|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 8, 2015 5:56:15 GMT -5
Well it was once a mortal sin not to be concerned about world peace. Today the Beatles drummer Ringo Star said The Issue should be "World peace." So clearly this man is stuck in the 1960's and doesn't grasp the horrors of CSA. Maybe I am like that too. This is why people will continue to leave your church Bert, instead of helping solve the problem you just keep making excuses to justify something that is a crime ! Then when someone calls the F&W a Cult you are the first person to have something to say !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2015 6:38:46 GMT -5
Child abuse IS a crime, at least in this country. The definition of "abuse" changes though. Once child labor was considered good, then it was called abuse. I get prickly when someone hurls that claim against my church because it can be a trogan horse for religious observances - as has happened to many churches today with secular causes.
As an aside. I find the love of children in my church quite charming. Kids want to get married and have children of their own. Lots of secular people won't do that - yet go on about how religious families should raise their kids.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 8, 2015 10:25:05 GMT -5
Bert that is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever heard, how dare you say CSA in general is a "fashionable subject ! Have to agree with bert on this point. Child abuse, once largely ignored by the general public, has been the subject of more media attention than perhaps any other issue in recent American history. Driven by a combination of horror and guilt, the public demanded action. As the issue became fashionable—particularly child sexual abuse—money became available from both government and private sources. Intense public education efforts, coupled with more sophisticated "case finding" techniques produced dramatically escalating reports. Andrew Vachss Justice for Children, Vol. 2, No.3, 1989
When Susan Clancy published The Trauma Myth, challenging what people believed about the trauma experienced by abused children, the backlash was severe even though there was research data available to support the claims. Publishing research results that revealed that “They [children] did not fight it. It was not done against their will. They went along... only 5% tried to stop it”. Went against the "common wisdom" that it was a traumatic event at the time of the abuse. Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman reported on analysis of data gathered by other researchers and, because it went against the fashionable beliefs, the study was condemned by Congress. What they were saying was not fashionable, namely that it was not clear that the long term effects associated with CSA were caused by the abuse or family environment and other factors. This happens. For example colorectal cancer vs. breast cancer. Which is the fashionable cause to support? Which kills more people? It also shows how emotional and irrational people can become when caught in a moral panic about an issue. Of course steps need to be taken to reduce/eliminate child abuse. But those steps should be based on actual data rather than emotions and "common wisdom". When reproducible and verifiable data is produced that goes against what is generally believed, it needs to be examined and evaluated rather than discarded.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 8, 2015 14:58:37 GMT -5
When Susan Clancy published The Trauma Myth, challenging what people believed about the trauma experienced by abused children, the backlash was severe even though there was research data available to support the claims. Publishing research results that revealed that “They [children] did not fight it. It was not done against their will. They went along... only 5% tried to stop it”. Went against the "common wisdom" that it was a traumatic event at the time of the abuse.Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman reported on analysis of data gathered by other researchers and, because it went against the fashionable beliefs, the study was condemned by Congress. What they were saying was not fashionable, namely that it was not clear that the long term effects associated with CSA were caused by the abuse or family environment and other factors. Who is saying that CSA is a traumatic event at the time of abuse?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2015 15:09:24 GMT -5
Well it was once a mortal sin not to be concerned about world peace. Today the Beatles drummer Ringo Star said The Issue should be "World peace." So clearly this man is stuck in the 1960's and doesn't grasp the horrors of CSA. Maybe I am like that too. So people can only have one cause at a time that they feel needs to be addressed? Bert, to say that CSA is just the 'fashion' really is quite a statement. If that's what takes to bring awareness to child sexual abuse or any abuse for that matter then I'm glad it has become the 'fashion'. Because maybe it will make more people aware of it and that is the only way we can change anything in this world. Awareness. Awareness there is a problem is the first step in being able to end the problem. There are many things that people are becoming more aware of and things are changing because of it. And, I for one, am so glad. We can do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 8, 2015 16:47:57 GMT -5
..... [snip] A research study conduct at the University of Kentucky on the friends/ 2x2s found that doctrine was the main influence in people leaving the friends/ 2x2s. ... [snip] Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of this work. Those in an out of the sect should read it. works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=julene
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jul 8, 2015 17:23:06 GMT -5
Jesse, If you know the teachers are teaching a heresy,eg,exclisivism then you are taking a judgemental line and believe or support that all other than 2x2s are not worth of Gods grace. Add yourself to blinded students if you choose,but I for one am ecumenical at embracing all as redeemable,like the thief on the cross,I would have looked at him also and thought ,no hope.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 8, 2015 18:03:19 GMT -5
Jesse, If you know the teachers are teaching a heresy,eg,exclisivism then you are taking a judgemental line and believe or support that all other than 2x2s are not worth of Gods grace. Add yourself to blinded students if you choose,but I for one am ecumenical at embracing all as redeemable,like the thief on the cross,I would have looked at him also and thought ,no hope. Are you ecumenical with respect to Christian groups only, or unity of all religions?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 8, 2015 18:39:42 GMT -5
Who is saying that CSA is a traumatic event at the time of abuse? Practitioners who work with recovered memories would be one group.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 8, 2015 19:06:25 GMT -5
Who is saying that CSA is a traumatic event at the time of abuse? Practitioners who work with recovered memories would be one group. Can you support that with data?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 8, 2015 19:48:01 GMT -5
If God is ( its not a given on TMB, you see) and if God has made any palpable attempt to reveal himself to humans, it follows that a cult will be defined theologically, how far and in what direction it deviates from that theology. Theology does matter, you see. Someone who uses the word "cult" and calls themselves a Christian, is a Pharisee. They've presumed to be able to judge people. It is fine to criticise an idea or a set of doctrines or a theology; but it is not following Jesus example to denigrate a group of people as a whole. Matthew 5:22 ESV But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. Take 'You fool!' as a proxy for 'cult'. If Jesus had been "fair" to every single Jew, he would never have denounced the nation in public but he did. Today I suppose he would be arrested for hate speech. Oh yeah, that is what he got arrested for.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 9, 2015 10:34:08 GMT -5
Someone who uses the word "cult" and calls themselves a Christian, is a Pharisee. They've presumed to be able to judge people. It is fine to criticise an idea or a set of doctrines or a theology; but it is not following Jesus example to denigrate a group of people as a whole. Matthew 5:22 ESV But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. Take 'You fool!' as a proxy for 'cult'. If Jesus had been "fair" to every single Jew, he would never have denounced the nation in public but he did. Today I suppose he would be arrested for hate speech. Oh yeah, that is what he got arrested for. Did he criticise them for their theology? Because they didn't accept the Trinity doctrine, which is the theological basis for defining a cult? (Your quote, "it follows that a cult will be defined theologically, how far and in what direction it deviates from that theology.") Or was he concerned with more essential matters like hypocrisy and wickedness, and the "weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith". He actually commended the theology of the Pharisees! He said to do as they say, but not as they do!! I don't think what you believe matters one tenth as much as what you do, and in many cases it matters not a whit.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jul 9, 2015 18:23:55 GMT -5
G'day Fixit, Christianity is one religion. Sadly divided into many persuasions,so I stick to christianity,there is more than enough for us to do without also getting involved into other religions,there is many that do. As we see terrible persecution of christians,jailing,rape,killings,etc because their faith is christian,it will be the people that stand together,denominational differences will be put on the back burner. Hope that answers your question a bit.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 9, 2015 22:33:07 GMT -5
G'day Fixit, Christianity is one religion. Sadly divided into many persuasions,so I stick to christianity,there is more than enough for us to do without also getting involved into other religions,there is many that do. As we see terrible persecution of christians,jailing,rape,killings,etc because their faith is christian,it will be the people that stand together,denominational differences will be put on the back burner. Hope that answers your question a bit. Thanks Magpie, your response is appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 9, 2015 22:43:06 GMT -5
Did he criticise them for their theology? Because they didn't accept the Trinity doctrine, which is the theological basis for defining a cult? (Your quote, "it follows that a cult will be defined theologically, how far and in what direction it deviates from that theology.") Or was he concerned with more essential matters like hypocrisy and wickedness, and the "weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith". He actually commended the theology of the Pharisees! He said to do as they say, but not as they do!! I don't think what you believe matters one tenth as much as what you do, and in many cases it matters not a whit. Jesus certainly wasn't commending the Pharisees for their theology.....particularly as you have provided examples of theology.
By commanding them to observe and do what the Pharisees instructed them, Jesus certainly did not mean that they should follow the false teachings of the Pharisees.
Instead he meant that they rather follow those teachings that naturally and correctly arose from the Law of Moses. They were seated in Moses seat. In general, the Pharisees were upholders of the law and should be recognised for this - that's what Jesus meant. Ross ~ I agree that Jesus certainly wasn't commending the Pharisees for their godly behavior as teachers of the law! In fact, he pronounced eight (8) woes and called them "blind guides, blind fools, and blind men" due to their hypocrisy or pretending to be righteous within a few verses from Matthew 23:16-19. Obviously, the Pharisees had closed their eyes to the "Truth" of God's Word and were teaching their own traditions as a substitute? I guess you would call it "another gospel" even in Jesus' day? So, if What Hat is correct, then Jesus called the Pharisees a "cult" in his day when he referred to them as "blind fools" relayed in his posting earlier? ~ Take 'You fool!' as a proxy for 'cult'." In addition, Jesus did denigrate the Pharisees as a group of people as a whole by his words found within Matthew 23. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23%3A16-19&version=AMP Matthew 23:16-19 What Hat shared previously...
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 9, 2015 23:17:11 GMT -5
If Jesus had been "fair" to every single Jew, he would never have denounced the nation in public but he did. Today I suppose he would be arrested for hate speech. Oh yeah, that is what he got arrested for. Did he criticise them for their theology? Because they didn't accept the Trinity doctrine, which is the theological basis for defining a cult? (Your quote, "it follows that a cult will be defined theologically, how far and in what direction it deviates from that theology.") Or was he concerned with more essential matters like hypocrisy and wickedness, and the "weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith". He actually commended the theology of the Pharisees! He said to do as they say, but not as they do!! I don't think what you believe matters one tenth as much as what you do, and in many cases it matters not a whit. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." I suppose our behavior is conditioned, likewise. All of us are concerned with ultimate things, whether we consciously, contemplate the nature of God or not. Jesus condemned a certain audience with his words, "You belong to your father, the devil". Apparently his concept of God diverged.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 10, 2015 0:16:15 GMT -5
Did he criticise them for their theology? Because they didn't accept the Trinity doctrine, which is the theological basis for defining a cult? (Your quote, "it follows that a cult will be defined theologically, how far and in what direction it deviates from that theology.") Or was he concerned with more essential matters like hypocrisy and wickedness, and the "weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith". He actually commended the theology of the Pharisees! He said to do as they say, but not as they do!! I don't think what you believe matters one tenth as much as what you do, and in many cases it matters not a whit. Jesus certainly wasn't commending the Pharisees for their theology.....particularly as you have provided examples of theology. By commanding them to observe and do what the Pharisees instructed them, Jesus certainly did not mean that they should follow the false teachings of the Pharisees. Instead he meant that they rather follow those teachings that naturally and correctly arose from the Law of Moses. They were seated in Moses seat. In general, the Pharisees were upholders of the law and should be recognised for this - that's what Jesus meant. Depends on what you call theology, I guess. I equate it with the less weightier matters. Just head knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 10, 2015 1:14:41 GMT -5
Depends on what you call theology, I guess. I equate it with the less weightier matters. Just head knowledge. I think if we put all theology in the "head knowledge" category we'd have to apply that to any research or study. Of course, some people think all study/research is head knowledge :) Some of Paul's writings are fairly complex too but they are very weighty matters and we are encouraged to work through them and apply them. You can call anything complex and weighty if you work at it. Work through the several meanings and layers of the adventures of Henny Penny and Chicken Little.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2015 3:12:21 GMT -5
Practitioners who work with recovered memories would be one group. Can you support that with data? There seems to be some misconceptions around CSA trauma. If a child is sexually abused, what difference would it make if the trauma hits as a 30 year old or a 60 year old? What difference does it make if a child is compliant during the course of the offense?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 10, 2015 5:05:10 GMT -5
Depends on what you call theology, I guess. I equate it with the less weightier matters. Just head knowledge. I think if we put all theology in the "head knowledge" category we'd have to apply that to any research or study. Of course, some people think all study/research is head knowledge Some of Paul's writings are fairly complex too but they are very weighty matters and we are encouraged to work through them and apply them. What is at issue is Lee's assertion that Jesus would have endorsed calling people aa cult using a theological definition of the term. That is, whether or not they fit in to Bebbington's quadrilateral, according to one researcher, or whether they accept the Chalcedonian creed, Trinitarian Christology, according to others. I believe I am well grounded in saying that none of Jesus criticisms of groups are based on any such thing. Rather, they are based on weightier matters such as mercy, judgement and especially faith. Faith and belief are somewhat different things, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 10, 2015 11:23:03 GMT -5
Can you support that with data? There seems to be some misconceptions around CSA trauma. If a child is sexually abused, what difference would it make if the trauma hits as a 30 year old or a 60 year old?[CSA cases the victim id not experience trauma at the time of the event. The question to ask is how could "trauma hit" or how could the trauma of the experience be cause harm at any point if most victims state they did not experience trauma? At what point was the trauma created? The mode of treatment for the victim, at the time of the event, that addressed the event as a traumatic event can misshape the experience in the mind of the victim. Treatment that is distant from the event is often based on 'recovered memories' that are known to suffer from 'false memory syndrome' and therefore the treatment is being focused on events that have been created in the mind of the patient. For some the problems arise from the fact that at the time they did not feel the guilt/shame/distress that others, including at times the therapist, assume they should have experienced. The patient then feels guilt because of their reaction to the event(s) as a child as well as realizing how they were betrayed, as a child, by people they trusted and loved. There are those in this field who believe that the damages from sexual abuse probably have less to do with the actual abuse and more to do with what occurs in the aftermath of the events. The trauma occurs with the realization, perhaps years later, that the misunderstood and often confusing confusing events, which were perhaps seen at the time of the events as loving and caring, were in fact in fact sexual abuse. How this realization is dealt with has much more to do with the long term outcome than the actual abuse. Perhaps the biggest issue is that the term Child Sexual Abuse covers far too wide a range of offenses that all end up getting treated as CSA.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2015 16:19:58 GMT -5
Treatment that is distant from the event is often based on 'recovered memories' that are known to suffer from 'false memory syndrome' and therefore the treatment is being focused on events that have been created in the mind of the patient. Can you provide data on this? Your statement could be interpreted to mean it's all in the mind, or the imagination, of the CSA survivor. I hope that's not what you're alluding to. BTW, treatment for CSA is typically "distant from the event".
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 10, 2015 16:22:45 GMT -5
People react, get triggered, feel uncomfortable, anxious even traumatized in certain situations and don't know why. It is commonly associated to something in their past. Called PTSD for that reason being a post trauma response.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2015 16:24:21 GMT -5
Perhaps the biggest issue is that the term Child Sexual Abuse covers far too wide a range of offenses that all end up getting treated as CSA. Or could it be that some folks who discuss the issue choose to focus on the minor end of the offending rather than the middle of the bell curve?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2015 16:29:45 GMT -5
For some the problems arise from the fact that at the time they did not feel the guilt/shame/distress that others, including at times the therapist, assume they should have experienced. The patient then feels guilt because of their reaction to the event(s) as a child as well as realizing how they were betrayed, as a child, by people they trusted and loved. We shouldn't expect a pre-pubescent child to have the same sense of guilt/shame/distress that an adult has. That's why society tries to protect children from sexual predators.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2015 16:35:13 GMT -5
CSA cases the victim id not experience trauma at the time of the event. The question to ask is how could "trauma hit" or how could the trauma of the experience be cause harm at any point if most victims state they did not experience trauma? At what point was the trauma created? What data shows that "most victims state they did not experience trauma"? I can accept that trauma is not necessarily experienced at the time of the abuse, but the effects of the abuse can hit the victim many years later.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 10, 2015 17:46:12 GMT -5
Treatment that is distant from the event is often based on 'recovered memories' that are known to suffer from 'false memory syndrome' and therefore the treatment is being focused on events that have been created in the mind of the patient. Can you provide data on this? Sure, a list of day care centers where recovered memories and false/constructed memories destroyed the lives of several innocent people. The one I am most familiar with is Fells Acres Day Care CenterIn the cases I posted about above that is exactly what I am referring to. Why would you hope anything differently? You will note the difference between 'often' and 'always'. This is not to say that all of the cases are imagined but it does speak to the topic at hand - if the investigators believe there was abuse, at times the 'victims' provide the answers that they believe the investigator wants. How many child abuse cases have you been involved in that would make treatment distanced from the event typical? Were you involved with the victim's side, the offender's side, or both sides of the event? In cases involving children, when the criminal act is discovered treatment/investigation is not typically delayed.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2015 18:18:40 GMT -5
How many child abuse cases have you been involved in that would make treatment distanced from the event typical? Were you involved with the victim's side, the offender's side, or both sides of the event? In cases involving children, when the criminal act is discovered treatment/investigation is not typically delayed. Rat, to answer your question I've been closely involved in a couple of cases on both sides. You're missing the fact that a lot of CSA is not reported until the child has become an adult. You might find the following article helpful...
|
|