Preaching

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Preaching

Postby Roadkill » Sun Sep 07, 2003 8:33 pm

i dont attend church, but ive had to go to one or two. I hated it.

The question is, should children not able to determine for themselves (usually younger than a teen) their own truths, be brought to a church or preached to regularly in anyway?

The reason i hated the attendance to the churches i visited was not because of the people, but the preaching. The preacher preached about the bible, and his own personal thoughts (about how californians should all die, or various other debatable thoughts), unchallenged. People just sit their and pay attention to him, and basically have to agree with him. After all, he is approved by god to say this stuff, right?

At an early age, you wouldnt know or theorized any of this stuff, and even the most questionable people are broken at an early age to accept these beleifs as their own.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby TerraFrost » Sun Sep 07, 2003 8:46 pm

i pretty much see preachers as lecturers, who are not receptive to questions, at all. of course, lectures usually embrace the chance to answer questions - not because it'll counter their points, but because it'll give them an opporutunity to better clarify something if it isn't understood. i guess from that, you could sorta conclude that questioning science is a good thing, but questioning religion is very bad.

science, after all, is what it is because it *can* stand up to questions, heh.

now, i'm sure that religious people would say that sunday school is where you should ask questions, and not durring the sermon. perhapes this is because sunday school classes are smaller, and you can learn better, but i find that to be rather presumptious. do they think that they are better at education than universities are? hah!
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby tsian » Sun Sep 07, 2003 8:47 pm

The question is, should children not able to determine for themselves (usually younger than a teen) their own truths, be brought to a church or preached to regularly in anyway?

Thats really a contentious issue. Personally, my parents always let me form my own views on religion. They took me to a Unitarian church once or twice and then asked me if I wanted to continue to go. I didn't.

For a while I asked my mom to pray to god with me. Now, not anymore. Of course, that comes with being Agnostic I suppose.

The preacher preached about the bible, and his own personal thoughts (about how californians should all die, or various other debatable thoughts), unchallenged . People just sit their and pay attention to him, and basically have to agree with him. After all, he is approved by god to say this stuff, right?

That is the nature of faith.

We are not supposed to question the Preacher, nor are we supposed to actually ask him difficult questions.

We are not to ask why he uses the particular version of the bible he does nor why there are descrepencies between them.

We are not supposed to ask why, in contravention of Leviticus, the Preacher does not denounce people wearing Cotton/Polyster blend fabric as the "Abominations" that they are. Nor are we to question why people with imperfect vision have been permitted to approach the alter of god (again, in contradiction to Leviticus). We are most certainly not supposed to ask why the church no longer calls for the owning of "heathen" slaves, something quite literally permitted.

Faith is believing what you are told and not questioning it.

When the bible was (and is) used to preach hatread against blacks and used to justify segregation, it was God's word. When the bible is used to denounce homosexuality, it is God's word. When the bible is used to block women from becoming priests, it is God's word. Trust me, it really is. Nevermind the portions we ignore today, we aren't supposed to mention that, it's the portions we follow today that god really wanted us to follow.

Nevermind what Jesus said about compassion, tolerance and acceptance. Who cares.

In the word's of Voltaire (the songwriter, not the philosopher) "Why do you think that God would need your
Dirty money if He wanted to start a holy war

Self-righteous, judgmental, first to throw the stone
And you're using his name for your own protection"
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Dracofrost » Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:56 am

Personally, I am against organized religion, preaching, and such. It's just a form of indoctrination, forcing others to follow one person's beliefs, as a means of controlling them. Easy enough to manipulate a fundementalist christian by saying "you'll go to hell if you don't do this", especially if you're a priest.

On the other hand:
That is the nature of faith.

We are not supposed to question the Preacher, nor are we supposed to actually ask him difficult questions.

We are not to ask why he uses the particular version of the bible he does nor why there are descrepencies between them.

We are not supposed to ask why, in contravention of Leviticus, the Preacher does not denounce people wearing Cotton/Polyster blend fabric as the "Abominations" that they are. Nor are we to question why people with imperfect vision have been permitted to approach the alter of god (again, in contradiction to Leviticus). We are most certainly not supposed to ask why the church no longer calls for the owning of "heathen" slaves, something quite literally permitted.

Faith is believing what you are told and not questioning it.


I'd have to disagree with that statement, Tsian. That is the nature of blind faith, not necessarily faith. I see faith as being a strong belief in something, but a strong belief and a blind belief are two entirely different things. For example, some sort of bar fighter or martial artist could be rather confident. You know, have a strong belief in his ability to kick someone's ass. But if they find someone who beats them, they'll either be beaten and accept that, or just not accept it and probably end up getting themselves killed. Or as another example, take any old established scientific theory. They have been around a while and a pretty well accepted. One knowing of the scientific method would tend to have a strong faith in their working. But, if someone came up with a different theory that fit the evidence and experimentation better, and didn't violate any scientific principles, then it would be switched to. That would be an example of strong belief, and not blind belief. Blind belief would be some idiot who knew some facts and theories but didn't know the system of science and clung to the old theory, that would be an example of blind faith.

So anyways, sorry to go into that overlong thingy... Anyways, personally, I see nothing wrong with faith so long as it isn't blind faith. And the way I see it, most organized religions, especially ones that involve preaching, promote blind faith, not strong faith. And indoctrinating people to blind faith, I see that as mind control of a sort. And bleh, I hate mind control.
User avatar
Dracofrost
Frost Drake
Frost Drake
 
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:55 am
Location: Crossed into the Blue

Postby tsian » Mon Sep 08, 2003 4:08 am

Sorry, I should say faith in a religious fundamentalist context.

IE: where there is a holy book that must not be questioned, yet, at the same time, is selectively followed. Often with such faiths many followers have not actually read the book and instead defer to preachers to instruct them in what to believe. Additionally, any discrepencies between versions of the book are ignored in favour of the translation that best suits a persons belief. Similarily, any aspects of the book that are not currently followed are dismissed as not necessary in todays day. Normally no attempt is made to explain why some portions of the book can now safely be ignored while others must be followed.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Phoenix » Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:29 am

Actually if it was possible i don't think children should be exposed to religion until their at least 15 or so. As children we often take what we are given without questioing. Not because we are blind, but because we are still learning. Its a time where are inputting knowledge, forming the basis for our ideas. We should promote a questioning and inquistive nature. Which forcing religion upon a child doesn't do per say(insofar as the question of religion or not). Religion hands over answers that humanity has wrestled with for generations. And the child knows no better then to accept it, and if the household is very or at least religious then its propagated. And not until its older and perhaps too indoctrinated does it have a chance to look at another perspective.

And in the vein of quoting people named voltaire lets paraphrase a quote from the philosopher. If we didn't have god it would be nesscary to invent god.
Phoenix
Traveler
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 3:30 am

Postby Roadkill » Sat Sep 20, 2003 7:28 pm

That's the exact quote pheonix (http://www.quoteland.com)

That is the error in our evolution. Because our brains are too big and must fully develop for years after birth, not only must we be taught certain instincts, our mind is also vulnerable to teachings of other things. Someone on my cross country team, he studies the bible and is total christian. He knows im not really a believer, and does little things to try to convert (or perhaps he thinks he's "saving" me) me, such as listen to music that depicts parts of the bible and explaining it to me. It wont hurt him much in everyday life, atleast in America, but this inbred ignorance would prevent him from understanding certain things.

In short, early years are years of discovery, not learning.

Blind faith and faith are often confused as one, with reason. Remember most have been going ot church since they were like 5, so it has been well ingrained into his head. Anything else is wrong.

I wondered about why it would be necessary to invent him. Why not a multigod religion as the romans did? but theire is a point to monotheistic faiths -- everyone has that god on their side, and if this floods out other religions, there is no god of war or fire or plagues, because if there is only one god, he can only be of good things. I see christianity as a flag with holes in it, and everyone keeps refolding it to try and hide those holes, and give the illusion of strength.

And well, you know how the rest is, population spins out of control and a small bad thing looks horrible, so people stay nice to other people, and disagree on what is nice and what isnt... but they have to be nice. Majorities keep control, but minorities you have to be nice to too, so it all gets lumped into one big mass culture, and everyone has to be made more ignorant and more nice.

Blah. chicken.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Phoenix » Sat Sep 20, 2003 8:46 pm

Roadkill wrote:That's the exact quote pheonix (http://www.quoteland.com)

That is the error in our evolution. Because our brains are too big and must fully develop for years after birth, not only must we be taught certain instincts, our mind is also vulnerable to teachings of other things. Someone on my cross country team, he studies the bible and is total christian. He knows im not really a believer, and does little things to try to convert (or perhaps he thinks he's "saving" me) me, such as listen to music that depicts parts of the bible and explaining it to me. It wont hurt him much in everyday life, atleast in America, but this inbred ignorance would prevent him from understanding certain things.

In short, early years are years of discovery, not learning.

Blind faith and faith are often confused as one, with reason. Remember most have been going ot church since they were like 5, so it has been well ingrained into his head. Anything else is wrong.

I wondered about why it would be necessary to invent him. Why not a multigod religion as the romans did? but theire is a point to monotheistic faiths -- everyone has that god on their side, and if this floods out other religions, there is no god of war or fire or plagues, because if there is only one god, he can only be of good things. I see christianity as a flag with holes in it, and everyone keeps refolding it to try and hide those holes, and give the illusion of strength.

And well, you know how the rest is, population spins out of control and a small bad thing looks horrible, so people stay nice to other people, and disagree on what is nice and what isnt... but they have to be nice. Majorities keep control, but minorities you have to be nice to too, so it all gets lumped into one big mass culture, and everyone has to be made more ignorant and more nice.

Blah. chicken.


Ok sorry, what exactly do you mean by discovery?
The Revolution will not be televised
Phoenix
Traveler
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 3:30 am

Postby Roadkill » Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:46 am

learning can be any knowledge the child acquires, and usually acquired through someone teaching.

discovery is learning on your own
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby tsian » Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:42 am

And people can not facillitate discovery?

The two are intertwined, no?
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Roadkill » Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:23 pm

discovery is more of a thing done on your own. It can be aided, yes, but the answers cannot be given.

in learning, answers are often given before the child understands it.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Kaos » Sat Sep 27, 2003 3:13 am

in learning, answers are often given before the child understands it.

hmm, i don't fully agree with that.

i have mixed feelings on this whole subject (tired). so bear with me now ;)
it's kind of hard to keep up with everything being thrown around here..but, concerning Roadkill's 1st post
The preacher preached about the bible, and his own personal thoughts (about how californians should all die, or various other debatable thoughts), unchallenged."

First off (at least in my church) the preacher does preach about the Bible, but his thoughts aren't unchallenged. The facts are. And tho we can't ask questions or comment during the sermon, he makes up for that during Bible Studies. (a seperate function from the sunday sermon in which the members can question his views and submit their own freely)

After all, he is approved by god to say this stuff, right?

Not nessacarily. For those who believe God sends a divine calling, some people are in fact called to the pulpit. Others do it because they feel like it, and in this case, they might be preaching their 'unchallenged' personal views, and it just might be wrong.
Image

Kaos v.2 Chim Edition
User avatar
Kaos
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 1:54 am
Location: art room


Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron