FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Vypernight on July 31, 2014, 02:05:53 pm
-
#Invalid YouTube Link#
Basically a video where parents have their gay son kidnapped in an attempt to brainwash him through torture and abuse, and all FOR JESUS!
What's worse is their insurance covers this crap because the assholes call themselves a legit organization. I have a feeling if I was there, even though back in my teens I was Christian, I would've escaped, burned the place down, and then gone after my parents. There's no excuse for this bullshit!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0S79SGJx-Q
Basically a video where parents have their gay son kidnapped in an attempt to brainwash him through torture and abuse, and all FOR JESUS!
What's worse is their insurance covers this crap because the assholes call themselves a legit organization. I have a feeling if I was there, even though back in my teens I was Christian, I would've escaped, burned the place down, and then gone after my parents. There's no excuse for this bullshit!
I'm sorely tempted to cap the monsters who did this.
-
It's not kidnapping when guardians force their child (under the age of majority) into a situation. Like it or not, children are practically property of their guardians.
If you have a problem with that, you should consider a powerful framework for state intervention into how parents are allowed to raise their children.
-
It's not kidnapping when guardians force their child (under the age of majority) into a situation. Like it or not, children are practically property of their guardians.
If you have a problem with that, you should consider a powerful framework for state intervention into how parents are allowed to raise their children.
Problem is, that could set a dangerous precedent. Like so many issues, we have to find the sweet spot between "too far" and "not far enough".
-
It's not kidnapping when guardians force their child (under the age of majority) into a situation. Like it or not, children are practically property of their guardians.
If you have a problem with that, you should consider a powerful framework for state intervention into how parents are allowed to raise their children.
Really? I'm pretty people have been convicted for arranging the kidnapping of their own children before.
-
It's not kidnapping when guardians force their child (under the age of majority) into a situation. Like it or not, children are practically property of their guardians.
If you have a problem with that, you should consider a powerful framework for state intervention into how parents are allowed to raise their children.
Problem is, that could set a dangerous precedent. Like so many issues, we have to find the sweet spot between "too far" and "not far enough".
How about we start with the verbal and physical child abuse?
-
It's not kidnapping when guardians force their child (under the age of majority) into a situation. Like it or not, children are practically property of their guardians.
If you have a problem with that, you should consider a powerful framework for state intervention into how parents are allowed to raise their children.
Problem is, that could set a dangerous precedent. Like so many issues, we have to find the sweet spot between "too far" and "not far enough".
How about we start with the verbal and physical child abuse?
Libertarians would have none of it. This is why the United States enjoys the esteemed company of Somalia and South Sudan in not being party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child)
-
Kid? Rights!? Why should kids have rights? They can't vote!
-
It's not kidnapping when guardians force their child (under the age of majority) into a situation. Like it or not, children are practically property of their guardians.
If you have a problem with that, you should consider a powerful framework for state intervention into how parents are allowed to raise their children.
Problem is, that could set a dangerous precedent. Like so many issues, we have to find the sweet spot between "too far" and "not far enough".
How about we start with the verbal and physical child abuse?
Libertarians would have none of it. This is why the United States enjoys the esteemed company of Somalia and South Sudan in not being party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child)
We're such a great country.
-
Hence why I feel absolutely no patriotism. There is nothing to be proud of in a proudly selfish country.
-
I love how there is this image of America being the land of the free and the righteous, and how many Americans believe that wholeheartedly, all the while being denied basic freedoms and rights that even backwards 3rd world countries have adopted.
It is just a marvelous logical disconnect.
-
I love how there is this image of America being the land of the free and the righteous, and how many Americans believe that wholeheartedly, all the while being denied basic freedoms and rights that even backwards 3rd world countries have adopted.
It is just a marvelous logical disconnect.
I was thinking the same. It's one of, if not the most authoritarian 1st world country on the planet, and yet so many Americans think it's a bastion of freedom and liberty. Never underestimate the power of propaganda, I suppose.
-
Anyone who would send their kids to a place like that does not deserve to have children.
-
Anyone who would send their kids to a place like that does not deserve to have children exist.
Fixed that for ya.
-
It's not kidnapping when guardians force their child (under the age of majority) into a situation. Like it or not, children are practically property of their guardians.
If you have a problem with that, you should consider a powerful framework for state intervention into how parents are allowed to raise their children.
Problem is, that could set a dangerous precedent. Like so many issues, we have to find the sweet spot between "too far" and "not far enough".
How about we start with the verbal and physical child abuse?
Libertarians would have none of it. This is why the United States enjoys the esteemed company of Somalia and South Sudan in not being party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child)
Screw you, that's not a right. The right to arrange the kidnapping of your child is in no way even recognized by sensible people, though man-god worshipers in the "Libertarian" Party may think otherwise.
-
The really sad part is the parents use their health insurance to pay for all of this. So Republicans are against the ACA covering birth control and abortions, but they're okay with it covering child abuse?
-
Ain't child abuse if you're doing it in the name of Jesus.
-
The really sad part is the parents use their health insurance to pay for all of this. So Republicans are against the ACA covering birth control and abortions, but they're okay with it covering child abuse?
They'll die kill for you in utero, but once you're born, you'd better come outta your mom's snatch pulling on them bootstraps, because you're fucked.
-
Ironic how Social Darwinist the Republicans, the so-called steadfast Christians, are.
-
Pro life, unless the life is gay, poor, Latino, black, disabled, Arabic, Muslim, female, or not a rich upperclass white male.
-
Such a thing should really not be legal. Parents should have no right to put their kids through torment like this. It's just as bad as real kidnapping.
-
My wife just bought the DVD of Jesus Camp. I think it was mentioned on these boards before, but since the child abuse is similar, I thought I'd talk about it again. i'm so glad that camp is shut down. That crap is not Christianity. It's a god-damn cult!
-
My wife just bought the DVD of Jesus Camp. I think it was mentioned on these boards before, but since the child abuse is similar, I thought I'd talk about it again. i'm so glad that camp is shut down. That crap is not Christianity. It's a god-damn cult!
[Insert inevitable mumble about all religions being a cult here]
-
My wife just bought the DVD of Jesus Camp. I think it was mentioned on these boards before, but since the child abuse is similar, I thought I'd talk about it again. i'm so glad that camp is shut down. That crap is not Christianity. It's a god-damn cult!
I'll never forget that movie and how completely stunned I was that such a thing existed (I saw it back in high school). Kids crying because they're being called filthy sinners who will go to hell if they don't love god and repent. Kids being told to worship a cardboard cutout of Bush. Kids being forced to try to convert people. It's disgusting.
-
The good news is the camp closed not long after, most likely because of the video itself.
-
It always struck me as odd that people who supposedly follow "the truth" need to so severely indoctrinate children to maintain it.
If I may quote H.P. Lovecraft: "If religion were true, parents would not try to bludgeon their children into artificial conformity, but would instead encourage them to seek out truth in rational ways."
-
My wife just bought the DVD of Jesus Camp. I think it was mentioned on these boards before, but since the child abuse is similar, I thought I'd talk about it again. i'm so glad that camp is shut down. That crap is not Christianity. It's a god-damn cult!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
-
You can turn nearly anything into no true scotsman fallacy.
It doesn't really mean anything.
-
You can turn nearly anything into no true scotsman fallacy.
It doesn't really mean anything.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything. If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd realise that "That crap is not Christianity." is a textbook No True Scotsman.
-
I am not denying that the religion should really examine its more reactionary portions, I am just wondering why denouncing this sect as a cult would be some form of fallacy.
-
Except that's not what was said. Examining and denouncing extremists is fine. Denying that they're Christians at all so all the "good" Christians aren't associated with them is a fallacy.
-
Except that's not what was said. Examining and denouncing extremists is fine. Denying that they're Christians at all so all the "good" Christians aren't associated with them is a fallacy.
Which inevitably happens BY the other Christian sects. "Oh, they're not REAL Christians, they don't do x, y and z if they're really following the word of god"
Eugh... just remembering that was said to my face by a former friend leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Y'know, never mind that Catholics are always considered a cult and some Christians believe they should be wiped out (I've even heard the term 'exterminated' thrown around) for 'corrupting' their belief system, until the numbers need to be bolstered.
-
Except that's not what was said. Examining and denouncing extremists is fine. Denying that they're Christians at all so all the "good" Christians aren't associated with them is a fallacy.
Which inevitably happens BY the other Christian sects. "Oh, they're not REAL Christians, they don't do x, y and z if they're really following the word of god"
Eugh... just remembering that was said to my face by a former friend leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Y'know, never mind that Catholics are always considered a cult and some Christians believe they should be wiped out (I've even heard the term 'exterminated' thrown around) for 'corrupting' their belief system, until the numbers need to be bolstered.
The most insane part of the last thing is that for the longest time, the Catholic church was just "The Church". They had a monopoly on Christianity.
-
Except that's not what was said. Examining and denouncing extremists is fine. Denying that they're Christians at all so all the "good" Christians aren't associated with them is a fallacy.
Which inevitably happens BY the other Christian sects. "Oh, they're not REAL Christians, they don't do x, y and z if they're really following the word of god"
Eugh... just remembering that was said to my face by a former friend leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Y'know, never mind that Catholics are always considered a cult and some Christians believe they should be wiped out (I've even heard the term 'exterminated' thrown around) for 'corrupting' their belief system, until the numbers need to be bolstered.
The most insane part of the last thing is that for the longest time, the Catholic church was just "The Church". They had a monopoly on Christianity.
Not exactly. The Eastern Orthodox churches have been around for quite a while too, and their version of the story is that the Catholics actually split off from them.
-
I was just saying that the behavior in the video goes WAY beyond even the asshole Christians and into the realms of Heaven's Gate and Al Queda.
-
Except that's not what was said. Examining and denouncing extremists is fine. Denying that they're Christians at all so all the "good" Christians aren't associated with them is a fallacy.
Which inevitably happens BY the other Christian sects. "Oh, they're not REAL Christians, they don't do x, y and z if they're really following the word of god"
Eugh... just remembering that was said to my face by a former friend leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Y'know, never mind that Catholics are always considered a cult and some Christians believe they should be wiped out (I've even heard the term 'exterminated' thrown around) for 'corrupting' their belief system, until the numbers need to be bolstered.
The most insane part of the last thing is that for the longest time, the Catholic church was just "The Church". They had a monopoly on Christianity.
Not exactly. The Eastern Orthodox churches have been around for quite a while too, and their version of the story is that the Catholics actually split off from them.
Technically true. The split occured anywhere between 800 and 1054 a.d from memory. It's also a huge theological debate that lasts to this day. It boils down to something called the filioque controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) which was the last straw and separated the two churches. Why did they differ so much? My guess is time. Be it Rome or Avignon for the papal seat or Constantinople, it took time and a big distance to stay in contact. The different creeds changed by custom. Just to be clear, orthodoxy (a belief or a way of thinking that is accepted as true or correct, according to Webster) holds its name due to this and does predate the Catholic church.
If you're curious about this, be sure to check out the history of Byzantium, most sources and books are either written in english, german, or turkish. It was a pain for my classmates to study that subject in France, where few books have been translated.
-
There are also a number of "Oriental Orthodox" churches including the Coptics, the Armenians, and the Assyrian Church of the East that split even earlier, as I recall.
-
There are also a number of "Oriental Orthodox" churches including the Coptics, the Armenians, and the Assyrian Church of the East that split even earlier, as I recall.
yeah, the orthodox church is composed of different patriarchates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_organization). The four big ones are: Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, although by a technicality, Rome is a patriarchate as well. it's not really a split, it's called an autocephalic organization. This is a big word to say that each patriarch governs his parish as he pleases so long as orthodoxy is maintained.