Introducing "Bibleman"! And a host of other kid-oriented indoctrination tools

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by guitarplayer

 

Why don't you start a new thread and ask "who all has been hurt by a parent" and ask what their parents belief system was. then see where the chips fall. My parent were not bible beleivers but I sure got my ass whipped when I did wrong.

I already have.
The Varieties of ATS Religious Experience; or, Variations on a Theme

Take your time reading it. Feel free to contribute if you like.

Why use the term religious? My folks were heathens no religion. You have skewed the answers by your question. Like I said start a thread with no religious connotations and ask how many got their ass whipped and what was the philosophy of their household.

reply to post by guitarplayer

Like I said start a thread with no religious connotations and ask how many got their ass whipped and what was the philosophy of their household.

Okay, I can do that.
Why don't YOU start it instead, since it was your idea?

You already have your title:
"how many got their ass whipped and what was the philosophy of their household."
All you have to do is swap out "your" for "their." I'll do that for you.

Here you go:
Were you "ass-whipped" with no religious connotation? If so, what was the Philosophy of your Household?"

Or, closer to your suggestion as it is raw:
"How many of you got your asses whipped and what was the philosophy of your household?"

reply to post by BlueMule

Everyone is a grasshopper to someone about something.

Yes. Again, fair enough. EVERYONE is a grasshopper to 'someone' about 'something'.

But "assuming" that people participating in THIS FORUM on THIS SITE are mere grasshoppers is rather presumptuous, is it not? Don't you think?

reply to post by wildtimes


Sure I can do that.

Here is a novel idea why not grow a pair and go stand out in front of a mosque and proclaim the treatment of their women and the indoctrination of their children and see how may death threats you get. It is so easy to proclaim the evils of Christianity since they are not know of tracking you down and threatening your life.

reply to post by guitarplayer

Here is a novel idea why not grow a pair

Okay, end of chat.

Firstly, I don't 'need' a "pair" - I'm female, and my "pair" of ovaries has produced two very smart and great kids.

Secondly, you are evading and redirecting the entire subject, and TOTALLY copping out. The other day someone tried to attack my "avatar" as evidence that I was somehow sub-human and degenerate.

So, I guess we're done. But, thanks for your participation. I hope you think about this stuff.
I wish you - and all of humanity - well.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Everyone is a grasshopper to someone about something.

Yes. Again, fair enough. EVERYONE is a grasshopper to 'someone' about 'something'.

But "assuming" that people participating in THIS FORUM on THIS SITE are mere grasshoppers is rather presumptuous, is it not? Don't you think?

I try not to assume that. I try to listen and size people up before I pounce. I try to get a ballpark idea of where people are coming from. I ask questions that are intended to give me an idea of what someone means by key terms without triggering their defenses, and that in turn might give me a glimmer of a weakness in them in case I choose to engage. I make statements with key words that might provoke a response and then I gauge the response. I try to calculate whether one is a grasshopper or not. But I'm no calculator. I'm only human.

reply to post by BlueMule

I try not to assume that. I try to listen and size people up before I pounce. I try to get a ballpark idea of where people are coming from.

Good!

I ask questions that are intended to give me an idea of what someone means by key terms without triggering their defenses

Also 'good' ,

and that might give me a glimmer of a weakness in case I choose to engage.

We ALL have weaknesses, BlueMule! Are you afraid of your 'weaknesses' being exposed? We are all human! We MUST address our own' weaknesses', and ALSO challenge others in whom we see 'weakness' !!

I make statements with key words that might provoke a response

okay, fair enough....

and then I gauge the response. I try to calculate. But I'm no calculator. I'm only human.

Just as the rest of us do, and are.

That is why open dialogue and 'communication', despite the tension, is required!!! We MUST be able to put on our 'emotional armor' and go out into the fray and 'state our cases'. We MUST strive to HEAR one another....or we will never get anywhere......

Running off when you're at the front-line of the battle is not productive. I understand feeling 'weak' when confronted. But we have to address the ideas that feel 'crippling' to us.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.





Ahhh! Caught your 'edit' there!
Here's what you changed it to!:
"and that in turn might give me a glimmer of a weakness in them in case I choose to engage."
I tried to use 'quote' for that, but I had to repeat your statement using quote-marks in order to make my emphasis.

Big diff there from what you originally posted.

I agree with you being beatin myself.

Originally posted by wildtimes

We ALL have weaknesses, BlueMule!

Well... except for Bibleman.

Are you afraid of your 'weaknesses' being exposed?

Nope, that's the main reason I'm here at ATS. To iron out my thoughts and learn about myself. Not to teach.

Running off when you're at the front-line of the battle is not productive.

It's more about moving on than running off.

reply to post by wildtimes


Your post made me think of this video that hit the internet where this Ultra-Christian judge beat his daughter with a belt because she was on the computer too long.

"Christian" parenting.

reply to post by wildtimes


I started the thread go and tell of your personal experience.

I take it you had the children with no help from a male? Should we call you mother mary?

reply to post by guitarplayer

Fine, I posted in your thread, so can I please have 'mine' back now? Are you done insulting me and demonstrating your own anger?

I hope so. I want to discuss early childhood development and indoctrination into extreme thinking.

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh

Yeah, I hadn't thought of that one in terms of this thread, but I remember that, too!!
Not very long ago, as I recall.

I've known lots of people who were the children of "deacons" or "pastors" who were brutally beaten by their "God-fearing" parents. Horrible. I've also known women who left abusers, with their children, but still saw the same old same old stuff - their exes still were publicly "charming" and "upstanding", but within the home they were tyrants and thugs.

reply to post by LastStarfighter

I agree with you being beatin myself.

My heavens, could you please try not to post such enormous "walls of text"?

With whom are you agreeing now? Me, again? I thought you said I sounded repugnant. Hope you understand better where I'm coming from, now.
Thanks for posting.

I apologize to wildtimes for this off-topic jaunt, but I want to clear things up with BlueMule.

reply to post by BlueMule


You're right. I did get impatient. I asked you to elaborate on a statement you made (because I wanted to know) and instead of just explaining in plain English what you meant, I felt that I was led on a wild goose chase complete with clues, innuendo, esoteric statement, questions in response to questions and YouTube videos, but no real response.

The truth is: I think religion is an invention of man to explain the whys and hows of life. That's my opinion. You disagree, apparently. If you care to explain why, I'll certainly listen, but I'm not going to "pull" it out of you one word or post at a time. If you want to tell me, tell me. If not, that's OK, too.

I was genuinely interested in what you meant by religion being a "collective reaction to a stimulus", but I don't know what the stimulus was, nor the reaction. Was the reaction spontaneous? How do you think religion came about? That's all I was asking. I don't get it. I don't understand your opinion and I wanted to. I was simply asking for further explanation of your statement. You repeated that it's a reaction and it's more like a song than a scream... What the heck does that mean? That explains NOTHING to me.

And then you quoted a poet... I wanted YOUR opinion, not a quote from a mystic. I told you I didn't understand. When I said, "I wouldn't understand anyway", it was because I don't understand a lot of the esoteric and philosophical way that people communicate sometimes. Saying "It's more like a song" might mean something to you, but I am not in your head and I don't know what that means. I prefer common English. Straightforward and clear communication. When I told you that I didn't understand, You /shrugged. And posted a couple of YouTube videos.

You blew me off. That's fine, too. I restated that I didn't understand. And then you started asking me questions about what I had said instead of simply explaining your opinion. That's when I lost patience and lost interest in exploring your opinion. I said as much and explained why. I was "done" at that point and moved on. Pages later, you started an argument with me about Jediism, of all things! And I reiterated that I wasn't interested in the game you were playing. If you have to "work your way up" to answering a VERY simple question, honestly, I don't have the patience for it, especially when you don't even use your own words and thoughts.

Honestly, I have no more patience for mysticism than I do for religion. It's the same thing, to me. You have yet to explain in plain English what you mean by "religion is a collective reaction to a stimulus". That's fine. I feel that this is not the thread to start down that particular rabbit hole again. But I wanted to clarify my position and tell you the reasons for my responses.

I'm not TRYING to be an asshat. It just happens naturally sometimes. If you want to point me to your beliefs about this or start another thread about it, let me know. I'll be happy to read it. But I'm not interested in getting into a philosophical and mystical discussion about it. I have my opinion. I wanted to hear yours. Simple.

Again, I apologize for the wordy and off-topic trip.

I just saw this and wanted to add to my novel...

reply to post by BlueMule

Originally posted by BlueMule
I try to listen and size people up before I pounce. I try to get a ballpark idea of where people are coming from. I ask questions that are intended to give me an idea of what someone means by key terms without triggering their defenses, and that in turn might give me a glimmer of a weakness in them in case I choose to engage. I make statements with key words that might provoke a response and then I gauge the response. I try to calculate whether one is a grasshopper or not.

This calculated approach to discussion is exactly what I cannot stand. You approach a discussion with the intention to "pounce". You play around with words, trying to find the other person's "weakness" without "triggering their defenses". "Engage", "provoke", "calculate"...

Jesus! This isn't a battle, it's a freaking discussion. I think I picked up on your calculated approach and wanted no part of it. Call me impatient, but I don't appreciate being played with, as a cat plays with a mouse. VERY insulting, IMO.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I apologize to wildtimes for this off-topic jaunt, but I want to clear things up with BlueMule.

No problem at all.
It is on topic in a roundabout kind of way -
we each perceive things individually -
I understand now that BlueMule doesn't "intend" to just shrug people off. I thank you BOTH for helping clear up the misunderstandings.


It all needed to be said.

Back when gods were first invented, we had so very little knowledge of what was happening - why the sun comes up, why the seasons change, why people die and so on... that we had to invent ways to explain it and invent a god that controlled it all. Religion was invented. Now that science is more prevalent and we have the actual knowledge about why these things happen, there is no longer a need to explain them with fabricated "gods", rewards and punishments, etc.

More people are letting go of the stories that don't really apply anymore. Naturally, those who still hold onto these stories are fearful that their way of thinking and believing is threatened by scientific knowledge and defensive, feeling the need to "fight" this new science. That's why many religious followers want science out of schools or at least to teach their stories along with the facts of science. That's why they came up with "intelligent design" (to counter the idea of evolution), by morphing science and religion. That's also why they feel it's necessary to teach children their beliefs at such a young age... That's why Bibleman and other modern toys, cartoons and coloring books are geared toward teaching kids while they're young. But kids that are being raised in today's world can't help but be exposed to science, unless they are raised in a "sheltered" community. And even then, you just can't keep people from learning, no matter how hard some are trying...

Yes, religions are threatened by atheism. Of course they are. Religion is big business and it employs millions of people. Not to mention how difficult it is to "give up" the belief in a higher power after many years of religious indoctrination. I know. I've done it.

This is problematic for me because when you say that believers are troubled by science or education, I feel that I am being lumped into that category when those things you say do not apply to me. That is troublesome because your generalization might actually be true but I have not been exposed to people that this is reflected in.

I am on the ground in the Christian community and I don't see these things you're speaking of being referred to as troublesome to the Christians I'm in touch with. They have problems with the high promotion of alcohol in society, poor economic policies that they feel are not in line with good policy, the push to see liberal values promoted on a higher level. Those are the things they are having trouble with. They have never intimated to me that they are troubled by the educational system promoting anti-Christian values, that scientists were destroying faith or that hordes of possessed liberals were ready to be released on whole towns at any moment which seems to be the apocalypse you're saying they fear. This is just the flip side of the propaganda coin and it's incorrect. The religionists aren't offering any more valid assessments of people in your camp either. I think you are all being unfair, Christians and non-believers.

reply to post by Witness123


If what I said doesn't apply to you, then I apologize for the generalization. I don't like generalizations and try to stay away from them, but I see how what I've said could have been offensive to you. I am aware that many believers are also very logical and scientific, and can incorporate the two, but I see a strong disconnect between literal, biblical teachings and the scientific knowledge we have today.

Here are a couple of examples of what I was talking about:

IndoctriNation

"Every Christian parent with a child in a government school should see this [movie] and be forced to confront their unwillingness to do what Scripture requires for the children on loan to them by God. A mass exodus from government schools is the only way to preserve the souls and minds of our children."
...
"This is the most important issue facing the Body of Christ, an issue that must be addressed and put to rest forever. IndoctriNation is an extremely important movie. Every church in America should show IndoctriNation. Every Christian should show IndoctriNation to their friends."

Louisiana Voucher Schools - Bible-based Curriculum

Thanks to a new law privatizing public education in Louisiana, Bible-based curriculum can now indoctrinate young, pliant minds with the good news of the Lord—all on the state taxpayers' dime.
...
"Bible-believing Christians cannot accept any evolutionary interpretation. Dinosaurs and humans were definitely on the earth at the same time and may have even lived side by side within the past few thousand years."—Life Science, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2007
...
Gay people "have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists."—Teacher's Resource Guide to Current Events for Christian Schools, 1998-1999, Bob Jones University Press, 1998

I think I'm noticing a pattern that might be worth pointing out.

It seems that there are many Christian member who are UNAWARE of what the Far-Right-Wing Evangelicals are doing. When the information is provided, or the suggestion is made, they take offense, and say,
"Well, I've never heard that happening! So it must be a lie and this is just another Christian-bashing thread!"

The thing is, IT IS HAPPENING. Maybe not in your church, or your schools, but that doesn't mean it's fiction.

Perhaps the Christians who truly live the teachings, and ONLY the actual teachings, of Christ - and don't need the trappings of what Paul and all the others and the "books" of the Bible say - (and yes, they are TRAPPINGS in the literal sense of the word)

should confront those who share their self-proclamation as "Christians" and tell them to knock it off.

If someone tells me a family member is doing something wrong, and I just deny it because I'm not doing that "wrong thing", that doesn't take the smear of the family name away. Nate Phelps is a good example. He's a Phelps - but he doesn't defend the WBC, he speaks against it.

If Christians are doing these things (and they are) in the name of the Jesus Christ you worship, shouldn't you take them to task for it? Instead of just hating and condemning the people who are pointing out their activities to you?

WildTimes, I think one point you're missing is that the average evangelical lives in a state confined to particular regions of the country that the more metropolitan areas consider as being backwards and out in the sticks, they aren't typically high income, and they are not much more politically active than the point of voting.

The far-right "evangelicals" you're referring to, the ones who hold power, are cynical politicians, opportunists who like to warm up to evangelicals in election season but at other times are largely pursuing their own will. You have a few people that probably are closer to being legitimate like Senator Inhofe and maybe a dozen or more representatives. I think your argument for religious trauma syndrome is probably a symptom of someone who was traumatized by religion, in circumstances that are not generally common, and you hope to keep the issue relevant by envisioning your worst fear, that those who harmed you have incredible power and they want to institute a theocracy or some sort of tyranny. On the other hand, I would say that most of the evangelicals are people with no more power than you are and are no more happy about the state of government than much anyone else.