You missed the point. You wrote "Everyone should be entitled to think what you want spiritually", and then you judged them for their beliefs. It is a blatant contradiction and it's funny.
And children are "brainwashed" every single day by their parents. We just use a different word for it. Why is religion an exception that must have the term "brain-washing" applied to it?
I judged them for their beliefs you say? This is the line that gives it away from post #1; "I felt like these people were using their kids like little human shields. I felt sick for them, those poor little brainwashed bastards..."
I was talking about young children. Not adults. Can I be anymore clear?
Children too young to have any sort of yearning, or understanding, of religion.
I think I already explained this well enough in this thread (sigh)
It's not a blatant contradiction, you're just trying to paint me as narrow-minded.
Grow up.
....
Brainwashing is an indoctrination process, (often thought of as involuntary, but not necessarily), which leads to "an impairment of autonomy, an inability to think independently, and a disruption of beliefs and affiliations". So for example, a form of brainwashing could be when a racist teaches their child to be a racist.
Education is a different thing obviously, as it's aimed at encouraging free thought and autonomy of actions, by passing on knowledge, skills etc. to those learning.
I used the term brainwashing, as I was talking about these young children. Those who were telling me I would burn in hell, in my own living room no less, when Yahoo was berating me on repenting to Jesus. "Amen!". And the other small kids on the picnic rug, telling me Jesus was crying for me. WTF? These kids were less than five.
There was absolutely no way kids this age would say ***** like that unless they were coached. A lot.
Call it what you will, but telling kids to act this way isn't cool > especially when the smallest one (who was very vocal) would have a hard time telling the difference between God and Santa anyway.
My kids ask me about religion on occasion. For their sake I try to stay impartial as I have a lot of family from varied faiths, from Orthodox Catholics, Seventh Adventists to Buddhists and Muslims (I'm married to a Malaysian), aswell as atheists like me.
But when they hear stories from my work > like the times the state has to take custody of a child forcibly, because their Jehovah's Witnesses parents refuse a simple treatment like a blood transfusion, which would then condemn the child to die.... take a guess what my kids say to that kind of thinking.
So I put this to you;
Is letting your own child die, because your faith demands you act a certain way, when it could easily be prevented by medical treatment, a result of brainwashing? I would argue yes.
Am I the only one who thinks Slave is embellishing his/her own experiences in a thinly veiled attempt to post about his hatred for evangelicals? I'm always amazed how these people just don't come out and say it instead of hiding behind some nefarious act that purportedly happened as if its their fault he hates them.
Not to mention he rather lie to his kids rather than demonstrate partiality on the subject. Stop lying to your kids about how you feel about religion if you want to talk about brainwashing. If you taught them right, they'd know to critically think instead of eating up everything you say.
Hey all,
Let me just explain first that I don't think my beliefs are any more valid, right or wrong, than anyone else's.
Everyone should be entitled to think what you want spiritually. Whatever. Your mind, your life, your choice.
I judged them for their beliefs you say? This is the line that gives it away from post #1; "I felt like these people were using their kids like little human shields. I felt sick for them, those poor little brainwashed bastards..."
I was talking about young children. Not adults. Can I be anymore clear?
Children too young to have any sort of yearning, or understanding, of religion.
I think I already explained this well enough in this thread (sigh)
It's not a blatant contradiction, you're just trying to paint me as narrow-minded.
Grow up.
Let's set aside, for a moment, the extreme scenario where people like Jehova's Witnesses kill or nearly kill their children by refusing medical treatment. The law already criminalizes that behavior. Let's talk about run-of-the-mill religious indoctrination (aka "brainwashing") of young children.
You would not have a problem, would you, with a parent teaching their child from a young age to exercise and eat a healthy diet? You wouldn't say that the parent must stay impartial about the child's eating habits and let the child make her own decision when she grows up. Likewise, you wouldn't have anything against a parent who requires their child to learn how to read when young, rather than letting the child decide whether she wants to be literate after she's grown up.
To a religious person, religious indoctrination (which they would probably characterize as "educating their child about God") is every bit as fundamental as good health and literacy. In many ways, it's vastly more important, because it determines the destiny of the child's eternal soul. In that person's mind, waiting until the child is an adult to teach her such a fundamental thing would be doing that child a huge disservice. (Also, what if you wait until your child is a teenager to tell them about your faith, and your child gets hit by a bus when she's 10? In the mind of a religious fundamentalist, that child is now going to hell, and it's all your fault as a parent.)
To be clear, I am an agnostic atheist and I think most religious beliefs are crap. But if you claim that "I don't think my beliefs are any more valid, right or wrong, than anyone else's," then you are a hypocrite for criticizing a religious fundamentalist's belief that children should be taught about god, the church, etc, from a young age. You are, in fact, saying "my beliefs about whether god exists, and how he wants you to raise your children, are more valid than yours."
I judged them for their beliefs you say? This is the line that gives it away from post #1; "I felt like these people were using their kids like little human shields. I felt sick for them, those poor little brainwashed bastards..."
I was talking about young children. Not adults. Can I be anymore clear?
Actually, it's not clear at all. The "them" and "poor little brainwashed bastards" could very easily be construed as referring to "these people". In fact, that is how most people who speak English would read the sentence. "their kids" is not an independent subject, but rather dependent on "these people". As such, any following sentence that refers to a subject that doesn't exist in said sentence could reasonably be construed as pointing to whatever independent subject you had in the previous sentence.
It's not a blatant contradiction, you're just trying to paint me as narrow-minded.
Grow up.
It still is. Even if you were referring to children.
Everyone should be entitled to think what you want spiritually. Whatever. Your mind, your life, your choice.
remember? Or perhaps you didn't mean to include children in "everyone"?
And, if we go by the following thought that you provided that the children are being "brainwashed", and so didn't come to their beliefs on their own, the same could be said for their parents, right? Their parents were likely "brainwashed" by their parents and they never bothered to critically think on their beliefs. Just because you're an adult doesn't mean that you actually develop the ability to think and analyze independently, or use said ability on your deeply held beliefs.
In general, deeply held beliefs aren't criticized thoroughly by the individual. That is exactly what they're not very good for you.
And I most certainly am trying to paint you as narrow-minded. Good on you for catching that. I don't like individuals who claim that they're tolerant, but then show intolerance.
Like how you tell me to "grow up". You find someone disagreeing with you, and you tell them to "grow up"? Really? How childish. Isn't that the very height of intolerance? Instead of calmly attempting to convince me where I'm wrong, you get angry.
From the last few replies, I feel I'm being painted into a corner. Seems people are making assumptions and implying what they want.
I feel like Godwin's law is about to be proved.
Am I the only one who thinks Slave is embellishing his/her own experiences in a thinly veiled attempt to post about his hatred for evangelicals? I'm always amazed how these people just don't come out and say it instead of hiding behind some nefarious act that purportedly happened as if its their fault he hates them.
Not to mention he rather lie to his kids rather than demonstrate partiality on the subject. Stop lying to your kids about how you feel about religion if you want to talk about brainwashing. If you taught them right, they'd know to critically think instead of eating up everything you say.
Wow.
You've taken a huge assumption there bill. Considering you've never met me, or my kids, or my family...
Try reading what I've actually said a few times, instead of what you're implying.
I didn't say I lie to my kids. I said "remain impartial", i.e. Keep the dialogue open-minded and not overly biased.
And this is wrong, why exactly?
You know this thread was started as a way to understand? Maybe even find a way to stop making any confrontations from escalating.
I don't hate religious people. I hate people who burst into my home and/or lecture me on why my beliefs are wrong, as if I'm incapable of free thought.
If a person has an opinion, religious or otherwise, that's just fine, you can tell me about it and I'll listen and make my own mind.
But I don't need to be hit over the head with it and belittled.
Is it not fair to have this opinion?
...if you claim that "I don't think my beliefs are any more valid, right or wrong, than anyone else's," then you are a hypocrite for criticizing a religious fundamentalist's belief that children should be taught about god, the church, etc, from a young age. You are, in fact, saying "my beliefs about whether god exists, and how he wants you to raise your children, are more valid than yours."
Fair enough.
I guess this is where we could look at it from different perspectives. Firstly, I was referring to the kids on the occasions I saw, not every kid out there in a religious family.
In the vast majority, you're right. Religious education/indoctrination etc. is harmless and a part of life, and simply something you do to further your childs' development. No argument there. I personally see religion as a set of morals, doesn't matter which religion you pick, they all have a set of morals and a way to lead your life. If you choose to take it literally, that's your call.
But what I saw that day when that yahoo burst in was something else entirely. Those kids were like his own personal cheer squad, spouting hate. For the sake of those kids, feel free to badge me a hypocrite, but I'm telling you all, it was like a horror movie. And that is what I'm talking about.
"I felt like these people were using their kids like little human shields. I felt sick for them, those poor little brainwashed bastards..."
Actually, it's not clear at all. The "them" and "poor little brainwashed bastards" could very easily be construed as referring to "these people". In fact, that is how most people who speak English would read the sentence. "their kids" is not an independent subject, but rather dependent on "these people". As such, any following sentence that refers to a subject that doesn't exist in said sentence could reasonably be construed as pointing to whatever independent subject you had in the previous sentence.
You missed the word "little". Children are generally little. Small children too.
Feel free to argue semantics, but I feel I've already explained this.
(blatant contradiciton) It still is. Even if you were referring to children.
remember? Or perhaps you didn't mean to include children in "everyone"?
Okay fine, blatant contradiction, whatever. So what? You've argued the same point for three posts. Good for you, you get a gold star.
Can we move on now?
I have explained elsewhere in this thread, that I don't believe a 3 yr old child capable of knowing what religion is all about, anymore than a newborn baby.
These were small children. Not big kids.
Do you actually think most 3 y.o. kids out there have a clue about religion?
And I most certainly am trying to paint you as narrow-minded. Good on you for catching that. I don't like individuals who claim that they're tolerant, but then show intolerance.
See, this is why I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from.
A guy asks me about God at my front door, I say I'm not into it. He then pushes through me into my house, waves his finger in my face preaching. His family romps in behind him, with the kids yelling "Jesus this" and "Jesus that", like Jesus himself would be conducting torture.
These are the facts. Now despite how I might have worded it;
I feel sorry for his kids as they were following from their fathers' lead by hating on me that day. Given their very young age, and how this kind of behaviour is likely going to draw them into some kind of trouble either soon or in the future.
You say I tell you to grow up because I disagree with you?
No.
I told you to grow up cos you seem to like to argue on specific wording, rather than actual meaning, even after I explained myself.
I'm not here cos I wanna argue.
You call me intolerant, you call me narrow-minded, you call me childish, and yet you still seem to want to take the moral high ground?
Ha ha, whatever man, take a look in the mirror.
Call it whatever you want, you're just here for the argument, I can see that now.
I was hoping to understand why a religious vigilante might be so, and what their motivations might be.
I now realise that the way I worded some of my posts may have been insensitive, but if petals are that easily ruffled I don't think there's much I could have done to avoid it.
Understanding shown by most in this thread has been great, and that is all I might ask for. Thank you.
Okay fine, blatant contradiction, whatever. So what? You've argued the same point for three posts. Good for you, you get a gold star.
Can we move on now?
Actually, no. In my very first post here-
You should have called the cops.
--------------------------------------------------
Christianity holds the tenet that people who do not believe in Christianity will go to hell. The more enthusiastic and evangelical of them tend to think that letting people go to hell is bad, and so will try to prevent that by attempting to convert you.
In other words, I actually attempted to answer your question. You just decided to respond to the part that annoyed you and ignore the rest, apparently.
You call me intolerant, you call me narrow-minded, you call me childish, and yet you still seem to want to take the moral high ground?
Ha ha, whatever man, take a look in the mirror.
I've never attempted to take the moral high ground. I just call people out for what they do.
Considering you've never met me, or my kids, or my family...Try reading what I've actually said a few times, instead of what you're implying.
I have and I'm not implying. I think your epxereinces are either outright lies or embellishments. The way you frame your disdain in this thread shows you have a hatred toward a certian group of people who engage in certian religious behavior.
You know this thread was started as a way to understand?
I do not believe this. Everything you've posted so far leaves me to believe this thread was created in order to bash these people while pretending to understand.
I hate people who burst into my home and/or lecture me on why my beliefs are wrong, as if I'm incapable of free thought.
If a person has an opinion, religious or otherwise, that's just fine, you can tell me about it and I'll listen and make my own mind.
I do not believe this happend the way you present it. If it did happen like this, you've come across a loon and it really has little to do with what topic they are dicussing and more to do with their mental state. I've lived several different places and interacted with evangicals on many of occasoins and none of them have been as imposing as what you describe. The fact you say it happend to you several times is an indicator that you are either inviting this stuff or are full of *****.
But I don't need to be hit over the head with it and belittled.
Is it not fair to have this opinion?
the fact you are playing the victim is another contributing factor my belief you are only here to bash these people. Again, if its true, these people are crazy and it has nothing to do with religion but the fact you focus on that apsect is very telling.
...if you claim that "I don't think my beliefs are any more valid, right or wrong, than anyone else's," then you are a hypocrite for criticizing a religious fundamentalist's belief that children should be taught about god, the church, etc, from a young age. You are, in fact, saying "my beliefs about whether god exists, and how he wants you to raise your children, are more valid than yours."
Fair enough.
I guess this is where we could look at it from different perspectives. Firstly, I was referring to the kids on the occasions I saw, not every kid out there in a religious family.
In the vast majority, you're right. Religious education/indoctrination etc. is harmless and a part of life, and simply something you do to further your childs' development. No argument there. I personally see religion as a set of morals, doesn't matter which religion you pick, they all have a set of morals and a way to lead your life. If you choose to take it literally, that's your call.
But what I saw that day when that yahoo burst in was something else entirely. Those kids were like his own personal cheer squad, spouting hate. For the sake of those kids, feel free to badge me a hypocrite, but I'm telling you all, it was like a horror movie. And that is what I'm talking about.
First of all, I never said religious indoctrination was "harmless." You are the one who said "I don't think my beliefs are any more valid, right or wrong, than anyone else's." I'm responding to that sentiment here.
Secondly, what you label as "hate" really depends completely on your perspective. What you see as hate is, in most cases, actually misplaced love and compassion. Those people sincerely believe, deep in their hearts, that you are going to be tortured for eternity in hell unless you accept Jesus (or whatever their particular sect believes). If they hated you, they wouldn't bother talking to you. Leaving you alone would be the most hateful thing they could possibly do (in their minds), because it would damn you to the most terrible fate imaginable.
If you've ever seen or read any interviews with the Westboro baptist church, this seems to be true even for them. The members of the church seem to sincerely believe that a vengeful god is coming to punish all the sinners in America, and they're trying with all their hearts to warn people. It's like if no one knew that jumping off a building would kill you, and so people do it all the time for fun. Everyone is saying "yeah, go for it, have fun," and the Westboro people are screaming at the top of their lungs trying to warn people. They're making increasingly offensive signs to try to get people's attention. Yet no one listens, people keep jumping.
Obviously, this is batsh*t crazy from most people's perspectives, but imagine if this was the worldview you grew up believing. If you really believed this stuff, it would be hateful not to try to warn people.
Seriously? I'm to catch that you meant to refer to the children by the word "little"?
I did explain that I meant small children, several times.
You understand why I was getting frustrated when you were calling me out on tiny little details?
You've argued the same point for three posts. Good for you, you get a gold star.
Can we move on now?
No
....
I actually attempted to answer your question. You just decided to respond to the part that annoyed you and ignore the rest, apparently.
And I saw that. I didn't respond to every single post in the thread. Or every responder, for that matter.
You called me out in a later post, so I responded with what I thought was an explanation. You then called me out the same way. And then again.
Sure, I could have responded in a more controlled manner, I accept that, but what's done is done.
To be fair, if someone makes an assumption of something you say that that you didn't intend, then repeats that assumption despite your attempt to explain yourself;
Wouldn't that annoy you also?
I think your epxereinces are either outright lies or embellishments. The way you frame your disdain in this thread shows you have a hatred toward a certian group of people who engage in certian religious behavior.
...
Everything you've posted so far leaves me to believe this thread was created in order to bash these people while pretending to understand.
...
(you) are full of *****.
...
the fact you are playing the victim is another contributing factor my belief you are only here to bash these people.
And you say I'm here to bash people? Get your hand off it.
Those people sincerely believe, deep in their hearts, that you are going to be tortured for eternity in hell unless you accept Jesus (or whatever their particular sect believes). If they hated you, they wouldn't bother talking to you. Leaving you alone would be the most hateful thing they could possibly do (in their minds), because it would damn you to the most terrible fate imaginable.
I always figured it was about boosting the church, increasing the flock so-to-speak.
To hear that people follow this aspect of faith with utter conviction, is something I'd not understood fully. I know others have made this point also, but it's just simply not something I'd really considered with a lot of weight, more like an obligation rather than a deeply held, heart-felt belief.
I know heaps of Christians/Catholics, I'm sure everyone does who lives in a western country. Most of them I know don't give a damn in this particular issue. Even my Seventh Adventists cousins are really laid back people who, for example, like a meat pie on good Friday.
I don't wanna make any unfair assumptions on this;
Are the people who believe this stuff very strongly, and believe it's their mission to covert people to *save* them, very common?
And does their particular faith present any issues? I mean, are they likely (within the confines of their religion, excluding crazies here) to try and convert another Jesus-following religion (or otherwise) to their particular church?
Those people sincerely believe, deep in their hearts, that you are going to be tortured for eternity in hell unless you accept Jesus (or whatever their particular sect believes). If they hated you, they wouldn't bother talking to you. Leaving you alone would be the most hateful thing they could possibly do (in their minds), because it would damn you to the most terrible fate imaginable.
I always figured it was about boosting the church, increasing the flock so-to-speak.
To hear that people follow this aspect of faith with utter conviction, is something I'd not understood fully. I know others have made this point also, but it's just simply not something I'd really considered with a lot of weight, more like an obligation rather than a deeply held, heart-felt belief.
I know heaps of Christians/Catholics, I'm sure everyone does who lives in a western country. Most of them I know don't give a damn in this particular issue. Even my Seventh Adventists cousins are really laid back people who, for example, like a meat pie on good Friday.
I don't wanna make any unfair assumptions on this;
Are the people who believe this stuff very strongly, and believe it's their mission to covert people to *save* them, very common?
And does their particular faith present any issues? I mean, are they likely (within the confines of their religion, excluding crazies here) to try and convert another Jesus-following religion (or otherwise) to their particular church?
Obviously I can't speak to the motivation of every church member, I'm sure it varies. Beliefs also vary widely between sects. A good illustration of this point is your statement "my Seventh Adventists cousins are really laid back people who, for example, like a meat pie on good Friday." Seventh-Day Adventists, as protestants, do not have any problem with eating meat on Good Friday. Only Catholics (and maybe some other Orthodox denominations?) care about dietary restrictions. Evangelical protestants can eat whatever they want, whenever they want.
So I can only speak from my personal experiences, which come from having a number of peripheral friends and acquaintances who are extremely religious (of various Christian sects, both evangelical and non-evangelical). As I said earlier, I am myself an agnostic atheist, but I attended a very evangelical christian school from about 1st grade through 4th grade, and I came into contact with a lot of these people through that, and through other experiences. I can elaborate more on my background if people are interested, but let's just say something like 25%-50% of my friend group through high school were "the bible is the literal word of God" young-earth creationist types. I never believed this stuff, but I was always just "Christian enough" that they didn't hassle me.
Are the people who believe this stuff very strongly, and believe it's their mission to covert people to *save* them, very common?
Among the strongly evangelical people I knew, this was the only reason any of them cared about converting people. None of them cared about "growing the flock" and none of them thought that they would be punished if they didn't make a quota. They just (1) felt bad for all these people who were going to hell, and (2) thought it made Jesus happy when they "helped" people by saving them. There are probably leaders at the top of some of these churches who have less pure motives, but the average member of the church really, deeply believes. That said, I think even the leaders sometimes believe this stuff deeply too. It's a self-perpetuating thing where everyone's just trying really, really hard to do what they think is right.
I knew a guy who would carry around those gospel tracts and hand them out to people. He would go out to college campuses and try to "witness" to people and tell them about how their sins would destine them for hell. A couple of times I talked to him afterwards, and he was legitimately shaking and crying thinking about the people he hadn't been able to "save." He'd talk to some person who he thought was really nice and good, and it made him legitimately sad to think that this person was going to be tortured for eternity in hell. That's what kept him going out and doing this. He couldn't bear the thought of these people suffering.
Obviously, people would get annoyed with him. They would insult him, ignore him, that kind of thing. To him, that was "just the devil trying to prevent the holy spirit from reaching them," and to him these were the people who were closest to changing their mind and accepting Jesus. If they weren't, why would the devil try so hard to "harden their hearts?"
And does their particular faith present any issues? I mean, are they likely (within the confines of their religion, excluding crazies here) to try and convert another Jesus-following religion (or otherwise) to their particular church?
Completely depends on the sect. Most ultra-evangelical protestants think that Catholics are going to hell (because they don't accept salvation based purely on "grace"), but that other protestant sects are good (which is why they didn't hassle me). And most extreme Catholics think all protestants are going to hell or are at least destined for a long stay in purgatory (because they don't confess their sins to priests, and they don't ask saints to intercess on their behalf).
I had one friend who was a member of the Church of Christ (There are actually many sects called the "Church of Christ" including the church that Obama officially belongs to. I'm talking about a specific sect that flourishes through the south-central U.S. in places like Oklahoma and Kansas). This guy's faith believes that you must be baptized as an adult, and only by immersion (ie your whole body submerged under water) or you are going to hell. They also believe that it is a sin to use any instruments when singing hymns, only voices are allowed (based on a bizarre reading of some obscure verse). Instruments are ok in secular songs, but if you are singing about god or Jesus, no instruments allowed.
Also, how evangelical they are varies a lot too. The Church of Christ doesn't really believe in converting people unless they want to be converted, so he never told me I was going to hell. This all came out when I asked him about his church's specific beliefs.
Well the typical response to someone forcing their way into your house is to call the cops, it really does not matter why they are forcing their way in, yet it seems to be the focus. Not sure what religion has to do with that. Interesting you ask me to "prove" he is lying. Can you or he prove the accusations he's levying against these people who are bothering him?
Well the typical response to someone forcing their way into your house is to call the cops, it really does not matter why they are forcing their way in, yet it seems to be the focus. Not sure what religion has to do with that. Interesting you ask me to "prove" he is lying. Can you or he prove the accusations he's levying against these people who are bothering him?
Right, but the stated point of the thread was not "how do I keep people from barging into my house?" It was "help me understand what motivates religious people to aggressively evangelize." (paraphrasing)
So who cares if his story is true. It's not what the thread is about.
Of course not, but then I have no opinion or interest in the truth of the stories, and considering that nothing the OP has described is so unbelievably extraordinary that it cannot possibly be true, I feel little reason not to assume the OP is telling the truth and get to the questions the OP asked, rather than suspect nefarious intentions.
His expereinces as described is atypical. His stated desire to "understand these peoples" is rather bizarre since its common knowledge why they do these things. It's been explained why they do these thing but yet, his response to these explanations has been criticsim, i.e. "brain waashed kids". Forgive my skepticism to his the pretense to which he is posting under but I think its warrented.
I am only pointing out that you're saying the OP is lying for no apparent reason other than the fact that he has a low opinion of these type of people, when it's quite possible he has a low opinion of them because the events described actually took place.
So he is letting an atyptical experience(s) warp his opinion of these people?
Well the typical response to someone forcing their way into your house is to call the cops, it really does not matter why they are forcing their way in, yet it seems to be the focus. Not sure what religion has to do with that. Interesting you ask me to "prove" he is lying. Can you or he prove the accusations he's levying against these people who are bothering him?
Right, but the stated point of the thread was not "how do I keep people from barging into my house?" It was "help me understand what motivates religious people to aggressively evangelize." (paraphrasing)
So who cares if his story is true. It's not what the thread is about.
they want to save his soul. /thread.
Does this really need to be explained to him? I do not think he is stupid or naive. Does this really need to be elaborated on for him to understand? All he is doing is venting his displeasure of these people interupting his life, fair enough but he needs to stop hiding behind false pretenses of "trying to understand".
Of course not, but then I have no opinion or interest in the truth of the stories, and considering that nothing the OP has described is so unbelievably extraordinary that it cannot possibly be true, I feel little reason not to assume the OP is telling the truth and get to the questions the OP asked, rather than suspect nefarious intentions.
Well the typical response to someone forcing their way into your house is to call the cops, it really does not matter why they are forcing their way in, yet it seems to be the focus. Not sure what religion has to do with that. Interesting you ask me to "prove" he is lying. Can you or he prove the accusations he's levying against these people who are bothering him?
That's a strange way to look at it.
Let me explain > the second family in post#1 were pleasant enough about it, but very insistent > it took well over 20 mins to get these people to move on, despite me repeatedly saying I wasn't interested. They weren't evil or anything, just didn't seem to understand, nor respect my point of view.
The first family weren't violent, nor was there any threat of violence, just a refusal by them to leave until I declare Jesus as my saviour... and a few other things I can't quite recall. I don't believe he was crazy, just a pain in the arse.
If people don't like the fact I named him as religious, well too bad. If someone escapes from prison and the authorities aren't allowed to name what skin colour they were, in fear of pissing off people, what the hell kind of society do we live in? I should be able to name him for what he was, matter of fact, and then ask why, without people getting all vitriolic on me like I hate religious people.
Does this really need to be explained to him? Does this really need to be elaborated on for him to understand? All he is doing is venting his displeasure of these people interupting his life, fair enough but he needs to stop hiding behind false pretenses of "trying to understand".
Why I'm here? To ask why. And I said as much.
I don't live in a place like the Philippines where almost everyone is a believer, so everyone is raised to understand it to some level.
Religion isn't generally in your face where I live, most people play it cool, and since I'm not a believer myself, was not taught religion as a child, was sent to public schools that don't teach religion (by law), my friends are mainly atheists and/or keep religion to themselves, why should I be expected to just simply know all the details about all the religious beliefs and sects etc. out there?
You're being unfair.
I've heard your opinion, got it. Now if you haven't got anything else to add, feel free to leave it there, and not hit "reply".
-----
That does surprise me, re: the different Christian/Catholic/Protestant aspects.
So, I guess it's still possible that if someone comes to me trying to convert me hypothetically, even saying I have a similar faith won't work in some instances.
oh well...
Guess I could try saying I worship satan? ...And ask them if they'd like to convert?
Honestly guys, I've had enough arguing, and you've answered my questions. Thanks to all of you who contributed to the questions I had.
I think I'm gonna do some reading away from here regarding this stuff, where it's less likely to have people get angry with me for speaking off the cuff.
That does surprise me, re: the different Christian/Catholic/Protestant aspects.
So, I guess it's still possible that if someone comes to me trying to convert me hypothetically, even saying I have a similar faith won't work in some instances.
oh well...
Guess I could try saying I worship satan? ...And ask them if they'd like to convert?
If you say "I've already accepted Jesus as my lord and savior," that will work on most evangelical protestants (baptists, "nondenominational," etc). That won't work on Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons; really nothing will other than "no thanks" and walk away. Catholics don't usually evangelize, so you don't need to worry about them.
That does surprise me, re: the different Christian/Catholic/Protestant aspects.
So, I guess it's still possible that if someone comes to me trying to convert me hypothetically, even saying I have a similar faith won't work in some instances.
Yea, most non-Christians think of Christianity loosely as a collective whole, with maybe some difference between the Catholics and the Protestants.
But the Protestants themselves have dozens of different sects that believe in different things and were founded by different people. Some are very "benign", and others are extreme evangelicals/fundamentalists like the Westboros Church you see protesting places.
And then you have the completely off the wall ones like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th day Adventists, etc.
And all those ignore Orthodox Christianity, which is essentially Catholicism in Eastern Europe.
I mean, they all share the common aspect of believing in the Trinity and God (except the completely off the wall ones, that's why they're completely off the walls; they go into heretic category), but the way they interpret the Bible and how they act based on it differ quite a bit.
But the Protestants themselves have dozens of different sects that believe in different things and were founded by different people. Some are very "benign", and others are extreme evangelicals/fundamentalists like the Westboros Church you see protesting places.
Try hundreds, or maybe thousands, just in America. Most evangelical protestant denominations have no central leadership, so each physical church can potentially be an entire "religion" in-and-of itself.
Try hundreds, or maybe thousands, just in America. Most evangelical protestant denominations have no central leadership, so each physical church can potentially be an entire "religion" in-and-of itself.
Whoa.... the mind reels...
So I'm guessing all these little evangelical denominations can say whatever they please, however they please seeing they don't have to answer to the pope or anything like that.
Interesting. It makes more sense to me now why you hear of really unique things being said in the media by some of these people.
You were saying about the 7th Day Adventists > my cousins sometimes say some really insensitive fire & brimstone-style this or that. Since they're a really laid back couple, and usually good for a laugh, it usually takes me by surprise as it just seems to come out of nowhere.
When I was a bit younger, I had a couple dates with what I thought was a great catch. She toldme she was gonna surprise me for date 2, took me to church.
It was so very awkward, then when she realised I was a fish out of water, itching to fly away, I think she was just as embarrassed as I was.
Is this normal amongst religious types, to go for a date in a church?
Or is it more likely a way to weed out Atheists and find a good religious boy?
When I was a bit younger, I had a couple dates with what I thought was a great catch. She toldme she was gonna surprise me for date 2, took me to church.
It was so very awkward, then when she realised I was a fish out of water, itching to fly away, I think she was just as embarrassed as I was.
Is this normal amongst religious types, to go for a date in a church?
Or is it more likely a way to weed out Atheists and find a good religious boy?
I think she was just clueless. I've never heard of someone doing to church with a date, a 2nd date no less. Couples do, but dates? Most Christians are either accepting of their partner being non-Christian or don't date non-Christians. It depends on the strength of their belief and the denomination from which they come from.
When I was a bit younger, I had a couple dates with what I thought was a great catch. She toldme she was gonna surprise me for date 2, took me to church.
It was so very awkward, then when she realised I was a fish out of water, itching to fly away, I think she was just as embarrassed as I was.
Is this normal amongst religious types, to go for a date in a church?
Or is it more likely a way to weed out Atheists and find a good religious boy?
Again, completely depends. It would have been normal for some of the hard-core evangelicals I knew. More likely, they wouldn't have dated you until after you were already coming to their church. Dating is very serious business for evangelicals. I knew a couple who refused to hold hands until marriage, lest holding hands should lead to "impure thoughts" or physical escalation.
But to be clear, these kinds of evangelicals are a small minority of Christians. Maybe 1% or something like that. Most Christians would not take their date to church.
When I was a bit younger, I had a couple dates with what I thought was a great catch. She toldme she was gonna surprise me for date 2, took me to church.
It was so very awkward, then when she realised I was a fish out of water, itching to fly away, I think she was just as embarrassed as I was.
Is this normal amongst religious types, to go for a date in a church?
Or is it more likely a way to weed out Atheists and find a good religious boy?
How much younger? I seem to remember some kids in middle/high school bringing people to youth group as a "date" which I can kinda see... Youth group is supposed to be fun. I can't recall ever hearing about taking someone to church as a date though especially early.
(I was friends with some evangelicals in school... and atheists... I had a weird mix of friends)
....It would have been normal for some of the hard-core evangelicals I knew. More likely, they wouldn't have dated you until after you were already coming to their church. Dating is very serious business for evangelicals. I knew a couple who refused to hold hands until marriage, lest holding hands should lead to "impure thoughts" or physical escalation.
But to be clear, these kinds of evangelicals are a small minority of Christians. Maybe 1% or something like that. Most Christians would not take their date to church.
I thought that was the case (about the 99%). I always just assumed she was a devout type who didn't want to waste her time with someone who didn't feel the same way.
(shake off that atheist!) LOL.
Thought I'd ask to see if there's a different feeling here.
I think she was just clueless. I've never heard of someone going to church with a date, a 2nd date no less.
Very possible. It's not actually something I'd considered > she wasn't quite 100% honest about it, telling me we were going to a "debate". Then we rolled up to the church where the pastor was greeting everyone by the door. (awkward!)
There was no debate. I didn't get to hear the devils' side to the story...
Very possible. It's not actually something I'd considered > she wasn't quite 100% honest about it, telling me we were going to a "debate". Then we rolled up to the church where the pastor was greeting everyone by the door. (awkward!)
There was no debate. I didn't get to hear the devils' side to the story...
Always best to give people benefit of the doubt. Far too often we place intent and deviousness into the thinking and actions of others, and that leads to nowhere good.
Like in this very thread with you and I earlier.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I judged them for their beliefs you say? This is the line that gives it away from post #1;
"I felt like these people were using their kids like little human shields. I felt sick for them, those poor little brainwashed bastards..."
I was talking about young children. Not adults. Can I be anymore clear?
Children too young to have any sort of yearning, or understanding, of religion.
I think I already explained this well enough in this thread (sigh)
It's not a blatant contradiction, you're just trying to paint me as narrow-minded.
Grow up.
....
Brainwashing is an indoctrination process, (often thought of as involuntary, but not necessarily), which leads to "an impairment of autonomy, an inability to think independently, and a disruption of beliefs and affiliations". So for example, a form of brainwashing could be when a racist teaches their child to be a racist.
Education is a different thing obviously, as it's aimed at encouraging free thought and autonomy of actions, by passing on knowledge, skills etc. to those learning.
I used the term brainwashing, as I was talking about these young children. Those who were telling me I would burn in hell, in my own living room no less, when Yahoo was berating me on repenting to Jesus. "Amen!". And the other small kids on the picnic rug, telling me Jesus was crying for me. WTF? These kids were less than five.
There was absolutely no way kids this age would say ***** like that unless they were coached. A lot.
Call it what you will, but telling kids to act this way isn't cool > especially when the smallest one (who was very vocal) would have a hard time telling the difference between God and Santa anyway.
My kids ask me about religion on occasion. For their sake I try to stay impartial as I have a lot of family from varied faiths, from Orthodox Catholics, Seventh Adventists to Buddhists and Muslims (I'm married to a Malaysian), aswell as atheists like me.
But when they hear stories from my work > like the times the state has to take custody of a child forcibly, because their Jehovah's Witnesses parents refuse a simple treatment like a blood transfusion, which would then condemn the child to die.... take a guess what my kids say to that kind of thinking.
So I put this to you;
Is letting your own child die, because your faith demands you act a certain way, when it could easily be prevented by medical treatment, a result of brainwashing? I would argue yes.
Not to mention he rather lie to his kids rather than demonstrate partiality on the subject. Stop lying to your kids about how you feel about religion if you want to talk about brainwashing. If you taught them right, they'd know to critically think instead of eating up everything you say.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Let's set aside, for a moment, the extreme scenario where people like Jehova's Witnesses kill or nearly kill their children by refusing medical treatment. The law already criminalizes that behavior. Let's talk about run-of-the-mill religious indoctrination (aka "brainwashing") of young children.
You would not have a problem, would you, with a parent teaching their child from a young age to exercise and eat a healthy diet? You wouldn't say that the parent must stay impartial about the child's eating habits and let the child make her own decision when she grows up. Likewise, you wouldn't have anything against a parent who requires their child to learn how to read when young, rather than letting the child decide whether she wants to be literate after she's grown up.
To a religious person, religious indoctrination (which they would probably characterize as "educating their child about God") is every bit as fundamental as good health and literacy. In many ways, it's vastly more important, because it determines the destiny of the child's eternal soul. In that person's mind, waiting until the child is an adult to teach her such a fundamental thing would be doing that child a huge disservice. (Also, what if you wait until your child is a teenager to tell them about your faith, and your child gets hit by a bus when she's 10? In the mind of a religious fundamentalist, that child is now going to hell, and it's all your fault as a parent.)
To be clear, I am an agnostic atheist and I think most religious beliefs are crap. But if you claim that "I don't think my beliefs are any more valid, right or wrong, than anyone else's," then you are a hypocrite for criticizing a religious fundamentalist's belief that children should be taught about god, the church, etc, from a young age. You are, in fact, saying "my beliefs about whether god exists, and how he wants you to raise your children, are more valid than yours."
Actually, it's not clear at all. The "them" and "poor little brainwashed bastards" could very easily be construed as referring to "these people". In fact, that is how most people who speak English would read the sentence. "their kids" is not an independent subject, but rather dependent on "these people". As such, any following sentence that refers to a subject that doesn't exist in said sentence could reasonably be construed as pointing to whatever independent subject you had in the previous sentence.
It still is. Even if you were referring to children. remember? Or perhaps you didn't mean to include children in "everyone"?
And, if we go by the following thought that you provided that the children are being "brainwashed", and so didn't come to their beliefs on their own, the same could be said for their parents, right? Their parents were likely "brainwashed" by their parents and they never bothered to critically think on their beliefs. Just because you're an adult doesn't mean that you actually develop the ability to think and analyze independently, or use said ability on your deeply held beliefs.
In general, deeply held beliefs aren't criticized thoroughly by the individual. That is exactly what they're not very good for you.
And I most certainly am trying to paint you as narrow-minded. Good on you for catching that. I don't like individuals who claim that they're tolerant, but then show intolerance.
Like how you tell me to "grow up". You find someone disagreeing with you, and you tell them to "grow up"? Really? How childish. Isn't that the very height of intolerance? Instead of calmly attempting to convince me where I'm wrong, you get angry.
I feel like Godwin's law is about to be proved.
Let me try to set this straight.
Wow.
You've taken a huge assumption there bill. Considering you've never met me, or my kids, or my family...
Try reading what I've actually said a few times, instead of what you're implying.
I didn't say I lie to my kids. I said "remain impartial", i.e. Keep the dialogue open-minded and not overly biased.
And this is wrong, why exactly?
You know this thread was started as a way to understand? Maybe even find a way to stop making any confrontations from escalating.
I don't hate religious people. I hate people who burst into my home and/or lecture me on why my beliefs are wrong, as if I'm incapable of free thought.
If a person has an opinion, religious or otherwise, that's just fine, you can tell me about it and I'll listen and make my own mind.
But I don't need to be hit over the head with it and belittled.
Is it not fair to have this opinion?
Fair enough.
I guess this is where we could look at it from different perspectives. Firstly, I was referring to the kids on the occasions I saw, not every kid out there in a religious family.
In the vast majority, you're right. Religious education/indoctrination etc. is harmless and a part of life, and simply something you do to further your childs' development. No argument there. I personally see religion as a set of morals, doesn't matter which religion you pick, they all have a set of morals and a way to lead your life. If you choose to take it literally, that's your call.
But what I saw that day when that yahoo burst in was something else entirely. Those kids were like his own personal cheer squad, spouting hate. For the sake of those kids, feel free to badge me a hypocrite, but I'm telling you all, it was like a horror movie. And that is what I'm talking about.
You missed the word "little". Children are generally little. Small children too.
Feel free to argue semantics, but I feel I've already explained this.
Okay fine, blatant contradiction, whatever. So what? You've argued the same point for three posts. Good for you, you get a gold star.
Can we move on now?
I have explained elsewhere in this thread, that I don't believe a 3 yr old child capable of knowing what religion is all about, anymore than a newborn baby.
These were small children. Not big kids.
Do you actually think most 3 y.o. kids out there have a clue about religion?
See, this is why I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from.
A guy asks me about God at my front door, I say I'm not into it. He then pushes through me into my house, waves his finger in my face preaching. His family romps in behind him, with the kids yelling "Jesus this" and "Jesus that", like Jesus himself would be conducting torture.
These are the facts. Now despite how I might have worded it;
I feel sorry for his kids as they were following from their fathers' lead by hating on me that day. Given their very young age, and how this kind of behaviour is likely going to draw them into some kind of trouble either soon or in the future.
You say I tell you to grow up because I disagree with you?
No.
I told you to grow up cos you seem to like to argue on specific wording, rather than actual meaning, even after I explained myself.
I'm not here cos I wanna argue.
You call me intolerant, you call me narrow-minded, you call me childish, and yet you still seem to want to take the moral high ground?
Ha ha, whatever man, take a look in the mirror.
Call it whatever you want, you're just here for the argument, I can see that now.
I was hoping to understand why a religious vigilante might be so, and what their motivations might be.
I now realise that the way I worded some of my posts may have been insensitive, but if petals are that easily ruffled I don't think there's much I could have done to avoid it.
Understanding shown by most in this thread has been great, and that is all I might ask for. Thank you.
Seriously? I'm to catch that you meant to refer to the children by the word "little"?
And how is what I wrote semantics? That is how the language is meant to be interpreted.
Actually, no. In my very first post here-
In other words, I actually attempted to answer your question. You just decided to respond to the part that annoyed you and ignore the rest, apparently.
Fair enough.
I've never attempted to take the moral high ground. I just call people out for what they do.
I have and I'm not implying. I think your epxereinces are either outright lies or embellishments. The way you frame your disdain in this thread shows you have a hatred toward a certian group of people who engage in certian religious behavior.
I do not believe this. Everything you've posted so far leaves me to believe this thread was created in order to bash these people while pretending to understand.
I do not believe this happend the way you present it. If it did happen like this, you've come across a loon and it really has little to do with what topic they are dicussing and more to do with their mental state. I've lived several different places and interacted with evangicals on many of occasoins and none of them have been as imposing as what you describe. The fact you say it happend to you several times is an indicator that you are either inviting this stuff or are full of *****.
the fact you are playing the victim is another contributing factor my belief you are only here to bash these people. Again, if its true, these people are crazy and it has nothing to do with religion but the fact you focus on that apsect is very telling.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
First of all, I never said religious indoctrination was "harmless." You are the one who said "I don't think my beliefs are any more valid, right or wrong, than anyone else's." I'm responding to that sentiment here.
Secondly, what you label as "hate" really depends completely on your perspective. What you see as hate is, in most cases, actually misplaced love and compassion. Those people sincerely believe, deep in their hearts, that you are going to be tortured for eternity in hell unless you accept Jesus (or whatever their particular sect believes). If they hated you, they wouldn't bother talking to you. Leaving you alone would be the most hateful thing they could possibly do (in their minds), because it would damn you to the most terrible fate imaginable.
If you've ever seen or read any interviews with the Westboro baptist church, this seems to be true even for them. The members of the church seem to sincerely believe that a vengeful god is coming to punish all the sinners in America, and they're trying with all their hearts to warn people. It's like if no one knew that jumping off a building would kill you, and so people do it all the time for fun. Everyone is saying "yeah, go for it, have fun," and the Westboro people are screaming at the top of their lungs trying to warn people. They're making increasingly offensive signs to try to get people's attention. Yet no one listens, people keep jumping.
Obviously, this is batsh*t crazy from most people's perspectives, but imagine if this was the worldview you grew up believing. If you really believed this stuff, it would be hateful not to try to warn people.
I did explain that I meant small children, several times.
You understand why I was getting frustrated when you were calling me out on tiny little details?
And I saw that. I didn't respond to every single post in the thread. Or every responder, for that matter.
You called me out in a later post, so I responded with what I thought was an explanation. You then called me out the same way. And then again.
Sure, I could have responded in a more controlled manner, I accept that, but what's done is done.
To be fair, if someone makes an assumption of something you say that that you didn't intend, then repeats that assumption despite your attempt to explain yourself;
Wouldn't that annoy you also?
Why can't we move on?
And you say I'm here to bash people? Get your hand off it.
I always figured it was about boosting the church, increasing the flock so-to-speak.
To hear that people follow this aspect of faith with utter conviction, is something I'd not understood fully. I know others have made this point also, but it's just simply not something I'd really considered with a lot of weight, more like an obligation rather than a deeply held, heart-felt belief.
I know heaps of Christians/Catholics, I'm sure everyone does who lives in a western country. Most of them I know don't give a damn in this particular issue. Even my Seventh Adventists cousins are really laid back people who, for example, like a meat pie on good Friday.
I don't wanna make any unfair assumptions on this;
Are the people who believe this stuff very strongly, and believe it's their mission to covert people to *save* them, very common?
And does their particular faith present any issues? I mean, are they likely (within the confines of their religion, excluding crazies here) to try and convert another Jesus-following religion (or otherwise) to their particular church?
Oh, I'm very much here to be critical of your post. Were you confused about this? I'm not hiding behind a false pretense.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Obviously I can't speak to the motivation of every church member, I'm sure it varies. Beliefs also vary widely between sects. A good illustration of this point is your statement "my Seventh Adventists cousins are really laid back people who, for example, like a meat pie on good Friday." Seventh-Day Adventists, as protestants, do not have any problem with eating meat on Good Friday. Only Catholics (and maybe some other Orthodox denominations?) care about dietary restrictions. Evangelical protestants can eat whatever they want, whenever they want.
So I can only speak from my personal experiences, which come from having a number of peripheral friends and acquaintances who are extremely religious (of various Christian sects, both evangelical and non-evangelical). As I said earlier, I am myself an agnostic atheist, but I attended a very evangelical christian school from about 1st grade through 4th grade, and I came into contact with a lot of these people through that, and through other experiences. I can elaborate more on my background if people are interested, but let's just say something like 25%-50% of my friend group through high school were "the bible is the literal word of God" young-earth creationist types. I never believed this stuff, but I was always just "Christian enough" that they didn't hassle me.
Are the people who believe this stuff very strongly, and believe it's their mission to covert people to *save* them, very common?
Among the strongly evangelical people I knew, this was the only reason any of them cared about converting people. None of them cared about "growing the flock" and none of them thought that they would be punished if they didn't make a quota. They just (1) felt bad for all these people who were going to hell, and (2) thought it made Jesus happy when they "helped" people by saving them. There are probably leaders at the top of some of these churches who have less pure motives, but the average member of the church really, deeply believes. That said, I think even the leaders sometimes believe this stuff deeply too. It's a self-perpetuating thing where everyone's just trying really, really hard to do what they think is right.
I knew a guy who would carry around those gospel tracts and hand them out to people. He would go out to college campuses and try to "witness" to people and tell them about how their sins would destine them for hell. A couple of times I talked to him afterwards, and he was legitimately shaking and crying thinking about the people he hadn't been able to "save." He'd talk to some person who he thought was really nice and good, and it made him legitimately sad to think that this person was going to be tortured for eternity in hell. That's what kept him going out and doing this. He couldn't bear the thought of these people suffering.
Obviously, people would get annoyed with him. They would insult him, ignore him, that kind of thing. To him, that was "just the devil trying to prevent the holy spirit from reaching them," and to him these were the people who were closest to changing their mind and accepting Jesus. If they weren't, why would the devil try so hard to "harden their hearts?"
And does their particular faith present any issues? I mean, are they likely (within the confines of their religion, excluding crazies here) to try and convert another Jesus-following religion (or otherwise) to their particular church?
Completely depends on the sect. Most ultra-evangelical protestants think that Catholics are going to hell (because they don't accept salvation based purely on "grace"), but that other protestant sects are good (which is why they didn't hassle me). And most extreme Catholics think all protestants are going to hell or are at least destined for a long stay in purgatory (because they don't confess their sins to priests, and they don't ask saints to intercess on their behalf).
I had one friend who was a member of the Church of Christ (There are actually many sects called the "Church of Christ" including the church that Obama officially belongs to. I'm talking about a specific sect that flourishes through the south-central U.S. in places like Oklahoma and Kansas). This guy's faith believes that you must be baptized as an adult, and only by immersion (ie your whole body submerged under water) or you are going to hell. They also believe that it is a sin to use any instruments when singing hymns, only voices are allowed (based on a bizarre reading of some obscure verse). Instruments are ok in secular songs, but if you are singing about god or Jesus, no instruments allowed.
Also, how evangelical they are varies a lot too. The Church of Christ doesn't really believe in converting people unless they want to be converted, so he never told me I was going to hell. This all came out when I asked him about his church's specific beliefs.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Right, but the stated point of the thread was not "how do I keep people from barging into my house?" It was "help me understand what motivates religious people to aggressively evangelize." (paraphrasing)
So who cares if his story is true. It's not what the thread is about.
His expereinces as described is atypical. His stated desire to "understand these peoples" is rather bizarre since its common knowledge why they do these things. It's been explained why they do these thing but yet, his response to these explanations has been criticsim, i.e. "brain waashed kids". Forgive my skepticism to his the pretense to which he is posting under but I think its warrented.
So he is letting an atyptical experience(s) warp his opinion of these people?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
they want to save his soul. /thread.
Does this really need to be explained to him? I do not think he is stupid or naive. Does this really need to be elaborated on for him to understand? All he is doing is venting his displeasure of these people interupting his life, fair enough but he needs to stop hiding behind false pretenses of "trying to understand".
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Thank you.
That's a strange way to look at it.
Let me explain > the second family in post#1 were pleasant enough about it, but very insistent > it took well over 20 mins to get these people to move on, despite me repeatedly saying I wasn't interested. They weren't evil or anything, just didn't seem to understand, nor respect my point of view.
The first family weren't violent, nor was there any threat of violence, just a refusal by them to leave until I declare Jesus as my saviour... and a few other things I can't quite recall. I don't believe he was crazy, just a pain in the arse.
If people don't like the fact I named him as religious, well too bad. If someone escapes from prison and the authorities aren't allowed to name what skin colour they were, in fear of pissing off people, what the hell kind of society do we live in? I should be able to name him for what he was, matter of fact, and then ask why, without people getting all vitriolic on me like I hate religious people.
Why I'm here? To ask why. And I said as much.
I don't live in a place like the Philippines where almost everyone is a believer, so everyone is raised to understand it to some level.
Religion isn't generally in your face where I live, most people play it cool, and since I'm not a believer myself, was not taught religion as a child, was sent to public schools that don't teach religion (by law), my friends are mainly atheists and/or keep religion to themselves, why should I be expected to just simply know all the details about all the religious beliefs and sects etc. out there?
You're being unfair.
I've heard your opinion, got it. Now if you haven't got anything else to add, feel free to leave it there, and not hit "reply".
-----
That does surprise me, re: the different Christian/Catholic/Protestant aspects.
So, I guess it's still possible that if someone comes to me trying to convert me hypothetically, even saying I have a similar faith won't work in some instances.
oh well...
Guess I could try saying I worship satan? ...And ask them if they'd like to convert?
Honestly guys, I've had enough arguing, and you've answered my questions. Thanks to all of you who contributed to the questions I had.
I think I'm gonna do some reading away from here regarding this stuff, where it's less likely to have people get angry with me for speaking off the cuff.
If you say "I've already accepted Jesus as my lord and savior," that will work on most evangelical protestants (baptists, "nondenominational," etc). That won't work on Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons; really nothing will other than "no thanks" and walk away. Catholics don't usually evangelize, so you don't need to worry about them.
Yea, most non-Christians think of Christianity loosely as a collective whole, with maybe some difference between the Catholics and the Protestants.
But the Protestants themselves have dozens of different sects that believe in different things and were founded by different people. Some are very "benign", and others are extreme evangelicals/fundamentalists like the Westboros Church you see protesting places.
And then you have the completely off the wall ones like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th day Adventists, etc.
And all those ignore Orthodox Christianity, which is essentially Catholicism in Eastern Europe.
I mean, they all share the common aspect of believing in the Trinity and God (except the completely off the wall ones, that's why they're completely off the walls; they go into heretic category), but the way they interpret the Bible and how they act based on it differ quite a bit.
Try hundreds, or maybe thousands, just in America. Most evangelical protestant denominations have no central leadership, so each physical church can potentially be an entire "religion" in-and-of itself.
Whoa.... the mind reels...
So I'm guessing all these little evangelical denominations can say whatever they please, however they please seeing they don't have to answer to the pope or anything like that.
Interesting. It makes more sense to me now why you hear of really unique things being said in the media by some of these people.
You were saying about the 7th Day Adventists > my cousins sometimes say some really insensitive fire & brimstone-style this or that. Since they're a really laid back couple, and usually good for a laugh, it usually takes me by surprise as it just seems to come out of nowhere.
When I was a bit younger, I had a couple dates with what I thought was a great catch. She toldme she was gonna surprise me for date 2, took me to church.
It was so very awkward, then when she realised I was a fish out of water, itching to fly away, I think she was just as embarrassed as I was.
Is this normal amongst religious types, to go for a date in a church?
Or is it more likely a way to weed out Atheists and find a good religious boy?
I think she was just clueless. I've never heard of someone doing to church with a date, a 2nd date no less. Couples do, but dates? Most Christians are either accepting of their partner being non-Christian or don't date non-Christians. It depends on the strength of their belief and the denomination from which they come from.
Again, completely depends. It would have been normal for some of the hard-core evangelicals I knew. More likely, they wouldn't have dated you until after you were already coming to their church. Dating is very serious business for evangelicals. I knew a couple who refused to hold hands until marriage, lest holding hands should lead to "impure thoughts" or physical escalation.
But to be clear, these kinds of evangelicals are a small minority of Christians. Maybe 1% or something like that. Most Christians would not take their date to church.
How much younger? I seem to remember some kids in middle/high school bringing people to youth group as a "date" which I can kinda see... Youth group is supposed to be fun. I can't recall ever hearing about taking someone to church as a date though especially early.
(I was friends with some evangelicals in school... and atheists... I had a weird mix of friends)
I thought that was the case (about the 99%). I always just assumed she was a devout type who didn't want to waste her time with someone who didn't feel the same way.
(shake off that atheist!) LOL.
Thought I'd ask to see if there's a different feeling here.
Very possible. It's not actually something I'd considered > she wasn't quite 100% honest about it, telling me we were going to a "debate". Then we rolled up to the church where the pastor was greeting everyone by the door. (awkward!)
There was no debate.
I didn't get to hear the devils' side to the story...
Always best to give people benefit of the doubt. Far too often we place intent and deviousness into the thinking and actions of others, and that leads to nowhere good.
Like in this very thread with you and I earlier.