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

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

It is about the same to me as telling a child that if they steal something they will go to jail. If this is true, I have no issue in children being taught about hell, as long as it is dealt with in the right way. I clearly differ with you on this.

Goduznt Xzst: That's the best answer I can give you despite how blasé you feel it to be.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

It is about the same to me as telling a child that if they steal something they will go to jail. If this is true, I have no issue in children being taught about hell, as long as it is dealt with in the right way. I clearly differ with you on this.

Goduznt Xzst: That's the best answer I can give you despite how blasé you feel it to be.

But jail offers a chance at redemption...

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But jail offers a chance at redemption...

So does Christianity. If one refuses that chance though, I don't think one can hold God responsible.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

So does Christianity. If you refuse that chance though, I don't think one can hold God responsible.

Dodging again.

Jail and hell are not comparable, in this case.

Jail acts as a deterrent, but sometimes people still break the rules. They are sent to jail, and are offered a chance to redeem themselves. It's a good lesson to teach a child. People sometimes deserve a second chance.

Hell acts as a deterrent, but sometimes people still break the rules. They are sent to Hell. There is no redemption. No second chance.

Wow, it seems to me that mere humans are more fair and just than perfect old God.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

Goduznt Xzst: That's the best answer I can give you despite how blasé you feel it to be.

What if the parent just made up a story though and told it to their child. They said that they had installed hidden cameras in their bedroom that where being watched day and night by the creepy man down the street and that if he seen you touching yourself he would sneak into your window when you are asleep and beat you.

Would it be ok for me to teach this to my child?

philologos

It's not dodging. People have been given their opportunity to seek in this life.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What if the parent just made up a story though and told it to their child. They said that they had installed hidden cameras in their bedroom that where being watched day and night by the creepy man down the street and that if he seen you touching yourself he would sneak into your window when you are asleep and beat you.

Would it be ok for me to teach this to my child?

No it wouldn't, because it would be contrived and it would have no basis in truth.

kiffer

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hell acts as a deterrent, but sometimes people still break the rules. They are sent to Hell. There is no redemption. No second chance.

It doesn't act as a deterrent for people that don't believe it exists.
This is not the same as people that think that they won't get caught and be sent to prison, as those people do know that some people actually do get caught and do go to prison... they know prison exists.

Wow, it seems to me that mere humans are more fair and just than perfect old God.

Humans are more compassionate than the god represented by the belief that Hell is eternal torture.
Temporal Crimes call for Temporal Punishment... Eternal punishment/torture is the antithesis of compassion and serves no function beyond petty revenge.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You're taking a rather polarized view of "abuse".

I'm using a layman's perception of the term "child abuse" and saying that, imo, applying it to all manners of teaching about hell is somewhat excessive.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not dodging. People have been given their opportunity to seek in this life.

So? It's still a petty rule, invent by a petty, backward society which we have thankfully outgrown, as reflected in our legislative.

Unfortunately, someone decided to keep these bronze-age desert ramblings in a book and now people still believe in this bigotry.

Shame.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

It is about the same to me as telling a child that if they steal something they will go to jail. If this is true, I have no issue in children being taught about hell, as long as it is dealt with in the right way. I clearly differ with you on this.

Would it not make more sense to teach them about it when they are not children and can hence think critically about it?

Or at least wait until such an age when they can understand some of the arguments, such as the "Problem of Evil" which refute Christianity?

I don't think it's really fair to teach a child a dogma until the can understand the arguments against it. It's hardly getting the child to think for themselves - is it?

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So? It's still a petty rule, invent by a petty, backward society which we have thankfully outgrown, as reflected in our legislative.

Unfortunately, someone decided to keep these bronze-age desert ramblings in a book and now people still believe in this bigotry.

Shame.

Unfortunately, someone decided to keep those old rags in a book, and now some people actually are put in jail because of this thing. They call it the law!

Is the law petty?

Tim Robbins: If it is true, I don't see why a limit would be required.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It is about the same to me as telling a child that if they steal something they will go to jail.

Except the crimes here are being born and not accepting the religious beliefs of their parents. Not really comparable to stealing and yet the punishment is infinitely worse and offers no second chance

Jakkass wrote: »

So does Christianity. If one refuses that chance though, I don't think one can hold God responsible.

Why is not finding something convincing a sin worthy of eternal punishment? Surely a sin should be something that harms another in some way, something immoral?

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

Tim Robbins: If it is true, I don't see why a limit would be required.

Do you honestly believe a God could put a six year old in hell?
Why worship such a disguisting beast?
Would you worship an adult who treated 6 years old as such?

And btw your analogy is incorrect. A child does not go to jail if it steals something. Not in this state.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Do you honestly believe a God could put a six year old in hell?
Why worship such a disguisting beast?
Would you worship an adult who treated 6 years old as such?

What an absolute leap. That's absolutely absurd. Where did you get that from?

I was discussing teaching about hell. I believe that hell is a place reserved for those who do not accept Christ's substitutionary atonement. There has to be a clear rejection. It is debatable as to whether a child of 6 years of age is able to fully understand and make a clear rejection of God.

I personally believe that God is just and merciful and that it is up to Him to make the correct decision.

That was quite an elaborate strawman of my post.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

No it wouldn't, because it would be contrived and it would have no basis in truth.

Congratulations. You now understand why Atheists don't believe children should be exposed to the dogmas of Christianity.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

No it wouldn't, because it would be contrived and it would have no basis in truth.

/thread

Húrin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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.

Evangelical churches are not a recent American import, but have been active in Ireland for over three hundred years. Why should I be expected to assume that they are an American church?

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

What an absolute leap. That's absolutely absurd. Where did you get that from?

These question are directly related to your previous post where you claimed it was ok to teach God / Hell at without any age limit on the basis that if it was true then you would have been correct in your decision.

You have now just completly contradicted yourself as you have made it clear you yourself don't know what's true below

It is debatable as to whether a child of 6 years of age is able to fully understand and make a clear rejection of God.

I personally believe that God is just and merciful and that it is up to Him to make the correct decision.

Well you have evaded the question as to whether a creature who puts 6 years old in hell is worth worshipping.

That was quite an elaborate strawman of my post.

No strawman at all. You are skirting the issue Jackass.
In fact Jackass, from a very simply interchange with another adult, it's clear your arguments are far from watertight.

However, a child wouldn't be able to pin point the holes in your logic and would be emotionally cornered into believing something they are incapable of thinking critically about.

This is why many atheists would believe you are manipulating another human into your belief system. If you waited until they could at least think critically, and at least understand the basis of counter argument these accusations could not be made.

spurious

AFAIK the main thrust of the work of Victory Outreach in Ireland to date (in north east inner city Dublin they have been around at least 10 years) has been getting people off drugs, which they are quite successful at.

Sam Vimes

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is why many atheists would believe you are manipulating another human into your belief system. If you waited until they could at least think critically, at least understand the basis of counter argument these accusations could not be made.

Of course its manipulation. It's one thing to put your faith forward as true but it's quite another to tell someone of any age that they will be punished if they don't accept your faith as true. No faith can appeal to rationality because faith is not rational so they go to the lowest of human emotions and scare people into believing by telling them that they'll be punished if they don't, like all good cults both secular and religious

Tim Robbins

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Of course its manipulation. It's one thing to put your faith forward as true but it's quite another to tell someone of any age that they will be punished if they don't accept your faith as true. No faith can appeal to rationality because faith is not rational so they go to the lowest of human emotions and scare people into believing by telling them that they'll be punished if they don't, like all good cults both secular and religious

Yes if indoctrination and getting kids into habits and beliefs before they could think critically about them wasn't built into Christianity I think we know it would have withered away by now.

Sam Vimes

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes if indoctrination and getting kids into habits and beliefs before they could think critically about them wasn't built into Christianity I think we know it would have withered away by now.

One wonders why this threat of punishment for non-belief is even necessary if christianity is as objectively convincing as some say it is. You wouldn't think a being of infinite power would feel the need to engage in coercion to try to get his point across

Tim Robbins

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One wonders why this threat of punishment for non-belief is even necessary if christianity is as objectively convincing as some say it is. You wouldn't think a being of infinite power would feel the need to engage in coercion to try to get his point across

Yes objective evidence would probably be something more a kin to a loving God.

However, it's important to teach the kids to belief in things before they could master such simple logic.

nozzferrahhtoo

So just got around to reading this thread from page 1 until now. Let me see if I got this straight so far.

Users on here, who have not offered a single shred of evidence for a god are, in its name, teaching Children that there is something inherently wrong with them that they should be ashamed of and be guilty for. That their mere existence makes them sick and they have to get well. However through all this, this imaginary friend who caused it all actually loves them and has a plan for them.

Or in short, in the absence of any evidence for a god they instead want to substitute a childhood version of Stockholm syndrome on young and vulnerable minds to get the lie accepted.

Not just that however, but they are now building a place where they openly admit that part of their programme is to train kids to spread this Stockholm syndrome to other kids outside the centre. The kids of everyone else in the country. The kids of people who chose NOT to send their kids to this institute of mental torture?

Am I with the thread so far?

Denalihighway

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So just got around to reading this thread from page 1 until now. Let me see if I got this straight so far.

Users on here, who have not offered a single shred of evidence for a god are, in its name, teaching Children that there is something inherently wrong with them that they should be ashamed of and be guilty for. That their mere existence makes them sick and they have to get well. However through all this, this imaginary friend who caused it all actually loves them and has a plan for them.

Or in short, in the absence of any evidence for a god they instead want to substitute a childhood version of Stockholm syndrome on young and vulnerable minds to get the lie accepted.

Not just that however, but they are now building a place where they openly admit that part of their programme is to train kids to spread this Stockholm syndrome to other kids outside the centre. The kids of everyone else in the country. The kids of people who chose NOT to send their kids to this institute of mental torture?

Am I with the thread so far?

pretty much...with lots and lots of words and repetition.

Sam Vimes

Given the fact that the case for christianity doesn't appear to be as objectively convincing as, say, the case for gravity as evidenced by the fact that a full 66% of the world's population do not find it convincing (most likely a lot more) and the ones who do find it convincing can't even agree on what form christianity should take, I'd be a lot more forgiving of people who didn't find it convincing
tbh

Seems I'm more forgiving than a being that's supposed to be perfectly moral. Hmmm

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

It is debatable as to whether a child of 6 years of age is able to fully understand and make a clear rejection of God.

Since not knowing about God seems to offer a chance of avoiding hell, shouldn't we try and keep our kids completly ignorant of Him? Shouldn't we all move to North Korea? Our kids might have a sh1t 80 years but thats better than a sh1t eternity. :-)

nozzferrahhtoo

LOL dvpower, I upset a priest in my school years and years ago very badly with that one. Some smart arse down the back suggested one day that all the ones who did not hear of god, Jesus and Christianity would go to hell because they could not have accepted Jesus.

The priest answered with some standard cliché of “Well if they did not know then they did not reject and if they lived good lives God will accept them into his arms”.

At that point I butted in with a question saying “So bad people go to hell and people who reject the Spirt go to hell?”. The priest said yes to this. “And good people who never heard of all this go to heaven?”. Again yes.

“So you think we should teach people to be good AND about Christ, but are we not giving them one more way to mess up and go to hell? Could we not just teach them to be good people? By teaching them of Christ are we not putting them in much unneeded Jeopardy? You have already admitted they can be good people without Christ. Is this not really cruel of us in fact, to go to good people who would be good anyway, tell them a story they might not believe and therefore reject, and in doing so condemn them to hell despite all their good life?”

As I said, he was pretty upset.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Users on here, who have not offered a single shred of evidence for a god are, in its name, teaching Children that there is something inherently wrong with them that they should be ashamed of and be guilty for. That their mere existence makes them sick and they have to get well. However through all this, this imaginary friend who caused it all actually loves them and has a plan for them.

Believe me, it's not as if we haven't tried making an adequate defence of God's existence before on this and other fora. After a time you have to realise it is only those who are willing who will find out about God. If you are not willing to find out about God, chances are you will never come to know Him.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Or in short, in the absence of any evidence for a god they instead want to substitute a childhood version of Stockholm syndrome on young and vulnerable minds to get the lie accepted.

No. I personally would teach my child how to live responsibly and in a moral manner according to Christian teachings, and explain about God and Jesus Christ. I would also make clear that mankind will be judged at the end of their existence, and that they will reap what they sow in this existence.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not just that however, but they are now building a place where they openly admit that part of their programme is to train kids to spread this Stockholm syndrome to other kids outside the centre. The kids of everyone else in the country. The kids of people who chose NOT to send their kids to this institute of mental torture?

We would have to establish what exactly Victory's views are on certain issues. Since we don't have this, it is mere hysteria and stereotyping is being entertained.

There is nothing torturous about telling people that God loves them and has a plan for their lives, and there certainly is nothing torturous in saying that people who do not accept the Gospel will be condemned for their sin.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Am I with the thread so far?

Not quite.

nozzferrahhtoo

You can say people just do not “want” to find god all you like, but the fact is I have joined forum after forum, read book after book, attended talk after talk, in many religions, and I have done it for 10 years. I have asked again and again for any evidence for this god and I have not been presented any. Not once. Ever.

I have had people give me what you just gave me “You have to want it”. I have had people just get plain angry at me for even presuming to ask. I have had people come up with things like “I do not have to give you evidence”. Worst of all I have even got the most dishonest answer one can give of “Where is your evidence there is NO god?”. But not once has anyone say down and given me evidence.

When you say it is only those who want to believe it that will, all I hear you saying is “You will believe it.... if you believe it”. That same argument could be used about anything. An argument that works in ALL cases, will work in NO cases.

So in the absence for any evidence for this god, all I see is people trying to make children feel as guilty as possible, and then to love the guilt giver, which is 100% the way Stockholm Syndrome works. It is sick, and the idea that this new society is openly advertising that they not only do this, but train the same kids to do it to other kids, is just abhorrent.

Quite literally the only thing you said I agree with is that we do not know enough about this Church. We are talking about it from the outside, and about the little information we have like their admission they intent to train kids to perform the same brain washing on other kids.

With that in mind, I refer the readers to the trip to the Creation “Museum” with blogger PZ Myers. I think we should do the same as him when this place opens and go and see for ourselves en masse what goes on there. As PZ says, by going to the museum to see it for themselves, the entire group of 100s of atheists are now no longer critics of the museum, but INFORMED critics of the museum.