According to the following quote by Eloise, I only need to defeat one of your  arguments to disprove your entire thesis:

Of course, I plan to disprove all four of them anyway.

A few initial comments. I've noticed the same flaw recurring over and over. You are attacking a nonexistent (or minority) version of Christianity in many of your arguments. Many of the things you describe here are imaginary, while others are practiced by nobody outside the Phelpses. You haven't attacked Christianity as whole (including Catholics, Methodists, etc), as you imply. You've barely managed to attack the Westboro Baptist Church.

You have misrepresented Christianity. Some Christians don't believe in Hell. Others don't believe that anyone still goes there. Many do not see Hell as eternal conscious torment but as separation from God. Of the denominations that do see Hell as eternal torment, most do not use it as a threat. We are encouraged to convert others by testimony and argumentation, not by appeals to fear. There are few enough denominations that use Hell as a cudgel that your argument does not represent the religion.

That is a very peculiar claim. Source?

God is more of a warner than a threatener. There is a difference. And I deny that many Christians, for example, blow up abortion clinics. You need stats.

This is ridiculous. I have friends who are atheists and agnostics and other religions. Every Christian I know has non-Christian friends. Even the evangelical churches in my area don't tell people not to associate with nonbelievers. We're actually encouraged to befriend them. Where do you get this stuff?

That verse obviously doesn't mean "associate with no one but Christians". You are stretching, Hamby. None of this represents Christianity. Not even fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. Seriously, there are maybe ten people in America that do all the stuff you've railed against in this post.

Irrelevant. You need to show that the term is used this way in the definition of brainwashing.

First, Christians do not attempt to control who has sex with who, only who marries who. Second, most Christians don't even attempt to control who marries who, so this is not representative of the religion. Third, Eloise specifically said that you have to control all bodily functions.

People only recite that in church after conversion, so they already believe it. "Assault" implies that the person thinks differently of himself at the time he's reciting it.

I agree somewhat with hamby. Christianity would be considered brainwashing especially if it was all a great big lie. Its considered a "good" kind of brainwashing to us. We're renewing our mind...getting "washed" with the water of the word....all that stuff....so yeah, I could pretty much see where it looks like brainwashing. You're suppose to have control of your thoughts, which means let the doctrine control your thoughts.

And I agree that for the average american christian, most of this doesnt apply anyway because we dont strongly believe anything. But for the actual (what I would call) believers, its a reasonable characterization.

Essentially I agree with Hamby that the prctices and beliefs of christianity can be enforced and reinforced to the point where they actually engage in some level of brainwashing the adherents. However, I was careful not to say that churches are employing all the means at their disposal to brainwash their adherents since that would be a terrible generalisation and probably not true.

However, I think Hamby makes some good points as to how certain tenets of the christian faith just do verge on being outright brainwashing tactics, such as the ultimate threat of Hell and the attacks on a persons sense of self. I personally find those rather disturbing and sinister, but I concede that they don't represent the sum of all christian intent. And I think they should be addressed to the limited extent that they exist in that people should be aware of the fact that some things religious are in bed with dangerous practices.

Oh and one more thing, when I mentioned that religions have the ability to create extreme social isolation I was thinking more along the lines of Jesus Camp or something like that, though it is possible for extreme isolation to occur in the broad sense in places like the bible belt of the US where you can go far but still be within the bubble of your church.  That said, I'll qualify again, I'm not saying that churches are brainwashing constituents (except tongue in cheek occasionally) I'm only saying that there are means for it to happen.

I disagree.

Well, I have spent most of my young life as a Christian, so let me put on my ex-Christian hat and have a go at this one.

Never happened in any church that I ever went to and never happened in my all-Christian family. Some idiot kid in my elementary school said my Muslim friend was hell-bound when I was 8 years old and my parents assured me that god did not send good people to hell. I think in their minds you need to be a rapist or murderer to go to hell.

What do you mean my hard core atheists? Is there a hard core way to not believe in any deities? I have been to a number of different moderate churches and none of them ever discouraged having atheist friends or friends of different religions. No one thought it was weird that I had non-religious friends or friends of other religions. My uncle is a religious Christian and he married a Jewish woman, so even devout people will associate themselves with non-believers.

Some of the churches I went to did encourage people to wait until marriage for sex. But I know for a fact that the Christian youths at those churches fucked like bunnies. Churches say this or that, but the followers don't seem to listen. But maybe that is just at the churches that I attended. Also, my religious parents have never told me not to have sex and instead informed me about the necessity of birth control and condoms.

I have never heard anything like that in any church I went to. They were always positive about Jesus in the same way that infomercials are positive about their products: they think Jesus will make you happier and more fulfilled, but never tried to debase themselves in the act of loving Jesus. I'm not saying that some of these people aren't nutty about Jesus (they are nutty as all hell about him), but I have never heard one say that they are nothing or worthless without him.

Some churches certainly are, but none of the ones that I went to. Perhaps if you said fundamentalism=brainwashing then you would be right, but mainstream Christianity is to mild to brainwash people. If you said all these things about the real crazies ( go visit http://www.rr-bb.com/ to see what I mean by crazies) then I would agree with you. But as it is, most Christians are not quite like you portrayed them.

Interesting how three or four Christians have completely torn this OP apart and Hamby hasn't even shown his face. 

So you're saying that just because you christians cannot get your own story straight amongst the hundreds of denominations any arguments against it, if they don't follow your particular variation to the letter instantly fail?  That's the only way in which people have been arguing, they've been arguing their own particular demonination despite the fact the things they're saying go against what other demoninations teach. 

You guys get your shit together before you start criticising us.

I'm glad you mentioned that, I AM, cause I wanted an excuse to point out the reason I ranked those 4 parts in order of importance. Strangely enough the tactics of unfreezing the persons original self are considered less important to succesful brainwashing than the imprisonment of the person. It is said that brainwashing requires a captive audience most of all.  This may just be erring on the side of caution, I mean if you considered the last two factors to be the key indicators of brainwashing then it would start to apply to just about any close relationship or heated dialogue between two people. We are always trying to change each others attitudes but most of us wouldn't go so far as to place someone under prolonged physical/mental duress in order to do that. 

So it's the first two of those four which are the strict and inflexible gauges as to whether there is brainwashing going on somewhere; even while saying that all four are needed to actually achieve brainwashing, as you go down the list filling all the criteria becomes less important in determining the effect. Once a person is completely trapped by fear and isolation then they are considered susceptible to the other two as brainwashing.

All in all, I think most religions, hell, most long-term social constructs, amount to indoctrination, not brainwashing. That said, I think it bears looking at these concepts in relation to modern American Christianity and realizing that we in this country are not the center of theism. This might apply as well to other industrialized western nations, but I don't have direct experience w/religion there, so I'm just commenting about here.

I. Threat of Hell.

Many American Christians barely believe in Hell, and will usually raise their children to believe, as has been said here, 'God doesn't send good people to Hell', even if they're not Christians. This, of course, contradicts Paul's insistence that faith, not works, is the key to salvation, and Christ's 'No one comes to the Father but through me', but it's terribly egalitarian and tolerant of other faiths, and is an overall nice idea for working and playing well with others.

Mostly, this seems to be an outgrowth of the denaturing of religion in much of the US, where people give lip service to the idea of God, but really couldn't tell you what their denomination's stance on most esoterica of faith really is. However, a faith founded on the idea of preaching to and converting the masses is generally based on 'believe as I do, or suffer'.

Catholicism as it currently stands teaches that:

A)Hell exists.

B)If you die with an unabsolved Mortal Sin on your conscience, you go there.

C)Once there, there is no way out.

D)Absolution is possible only through Jesus Christ's promise to Peter, and thus requires a priest whose ordination proceeds from one of the Apostolic Thrones.

That last one's the important part of this discussion, because it means that the Catholic Church holds that yes, God will send virtuous jews, hindus, muslims, sikhs, buddhists, taoists, pagan reconstructionists, etc etc etc, all to hell. He'll even send Mormons there, as their tradition of priesthood does not continue in unbroken line from the Twelve. Quakers, too, as well as many Evangelical denominations in the southern US. Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity (Eastern, Coptic, Oriental, etc), Lutheranism, Anglicanism, these are 'safe' in the eyes of the Catholic Church, though obviously all but one is to some degree schismatic and heretical, if only in their denial of the primacy of the See of Peter.

It's important to remember that venial sins are not an automatic ticket to Hell, though, and so if you have committed no mortal sin since your last confession, you're ok to go and get hit by a bus in the middle of nowhere and die on the side of the road. Yay!

II. Social Isolation

This actually tends to be a semi-voluntary thing these days. It's not so much 'social isolation' as 'thought isolation'. In much of the US, discussing religion socially is considered unwise at best, and terribly insensitive and rude. Thus, the only time the subject is broached is at functions of one's religious community, which serves to reinforce its own teachings pretty well. Most kids aren't exposed to the idea of competing religions as such until their own religious beliefs have taken firm hold. They're more likely to know religious differences when they're larger than denominational, like 'he's Jewish' or 'he's Muslim' compared to 'he's a Lutheran', and these differences can often end up played off as pseudo-ethnic in nature.

III. Control Over Personal Habits

This one's easy to do when you're raising children in the faith: It's how we raise children to begin with: raise your hand if you need to go to the bathroom. Don't talk back. Obey authority. The process of molding young minds into accepting their role in society is one that religious indoctrination piggy-backs onto easily.

IV. Assault on Personal Identity

Again, this is another 'easy to do with a kid'. After all, you don't need to break down their sense of identity, you only need to weave the element you desire into the identity they're struggling to develop. It's far slower, but it can produce deeper, stronger results.

I believe that was part of the point of the three--to show the variation among the denominations.  Hamby made a statement regarding all Christians, not certain ones.  So, to "argue" against his points, one needed only to speak from personal experience and observation.

Like I said.. it would've bothered me the same if you were a christian or not.

" ⁴²And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

   ⁴³And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

   ⁴⁴Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

   ⁴⁵And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

   ⁴⁶Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

   ⁴⁷And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

   ⁴⁸Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Where does it speak of everlasting torment? 

Maggots can be associated with death and fire with merely its connotation of purifying or clensing.

Basically, these verses can merely be speaking of, figuratively, "hell, where their dead bodies will be eaten by worms eternally and the fire that clenses will burn forever, reminding those still alive of those dead."

No, I can answer here.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/7

Perhaps because, by the time 30AD came around, Palestine had been under the control of the Greeks, heavily influenced by their culture, and adopted their language (Koine Greek).

" ²⁴And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

Once again, this would seem to lend support to my interpretation.  It speaks of carcasses:

car·cass     Audio Help   (kär'kəs)  Pronunciation Key
n. 

   1. The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for food.
   2. The body of a human.
   3. Remains from which the substance or character is gone: the carcass of a once glorious empire.
   4. A framework or basic structure: the carcass of a burned-out building.

True.  Perhaps it's being used in the colloquial sense like "get your carcass over here," but perhaps not.  But, in any case, whether dead body or just body, why would hell include the bodies of men? I thought it was a place where "the soul" is tormented? 

I read these verses, and all I see is more figurative speech, speaking of something that will act as a permanent reminder for everyone else that survives.

Own personal prompting.  Which is why it bothers me whenever a person says "this is the way it was meant to be interpreted, there is no other way, any other way is wrong."

I see it as a possibility.  Though, I feel no need to accept this possibility as actually how things are.  Or, even if I did, whether they directly affect what I consider the most important parts of the book, e.g., nature of God.

I keep forgetting that only the ego of an enlightened one can understand or read the pages of something that has been largely force fed to the human population for a great many centuries.

The fact that you are a christian does not give you any special or magical insight into the bible, anymore than one must be a muslim to understand what the koran claims between its pages.   

What I find irritating is the feeling that since you cannot change the words of the bible (that's a job for the priests, etc.), you can simply minimize some sections and maximize others to absolve yoursef of the intolerance that the bible cearly displays.

Oh, our church doesn't talk about hell.  That's convenient, but the source of your faith and your inspiration comes from just one book and that book threatens persons with it's eternal torture on hundreds of pages. 

Until 1611, only priests and kings could read the actual pages of the bible and they would "interpret" it for the "common" folk.  This says just as much about the historical & symbiotic relationship between church and government, as it does about the methods of control/manipulation which "most" religious scripture demands of its potential adherents. 

That same control continues today, but in forms which disguise the coercion and emphasize the social agreement.  Your re-interpretation/minimization is just one of those disguises.  

But, all of the re-interpretation and minimization in the world doesn't change the fact that the source of your faith fits every single one of the criteria that Eloise and Hamby have laid out. 

I would find it disturbing if that does not bother you on some level.

Wel, I'm not really sure of your religion so I can only base the statement on the "christians" I've met on the forums and in real life. How different is your version?

I'm not sure how you can see such wildly divergent things as part of the same nature. For me, it's like seeing black as white.

I don't know.  Relatively mainstream Christian Denomination, Seventh Day Adventist.

My issue with this type of OP is, however, the notion that you can categorize all "christians" (the millions of individuals) as perfectly reflective of either "christians" (the ones we see on videos) or "Christian" (some understanding of a denomination) when the variation in belief among "christians" (the individuals) are about as diverse (IMO) as the amount of variations in "Christian" (the types of denomination).

I do not.  Perhaps we can get into it as some point.

Vernacular editions of the Bible have existed since well before 1611. What you should be lamenting there is the generally low level of literacy among populations, not that only the literate could read the Bible to draw their own conclusions.

Oh they are potential brainwashing tools, but I have never seen a church use them. There must be churches somewhere that do all of the things you say. Its just that back when I was a Christian none of the churches that I went to did any of the things that you claimed. So Christians here would not need to demonstrate that those things are not potential brainwashing tools; they would just need to say that their churches don't do those things, so you aren't saying anything about their church.

It seems to me that these could be great brainwashing tools, but I don't know of anyone that uses them.

Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church, NAS Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia.

It's hard to go about isolating people socially when members of the congregation get shipped out to places like the Persian Gulf or the Med for 6 months at a shot. Even harder when those same members of the congregation work alongside people who might well not belong to the same church, and more, are expected to trust those people with their very lives.

Not to be picky, but 'I've never seen a church that didn't use them' pretty strongly implies 'every church brainwashes'.

And dude, every closely-knit community or social group possesses all of those tools. Band camp. Boy Scouts. Martial Arts groups. The Society for Creative Anachronism. Generic High School, Anytown U.S.A. They all possess those tools to some degree.

They're not just the tools of brainwashing, they're the tools of peer pressure and behavior modification, which every group practices in some form or another.

No, it says what it means.  I can't recall ever seeing a church that didn't use brainwashing techniques.  I've been to a LOT of churches.  Probably more than any other member of this site by several hundred.

That doesn't prove that every church brainwashes.  It makes it highly likely that in my part of the country, virtually all of the churches do.  I'm not in the habit of implying things.  I say what I mean to say.  That's why I asked where the poster was from.

Really?

I've been in a dart league for ten years, and am very close with dozens of the other players.  Never been brainwashed.  We just like darts.  I've gotten very close with groups of coworkers who were in the same close-knit job, and not seen brainwashing.  You might want to rethink your statement a bit.  Perhaps you mean, "every closely-knit community that pushes a political or religious agenda uses tools of brainwashing."

Um... when was the last time you were told you'd burn forever if you didn't go to band camp?  I think you're confusing some things here.  Instilling group cohesion is different than brainwashing.  Sure, you can use manipulative techniques to mold someone's beliefs, as in band camp, but in the common usage (the usage that I intend for this thread) it implies convincing someone of something harmful or contrary to what their own beliefs would be without the brainwashing.  When you go to band camp, you like music and want to learn to play the clarinet (although FSM knows why... they're horrid instruments) and the real world results of band camp are more skilled musicians.  Learning to play an instrument is a life skill. 

If you don't believe that religion is harmful to people, then fine, but it's really important to notice that statistically speaking, very, very few adults raised as atheists in freethinking environments turn to religion.  The religious are comprised almost entirely of people who have been religious from childhood.  That is really strong evidence that religion is something people would not normally have unless it was indoctrinated or brainwashed (or whatever word you like) into them when they were young.  That also fits the criteria for brainwashing.

Look, if you don't like the word, don't use it.  The fact is, the Christian religion is reinforced through all the techniques of brainwashing -- defined as a negative control of a person's beliefs to be contrary to reason through the steps in the OP.  If you don't think the churches near you do it, fine.  The churches all around me do.

Fair enough, but not everyone's going to know that. Clarification received.

Except I didn't say they use all of those tools, I said they possess them.

Threat: Threat of being excluded.

Isolation: Forming cliques is a form of social isolation. It's not necessarily exclusive, but it can be.

Control: You adhere to our rules or you get kicked out. Back to Threat.

Systematic 'assault': More along the indoctrination model, but voluntary groups don't need to 'assault' your personality, you're already in the mindset they want. They just give positive reinforcement to the preferences, tendencies, and behaviors they prefer.

Except that the expression of the tools, the particular implementation of how those tools are used and conveyed are not the tools themselves. You don't need to be threatened with hell to be brainwashed. You could be threatened with having your balls electrocuted, for example.

The tools remain the same, which is all I said: Every social group possesses the same tools.

You say you're not in the habit of implying things. I accept that, and commend it. But if that's the case, then don't read things into what other say. I said they possess the same tools. I didn't say they use them in the same way, or to the same extreme.

And I'm not arguing that. People raised to look to an exterior source for their answers and guidance can learn to rely on themselves. People raised to rely on themselves very rarely decide they need to take someone else at their word. The difference between indoctrination and brainwashing is intensity and methodology. Brainwashing usually involves techniques similar to what the military uses in basic training: traumatic experiences (in the case of the military, mildly traumatic) used to make the subject receptive and malleable, followed by expectations of behavior and token reward for conformity and meeting behavior goals. Indoctrination is much, much slower, and operates more on repetition and saturation than on trauma. Similar tools applied in different ways to achieve similar results under different circumstances.

Well, then where are you, so I can stay the hell away from churches in that area? (Not that I often set foot in a church anyway... that whole 'spontaneous combustion' thing and having little old ladies hurling holy water at me... it gets tiresome.)

I live in Southern California. I have heard many, many stupid things said inside of churches. I have heard sermons that were bent on trying to get people to support hard-core right wing political movements. I have seen and heard all kinds of negative things in the churches of Hisperia, Victorville, Livermore and Chino. So I am not here to defend churches, but this doesn't change the fact that the specific things you mentioned in your opening post do not match up with my experiences with churches. They never threated hellfire, they never tried to isolate us or discourage contact with non-beleivers, some do have backwards views on sex (but then I personally know how easy the girls in those churches are, so clearly the message is not getting through) and none of them assaulted my identity or tried to say we were worthless or could do nothing without Jesus. At every point on your list (except for maybe the sex thing) I just have not seen a church do what you say they do.

I think we all agree that Christianity has at its disposal tools that could be used to brainwash people. I just have never seen it happen in my 15 years of attending churches in Southern California. Having seen "Jesus Camp" the movie, I agree that everything on your list could be used (and in a few rare instances is used) to brainwash people. I just haven't ever seen it for myself despite going to churches of different denominations in different parts of California for most of my life.

I think the average Christian would read your list and then say to himself: "Nope, my church never does those things, Christianity is just not like that." And that person would be right; he would never have experienced those things in a church. Of course some fundies really do those things, but mainstream Christians recognize those fundies as being crazy and would not like the brainwashing that they do anyways. I watched "Jesus Camp" with my Christian parents and brother and they hated it as much as I did.

I do not have to show that the things you list aren't "potential brainwashing tools" because (a) the phrase is hopelessly vague and could apply to almost anything and (b) your argument was that Christianity actually brainwashes people, not that it just has the potential to brainwash people. Your conclusion was, and I quote, "Christianity = Brainwashing."

You must argue like this if your conclusion is to be sound:

1. A, B, and C constitute brainwashing.

2. Christianity implies A, B, and C.

3. Therefore, Christianity implies brainwashing.

Ergo, I can attack either 1, showing that the things you list aren't brainwashing, OR I can attack 2, showing that Christianity doesn't imply the things you list. Either is sufficient to kill your argument. I have chosen to attack 2, and I have successfully shown that Christianity does not imply any of the things you list.

To say that "to be human is to be brainwashed" is to dilute the word into meaninglessness.

What is "natural nature," and how do you know this?

I find it interesting that so many claim to have never heard of hell being taught or to have seen a brainwashing technique in their church.

Evangelicals claim that there are 80 million of them in the U.S.  If this is true, that would be nearly a 1/3rd of us.  Well, they're most certainly familiar w/ hell and techniques of brainwashing. 

Nearly all of the mainstream christian TV networks in the U.S. I've ever seen are clearly familiar w/ such techniques.  Christian broadcasters claim a worldwide audience of 225 million according to an hbo special I'm currently watching.

Both current Presidential candidates have (or had) ministers backing them that preach the doctrine of hell.

Bush and son often used Billy Graham as their spiritual mentor.  Billy Graham rarely talks about hell, because..."it's not popular and people don't like it".

In other words, it is a poor marketing technique in this current day and age.  It's ok to believe that hell is real and that the bible is the literal word of god, but it could cost us potential converts in the end.

I see christian messages on billboards all along the freeways, including a dozen on church sandwich boards  that state, "The wages of sin is death".  Welcome to our church.

But no one's ever heard of teachings of hell in their church or seen brainwashing techniques.

Hamby lives in the Southeast.  I live in the Northwest.  Just like Hamby, I cannot recall ever having seen a church not use brainwashing techniques or bring up the subject of hell and I've been to literally hundreds all over the west coast.

Again...interesting !