The best source for any spiritual abuse and recovery is someone who has actually been through it.

Problem is, many NEVER recover. Many never can make it back to living a normal life.

You do not know you are in a situation until something hits you smack in the face and then it is way to late.

You see it, hear it, but do not recognize or even care about a spiritual abuser until YOU are the victim.

When you have been abused, life never returns to normal – ever! But does anyone really care?

My experience – NO! Not yet, but………………….

Anonymous,

I can’t disagree with your sentiments that noboby cares about the victim. For the most part, that certainly appears to be true.

Rest assured that there are a few people who care very deeply about victims of spiritual abuse. We are establishing a community here at TWW that is trying to minister to those who have experienced such abuse. What’s so wonderful is that it’s an interactive community! ByFaithAlone, who responded to you, experienced spiritual abuse at his church, and we featured his testimony in our Valentine’s Day post.

We highly encouge victims to write about what happened to them because documenting the horrors of abuse can be extremely therapeutic. We are even willing to publish victims’ testimonies here at TWW if it would help them in the recovery process. I am encouraged that those hurt by spiritual abuse are speaking out more and more. Silence is definitely not golden when it comes to abuse!

I’d like to pass along a definition copied from Wikipedia for “Secular Humanism”, then a question:

“Secular Humanism, alternatively known as Humanism (with an emphasis on the capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism), is a secular philosophy that espouses human reason, ethics, and justice, and the search for human fulfillment.

It specifically rejects religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

Secular Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives. Though it posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God, it neither assumes humans to be inherently or innately good, nor presents humans as “above nature” or superior to it.

Rather, the Humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of Secular Humanism is the strongly held belief that ideology — be it religious or political — must be examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this belief, an essential part of Secular Humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.”

Now the question: Where are the people who have suffered abuse at the hands of Secular Humanism? Who has suffered because of too much concern for human fulfillment? Where are the victims of too much reason, justice and human ethics?

For all the trumpeting of Christian values, for all the denouncements of secular humanism by the religious right, for all the “warnings” of immoral behavior which would follow in the footsteps of abandoning religion, which system seems to cause the most most grief, pain and suffering, which one abuses people, which one is consumed by greed and control, which one should be abandoned?

What, in other words you’re normal? What a revelation! 🙂

Everyone realizes that no one is perfect, it requires neither religion nor revelation. What seems lost on many Christians is the distinction between “perfect” and “better”.

No one is going to attain “perfection” primarily because it is a word without definition, on the other hand, no forgiveness, no help from on high, is required to improve who we are and to continually aspire to and achieve a better life personally and globally, it’s done all the time.

Religion thrives on one thing, that people believe they are fundamentally flawed and in need of rescue by an outside force, while humanism thrives on people who have a healthy self-image and recognize that their ability to improve is limited only by their desire.

People often laugh when they hear someone else say “I Think I’m a great person” and sometimes make a joke about “being humble too!”, but I think that humor simply betrays their true feelings about themselves, i.e. that most people believe they are flawed, fractured, incomplete and undeserving. It is in that environment that religion thrives and it is that condition that humanism attempts to cure.

Karlton,
Religious abuse is, by definition, associated with religion. But there’s a difference in category when dealing with a particular set of beliefs / practices and the adherents of those beliefs / practices.

Of course secular humanism, as a philosophica system, is not abusing anyone. Philosophies don’t treat people badly — only other people do. Likewise, it is not “religion”, in this case the moral or philosophical or theological tenets of Christianity, that is the source of abuse — it is the human beings who imperfectly practice (or altogether fail to practice) those tenets who are being abusive.

Just as there are individuals who twist Christian principles and behave in selfish ways, there are those who have twisted Humanistic principles to serve their own ends. Since there have been far more people throughout history who claim adherence to Christianity than those who consider themselves Humanists, there are naturally far more instances of bad behavior in the larger group. I’m sure there are far more bad Christians than there are bad Satan worshippers, too. But I suspect that, on the whole, among the adherents of all systems of beliefs or preferred behaviors, the percentages of decent and sincere adherents and the percentage of bad apples is probably pretty much constant, as human nature is pretty much constant.

Junkster,

in addition you made a very revealing statement. You said, “But I suspect that, on the whole, among the adherents of all systems of beliefs or preferred behaviors, the percentages of decent and sincere adherents and the percentage of bad apples is probably pretty much constant, as human nature is pretty much constant.”

if that is in fact true, then Christianity has no more power to transform lives than any other philosophy or religion. If it did, it’s ranks should clearly lean toward a higher percentage of good than other religions or philosophies can produce.

If that be the case, then there is no reason to follow Christianity over another philosophy which is less prone to being perverted into a control and abuse mechanism…and there are many.

Junkster,

I cannot make that distinction, not that I am incapable of doing so, but rather because I see it as a contrivance, an easy escape from those who try to share their realizations of the non-existence of God via their personal experiences. It is much easier to dismiss those people by claiming they obviously weren’t “true” Christians rather than to give those opinions the due weight and consideration that they deserve.

It is the “true Scotsman” fallacy of logic and I have seen it used over and over again. The opinion or statements of the former Christians to the effect that they knew God wasn’t there, knew that no one was really answering prayers or talking to them, is summarily dismissed and given no weight by simply proclaiming that “they never where true Christians in the first place”.

It is a coward’s way out, in my opinion, used by those who are aware of the truth and can’t afford the luxury of admitting it to themselves. it is easier to dismiss the contrary ideas and go merrily along our way, pushing to the subconscious anything which could rock us from our sleep. Cognitive dissonance at work.

Lest you think that a bit harsh, I include myself in that description as well, for many many years.

http://www.barnabasministry.com/recovery-grief.html

Another resource that has helped my husband and I recognize and deal with some of the things that happened to us, both in, and after, our abusive church.

Other pages on this website are also very helpful.

Muff,

I enjoyed reading your ramble, and I’m glad you found us here at TWW. You always have such interesting comments.

this blog is terrific; a “clearinghouse”-type site:

http://pureprovender.blogspot.com/

Karlton,
I understand what you’re saying. but I think you are reading too much into what I said. I made no claims about whether or not certain individuals are or aren’t (or were or weren’t) Christians. I only made a distinction between the form of Christianity and it’s substance.

It’s both disingenuous and unfair to summarily dismiss the reality of someone’s experience based on the lack of reality of someone else’s.

One could just as easily claim that the denial of God’s reality is a psychological defense mechanism for those who refuse to acknowledge his reality and authority. The choice to act in a ways that conflict with internalized beliefs can also create cognitive dissonance, and some may resolve the tension by rejecting the beliefs that restrict desired actions.

I know it’s not true of you my friend, but I promise it’s true of the vast majority I have encountered. 🙂

numo,

I agree about the Pure Provender website. I hope our readers looking for resources on spiritual abuse recovery will check it out.

I am speaking out against pastoral emotional and financial abuse.

http://robertalangella.com/

My Dearest Kendall ( 😉 ) I don’t think they are bad because they were secular humanists. That would be just as silly as thinking someone was bad because they had blue eyes. (Brown eyed people are never bad.) Maybe you forgot what you had said above but I was merely responding to something you had said above. Let me see if i can find it and maybe then you’ll understand what I was saying.

I found it! This is what I was referencing. I guess it would have helped had I referenced it in my earlier post. I am sorry about that. I have done it to you before as well.

Above you said, “Now the question: Where are the people who have suffered abuse at the hands of Secular Humanism?”

I was merely answering it by saying that I thought that a few (thousand or is it million) people suffered at the hands of Stalin who (correct me if I am wrong) would be considered a secular humanist who thought quite a bit and looked to science for many things. (You had mentioned the thinking and science thing above.) So as you see, Kendall, I was merely answering your question.

So somehow someone who has suffered at the hands of Christians is someone who has suffered under Christianity but someone who has suffered at the hands of one who could be called a Secular Humanist is not someone who has suffered at the hands of Secular Humanism?

Am I understanding your stance correctly?

I gotcha. I understand what you are saying now.

Though I still can’t help to think about those who say what they are doing is for the betterment of humans and compassion (for the masses) who reason that it is sometimes necessary to break a few eggs to make an omelet. I could be off, but I still think that that was Stalin’s philosophy as he tortured and murdered millions. (Please feel free to tell me I am wrong. This is not that big of a deal for me but every time I read the argument above, I think of Stalin and all the other well intentioned but shall we say, misguided individuals like him. The word Secular Humanism may not have been around then, but didn’t he believe that he was using reason (and certainly his version of compassion) to create what he and millions of others considered a beautiful world?

And if you want to insist that secular humanism has only been around 30 years, yet that is proof that they don’t kill millions, I am forced to question the same of the other religions. In the first thirty years of Christianity, was there any written scripture or behavior that did such a thing? (I think it took us a bunch more years to get around to a murdering people or even doing it and justifying it with the bible.) How about the first thirty years of Judaism (sp?)? Nope, it was a lot more than 30 years before those things were codified, too. (Hmm, were they codified or just written down? Not sure.) How about the first thirty years of Muslim? In his early teaching did he talk about this? Maybe, maybe not. I could be wrong about it all. But i hope you get my point. Either the Secular Humanism way of thinking has been around for centuries or it is new. If it is new, I think it’s a bit early to say that the philosophy hasn’t yet led to anyone murdering millions. (I know you didn’t say yet, but if you insist it is only 30 years old, compared to the age of the other religions you were alluding to, it’s like saying, “Hey, look at this newborn, he hasn’t murdered anyone yet. He must be good.”)

Hey, Kendall, I am not down on Secular Humanism, I am just saying pretty much any system or belief can be used to do harm.

And saying that no one has done mass murder under System X yet means it’s ok is not a very good defense. I could create a belief system tomorrow and claim that it is legit because i haven’t killed anyone with it. (Again, I am not saying Secular Humanism is a good system or a bad system. I guess I just think your argument in this one area is kinda weak.)

I think that stating its beliefs and letting people judge on that is a much stronger argument for Secular Humanism. (And hey, I’m a communications expert so I know these kinds of things. 😉 )

ps. I love the stunning part! Now if only I could get other people to call me that in my real world.

Dee,

Well, let’s start with the fact that he is not a secular humanist…although he has expressed admiration for many of the values promoted by secular humanism, Singer believes it to be incomplete and promotes a sort of utilitarian personism instead

On abortion, Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences.

Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman’s preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—”rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”—and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”

Although Singer believes that some lives are so blighted from the beginning that their parents may decide their lives are not worth living, in other cases, once the decision is made to keep them alive, everything that can be done to improve the quality of their life should, to Singer’s mind, be done.

On euthanasia, Singer, in his book, examines the euthanasia issue, and breaks it down into three types:

Voluntary Euthanasia (VE) (the person is cognizant and aware at the time and chooses this option)

Involuntary Euthanasia (IE) (the person is not cognizant and aware, but has at some time indicated that they wish to die and this action is carried out only in order to cease suffering)

Non-Voluntary Euthanasia (NVE) (this is the ethically controversial situation in which the person is no longer cognizant nor aware in order to make a choice).

No where is he remotely suggesting that we kill healthy people simply for the benefit of the younger generation nor is killing a baby because it is inconvenient part of what he proposes if you read his entire books and not just snippets from the press or some web site.

Lastly,

We make judgments all the time on who is worthy to live, every soldier that shoots an enemy combatant makes that decision, every police officer that shoots and kills a someone who points a gun at them makes that decision, Firemen and parents make that decision when they can only save some of the people in a burning building. Doctor’s and nurses make that decision when they triage (especially when it is not a matter of being able to save someone as it is a matter of resources to do the work). The point is that type of decision is made all the time and with a lot less thought or reason than Singer is trying to bring to the table. He at least acknowledges the problem and tries to find a well thought out, reasoned solution to how those decisions are made.