MysterionMuffles Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=669064303207847 Oh man...this is freaky to watch.
cynicist Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Oh jeez, it had to be catholic. I'm having flashbacks over here : The stuff this unfortunate child is saying is basically repeated every sunday at churches by the priest in order to reinforce the drone mentality, alongside all the repetitive hymns. I'm glad that I was just confused by the whole thing and didn't try to understand it; I might have done irreparable harm to my brain if I had. 3
RyanT Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Oh jeez, it had to be catholic. I'm having flashbacks over here : The stuff this unfortunate child is saying is basically repeated every sunday at churches by the priest in order to reinforce the drone mentality, alongside all the repetitive hymns. I'm glad that I was just confused by the whole thing and didn't try to understand it; I might have done irreparable harm to my brain if I had. Yeah being raised protestant, I never quite realized just what a strange inaccessible pantomime the catholic service is.... Must admit being a little envious...compared to the whole 'personal relationship with god' delusion protestantism expounds.
MysterionMuffles Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 Yeah just horrifying guys... I've gone to church as an Agnostic a few times in my adult life, and even fewer times as an Atheist. I killed the cat of my curiousity by making the regrettable choice of going to my nephew's Confirmation. My GOD my brain was hurting. To accept the "Lord" into his life, he had to agree to enact 7 virtues, most of which were fine like wisdom, love, and courage etc. The Triforce plus three others, BUT the one that made me involuntarily cringe was Fear of the Lord, and the way the priest explained how important that last one is... Well it invoked a ton of sympathy for my nephew that he is being roped into this indoctrination, thinking it was the right thing to do. I remember being Confirmed and the teachers at school saying that there was no peer pressure in not wanting to get confirmed. It was weird...they said there was no peer pressure in an implicit way that still made you feel left our and awkward for thinking of not going through with it. One of the bargaining chips was a religious retreat where you get a day off school to go to a ski hill (and not doing any skiing and instead) to do some more rituals and get free food. Or you could spend the day at school in study hall. What fun was that gonna be without the advent of iPhones and Nintendo DS's? NONE! Well there were Gameboys, but I was still too poor back then to afford one. Anyways, religion really racks my brain. Finding this video liked by my uncle on my Facebook feed warranted an automatic UNSUBSCRIBE! 1 1
Xbander Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 I thought it was cute, and I'm not even Catholic. Religion isn't child abuse by default. 1 4
cynicist Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 I thought it was cute, and I'm not even Catholic. Religion isn't child abuse by default. And yet you're qualified to say it's not abusive? They don't record the parts where you are threatened with eternal damnation... The fact that you find this indoctrination cute is disturbing as hell; You are defending the destruction of a child's rational mind, whether you want to admit that or not. 5
MysterionMuffles Posted October 14, 2014 Author Posted October 14, 2014 Religion isn't child abuse by default. Teaching a child that fairy tales are empirical fact is abusive because it teaches them to reject their own senses. I can see value in telling fictional stories and extrapulating lessons from them, but religious stories are presented as fact. And even if a child isn't threatened with some kind of mystical punishment for not folllowing the religion's edicts, it's still an assault on their sense of reality. 2
cynicist Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 And even if a child isn't threatened with some kind of mystical punishment for not folllowing the religion's edicts, it's still an assault on their sense of reality. Yeah I don't mean to say religion without that component is ok; I just reach for the most egregious practices first because otherwise you get pedantry as a defense. Catholicism is so obviously horrible even compared to other denominations that I am shocked when reading posts like his. As a survivor, I am confident in saying that anyone raised in that manner grows up absolutely terrified1 and sexually dysfunctional2 at best, and in the worst cases you will be dissociated, insane, or experience mental breakdowns. I'm also not saying that you have to have been a Catholic merely to have an opinion on it, but if you have not been raised in that tradition (/spit) then saying it's not abusive by default is the equivalent of a teenager who plays Call of Duty saying that war isn't horrific by default. How the fuck would you know? (I get that you are likely defending your own religious upbringing for the sake of protecting your parents, but I'm seriously not going to let you do that at the expense of my childhood experience or the continued suffering of literally millions of children) 1 You are a sinner and god is always watching 2 You are trained to be ashamed of your natural bodily functions
shirgall Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 I get the same way about schools that teach children to memorize pieces of the Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address. While I think there is some value in leaving how to memorize something, such an activity only gives lip service to the meaning of the words they are memorizing by rote. Compare this child's activity to what is essentially the presentation of a research paper (on the Torah of course) at a Bar/Bat Mitzvah. The family and the Rabbi participate in reading the passage, but the person coming of age gives a talk on what it's about.
Xbander Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 The fact that you find this indoctrination cute is disturbing as hell; You are defending the destruction of a child's rational mind, whether you want to admit that or not. It's a little boy re-enacting something he saw in church. It's no less cruel and no less rational than if he were playing with a test tube and trying to re-enact the 1952 failed (yet celebrated) Miller and Urey's experiment of how life began on earth. Or if he puts on a lab coat and starts talking like Carl Sagan "...billions of years ago...". It's not harmful for children to believe in say 'santa claus' as long as they are allowed to come to rational decisions later. If you want real childhood indoctrination into religion, see the movie 'Marjoe" by Marjoe Gortner. Teaching a child that fairy tales are empirical fact is abusive because it teaches them to reject their own senses. I can see value in telling fictional stories and extrapulating lessons from them, but religious stories are presented as fact. And even if a child isn't threatened with some kind of mystical punishment for not folllowing the religion's edicts, it's still an assault on their sense of reality. Not necessarily their "senses" but rather, rational thought. There are many things undedectable by the 5 senses which we just have to believe in by evidence, take radio waves for example. Our bodies can't detect them at all, I know it's a small detail, but it's important. Whether you prefer to believe a deity-centered or accident-centered explanation of our ultimate origins, one is not more or less 'abusive' than the other. What becomes abusive is when you are forced to believe in something (you must--or else!), by which public schools have violated and abused an entire generation with under the auspices of science, aka, scientific by association. 1 5
Alin Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 I thought it was cute, and I'm not even Catholic. Religion isn't child abuse by default. So filling someone up with shame for being born (sin) is not abusive. ok.
MysterionMuffles Posted October 15, 2014 Author Posted October 15, 2014 Yeah I don't mean to say religion without that component is ok; I just reach for the most egregious practices first because otherwise you get pedantry as a defense. Catholicism is so obviously horrible even compared to other denominations that I am shocked when reading posts like his. As a survivor, I am confident in saying that anyone raised in that manner grows up absolutely terrified1 and sexually dysfunctional2 at best, and in the worst cases you will be dissociated, insane, or experience mental breakdowns. I'm also not saying that you have to have been a Catholic merely to have an opinion on it, but if you have not been raised in that tradition (/spit) then saying it's not abusive by default is the equivalent of a teenager who plays Call of Duty saying that war isn't horrific by default. How the fuck would you know? (I get that you are likely defending your own religious upbringing for the sake of protecting your parents, but I'm seriously not going to let you do that at the expense of my childhood experience or the continued suffering of literally millions of children) 1 You are a sinner and god is always watching 2 You are trained to be ashamed of your natural bodily functions Yeah that's a sure fire way to diminish a child's self esteem. Everything they do is going to be judged by a non-present 3rd party and you are to be ashamed of your bodily functions. Something you left out though is how pride is seen as a sin as to not let people embrace their self efficacy. I theorize that there have been ambitious people in ancient times who got self righteous and got so proud to the point of vanity--that religion was needed to humble them out of their egos. But I don't know...I value humility a lot since no one can ever really improve without it, but I also value a reasonable level of pride when one reaches a certain threshold of ability and self appreciation. Basically, religion also teaches kids to be at odds with themselves for simply being human. It's a little boy re-enacting something he saw in church. It's no less cruel and no less rational than if he were playing with a test tube and trying to re-enact the 1952 failed (yet celebrated) Miller and Urey's experiment of how life began on earth. Or if he puts on a lab coat and starts talking like Carl Sagan "...billions of years ago...". It's not harmful for children to believe in say 'santa claus' as long as they are allowed to come to rational decisions later. If you want real childhood indoctrination into religion, see the movie 'Marjoe" by Marjoe Gortner. Not necessarily their "senses" but rather, rational thought. There are many things undedectable by the 5 senses which we just have to believe in by evidence, take radio waves for example. Our bodies can't detect them at all, I know it's a small detail, but it's important. Whether you prefer to believe a deity-centered or accident-centered explanation of our ultimate origins, one is not more or less 'abusive' than the other. What becomes abusive is when you are forced to believe in something (you must--or else!), by which public schools have violated and abused an entire generation with under the auspices of science, aka, scientific by association. So why not have the truth apparent to them from the get go, or at least leave them free to think for themselves instead of inflicting conclusions and false dichotomy? Radio waves are detectable when they are broadcasted through a radio as a conduit, and correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't it take like thermal goggles or something to detect dormant radio waves? They're still visible, but require technological instruments to perceive, much like cells and atoms. I don't believe you're being abusive, but simply misunderstanding how abusive religion really can be, so I don't understand why you're getting downvoted for simply being wrong. I would invite you to consider our arguments and continue this discussion since it seems you're being rational in your expression, despite of your claims being a bit off base.
Xbander Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 So filling someone up with shame for being born (sin) is not abusive. ok. That is a far cry from what is actually taught in church, especially to children. Some churches don't emphasize sin, and other churches don't believe we are sinful at all (they are rare). At his age, such theological concepts escape a child. I could quote verses at his age, and recite what I learned from church regarding "sin" but it had no impact, especially the love and affection I received from my parents nullified any 'original sin' mentality. So why not have the truth apparent to them from the get go, or at least leave them free to think for themselves instead of inflicting conclusions and false dichotomy? Radio waves are detectable when they are broadcasted through a radio as a conduit, and correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't it take like thermal goggles or something to detect dormant radio waves? They're still visible, but require technological instruments to perceive, much like cells and atoms. I don't believe you're being abusive, but simply misunderstanding how abusive religion really can be, so I don't understand why you're getting downvoted for simply being wrong. I would invite you to consider our arguments and continue this discussion since it seems you're being rational in your expression, despite of your claims being a bit off base. I know how bad religion can be. A lot of things *can* be bad. My example with radio waves is that it's not about senses, but logic. With someone considering an either/or dilemma of a God-belief, or the overarching meta-narrative of evolutionism is not a sensory experience, it's an exercise in logic. Considering ones ultimate origin is not abusive in the least, because there are no truly rational proven 'origin' teachings at this point in history. It's just that one has the monopoly of state funding behind it, and is the only option of atheists. Forcing your child to believe something, whether deity(s) or atheism is abusive across the board. 2
Alin Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 That is a far cry from what is actually taught in church, especially to children. Some churches don't emphasize sin, and other churches don't believe we are sinful at all (they are rare). At his age, such theological concepts escape a child. I could quote verses at his age, and recite what I learned from church regarding "sin" but it had no impact, especially the love and affection I received from my parents nullified any 'original sin' mentality. Maybe on the planet of pink unicorns they don't. Here on Earth, the church preaches all that bullshit. Of course no sane human being would choose to believe this stuff unless it was forced upon him by his/her parents. So you were loved by your parents, and they taught you that you're guilty that you were born (as if it was your choice), taught you that having sexual thoughts is a sin (again guilt and shame), taught you to conform and submit like a sheep to some imaginary ghost, threatened you with eternal hell if you don't, forced you into the church and at the end of the day kissed you on the forehead and told you how much they loved you. Hmm. Make sense.
Xbander Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 Maybe on the planet of pink unicorns they don't. Here on Earth, the church preaches all that bullshit. Of course no sane human being would choose to believe this stuff unless it was forced upon him by his/her parents. So you were loved by your parents, and they taught you that you're guilty that you were born (as if it was your choice), taught you that having sexual thoughts is a sin (again guilt and shame), taught you to conform and submit like a sheep to some imaginary ghost, threatened you with eternal hell if you don't, forced you into the church and at the end of the day kissed you on the forehead and told you how much they loved you. Hmm. Make sense. I guess the planet of pink unicorns isn't so far away, because I can easily search for churches with particular doctrines that don't put emphasis on sin. There's even a popular preacher on nationwide broadcasts for almost 15 years, and the biggest complaint Christians have about him is "You leave out sin! You don't condemn anyone or anything!" Maybe you've heard of this fellow, he's also a best-selling author, do I have to say his name here, or do you want to retract that statement? And no, my parents never did any such indoctrination. Talk about setting up a strawman, jeezaloo, that was some extreme misrepresentation, Alin.
Alin Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 No, never heard of him. These days whenever I open the TV or radio I get that feeling, as if I want to vomit. You know, kinda like when I see people believing in religions, going to church, and preaching their nonsense to everyone.
Xbander Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 No, never heard of him. These days whenever I open the TV or radio I get that feeling, as if I want to vomit. You know, kinda like when I see people believing in religions, going to church, and preaching their nonsense to everyone. I understand. It's Joel Osteen, and his longstanding criticism is still going from what I hear. He never mentions hell, punishment, vengeance etc. he can go several weeks on end without uttering "sin" even once in a sermon. Getting him to condemn anyone is like getting blood out of a turnip. The guy lives what he preaches. On a similar note, Unitarian Universalist churches are very comfortable for atheists, jews, and other nonbelievers. That is a denomination best known for zero wrath, hellfire, or condemnation. While Joel is neither Unitarian nor Universalist, he is often labeled as one by his critics.
Alin Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Getting him to condemn anyone is like getting blood out of a turnip. The guy lives what he preaches. Oh so for him it's all nice, peacefull, fine and dandy, and yes be nice to everyone and maybe turn the other cheek also? Nobody should be condemned no matter what he does? (not by us, mere mortals, ofc) So the usual bullshit of religion without hell. On a similar note, Unitarian Universalist churches are very comfortable for atheists, jews, and other nonbelievers. That is a denomination best known for zero wrath, hellfire, or condemnation. While Joel is neither Unitarian nor Universalist, he is often labeled as one by his critics. No thanks, I can do just fine without belonging to any churchie. I don't need to belong to any group
Recommended Posts