don't interest me."

Slope's level of education is impressive -- but one can't realistically claim that a person can't rightfully reject a religion because they have no devoted several years of their life to divinity school.

I have done quite a bit of independent research on religious cults, particularly the ares of sociological and psychological aspects. I have noticed that the reasons people give to explain how others left their group are always the same for any group, in that, they always blame the one who left.

[Haven]

Oldfarmhouse, I agree that the sociological determinants of religion are very important. The biggest predictor of religious adherence is upbringing: most people adopt the religion of their parents. The vast majority of evangelical Christians believe as they do because they were taught to believe since birth, and the same principle applies to Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and any other religious worldview. By and large, people believe because they were brought up to believe, and this is why it is crucial to understand the social and cultural factors behind religious belief.

[Oldfarmhouse]

Oldfarmhouse, I agree that the sociological determinants of religion are very important. The biggest predictor of religious adherence is upbringing: most people adopt the religion of their parents. The vast majority of evangelical Christians believe as they do because they were taught to believe since birth, and the same principle applies to Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and any other religious worldview. By and large, people believe because they were brought up to believe, and this is why it is crucial to understand the social and cultural factors behind religious belief.

We also have to look at the experiences of people who came later in life to a particular group. The Hare Krishnas are a good example. This is a cult that was in Inda for about 300 years before coming to the US. The group never gained a large following in India and they mostly unnoticed.

In 1965 the Swami decided to relocate to the US and they settled in Greenwich Village and the San Francisco in 1967. At the height of the hippie era a group dancing and chanting in robed and castenettes were certain to draw attention. They became a large group in the US in a few moths. Of course at that time nobody in the US was born and raised as a Hare Krishna. There ae now, many adults who were born into the Krishnas. And like all groups, those who were born in are more likely to stick around because the indoctrination process starts at day 1 and the longer it goes on the more difficult it is to shake it.

Like Scientology, Moonies, Modern religious Satanism, Wicca, and many other groups that started recently in the US -- we are going to start seeing a shift in their cultural aspects which will create a shift in their ideology as the percentage of born-ins increases and converts decreases.

[olavisjo]

.
Just one question.

To me, if something is not objectively true, it is not worth practicing or believing.

I did not want to become an atheist -- I had built my entire life, including my morality, my future plans, my politics, and my personal relationships, on my Christian faith.

Are you saying that morality is not worth practicing or believing since it is not objectively true, but just something that came to you from your Christian faith?

[Haven]

Are you saying that morality is not worth practicing or believing since it is not objectively true, but just something that came to you from your Christian faith?

I believe that morality is objective and binding for all humanity, and that it is explainable without gods. I hold to a Wielenbergian conception of brute moral realism.

When I was a Christian, my morality came from the Bible and the evangelical church, and I had to adjust my morality after I left Christianity. However, I am still a moral realist.

[catalyst]

Are you saying that morality is not worth practicing or believing since it is not objectively true, but just something that came to you from your Christian faith?

I believe that morality is objective and binding for all humanity, and that it is explainable without gods. I hold to a Wielenbergian conception of brute moral realism.

When I was a Christian, my morality came from the Bible and the evangelical church, and I had to adjust my morality after I left Christianity. However, I am still a moral realist.

I understand completely what you mean by that, but at the same time, christianity actually screwed with my sense of morality. I was far more judgmental AS a christian than I had been prior to my christianity and certainly a lot more judgemental than I am now. Now I look for and find the LIKES in people, rather than find excuses to think I should "HATE" them.

I doubt the theists on this thread will grasp this concept, but I am fairly sure you will understand what I mean by it, Haven.

Catalyst.

[catalyst]

SS wrote:

Hi. I had forgotten you were Baptist, and I don't think I had an appreciation for just how much so. That sure explains a lot.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by the above? What does it "explain" for you?

It's a very different experience from my own. The Catholics I grew up with were strange, simultaneously devout yet detached, saying all sorts of traditional things, then having common sense take over and not being too hung up about it. Bible stories were told a few times to kids, but no one was too invested in it. It was just a nice story.

I suppose that is why there is a sense of separation between Catholicism and other denominations of christianity. That said, I know of a lot of catholics whose common sense plays no part in their faith. EG: a Maltese family - extended (over a hundred people living in their own little "commune"), whose homes are like mega shrines to Mary. When the Pope came here a couple of years ago, they were like a bunch of teenagers girls heading to a Bieber concert; flustered, some near fainting in anticipation in the hope to just be close enough to SEE his "ring"....would have probably wet themselves if they got an opportunity to actually KISS it.

They even kissed the feet of each and every statue in their houses several times a day after their prayers.

To them it was like the biblical jesus was just a small but important none the less, part of their belief system.

Do I see that as a common sense approach to a faith? Well no. Do you?

The above probably has a lot to do with them coming from a relatively small country (islands if you would prefer), where the sense of community is HUGE and where the majority of people ARE Roman Catholic (over 90%) and hence every one is traditionally like-minded in THAT way.

I also know Catholics as you describe them too. It's like just part of WHO they are, or were born to be. That would make sense if you were introduced to a religion pretty much from the womb in a more secular, or perhaps not SO Catholic country.

That said, I don't know if you know what happened behind their closed doors, just as I don't with my example of knowing Catholics like you do. They could well have been kissing statues too. *shrug* I know they had little statues in their homes though, but I am not going to jump to a conclusion based purely on that just because the Maltese Roman Catholics I know do it.

I suppose that is an important point. We cannot gauge anything purely on what we THINK we know of people. The only person you will EVER REALLY even truly get to know is yourself, IF of course you allow yourself to. I have found that not too many people do, as they are too scared to even scratch at their own surface and usually the surface is the facade they want others to see.

I think that has a alot to do with WHY many people stay with religion. It's a little "safe house" of sorts. No need for self judgement when you can whisper your thoughts to some presumed "entity"...out there... "he" will asbolve "all" with a little faith.....at least allowing one to pretend at least, to wipe their conscience clean.

BTW I was not raised in what could or would be called a religious household. My father,a Jew (by default - BORN AS ) - non practicing and an "events christian" mother. We were sent to Sunday School and it was purely for social interaction, not much more, except for hearing the "kiddy" version of the Noah's Ark story...that of Joshua, fighting the battle of Jericho (both , sans all the bloodshed bits of course), assorted biblically based songs "The wise man built his house upon the rocks" ..."Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so"...that kind of thing, all topped off after about 45 mins of the stories and sing-a-longs, with fairy bread and cordial and ping pong or hide and seek around the church grounds. Perhaps thrusting the evangelical "spin" had not hit Australia during the 60's and 70's and if it had, my parents were none the wiser and if they were, did not want us to be any part of it.

I was a christian "recruit" at the age of 15...I felt that god had chosen ME,..or was at least lead to believe that (preying on the vulnerable ALWAYS works...in hindsight I do not consider myself a victim of circumstance though.. I lost the victim mentality when I left christianity) not the other way round... as such I had no choice at that time BUT to "follow" in my mind.. and remained that way for decades, despite the "niggly" feelings near a decade in, that what I believed was WRONG for me.

Regarding Hebrew, I have no opinion. I did the two year degree in div school, in which I took no ministerial practice classes but intead heavied up on academics, as well as classes in the schools of law and business. But strangely, there was no language requirement, greek or hebrew. I know NOTHING about either of them. I used to know a decent amount of german, but no more.

Well given that, I suppose it is difficult for you or anyone else to gauge what is taught at theology colleges here in Australia and the methods used here or what is required of you to obtain your degrees. Having had to learn just how different the US education system is as a whole to that here in Australia, means at least I understand where the insular mentality as to what consitutes an "education" comes from with at least some americans. I suppose it would seem "strange" to you that here IN Australia to get your M.Div, the standard IS to learn at the very least, Hebrew, considering it is not part and parcel of the courses supplied in the US. That also may have a lot to do with WHY Australian accreditation IS internationally recognised, where as US accreditation is NOT. It seems there is far more complexity in courses across the board, not just related to Theology. Back to theology though, full time M.Div alone is a 3 year course here and can take near a decade to complete part time. It is THOROUGH, not jst some pissant pretense at "understanding". As part OF my study I opted to spend over 12 months IN Israel, to KNOW the language further. I stayed in Tzfat (Safed) and got to understand and appreciate the language even more by doing so. What can I say, I am one for immersion technique. I suppose to those relying purely on the theoretical WOULD find that strange too.

I suppose though if people took the time to look outside their own little pre-conceived boxes of " I do this so this is the only way it CAN be done", then they WOULD see that things ARE done a lot differently outside what they perceive to "KNOW".

Regarding your open mindedness, I know, for sure.

I am glad you realise that. I certainly would not like to be lumped in with the narrow-minded, insular types who who think what THEY personally "know" is all there IS to know and their perspective is "spot on" and anyone who does not agree with THEIR PERSONAL TAKE, is wrong, a liar or clueless.

Catalyst.

[EduChris]

...Australian accreditation IS internationally recognised, where as US accreditation is NOT...

That's an interesting claim, given that graduate work from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and numerous other similarly accredited graduate schools do transfer to the best graduate schools in North America and Europe and elsewhere around the globe.

I was not aware (and indeed I doubt) that such credit goes unrecognized in Australia.

Is there someone else with credibility here, preferably from Australia, who can shed light on this issue?