Comments
Trackbacks
-
[...] – Unreasonable Faith) May 17th, 2009 in Extremism, Humor | tags: greg laurie, [...]
-
[...] number of folks were very hard on child preachers. Do you see a difference between this and child [...]
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
Oh my… oh. That last one was absolutely terrifying. There is no excuse for putting a sandwich board on your four-year-old. That right there is child abuse.
Child abuse is EXACTLY what it is. Do this to a child in any other walk of life, and the parents would be in jail and the kids with social services. Seems to me the people arguing we haven’t evolved from apes are the ones that haven’t.
No…. child abuse is neglecting your child. sexually abusing your child, letting someone else sexually abuse your child. Beating your children, shaking them until they stop breathing. Being too drunk to care about your child. Burning them with cigarettes. Leaving your children with untrustworthy relatives. Letting them run the streets without supervision, I could go on but you probably get the point. These are the kids that end up with children services.
And exposing them to ridicule isn’t abuse? Putting them in a hostile situation, expecting them to accost total strangers on a streetcorner isn’t abuse? Teaching them that suffering persecution and ill-will is desirable isn’t abuse? Methinks you’re not giving full consideration to the consequences of this kind of indoctrination.
or putting your child in an exploitative working environment?
I dont think that applies here. It would be the same as cousin Joey, who is gifted at singing, standing up in front of the family and belting out we are the world at Christmas time.
I second that. It is disturbing, and I pity the child, but it is not abusive, any more than naming your kids something stupid like “Moonbeam” or “Fuschia”, giving them a stupid haircut and homemade clothes, and sending them to public school. Or anywhere in public, for that matter.
No, the emotional trauma that children go through because of this sort of thing cannot be considered anything but abuse. Their parents often exploit them for money or prestige. Watch the documentary Jesus Camp; look at the kid in it crying because he seriously thinks he’s going to hell for not having strong enough faith, and tell me that isn’t child abuse. This isn’t about them going up and just saying a speech, this is about them being subject to intense indoctrination, preaching on moral issues they are too young to understand. Do you think that kid with the sandwich board truly understands the concept of abortion; does he realize that 50% of embryos are spontaneously aborted within the human body, does he realize that aborted fetuses suffer far less than any animal that was killed to go into his next meal? Does he understand the sociopolitical impacts of abortion? No, all he knows is that his parents put a sign on him and told him that big bad doctors in that building kill babies just like him. Picture the same thing but with a child being forced by his parents to preach for Marxism, then I challenge you to tell me that’s not child abuse.
These kids, having been so indoctrinated, and having been such a part of this limiting environment, will never grow up to know any better. There is a story, told by Richard Dawkins, of a certain woman who was molested by a priest as a child, and around the same time her friend died. Her friend was a protestant, and she was told that this friend was going to hell for believing the wrong faith. Now, being much older, she realizes that the sexual abuse, though wrong, was much less traumatizing than the emotional abuse imposed upon her by a stupid set of beliefs. Sometimes, abuse doesn’t look like abuse. But this is abuse if anything is.
I agree that that would hinge on child abuse
Sorry. There may very well be abuse in this kid’s life, or there may not be. But trying to pass your deeply held beliefs on to your kids is not abusive, whether those beliefs are Marxist, Christian, Islamic, Secular, or Rooting for the Phillies.
Trying to get your kids to believe in the things you think are important is what you are SUPPOSED to do. I think it’s called “parenting”.
Obviously the beliefs in this case are screwed up, hence the title of this website, but if putting an anti-abortion sandwich board on your kid and taking him to a demonstration with you is abuse, then so is dressing him up in team colors, taking him to a ballgame, and teaching him to yell “Dodgers SUCK!” along with you.
The kid will form his own opinions in time, but at that age, you just want to do what Mom and Dad do, whether that is going to Pro-Life rallies, or Pro-Choice Rallies, or NASCAR games, or Church, or Star Trek Conventions. Is dressing your kid like a Klingon abuse?
I agree with your statements, its just that this particular would be in danger as many militant abortionists would have no prob running him over, this is were parents dont think
After this, they all had a nap, then watched Power Rangers.
1) There parents should be ashamed of themselves for drilling that amount of drivel into them
2) Religious hysterics, as demonstrated by some them, believed to be the spirit of god speaking through them by some of the more evangelical groups, is not healthy, especially the black girl towards the end she was basically going to force herself to faint.
3) When a child of limited vocabulary due to age know more words about religion than the world, be scared for their future.
4) Like the scary christianyoutuber kid, what is this going to do to their psycnhe when older
5) Those kids had received way to much sugar, way to much.
Like
crazy, manipulative, indoctrinating, power ridden proselytizingfather,like
manipulatable, impressionable, indoctrinated, moldable, mimicking, doesn’t know any betterson.These kids are playing dress up. They’re imitating the behavior they’re exposed to, like any other kid. Most children pretend to be cowboys, doctors, power rangers.
Only difference is…most kids grow out of it as they realize it’s all fantasy.
Something tells me these kids won’t.
They’ve probably seen first hand what the Gospel does to change lives. Maybe their parents are in ministry or they are just gifted to preach. Kids are not mindless drones always following the indoctrination of their parents, a child can think for himself. If you are a parent you can attest to this fact. Granted most of the capture in this video shows some extremes and a small percentage of what actually goes on in a healthy Christian family (something Daniel is privy to posting) but in real life, kids are not stupid, they know hypocrisy and double standards and if their parents are genuine in their beliefs. My kids see right through me and actually help me understand the truth about God.
The problem here isn’t with the children but their parents and church leaders. Child evangelists are likely to be damaged if this behavior is encouraged for very long. The “leadership” position social roles they are put in is emotionally dangerous and can lead to serious problems later. I also think that most Christian ministers and ministry professionals would agree with this assessment. Taking these children away for this activity in the short run is wrong as the parents may need time and help to clarify the situation. However, if this goes on and on, then a child protection case should be opened even though it is highly unlikely to happen.
I grew up in the pentecostal environment like most (or all) of these children. When I was a minister I would have worked hard to take the spotlight and pressure off any “anointed” children in the church and would have dealt directly with the parents about their co-dependency.
It’s not an awful lot different than stage mothering, is it? I mean, to the extent that kids like positive attention and are probably practicing to be very good. For all intents and purposes, those children are very good actors, and the difficult part is that they are saying words they either don’t know or aren’t capable of analyzing, and then believing it. I don’t happen to be a very good liar, so when I had a job in sales, I actually was “recognized” as a mark by the manager, and he did his job selling me on the qualities of the stuff. He was good at thinking up stuff on the fly, and I had seen him outright lie to a customer, and followed up on my suspicion with him, and he was proud of it. As a customer, I would have seen through it, doubted many of his claims, but as a salesperson, I was on the inside. It was all a lie, I couldn’t convince a customer to buy unless I actually believed something. I digress, I was 24 at the time, and I valued that experience in my life as far as I learned what I just told you.
Anyway, you know I think religion is ridiculous. I don’t understand people going to church to hear things they already should know (if they think they need to know it). I dislike reactions to things that are set apart for their heinousness due only to religion, when acts such as these upon children is a pretty good issue in general. Some kids take ballet or play baseball or play the piano, and their proud parents take them out for ice cream and make them put on recitals for their friends. Some kids enjoy those activities and some are looking for an out. Some parents put a lot more stress on perfection at something and vicarious living through strict positive/negative attention. Some kids like that too, at the performance level, learning what kind of dedication it takes to excel at something they enjoy doing, and some kids get totally screwed up pleasing someone else. Make that context religious performance, and it’s not really different.
I don’t understand the 2 real small babies in the video. Since I couldn’t understand what they were saying, and I’m not entirely sure they could even know where they were, I can’t say if they’re being tracked into the ministry (or sales or acting) like the older kids or if they’re just being put on display as to how cute it is when a baby does something. The older kids have a strong probability of staying with their church and remembering their childhood fondly. As insane as religion is, it’s hard to tell from the video if most of them are being treated poorly. I don’t consider teaching children one’s values to be any of my business or an issue of abuse, even extreme values that I disagree with. The anti-abortion kid’s parents did cross a line in my mind, for sending/bringing him out in public to yell at strangers.
I pity kids that have been stage mothered too. I’ve seen it, and it’s not that pretty.
good for you.
If children were as perceiving as you seem to think they are, we wouldn’t have religion. Period.
“These kids are playing dress up. They’re imitating the behavior they’re exposed to, like any other kid. Most children pretend to be cowboys, doctors, power rangers.”
…Used car salesmen?
From the song playing in the background of the video (T.I. “No Matter What”)
The song is about him facing federal weapons charges. Oddly he chose not to “let god deal with it” and took a plea deal and will start a one year sentence a week or two from now.
It also raises the question of why does someone who trusts god to handle his legal issues need to carry unregistered machine guns.
It does shed some light on why he repeatedly violated probation for the first felony he was convicted of.
I love rap, but rappers are such an odd mix of f’ed up celebrity, hyper-masculine image and actual thug lifestyle.
Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
It is sin to doubt the word of god. Christians never realise their faith can be manipulated by their kind, even not of their kind. They thought they really have holy spirit of the Book and he will show them of all truth.
Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
I’m going to be honest. I have no idea what the point of that is or what message it’s trying to say is. Certainly it’d be blasphemy to put the Bible in plain English, but still I wonder… Would the world be a different place if the bible weren’t in an archaic language and people everywhere decided to tote around a Bible in plain English than the official King James version?
Err, Christian people everywhere, that is.
My error. I should not have click “reply button” if I am replying to the article. Sorry for the confusion caused.
Even then it doesn’t make any sense.
They can’t even justified their actions from the book.
The Bible is in plain English, as well as hundreds of other contemporary vernaculars.
I was talking about if the church used the plain English edition instead of the archaic English edition.
Uh…. DM, I’m gonna introduce you to a fairly basic concept which is common to all atheist blogs. And to people with a capacity for critical thinking. It’s quite simple:
Putting a quote followed by the name of a biblical book and the numbers of chapter and verse you are quoting is not, has never been, and will never be, a good way to present an argument. Really. You’re posting something that we all know is from a book written generations after the life of its subject, by people who never met him. Ever heard of Chinese whispers? There we go, then. More to the point: Most of us will read a bible quote and instantly dismiss your entire argument on the grounds that if you can’t support it better than that, you must be wrong. I know that’s not the right thing for us to do 100% of the time, but you get bored with the same arguments after a while and start playing the odds!
believers like the scripture references, thanks DDM
Huh?
Disagree, it give perspective to where they are coming from, would be better if they made their arguement with the verse in their body though. A lot of time they give a verse than rant on something unrelated.
true, true
You’re posting something that we all know is from a book written generations after the life of its subject, by people who never met him
That’s not entirely accurate. The epistles of Paul are written by a contemporary of Jesus, even though he never heard Jesus in the flesh (so you’re half right on that one).
Concerning the Gospels:
There’s a lot of scholarship related to the logia (sayings of Jesus), which were used by the synoptic writers.
There is also a lot of scholarship surrounding a source theory (i.e., Q document) that might explain how the Gospels came to be, i.e., as amalgamations of several smaller works of literature that predate the writing of the Gospels themselves.
Anyway, wikipedia has halfway decent articles and bibliographies on both of these topics, and they’re well-balanced. Perhaps you’ve read them. However, if you haven’t, now at least you’re aware that there’s a lot of legitimate scholarship that shows that the content of much of the gospels predates when the gospels were actually penned.
There is also evidence that some stuff was added later, that only one ‘gospel’ was really written and that others just propounded on that one, and even that some of the miracles were ‘faked’ to make Jesus a better messiah. Some stuff contradicts its self and many things Christians believe aren’t even in the bible. They were added by preachers at the time. After all, there were a kind of ‘messiah wars’ going on at this time. Jesus was not they only one put forth, there were many others. So, since there info is lost and the winners write the history, we have the New Testament. Jesus did not have to be better, he just had to have better PR. And TADA! We have the new testament. Maybe the best PR move ever.
thats hilarious.
You see? This is what happens when hardcore Christian parents indoctrinate thier children so early. The parents think that thier doing thier children good, but can’t fathom the harm it accually does.
How do you explain the children that are happy and content with their faith? I work with hundreds of them?
And there are certainly children that are happy and content without your faith or with other faiths. So what?
Kids seem to enjoy a sense of community and a stable environment. It’s not a matter of ideology.
exactly, that’s my point. Kids want to be where they are safe and loved. Even when its really bad (earlier post above) they still call their parents “home”.
some of the posters have called this child abuse, I don’t see child abuse in relation to this video. Other the little guy in front of the abortion clinic, people are getting killed there.
For those who think these kids are just find and dandy, you may want to google Marjoe Gortner. He’s the first boy in this clip. You may also want to track down the entire tape of the last boy.
will do
I did, that was cool! Hes kinda f’ed up if you ask me. Would love to see the documentary.
It took me awhile to track down #1.Samuel Boutwell
I wasn’t raised in any faith (Mother is a lapsed Catholic, Father was somewhere between deist and atheist) and I’m very happy with the way I learned to look at the world.
good for you Joe
My point still being that many bloggers here are using this video to show “abuse from parents” to these young evangelists. I am sure these are happy healthy young people, perfectly content in their situations. Lets just let them get out there and start a TV show.
The reason I said my last comment is, children can’t even begin to question or judge for them selves. It takes a mature mind to make decisions of what’s wrong or right.
Not right or wrong, but believe or not believe.
J.R,
how do you establish right and wrong in your household? Does everyone get to make up their own right and wrong? Or is there a standard of right and wrong. Does the government decide for us? (hypothetically): If I want to exercise my right to abduct small children, what can you say about this? Is it right or wrong? If it’s wrong for you and right for me, who is right?
In other words, how do we define morality and who gets to decide?
Science tells us that the brain is pre-wired to tell us right from wrong. People who commit crimes, who murder, rape, lie constantly, and can’t stay straight have different brain structures from the rest of society. Humans are set up to know right from wrong and to be able to get along with others. Hence the human idea of sin. We know when we have done something wrong. Our brains know. Atheists have the same brain as you. It can be set up into a system of wrong thinking as a child by people the child trusts. This can manifest in many ways later in life. I have PTSD from abuse suffered at the hands of my father. I still have mental scars and will never be ‘right’ from that because it set up a pattern of thinking that I cannot escape. These children are being set up in the same way. When they find that they have been deceived, if they do, then they to will suffer the ill effects. That is why many state this is abuse. We don’t know what bad things these actions might later have on these innocents. Atheists are humans and so have the same empathy for others that most people do. It has nothing to do with religion.
so who decides?
I Don’t know, Doug… How DO you decide? (You do not have a “right” to abduct children, BTW. You may have a preference to do that, but “Rights” are something specifically delineated, and Child abduction, in America, is not a Right.)
The more important question, though, Doug, is “How do you account for others who have decided differently?”
If morality is universally given by God, then why do we have so many different kinds of it?
@frank
“Rights” are something specifically delineated, and Child abduction, in America, is not a Right
So who dictates morality? how do you define morality?
@frank
The more important question, though, Doug, is “How do you account for others who have decided differently?”
people make choices, free will, some good some bad (or evil), there is usually a consequence to our decisions. In life and into eternity.
Anne,
I don’t disagree with your statement about being wired differently, everyone reacts differently in situations. My brother and I were raised in a broken home together. Much fighting and discord. I bounced back quicker than he did. He is now 43 years old and just discovering a healthy life. So your make up has a lot to do with how you view the world. I empathize with you, being brought up in an abusive home though, thats why my wife and I actively foster, to provide stability for kids that are taken from their homes.
@frank,
If morality is universally given by God, then why do we have so many different kinds of it?
Because his world is spiraling downward. Away from morality. It’s obvious to everyone that pays attention to current events. When there is no standard, people make up their own standards, who’s to say, who’s way is best?
This country and many others are Godless. They have moved away from their original underpinnings:
http://dougwadedesign.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/who-says-america-isnt-a-christian-nation/
sorry, didnt catch that, in my opinion, only America had an original Christian heritage, we came here to escape the tyranny of an oppressive government, to enjoy “religious freedom”. Now we find ourselves oppressed by a tyrannical government once again.
@dwade
I was until this moment unsure of how lacking in history you are. First the claim that people came here to practice their religion freely is wrong. They did come to get away from the oppressors in Europe but then they became the oppressors. All they came for was to become what they had fled. They no more came here for religious freedom then they came here to live in peace with the natives of this land.
The USA isn’t a christian nation and never was intended to be by most of the founding fathers. You can make all the claims you want but the truth only comes when you open yourself to it. By hiding behind your religion you are allowing others to decide the truth for you. Think about what you say is the truth and ask yourself where it really comes from Does it come from searching for it or does it come from others with something to gain from it? If you are only looking at one side of the argument then you are hiding from the truth not looking for it.
Your views of morals are no different then the truth. Others tell you what is morally right or wrong. Even if the world is godless as you claim, what does that say for your beliefs? Trying to blame the rest of the world for all the problems is what a child would do. Myself I only see the outcome of the misguided creating a situation that has drawn the worst out in people claiming to be good. Most of the situation we are in at this time was created by people claiming to be christians. You do know when you play the persecution card most people laugh see it for what it is. It is whining because you as the majority don’t get to force your lies on us.
Your getting caught up in a typo. Right after I typed right and wrong, I then typed believe or not to believe. There is a norm for right and wrong, not for belief or not to believe. I hope I have cleared this matter up for you.
@bacon
I love when people attempt to rewrite bistory to support their claims, kind of like our public school system
and creationists
I would say they are happy only because they are pleasing their parents. The goal of most kids is to please their parents and those their parents wish them to please. Of course we don’t know how happy they actually were when these videos were made. Most people even kids have a public image and a private image. Does anyone know what has become of these kids since these videos were made?
My above comment was for Dwade. For some reason it didn’t put my comment on the right reply. I hope this doesn’t get confusing.
yes, thank you.
6 and 9 are the same, just different age. I’m ashamed to say that Nezareth is from my country, Peru.
Over all, those are kids that should have been aborted.
It make better sense that these parents should be “re-educated” and the kids assigned to humane families.
“re-educate” is a dirty word (the Soviets used to “re-educate” dissenters). We only get one chance at education. But if it fails, government should probably step in to prevent the establishment of a cycle by making sure the children at least learn to see beyond one ideology.
no child should be aborted, what if your mom chose to abort you? You wouldn’t be able to grace us with your human wisdom….
Conveniently, how it works is, you don’t have any cares, you don’t have regrets.
true
@dwade: Religious defense of anti-abortion sentiments will never stick. I am assuming that you do use this defence, because there is no ‘scientific’ derision for abortion that I’m aware of.
Why does God let 25% of women miscarry in the first 6 weeks then? Most women at that stage would not even show and do not even realise what has happened. I could have been pregnant in the last couple of years and it may have aborted without my knowledge.
either way, the majority of women that either choose abortion or miscarry will mourn the loss of their child. And God is not to blame for a miscarriage.
Why not?
are you asking why is God not to blame?
You know you don’t have to stall for time when it’s in text form, yes that’s what I mean.
@questionithority:
What evidence do you have to support your claim that the innumerable unplanned abortions that happen every year the result of poor diet and unhealthy chemicals?
I am not claiming that all miscarriages are a result of our diets, but in general a lot of disease can be avoided with better diet and exercise. There is also substantial evidence that abortion (the choice of eliminating a child from your womb) brings greater risk of breast cancer. So I don’t blame God for our bad choices, we should own up to making bad choices and quit blaming God for our human frailties.
I was not stalling, I am working right now, kind of limited in my ability to respond in depth, sorry.
The human condition and all of it’s illnesses and diseases are simply a “human condition”. We are exposed to chemicals in our food, on our lawns, in our homes. We eat very unhealthy (speaking of americans) and we are surprised when our bodies break down and malfunction. How is this God’s fault?
On the sabbath!?!?!?!
Stone him!!!!1111!!
hehe, never was much for legalism.
Care to be more specific? We are also made of chemicals, everything we some in contact with is also made of chemicals.
Or are we mixing religion and pseudo-science (unnamed “toxins”) here?
I was referring to chemicals like msg, preservatives in fast food.
What evidence do you have to support your claim that the innumerable unplanned abortions that happen every year the result of poor diet and unhealthy chemicals?
I’ll give dwade a bit of an assist. Caffeine and Exercise have been correlated to increased miscarriage risk, I think anti-abortion protesters should start picketing Starbucks and Gyms, just from the sheer number of unknowingly pregnant women increasing their miscarriage risk those two have to out-”baby kill” abortion clinics.
No caffeine or exercise for any anti-abortion women who could be pregnant!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#cite_note-25
So good things are gifts from God, and bad things are just how the world is. Got it.
would you say that everything is God? or everything is man? I have come to understand that God is holy and just and perfect. All good things do come from God, like breathing, my heart beating, my good health. If I abuse my body (my body my choice) then I don’t think God needs to step in and fix it. He allows us to make bad choices and suffer the consequences. Just like I raise my kids, if they mess up, they get to experience the consequences, therefor they do not lead sheltered lives. They get to put on their big boy pants.
“Just as I raise my kids…”
So you would torture your kids for all the eternity, if they don’t worship you?
@francesc
huh?
I dont understand your question…sorry
You are comparing your relationship with God with the relationship between a child and his father. so I’m remebering you that, when a kid does something bad, you punish him depending on his fault; there is a correlation between the crime and the punishment. As it is in our society, with laws and trials.
Eternal torture in hell is not, in any way, a punishment aproppiate for any crime.
More importantly, nobody has to spend an eternity in hell, we get to choose. Unless you think that all of humankind are robots.
Let’s see two possibilities here…
1.- There are enough reasons to believe in the existence of a particular god (for the sake of the argument, let’s say it fits your particular set of believes about the Abrahamic God) but I still don’t believe, why? Do you think any person would choose hell?
Moreover, he supposedly “knows” me, so he knows the amount of information I need to believe in Him. So He can choose to provide me with enough information or don’t provide me that information.
2.- There are not enough reasons to believe in the existence of any god. You need faith (holy spirit inspired faith). So the difference between you and me is that God has knocked at your door. So I’m going to hell because He forget me.
In the first case, is not a “free” decision. Given the necessary information, is like He is aiming at my head with a gun. Neither is it in the second case, as He chooses who willl believe sending the holy spirit to him.
I actually think dwade was just talking about consequences in general. If you teach your children anything about cause and effect, and then teach them something about how to behave, they don’t necessarily have to be punished by the adult whose care they are under. This is not religious, or it doesn’t have to be. There’s no worship of the parent involved, necessarily.
An adult knows better (tries to, de facto believes they do) and tries to teach the kid some good values and sociable behavior, and the kid makes mistakes or is willfully opposed to certain behaviors, other people are going to make it harder for the child to get along and achieve their goals. This is socialization, the social rewards for learning to get along and do what you’re told and the social punishments for defying or nonconforming.
I was raised fairly strictly by my mom, and she never never used the words “because I said so.” So many parents think it is their right to say that, but my mother always said what would happen or might happen if I were to disobey. It’s the defining characteristic of my life – if I make up my own mind to break a social rule, something bad will inevitably occur, or at least through my lens, it’s a negative and I am still very sensitive. I know a guy who is able to take these chances, “what’s the worst that could happen?” in other words… and usually the worst that can happen is another adult with no REAL power tells him he’s a bad person. This doesn’t seem to get to him. We’re both social misfits after all that, but he’s more accepting of it.
So yeah, regardless of how dwade raises his children, which may be strict and narrow (who can say, just because he’s religious?), parents are the adults who generally know better and try to steer their kids into good habits, and let the world respond to the child’s choices. Sometimes parents reinforce this with hugs, money, spankings, loss of privileges, and praise, trust “bonuses” (like extended curfews, use of the car, etc.), and everyone’s favorite, disappointment. That’s not to say some of the “rules” aren’t silly, and some of the praise and punishment isn’t dished out a lot more disproportionately over small acts. Any “worship” of the parents involves caring that, if the world doesn’t love you anyway, it hurts way worse when your parents don’t listen or approve, even if on the other side of childhood, you can spot their mistakes, engage in some therapy maybe, achieve successes that matter to you, and acknowledge the satisfaction of deciding for yourself.
For those among us who converted to atheism from a strict religious upbringing, I understand the disapproval of the family unit was probably the most difficult to face. I was raised without religion, and had to watch (from age 25+) my mother on at least two occasions react to her father’s death with regret that she didn’t do what she felt was right and take us to church or educate us about god, at the risk of being disowned (kept apart from her mother) or not favored (financially, especially). I’ve never had to worry about how she feels that I’m an atheist, threats and warnings about going to H, calling me a sinner or that variety of nonsense.. She’s most upset that we don’t have something to cling to when things get hopeless, or a community to gather with, to support and be supported by, as she knows or seems to know or feel that she failed us in so many other ways, and that the church community might be better at “parenting,” comforting and loving each other like she doesn’t know how to do, and an obvious projection – she misses what she thinks she could have gotten out of it in her life that she didn’t get from her own parents or children. I’ve never missed it, but parental conditioning still was strongly present in my upbringing.
@francesc,
You are right that God knows you. Everything about you. What you think especially. More important, what you think about Him. So He knows if you are testing Him for evidence, He knows if you are in disbelief, He knows if you are sincere in wanting to believe.
He sent His Son as proof.
Next is faith, you need faith to believe. Then you receive the Holy spirit. Then you see things, not as the world views them, but through God’s eyes.
I can imagine God waiting for you to look at the “evidence” of His Son. Considering the life of Jesus, and all the claims that He made, as One of authority. Claiming to be God and there in the beginning.
By a step of faith you accept what Christ did for you. Then you receive His Spirit.
It all starts with talking to God, He’s waiting and listening.
Belief in God,
Just Do It.
If God knows everything about me, he could easily prove it by telling me something about myself that only I know.
Until that happens, I’ll assume he doesn’t exist and doesn’t know anything about me.
DF,
God doesn’t owe you anything and doesn’t have to prove anymore than He already has. The way He proved Himself was far from “easy”, as He had to watch His only Son be crucified and take on your sin. Thats how much He loves you and that’s how much He wants you to know Him.
I am sorry that God doesn’t meet you on your terms, but that’s not how God works. His character shows that He is a jealous God. So as long as you have someone else in his place (including yourself) He will simply wait.
You are right, God, if he exists, can do whatever he wants. But if he wants me to believe in him, then he’ll have to give me some evidence. And if he knows everything, he’d know what I’d require to believe. So if he exists, and he doesn’t do that, then he must not want me to believe.
@ Kodie
dwade and other religious folks offer themselves as proof, either by making it up as they go along or referencing a book or a list or a philosophy, claim to know what god wants and claim to know why atheists don’t want to do it.
Calling me religious is simple for you correct? truth is, I don’t consider myself religious. If it makes you feel better by calling someone religious and helps you explain away all the “anti-world” philiosophy that is shared, that’s fine, but I am not discussing religion here.
It would seem to me that many on this blog are disgusted by the things of this world, we just simply have a different way of explaining it. And probably a different solution to fix it. Reality is, someones right and someones wrong, who gets to decide?
@kodie. I was talking about religion, not about childs education. I’m not denying that dwade can be a good father, I’m denying that God -if exists- could be a proper father.
@dwade
“He sent His Son as proof”
Probably someone has explained you that before, but I’ll try again…In order to consider Jesus as proof of the existence of God, you have to prove first…
1.- Jesus existed.
2.- Jesus was the son of God.
3.- Jesus claims about our redemption trough him.
As our only “proof” supporting those statements is a book -the bible-, and we can only trust the bible if we consider it to be inspired by a truthsworthy god, we come to that simplified reasoning:
The bible is true because the bible says so.
So, no, He didn’t sent His son as a proof. If He did so, He is a moron
dwade @ 9:46 AM – “I have come to understand that God is holy and just and perfect. All good things do come from God, like breathing, my heart beating, my good health.”
dwade @ 2:38 PM – “Calling me religious is simple for you correct? truth is, I don’t consider myself religious.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You are are “Through The Looking Glass” now, in a big way. Do you even know what the words you say mean?
Either you are horribly deluded, OR 4 hours and 52 minutes of exposure to rational thought has caused you to cease being religious. I suspect it is the former, but if it is the latter, then congratulations!
No I think good and bad things are just how the world is.
well, we 1/2 agree
“It all starts with talking to God, He’s waiting and listening.”
Banana!, I should have known that.
He wants you to believe by faith. And He does want you to believe. Sorry again that it’s not on your terms. If I were you, I would let God win.
This is where religion becomes foul for me -people who make up the rules about god and are unable to examine themselves for it. What god wants and how he acts, and why some people are just too stubborn, because god has obviously offered anyone who wants to buy it, and refuses to sell it to you if you throw the coupon in the garbage. dwade and other religious folks offer themselves as proof, either by making it up as they go along or referencing a book or a list or a philosophy, claim to know what god wants and claim to know why atheists don’t want to do it.
“He wants you to believe by faith. And He does want you to believe. Sorry again that it’s not on your terms. If I were you, I would let God win.”
Sorry, I am not a jew nor an israelite and I won’t circumcise my foreskin to find out if faith is real or not.
Even if they didn’t know they were pregnant?
I didn’t present a religious defense in this case. You cannot deny the grief that follows after abortion. This to me is a moral issue.
we don’t deny the grief, but there is even greater grief, in the long run, involved in the life of an unwanted or unsupportable child. Crime rates have been going down in a way that can be correlated with the time at which children that were aborted due to Roe v Wade would otherwise have been growing old enough to act out their anger and disillusionment with the world.
I don’t like to generalize as you are doing here. Sometimes a child is the one thing that turns a persons life around. Obviously nobody can plan this. They experience the child, see that it was the right thing and their lives and are changed for the better. How will someone ever know this until they have a child. A person that chooses abortion will always be looking at kids and wondering, what if?
It’s not the same as, say, buying a car, should I buy this car or not. The problem is that we are a consumer driven society, if the kid doesn’t fit into my plans and goals, I will just eliminate them. This doesn’t make for a healthy life, in my opinion.
“Sometimes a child is the one thing that turns a persons life around”
That’s a bit selfish. Let’s see if I can turn my life around having a child. Let’s see if our relationship, wich is not working, could go better with a child. Let’s forget that that kid would never have a proper education, because his mother -and his father- should renounce to her life at a very young age. Let’s forget that mother who, every time she sees her child, will remember a violation; or will remember an abusive husband. Let’s forget those families with 8 childs who are in the street stealing to eat.
Because maybe having a child will settle the life of his mother.
that’s why I said sometimes. there are selfish people out there having kids just to get more money to drink, I agree.
I know of several people that were a result of rape and they are living healthy happy lives, so again “Sometimes”. My point again being, we should be the ones to play God and ecide if another living human being gets to live or die.
What if that particular individual was the one person that discovers the cure for cancer?
shouldnt
“What if that particular individual was the one person that discovers the cure for cancer?”
What if that individual is the next Hitler?
Anyway, you are always chosing if a person is going to life or not. You are doing that when you use a condom. You are doing that when you decide that you want 3 childs, The woman who decides to abort -normally- can still have more childs in the future, when she is ready. Of course having an unwanted child can be good, as having a (non-terminal) cancer can be good for some people (to appreciate more life?) but still I wouldn’t want any friend of mine to have it.
It’s also a lot of work and expensive. I can see the argument there going for putting the baby up for adoption, but how can you say that won’t cause more grief on the part of the mother than aborting it before it had a face and a brain? People can change their mind afterward and get pregnant again when they want to or are ready to raise a child. People can rent out their uterus for surrogacy or donate eggs or sperm without a lot of emotional attachment. I think if someone is pregnant, they have a little time to think things through, and make up their mind given the facts. Few people walk into the clinic the day they find out they are pregnant.
@dwade, you are supposing that a child is not like a car, and yes. If you deliberate on the fantasy that you can raise a child when you can’t, on love, you can’t put it back. You can sell your car at blue book value or have it repossessed if you can’t make payments. You are not stuck with your car and all the obligations you have toward it when it still doesn’t fit in your plans or make your life feel as complete as you wished it would. People who have abortions are deciding on facts, not fantasy. Even financially stable people who want children can arrive at feelings of regret and resentment toward the children they have or the fact they are children, these things you’re not allowed to say in front of your children or admit to anyone else.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143792/page/1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/11/gender.uk
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/newsday.jpg
(In the statistical sense, the 3rd has been reportedly “debunked,” but it still illustrates something people are willing to admit anonymously).
Abortions don’t sterilize, it’s not a lifetime of “what if” as a consequence, any more than raising a child you can’t raise adequately (didn’t you say you foster?), or finding out later kids are just a misery you wish someone had told you, or putting your child up for adoption.
Here is the Ann Landers article referenced. It’s the “unscientific” one:
http://www.happilychildfree.com/ann.htm
@francesc,
The woman who decides to abort -normally- can still have more childs in the future, when she is ready.
I think a woman contemplating “sex” should decide before she has sex, whether she wants a child or not. The problem with the consumer mentality and “meism” is that people are having sex for entertainment and before marriage. That’s not the purpose of sex. Hence the problem of abortion for convenience.
All those damn animals, living in sin.
If it wasn’t fun, nobody would do it, even if they were trying to make a baby. The intimacy of having sex with a committed partner is also a kind of glue. Without the mutual appreciation for sex as a fun activity and an expression of closeness, the family unit tends to destabilize, even with other expressions present. Also, old people like to have sex. Suppression is unhealthy.
Kodie, I didn’t say sex wasn’t fun. Some husbands think having sex with as many women as possible is “Fun” does that make it right?
Point here being, sex isn’t a casual thing, and should not be viewed as entertainment. Sex is intended for one husband and one wife within the context of marriage.
Who or what intended that? That’s a cultural definition of sex, and not universally agreed upon.
You’d said, “It would seem to me that many on this blog are disgusted by the things of this world, we just simply have a different way of explaining it. And probably a different solution to fix it. Reality is, someones right and someones wrong, who gets to decide?”
You are disgusted with the things of this world, you want to move to Montana and sell dental floss. Your “different way” of explaining things is religious. Your “different solution” is that god or someone speaking for god gave you a strict opinion about what sex is “intended for.” It’s a joy of life marriage itself does not fulfill, nor even commitment. Are you a virgin? Did you get married, did you wait until you were married? Did you get married really young? Was your wife a virgin? Did that matter to you? People who are virginal until marriage tend to drop into bed with anyone they can find, as soon as they can’t wait another day. That’s how fun it is. Sex is real, god is imaginary, your rules are imaginary.
@kodie
Respectfully you are incorrect about virgins. At least the couples that i have counciled. They are happy to wait and after marriage, happy that they waited. Unless you are reducing us all to animals without any self control
I think it’s more likely they have chosen someone with whom to explore and unleash their natural desire at a younger than average age. At least in the few Catholic wedding services I’ve attended or stood up for, all interested parties had had sex already, except ostensibly the bishop or priest, both with each other and with other people. Part of the service always seems to include the bit about welcoming any children, like the quiverfuls, and sort of like clockwork, every last one of these couples had a full-born baby within a year* (none of them early enough within the year to suppose were conceived yet at the time they were married). It’s almost like a cultural thing, no? It’s expected they will have sex because it’s fun, and they will do it often as they like for fun. The officiant all but said that outright, it’s just he’s not their doctor, pharmacist, or voyeur, so they can do the rest of their family planning without his help.
On the look of things, everyone could have been a virgin, but when they were ready to start a family for serious, they all made the plans, they hastened to the altar. It was a very special occasion – being able to admit to having sex. I think virginal people probably settle a lot sooner, because they actually want to get to the sex.
*my sister is still pregnant, but it won’t have been quite a full year to her 1st anniversary.
@kodie,
just because these things happen (as you say) naturally still doesn’t make them right.
It makes them right for most people, and you’re not having sex with them and they probably don’t want to have sex with you.
“Sex is intended for one husband and one wife within the context of marriage.”
Sorry. It IS not. Sex exists far before marriage -of course, it exists far before humanity. We could argue wether sex is naturally only used for reproduction, but again, it seems to be part of a game for some apes.
Moreover, as far as I remember the bible only asks for the female part to be a virgin, so the male part may have had sex outside marriage (I don’t agree with that, but you should remember it is what your sacred book says)
Francecs,
Anyone who reads the Bible and believes that men are free to roam and women are to remain pure until marriage is looking for a license to sin.
Africa is paying the price for this acceptable practice now as they struggle with widespread aids.
@Kodie,
as long as my wife wants to have sex with me, that is all that matters.
Hey, I’m not saying it is fair!! I’m saying that it is what you can read in the bible, as expected from a book written in a patriarchal society.
If the bible don’t fits well with your morality it is your problem, as a christian, not my problem.
They are several causes for AIDS spreading in Africa, but I think that one of the most important is the lack of sexual education and access to preservatives.
@dwade: “there are selfish people out there having kids just to get more money to drink, I agree.”
Wait a freakin’ minute. Hold on.
I don’t think you’re to be reasoned with, not as a theist, not as an anything.
I don’t think I even want to make fun of you anymore.
“I don’t think you’re to be reasoned with, not as a theist, not as an anything.
I don’t think I even want to make fun of you anymore.”
Hehehe… That’s OK, I do!
Oh, and Mr. Doug “I don’t consider myself religious” Wade?
You might want to go look at the tag cloud on your blog. The three BIGGEST TAGS in that cloud are “Faith”, “Bible”, and “Christian Faith”.
@Kodie,
sorry I should have put that in context. I have worked with people that are career welfare recipients and use their children to make money from the government to support their drug and alcohol habits.
I actually helped raise a child that was caught up in a mess like this.
Frank,
again I should have put this in context,
The religious of the day were the Pharisees, I dont consider mysel a pharisee as I am no longer under the law.
In the NT, religion is described as such:
James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
If you want to call me religious in this sense, I would be honored.
My cloud tags are there to attract a certain audience btw.
@ darkmatter,
ouch, good thing.
“ouch, good thing.”
That is why the burden is not on unbelievers.
Karleigh,
in the case of you having miscarried and didn’t know it, what is your point?
My point is that sometimes it is not a conscious choice made by women to abort a child (ie the abovementioned 25% of pregnancies that self-terminate before 6 or so weeks) and how can women be persecuted when this occurs. If God created everything, God bears responsibility whenever anything goes wong with his creations, since he is apparently omnipotent and could have done better the first time around. That’s why he is to blame.
I don’t see God persecuting anyone who has miscarried. Either way, whether a woman chooses to abort or miscarries, God grieves with that woman.
@Karleigh, seeing as the topic of abortion is “off” topic for this post, feel free to come to my site:
http://dougwadedesign.wordpress.com/category/abortion/
Some interesting facts about abortion and the motives women have for terminating pregnancies:
(via http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html
http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/Abortion-FactsandFigures-v06.pdf?docID=2429 -
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2005/NRL10/NewStudy.html)
Only ~7% of abortions are “hard cases,” i.e., rape, incest, or a medical problem that threatens the life of fetus and/or mother.
The PDF to which I linked is a good synopsis and has the sources for the data clearly posted.
btw, the allen gutmacher institute is an assemblance of abortion providers, namely planned parenthood. I would say they have a bias in this matter.
6 and 9 are the same, just different age. I’m ashamed to say that Nezareth is from my country, Peru.
Over all, those are kids that should have been aborted.
The second half of that statement is an amazingly horrific thing to say. You should be ashamed for saying it.
I’m gonna agree with you there, Gulker.
“These kids should have been aborted” is a pretty unnecessarily stupid and inflammatory thing to say, regardless of your feelings about Abortion or Christianity.
It is an especially dumb thing to say about a kid you have never met, and only know via 5 seconds of video from the internet.
Replying here because there wasn’t room above.
Up top you said: “Trying to get your kids to believe in the things you think are important is what you are SUPPOSED to do. I think it’s called “parenting”.”
No, thats called indoctrination. “Parenting” is teaching your kids how to think, not what to think. Forcing one’s values on a child is not the way to teach anything. Parents have to be very careful to let children come to their own conclusions, every child has that capacity as long as the parent does not indoctrinate them.
Ok, Blatant Pseudonym, If that even *IS* your real name…. ;)
Children eventually have the capacity to make their own decisions, but not when they are young. You wouldn’t want your child to make his own decision about whether to punch his sister in the face, would you? Nope, you probably “indoctrinate” them not to do that. The word “indoctrinate” has a negative connotation to it, but it is really just a synonym for “teach”.
If I had kids, I would definitely “indoctrinate” them to respond to violence with non-violence. That is a deeply held belief I have. Another parent might “indoctrinate” their kids to always “stand up to” bullies, and never back away from a fight, because that is their deeply held belief. Probably both of us would “indoctrinate” our kid NOT to respond to a schoolyard bully by taking a knife to him, or burning down his house. Left to his own devises, a kid might do this.
On an entirely different note, I really am jealous that I didn’t think of your screen name first.
Indoctrinate is simply the word we use to describe when other parents teach their kids something we don’t agree with.
:o
What makes me sick are the people who actually attend these services and follow the teachings of an 8 year old.
If you put a monkey in a suit and gave it a microphone and a bible , i’m sure these same idiots will show up and yell AMEN HALLELUIAH
“Monkey in a suit” – you mean the usual preacher?
Kids say the darnedest things.
I wonder how many of these people would allow an eight-year old to fly a commercial airplane or drive a city bus.
Marjoe at least did not really believe in what he was saying, he was “trained” to be a preacher and abused by his parents. He quite literally had the Bible beaten into him. There are many YouTube videos about it. He made a documentary later in his life, which shows him preparing to evangelise his audience, and it also explains how he used cheap tricks to whip the audience up into a religious frenzy, at which moment his parents would ask for money. The suffering and guilt that was caused to this boy is horrendous. What I think is dishonest is that the film was never shown in (Southern)US theatres because of fear of the “outrage it would cause in the Bible Belt”. It did win an Academy Award though. It was released on DVD around 2002. I wish I could get a copy. Sorry if everyone already knows about this =P
Marjoe is now available on DVD. It has been fully restored and looks great. Just check Amazon.
Every unbeliever must have a copy.
Sounds like every believer should, too.
Ooh, I want it.
Is it just me or is #7 Ike Browlowski?
Child Abuse as defined/summarized by the Child Welfare League:
Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal and State laws. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the Federal legislation that provides minimum standards that States must incorporate in their statutory definitions of child abuse and neglect. The CAPTA definition of “child abuse and neglect” refers to:
* “Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm”1
Types of Abuse
All States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands provide definitions of child abuse and neglect in statute. As applied to reporting statutes, these definitions determine the grounds for State intervention in the protection of a child’s well-being.3 States recognize the different types of abuse in their definitions, including physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. Some States also provide definitions in statute for parental substance abuse and/or for abandonment as child abuse.
Physical Abuse
Physical abuse is generally defined as “any nonaccidental physical injury to the child” and can include striking, kicking, burning, or biting the child, or any action that results in a physical impairment of the child. In approximately 36 States and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the definition of abuse also includes acts or circumstances that threaten the child with harm or create a substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.4
Neglect
Neglect is frequently defined in terms of deprivation of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision. Approximately 21 States and American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands include failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition of neglect.5 Seven States further define medical neglect as failing to provide any special medical treatment or mental health care needed by the child.6 In addition, four States define as medical neglect the withholding of medical treatment or nutrition from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.
The kids in this video don’t qualify by these criteria.
There is, however, some potential if we look at the definition of emotional abuse:
Emotional Abuse
All States and territories except Georgia and Washington include emotional maltreatment as part of their definitions of abuse or neglect. Approximately 22 States, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico provide specific definitions of emotional abuse or mental injury to a child.8 Typical language used in these definitions is “injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of the child as evidenced by an observable or substantial change in behavior, emotional response, or cognition,” or as evidenced by “anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or aggressive behavior.”
As seems obvious based on the comments so far, whether or not the kids in this video meet the criteria is open to some interpretation.
Anyway, I thought it might be helpful to have some official definitions on the table for the sake of more discussion.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm
thanks for the post, I am aware of these docs, I foster.
It does say ‘exploitation.’ That seems to be a pretty flexible word.
Yes, it is flexible, as is the entire definition of “emotional abuse,” if you ask me.
But the thing that’s important to note, I think, is that these definitions have to do with removing children from homes and parents. Regardless of one’s opinion of the video above, removing a child from home should give us pause — because removing a child from his/her home can be incredibly damaging as well.
I agree.
agreed
That kid crying while he prayed made me cry – this is child abuse, and if it’s not evident to people that if children that young can mimic religious behaviour so perfectly, then maybe there’s something wrong with the picture… I don’t know.
I remember by significant other talking about this kind of thing in his church as a kid. When he was about 10 they had some kind of anti-abortion speech as a sermon one Sunday. He hated it so much, he never went back. Kids can learn, but if it starts early enough its hard to unlearn. He is now an agnostic who hates church. When that 4 year old is old enough to get his girlfriend knocked up, or he comes out, oh how the world will change.
its already happening, the world has changed. If it changes anymore towards immorality, I’m moving to Montana, going to be a dental floss tycoon.
I wonder if it’s more difficult to get people to floss regularly than it is to convert them to your narrow vision of how things should be. By all means, isolate yourself from us and good luck with your business.
I don’t know, why don’t you consult with your dentist. That was a Zappa tune btw. jk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOR1wUqvJS4
I like this 12 year olds view
>>>>More importantly, nobody has to spend an eternity in hell, we get to choose. Unless you think that all of humankind are robots.
According to your Bible, we are not even robots; we are clay. See Romans 9 for more details!