FUCK.

[conuly]

Just today I googled and dug up this link. By and large, I don't have any need for atheist writings, I was raised godless and have never seen the need to justify my (lack of) faith to anybody. But all that aside, I knew about the link and site.

Looked it up in response to this post (and thank you, ginmar, for giving me nightmares right before Thanksgiving!) that's making the rounds.

The above link contains mention of what I consider to be emotional and spiritual abuse of a young child. Read at your own risk.

I have no words to describe how appalled I am that anybody could be proud of teaching their kid that they shouldn't feel good about themselves (no, she actually said that). Reciting a litany of what she's done wrong every day. Sheesh. Don't lie to your kid if they ask, but ever heard of saying "Nope, you weren't perfect, but you did try, I saw that, and I bet God did too"?

I suppose it makes sense if you believe from the start that "we are all born God hating and evil" (by which I assume she means we are evil, not that we hate both God and evil). But then it *doesn't* make sense. If we're all born hating God and being totally evil, why would any of us desire to change one whit? But clearly her daughter wants to be good enough for her mom, wants to be good enough for her mom's view of God. I don't get it. I just don't.

Poor kid.

Comments

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

The comments are awesome. YAAY! Whack-a-doodle + God = OMG extreme! Gotta love the nutjobs.

On the other hand, I have to say that not all religions (and not even all Christian religions) believe in original sin. I think.... I think the Calvinists moved it over to "we're born neutral and become evil or good depending on what we do" territory? Maybe it was the Lutherans. I'm also honestly not sure which line of Christians believe we are born good and only turn evil when we are corrupted by the world. I wish I remembered; I'm sure there's someone out there who does!

Anyway, I belabor the point that not all religions strive to teach people they are worthless. Though there are plenty that do, yes indeed. Plenty. That blog entry is horrifying. What a sad little girl. Child raising is complex enough and no one needs to add that kind of crap into the mix.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

I think the doctrine of Original Sin is still canonical to all branches of Christianity. Every attempt to redefine newborn children as sinless has been heretical. Calvinists are especially big on babies' depravity, IIRC.

The only exception is the Mormons. Of course, other Christians may well see Pearl of Great Price as heretical, but there you have it. They are actually the sanest on this topic.

Wikipedia also says:

Furthermore, Mormons hold that little children are incapable of committing sin and, as such, have no need of (saving) baptism until age eight when they can discern right from wrong, and are thus capable of sin and can be held accountable. Little children who die before reaching the age of accountability (even though they are unbaptized) are automatic heirs of salvation and are saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Those who are incapable of understanding right from wrong, such as mentally handicapped persons, are also saved under the atonement of Jesus Christ without baptism.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

I can't post in ginmar's LJ, but I found it fascinating to see that black writer also blithely pen this post:

http://thewomanofvirtue.blogspot.com/2008/08/slavery-is-not-wrong.html

The bible does not condemn slavery. So Christians try to act like Job's friends and try to defend God in a rather foolish way by condemning slavery, as if God forgot to do it Himself in the bible. I think this is a very unwise thing for a Christian to do because if slavery was wrong, God would have said so himself. But He doesn't say its wrong.

If slavery is wrong, then wives should not submit to their husbands, children should not obey parents, women should became equal to men and preach in churches ( which is forbidden in the bible by the way), and mostly no one should call Jesus their master or submit to the authority of God. For this reason, the bible does not condemn slavery, because the whole concept of Christians serving God would be meaningless.

Her logic is completely self-consistent; but any time it leads her to something which to a sane reader would appear to be a reductio ad absurdum, to her it's just a sign that God is Great and Unfathomable and We Must Take it On Faith.

Slavery is not wrong; teaching children that they are sinful and evil is not wrong; it may appear these things lead to unpleasant consequences, but remember, God is Great and all this serves the greater purpose of saving us from Hell!

Have you ever watched Tolkin's movie "The Rapture"? Recommended.

[conuly]

Haven't watched it.

I refuse to read any of the other posts.

And hey - isn't it hypocritical to call herself "Woman of Virtue"? Isn't humility a virtue? How can you claim to have humility - or just general "virtue" - if you go around boasting about it?

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

I think that first article is incredibly obnoxious and self-righteous. Her comments on other religions are beyond belief. Judaism is a religion about guilt? Maybe, but it's certainly not about guilting people into acting better in order to secure a good afterlife like she says, because Judaism doesn't even agree on what happens after death! And regarding Buddhism, an American woman living in a nice, comfortable house in California with her family is hardly in a position to throw stones about someone else's position of privilege. If she'd reply that that things aren't nearly as easy for her as it'd seem from that, what right does she have to say that Buddha had the perfect easy life because of his upbringing? There are plenty of rich, spoilt children who still aren't happy because they're lonely, or bullied, or their non-material needs are entirely ignored - since when does having money automatically give you the perfect life? It's an incredibly naive view. And "I hope [Buddha] didn’t hurt his arm patting himself on the back." - yes, because living as an ascetic for six years having grown up in a palace is really, really easy. If you wouldn't dream of saying to a person you met "I hope you didn't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back", then why on earth is it okay to say things like that about anyone? I don't place Buddha on a pedestal and I don't believe he was enlightened as Buddhists do, but what right does anyone have to belittle someone who was simply trying to put himself in other's shoes and gain a better understanding of the world? Isn't that a noble ambition, regardless of whether you believe he succeeded, not something to be mocked?

I think the second article you linked is horrible, but the first one makes me more personally angry, because people read things like that and take it to be the view of atheists in general, and I hate to be associated with that level of closed-mindedness and smugness. I hope that the child in the second link grows up to be self-confident and with a sense of self-worth despite her mother's efforts to the contrary, but I also hope that if she chooses to turn away from Christianity because of it, she won't be as bitter and disrespectful of others' beliefs as the author of the first article. Just because your parents imposed their beliefs on you doesn't give you the right to spout ignorant vitriol about all religions.

[conuly]

I think that first article is incredibly obnoxious and self-righteous.

Yeah, it is. And that's the *other* reason I rarely have any use for atheist writings. I mean, it's hard to find anything nice to say unless you stick with "Yeah, don't believe in God, but I do like long walks on the beach...", but there's nicer ways to do that than just outright going "You're a bunch of fools". (Not to mention I find it strange to say people "don't know what they believe". I'm sure they do. What they believe may not be internally consistent, and it may be at odds with what their religion strictly tells them to believe, but I'm sure they do know what they actually believe.)

I also hope that if she chooses to turn away from Christianity because of it, she won't be as bitter and disrespectful of others' beliefs as the author of the first article.

You reminded me of another link. One that's better than this one, anyway. I'll save it for another day.

[fjorab-teke.livejournal.com]

My feelings are summed up nicely by a little phrase that is crass in common context.

HOLY SHIT.

[conuly]

Oh, if you say that you're not *really* a Christian, did you know that? No, no, only people who agree with her are Christians.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

That's really horrible. I feel bad for that woman's kids, and knowing that obviously there are many more kids out there being taught the same things...

[conuly]

Yeah, did you see those comments? "Oh, this miserable god-haters are persecuting you for teaching your kids about god's love!!!!!" WTF? NO.

[conuly]

And for the record? I don't hate God. I also don't hate unicorns, for much the same reason - the odds of me running across either strike me as very slim.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

The more I read things like this, the more I realize I belong to a religion centered entirely around being Not Like Them. While still being Like Them. (For example: we hold a child dedication for young children. Since we Do Not Believe in Original Sin, we do not need to symbolically wash babies' sins away. That water we dab on their foreheads? Sea water. Symbolizes their connection to babies all over the planet, okay? ... now, I love my religion and I'm happy to be a part of it, but sometimes it takes a strong suspension of disbelief. I mean, we really don't believe in original sin, but we still want to have some sort of ceremony and we want it to involve water.)

[conuly]

The power of tradition is not strained.

I mean, dude, Christians celebrate Christmas in winter because of Saturnalia. They put up lights because, 2000 years ago, the Romans thought that was a cool thing to do in the middle of winter and they either had to co-opt the holiday or give up on it altogether, and they weren't willing to do the latter.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

For some reason, I wasn't allowed to post my message, which is as follows:

=====

Jean: You owe an apology to your daughter and a complete rethinking of your parental approach as well as your faith.

If you do not understand why what you are doing is abuse, I suggest you read Dr. Alice Miller's For Your Own Good. It is online in its entirety at http://www.nospank.net/fyog.html.

It is an indictment of the often unnoticed, subtly insidious ways that parents abuse their children emotionally while believing themselves to be acting in the child's best interests. Pay particular attention to what happens to these children as they mature. It may affect her school performance and her ability to find work as an adult. You are creating either an embittered atheist or a frightened seeker who will never feel she is good enough, will constantly look for authority figures to tell her what to do, and may be victimized as a result. I am not kidding; this is dangerous stuff you're working with.

I abandoned Christianity over this very issue; it would be more proper to say that Christianity abandoned me; but I have never lost my faith that there is a Creator Spirit, while I don't believe that any religion can hold or describe it. Religions were invented by people, to establish dominion over other people. If you want to know what I'm talking about, read Stuart Kauffmann's Reinventing the Sacred.

=====

I used OpenID and gave it my Livejournal identity, was asked to confirm twice and then received a 404. This happened twice; perhaps their database is full up?

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

The comments are awesome. YAAY! Whack-a-doodle + God = OMG extreme! Gotta love the nutjobs.

On the other hand, I have to say that not all religions (and not even all Christian religions) believe in original sin. I think.... I think the Calvinists moved it over to "we're born neutral and become evil or good depending on what we do" territory? Maybe it was the Lutherans. I'm also honestly not sure which line of Christians believe we are born good and only turn evil when we are corrupted by the world. I wish I remembered; I'm sure there's someone out there who does!

Anyway, I belabor the point that not all religions strive to teach people they are worthless. Though there are plenty that do, yes indeed. Plenty. That blog entry is horrifying. What a sad little girl. Child raising is complex enough and no one needs to add that kind of crap into the mix.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

I think the doctrine of Original Sin is still canonical to all branches of Christianity. Every attempt to redefine newborn children as sinless has been heretical. Calvinists are especially big on babies' depravity, IIRC.

The only exception is the Mormons. Of course, other Christians may well see Pearl of Great Price as heretical, but there you have it. They are actually the sanest on this topic.

Wikipedia also says:

Furthermore, Mormons hold that little children are incapable of committing sin and, as such, have no need of (saving) baptism until age eight when they can discern right from wrong, and are thus capable of sin and can be held accountable. Little children who die before reaching the age of accountability (even though they are unbaptized) are automatic heirs of salvation and are saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Those who are incapable of understanding right from wrong, such as mentally handicapped persons, are also saved under the atonement of Jesus Christ without baptism.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

I can't post in ginmar's LJ, but I found it fascinating to see that black writer also blithely pen this post:

http://thewomanofvirtue.blogspot.com/2008/08/slavery-is-not-wrong.html

The bible does not condemn slavery. So Christians try to act like Job's friends and try to defend God in a rather foolish way by condemning slavery, as if God forgot to do it Himself in the bible. I think this is a very unwise thing for a Christian to do because if slavery was wrong, God would have said so himself. But He doesn't say its wrong.

If slavery is wrong, then wives should not submit to their husbands, children should not obey parents, women should became equal to men and preach in churches ( which is forbidden in the bible by the way), and mostly no one should call Jesus their master or submit to the authority of God. For this reason, the bible does not condemn slavery, because the whole concept of Christians serving God would be meaningless.

Her logic is completely self-consistent; but any time it leads her to something which to a sane reader would appear to be a reductio ad absurdum, to her it's just a sign that God is Great and Unfathomable and We Must Take it On Faith.

Slavery is not wrong; teaching children that they are sinful and evil is not wrong; it may appear these things lead to unpleasant consequences, but remember, God is Great and all this serves the greater purpose of saving us from Hell!

Have you ever watched Tolkin's movie "The Rapture"? Recommended.

[conuly]

Haven't watched it.

I refuse to read any of the other posts.

And hey - isn't it hypocritical to call herself "Woman of Virtue"? Isn't humility a virtue? How can you claim to have humility - or just general "virtue" - if you go around boasting about it?

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

I think that first article is incredibly obnoxious and self-righteous. Her comments on other religions are beyond belief. Judaism is a religion about guilt? Maybe, but it's certainly not about guilting people into acting better in order to secure a good afterlife like she says, because Judaism doesn't even agree on what happens after death! And regarding Buddhism, an American woman living in a nice, comfortable house in California with her family is hardly in a position to throw stones about someone else's position of privilege. If she'd reply that that things aren't nearly as easy for her as it'd seem from that, what right does she have to say that Buddha had the perfect easy life because of his upbringing? There are plenty of rich, spoilt children who still aren't happy because they're lonely, or bullied, or their non-material needs are entirely ignored - since when does having money automatically give you the perfect life? It's an incredibly naive view. And "I hope [Buddha] didn’t hurt his arm patting himself on the back." - yes, because living as an ascetic for six years having grown up in a palace is really, really easy. If you wouldn't dream of saying to a person you met "I hope you didn't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back", then why on earth is it okay to say things like that about anyone? I don't place Buddha on a pedestal and I don't believe he was enlightened as Buddhists do, but what right does anyone have to belittle someone who was simply trying to put himself in other's shoes and gain a better understanding of the world? Isn't that a noble ambition, regardless of whether you believe he succeeded, not something to be mocked?

I think the second article you linked is horrible, but the first one makes me more personally angry, because people read things like that and take it to be the view of atheists in general, and I hate to be associated with that level of closed-mindedness and smugness. I hope that the child in the second link grows up to be self-confident and with a sense of self-worth despite her mother's efforts to the contrary, but I also hope that if she chooses to turn away from Christianity because of it, she won't be as bitter and disrespectful of others' beliefs as the author of the first article. Just because your parents imposed their beliefs on you doesn't give you the right to spout ignorant vitriol about all religions.

[conuly]

I think that first article is incredibly obnoxious and self-righteous.

Yeah, it is. And that's the *other* reason I rarely have any use for atheist writings. I mean, it's hard to find anything nice to say unless you stick with "Yeah, don't believe in God, but I do like long walks on the beach...", but there's nicer ways to do that than just outright going "You're a bunch of fools". (Not to mention I find it strange to say people "don't know what they believe". I'm sure they do. What they believe may not be internally consistent, and it may be at odds with what their religion strictly tells them to believe, but I'm sure they do know what they actually believe.)

I also hope that if she chooses to turn away from Christianity because of it, she won't be as bitter and disrespectful of others' beliefs as the author of the first article.

You reminded me of another link. One that's better than this one, anyway. I'll save it for another day.

[fjorab-teke.livejournal.com]

My feelings are summed up nicely by a little phrase that is crass in common context.

HOLY SHIT.

[conuly]

Oh, if you say that you're not *really* a Christian, did you know that? No, no, only people who agree with her are Christians.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

That's really horrible. I feel bad for that woman's kids, and knowing that obviously there are many more kids out there being taught the same things...

[conuly]

Yeah, did you see those comments? "Oh, this miserable god-haters are persecuting you for teaching your kids about god's love!!!!!" WTF? NO.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

The more I read things like this, the more I realize I belong to a religion centered entirely around being Not Like Them. While still being Like Them. (For example: we hold a child dedication for young children. Since we Do Not Believe in Original Sin, we do not need to symbolically wash babies' sins away. That water we dab on their foreheads? Sea water. Symbolizes their connection to babies all over the planet, okay? ... now, I love my religion and I'm happy to be a part of it, but sometimes it takes a strong suspension of disbelief. I mean, we really don't believe in original sin, but we still want to have some sort of ceremony and we want it to involve water.)

[conuly]

The power of tradition is not strained.

I mean, dude, Christians celebrate Christmas in winter because of Saturnalia. They put up lights because, 2000 years ago, the Romans thought that was a cool thing to do in the middle of winter and they either had to co-opt the holiday or give up on it altogether, and they weren't willing to do the latter.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

For some reason, I wasn't allowed to post my message, which is as follows:

=====

Jean: You owe an apology to your daughter and a complete rethinking of your parental approach as well as your faith.

If you do not understand why what you are doing is abuse, I suggest you read Dr. Alice Miller's For Your Own Good. It is online in its entirety at http://www.nospank.net/fyog.html.

It is an indictment of the often unnoticed, subtly insidious ways that parents abuse their children emotionally while believing themselves to be acting in the child's best interests. Pay particular attention to what happens to these children as they mature. It may affect her school performance and her ability to find work as an adult. You are creating either an embittered atheist or a frightened seeker who will never feel she is good enough, will constantly look for authority figures to tell her what to do, and may be victimized as a result. I am not kidding; this is dangerous stuff you're working with.

I abandoned Christianity over this very issue; it would be more proper to say that Christianity abandoned me; but I have never lost my faith that there is a Creator Spirit, while I don't believe that any religion can hold or describe it. Religions were invented by people, to establish dominion over other people. If you want to know what I'm talking about, read Stuart Kauffmann's Reinventing the Sacred.

=====

I used OpenID and gave it my Livejournal identity, was asked to confirm twice and then received a 404. This happened twice; perhaps their database is full up?