Heaven, I'm in heaven

[herndawg]

22 pages, wow. did not read them

What is the point of getting to heaven?
To be with the Father God
The only way to the Father is through the Son.
The only way for the Son to back you up is to believe on him.
The Son claimed to be equal with God.
This is why he was killed.
Religion hated him and killed him.
No religion will get you closer to God

Believing in Jesus gets you there - nothing else will.

Taken from the Bible and personal experience and believed by the hern.

Blessing all

[mpjh]

Let's put you in the "can't get to heaven without Jesus camp," a decided minority in the poll, but clearly heartfelt.

[porkenbeans]

I guess I'll have to take that as a "No, Ambrose, I'd rather not go through the effort at starting a new thread and do the mental gymnastics necessary to formulate an intelligent argument." That's fine.

Are you really this stupid ?

Oh, this is rich.

Then you start name calling. This my friend, is what "morons" do when they don't have an argument to rebut with.

You said it, I didn't.

I did not call you stupid. How can I possibly talk to you when you do not know how to read ? Now thats "Rich".

[OnlyAmbrose]

I guess I'll have to take that as a "No, Ambrose, I'd rather not go through the effort at starting a new thread and do the mental gymnastics necessary to formulate an intelligent argument." That's fine.

Are you really this stupid ?

Oh, this is rich.

Then you start name calling. This my friend, is what "morons" do when they don't have an argument to rebut with.

You said it, I didn't.

I did not call you stupid. How can I possibly talk to you when you do not know how to read ? Now thats "Rich".

Funny, I don't recall doing anything but taking two direct quotes. Now since you seem so eager to engage in "debate", would you mind explaining why I don't see a thread about God's apparent nonexistence?

[mpjh]

You are off-topic. If you want another thread, go start it. This is not a call-out thread for you to recruit for another thread. Please stay on topic.

[OnlyAmbrose]

You are off-topic. If you want another thread, go start it. This is not a call-out thread for you to recruit for another thread. Please stay on topic.

I'm doing my best, but when our friend porkenbeans here continues to demand that I "answer his points," I'm sure you'll forgive my insistence that he take his points elsewhere.

[mpjh]

I think that porkenbeans is expressing frustration that his points are ignored in responses to his posts. If they only way you can answer his posts if to start another thread, go do it. Otherwise, make an effort an responding directly to porkenbeans.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think that porkenbeans is expressing frustration that his points are ignored in responses to his posts. If they only way you can answer his posts if to start another thread, go do it. Otherwise, make an effort an responding directly to porkenbeans.

If pointing out logical fallacies in his points isn't responding to them, I don't know what is. Until he posts something with substance there isn't anything to respond to. Which is why I'm encouraging to post his full and complete thoughts in his very own thread.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, the "topic", my downey friend, has pretty much been addressed and proven to be utterly risible, so there's not much else to do in this thread but have some "off-topic" raves.

[mpjh]

Well, nappy, if that is true, then you shouldn't need to say anything else.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, a bit of off-topic raving never did anyone any harm.

[porkenbeans]

I think that porkenbeans is expressing frustration that his points are ignored in responses to his posts. If they only way you can answer his posts if to start another thread, go do it. Otherwise, make an effort an responding directly to porkenbeans.

If pointing out logical fallacies in his points isn't responding to them, I don't know what is. Until he posts something with substance there isn't anything to respond to. Which is why I'm encouraging to post his full and complete thoughts in his very own thread.

You only state "logical fallacies". If you can just add, Why you think my logic is a fallacy. Then you might be adding to the conversation. If you notice, I just dont make a claim and then not give the argument for it. If you cant think of a reason why you think this, then you are merely stating your opinion. You are not sharing the logic that brought you to this opinion. This is how brainwashed people respond. You know that you are right, but you have no idea why.

[CrazyAnglican]

mpjh, It is no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these "Believers". They have been brainwashed their whole lives. It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job.

Item number one:

“It’s no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these ‘Believers’”.

The obvious logical response would be to ask "why are you wasting your time in such a futile undertaking". Your presence in this thread suggests that you do not really believe that it’s “no use” as you are making the attempt. I will concede that you do not appear to be partaking in a “rational debate” on you end though, even when OA is doing an admirable job in explaining the ins and outs of logical debate to you.

Item number two:

It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job.

I’m actually unaware of any professional that “deprograms” members of the Anglican Church. Certainly people make arguments that one should not be a member of such establishments, but actually making money (I assume you were speaking of psychological professionals) “curing” people of their mainstream religious affiliations? I researched it myself (given the lack of actual citations on your part), and couldn’t find a single professional that specializes in such. I can only imagine that if it exists it’s an industry that routinely pulls in $50-or even $100 dollars a year.

Item number three:

“They have been brainwashed their whole lives”.

Now we need to take a look at the term brainwashing. Your statement is obviously innuendo (a propaganda technique) which you claim is perfectly reasonable in an opening argument. The problem is that merely stating that someone is brainwashed proves nothing. What were the techniques used? How do you have independent knowledge of my upbringing? There are certainly too many problems with this line of reasoning to make it viable, but since you want a rebuttal, what the heck mpjh didn't respond to my last post. I'm guessing that he finally conceeds that churches do tremendous good in the world.

Indoctrination that forces people to abandon their beliefs in favor of another set of beliefs. Usually associated with military and political interrogation and religious conversion, brainwashing attempts, through prolonged stress, to break down an individual's physical and mental defenses. Brainwashing techniques range from vocal persuasion and threats to punishment, physical deprivation, mind-altering drugs, and severe physical torture.

Now I’m sure that not even you would go so far as to say that physical deprivation, severe physical torture, and mind altering drugs are used with the blessing of any mainline church, right now. Mpjh and I went over this and he conceded that this was not the case.

As for the first three, they amount to the very same techniques science teachers use in public and private school systems. Would you really suggest that science teachers do not use vocal persuasion? Some do, in fact, use threats of consequences for misbehavior or of failure for not learning the material. There is also the step of punishment (silent lunch, a phone call home, an office referral ) that teacher routinely take to maintain an orderly environment in which to indoctrinate their students. You are, in fact, as brainwashed as anyone in this regard. That is if you choose to ignore “forces” and “abandon their beliefs”. Education, whether spiritual or secular, uses the same techniques as they amount to “good teaching” techniques. What FI told you in response to this earlier was exactly correct.

What FI told you earlier was exactly correct. You are, in fact, every bit as brainwashed as anyone. The alternative is to be completely uneducated. Remember that vocal persuasion is considered a “brainwashing” technique. If a teacher does not convince the class that they should learn the material, then they have little reason to do so. Verbal persuasion is the first method of doing that.

That being said, "forces people to abandon their beliefs" lets us all off the hook (neither you nor I were truly forced to give up any belief). You may be attempting the old "everyone was born an atheist" schtick, but that's not technically true as everyone was born (if you follow that line of reasoning) without an opinion as to the existence of God. The problem comes with proving that anyone raised in complete isolation from religion and from atheism would be an atheist. How do you allow for all the variables? Every person that he/she comes into contact with might blow the whole opperation. Should he/she be isolated from all other children, as any one of them might introduce an unwanted concept, sing a song, say a prayer? You might try to go this route, but you won't get far. Heck, there are even a couple of people that were raised to be atheists in the Jesus Freaks Clan right now. That in and of itself kind'a blows the theory. Unless you think that they were "forced" into church as adults and "brainwashed" by the congregation even though they had the right to leave at any time.

Item number four:

How in the hell can you have a senseable discussion with someone that professes "Faith" as there proof ?

Now, I offer the following as proof that I have made a rebuttal of your points without even mentioning faith or church dogma as proof of anything, and I await your reasoned response. The ball is in your court. Now rebut without using logical fallacies and propaganda.

[CrazyAnglican]

Let's put you in the "can't get to heaven without Jesus camp," a decided minority in the poll, but clearly heartfelt.

Interesting that those who responded "there is no heaven" are in the distinct minority on the same poll, I'm sure that's hearfelt as well.

[mpjh]

I am not referring to the poll in this thread. I am referring to the poll that is the subject of the OP.

[porkenbeans]

mpjh, It is no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these "Believers". They have been brainwashed their whole lives. It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job.

Item number one:

“It’s no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these ‘Believers’”.

The obvious logical response would be to ask "why are you wasting your time in such a futile undertaking". Your presence in this thread suggests that you do not really believe that it’s “no use” as you are making the attempt. I will concede that you do not appear to be partaking in a “rational debate” on you end though, even when OA is doing an admirable job in explaining the ins and outs of logical debate to you.

Item number two:

It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job.

I’m actually unaware of any professional that “deprograms” members of the Anglican Church. Certainly people make arguments that one should not be a member of such establishments, but actually making money (I assume you were speaking of psychological professionals) “curing” people of their mainstream religious affiliations? I researched it myself (given the lack of actual citations on your part), and couldn’t find a single professional that specializes in such. I can only imagine that if it exists it’s an industry that routinely pulls in $50-or even $100 dollars a year.

Item number three:

“They have been brainwashed their whole lives”.

Now we need to take a look at the term brainwashing. Your statement is obviously innuendo (a propaganda technique) which you claim is perfectly reasonable in an opening argument. The problem is that merely stating that someone is brainwashed proves nothing. What were the techniques used? How do you have independent knowledge of my upbringing? There are certainly too many problems with this line of reasoning to make it viable, but since you want a rebuttal, what the heck mpjh didn't respond to my last post. I'm guessing that he finally conceeds that churches do tremendous good in the world.

Indoctrination that forces people to abandon their beliefs in favor of another set of beliefs. Usually associated with military and political interrogation and religious conversion, brainwashing attempts, through prolonged stress, to break down an individual's physical and mental defenses. Brainwashing techniques range from vocal persuasion and threats to punishment, physical deprivation, mind-altering drugs, and severe physical torture.

Now I’m sure that not even you would go so far as to say that physical deprivation, severe physical torture, and mind altering drugs are used with the blessing of any mainline church, right now. Mpjh and I went over this and he conceded that this was not the case.

As for the first three, they amount to the very same techniques science teachers use in public and private school systems. Would you really suggest that science teachers do not use vocal persuasion? Some do, in fact, use threats of consequences for misbehavior or of failure for not learning the material. There is also the step of punishment (silent lunch, a phone call home, an office referral ) that teacher routinely take to maintain an orderly environment in which to indoctrinate their students. You are, in fact, as brainwashed as anyone in this regard. That is if you choose to ignore “forces” and “abandon their beliefs”. Education, whether spiritual or secular, uses the same techniques as they amount to “good teaching” techniques. What FI told you in response to this earlier was exactly correct.

What FI told you earlier was exactly correct. You are, in fact, every bit as brainwashed as anyone. The alternative is to be completely uneducated. Remember that vocal persuasion is considered a “brainwashing” technique. If a teacher does not convince the class that they should learn the material, then they have little reason to do so. Verbal persuasion is the first method of doing that.

That being said, "forces people to abandon their beliefs" lets us all off the hook (neither you nor I were truly forced to give up any belief). You may be attempting the old "everyone was born an atheist" schtick, but that's not technically true as everyone was born (if you follow that line of reasoning) without an opinion as to the existence of God. The problem comes with proving that anyone raised in complete isolation from religion and from atheism would be an atheist. How do you allow for all the variables? Every person that he/she comes into contact with might blow the whole opperation. Should he/she be isolated from all other children, as any one of them might introduce an unwanted concept, sing a song, say a prayer? You might try to go this route, but you won't get far. Heck, there are even a couple of people that were raised to be atheists in the Jesus Freaks Clan right now. That in and of itself kind'a blows the theory. Unless you think that they were "forced" into church as adults and "brainwashed" by the congregation even though they had the right to leave at any time.

Item number four:

How in the hell can you have a senseable discussion with someone that professes "Faith" as there proof ?

Now, I offer the following as proof that I have made a rebuttal of your points without even mentioning faith or church dogma as proof of anything, and I await your reasoned response. The ball is in your court. Now rebut without using logical fallacies and propaganda.

#1.) OA has not explained anything of the sort. Only the premise that I have used "logical fallacies" but he only makes the claim. He does not say how this is so.

#2.) There are indeed professionals that specialize in deprogramming cult members.

#3.) The weakest of minds are the easiest to brainwash. Children fall in to this category. They have no knowledge of this world. They are the MOST easiest among us to sir come to brainwashing. Just ask any 5 year old about Santa Clause.
You are a teacher, You, more than any of us know the awesome responsibility that you carry. They trust in everything you say. You know all the correct answers to any question that they may ask. That is why it is very important that you give the true facts, and NOT fill there heads with superstitions or religious dogma. If you do, They will carry these beliefs with them throughout their lives.
When they get a bit older and learn more about how the world works, they figure out that there is no Santa. Some like me, also figure out that there is no invisible man in the sky too. But not all, as the fear of death is just to great. They are like children in a sense, in that it is easy for them to believe in the authority that they have been indoctrinated by. This is indeed "Brainwashing" in the classical sense. The term brain washing does not refer to the teaching of truth, only the teaching of that which is not true or factual. Yes brain washing is teaching, But teaching in itself is NOT brain washing.

[CrazyAnglican]

#1.) OA has not explained anything of the sort. Only the premise that I have used "logical fallacies" but he only makes the claim. He does not say how this is so.

Logical fallacies are a given. He referenced that your assertion that mpjh couldn't have a rational debate with us "believers" was an ad-hominem attack. It's also called "damning the source", it operates on the apparent desire to make an opponent look as if anything they say is false merely because of some unrelated issue. The fact that he and I believe in God soes nothing to make us incapable of having a rational debate. We've both proven that in this thread and many others. If you'd like a cited sources about logical fallacies so that you know I'm not "Making it up" here is one.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

He's even an atheist so you know he's not "brainwashed"

#2.) There are indeed professionals that specialize in deprogramming cult members.

Indeed there are, however, I was not referring to them. These professionals work with a very specialized group of people who have been subjected to abuse at the hands of a cult or even an abusive church (certainly they exist, but are distinct from cults which focus on one charismatic leader that directly uses influence to abuse followers). One of the "things that you should be concerned about" in this professional's FAQ page said that if:

The group centers its veneration on the leader(s) directly, rather than on God, a higher political power, science, or whatever.

http://knappfamilycounseling.com/faqdc.html

That alone, from a professional counselor, shoots a pretty big hole in your theory that I'm in need of cult deprogramming for my membership in the Anglican Church. You might want to look into the controversy of electing the Bishop of New Hampshire. Many people walked out of the church, right then. This alone shows that the church leadership are not given an inordinant veneration. The focus of veneration is on God not on the leadership. You are welcome to your interpretation that I'm a cult member, but the above scientist says I've got little to worry about in that regard.

It's certainly not that these professionals exist. It's that they do not routinely see cases from churches who are acting in accordance with the bylaws of mainstream churches. I believe the innuendo "cult members" (still using propaganda terms) was an attempt to cast my church in the same light as that of a Rev. Moon or Jim Jones. This is absurd as the Anglican Church advocates none of the abusive techniques used by these people.

Perhaps you could cite a source for a person who specializes in "deprogramming" mainline Christians as the whole cult thing just didn't work for ya'.

#3.) The weakest of minds are the easiest to brainwash. Children fall in to this category.They have no knowledge of this world. They are the MOST easiest among us to sir come to brainwashing. Just ask any 5 year old about Santa Clause.
You are a teacher, You, more than any of us know the awesome responsibility that you carry. They trust in everything you say. You know all the correct answers to any question that they may ask. That is why it is very important that you give the true facts, and NOT fill there heads with superstitions or religious dogma. If you do, They will carry these beliefs with them throughout their lives.
When they get a bit older and learn more about how the world works, they figure out that there is no Santa. Some like me, also figure out that there is no invisible man in the sky too. But not all, as the fear of death is just to great. They are like children in a sense, in that it is easy for them to believe in the authority that they have been indoctrinated by. This is indeed "Brainwashing" in the classical sense. The term brain washing does not refer to the teaching of truth, only the teaching of that which is not true or factual. Yes brain washing is teaching, But teaching in itself is NOT brain washing.

So teaching the truth doesn't constitute brainwashing in your opinion, and you have a lock on the truth in your own opinon as well? You are beginning to sound a bit like the above mentioned cult leaders. In none of the definitions of brainwashing that I could find was there any mention that brainwashing someone to believe "the truth" wasn't really brainwashing. As a matter of fact, under the defintion I cited, causing someone to give up their religious beliefs by using any of those earlier mentioned techniques is explicitly stated to be brainwashing. By the definition that I posted repeatedly insulting someone's religion with the aim of getting them to convert, is quite emphatically an act of brainwashing. That is unless it is not forced upon them, as religious belief for most churches is not.

Therefore, unless you can come up with any independent sources to corroborate your assertion that "teaching is merely brainwashing people to believe the truth", then I think we can put this one to rest. Spiritual education is not brainwashing. You have no better understanding about what is the truth with regard to the nature of reality than anyone else.

You never responded to the assertion that atheists do convert to Christianity. I could name four on this site alone, one who made his decision to convert on one of these threads (although he was, of course, speaking to friends and not relying on our posts). There is also one rather famous writer, Anne Rice, who has done the same. Also children who are brought up in Christian households become atheists. That has to be pretty problematic to your whole brainwashing theory. I'm sure that's just up to individual choice and the vast majority succumb, right?


No rebuttal to #4 I'll take that as a point conceeded.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Like CA wrote (far more eloquently than I ever could), I can't really go about rebutting to an ad hominem attack, a hasty generalization, or an unprovable positive claim. I can point them out and call you out on them (which I repeatedly did), but I can't do anything more.

Well I suppose I could have done what CA did and defined each one of them for you, but given that you were apparently in college during the '60s (when my mom was riding her tricycle), I figured you'd be familiar with the terms and their implicit meanings.

Many thanks to CA for the time spent on that post

[CrazyAnglican]

Many thanks to CA for the time spent on that post

No problem, it's not like I've gotta be at work in the.....doh! See you guys later!

[mpjh]

This is interesting. I find the comments in this thread revealing, and amazingly consistent with the Pew poll results finding that 75% of Americans think that their religion does not have the sole lock on Heaven (or should I say soul lock). I think I like being an American.

[OnlyAmbrose]

This is interesting. I find the comments in this thread revealing, and amazingly consistent with the Pew poll results finding that 75% of Americans think that their religion does not have the sole lock on Heaven (or should I say soul lock). I think I like being an American.

I think the answer of most Christians would be "I don't presume to know who gets into heaven, but I do know that those who do get there by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."

[mpjh]

That would be heartening. I guess I am gun shy from my visits to my brother in Louisiana. He is (or was) Pentecostal, and they aren't as tolerant.

[porkenbeans]

OK, lets see if I can ask a simple question, and get a simple answer.

Do you have any proof whatsoever, in the existence of the invisible man in the sky ?

We all know very well that there is NONE.
In my previous posts, I was trying to put forth the proof that there is no such being. I stated that it is far more likely that all the religions of the world are simply the natural evolution of our primitive superstitions. The untouched tribes that exist today are indeed a window into our primitive past. Science alone has chipped away at those superstitions. We no longer believe that the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around Earth, or that the Earth was created in 7 days. All of these things were once professed as truth, by your Religious leaders.
With each of these advances in science, your religious dogma has had to adjust its stance on what is the "Truth".
When I said that the children must be taught the truth, I was referring to this truth. The things that can be proven. Leave the superstitions for the church to teach. Stop "brainwashing" them with fantasy.
Reading, writing, and arithmetic, along with history and science. These are the things that we should fill there heads with. Religion should be taught, but as a history lesson. NOT as truth. Your unproven beliefs, should not be taught as truth. Unless you can show me some empirical evidence to the contrary.
Now it may be hard for you to believe that my intention is NOT to make you look the fool,
It is just that, as I put forth my case, It is necessary to show the foolishness of your side when you stand it next to science. It is because of science that this poll says what it does. If you were to run this poll 100 years ago, we would undoubtedly see a much different result. And if this poll were run 100 years from now the results would show even a larger swing to our side.
Science will continue to chip away at our superstitious past. Of this I have no doubt. One day there will only be a pile of dust that remains of that great mountain of ignorance. Those that will live in that time will look back on us in the same manner that we look back on the ignorant idol worshipers of long ago. They will shake there heads and wonder how we ever survived long enough to birth them.

[OnlyAmbrose]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=74204

[porkenbeans]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=74204

I AM a poet, and YES I know it. ...hehehe
I am many things, including, an ex-beliver.