Indoctrination of the Young and Belief System Retention

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


Yeah. Just pray for them if you have not given up on God because of the JW faith. He's still in the miracle-working business.




posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

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)


I'm pretty certain one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not murder.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

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.

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.


Actually, religion has been about man trying to cover his own faults since Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together to hid their shame and nakedness. Religion is about man trying to justify himself to God. Redemption is about God doing the work to make man righteous again because he is powerless to do so on his own.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


See what happens when the local library has Mein Kampf on the shelves?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted 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.


See what happens when the local library has Mein Kampf on the shelves?


I'm seein' it, I'm just having a hard time believin' it. Some of these people have really gone round the bend and don't seem to have any grasp on how messed up their ideology has become.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.



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.


*Screeeeeech*

Stop the bus right here. Forgive my next statement, no offense intended. You must have had a very legalistic religious upbringing or experience. Christ was probably the most anti-religious man to walk the face of the Earth. He mocked the religious folks of His day severely. There is a light-year difference between "religion" and "redemption".

Christianity is NOT about what you do or don't do, it's all about what Jesus has done. the Christian version of religion is the most putrid of them all in fact. But don't for a second confuse legalistic religion with redemption through the Son of God. A great number of Christians ha e absolutely nothing to do with religion. I've enjoyed and greatly respected you for your statements thus far, but redemption is NOT religion, no matter how much the wolves try and make it be.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted 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.


See what happens when the local library has Mein Kampf on the shelves?


I'm seein' it, I'm just having a hard time believin' it. Some of these people have really gone round the bend and don't seem to have any grasp on how messed up their ideology has become.


I'm guessing that spirit didn't succumb to the same bullet in the basement of the Reichstag. Tricky little buggers to deal with they are.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted 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.


See what happens when the local library has Mein Kampf on the shelves?


In Mein Kempf, Hitler says he's doing God's work—for future reference.



"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."


Adolph Hitler - February 15, 1933


"There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."


Adolph Hitler, August 26, 1934
edit on 11-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Sure he was,.. now what was Hitler's "god"?

F.Y.I..

So are you defending Hitler, Mein Kampf, or human eugenics? You know, just to get an idea what dog you have in this fight and all.

Have any pro-Christian quotes from Hitler after he decided to jump on satan's lap and practice full-blown occultism? (Post-1940)

edit on 11-7-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Sure he was,.. now what was Hitler's "god"?

F.Y.I..

So are you defending Hitler, Mein Kampf, or human eugenics? You know, just to get an idea what dog you have in this fight and all.

Have any pro-Christian quotes from Hitler after he decided to jump on satan's lap and practice full-blown occultism? (Post-1940)

edit on 11-7-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


No. Hitler said he was doing God's work in Mein Kempf, if I must say so a second time. You made a comment that Mein Kempf is somehow an atheists book. Implying that atheists are Nazis. Well, you were wrong.

Where'd you find that source? Must've taken a while to find.

Here's something more believable. You should read up on it before making such blanket remarks. It'll save you from further embarrassment. You can thank me later.

Hitlers Religious Views

ETA: It's obvious Hitler wasn't a true Christian, but he was undoubtedly religious and believed in God. Which by definition isn't an atheist.
edit on 11-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


I never said Mein Kampf was an Atheist's book. The context was eugenics.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


It was the first one on a google search. Took about .26 seconds on my 4G. One thing you need to know about Hitler. He would say pro-Christian things pre-1940 when speaking in public yet post-1940 would say completely different things in private conversations to close friends. Hitler also said that propaganda must always be directed to the masses, which in the case of 1930's Germany was 80% Christian.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
adj


Is it better to murder people because science tells you to?


I don't think that that is entirely fair. These are not scientific questions. Ultimately, these are political questions. Science contributes facts to decisions, and the means to act, but those facts will be combined with values before decision becomes action. Science doesn't judge values.

As to the eugenics movement, its enduring legacy in America is Oliver Wendell Holmes' remark that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" in Bucky v. Bell,

www.hsl.virginia.edu...

The embarrasment is the law's, not science's. Bell was cited by the defense at Nuremberg, as it ought properly to have been in a fair trial. Bell wasn't about murdering people, however, but rather involuntary sterilization. That difference between one country and another was political, not scientific. The scientific error was shared; the values were different.

I admire the decision of your couple who recently brought their injured baby to term, and I respect the decision of other couples who have resolved similar situations differently. That all couples in the United States have choices in such matters is fine by me, and science has nothing to do with it.

The English law's interest in children's autonomy began with quickening, not fertilization. The states lack the power to deprive American women of fundamental personal rights they would have had as British subjects before Independence. A line will be drawn, and science won't be drawing that line.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted 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.



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.


*Screeeeeech*

Stop the bus right here. Forgive my next statement, no offense intended. You must have had a very legalistic religious upbringing or experience. Christ was probably the most anti-religious man to walk the face of the Earth. He mocked the religious folks of His day severely. There is a light-year difference between "religion" and "redemption".

Christianity is NOT about what you do or don't do, it's all about what Jesus has done. the Christian version of religion is the most putrid of them all in fact. But don't for a second confuse legalistic religion with redemption through the Son of God. A great number of Christians ha e absolutely nothing to do with religion. I've enjoyed and greatly respected you for your statements thus far, but redemption is NOT religion, no matter how much the wolves try and make it be.


Christianity as it maybe should have been practiced is nothing like the Christianity that is practiced by the vast apparatus of The Church. The Church runs a business.

ETA: my mom is a strong Christian woman. She is elegant, graceful, considerate, and kind. She stopped going to church because of philosophical differences with the general culture of the churches she had attended. She decided that her faith was better attended to on her own. I think that she practices Christianity as it was meant to be practiced.
edit on 11-7-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Well please for future reference don't lump both the wolves and the sheep in the same compost pile. You're mom should just find herself a spirit-filled, non-denominational church to attend. One of the biggest problems is denominationalism. But religion produces only two kinds of fruit, either type-A folks who make lists of do's and don't do's and walk around self-righteously and look down their nose and condemn everyone else for not following the same list of rules that they do, or type-B folk who soon realize they themselves don't follow their own rules and become depressed thinking "I can't do this, I'm not good enough, maybe Jesus doesn't love me, maybe I'm not one of the elect.."

(Lol that was a glorious run-on sentences for the Kingdom of God). Seriously, look at the video in my sig "Do you hate religion as much as I do?" If you have a brief moment. Just please for future reference remember that just because you're fully aware there are counterfeits on the market that doesn't mean you trash every bill you come into the possession of. Think twice about throwing out Jesus because of the doctrine and fruit of the false church and the doctrine of the wolves in sheep's clothing.

God bless.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Science doesn't judge values.


Well, I think that's the problem -- some people behave like it does, and, from that perspective, an evolutionary biologist can say that eugenics is right as rain. It's only when it becomes "more than science" does it become problematic, but if science is the source of morality (Sam Harris - the New Science of Morality) we're right back where we started.

One of my favourite actors of all time is Jeff Goldblum, and, coincidentally, he uttered my favourite line from any movie. It's not original, but I like it a lot, and when I see the state of science today, I think it's more relevant than ever.


John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
(Jurassic Park, 1993)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


It was the first one on a google search. Took about .26 seconds on my 4G. One thing you need to know about Hitler. He would say pro-Christian things pre-1940 when speaking in public yet post-1940 would say completely different things in private conversations to close friends. Hitler also said that propaganda must always be directed to the masses, which in the case of 1930's Germany was 80% Christian.


I agree. Hitler probably hated Christians and was probably in politics mode. But neither was he atheist. Nonetheless, he was a fundamentalist and religious tyrant, sometimes believing himself to be divine like a Kim Jung Il.

Hitler and eugenics can be left out of the argument. Science is a tool until someone with too much faith and religiosity comes and makes it more.

I apologize for the misunderstanding; you were talking about a small group of scientists known as geneticists, and not atheists. My fault.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


But bro, I NEVER once said Hitler was an Atheist. Maybe someone else did? Hitler was raised Christian then got into the Occult heavily, I would say borderline satanism. Around 1940 his attitude towards Christianity became one of abject hatred. But I never said Hitler was an atheist, not once. The context of my "Mein Kampf" reply was eugenics. No need to apologize, I'm not upset man.

edit on 11-7-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


It's obvious that the problem here then is not science, but faith. Because we know it is possible for science and religion to be used for good. It is the faith and probably ignorance that drives men to do such horrific things. Would you agree?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by adjensen
 


It's obvious that the problem here then is not science, but faith. Because we know it is possible for science and religion to be used for good. It is the faith and probably ignorance that drives men to do such horrific things. Would you agree?


No, I disagree with your first statement, because I believe that, in some cases, it is the dispassionate application of science that is the problem. That isn't a matter of faith, but of ethics, which are not necessarily derived from faith. On the spectrum of moral basis, which runs from Dawkins' "we're all just gene replication machines" at one end to a non-specific deity provided basis of absolute morality, eugenics would likely be evaluated as "proper" at one end and "reprehensible" at the other. Either way, it's a proper science, which is not evil in itself, but the application of it can be viewed as such, depending on one's moral view.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join