…Continued

I already went through the nuances here in my last response to you explaining why the fact that you wouldn’t call child services does not necessarily mean that something is not a form of abuse.

<<It's not indoctrination it's teaching. I stand by that.>>

So-called “religious instruction” is, by its very definition, indoctrination.

Indoctrination:
The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/indoctrination

Religious parents tend not to inform their children of their beliefs and then encourage them to think critically about them and make up their own mind. Children are told that those beliefs are what they must accept, and many of us were taught that it is a sin to doubt or question the existence of God. There is even the age range known as the “4-14 window” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/july/37.53.html) when children are known to be the most receptive to indoctrination because the critical thinking faculties have not yet kicked in.

Of course, that’s not always how theists see it.

<<Perhaps I am alone in not seeing this being taught to kids in the way you've described that is used threateningly or as something to make them excessively fearful.>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7OyAnn3S7Y

As I noted earlier, though, it doesn’t have to be done in an abusive way to be considered a form of abuse. Abuse can occur to varying degrees.

<<The example of having nothing to amount to is an abusive thing I've heard some people had to grow up being told.>>

Yes, that would be abuse. But I don’t believe these people (probably born-again Christians) who told you this. I think they’re re-interpreting their non-religious upbringing through the lens of their new worldview. The reason I don’t believe them is because the idea that the non-existence of an afterlife means that people cannot amount to anything now is a total non-sequitur. It would be exceptionally rare that you would ever come across parents who were both that stupid and that cruel.

<<Others … struggle … with what happens when they die.>>

Sure, but raising children to believe a lie isn’t the answer.

//To Toni Lavis. I was not aware of the hell house productions.//

Why the hell not, NNS? AJ provided the link last Thursday. Do you follow links when I post them, but not when AJ does? That doesn't seem very reasonable, mate.

//My upbringing did not have that in it. Did you grow up with that kind of influence?//

No, and that's beside the point. The video provided unequivocal proof that some children do - and that some Christians are quite OK with that. That I've never been exposed to that sort of abuse is neither here nor there. You seem to take a very solipsistic attitude to a lot of things - if it didn't happen to you or somebody you know, it's of no concern. Personally, I consider that selfish.

//As for the examples of both Christian and Islamic cults, I think those examples are more of a reflection on the leaders of those cults and their evil to do harm and to rape. The religion they say they are based on aren't really represented there in my opinion.//

Leaving nit-picking about theological distinctions to one side for the time being... whatever religion it is that they're teaching, their methods of religious instruction are clearly abusive. Which refutes your claim that only Islam is guilty of abusive methods of religious instruction.

//Regarding Jehovah Witnesses though, that's harder for me to judge well.//

Jesus mate, it's not quantum electrodynamics. Is it or is it not abusive to refuse consent for a life-saving blood transfusion for your child because of your religious beliefs? What's so hard about that?

//I'm not for Johovah Witnesses because I've heard stories about them that I can't accept.//

See, this is what I don't get. There are plenty of well-documented cases where the children of JW's have died because their parents refused consent for transfusions. But rather than base your opposition to JW's on those well-documented cases, you choose to base it on chinese whispers, rumour, and what some bloke down the pub told you. I am reminded of the Parable of the Builders.

//Instead I stand by what I said earlier that if you think there is abuse going on, then do something to intervene. Let that be your standard of what counts as abuse and what counts as just hard experiences in life... If you don't feel the need to call the authorities, then really question yourself if there is actual abuse going on or not.//

Really? So unless I'm actually personally witness to abuse, it's not really abuse? If a child is abused in a forest and there's nobody around here it, he's just had a hard experience in life?

What a load of bollocks. Your standard for what determines abuse is some of the most non-sensical and morally bankrupt crap you've ever written. I live in Australia, so it would be rather difficult for me to be privy to the abuse of children in, say, Belgium. I am not in possession of any specific information which would warrant contacting the Beligian authorities. Do you really mean to tell me that on that basis, kids in Belgium are never subject to abuse - just hard experiences in life?

In future, I suggest that you think before you type. Save us both a lot of bother.

My next door neighbor is an Anglican priest. He was an Assoc.Prof at the university I attended, in Ancient Greek and history. And Latin. His parish is far away and we care for his home and garden. He occasionally returns home for a few days to conference with his Bishop. He and his wife are charming people. When I bombed out of Religious Studies, I told him why. I thought the marker was not up to it, and the question was rather shallow, and 3500 words was too much. So I wrote it about the evolution of religion, using my archaeology. I thought that Scientology was a Joke, I had his book, and it was the first he wrote, and it was a self help book, then he got more eccentric and deeper into thetans and how their spirits still dwelt in everyone. (Possessed by negativity holding people back from success and money). All she did was give what he Ronald Hubbard wanted his PR to sound like. He was a liar and a fraud.

I was not objective enough. How can you be if you are dealing with a cult that harms people, and they did. Same with David Koresh of the Davidians. He said he went to Mt.Carmel and an angel came and told him he was the new messiah. Mt Carmel, I doubt it. It is policed, making sure no Jews go near it. Let alone some man who claims to be the new Messiah. He had lived in an American town called Jerusalem. Anyway I withdrew I was awarded 20% for my efforts. I thought the marker was incompetent and told my next door neighbor.

We tell our children fairy tales, and it excites their imagination. The Good always defeats the evil. When the Harry Potter series was released the Seventh Day Adventists said it should be banned that magic was evil.

But was Harry Potter described and it is a metaphor of life, that there is good and evil in the world. Children should be aware of it, but not paranoid to the point it restricts their development to a point they believe they are evil too.

Anyway folks I have to watch the closing ceremony of the Commonwealth Games, I think the Aussies lead the medals tally.

Dear Foxy,

I didn't find the time to be active on this thread, which turned insane, but I like to commend your nice post from Wednesday, 4 April 2018 7:07:03 PM, beginning with "I've come to realise that true religion is internal not external. The spirit within us cannot be blamed for the blasphemies carried out in its name."

Regarding your later post of Wednesday, 11 April 2018 7:19:27 PM:

«But the fact that religion is universal in human society - perhaps the question to ask is - why?»

Religion is universal. Period. It is everywhere, within society and without society. Everything and everyone is inherently yearning to return to God.

«Could it be that religion does have a vital function in maintaining the social system as a whole?»

Please do not mistake those cultural customs which society passes for "religion" with religion itself: Religion is actually anti-social because it eliminates the dependency on a physical body and society cannot be sustained without that dependency.

«Consider such religious rituals as - baptism, bar mitzvah, weddings, Sabbath services, Christmas mass, and funerals. Rituals like these serve to bring people together; to remind them of their common group membership, to reaffirm their traditional values; to maintain prohibitions and taboos, to offer comfort in times of crisis; and in general, to help transmit the cultural heritage from one generation to the next.»

The above are social rituals, rather than religious. This is how society cleverly attempts to dilute and tame religion, using people's inherent yearning for God to forward its own survivalist and cultural goals. Without this scent of religion, people would not find human life and society attractive or worthwhile and instead turn to destructive behaviours, as you conclude yourself in the rest of this post. However, society can only keep the full thrust of religion away temporarily, then eventually, each in our own time, we ripe, become dissatisfied and leave society in favour of the real thing.