Christian Ritual Abuse

[nashvillebrook]

anyone else think the "satanic" label on ritualistic sexual abuse does damage to the issue, since, most of the freaks involved are big honking Christians.<br><br>calling it "satanic" is extremely misleading. it's CHRISTIAN, ya'll. shouldn't Christians bear the label? <br><br>why or why not. <p></p><i></i>

[blanc]

christian they ain't - refer you to teachings of Christ. I could style myself 'Countess', but still wouldn't be titled.<br><br>satanic misleading ? depends on definition of satanic. I use it to mean extremely evil, of evil intent and substance.<br><br>not all ra groups go through the motions of satan worshipping rituals.<br><br>there exists one Christian org. to my knowledge, whose management also manages an ra org. and there is an obvious cross fertilisation. I have no doubt that most of the Christian members of the Churches in the primary org. have no idea what the org covers, the double life of their leader and some members. I don't supose it is the only one of its kind, its just the one I know about.<br><br>The evil riff raff in the Dutroux case had moe than one 'religious' cover for the ra org they run, and the perpetrators could not IMHO be deemed to have any religion. <br><br>That takes us on to how you define religion. For me the defining feature of a religion is a belief set whose intention is for the greater good. that rules out a few sects I guess, those run to exploit either the members or the non members. religion, in the definition I am using, implies a pro active intention for enhancement of the lives of all people.<br><br>calling it christian ritual abuse would be wrong, because the essence of the teaching of Christ is not to abuse others for your own gain or satisfaction. I fully accept the fact that some men in frocks who lead mass involve themselves in abuse. They may call themselves christian, but they aren't.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[anotherdrew]

there is a concept called "dual practice" in which people are completely comfortable being 'christians' to the general population but 'satanic' in special situations. This is far more common that is generally realised, and it's not easy to get accepted into the inner circles where the really bad shit happens, but it's out there, someone who was willing to risk their lives could get a first person account of it given about 6 to 10 years of investment. (and even then, they wouldn't be believed so who's going to do this?) It's multi-generational and even the runaways don't want to talk about it. <p></p><i></i>

[blanc]

interesting to hear this 'concept'. care to elaborate?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[anotherdrew]

it's second-hand info to me, but seemingly reliable, from someone I knew who passed in a lot of strange 'christian' circles for a time. Don't have any direct experience of this my self as I've always avoided such people instinctively. s far as I can tell, it's not google-able, not generally spoken of. Another person once close to me grew up with a small "private" church less than 100 yards from their house, it wasn't the kinda place that opened every Sunday, only 'special' services went on there, it was a small old building. At the time she didn't tell me much of what went on and later I think she was protecting me so I didn't get any details, but given the hints I remember and corelating with things learned since... well, let's just say I wish I had been able to do more; while at the same time I wonder if I wasn't damn lucky to mostly get away. I think dual practice is also a basic undercurrent in much of the 'strict' 'fundementalist' brands in that they blow "evil"/satan far out of proportion to how it is represented in the book, turn a choice of man ("to do evil") into an external entity, thus denying responsilbility for their own 'sins' <p></p><i></i>

[blanc]

I am interested in the mechanics of this - small church idea ties up with the org I know about, but can't directly name here for fear of further compromising the informant. however, it involves small churches, each supposedly independent, but linked. and there are churches in this org in the USA. Care to say where geographically this occurred and at what approximate period? Also, when you refer to special services, does this imply that there was no Christian content - that it was exclusive, not open to general public, or what? the org I refer to has perfectly regular services, (not a la established church, but within bounds of what is usual as worship), outreach groups, missions, toddler groups, youth groups - and unbeknown to the vast majority of its adherents, another line of activity; which as you may imagine parasites neatly onto mission and outreach schemes etc. they are doing some mucky financial stuff via the UK rules on charities - worthy of one of the players in the Dutroux case, who used a charitable cover for some very uncharitable acts. <br><br>Also find your thoughts on the fundamentalist approach to satan interesting. In so far as you can give yourself to a god whose works are outside of your control, the existence of a second quasi deity , satan, who might conveniently 'possess' you at times would fit well as a philosophical prop to this dual system. <p></p><i></i>

[postrchild]

.....poking head in...."So how far own does this hole go?"......"do I want to know?"<br><br>Religion is starting to scare the (excuse the pun) "bejeezus" out of me. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Start with Ponchatoula....sounds like exactly what another drew was talking about. Pan's site has a lot on that...he's posted most of it here. <p></p><i></i>

[anotherdrew]

central rural PA<br>the house and the church were on land owned by the state forest servcice, the person who ran this forest service 'base' got to live in the house as a perk. The church was 'historical' I think and not open to the public, but the manager of the forestry facility had keys. I'd probably best leave it at that. well maybe just one other thing, an older brother went to jail for molesting his own very young son; but I'd swear he was only in for a year or two at most. They then set him up with a semi-luxury apartment and had my friend living there with this older brother. It was about this time when we tried to move to pittsburgh. <p></p><i></i>

[biaothanatoi]

Yeah, I think the "Satanic" tag does damage to the issue, for a lot of reasons - not the least of which being that it presumes that the motivation of the perpetrators is religious/spiritual/"evil" when it's more likely pleasure/power/profit.<br><br>It also detracts from some of the subtleties - a lot of the Crowleyite ritual abuse that goes on gets labelled "Satanic" because the two creeds are fairly similar, although "Satan" may not actually be part of the perp belief system.<br><br>Tagging it "Christian" doesn't help either. Yes, perpetrators are often fundamentalist Christians, but this is either a smokescreen or part of an elaborate play of cognitivie dissonance. Some groups subscribe to gnostic belief in which each person must experience good <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>and</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> evil, virtue <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>and</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> sin (etc) in order to achieve enlightenment. <br><br>Rather then SRA, I prefer to talk about "ritual abuse" or "ritual acts" in the context of organised child sexual abuse. These groups look like Satanic cults but I actually think they are something else altogether - a profoundly pathological variant of organised crime. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=biaothanatoi@rigorousintuition>biaothanatoi</A> at: 8/20/06 9:13 pm<br></i>

[biaothanatoi]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In so far as you can give yourself to a god whose works are outside of your control, the existence of a second quasi deity , satan, who might conveniently 'possess' you at times would fit well as a philosophical prop to this dual system.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Agreed. Anthony Deren, the accused in Australia's Mr Bubbles RA case from the early 90s, was an evangelical Christian who told the police that Satan had entered the bodies of the investigating officers and were making them arrest him (etc). <br><br>A detective then stated that, if that was true, then Satan could have entered Deren's body and made him abuse the chilren, and Deren acknowledged that this could be the case.<br><br>In Crowleyite ritual abuse, it seems that perps believe specific sexual acts with children create a sexual "alchemy" that channels a demon to possess the perpetrator. Imagine what kind of atrocities a person could commit if they believed they <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>were</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> a demon, even momentarily?<br><br>I think the notion of perpetrator "possession" is a very salient one - it would jibe with experiences of dissociation, DID, cognitive dissonance. <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

"Satanism" is a reaction to Christianisty. It's contained within. No Christian tradition. No Satanic tradition. <br><br>"Satan" is a Christian construct.<br><br>(downshift)<br><br>Christianity puts limits on sexual activity.<br>Christianity washes away sin with ritual. <br>Repression and Compulsion. <br><br>Is not the lion's share of ritualistic abuse associated with... uh... Christians. Not usually Episocopalians, either. Nor do you hear a lot about Unitarian Ritual Sex Abuse. It's usually charismatic conservatives.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[yathrib]

...takes me to a seller of organic, fair trade coffee. <p></p><i></i>

[biaothanatoi]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"Satan" is a Christian construct.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The Nazis use the swastika, but that doesn't make them Hindu.<br><br>A symbol can be decontextualised and used in a way that has nothing to do with it's history.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The Nazis use the swastika, but that doesn't make them Hindu.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>In a way it kind of does, the Nazis were as "Christian" as the neocons are. They used the swastika because they knew what it symbolized and they agreed with it. They deliberately chose the left hand path and saw in the Hindu symbol a part of themselves... and they said yes. So in a way they joined Hinduism at that point. Of course, it is also true they abused and polluted it. Satanists do the same to Christianity. <p></p><i></i>