AIBU for not wanting my MIL to discuss Jesus and heaven with my 5 year old?

[Spearshake]

I was just having breakfast with my 5 year old son and he asked me, 'do only people who love Jesus go to heaven?; I asked him who told you that.
Unfortunately, my tone must have been a bit sharp (hey, first thing in the morning) so he said, 'I don't know'

(I know it's his grandma though (my MIL) because she has been staying with us for the last week and we haven't been in contact with anyone else who is likely to make such comments) Unless he has been on the evangelical channels again

The problem is that I am an atheist, so I have a tough time with such discussions. He asked me what God is the other day, and I asked him to wait until his father gets home and he can answer (he was brought up more religiously than me)

Any ideas from fellow mumsnetters of a similar religious (or non-) bent on how to deal with such ideas would be most welcome.

Thank you!

this is quite hurtful for those who follow Jesus

Faith aside you must see the intellectual argument.

Do you believe in everything unless proven otherwise? Your world must be a very confusing place.

Yes. Because concepts of moral systems are variable and can have varying impacts on people which said people can find objectionable. I'm not sure what your point is. I don't want people to believe in objective moralities if said 'objective' moralities than risk being imposed on others, including potentially me or people I care about. And that is entirely ignoring the concept of an evolved altruism.

You're missing my point. My point is that in choosing between different moral systems there is a value judgment. You can't get outside that. You say you want to chose the one that is least 'risky' to others - but there's no objective reason why more or less risk should be better.

Mehitabel often says that she doesn't know any Christians that come from Christian homes. I do think she must know some very unusual people- I only know 1 Christian who doesn't.

Zing do you think it's acceptable to tell a 5 year old that only people who love Jesus go to heaven?

Or to give a child a book with graphic warnings about what will happen if they don't believe in God?

ZingDramaQueenOfSheeba

Do you also believe in Ganesh or the White Monkey god?

"Atheism is a faith, what rubbish.
Dora, I suppose you think OFF is a TV channel and bald is a hair style.
Abstinence is not a sexual position, and atheism is not a faith."

Very well put

And perhaps you know many people who do not believe in any kind of normative morality - but I have not encountered anyone who claims to not believe in good and bad nor seen that view espoused in any corner of our culture.

I haven't read the thread but dh and I are both atheist, mil and dm are religious - it was school that convinced my dcs that God was real - when they were in Reception, it took a year before they saw it all as nonsense - there's no convincing them now.
Mil thinks I have deprived them of a faith, I feel I have freed them from brainwashing and endless sermons, wish someone had done the same for me - she gave them a childrens bible - i binned it, the ideas in it were ridiculous - she does not persue the issue with the dcs now as they would object.

"Some estimates put Christians at almost 3 billion and Muslims at about half that. I'd say for both religions of desert people, some obviously still do need them."

They don't actually need them. Most are indoctrinated as children into accepting the myth as reality, never needing to question any of it - a fate OP is rightly trying to protect her DS from.

You say you want to chose the one that is least 'risky' to others - but there's no objective reason why more or less risk should be better.

I said nothing of the sort. I said I don't want people to believe in things they believe to be objective moralities if this results in (or has the potential to result in) harm to others. I would prefer people not to believe their concepts of morality were objective at all, because they're not. Nothing about choosing a morality at all.

And there's certainly a reason to want to avoid groups of people coming to harm. Whether you want to see that as me selfishly perceiving it as a potential risk to myself or you want to come back around to the concept of an evolved altruism is your choice, both are likely correct. Increased risk and/or chaos = less stable society = worse conditions for everyone, both subjectively and in an evolutionary sense. You can term that an objective reason or not but either way the argument you're trying to make is a dud.

And perhaps you know many people who do not believe in any kind of normative morality - but I have not encountered anyone who claims to not believe in good and bad nor seen that view espoused in any corner of our culture.

Given that you also claim that no religious person has ever told you how you should behave (or whatever it was, cba to scroll back that far), I can only take that as further evidence that you don't engage with human beings as much, or in the same way, as some of the rest of us.

Zing, feeling upset when people disagree with your beliefs or morals is quite normal. It's part of living as a grown-up, I fear. I feel upset when people bash on about sending immigrants home or letting them drown, their being undeserving, and so on. I have to hear it all the bloody time, though. And it's more helpful for me to be aware of the strength of this viewpoint than to close my ears.

"I have not encountered anyone who claims to not believe in good and bad nor seen that view espoused in any corner of our culture."

You must have lived a sheltered life.

There is of course good/useful/nice/pleasant smells, tastes, behavior ("Hitting your brother is bad because it hurts him" etc) but nobody is entirely good and nobody is evil - everyone is justified for what they do in their own head. Yes, there are sociopath serial killers, for example, but no "evil" as portrayed in religions.

I too inhabit that complicated grey area. Most of us do.

"Hate the sin, not the sinner". See, being an atheist grey area inhabitant puts you on a par with the founder of catholicism

Ha ha!

parents should be the only people to discuss religion with their children- not mils, nursery school staff , childminders , relatives etc.

All these myth systems were invented by people: to give explanations for stuff they were not sufficiently scientifically advanced to understand (to a person from a pre-industrial culture, electric light can only be understood as 'magic'); to encourage a general code of conduct that allowed people (so long as they were of the same tribe) to live together - and most of all, to benefit a self-appointed elite and keep everyone else in their place
The various mishmashes of morality tales (many of which are frankly not what a civilised, rational person would consider moral at all), vague references to region-specific natural events such as floods and tidal waves. and a story about what happens when you die, were all cobbled together in a vague sort of way over centuries, with different bits getting emphasized depending on the mindset of whoever is in power.
On the whole, people favour imginary friends that suit them, and mirror them: a kind, well-intentioned person will believe in a sky-pixie that favours kindness to others, fair dealing, etc (along with a bit of ritual that's culturally comfortable). A fuckwit will consider intelligence and logic to be eeeevil and blasphemous. An inadequate bully will prefer the sort of superstitious code that's big on killing unbelievers and has a rigid hierarchy that puts the bully and the bully's pals officially above other people.

Well, I suppose. But, hugely scientific cultures are still led by prime ministers who hump little boys and others who use dodgy science to invade oil rich cultures. Unfortunately, the fact that you have access to well stocked laboratories doesn't alter the nature of mankind. Science is a method of interpretation. Power is another. Test tubes and experiments are of limited use.

are still led by prime ministers who hump little boys and others who use dodgy science to invade oil rich cultures.

That's more to do with the church than science.

No, one has probably to do with attending a boys' public school and the other to do with the US economy needing cheap oil. It has nothing to do with the Church.

YABU she believes this and is doing what she thinks is best for her grandson and if you haven't discussed it with her why wouldn't she discuss it with him? Ultimately you'll have greater influence. Make it clear what you believe, explain to MIL what you are teaching him, ask her to respect that, hope she does.

Ok so one has to do with the preservation of patriarchy and an unhealthy interest in sex, and the other has to do with greed and power...................nothing that the church is interested in then?

Right, gotcha.

Well, I'm not sure which church we're arguing about, now. One allows marriage and the other does not. I'm not taking any responsibility for the Roman one. It needs to make its own explanations.

Are you worried that your DS will grow up with different beliefs to you OP?