http://perezitos.com/tv/Christian_Ki...=d18b1c6e94c5b
My faith. It's gone now.
Christian Kids Do Religious Cover of My Humps
http://perezitos.com/tv/Christian_Ki...=d18b1c6e94c5b
My faith. It's gone now.
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
So how old do you think he'll be when he gets his first reacharound?Originally Posted by Securitas
You know, there was a time when I'd laugh at something like this.
But now I feel like shit knowing how brainwashed these children are, and how tough it's going for them to overcome that indoctrination on their own.
Indoctrinating children is so incredibly wrong. Parents take all the natural trust their child has in them and use it to bend them to their will. But what can you expect from a religion that has zero respect for anyone's right to choose anything for themselves?
There was a time I might have laughed, now it just makes me sad.
"Indoctrinating" is an incredibly loaded term.
Why the Children's?. This make me sad.
:eng101: SWAG.
Do you not view it as such?
This might be an appropriate comment if they were, say, 16.
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
It doesn't matter if I think the video is an example of indoctrination or not, in it's current usage it's associated with immoral or incorrect beliefs. I don't say, "My mother indoctrinated me from a young age to be tolerant of people different from me." I use "raised" or "taught". Indoctrinating is what the other side does to impressionable children, not the other way around.
That and the video isn't even shocking at all. They're singing (poorly, while reading the lyrics off a piece of paper) about converting non-Christians, and intelligent design. Aside from the annoyance of early Saturday morning visits from a pair of "Elders" not old enough to buy alcohol and the lack of scientific credibility behind intelligent design there is nothing wrong with what they said. I watched it expecting a truly vile piece of homophobic vitriol (because it was Securitas, natch) involving fire, brimstone, and eternal damnation and it was nothing like that. So all the "Woe is me, I weep for the human race" talk seems overblown. If that truly has that kind of effect on you then how did you manage not to immediately kill yourself over that whole fiasco about Casey Anthony having an abortion a couple years past the expiration date or any number of things infinitely more shocking and reprehensible than Christians who don't believe in evolution?
Here's what these kids have been raised to believe:
-There's a heaven and a hell, most people are going to hell to be tortured forever
-I'm inherently sinful and can never be worthy of love, in fact I deserve to be tortured in my own filth
-The rules of reality can break if I think thoughts in my head and direct them towards and invisible being
-The more I believe in something without evidence the better a person I am
-I can communicate with the creator of the universe and tell other people what to do based on that
-God lives inside me and talks to me sometimes
-My genitalia is something I should be ashamed of until I get married
All of this without any evidence whatsoever. I'd call that indoctrination. As someone who's had to unlearn all of those things, it's not an easy or particularly enjoyable process.
Don't think I've ever posted that. I'm not one of those people who enjoys being outraged and seeks out offensive things on the internet so I can post righteous statuses on Facebook, just so you know.
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
So what you're saying is that you are tolerating an ignorance which ultimately breeds intolerance.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
I think it's a fair point that we are all raised with some amount of prejudices and beliefs that might conflict with those of others.
I also agree that using the term indoctrination is excessive and weakens the true meaning of the word.
I think the part that pisses most people off about Christianity, or most religions really, is the proselytizing. Particular to Christianity too is the "oh you poor animal, you're going to hell, but I'll pray for you anyway" attitude, which really drives people up the wall.
Personally, I have yet to see a functional belief system that doesn't have an "us and them" attitude and limit the lives of its adherents in some notable way, so I'm hesitant to pick on Christianity as a particularly odious system. They seem to turn out all right, unless they're gay or something.
I agree. Though I'll also state the the Christians that turn out alright usually are anything but orthodox and in the majority of cases have been raised very "moderatly", too.
That is something that apparently isn't true for the kids in the video.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Ya, underlying all the silliness is a decent (in terms of efficacy, not a moral evaluation) functional code of behaviour, which is why a lot of moderate and intelligent people are still nominally "Christian". My guess is over the next few decades you'll see less and less people paying lip service to the form of Christianity and just incorporating a refined version of the fundamental rules of behavior into a more modern agnosticism/spiritual pluralism: "I'm not sure what God is exactly, but I believe in something and I act a certain way, but I won't tell you how to interpret your God" kind of shit.
The holding power of these antiquated belief systems is the lack of a decent replacement. If forced to choose between slapdash, westernized, "eastern" mysticism; snobby, incomplete, liberal athiesm/agnostic pluralism; and a watered-down, easter-and-xmas-mass-only christianity, I'm less than shocked that a lot of people still go for the last choice. It works, people around them do it, and they get to pursue their true gods of cheap consumption and ultimately-insignificant social-hierarchy posturing.
I acually think that the holding power is not so much a lack of a decent replacement - which is a result - but the belief/conditioning that religion (and even further religious institutions) are a stable anchor and beacon for such a functional code idealized as values and virtues. And even in secularized states (and i'm not talking about the US here but about Europe as well) governments and media offer platforms to sustain that belief. While that may be okay for private media concerns, it certainly isn't for governments. (I'm still fuming about Ratzinger being allowed to hold a speech in front of our parliament - same people cheering and defending that gave Merkel a shit load of crap when she met with the Dalai Lama for talks.)
Then again, as a Nietzschean I am convinced that - as imbecile and mentally weak the average man is - the need for any kind of institutional set ethical code won't disappear as long as we're still part of the homo sapiens sapiens race. Because in contrast to Abrahamic belief, mankind isn't the crown of creation but a mere 10 year old child on the evolutionary latter of applied abstract intelligence.
Most people (are conditioned to) believe that they need an institution to set them their ethical code because they are far too weak or afraid in mind to be willing to take care of upholding and following such a "functional code of behaviour" themselves without "someone/-thing" watching over them. We're extremely masochistic when it comes to our desire of being judged and evaluated.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Its true, his facebook is boring. <3
This is the part that saddens me the most honestly. I know so many people, good honest people, who don't follow any faith but keep themselves on the up and up. Yet despite being literally the very beacon of society some Christians try to be, they are belittled for not following some set of antiquated rules.
You people and your facebook accounts.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Whatchu mean you people?You people and your facebook accounts.
I believe that people can adopt and maintain non-institutionalized functional belief systems that allow a complex society to still operate, but we're just not very good at it yet. Plus there's the whole paradox of "institutionalized" individualism (telling people that they are responsible for thinking for themselves), which just makes my head spin from confusion.
Tolerance is not a rigid doctrine, so by it's very nature it can't really be "indoctrinated". Religious belief systems are completely different. These people start young with their children because they know the only way their children will remain evangelical, in the face of mountains of contrary evidence, is if they are strongly indoctrinated.
It's not a matter of just teaching children to be "good". It's about filling their heads up with ideas like the existence of evil spirits, righteous divine hatred, holy wars, eternal punishment of the wicked. Once these ideas have taken root they can be used to overcome contrary evidence. When a child (who has been religiously indoctrinated) comes home after learning about evolution in school his parents can use these doctrinal concepts to override that evidence and education. Indoctrination is about teaching concepts that reinforce themselves, concepts that can't be challenged or changed.
Also, why do you think they are reading the song off a piece of paper? It's because they didn't write the song, their parents did.
Yeah, the reason we're not good at it is because it requires an overall great level of sensibility towards your social environment; something that is both not "naturally" given to everyone to the same necessary amount nor is it (in the western hemisphere) endorsed enough in a system "of cheap consumption and ultimately-insignificant social-hierarchy posturing" (very well put, sir).
In regards to creating/following/upholding "your own ethical code" I didn't ment it to be a kind of being individual but rather repsonsible (and as a result, accountable, the later part is what is "outsourced" to whatever deitiy one prefers) for your ethical code to be functional.
Indeed, a forceful "individualisation" of ethical codes at worst would lead to 6.5 billion different incompatible codes, and thus none of them would be functional.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Attachment 2293
"What you gonna do with infidels? All those Christian infidels?
I'm gonna set-set-set them free, make them Muslim just like me!"
If this had been the song their parents taught them I think some people might see this video in an entirely different light...
The Video is a Poe btw.
Not that I don't agree with some points here but thought you would want to know.
I've noticed that there's a pretty big disconnect between the general consensus of kugu and what's actually happening. It seems enough people have said it in this thread that people are taking it as fact.
Probably.
How can you tell? Just kidding, by definition you can't.
But seriously, how do you know?
PS, Securitas' first post is a whole lot funnier if you read the part about losing his faith in humanity as a reference to their dancing. They seriously make Rebecca Black and her friends look like Michael Jackson in his prime.
The beauty of Poe is that even when it is Poe it still does damage.
It's a comedy parody made by Manka Bros
I've noticed that there's a pretty big disconnect between the general consensus of kugu and what's actually happening. It seems enough people have said it in this thread that people are taking it as fact.
Christian parents raising christian kids?! Somebody call child protection services!!
Faith is a personal choice, in my opinion at least, not something for parents to meddle with.
I was raised with 1 athiest dad (Theoretical physicist who worked at CERN) and 1 quite Christian mom, and both of them had an agreement not to attempt to influence the way I thought with regard to religion. I think that's the best way TBH.
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
Humans are herd creatures, the great majority of us look no further than our immediate surroundings to find our beliefs and values. Nor do we question what we find there. The capacity for critical, logical, independent thinking is rare. All those kids know or care about is that they have Mommy and Daddy's approval.
I agree completely. If more parents had that attitude the world would be a better place.
Unfortunately, most religious parents believe that their children literally can't be good people without religious indoctrination so there's no ground to be given or compromise to be reached. It's Jesus or sociopathy in their minds. And yes, before someone posts, it is indoctrination to force feed your children religious ideas or doctrine. Thus the definition of the word:
indoctrinate (?n?d?ktr??ne?t)
1. to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically
2. rare to impart learning to; instruct
Lysander lets be honest, you could force this argument with any aspect of life. Parental discussions of sex, history, society, values, politics, hell just about anything.
They're YOUR PARENTS, you learn about life from them. Now, my parents were totally open and gave me the choice to do whatever I wanted in regards to religion, which looking back I appreciate. I don't think its fair however to say that a parent should be looked at in a negative light for imparting their values and beliefs onto their children.*
* I say this with the underlying important assumption that you are not passing on values of hatred, discrimination, (and in some contexts ignorance) there's really no excuse for that.
First, let me say that I'm not against a parent sharing their beliefs, even religious, with their child. I'm okay with you teaching your kids almost anything, as long as you teach them too think critically about it and as long as you are willing to accept that they may choose to dismiss it as false.
But that's not what most evangelical (or any fundamentalist religion) parents do. It's not about sharing, teaching or educating, not about having an honest discourse. It's about getting to their child before the world does, making sure that the biblical\doctrinal foundation is layed strongly while the child is too young to question. It's about fearing that your children might think something different than you do and actively trying to prevent this while they are too young and impressionable to resist you.
The parents don't accept that their children might be capable of thinking for themselves and if they do accept it, they usually believe and teach that thinking for yourself is a sin. They teach their children religion at young age because they are more likely to accept and believe before they are old enough to consider contrary evidence. Once the indoctrination has taken hold it requires something extraordinary to break loose. And this is literally by design, they want their children to feel the fear of eternal damnation when they think about premarital sex or evolution.
Why does religion need to be force fed to young children? Would it really ruin them as people to save the heavy religious instruction for when they are old enough to think critically about it? To have their own beliefs and opinions on the subject? What are their parents so afraid of?
Do you actually know people like this, or are you just going off of what you think christian parents do to their children?
Growing up in a very Catholic area, going to Catholic schools, etc., I have found that people in my environment are very open-minded bar two circumstances:
1. Do something that doesn't conform to "straight" behavior, and people will jump on you and tell you how gay/what a faggot you are.
2. Bring up abortion.
There is no Catholic extremism or "indoctrination," but pretty much everyone goes to Church on Sunday and I know for a fact that nobody in my high school had sex while in high school. I wouldn't say that's a terrible thing, to be raised in that religious environment.
I have not, however, had the pleasure of ever meeting evangelicals, even at college, so they may be a different batch entirely. vOv
It's the way I, and my two siblings, were raised. I know countless (really, fucking tons) other people who've had the same experience. Obviously, it's not every household. But then again, not every household teaches fundamentalist religious doctrines.
I'm not saying that indoctrination is always the case without exception. Most families are much more moderate (Rer's or Securitas' for example). But in the cases of the children being raised like this, and there are a lot of them in mid-west/bible belt, it is indoctrination and in my opinion at least, wrong.
Edit: That is probably because most hardcore evangelicals don't go to secular colleges. If they go at all they usually attend an evangelical school.
I imagine its hard for anyone to think about such things in the same context given it didn't happen to us.
At least if there's any upside you can be an example of someone who has escaped such hardships, and (as far as I can tell) have come out better for it.
I didn't feel that we needed a whole new "Christian video" thread, but I thought we should discuss this video, as I assume it is making the rounds on the internet (or has at least been shared 13 times on my Facebook news feed).
I think the guy makes a good point, namely that you can follow Jesus (or, interpreted more broadly, be a good person) without religion, but he also levels some pretty baseless accusations as his evidence for "religion r bad, mkay?"
Our religious institutions are human institutions in which human nature plays itself out as it does in all our other institutions. They are also the repositories of thousands of years' accumulation of wisdom and practice that can enrich our spiritual lives immensely. Accept the former to benefit from the latter.
edit:
I can't believe I'm discussing this on Kugu, of all places...
I have way more trouble believing the later with a straight face.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
See the problem is, the video doesn’t mean religion either, but he’s rehearsing a popular evangelical trope, that the freedom that Christians find through Jesus is freedom from structure, organization, and authority. Of course, the video guy, like all Christians, is a member of a religion…
What he is actually railing against is people whose expression of religion doesn’t look like he believes it should. Thus, rather than discounting religion, he is just discounting other religions, or even just other manifestations of his own religion. I mean, he acts like the problem is the church structure and not the people who attend it, with the structure people have given their faith and not the beliefs themselves.
He is wrong. The problem is both. People have some crazy beliefs and, surprisingly, when you believe something you act on it. Furthermore, if you are going to take Jesus seriously, then you have to take seriously what he said about himself and if you do the latter, you are a Christian, not just a follower of his teachings.
And Jesus isn’t some wishy washy, just be a good person, instructor. The character said some fucked up stuff. Be like the birds, don't plant crops, care not for the future because god will provide. The Serm on the Mount goes on with don't worry about tomorrow. Don't save money, don't store food for the winter, don't plan for retirement... live for today and trust that God will make everything work out. This is some of the worst advice in the entire sermon, and it seems that most everyone recognizes it, even if they pay lip service to it. In much the way that Christians typically ignore Jesus' instructions to sell their belongings and give them to the poor, we all ignore this inane instruction to live without concern for tomorrow.
Most fucked up of all, there's no Hell mentioned in the Old Testament. There is no punishment of the dead in the Old Testament. It's only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced. Not until Jesus, are you told if you don’t make the right propitiations you will be cast everlasting fire. He wasn’t the first to preach it, other religions have had a hell as well in the region, but he brought it into the Abrahamics. One of the most wicked ideas ever preached and one that has ruined the lives and peace of mind of many serving in this particular death cult.
I've noticed that there's a pretty big disconnect between the general consensus of kugu and what's actually happening. It seems enough people have said it in this thread that people are taking it as fact.
I've never understood people who think they can pick and choose with the Bible. The bible claims to be the inspired, complete, infallible word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). Either it is that, and every word within is unquestionable Truth, or it isn't and the opposite is true, it's just a collection of fallible stories written by equally fallible men. You can't just take the parts you like out and rationalize them into something you are capable of swallowing without feeling like a terrible human being. It's not a Choose Your Own Adventure book.
I don't understand the drive to rationalize or modernize books like the Bible. They are records of how people thought of themselves, their nations and environments in ancient times, complete with all their deceptions, prejudices, ignorance and biases. It's an interesting look into the minds and mythologies of ancient cultures. But that's really the end of it. It's when people start thinking of the books as something more (which the books themselves claim) that we get into trouble. It's like trying to use the Malleus Maleficarum to guide some part of your modern life, ignoring or reinterpreting the parts you don't like and saving or magnifying the parts you identify with.
It's hard to know if the hell fire teaching actually descended from Jesus (honestly, finding any dependable evidence of Jesus existence in the first place is questionable) or if it was incorporated into Christianity at a later date. Some of the apocryphal accounts, like the Gospel of Judas, paint a picture of Jesus as a Gnostic teacher.
The bibical accounts that survived and made it into the accepted Christian canon are the most conservative of the period precisely because the early church fathers like Irenaeus selected them for that reason. They disposed of the accounts they didn't agree with and selected the accounts which strengthened their own authority within the early church structure.
The Roman historian Tacitus makes reference to Jesus. I had to translate the passages in Latin class, but otherwise, Tacitus is boring as hell.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Jesus was an actual person. I'm just talking about the character portrayed in the writings.
Tacitus refers to Nero scapgoating the Christians in The Annals, written around 110-120 AD. He goes on to discuss who the Christians were and why they were hunted by Nero. The significance of his writing as it relates to Jesus is minute. What Tacitus reports is what would have been circulating in gossip for 80 years, it isn't independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices for a moral attack on Nero.
I've noticed that there's a pretty big disconnect between the general consensus of kugu and what's actually happening. It seems enough people have said it in this thread that people are taking it as fact.
Step 1. At a very early age, convince them that every single human being came from two white people in a garden, expelled for eating magic fruit served by a snake.
Step 2. Throughout their years, use a book loaded with phrases to match any situation to foster control over them. Hypocrisy is in the closet while full on power trips bring sensibility to its knees. Kindly ignore homosexual conduct found in nature among other creature while condemning human homosexuals to death for being unnatural, etc.
Step 3. At the pique of their indoctrination - convince them to partake in a ritual where the participants actually believe they are consuming the flesh and drinking the blood of their god.
Step 4. At the first sign of rebellion, apply the full force of the church in an attempt to shame and ridicule them.
Step 5. If all else fails, condemn the rebellious to a lifetime of eternal torture in a frozen lake of fire, to be forgotten about by everyone, forever alone.
Yeah doesn't sound anything like indoctrination. Not a cult at all.
Because it was designed to control people, not enlighten anyone. After all you eat shellfish and pork and haven't been put to death right?I've never understood people who think they can pick and choose with the Bible.
http://atheistcolby.com/wp-content/u...sonProject.png
large image. click for human fallacy goodness
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks