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.

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

All of Christianity? Are you sure? Why do I think it changed somewhere along the line?

Oh yeah, the Calvinists are the spare the rod people! That's right. Hmmm... Mormons being the sanest. On any topic. BWA HA!

[conuly]

Note: If this ends up in a flamewar between you and any passing Mormons - and I know online at least a few Mormons - I'm not playing referee. I make an attempt not to directly say to anybody "yeah, your beliefs are silly to me".

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. Then again, caprinus saying, "They are actually the sanest on this topic" sort of puts everyone equally in the silly (or perhaps insane) column. Not that s/he said anything directly, of course, but my statement was an admittedly stronger follow up to that.

[conuly]

Yeah, I know, but you were more direct.

And if caprinus gets into any flamewars I'm not bailing him out either. (Oh dear. I hate having to choose pronouns on LJ, I'm never sure if I picked the right one! But -us = he seems right.)

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

True enough. I often have a hard time restraining myself. If someone is insulted I'll tell them I have a brain disorder and beg forgiveness.

I would say us=he too but DANG I'm wrong a lot!

[conuly]

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.

Quite sensible.

My mother, the erstwhile Catholic, once gave me a big speech about how Limbo was Catholic's way of keeping little babies from going to Hell. (That's how I found out what Limbo *is*, incidentally.) Do the other denominations that think about this have something similar?

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Do the other denominations that think about this have something similar?

I can only speak for Lutherans, but there at least we do not need Limbo to keep little babies from going to hell. My catechesis classes were ten years ago, but at least at that time it was neither held that people were inherently evil nor that children, if dying unbaptised, went to hell. Actually the bit about emergency baptism expressly says something along the lines of "If not even emergency baptism can be performed, we can still be certain that the child will rest in the love of God". Nothing about fire-and-brimstone, or original sin, in there really.

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

See, I thought original sin dropped off somewhere along the line. Hmm, so the Lutherans don't hold that belief.

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

Do the other denominations that think about this have something similar?

Yes, many denominations hold to the idea of the "Age of Reason", though what that age is specifically varies. (In some circles, it's as young as a year, and in others, as old as 8. It really depends.) It is at this age, some denominations believe, that a child becomes capable of understanding his or her actions and making conscious choices to act in a good or evil manner, and it's at that point that the child is held responsible for those actions. Many denominations believe that a child who dies before the so-called age of reason will naturally go to heaven, because, by their reasoning, how can one commit sin if one does not know what sin is?

In the church I grew up in (Presbyterian, though it's worth noting that not all Presbyterians hold to this idea), that age was usually around 5, but even then, it varied from child to child.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Benny has dismissed the idea of Limbo. Gone and completely thrown it out, bless'im. He gave a quite reasonable report about it, saying that it was never a divine truth of faith, more like a theory that had gotten out of hand (partly thanks to good old Thomas Aquinas) and was being presented as fact. My catechism didn't state it as such but used the words "it is thought that," didn't say by whom of course, but I've seen other catechisms that gave it as straightaway carved in stone.

His commission to study this subject concluded it was more likely that unbaptised infants, and holy people who lived before the time of Christ, were in God's care, and since God wishes everyone to come to Heaven, we must trust to His infinite mercy and mysterious ways. Suits me. I never believed in Limbo anyway. Sounded to me like a well-equipped bus station with no exit.