|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Family
Kids and Religion | from Jerseygirl - Friday, April 11, 2003
accessed 2169 times Since leaving the cult, I've chosen not to be religious. I feel that at this point in my life I am in my own private search for the truth. Everything was working fine this way until now because my kids were relatively young and unaffected by my preference. Now that they are older, things are getting complicated. We have a kids dictionary and my daughter loves to read it (?) the other day various word definitions led her to conclude that “Mom, I guess our family is heathen, right?” I had a good laugh at that (especially picturing my still-in-the-cult parents' faces), but it made me feel a little bad that I hadn’t explained all this to her already. The fact is that I am not really sure how to go about this whole new phase. I would ideally like my children to learn and understand about all the different religious choices, but where to draw the line? Am I just going to create confusion for them in the long run? On the other hand I don’t want them to get the idea that there is only one true religion as that is going a bit too far.
Right now my daughter has decided that she would like to “follow the Christian faith” and “say her prayers at night”. I think I can live with that for now (keeping my fingers crossed that she doesn’t end up a religious zealot in a few years). If any other parents have experience along these lines, I’d appreciate the input. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Wolf
Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 05:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
So many people go to the opposite extreme of what they disliked in their parents and end up just as bad, only on the opposite side of the coin. I think inciting your children against faith, as a few have suggested, would be doing just that. The majority of posts on this topic seem to be fairly unbiased, which is refreshing. May I also remind everyone that faith and religion are usually two different things.
(reply to this comment)
| from PompousJohn
Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 12:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is an interesting dilemna, I wonder what statistical research can tell us about children's exposure to religion and how it affects them in the long term.
Maybe if we want our children to be atheists we should shove as much bible down them as we can when they are young so they will hate it when they grow up? Or maybe this will only ensure that their children become religious fanatics to contrast their parents lack of spiritual interest.
Seriously though, I think we should give our children the tools to reason for themselves and let them draw their own conclusions, maybe let tolerance be the only thing we insist on. I have no idea whether this will work or not, it just seems like the right thing to do.
My Grandmother stopped using dialisys yesterday so it is likely she will die within 48 hours. I just got off the phone with her and I asked her how she felt about that.
She says she's ok, she's got to die someday and it might as well be now, her husband told her when he died that he'd be waiting on the other side and bla bla bla. I can tell she's scared though and wouldn't be doing this if she wasn't in such pain. It's a decision she's been tossing around for 3 months now and I think finally the pain of living overtook the fear of dying, and my extremely religious mother has the attitude that since she's only going to heaven anyway, she might as well die and quit bothering everybody. I know she wanted some reassurance from me but I can't give it to her. I don't know anything about that anymore, everything I believed in fell apart and I haven't put it back together yet.
It would be nice if there was some piece of knowlege that could be introduced and clear all this up for me, but my problem comes from what I know, and not from what I don't know.
(reply to this comment)
| from Anthony
Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 17:20
 (Agree/Disagree?)
NC-17? Rated R? PG-13? PG? G?
I still think that it may be desirable to inform children about religions; however, as their interest in religion grows, so will their confusing questions, which cannot be logically answered. I vividly remember being slightly traumatized by the stories of Abraham and Isaac, and Jephthah and his nameless virgin daughter. I, as a small child, often wondered what my parents would do if their god asked them to sacrifice my siblings or myself for his "great ways which are way above ours."
Of course the response was always, "god doesn't ask that of us anymore, besides he sent a ram to take Isaac's place on the cruel altar." Too bad Jephthah daughter wasn't so fortunate, I mean, couldn't god have a least sent a goat or swine at the last minute and spared her young life? But then again, she was just a female, not worth as much to the lord as males are.
"Well, Jesus made the ultimate human sacrifice of himself on the holy cross”, they would continue. Be that as it may, "what if god changes his mind, due to a violent mood swing, or from indigestion after eating acidic pasta sauce?" I often wondered. And of course, there is the massacre of Job's children, just in case we forget that the lord’s “ compassions fail not “ and that “they are new every morning.”
And Lot was no great lot to hang with, as he would rather his daughters get gang-raped, then offend the "messengers of the lord." Fortunately for those poor girls, no onefrom the gang was interested in them. However, after our loving lord turned Mrs. Lot into a pillar of salt (for his pasta sauce? Sugar cuts the acid, not salt - assholiest dumbasses), Lot does to his daughters what no father ever should. Of course sexist men wrote the Bible; thus, his daughters are blamed for the incest, and whatever he allegedly was drunk on -- Please!
And as far as the New Testament in concerned, it isn’t much better.
Why can't we all be more like the "loving Jesus" and say to the bereaved "Let the dead bury the dead."? How does that work anyway, sounds like a cheap horror flick. And when Jesus made his famous quote to the Pharisees,
"[Ye] have made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions."
he was angry that they didn't kill their disrespectful children. Obviously the Pharisees were attempting to be progressive, realizing that children naturally talk back and disobey, and these "children offenders" need not be sentenced to " die the death", as our sweet Jesus so nicely puts it.
These days children are exposed to so much through the various mediums of communication. Yes, I'll tell them that serial killers exist, "never talk to strangers", to protect them, not to scare them. Yes, I'll tell them (depending on their age) Ted Bundy was a serial killer, like "god", but that's no reason to worship either of them.
Regards,
Anthony
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From PompousJohn
Thursday, April 24, 2003, 14:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think most of us are unsure about God, but what we do know is that the idea of "good" that we were taught, and the ideas of "good" that we developed on our own since leaving are both starkly at odds with the idea of God that we were taught, and the ideas of God that we have come in contact with since leaving.
We believe on one hand that life and autonomy are the indisputable rights of everyone, and that anyone who interferes with these things is evil. On the other hand we have an idea of God, (doesn't matter whose) who is the source of life and creation and can therefore enforce his will on humankind by any means necessary and meet out death and destruction as he sees fit, whose "ways are not our ways", so from a completely objective viewpont he fits into what we consider to be evil.
Assuming the existence of God, the only way for God not to be evil is for our idea of good to be centered around what is and isn't God's will. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Friday, April 25, 2003, 05:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
IMO autonomy in the strictest sense is possible only for a single living organism on an otherwise uninhabited planet. On our planet autonomy is impossible and therefore cannot be considered a right. Living organisms can do any of the following:
1. Exist in harmony with (but not independently from) other living organisms.
2. Be stronger than and thereby overcome other living organisms.
3. Be under the continual dominion of a stronger living organism.
4. Cease to exist
Of course a combination is possible, such as existing in harmony with some organisms and overpowering others.
Life is also not a “right” for any living organism on our planet, since it can at any time become extinct by natural causes, involving forces which were in place since the beginning of time as we know it or forces that have developed during the earth’s history.
How then can good and bad be judged? You could say a living organism is “good” if it lives in harmony with other living organisms, but what about those organisms which are required to dominate or kill other organisms to survive?
I believe that whatever God is, he / she / it set nature in motion and doesn’t interfere with the day-to-day run of things, though it is conceivable that he / she / it interferes under certain circumstances.
As for criteria for what is “good” and allows entrance into a better afterlife, this would require an extremely long and complicated set of rules, similar to a criminal code only infinitely longer and more complex.
In my opinion there is a God, though I admit I have no idea what kind of a being he / she / it is, and “God” not only set the universe in motion but still exists and is capable of making alterations is he / she / it sees fit. It would be impossible for mankind to understand a “criminal code” which would decide humankind’s fate in the afterlife, since it would be much to complex, and therefore the best God could do is give humans a basic understanding of what they should and shouldn’t do.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Friday, April 25, 2003, 08:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well of course there are schools of thought that deny the existence of any such things as rights, these being simply a collection of demands people become accustomed to having granted them and are only guaranteed by either the continued benevolence of the party granting these "rights" or else the ability of those demanding them to enforce their demands.
To be more specific though, what I meant by a right to autonomy is that people should be able to decide among themselves who to have sex with, whose children to bear and raise, what occupations to persue and how to spend the fruits of their labour without these decisions being made for them by some spiritual overseer. And as far a right to life, I don't mean we should have the right to throw ourselves off bridges without suffering any harm, only that we should preferably not be beheaded by muslims, burned by catholics, gassed by nazis or bludgeoned by communists should we fail to see things their way.
I know you think these things have nothing to do with God, but my point is that if a) there is a God and b) he were to be judged by the same standards we apply to ourselves and each other then he is most certainly evil.
Your explanation of good and evil is interesting, but we don't have any evidence as yet that God is required to dominate and kill us to survive, and if we did I don't think this would help his case. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Friday, April 25, 2003, 09:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
When you say “God is required to dominate and kill us to survive”, what are you referring to? I think God interferes with life’s natural cycles in only in the rarest of circumstances, and if that involves killing it would probably only be to save a greater amount of life than the amount destroyed. Though since I’m not God how could I say for sure?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Anthony
Thursday, April 24, 2003, 12:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Curious. Wolf, I'm always puzzled when I have no idea who the people on this site are who claim to know or have known me; please only tell them the "good" stuff about me - LOL! I must say, in all honesty, considering what many of my peers have gone through, I had it fairly good in comparison, as my parents often "followed afar off", at least until I was 14 years old. So, my rejection of "god", or more accurately, the idea of god, is not based on my past, per se.
There was a period in my life when I was quite the jerk and generally a mean fellow; so, if you knew me during that time and were unfortunate enough to have been a recipient of my confused and angry adolescence, I would like to take this time to sincerely apologize for any and all of it, past and future. I sometimes, to this day, have to thwart that old "mean" streak. Best wishes in all you do, whoever you may be.
In answer to your question, honestly, my answer is an emphatic "Yes", allowing for 0.05% chance of error. I've never cursed god because she/he/it doesn't exist; however, I have "cursed" the idea of such a "being" or whatever one chooses to call it. I'd much rather concentrate my energies on the pursuit of Knowledge, reason, money and loving my friends and family, instead of superstition, irrationality and faith. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Anthony
Thursday, May 22, 2003, 15:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey Peter/Wolf, I do remember you, very well in fact. I always though you had yourself together, and it seems you still do, good going.
I also remember "uncle" Paul. Can you believe that he was a prostitute in Amsterdam prior to joining the cult, and yet, he was one of the adults who presided over my exorcism? What a joke! Anyway, great hearing from you via this site, take care.
Regards,
Anthony (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From PompousJohn
Tuesday, April 22, 2003, 11:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
"God never raped and killed women for some sick fantasy."
So then why did he do it? (Not that the motives should matter) You seem a little uptight about homework, so I did some for you. Since examples of God murdeing people are never difficult to recall, I submit a lesser known incident where God's oracle recommended multiple rape as a political manouver.
2 Samuel 16
21 And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong.22 So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.23 And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God: so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom.
Try to remember that while Anthony may not be a saint, he is certainly a scholar and can generally back up even his most outrageous claims with documentation. Since I have more free time today than he did when he made his reply, I did it for him.
What "principle" would you beat the shit out of him on? Is that the "principle" where mildly retarded people get mentally overloaded trying to communicate with someone smarter than them and have violent reactions? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Hydra
Tuesday, April 22, 2003, 21:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not to dwell on symantics here, Poppy, but just because someone's advice may be viewed as "enquiring at the oracle of God" does not mean he was "God's oracle". In fact, from what I recall, the person in question (Ahithophel) was a traitor and was not the good guy in the story. So using that to back up the claim that "God" was involved in mutliple rape as a political manouver is stretching it. You might have better luck using God's commandment to wipe out the Cananites -- man, woman, children and beast and how pissed off He got that some were spared as an example if you're trying to prove Anthony's original Ted Bundy point. (Which, I might add, I heartily disagree with).(reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Wednesday, April 23, 2003, 11:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you do want to dabble in symantics, you should beware of introducing vague non-commital pharases like "may be viewed as" to substitute for phrases like "was as". Our dear old KJV didn't say that Ahithophel's council may have been viewed as the oracles of God, it says it was the same. He was a traitor not for giving bad advice, but for giving "good" advice to bad people. We are left with the assumption that if the shoe had been on the other foot, and David had been trying to polarize public opinion with the council of Ahithophel, he would have been instructed to take Absolom's girlfriends up to the roof with a sheet and maybe a goat bladder full of some raunchy-smelling biblical lubricant.
The point is that things we now understand to be desperately wrong like rape, muder, and other gross violations of human rights (genicide, human sacrifice, etc.) have in the past been considered ok to do as long as you could convince folks the almighty was on your side. The things we suffered in "the group" are mosquito bites by comparison. In your precious biblical times we would all be stoned to death for participating in this web site and hence "dishonouring our parents".
Sorry to all you folks who want to cling to your christianity and claim that God and religion (or whatever word you use for it now) are ok, it was just the Family that screwed it up. In the grand scheme of things the Family is an ingrown hair on the ass of a beast that has been rampaging through history shitting on everything decent since time began. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Hydra
Wednesday, April 23, 2003, 21:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
It would seem to me (in pure subjectivism) that if Ahithophel were indeed the oracle of God, that there would have been no need for Samuel, Nathan or any of the other prophets at that time in history who actually played that particular role in society. "Was as if" says "was similar to", not "is" or "was". Both David and Absolom had other advisors that they listened to. If I recall this particular story correctly, it is only a short while after the incident you are quoting that "The Lord" turned Absolom's heart against the council of Ahithophel in order to protect David. If Ahithophel was indeed the oracle of God and the statement "was as if man had enquired at the oracle of God" was not intended metaphorically, "The Lord's" involvement in the incident would've been self-conflicting and unnecessary to say the least.
Your point, "things we now understand to be desperately wrong like rape, muder, and other gross violations of human rights ([genocide], human sacrifice, etc.) have in the past been considered ok to do as long as you could convince folks the almighty was on your side" -- this I agree with. And had the roles been reversed would David had done the same thing? Quite possibly. Ahithophel was brilliant; his strategies obviously flawless for that day and age. That's not the same as God saying, "Go do this".
The point of my previous post, and this one as well, is that the example you have given poorly illustrates the fact that God is a rapist and fills sick fantasies through this means.
That issue aside, I am left wondering: What have the acts of the Old Testament (which are currently being culled to prove God is a serial killer & rapist) to do with Christianity alone? Your tirade of the beast running rampant throughout time might have made better sense had all "clinging" folks been lumped into one religious basket rather than merely the "Christians". There is not any one major religion in the world that has not had followers -- as you so graphically described it -- deficating on history at some point in time.
When/if you reply I'm sure you will write brilliantly and persuasively. Words have always been your gift. That does not mean erudition has always accompanied your inditements. I'll catch your answer in about 3 months--I must be off to run my business and make my money. (reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Thursday, April 24, 2003, 10:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all thanks for the compliments, and I'm sorry your business keeps you away from the internet for 3 month periods, I'm curious as to what kind of business that could be, (visions of fishing boats and oil rigs come to mind) but all the same, if my example wasn't convincing enough for you I'll retire the argument since that's the best I have.
The old argument about "rape" being the root of the word "rapture" is circumstantial at best and proves nothing, (though the implications are rich.)
Well I have some particularly long-winded and off-topic theories on this subject, but I'll save them for a more apropriate article. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Anthony
Wednesday, April 23, 2003, 22:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Typical: These people post their little rebuttals and then run off, using some lame excuse - rubbish. Anyway, I do feel a little silly arguing about something so stupid and obtuse as the Bible and god.
One of my friends told me that he doesn't engage is these theological debates anymore than he would in a debate between believers in purple unicorns with latex eyes and non-believers. I see and respect his point. However, I told him that I often do because theology has a greater impact on our daily lives than the belief in purple unicorns with latex eyes – a negative effect. At least in this country, particularly in the South, the Bible-based Blue Laws remain in the law books, and this is only one, and slightly superficial, example. Anyway, it’s a long battle, but science and reason will eventually triumph over superstition. (reply to this comment) |
| | From pharmaboy..
Friday, April 25, 2003, 09:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
'Anyway, it’s a long battle, but science and reason will eventually triumph over superstition.'
Unfortunately governments thrive on superstition, and if science and reason were to triumph, we'd realize how unless our governments actually are and the irrational methods they've been using to solve world problems, and we'd do away with them. So while they openly are enemies, the state needs the church, as much as the church needs the state.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Vicky
Thursday, April 24, 2003, 09:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anthony, first of all I'd like to say that I am in no way offended by your Atheism, I totally respect your right to your opinions and i'm not here to argue. I would however like to add that it seems that you think that anyone who still believes in a God of any kind is somehow unintelligent and a bit stupid. I can see from your posts that you are a very clever guy and I'm sure you pride yourself on your logical and cynical thinking so I can understand that you would find it irritating that there are still people around who are dumb enough to believe that there's more to life than the physical world, but I just find your attitude quite condescending and insulting. I am well aware that the existence of God can't be proven scientifically and if i was trying to be logical I'd probably have to concede to most of your arguments, but I can't deny who I am and the fact is that I am still very much a spiritual person. I believe that there is a God but I don't believe "Him" to be specifically male, or female either for that matter. The closest i can come to an acceptable definition is the idea of a Benevolent Universe, a force of good and love which is constantly pulling us towards It in order to give us peace within ourselves. The danger comes when people try to put God into a box and start introducing rules, regulations, customs and strict interpretations of "God's Will". I agree with you that religion as a whole has been a very negative presence in the world since the beginning of time but I think that has to do with people's own need to proclaim their religion the One and Only and doesn't have anything to do with someone somewhere believing that there's a God. It's only very recently that it has become much more common and quite acceptable for people to believe that one's faith or spirituality is a very private thing and doesn't need to be so outwardly displayed with all the pomp and posturing. I think that's a very good thing. I don't know what it's like there in the States but here in the UK i think the average church congregation is something like 10 people. The Church just isn't a big factor in most people's lives. But if you asked the average person on the street they would most likely say that they still consider themselves Spiritual in some way.
Now, to get to the actual question concerning children and religion, I have to admit that I am also at a bit of a loss as to what to do. I have raised my girls to believe in God and Jesus, with little prayers during the day for the food and all that and before bed , etc. I also read them bible stories and try to instill the basic Christian values in them. But I did find it particularly difficult when it came to the story of Abraham and Isaac recently and I could tell that my daughter was slightly puzzled about it. It had never dawned on me in all my years of caring for children while in TF what a scary story that must be for little kids! I decided to try to smoothe over it as best I could and to be more careful in my choice of stories from now on. My big dilemma now is that while I want my children to be aware of their Christian heritage I am hesitant to to be too fundamentalist and it's hard to know where to draw the line. One thing that has been bothering me is that I've taught my girls the whole "Evolution - THE BIG LIE" thing, just because we were still in TF for the first 4 years or so of raising them, and now I'm wondering what to do. My daughter is coming up to 8 years old and I'm worrying that it'll be difficult for her in school trying to reconcile her Christian upbringing with what she's taught by her teacher whom she loves and respects. I don't know exactly what i believe as far as creation goes so I'm rather stuck!
I thought Hanna_Black's way of dealing with it was very wise and exactly how it should be approached. Children in general find great comfort in the idea of a "Grand Scheme" and someone who cares for them, loves them always, etc, not to mention the peace that the idea of Heaven gives them. It's wrong to rob them of that childish innocence just because you are angry at religion. If they then decide when they are older that they don't want to believe then you can secretly be pleased knowing that you didn't push them either way.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Anthony
Tuesday, April 22, 2003, 14:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks Pomp, I didn’t think this guy was serious about the homework thing because we don’t have to look very far to find examples.
As you already know, I consider myself quite the film buff, if only in my head, and the medium’s power interests me immensely. So the other night I was channel- surfing when I saw the Ten Commandments was on, I haven’t seen this film in ages because of its content. However, I decided to watch it to study the production values, the incredibly great acting and story telling. Other than the whole god thing, the film adaptation of the Biblical story is nothing more than good old Soap Opera and high melodrama.
Cecil B. De Mille was the master of spectacular epics and the late Yul Brynner was one cool dude, so was Robinson and Heston. But I think more than half of the credit should go to Jesse Lasky Jr., the screenwriter.
Anyway, let’s stick to my point, shall we? LOL. Okay, so I tuned in right after Moses receives word from god that he is about to kill all the first born children of the Egyptians. Ex. 12:29:
And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
Now of course, that was no “sick fantasy”, his ways are not ours – they got that right. However, what the film downplays is the Bible’s claim that God hardens Pharaoh's heart prior to this mass murder: Ex. 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8. So, the logical conclusion to this is that god could’ve “softened” Pharaoh's heart and avoided the 10 plagues. But that wouldn’t have been as much fun, now would it? I think “god” often confuses the words/concepts of “play” and “plague” as if they were one and the same, probably his idea of a Sony Playstation, or in this case, God’s Gory Plaguestation.
In closing, here’s a “Fox Special” which I’ll call God, Moses and the 32,000 Virgins. It’s from Numbers 31:14-18 and 35:
And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
"The goodness of God endureth continually." (Ps. 52:1) (reply to this comment) |
| | From Hydra
Tuesday, April 22, 2003, 21:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anthony, I sort of seem to be missing the part of the story where it says...."And God said,". In your case study, Moses lost his temper. Big time. Argue that he was God's spokesperson, prophet or leader or whatever and you have somewhat of a point. But in fact, God did not give out that order. There are examples to prove your point but you might have to dig a little further.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Anthony
Wednesday, April 23, 2003, 12:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey Hydra, I hope the following hits the bullseye once and for all:
Numbers 31:25 -29 - And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation and divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation and levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:
31:31 - And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
31:32 -35 - And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, threescore and twelve thousand beeves, threescore and one thousand asses and thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
31:37 - And the LORD's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.
31:38 - And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and twelve.
31:39 - And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and one.
31:40 - And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Hydra
Wednesday, April 23, 2003, 21:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, it would be a perfect example were it not for the fact that "tribute" in this case is translated from the Hebrew word "mekec" which means "to enumerate" -- as in a census or assessment. It would be the assumption that all of the tribute that were the Lord's were killed, because they were required for a heave offering. But in this case, the translation for heave offering was taken from the Hebrew word "teruwmah". Unlike its counterpart, "qorban" which is the word used for oblation, sacrifice (or other things that are killed on an altar), "teruwmah" refers to the Lord's portion that was given to the Levites. Yes, this did mean slaves. This example does not, however, qualify God as a Ted Bundy precursor. Moses, maybe. But in this case, not God. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Mir
Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 09:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
As a Christian I know what I'll say to my children. But I can really understand your dilemma because for the longest time after leaving the cult I was confused/hated religion, particularly the Christian faith. If anyone spoke to me about it it would make my skin crawl and I would actually get angry...
Can I suggest that if you want to answer your child's question with something solid, why don't you try and do what I did? I simply sat down on my own one day (feeling a bit embarrassed and uncomfortable) and I said "God if you are there, reveal yourself to me". And He did. Not in a sudden harsh "you've got to change or else judgement will fall upon you" way, it was just gentle, non pushy, and over a long period of time, He gently showed me who He is and that He cares about what happens to me and my family. He is nothing like the cog by ANY stretch of the imagination. In fact, He is the complete opposite.
It has made a big difference to my life. I'm not saying that I'm a very good Christian, I hardly ever go to church... I have a thing about organised religion, it freaks me out a bit, and it's not surprising after all the crap I've been through, but guys, I can tell you that He IS there.
I'm sorry if I've triggered you and upset you. Please don't feel under pressure, God is NOT like that. Maybe you are not ready to even think about this subject, and that is fine by God, believe me He is the most patient person I know, but circumstances in life, (like your child asking questions) have brought you to this place, and I thought I'd tell you what happened to me, maybe it will help you, maybe not.
Peace
(reply to this comment)
| from pharmaboy..
Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 02:33
 (Agree/Disagree?)
If I ever have children, I think I'll raise them Wiccan, or any pagan pre-christian, non-oriental reilgion. Just any from christian pollution and christian morals.
And it would also be an interesting experiment, not many kids grow up in a 'Pagan' enviornment, I'd like to see how they'd turn out.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From pharmaboy..
Friday, April 25, 2003, 09:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you choose to have your children get filled with government propaganda in school, and you choose to have them get their ideas on life from the TV, isn't that just as wrong to a child? In doing that aren't you limiting their freedom of thought from a young age also?
If a kid grows up in a pagan enviornment, since most of western society is choked by pseudo-christian morals, ethics and tradition, eventually the kid growing up would realize his upbringing is different to the rest of his neighbourhood. Only then can he make a decision if he likes his current upbringing or if he wants to join the masses. That's why (most) Exers are so open-minded, they see the world differently from others 'cause they've brainwashed differently. If you would grow up an average Joe, brainwashed like the average Joe is brain-washed, you wouldn't even realize that you are brainwashed.
Chlidren are human beings yes, but when they told you as a kid heaven was in the moon, or read you so many 'life with grandpa' stories till Berg became a normal part of your family, did you question it or resist it? Of course not, you were a child & didn't know any difference. Don't you think that when kids are taught in school today in social studies to obey their government they're being brainwashed as well? Two different things but the same principle. If i told my two year old it's cool cut off your fingers, you think he'd question it?
The bottom line is: your kids grow up, you teach them everything about the world outside & whether you like it or not, you are influencing them. As long as I'm not teaching my kids anything harmful to themselves or others, who gives a damn whether I'm a practising Wiccan or I'm just teaching it to them to try something different.
oh, btw, Fuck you too! (reply to this comment) |
| | From G. O'graffic
Friday, April 25, 2003, 20:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey pharma, if you can make your way to "deep America" (as that part of America is called in a certain sophisticated and ancient land) you can raise your children among people who are brainwashed to hate the government, instead of to "obey their government." They have armies (also called militias) of their own and train, armed to the teeth, to resist them. Just another alternative brainwashing idea for you. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Holon
Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 01:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have alot to say on this subject! But it's very late so I'm making this bref for now.
One thing I tell my kids is , some people do believe in the bible and some people believe they were abducted by alians.I however dont believe in either!!!
I'll add more to this tommrow.Goodnight!
(reply to this comment)
| from katrim4
Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 17:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
My daughter keeps asking me " If God made everything, who made God?" Each time that she asks that I kind of mutter something about "Nobody really knows, but it's an interesting question". She goes to a catholic school and so gets plenty of religious imput there even though she isn't required to attend any of the religious services as we enrolled her as a "non-faith" student. She has also had questions about what religion our family is but seems to be happy with "we aren't any religion, we are a family and each person in our family has a right to chose their own religion". It really is difficult though, knowing how, and what kind of imput to give her on this subject.
(reply to this comment)
| from Hanna_Black
Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 16:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
The other evening my five-year old asked me, "mom, is there a god?"
I was so very dumbfounded! I didn'T know what to say as he would take my word and make it law. It took me almost 3 minutes to open my mouth. In response I asked him if he believed there was a God.
He said yes, so I told him that, well if he believes in him, then there is a God for him. I just didn't know what else to say. Hope it was alright and that when he is 16 or so he won't hate me for affecting him wrongly. He believes that God watches over him and takes care of him, and that God is in his heart. He doesn't know anything about sin, or Jesus dying or hell. He went to sunday school a few times and liked it, I had asked the teacher wether it was catholic or protestant lessons, and they told me it was neither. Just some bible stories and songs. God, it was so weird...! One day I hear him singing, "Jesus' love, is very wonderful...ooooh wonderful love!" I was like, "where did I hear that before?" as faint memories returned for an instant. I think, if he likes it and it makes him feel good, it's fine. He believes in Santa too, and the easter bunny, so it can'T be all that bad. I do agree with Nick's comment, that kids need to learn about the main religions too. That way they understand that there are many religions, and I feel that they need to be aware of different cultures. As long as my kids are not pressured into believing something, or not believing something, awareness of religion for my own kids is fine with me.
(reply to this comment)
| from me2
Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 11:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jersey Girl, you described my predicament so precisely! I'm in EXACTLY the same spot right now and have been for awhile. Like you said, I'm very comfortable with where I stand on this issue personally, but then it seems that my daughter is constantly coming up with deep spiritual questions! Ugh! I guess she's not going to let me avoid this too much longer. It's almost like she's searching for a way to categorize our family religiously. I guess she has friends at school who are Catholic, Jewish, etc…and now she wonders what she is?
(reply to this comment)
| from Joe H
Monday, April 14, 2003 - 19:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think I'll raise my kids Catholic, and I have a good explanation why: When we were kids in Japan, we used to walk in the gutter (they were clean) to avoid tripping, falling in the gutter, and hurting ourselves. I feel that raising them Catholic is a tolerable religion that makes them unlikely to join any screwed-up religions later on. I admit that it's a retarded system with a screwed-up history, but I like most of the Catholics I've met; they seemed pretty normal and mellow and didn't try to push their crap on me.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Hydra
Monday, April 14, 2003 - 14:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
My personal take on it, is much like what has already been commented: That of letting my kids know that there are religions out there. When I think of my own parents and how they were not particularly attached to any church or faith and along came the Family and swept them off of their feet, I would like to at least instill enough knowledge about religions (and cults) to my children so that if and when they come in contact with those of various faiths, they have enough understanding on their own to take it all in stride & not repeat the cycle.
Right now I'm not of any particular religion, although I guess if I had to pin it down to one specific thing I suppose it would be Christianity (in a very non-traditional sense). I hesitate to read Bible stories to my kids with the "this is the way it happened, no questions asked" mentality and as such, I've opted not to read them at all. I even have a difficult time praying with my kids as it raises so many questions and issues which I am not prepared to deal with or explain right now.
I see my entire religious upbringing as one of superstition and as I haven't exactly sorted 100% what I believe, I am hesitant to present an ill-thoughtout cocktail of beliefs to kids who take my word for it as truth.
At the same time, I know I can't ignore the religious issue forever. I don't want my kids growing up with a big "blank" in their life so far as religion is concerned -- as if there is no such thing -- because religion plays an enormous part in just about every walk of life. I want my children to come to their own conclusions about which religious path they choose (if any), but at the same time I realize that if I don't do the explaining on my own -- even with the possibility of throwing my own taint on the subject -- any miriad of cults and isms and fundamental groups is certainly going to be happy to push their religion on them. I'd like my kids to be aware of what's out there and know where each one is coming from in relation to the rest.
(reply to this comment)
| from vb
Monday, April 14, 2003 - 11:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
this is a question i have and am faced with as i myself am still "searching" and not really interested in adopting any given religion, however the question about how to deal with this aspect of my kid's lives withôut confusing them is still very much present in my mind
(reply to this comment)
| From nicolas2
Tuesday, April 15, 2003, 07:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
t'a ka leur dire ce k'e veritablement la religion: le plus grand mensonge de tous les temps, la plus grande cause de morts sur la planète (morts physique et mentale).
Non sérieusement, je pense que le jour ou ils te posent la question, explique leur tout simplement ce que c'est que la religion, les bases en leur disant qu'ils peuvent penser ce qu'ils veulent ... et croire ce qu'ils veulent ... (reply to this comment) |
| | from Nick
Monday, April 14, 2003 - 10:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do not think that it’s really possible for people to give you advice on this due to the fact that every parent has their own religious views or preferences. You have some parents out there that may be deeply religious and want to pass this on to their kids. Then you may have some that are atheist or agnostic and want to keep their kids away from any religious beliefs. For what it’s worth, I am somewhere in the middle. I am not by any definition a good old church going bible following (or reading for that matter) Christian. However I do see Christianity as part of my societies culture and believe that he needs to at least be aware of it. This being said I also have talked to him about other faiths. For example he asked about Hanukah during that season and I explained to him what Judaism was etc.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Anthony
Monday, April 14, 2003, 11:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow Nick, I'm amazed, very good point you make here. I think, if ever I have kids, I will make them aware of the world's many religions, for the sake of awareness. After all, we all know how it felt when we found out stuff our parents never told us about.
I certainly will not give them a religious upbringing, because I believe that it will only bring them down in the end; however, I will tell them that it (religion) is out there, the role it plays in society and why it isn't desireable; just like a parent talking to their kid(s) about drugs, alcohol abuse, teenage childbearing and other ills of society, the grandest of which is religion.
Happy parenting. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Fox
Monday, April 21, 2003, 03:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anthony- don't forget to tell them all about how God is just like a serial Killer.I think God is the reason why you don't have kids (as you call them) God is the reason, I'm sure of it, even if you don't believe he is real. We don't need any new serial Killers on the take.I would weep if I thought like you but I dont!!! you wackow. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Fox
Wednesday, April 23, 2003, 02:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anthony, no hard feelings. At least you have a good sense of humor, so you can't be all bad. What we went though was horrible. I don't really blame you for your hatred of the Bible or God. Just take one thing into consideration, if it was the C.O.G. that educated you on the Bible and God, then your education was a fallacy. You would be wise to reeducate yourself with real theologians who have a PH.D. I can recommend one that will change the way you see things forever, Hugh Ross, PH.D. I recommend you read his book, Creator and the Cosmos, first. You should also read one of his newest books, Beyond the Cosmos. If you want new insight, if you really want the truth, you must first see through the lies of the C.O.G. then you must be dedicated to logic. And follow logic through to it's end. Let your spirit become teachable again, and never give up. The truth is out there. I know because I found it. For me the journey was ten years long after leaving the C.O.G.
Best of wishes,
Fox (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Anthony
Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 15:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
And Anthony wept! Metaphorically.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]