Evil will not prevail in this nation in the name of Jesus, Amen

Amen.

esu ti pofo.

inedi:

Evil will not prevail in this nation in the name of Jesus, Amen

I guess Boko Haram does not qualify as evil?
Obviously your prayer is either too late or that no one heard you.

Deep Sight:

^ Anybody who is aware of the history of Deep Sight on this board would surely accept the st.upidity of ridicule and attack as an instrument to open the mind of the religionist. You will reap nothing therefrom but bile and hatred.

I am today persuaded that the Deep Sight that spent hours on end shewing the ridiculous nature of some religious beliefs was a st.upid and immature Deep Sight. If God gives me the grace, I repent of such poverty of wisdom.

The only way to go, is to jointly walk together in love: expressing reservations where necessary, but not resorting to ridicule or mockery: indeed - we all retain some measure of this or that ridiculous belief anyway.

Most importantly I am now in full agreement with that which Plaetton said: there is no reason to presume the religionist in any way spiritually or intellectually inferior - people seek out spiritual peace in different ways. If anything, the religionists have indeed had a majority contribution to intellectual work and science throughout the ages.

If I do not see anything wrong in an ancient man's worship of a river or the sun, it is equally ridiculous for me to condemn the modern religionist. Both can easily remain of a highly spiritual and intellectual bent.

Aside from this, the essential ethos of the religions are praise worthy.

Deep Sight, you may have little or no idea how happy this post of yours makes me, regarding the change in your viewpoint

Regards

dare2think:

muskeeto,

I think we might be on the same wave-length. (you on watsapp?)

@post

Pls create an organisation that would be productive to the human mind and not one that is set on challenging other peoples' choices.

Enlightenment is what the African continent needs to emancipate itself from feudal ideologies, however people should be free to practise whatever as long as it does not impede on the rights of others. It goes both ways.

Yeah, im on watsapp,

InesQor:

Deep Sight, you may have little or no idea how happy this post of yours makes me, regarding the change in your viewpoint

Regards

Bros how u dey now? Abeg let's play chess sooner rather than later, I am a sore loser and still eager to redeem my honour!

@muskeeto

pls do send your Id to dare2think@mailinator.com

@Deepsight

You can try using a disposable email if you don't want to reveal your email identity. (mailnator is one I just came accross)

Deep Sight:


I am today persuaded that the Deep Sight that spent hours on end shewing the ridiculous nature of some religious beliefs was a st.upid and immature Deep Sight. If God gives me the grace, I repent of such poverty of wisdom.

The only way to go, is to jointly walk together in love: expressing reservations where necessary, but not resorting to ridicule or mockery: indeed - we all retain some measure of this or that ridiculous belief anyway.

I agree 100% with the above


However, I still think people should address the 'ridiculous' nature of some religious  practices in order to enlighten the 'inbetweeners' that are still sitting on the fence. Bearing in mind that some religionist can not be changed. Examples of such  practices would be abuses penetrated on the vulnerable and those who don't have the capacity to raise objections. I.e children.  Another danger of not talking against the ridiculousness would be the tragic case of the Jim Jones saga where mass suicide was seen by the victims as a 'reasonable' outcome.

I hope you get my drift.

Deep Sight:

If I do not see anything wrong in an ancient man's worship of a river or the sun, it is equally ridiculous for me to condemn the modern religionist. Both can easily remain of a highly spiritual and intellectual bent.

dare2think:

However, I still think people should address the 'ridiculous' nature of some religious  practices in order to enlighten the 'inbetweeners' that are still sitting on the fence.

Yes, but I am persuaded that this should be done with the greatest of care. If one realizes that many "ridiculous" beliefs are not necessarily harmful, one may be inclined to focus more on the love-element of each person's faith, as that is what is critical. If that element is strong enough within the believer, there is virtually no problem.

Bearing in mind that some religionist can not be changed. Examples of such  practices would be abuses penetrated on the vulnerable and those who don't have the capacity to raise objections. I.e children.

Although i agree with you, again, maximum care has to be excercised. In this instance let me briefly touch on the case of children.

I have often debated extensively with myself as to what spiritual/ religious world-view I would bring my children up in. This question disturbed me for many years. It was a particularly tricky question because the non-religious man in these climes will be very challenged to find a spouse that agrees with his views. They are as rare as the unicorn. Virtually all "wife-material" women in this society are deeply religious. 

Will the non-religious man therefore not marry. . . or die waiting for that elusive woman who agrees with his views? What if he genuinely loves a religious woman. Which happens to be the case in my instance.

I believe that wisdom lies in walking hand in hand with that person whom one loves. Even people of the same religion cannot always agree on every aspect of their faith. The critical aspect i believe, is sharing the philosophy and faith of love and goodwill to all men. I share this with the woman that I love: addittionaly we place trust in the will of God for our lives. I believe that this is more than enough for us to walk spiritually together. I have also concluded that so long as I perfectly understand my personal views and reservations, it also does not hurt to walk and grow together even in the context of a church. There is much that I do not agree with, but I see nothing to be gained from obstinate disputations therefrom. That will only lead  to a splintered family. I see far greater wisdom and equanimity in not only walking together spiritually with my family, but also lending every support therein.

Now, in all of this, my partner is fully aware of every letter and the full extent of my personal views.

Now, coming to children. As i said, i have contemplated this extensively. I have concluded that there is nothing to be gained by initiating little minds into possible confusion. They will have the benefit of the same upbringing that i did - they will attend a small family church and be raised in a christian context. This is not only in deferrence to my partner but also for two other reasons. One, the earliest spiritual questions that a child asks are best answered in the simple fashion that the religions lay out (God created man. . . etc) - and these answers in many cases are actually the truth in my view. Secondly the exploration of cosmological and more advanced spiritual truths is best left, in my view, to a more mature stage in the Child's life. A foundation in the church will make for simple stability, and i see little harm in it, if any - so long as the child is guided aright.

Now what is critical for me is that at every stage of growth i will impart certain basics to the child - such as my belief in non-discrimination, and my belief that the central message of Christ is love of God and love of fellowman. I will discourage the child from all forms of discrimination against other cultures and religions, and seek to assure him of the value of diversity in God's great creations.

As the child enteres adolescence, and further matures, I will, as God permits me, seek to engage his/ her mind further and further in an open and hopefully, enlightened direction.

I must still mention though, that as God and the world is, it may be me who will end up learning more from the child than the other way round.

Another danger of not talking against the ridiculousness would be the tragic case of the Jim Jones saga where mass suicide was seen by the victims as a 'reasonable' outcome.

Of course, such extremes should be overtly discouraged.

Well articulated and understood.

The problem I have presently is that I just cant seem to ignore open hypocrisy.However, I have always maintained a similar stand to yours and focus on the good aspects of religion.

dare2think:

Well articulated and understood.

The problem I have presently is that I just cant seem to ignore open hypocrisy.

I certainly feel the same way.

@Deapsight:
Your ideals are very admirable and reflect the core essence of what most non-religious people like myself hold very dear and aspire to.
You are obviously an idealist, an optimist who have strong faith in  the innate human capacity for good. I am too, and that has, at  most times, proved to be a weakness . But its my nature, so I live with it.
As I have wriiten before, in an ideal society that we find in many advanced countries, one person's religious belief does not pose a problem or threat to another. I grew up and spent most of my adult life in such a society. I befriended and mingled with people from virtually all cultures and religions, and in the process have gained so much understanding about cultures, history and religion. In all that time, I had never felt theatened culturally or physically by the religious beliefs of anyone ,nor, was I ever considered a threat to the beliefs of anyone.
Under this type environment, your posture is ideal. Infact, it is the only one.

Now back to Nigeria, it's a totally different scenario. Whether you like it or not, the religious beliefs of other must impinge on your rights, your freedoms, your peace of mind , sometimes on your wallet, and even threaten your right to live( Boko haram is one example).

So you can hold on to your idealism and steadfast faith  in the innate goodness of religious philisophies only for a short while. You may either decide to bury your face in the sand and pretend that all is well, play the proverbial monkey and see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing, or , you can point out the evils(proven) of religious philosophy and its incompatiblity with peace , harmony and progress. At this point it becomes absolutely necessary to ridicule and make carricature of religous lore and logic.Case in mind, the recent slapgate of Oyedepo.

I was somewhat dissapointed that you did not lend your voice to condemn the evil act perpetrated on a young innocent  lass . The vicious attack on that girl and the many other evils perpetrated by such men have their roots on silly and erroneous religious beliefs in demons, witches and so on. And the poor and hepless always bear the brunt of these false religious beliefs.

Therefore , there is no way you can isolate yourself, your family, your close relatives from all that madness. What do you do when your child is frieghtened by sunday school teacher by threats of hellfire and demonic possesion? What do you do when your child says more about and claims to know more about the devil that the adiding love of god?
What do if your spouse hands over 10% of her income or yours to her pastor, when you know, that you or your relatives could benefit much more from such  money?
I just dont see how you can remain  indifferent to the exploitations,disharmony and threat to life created by ridiculous religious beliefs.

I  used to think that there were some good things to be found in most of the world's major religions. I no longer feel that way.

No matter their outer pretences to foster love and harmony, any philosophy, religious or otherwise, that subconsciously sow the seeds of hatred, bigotry and disharmony, and aid to manifest same thereof, can never be deemed to be of any good value to humankind.
We hear that Islam is a religion of peace: where is the peace? We hear that christianity is about redemption and love: where is the love and where is the redemption?

Exposing young minds to absurd, illogical and incongruent religious beliefs is dangerous, because as we find out so often, they easily become hostage to such beliefs. I know  a relative who refused to take a course in psychology at the university because she claimed that her religious beliefs were being threatened. A few years ago, I read of some university students of either Lagos or Ibadan, that got lost in the forrest because they had retreated in the forrest to recieve rapture.

In conclusion, I think absurd and dangerous religious beliefs should be mocked , ridiculed and dissected to expose them for what they really are and the threat they pose to peace and harmony.

However, I still maintain that an organization should not be formed just for that purpose.

plaetton:

@Deapsight:
Your ideals are very admirable and reflect the core essence of what most non-religious people like myself hold very dear and aspire to.
You are obviously an idealist, an optimist who have strong faith in the innate human capacity for good. I am too, and that has, at most times, proved to be a weakness . But its my nature, so I live with it.

As I have wriiten before, in an ideal society that we find in many advanced countries, one person's religious belief does not pose a problem or threat to another. I grew up and spent most of my adult life in such a society. I befriended and mingled with people from virtually all cultures and religions, and in the process have gained so much understanding about cultures, history and religion. In all that time, I had never felt theatened culturally or physically by the religious beliefs of anyone ,nor, was I ever considered a threat to the beliefs of anyone.
Under this type environment, your posture is ideal. Infact, it is the only one.

I entirely understand you my brother.

Now back to Nigeria, it's a totally different scenario. Whether you like it or not, the religious beliefs of other must impinge on your rights, your freedoms, your peace of mind , sometimes on your wallet, and even threaten your right to live( Boko haram is one example).

This is very true.

What I have found however is that there are different possible approaches to take in the face of such religious “intimidation” of one’s life – and having been a most militant anti-religionist for many years, I can safely assure you that the militant approach delivers no dividend whatsoever to either side of the divide.

You may wish to (if you have a few minutes) scroll over some of my past posts on this forum and you will glean a little of the terrible extent to which I have been militantly opposed to the vast majority of religious (especially Judeo-Christian) dogma in the past. You may thus have a sense of what I say when I state that I speak from experience – and my arguments were by no means limited to this forum: I preached my views everywhere that I went with extra zest and ferocity.

I can assure you that both in the real world and in the online realm – it reaped me a great feast of irritation and even deep malice, from the very people whose minds I sought to change. The problem was not so much their rigid-mindedness, I think. The greater problem was my militant and mocking approach. Which, on reflection, was not mature or well considered.

Thus what I wish to convey is that in my personal experience, notwithstanding the extent to which one may consider some religious beliefs ridiculous, militancy and mockery or ridicule of such beliefs will seldom yield any tangible dividend. Rather such an approach often lionizes the adherents of such religions, drives them into the trenches and bestows them with a persecution-complex, from which they then believe that they must fight ever harder to defend their faith.

I am persuaded that the greater wisdom lies in a more subtle approach: whereby one may now and then drop little pieces of food for thought to the religious man – and leave such little seeds to germinate in the mind of the believer. If the soil is fertile, in other words, if that person has a probing and curious mind, an open and fertile mind, most likely, such little seeds will gradually prompt him out of the prison of his religious enclave.

If on the other hand the soil is as rigidly cast as hard desert iron, then neither a subtle approach nor a militant approach would deliver any use whatsoever – such a person should be left to saunter along peacefully with his dogma – and merely cautioned where there are excesses that impinge on the liberties and lifestyle of people of contrary belief or culture.

So you can hold on to your idealism and steadfast faith in the innate goodness of religious philisophies only for a short while. You may either decide to bury your face in the sand and pretend that all is well, play the proverbial monkey and see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing, or , you can point out the evils(proven) of religious philosophy and its incompatiblity with peace , harmony and progress. At this point it becomes absolutely necessary to ridicule and make carricature of religous lore and logic.

I do not agree that religious philosophies are innately evil or incompatible with harmony and peace: if anything, I believe the generality are innately good and directed towards harmony and peace. There are, no doubt, some religious ideas which are not innately good and such must no doubt be clearly condemned: but my advise would be that the proper way to condemn such would be simply to place them in careful context of the times at which such ideas were expressed and show that some of those ideas have no place in a modern and civilized world.

Case in mind, the recent slapgate of Oyedepo.I was somewhat dissapointed that you did not lend your voice to condemn the evil act perpetrated on a young innocent lass . The vicious attack on that girl and the many other evils perpetrated by such men have their roots on silly and erroneous religious beliefs in demons, witches and so on. And the poor and hepless always bear the brunt of these false religious beliefs.

Oh, I did extensively condemn that shameless barbaric act: only I did not do so on this forum – I doubt that I had much time to post at that time.

Therefore , there is no way you can isolate yourself, your family, your close relatives from all that madness. What do you do when your child is frieghtened by sunday school teacher by threats of hellfire and demonic possesion?

That really is a thought indeed. As I said to you before, one can only seek to guide the child aright. What this means is that one will carefully measure the sorts of messages that the child is exposed to. The small family church that I am at this time targeting for this purpose is very moderate and reasonable in its teachings. If at any time I sense exposure to harmful teachings it will be my responsibility to protect the child from such pollution of its mind by withdrawing him therefrom.

I do not have all the answers in this tricky and sensitive matter: if left to myself alone I would probably raise and teach the child myself without recourse to any such church whatsoever: however this is not a possibility currently in view of the very strong views of my partner. I cannot deny my partner the equal right to raise her child as she considers spiritually apt – especially where I can see little harm in such. All I can do is to moderate things as I have said – and at all events, such hocus pocus as eternal dungeons of torture are some of the easiest things that children readily grow out of if they are guided aright by a parent. Much the same way as the parent permits them to believe in Santa Claus for a while and also sees to it that they naturally grow out of such as time passes.

I just dont see how you can remain indifferent to the exploitations,disharmony and threat to life created by ridiculous religious beliefs.

Oh no, I am not indifferent: indeed I am very active against such: it’s just that I have discerned what I believe to be a better, more mature and more effective way to pass across one’s concerns.

I used to think that there were some good things to be found in most of the world's major religions. I no longer feel that way.

Of course there are.

plaetton:


No matter their outer pretences to foster love and harmony, any philosophy, religious or otherwise, that subconsciously sow the seeds of hatred, bigotry and disharmony, and aid to manifest same thereof, can never be deemed to be of any good value to humankind.
We hear that Islam is a religion of peace: where is the peace? We hear that christianity is about redemption and love: where is the love and where is the redemption?

Yes I agree with you especially on the note of the subconcious divisions that arise. I can only offer you a letter I wrote (by email) recently to the Pastors of a church I attended where i considered that a divisive message was preached. Here it is -

Dear Pastors at [name of church withheld]

I attended the service at your church on Sunday 11th September 2011 as a first-time visitor to your church. I came in for the 11 a.m. service and I would like to convey some feedback to you regarding the sermon delivered by your Pastor [name withheld].

I make this comments to you conscious of the role of the Church in every society as a bridge-building organization, an envoy of peace and bastion of charitable endeavors to all men.

I was rather disconcerted at what appeared to me to be the rather divisive tone of the sermon that was delivered on Sunday. But before I proceed any further, I need to make a few remarks on the place of varied religion within a society.

Now mankind consist of many different nations, cultures and tribes. Indeed nothing could be more emblematic of human distinction than the element of diversity in all our various endeavors. We speak different languages and hold dear a great array of many differing cultural norms and ethos. Indeed the great beauty of the human family is best located within the context of the brilliant diversity that human culture represents. This is, to my mind, a compliment to the Almighty Creator.

The religious plane is indeed no different  - mankind have a staggering array of different religious histories which have defined their current religious and spiritual persuasions. And it is with respect to this particular matter of religious diversity that I found some of the comments of your Pastor [name withheld] during his sermon of Sunday 11 September 2011, rather disturbing. I thought it necessary to bring these to your attention especially within the context of the religious tension currently enveloping our country Nigeria, and indeed, the world.

My concern stemmed in the first instance from your Pastor [name withheld] incendiary remarks asserting the existence of some sort of “war” between the religion of Islam and Christianity. He had made allusion to the Jos Plateau as being the theatre of that war, and had drawn historical issues regarding same as far back as Uthman dan Fodio. He further conveyed his feeling that people born in Islamic countries are born into some sort of evil religion, or something of the sort.

Your Pastor further stretched his views and mentioned a host of other religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Hindusim, Zoroasterism and many others, and intimated the congregation, that these were all “evil and deceitful” religions, and that the huge percentage of humanity who subscribe to all of these religions, are all indeed lost people, who have been taken in by the “evil deceit” of these religions.

It is not my intention to discuss the merits or demerits of any religion, as I am aware (as no doubt you all are also aware) that people belonging to different faiths do have different ideas and different perceptions regarding the doctrines of other faiths. Indeed, it is my personal belief that it is most useful for each person, in the spirit of broad education, to acquaint himself with the essentials of other religions, even if only for the purpose of availing himself a bird’s eye view of other faiths – nonetheless, this is not the pith of that which I wish to comment upon.

What I do wish to comment upon is my strong belief that the church should foster unity, peace and tolerance amongst the broad human family.

It is my view that whereas we live in a world replete with terrorism and ethnic, cultural, racial and religious prejudice and suspicion, the church, being an envoy of God, and bride to the prince of peace, should be signal in the vanguard for universal human peace and brotherhood.

In this respect, we cannot overstate the importance of religious tolerance, especially within a multi-religious society like Nigeria. Any persons who preach a doctrine of divisiveness, or who advance ideas of religious prejudice certainly do not do the work of peace-making that is so integral to the idea of Jesus Christ, who it is known preached. . . “blessed are the peacemakers. . .”

Sirs, these are crucial things to note in these perilous times in which we live. The sermon delivered at your church on Sunday, to my mind, served better to fan the embers of religious antagonism and prejudice, than to advance the cause of peace and inter-religious brotherhood and solidarity, which are so desperately needed today, in an increasingly fractured world.

Needless to say, the importance of this cannot be over-stated in the Nigerian context, having regard to the fragile religious tension within the country today. It is my view that there must also be an element of responsible leadership, in discerning that which is appropriate content for a public sermon, and that which is not.

Now, my consternation reached a peak, when your Pastor [name withheld] went further to refer to the current Dalai Lama as an evil practitioner of deceit, and inferred that far from the internationally recognized status of the Dalai Lama as a universal proponent of peace, he is in fact a disguise for the propagation of a devilish religion.

Sirs, I was dumbfounded.

And this on two scores. In the first place, the Dalai Lama, as I said, is a universally acknowledged spiritual leader whose cause has been the propagation of peace and human brotherhood. The Dalai Lama has done so much work in this regard that his recognition on this score cannot be ignored. But my astonishment was not limited to this fact alone. I was more astonished that a spiritual leader of another religion could be so described by your Pastor in public, in his sermon.

I dare say that this is a divisive approach and certainly not a peace-building and unifying approach.

Beyond the foregoing, what struck me most was the underlying sentiment of (your as well as the proponents of) every religion, that – “Every other religion is evil and wrong, and mine is good and right”. Although I do not seek to pick a quarrel with this belief, (as all remain entitled to their beliefs), what I do believe, is that irrespective of such beliefs, it is incumbent upon religious leaders (including your selves) to display a level of restraint in commenting on such matters which cast the adherents of every other religion in such an eminently negative or even evil perspective.

I strongly believe that evangelism is possible without the tendency to “demonize” the religions of other people, as such an approach is insensitive to the cherished faiths of other people, whereas as responsible leaders, we have a duty to build, and not break bridges, a duty to unify and not divide, a duty to propagate peace, and not sow the seeds of discord and war.

Let me close my comments by assuring you that I do not take umbrage at your faith, nor do I seek to advise you not to evangelize your faith: by all and every means do so – I merely seek to draw your attention to the fact that it is more prudent, and indeed more responsible, as leaders within a heterogeneous society, to lend respect to one another in inter-faith matters, and thereby build bridges of peace, tolerance and unity amongst all people, for, as we all know, intolerance and fanaticism are the wellsprings of that very societal discord which we battle in Nigeria today.

May God bless you as you do so.

Finally, my views on this matter are best summrized by a post written by the wisest man on nairaland some time ago - M_Nwankwo. Here it is -

God is love. One can also say that God is the source of love. All creatures of God irrespective of race, religion, sex, nationality etc can absorb of this love of God and dispense it accordingly. In the case of human beings, what absorbs this love from God is the human spirit. This love will permeate the spirit, its clocks including the outermost shell, the physical body. Thus he who absorbs the rays of love will manifest love including love for all creations of God. Now, the recognition of this love as coming from God depends on the various radiation connection between the spirit and the various shells surrounding the spirit, the last shell being the physical body and its coordinating center, the human brain. In many of us, this radiation connections are not straight, thus the shells enveloping the spirit are not conscious of the impressions that vibrates in the spirit. Thus a man may believe himself to be an atheist because that is what his brain tells him and yet his spirit is in the recognition of God. Irrespective of his brain telling him that God does not exist, the emanations of the spirit including love still permeates his mind and body resulting in expressions of genuine love. Thus although from a human standpoint, such a man is considered by himself and others to be atheist, spiritually the man is a theist.

In a similar vein the brain and the mind may be trained or indoctrinated or programmed to believe in God but their spirit has no recognition of God. In this case, this believer is actually an atheist even though he believes himself to be a theist. However because he, that is, the spirit has no connection with God, he cannot absorb the rays of love and manifest it. Thus, in spite of his intellectual believe in God, he still manifests the works of the flesh including hatred, anger, lust, gossip, avarice, fear, etc. The species of a seed determines the fruits that it will bear. Thus all genuine love and human beings who indulge in it believe in God even when they are unconscious of it while on earth.

Thus, all human beings who indulge in genuine love are of God and all those who indulge in hatred are not of God. By there works or fruits, you shall know those who stand in the will of God and those that oppose it or do not recognize it. This is an infallible yardstick to know who belongs to God and those who are not.

Therefore the love of God manifests in the love of all creations of God. On earth, it is possible for an atheist to love God without being spiritually conscious of it. However if such atheist continues in the manifestation of the love of God, either later in this earthly life or in the beyond on in another earthly life the emanations of the love of God that vibrates in his spirit will also permeate his earthly brain such that he also becomes conscious of the existence of God while in the physical body. What counts is how our spirit is close or far away from the will of God. Religion, nationality, sex, class and similar things that we think are very important while on earth are worthless once we drop this physical body.

In my view, there is no difference between the pope, the Christian, the mystic or an atheists when it concerns the will of God. Murder is murder whether perpetrated by a pope, a theist or an atheist. Genuine love is genuine love whether it came from an atheist, a pastor or an agnostic. Sometimes we think too much and thus think nothing. If we look around even on earth, we should find that the natural laws which are the manifestation of the will of God in nature does not give a hoot about all these artificial constructs. If a bud-hist sows yam in a fertile soil, he will reap yam. The same goes for an atheist and the theist. In an earthquake or epidemic or accident, both theists and atheists are saved and killed. A deeper look on why these things are the way they are may open our eyes to the working of God. Best wishes.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-687376.0.html

@DeepSight. I have some few comments to make on your post.

I have often debated extensively with myself as to what spiritual/ religious world-view I would bring my children up in. This question disturbed me for many years. It was a particularly tricky question because the non-religious man in these climes will be very challenged to find a spouse that agrees with his views. They are as rare as the unicorn. Virtually all "wife-material" women in this society are deeply religious.

Will the non-religious man therefore not marry. . . or die waiting for that elusive woman who agrees with his views? What if he genuinely loves a religious woman. Which happens to be the case in my instance.

Why worry about the religious or spiritual view that you will bring up your children? Your duty as a parent is to demonstrate through your actions, words, thoughts, motives, imagination and intuition that you live in the sense of the laws of God. Humility, Love, compassion, honesty and similar things provides the greatest enlightenment to a child more than any treatise on spiritual or religious matters. Children are independent souls and in some cases come with a truck load of spiritual experiences far beyond what the parents are capable. When they come of age, they will follow there own path. A parents duty is to provide the conducive environment that will empower there kids to chose there own spiritual path.

The foundation of marriage is genuine love which manifests in spiritual and psychic compatibility and not homogeneity in religious views. Humility, Love, creativity, compassion, purity, honesty, faithfulness, caring, etc are the fundamentals of a genuine marriage and these fundamentals have no religious cloak. If these fundamentals are present, then a spiritual attraction exists between the souls, an attraction holding the souls like two poles of a magnet, thus the permanence of the marriage is ensured from the very beginning. As long as we  listen to the inner promptings of our spirit each one will definetely find a spouse destined for him or her.

I believe that wisdom lies in walking hand in hand with that person whom one loves. Even people of the same religion cannot always agree on every aspect of their faith. The critical aspect i believe, is sharing the philosophy and faith of love and goodwill to all men. I share this with the woman that I love: addittionaly we place trust in the will of God for our lives. I believe that this is more than enough for us to walk spiritually together. I have also concluded that so long as I perfectly understand my personal views and reservations, it also does not hurt to walk and grow together even in the context of a church. There is much that I do not agree with, but I see nothing to be gained from obstinate disputations therefrom. That will only lead  to a splintered family. I see far greater wisdom and equanimity in not only walking together spiritually with my family, but also lending every support therein.

If you inwardly sense that going to church with your wife is the right thing, then you are doing the right thing but it will be wrong in my view if you are doing that just to please her and allow "peace" to reign. Compromises no matter how comfortable does not solve problems but only covers it and such problems will continually rear its head. If religion is very strongly anchored in an individual that nothing else matters except the religion such that the person is ready to give up the marriage to the person he or she genuinely loves, then it will be better that each should go their separate ways. For most people outward religion is not just their "life" but they also want it to be the "life" of their spouses and their children. I sense that there is a certain unhealthiness with expecting or even demanding that husband, wife and children should have the same outward religious inclinations.

Now, coming to children. As i said, i have contemplated this extensively. I have concluded that there is nothing to be gained by initiating little minds into possible confusion. They will have the benefit of the same upbringing that i did - they will attend a small family church and be raised in a christian context. This is not only in deferrence to my partner but also for two other reasons. One, the earliest spiritual questions that a child asks are best answered in the simple fashion that the religions lay out (God created man. . . etc) - and these answers in many cases are actually the truth in my view. Secondly the exploration of cosmological and more advanced spiritual truths is best left, in my view, to a more mature stage in the Child's life. A foundation in the church will make for simple stability, and i see little harm in it, if any - so long as the child is guided aright.

Again, do not worry about the kids. They will follow their own path. All you need do is to guide them as I explained in the first paragraph. If their mother want to take them to church, be supportive of that but be honest with your answers when they come back with questions on things they learned in Sunday classes. But above all, be there friend! Stay blessed.

^^ Thank you, and I so much agree!

m_nwankwo:

@DeepSight. I have some few comments to make on your post.

Why worry about the religious or spiritual view that you will bring up your children? Your duty as a parent is to demonstrate through your actions, words, thoughts, motives, imagination and intuition that you live in the sense of the laws of God. Humility, Love, compassion, honesty and similar things provides the greatest enlightenment to a child more than any treatise on spiritual or religious matters.

My worry arose from the implications of the institution of marriage. As things are, a religious spouse will often be adamant on schooling his/ her children in the doctrines and dogma of his/ her religion. Indeed most religious spouses (at least in these climes) will mostly feel deeply disconnected on a certain level if their partner does not identify with their religious fellowship. I am all too aware that this has become a life-long sticking point in many marriages.

If the other spouse is non-religious, as is my case, he/ she may see no or little harm in permitting the religious spouse to bring up the children in his/ her religious institition/ teachings.

As you have said, what would count most would be the way of life that is imparted by actually living aright as an example.

If you inwardly sense that going to church with your wife is the right thing, then you are doing the right thing but it will be wrong in my view if you are doing that just to please her and allow "peace" to reign. Compromises no matter how comfortable does not solve problems but only covers it and such problems will continually rear its head.

Hmmmmm. Conundrum.

It is a difficult issue. At the end of the day it seems to me that it is important to grant freedom to spouse and children all to toe the paths that they choose. So long as the foundation is and remains love of God and fellow man, one can surely be on the right course, without obstinately introducing a spirit of division into one's home.

Wow, wonderful discussions.
Chris, we wait for your next move.

@dare2think: did u get my mail?

I respectfully beg to dissagree with m_nwankwo on the issu of children. I do not agree that children should be left anlone to sort out religious issues for themselves when they grow up. We are not living in an ideal society where religion is a personal choice. It has been my obseravtion that majority of religious people in Nigeria did not make a clear conscious choice in that area. It is about fear. Fear of the unknown. The present economic, political and security issues helps maintain a perpetual atmosphere of fear in the land. Fear and guilt are primary currencies for peddlers of religious salvation.
In Nigeria, I hardly c ome across genuinely religious(in the true sense of the word) people. What I do come across everyday and in every ocasion are people are religious becvause they are frightened by one thing or another.Children are the most easily frightened and fear can traumatise and debilitate a young mind for a long time and unltimately have negative effects on the child's outlook and worldview in later life.

There is a very good reason why religion is not taught in public schools in most advanced countries. They just can't afford to have young minds poisoned by divisive and frightening ideas that may hold them hostage for the rest of their lives.
Leaving a child to sort out the religious labyrinth on their own, especially in our country is a 70/30 gamble on the childs mental and intellectual growth. Healthy scepticism is arrested very early and the fear of the an angry god, a malicious, ubiquitious devil, and mischievious demons take over the mind and build a fortress around itself to guard against knowledge.

^^^

1. If extreme ideas are avoided, is it harmful to raise your child a christian or muslim?

2. If you had a spouse who insisted on raising the kids in line with her religious affiliation - say, christian, for example, what would you do?

Deep Sight's position is exactly what I would take if I were to drop Christianity. I recall telling thehomer that if I were to drop Christianity the most logical position to take would be deism. Given his reply, I perceived he thought this was so because I just needed to believe in a deity. Not so, in fact, this post is where Deep Sight clearly advances the reason as to why there is a God'; or that at the very least, we can infer God's existence.

claremont:

[b]If the religious adherents do not want to be ridiculed, then they should keep to themselves;

Do atheists do so ? Apparently not.

claremont:
1. They should be made to pay taxes to the government of the country they live in.

They do.

claremont:
2. They should stop teaching religion to our kids in schools, and telling these kids that they would go to hellfire if they do not believe in a God.

Actually, they don't. That's usually done in Sunday school classes.

claremont:
3. They should stop cutting off the geni-talia of our kids.

This will be a good avenue to present reasons as to why the prepuce shouldn't be cut at birth.

claremont:
4. They should ignore the specific part of their doctrine that instructs them to kill non-believers.

That applies to Muslims only, to the best of my knowledge, hence, this call is needless.

claremont:
5. They should stop telling non-believers that they were born immoral, and would need a vicarious human sacrifice to gain morality.

Christians are the only religious adherents who do such, and their religion requires that, if a Christian approaches you with such a statement, politely refuse him and act reasonably if he/she doesn't act accordingly.

claremont:
Since it's obvious that they cannot stop doing all the aforementioned, then they do deserve to be ridiculed.
[/b]

Nonsense. I have presented pointers as to why some of your claims are invalid. I await your counter-arguments.

Deep Sight:

^^^

1. If extreme ideas are avoided, is it harmful to raise your child a christian or muslim?

2. If you had a spouse who insisted on raising the kids in line with her religious affiliation - say, christian, for example, what would you do?

There is nothing wrong in allowing your child to follow the religious affiliation of her mother until such a time he can fashion his own path. But it is your responsibility to offer to the child your honest answers on religious matters. There is also nothing wrong for the child to see that in certain religious matters you do not share the same view as your wife. You should know who instructs your child and what they learn in the church. If you have reservations, it is your duty to express those reservations to both your wife and the instructor. You should also develop your own classes for your child but never indoctrinate him with your views. A more practical suggestion can be made in real case scenarios. Stay blessed.

^^^^

M-nwankwo,

I am really impressed with your post above.

@Deepsight

I have always shared the same with you view with regards to spouse/child indoctrination until I came across Nwakwo's post above. Indeed, there is nothing wrong in letting your child know about one's certain reservations with regards to the spouse's religion rather than letting him/her have full control of the child's religious upbringing.

@musketo

Bro, I have not seen it yet. would you send me your e-mail instead and I mail you.

dare2think:


@Deepsight

I have always shared the same with you view with regards to spouse/child indoctrination until I came across Nwakwo's post above. Indeed, there is nothing wrong in letting your child know about one's certain reservations with regards to the spouse's religion rather than letting him/her have full control of the child's religious upbringing.

As I said earlier, I very much agree with the general idea of what Nwankwo wrote, but there are very serious reservations. Consider this.

Children are new minds in this world and that which they are taught at formative stages in my mind needs primarily to give them a well centred and stable view of the world and their existence. In an ideal world, one would not be forced to make these sorts of delicate compromises: one would simply teach one's child as one sees fit: but the intricate compromises of marriage and the imperative of ensuring a balanced and stable development for the child necessitate certain well balanced compromises. I will elucidate.

You may know that children are very perceptive. A child easily senses which parent is more permissive and which parent is more strict. Thus as children when we wanted a sugary treat, or permission to play outdoors, we always knew which parent would be more inclined to grant our request. Children therefore are very adept at playing either parent against each other: a child psychologist will tell you that children in this regard can be very manipulative indeed.

Because of this, it is critical that the parents tend to speak with a united voice when they direct their children.

Once a child can detect a splintered view between the parents he will most likely exploit it or in many cases simply become either confused or misdirected: lacking a conviction or grounding in the views advanced by either parent. This is the very simple reason that conventional wisdom dictates that parents should not disagree with one another in the presence of the child. For this reason, traditional parenting methods recognise that if the child is being disciplined by one parent - in the event that the other parent does not approve of the discipline, he or she should not reproach his/ her partner at that point (save of course in the case of physical abuse) - but should take the issue up with his or her partner privately and away from the child. This serves to maintain the authourity that both parents have over the child - for if the reproach is done before the child, such a child will cease to accept or recognise discipline from that parent, and hold a belief that he can always run to the other parent for succour.

Such is the basic mentality of children vis-à-vis parents which makes it very important that the parents generally tend to speak with one voice in directing or disciplining the child.

Now how is this relevant to the issue of religious/ spiritual upbringing? If I am to unreservedly apply that which M_Nwakwo suggests, there could be dire consequences for the harmony of my home and the mindset of my child.

Let's use a simple example.
The child goes to church with the mother. The child is taught that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for his sins. This is a basic teaching in church. The child returns from church and asks me, his father about this teaching.

It will be very dangerous at that very early stage in the child’s development for me to begin to unreservedly tell the child that which i believe. Because if I do, I will tell him that I do not believe that Jesus is the son of God or that Jesus is God. I will tell the child that I do not believe that Jesus died for his sins. This will create a schism in the mind of the child which I am not sure that children of such tender age can cope with.

When next the child proceeds to church he will do so believing that everything that the church and his mother teaches him are lies. The mother will lose her spiritual authourity over the child, and the child will begin to doubt anything that she teaches him. After all, she teaches him that Jesus is God and that Jesus died for his sins and yet daddy very clearly says that these things are not true.

When the child is called upon to go to church the child may even become resistant. Because he can sense the body language of his father. He can see that his father who he respects so much places no importance on church whatsoever. As the child proceeds along this line it is eminently likely that such a child will become terribly confused about much doctrine and dogma at a very early stage - at a stage in his development where he needn't and shouldn't be concerned with such things but should be singing happy carols and putting together lego games.

Such an approach will serve to evaporate the authourity and cohesion of the parents and create a possibly dysfunctional home at a stage so early in the child’s life that such could become destructive in later years.

I am firmly of the view that all of this is unnecessary. As I have set out in my earlier posts, i believe it would make greater sense to support my partner in the path that we will bring up the child - and gently infuse moderation as the child grows. I do not believe that this will be problematic, for as I said, children are brought up to believe a great many myths - such as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc. None of these myths are necessarily harmful but the child will outgrow them. It will be a very cruel parent who is asked about Santa Claus by his 3 - 4 year old and begins to lecture such a child on the fact that Santa is a myth etc etc. Such a parent will deprive the child of his childhood. When the time comes, the child will not need to be told that Santa is a myth.

In much the same way, the basic teachings of the church about God creating man, goodness, salvation and all that will not be harmful to a child. As the child grows, an attentive parent can carefully and subtly direct his mind to greater vistas. A well educated child will grow at all events to ask his own questions on all of these matters. My parents were both firmly christian and this did not stop me from asking my questions when the time was ripe. There is a proper time to begin to address such advanced doctrines with one's off spring. In my view, that time is certainly not in early childhood. I can just imagine the spectre of a child that loses the magic of christmas simply because one of his parents has told him that Jesus was a man like any other, and that he was not even born on Christmas day. What a sad sad child that will be.

The most important thing that remains - and which M_Nwankwo also asserts - is that the child should see living examples of virtue, honesty, charity and love within his parents. These living examples will guide him aright beyond any particular religious affiliation. My father never lectured me on such things, but he was such a shining example of humility and love that it made a huge impact on myself and all my siblings.

Deep Sight:

Bros how u dey now? Abeg let's play chess sooner rather than later, I am a sore loser and still eager to redeem my honour!

LOL I dey o.  . . Alright bro

Maybe you can send me an email whenever you are ready (you still have my email ********@gmail.com right?) and we can get on chess dot com as we used to.  . .

@dare2think:
My emails on my profile.

@all:
Thanks for such a wonderful discussion. I've learnt a lot, and i sabi play chess small o.

Interesting. . .

Hi DeepSight. Thank you for your well reasoned posts. I comment as follows:

You may know that children are very perceptive. A child easily senses which parent is more permissive and which parent is more strict. Thus as children when we wanted a sugary treat, or permission to play outdoors, we always knew which parent would be more inclined to grant our request. Children therefore are very adept at playing either parent against each other: a child psychologist will tell you that children in this regard can be very manipulative indeed.

Because of this, it is critical that the parents tend to speak with a united voice when they direct their children.

Once a child can detect a splintered view between the parents he will most likely exploit it or in many cases simply become either confused or misdirected: lacking a conviction or grounding in the views advanced by either parent. This is the very simple reason that conventional wisdom dictates that parents should not disagree with one another in the presence of the child. For this reason, traditional parenting methods recognise that if the child is being disciplined by one parent - in the event that the other parent does not approve of the discipline, he or she should not reproach his/ her partner at that point (save of course in the case of physical abuse) - but should take the issue up with his or her partner privately and away from the child. This serves to maintain the authourity that both parents have over the child - for if the reproach is done before the child, such a child will cease to accept or recognise discipline from that parent, and hold a belief that he can always run to the other parent for succour.

Yes, children are very perceptive and imitative. However there is a context. A child that every second and hour sees his father love the mother, adores the mother, treats the mother as his queen will not see different opinions of the the father and mother on some matters as undermining the authority of one or the other. When true love pervades the home, every differences in opinion is conveyed with much love. In such a context, a child will not see this disagreement as undermining the authority of either of the parents. In addition, the child will also witness on several other issues that the father and mother agree. As the child grows he is learning from the cradle that it is ok to agree on some issues and disagree on others. But assuming that such disagreement leads to undermining the authority of the mother (or father), it is the responsibility of the other spouse to put a stop to it. For instance if the child refuses to go to church with the mother just because he heard the father express reservation on some religious matters, then the father must force the child to go to church. In this way the child will gradually learn to discriminate and not use just one thing as a blanket for every other decision. The child will then see that daddy does not agree with mama some few issues but agrees with many other things done in the church. My view is that healthy development is fostered when children imbibe from a very young age that people can agree on one issue and yet disagree on others. My perception is that uniformity or rather a pretense at uniformity by parents when they relate to their children is not the right way.

Now how is this relevant to  the issue of religious/ spiritual upbringing? If I am to unreservedly apply that which M_Nwakwo suggests, there could be dire consequences for the harmony of my home and the mindset of my child.

Let's use a simple example.
The child goes to church with the mother. The child is taught that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for his sins. This is a basic teaching in church. The child returns from church and asks me, his father about this teaching.

It will be very dangerous at that very early stage in the child’s development for me to begin to unreservedly tell the child that which i believe. Because if I do, I will tell him that I do not believe that Jesus is the son of God or that Jesus is God. I will tell the child that I do not believe that Jesus died for his sins. This will create a schism in the mind of the child which I am not sure that children of such tender age can cope with.

When next the child proceeds to church he will do so believing that everything that the church and his mother teaches him are lies. The mother will lose her spiritual authourity over the child, and the child will begin to doubt anything that she teaches him. After all, she teaches him that Jesus is God and that Jesus died for his sins and yet daddy very clearly says that these things are not true.

When the child is called upon to go to church the child may even become resistant. Because he can sense the body language of his father. He can see that his father who he respects so much places no importance on church whatsoever. As the child proceeds along this line it is eminently likely that such a child will become terribly confused about much doctrine and dogma at a very early stage - at a stage in his development where he needn't and shouldn't be concerned with such things but should be singing happy carols and putting together lego games.

Such an approach will serve to evaporate the authourity and cohesion of the parents and create a possibly dysfunctional home at a stage so early in the child’s life that such could become destructive in later years.

If any of these dire predictions were to happen, then the Father is either consciously or unconsciously forcing his on views on the child and his wife. That is not the same as expressing what you think and in such a way that corresponds to the maturity and capacity of a particular child. Let us take the example that you gave. It will be irresponsible of the father to start a cosmological lecture on the question the child raised. Assuming a child of 3-6 years ask the non-religious father if Jesus is the son of God and whether he died for our sins. The father can answer as follows " Yes darling, Jesus came from the Father and taught us to love one another as we love ourselves". "Darling please go and get your children bible from your room and let us read the wonderful message that Jesus taught us". You can pick for instance sermon on the mount and invite the mother (your sweetheart) to join both of you to read the wonderful message of Jesus. Where there is genuine love and sympathetic understanding, how to handle these issues is not as complicated as it may seem. I am married to a born again pentecostal christian and I do have a torrent of practical experience on handling these type of issues. My own experience may however be different from others especially as I am blessed with a wife that is highly intuitive.

Now, assuming that your son of 3-6 years came back from church and start narrating events which proves that he has just witnessed exorcism where a pastor was casting away demons from a child. And you wife confirms that stating that there was deliverance in the church today. You have a duty to put a stop to exposing your children to such activities. There are ways of rehabilitating a child who have been traumatized by such events but I do not think it is necessary to go into that here. It is for this reason that I said that the non religious father must ab initio know the mode of worship and instruction that goes on   in children services where his kids attend fellowship. The limits of what is acceptable or not must be agreed between the parents and the church prior to the child first day at the church.

I am firmly of the view that all of this is unnecessary. As I have set out in my earlier posts, i believe it would make greater sense to support my partner in the path that we will bring up the child - and gently infuse moderation as the child grows. I do not believe that this will be problematic, for as I said, children are brought up to believe a great many myths - such as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc. None of these myths are necessarily harmful but the child will outgrow them. It will be a very cruel parent who is asked about Santa Claus by his 3 - 4 year old and begins to lecture such a child on the fact that Santa is a myth etc etc. Such a parent will deprive the child of his childhood. When the time comes, the child will not need to be told that Santa is a myth.

In much the same way, the basic teachings of the church about God creating man, goodness, salvation and all that will not be harmful to a child. As the child grows, an attentive parent can carefully and subtly direct his mind to greater vistas. A well educated child will grow at all events to ask his own questions on all of these matters. My parents were both firmly christian and this did not stop me from asking my questions when the time was ripe. There is a proper time to begin to address such advanced doctrines with one's off spring. In my view, that time is certainly not in early childhood. I can just imagine the spectre of a child that loses the magic of christmas simply because one of his parents has told him that Jesus was a man like any other, and that he was not even born on Christmas day. What a sad sad child that will be.

See my earlier paragraphs.

The most important thing that remains - and which M_Nwankwo also asserts - is that the child should see living examples of virtue, honesty, charity and love within his parents. These living examples will guide him aright beyond any particular religious affiliation. My father never lectured me on such things, but he was such a shining example of humility and love that it made a huge impact on myself and all my siblings.

I agree. Stay blessed.

^^^ Wonderfully conveyed and entirely agreed.

@ Deepsight.

I very much agree with your post. I understand the need for subtle intervention  so as to prevent confusion in  the minds of a child. I think the age and maturity of the child is the main contention. I personally despise over-zealous religious attributes and would not want any of my offspring to lean towards such tendencies and any age before 16. I guess it is more ideal to infuse your reservations and the appropriate age when the children starts to question some things themselves.

However, please note that some children will not ask questions and would only delve into the mass delusion of some religious attributes and might even find themselves move closer towards fanaticism. It might sound a bit extreme but fanatics do not just start with their believes in a day, I believe it takes years of continuous  focus on just a singular pattern of a belief system. Most have not been exposed to the variety of believe systems and the need to incorporate diversity and tolerance in their doctrines. That is why I advocate, to some extent, early intervention when the spouse is developing and encouraging the little mind's religious life.

I guess we should all know our partners well enough to consider having children with them,and we should address issues like this before bring an innocent mind into this world of confusion.

Nice one deepsight, I also have learnt a lot from this discussion.

@Muskeeto

I'll mail you soon. I'm new to this whatapp thing and e-mail you my ID the moment I figure out where it is.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Wonderfully conveyed and entirely agreed.

Na so una no email me ooo.

I full ground sha whenever you ready.

Pssst Today I won first place in a 5 minutes blitz tournament! http://www.chess.com/members/trophy_view?id=6714323

@ m nwankwo & Deep Sight >>> I think you give children less credit than they deserve. Lying about one's religious position to a child just because one believes children are to 'immature' to handle such issue is not viable for the following reasons: i) lying is wrong ii) children can actually handle such issues if one is honest about one's position iii) a last resort is to tell the child that you don't consider him/her to be ready for your answer to such issues.

I will examine mr nwankwo's comments and relate my experience growing up under parent's with differing religious views.

m_nwankwo:


Yes, children are very perceptive and imitative. However there is a context. A child that every second and hour sees his father love the mother, adores the mother, treats the mother as his queen will not see different opinions of the the father and mother on some matters as undermining the authority of one or the other. When true love pervades the home, every differences in opinion is conveyed with much love.

Agreed.

m_nwankwo:
In such a context, a child will not see this disagreement as undermining the authority of either of the parents. In addition, the child will also witness on several other issues that the father and mother agree.

Agreed.

m_nwankwo:
As the child grows he is learning from the cradle that it is ok to agree on some issues and disagree on others. But assuming that such disagreement leads to undermining the authority of the mother (or father), it is the responsibility of the other spouse to put a stop to it.

Agreed.

m_nwankwo:
For instance if the child refuses to go to church with the mother just because he heard the father express reservation on some religious matters, then the father must force the child to go to church. In this way the child will gradually learn to discriminate and not use just one thing as a blanket for every other decision.

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.

m_nwankwo:
The child will then see that daddy does not agree with mama some few issues but agrees with many other things done in the church. My view is that healthy development is fostered when children imbibe from a very young age that people can agree on one issue and yet disagree on others. My perception is that uniformity or rather a pretense at uniformity by parents when they relate to their children is not the right way.

Fair enough. I agree with this.

m_nwankwo:
If any of these dire predictions were to happen, then the Father is either consciously or unconsciously forcing his on views on the child and his wife. That is not the same as expressing what you think and in such a way that corresponds to the maturity and capacity of a particular child. Let us take the example that you gave.

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.

m_nwankwo:
It will be irresponsible of the father to start a cosmological lecture on the question the child raised. Assuming a child of 3-6 years ask the non-religious father if Jesus is the son of God and whether he died for our sins. The father can answer as follows " Yes darling, Jesus came from the Father and taught us to love one another as we love ourselves". "Darling please go and get your children bible from your room and let us read the wonderful message that Jesus taught us".

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.

m_nwankwo:
You can pick for instance sermon on the mount and invite the mother (your sweetheart) to join both of you to read the wonderful message of Jesus.

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

m_nwankwo:
Where there is genuine love and sympathetic understanding, how to handle these issues is not as complicated as it may seem.

True . . . and a child who is aware of his parents differing (religious) views will be aware that love transcends differences in views. This does not mean a parent is required to pretend to believe or esteem what he/she doesn't. However, it will involve compromises at some point between the parents.

m_nwankwo:
I am married to a born again pentecostal christian and I do have a torrent of practical experience on handling these type of issues. My own experience may however be different from others especially as I am blessed with a wife that is highly intuitive.

Okay. I was blessed with a highly intuitive mum.

m_nwankwo:
Now, assuming that your son of 3-6 years came back from church and start narrating events which proves that he has just witnessed exorcism where a pastor was casting away demons from a child. And you wife confirms that stating that there was deliverance in the church today. You have a duty to put a stop to exposing your children to such activities.

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) ?

m_nwankwo:
There are ways of rehabilitating a child who have been traumatized by such events but I do not think it is necessary to go into that here.

My mum once took me to an MFM deliverance session after I had a bad dream. I wasn't traumatized. I remember opening my eyes to see what was being done when we we told to keep it close, I also recall not particuarly attaching any importance to it. My current position on exorcisms is to pretty much ignore it.

m_nwankwo:
It is for this reason that I said that the non religious father must ab initio know the mode of worship and instruction that goes on in children services where his kids attend fellowship. The limits of what is acceptable or not must be agreed between the parents and the church prior to the child first day at the church.

Here again one is unconsciously forcing one's views on a child. It is clear here that the parent wants what he/she deems acceptable for the child.

I was born into a pagan household. Both my parents weren't Christians. My mum had leanings towards Christianity but did not identify herself to the religion. On the other hand, my dad was an avid paganist, his manner then was similar with that of PAGAN 9ja. A recurrent memory of my childhood is that of my dad saying Jesus was a poor man who lived an unsuccessful life. The fact that we were pagans who never went to church did not preclude a sense of morality or living peacefully with people of differing religions. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed Christmas. My dad told me at the young age of 3 to reply to my that I was pagan when i was asked to state/write my religion and I did so till I was 8 without any incidence. This all changed when my mum made the decision o become a Christian which caused a ruckus in the marriage since my dad felt would undermine his authority in the house. Meanwhile, my dad was impressed by the way Jehovah's Witnesses presented themselves when they came to evangelize to him that he allowed them hold lessons with us (his kids) every Sunday which they faithfully did for years till my dad became a Christian. It was through exposure to their literature that I decided to become a Christian at the age of 8 notwithstanding my religious upbringing. While this did not preclude me from participating in paganistic rituals my dad held which I still did despite my new-found faith out of respect for my dad. It did engender discussions which typically ended with my dad stating i was too small to understand his position. Never mind that I had read his books on paganism and Hinduism (my dad id his tertiary education in India) and had therefore compared the religions to choose which one I was most comfortable with. To cut the story short, my dad converted after he had a dream in which he saw heaven, till his unfortunate stroke he always maintained that nothing could make him doubt that's what he saw. I do not know my dad to lie and therefore believe him. After my dads conversion, my family became Christian. It should be evident from my short narrative that parents' differing views on religion do not preclude their children from making decisions quite independent of the parents'.