While enjoying a slab of pizza with my kids, we chatted about the events of the evening.
My son proceeded to tell me about his afternoon:
"When Grandma picked me up from school today, she told me that I couldn't watch any TV at her house".
"Oh, really? Why? You get into some trouble?" (uh-oh)
"No", he replied. "Grandma said that she wasn't watching TV to prove her love to God (read: fasting from television). She said that she wasn't going to permit me to watch any TV since it's her house and her rules."
"Oh, I see. What did you think of that?"
-- I think I even stopped eating my pizza for a moment.
"I respect what she's trying to do and all, but I don't agree with it".
"Really?" I was astonished. What a mature answer for an eight year old!
"Well son, I'm curious now. Would you be willing to stop watching TV to get closer to God?"
"Nope. I like TV too much."
Ouch!
"But what if someone told you that sometimes it takes that sort of devotion to please God?" I tried to pick my son's brain.
"I dunno. I just don't agree with that idea. I respect it, but . . . . I mean, I don't even know if the Bible is real or not. I mean, who was there to write about the first man if nobody was around but the first man? That just doesn't seem to make sense to me."
Wow! Honest . . . I didn't tell him any of that beforehand. I don't even know where he got that specific idea from-- except that I've encouraged him to question ideas and to decide for himself what he thinks of God. I didn't think that anything I said would have caused him to respond quite like that.
He still seems to believe in God. That's fine with me. But he seems willing to question ideas-- even if the ideas come from an "authoritative source". That to me is most important.
He's thinking on his own.
I don't mind if he becomes (or remains) theist. I just want him to learn to think for himself, regardless. Many theists are quite capable of doing this.
And for that reason alone (that he's learning to think for himself), I am proud of my son.
(And I'm proud of my daughter, too. She's learning how to read!)
My Dirty Little Secret . . .
Posts
Comments
About Me:
- Uruk
- United States
- So . . . ya wanna know about me? Read my blog! Okay, okay . . . seriously -- I'm a closet ex-Christian. There. I said it. I've been so afraid to tell my Christian friends and family members that I've lost my religious beliefs. I've hid this since 2005. But now I'm desperate to pour out my thoughts about my changing beliefs. Yes – this is my dirty little secret. I can't keep it to myself any longer. But, I can't tell this to the believers still in my life. I don't want to injure their faith. I don't want to infect them with the doubt that I've contracted. I don't want to drive a wedge between me and my Christian friends and family members.
Blogs I Follow
The Atheist Blogroll
33 comments:
Good for him! This is a key age for him to be able to decide for himself. He is old enough that some things just wont make sense or "feel" right. He may not know why he disagrees, but he will be able to form that later when he has more knowledge.
Your son seems very mature for his age. That was a well thought out response. I would venture a guess that he has been thinking on this for awhile and wanting to talk about it.
Particularly given the fanatical state of his extended family it is really good that he has parents that he can talk to about this true thoughts. If he grows up a theist, he will be glad you allowed him his own believes despite the fact that you disagree. If he grows up Atheists he will be glad he had a solid support system.
If his confusion is with Adam and Eve you may consider explaining that some people believe that Adam was not the first but rather the first chosen person. Because, logically, if Cane was afraid of people killing him when he was exiled there MUST have been other people. Although now that I think of it, that may be a talk for a later age.
And congrats on the daughter learning to read! My nephew just starting speaking. :)
Oh and I love that he wont give up TV for God. That is a good sign he wont grow up as a crazy zealot. I wont give up my Sunday mornings, liquor or chocolate for God, mostly because I don't think I need to :)
"I wont give up my Sunday mornings, liquor or chocolate for God, mostly because I don't think I need to"
Right. Do we even need to do these things?
I mean, chocolate? Hell no, I'm not giving up chocolate! I'm having a hard enough time cutting back on coffee!!!!!
I'm not into liquor much, but I don't see anything wrong with it (and I do have a sip every now and then).
I gave up a lot. I was fanatical like that. I gave up music that I loved (you can't be a holy roller and listen to Metallica at the same time). We were told not to go to movies. Some Pentecostals forbid playing card games! Others allow it. Depends on your what God revels to your pastor, I guess.
Thanks for your insight, too. You give me perspective. Thanks.
I don't drink much (I go out maybe once every two months and typically have one or two drinks a week at home) but I refuse to give it up for God. I may, one day, give it up for my health, but not for God. Why? Because no where in the Bible does it say I cannot have liquor. I am told not to overindulge (always good advice) but I am not told to never indulge. If people want to give it up, fine. I have up caffeine for Lent (yea, I know, not Catholic but it was a test for myself) one year. Will NOT do that again. Every. 40 days is a loooong time. Do you know how much crap has caffeine in it?
And you know what? After 40 days of diligently praying for strength to abstain, of searching labels and driving my friends nuts. After 40 days of headaches and sleepless nights - I felt no closer to God than I did before.
We are able to experience pleasure and good things because, I believe, God wants us to. I don't understand why people would deny themselves something that was given to them as a gift from their Creator.
Lion, check this one out-- have you ever noticed this before?
Deuteronomy 14:24-29
Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; [or] if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Then shalt thou turn [it] into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,*
And the Levite that [is] within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.
At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay [it] up within thy gates:
And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which [are] within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.
* Emphasis was mine.
Strong drink, wine, eating your fill. The tithe described here is a celebration similar in principle to other Harvest celebrations. Our American Thanksgiving comes to mind having slight similarity. Canada has a Thanksgiving celebration, too. Why? Not because the Native Americans shared their good will (like many think concerning Thanksgiving in the USA) but because it was a "pagan" ritual many cultures had all over the "Old World". Most agricultural societies have a harvest festival to appease their god (or gods) to ensure the bounty of next season and to give thanks for the current bounty. Thanksgiving in the "New World" followed over with the European settlers of England and France (and probably whoever else settled over here).
The Israelistes seemed to have something like that also within their Tithing.
So, here I see two misconceptions often supported in mainstream Christianity--
1. Tithing is a ten percent income tax for Christians.
2. Strong drink and celebration is forbidden by God.
Strict rules come from religious leaders who want control. They may seek this control deliberately or unconsciously-- but they seek it nonetheless. The charlatan wants control for the sake of power. The zealot thinks his or her control is god-given and feels he or she is responsible for the congregation's soul. Such leaders feel that they are a type of Moses or Joshua who must impart instructions to the unlearned followers. This is a serious job, for after-all, disobedience towards an all powerful, easy-to-anger god can be quite deadly.
Do you know what my main contention with the Catholic Church is? It is not the blatant disregard for a prohibition on Idol worship, nor their blatant disregard for the command that we are not to take from, or add to, God's Word. It is the opulence.
Millions of men, women and children - God's beloved children - are starving in the streets, dying from AIDS and the Pope lives in a golden castle and flies on a private jet and churches have amazing paintings and stained glass. Any idea what all of that could be sold for? I'd venture to say billions. And billions of dollars that could go a long way towards saving some people that are among us now.
But it isn't just Catholics. Protestants are guilty too. Look at these mega churches. Why must they be so opulent? Yes, their congregation is wealthy but why not use that wealth to help the poor? How is a new sound system helping a starving single mother?
No, I refuse to believe that this is what Christ wanted of his church. He is most likely disgusted. That is why I refuse to attend church. They could rectify everything else and I could still not step foot in knowing that all of that money they force their congregation to give up could have gone to better use.
And no, I had never noticed those passages. But I will from now on. I always knew God wanted us to enjoy life. Enjoyment in moderation. I firmly believe He wants us to be happy. We aren't supposed to be miserable.
I thought I was done but clearly I am not.
I think people should take what they would have tithed (and, by the way, should only tithe what they can afford) and use it to actually help their fellow man. Go to WM and buy duffel bags to fill with wool blankets, socks, gloves and non perishable food to hand out to the homeless people that are already feeling the start of winter.
Take that money and donate it to one of many charities that assists in buying medication for those that cannot afford it. Or give it to the Boys and Girls Club or Big Brothers and Big Sisters (or hell, volunteer at either one!) Or "adopt" a child from Africa and send them to school and buy their lunch and school supplies (only about $30 a month).
Save a life rather than buying new pews or a new podium. I firmly believe that many people don't turn to God because they feel like Christians don't care. They cannot feel that God loves them because they people that are supposed to represent that here on Earth ignore them.
And we all ought to be ashamed for that.
Disclaimer: I must say that The Divine Unity Church here in my hometown does do good things. They meet in individuals homes so they have no overhead to pay for and all donations go to providing food and warm clothes for the shockingly large homeless population in this area. In addition, they also solicit local stores to donate bread products and each week have a massive bread bank open to anyone (no income restrictions) that needs it - as much as you need. They are doing the right thing - but I do disagree with their doctrine.
Well . . . as for tithing, the rule assumed you were in agriculture and you were to celebrate the bounty of the harvest and provide food for the Levitical priests.
Yes, the opulence bothers me, too. I've been only a few churches over my life, each church I've been to varied in it's place within the economic spectrum. I've been to the small church, the mega church, and the broke church about to default on it's mortgage!
In each situation, you wonder why they burden themselves with real estate.
But so many preachers in my area claim that you need to be at the "church". The building. The "temple" as they often call it. Many liken their church building as the Temple of the Jews. The only place you should worship, if you can get there.
Before I abandoned my faith, I was very interested in a congregation that met in houses and didn't demand tithes-- not so much to save money but because of the un-Christian nature of tithing in the modern church. And as you said, offering would be taken up and used to help the needy within the congregation and outside to the rest of the community.
But, people are usually wary of small, passionate groups who meet in houses.
In the end, a church building seems to come across as a seal of authentication or something.
Do you want to know my secret, Uruk? If I could give up my technology, I would be Amish. I think they are pretty close to having it right.
They live simple, good lives. They love their family and their neighbors. They care for each other and strangers. They worship quietly and as a group at home. And, most important to me, they refrain from judging those outside of their faith.
But, I need the internet. I need the lights. I need my Pop Tarts. Bad Christian, I know. But I can still admire them from afar and emulate them as much as possible.
But...yeah...small passionate groups that meet in individual homes really sort of scream "CULT!" don't they? That is unfair, too. But we have been burned.
I am not commenting on the post but rather "who you are". You are not the only one in this predicament. It's nice to know I am not the only one either. I got here via "choose doubt" and I am sure I will be back.
Anonymous:
Nice of you to drop in.
Your sentiment has much to do with why I sometimes want to come out. Perhaps if I did, others in the closet would know that they aren't alone. And those hostile to our non-belief would have to learn how to accept us. But, I've found a local group in my area and that helps a lot.
If you feel isolated, check around to see if there is some sort of skeptics society or atheist meet-up group.
Feel free to come back and comment any time.
"But, I need the internet. I need the lights. I need my Pop Tarts. Bad Christian, I know. But I can still admire them from afar and emulate them as much as possible."
And what is un-Christian about Pop Tarts??
I recently finished a book by Carl Sagan. He suggested that technology is neutral. People take it and use it for evil or good. For all technology can be is taking the acquired knowledge concerning the nature of things (science) and applying that knowledge to a goal.
So what purity does one gain, in your opinion, from avoiding technology as the Amish do?
And though they don't use lights, many still use horse and buggies. Even the wheel can be considered a technological advancement.
And though they don't use lights, many still use horse and buggies. Even the wheel can be considered a technological advancement.
I was not clear. Technology and Pop Tarts are not what make me un Christian. Both are neutral. What makes me a bad Christian is that I put my desire for them over my desire to find a compatible faith. Rather than give those up to meld into the one faith that I have found to be closest to what I think it was intended, I take my Pop Tarts and my Ipod and I worship quietly on my own. Not so bad, I guess. At least I don't have a technology shrine of Pop Tart god. :)
I think the purity gained is the forced simplification of life. You must rely on God to care for you because technology will not. It forces them to keep a life that we all left a long time ago: hard work, reliance on faith and family and simplicity. Of course they use technology when they must (as they did during that horrible shooting when they sent those girls to the hospital) but only when it would be negligent not to use it.
They don't rely on what man can make but rather on what God will provide.
"I think the purity gained is the forced simplification of life. ... They don't rely on what man can make but rather on what God will provide."
Interesting point.
Maybe you can have your simplicity and your Pop Tarts, too. (Pop Tarts? How about coffee and Krispy Kream Donuts instead?)
A retreat in the woods every so often?
Or is that more worship of nature than the creator?
Besides, a short stay in the woods probably doesn't compare to a permanent lifestyle of the Amish.
Admiration of nature is worship of the Creator, Uruk. At least it is in my mind. I do love a good hike.
And no, I wont trade in my Pop Tarts (or Multi grain Cheerios) for Krispy Kremes and coffee - I don't care for either :) but you feel free to enjoy!
Uhn . . . you don't like Krispy Kremes????
Well, we can still be friends.
You know how Sponge Bob is about Krabby Patties? -- everyone loves them and cannot resist their goodness (not even Squidward).
I feel like that about Krispy Kremes.
I guess I was wrong.
Pop Tarts are cool, though. I like 'em.
And I guess I need to get out more and hike a little after partaking of their goodness!
Uruk:
Since I am not and have never been any kind of Chriatian, it is perhaps a little easier for me to make note of the fact that Christianity seems to urge its participants to see self denial as a form of worship. Not that this is not also true to some extent of both Judaism and Islam, but the whole concept of monasticism, celibate priests, fasting and abstinance, etc. seems much more prominant in Christianity.
Pedrhaps this concept derives from the Christian concept of original sin and is reflected in the idea that people cannot hope to live up to God's standards and must therefore seek forgiveness and be saved.
If Christians truly understood the admonition to "love your neighbor as you love yourself", they would see that one must first learn to love himself in order to carry this "Golden Rule" out to its intended conclusion. You cannot love your neighbor very much if you do not already have self-respect and at least some degree of satisfaction with whatever progress you have made toward living a "good" life. If your pastor keeps reminding you that you are a worthless sinner in spite of whatever efforts you may make to the contrary, it is hard to see how you can find much love or respect for anyone else.
Harvey, please remember that Church doctrine is just that - *church* doctrine. Please don't judge the faith as a whole based on the misconceptions of the majority.
Uruk, we can always be friends. You can have your sugary donuts and I can have my sugary "fruit" filled thing.
I think kids figure things out more than we give them credit for. I also think the default belief structure is atheism, or more likely, agnostic. When we are born, we believe nothing. We are taught to fear god (s) by our parents and community. We, in turn, teach our kids this fear - in the name of reverence and respect. I believe this to be our greatest failing as parents.
I'll side with Lion again....I donalt care much for coffee. Krispy Kreme, however, is too good to pass up. I eat them with milk :-)
Mac, I must disagree. While I think we are born Agnostic (not Atheist that requires a lack of belief as opposed to simply not knowing and being in search of answers) I don't like the idea that we are taught to fear God. I don't fear God. If you (not you, but people in general) worship out of fear you are doing it wrong. Worship should come from love and admiration not fear.
By your definition, Lion, babies most certainly are atheist -" it requires a lack of belief" . Babies lack many things, belief being one of them, knowledge being another. We, as humans, are born with a blank slate. Whatever belief we have is a result of our environment. Your beliefs are a fine example of this; you were Catholic, then your Mother dropped that and became pagan....All of which makes you the Christian we like so much today :-)
"By your definition, Lion, babies most certainly are atheist -" it requires a lack of belief" . Babies lack many things, belief being one of them, knowledge being another. We, as humans, are born with a blank slate. Whatever belief we have is a result of our environment. Your beliefs are a fine example of this; you were Catholic, then your Mother dropped that and became pagan....All of which makes you the Christian we like so much today :-)"
Mac. No. Just no. Babies are born curious always seeking knowledge. Always looking for the answers. That makes them agnostic, not Atheist. Atheists (think they) have the answers. :)
I think you are painting with a very broad brush, Lion. Not all atheists think they have all the answers. Sure babies are curious. But of what are they curious? Mama's tit, that electrical outlet, the taste of their own toe. I doubt many babies ponder the nature of the universe.
I've always thought the theist was the one who tought they had answers . Ever see that sign "Jesus is the answer"?
Mac, the very nature of an Atheist (or, yes a theist) is that they think they know the truth. Agnostics are the truly honest ones that say they don't know but keep searching (yep, I said it.)
Babies are curious about everything. Who knows? Maybe they do ponder the universe!
Yeah, Lion, you're probably right. I merely think I know. I KNOW, that I don't know. I know, I used to seek knowledge, but I no longer believe that knowledge can be found....And, I know that since my 'puter has been boxed I can't seem to leave a comment over on your blog page. Uruk's page works on my phone, yours doesn't. I have been reading your posts (I'm sure you miss my non-arguements ;-)
Many atheists disagree on what that very term means.
I suppose if we took a spectrum of certainty and uncertainty about god's existence (or non existence) we'll find that the word "atheist" will be embraced by many people along that spectrum.
The meaning of "agnostic" and "atheist" often overlap for many non-believers.
Not all who claim to be atheists will say that they are certain of god's non existence. They approach god like a scientific hypothesis-- they won't admit certainty of his or her existence until there is physical, verifiable (testable) proof. Until then, they assume his or her non existence while leaving room for the possibility that one day something might chance their minds.
But until then, they embrace doubt.
And such atheists can't seem to help this mindset either. This way of thinking simply comes natural after exposure to various experiences and bits of information.
Some people (believers and atheists alike) exclusively use the word "agnosticism" to describe non belief that admits uncertainty and openness. But, many still use the word "atheist" to describe that same level of non belief.
I think many atheists are still willing to admit that they have no proof that god does not exist. They are making an inference based on other ideas that make non belief make sense. Some atheists (agnostics) acknowledge this. Other atheists (hardcore atheists?) don't.
A book I plan to read soon (after reading 1984) is God: The Failed Hypothesis. The subtitle says something like "How science shows that god does not exist".
I think scientific discoveries have often caused people to re-evaluate their beliefs in the supernatural. But, I don't think science actually proves the non existence of god. I think God: The Failed Hypothesis will be very interesting . . . but I don't think I will wholeheartedly agree with the title's implied premise.
Incidentally, are babies atheists?
Personally, I can't say for sure.
I do miss you, Mac! Tell your phone to get with the damn program and start working right - sheesh!
Uruk, embracing doubt it agnostic. I know people will claim the title Atheist but that doesn't mean it is accurate. Theists are defined as having a belief in a god(pick one). Atheists are the opposite - they don't believe there is a god. Agnostics are in the middle and unsure - they doubt, but keep looking for answers. Many "atheists" are, in fact, agnostics.
I would be interested in that book because, let me tell you, science has never showed God (or any god) does not exist. That is the very nature of the problem. Science can neither prove nor disprove.
I agree with Uruck on the issue of atheist labeling. Just as sure as Lion is that there is a god, I am sure there is not. And just as surely as I cannot prove my belief, she cannot prove hers. While I realize no one can be 100% sure of any thing - NONE can, I consider myself atheist. Perhaps I'm an atheist with agnostic leanings? But, unlike Lion's definition of agnostic, I no longer seek those answers, for I believe they can't be found.
Mac,
Can so :p
Uruk,
Your word verification is parvo. Not cool, Uruk. Not cool. Ludo is upset with you :)
Lion, I'm sorry 'bout the word verification bit. Not my fault.
Next time something like that happens, click on edit, and then preview it all over again. That should refresh the word verification to something less offensive.
:-)
And do give Ludo my humblest of apologies.
Meh, I bet he has already forgotten. And you know I forgive you!
Post a Comment