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

philologos

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Perhaps you didn't see mine and Wicknights posts. Perhaps you could give your opinions on these points Jakkass?

I will, but I feel I am on the way out of this thread. I felt an alternative opinion on this was necessary.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What about Demon possessions? Do you think children should be taught that they are being watched all the time by invisible evil creatures who wish to hurt them and take control of them?

Is that what Christians believe? Demonic possession is a very open topic. It could just as equally refer to being taken over by evil desires and the like. I personally believe that Satan does tempt people. I don't think there is anything outwardly harmful about being taught about the idea of evil desires or about Satan.

I think your objection lies more with the notion that you don't see it as being true. I can understand that much, but you have to understand I and others don't share this view.

Wicknight wrote: »

If a parent was teaching a child that they were stupid or wicked or evil outside of religion I would imagine you would agree that they shouldn't do this.

I think people should be told that mankind has a sinful nature, and that religious values can put us on the right path in life. It isn't that being outside of a religion is wrong, it is not living according to God's standard that is our failing.

Galvasean

Once again atopic in A&A has been dragged miles off topic... and to think I only came in here to share an in-joke with Zillah...

Zillah wrote: »

You sir shall fight to the death like any other free thinking Irishman or I shall shoot you myself.

"If you will not serve on the battlefield you will serve on the firing line."
*splat*


*ahem*

So yeah, how about that Victory place?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I think people should be told that mankind has a sinful nature, and that religious values can put us on the right path in life. It isn't that being outside of a religion is wrong, it is not living according to God's standard that is our failing.

That isn't really what you were asked.

Ignoring religious context for a second:

Do you think that if a parent believes that their child is stupid they should tell them this ("You are a stupid child")?

Do you think that if a parent believes their child to be evil they should tell them this ("You are an evil little body")?

Replace stupid or evil with any negative term you like. Do you think it is ok and healthy for a parent to teach their children that they are this if the parent believes it is so.

A good non-religious example is a single mother teaching her young boy that all men (including him) are selfish and mean. If the mother believes this is the case do you think it is a good idea for the mother to teach her boy that men are all selfish and mean and that he is thus selfish and mean (or will grow up to be selfish and mean) because he is a man?

Or can you see the argument that this could cause a rather damaging development in the mind of the child as they grow up with relation to how they view themselves as a male?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't that being outside of a religion is wrong, it is not living according to God's standard that is our failing.

Jakkass,

Perhaps you could stick around a little longer and clarify this:

Not being in religion is ok.. but not living according to God's standard is wrong. Doesn't God's standard require us to have faith in him, i.e belong in a religion??

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't that being outside of a religion is wrong, it is not living according to God's standard that is our failing.

Jakkass can you tell me what god's standard is in one concise paragraph. Use a few bullet points too, I like them.

Zombrex

Rather than trying to rip Jakkass part I'm sure it is perfectly possible to demonstrate the point we are making to him. Heck, he might even agree with it if we can frame it in a good way.

The point of my questions above Jakkass is that you seemed genuinely puzzled that we could view teaching of concepts such as sin and hell as damaging to a child. I think though that if you look at it independently to your religion you would agree that teaching concepts that lead to a negative view of ones own self worth can be very damaging to a child.

If you can see that and divorce that from your belief that your religion is true, you should at least be able to see the point people are making, even if you believe an exception should be made for your religion.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think there is anything outwardly harmful about being taught about the idea of evil desires or about Satan.

I'm not interested in your attempts at redirection. I was asking about Demons. Do you believe they are real? How and where do they exist? Do you believe that literal spirit Demons possessed individuals in the Bible and that Jesus was able to exorcise them? If you don't believe that Demons possess people any more what reasons do you have for believing that these spirits have ceased in this activity.

If a Christian Sect did teach its children that real invisible Demons possess people now should that Religion be viewed as abusive to Children?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think that if a parent believes that their child is stupid they should tell them this ("You are a stupid child")?

Do you think that if a parent believes their child to be evil they should tell them this ("You are an evil little body")?

Replace stupid or evil with any negative term you like. Do you think it is ok and healthy for a parent to teach their children that they are this if the parent believes it is so.

A good non-religious example is a single mother teaching her young boy that all men (including him) are selfish and mean. If the mother believes this is the case do you think it is a good idea for the mother to teach her boy that men are all selfish and mean and that he is thus selfish and mean (or will grow up to be selfish and mean) because he is a man?

Or can you see the argument that this could cause a rather damaging development in the mind of the child as they grow up with relation to how they view themselves as a male?

Probably not. If I were arguing that parents should say to their children that they personally were going to hell, I would understand your answer.

You and I both know that isn't what my point was:
Hell is a place where people are punished by God for what they have done in this lifetime. In effect hell serves to teach people that there are consequences to their actions. This is what you objected to, this is what I disagree with.

Of course hell as a concept could be abused, however we have no evidence whatsoever that the doctrine of hell is abused by Victory. Nobody has any right whatsoever to say that someone is definitely going to hell. I feel that inappropriate. Infact this is referred to directly in Christian teaching.

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass,

Perhaps you could stick around a little longer and clarify this:

Not being in religion is ok.. but not living according to God's standard is wrong. Doesn't God's standard require us to have faith in him, i.e belong in a religion??

Not necessarily. One has to have faith in God of course, and understand Christ's act of salvation, however this doesn't mean formal adherence to a religion is necessary.

Overblood wrote: »

Jakkass can you tell me what god's standard is in one concise paragraph. Use a few bullet points too, I like them.

Concise involves losing some of the details.

God's standard for us is simply, to respect and honour His existence and His moral statutes, and to act accordingly to our neighbour.

How exactly this is done is based on what He has revealed to us.

Wicknight wrote: »

Rather than trying to rip Jakkass part I'm sure it is perfectly possible to demonstrate the point we are making to him. Heck, he might even agree with it if we can frame it in a good way.

I think I can see a bit of where you are coming from already.

Wicknight wrote: »

The point of my questions above Jakkass is that you seemed genuinely puzzled that we could view teaching of concepts such as sin and hell as damaging to a child. I think though that if you look at it independently to your religion you would agree that teaching concepts that lead to a negative view of ones own self worth can be very damaging to a child.

I don't think in itself teaching about hell is abusive. I do understand that teaching about hell in a certain way can be abusive.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you can see that and divorce that from your belief that your religion is true, you should at least be able to see the point people are making, even if you believe an exception should be made for your religion.

I don't even have to divorce it. I understand where you are coming from, but it is a case that I feel that your view goes a bit further than my view does.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'm not interested in your attempts at redirection. I was asking about Demons. Do you believe they are real? How and where do they exist? Do you believe that literal spirit Demons possessed individuals in the Bible and that Jesus was able to exorcise them? If you don't believe that Demons possess people any more what reasons do you have for believing that these spirits have ceased in this activity.

It depends what you view as demons. If you mean evil spiritual influences in the world that can negatively affect our lives. Then yes, I do believe in demons. As for possession, I believe that they can possess individuals in the same way as evil desires can possess individuals. In Jewish theology from what I have read, demons symbolised certain desires that individuals had. Other modern Christian opinion has suggested that it could refer to mental illness.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

If a Christian Sect did teach its children that real invisible Demons possess people now should that Religion be viewed as abusive to Children?

It depends on what you view as demons. I think that many people have stereotypical views of what demons are without evidencing it in Scripture.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass, do you think that teaching a child that rejection of the christian faith makes one worthy of burning for eternity is compatible with the idea of giving them freedom to choose a religion? Are they really free if they've been taught from birth by their parents that they'll be eternally punished if they don't find the parents' beliefs convincing?

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

You and I both know that isn't what my point was:
Hell is a place where people are punished by God for what they have done in this lifetime. In effect hell serves to teach people that there are consequences to their actions. This is what you objected to, this is what I disagree with.

No, it doesn't. Non-believers wont change there actions because they don't believe in hell. So it's not a deterrent for anyone but believers ... who should be doing good because it's the right thing to do regardless of the existence of Hell... doing good just to avoid hell doesn't cut it... God's smart enough to see through lip service surely?

And once you're in hell you can't change your actions anyway.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

It depends on what you view as demons. I think that many people have stereotypical views of what demons are without evidencing it in Scripture.

You know precisely what I mean, I defined it in my previous post. Evil spirit creatures like Angels that work for Satan.

But I really don't care whether you personally believe in them or not, that was not my question. My question was, for reiteration:

"If a Christian Sect did teach its children that real invisible Demons* possess people now should that Religion be viewed as abusive to Children?"

*In case you are still confused, the definition I'm using here is spirit creatures, the evil version of Gods Angels... you know, like Micheal

An answer without any further redirection would be nice.

PoleStar

Question for Jackass, slightly more on topic.

Jackass has said in one phrase that he feels it is rightful that people go out in a missionary style to spread the word and convert etc.

Yet at the same time in another post says that parents should be free to raise their children as they want.

Well as a parent here is how I feel. I have no problem with people setting up churches and doing whatever THEY want. What I do not want is some kid telling my child that she is evil and is going to hell unless she follows the path of Jesus.

Jackass, if it is right that I am free to raise my child as I see fit (as a free thinker), then why is it also ok for individuals to try and convert her. Shouldnt I be allowed to raise her as I see fit, without interference from a religious organisation. I assume you would not approve if I actively tried to convert children of the evangelical church to Islam, or whatever religion, telling them of the fires of hell that await them if they dont, or even shock of horrors, try to "convert" them to atheism.

To sum up, these churches should keep their crazy notions to themselves, I dont try to force my beliefs on them.

GLaDOS

I'm sorry, I appear to have stumbled into the Jakass Q&A thread...

philologos

PoleStar wrote: »

Question for Jackass, slightly more on topic.

Jackass has said in one phrase that he feels it is rightful that people go out in a missionary style to spread the word and convert etc.

Yet at the same time in another post says that parents should be free to raise their children as they want.

I think that sums up my views in a nutshell.

PoleStar wrote: »

Well as a parent here is how I feel. I have no problem with people setting up churches and doing whatever THEY want. What I do not want is some kid telling my child that she is evil and is going to hell unless she follows the path of Jesus.

In a society which encourages free ideas and free speech there is no reason why people shouldn't be encouraged to speak about their beliefs in public. People also have the right to reject any such information.

PoleStar wrote: »

Jackass, if it is right that I am free to raise my child as I see fit (as a free thinker), then why is it also ok for individuals to try and convert her. Shouldnt I be allowed to raise her as I see fit, without interference from a religious organisation. I assume you would not approve if I actively tried to convert children of the evangelical church to Islam, or whatever religion, telling them of the fires of hell that await them if they dont, or even shock of horrors, try to "convert" them to atheism.

Why shouldn't it be okay for people to share their opinion in public? Of course its okay.

You are allowed to raise your child as you please, but others are also entitled to their freedom of religion and their freedom of speech. No doubt your child is going to encounter either an evangelist, or someone who shares religious views. Your child will have the choice whether or not to adopt belief herself. There will be a point when that becomes her independent choice.

So while you have a right to educate your child as you wish, this doesn't mean that other people shouldn't have the right to share their views with your child.

As for discussing about atheism, feel free. I think it is better that peoples views are in public, because it means that people can question them freely and examine them further.

PoleStar wrote: »

To sum up, these churches should keep their crazy notions to themselves, I dont try to force my beliefs on them.

I don't consider your views any less crazy.

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I'm sorry, I appear to have stumbled into the Jakass Q&A thread...

Unfortunately it tends to get like this when I put an opposing viewpoint across.

philologos

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You know precisely what I mean, I defined it in my previous post. Evil spirit creatures like Angels that work for Satan.

But I really don't care whether you personally believe in them or not, that was not my question. My question was, for reiteration:

"If a Christian Sect did teach its children that real invisible Demons* possess people now should that Religion be viewed as abusive to Children?"

*In case you are still confused, the definition I'm using here is spirit creatures, the evil version of Gods Angels... you know, like Micheal

An answer without any further redirection would be nice.

I would have to ask you further questions though, because I don't think this is an official part of codified religious belief, but rather misconceptions that tend to be applied to the subject of demons or demonic spirits. I already explained to you that in Judaism demons tended to be personifications of certain evil desires.

Another camp in Christianity, quite modern tends to view it as mental illness.

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.

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

Unfortunately it tends to get like this when I put an opposing viewpoint across.

Yes... but only because you engage everyone... We're not ganging up on you... we just out number you. If you make a statement and three people respond... and you answer them and they respond and so on... it will end up with a situation where you have several people all vying for you attention.

but it's a bit of a catch 22 situation for you... if you ignore a question, which you do on occasion, then you get given out to for ignoring a question...

Entering the Lions den is asking for trouble.

PoleStar

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that sums up my views in a nutshell.

In a society which encourages free ideas and free speech there is no reason why people shouldn't be encouraged to speak about their beliefs in public. People also have the right to reject any such information.
Why shouldn't it be okay for people to share their opinion in public? Of course its okay.

Your child will have the choice whether or not to adopt belief herself. There will be a point when that becomes her independent choice.

So while you have a right to educate your child as you wish, this doesn't mean that other people shouldn't have the right to share their views with your child.

The crux here is I guess the fact that we are dealing with children. Children have a tendency to believe what adults and other children tell them. Hence kids really do believe in Santy and the tooth fairy. As they are not fully mentally developed, they are unable to make reasoned deductions as to whether or not the information presented to them is true or not.

Therefore, referring to children being able to make a reasoned choice when someone tells them that unless they follow the path of Jesus they will burn for eternity is nonsense. Yes if that child has reached mental maturity then they can reason for themselves and make an independent choice but not when they are younger.

I agree, individuals are free to "share" their views, perhaps in an amicable fashion for example "hi, we believe that god made the universe, and that Jesus his son came to earth to tell us how to live a fruitful life and the bible is a book of stories relating to his life".

Hoever this is very different to "listen young girl, you need to follow the ways of Jesus or else you will burn in hell, didnt your parents tell you this already, lucky we caught you in time so we can save you".

Again, when you refer to sharing views, that is not the case, as sharing suggests that other views will be considered. The purpose of "sharing the message" is convert, and use fear if necessary.

I guess thats part of the reason why the young are targeted, the minds are so vulnerable.

So frankly as a parent, I guess I should decide what "information" my child receives about the universe, and I think it is wrong for others to decide, when they are below the age of consent of course.


PS Jackass, perhaps you havent considered something else, perhaps we DONT WANT TO BE SAVED

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Probably not. If I were arguing that parents should say to their children that they personally were going to hell, I would understand your answer.

What is the difference? You are going to hell? We are all going to hell? Child still thinks they are wicked by nature and destined for hell. The fact that everyone else is would be cold comfort (and may lead to even more distress at the thought of his friends and family ending up there)

Jakkass wrote: »

You and I both know that isn't what my point was:
Hell is a place where people are punished by God for what they have done in this lifetime. In effect hell serves to teach people that there are consequences to their actions.

Well no, hell serves to teach people that there are consequences to their great great great great great ...great grandfathers actions. Again you cannot not go to hell based on how good you are in this life. All are wicked. All fail. All sin.

Lots of cultural Christians believe that hell is punishment for the bad things you do and that is only punishes bad people (bad as we understand it in modern context) and good people get into heaven. But 5 minutes on the Christianity forum shows that isn't the case (or watching the South Park movie). All are destined to go to hell because of Adam's sin. All fail God's test. All are wicked and sinful. Doesn't matter if you are the nicest person in the world, at some point you sinned because of your wicked nature and are thus destined to hell.

This is the point. Hell does not teach a child that there are consequences to their actions, it teaches them that no matter what they do they will sin and that the only way to be saved from this fate is to follow Christianity. It teaches the exact opposite of responsibility for ones actions since a persons fate to end up in hell was decided millennia ago when Adam sinned. All a person can do is seek "forgiveness"

It is a terrible lesson to be teaching children in my view, it is using fear to manipulate people into being Christians.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course hell as a concept could be abused

Can you explain how one teaches a child about hell without abusing the concept?

Because I'm failing to see how one can sugar coat the message

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody has any right whatsoever to say that someone is definitely going to hell. I feel that inappropriate.

Well to me that is nonsense. Saying everyone is destined for hell unless you embrace Christianity, which is what Christianity openly teaches, is exactly the same thing.

The thing Christians are not suppose to judge is whether or not a person has embraced Jesus or not (whether they are saved or not), not whether they are destined for hell if they don't. That is openly taught and mentioned all over the place in Christianity.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think in itself teaching about hell is abusive. I do understand that teaching about hell in a certain way can be abusive.

I'm failing to see how one could teach about hell and not fall into the same category as what we were mentioning above. The only way would be if the child doesn't actually understand the concept, and then one wonders why bother teaching it at all.

Denalihighway

sorry for dragging the thread that i started slightly off topic, (which I earlier critisised, ooo the hypocrisy...)

but I just googled Victory Christian Fellowship and this thread is No 50, on page 5.

We can do better than that

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

God's standard for us is simply, to respect and honour His existence and His moral statutes, and to act accordingly to our neighbour.

We're getting a bit closer now. What are his moral statutes?

patrickthomas

Just taking a look at this religious group, not without controversy it seems because of it's initiation of children. It is fundamentalist and right wing, and evangelical in it's approach.

Same old BS O have gotten so cynical of these "Churches" when I have the time I have discovered one simple tactic, follow the money trail, always ends up with the members paying for some assholes decadent lifestyle.

Sam Vimes

Hell is not a consequence of behaving immorally, it has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. Hell is the punishment for rejecting the belief system of your parents. A wonderful lesson to teach children I'm sure. I think the most I'd do to my child is ground him but eternal torture is good too

Turtwig

Sorry for the diversion,

But does anyone think that a child is actually capable of understanding what is meant by eternal? Even now, I have difficulty in fathoming the concept of eternity.

Denalihighway

Sorry for the diversion also but you will be interested in this...

I'm an eeejit

sorry, ignore post if you read it...jumping the gun you might say

Overblood

Malty_T wrote: »

Sorry for the diversion,

But does anyone think that a child is actually capable of understanding what is meant by eternal? Even now, I have difficulty in fathoming the concept of eternity.

At the very least I'm sure the child will know that it means a very very very very very very long time.

"Love thy enemy" is another stupid moral that the kids are bound to learn.

As the great Hitchens put it: "Go love your own f*cking enemies."

philologos

Denalihighway - It's still there:
http://www.victory.ie/ClubJ.php

I don't think this thread would sway them in any particular way. Teaching children about a faith is simply not child abuse.

Denalihighway

Jakkass wrote: »

Denalihighway - It's still there:
http://www.victory.ie/ClubJ.php

I don't think this thread would sway them in any particular way. Teaching children about a faith is simply not child abuse.

you're right jakkass, apologies for the diversion...i thought the jclub had been a main homepage link

they must be getting inside my head somehow, in fact yes, I suddenly feel drawn to taking a walk down Firhouse way. I for some reason have grown extremely ashamed of myself and my past deeds. Maybe someone around here can save me from myself and my evil habits.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Denalihighway - It's still there:
http://www.victory.ie/ClubJ.php

I don't think this thread would sway them in any particular way. Teaching children about a faith is simply not child abuse.

And they've already saved 57 kids from hell. If eternal punishment isn't child abuse, i dont know what is.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Denalihighway - It's still there:
http://www.victory.ie/ClubJ.php

I don't think this thread would sway them in any particular way. Teaching children about a faith is simply not child abuse.

So can you teach your children whatever horrendous horror stories you want as if they were fact as long as you attach the label faith to it or is it only certain types of faith that aren't child abuse?

Zillah

Behold! The awesome and terrifying power of the religious meme:

Jakkass wrote: »

Mankind has sinned, and mankind is guilty before God. Mankind has been offered a pardon should they be willing to accept it, and should they be willing to live by God's standard. It is up to the individual to either accept or reject this chance.

Punishment most certainly is a consequence of their action. If one does not accept the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, one has to attempt to pay for ones sins by ones self, it is impossible to do this unless one is blameless.

Notice that the subject is quite capable of intelligent dialogue and yet can utter such staggering insanity as though it were entirely reasonable.

This is not a work of fiction.
This is not a work of satire.
This is not a joke.

This is what a real human being actually believes.