Raised with faith vs raised without faith - Page 4

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by philomom 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Most of the ones I know didn't break away from anything - they were raised without religion and haven't much thought about it.  The majority of our population is secular, with a lot of tolerantceof those who are religious.  People are pretty free to do what they want.  But generally people stay with what they were raised with as a choice or in a passive way, be it a kind of positive atheism or secular humanism, or a religious belief, or most just not thinking much about it at all. 

Different parts of the world I guess. I grew up the deep South... the literal Bible belt. To meet anyone non-xtian was extremely rare when and where I grew up.

I grew to be an adult and moved to the big city and made friends like the ones I described.. ones that had left religion after much thought and sometimes, heartbreak for their families of origin.

Gotta concur with Philomom.  In the US, it is difficult to find someone who didn't grow up under the burden (my description) of a faith-based family.  Even now that I'm far away from my family in a town where I blend in with the crowd, I get approached by individuals who ask me "Are you "X"" in order to say a  prayer or whatever with me.  I can't escape it.  American politics are dominated by faith-based initiatives and what-not.  It is ever present.

Regarding the most recent posts concerning absolute "truth" (I'm a Zoe's mom too, by the way!):  There are some who would say that the absolute truth is that if I don't accept you-know-who as my personal savior, I'm going to hell.  My absolute truth is not that there is no hell, or that you're not right.  My absolute truth is that I don't care what the position is.  My absolute truth is that morality is not part and parcel of any one religion.  I can hold and subsequently teach my DD moral principles without the need to connect such principles with a god.  

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by zoesmom2009 

    Stifling independent thinking is easy in children, stifling rebellion is hard. What most people see as independent thinking is really the child stretching the bonds of their oppression that the schools and churches put on them. Independent thought first says challenge assumptions. Children by their very nature accept what they are told. It takes a great effort to make them question it.
 

For some reason the whole post won't appear here - anyway, I'm sure you know what you said.

I'm not sure why you decided on the science lesson.  I do actually know quite a bit about science, as it's an area I'm very interested in.  I even know a fair bit about the teenage brain - I didn't see the need to go into details beyond what I needed to illustrate my point, since it was off-topic.  Children question worldviews and think about trustworthy sources beginning when they develop the mental equipment to do so.  And abstract thought does begin in the teenage years, although it doesn't finish until rather later.  Indeed, in some people it doesn't seem to finish at all.  (Although everything you said about teenage development was quite in line with what I was getting at, so I really have no clue why you bothered.)

You seemed to miss the main point I was making however.  If there is really no truth, that does not just apply to religious truth.  It also applies to whatever philosophical word-view you might have, or scientific worldview.  Science is observational, but it is not strictly materialistic.  Even a list of observations from the past is meaningless in such a with no truth.  I have to ask why you feel the need to argue your point so passionately if it isn't more or less true than mine, or Purple Sage's?

Where you got the idea that religion doesn't talk about explanations I don't know.  Have you ever made any attempt at some kind of serious (as in using good sources rather than in-depth) study of theology?  Of any religion?  You could spend a life-time learning about the explanations of any one of the major religions, and a lot of the minor ones as well.

Talking about forcing children to practice religion is a bit odd. I do hope you feel that way about all religion - no taking kids to the UU service, which has a world-view!  Or to a political protest, or maybe even to a La Leche League meeting.  No encouraging them to join the Sierra Club or to write for Amnesty.  And certainly no allowing them to neglect piano practice, even when you are pretty sure they will appreciate it in the long run.

I gather in your last paragraph you are saying most teen rebellion doesn't really manage to challenge assumptions - there is form without content?  If so, I agree.  However, I don't think that is because they have been stifled by being taught things that are "true".  I think it is because they are given piss-poor tools for thin

king about things, and generally haven't read enough history, science, or literature to know an assumption if they fell over it.  And that is true of kids from most religions, or from no religions.

[zoesmom2009]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

For some reason the whole post won't appear here - anyway, I'm sure you know what you said.

I'm not sure why you decided on the science lesson.  I do actually know quite a bit about science, as it's an area I'm very interested in.  I even know a fair bit about the teenage brain - I didn't see the need to go into details beyond what I needed to illustrate my point, since it was off-topic.  Children question worldviews and think about trustworthy sources beginning when they develop the mental equipment to do so.  And abstract thought does begin in the teenage years, although it doesn't finish until rather later.  Indeed, in some people it doesn't seem to finish at all.  (Although everything you said about teenage development was quite in line with what I was getting at, so I really have no clue why you bothered.)

You seemed to miss the main point I was making however.  If there is really no truth, that does not just apply to religious truth.  It also applies to whatever philosophical word-view you might have, or scientific worldview.  Science is observational, but it is not strictly materialistic.  Even a list of observations from the past is meaningless in such a with no truth.  I have to ask why you feel the need to argue your point so passionately if it isn't more or less true than mine, or Purple Sage's?

Where you got the idea that religion doesn't talk about explanations I don't know.  Have you ever made any attempt at some kind of serious (as in using good sources rather than in-depth) study of theology?  Of any religion?  You could spend a life-time learning about the explanations of any one of the major religions, and a lot of the minor ones as well.

Talking about forcing children to practice religion is a bit odd. I do hope you feel that way about all religion - no taking kids to the UU service, which has a world-view!  Or to a political protest, or maybe even to a La Leche League meeting.  No encouraging them to join the Sierra Club or to write for Amnesty.  And certainly no allowing them to neglect piano practice, even when you are pretty sure they will appreciate it in the long run.

I gather in your last paragraph you are saying most teen rebellion doesn't really manage to challenge assumptions - there is form without content?  If so, I agree.  However, I don't think that is because they have been stifled by being taught things that are "true".  I think it is because they are given piss-poor tools for thin

king about things, and generally haven't read enough history, science, or literature to know an assumption if they fell over it.  And that is true of kids from most religions, or from no religions.

It seems that you are angry with me, because you feel that I've insulted your intelligence. If so, I apologize. I included most of the "science lesson" because we are in public forum and others may not be as familiar with such things.

As far as studying individual religions, what do you mean by good sources? The religious texts? Well, as a matter of fact, I've read quite a few. Most of them various versions of the Bible, Buddhist texts, excerpts from the Torah and the Koran, not to mention the practice of many native American, modern pagan, and shamanic theologies. I'm a little addicted to learning things.

As a matter of fact I feel that non-consensual practice of any religion is wrong, including my own. I practice informed consensual parenting. I do not force my child to do anything she can not intelligently (within the realm of her ability) consent to. Be it religion, what she wears today, or what she has to eat. If my daughter says to me, "I want to help the trees." I will talk to her about the sierra club and the arbor foundation. I will help her volunteer and understand why they exist and what they do. However, as much as I believe that we need to save the environment, I won't force my daughter to do it. The same goes with religion, if my daughter says, I wish to become a Muslim and wear a burqa. If she can intelligently give me a reason. I'll go out shopping for a Koran and black cloth. I'll even sew the burqa myself and will warm a seat in the mosque when she asks.

In answer to your question on why I am debating with you and purple sage, read the p.s. on my last post to her.

And now I bid you adieu. 

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by zoesmom2009 

Please pardon the length of my ramblings, sometimes I obscure the point with too many words.

You seem to be saying that there is an absolute truth that exist outside yourself, I am saying that this is impossible, as you can truly know nothing that is outside yourself.

 

Yes, I am saying there is an absolute truth that exists outside of myself.  That is precisely what I'm saying.  How does your belief that you can never truly know anything that exists outside of yourself therefore mean that it does not exist?  All you are saying is that you can't know it.  Why do you insist that you must know something in order for it to be true?

There is an absolute truth. The truth of your own perceptions. The assumption that there is a truth that is not part of your perceptions is just that, an assumption, a belief.  That you belief there is an absolute truth is something I can't refute. But, the important question isn't if you belief, but why? Do you believe because you want to or because you have evidence that prevents you from not believing?

How can that be absolute?  That doesn't make sense.

You also make quite a few assumptions which I hope you could clarify. 

Here's a few that stood out to me. 

1.  Religion in general doesn't offer explanations.

 

2.  Absolute truth is a red herring. Because it first presumes you can not be wrong. That you cannot make mistakes. That you cannot be deceived. That by some miracle you and only you know what is real, what exists.

 

3.  As for brainwashing, what would you call it when you force your child to practice the trappings of your religion, your world view. Did you ask to go sit in a pew and have the preacher tell you that you were going to burn in hell as a 5 year old? Consent is everything in religious practice. My child will only worship what she knowledgeably consents to .

 

(numbers added to your quotes to correspond with my responses)

1.  Religion doesn't offer explanations?  That is just absurd.  Libraries are filled with volumes and volumes of explanations.  I have to echo Bluegoat here and ask where you got this idea.

2.  Again I ask why you think that belief in an absolute, transcendent truth would require that people believe they cannot be wrong.  In fact, I have found the exact opposite to be the case.  It was when I realized that there is Truth which exists whether I believe it or not that I also realized on a profound level that my personal opinions may actually be wrong.  It seems that the belief that truth is all subjective would lead a person to believe that they cannot be wrong - after all, the only reality that exists is my own perceptions, right?  So how could I be wrong?

3.  You seem to be saying that Christianity specifically requires an element of coercion (believe this or you will go to hell) and that Christians do not believe that consent is good, much less required.  If this is truly representative of what you think Christianity is and does, then I would like to gently point out that Christianity is not what you think it is.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by zoesmom2009 

It seems that you are angry with me, because you feel that I've insulted your intelligence. If so, I apologize. I included most of the "science lesson" because we are in public forum and others may not be as familiar with such things.

As far as studying individual religions, what do you mean by good sources? The religious texts? Well, as a matter of fact, I've read quite a few. Most of them various versions of the Bible, Buddhist texts, excerpts from the Torah and the Koran, not to mention the practice of many native American, modern pagan, and shamanic theologies. I'm a little addicted to learning things.

As a matter of fact I feel that non-consensual practice of any religion is wrong, including my own. I practice informed consensual parenting. I do not force my child to do anything she can not intelligently (within the realm of her ability) consent to. Be it religion, what she wears today, or what she has to eat. If my daughter says to me, "I want to help the trees." I will talk to her about the sierra club and the arbor foundation. I will help her volunteer and understand why they exist and what they do. However, as much as I believe that we need to save the environment, I won't force my daughter to do it. The same goes with religion, if my daughter says, I wish to become a Muslim and wear a burqa. If she can intelligently give me a reason. I'll go out shopping for a Koran and black cloth. I'll even sew the burqa myself and will warm a seat in the mosque when she asks.

In answer to your question on why I am debating with you and purple sage, read the p.s. on my last post to her.

And now I bid you adieu. 

I'm not angry - just perplexed.

I was not thinking particularly about religious texts, as in foundational religious texts.  I was assuming the questions which you were thinking of were things like "what does the text say such and such" or ones that were not obvious from basic texts or oral traditions of the religion, or questions like "why do we believe this tradition at all".

There are, as Purple Sage pointed out, there are whole libraries of books that address these kind of questions.  So, for example, at the moment I'm reading On the Incarnation by John Chrysostom, which is full of explanations about the Christian understanding of the Incarnation.  Or a modern Biblical scholar like N.T. Wright would count as a good quality academic scholar who has lots of explanations about things.  Or at a popular level, there are even things like the Catholic Churches catechism, which is nothing but explanations.

(Actually, it's a bit funny because a common complaint against Christianity by some other religions is that it follows too much the Greek philosophical tradition.)

I haven't got much opinion on consensual parenting.  although I wonder if a child can really intelligently make religious decisions?  And how do they know there are religious decisions to make?  In any case, I have never had a real issue with my kids wanting to go to church - though my toddler had a temper tantrum yesterday when we left.  They would be out of luck though if they didn't want to go, since they are not yet able to stay home alone.

[zoesmom2009]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage 

Yes, I am saying there is an absolute truth that exists outside of myself.  That is precisely what I'm saying.  How does your belief that you can never truly know anything that exists outside of yourself therefore mean that it does not exist?  All you are saying is that you can't know it.  Why do you insist that you must know something in order for it to be true?

How can that be absolute?  That doesn't make sense.

You also make quite a few assumptions which I hope you could clarify. 

Here's a few that stood out to me. 

(numbers added to your quotes to correspond with my responses)

1.  Religion doesn't offer explanations?  That is just absurd.  Libraries are filled with volumes and volumes of explanations.  I have to echo Bluegoat here and ask where you got this idea.

2.  Again I ask why you think that belief in an absolute, transcendent truth would require that people believe they cannot be wrong.  In fact, I have found the exact opposite to be the case.  It was when I realized that there is Truth which exists whether I believe it or not that I also realized on a profound level that my personal opinions may actually be wrong.  It seems that the belief that truth is all subjective would lead a person to believe that they cannot be wrong - after all, the only reality that exists is my own perceptions, right?  So how could I be wrong?

3.  You seem to be saying that Christianity specifically requires an element of coercion (believe this or you will go to hell) and that Christians do not believe that consent is good, much less required.  If this is truly representative of what you think Christianity is and does, then I would like to gently point out that Christianity is not what you think it is.

Ah, I see now how we've been speaking around each other. I now understand where I have failed in adequately explaining myself. I will address the issue by number as you have done to try to clarify my meanings.

1. By saying religions don't offer explanations, what I meant is they only offer explanations by fiat not proof. And explanation by fiat is basically "because I said so". This is not to say that there is not great wisdom and good lessons in religious text. But for me personally, I have yet to find answers that remove doubt and adequately convince me that one religion or sect has captured the true path of wisdom and enlightenment.  I follow the wisdom of the teaching of the wise; I do not worship them. In other words, I am a follower of Jesus, but I'm not a Christian. I follow the Buddha, but am not a Buddhist, I follow all wisdom, but belief none deserve blind-faith.

2. I misunderstood, I thought you were saying you had found this truth, not merely that you believe it existed. Finding this truth requires that you must reach a place where you can no longer make mistakes. What I really mean is since it impossible to know a truth outside yourself, absolute or otherwise then it is impossible to ever confirm or deny it's existence. So it is a moot point and can only be accepted on blind faith.

3. If a religion tries to recruit followers, it practices coercion, no matter how noble and well meaning the intentions. I love the teachings of Jesus (among other visionaries), but I abhor what the church has done to them. For instance, did you know that "turn the other cheek" doesn't mean don't fight back, but demand to be treated as an equal. In Ancient Rome you struck someone with your left hand only (culturally) . You struck their Right cheek with the back of your hand to signify that you thought of them the same as the other primary use for the back of the left hand... toilet paper.  By standing back up, looking them square in the eye and presenting your Left cheek. You say. "I am not your inferior, but equal." Jesus was one of the first to advocate non-violent guerrilla warfare. The rest of the passage speaks to roman laws. It was considered a punishable offense to take too much from someone when suing them. It was a rule that slave conscripts could only be force marched (with a rather large pack) one mile a day, by walking two you demanded to be treated as a paid soldier. "We are all equal in the eyes of God."

” ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.”

Matthew 5:38-41

“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher, his age or wisdom. But if after due examination and analysis, you find it to be kind, conducive to the benefit and welfare of all beings, then take that doctrine as your guide.” --Buddha

Edited by zoesmom2009 - 4/4/11 at 7:54am

[Purple Sage]

I don't have a lot of time, but I do want to respond to a couple of things you wrote.

First, you really need to read good theology books which explain religious texts.  If you are only getting "because I said so" from what you're reading, then you need better sources, and there are many.

The other thing is this:

If a religion tries to recruit followers, it practices coercion, no matter how noble and well meaning the intentions.

I disagree.  True conversion of the heart cannot be coerced.  Love cannot be forced, not with promises of rewards nor threats of punishments, and certainly not with acts of intimidation or violence.

[zoesmom2009]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage 

First, you really need to read good theology books which explain religious texts.  If you are only getting "because I said so" from what you're reading, then you need better sources, and there are many.

I would like to read these texts. What would you suggest?

The other thing is this:

I disagree.  True conversion of the heart cannot be coerced.  Love cannot be forced, not with promises of rewards nor threats of punishments, and certainly not with acts of intimidation or violence.

   I would like to answer this with a bit of personal background. I was raised in a Southern Baptist home. My grandfather was a minister. He was an extremely gentle man, in his life and in his sermons. He was not one of those who threw fire and brimstone down from the pulpit. He spoke of the loving, accepting, peaceful message of Christ. But the threat was still there, even if unspoken. And I went to church and followed the rest of the congregation, out of love for my grandfather and through him love of Christ. I know the bonds of love. It took years of heart wrenching soul searching to break with the church and follow my own path. The bonds of love may be placed gently and with care, but they are still the bonds of a prison. If you are recruiting; you are coercing. Jesus didn't want conscripts or followers, he wished to raise people up from the life of servitude they had lived. He wished for them to grasp divinity in their own hands and become their own masters. He didn't want the church of Paul or any of it's many offshoots. He wanted the church of your own heart.

"And having been questioned by the Pharisees, when the reign of God doth come, he answered them, and said, 'The reign of God doth not come with observation; nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you.' " Luke 17:20-21  

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by zoesmom2009 

   I would like to answer this with a bit of personal background. I was raised in a Southern Baptist home. My grandfather was a minister. He was an extremely gentle man, in his life and in his sermons. He was not one of those who threw fire and brimstone down from the pulpit. He spoke of the loving, accepting, peaceful message of Christ. But the threat was still there, even if unspoken. And I went to church and followed the rest of the congregation, out of love for my grandfather and through him love of Christ. I know the bonds of love. It took years of heart wrenching soul searching to break with the church and follow my own path. The bonds of love may be placed gently and with care, but they are still the bonds of a prison. If you are recruiting; you are coercing. Jesus didn't want conscripts or followers, he wished to raise people up from the life of servitude they had lived. He wished for them to grasp divinity in their own hands and become their own masters. He didn't want the church of Paul or any of it's many offshoots. He wanted the church of your own heart.

"And having been questioned by the Pharisees, when the reign of God doth come, he answered them, and said, 'The reign of God doth not come with observation; nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you.' " Luke 17:20-21
 

I agree that people can feel torn because of love and expectations as much as through direct aggression.  But I don't think you are going to be able to solve this in the way you are hoping.  Maybe by stopping loving, but that would be worse I think.  Stopping expectations is possible to some degree, but I don't think that means giving no framework for how you think the world works.  I suppose I think you are going to communicate that to your kids whether you intend to or not.

What theology books to recommend would depend a lot on what topics interest you.  Do you have a preference for modern texts?
 

[zoesmom2009]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

I agree that people can feel torn because of love and expectations as much as through direct aggression.  But I don't think you are going to be able to solve this in the way you are hoping.  Maybe by stopping loving, but that would be worse I think.  Stopping expectations is possible to some degree, but I don't think that means giving no framework for how you think the world works.  I suppose I think you are going to communicate that to your kids whether you intend to or not.

What theology books to recommend would depend a lot on what topics interest you.  Do you have a preference for modern texts?
 

I want to clarify one final point that I realize I have failed to adequately convey. It is not a lack of framework that I seek for my child. It is quite the opposite. I want to arm her with the tools to understand the full implications of all her choices, as well as why she chose them; be it a religion, a college or a marriage. I understand that I will influence her. I have never denied that. But I do want to minimize it. I do not want her doing something simply because that is what mommy and daddy do.

To quote Gloria Anzualdua: "I want the freedom to carve and chisel my own face, to staunch the bleeding with ashes and to fashion my own Gods from my entrails."

As far as books go, my mom once asked me, "is there anything you won't read?" Well, until the Twilight series, the answer was no. So, unless it involves sparkly vampires, I'm pretty much open to anything.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by zoesmom2009 

I want to clarify one final point that I realize I have failed to adequately convey. It is not a lack of framework that I seek for my child. It is quite the opposite. I want to arm her with the tools to understand the full implications of all her choices, as well as why she chose them; be it a religion, a college or a marriage. I understand that I will influence her. I have never denied that. But I do want to minimize it. I do not want her doing something simply because that is what mommy and daddy do.

To quote Gloria Anzualdua: "I want the freedom to carve and chisel my own face, to staunch the bleeding with ashes and to fashion my own Gods from my entrails."

As far as books go, my mom once asked me, "is there anything you won't read?" Well, until the Twilight series, the answer was no. So, unless it involves sparkly vampires, I'm pretty much open to anything.

I think the important thing, at least for me, is not that I minimize my influence on my children, but that they know I still love them even when they make choices that I think are wrong.  I do not need to give the impression that I'm a relativist or that I think all religions are equally true in order to do that.  That would be dishonest of me, in the first place. (Which is why I asked you before why would a parent who is not a relativist approach religion with their children as if they were.)   I agree that motivation is important - I don't necessarily want my kids to do something just because I do it, or just because they know I want them to do it and feel pressure from me.  I'd like my influence to have a more authentic effect on them, you know?  You're right when you've been saying that the "why" is essential. 

I'd love for my family to be the same religion as me (they are not), but it would not be something that I would try to force on them from the outside - that isn't real, and it isn't true.  What good would that be?  If they ever convert, they will have to truly mean it, and you are absolutely right that "because I said so" is not a good enough reason for someone to truly believe in any religion.  And this is the same message I get from my spiritual adviser.  He has never suggested to me that I do anything other than work on my own faith and leave the rest to God who always does what He can to draw us to Him but never denies our free will.  The free choice to believe is absolutely essential, and without that freedom my faith would make no sense and have no meaning. 

Books...I'm terrible at suggesting books, but I'll give it some thought and come back later.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by zoesmom2009 

I want to clarify one final point that I realize I have failed to adequately convey. It is not a lack of framework that I seek for my child. It is quite the opposite. I want to arm her with the tools to understand the full implications of all her choices, as well as why she chose them; be it a religion, a college or a marriage. I understand that I will influence her. I have never denied that. But I do want to minimize it. I do not want her doing something simply because that is what mommy and daddy do.

To quote Gloria Anzualdua: "I want the freedom to carve and chisel my own face, to staunch the bleeding with ashes and to fashion my own Gods from my entrails."

As far as books go, my mom once asked me, "is there anything you won't read?" Well, until the Twilight series, the answer was no. So, unless it involves sparkly vampires, I'm pretty much open to anything.

I think children should always know that there parents will love them no matter what.

Anyway, with regard to books - wide open is a tall order.  I guess if I think back to when I started to read philosophy and theology as a student, I started at the beginning (in the West).  So with looking at the pre-Socratic philosophers, and then Plato.  There is a lot to be said for doing it this way; the difficulty is that for moderns ancient literature can be somewhat inaccessible.  The commentary I have is An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy by H.A.Armstrong, which is very good and rather dry.  Though there are no vampires.

A lot of people might recommend starting with Augustine's Confessions for Christian theology because it is so foundational.  As well, it is basically his description of his conversion, so you get the logic of that from the beginning to the end.  It does have the difficulties of all ancient writers, and also some people really dislike him personally.  It's easily found for very cheap though, and a good commentary is this one which I think is completely readable on the site.

You could get a compilation of the early Church Fathers.  Penguin has a good one called "Early Christian Writings".

My personal very favorite theological works are The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius, and the The Division of Nature by Eriugena.  The former is on the relation between free will and God's providence, and also touches on the problem of suffering.  It is a fairly easy read.  The latter is long and dense, and also difficult to find, but well worth it IMO.

Starting with something more modern has advantages as well.  Chesterton or CS Lewis are good bets.  Chesterton's best known are probably Orthodoxy, or The Everlasting Man.  A lot of people find him boring, and others think he is hilarious.  For Lewis, a lot of people recommend Mere Christianity, but I would probably stay away from it.  He was speaking to the post war British, and I don't think it speaks so much to 21st century people.  So maybe his biography, or The Problem of Pain, which is about suffering.  Also, The Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce are allegorical works, but pretty theologically thick, plus a fun read.  He has a ton of essays on a huge variety of topics - God in the Dock is an excellent compilation.

Some people also really love Dorothy Sayers, who was a contemporary of Lewis.  I haven't read her apologetics, but Creed or Chaos, or The Mind of the Maker might be worthwhile.
 

[zoesmom2009]

Sorry I didn't get back sooner. My week has gotten insanely busy. I just wanted to say thank you for the suggestions. I will definitely check some of them out.