[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Do any Christians ever think along these lines: If someone lives their life without ever hearing anything about god or Jesus, surely god will forgive them when they die? If they hear about god and reject Christianity, then perhaps god will not forgive them for actively refusing his word. In which case, surely its more generous not to share the word of god in case someone you care about rejects it and is sent to hell for doing so?

Possibly:
What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers

Invincibly Ignorant

The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes teaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin" (Jn 15:22).

But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains" (Jn 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)

Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: "their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them." Paul did not say that those who are innocently ignorant of the truth will be saved; he simply keeps open the possibility of it.

Similarly, he wrote: "[I]s God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith" (Rom 3:29-30).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So your worldview being better than mine = freedom? But me having my own worldview whether I promote it, praise it or not is somehow bad form on my part. Wow.

My worldview is that people should be able to do whatever they want, to the extent it doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability to do the same. I won't deny that this is one worldview among many others, but it also happens to be the one this country (the one implied in the OP and by stupendousman, correct me if I'm wrong) was founded on. I made no pretense of stepping outside my worldview. You holding yours above others isn't bad form, but it does contradict your claim to step outside it. And it's not going to help you avoid some well deserved push-back when you try to apply it to other people or countries who don't agree with you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm not talking about in school. I'm talking about someone from the Islamic faith with the specific intent of converting your child to Islam. You'd be OK with a Muslim trying to convert your child to Islam without your consent?

Sure, but by that age my daughter damned well better be able to quote from the Koran herself, so she can have an informed opinion during the conversation. She's going to have a very interesting and diverse education, to say the least.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My worldview is that people should be able to do whatever they want, to the extent it doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability to do the same. I won't deny that this is one worldview among many others, but it also happens to be the one this country (the one implied in the OP and by stupendousman, correct me if I'm wrong) was founded on. I made no pretense of stepping outside my worldview. You holding yours above others isn't bad form, but it does contradict your claim to step outside it. And it's not going to help you avoid some well deserved push-back when you try to apply it to other people or countries who don't agree with you.

I have clearly stated things which are my opinion or worldview, and things I that I think would be perfectly fair/fairer than the current reality for everyone.
You don't seem to be able to tell the difference. Maybe I'm not being clear enough or maybe you just don't want to see the difference. I don't know.

It ultimately seems we disagree on where one persons rights infringe on anothers.

[Wiskedjak]

Here's what I've learned from this thread:

- The easiest way to get someone into Heaven, is to never tell them about Heaven.

- The easiest way to prevent STDs and teen pregnancy, is to not tell children about sex.

[Shaddim]

FYI, the sarcasm does help and makes you a much more engaging person, honest.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Here's what I've learned from this thread:

- The easiest way to get someone into Heaven, is to never tell them about Heaven.

"The first rule of Heaven Club is….."

If only.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

FYI, the sarcasm does help and makes you a much more engaging person, honest.

Which part did you perceive to be sarcastic?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I know where your loyalties lie but this is weak. I expect much better of you than this.
Choosing to leave a church, ro abandon your belief should have nothing to do with your ability to continue socialising with your own friends and family. The only reason you are 'choosing to be ostracised' is because you know they will stop speaking to you if you leave the church. Just because you know tthe consequences, doesn't make them fair. The point is that it makes the decision to leave monumentally more difficult and the decision to stay much easier. I imagine a great many people 'choose' to fake their continued belief instead in order to maintain their social and family relationships and not lose 90% of their life(style), their support network etc etc.

If you don't adhere to the tenets of a church, it's best for all that you do leave the church. Seriously. This goes for social membership of any kind. If her friends will abandon her because of church doctrine well then she's likely better off without them in their lives and the church is better off without a detractor mucking things up for them. Addicts and the like that you mentioned earlier may go and seek a church because they feel their pressures are bigger than they are. This is often what brings people to faith; a notion that there are things outside their control or bigger than they are.

While Wiskedjak and lpkmckenna are correct in that I've swung the argument improperly around, you are under no credible threat against you for leaving a church. How do I know? Frequent church attendance hovers right around 18-20% in the US. Easily for most, It is a conscious decision to get up on Sunday morning and go. I think you're mistaken in assuming they get nothing from the relationship that they'd stay merely out of fear of ostracization.

Cutting someone off like this isn't very christian yet many denominations operate in exactly this way.

No, not many. In fact, it's exceedingly rare. And how is an atheist qualified to identify what is properly "christian" anyway? To be clear, this is not me putting them on any kind of pedestal.

Ultimately, you cannot really control what you believe. If you hear a piece of information, you make a decision about whether you believe it or not. You can only really control what you tell other people about what you really believe. If someone stops believing in god, shouldn't their fellow believers take pity on them, rather than eschewing them completely? Wouldn't that be the proper christian thing to do? Does it occur that some people might want to believe, but they just don't. Mayb they can't seem to find themselves being convinced by any of it.

For one thing, if one of two parties ceases to believe, they are no longer "fellow believers". I've not met a Christian yet who would "eschew" someone for disbelief, in fact quite the contrary. IMO a proper Christian addresses these challenges in terms of "hate the sin, love the sinner". If the new, non-believer is okay with coffee and an occasional reference to the divine instead of something that requires one of the two parties to compromise their principles, there's nothing wrong with maintaining a relationship. If this person turns into a zealot who cries and screams that someone said; "God bless you" after they sneezed well then perhaps it's best they be left to the chip on their shoulder for someone more qualified to address.

Again, either this is weak or I'm not being clear enough. Vulnerability is not usually permanent. Not in these examples anyway. My girlfriend was born into it. Her whole family and everyone she had ever known or spent significant time with outside of school was there too. She was unbelievably smart, way smarter than most of the others and they knew it. Sometimes I could sense her belief waning, it was palpable and it would seem to get weaker and weaker (I have no idea if any of that was my influence, I didn't actively encourage her to think or believe any differently but I probably did state some of my opinions, though I suspect without going into the reasoning much. We certainly never had any theological debates). Then one day she would turn up with a slightly glazed look in her eye and a seemingly restored faith. I used to joke that it was like they had strapped her into a brainwashing machine and 'topped her back up again'. I have no idea what really went on but this cycle repeated a few times.

This is anecdotal. My entire family of 4 boys and 1 girl were all born and raised into a staunch Catholic family and every last one of us left the Catholic Church. There was no abandon, there was no eschewing, there was no ostracization.

Her family refused to let her go to university, despite her incredible intellect. I assumed at the time that they knew she probably wouldn't come back if they let her go. They tried to marry her off to a guy two or three times her age who kept buying her expensive jewellery. It was a bit creepy (I should mention we were both 15 at the time).

I'd be willing to bet this is not the beginning or end of their mental instability. I think you're quick to blame a religion for weird people. Birds of a feather my brother.

In the case of the other church members I met, they mostly recounted stories of being hopeless drug addicts, losing friends, family, jobs, homes until they basically hit rock bottom. Then they found religion and now they had friends, a support network, a job a home and they were much better off in almost every respect. I freely admit that the church had done them a great deal of good under the circumstances assuming their stories were true which I did. I still think its a shame that some people don't find those other things they need without having to find god while they are at it. To my mind god is not a necessary part of the equation, just the motivation for the people who are really doing the saving. It irks me he gets all the credit.

To you, God is a necessary part of societal ill. We disagree. You blame religion (a human construct) for human nature and IMO this is simply illogical and unnecessarily hostile to faith.

Not all tribespeople fall for it. Many of them are sharp enough to game the system. I merely mentioned that they were considered prime targets by the churches and the missionaries. Show people some kindness, be it friendship for the lonely, food for the starving, care for the unwell and then when they feel sufficiently indebted to you, you tell them the price, which of course is good. Its a tactic that works for many drug dealers of course. Get them hooked on something they think they need.

Have you ever met a missionary? They're the most kind-hearted, selfless people you'll ever meet. They're interested in serving their God by serving "the least of these". They go and provide aide in places most do not want to go because they don't have broadband. They'll talk to people about God when others ask them why they'd subject themselves to these conditions and it makes for an effective testament of God's Grace, but there's nothing "greedy" or manipulative about it. For example, I attend a non-denominational Church. It is the only building under its purview. Our Church has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on missionaries abroad, has not garnered one new tithe-paying member as a result, and is asking nothing of the recipients of aide. Again, you have a very naive opinion of what motivates churches and people in these regions.

When I was in Botswana, a friend was telling me about some missionaries who used to lay on free breakfast every sunday in their church to entice the locals in. They came and ate breakfast, then left before the service. So they held it back until after the service. Many of the locals decided that is was no longer worth the price.

Okay, this anecdote is hardly the act of a church "preying" on people right?

I met a few people who had been converted. They wore crosses and had christian names, but if you showed them magic tricks they still thought it was witchcraft, not miracles. Something far more ingrained in them since they had learned it from childhood. They were going through the motions of christianity because they had been told they would go to hell otherwise or maybe they had been told god would reward certain behaviour. They either didn't really believe or didn't really understand the rest of it.

You should give of yourself, serve them meals and water, and convince these people in need of your worldview then. I mean... until you pick up a shovel and help out, your complaint is ultimately meaningless and relies exclusively on an antagonistic attitude toward religion.

I just thought it was implied by the comment I was responding to.

And I was responding in kind to a statement you made in error;

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

I'd like to think its there to stop churches from abusing government institutions for recruitment and self preservation purposes.

Another fashionable misperception fed to the uneducated, weak and/or addicted.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, not many. In fact, it's exceedingly rare.

How do you know it is exceedingly rare? I don't believe this is something that anyone tracks, so unless you've done some sort of survey, I don't think you can have any insight into the frequency of this beyond personal experience. Just because you haven't met anyone who has "eschewed" someone for disbelief doesn't mean it doesn't happen: it only means it hasn't happened in your corner of the world or that nobody has told you about it. Your personal experiences are just an anecdotal as everyone else's.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And how is an atheist qualified to identify what is properly "christian" anyway? To be clear, this is not me putting them on any kind of pedestal.

Many atheists and agnostics used to *be* christians, sometimes leaving as a result of disillusionment. In some cases, they might be *better* qualified to identify what is properly "christian", since they aren't blinded by devotion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

When I was in Botswana, a friend was telling me about some missionaries who used to lay on free breakfast every sunday in their church to entice the locals in. They came and ate breakfast, then left before the service. So they held it back until after the service. Many of the locals decided that is was no longer worth the price.

Okay, this anecdote is hardly the act of a church "preying" on people right?

I'd say that is *exactly* one such example. Here we have a clear example of a group of missionaries who are no longer being selfless and just being there to help. They clearly want the locals to listen to their spiel in exchange for food. That is no more selfless than a time-share salesman who forces people to listen to his sales pitch in exchange for a free weekend.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you don't adhere to the tenets of a church, it's best for all that you do leave the church. Seriously. This goes for social membership of any kind. If her friends will abandon her because of church doctrine well then she's likely better off without them in their lives and the church is better off without a detractor mucking things up for them.

I don't know how much of this behaviour is doctrine and how much is simply influential members of the congregation taking steps to preserve the group Regardless I don't see how someone losing all contact with all the friends she has grown up with just because she doesn't agree some of the things they say or hear on a Sunday morning is particularly beneficial to her. It certainly serves the group since it prevents the spreading of her non-christian ideas and acts as a disincentive to others who might think about voicing similar ideas or leaving the church. You seem to agree with this, in theory at least. Its a powerful self-preservation mechanism for the church.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Addicts and the like that you mentioned earlier may go and seek a church because they feel their pressures are bigger than they are. This is often what brings people to faith; a notion that there are things outside their control or bigger than they are.

Lack of control, lack of understanding, loneliness, insecurity, uncertainty, there are many similar but different ways someone might find themselves feeling low or vulnerable, in need of friendship, kindness, security and support. As I admit, finding the church does a lot of people a lot of good, I just can't help but feel there is something much darker undermining these gestures if the price of getting back on your feet and feeling better in yourself involves having your newfound friendship, support and security taken back from you. There is a risk of ending up back where you started if you aren't willing to embrace the required ideals. At best it lacks a certain honesty on the part of the churches. Its like spiritual fine print.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While Wiskedjak and lpkmckenna are correct in that I've swung the argument improperly around, you are under no credible threat against you for leaving a church. How do I know? Frequent church attendance hovers right around 18-20% in the US. Easily for most, It is a conscious decision to get up on Sunday morning and go. I think you're mistaken in assuming they get nothing from the relationship that they'd stay merely out of fear of ostracization.

I'm not suggesting that someone who wishes to renounce their belief could get nothing from remaining part of a congregation, but its entirely feasible (if not actually quite common) that they are only in it for the social aspect and are not bothered about the spiritual side which is supposedly the point.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, not many. In fact, it's exceedingly rare. And how is an atheist qualified to identify what is properly "christian" anyway? To be clear, this is not me putting them on any kind of pedestal.

I used to think it was rare, at least in the UK, but its not so rare as it turns out. Perhaps I'm not properly qualified to decide what is Christian and what isn't but the impression I always got was that Christians were supposed to be kind, loving, forgiving, understanding and generally ethical. Thats the theoretical Christian anyway, I'm not naive enough to think that many actually live up to it, though there are a few.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For one thing, if one of two parties ceases to believe, they are no longer "fellow believers". I've not met a Christian yet who would "eschew" someone for disbelief, in fact quite the contrary. IMO a proper Christian addresses these challenges in terms of "hate the sin, love the sinner". If the new, non-believer is okay with coffee and an occasional reference to the divine instead of something that requires one of the two parties to compromise their principles, there's nothing wrong with maintaining a relationship.

Thats how I imagine it should be under the circumstances too.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If this person turns into a zealot who cries and screams that someone said; "God bless you" after they sneezed well then perhaps it's best they be left to the chip on their shoulder for someone more qualified to address.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is anecdotal. My entire family of 4 boys and 1 girl were all born and raised into a staunch Catholic family and every last one of us left the Catholic Church. There was no abandon, there was no eschewing, there was no ostracization.

Actually this behaviour of ostracision is not something I associate with Catholicism as I have encountered it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd be willing to bet this is not the beginning or end of their mental instability. I think you're quick to blame a religion for weird people. Birds of a feather my brother.

Maybe. Hard to say whether this particular church is just attracting weirdos or creating them though.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To you, God is a necessary part of societal ill. We disagree. You blame religion (a human construct) for human nature and IMO this is simply illogical and unnecessarily hostile to faith.

To me, God is not a necessary part of anything. Again, there is cause and effect to be debated here. Its no necessarily about blame as much as it is about removing people's excuses. I am We are all expected to treat all manner of behaviours respectfully because they are socially justified or excused as being part of someone's beliefs. Sometimes its rudeness, sometimes stupidity or ignorance. Sometimes its intolerance or blind hatred, sometimes its outright violence or child abuse. Sorry, but I have a problem with that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Have you ever met a missionary? They're the most kind-hearted, selfless people you'll ever meet. They're interested in serving their God by serving "the least of these". They go and provide aide in places most do not want to go because they don't have broadband. They'll talk to people about God when others ask them why they'd subject themselves to these conditions and it makes for an effective testament of God's Grace, but there's nothing "greedy" or manipulative about it.

Again, there must be some good ones about, but sometimes they are just as misguided as those they are seeking to induct. You don't see many Archbishops doing it do you?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay, this anecdote is hardly the act of a church "preying" on people right?

I can't work out whether you and I just have very different ideas about what constitutes taking advantage of someone and what doesn't.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You should give of yourself, serve them meals and water, and convince these people in need of your worldview then.

Which doesn't explain why in my story they made you listen to the worldview before they gave you breakfast.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Another fashionable misperception fed to the uneducated, weak and/or addicted.

This seems to be the interpretation when your supreme court blocks enforced/endorsed/encouraged prayer in public schools no?

[Interesting]

I have to say I found this thread fascinating. Clearly there are some great thinkers on this site. I joined just to have the opportunity to post to the quite stimulating discussion. Some I agree with and some I do not, but I honor and respect all opinion and beliefs.

First I will say well done. A really good discussion. However, there are some misconceptions that do not surprise, but do rather disappoint me. (preparing for my attack, as it is no surprise) Jehovah's witnesses are Christians. I know, you have been told they are not... I have been to many fundamentalist churches... and was raised as a Catholic. The similarities are many and the differences few, but important.

A few clarifications based on what I have read here: JW do not have an effect on the government. Rather they do not take part in "worldly endeavors" ie, elections, lobbying, etc. They do not sway the public vote at all, they are not voters... They do not preach that you must believe or face a fiery hell, as they do not preach or believe Dante's fiery version of hell. They will not kill you in a war as they are complete pacifists. They are not opposed to education, but rather corruption and the teaching of worldly behavior and habit. Many of JW are quite intelligent and well educated. Some are scientists... We believe in the words of God over the words of men ( I know atheists, I know) it is what it is. None of us are girl scouts...lol, just thought I would offer a laugh...

[Waragainstsleep]

Welcome!

We are a diverse bunch, thats for sure.

Originally Posted by Interesting 

I have to say I found this thread fascinating. Clearly there are some great thinkers on this site. I joined just to have the opportunity to post to the quite stimulating discussion. Some I agree with and some I do not, but I honor and respect all opinion and beliefs.

I sometimes wish I could respect all opinions and beliefs but I just can't. Some of them I find downright ridiculous. This often compels me to ridicule them. That said, I do my best to hate the belief, not the believer. My pet hate when it comes to belief is creationism. I never specifically encountered this when I used to spend time with JWs, do any of them eschew evolution for a more literal interpretation of Genesis etc? If I were to guess, I would guess its not too common among JWs but the ones I knew were all from one place so maybe it varies in other places.

Originally Posted by Interesting 

They are not opposed to education, but rather corruption and the teaching of worldly behavior and habit. Many of JW are quite intelligent and well educated. Some are scientists... We believe in the words of God over the words of men ( I know atheists, I know) it is what it is. None of us are girl scouts...lol, just thought I would offer a laugh...

I suspect you and I might see differently on what counts as education and what counts as corruption. Also on what constitutes the word of god and the word of men, but that goes without saying.

As I said, my ex-girlfriend was highly intelligent. I can't be sure I've met anyone smarter since (I did Physics at university so I met some pretty smart people). I can't be sure whether her parents were afraid of what she might learn in higher education classes or what she might learn from the people she met and the freedom she would experience attending a university. My guess would be the latter.

Do JWs have something specific against Girl Scouts?

Would you care to weigh in on the discussion regarding ostracision? Are you in regular contact with anyone who has left your church? Have you ever conciously participated in someone's ostracision because they gave up their beliefs?
I wasn't aware that you guys didn't go for the fire and brimstone version of hell, or if I was I'd forgotten, but it became clear to me that if I wanted to spend much time with my girlfriend I was going to have to sign up or give up.

[besson3c]

Where are the Wesley Crusher GIFs?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where are the Wesley Crusher GIFs?

Page 6.

Did you see the cat review site I posted in your cat thread? I think you should try to persuade Doofy to review his cat for you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Page 6.

Did you see the cat review site I posted in your cat thread? I think you should try to persuade Doofy to review his cat for you.

That's a great idea, but I kind of need your or somebody's help with Doofy. I think he's mad at me for his infraction for not telling me about his cat. What should we do?

[Interesting]

I suspect you and I might see differently on what counts as education and what counts as corruption. Also on what constitutes the word of god and the word of men, but that goes without saying.


In some cases it is likely so, other cases might surprise you. As an minor example a daughter of a friend of mine who is JW was her high school’s valedictorian. And yes, she did go on to college. She is not a lone example, there are many.


I can't be sure whether her parents were afraid of what she might learn in higher education classes or what she might learn from the people she met and the freedom she would experience attending a university…

Well, obviously I do not know your FGF or her family, but my guess would be it is what I highlighted. You did not mention her age (as I recall). Not to get too preachy, but Christians follow a bible scripture that says “bad association spoils useful habits”. Perhaps they were concerned about her level of maturity. As I said, I do not know them, so I can only guess. Means of higher education is a very personal decision. “All roads lead to Rome” so to speak.



Do JWs have something specific against Girl Scouts?


In a word, no. However, GS is a religious/patriotic organization. What type of Christian would I be if I love my brothers and sisters but only if they live in the same country? Make no mistake, I am thankful and quite happy to have been born in the United states where I can expect certain freedoms. But I also love my brothers and sisters all over the world. Even our founding fathers believed in honoring God first, and this is a “command” (see John Adams).

[Interesting]

" Even our founding fathers believed in honoring God first, and this is a “command” (see John Adams)."

Correction: Even some of our founding fathers believed in honoring God first, and this is a “command” (see John Adams). My intention is certainly not to put words into anyone's mouth whether living or dead.

[Interesting]

Would you care to weigh in on the discussion regarding ostracision? Are you in regular contact with anyone who has left your church?

Yes.

Have you ever conciously participated in someone's ostracision because they gave up their beliefs?

No. With respect, I believe ostracision is a poor choice of words. Dissfelowshipping (bad spelling) is a more accurate term, as Christian teachings are for Christians... For example, if I consider myself a Catholic but refuse to receive Eucharist, refuse to take part in prayers, refuse to follow Catholic doctrine, am I Catholic? Should the Catholic church consider me as a representative of their faith?

Those who are dissfellowshipped (and this is done for serious reasons and after counsel, not because your dress was too short, you did not attend a spiritual meeting, etc) are able to return any time they want. If they do not then they are not a member of the congregation and as such are not bound by bible teaching (where the congregation is concerned). Again with respect, the whole topic begs the question of why I would want to be a member of a group that I did not agree with. In short, all organizations have a code of ethics and or "rules" they believe in and follow. All believe that those who do not agree with the code are not members.

[Interesting]

Sorry folks! My posts are a mess. Clearly I had some issues with formatting...

andi*pandi, if it is you who fixed my mess, I thank you.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Interesting 

However, GS is a religious/patriotic organization. What type of Christian would I be if I love my brothers and sisters but only if they live in the same country? Make no mistake, I am thankful and quite happy to have been born in the United states where I can expect certain freedoms. But I also love my brothers and sisters all over the world.

What does one have to do with the other? You can be patriotic without hating other countries. No where in the scout books does it say to hate other countries. Sure the Scouts are patriotic ... especially the Boy Scouts. I never had to earn a citizenship badge in Girl Scouts. Maybe the girls do today. I think it's a fine thing to learn to appreciate your freedoms and rights as a citizen.

As for religion, while both were started by people of a certain religion, and "god" is in the pledges, both groups have expanded to be inclusive (girl scouts more than boy scouts). The god in the pledge could be any god. There are pins and awards for many different religions.

I recall learning about scouting around the world and it was very interesting seeing all the countries and their different uniforms and customs.

[Interesting]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

What does one have to do with the other? You can be patriotic without hating other countries. No where in the scout books does it say to hate other countries. Sure the Scouts are patriotic ... especially the Boy Scouts. I never had to earn a citizenship badge in Girl Scouts. Maybe the girls do today. I think it's a fine thing to learn to appreciate your freedoms and rights as a citizen.

As for religion, while both were started by people of a certain religion, and "god" is in the pledges, both groups have expanded to be inclusive (girl scouts more than boy scouts). The god in the pledge could be any god. There are pins and awards for many different religions.

I recall learning about scouting around the world and it was very interesting seeing all the countries and their different uniforms and customs.

With respect, I see GS as a bit of an oxymoron. If you like it, great, enjoy yourself. It simply does not work for me.

[andi*pandi]

Oh, so it's a sexist thing?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Interesting 

But I also love my brothers and sisters all over the world.

I take it your dad was in the Navy?

[Interesting]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Oh, so it's a sexist thing?

What? Where did you get that idea? My reference to their being (IMHO) an oxymoron has to do with their philosophy. One the one hand they are very patriotic (even working toward the "war effort" during WWll) and on the other they want an international league of girl scouts. That strikes me as odd.

[Interesting]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I take it your dad was in the Navy?

My father was in the Air force during the Korean war. He was stationed in Japan. How does this apply? Okay, I am slow... lol. Good one.

[Waragainstsleep]

When I say ostracision, I'm referring more to the social freezing out even outside of the church. Catholics don't tend to do this in my experience, they will still happily socialise with non-catholics. Some other groups tend to stop spending time with people who leave the church, even outside of the church or religious activities. They even do this to family members.

My former girlfriend and I were ~16 when we were together. I considered her one of the most mature people I knew in my age group. Her brother was allowed to go to university. Like you I suspect it was more to do with the people than the teachings she would receive.

[Chongo]

My niece lost a good friend when her friend's mother discovered my niece's grandmother is a disfellowshipped Watchtower member. Her friend was pulled from her school and moved to another.

Arianism (4th Century)

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't know how much of this behaviour is doctrine and how much is simply influential members of the congregation taking steps to preserve the group Regardless I don't see how someone losing all contact with all the friends she has grown up with just because she doesn't agree some of the things they say or hear on a Sunday morning is particularly beneficial to her. It certainly serves the group since it prevents the spreading of her non-christian ideas and acts as a disincentive to others who might think about voicing similar ideas or leaving the church. You seem to agree with this, in theory at least. Its a powerful self-preservation mechanism for the church.

Lack of control, lack of understanding, loneliness, insecurity, uncertainty, there are many similar but different ways someone might find themselves feeling low or vulnerable, in need of friendship, kindness, security and support. As I admit, finding the church does a lot of people a lot of good, I just can't help but feel there is something much darker undermining these gestures if the price of getting back on your feet and feeling better in yourself involves having your newfound friendship, support and security taken back from you. There is a risk of ending up back where you started if you aren't willing to embrace the required ideals. At best it lacks a certain honesty on the part of the churches. Its like spiritual fine print.

I'm with ya, but the mechanism you're talking about is a powerful means of trying to preserve any societal interest. Support this or face that. Champion that or be deemed this. Christians are compelled to seek unbelievers, if they don't see their own friends and family of unbelievers as worthy of salvation, they're not really fulfilling that calling, should it be important to them. This is humankind failing to live up to their own standards like those among virtually all blocs of people all the way down to the soon-to-be mother in law who claims to absolutely hate her daughter's fiance when in reality, he's a great guy and a mother simply doesn't appreciate the idea of losing her daughter. People are crazy like this. If it were truly about self-preservation, all would be welcome with absolutely zero strings attached and they'd go out of their way to make it light and fun for all; no creed, no conviction, no accountability, no talk of hell and fire and death, etc. Otherwise, people are going to do what they do regardless of what their religion has supposedly "brain-washed" them not to. This isn't a church or religion preying on people, it's people preying on people as they always have and will.

I'm not suggesting that someone who wishes to renounce their belief could get nothing from remaining part of a congregation, but its entirely feasible (if not actually quite common) that they are only in it for the social aspect and are not bothered about the spiritual side which is supposedly the point.

The point is growth. It may start through social networking and development, burgeoning knowledge of Scripture and faith, serving fellow mankind, and eventually taking your faith to unbelievers. Any Church that would have you believe you must be perfect upon entry or blindly accept any tenet espoused by church leadership on Sunday is woefully mistaken and from my personal experience, exceedingly rare. Christians know they're flawed and they disagree. It's the secular antagonists that generally put them on pedestals so they have the strawman to rip down. There are plenty that would leave a church and readily abandon the fellowship wholly of their own accord if nothing more than avoiding any feelings of accountability or conviction. IMO, these examples fly in the face of the idea that they're being preyed upon. People are making a conscious decision that is mutually beneficial.

I used to think it was rare, at least in the UK, but its not so rare as it turns out. Perhaps I'm not properly qualified to decide what is Christian and what isn't but the impression I always got was that Christians were supposed to be kind, loving, forgiving, understanding and generally ethical. Thats the theoretical Christian anyway, I'm not naive enough to think that many actually live up to it, though there are a few.

There are few who live up to any principle of mankind, let alone righteousness through the authentic worship of a god. This is why it's called a "walk with Jesus" and not a ride. Christians are supposed to grow as Christians. Some of them, not unlike the diverse nature of mankind among all social orders; at varying degrees of development. It seems we're using the lowest common denominator of a bloc of people to define them. That's the main point I take issue with.

To me, God is not a necessary part of anything. Again, there is cause and effect to be debated here. Its no necessarily about blame as much as it is about removing people's excuses. I am We are all expected to treat all manner of behaviours respectfully because they are socially justified or excused as being part of someone's beliefs. Sometimes its rudeness, sometimes stupidity or ignorance. Sometimes its intolerance or blind hatred, sometimes its outright violence or child abuse. Sorry, but I have a problem with that.

I don't treat all manner of behaviors respectfully simply because they claim to function under the guise of a religion as in most cases the detestable actions you cite can be found in conflict with the doctrines they claim to revere.

Again, there must be some good ones about, but sometimes they are just as misguided as those they are seeking to induct. You don't see many Archbishops doing it do you?

Again, you seem to suggest that the number of people serving others abroad with integrity are the exception and not the norm. I couldn't disagree more. Are you assuming Archbishops do no such thing?

I can't work out whether you and I just have very different ideas about what constitutes taking advantage of someone and what doesn't.

I suspect we have very different ideas on most things including the source of the distasteful behavior, let alone what constitutes taking advantage of someone,

Which doesn't explain why in my story they made you listen to the worldview before they gave you breakfast.

Because these missionaries believe in the message they carry with them and believe it is a source of righting the wrongs among them and providing hope through hopeless circumstances. Simply handing someone food and water does nothing for their spiritual wellbeing.

This seems to be the interpretation when your supreme court blocks enforced/endorsed/encouraged prayer in public schools no?

Not surprising the first case of such was brought to them nearly 200 years after our founding. Courts interpret a great many things under their own biases, but this doesn't mean because you like to think a law was intended for one thing that it actually was. The original usage of the concept was penned to concerned church-goers of government interference and the founder of that principle acknowledged that Biblical instruction in class was the bedrock of education in the US.

[subego]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Page 6.

Thanks for this, BTW. Page 6 is my favorite from this thread.

[Waragainstsleep]

http://www.publichealthdegree.com/re...lth-education/

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Interesting 

My father was in the Air force during the Korean war. He was stationed in Japan. How does this apply? Okay, I am slow... lol. Good one.

You mentioned brothers and sisters all over the world. I made a sailor joke.

[besson3c]

I have a theory as to why some people hate Wesley Crusher: he was effeminate and this made some people uncomfortable.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I have a theory as to why some people hate Wesley Crusher: he was effeminate and this made some people uncomfortable.

I always assumed it was because he was a know everything, do everything, obnoxious Mary Sue.

Wesley was Roddenberry's middle name.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I always assumed it was because he was a know everything, do everything, obnoxious Mary Sue.

Wesley was Roddenberry's middle name.

He seemed pretty vulnerable and sensitive.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wesley was Roddenberry's middle name.

TIL...

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He seemed pretty vulnerable and sensitive.

I think that was because he was a 15.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think that was because he was a 15.

I know some 15 year olds that are complete bad asses that make *me* feel vulnerable.