So it seems that MB may have missed the fact that the reference to Church Leaders was in fact a link to another related story

Credit union chief calls payday loans 'financial cancer'

Where the story is not just that the Church of England and the Church of Scotland think that the practice is immoral but they are offering an alternative.

If I may answer it's because it was a link to a different story

though you are free to point out it could have referenced the credit union chief instead

Can you cite the a couple times when you've been asked for "examples"? I don't actually recall anyone asking you for examples of how Christianity is perpetuated, but rather asked you for clarification on what you actually mean when you make your claims about the perpetuation of various religions (which is often followed by the observation that you're treating religion as a mode of thought completely distinct from all other modes of thought).

I have never admitted to any such thing, I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling me.

OrP recently pulled you up on what you were reading into one of my posts that wasn't actually there. You do it all the time mate.

Ah, well that might be the reason they were referenced, it's true, and I had missed that. It doesn't actually change the substance of the thread though, I just picked a bad example.

No one is talking about Christianity's 'shortcomings' LZ, I think that you're missing the point.


Again, missing the point which was not that the church feel entitled to make comment, but that third parties refer to the church's views on various issues because they've been convinced that the church is a standard by which these things should be judged or that they can elicit a specific reaction in their viewers because of the viewer's own conditioning.

I'm not painting anyone as a 'bad guy' LZ. You think my OP is 'silly' but I think that if you don't see that religions engage in practices identical to those used by Marketing firms then you either can't see the wood for the trees or you're a little naive about how the world really works.

Think of all the religions that don't exist any more. Many of those had trappings of power, religious language and phrasings, grandiose buildings and costumes, ceremonies and rituals too, just like Christianity and Islam. They're not here now though are they so if they were in fact 'false' religions, where did all those rituals and ceremonies and social habits come from if they didn't come from a god or gods?

Now, you could argue that where those religions were simply wrong, that Christianity is actually right, so all the aspects of it's presence in our society that you take for granted are in fact justified because god is real. I think you'd be on very shaky ground there though.


Ok, here's another example:

The church attempting to influence how people think: (since when do churches need to 'advertise' on billboards outside the church on the street where it will get the 'eyeballs' of 'passing traffic' [which ironically is the origin of that phrase in Marketing]?)



Atheists attempting to influence how people think:

Yeah, although I had missed the connection, I still suspect a little of what I'm talking about influenced the choice of who to reference. Unfortunately, because I can't show that there was simply no reason not to reference the church, that it was gratuitous, it's not a good example.

Not exactly. He said I was responding to the beliefs behind what you said, rather than what you said. Which was true, but the beliefs are actually there, I am not reading non existent stuff into your posts.....

No, he said (I'm paraphrasing here) that you were responding from your beliefs about my beliefs from previous conversations we've had, and not to what I actually said in the post. You're doing it again ITT.

I don't believe that the aspect of religious behaviour that I'm discussing ITT is caused by a conspiracy and yet you're insistent that I do believe that. Since I haven't said anything of the sort, I've never even used the word 'conspiracy' except to reply to your accusation, I can only assume that once again you are projecting what you think I believe onto what I'm actually saying. It's a bad habit mate.

+

?

No, I dont think thats what he said, but Im sure he will clarify.

I'm not sure how the second paragraph isn't consistent with not referring to the practice as conspiratorial?

Religious rituals don't spontaneously spring fully formed into existence. Someone, at some point, has had to decide what they will be, what form they will take ('form' is doing a lot of work there, to borrow one of your expressions), what purpose they will serve. That doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy, especially since the purpose is pretty obvious to anyone who cares to think about them and I doubt that they were developed in secret or that there was or is any intention to be secretive. That I can't actually prove that these protocols and systems have been devised doesn't make it an unreasonable assertion I don't think, where else could they have come from?

I think these rituals develop over time and eventually become ingrained to the point that people don't see them for what they are anymore, they are taken for granted and maybe even assumed to be necessary, that they couldn't not exist. All we have to do though, is look back at some of the rituals that no longer take place, usually because the religion that had them no longer exists, and that we now see as obviously contrived for a variety of reasons, and then apply that perspective to something like what we see happening nowadays in the Vatican.

While I don't want to throw in the towel, I just don't think we have enough common-ground to productively communicate with each other, so I'm going to stop spending my time on these discussions.

What is the substance of this thread?

Won't somebody think of the children??

Aside from the fact that the image is missing, NOBODY is rejecting the idea that churches buy billboards.

Maybe you need to consult a dictionary and figure out what a "conspiracy" is.

No, this is not how rituals (religious or otherwise) come into existence. Most rituals are formed over time through a large number of small variations developed from previous rituals. Yes, at some point, "someone" was the "first" to perform a ritual, but the exact form that the ritual took and the meaning that it has was not necessarily defined by that individual. The meaning of a ritual is understood by the larger society, and that changes with time.

But you present your argument as if all of these things are completely hidden from the public mind that it's all going past them without them even noticing.

Again, consult a sociologist or anthropologist. Probably a historian will do here, too. Simply pleading incredulity doesn't actually make your argument successful.

LOL... wut?

Here's my shocked face:

By the way, I'm not sure why you said 'throw in the towel' because I don't think that I'm arguing with you, I haven't for quite some time. I'm fine with you chipping in when you think posts are good enough to respond to.

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
I think this is just part and parcel of living in a country with strong Christian roots for better or worse. As I am sure you know the UK is moving towards a more secular public life. My guess is that when we are 50-60 years old people will be deferring to the church much less.

As an insider to the Christian evangelical church I see lots of marketing. I don't think this is a point of contention as to whether or not the Christian Church uses marketing - they do. Surprisingly, we probably agree (for different reasons) that the Church should use less marketing.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

I think there are forms of Christianity which are harmful to society. I think whether or not we believe in the tenets of Christianity we could still make observations about how it is good/bad for society. Am I missing your point here? You are kind of saying the Church needs marketing to perpetuate right?

I think the Church should advertise/market less but the fact that they do doesn't bother me that much. Every company has an agenda and use marketing to move their agenda forward. The organization of the Church has an agenda and uses marketing as well. I don't see where the problem is.

There isn't one if you accept this because this thread was solely intended to support the idea that this happens. The reasons for it, and the implications are a different argument.

Well, it would seem the best description for this movement is hopping.

Seriously, if your criticism of religion is just going to be a long chain of looking for any viable angle of attack, you are never going anywhere except back to where you started.

I mean I can criticize Christianity because my broom cupboard doesn't like it, but most would agree this constitutes a rather poor argument. Your conspiracy theory of the Church trying to implant Freudian messages in the readers' subconscious isn't much better.

When you leave it behind without bothering to defend it, because chance brought you a new argument you could throw around without abandon - it makes you look desperate and untrustworthy.

It's not a conspiracy theory.... it's a fact. You yourself have used a phrase like 'built in mechanisms', or similar, I don't remember the exact wording. We're talking about the same thing.

Religious rituals like baptisms or Papal inductions don't spontaneously spring fully formed into existence, they were devised by someone and although I accept that there may have been an element of genuine worship involved, some or even all of the time, they also serve the purpose of reinforcing belief in the minds of followers and are contrived with that in mind too. People like ritual and tradition, so the religions gave them plenty. Billboards like the one I linked are doing that same job. Christianity markets itself and perpetuates itself through psychological influences. Fact.

It's interesting that you use the word 'Freudian', presumably you're aware of Freudian marketing techniques as opposed to behavioural modification techniques used in something like Skinnerian marketing? I think religions use both methods.

I'm getting better at staying steadfastly on topic instead of going with the flow and doing what I call 'butterflying', or perhaps I've gotten a little better at actually presenting an argument rather than a half thought through rant. For example, in the 'Brunei' thread I have refused to be drawn into an argument about what I do or do not know about Brunei and how bad they are or are not when compared to someone else. I've made repeated attempts to keep it focused on the actual argument that I presented (unlike in this thread where I didn't really present an argument beyond the simple assertion 'the church markets itself') in the hope that my premises would be discussed.

As a result, I've had very little input in my own thread.

I'm a psychologist, not a psychoanalyst, so I would never use the term Freudian to describe anything. I used it because that is the term you used in your OP.

I don't get what is bad about perpetuating beliefs. If I think your house is on fire, is it bad for me to tell you so?

Ok, well it's used in marketing with reference to changing or maintaining attitudes as distinct from methods that result in behavioural modifications (like Positive Reinforcement).

Ah but now you're moving the goalposts yourself and I'm not gonna bite (and it's when I DO bite that I get accused of 'hopping') I'm not arguing ITT that it's good or bad, simply that it's happening, because when I've asserted that in the past I've been challenged to try to prove it.