New huge 'Victory Christian Fellowship' centre being completed in Firhouse, Dublin

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

If you believe it's an actual place then it's simply the truth - from that parents pov.

That is some what irrelevant.

It is true that children get kidnapped and taken away to work as sex slaves where they become addicted to drugs and eventually end up being killed or dying of AIDS

I wouldn't tell a 10 year old that she needs to worry about this. I certainly wouldn't tell her that this may happen to her because she is wicked.

Dades wrote: »

Just like an atheist could simply tell a child mummy is dead in ground and you'll never see her again. This example, like the concept of Hell, can, and usually is sugar coated.

I'm still waiting for an example of how one sugar coats the concept of hell while still getting the concept across to the child.

Dades wrote: »

I don't really agree with the term child abuse, tbh.

I don't agree with the term either but possibly for a different reason. It is a term that, while not meaning this specifically, invokes ideas of a kid tied to a pipe in some paedo's basement.

Such extreme images allow theists to reject genuine concerns about the developmental damage concepts such as hell can do to children under the claim that those making this accusation are being totally unreasonable and trying to equate teaching children about hell with tying a kid up in a paedo's basement.

Which we are obviously not, but this point is lost in the rush of theists to find the easy way out from having to discuss these objections properly.

Dades wrote: »

I was taught about Hell in a RC school and it never bothered me. There are real abuses and manufactured ones. No doubt there are crazy Christian sects that cross the line in what and how they teach the kids

Again what is "the line". This is the issue that is being ignored by theists. There is a genuine concern here over the effect these concepts can have, particularly if taught by trusted authority figures such as parents.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

All that we ask from you and your ilk is to stop trying to push your magic rulebook into public life.

Do that, and it's milk and honey all around.

Actually, you expect Christians not to raise their children with Christian values because that is "child abuse" or "indoctrination".

Others on this thread have suggested that religious freedoms are undesirable.

People here seem to be interested in far more than keeping religion separated from governance.

As for Christians having opinions on politics, what on earth is wrong with that? People have a right to an opinion too. Christianity is a public faith, Christianity will be seen and witnessed in public as will many other faiths, that's reality even in secular societies.

Dades

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I went to an RC school, and I was genuinely frightened of the notion of hell, so much so that when I was in church I used to do my best not to think bad things. Yep, I was afraid of committing a thoughtcrime. Luckily, once I reached the age of reason, I came to the conclusion that it was all nonsense. However, that was a needless amount of fear to inflict on a child, and it taught me absolutely nothing.

Well I guess there are degrees of severity, on how things are put across. I doubt these days the teaching about Hell are as brimfire as they used to have been.

Don't get me wrong I think the concept is one of the most ludicrous of Christian teachings, I just think calling it child abuse in every circumstance is pushing it.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, you expect Christians not to raise their children with Christian values because that is "child abuse" or "indoctrination".

1) I didn't expect Christians not to raise their children as Christians.

2) If raising a child in Christian values involved, say, taking Deuteronomy - and all it's loving-God beauty - as literal truth; and if we live in a society where we seek to protect children from the occasional insanity of its adult members. Then yes, I would expect that this type of Christian value to be stopped.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You don't appear to be, as suggest by the juxtaposition with atheism.

If you are specifically dealing with the accusation that teaching a child about hell and sin can be damaging what point do you think is demonstrated by showing that you don't mind an atheist not teaching a child about god?

Its part of the point.

Can you explain to me how teaching a child that they are, by virtue of simply existing and being a normal human, so wicked that God had decided they deserve a place in hell, a place most Christians seem to equate (and therefore teach) with eternal pain and suffering, could not have a negative effect on their sense of self worth and on how they view their development?

Firstly, even teaching the above to a child I would stop short of calling it child abuse. Unwise parenting certainly. Secondly, I don't know anyone who was taught such a thing as a child. Like Dades said, 'if' such concepts were taught to children, it would be a bit sugar coated. I don't know 'any' christian parents who instill the above theology in their children. It is those with anti-christian agendas who seem to propagate the notion that such things are drilled into the heads of children. We can all point to a Phelps or other Jesus Campy type thing, but thats because these folks make the headlines.

As already detailed child psychologists stress that parents put emphasis on an act being bold or naughty, rather than on the child himself being bold or naughty as emphasising that the child is bold can have a negative effect on how they view themselves.

In that context I really can't see how teaching a child about sin and hell could have anything other than a damaging effect on their development of essential skills such as confidence judgement and notions of self worth.

And you are entitled to hold this opinion. Its when you start equating a Christian upbringing with child abuse, that there is an issue. You unwisely take a doctrine (not shared by all) in isolation. Then dramatise how its introduced to a child, or how much emphasis is put on it. IIRC, most of the time in school, even hell was taught in a positive way and in childish terms. 'Thats where the bad people go'.

I find it some what interesting that we are 10 pages in and no one has actually addressed these concerns, they simply skirt around them and call such accusations nonsense without actually dealing with them.

Its hard, when such ignorant propaganda is doing the rounds.

I've explained why I think it could be, so if teaching children about these concepts isn't damaging to their development of a sense of self worth and confidence can you explain why it isn't?

Again, you want absolutes. People aren't robots. One parent could explain these concepts and a child could feel secure and hopeful. Presented by another to their child, it could make them frightened and give them nightmares. What I feel a reasonable person would do though, is not tar everyone with the same brush and throw about heinous phrases like 'Child abuse'.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

2) If raising a child in Christian values involved, say, taking Deuteronomy - and all it's loving-God beauty - as literal truth; and if we live in a society where we seek to protect children from the occasional insanity of its adult members. Then yes, I would expect that this type of Christian value to be stopped.

Actually, a lot of moral values can be determined from the Jewish law including the book of Deuteronomy.

Although one has to think of context when reading the Bible at the same time. Israel isn't a Torah bound nation currently, the judicial penalties are no longer applicable due to the concept of grace, neither do ceremonial laws. The Pharisees were more concerned with mere ceremonial laws rather than moral laws, hence why Christ encouraged us to focus on morals and how we relate to one another rather than how pious we present ourselves in public.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Well I guess there are degrees of severity, on how things are put across.

Obviously, but all that is ignored by the Christian insistence that they can teach their children what ever the heck they like so long as they believe it is true because if it is true there can't be any harm behind it.

Dades wrote: »

I doubt these days the teaching about Hell are as brimfire as they used to have been.

Really? I would imagine it is worse. Evangelicals tend to take these concepts more literally and more seriously than yer average Irish priest teaching a class of boys more interested in getting out for a kick around.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, a lot of moral values can be determined from the Jewish law including the book of Deuteronomy.

Although one has to think of context when reading the Bible at the same time. Israel isn't a Torah bound nation currently, the judicial penalties are no longer applicable due to the concept of grace, neither do ceremonial laws. The Pharisees were more concerned with mere ceremonial laws rather than moral laws, hence why Christ encouraged us to focus on morals and how we relate to one another rather than how pious we present ourselves in public.

22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Therefore most theatre is not allowed.

22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die. Good morals there.

22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

If a woman is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, the men of the city must stone her to death. Good moral there.

23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

What the Bible says about going to church, penises, and testicles.

Oooooh, very important lesson.

23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Son, you know those kids at school with no father? They are not allowed in God's house. :rolleyes:


And on and on and on. (Spare us the "context" argument. It's pathetic.)

philologos

I'll discuss the Torah with you in the Christianity forum if you are willing to begin a thread about it. Again, selective quoting seems to be the order of the day.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

all that is ignored by the Christian insistence that they can teach their children what ever the heck they like so long as they believe it is true because if it is true there can't be any harm behind it.

I give up.

Sorry Jackass, the phrase about being dragged to certain levels comes to mind.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll discuss the Torah with you in the Christianity forum if you are willing to begin a thread about it. Again, selective quoting seems to be the order of the day.

I feel like a Scientologist has just invited me to go for a personality test.

What should I do, gang?







(3,000 posts, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!)

Turtwig

Wahey!

Quote mining again!

@Jimitime, apolgies, I haven't read the entire thread and was definitely one of those that took you up wrong re 'atheists are by default neglectful parents':o

Flamed Diving

For more fun reading:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Zillah

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What should I do, gang?

You've had your shots, go for the laugh.

I have in fact literally done a scientology personality test for the laugh with some friends.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

For more fun reading:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

As suspected.

JimiTime

Malty_T wrote: »

Wahey!

Quote mining again!

@Jimitime, apolgies, I haven't read the entire thread and was definitely one of those that took you up wrong re 'atheists are by default neglectful parents':o

No bother. Yis eat children not neglect them isn't it?:)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Its part of the point.

Which was?

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, even teaching the above to a child I would stop short of calling it child abuse.

I'm sure you would, as I say that is an easy way out to avoid dealing with the actual issue behind the objection, that being is teaching these concepts to children damaging to their development.

JimiTime wrote: »

Secondly, I don't know anyone who was taught such a thing as a child.

So? Is that not admission that if they were taught this it would be a bad thing?

JimiTime wrote: »

It is those with anti-christian agendas who seem to propagate the notion that such things are drilled into the heads of children.

Ok, so you have switched points here. You now appear to be saying yes would be bad but it never happens?

Can you explain how, in your mind, Christians teach their children about concepts such as hell, The Fall, man's wickedness and God's punishment?

JimiTime wrote: »

Its when you start equating a Christian upbringing with child abuse, that there is an issue.

I'm being specific, it is you guys that are generalising. "A Christian upbringing" is such a vague term that it is some what pointless to discuss if that can or cannot be harmful to a child. Which is probably why you guys keep generalising, it is far easier to defend a "Christian upbringing" because by definition there are no specifics.

JimiTime wrote: »

You unwisely take a doctrine (not shared by all) in isolation. Then dramatise how its introduced to a child, or how much emphasis is put on it.

None of that actually address these concerns Jimi. Again, if your point that teaching children this stuff isn't damaging, or that no one teaches them this stuff?

JimiTime wrote: »

IIRC, most of the time in school, even hell was taught in a positive way and in childish terms. 'Thats where the bad people go'.

And isn't that a false teaching from a Christian point of view?

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, you want absolutes. People aren't robots. One parent could explain these concepts and a child could feel secure and hopeful. Presented by another to their child, it could make them frightened and give them nightmares.

Isn't that the point?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

As suspected.

Well it was either that or:

http://www.bibleanalysisbyfaithheads.org

The comparision is similar to:

http://www.whyheroinisbadforyou.org

and

http://www.dealerssupportheroinuse.com

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I give up.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

12 pages in and none of you have address the actual original concerns I raised in the previous posts. Just a whole lot of bluster about how it is unfair that we tar all Christians or some such nonsense and apparent flip flop between the idea that it isn't damaging to yes it is damaging but no one does it.

I've been giving you and Jakkass the benefit of the doubt that you actually have a proper response rather than just a lot of hyperbole, but eventually I can't keep explaining the point over and over to be met with silly nonsense.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0EIsgAG-y8

This sums up the type of thinking this church brings with it.

Anti-social, anti-science.

And you ask why we oppose it?

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

I think there is such a thing as possession, but that it is a very different thing than what you describe.

So I guess if someone put them across as human beings, I probably would question more and try explain what uncertainties there are in Christian tradition about what demons are.

What is with all the misdirection . Glad you removed your edit about being out of this thread though .

Ok first, I don't care about:
- your personal opinion on Satan and Demons
- How you would explain your opinion to someone who thought Demons where Human Beings :rolleyes:

What I'm asking, and the question is rather rudimentary, is if a child was sat down and told by his parents that if they did not worship a specific Deity that when they died they would be tortured by an evil spirit known as Satan for eternity, and that during their life Satan will be actively tempting them to do wrong, and in certain circumstance Satans army of Demons, who infest the Earth, could take possession of them and control their body... would you consider a parent who filled their childs mind with these specific ideas as abusive?

Now I'm not asking you to reason on your semantic view of the word Demon, or denominations you know of that don't hold these views, or of all the good that comes from teaching a child about God and his nice angels. I'm asking you to consider the scenario I mentioned and give a yes or no answer and detail the reasons for your answer.

I also recognize your reluctance to deal with this subject. I've spoken to a lot of Christians and they are more than happy to talk about real, spirit angels that exist in this world, and about God and his active influence on their lifes via prayer, etc. But when I try to ask them about Satan, Hell and his Demons they shirk away from the subject, by redirection or some other means.

Dades wrote: »

I don't really agree with the term child abuse, tbh. I was taught about Hell in a RC school and it never bothered me.

How would you know? Have you spoken to the version of yourself who wasn't taught about Hell as a child? You nor I fully know the impact of being taught about Hell during out formative years. The same goes for corporal punishment, just because we are very resilient as children does not mean that being smacked frequently as a child has not had an ingrained affect on us that might manifest itself later in our lives.

The whole "it happened to me and I'm fine" is a bunk argument.

Húrin

Looks like the building is being erected in complete ignorance of any principles of sustainability, as per usual in Ireland. So much for Christians presenting an alternative to the mainstream culture.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Worrying indeed. With the spread of American evangelical Christian churches there may come a time when we look back fondly at old catholic Ireland

Why are all evangelical churches assumed to be American?

Zillah wrote: »

Filipino!

What possesses a Filipino Church to start up in Dublin I don't know. Presumably the Holy Spirit I suppose.

Many Filipinos live here.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I heard someone say that if you want to destroy religion make your country a theocracy or something to that effect and that the reason America is so religious is because of the free market and competition provided constitutionally by freedom of religion. I'm deeply worried and a little bit annoyed.

I found that America is "so religious" (i.e. high church attendance) is because religion is tied to people's ethnic ancestry and they want to stick with that identity. It might be different south of the Mason-Dixon line though.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0EIsgAG-y8

This sums up the type of thinking this church brings with it.

Anti-social, anti-science.

And you ask why we oppose it?

Did this come from the church website?
Are you not tarring all evangelicals with the same brush?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Did this come from the church website?
Are you not tarring all evangelicals with the same brush?

Looking at the website, it is very clear which image they are portraying. This is an American-influenced evangelical church. I happened to live with a few evangelical Christians, some time ago. As a consequence, I pretty much met the whole congregation. On the rare occasion that the topic of science arose, it was like they were all reading from a handbook. As it happens, I noticed some of the reading material my housemates had and was naturally curious. The term anti-science is the only way to describe it. They were nice enough people, so maybe you could say I am over-reacting. But this was a small, relatively new congregation. I always wondered what would happen once we get American-style super churches. We are now at this moment.

How long before the inevitable politicisation of these groups? How long before they call for evolution to be banned from biology, etc?

philologos

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What I'm asking, and the question is rather rudimentary, is if a child was sat down and told by his parents that if they did not worship a specific Deity that when they died they would be tortured by an evil spirit known as Satan for eternity, and that during their life Satan will be actively tempting them to do wrong, and in certain circumstance Satans army of Demons, who infest the Earth, could take possession of them and control their body... would you consider a parent who filled their childs mind with these specific ideas as abusive?

I would probably say that it is inaccurate. Then again, your post encouraged me to open a new thread on the Christianity forum concerning what exactly demons are. I do believe that people are tempted by Satan and by evil desires, but I am not sure exactly how. I don't know how exactly I would regard such a situation because I need to look into this myself.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Now I'm not asking you to reason on your semantic view of the word Demon, or denominations you know of that don't hold these views, or of all the good that comes from teaching a child about God and his nice angels. I'm asking you to consider the scenario I mentioned and give a yes or no answer and detail the reasons for your answer.

Discussing what I feel about it being taught is dependant on what I feel to be accurate. You're expecting me to take a stereotypical view of what demons are, I'm not sure that that is accurate. If someone did, I would no doubt question their view. Due to my uncertainty, it's clear I need to answer the questions about demons myself before I can make a clear judgement on how someone else is teaching it.

It's not as simple as a "yes" or a "no" answer until that point where I have clarified it for myself. I don't claim to know everything about Christianity.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I also recognize your reluctance to deal with this subject. I've spoken to a lot of Christians and they are more than happy to talk about real, spirit angels that exist in this world, and about God and his active influence on their lifes via prayer, etc. But when I try to ask them about Satan, Hell and his Demons they shirk away from the subject, by redirection or some other means.

The reluctance arises out of my own personal uncertainty on the issue. As for God and His active influence on our lives via prayer, I believe that can be witnessed and experienced. Analysing exactly what demons are is quite difficult though. I would even go as far as to say the same for angels.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

How would you know? Have you spoken to the version of yourself who wasn't taught about Hell as a child? You nor I fully know the impact of being taught about Hell during out formative years. The same goes for corporal punishment, just because we are very resilient as children does not mean that being smacked frequently as a child has not had an ingrained affect on us that might manifest itself later in our lives.

I feel parents are entitled to corporally punish their children in a reasoned manner. It should only be used where appropriate.

I don't think teaching about hell is harmful unless people are telling their children that they will be definitely be going to hell. I think it is reasonable to teach that there is a place called hell where people will be punished for their sins unless they repent of them and seek God's standard for their lives.

Quint

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I went to an RC school, and I was genuinely frightened of the notion of hell, so much so that when I was in church I used to do my best not to think bad things. Yep, I was afraid of committing a thoughtcrime. Luckily, once I reached the age of reason, I came to the conclusion that it was all nonsense. However, that was a needless amount of fear to inflict on a child, and it taught me absolutely nothing.

You learned that the Catholic Church is the biggest joke of an organisation in the history of mankind. I know the boards policy is against making statements like that without backing it up, but come on, the internet isn't big enough to hold all the negative history on the roman catholic church!

Dades wrote: »

Well I guess there are degrees of severity, on how things are put across. I doubt these days the teaching about Hell are as brimfire as they used to have been.

Don't get me wrong I think the concept is one of the most ludicrous of Christian teachings, I just think calling it child abuse in every circumstance is pushing it.

Of course they changed it. They constantly change their views of stuff. I think God rings up the pope and tells him the latest on Hell, Purgotory and whatever sins are allowed/not allowed.
When Jehovahs Withnesses change their teachings constantly everyone laughs at them, but it seems to be perfectly ok when the catholics do it.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The same goes for corporal punishment, just because we are very resilient as children does not mean that being smacked frequently as a child has not had an ingrained affect on us that might manifest itself later in our lives.

You're right. I was abused as a child. The memories of what those priests told me as a child will haunt me forever.

SURE some kids are more fragile than others, but the same kids who get tramatised by the idea of Hell are likely to be traumatised by their bunny rabbit dying or the leaves falling off the trees in Autumn.

Jakkass wrote:

I think it is reasonable to teach that there is a place called hell where people will be punished for their sins unless they repent of them and seek God's standard for their lives.

Just to get clarify my position in no way do I think it's reasonable to teach that there is a place called Hell - I just wouldn't (without clarifying the manner it is taught) issue a blanket accusation of child abuse.

Rev Hellfire

Húrin wrote: »

Why are all evangelical churches assumed to be American?

Perhaps because America is considered the spiritual homeland of large well funded religious churches with an aggressive expansion policy. And while the victory church referenced here may be listed as Filipino, its origins stem from the American evangelical movement,at least if Wikiphedia can to be trusted.

But we both knew that to begin with didn't we.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think teaching about hell is harmful unless people are telling their children that they will be definitely be going to hell. I think it is reasonable to teach that there is a place called hell where people will be punished for their sins unless they repent of them and seek God's standard for their lives.

How can you not see the issue with that? You would be teaching the child that

• There is this horrible place where humans go after they die where they suffer.
• The child deserves to be sent to this horrible place because they are wicked
• The only way to not end up in this place is to embrace Christianity and seek forgiveness for their wickedness

Generally it is considered bad and damaging for the child for a parent to black mail a child into acting a certain way based on threat of unimaginable suffering. I fail to see why Christianity should get a pass on that simply because it is a religion.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

I would probably say that it is inaccurate. Then again, your post encouraged me to open a new thread on the Christianity forum concerning what exactly demons are. I do believe that people are tempted by Satan and by evil desires, but I am not sure exactly how. I don't know how exactly I would regard such a situation because I need to look into this myself.

Okay... I'm beginning to see how you are reasoning on this matter. Due to your own doubts in your held belief, judging the beliefs of another that they believe to be true would be unfair. As the likelihood of their beliefs being true could be equal to yours (in fact they may be beliefs you eventually hold), and in such a situation informing a child about Hell and Demons would be prudent, because the individual believes these to be real dangers for their child. While I respectfully understand your position, it is incredibly blasé in regards to what a parent has a duty to teach their child.

Let me put it another way. As an Atheist, I don't accept the Christian belief of Demons, Hell and Satan. However, to gain some control over my Child and her actions I tell her Satan and Hell is real and that right now they are destined to go there if they don't obey my rules. I tell them that Demons are real and are watching them always, while they sleep, while they shower, when they are alone and that they know everything they are doing. I then give my child a list of rules I wish them to follow and tell them that if they break them the Demons will know, and unless they live their lives following these rules I have handed them that when they die they will be tortured by a creature named Satan for eternity.

Do you think if I was to do this that I would be viewed as mentally abusing my child?

Dades wrote: »

You're right. I was abused as a child. The memories of what those priests told me as a child will haunt me forever.

You're taking a rather polarized view of "abuse". The affects of which might be subtle enough to affect simple things you might fear now or worry about. I know a friend who was raised a Christian, and even though she can watch most horrors without a problem with us, movies that contain possessions, demonic influences or anything to do with the occult she can't watch. She is an Atheist now, but still the residues of living a childhood of being told Demons and evil spirits are real still have an affect on her.