Is religious indoctrination child abuse?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I said it's one thing to get out of a cult but another thing to get the cult out of you. You then said I was damaged. I told what it is that I actually meant.

What you said you "actually meant" was a complete non-sequitur after pages and pages of ludicrous evasions and deflections that amply demonstrate the "damage" I was talking about and which I put to you and which elicited the response "It's one thing to get out of a cult but it is another thing to get the cult out of you."

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yet you still insist that I was damaged even after I have corrected you.

I think you have demonstrated what I was talking about and I think your response was an inadvertent acknowledgement that you have been damaged. Thread 170817 page 42.

Originally posted by FMF
What you said you "actually meant" was a complete non-sequitur after pages and pages of ludicrous evasions and deflections that amply demonstrate the "damage" I was talking about and which I put to you and which elicited the response [b]"It's one thing to get out of a cult but it is another thing to get the cult out of you." [/b]

Do you find that victims react positively if you insist they were 'damaged' ? Is this the kind of 'support' that you are talking about?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you find that victims react positively if you insist they were 'damaged' ? Is this the kind of 'support' that you are talking about?

Like I said on page 16, I'm not going to tell you.

Originally posted by FMF
I think you have demonstrated what I was talking about and I think your response was an inadvertent acknowledgement that you have been damaged. Thread 170817 page 42.

'Damaged' in what way exactly?

Originally posted by dj2becker
'Damaged' in what way exactly?

In the way I described.

Originally posted by FMF
Like I said on page 16, I'm not going to tell you.

I wish your victims luck, especially if they have a deal with you.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Free to think for yourself without being coerced by others.

How is a child supposed to achieve a state of not being influenced by others?

Originally posted by Eladar
How is a child supposed to achieve a state of not being influenced by others?

You equate influence with coercion?

How odd.

Originally posted by Eladar
How is a child supposed to achieve a state of not being influenced by others?

Being influenced by others doesn't stop a person from thinking for themselves.

Originally posted by FMF
Being influenced by others doesn't stop a person from thinking for themselves.

Perhaps all these years Eladar has actually been coerced to post the way he does.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you think because I actually have experienced psychological abuse personally I have no right to voice my opinion about it whereas you who have not experienced it personally are justified in voicing your opinion? 🙄

Are you suggesting only the psychologically abused have an opinion on psychological abuse?

Presumably only the physically abused have an opinion on physical abuse?

And only the dead have an opinion on murder?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You equate influence with coercion?

How odd.

The only difference is your opinion of the idea being presentes.

Originally posted by FMF
Being influenced by others doesn't stop a person from thinking for themselves.

Thinking for yourself is true for all. Everyone decides for themselves what is right. The only question is the source of authority that morality is based upon. Unless you reject the moral authority of those around you, you were influenced or coerced by others.

Originally posted by Eladar
The only difference is your opinion of the idea being presentes.

'Influence' and 'coercion' are two different animals. (Even in the funny farm).