Mariano wrote:>The New Atheist sentiments of “religious” parents raising their children according to their “faith” as “child abusers” is no mere intellectual exercise or controversy stirring tactic; I have personally experienced the displeasure of having one of those militant activist atheists tell me to my face, “you abuse your children.” Of course, I invited them to notify the authorities, which they declined to do. Rather odd I thought; they know that I am a child abuser and are doing nothing about it—that makes them worse that I.Not at all.Many of us atheists accept that some things are deeply morally wrong but reject the idea that they justify physical punishment by the state.I think it is profoundly wrong to advocate liberalism, conservatism, Nazism, homeopathy, Christian Science, Communism, Christianity, Islam, materialism, “Intelligent Design,” postmodernism, and a host of other doctrines.But as long as the advocates of such doctrines avoid physically attacking those of us who disagree with them, it would be wrong for us to physically attack them (e.g., by having them jailed).Anyone who believes in any sort of freedom at all believes something of this sort: after all, if your “freedom” consists merely in doing what I approve of, then your “freedom” consists simply of being my slave!Yes, Christians are emotionally abusing their children. But emotional abuse of that sort is protected speech under the First Amendment (and rightly so). We can denounce it, we can condemn it, but the right way to fight words is with words.You use words to abuse your children. We use words – not the force of the state – to condemn that abuse.Quite simple.I know that some atheists have used weasel words on this issue that make unclear whether or not they are willing to use the state to deny First Amendment rights to Christians. They are wrong. They should have the guts to say clearly whether or not they support the First Amendment and the natural rights acknowledged therein.Nick Humphrey does at least have the guts to be upfront on the issue. But I know of very few American atheists who will agree with his opposition to the First Amendment.Of course, he is a Brit, and, as you may have heard, freedom of expression is more than a little endangered in Europe lately! Socialism does not conduce to individual freedom.His quip about gun rights pretty much reveals where he is coming from.Dave
>Yes, Christians are emotionally abusing their children. I reply: So where is your empirical data to back up that claim?BTW I remember some Atheists claiming it was emotional abuse to tell children about Hell. But I remember reading a testamony from a woman who was raised an Atheist by her progressive parents. Her parents told her she was nothing more than a brain & when you die you simply cease to be. She told how she grew up with a great deal of anxiety & fear toward eventual non-existence. She also feared that because there seems to be some electrical activity in the brain after death she might be semi-concious in her grave & that filled her with terror.At least my mom told be I could confess my sins to Jesus & be forgiven so I wouldn't have to worry about Hell. As for this poor woman. Yikes!!!!Of course this nonsense about "emotional abuse" is simply that, nonsense. It's just an excuse for the New Atheists to be Jerks.
BenYachov - Of course this nonsense about "emotional abuse" is simply that, nonsense. You got that right.
well said Ben !!
BY wrote to me:>I reply: So where is your empirical data to back up that claim?>BTW I remember some Atheists claiming it was emotional abuse to tell children about Hell.You do not quite get it.The traditional Christian teaching is that a *just* God is going to send the little ones to Hell.That means they deserve it.They don’t.Yes, that is indeed emotional child abuse.If I told some innocent young kids who had, say, leukemia that their leukemia was just punishment for their being evil sinners, *that* would be incredibly nasty. If I managed to get away with doing it on a regular basis, that would surely be emotional child abuse.Of course, the fact that it is known beyond sane doubt that traditional Christianity is simply a set of myths makes it worse: for example, we know for certain that the world, biological species, etc. were not all created in a mere six days. We know that, even if Jesus were a clone, he would have been female, not male.Etc.But even without knowing that Christianity has been proven beyond sane doubt to be mythical, yes, it is emotional child abuse, because the claim is that a *just* God is pursuing the eternal punishment and therefore that the young victims *deserve* it.Christianity is one of the most evil sets of ideas to ever plague the civilized world, arguably even worse than socialism.Fortunately, nowadays, all intelligent, well-educated, honest people know that traditional Christianity is false.I know of not a single person who is an exception to that statement anywhere on earth.And I have looked for such an exception. Oh, how I have looked!Dave
>The traditional Christian teaching is that a *just* God is going to send the little ones to Hell.I reply: Which Tradition? Calvinist? Lutheran? Anabaptist? I’m Catholic BTW.So you fall on your face here.Augustine taught un-baptized children would go to Hell but that their punishment would be “very very very light”. Never the less his opinion was not shared by even the majority of contemporaries & in the long run the Church has all but rejected it in favor of either Limbo or Salvation by Extra-Ordinary Extra-Sacramental means.I dare say there isn’t an Augustinian Theologian alive today who holds this theory of Augustine on infant damnation. In fact in the 17th century proponents of Limbo used to make fun of the Neo-Augustinians by calling them “The Tormentors of Infants”. >That means they deserve it.>They don’t.I reply: First that is for God to judge & second your analysis assumes there is a God (which you reject), third you would also have to have knowledge about WHO is in fact going to Hell(& nobody knows that) & fourth most religious kids I know aren’t afraid of Hell unless their parents indoctrinate them with a disordered fear of it & neglect to teach them about a Loving forgiving God who longs to pardon even the most hardened sinner. Just like in all the spiritual classics I’ve read.>Yes, that is indeed emotional child abuse.I reply: Abuse does not negate correct use. Besides I can’t help but noticed you DODGED my example of the Atheist girl who lived in abject FEAR of death & non-existence. How is THAT NOT ABUSE by your own standards? Indeed whenever I bring up this example the best the Atheist can say is the girl “needs to get over it”. How is that any different then me telling a religious child who has a disordered fear of Hell to just get over it & trust in a Loving god who WANTS to save you?Well?
>If I told some innocent young kids who had, say, leukemia that their leukemia was just punishment for their being evil sinners, *that* would be incredibly nasty. I reply: About as nasty as saying “BTW, when you die you are gone! All your happy memories are gone in a puff of smoke. There will be no ‘you’ to remember them anymore. You might as well have not existed. Yeh, I could tell you that your surviving friends might ‘remember’ you but YOU won’t know that since there will no longer be anymore you. Nor will it benefit you to have your friends remember you & they will cease to exist one day as well. I could further lie to you & say death is merely sleep but even sleeping people are alive & have brain activity & are conscious in their dreams. You won’t even have that. You will just become nothing. But at least you don’t fear hell.”Gee pal THAT is so much more cheery let me tell you……………>If I managed to get away with doing it on a regular basis, that would surely be emotional child abuse.I reply: The Book of Job teaches us that it is sinful presumption to tell a person (without divine revelation) their temporal afflictions are punishments from God. So I agree you should not sin by telling children with cancer that God is punishing them. It hurts the child & it clearly puts YOU in danger of Hell for speaking such nonsense.>Of course, the fact that it is known beyond sane doubt that traditional Christianity is simply a set of myths makes it worse: for example, we know for certain that the world, biological species, etc. were not all created in a mere six days. We know that, even if Jesus were a clone, he would have been female, not male.I reply: Scratch an Atheist find a fundamentalist. Dude not even many of the Church Fathers interpreted the “Six Days” as literal 24 hour days. All educated persons in the area of Patristic studies know that. Here is a quarter, buy a clue. >But even without knowing that Christianity has been proven beyond sane doubt to be mythical, yes, it is emotional child abuse, because the claim is that a *just* God is pursuing the eternal punishment and therefore that the young victims *deserve* it.I reply: Rather, a Ominiwise Deity by definition, can infallibly & with PERFECT justice sent those who truly deserve it to Hell. That’s why contrary to that new horror movie, the decision IS NOT left to bitter Old Gypsy Women who want to get back at some hapless loan officer for kicking them out of their house. >Christianity is one of the most evil sets of ideas to ever plague the civilized world, arguably even worse than socialism.I reply: Well I’m still waiting for the peer reviewed empirical evidence that Christian Children are maladjusted. So I’m guessing it’s a waste of time to ask for your historical data to back up this extreme claim. >Fortunately, nowadays, all intelligent, well-educated, honest people know that traditional Christianity is false.I reply: Which “Traditional” Christianity? I’m Catholic & as such I reject Protestantism as “traditional”(no offense Marino).>I know of not a single person who is an exception to that statement anywhere on earth.I reply: You don’t strike me as very intelligent. Your are very whiny & you CLEARY have no historic knowledge of Christianity beyond a superficial understand of certain species of western fundamentalism. You have no knowledge of Tradition, hisotry & the role it’s played in interpreting Scripture. Clearly you have never read Smith or Nagel or any intelligent Atheist who can make a challenging, credible philosophical and or logical case against religious belief but you smack of that pandantic ramblings of Dawkins, Harris & the other four horsemen who are nothing more than the pabulum given to the unwashed anti-intellectual Atheist masses.That is just sad. >And I have looked for such an exception. Oh, how I have looked!I reply: Whatever dude.