^ I think the sticking point is about the question as to what age is appropriate for more advanced discourses on such matters with one's offspring - in a context where both parents have very strongly differing views on religion.

Aside this, I am certain neither Nwankwo nor myself advocated lies or pretenses.

Hi Uyi Iredia,

Thanks for your well-reasoned response to my post. My posts was addressed to people whose beliefs are quite similar to DeepSight. Thus, for you to see what I am trying to convey in that post, you have to take it in that context. Therefore what is written will definitely not apply to others whose convictions are not similar or close to what DeepSight convictions. With that in mind, let me address some of the points you raised.

It is this comment that garnered my response to you (mr nwankwo), however, on reading it again I noted the bolded, and decided that your prescribed action will be desirable. However, if the child decides he doesn't want to go to church because he has concluded God doesn't exist or it is pointless, I believe it's best not to force such a child to go to church. I have read stories of atheists who despise church partly because of the treatment they got from their parents when they voiced their disbelief as kids. Read the book 50 Voices of Disbelief for an example.

It will be strange for a child of 3-6 years to conclude that God does not exist. In the context of a child not going to church because the father does not agree with some of the things going on in the church, the child who have not yet reached adolescence should be forced to attend the church with his mum. There are many things that happen in the church which are of benefit to the child and which even the non-religious but theistic father agrees with. If you put all of them in a scale, the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. A child must learn from the cradle that he is not yet an adult and thus in many issues, the parents will overrule him or her. When he becomes an adult, he may see the wisdom in many of the things he was forced to do. Most kids of that tender age will not like to take an injection when they are sick. But no responsible parent will allow his kid to die of an infection just because the kids does not like syringes and needles.

The implication of this statement is what I don't agree with and your next statement contradicts this. Note that you have said that children are perceptive, trust me, a child will quickly perceive the differences in the views of their parents unless their parents exert much effort in covering it up, something you have agreed as improper above (when you talked of '. . . a pretense at uniformity'). What's critical is that it is inevitable that a parent's worldview will influence their kids. Your statement implies that this is wrong. I disagree, as a matter of fact society depends on the fact that views are forced and reinforced. It's pretense to say that one should avoid 'forcing' one's views on one's kids when your views are synonymous with personality, behavior, and moral outlook which will be observed by such kids.

I see no pretense because to force your views is not the same thing if your kids willingly decide to share your views not because it is your view but because they agree with it.  As they grow up, they should learn that it is extremely important that they do not just imitate things but develop the critical capacity to state the basis for their actions. A normal 3-5 year old that was brought up very well will already like to know the "why" of many a thing that happens in the home. Such inquisitiveness should be encouraged and not suppressed. Not just kids but even adults are also influenced but the fundamental thing is that such influence should not be brought about by cohesion or force and if kids, friends or family sheepishly follow ones footsteps, it is ones responsibility to ruthlessly discourage it. Herd mentality is both spiritually and intellectually dangerous and must be discouraged.

This in fact is where your mistake becomes blatant. How can you say this when you previously stated that a pretense at uniformity is not the right way. One thing is for sure, any talk of a 'necessary lie' here is a pathetic cop-out. There are two options here for a well-meaning parent: Answer honestly or refuse to answer telling the child you'll give him you answer when he's mature.

I am not sure how you arrived that the example I gave with respect to the question of the child is a "necessary lie". Did DeepSight not believe that Jesus came from the Father? Did he not believe in the sermon on the mount? Any person who gives a child a cosmological lecture on Trinity at 3-6 years in my view does not understand the concept. There is evolution in learning both in material and spiritual things. That is why in our school system, you have pre-primary school, primary, high school, undergraduate, and graduate school. A teacher who starts to discuss the cellular and molecular basis of embryo-genesis and reproductive biology when a five year old child asks how he came to this world is either incompetent or has no knowledge of embryo-genesis or reproductive biology. Why will I teach primary school students the same lecture that I give to graduate students. Is a man who tells a four year old child that an empty cup of tea is empty lying when he tells the same child at 16 years that nature abhors vacuum and that indeed an empty cup of tea is not really empty but contains various gases and microorganisms? Any person who passes spiritual or intellectual information that is far beyond the capacity of the recipient is the person that is causing harm. Try teach calculus to normal 3-6 year old and report your findings.

Nonsense ! When such an irreligious parent disbelieves in the Bible. A 'hardcore' atheist for example will not (and is not) obligated to do such.

Look at my opening paragraph to this post. People with similar convictions to DeepSight are of course not hardcare atheists and they do agree with certain sections of the bible. If atheists are in similar situations and are interested in my views, I will gladly offer them my perceptions.

Aha ! The action here conflicts with the previous one. My question on reading the statement was this: Why will one stop one's children form exorcisms (which one disbelieves) and pretend to believe in Jesus (which one also disbelieves) ?

My view on Jesus Christ is documented on several of my posts and so are also the view of Deepsight. You can look them up if you are interested. As for exorcism, I will offer my perceptions when I sense that you are willing to examine it. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

Any person who gives a child a cosmological lecture on Trinity at 3-6 years in my view does not understand the concept. There is evolution in learning both in material and spiritual things. That is why in our school system, you have pre-primary school, primary, high school, undergraduate, and graduate school. A teacher who starts to discuss the cellular and molecular basis of embryo-genesis and reproductive biology when a five year old child asks how he came to this world is either incompetent or has no knowledge of embryo-genesis or reproductive biology. Why will I teach primary school students the same lecture that I give to graduate students. Is a man who tells a four year old child that an empty cup of tea is empty lying when he tells the same child at 16 years that nature abhors vacuum and that indeed an empty cup of tea is not really empty but contains various gases and microorganisms? Any person who passes spiritual or intellectual information that is far beyond the capacity of the recipient is the person that is causing harm. Try teach calculus to normal 3-6 year old and report your findings.

This totally zooms in on the point perfectly - especially the bolded!

life is deep

That's the point. You make it seem like there are no Xtians or Muslims or Hindus in Europe and America.

be happy with what u have

^^^ America is actually a predominantly religious society, my friend.

life is a gift

life is good

chrisj2000:

Westerners are smart people, they apply reason in everything they do. Even though there are a handful of religious institutions, people are not swept off their feet, they still prosecute their clerics for misappropriation of funds, child abuse and other crimes. Most people go to church just for reason of socializing and the explosion of. modern day Pentecostal churches across western countries is engendered by mass migration into their states. Most of these churches are predominantly attended by African and Asian migrants. In the country i live, churches are for old and retired citizens who sees church as a place of meeting others.

How dare you suggest we prosecute our Men Of God for using Funds willfully delivered to their coffers as tithes. How dare you suggest we charge MOGs for socializing with their congregation - take ya time ooh. This is Africa not the WEST We need a divine something to look up to having been let down by our leaders