Indoctrination of the Young and Belief System Retention, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 07:51 PM by crawdad1914

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by adjensen

I haven't given my son any specific input. When we discuss religion/spirituality, I provide input from a wide arrange of beliefs, usually prefaced with "Well, so and so has this view..." and then we discuss it. Mostly I want to hear his thoughts, and if he has none to encourage him to find some.

He is quick to say things that are outrageous. And I am quick to counter with a requirement that he inform himself before his next outburst.

Sounds reasonable.
To be fair to the discussion, I am pretty sensitive personally to the subject, being raised a JW there is no getting out of it unscathed. You will lose your family if you decide to leave the organization. There is no getting around that.
Family members of mine will have nothing at all to do with me, for no other reason than the fact I willingly left the religion of my own accord.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 07:53 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by crawdad1914

A lady who worked for me was done the same way. It makes what seems to be a fairly reasonable church seem very cultish. Of course, when i say reasonable it is a very relative term.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 08:03 PM by crawdad1914

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by crawdad1914

A lady who worked for me was done the same way. It makes what seems to be a fairly reasonable church seem very cultish. Of course, when i say reasonable it is a very relative term.

Relative is right.

There is not any reason, associated with this organization in terms of how you are treated for perpetrating the biggest sin, which is free thought ,and choosing a different path than being a Jehovahs Witness once you have signed on.

No organization, that tears familys apart should be considered worthy of consideration.

Better I had been a drunkard, and a thief, than turn my back on their belief system. At least then I could have continued my family relationships.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 08:06 PM by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by adjensen

I haven't given my son any specific input. When we discuss religion/spirituality, I provide input from a wide arrange of beliefs, usually prefaced with "Well, so and so has this view..." and then we discuss it. Mostly I want to hear his thoughts, and if he has none to encourage him to find some.

He is quick to say things that are outrageous. And I am quick to counter with a requirement that he inform himself before his next outburst.

Sounds reasonable.
To be fair to the discussion, I am pretty sensitive personally to the subject, being raised a JW there is no getting out of it unscathed. You will lose your family if you decide to leave the organization. There is no getting around that.
Family members of mine will have nothing at all to do with me, for no other reason than the fact I willingly left the religion of my own accord.

That's pretty sad mate. I'm sorry.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 08:16 PM by crawdad1914

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by adjensen

I haven't given my son any specific input. When we discuss religion/spirituality, I provide input from a wide arrange of beliefs, usually prefaced with "Well, so and so has this view..." and then we discuss it. Mostly I want to hear his thoughts, and if he has none to encourage him to find some.

He is quick to say things that are outrageous. And I am quick to counter with a requirement that he inform himself before his next outburst.

Sounds reasonable.
To be fair to the discussion, I am pretty sensitive personally to the subject, being raised a JW there is no getting out of it unscathed. You will lose your family if you decide to leave the organization. There is no getting around that.
Family members of mine will have nothing at all to do with me, for no other reason than the fact I willingly left the religion of my own accord.

That's pretty sad mate. I'm sorry.

I apreciate that. I am fine though. I have a fantastic wife and three great Sons Life is good! I do not have any anger at my family these days, only because I was at one point indoctrinated and blinded by the belief system, soI understand their thought process even though I detest it. I feel sorry for them and hope someday they will have the ability to break away as I did. I miss my brother especially and hold out hope for him. The techniques they use to completely control outside influence, and not allow any questioning of doctrine at all, I mean zero is paramount to keeping people enslaved. It is a text book cult, and I warn anyone to be very wary of their influence.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 08:51 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by crawdad1914

I have little in the way of family history, and what i have i don't like. So i told my son that it is he and I. We are the start of our family, our lineage. It has worked into a way for me to challenge him to be better than me, to never accept the excuse "But dad does it", because dad still isn't perfect. That is his job to work towards.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 08:53 PM by Wertdagf

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

And yet all relgion is based upon divine wisdom being imparted to people. Alot of it is absolutley idiotic. Strange how the bible says to murder people but yet so many people hold those diabolical ear whispers as undisputed fact.

edit on 10-7-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 09:03 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

And yet all relgion is based upon divine wisdom being imparted to people. Alot of it is absolutley idiotic. Strange how the bible says to murder people but yet so many people hold those diabolical ear whispers as undisputed fact.
edit on 10-7-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

And it is even more strange how in your vitriol you continue to fail to see that I have continuous pointed out that Religion has nothing to do with God.

It is about man. That same thing that Atheists tend to see as the pinnacle of greatness.

Funny that.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 09:11 PM by adjensen

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

And yet all relgion is based upon divine wisdom being imparted to people. Alot of it is absolutley idiotic. Strange how the bible says to murder people but yet so many people hold those diabolical ear whispers as undisputed fact.

Where is your response to my question about science recommending murder? I'd guess that more people have been killed or maimed in the name of eugenics than ever were by people who thought God was "whispering in their ear."

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 09:11 PM by Wertdagf

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

sigh.. its the newest incarnation of religious goalpost moving. What your saying doesnt actually mean anything.. its the same newage foo foo that those transendantalists spew.

A way to keep the nightlight. They get to keep their imaginary best friend and hes immune to any attack because hes based on nothing more than personal experiances they refuse to share, because at best its based on ignorance.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 09:15 PM by Wertdagf

reply to post by adjensen

Selective reproduction is a better approach in eugenics... and it always has been. ALthough technology is moving well beyond what the orginal precepts of eugenics could invision.

Weve come a long way in sequencing the human genome and recognizing specific genes that cause disease. To alter the genetics of an embyro is not murder and accomplishes the same goal.

edit on 10-7-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 09:42 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

sigh.. its the newest incarnation of religious goalpost moving. What your saying doesnt actually mean anything.. its the same newage foo foo that those transendantalists spew.

And you once again ignore what I said. There is no moving of the goal posts.

Do you know what it was that men like Pythagoras were actually doing? He wasn't making music. He wasn't making math. That was a side effect.

Do you know what the shaman of the southwestern American indians are thinking, what they are doing?

You are not differentiating between "Religion" as a business (as is seen in all JudeoChristian beliefs) and religion as part of the actual human experience. As part of our collective history. As part of the unknown, and the search for it.

Religion, as is practiced by JudeoChristian beliefs, is a rigid system of "We already got it figure out, dammit". That is an institution, that is not God.

You can try to blur the definite distinction all you want. It doesn't change matters. If it is an institution full of authoritarian zealots, it is not "God", it is business.

A way to keep the nightlight. They get to keep their imaginary best friend and hes immune to any attack because hes based on nothing more than personal experiances they refuse to share, because at best its based on ignorance.

This describes nothing about me, or our conversation here. Typical atheist. Employ ad hominems when faced with discussion that is over their head.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 09:43 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by adjensen

Selective reproduction is a better approach in eugenics... and it always has been. ALthough technology is moving well beyond what the orginal precepts of eugenics could invision.

Weve come a long way in sequencing the human genome and recognizing specific genes that cause disease. To alter the genetics of an embyro is not murder and accomplishes the same goal.
edit on 10-7-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

*sigh*

Ok. Nevermind. We have an obvious sociopath here.

Carry on the discussion by yourself, Dr. Mengele

edit on 10-7-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 09:46 PM by adjensen

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by adjensen

Selective reproduction is a better approach in eugenics... and it always has been. ALthough technology is moving well beyond what the orginal precepts of eugenics could invision.

Weve come a long way in sequencing the human genome and recognizing specific genes that cause disease. To alter the genetics of an embyro is not murder and accomplishes the same goal.

Dude, are you insane? Do you not comprehend what you're saying?

Wow. Just wow. That's where the worship of science has brought us to.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 10:06 PM by Wertdagf

Yeah because wanting to prevent the moments where a doctor hands the expecting mother a dead baby is an obviously horrible thing.

Wanting a child to not die from one of many heart and blood disorders shortly after birth is an obviously horrible thing.

Wanting a child to not be born mentaly handicapped is an obviously horrible thing.

There is a right and a wrong way to go about it. This is obvious... but the religious have to throw tantrums like so many children.

edit on 10-7-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 10:23 PM by adjensen

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Yeah because wanting to prevent the moments where a doctor hands the expecting mother a dead baby is an obviously horrible thing.

Fetal surgery is one thing -- killing anything you believe might bring you some unhappiness is quite another.

I have an acquaintance (who lives in another state) who was pregnant with a child that had a birth defect that would result in certain death. Here was the announcement and request for prayers in my church's prayer chain:

Keep ********* and ******** ********* in your prayers. They are expecting the baby that will not live long after it is born due to a condition called Limb-Body Wall Complex. The baby's name is Darlene Grace.

By your compassionate science, they should have aborted the baby (er, excuse me, fetus/protoplasm,) and moved on. Instead, she carried the baby to term two weeks ago, and, per the prayer chain, "held Darlene Grace in their loving arms until she died two hours later."

I have known a number of people who refused to abort a chid with a known birth defect who have said that the child was the greatest blessing of their lives. It is patently offensive for you to claim that parents are somehow better off by flushing their children down the drain because they don't meet up to their expectations.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 10:31 PM by Wertdagf

reply to post by adjensen

Soon the genetics of that baby could have been altered in womb to prevent its death. Medical technology is moving along rapidly.

Preventing the generation of genetic disorders in fetal development isnt the same as drawing a white line on a wall and putting bullets in the heads of the children that werent tall enough. Although i understand that the last desparate breaths of religious belief will be flailing and frantic.

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 10:41 PM by adjensen

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Preventing the generation of genetic disorders in fetal development isnt the same as drawing a white line on a wall and putting bullets in the heads of the children that werent tall enough.

That isn't really what eugenics was. Care to try again?

(Hint: your claims thus far refute the premises of evolution, is that what you want to promote? Have you abandoned Darwin this quickly?)

reply posted on 10-7-2012 @ 11:00 PM by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Yeah because wanting to prevent the moments where a doctor hands the expecting mother a dead baby is an obviously horrible thing.

Fetal surgery is one thing -- killing anything you believe might bring you some unhappiness is quite another.

I have an acquaintance (who lives in another state) who was pregnant with a child that had a birth defect that would result in certain death. Here was the announcement and request for prayers in my church's prayer chain:

Keep ********* and ******** ********* in your prayers. They are expecting the baby that will not live long after it is born due to a condition called Limb-Body Wall Complex. The baby's name is Darlene Grace.

By your compassionate science, they should have aborted the baby (er, excuse me, fetus/protoplasm,) and moved on. Instead, she carried the baby to term two weeks ago, and, per the prayer chain, "held Darlene Grace in their loving arms until she died two hours later."

I have known a number of people who refused to abort a chid with a known birth defect who have said that the child was the greatest blessing of their lives. It is patently offensive for you to claim that parents are somehow better off by flushing their children down the drain because they don't meet up to their expectations.