Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    This is an interesting question.  I can't say that I was really brought
    up in a fundamentalist church.  I was brought up in a conservative
    church, which (at least at the time) was not what I would call
    fundamentalist.  My parents are known to swear on occasion, they
    danced, and while they really didn't drink much it wasn't because they
    thought alcohol was necessarily sinful.  My parents, while religious,
    don't focus their whole lives on the religious community--they have a
    life, in other words, and they have many interests.

    I think the fact that I had a religious upbringing, while it was in a
    church whose tenets I now reject, wasn't necessarily bad.  I think that
    a religious upbringing is a good thing, and although I might now prefer
    having had a more liberal one, I did manage to escape from it and the
    fact that I had *some* kind of religion probably wasn't a bad thing. 
    It helps that my parents are basically good people.

    Actually, it was a longing for a return to some kind of religious
    community, although without putting up with the dogmas of my youth,
    that brought me back to an interest Christianity a few years ago.  But
    of course I wasn't brought up by fundamentalist parents, so I guess I
    can't really say that having a *fundamentalist* upbringing might not be
    a form of child abuse.  I really don't know.  I think that the
    fundamentalist mind set that I had embraced is definitely a bad thing,
    and when I left it behind it was truly a liberation.  

    -- Mike

 No.  Have there been instances where children of fundamentalists have
been abused? Yes. 


 I regret the years that I backslid were critical years in my children's
 upbringing and that I didn't spend more time teaching them about
 God's love, the dangers of sin and yes, obedience to the Word of
 God.  When I look at kids in my church today I thank God for their
 parents who have the courage to raise them in the admonition of
 the Lord and teach them about the truth of the Word of God that
 has endured for thousands of years, as opposed to the "wisdom"
 of the world that is prevalant today.  When I see these kids,
 and their parents and others who are courageous enough to
 go against the world, I feel there is indeed hope for the
 future of this world.





 Jim

.0> Is bringing a child up in a fundamentalist mind set a form of child
.0> abuse?

To be absolutely fair in answering this you'd have to define "fundamentalist
mind set" - but for all practical purposes I'll assume the generally accepted
scenario .. YES YES YES YES YES!!  Without hesitation and/or reservation.

I've seen kids that, when they turned 18 and got out into the 'real world',
literally went crazy in dealing with the realities of the world - and ended
up by blowing their brains out - or - literally acted as if they had been
released from a maximum security prison and tried to do everything that they
had been taught NOT to do in the previous 18 years.  I've seen kids that were
kicked out of their parents home at 16 because they "offended the church".  I
have seen kids that at the age of 10, 11, or 12 were "outcasts" from their
peers because of this.

The difficult part of this is defining the "fundamentalist" mind set for as
the old saying goes .. "one man's meat is another man's poison".  What one
person considers to be 'rigid' another may think of as 'conservative'.  For
example:  when I think back to my days in the Assembly of God church - and
some of the things that I was taught - I'm sorry - but - it makes me sick to
my stomach.  I don't think that most people would consider AG to be
"fundies" .. or .. maybe I'm wrong.

Sorry.  That's the way I feel.

Bubba

Re: .3

That's interesting, Jerry.  My answer would have been that it isn't
abusive to bring up a child as a fundamentalist, because I believe in
tolerance for religion, even fundamentalism.  But it's hard for me to
imagine what growing up with a fundamentalist mind set would be like.

From a legal point of view I think the law needs to respect the right of
parents to bring up their children in a religious environment, even in a
fundamentalist environment.  There are specific practices, though, such as
extreme corporal punishment, that might be motivated by the parents'
religious beliefs but which nevertheless should be illegal.

In the situations you mentioned in .3, I might agree that it is immoral to
bring children up this way but I don't think it should legally be
considered child abuse unless it involved extreme physical abuse.  I think
the government should be cautious about interfering in people's lives.

				-- Bob

	Child abuse has many faces. Sexual abuse is the most obvious (and,
	possibly, the most widespread).

	Further:

	It is abusive to deny a child the right to question.

	It is abusive to lie to children, or to teach them untruths or
	   questionable truths.

	It is abusive to hide/deny alternatives.

	It is abusive to say "you'll understand when you're older."

	The use of force - physical or mental - is the extreme form of
	    abuse.

	Depending where you're coming from, this may or may not apply
	to a Fundamentalist upbringing.  I, personally, believe that it
	does.

				    BUT...

	I have been the victim of abuse in ALL points listed and did not
	have a fundamentalist upbringing.

	Greetings, Derek.

>    Is bringing a child up in a fundamentalist mind set a form of child
>    abuse?

    I don't know what a fundamentalist mind set is. Perhaps you could
    explain that and than I could answer the question.


    			Alfred

    Truely the definition of "fundamentalist" is needed. A fundamentalist
    here in NEw England, today, is a far cry from the fundamentalist in
    Tenn. or Texas.
    
    Marc H.

    Good point -- it might also be noted that "fundamentalist" takes on
    different connotations depending upon the religion in question.
    
    For example: "Muslim Fundamentalist" apparently means "Most Recent
    Greatest Threat to Peace and Security in the World as We Know It" if
    the use of the word in the media means anything.
    
    Daniel

Who can claim to raise a child and never abuse the child?

Now that we have that out of the way.  Please be very
specific about what parts of raising a child as a
"fundamentalist" are abusive.  Perhaps not going out to
movies?  Perhaps the lack of cigarette smoke in the house?
Or a father that doesn't get drunk?  Perhaps it is the
reverance shown to God?  The expectations that we are to
follow God's Will?

I'm probably not a very good guesser in this area :-), so
you can help me out.

Collis

 Or perhaps expecting the child to <gasp> obey their parents?








 Jim

>    Is bringing a child up in a fundamentalist mind set a form of child
>    abuse?

I think it's possible.  I don't think it's an inevitable consequence.

And even though it would be difficult to come up with a precise definition
of a fundamentalist, I can't help feeling that most of us have a pretty good
idea of what is meant by the term.

Richard

Some former neighbors of ours for several years, a family of four, were what
I would describe as "fundamentalists."  They had a boy, Danny, the same age
as my son, Ricky.  And when the boys were around the 2nd grade in age they
frequently played together.

It didn't take Ricky very long to figure out that things were different in
their household.  Danny's viewing was sharply curtailed.  Danny was not
allowed to watch the "Wizard of Oz," "Mary Poppins," and "Bedknobs and
Broomsticks," because they depicted witches.  He was not allowed to see any
of the "Superman" movies.  Ricky found these restrictions quite quizzical.

Now, these restrictions, to my mind, do not constitute child abuse.  However,
I can understand how someone so sheltered as a child might experience a
measure of difficulty with social adjustments later on in life.

Richard

    I would guess that the Amish are a very conservative and fundamental
    lot, yet I've never heard their practices as being akin to child abuse. 
    I don't think their teen aged suicide rate is even a blip on the chart. 
    I've never heard of their children turning to a life of decadence upon
    reaching the age of maturity.  For my money anyway, I've always
    thought of their practices as wholesome worthy of respect.  So what is
    it, exactly, that sets them apart from what we would vernacularly call
    "fundamentalists"?  

    Furthermore, what IS the alleged abuse perpetrated by "fundamental
    Christians"?
    
    	Eric
        

In article <662.11-930503-130611@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, j_christie@csc32.enet.dec.com (Declare Peace!) writes:
|>I think it's possible.  I don't think it's an inevitable consequence.
|>
|>And even though it would be difficult to come up with a precise definition
|>of a fundamentalist, I can't help feeling that most of us have a pretty good
|>idea of what is meant by the term.

	Except we all think it is the other woman that is the fundamentalist!
8-)  There is almost always somebody either to one's left or one's right on
the spectrum. 8-)  My understanding is that for religious history buffs,
"fundamentalist", until recently, was used to describe some specific
religious "movements" and their descendants that got started in the early
part of this century in the US.  Some folks at the U of Chicago are
working on an overall work on fundamentalism that crosses religious lines,
ie they're looking at Christian, Moslem, Hindu.... fundamentalists, which
implies that they have a specific definition for the term.

|>Richard
|>
|>

Paul

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    I'd like to provide a little more definition on what I believe
    constitutes religious fundamentalism in terms of my own childhood
    experience.

    I list several characteristics:

    1.  The belief that "we have THE right way to God, the ONLY right way."

    2.  The belief that people who do not believe as we do will be punished
    by God, maybe in this world -- but most certainly in the hereafter.

    3.  The belief that we are "set apart, sanctified" unto God and that we
    are more special before God (than other people) because of what we
    believe.

    4.  The contradictory (dysfunctional) belief that God is both Love and
    a God of Wrath.  I think this was the *most* abusive for me.

    5.  A rulebook by which to live -- in my case it was the Bible -- with
    no or few exceptions for common sense when the Bible's instructions are
    immoral. They always seemed to gloss over "if thy right eye offends thee
    pluck it out though.  ;^)

    6.  The willingness to worship a God who is characterized by a
    morality less than our own.  (Who among us would create children for
    our own glory and then punish them for all eternity if they didn't see
    eye to eye with us?)


    The most hurtful things were the false characterizations of God.  As a
    small child I was always afraid of God.  You never knew what He was
    really up to.  He couldn't just say "well, hey you made a mistake --
    try it again, you'll do better next time."  No.  He was bloodthirsty. 
    He demanded that little animals be killed for him.  Then his need for
    his own justice couldn't even be sated until he had his own son
    tortured and killed.  It confused me because I also knew that God *made
    up* all the rules of justice that he was using to demand sacrifice for
    what He defined as sin.

    I was afraid of God because he was going to send my older brother and
    sister to hell when they died.  I knew that because my parents told me
    that since they were unsaved that's where they were going.  I cried
    myself to sleep many a night for them.

    Yes, there were the other things as well.  I wore strange clothing,
    wasn't allowed to see movies or watch TV for a good part of my
    childhood.  They were into the "spare the rod/spoil the child"
    philosophy.  I didn't have many friends.

    It took much time and the loving grace of God to heal all that...

    Ruth

    
    	Ruth,
    
    		what you call religious fundamentalism, I would call
    	religious fanaticism, I have seen those characteristics in many
    	religious people of different classes and denominations and in
    	different degrees; even in this Notesfile, some notes that I read
    	give me an impression of fanaticism, but not to such a high degree
    	as the ones you experienced.  I'm glad you had the opportunity of
    	being helped and of being freed from such abuse. 
    
			Juan

>    4.  The contradictory (dysfunctional) belief that God is both Love and
>    a God of Wrath.  I think this was the *most* abusive for me.

    I don't understand. What is contradictory or dysfunctional here? Does
    not a parent who loves her child get upset and provide correction? A
    God of love would also logically get upset and provide correction. 

>    The most hurtful things were the false characterizations of God.  As a

    A false characterization of God is inherently contradictory to
    fundamentalism. So pick one. Either you were brought up in a home with
    false characterizations of God or a fundamentalist home.

    		Alfred

	Ruth described very clearly in .15 what she understands by the
	term "fundamentalism."  I guess that, by and large, most of us
	here would agree that our view of fundamenalism is pretty close
	to hers.

	In that context, I think that Ruth has clearly and dramatically
	answered her own base-note.  An emphatic YES!

	I see from .17 that Alfred appears to be better informed than
	some of us here as to what fundamentalism *really* is: perhaps
	he would be so kind as to share the fullness of his knowledge
	with the rest of us.  In particular, I would like to read about
	the fundamentalist's *true* characterization of God.

	(Of course, if this is a dogmatic: "God is all things to all men"
	then the males amongst us will be forced to stand back and let
	the ladies take up the gauntlet)  ;-)

	Greetings, Derek.

 So then...parents who believe the Bible, and raise their children as God
 prescribes, are guilty of child abuse?

Despite my love of watching sports, I cancelled cable
a month and a half ago because of all the pornography.
(After a month and a half, I *finally* got the antenna,
the mounting, the rotor and the amplifier all set on
Saturday so that we get good pictures from all local 
stations.)

Our daughter who is 5 is not allowed to turn on the TV
or VCR and only watches Barney and Friends and Mr. Rogers.
Since this is more than kids watched 100 years ago, I
don't yet feel too badly about this child abuse.  :-)

In regards to talking to a child about God, it is quite
important no matter what your views on God to be careful
in what you say and how you say it.  God is love.  God
loves us all.  The fact that some of us reject God and
therefore are condemned by our sin and our choice does
not make God unloving - it simply makes Him just.  Picturing
God to a child as a judge without compassion is flat out
wrong.  He is indeed a judge - with great and wonderful
compassion.  I'm sorry, Ruth, that God did not provide your
parents more wisdom in what they emphasized about God.

Collis

    re .17

    > I don't understand. What is contradictory or dysfunctional here? Does
    > not a parent who loves her child get upset and provide correction? A
    > God of love would also logically get upset and provide correction. 

    Ruth said that she was taught that God was a god of wrath and later she
    explains that she was led to believe that God was "bloodthirsty" in
    his judgment.  I understand what she is talking about and I think it
    is a far cry from what you characterize as providing "correction".  It
    is the opposing extremes of love versus violent retribution that can
    be very unsettling to a child.  Some people don't see the threat of
    death and eternal damnation, roasting in the fires of Hell, as a normal
    healthy form of correction.  Does this help?

    	Eric

Ruth,
	Thanks for sharing that. Many of the things that you see were
as abusive I see very differently, as you probably know from my other
replies.  I do think that there is a context in which  the characteristics
you list don't necessarily have to end up causing pain but can actually
lead to joy.  I was brought up in an environment with many of the same
characteristics that you list and yet seem to have ended up with a very
different perspective. It is pretty amazing that starting from the same
place, people can end up in such different places.

	I do, however, hurt for you and the pain you felt and maybe still
do feel. It is clear from your reply that you've had some pain over this.

Paul

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

>	I see from .17 that Alfred appears to be better informed than
>	some of us here as to what fundamentalism *really* is: perhaps
>	he would be so kind as to share the fullness of his knowledge
>	with the rest of us.  In particular, I would like to read about
>	the fundamentalist's *true* characterization of God.

    My understanding of fundamentalism is that it is a sort of back to
    basics view of Christianity. Thus God is a God of love who none the
    less has rules and expectations that are for the most part clearly
    defined. Breaking those rules has clearly defined results. What Ruth
    described, in part, sounds harsh. And in those parts seems to conflict
    with what I have heard of fundamentalism. Now if you want to define
    fundamentalism as "all the perversions and over reactions taken in
    the name of religion" go right ahead.

    		Alfred

    RE: .21 Yes that helps. It just doesn't mesh with the views I've
    heard self proclaimed fundamentalists espouse before. The term
    bloodthirsty implies that the entity so described *wants* blood or
    suffering. That is not the God of the Bible as I understand it. It
    is a fundamentalist view that God is a God of Love and that His punishment
    is easily avoided through acceptance of Jesus as Lord. Teaching
    children that it is hard to avoid Hell is not good and it is certainly
    not a fundamentalist belief as far as I know.

    		Alfred

    Also see Topic 87 "What is fundamentalism?"
    
    Richard
    

.13 Eric,

	Funny you should mention the Amish.  While I am less than enthusiastic
about fundamentalism, I have a deep respect for the Amish.  Perhaps it is
because the Amish don't come knocking at my door insisting that my eternal
soul is in great peril.  Perhaps it is because the Amish don't try to make
me fit a mold of what they believe a true Christian is.

	Also, as a splinter group from the Mennonites, the Amish are pacifists.
Fundamentalists tend to not only wrap themselves with the Scriptures, but
also with the flag, tradition and "everything that was ever good about
America," as if they somehow possessed or caused these things.

Peace,
Richard

I think this discussing (with Richard's gentle nudging) is
continuing to move away from Fundamentalism as a movement
to more of a "let's define Fundamentalism as the things we
don't like and publicly bash it" note.

It appears this way to me because

  - it is claimed that we all have a pretty good idea of what
    a fundamentalist is (despite the fact that our ideas are
    probably quite different as is becoming evident in this
    discussion)
  - I don't see balance in praising those areas of Fundamentalism
    which are good (from those who oppose Fundamentalism)

These two characteristics (no definition, no praise) is all it
takes to elicit general bashing.

Just food for thought.

Collis

    By all means, feel free to sing the praises of fundamentalism,
    Collis.
    
    Richard
    

    I think the "set apart" concept that Ruth described is very
    characteristic of fundamentalist thinking.  The resulting tendency is
    to see yourself as part of a small, persecuted group of true believers
    in a world full of infidels.  Not only are you surrounded by a sea of
    evil, but your typically see things as only getting worse, with the
    world as proceeding on an inexorable path of increasing evil, towards
    an inevitable Armageddon.  This apocalyptic vision of the nearness of a
    divinely preordained destruction is often an important part of this
    theology.  You must preserve your enclave of Truth at all costs against
    the constant pressures of ever-growing evil influences.  This tends to
    isolate you from your peers, something that cannot help a teenager who
    already feels a lonely sense of isolation.

    I mentioned that my parents are not fundamentalists, and my parents,
    who love me, are definitely not guilty of any form of child abuse.  I
    can think of one instance, though, of the sort of thought-limiting
    attitude that I often associate with fundamentalism.  I remember once,
    in my early teens, perusing one of my brother's books from college; it
    was on existentialism.  My mother saw me reading it and made me put it
    away, like it was something terrible and forbidden.  I really had this
    terrible idea of existentialism as something that it was a sin even to
    think about--which, of course, immediately gave it an attraction for
    me, and it was one of the first things I explored when I became an
    atheist.  Here we had a tendency to view certain philosophies as
    "dangerous" and taboo.

    In the case of fundamentalism, where this is frequent, one must guard
    against many ideas, because they can so often become dangerous.  I grew
    up thinking that Sartre and existentialism were the tools of Satan. 
    You can't imagine how liberating it was to shed those shackles of
    restrictions on thought so that I could actually think for myself, read
    books that were once forbidden, and evaluate them myself on my own
    terms.  It was a glorious freedom.  And you know what--having taken a
    look at existentialism from a new perspective, it doesn't hold any
    great attraction for me.  I see it as an interesting philosophy,
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Another example comes to mind.  As a teenager, I had to struggle
    considerable with my adolescent sexuality.  Believing that any sexual
    feelings, sexual fantasies, and most certainly masturbation were sinful
    was a problem for a horny teenager.  I remember reading a book by a
    fundamentalist writer who did have the opinion that masturbation might,
    and I stress might, be acceptable, under certain restricted conditions
    (the rule was that there could be no fantasizing about anyone while you
    did it.)  I was almost constantly at war with what I now realize were
    perfectly normal sexual feelings.

    All of this is very negative for me.  And I am happy to have left that
    behind.  As I mentioned, a lot of this interest in fundamentalism was
    my own, and not imposed by my parents, who had their faults but were
    good people, and who are theologicaly conservative but in most cases
    fairly easy going about religious issues; and they were always
    concerned about my well being.  As far as the term "child abuse" goes,
    an example of where religious upbringing can apply comes to mind;  I
    remember a few years ago hearing on the news about parents who withheld
    money for a tithe even at the expense of feeding their children.  That
    is an extreme case, but it definitely qualifies in my book as child
    abuse.

    -- Mike

I was hoping, Richard, that you would at least give the
appearance of balance.  It appears my hope was in vain.

Collis

    Mike, I don't often disagree with the basic premise of what you're
    saying, but this is one of those exceptions.
    
    I've seen fundamentalists who believe they're not only the moral ones,
    but that they are actually in the majority, fighting off some perverse
    fringe.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Re:  .29

I think that your reflections are quite accurate, Mike.

Fundamentalism determines that some things are true and others
are not.  Those that are not true can often be harmful.  This
is not particular, of course, to fundamentalism, but it is
characteristic of fundamentalism.

Many in this conference preach an entirely different message.
The falsehoods that are taught (whatever those falsehoolds are)
are fair game for consideration and embracing them is also
usually acceptable.

Personally, I think this is an issue of balance which depends on
the person and the issue.  There are times when fundamentalism is
out of balance (in my perspective) and there are times when more
liberal philosophies of information-sharing and acceptance are out
of balance.  In America, we are quick to point are fingers at the
former and slow to recognize the (in my opinion) more significant
problems with the latter.

Collis

re Note 662.32 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Fundamentalism determines that some things are true and others
> are not.  Those that are not true can often be harmful.  This
> is not particular, of course, to fundamentalism, but it is
> characteristic of fundamentalism.

        Sounds like we all are fundamentalists.  


> Many in this conference preach an entirely different message.
> The falsehoods that are taught (whatever those falsehoods are)
> are fair game for consideration and embracing them is also
> usually acceptable.

        Name one person who has deliberately preached what they
        believed to be falsehood in this conference.

        Certainly some, perhaps all, have preached at some time
        something that others consider to be falsehood.  You, Collis,
        have preached what I believe to be falsehood at times, and I
        have told you so.

        Collis, I have never seen ANYBODY in this or any conference
        advocating what they believed to be falsehood (other than in
        jest, or as a "devil's advocate", of course).

        Bob

    I want to add some more detail to why the contradictory (dysfunctional)
    belief that God is both Love and a God of Wrath was the *most* abusive
    for me. (re my reply .15).

    I did not mean for my writing to imply that my parents were wicked or
    in any way malevolent toward me.  They believed in their religion and
    believed that they were doing the right thing.  They constantly told me
    that Jesus loved me.  

    They didn't directly tell me that God was bloodthirsty, but I was a
    curious child.  Children like to peak around corners and look under
    things.  It only takes reading the Bible to come to the conclusion that
    God is bloodthirsty.  And when I pried into the belief system, I saw a
    God who constantly had this need to "test" and "be glorified" like some
    egomaniac.  And, of course there was the constant sadness about my
    beloved older brother and sister suffering indescribable agony in the
    fires of hell for all eternity because they weren't saved.  

    I asked them how we could ever be happy in heaven knowing that many of
    our friends and family were in hell.  I was told that God would wipe
    all the tears from our eyes and we would be so taken with the joys of
    heaven that we'd forget.  But I vowed never to forget my brother and
    sister--even in heaven.  And I wondered, How could *God* be happy
    knowing that these creatures (many of whom just weren't born on the
    right continent) were in misery at His hands.

    It didn't make any sense.

    There was much talk about theirs being an inner I-know-Jesus-personnaly
    religion, but looking back I think it was a rigid follow-the-
    formula-and-don't-listen-to-the-still-small-voice-within religion.  

    The problem with teaching children that God is Love and also teaching
    children that God sends people to hell if they don't follow His rules
    lies in the *contradiction*.  One day it occurred to me that my
    relationship with God was from my perspective similar to the
    relationship an adult child of an alcoholic might have.  Schizophrenic. 
    The "He loves me/He hates me-but I have to call it love" pattern.  

    My relationship with God was bizarre.  Like "no matter how you test and
    try me I will love you."  It sounds like a woman who lives with a
    wife-beater.  It doesn't make sense when applied to God.  

    And for those of you who are fundamentalist;  I have a real good idea
    of where you are coming from because I was one of you at one time.
    Really.  As much as you are tempted to think that I never *really*
    experienced what you call getting saved.  Believe me.  We could talk
    about it.  So quote the Bible all you want.  I've heard it.  I've said
    it...

    Ruth

>> The falsehoods that are taught
>
>        Name one person who has deliberately preached what they
>        believed to be falsehood in this conference.

There probably are none.

Yet the fact remains that falsehoods have been preached, and various
people have insisted that others embrace them.

/john

>Yet the fact remains that falsehoods have been preached, and various
>people have insisted that others embrace them.
    
    That's an interesting comment about people insisting that others
    embrace falsehoods, since most of the people who have been insisting
    that others embrace their own beliefs have been on *your* side of the
    fence.  When others have only been seeking to relate to God in their
    own way, it is you who have been attacking their views and claiming
    that only your way of relating to God is the correct one.
    
    So from your statement above, I can only infer that you are saying that
    you are one of the people preaching falsehoods here.
    
    -- Mike

    re .35
    
    > Yet the fact remains that falsehoods have been preached, and various
    > people have insisted that others embrace them.
    
    Well, isn't that speacial.
    So, does this mean you'll no longer engage in this activity? :^) :^)
    
               Eric

>The falsehoods that are taught (whatever those falsehoolds are)
>are fair game for consideration 

    Herein lies the crux of the matter.  There is probably nothing that I
    find more offensive in the realm of ideas than the notion that certain
    philosophical or theological ideas are taboo even from consideration. 
    It is this suppression of thought that was so oppressive and limiting
    about the fundamentalist mindset that I knew in my youth.  And it was
    the liberation from this oppressive suppression of thinking that was
    such a breath of fresh air, such a glorious lifting of the shackles of
    conformity, that I appreciated more than anything when I rejected
    fundamentalism.

    What is so appealing about the discipline of philosophy is that ideas
    can be discussed openly and seriously, on their own merit.  I may very
    well disagree with Sartre, but not out of fear.  Not out of fear.  What
    a wonderful liberation.  I can now look at Sartre, and if I disagree it
    is because I freely choose to disagree with him, because I logically
    consider what he says and decide that I can't go along with it.  Wow.

    What is really funny is that as soon as the fear disappears, so does
    the attraction for those feared ideas.  They suddenly lose their aura;
    Just because I rejected fundamentalism, I didn't then run into the arms
    of Sartre as my new religion.  I outgrew that sort of dogmatism.  More
    importantly, there was nothing special about those ideas.  I didn't
    find them so attractive after all, as the fear implied that I would.

    I believe that fundamentalism is an intellectual evil for precisely
    this reason--it operates in the realm of ideas in fear.  I will never
    return back to a dark world where a fortress is erected around one's
    world view, and where any idea outside that worldview becomes taboo
    even for consideration.  I may consider an idea and then immediately
    dismiss it, but at least I have had the freedom to think.  I will never
    embrace a mindless religion again; I have outgrown that mode of
    thinking.  I thank God that I have left that world behind me.

    -- Mike

    RE: .38
    
    Interesting...very interesting.....
    
    Marc H.

>>Yet the fact remains that falsehoods have been preached, and various
>>people have insisted that others embrace them.
>    
>    So from your statement above, I can only infer that you are saying that
>    you are one of the people preaching falsehoods here.

re the last couple:

If Mike wishes to infer that traditional apostolic Christianity is a falsehood
he is free to do so; yet I will proclaim that it is absolute Truth..

And Eric can claim that I am proclaiming a falsehood when I say that
Jesus Christ is the sheepgate -- the only Truth -- and that anything
else is a lie and a deception.  (John 10:1-10)

And Eric can request that I embrace the falsehood that Jesus is not the
only Truth by asking me to stop proclaiming traditional Christianity.

But I won't, as long as this conference remains a place where traditional
Christianity is a permitted subject of discussion.

/john

>If Mike wishes to infer that traditional apostolic Christianity is a falsehood
>he is free to do so; yet I will proclaim that it is absolute Truth..

    I wasn't inferring that traditional apostolic Christianity is a
    falsehood.  I was inferring that *you* were saying that it was a
    falsehood; I inferred this since you were complaining about people
    insisting that others embrace their own falsehoods, and the ones here
    who I see insisting that others conform to their own beliefs are 
    people from your side of the fence.

    I don't endorse using the word "falsehood" to describe religious
    beliefs.  I believe that there is truth to be found in many religions,
    including traditional apostolic Christianity.  Falsehood is your word,
    not mind.

    -- Mike

Re:  662.33

  >Sounds like we all are fundamentalists.

I'd say the difference is in the danger that "fundamentalists"
see in those things that are not true.  Many who are not
fundamentalists see these things that are not true as not
very dangerous (e.g. we'll all be saved anyway) whereas many
fundamentalists see these errors as *extremely* important to
correct.

Re:  falsehoods

I was not attempting to point out any person or group of people.
I just noted that falsehoods are taught.  I'm even willing to
admit that I teach them at times.  The real point is the
belief about the *consequences* of believing falsehoods.  It
is clear that both Pat and I (for example) are not right about
the nature of God.  If I'm right, then the consequences for Pat
are eternal damnation (since she has not professed to accept
the payment for her sin by the blood of Jesus Christ).  If Pat
is right, I expect she'd say that we'll all be together with
God (or Goddess :-) ) someday.  That's the point.

Collis

Re:  .41

No, falsehood is my word.  :-)

    re .40

    John, are you unfamiliar with the concept of "smiley faces"?  The
    following symbol:  :^)   is used to indicate that the following or
    preceding text was meant in jest.  I was in a puckish mood and tossed a
    good natured barb your way. 

    By all means continue with your proclamations, calls to obedience, and
    threats of lost salvation.  I long since passed the point of having my
    philosophical bearings shifted by such activity; and I'm sure you have
    as well.  
    
    Eric
    
    P.S.
    
    I realized something many years ago: the more you beat on a stake, the
    less likely it is to move.  You have to lift up a stake if you want to
    move it.  Has anyone else noticed this?

    >It is clear that both Pat and I (for example) are not right about the
    >nature of God.  If I'm right, then the consequences for Pat are eternal
    >damnation (since she has not professed to accept the payment for her
    >sin by the blood of Jesus Christ).  If Pat is right, I expect she'd say
    >that we'll all be together with God (or Goddess :-) ) someday.  That's
    >the point.
    
    Then again, there is no reason to assume a priori that either your or
    Patricia must be completely right.  Maybe both of you are blind people
    touching the same infinite elephant.
    
    -- Mike

Hi Ruth,

Many have come to the same conclusion as you - that God can
not be as described in the Bible - both loving and just.
We view God's justice as unloving.  But it is not that; it
is simply justice.

It really is analagous to coming before a judge for our crimes,
being given the sentence (death, in this case) and then having
the judge take off his robes and offer to serve the sentence
for us.  If we reject the judge's offer and suffer the penalty
ourselves, are we then to blame the judge that he was unloving?
But that is what many do.

Think about it.

Collis

Re:  .45

So we're both teaching (some) falsehoods.  That confirms
what I was saying - that falsehoods are taught here.

Collis

    A better analogy would be with a judge in a third world country
    who sentenced people, for all offenses, no matter how trivial, to be
    tortured.  Since all of us die eventually, the problem with this
    analogy is that God's punishment is supposedly eternal, thus making it
    more barbaric than even the worst form of human punishment. 

    We have human rights groups like Amnesty International working to
    eliminate torture in the world.  That is because it is recognized by
    civilized human societies to be immoral and barbaric.  It doesn't
    matter how grave the offense, torture of another person goes beyond
    acceptable human behavior.  Any judge who sentenced someone to
    be tortured and to claim that they loved that person would not be
    believed.  You don't torture someone out of love.

    Parents can discipline their children out of love, but child abuse is
    not love.  Punishment can be out of love, and it can be consistent with
    love; or it can be out of vindictiveness and cruelty and thus
    contradict love.  Hell as it is typically conceived is inconsistent
    with a loving God, just as child abuse or torture are inconsistent with
    love.  There are loving ways to punish people, and there are bounds
    that define them.  The idea of hell is often defended as if punishment
    and love are not simply different realms that don't interact;
    punishment should be consistent with love, if it is to be acceptable;
    it can certainly be inconsistent with love.

    -- Mike

>So we're both teaching (some) falsehoods.  That confirms
>what I was saying - that falsehoods are taught here.

    I prefer to look at it differently--you're both teaching some truths.
    I would prefer to see an emphasis on the truths that all of us have to
    offer, rather than attacking what others believe and accusing them of
    spreading "falsehoods".  The emphasis may be subtle, but I think it is
    important.  I think that if we share the truths that we have we can
    work together towards a better understanding of the Greater Truth that
    we all seek.

    -- Mike

Indeed, we do all teach some truths.  God, particularly.  :-)

>    this reason--it operates in the realm of ideas in fear.  I will never
>    return back to a dark world where a fortress is erected around one's
>    world view, and where any idea outside that worldview becomes taboo
 

      Interesting...I was just reflecting last night on how dark and hopeless
      my life was until I put much of the world's philosophies behind me and
      recommitted my life to Jesus Christ.


    Jim

  

    Religions often have this profound ability to give people hope.  I have
    found this to be true in my own case when I renewed my interest in
    religion a few years ago.  The healing power of religion is something
    that people of many different faiths experience.

    By the same token, religion that stifles thought can also have negative
    effects on people.  Perhaps not all people, though--sometimes it is
    comforting to have all your thinking done for you.  In my case, it was
    first important to shed the stifling narrowness of a certain kind of
    religious thinking before I could move on to a more mature attitude
    towards religious faith.  In that way I can achieve the healing
    joys of a religious faith *and* experience it in a way that is
    intelligent and liberating.  In that way one gets the best of all
    possible worlds.

    -- Mike

In article <662.48-930505-110552@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, valenza@deming.enet.dec.com (My note runneth over.) writes:
Mike,
	Of course the difference between your analogy of the third-world
judge and Collis' analogy is the offense committed.  Your analogy
stated "for all offenses, no matter how trivial".  My guess is that
for Collis and most orthodox Christians, no offenses (read sin) are
trivial because of God's holiness. In other words, any sin is too much sin.
Paul makes this point in Romans 9 when he indicates that we start off
deserving death, we don't start off "good", do one little thing and then
are unjustly condemned.

	Again this gets us back to differences about one of the key
assumptions that underly how we view God's character.  Some of us see
people as completely sinful (although given worth by Christ's death), while
others of us see people as good and bad but not totally offensive.  God's
wrath is only unjust if we don't deserve it and most folks feel that they
don't deserve it.

	For those of us who see people (ourselves included) as sick and
needing a doctor, God's grace, his unmerited favor and mercy towards us
is what gives us hope.

Paul

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    Paul,

    I understand that the viewpoint is that all offenses are equally worthy
    of the same punishment from God.  I think the point I was trying to
    make is that *no* offense warrants punishment that exceeds certain
    moral bounds.  It is true that I do have a problem with the idea that
    divine justice considers all offenses equally bad and deserving of the
    worst punishment imaginable--to me, that trivializes the concept of
    justice by applying a human term in a way that makes no sense from a
    human point of view.  But that's another topic for another day.

    -- Mike

Re:  .54

Tony from GOLF:: agrees with you.  That's why he argues so
strenously that those who are condemned to hell eventually
are destroyed.  Anything less would not be "loving".  Some
go further (such as you, I expect) and believe that sending
someone to hell for any period of time is not "loving".  And
then there are those who can accept a "loving" as well as a just
God who rejects those who reject Him because they would destroy
God if they could in the name of selfishness.  This God does
send them to hell "for ever and ever".

Collis

    I don't understand what you mean by "they would destroy God if they
    could in the name of selfishness".  I don't know of any theology that
    believes that God can be destroyed.
    
    -- Mike

The Bible presents a black/white picture.  

We go to heaven; we go to hell.

We choose to obey and follow God; we choose to
disobey God (ultimately).

Those who reject God choose instead to follow their
own way (Romans 1:19ff.) and ultimately to be their
own god (selfishness) denying God the praise and 
worship to which He is entitled.  God gets in their
way and they would destroy Him if they could.

I agree with you in that I also know of no theology
that says that God can be destroyed.

Collis

    RE: .57

    Wait a minute.

    As I said with sin, worship is it's own reward.
    
    I define worship as celebrating one's association
    with a something, usually a deity.

    We are born to worship.  We are born to celebrate.
    At first we celebrate our parents by trying to be
    like them.  Later, as we become more aware, we 
    celebrate our association with God.  It's the best
    way I know of to love God.

    Do you actually think it does God any "good" to be
    worshipped?

    It's a path to God.  It's for us.  Do we "deserve"
    this path?  No, but by the grace of God it is our
    right, and our duty.

    Tom

    re: .45

    >It really is analogous to coming before a judge for our crimes, being
    >given the sentence (death, in this case) and then having the judge take
    >off his robes and offer to serve the sentence for us.  If we reject the
    >judge's offer and suffer the penalty ourselves, are we then to blame
    >the judge that he was unloving? But that is what many do.


    Collis,

    Thank you for that analogy.  Thank you for all of your replies.  There
    are more unhealed memories from my childhood than I realized.  My
    earthly father and I had many similar conversations when I was a child. 
    I usually left them feeling confused and with a vague feeling of
    sadness.

    Collis, I appreciate you because you are giving me the opportunity to
    allow these old, dark hurts in my life to surface, where they can be
    offered to the Holy Spirit for healing.  Thank you.  

    My father also used the same analogy -- the judge offering to take our
    punishment.  I now address you and my dad together;

    Collis and Dad,

    God cannot be analogous to the judge you described.  The reason is that
    in the fundamentalist model, God designed/set up/created the system of
    justice that calls for punishment.  To say that God punishes sinners
    because He is bound by justice and *has* to because it is His nature is
    like saying I have to cook tuna casserole for dinner tonight.

    I am the cook.  I can make anything that pleases me.  And so can God.

    Justice.  You speak of God's justice.  I agree that God is just.  I do
    not agree with you about the meaning of what justice _is_.  God's love
    is complete and without boundaries.  Love is His very nature.  Justice
    means that we cannot escape from the Love of God.  None of us.  No
    matter how far and long we wander in a foreign land, eventually we
    will hear that still, small voice beckoning us to return home.  This is
    the meaning of the prodigal son.

    Love means that like a good earthly parent, God guides his children
    lovingly and corrects (not punishes) when needed for the highest good
    of his kids.

    The Bible in which you so literally believe, tells you that God is a
    better Father than any earthly father (Luke).  So here's an analogy for
    you to think about.

    An Analogy for Collis and my Dad
    =================================

    You have a daughter, a beautiful child.  You make a playroom for her
    and fill it with delightful toys that light up her little eyes with
    wonder.

    You tell your beloved little daughter;  "You may play with all the toys
    in the nursery, but you may not play with the nightlight, because you
    could get shocked"  ****I digress here, another discussion would be why
    the nursery was not adequately child-proofed.****

    One day your little daughter, being a curious and normal child, pulls
    the nightlight out and dismantles it.  She then feels guilty and hides
    the pieces.

    You come in and find the pieces.  What do you do?



    I will guess that you do *not* do the following:

    	A.  Banish her from the playroom forever.
    	B.  Make her earn her living by the sweat of her brow.
    	C.  Tell her that you will have mercy on her if she kills her pet
    	    cat to atone to you for her crime, because after all *someone*
            must pay.
    	D.  Eventually have her older brother executed to atone for her
            crime.
    	E.  Tell her that not only is she a criminal in your sight, but
            when she grows up and has children of her own, they will also 
            be guilty because of her disobedience.



    Peace to both of you,
    Ruth

    Tom raises an interesting point.  The idea that God wants us to worship
    for *his* own benefit presents a very self-aggrandizing conception of
    the deity, very authoritarian, and very patriarchal.  This is another
    example why I find feminist theology, and its conceptions of God, to be
    so interesting.  It is also brings to mind the important principle of
    process theology, which is that God responds affectionately to and
    shares in all of our experiences.  In this view, worship is of value to
    God exactly to the extent that it is of value to ourselves.

    -- Mike

Re:  662.59

Ruth,

I'm glad you have an opportunity to work through these issues.  I'm a little
uncomfortable being in here with your Dad, simply because of the emotions
that are a part your message.  I don't deal with emotions very well; I am
usually on a logic basis.  That is why I appear (and sometimes am) insensitive
to others - I'm responding in a logical way to questions and comments that
have a lot of emotional overtones.  I hope you'll forgive me if I deal with
the logic of what you say and try to help you see beyond what you currently
see rather than with the emotion that you're feeling (to which I don't know
how to respond other than to say I emphathize as best I can).

  >To say that God punishes sinners because He is bound by justice and *has* 
  >to because it is His nature is like saying I have to cook tuna casserole for 
  >dinner tonight.

No, it is rather more like saying I need to breathe if I'm going to stay
alive for long.  That's what it means to be part of one's nature.

  >I am the cook.  I can make anything that pleases me.  And so can God.

It sounds like you reject that something can actually be part of one's
nature.  Let's look at it from a moral perspective.  Are their people
that you know that would die rather than to murder someone?  If so, is it
fair to say that this is part of their nature?

If that can be part of their nature, then it is just a question of degree
what else can be part of our nature.

Some judges refuse to take bribes.  Can that be called part of their
nature?  God is such a judge.  He refuses to take bribes.  He refuses to
ignore *any* sin.  We, as sinful people, think that to be rather harsh.
It is so harsh, that we deny that God can even be that way.  But that
is exactly the way He claims to be.

  >Justice means that we cannot escape from the Love of God.  

This is not a definition (Biblical or otherwise) of justice.

  >Love means that like a good earthly parent, God guides his children
  >lovingly and corrects (not punishes) when needed for the highest good
  >of his kids.

Two points about this.  First, I as a parent *punish* my child regularly.
I also correct her.  Both are appropriate (although our punishment invariably
includes correction; correction often does not include punishment but sometimes
does include consequences).

Secondly, the highest good for the child is NOT the emphasis.  Our purpose
is not to be the best we can be, but rather to *glorify God*.  Why?  Because
God is worthy of glory.  The focus is not you, nor I, nor our children but
rather God.  Now we do have worth because *God* has given us worth and He
pours His love upon us.  But we are not the center of the universe - God is.
To quote John the Baptist, "He must increase, I must decrease".

  >The Bible in which you so literally believe...

Watch it.  You're might close to calling me a literalist :-) (which
I adamantly reject.)

Re:  your analogy

You left out so many parts of the analogy to make it truly
analagous to the Garden of Eden:

 - Dad was there with her - and then could not be there with her
   because of her sin
 - her *very nature* has changed by this act.  Before she was a
   perfect child and now she has fallen down the slippery slope
   of putting herself find before Dad
 - There is a book in her playroom which will give her the knowledge
   of living forever in rebellion to me, her Dad.  If she never
   reads this book, then I can rectify the situation.

So, yes, I do banish her from the playroom forever.

Yes, instead of providing everything for her, I stop my provision
as she has chosen to follow herself rather than me (and she is
*capable* of providing for herself).  Of course, I'm still there to
help out with those things she cannot do.  And I still listen to
her, love her, and meet many of her needs.

I do demand a sacrifice for atonement, primarily as a symbolic
atonement that I will cause to be performed when *I* send my one and only
son to his death.

I do inform her that her choice has an irreperable impact on her
children that I cannot change because it is now part of her nature
and will be part of the nature of any children she has.

Let me change the analogy a little (to a more Biblical analogy)
and see what you think.

An analogy for Ruth:

My daughter, whom I've loved, raised and done everything for, decides
she wants to get ahead in the world.  However, life has been rather easy
for her since everything has been provided for her since she was born
and she's never had to do any work of any kind.  So, she chooses a high
paying profession which doesn't require education - she becomes a
prostitute.

The clients come by and make their way to my daughter's bedroom in
my house day after day.  She piles up the money, completely ignoring
what I taught her as a child.  What should I do?

 - Should I banish her from my house?

 - Should I insist that she get a proper (albeit low-level) job?

 - Should I take away the child she has had as a result of her
   activities or should I let her keep the child, although it will
   be a very difficult upbringing with a single mom (particularly
   with a mom who has made the immoral choices she has made)?

I think that we, as humans, have little appreciation for how much
GOD HATES SIN.  If we did, we'd realize that the prostitute analogy
isn't even *close* to representing the affront to God that our actions
every day are.

Collis

P.S.

Why is it a more Biblical analogy?

Because those who reject God are compared to prostitutes
(or those who have prostituted themselves) more than
anything else in the Bible.

We have so little comprehension of how much God hates sin.

Collis

Re: .55

>And
>then there are those who can accept a "loving" as well as a just
>God who rejects those who reject Him because they would destroy
>God if they could in the name of selfishness.

No, Collis, I wouldn't destroy God.  If God really ordered the Israelites
to massacre the Canaanites, though (which I doubt very much) I would
sentence God to prison, if that were possible.

				-- Bob

    I think God's nature is precisely the point.  God is not a slave to
    primitive human conceptions of morality, exactly *because* God's nature
    is fundamentally good.  To say that God has no choice in the matter,
    that God *must* condemn people to hell, is to say that God assumes no
    moral responsibility for his/her own actions.  It is God who represents
    the ultimate definition of what is good, and because God is
    fundamentally good and loving, God is most certainly responsible for
    what he/she does.  Since punishments can be either cruel or loving,
    which kind of punishment would a loving God carry out?  I'll leave that
    as an exercise for the reader.

    When I hear that while hell may be harsh, it's just too bad because
    that's what God claims to be, that isn't quite accurate.  That's what
    the *defender* of this doctrine claims that God is.  People need to
    take responsibility for their own beliefs.  Pawning this off on what God
    allegedly claims is yet another example of the mindless approach to
    religion.  Can we think and analyze this issue ourselves, or can't we? 
    If we can't, then we are admitting that there is not logic to the
    faith.  Either you can defend your conception of God on its own merits,
    or you cannot.  Passing it off by insisting that it may not make sense
    but hey, this is what God claims to be, says that you really can't
    justify it on logical or moral terms.  We are all here trying to
    decipher what God really is, and to define a moral and logical
    justification for these attributes of God.

    Regarding the analogy with the daughter becoming a prostitute, the most
    important option was left out:

    	- Should you lock her in a cell and torture her ceaselessly and for
    	the rest of her life?

    What loving father would do that?  Yet we are told that God does
    precisely this, only worse, because it is for eternity.  Some loving
    father.  I am really amazed that any father would even remotely compare
    how they would relate to their own children to the conception of hell. 
    There is simply nothing in the concept of hell that even remotely
    compares to acceptable behavior by any human parent to their child. 
    Nothing.  No loving parent would torture their children.  And that is
    what hell is about--the ceaseless and eternal imposition of torture on
    human beings. 

    Yes, parents punish their children, but they do it out of love.  A
    parent could punish a child by putting out a cigarette on their arm, or
    by breaking a bone, but anyone who did that would be guilty of child
    abuse, and committing a serious crime (not to mention offending our
    moral sensibilities.)  Our society and our morality frowns on
    punishments of that type.  I doubt if any defender of hell here would
    say that such actions are out of love, or that they are justifiable
    because children have to be punished.  Yet they continue to insist that
    hell is compatible with a loving God.

    I have stated this before, and I will state it again--you can correct a
    child out of love, in a loving way, but always with that person's
    interest in mind, with compassion towards that person, with an aim
    towards helping that person.  Yet not all punishments are like that. 
    Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?  Not all punishments are
    justifiable among us humans--some are utterly revolting.  We all know
    this.  Yet is hell done in the interest of helping the punished person,
    out of love for that person?  Of course not!  Hell is not done in the
    interest of helping any of the damned, but only, so we are told, but
    only to benefit God.  This is God's love--serving himself at the cost
    of others.  An interesting definition of love, I must admit.

    I often hear that hell is necessary because God is so holy that he
    cannot tolerate any sin in his presence.  This raises an interesting
    point.  I believe that God is already among us, and that we are among
    God--that we interact with God daily.  And yes, we sin.  If God is so
    incapable of handling a little sin in his presence, then he would have
    blown up the world a long time ago, because every second that the world
    exists is another second that God continues to endure the existence of
    that which he supposedly cannot coexist even one second with.  And if
    he is putting off the destruction of sin in his presence until judgment
    day, then obviously he *can* stand to be in the presence of sin after
    all.  So what's a few thousand or million years to God?  If he can
    handle thousands of years of coexistence with sin, then he can handle
    it, period.  Maybe God just needs to take it one day at a time, like
    they do in 12-step programs.  "Hi, my name is Yahweh, and I go psycho
    whenever I am in the presence of sin."

    Hell is not done in the interests of the damned, but, so we are told,
    in God's interest.  God just can't stand to be around sin, so God
    relegates people to a place where God apparently isn't.  It seems that
    this infinite God has a place where he isn't, and it is called hell. 
    Anyway, the whole point of this is said to benefit God, not to benefit
    those who suffer in hell.  My conception of divine love is quite
    different.  I believe that God shares in our joys and our sorrows to an
    infinitely perfect degree, that God is perfectly and infinitely
    sympathetic.  This means that God doesn't simply use us to serve
    himself, but rather God seeks to provide for us.  That is what his love
    is all about--providing for *us*, not focusing on serving himself, and
    to such a significant extent that he will even torture us to serve his
    own ends.  Ugh.  What a horrible conception of God that is.

    -- Mike

re Note 662.64 by DEMING::VALENZA:

>     When I hear that while hell may be harsh, it's just too bad because
>     that's what God claims to be, that isn't quite accurate.  That's what
>     the *defender* of this doctrine claims that God is.  People need to
>     take responsibility for their own beliefs.  Pawning this off on what God
>     allegedly claims is yet another example of the mindless approach to
>     religion.  

        Well, this is certainly one of the advantages to having a
        belief in God-authored writings.  One can quote them with
        impunity and shrug off complaints like yours by saying "take
        that argument up with God."

        (Of course, as you and I know, but many others seem to deny,
        the belief that certain writings were God-authored itself is
        a personal choice, and if a genocidal divine torturer is what
        results from that belief, then the individual still must take
        responsibility.)

        Bob

Re:  .64

I'm perfectly happy to lay the blame (or credit) to my
beliefs at the feet of the prophets of God.  I assume
no responsibility for them other than the one of attempting
to understand and accurately pass out what they have
written for our understanding.

Re:  the last option

O.K., let's extend the analogy for eternity.

The daughter determines that she rejects me.  She rejects
the death of my one and only son to pay for her outrageous
moral behavior.  The nature of sin is such that she will
*always* reject me with the rejection continuing to increase
with her efforts to usurp me and my authority not only by
attacking me, but by becoming a pimp and getting other
girls to reject me as well.  The first step has determined
the path that will be taken that leads to eventual total,
complete destruction - unless she is willing to accept the
sacrifice I made for her and allow me to restore her.  There
is no way for her to restore herself and she will *inevitably*
do *everything* in her power to destroy me if left to her own
desires.  This is the nature of sin.

To bring her into my house, to even allow her to continue in
the world will only bring more death and destruction.  This is
the message of the Bible.  Will I seperate her from all of my
other children and the children of friends so that at least
*they* may be saved?  Or will I allow her to continue to work
forever at destroying all that is good and right.

If you reject the analogy (which is what I expect), then
the issue is our agreement on exactly what the consequences of
sin are.  Humans don't live long enough on earth for us to fully
see.  Satan is around and this is *exactly* what he is like.  We
would *all* be like Satan were it not for the grace of God.  I
expect that many of us here have higher hopes and ambitions for
ourselves and do not truly believe this.  We discount the power
of sin.  We discount God's hatred of sin.  We are blind.

Collis

    re .66
    
    Collis,
    
    The analogy you just outlined... is that how you see Mike, Richard,
    Patricia, and me?  Are we, and others that disagre with the view of God
    that you provide, "pimps" in your estimation?  
    
    Just curious...
    		
    		Eric

    I am perfectly happy to reject that sort of mindless religion in
    which the believer assumes no responsibility for his or her own
    beliefs, and is unwilling to think for his or herself.

    Collis, you still haven't answered whether or not you would consider it
    morally acceptable, and compatible with your love for her, for you to
    continuously torture your own child for the rest of her life. 

    When you continue to make analogies with what human fathers on earth
    should do in hypothetical scenarios, I have repeatedly pointed out that
    certain punishments on earth are unacceptable and incompatible with
    love.  If you believe that this is untrue--that any punishment is fair
    game--then we really have no common premise to work from.  And if not,
    but if you also are unwilling to extend this important aspect of your
    analogy to God, then either the analogy with human fathers falls flat
    on its face, or else you have to accept that certain forms of
    punishment *are* barbaric no matter what, and are unacceptable

    I am interested to hear that God sends people to hell to protect people
    in heaven from being destroyed by them.  We have prisons here on earth,
    and one reason we have them is to separate dangerous people from
    society.  But while we can separate them, we also have a constitutional
    provision against cruel and unusual punishment.  Torture is illegal in
    the United States.  Not so illegal in other places, and that is why
    groups like Amnesty International exist.  In any case, sinners are no
    threat to God, and if God is truly omnipotent, God can certainly
    separate people without torturing them.  Perhaps God is lacking in
    imagination or the ability to put together creative solutions to his
    problems.  Hah.  More like it, it isn't God who lacks the imagination,
    but those who defend the doctrine of hell. 
    
    -- Mike

In article <662.59-930505-180135@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, fannin@weller.enet.dec.com writes:

Ruth,
	Thanks for your analogy of the nightlight. It helps illustrate your
perspective.  I also appreciate your appreciation of the positive healing
that can take place even when discussing different viewpoints.

	I guess for me, it comes back to figuring out:

Is sin more bad, less bad, as bad to God as my daughter's taking apart
the nightlight?  I think your point is that God decided on the rule in
the first place and so he can decide on the appropriate punishment.  My
contention would be that God doesn't decide that sin is bad and then decide
on an appropriate punishment, but rather God can't abide sin because of
his nature.  He is absolutely holy and that is a characteristic of his rather
than a decision.  I don't believe God has a choice about how he views sin.
He cannot but help hate it totally.  I also don't believe that you can have
free will without the possibility of sin, of a choice of "other".

My guess is that this view of God is fundamental to our differing perspectives.
I see God hating sin totally because that is who he is, just as his love
for us is rooted in who he is.  You might see God as being loving because
that is who he is, but being able to choose how holy he is. This would mean
that he could mitigate the punishment for sin out of his love for people.

For me the analogy would be truer if by touching the nightlight, but daughter
initiated world-wide nuclear war, which by the very act destroyed her playroom
and her own life.  

Paul

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

In article <662.60-930505-215406@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, valenza@deming.enet.dec.com (My note runneth over.) writes:
|>    Tom raises an interesting point.  The idea that God wants us to worship
|>    for *his* own benefit presents a very self-aggrandizing conception of
|>    the deity, very authoritarian, and very patriarchal.  This is another
|>    example why I find feminist theology, and its conceptions of God, to be
|>    so interesting.  It is also brings to mind the important principle of
|>    process theology, which is that God responds affectionately to and
|>    shares in all of our experiences.  In this view, worship is of value to
|>    God exactly to the extent that it is of value to ourselves.

	But we EXIST for the praise of his glory.  That is the only reason
why we are here.  He made us. We were made to praise and worship him and
when we're not doing that we're broken.  He alone is worthy to be praised
which means we shouldn't be putting our worship towards anything else.
I realize that you don't agree with the above because it is comes from
the portions of the Bible that you find suspect. I have to confess that
at times I've wondered as well that God seems very self-aggrandizing but
the more I read the Bible (I'm reading through Ephesians at the moment), the
more I'm impressed by the fact that there is nothing wrong with praising him
and that in fact that is the very best way to interact with him.

|>    -- Mike
|>

	Paul

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

RE: Paul

>	But we EXIST for the praise of his glory.  That is the only reason
>why we are here.  He made us. We were made to praise and worship him and
>when we're not doing that we're broken.  He alone is worthy to be praised

    I find that praising is but one aspect of worship.  I
    wouldn't limit myself to the strictly vocal, however.

    But it sounds like we're saying the same things.  The only
    difference is purpose.  I say we worship God because it 
    is as natural and healthy as breathing clean air.  It
    brings us closer to God.

    I can't quite figure out your purpose for praising.

>and that in fact that is the very best way to interact with him.

    Go for it!  :-)

    Tom

BTW: It is customary to capitalize any reference to a deity.
eg "interact with him." would be "interact with Him." or is
there something I've missed?

    Paul, I agree that there is nothing wrong with praising God.  But you
    are also right that I don't agree that we exist solely to glorify God. 
    I think that the gift of life is rather interesting in that if God
    didn't create the life, there would be no one to give the gift to!  Yet
    I do see it as a gift to us that we live and that we experience life.
    So I see God, by creating us, as also expressing love to us by giving
    us the experience of life.  I also see life as a reciprocal gift,
    because I believe that our experiences and our joys also enhance the
    divine life, in that God shares in all of our experiences.

    -- Mike

In article <662.59-930505-180135@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, fannin@weller.enet.dec.com writes:

Ruth,
	Another analogy came to mind. 8-)

We were created to be dependent upon God.  In him we live and move and
have our being.  Anytime I chose other than God I'm chosing death. The wages
of sin is death because we're chosing other than God and we were created to
be dependent upon him.  If your average fish chooses to live on the beach that
fish will die.  It lives while it is in the water.  Likewise, when Adam and Eve
ate from the tree, they weren't just touching a nightlight, they were choosing
death, choosing to not be dependent upon their life source. It would be
like my daughter deciding to live at the bottom of the pool. She would die.
I could throw her a life preserver but if she ignored it she would die. Even
if I threw myself in to save her, if she insisted on staying at the bottom
of the pool she would die. I could override her free choice and restrain her
on the side of the pool, but if she really wanted to live at the bottom of
the pool she would hate me for restraining her.

There are problems with all of these analogies and they can only stretch
just so far, but I do think that they can help us communicate better with
each other as we try to understand where we're coming from.

Paul

- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re Note 662.69 by QUABBI::"ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com":

> I see God hating sin totally because that is who he is, just as his love
> for us is rooted in who he is.  You might see God as being loving because
> that is who he is, but being able to choose how holy he is. This would mean
> that he could mitigate the punishment for sin out of his love for people.
  
        I do see God as hating sin, but I don't see God hating the
        sinner or willing the sinner's destruction or torture.

        Christians typically view that Christ came and died in order
        to make a perfect payment for the total unworthiness of even
        the smallest of our sins.

        I believe that another valid thing to learn from Christ's
        coming and dying is that God's love for us is so great that
        he was willing to live among us and suffer the worst abuse we
        humans could dish out -- and he just took it rather than
        retaliate or even destroy us.

        Bob

  

>        I do see God as hating sin, but I don't see God hating the
>        sinner or willing the sinner's destruction or torture.

         2 Peter 3:8...."not wishing for any to perish but for all to 
         come to repentance"

         


 Jim

Re:  .67

We are all pimps.  We prostitute ourselves by worshipping
other Gods - and we encourage others to do that by our
actions, our words, our thought lives.

We are truly saved by grace.

Collis

Re:  mindless religion

Indeed, a belief in the Bible can be mindless.

A belief in most anything can be mindless.  Does that
make it so?

It does not surprise me that Mike characterizes my belief
that the Bible is what it claims as "mindless".  How else
is he to explain it?  Can a reasonable person who is using
his head actually believe the Bible?  To Mike the answer
is simple (almost mindless :-) ).  No.

This, despite the vast majority of evidence to the contrary.
Even a casual observer looking over just my life, for example,
sees the tremendous amount of energy that I have devoted to
looking into these things.  However, since my conclusion
doesn't make sense to Mike, I am mindless.

It doesn't wash with me.  I expect that it doesn't wash with
any but the truly mindless.

Collis

    RE: .76
    
    > We are all pimps.  We prostitute ourselves by worshipping
    > other Gods - and we encourage others to do that by our
    > actions, our words, our thought lives.
    
    > We are truly saved by grace.
    
    If we (you, me, everyone) are all "pimps" (as you described in .66)
    then we are equally as evil and damned as the character in your
    analogy.  And likewise we are equally likely to be saved... by God's
    grace. 
    
    Eric

>It does not surprise me that Mike characterizes my belief
>that the Bible is what it claims as "mindless".  How else
>is he to explain it?  Can a reasonable person who is using
>his head actually believe the Bible?  To Mike the answer
>is simple (almost mindless :-) ).  No.

    That response indicates that you obviously paid no attention to where
    my description of your faith as "mindless" comes from.  I did not state
    that your theology is mindless because I disagree with it; there are
    many theologies that I disagree with that I do not consider mindless. 
    If you had bothered to pay attention to what I had said, you would have
    noticed that, as I explained, the problem is not your conclusions, but
    how you arrive at them.  You stated--you freely admitted--that you 
    choose not evaluate theological questions on their own terms and to
    take responsibility for formulating your own opinions about them, but
    instead allow the conclusions to be made for you.  Need I quote you?

	"I'm perfectly happy to lay the blame (or credit) to my
	beliefs at the feet of the prophets of God.  I assume
	no responsibility for them"

    Given that you *admitted* not taking responsibility for your own
    opinions, your angry response surprises me.  You admit that your views
    are not your own--they have been decided for you!  For a justification
    for your views on hell or any other theologies, when all else fails it
    always boils down to what "the prophets of God" have said, not what
    *you* have to say.  

    This is mindless religion.  At its worst, I might add.  This came up in
    the context of a discussion of hell, but it comes up elsewhere as well. 
    Either a theology about hell can be justified logically, on its own
    terms, or it cannot.  Appeals to authority are simply cases of allowing
    all the thinking to be done for you.  

    In fact, you have even, at one point, gone so far as to defend the view
    that certain theological questions should be taboo from
    reconsideration.  This from someone who claims to be interested in
    seeking the truth!  That, too, is an example of mindless religion at
    its worst.

    If you are going to admit that you accept no responsibility for your own
    beliefs, then you can hardly complain about the "mindless" label.  You
    accept unquestioningly and unthinkingly what others believed as being what
    you must also believe.  This is mindless.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .78

We may not be there yet, but given time we *would* be there
without the grace of God.

We don't appreciate the addiction of sin.

Collis

    Paul,

    Thank you for sharing your analogy about your daughter living at the
    bottom of the pool.

    I have an observation about it.  In tying it back to the idea of
    original sin, how did eating the fruit damn Adam and Eve?  They didn't
    die upon ingesting it, it wasn't poison.  They hung around the garden
    until God tossed them out.  

    In your analogy, your daughter would die from a physical, natural cause
    -- not breathing.  But not from an action that *you* committed.  Do you
    see the difference?

    Ruth

    By the way, Collis, I am still waiting for your answer as to whether or
    not you would consider it morally acceptable, and compatible with your
    love for your child, to lock her into a room and torture her
    continuously for the rest of her life.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .79

Sorry to have confused the issue.

Indeed, truth needs no justification (although I certainly spend
a lot of time, like you, looking for justification).  Ultimately,
though, truth is true whether it is justifiable or not.  That
is why I take no responsibility for the answer - not because it
is not justifiable and not because I haven't looked into determining
why it is justifiable (I have done both and shared a lot about
both this and other issues in this conference over the years),
but rather simply because it is true (according to the prophets).

I choose to exhibit faith in God, His prophets and His Word.
Ultimately, you will claim that this is "mindless".  Why?  Because
not everything can be explained satisfactorily (to you or to me)
and I choose to believe it anyway.  Even if I explained this point
to you satisfactorily (as I have already explained it satisfactorily
to myself - something you seemed to have ignored in your discussion
about mindlessness), you would simply find another area that cannot
or is not explained to your satisfaction and berate believes in that
area for being "mindless".

Science and logic, although important, are not my God.  What you
preach leaves me to believe that they are your god.  You can choose
what to believe - which does not make you mindless - and I can choose
what to believe - which does not make me mindless.  Because my choices
and/or methodology for determining what to believe do not match yours
does not make me mindless, my beliefs mindless or my God mindless.

I just think that you are way off base.  I'm willing to continue to
point out how if you desire.

Collis

No, it is not acceptable for me to do that.

Collis

    re .77

    Collis, you could just as well have said:

    "It does not surprise me that Mike characterizes the grass as
    green.  How else is he to explain it?"

    I wonder... are my beliefs as enigmatic to you as yours are to me?

    > This, despite the vast majority of evidence to the contrary.
                                         ^^^^^^^^
    Evidence or postulating?  I suppose what one man would call belief
    another would call evidence.

    > Even a casual observer looking over just my life, for example,
    > sees the tremendous amount of energy that I have devoted to
    > looking into these things.  

    I've not doubt that is true.  However, a casual observer looking over
    your statements of fact and methods of reasoning might see something
    else.  Then again maybe the casual observer is easily fooled.

    Were your conclusions made after this tremendous amount of energy was
    expended, or was this energy expended in an effort to support your
    conclusions?

    > However, since my conclusion don't make sense to Mike, I am mindless.

    I think it's the way you arrived at your conclusion, your concept of
    logic, that is confusing to some of us; not your conclusion, per se.
    
    
    		Eric

Re:  .81

There were 2 deaths.  One was the immediate spiritual
death.  The other was the eventual physical death.  Neither
would have happened (at least, to the best of my knowledge
the physical death would not have happened) had they chosen
to live in obedience to God.

The person who stops breathing doesn't die either - for a
few minutes.  Adam and Eve's death just took a number of
centuries longer.  :-)

Collis

>I choose to exhibit faith in God, His prophets and His Word.
>Ultimately, you will claim that this is "mindless".  Why?  Because
>not everything can be explained satisfactorily (to you or to me)
>and I choose to believe it anyway.  Even if I explained this point
>to you satisfactorily (as I have already explained it satisfactorily
>to myself - something you seemed to have ignored in your discussion
>about mindlessness), you would simply find another area that cannot
>or is not explained to your satisfaction and berate believes in that
>area for being "mindless".

    That is incorrect, and once again you are showing that you aren't
    listening to what I am saying.  There are a lot of theologies that I
    don't agree with.  I can respect a lot of religious viewpoints that are
    different from my own.  The basic problem is *how*, not what.  When
    one's views on homosexuality, female priesthood, or heaven and hell all
    boil down to looking it up in a cookbook somewhere instead of *thinking*
    about it, instead of using your conscience and your critical faculties,
    then that is mindless.

    Science and logic are not my God.  The question here is what process we
    use to formulate our understandings *about* God.  Do we use our
    God-given brains, or don't we?  I suggest that we do; the mindless
    approach says otherwise.

    -- Mike

Re:  .85

Those who know me well know me as an extremely logical person.
That is my opinion of myself as well.  You're welcome to
disagree with it.

Again, I've found that those who disagree with the logic I
present (much of which is not my own) to invariably be those
who are philosophically or theologically opposed to the
conclusions and who actually reject either the conclusion
or one or more premises.  Since I have entered much in this
notesfile, I expect that it should be easy to grab examples
of how I have misused "logic" and maybe I'll leaern something.
I readily admit, of course, that I make mistakes in logic at
times and when they are pointed out, I make corresponding
adjustments in the logic and the conclusion.

But life is so much more than logic.  That's only a small part
of me.  Let's talk about the important things of life like
softball, bridge, ping pong and pinball...

Collis

Re:  .87

I suggest that I have used my brain; therefore my approach is
not mindless.  Simple logic.  :-)

Collis

>Those who know me well know me as an extremely logical person.
>That is my opinion of myself as well.  
    
    Yes, Collis, we are aware that you think of yourself as an extremely
    logical person.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .90

*Now* you've got it, Mike.  :-)

In article <662.81-930506-144026@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, fannin@weller.enet.dec.com writes:
|>    Paul,
|>
|>    Thank you for sharing your analogy about your daughter living at the
|>    bottom of the pool.
|>
|>    I have an observation about it.  In tying it back to the idea of
|>    original sin, how did eating the fruit damn Adam and Eve?  They didn't
|>    die upon ingesting it, it wasn't poison.  They hung around the garden
|>    until God tossed them out.  
|>
|>    In your analogy, your daughter would die from a physical, natural cause
|>    -- not breathing.  But not from an action that *you* committed.  Do you
|>    see the difference?


	In effect, she would have chosen an action that led to her death
because she can't survive under water.  I guess I see the fact that Adam
and Eve chose the fruit in direct contradiction to God's commands as their
chosing to not be dependent upon him, to chose "other" than him.  If
God had said, don't walk on that patch of grass and they chose to do so, then
they would have "died" as well, since they were choosing "other" than their
life, which was in God.

	In the analogy with my daughter I didn't commit any act, other than
maybe telling her that if she tried to live on the bottom of the pool then
she would die.  I see God's only act as telling Adam and Eve what would happen
if they chose other than him, if they chose something he forbade.

	I'm probably not being very clear here.  My point is that by
choosing an action my daughter would be choosing to die.  To choose anything
other than God is to die since in him we have our life. 

	Did I explain myself any better?

|>    Ruth
|>
|>
|>

Paul
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    Paul,

    >>In the analogy with my daughter I didn't commit any act, other than
    >>maybe telling her that if she tried to live on the bottom of the pool
    >>then she would die.  I see God's only act as telling Adam and Eve what
    >>would happen if they chose other than him, if they chose something he
    >>forbade.

    But in Genesis, God did commit an act.  He pushed Adam and Eve out of
    the garden.  He put an guard-angel there so they couldn't get back in.
    He (who's word becomes reality) put a curse upon them so that they
    would suffer and die.

    Your analogy would parallel Genesis better if instead of Adam and Eve
    eating a fruit and getting kicked out of Eden, God had told them, "Stay
    in the Garden because it's dangerous out there.  There are
    sabertoothed tigers and you'll have to hunt for your own food.  You
    might get hurt."  And then if Adam and Eve said "Well, we really want
    to go outside and try it out anyhow."  Then they get eaten by a tiger.

    See?  One is a direct, natural result of an action (like getting eaten
    by a tiger or drowning in a pool).  The other is a punishment meted out
    (like throwing them out/putting a curse upon them or holding your
    daughter under the water).

    The whole point of this is that since they disobeyed God, He punished
    them.  And His punishment was not corrective (at least on a per
    individual basis).  His punishment was not loving.  His punishment was
    not that of a Father of beloved children.  This depiction of God shows
    Him as a harsh, unloving, Being.

    Then Jesus teaches us to pray to "Our Father."  Seriously, if you had a
    father like God in Genesis, you'd be in counseling until you were 50.

    I mean, really, wouldn't you feel fortunate if your kids only screwed
    up *once*?  
    
    Ruth

    I've been re-reading this notes string.  There's a lot
    here.  But there are some important things I haven't
    been able to pick out.  Call me slow, or just overwhelmed
    with text :-)

    Ruth,
    You apparently (obviously?) feel you've been (emotionally?)
    abused by being raised in an FC environment.  What was it
    about your environment that damaged you enough to seek 
    professional help?

    Collis,
    Is the environment that Ruth describes Fundamentalist
    Christian (or "something you endorse")?  Or did her 
    parents (appear to) miss the point of their religion?  
    Something in-between?  Altogether different?

    I'm trying to determine if:
	1. An FC environment is inherently abusive
	2. An FC environment is inherently nurturing with some 
	   (rare? many?) individual exceptions
	3. An FC environment is the only acceptable way to raise
	   children.

    Thank you,
    Tom

Re:  .78

Eric

  >If we (you, me, everyone) are all "pimps" (as you described in .66)
  >then we are equally as evil and damned as the character in your
  >analogy.  And likewise we are equally likely to be saved... by God's
  >grace. 
    
Let me pick up on this (which I missed before).

AMEN!!!

That is the message.  Period.

Collis

Re:  .94

What Ruth describes is, by and large, conservative Christian
beliefs.  Exactly how they were presented and what emphasis
was used can make a considerable difference in how a child
responds.

One of the issues I see here that hasn't been pointed out
is simply the fact that Ruth grew up to believe something
*very different* than her parents believed.  I think that
this, in and of itself, can be a very sensitive issue with
lots of ramifications.  In other words, if her parents were
strict Moslems and Ruth came to believe in Jesus, there would
be a lot of issues to reconcile.

I, too, did not believe what my parents told me about God.
It didn't make sense to me.  I *wanted* to believe, but did
not.  I came to believe in God and His Word because, when
I researched Him in my late teens, I came to understand and
then believe.  Blessed are those who believe without full
understanding!

Are the beliefs of fundamentalists naturally abusive?  Well,
there are lots of kids who have been raised as fundamentalists
who claim as adults that this is not the case.  So, clearly
the answer is no.  On the other hand, there are a lot of kids
(like Ruth) who see the beliefs themselves later on in life as
abusive.  To them, all I can say is that I'm sorry that they
weren't explained differently or postponed in presenting to
you because the truths themselves are not abusive, but a
misunderstanding of God can be very problematic.

In terms of raising a child as a Fundamentalist, we don't raise
our daughter that way since we're not Fundamentalists (although
we do have a conservative Christian home).  God has blessed me
with both an opportunity to graduate from seminary as well as
wisdom in explaining spiritual things to my daughter so that
there are not any issues (at this point) which trouble her that
I'm aware of.

Finally, I'm also aware that love covers a lot of sins.  Regardless
of how badly we mess up, if we truly love our kids, then I expect
that this will make up for a lot.

Collis

    Ruth was hurt.  5 years of depression (if I heard
    correctly) makes for a good clue that something
    was wrong.

    If her parents used "If you do that you're going to
    go to Hell" as a means of controlling her, I'd 
    consider that abuse and I think you would too.

    If her parents said "If you steal you will go to
    Hell" the intent is different.  The first use
    is control, the second is instilling a belief
    system where certain general actions will cause
    a certain result.

    If some parents used the first method and a child
    grew up to be miserable I could not determine that
    the faith was responsible but rather that the
    parent's abuse of the faith was at fault.

    Tom

        If the question is "is a FC upbringing ALWAYS abusive", I
        think the answer is a clear "NO."  In a somewhat similar
        vein, I've known a lot of people who felt that their Roman
        Catholic upbringing, if not actually abusive, was quite
        mentally (and spiritually) harmful -- however, in my RC
        upbringing I never experienced that.

        I would suspect that a "social liberal" upbringing, and
        especially a "communist" upbringing, may also be harmful and
        even abusive in cases -- but again it depends upon the
        parents.

        Any philosophy or religion can be used as justification, or
        as an excuse, for the parents' abusive treatment of the
        children.

        I also believe that any philosophy or religion, if taught to
        the child to the complete exclusion of rational thought and
        discussion of alternatives (both within the faith and beyond)
        harms the mental and spiritual development of the person.

        If one's faith cannot stand questioning, if one's faith
        cannot stand exposure to alternatives, it will surely fail if
        it ever is exposed to the outside world.  A person with only
        such a faith will have nothing to cushion the fall.

        Bob

I realize I'm still over a year behind in these discussions, but wanted
to bring something up here in response to <<< Note 662.13 by HURON::MYERS >>>.

<    I would guess that the Amish are a very conservative and fundamental
<    lot, yet I've never heard their practices as being akin to child abuse. 
<    I don't think their teen aged suicide rate is even a blip on the chart. 
<    I've never heard of their children turning to a life of decadence upon
<    reaching the age of maturity.  

Maybe you haven't Eric, but I have, or at least I've heard of more than you
apparently have.  First of all, when Amish children become teenagers, they are
allowed to break the rules they grew up with, and the adult Amish pretend not
to see.  About 1 in every 6 Amish children grows up to reject the life they are
expected to live, and are therefore entirely cast out of the community.  They
are not allowed to communicate with any members of their families or any
friends after that.  They are Shunned.  I have read this numerous times, 
including in places like National Geographic.

Imagine raising several children (as they do) and knowing that the odds are
that at least one of them you will never see again - even though he or she may
want to see you.  Imagine being a child and growing up to see your sister
be alienated and rejected by your entire family, and knowing that the same
could happen to you.

A close friend of my grandmother's grew up Mennonite.  I didn't find this out
until I was an adult and she was in her mid-late 70's.  It so pained her that
she told me *nothing* about her life with them.  NOTHING.  She either left or
was cast out - either way she is now Shunned - and she wouldn't even talk about
the good times she had growing up (assuming she had any). 

     Carol

Sounds sort of like sitting Shiva for a child who marries a non-Jew.

/john

    "The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing
     one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion."
    
    					-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton