The Freethought Mom

How Did Jesus Walk On Water?

Jesus did a lot of miracles. We don't know how he did them. Jesus is God, so he can do anything. Walking on the water was not Jesus' ordinary way of getting around. He did this miracle, like other miracles, to teach his disciples and to show them his power. Jesus is Lord of the laws or the universe - he's in charge of the water, too, so he can walk on it whenever he wants to.

Doesn't this just make you want to go back to Sunday school again?

Elvis certainly didn't mean that the Pope would wear his red shoes, somehow I missed the fact that Ratzinger wears red Prada shoes and other sundry, like Gucci sunglasses, that people have donated to him. Wow, doesn't this make him seem like a practical kind of guy, I mean, since you can't take it with you, right? As this anonymous article states:

Do you know how rude it would be for a man of the cloth, the highest authority in all of Christianity, to say, “no thank you, but it wouldn't look good [gifts] because there are so many starving people in the world”? The Pope is in no position to live simply. And thus, he wears these expensive items, which close to 99.9 percent of his
followers can not afford, to remind himself that rich people are God's children too.

So my burning question is, who the heck would donate expensive shoes to the pope? Are they trying to curry favors with their god, or to get better seats at Mass?

In other news, I recently received my copy of the End of Faith AND amphimacer emailed me a link to the Atheist Manifesto on the same day. Coincidence OR NOT??!! :)

marcguyver asks: "What do you think happens when you die and do we possess anything 'eternal' in our body, i.e. a soul? ... I am hoping and believing that this is not the end."

I mulled this question for a few days (then I disappeared into my busy life, sorry).

I grew up being told something very interesting. 'I am special because I have an eternal soul. I can look forward being reunited with loved ones and lasting forever in a very special place (as long as I eat my peas and do what I'm told).' Doesn't this, on the surface at least, seem like a lovely, positive thing that anyone would love?

In college, even though I had long left behind the Catholic church's dogma, I searched for the soul. I read widely, from Buddism to new agey stuff. Shouldn't there to be something to "a life after death" as it seems to be such a common theme across many cultures? Great question.

Part One: do you really want to live forever?

Would living forever really be such a good thing? Books such as Lord of the Rings and Interview with a Vampire do not make me look forward to joining some eternal place. These books are by two theists, Tolkien & Rice is famously a newly reconverted theist. stardust1954 pointed out Twain's Letters from the Earth, a hilarious non-theist take on the question.

But... if you love science fiction at all, try one of my favorites: Hyperion, but trust me on this, if you don't buy book #2 you will regret it. (It does contain some pretty explicit sex scenes, so I'm not sure you'll want to share it with a young teen.) Did I remember to tell you to get #2 if you do pick it up? You'll never wish Heaven on anyone after reading these two books.

I have more thoughts, on the mechanics of the soul, RSN.

Does Britney Spears help influence the first time your child has sex? Reuters reports on a study in the current issue of Pediatrics "Sexy Media Matter: Exposure to Sexual Content in Music, Movies, Television, and Magazines Predicts Black and White Adolescents' Sexual Behavior", finding that more exposure to "sexy" media means earlier they are doin' it. An excerpt from the yahoo news story:

The teenage pregnancy rate in the United States is three to 10 times higher than that found in other industrialized nations, making that and exposure to sexually transmitted infections a major public health concern, the study said.

At the same time parents tend not to talk about sex with their children in a timely and comprehensive way, leaving a vacuum in which the media may become a powerful sex educator, providing "frequent and compelling portraits of sex as fun and risk free."

"Interestingly one of the strongest predictors of risk for early sexual intercourse for both black and white teens (in the study) was the perception that his or her peers were having sex," the report said.

I'm bringing up my children a "bit" differently from how I was brought up, and this is one huge difference. My dad to this day, my mother jokes, can't bring himself to face the fact that his older sister has ever had sex, much less his daughters.

Our kids are at risk due to religions peddling the sex is bad meme, and its backlash, our culture's obsession with strange teenage-boy fantasy worlds. How does one navigate the waters, with abstinence-only programs failing (unless you think gonorrhea of the throat is a good outcome), while girls are becoming fertile earlier every year?

But, instead of feeling like a unmoored boat bobbing in the waves when it comes to teaching my child about sex, there are good books such as Everything You Never Wanted Your Kids to Know About Sex, but Were Afraid They'd Ask: The Secrets to Surviving Your Child's Sexual Development from Birth to the Teens to guide the way. Another book I have is the Yellow Dyno book, which gave me the courage to start using the p-word (penis). I can now say it without blushing, a huge step away from my Catholic upbringing. If you can't even say the word, how do you give your children the skills they need to protect themselves against predators?

I'm sorry I've been away, my two faithful readers (one??) ...I have no time to blog, but yet I am drawn back here... because I love to write and when do I take the time to do something I love? I think I stopped in part because my "perfectionist" tendencies take over: if I can't write what I think might be an interesting piece, I'd rather not write at all. I'll try to relax and just write less often rather than giving up wholesale, promise.

There's been a slew of interesting news stories, like the study of heart patients being prayed over (guess what happens?), science finding that 666 isn't the number of the beast (try 616), and how Douglas Adams must be turning over in his grave (42 is an important number indeed).

I had a surprise when I took beliefnet's "What's Your Spiritual Type?" quiz [to see what kind of site I was linking to above]. It's got some good questions, like

Q 20. In regards to religion and morality:

1. I think it's impossible to be moral without being religious
2. It's possible but difficult to be moral without reminders from religion
3. It's entirely possible to develop and live by a good moral code without religion
4. Religion makes it harder to be a moral person

If you think I picked answer #4, you'd be correct. The surprise was that I tested 32 out of a range of 25-100: "Spiritual Dabbler: Open to spiritual matters but far from impressed" instead of the lower-scoring "Hardcore Skeptic". How silly is that :)

I've been working on two "crisis" situations and another project right now, so I have only time to repost from Randy Cassingham's jumbojoke. Thanks for all the great comments & email ... sorry for not having much time lately, back soon...

A Lesson from Jesus

Jesus saw a crowd chasing down a woman to stone her and approached them. "What's going on here, anyway?" He asked.

"This woman was found committing adultery and the law says we should stone her!" one of the crowd responded.

"Wait," yelled Jesus, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Suddenly, a stone was thrown from out of the sky, and knocked the woman on the side of her head.

"Aw, c'mon, Dad!" Jesus cried, "I'm trying to make a point here!"

stardust1954 recently posted a link to the PBS show The Jesus Factor. A page inside there is titled Evangelicals v. Fundamentalists. Yikes! I thought they were the same thing! The second interview down, by John Green, says that the fundamentalist subset of evangelicalism are the ones that take the bible literally instead of metaphorically. Given this difference, I suspect if I review my writings, I interchange these terms. Sorry.

Does my simplistic cheat-sheet capture the differences?

• Catholic: bible + Catechism + pope
• Evangelical: only use the bible
• Fundamentalist: the bible is inerrant

Misquoting Jesus: : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman is a relatively new book. I pulled out an excerpt from a Washington Post article (thanks Lya!) relevant to recent discussions on here:

For the next 12 years, he studied at Moody, at Wheaton College (another Christian institution in Illinois) and finally at Princeton Theological Seminary. He found he had a gift for languages. His specialty was the ancient texts that tried to explain what actually happened to Jesus Christ, and how the world's largest religion grew into being after his execution.

What he found there began to frighten him.

The Bible simply wasn't error-free. The mistakes grew exponentially as he traced translations through the centuries. There are some 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts that are the basis of the modern versions of the New Testament, and scholars have uncovered more than 200,000 differences in those texts.

"Put it this way: There are more variances among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament," Ehrman summarizes.

Most of these are inconsequential errors in grammar or metaphor. But others are profound. The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the text years later -- and these are the only verses in that book that show Christ reappearing after his death.

Another critical passage is in 1 John, which explicitly sets out the Holy Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). It is a cornerstone of Christian theology, and this is the only place where it is spelled out in the entire Bible -- but it appears to have been added to the text centuries later, by an unknown scribe.

For a man who believed the Bible was the inspired Word of God, Ehrman sought the true originals to shore up his faith. The problem: There are no original manuscripts of the Gospels, of any of the New Testament.

He wrote a tortured paper at Princeton that sought to explain how an episode in Mark might be true, despite clear evidence to the contrary. A professor wrote in the margin:

"Maybe Mark just made a mistake."

As simple as it was, it struck him to the core.

This is the kind of scholarly research I had in mind when I write posts about the bible, to read about someone with the time on their hands to actually do it is like a tease! Of course, I've had little sleep over the past two days, anything intellectual is going to sound friggin' fabulous :)

Two things about this excerpt I like, for one, it's another example to me of how people come to the truth on their own. When you are ready to see it, it's there, and no amount of reasonable facts before you are ready to see it will persuade you. Second, his let-down sounds like mine as I described. D'oh!

TC responded to my post about lippy kids:

Some may think soap to the mouth is extreme; but you have to teach your kids that some behavior is extremely intolerable. My wife and I have reluctently used bar soap to clean up potty mouth after a couple of warnings to two of our four children who needed it. It worked extremely well! Children are not all alike so what some people consider extreme punishments are not required by every child. As I said only two of our children needed it because they had strong stuburn personalities.

I can agree with the statement that children are not all alike, and that some behavior is extremely intolerable. For example, hurting someone is not to be tolerated, ever.

I find the image of holding down a child to put soap in their mouth so distasteful it turns my stomach. If my children can't count on me to not hurt them, who the heck can they count on?

How would you feel if this was done to you? I'd be furious, and would resolve, "well, I'll never let you see me doing that again! You can't control me!" It divides the parent and child, turning them against each other, OR squashes the child's will. This isn't generally considered good either, except for those who prefer sheep for children.

I, too, have a child with a very strong personality. (I don't label it 'stubborn' as that obfuscates and divides.) A master of her own ship, I call it. Yet, we got through her potty mouth stage without resorting to soap in the mouth. How, you ask? With humor, and perspective.

For perspective, I turn to the long run. What do I want to teach my child? Blind obedience in the form of "you will NOT say those words or you will be sorry"? Or, understanding the reason behind the preference, "no one wants to be around someone that keeps talking about things that happen in the bathroom! That's so gross!"

A child was singing an off-color ditty in the back of my van a few weeks back. My daughter giggled a bit, and I rolled my eyes, then the conversation turned to something else. She giggle because it was slightly funny, not because "mom is going to kill us", nor did she need to worry that I'd do something crazy like treat her friend with a bar of soap, nor was she a prude in danger of becoming the stick in the mud. The moment happened, it was over. It is not a hot button issue that she could push to get a reaction.

Contrast that to a child who was physically shut up by soap. The reason behind the rule wasn't understood (else the warning would have sufficed), and the self discipline to behave in a socially appropriate manner wasn't practiced. Soap squashed the behavior at the expense of the big picture.

Now if someone is belted at the playground, I want my children to be the first one there to say, "that is NOT OK!" Recognizing a situation that requires involvment is easier, I contend, when you don't have to deal with broad exceptions to the rule, such as "well, if a parent wants to hurt their own child to get quicker obedience, that's OK, but this case etc etc..."

I'm back from an excellent vacation. Thanks to all who commented while I was gone!

Here's a quick review of the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist, a 112 page book supported by voluntary contributions, I believe. Page 61 (in pdf, marked page 58 if printed) has a few paragraphs on what for me is the million dollar question: "How should we teach our children about Atheism?" I like the list of Celebrations (page 74), the Reflections though I could do without the amens (starting on page 77), and on page 98 are a list of camps! Cool! Lots of web sites, quotes, and books.

I've had a really, really hard & hectic week leading up to tomorrow's vacation. I didn't get a chance to do more than read my mail (blogger emails me every time a comment is posted). I've drafted a post for marcguyver (no, I didn't forget), and six posts about CHILDREN just waiting for some attention. Stay tuned, I'll be back soon.

Meanwhile, Sunny California, here we come!

I think I have a handle on the frustration in a previous discussion.

Let's say you have a friend really into astrology. Let's say he uses an old book supposedly created by a famous mystic to create horoscopes. The book is a bit cryptic, and a bit "far out", but your friend feels he has the right way of reading it (maybe cross-referencing it with a different translation), so he can create really spot-on horoscopes. He "predicts" things when he's with you, constantly referring to events "because Jupiter is rising" and "your moon sign is in Sagittarius" etc.

Finally, you push back. "Wait, because Jupiter is on the rise, I am about to come into some money? That doesn't make any sense." But your friend persists, countering every example and reason you give for this to be senseless with another quote from the book. He will read and interpret from the book all day without ever seeing your point that the "evidence" from the book is next to worthless to you.

I've formed this hypothesis from a quote by our loquacious xtian himself: "Likewise, I'm just lending you my understanding of the Bible for your consideration" and everyone else is going, "AHHHHHH! How frustrating!"

For fun, I tried re-reading the conversation substituting "Jupiter is on the rise" for biblical content. I'm not sure what else to do with it, going over it point by point seems, um, pointless.

I should add that I feel everyone has their own take on the bible. If you feel it is important to your life, hey, knock yourself out! I had fun examining what the term "the bible" means, thanks to everyone for listening and your comments.

I'm trying to set up the orange feedburner icon working on the sidebar. I think it is OK but I'm not sure. I also want to try to read my favorite blogs by subscribing to feeds, but haven't had a chance to figure it out!

I previously pointed out interesting wikipedia entries about the bible but I missed an important page: the English Translations of the Bible. This entry says that there are about 450 translations of the bible over the past two thousand years! It also has (in some cases very brief) entries on about 120 bible versions and about three dozen biblical translators.

My favorite is a link from a very stubby entry:

Zondervan: does comparison of a number of translations, with a graphic showing where each fits on the spectrum of word-for-word (literal) or thought-for-thought (paraphrase). However, it may be skewed in favor of the New International Version (which the graphic shows located in the middle of the spectrum) which Zondervan publishes.

Anyone know if the graphic on the Zondervan page is approximately accurate? I would find it helpful to have a quick place to reference when I read when someone points out their preferred bible.

After deciding which books to put in the canon (and deciding which version of these books to use), now I see one has to pick the translation based on how much of the literal words versus the gleaned intended meaning is desired. When I hear someone stating what they think is a fact about their god, I tend to ask how they know. Now that I have a feeble grasp of the canonization and translation process that went into each passage, I wonder, how could anyone assert something as a "fact" when its source is the bible? Any insight here, Steven (my favorite biblical scholar)?

Thanks to my grounding in the scientific method, I generally hear the assertions many make about their invisible god while simultaneously wondering at their apparent innocence of how this world works.

Thanks to Kevin Parry who was recently writing about the Latin Vulgate Bible.

The Jewish Atheist recently published Dogma: The Real Enemy, a topic I think about alot. A friend yesterday described someone as a spirit with a beautiful soul, I didn't jump up and say, "Soul? Do you really believe that?" She frames her life as a spiritual quest, and I like her and I like to consider the world from her point of view. We get along very well but it makes me sad we can't be the best of friends because I'm not completely honest with her.

Should I open up to her? The longer I write and read about atheism, the sillier my silence seems. Yet, in this case, my friend isn't about Dogma, she's an artist who creates out of nothing, and battles personal demons. (At the risk of sounding conceited) I feel too shy to potentially upset her muse.

It's never black and white in real life. I take from her what she shares, and I try to provide a friendly ear, meanwhile my brain whirs and wonders.

My 18 month old tripped and split his forehead open on a sharp corner at a showroom today. Anyone seeing a head injury knows how much blood appears very quickly. I put a hand over it, then my husband took over, took him and applied pressure with tissues, while I went to figure out where we should take him. He stopped crying within a minute, and stopped bleeding within ten minutes, enough that we got a horrible glance at the almost half inch deep gash near his hairline. The ladies at the store had the perfect large band aid that sealed all four sides shut. I picked him up, and we headed to the car.

As a mommy, I could tell exactly what was about to happen. Baby will go into the car fine, my spirited 1st grader is going to get hysterical. Exactly. He gave her his famous "what is she so upset about now?" look, as I thought of a way to calm her down. "Here, squeeze my finger as hard as you can," I said as I twisted my arm to the back seat. "(Hysterical) NO!" "Please? I want to see which hand is stronger." Finally she did, left hand over right, then right over left, and calmed right down. (My cousin used to do that with me, and tease, "are you squeezing? I can barely feel it...")

We had asked the hospital on the phone if they could see him right away. My husband zoomed off with him when we arrived, and I went to check in. It took one hour just to check in. I imagined what was going on with my baby, but felt calm. My trooper lay on the gurney for that hour, snoozed for a bit but looked at my husband and stayed still for the rest of the time. He did cry while they put in the six stitches, but was fine again a few minutes later. If it had been my daughter in there, I can't even imagine the scene!

I got that crystal clear 'in the moment' feeling as I was with my family today.

As I don't believe that there is a post-death reunion, I try very hard to live each day to its fullest. If I make a mistake, I need to fix it, preferably today. If something needs to be said, I need to say it. Tomorrow might be too late, a point brought home anew today. It makes for a full, happy, examined life.

I feel like such an idiot sometimes! I set blogger to email me when someone comments on the blog, otherwise I'd never figure it out for comments on older posts. Well, just now, I realized that a recent email was marked "From:" that person, and not "noreply-comment@blogger.com" like I usually see. Cool! How did they do that?? A bit of digging, and it seems straightforward. If you have a Blogger account and publish your email, blogger uses your public email address in the From field instead of the noreply one. I'm sure everyone else has figured this out long ago.

So now I have a question: it seems that TTLB (The Truth Laid Bare) only counts inbound links from sites that also have registered with them, anyone know if this is true? Thanks in advance.

.... now trying to catch up (17 messages, yikes!). Thanks for taking the time to comment, jdhurf, jim, marcguyver, and stardust...

jim jordan asked me to sum up the (Christian) bible in a paragraph. Great idea!

The bible is an important piece of literature, whose quotes are widely used in our culture. A compilation written by scores of authors, with differing viewpoints, beliefs, and agendas, it has some overarching themes, like rules for organization of social life, and justice. Many people find parts of it very beautiful, like the parables of Jesus. Many people attach special importance to it because they believe it to be inspired in some manner by their deity.

After I wrote the above, I checked out wikipedia's bible entry. I had understood that the bible wasn't a cut and dried document, but actually reading about the story is fascinating!

The Deuterocanonical books are "extra" OT books not found in the Hebrew Bible (and I read to my chagrin that the 'Hebrew Bible' contains the 'Torah' and is not a synonym for it, oops.)

The (New Testament) Apocrypha are "suppressed" books, from wikipedia: "Obedient Christians were warned away from these works now termed apocryphal, many of which were vigorously suppressed and survive only as fragments." The entries for Apocrypha & Deuterocanonical books contain links to each book in question, a veritable wealth of information.

The entry on the Biblical Canon touches on not only which books make up the Jewish and Christian bibles, but which version of each book is deemed proper.

It appears that it is true that the seemingly simple question "which bible?" can take a book's worth of information to fully answer.

Reader gaz pointed out recently:

However, it's interesting that you choose a somewhat negative term like 'deconverted' to describe your transition, as if you feel that you have lost something or at least, experienced some sense of loss.

This is astute! I actually think of my transition as a de-evolution. To evolve means to become more complex and my beliefs are now much simpler. However, the other part of the evolution definition is "better". Obviously, I think my change IS for the better. So I punted, and said "deconversion".

But there's more... once you understand you've been mislead, it's like being punk'd! Doh! I'm an idiot! So, "deconversion" is somewhat negative also because I feel stupid not to have started questioning earlier in life.

gaz also recommends this funny article about Daniel C. Dennett, who has recently published Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Wow, gaz, this is totally up my alley and looks like a fabulous book. Thanks!

If, in any culture, children are taught, ‘We are all equally unworthy in the sight of God’ -

If, in any culture, children are taught, ‘You are born in sin and are sinful by nature’ -

If children are given a message that amounts to ‘Don’t think, don’t question, believe’ -

If children are given a message that amounts to ‘Who are you to place your mind above that of the priest, the minister, the rabbi?’ -

If children are told, ‘If you have value it is not because of anything you have done or could ever do, it is only because God loves you’ -

If children are told, ‘Submission to what you cannot understand is the beginning of morality’ -

If children are instructed, ‘Do not be “willful”, self-assertiveness is the sin of pride’ -

If children are instructed, ‘Never think that you belong to yourself’ -

If children are informed, ‘In any clash between your judgement and that of your religious authorities, it is your authorities you must believe’, -

If children are informed, ‘Self-sacrifice is the foremost virtue and the noblest duty’ -

- then consider what will be the likely consequences for the practice of living consciously, or the practice of self-assertiveness, or any of the other pillars of healthy self-esteem.

[Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, Bantam (May 1, 1995) p 291-292]

Source: gonesavage by way of Goosing the Antithesis.

gonesavage has a great blog, read about her great escape and here's an excerpt from another essay:

And if A & E [Adam & Eve] had no idea what Good and Evil were, how could they know that to eat from the Tree was Evil? How could they know that disobeying was Evil? If disobeying presupposes knowledge of Good and Evil, how could they know what disobeying was? Basically, what I’m seeing here is god planting a tree on purpose, telling two kids who don’t know what disobeying was to not disobey, then sentencing them to a life of pain (Genesis 3:16 and 3:17) when they disobeyed. This makes no sense. This makes god an asshole. If I had kids and treated them this way, I would be charged with abuse.

Thanks, Francois and gonesavage!

When I researched atheism, it was like being on a one-way street (away from blog land), and I remember feeling so alone as I explored my beliefs! So I really enjoy the chance to read what others have written, and I also enjoy the interactions. I'm totally hooked.

Anyway, I read on religioustolerance.org that the difference between fundamentalists and other xtians is the issue of inerrancy. Fundies believe the bible is an error-free document, end of story. That's theory.

Reality of course is never black and white. From the five fundies I believe I have come across in the past two months, I have yet to hear one person attempt to defend the bible as a completely error-free document. Maybe there are people like this, either not blogging or just outside my sample.

Instead, the ones I've interacted with seem to explain that one needs to interpret the bible as a whole, and as a teeny tiny ancillary point, their interpretation just happens to be the correct one. I also get the feeling that the "personal relationship" part is the code phrase for "we aren't the child molesting Catholics", but I could be wrong on that one too.

More interesting is the fact that three of the five have said, to atheists as a group or to me in particular, "if only I could make you believe...". The first time, a slip of the tongue. The third time? Pattern. (It's been the same words each time, too, spooky, huh?)

This phrase "I want to make you" is really scary. I'm glad my children aren't near people like that, and I feel bad for any kids whose parents feel this way. I nurture my children because I value confidence, capability, compassion, independence, and free thought. Obedience, ie this "I know better than you" paradigm is repulsive to me. I cannot believe it is said accidentally.

This morning, I poured myself my new favorite tea. I'm trying not to think about the beautiful Bird-Of-Paradise blooming in mojoey's front yard and the easy "just pop on a jacket" that Cassandra needs to go to the park. It's a bit depressing, though, because even though it's cold, most of the snow is gone. New England of yesteryear is gone.

And yet, my seed order from Fedco is on the table, ready to plant today. Today?

I'm going to try Trudi's WinterSown method of mini-greenhouses set in the snow. If you have ever seen the destruction a toddler can do in a few minutes, you understand why I'm not considering the indoor method of seed germination.

Fedco's catalogs are a source of info as well as seeds. Which companies grow our seeds? What would have happened had the "Plant Variety Protection Act" been enacted at the dawn of civilization? Should we worry about Monsanto and genetically engineered seed? What can we do about it?

Today, I'm not going to worry about global warming and frankengenes, and just get my hands in the dirt. Hey look, it just started snowing! Wouldn't it be nice if it could just work out in the end?

stardust1954 pointed out this article Raising Humanist Children. The author Terri Mandell has some good advice (like using "one nation under the sky" in the Pledge). My favorite part is right at the end, where she says:

You don't have to tell kids that god doesn't exist. All you have to do is tell them that God can be anything they want it to be, because it's an idea that comes from the imagination.

And then let them figure out the rest for themselves.

I've been letting this seep into my brain for the past week. This feels so right and fits right in with my larger philosophy. I want my children to be independent, free thinkers, full of curiosity and compassion. I don't want to tell them what to think (which I'm sure would be a futile exercise anyway). I value allowing them the freedom to explore and make mistakes if need be, under my protection and gentle guidance. But how do I do this when "God" is such a part of our culture? Ms. Mandell's statement is a way of thinking about the issue in line with my parenting style.

A few weeks back, my 1st grader was telling me that she and her fellow student were talking about God at school. Which god, where? I asked. "He's everywhere!" she enthused. I let her talk and asked questions, but didn't know where to leave it. With this idea that God can be anything, I can really relax about the issue and indulge in creative thinking with her. I also think it'll remove the issue from becoming a "hot button" one for us as a family.

thanks, stardust!

I really hesitated before starting this blog because there are many bright, articulate atheists already blogging out there, but my passion is about children and I have questions on how to raise them with very few role models as my guide. mindgames asked me recently if I had any end of the night rituals, so I thought I'd share a little.

I need the end of the day to be very peaceful. My 1st grader is what Kurcinka calls spirited: a high energy, super sensitive, intense, persistent sweet little girl. The old "die" prayer I grew up with would be the last thing I need to get her to settle down!

So what does an atheist family do? Well, our ritual is pretty mellow. After stories, I turn out the light. I ask if there was anything that bothered her that day (and it is amazing the things she comes up with), so she can put that to rest.* Then I ask about her favorite part of the day, to get her smiling again. I then tell her how special she is to me, and how much I love her.

Usually one of us will do "see you later alligator / in a while crocodile". If she lies quietly with her eyes closed and head on the pillow, I'll sit with her for about ten minutes, stroking her hair, or if she is lucky, rubbing her back or giving her a hand massage.

That's all, a ritual stripped to the essentials of caring, belonging, tenderness and love. It works for us.

Anyone have other bedtime rituals? I'd love to hear about them.


*Recently, I try to start this at dinnertime if I know she's got a lot on her mind.

marcguyver has read stories about someone named Jesus in the bible and is frustrated (I think) because there are people that don't consider those words proof enough that that person lived. He asks another great question:

Lastly, have you ever seen an atom? And yet, if all of our abilities to actually see an atom (i.e. through an electron microscope) were destroyed, I'm guessing you'd still believe that atoms are real because of the 'testimony' or 'written record' of others who had seen them in the past; am I wrong?

I love this question.

Two guys were sitting around, postulating about the smallest possible particle that could exist. They called this concept the "atom", meaning "indivisible". What is the smallest piece of stone that can still be called a stone be like? How about the smallest part of this table leg, or the contents of this glass of wine? There wasn't an electron microscope in sight as this thought experiment was performed by Greek philosophers Democritus and Leucippus in 500 BC. They came up with a theory that it was the different sizes and shapes of these "atoms" that caused different physical properties such as "hard" or "liquid".

It turns out that their theory didn't hold up when examined using the scientific method. Other theories were proposed, and tested, and as early as 1897 there were insights that the "indivisible" atom had to be comprised of subatomic particles.

Ernst Ruska invented the electron microscope based on knowledge that electrons possess a wave aspect, magnetic fields could manipulate electrons, and that the shorter electron waves would magnify more than ordinary light waves. You couldn't happen to invent an electronic microscope without understanding electrons!

But even with this microscope could we not see an atom. That had to wait until Erwin Muller invented the Field ion microscope in approx. 1951.

How cool is that!

If we were to lose all our scientific knowledge, there we would be on square one with Democritus and Leucippus, postulating about things we can't see, and slowly performing experiments to understand (again) what it is that makes up our universe. If we were to lose all copies of the bible, no amount of sitting around postulating would re-create it. That is why I can believe in atoms though I can't see them, but not, by extension, the contents of a very old book.

From Steven Harris' blog: "Suetonius, Claudius 25:4, approx. 120AD "He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus" approx AD 49, according to Steven.

There must be a mistake! How is a group goaded on by a dead person? There should be a bigger story! Jews travelling to Rome spread oral (presumably) tales of what? Jesus walking on water? Turning the other cheek? Dying for sins? Which caused the Jews to agitate enough that the Romans threw them out, just here but not elsewhere in the Empire. Here is an ancient map showing the Roman Empire (and modern for orientation).

I have spent two days reading about Roman Emperor Claudius. Fascinating! I had no idea we knew so much! He became Emperor just after Jesus supposedly died. I could not find another reference to this Jewish Banishment that he (supposedly) ordered. The stuff we do know about is pretty neat, from his relationship with the Senate to his wives to his cause of death (mushrooms).

Just after becoming Emperor, Claudius in his 'famous' Letter to the Alexandrians didn't permit many Jewish families to move to Alexandria; if you read it you'll see he isn't the kindest towards Jews.

Still, Jewish historian Josephus records that Claudius "then reaffirmed the rights and freedoms of all the Jews in the empire" (quote is from wikipedia, I think referencing book 19 chapter 5 section 2). I don't know to find the date that book 19 refers to, anyone? Was it before or after the banishment? Josephus doesn't seem to notice the banishment. Should he have known about it?

It was in Roman historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' book The Twelve Caesars that contains the reference to Chrestus. He section on Claudius was finished around 112 AD, sixty-ish years after the banishment. The original Latin with translation is available, if I knew Latin I would try to pin down "instigation". Where did he learn that Jews had been banished from Rome? Where are the "imperial records" that he supposedly worked from? One part of this wikipedia entry says he is very significant and a main source of work, but the last line says much is "gossip and factually unrealiable", with no data to back up either view. Annoying!

How many Jews were banished? How long did the banishment last, when did it end? Were there guards posted around Rome to keep out the Jews? How did Claudius know the name of their instigator (Christ the ghost?)? I think I could spend another two days on this and have more questions. Feedback, please...