Get ’em young, because Jeezus is just too damn busy to do it hisself these days … ye haw.

I wonder why an omnipotent deity like Yahweh needs people like this to carry out his “Master Plan”?

 

All together at camp, it’s well over 200. Ages 1 month to 17 years old. Let’s say 225. 225 kids for a week.

It’s simply the best mission work on the planet. Very rarely is there an opportunity to present God’s Word and the plan of salvation to so many for so long. It pays off. I venture to say that more souls come to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ in that week, proportionally, than in the entire year of our outreach efforts in most of our churches. This week we saw 25 individuals come to salvation.

Even without exact details it is utterly disgusting that some children will be coerced into making some sort of religious statement regarding their“sinful nature” – a mandatory requirement when asking for “salvation”.

Coercion in  any other field is considered immoral and unethical and in some instances illegal. Yet here, by his own admission, a re-born fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist has a captive audience.

Makes my skin crawl.

 

So, lest any of you haters out there think we spend a week screaming about Hell…read above and take a hike. Of course, we do talk about Jesus, a lot, as that need really is greater than any of the others. We try hard to fill all the needs.

Which tells you that, while some good may be done in helping some of the kids that come from disadvantaged backgrounds, the primary motivation is coerced conversion. And while children at this age may well not fully convert, due to lack of genuine understanding,  they have already been set on a path of  potential life-long religious indoctrination.

 

Advertisements

116 thoughts on “Get ’em young, because Jeezus is just too damn busy to do it hisself these days … ye haw.

  1. You’ve probably seen this before. Still, it seems fitting for this post, and each time I’ve watched it, I’ve teared up. It’s sugarcoated cruelness, or as SB would put it, sugarcoated poison.

    Btw, I am digging this background color. Very easy on the eyes, and they thank you.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. “You were born corrupt” …

      Oh. My. Gawd! What a HORRIBLE, SICK way to start a child’s life. Whatever happened to innocence?

      I’m feel like throwing up. This is the SICKEST thing I’ve ever come across. Even as a Christian, I never heard garbage like this.

      Liked by 3 people

        1. Oh I knew this already. I just think it’s SICK! And even if there were any truth to it (which there isn’t), that makes it even more sick.

          And the video? The most descriptive word I can think of at the moment is VILE!

          Liked by 1 person

          1. It is vile, which is the point the video (produced by The Thinking Atheist) was trying to make. What this video did was remove the sugarcoating. In the case of church camps, it’s games, food, campfires, swimming, singing, bonding, etc.), which is what’s used to entice the most vulnerable and the most trusting — children.

            Liked by 4 people

        2. ” And if infants are corrupt, then this is the same as saying that we are born corrupt — which means we are born with original sin.”
          And this is why I eat infants-the corrupt little buggers.. However, i must tell you, even though their souls my be corrupt and rotten, their flesh is DELICIOUS! Well, I’m off to indoctrinate some poor children into become jihadists for the one true God, Allah. You see, indoctrination is only bad when you’re indoctrinated someone to believe in a false god, like Jesus. (I know this is true because I learned it as child.) Thus, Allah, being real, is a fine god to indoctrinate kids into following. Thanks.

          Liked by 3 people

      1. Wait…Nan, what do you mean you never heard of this kind of thing as a christian? Being “born of sin” is fundamental to christianity…it’s the whole reason christ had to die (and thus was also raised from the dead). How could you have been a christian and never have heard of this? Just curious!

        Like

        1. I shall give it a squizz tomorrow. It’s past one down here and I’m completely bushed…
          Saw your cat on Carmen’s post.
          I rather like it. Has a certain je ne sais what?
          T’ra … Nite nite.

          Liked by 2 people

    1. proselytise: Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

      From the Quakers of Aotearoa web site: “The Quaker approach has been to uncover potential Quakers by helping enquirers to discover the faith they already have rather than by persuading them to change. Does that qualify as proselytizing?

      Like

          1. “Uncovering” someone’s faith instead of “preaching” it…c’mon, that’s the same thing. Quakers here are christians who believe christ rose from the dead and that’s the message they teach. I went to several Quaker meetings and was the only unbeliver there.

            I think you once told me Quakers in NZ are NOT christians, but I’m still suspicious of any woo.

            Like

            1. It depends on what you mean by “Christian”. But there’s no requirement to believe in a deity, or that Jesus was a real person, or there’s a heaven and hell, or there’s an afterlife. They dont believe we’re all sinners needing to be saved. If you believe that any of those are necessary to be a Christian, then Quakers in this part of the world aren’t Christian.

              Sounds like the Quakers you’ve met belong to the Evangelical Friends Church, which has evolved along a very different path to that of liberal Quakerism.

              Quakers don’t claim they have all the answers not do they claim Quakerism is right for everyone. They will assert that it is right for themselves, but each individual must find the religious and/or secular communities that best suit them.

              I don’t mind you being suspicious of any Woo. What I do mind is untrue claims being made about a community, be it religious or non-religious. So I ask what is this indoctrination you speak of?

              Like

              1. I’m not sure what you’re asking me Barry. The Quakers in my part of the world are christian…they claim full-fledged christianity. They teach the christian doctrines of jesus and heaven and hell, and they read the christian bible. Yes, they will say you don’t HAVE to believe in these things to be a Quaker, but these are the teachings they follow. I was told I could be an athiest and still be a Quaker, but after going to several of their meetings it was clear that I would not fit in as an unbeliever.

                https://www.fgcquaker.org/explore/faqs-about-quakers#believe?

                Like

              2. Perhaps you’re making the point that if Quakers don’t teach the christian doctrines in absolute terms, then it’s not indoctrination? If that’s what you’re trying to say then I would disagree. If you’re a child born into Quakerism in the US, you might not be “forced” into christian beliefs, but because your parents believe in it you’ll likely believe in it too. IMHO, that’s indoctrination. Perhaps it’s not as btutal as the indoctrination I faced as a catholic, but it’s still teaching a world view that’s christian based…and if you don’t buy into that world view, you’ll not fit in with the Quakers in the US. How is that not indoctrination?

                Like

                1. @Violet

                  If you’re a child born into Quakerism in the US, you might not be “forced” into christian beliefs, but because your parents believe in it you’ll likely believe in it too. IMHO, that’s indoctrination.

                  Why do you think believing as your parents do is automatically indoctrination? Or I am misunderstanding what you’re saying?

                  Like

                2. If you’re a Quaker in the US you’re expected to adhere to christian doctrine, and if not, you’re not really made welcome. Could a child “choose” not to believe in christianity in such an environment? It might be possible but I don’t think it’s probable. Does a child even have the ability to know they have a choice? Forthermore, what child is going to risk being rejected by their caretakers by not “buying into” the prevelant religion? Very few, I would think.

                  Like

                3. But what is stopping us from applying these same questions to ANY idea a parent has about the world (politics, values, how we ought to treat other people, education, whatever)? It seems to me there are a lot of things a child can feel rejected for or naturally just copy their parents besides religion.

                  Like

                4. But religion is different because we’re taught our eternal destiny, and the eternal destiny of everyone else, rests on this particular decision. Also, many serious and prejudicial judgements we make about others is the direct result of religion. Homosexuality, anyone? Abortion? Do you deserve to die for your belief or lack thereof (in certain countires the answer is yes)?

                  Liked by 1 person

                5. I’m sorry, I thought you were referring to my discussion on Quakerism, which in the US is christian. What religion were you referring to?

                  Like

                6. I thought Quakers could believe whatever they want and follow their own hearts? Maybe their hearts lead them to think homosexuality is an abomination, and they teach their kids that.

                  Do you see how even progressive religions can harbor fundy ideas under the umbrella of being “tolerant?”

                  Like

                7. Maybe, there are individuals that teach that, but that tells you about the individuals, not about the group (or it only tells you about a minority within a group). As the Pew study I linked to in my last post states, Quakers generally accept same-sex relationships.

                  I think you’re assuming here that the progressive elements never criticize the fundy ideas., but as Barry pointed out with his concrete example about his son that simply isn’t true.

                  Getting back to the original point of where I began responding to you. It seems to me that children will inevitably pick up some ideas, beliefs, and habits (religious or otherwise) from their parents, even when not explicitly taught to them. I’d be hesitant to call this indoctrination.

                  Like

                8. Can you tell me of a religion that doesn’t make any claims on an afterlife, doesn’t tell you who is good and who is bad, and doesn’t think badly of those who don’t believe it?

                  Like

                9. The world view of the typical American is quite different in many respects to the world view of the typical Kiwi. Aren’t those differences due to indoctrination, and not just on the part of Kiwis?

                  Friends make no secret of the fact that ninety percent of their membership comes from non Quaker backgrounds and most children of Quaker parents do not become Quakers. Most Quakers would look at this a success – it means they have brought up their children to think for themselves and make their own decisions about what is important to them. If significant numbers of children from Quaker families became Quakers in adulthood there’d be concerns expressed about the possibility that the children were being indoctrinated.

                  If you feel the values expressed in the acronym SPICES to be indoctrination, then so be it, but there is nothing in them that demands, requires, or expects any belief in the supernatural.

                  And the whole motion of not fitting in because of difference in beliefs is puzzling to most Kiwis. Someone forgot to teach us how not to fit in.

                  Like

                10. “The world view of the typical American is quite different in many respects to the world view of the typical Kiwi.”

                  Religion is a different beast than any other politicial or cultural topic that makes up our world view…see my answer to consoledreader.

                  Every adult is free to follow their own hearts on religious matters, but I don’t agree with Quakers (or any religion) teaching their children whatever their version of spirituality is. For me the only reasonable religious teaching is one that is done after a child becomes an adult, when they have full fledged powers of logic.

                  Have you ever wondered why Quaker children tend to walk away from Quakerism? Maybe that’s a good question to ask.

                  Like

                11. I’m not able to see any thread except this one due to the limitations imposed by the app I’m using. I’ll look at it when I can get to a proper computer instead of the 4 inch screen on this phone.

                  So it was wrong for me to demonstrate to my children the intrinsic worth of all people; that promoting non-violent alternatives to dispute resolution is a worthy cause; that violence isn’t necesarily physical; that we are guardians of the environment and not masters of it: that injustice is worth struggling against; that there are many ways to view the world, and your own is no better than any other; that success does not have to be measured in monetary terms? Exactly how should I have hidden those beliefs from my children? The only way I can think of would be to have handed them over to someone else at birth and had no communication with them until they reached adulthood. When it came to religion I was always at pains to ensure my children understood that my religious beliefs are mine alone, prime to error as I’m only human, only one of many alternatives, and not necessarily the best one for them.

                  As one can’t become a Quaker until adulthood, it’s not a case of walking away. It’s a case of not being convinced that it’s the best option for them. Why shouldn’t my children be Buddhists, Roman Catholics, atheists, Wiccans, or just plain disinterested in religion? My parents held opposing religious beliefs, I hold beliefs different to both of them. Neither I nor my three siblings hold similar beliefs. My wife has different beliefs to me. Our children have different beliefs to their parents and from each other. Our grandchildren appear to be going off in yet different directions. Why should this be an issue?

                  You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t teach our children our religion even if it’s by osmosis, and then if they become convinced that an alternative belief system is better for them then somehow that’s evidence of a problem with my belief system. No, it means I have given them the tools to think for themselves.

                  Like

                12. I don’t have much of a problem with the Quaker SPICES model. Those are reasonable and decent things to teach kids. Why though, do those values need to be taught under the umbrella of the Quaker religion? Why can’t they be taught as just basic human values and rights?

                  You said yourself Quakers in NZ are tolerant of different religions/religious ideas (Quakers in the US aren’t as tolerant). So would you be in agreement with a Quaker who holds strong catholic leanings, and teaches his child about how he’ll go to hell if he doesn’t believe in jesus? Would you be in agreeement if a Quaker believes homosexuality is wrong, and teaches his child that those who practice it are “sinning?”

                  You may be liberal and progressive Barry but others aren’t. If you are in a religion, such as Quakerism, that will tolerate any harmful fundamentalist ideas, then I can’t support that.

                  Liked by 1 person

                13. SPICES doesn’t have to be taught under the umbrella of any religion. I’m sure Quakers would be delighted if the model was widely adopted by non religious groups.

                  The fact that you asked the question about salvation and homosexuality means I’ve failed to adequately convey what acceptance of other beliefs means. I’m tired – it’s nearly 8 am here and I’ve yet to get any sleep. If my migraine will let me, I’d like to get a few hours sleep before an appointment at 11. Very briefly, both those things are harmful to another person and therefore not acceptable. I would have thought that the values expressed through SPICES would have made that obvious. Perhaps it’s an assumption I should not have made. If you wish i could elaborate later.

                  Like

                14. No problem Barry…hope you feel better soon. I think we’ve talked circles around each other enough for one day. 🙂

                  Like

                15. Thank goodness migraines eventually run their course (even if only for a day). I’m jumping in at this position because your WP theme won’t let me join in at the appropriate point (no Reply link). When I refer to Quakerism I’m referring to Quakerism as it is practised in NZ, Australia and the United Kingdom (and in some locations in the USA), and not how it is practised in most of the US, Africa and Latin America.

                  To start with, theology (often referred to as “notions” by Friends) is unimportant. You’ll see mention of “God”, but no definition of what that might be. In Quaker conversation, whenever the word “God” is mentioned, you’re very likely to hear something like “whatever you believe he/she/they/it to be” immediately following. Here’s a passage taken from the Introduction page of the Cape Code Quakers Website:
                  One of the values of the Society of Friends is that it allows, even forces, each member or attendee to develop a personal definition of God. Thus to some Quakers God may be a rather specific or concrete figure. To others God may be a rather vague force. But nearly all accept the existence of something which distinguishes human beings from the rest of the world, and which gives each of us a recognition of existence, an ability to think, a willingness to set moral standards of right and wrong, and an acceptance of the responsibility to follow that which is right.“.

                  Responding to specific questions:
                  Violet: I thought Quakers could believe whatever they want and follow their own hearts? Maybe their hearts lead them to think homosexuality is an abomination, and they teach their kids that. Do you see how even progressive religions can harbor fundy ideas under the umbrella of being “tolerant?” If someone came to a particular view on homosexuality that was reached after serious research and consideration, then that person’s conscience needs to be respected. However that does not mean that the belief itself needs to be tolerated and it should be countered wherever possible. Do you see the difference? For example teaching such beliefs to their children would at the very least be countered with alternative points of view, and with reasons why such beliefs can lead to harm. No doubt the offender will also be “eldered” by the meeting.

                  Violet: Can you tell me of a religion that doesn’t make any claims on an afterlife, doesn’t tell you who is good and who is bad, and doesn’t think badly of those who don’t believe it? Quakerism.

                  They don’t believe they hold the “truth”. They are on a journey seeking the “Truth” in what ever form it may be revealed to them individually. However, it’s only one road. There are many others available, some of which might be better for an individual. Belief in an afterlife is essentially irrelevant. Some may believe in some sort of continuing existence after death, many do not.

                  As there is “that of God” in everyone, the concept of who is good and who is bad has no relevance. That’s not to say that individuals aren’t capable of bad deeds.

                  As the concept of “Salvation” doesn’t exist, why should Quakers think badly of others who hold differing views? Put it this way: it’s not what you believe, but how you believe. How you live your life externally should be a reflection of what you believe internally.

                  Violet: Religion is a different beast than any other politicial or cultural topic that makes up our world view. Are you sure it’s that easy to separate religion from culture? For example the concept of “Kami” is integrated into the world view of the Japanese regardless of their religious affiliation. Likewise the concept of “Mauri” is an essential element in the make up of the Maori world view, and is increasingly being incorporated into the Pakeha world view. (Approximately 80% of Maori and 38% of Pakeha are Christian). The concept of “Freedom”, as expressed in America, is frequently at odds with what we believe it to mean here. How about nationalism, or ableism or economic theory? All of these operate independently of religion, and are just as capable of inflicting harm.

                  I suspect that through much of history, religion reflected/followed the accepted values and beliefs of the society it existed within, only rarely finding itself in a position of leading in a re-evaluation of accepted thought. The problem as I see it is that religion frequently becomes the source of authority for maintaining the status quo. Christianity is a good example of this – especially within the Fundamentalist movement. Their texts (the Bible) has become THE authority for all time, and as such cannot be questioned, although I doubt very much that was the intention of the original story tellers. I’m not sure if people who think like that are really Christians or simply Bible worshippers.

                  I see such people as being caught in a time warp: holding a millenniums old tribal world view and patching in modern thought where absolutely necessary to avoid running foul of civil authority or public animosity.

                  Violet: I don’t agree with Quakers (or any religion) teaching their children whatever their version of spirituality is. Do you mean “spirituality” or “theology”? How I treated my children and other people, how I reacted to conflict and social injustices, and how I discussed moral and ethical values with them, is teaching by example, whether intended or not, and reflecting my Quaker values. What do you propose to prevent such teaching? Should you prevent such teaching?

                  If you feel it’s wrong to teach children any version of spirituality, then may I ask what you thought of Christopher Hitchens’ decision to send his daughter to a religious school? When he had made such comments as “I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful” and “all religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children”, I am mystified why he chose to send his daughter to a religious school. Not just any religious school, but one that states their religious view “shapes everything we do” at the school. What’s more, the school starts most days with worship. It seems rather hypocritical, even irrational, given his anti-religion stance, especially in relation to children.

                  Violet: Have you ever wondered why Quaker children tend to walk away from Quakerism? Maybe that’s a good question to ask. Perhaps a better question to ask would by why do children of other religions keep to the faith of their parents. You can’t have it both ways: indoctrination is bad; not following in the faith is failure. Re-read my comment on why children not following the faith of their parents is okay for Friends. In some parts of the world there are what is known as Birthright Friends: people who are Quaker due to their parents being Quakers. In some parts of America, most members of a meeting (or congregation) will be Birthright Friends. I dare say that where this is true, someone “walking away” from the faith might be considered a bad thing. However, within Liberal Quakerism, one becomes a member by convincement, and only by convincement. Being a member places certain obligations on a person, as does belonging to any organisation, and many do not become members because they feel they cannot fully honour those obligations. However, not joining does not mean that they don’t continue to hold onto the values that are held by their parents and by Friends they know, although some of course won’t.

                  Liked by 1 person

                16. Glad to hear you’re feel better Barry…I’ve sufferred from migrains in the past and know how awful they can be.

                  Thank you for the above infomation…I found it interesting and helpful. It doesn’t change my view but it did help clarify several things for me.

                  Barry: “I am mystified why he [Hitchens] chose to send his daughter to a religious school.”

                  —Because the public schools in the US are shit, many people feel the only possible way to get a good education is to go to private schools. Private schools are religious here…there may be the very rare one that isn’t religious but they’re hard to find and even harder to get into. If you don’t want shit public education then you have to send your child to a place with religious nuttery going on. 😦

                  —In one of your comments to me Barry, you said you wouldn’t mind if one of your kids or another family member were a different religion…you mentioned you’d have no problem if they became catholic. Now as a former catholic, I can tell you my church has horrendous beliefs against homosexuality (and pretty much all sexuaity), they forcefully teach the concept of hell and sin, and also they are a large force in repressing women (no birth control, no abortion, women are under the authority of men, etc). Catholics also believe in demons and exorcism. Excorism is on the rise in the US and people are DYING from it (mostly children)…google it if you don’t believe me.

                  When you say it’d be ok to have a child who is catholic, IMHO you’re endorsing the legitamacy of the catholic church and embracing their toxic views under the guise of tolerance. I don’t find that acceptable. Having members of your church “eldering” people who hold these toxic beliefs is not enough for me. The fact that your beliefs will tolerate such things and allow these people to remain among you is not helpful, and I don’t care if their belief were “carefully considered” or not. It only serves to perpetuate the harm of religion. Again, while you are progressive and non-harming in your own personal views, Quakerism can harbor people with fundy beliefs.

                  Barry: “How about nationalism, or ableism or economic theory? All of these operate independently of religion, and are just as capable of inflicting harm.”

                  —This is a good point. However IMHO I think religion causes more harm than any of those things in the US…NZ might be a different story.

                  —As to the discussion of why children of Quakerism walk away (specifically in NZ where it’s very progressive), perhaps they feel it’s SO inclusive there’s really no point to it. It seems there’s real no unifying belief amoung you other than tolerance for all.

                  While it sounds like an atheist could certainly be a Quaker in NZ, I tend to think the Quaker tolerance for other religions could be a big sticking point. My tolerance doesn’t extend to harmful religious ideas that have as much evidence to support them as witchcraft.

                  Again, thank you for sharing and clarifing a few things for me. It’s ben an interesting discussion.

                  Like

                17. Perhaps my comment about a child becoming Roman Catholic was somewhat out of context. I have an acquaintance who is RC but whose views on social justice are similar to mine. He is quite open about how his beliefs differ from the Church view, and it would seem that he’s far from being alone.

                  Remember this is a country where the principal of a theological college stated there was no Resurrection and God is not a deity, was not sanctioned by his denomination and was later awarded the Order of New Zealand for his services to religion.

                  And look at Ireland, the only nation to have legalised same sex marriages through a referendum, even though the Pope urged Catholics (a significant majority in Ireland) to vote against it.

                  Perhaps a personal real life example might illustrate what I mean. My son has become a “Born again” Christian and joined an evangelical fundamentalist denomination. Unfortunately he has taken aboard all the nonsense typically held by such groups. As a result he believes homosexuality is a sin. We’ve had many heated discussions about his beliefs and will continue to do so. He claims he can love a sinner but not the sin, but he has proved his hypocrisy by stating he couldn’t let my hairdresser friend cut his hair because the friend is gay. It doesn’t matter how I argue that homosexuality isn’t sinful, even using arguments from other Christian sources, he’s not willing to consider revising his view. As our hair dresser friend is a regular visitor to my home, I’ve made it clear to my son that while he’s welcome at my home, he’s not welcome to visit when our friend visits. And that means if my son is visiting and our friend turns up, then it will be necessary for my son to remove himself. For want of a better term, I am eldering my son. Isolating him completely is likely to be counter productive, but it is clear that I don’t approve of his belief and where my priorities lie when his belief comes in conflict with mine. On the other hand we’re still open to dialogue, each of us hoping to sway the other. Does that give you a better understanding of how I deal with a harmful belief? I can’t speak for how a Meeting might deal with someone holding harmful views, but I would be surprised if it was along lines similar to that I’ve taken with my son.

                  You may think that level of tolerance is unacceptable and you have the right to believe so, but closing all dialogue does little to persuade those with different beliefs.

                  Acceptance of, and valuing other beliefs is not the same as being tolerant of harmful beliefs and practices.

                  As for unity within Quakerism, it’s not tolerance for all as you believe but valuing “that of God” in every one.

                  Liked by 1 person

                18. Hummm. Well Barry, I suspect we might just have to agree to disagree. Perhaps this is because you live in a land where religious extremism isn’t the huge issue it is here.

                  I suspect your progressive religious ideas would not be generalized to your Quaker meetings. For example, would your son be allowed to stand up at a Quaker meeting and spew his hate for gays there? Would other Quakers listen to it because his views are “well considered?” Might this not harm someone there who was a homosexual (especially a young person)? If I were present I’d have to stand up and tell your son to exactly what I thought about his stance…and no doubt that’d not be tolerated at a Quaker meeting!

                  I understand what you’re saying about shunning and it closing down communication. I was shunned by everyone I knew when I left catholicism. That has been both a good thing and a bad thing in my life. Do I believe the practice of shunning should be used on extremeists? I don’t know where I stand on that issue yet.

                  Barry: “As for unity within Quakerism, it’s not tolerance for all as you believe but valuing
                  ‘that of God’ in every one.”

                  Oh dear, I know the intent of those words was meant to be respectful of all, but they made me retch a little. I do not believe there is ANY “of God” in me or anyone else, even when using the loosest definition of god possible. I also think those words leave the door open for extremeists to believe their veiws are legitamate.

                  Like

                19. If I rephrased that of God to something along the lines of everyone is of equal worth and should be valued and treated accordingly, would that be more acceptable? As someone who has not had your experience I apologise for my insensitivity.

                  Would my son be allowed to spew his hate for gays at a Meeting. Ignoring the fact that it’s highly unlikely that he’d ever set foot inside a Quaker meeting house, I would do the “unquakerly” thing of directly contradicting him. How others at the Meeting might react, I can’t say, but I can asure you that such an outburst would would not be allowed to be repeated. I’m sure my outburst (or yours) would be tolerated much more than my son’s. Again I think I have failed to convey what I mean, this time by “well considered”.

                  Such outbursts have the potential to cause harm as you have pointed out, and that consideration must be taken into account when deciding how to respond to such an outburst. I lack the skills necessary to negotiate through such difficulties (being autistic) and this is one situation where I could safely rely on the conflict resolution skills of more “knowledgeable” Friends.

                  It’s for the experiences of people like you leaving religion that I believe shunning is so harmful. It seems to me it is extremely hurtful and has no practical effect in encouraging one to change one’s mind. If it’s wrong in cases of one leaving a faith, it seems it should be wrong in other circumstances. “Disowning” members for serious breaches did occur two centuries ago, and although not exactly the same as shunning may have had similar effects depending on how that particular group interacted with the rest of society. At that time some Quakers were quite isolationist.

                  As for my “liberal” views: they developed largely because of my contact with Friends. My views are not liberal compared to the whole Meeting I attend. I certainly didn’t develop the concept of God as a metaphor in isolation.

                  Liked by 1 person

                20. Barry: “If I rephrased that of God to something along the lines of everyone is of equal worth and should be valued and treated accordingly, would that be more acceptable? As someone who has not had your experience I apologise for my insensitivity.”

                  —why yes, I could accept that definition of god (though that’s certainly not the definition of god in my part of the world). Your apology is accepted but none was required. I have a LOT of religious baggage and people accidently stumble upon my triggers all the time. I trust most people mean no harm when this happens. 🙂

                  It sounds like your Quaker meetings were quite a bit different than the ones I attended, and if you’re allowed to directly contradict a harmful view, than I respect that. My only point to add is that many, many people (not just you) don’t feel they’re good at handling this kind of conflict, and therefore many might stay silent to keep the peace. This could become harmful in itself if there was no one skilled enough to take the topic on during a meeting.

                  My views on shunning are a bit conflicted. When you’re inside religion, the threat of shunning keeps you in and prevents you from seeking outside knowledge. You know you’ll lose every relationship you have when you leave the religion, and that’s very frightening. However once I was outside of religion the shunning sheltered me from futher abuse. Once religious people decided they couldn’t re-convert me they “banished” me and left me alone. Some of that was harmful and very painful to me, but in other ways it was enormously helpful…it forced distance between myself and those who thought I was “of the devil.” It forced me to find new, nonreligious ways of coping, and to find new people with nonreligious ideas about the world. So basically shunning saved me on many different levels. It’s not all good though…it drives some people to suicide and can be difficult to withstand on a long-term basis.

                  Now if my son (he’s currently 6) were to grow up and somehow become a fundy who had many damaging ideas, would I shun him? I don’t know. I’d have to tell him we can’t discuss religion…if he still couldn’t keep from blasting me with religious condemnation, I might be tempted to shun him just to save myself from further harm. I guess I’ll have to cross that bridge if/when I get there. The situation is complicated for someone who has suffered religious harm, and this is why I can’t give you a straight answer as to whether or not shunning/estrangment should be an option.

                  As always Barry, it’s been an enlightening conversation. 🙂

                  Like

                21. As conflict resolution is close to Friends’ hearts, they have developed tools to facilitate it. They provide facilities and resources at places such as the United Nations specifically for this purpose.

                  It’s easy to claim to know what one will do under specific circumstances. It does take courage to admit one may not be sure how one might react. Things are seldom as straight forward as we might want to believe.

                  I have enjoyed this conversation and hope it won’t be out last.

                  Liked by 1 person

    2. And i challenge you to go one day without thinking of God….. 😉

      You lose zande. Your blog drips with your conscience ridden proof of His existence which you try to stamp out of existence. Truly comedy gold.

      And btw, I love these clueless comments as to the nature of God by pretended christians. Tis more of the same joke.

      Like

      1. Forget about JZ comedy. I read this blog where somebody said the Earth was flat, talk about hilarious. The post was dripping with drool of hyenas.

        Oh and I love it when people who haven’t even the slightest clue about simple scientific principles then try to tell us about the nature of God. “I mean really everyone there is this supernatural conscience so complex that it created the universe. Now I have no clue how the universe works, but let me explain God to you.” OMG that’s funny (The G stands for God, so hard for me not to think about God, because it’s every Goddamn expression in the English language). Almost as funny as a hyena with wings.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Yeah swarn gill, I’m sure you know many people who can walk on basketballs like ants, or on ceilings.

          U are crackin me up. Use the three tools I suggested. For God’s sake, even common tools condemn godlessness.

          Gotta love that simple plumb line, level, and compass…………. 😉

          Like

          1. This is great material for next time I have to remember this. *jots down ants, basketballs, plumb line, level, and compass* Brilliant.

            I thought you were the one always criticizing atheists for our inability to wrap our heads around the magnificent magnitude of God. The fact that you can do that has always been impressive ColorStorm. The fact that you can’t wrap your head around the much smaller object, Earth, is quite astonishing. At least now I know how Jesus floated back up to heaven. He got too busy making loaves and fishes and forgot to hang on and floated upwards. I mean since there is no gravity or anything. I’m strapped down to my chair right now. What my chair is strapped down to, I don’t know. But I do have a ceiling should I float upwards. I’ll be sure not to hit any ants that might be up there.

            You know I’d say stick to what you know best…I am not exactly sure what that is, but mostly it seems to be meaningless analogies. You’re a master.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Sorry gill. We are talking about TRUE and PURE science here, at least I am anyway.

              You know: Observable. Testable. Repeatable. Factual. Things apparently you are only happy in your modern GUESSWORK of pseudo science.

              The again, it is YOU who lives by faith, not seeing………..but believing the earth orbits at an absurd and preposterous rate of 65,000 per hour aimlessly through space.

              What a joke. Tks for the laff a minut.

              Like

  2. Ah… church camp… good times. Spent a lot of time working with kids and teens over the years. Years and years of ‘teaching’ them to Fear God and keep His commands.
    Not so much fun thinking about it now

    Liked by 2 people

      1. You keep doing your thing, Ark! While posts like this can make me cringe a little, they are essential to teach how abusive indoctrination is…which IMHO is the most important message there is. Not only that, but it helps new deconverts understand why they might be having difficulty leaving their religion. I was completely oblivious to the fact that I’d even been indoctrinated until I was about a year into my deconversion. I’d bought the bullshit (the kind Wally teaches) that my parents had just “taught me the right values,” until people further along in their journey of leaving religion discussed how indoctrination had affected them. Indoctrination is why I think all religion is a f’ing CULT.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I know what you mean Violet. It takes a certain amount of distance (especially in time) before we can truly appreciate how we were indoctrinated. I am loathe to criticize parents for indoctrinating their children as if the parent is a ‘true believer’ then to them it is a loving thing to do.

          In my case at least I was spared hell fire type indoctrination, I suspect you were not so fortunate.

          I used to ponder how lucky we were to grow up in the culture with the correct religion unlike all those poor Muslim and Hindu people who were indoctrinated in false religions.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. HA…I used to “give thanks” to god for having me be trained up in the one true religion, and pitied all the fools who were going to burn in hell for being wrong.

            Oh dear…others were going to burn in hell for being born in the wrong part of the world? Cue cognitive dissonence, which I quickly shoved onto the back shelf in my brain. I hate to even address the psychological ruin which emerged when that back shelf finally broke from the weight of religion.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Depends on what other triggers are going on for some of us. For instance, I can take small quotes from the sites you quote from but to actually go straight there to read their posts, I can’t do that. I might later but like KIA, it’s not just the memories of camp but also the memories of all the teaching some of us did, those of us involved in active ministry &/or youth ministry.

        One of the key things you’ll hear from church camp leader’s and especially from the church leaders is “numbers.” Note that Wally indicates the approximate number in attendance and the number of salvations, which in all likelihood are approximations as well. Numbers. This to them is their evidence that these good news camps work. Naturally, we have no idea what happens to those “salvations” when campers return home but at the core what camp is about is getting the message out to the biggest group hoping for big results. The leaders are being obedient to the great commission. After that, for the most part the campers are on their own (and well, covered in the blood of Jesus and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.)

        There may be more “saved” than they realize (quiet ones like me that didn’t want to or go forward or reveal their sincere tear-filled prayer.)

        Others may have went forward but is it because they understood what they were doing or because their friends prayed too?

        Were their salvations based on accurate information and biblical scholarship from leaders qualified to tell them all about the Bible and Jesus or are they volunteer born-againers (with good tithing records, consistent church attendance, baptized and wanting to serve the Lord) who believe that all one needs is simple faith based on Bible stories and Bible tract good news delivered by people that honestly the campers and their parents know nothing about?

        Some salvations may have been coerced but the leader doing the coercing doesn’t see it that way and not likely do those in charge.

        And back to numbers. Every week I was asked for the number of salvations taking place in our youth ministry. As well, inquiries into baptism requests was a regular thing. Without fail, the senior pastor made sure to remind the church membership about the numbers of children attending, the numbers saved, the numbers baptized and the numbers of parents/family members/community citizens now coming to our church via the benefits/efforts of youth ministry.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. As Grace Jones once sang: Slave to the rhythm.

          And they will NOT hear any form of dissent.

          I posted a quote from Violet on Wally’s blog. He deleted it almost immediately.

          And now he is asking why we hate kids?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Well, christians DO love kids….

            …as long as they can manipulate them into believing in the one true religion.

            *insert violent retching noises*

            Like

  3. I didn’t get far at all into the video.
    For myself, I accept the blame for (and repent for) my own sins. Anything I have done as a sovereign individual is my fault — but I resolutely refuse to accept any portion of the blame for anything anyone else has done.

    JESUS:
    if you are copying this transmission from ol’ Argus — please monitor your flock better; it is running right off the rails*.

    * But of course, you knew that—even before The Creation, you knew that … you, Sir, are a sicko.

    Like

  4. We can see the dark side of Vacation Bible School. We get that its sole purpose is to indoctrinate young children. Many thousands of believers think its just Jim Dandy to send their kids to this sort of mind fuck.

    I find this activity quite despicable.

    Reminds me of the Salvation Army and their habit of forcing disadvantaged/homeless people to sit through a sermon before they are fed.

    “I wonder why an omnipotent deity like Yahweh needs people like this to carry out his “Master Plan?” Indeed…

    Liked by 3 people

    1. And yet, people like Wally, from whose blog I got this from, consider I am a bully and hate-filled!
      He is an adult convert so to my mind this always begs the question: What was the problem that required ”Submission to the Lawd”?
      Wally seems to believe that by bringing kids to his god by hook or by crook he can somehow assuage his guilt over whatever caused him to go Fundy in the first place. And YEC Fundy at that. Dinosaurs and Humans and Noah’s ark and the whole shebang!
      He is of course perfectly entitled to his own beliefs, and the best of luck to him – and any other ADULT in the same boat/ark.
      But he has no mandate to spread his personal beliefs to vulnerable unguarded youngsters.
      It might not seem like much, but I will try to call out this vile behaviour every time I come across it.
      And although the ”Wallys” of the world do not like it, they can, for all I care, go and get fucked!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Geez! It’s bad enough having gone fundy, but full blown YEC Fundy requires swallowing an arkload of bullshit all at once. I can see being indoctrinated into such beliefs as a child and having continued exposure through adulthood, but to just up and go that far as an adult? Creepy.

        That is some extra stout kool-aid.

        Like

    2. I don’t know that it’s any worse hearing it from camp than it is hearing it from your own parents (on a dialy basis). 😦

      Like

      1. Violet the major difference at camp is that the environment in more conducive to conversions.I know this from my brother who used to run Christian camps the atmosphere encourages people to make commitments.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I can only imagine how peer pressure would work in those places, as well as the psychological techniques used to gain group think. I did not go to catholic camp, but some of my friends did and the things I’d hear were jaw-dropping…the god-hysteria the priests would whip up was something to behold.

          My parents only withheld food and water when I was a kid and had the audacity to question religion. I was told to go to my room and pray, and when I came out with the proper answer to my question, I’d be given a meal. I’d pray and pray but eventually I’d get hungry or thirsty, and god always gave me the right answer so I could come out and get sustenance. What was the right answer? It was “you don’t have a right to question god.” It’s in the book of Job…the most vaulable book of the bible, don’t cha know!

          Liked by 1 person

            1. I’m sure Wally would read these comments and see nothing wrong with “teaching” your kid the right values. He’ll never see it any other way. I also couldn’t address indoctrination when I was devout, as I thought nonbelievers were just indulging in hysteria by citing the dangers of it.

              That’s why it’s so important for atheists to have a strong public voice, a voice of reason….because of the nature of indoctrination, those under it can’t necessarily help themsleves or their children.

              Liked by 1 person

    3. A few years back when I was in better health, I was a serious hiker. While walking along certain long trails and getting very hungry, hikers are often invited to share a meal by nice people at campsites along the way. At every single one of these “meals” you were preached to before you could eat. What a deplorable way to ambush people. Reminds me of the Salvation Army. Ugh.

      Like

        1. Doesn’t surprise me at all. As a nurse I was asked to pray with many patients every single shift. It wasn’t a problem when I was a chirstian, but became problematic when I wasn’t anymore. I had patients refuse to work with me when they found out I wasn’t a believer, and my boss honored their wishes.

          Like

            1. Yes Ark, they thought I was the hand of the devil…that’s how it works in super religious areas of the US. Being an athiest is no joke around here. 😦

              Like

              1. I dunno, I reckon you would probably look quite swish in a figure-hugging horned red jump suit, with prehensile tail, whip and a large trident.
                Those patients don’t know what there were missing!

                🙂

                Liked by 1 person

                1. LOL That’s pretty funny, Peter! I do like to polish my hooves to a lovely shine every so often. The the black lashes meme was cute too…since I’m a mascara addict, I’m going to start saying that in the morning when everyone’s telling me to “hurry up” with my makeup. 😀

                  Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m afraid I would not take that very well.

        Like not well at all.

        I don’t do a lot off the cuff drill sergeant type tirades, but that just might do it. Deplorable and then some.

        I hope your health finds its way to getting better 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  5. —Why though, do those values need to be taught under the umbrella of the Quaker religion? Why can’t they be taught as just basic human values and rights?—

    I hate the arrogance of people saying that you can’t admire mankind and the Universe, be a good person et cetera without God. That is why I now feel an irrestistible urge to say how I like what Violet wrote at 21.12: – Regards.
    .-

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Somehow I missed this comment earlier, koppieop. I wanted to thank you for the support. In my real life, surrounded by religious fundies, people don’t much like what I have to say. So I appreciate it when someone online says they value a few words of mine. ❤ 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Violet, appreciation for my words (or deeds) is one of the nicest compliments I can receive; I suppose such a satisfaction is reciprocal.

        As for your adventures as a hiker, feeling obliged to pray before every meal, there was a young boy who invited a friend to lunch. The guest did not join the rest of the family in prayer, and when asked about the habit, he explained: “We do not pray, because my mother is a great cook”.

        A third – and last – remark on the title of this post “Get ’em young…”. It reminds me of a story based on the first part of the legend of the “Red” Piper of Hameln. (A short read on Wikipedia if you don’t know it)
        During one of the periods that an otherwise democratic republic was governed by an army general, his residency was invaded by cockroaches. Tons of poison did not root them out – until someone presented a man who promised a solution. He asked for two o three recently-hatched roaches, played on his flute and was indeed followed to the riverside by all other cockroaches, that disappeared totally.
        The catcher explained his secret: get the younger ones first, the rest will surely come after them. He refused payment, arguing that he considered it his duty as a citizen. But when the general insisted, he gave in, requesting however not to be punished for what he was going to say. With that assurance, he asked to bring him one or two fresh lieutenants…
        .-

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Good to hear that. Frankly speaking, I expected it, after having read comments of yours on other sites, and it says what joining in conversations on blogs are about.
        Cheers.
        .-
        .

        Like

  6. Of course you want to use the public education system for the same purpose, but since Atheism is being taught, you don’t call it coercion. It’s education when Atheists do it. And when you say Christians teaching their children “makes your skin crawl,” that’s not hate, it’s love.

    Like

      1. Absolutely, but the secularists are smart about it. They teach that the Bible’s not true through evolution and the complete exclusion of evidence for Christianity, they tell kids that everything created itself and put itself together naturally, that’s Atheist apologetics and indoctrination. And after they’ve taught all that, it doesn’t take a genius to connect the dots, they just leave kids to come to the “realization” that the Bible isn’t true and therefore God doesn’t exist. The kids are being taught Atheism, just without coming out and using the word Atheism. It would be like if they taught the Bible, but never said Atheism isn’t true explicitly. The kids would figure it out. On top of that, there are a lot of liberal teachers who give every hint and indication that Atheism is true, without actually coming out and saying so, there were several of them at my school. So you are playing games when you ask, “…at any point tells people they must be atheists?” Well we all know they don’t TELL them they MUST be Atheists, they just teach Atheism’s beliefs as though they were scientific fact, and the kids have no intellectual choice but to be Atheists. Unless of course someone teaches them the flaws with their public school education, and the evidence for Christianity.

        Like

        1. they just teach Atheism’s beliefs as though they were scientific fact,

          No, they DON’T teach “atheism beliefs.” They teach logic and reasoning so kids can make decisions about life on their own. Christian schools teach Christianity. Period. It’s a “believe this and don’t ask questions” form of instruction. Further, Christian teachings use only ONE source to prove what they teach whereas secular teaching invites the use of several books with a multitude of opinions and theories — which in turn invites discussion and true learning.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Hi Nan, thanks for your comment. Have you heard the expression “school used to teach kids how to think, now it teaches kids what to think”? There is some logic and reasoning in public education of course, but they also give the kids Atheistic axioms to start their thinking with. Having gone to a public school myself, I must say the attitude of the teachers was “believe this and don’t ask questions.” They were there to teach their lessons, and didn’t want to be questioned. Further, they were mostly Atheists, and “pointed the moral” of their teaching on evolution.

            You said, “Christian teachings use only ONE source to prove what they teach whereas secular teaching invites the use of several books with a multitude of opinions and theories…” I’m not sure what you’re referring to, Christian schools and educators use many books to teach.

            Thanks so much for discussing, it’s nice to meet you.

            Like

            1. Sorry, AA, but to me you’re marking far too many general statements about atheists and atheism. For example, when you say that “they [teachers} were mostly Atheists” you are making a judgement and unless you can back it up with statistics, it’s simply an opinion. Further …students may be taught about religion (comparative, history, relationship to civilization), but public schools may not teach religion.

              Also, you wrote: I’m not sure what you’re referring to, Christian schools and educators use many books to teach. Yes, they probably do — but I feel it’s very safe to say that each and every book they use is either based on the bible itself or most definitely defends/teaches Christian values.

              Nice to meet you too. Didn’t you recently visit my blog?

              Like

        2. Secular is NOT the same thing as Atheist. When one teaches about gravity, it should have nothing to do with religion. When one learns about black holes, it should have nothing to do with religion. Science is a method that uses predictions based on observations and then tests those predictions or collects data and other observations to see if they fit the predictions. Most importantly, those predictions should explain what kind of information would falsify them (prove them wrong) and if such data comes about the predictions are proven wrong or revised. Evolution is a widely-accepted scientific theory (which has a different meaning than the everyday use of theory that you find in the dictionary) with ample evidence to support it. I don’t really see this as “atheist propaganda” as you put it.
          I know plenty of people who believe in God, but also believe the Theory of Evolution is true.
          The whole point of a secular school is to teach factual information and hopefully critical thinking skills more generally. If schools were explicitly teaching Atheism (i. e. Atheism the right position, you shouldn’t believe in God, etc.), I would agree, but they’re not. There is nothing stopping individual parents from teaching their religious beliefs at home and at Sunday School. So I’m failing to see the problem.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I would say, when one teaches about gravity (or anything else) it inescapably has to do with religion, Atheistic or Christian. Starting assumptions always come to bear on what we think and teach.

            You said, “Most importantly, those predictions should explain what kind of information would falsify them (prove them wrong) and if such data comes about the predictions are proven wrong or revised.” I always find discussions of falsification to be very interesting, I’d love to read your response to this article:

            https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/what-is-science/

            Thanks for talking with me, take care.

            Like

            1. One problem is that there are many theists who accept evolution (a href=”http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/”>link). As the Pew study I linked to points out, even around 25% of Evangelicals (1/4) accept evolution. So presenting evolution and science in general as an atheist versus theist issue seems inaccurate to me. There aren’t just two possible positions.

              In other words, one can believe in God and accept evolution. However, the trade-off, of course, is a literal Bible or Creation story. I suspect if I could interview a sample of the 1/4 of evangelicals that accept evolution, they would still accept many parts of the Bible, if not most, as literal events. Likewise, they might even keep a semi-literal understanding of the Creation story by using various interpretive strategies (like redefining what “days” means as a metaphor for how God experiences millions of year or adopting Theistic-Guided Evolution).

              In regards, to the idea that most teachers are atheists. The opposite is what seems to be true. In a study done by the University of Michigan, supported by funds from the John Templeton Foundation, they looked at the relationship between religiosity and college major, the study found that education majors are one of the most religious majors and that typically education major students’ religiosity increases (see link:

              “Education majors are clearly safe havens for the religious,” said U-M economist Miles Kimball, who co-authored the study. “Highly religious people seem to prefer education majors, tend to stay in that major, and tend to become more religious by the time they graduate.”

              Even in the colleges themselves, most professors are still theists. (see link). Yes, they have a higher proportion of atheists than the general population and many of them subscribe to a less traditional version of religion, but the majority still believe in God. Of particular interest to this discussion is the higher levels of religiosity the study found among elementary education professors in comparison to other fields.

              Whereas psychology and biology professors have the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics (61%), 56.8% of elementary education professors claimed to have no doubt in the existence of God (the 2nd highest of all disciplines sampled) behind only accounting majors. Likewise, the study of these professors also found that elementary education professors were one of four majors that supported prayer in public schools.

              So the general evidence suggests that teachers in America tend to be relatively religious.

              Like

              1. So the general evidence suggests that teachers in America tend to be relatively religious.

                Phew! Thank the gods most of them stay in America in that case.

                Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s