quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:
Yeah, an inability to read things in context. I wonder if it was your hitting me or my comment about stoning being the punishment which they objected to?

well it obviously wasn't the stuff about 'women's work' and being subservient to men...

i think the mods must be old school. perhaps if i had bashed you with a rolling pin that would have been ok ....

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

quote:

Originally posted by Keith in Wales:
Perhaps the real challenge is to raise everyone out of that sort of existence - and that's where the Catholic church's teachings on birth control are not helping.

The appeal of monotheism is the promise of a reward in an afterlife. It does not want or try to alleviate the human condition. The message is that this life and its sorrows are a result of OUR own sinning but if you toe the party line then maybe, just maybe, god will choose you for everlasting happiness after you die. What utter tosh.

It is no coincidence that monotheism has always gained most new recruits (and still does) from the needy, uneducated and psychologically unstable. The religious hierarchies well know this and have always deliberately targeted those demographics.

Monotheism is, by its very nature, more dogmatic and intolerant than polytheistic religions, and therefore has, historically, generated more violence and brutality than polytheistic religions.

However, when it comes to its appeal regarding a mythical afterlife, etc etc, monotheism is no better or worse than polytheism. What you say in your post applies to religion in general, not just to monotheism.

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
Does the preaching have the desired efect?

Why ask that, would that excuse the deliberate abuse of a child. It seems you are saying that as long as the end is achieved the means should not be questioned. A very christian morality - Bring back the inquisition.

I wasn't saying that at all.

Preaching may serve difference purposes, and it wasn't clear to me, not having watched the show, what these child preachers were aiming at. If a child preached a short sermon about how children are important and that grown-ups should respect and look after them, that wouldn't be an example of child abuse, would it?

The impression I'm getting is that it's the content of these children's sermons that's horrifying, not the fact that they are standing up and talking to people. We're focusing, rightly, on what how the child-preachers are being treated and manipulated, but there is also the question of what purpose this preaching is supposed to serve. I think it's a valid question. Every phenomenon has a cause and effect.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
We're focusing, rightly, on what how the child-preachers are being treated and manipulated, but there is also the question of what purpose this preaching is supposed to serve. I think it's a valid question. Every phenomenon has a cause and effect.

The parents have been brainwashed to believe a certain set of absurd myths and they have brainwashed their child with the same set of absurd myths. And they are using their child to disseminate those myths. The purpose of the preaching seems rather clear.

Science can dispute so many events in the biblical text that what do we have left?

Whatever the religion it seems to me it comes down to a few factors. (That are in no way commandments to live our lives by or be indoctrinated with!)

Treat yourself and everyone else with respect.
Maintain a faith in your family unit and friends.
Dont be daft so that the things you do unbalance your world and everyone around you.
There is not need to torture those who do stray to the other side of the tracks but instigate some form of justice for the sake of society.

Surely thats not brainscience.
Would we all live in a more peaceful world?

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:
i think they belonged to the denomination of hellfire and brimstone, shouty, clappy, church of the generally poor and oppressed... but one of the churches preached at in the USA was pentecostal

So, in effect, the show didn't actually say which denominations these people were from. This tends to happen in shows like this. In my experience, they often leave out this pretty crucial information. 'Happy clappy' and 'Pentecostal' are not denominations, they are descriptions of a theological approach, or simply a worship style.

If we knew which denominations were involved we could actually find out how many members it has, what the leadership and laity think about having child preachers, whether or not there is any dissent in the ranks, whether social services have been involved, etc. As it is, all we know is that 'child abuse' is going on, and no idea of which organisation is actually perpetrating it! This is not providing the viewers with real information, it's just creating an animosity that will be aimed, like a scatter gun, towards anyone who fits the vague 'happy clappy' description.

quote:

they were all considered to have a 'gift' that they found all by themselves as infants. they were encouraged in this by their families, rather than the churches.

This is interesting. As I said, it would be quite revealing if the show had actually talked to other members of these congregations to see if they were always happy about this. That might have given these goings-on some context. It does sound as though context was mostly lacking here.

quote:

poor sam had to preach to the unhily masses of NYC who weren't slow to explain their objections to religious morality. he was sort of a street preacher, his dad walked qaround with 'repent' style billboards on his chest. another preached to large denomination pentecostal style churches where they all already believe. the brazilian girl did a lot of that and also went round state prisons where her dad had been incarcerated for undisclosed crimes, but still only to 'believers'.

i don't know what the 'desired effect' was, other than to make money in at least 2 cases....

So these children were 'used' in a variety of ways, and with different results. The girl who went into the prison must have done so with the agreement of the authorities, her church and the prisoners themselves. The street preachers would have had none of these recommendations, and if everyone they spoke to objected to their message, you wonder what good they were doing. The ones who were raising money must've amused somebody, though! They were presumably the cutest ones!

You have to ask what the show's participants thought they would get out of being on tv. Did they just want to look good? Did they think they would make converts? Were they hoping to raise the profile of their churches (difficult, if we didn't learn which denominations they belonged to)?

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:
However, when it comes to its appeal regarding a mythical afterlife, etc etc, monotheism is no better or worse than polytheism. What you say in your post applies to religion in general, not just to monotheism.

Got to disagree. Polytheistic mythologies don't have a heaven/hell situation. Their heavenly afterlife really just was an idealised echo of their earthly society. Their underworlds were not really a place of punishment for earthly sins but just inventions to allow certain practices to happen which were not allowed or didn't fit in the ideal uber-world. In most polytheistic mythologies people often went into the underworld to fulfil tasks and gain honour/merit.

In polytheistic mythologies your earthly actions merely annoyed a god (or gods) and they would zap you and yours for this (on earth) there was no personal sin to atone for which affected any afterlife. Essentially everyone who died went to their heaven - the only difference was that some were given elevated status there due to their heroic actions on behalf of the tribe/clan/society during their life.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
This tends to happen in shows like this. In my experience, they often leave out this pretty crucial information. 'Happy clappy' and 'Pentecostal' are not denominations, they are descriptions of a theological approach, or simply a worship style.

If we knew which denominations were involved we could actually find out how many members it has, what the leadership and laity think about having child preachers, whether or not there is any dissent in the ranks, whether social services have been involved, etc.

Just so we are on the same page. Can you please tell me if you:

a. Are a christian.
b. Disagree with the manipulation of children.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
So, in effect, the show didn't actually say which denominations these people were from. This tends to happen in shows like this. In my experience, they often leave out this pretty crucial information. 'Happy clappy' and 'Pentecostal' are not denominations, they are descriptions of a theological approach, or simply a worship style.

gee thanks for that clarification. why is it crucial information? would it be OK for baptists but wrong for anglicans. or something?

your questions and comments seem a bit off base to me. perhaps its because you didn't see the programme. certainly the two who preached to church congregations had large audiences cheering them on. I guess some might object, but not enough to prevent those churches hosting the child preachers.

i don't see this as right or acceptable under any circumstances. we don't live in the middle ages. children do not get 'miracle gifts of preaching' from god. they get prepped by their parents and encouraged by churches and their congregations.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

'Happy clappy' and 'Pentecostal' are not denominations, they are descriptions of a theological approach, or simply a worship style.

Let's just call them Holy Rollers, for simplicity.

By the way, why is it important which sect these people belong to?

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:
By the way, why is it important which sect these people belong to?

Surely, you see a "no true Scotsman" argument being prepared.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
So, in effect, the show didn't actually say which denominations these people were from. This tends to happen in shows like this. In my experience, they often leave out this pretty crucial information. 'Happy clappy' and 'Pentecostal' are not denominations, they are descriptions of a theological approach, or simply a worship style.

gee thanks for that clarification. why is it crucial information? would it be OK for baptists but wrong for anglicans. or something?

I think it's important to know who and what you're dealing with. Don't you? Especially if you actually want to do something about it. If you're seeking to apply pressure to people, you need to be aware of who their leaders are, what they believe. Just as it's important not to tar all Muslims with the same extremist brush, it's important not to do the same to any other religious group. Otherwise, how can you get moderate, reasonable people on your side? 'A plague on all your houses' isn't the best way to go, although it seems to be a fashionable approach these days!

As it happens, I'm neither a Pentecostal, Holy Roller nor a Happy Clapper! I am a Christian who attends quite a low-key, traditional church. The youngest person I've ever seen preaching in our church was a man in his early twenties, just the other week.

The issue for me isn't whether or not child preachers exist (although I find it strange), but the context in which they're preaching, how they're being treated, what they're expected to preach. Obviously, as a Christian, I don't automatically see the involvement of children in church life as child abuse in itself.

Havent got time to read the whole thread so sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I saw this programme and I was aghast as the complacency about what amounts to child abuse.

It isnt the "holy Spirit" motivating these children but fear! Fear of burning in hell (being eaten by worms!!) fear of disapproval, fear of their parents, fear of being beaten if they didnt comply, fear of being damned; and being brainwashed by parents that are living their own paranoia, fundamentalist obsessions megalomania and greed for stardom and money through manipulating and exploiting their own vulnerable children.

All of these children will probably need years of therapy! Where is social services?

ps ... and I'm a Christian!

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
So, in effect, the show didn't actually say which denominations these people were from. This tends to happen in shows like this. In my experience, they often leave out this pretty crucial information

Well actually they did. They were radical Christian evangelists! I dont actually think its crucial. The affect on the children was the whole point .. not what 'club' they belong to

quote:

Originally posted by TruthTraveller:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
So, in effect, the show didn't actually say which denominations these people were from. This tends to happen in shows like this. In my experience, they often leave out this pretty crucial information

Well actually they did. They were radical Christian evangelists! I dont actually think its crucial. The affect on the children was the whole point .. not what 'club' they belong to

I seem to be on my own here!

We all agree that child abuse is horrible. But the information we are given needs to be complete. Ie, we (and the various child welfare authorities) should know who exactly is responsible. 'Radical Christian evangelicals' is another term that can mean anything to anyone, and it is not the name of any particular organisation. I am sure there are many ordinary people who would refer to themselves as 'radical Christian evangelicals' who would have nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse.

Information is power. Complaining broadly about 'evangelicals' or 'Pentecostals' is of no use to those children. We need to know exactly which organisations are sanctioning this abusive behaviour if we are to do anything about it. As Christians we should be careful about seeming to accuse all 'evangelicals' or 'Pentecostals' of child abuse, and if we want to speak out against abuse we should know exactly who we are speaking out against. I say this not as a Pentecostal/radical evangelical, but as someone who is a bit tired of the generalisations that have been made in the media about various Christian groups. The lack of specificity seems counterproductive to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

I seem to be on my own here!

that could be because everything i have posted has been deleted.

quote:

The lack of specificity seems counterproductive to me.

then i suggest you watch to programme and do your own research rather than complaining that nobody is telling you about it properly!

its repeated tonight at 11.05 pm.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:
its repeated tonight at 11.05 pm.

Thank you for the info. I wasn't actually complaining that nobody was explaining the show properly! I thought you were doing a good job. However, I've got the feeling that I'd have difficulties with the show's presentation of the problem, difficulties that other viewers on the thread apparently haven't had.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

We need to know exactly which organisations are sanctioning this abusive behaviour if we are to do anything about it. As Christians we should be careful about seeming to accuse all 'evangelicals' or 'Pentecostals' of child abuse, and if we want to speak out against abuse we should know exactly who we are speaking out against. I say this not as a Pentecostal/radical evangelical, but as someone who is a bit tired of the generalisations that have been made in the media about various Christian groups. The lack of specificity seems counterproductive to me.

I fail to understand this point. There are over 3000 christian sects in the US. And every week or so a new one appears. And periodically they disagree on some verse on the gospels and you have a few new splinter sects, subsects and subsubsects. These sects range from the more or less mainstream to the openly freaky. The people shown in the documentary belong to some of these funny sects. Nobody says they represent anybody but themselves or that their behaviour is sanctioned by anybody but themselves. So, there is no need to feel that this type of documentary victimizes all christians by generalization. Other christians do other weird stuff -these ones use children to spout their crazy ideas. It takes all sorts.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
I don't automatically see the involvement of children in church life as child abuse in itself.

So do you think that it is right to indoctrinate children in your beliefs. Fact is, children are easily made into believers. It really is brainwashing of the innocent. Granted it may not be as blatant abuse as was portrayed but it is still abuse - if only because you are using your power to influence their thinking.

Christianity is supposed to be based on people accepting the Holy Spirit into their lives. Children are not doing this they are being told what to believe and that conditioning remains in the majority of cases.

All religion is based on nonsenses and illogical premises which defy reason. Are you truly trying to tell us that a child (say below the age of 12) truly has thought these problems through and come to their own conclusion on veracity? Heck, even supposedly reasoning adult christians cannot explain the idiocy of freewill and omniscience (can you?), so what chance they.

quote:

So do you think that it is right to indoctrinate children in your beliefs. Fact is, children are easily made into believers. It really is brainwashing of the innocent. Granted it may not be as blatant abuse as was portrayed but it is still abuse - if only because you are using your power to influence their thinking.

Christianity is supposed to be based on people accepting the Holy Spirit into their lives. Children are not doing this they are being told what to believe and that conditioning remains in the majority of cases.

All religion is based on nonsenses and illogical premises which defy reason

Well arent you trying to indoctrinate us with your beliefs now? Come on thats a bit extreme isnt it!

I think what took place in that programme was blatantly child exploitation and abuse .. but to say that all children that are taken to church by their parents are being abused is bordering on insane.

Its a parents right and prerogative to bring their children up in the way that they see fit. That may or may not include a religion, but this is no more abusive than teaching a child about your political beliefs .. or indeed your athiesm! We teach our kids what we believe to be right, whether you believe or disbelieve in it, its a parents right to teach their children what they believe to be best for their child

I personally believe that bringing my children up with Christian values, to love and care for others, to do good in the world and to emulate the life of Jesus Christ isnt actually a bad set of principals to live by. Yes I am a Christian. My children when they were old enough however were and are free to make their own minds up. Only one in fact has stayed with the church, one dabled in budhism and says now she is 'spiritual' but non-denominational and the other is agnostic. Anyone who knows my children will certainly say they are able to think for themselves .. despite initially being brought up in the Christian faith.

This is hardlyt on a par with a seven year old preaching hellfire and damnation! Fortunately such beliefs within the Christian church are only a very small minority.. and actually such beliefs are in conflict with the new testament and more liberal Christians of today that believe and practice "God is Love"

There are millions of well adjusted, caring, responsible adults today that have grown up in loving Christian homes that would probably think the suggestion that they were "abused" and "indoctrinated" shocking and laughable .. myself included