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 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.

[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!

[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]

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".

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

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

[siderea]

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.

Speaking with therapist-hat on, there's a whole modern, well-regarded branch of psychotherapy which proceeds on the basis that often enough people don't know what they believe about a whole bunch of stuff, quite aside from religion, and that these unrealized beliefs (can and often do) lead them into grief. Why should religious matters be any different?

[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.)

[conuly]

What I mean is that if you don't know you're "supposed to believe" this or that thing that's in your holy book or official teachings then you simply don't believe it. You don't "not know" what you believe, you just are confused as to what your teachings say as compared to what you think they say.

(Mind, the number of Bible passages I've been told "aren't in there" by believers approaches the absurd. People ought to acquaint themselves with their own holy books so I don't have to do it for them. But that's beside the point. What they don't know probably isn't hurting them.)

[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.

[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!

[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.

[fjorab-teke.livejournal.com]

Of course. 9.9

I'm in a community called "Wounded Warriors" which is made up of people who have been "wounded" by their faith in one way or another. I would think that if they were to read what that woman does to her daughter, it would be VERY triggering. I have self-esteem issues, but I would NOT want to know what I would be like if I were told that I'm an evil sinner from when I was a kid!

[conuly]

I would think that if they were to read what that woman does to her daughter, it would be VERY triggering.

I agree, which is why I put a warning up.

I have self-esteem issues....

Oh, but didn't you see? It's wrong to teach kids self-esteem. It's wrong to teach them that anything about them is worth feeling good about.

I feel sorry for this woman for believing that (apparently she also believes that slavery is a-ok with God and it's wrong for anybody to ever suggest otherwise. A black woman here, ladies and gentlemen, and she thinks slavery is just fine and dandy. Wow-ee), but I feel worse for her kids.

[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.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

I read some of the comments, but just couldn't bear to read more. I just can't even "go there" and see why they would feel/think that way.