No he didn't. He never rebuked his mother. And as a FURTHER NOTE, I AM NOT A CATHOLIC. I'm defending the Church from your blatant idiocy, but that is all. I'm not Catholic. I'm a Deist. I used to be a Catholic, but I give Catholicism the same respect as I would any other religion. When someone makes up a gigantic load of crap like you have, I'll defend any religion.

Sorry what? Have you been crucified? Could you imagine the pain of anyone who was nailed to a tree, beaten bloody senseless as hell and left to suffocate on their own body weight?

Either way, again, your post has nothing to do with anything. Would you please address the fact that you, a MORMON, have implied that the Catholic Church is a heretical organization? Even in the basest sense, without me criticizing your belief system, isn't that a little hypocritical of you? After all, the CLDS is a splinter denomination from Protestant Christianity. Many people consider Mormons heretical, albeit generally good intentioned. So isn't it someone ironic that someone who belongs to a splinter faith calls another faith heretical?

That has nothing to do with ANYTHING. I'm not discussing the Origins of the Holy Mother Church, nor the historicity of Peter and the early Popes, but were we to actually discuss people and organizations that have distorted history and blatantly made things up, why don't we talk about Joseph Smith while were at it?
================================================================================
=======



You mean that fake book that talkes about horses and camels and elephants in the americas before any of their fossils were found. Now how did an 18 year old who only finished 8th grade dream that one up.

Sorry no the LDS church is not a protestant church it is the original restoration church. The other restoration church's are break offs of it.

The higher archy of the Catholic Church is really what is left of the Government of the Roman Empire. This is my opinion not anyone elses.

I have never stated that the people or at least all of the people of the catholic church are not christians. Just as not all Mormons are christians. It is the church leadership I have a problem with.

The mormon church teaches to always question your leaders.

I've read that book. Oh yes, it also talks about the Native Americans being the direct descendent's of the lost tribes of Israel, which was disproved by genetics: See here.

Oh yes, it also talks about a group of Israelites who migrated to the Americas. And there is no archaeological evidence of that.

The Mormon Church also supported racism for a long time.
this is a fun video your church did.

Criticism of Mormonism

1 the chuch did not make that video.

2 at the least it is laughable. at the most it is a pack of lies. There is some truth to it.


Joseph Smith did get the golden plates when moroni showed him where they were. Joseph Smith was a prophet. But Christ is far more important than any mortal is.

one more thing if you read chapter 17 verse 7 of nephi 1 you will find that they came through china to get here. That was a long time before anyone said anything about the natives coming from china.

The song that we sing on mother's day is to one mother in heaven not multipuls

Very dubious to say the least..............

Joseph Smith's early experiences:

The Mormons have had a fascinating and turbulent history. Its founder was Joseph Smith. He lived in Palmyra NY -- in "...western New York state, sometimes known as the "Burned-over District" because of the waves of religious revivalism that periodically swept over the area." 1 His family of origin were called "Seekers." These were Christians who were not affiliated with a church, but who respected the teachings of all denominations. In his early teens, his mother and most of the rest of the family converted to Presbyterianism. However, Joseph was deeply troubled by the multiplicity of sects that existed in Christianity. Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists were active in his hometown. In common with many Christians before and since, he wondered which was the "true" Christian religion. He asked God: "Who of all these parties is right; or, are they all wrong together?”

horizontal rule
Smith's first vision:

He received his answer in the form of his first vision in 1820, at the age of 14 in Palymra. God and Jesus Christ appeared before Joseph as two separate persons, apparently in flesh and bone bodies. This conflicts with the traditional Christian beliefs that God is a spirit, and that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit consist of three persons in a single entity.

Smith wrote that he was told by Jesus to:

“join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof’.” 2

Smith was also told to a major personal assignment in the future.

Belief in this vision is a central belief of the LDS Church. LDS president, Gordon B. Hinckley, has said:

"We declare without equivocation that God the father and his son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy, Joseph Smith. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision." 3

During an interview with PBS, Hinckley stated:

"...it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith. 4

horizontal rule
Subsequent visitations:

In 1823, at the age of 17, he received three visitations from Moroni (some texts say Nephi) at the time of the Autumn Equinox. The angel revealed to Joseph the location of golden tablets on which was written the history of two early American tribes. He went to the site and found:
bullet A breastplate, such as might have been worn by an ancient Israelite.
bullet Golden plates upon which ancient American authors Ether, Mormon, Lehi and Nephi had recorded additions to Biblical history
bullet The Urim and Thummim. These were two "stones in silver bows" which appear in Numbers 27:21 and 1 Samuel 28:6 of the Hebrew Scriptures. They were apparently devices (perhaps in the form of flat stones) that the high priest consulted to determine the will of God. They might have worked something like a pair of dice. Smith claimed that through the stones "and by the gift and power of God" he was able to translate the unknown script on the golden plates into English
bullet Brass plates upon which another author, Laban, had quoted from Hebrew Scriptures and recorded genealogies.

However, he was not permitted to remove the plates at that time. He was instructed to return to the spot at each Autumn Equinox. Four years later, in 1827, he was finally allowed to take possession of the material.

horizontal rule
Translation of the golden plates:

A friend of Smith, Martin Harris, attempted to authenticate the tablets by taking copies of some of the inscriptions to Professor Charles Anton and is said to have received verbal confirmation that the tablets were written in "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics. No such language exists. Prof. Anton later denied making this statement, and wrote that the symbols that he saw were a combination of Greek, Hebrew, inverted or sideways Roman letters, and elements from a Mexican calendar.

Joseph Smith positioned himself behind a curtain and used the special stones to translate the inscriptions on the golden plates. Emma Smith, Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery served at various times as a scribe. A 116 page Book of Lehi was translated over a two month interval. Unfortunately, Martin Harris showed the only copies to his wife who promptly "lost" them. Lucy Harris was a skeptic, and there is speculation that she believed the book to be a fraud. By forcing Smith to retranslate the book, she hoped to demonstrate discrepancies between the two versions, thus proving that the book was a hoax. Smith stated that God was so angry at this loss that he temporarily took away the special stones. Smith later translated the plates of Nephi which described the same events as the Book of Lehi.

Mormons believe that John the Baptist later appeared to Smith and Cowdery, investing them in the Aaronic Priesthood showing them how to baptize each other by total immersion in water. Still later, the Apostles Peter, James and John invested Smith and Cowdery in the Melchizedec priesthood and commissioned them as the first two elders of the new church.

horizontal rule
Smith founds the Church of Christ:

Joseph Smith and five other men founded the Church of Christ in 1830-APR-06. it attracted 1,000 members during its first 12 months. Smith and a small band of followers moved to Kirtland (near Cleveland OH) in 1830. Their group was renamed the Church of Latter Day Saints in 1834. Financial problems and local opposition from non-Mormons caused them to flee for their lives to Jackson County, MO in 1837, He called this place Zion. Church members were heavily persecuted here as well -- largely because many of the public believed that the church was promoting the establishment of a religious dictatorship -- a theocracy. They were also distressed at the Mormon's belief that the Book of Mormon was the revealed work of God, with the same status as the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament). In spite of the opposition -- much of it state-sponsored or condoned -- the church increased greatly in numbers.

The rest of the story here

http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_hist.htm

Circa 1832: Joseph Smith heard a voice while he was praying. He wrote, in Doctrines and Covenants section 130:

14: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:"

15: "Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter."
16: "I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face."

17: "I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." 6



The year in which this event occurred is not recorded. However, one commentator suggested 1832 or earlier. 7 Smith is later recorded as having said:

"I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written--the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old.8
Smith would have reached the age of 85 during 1890. Unfortunately, by that year, Smith had been dead for almost a half century, having been assassinated by a mob in 1844.

Note that his prophecy can be interpreted that Jesus would return during 1890 (which did not materialize) or that 1890 would pass without Jesus' return (which did come to pass). Some anti-Mormon sources quote only verses 14 and 15, and draw the former conclusion -- that Smith's prophecy failed.


This is not a failed prophecy.

You forget the Judaic concept of "rasing a child in the way he should go." The christians do believe that the Old Testament has something to do with their NT, and as a result they also believe in the Proverbs which state that a person should raise his children in the way of the Torah. Granted, the christian interpretation would be that they should raise thier children as christians. Raising a child in your belief system isn't brainwashing. After all, what is the alternative?

But raising OTHER people's children that way? One's own child is one thing, but raising multitudes of children is another. The alternative could be no religion, or exposure to multiple religions, or teaching religion once a child is older. There are many "alternatives" even for very religious people.

What about someone in a religion like Judaism? You do the child a great disservice by leaving them without a religious foundation. It is a formula to creating a spiritually confused child who will be physically impulsive. Of course, many people are able to get out of such a mindset relatively normal, but there are many people who cannot recover (spiritually) from such parental mistakes. As a result, the child is left to deal with consequences he/she has reaped by committing actions that could have been prevented if he/she was spiritually stable. If you believe that humanity has a spiritual side, to say that a parent should neglect it to avoid brainwashing, is the same as saying that a parent shouldn't desire that their child be fit, but rather that a parent should let their child get older and then choose their healthiness. Or that a child should experience states of physical health in order to decide whether or not he/she wants to be skinny and healthy, as opposed to obese and unhealthy. The spiritual is the same as the physical. They are both tied.


To neglect the spiritual is to give the physical so much control and imbalance that a person would not be able to help themselves when a relatively large impulse comes in their path. Granted, as I said, the child may grow out of such impulsive actions when he/she gets more mature. However, to even let the child go through that stage is unwise. That is why it is important to give the child a proper spiritual foundation.


Many religions contradict one another, to expose the child to multiple religions would be like forcing your child to be skinny, then forcing your child to be fat, and then telling the child that he/she can choose which one he/she wishes to be. That too is unwise because it creates confusion. They wonder which religion is the most correct, or which has the most logical beliefs. It doesn't help and both options are unhealthy for the child.

Confusion and personal exploration are important parts of life, in my opinion. They breed maturity and personal growth, instead of teaching the child that there will always be someone to make decisions for them. Besides, morals and religion are not tied, so one can teach a child morals so they turn out to be a mature and responsible person without adding religion.

Certainly, but a strong foundation helps one to get through such trials. Everyone goes through that point, however, to have a foundation will help one successfully get through that stage. With some, this is not the case and instead they crash and burn.


You don't to teach the child that someone will always make their decisions for them to teach your child your religion.


Without religion, morals are subjective. Religion is important just as exercise is important. What you are suggesting would be akin to giving a child steriods because the child will still turn out to be a healthy person without adding exercise.

We will just have to agree to disagree then. There are plenty of religious people who don't have a high standard of morals. Hitler is a perfect example.

There is more to raising a child correctly than the religious part. Just as there is more in raising a child than the physical health part. Hitler was deluded. Have you ever read Mein Kampf?

Of course Hitler was deluded, but that doesn't change the fact that he still belonged to part of a religion. Stalin was an atheist, but that doesn't mean all atheists are like Stalin, just as all Christians aren't like Hitler. Yes, there is more to raising a child than religion, but it still shouldn't be the fulcrum of a child's upbringing, in my opinion. That just creates religious intolerance. Plus, I don't like to say "correct" upbringing, as we're all different and have been brought up differently, so there's no "correct" way to do anything, let alone raise a child. All we can do is raise a child to be what we consider to be "correct".

By the way, in regards to Mein Kampf and Hitler:

"However, in contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism,[91] and ridiculed such beliefs in Mein Kampf.[92] Rather, Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity",[93] a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_beliefs)

I didn't say it should be the fulcrum. To the religious person, their religion is the most important thing in life. Thus, it is important to teach one's child about one's religion. Granted, it is not the only thing to be taught, but it is the most important.


Only in those who incorrectly raise a child. Teaching your child the motions, and inputting them into a religious routine (ie going to church/sunday school/youth groups etc etc etc) is not teaching a child your religion. A child cannot be safely and healthily taught religion unless the parent embodies their religious values. The parent must live as an example of a wise and devoutly religious person.

Not as some bible-verse spouting fool, but neither as a lukewarm apathetic who doesn't take religion as serious as it should be taken. Only a person who is truly into it. Not someone who was raised christian, stayed a christian their whole life, and fit into the whole christian routine. There has to be actual substance to a person's spirituality and moral views. They must live an example of a good upstanding person. Otherwise, the child will also become confused, and will have an unhealthy spirituality.


Correct wouldn't be the right word.There is no way. We can only hope that our children become extraordinary people.

Personally, I don't think people should be allowed to raise their children without proper training/licensing. I think a program should be developed to help parents become "certified" to actually raise their children. Most people disagree, I just ignore them. A lot of parents don't exhibit the values they impose on their children, thus causing an imbalance and a rebellious child. Most parents live in a prideful "do as I say, not as I do" paradigm. Most parents think that because they are the parent, they have the right to treat the child as their property. They won't say this, but their behavior makes it obvious.

Such parenting disgusts the hell out of me, and quite frankly I think its sad that so many people are fine with it. I think that a lot of the world's problems come from bad parenting. I think it is a terrible form of abuse to be so foolish in the upbringing of a human life.

One cannot teach their child religious or moral values without first living up to those values to the highest degree. Most people don't live of to their own religion's values. For this reason, most parents shouldn't be allowed to parent as they are parenting because they have a huge chip on their shoulder. They have this prideful attitude that needs to be obliterated from our society, they are creating a generation with a subconcious mindset of self-destruction.

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen. Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?


If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today, then it had to be teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, since there cannot be two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same verse. But if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, then that would mean that St. Paul is contradicting himself, since in the first century he was also promoting inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation to the Bible."
Robert Sungenis http://www.fisheaters.com/solascriptura.html

Kaizen CJM wrote:
"You do a child the child a great disservice by leaving them without a religous foundation"


What a crock.
How about you do a child a great disservice by indoctrinating and conditioning them into an organised religous cult/sect/group and encouraging them to foster the delusion that they somehow more superior to other humans on the basis of a completely non provable beleif system.
We all know that relgious beleif in no way guarantees moral integrity and often is a catalyst for delusions of grandeur,myopic bigotry,narrow minded prejudice etc..
Instead of organised brainwashing of youngsters -what is wrong with affording them the luxury of arriving at their own conclusions?
Is it a kind of hysterical insecurity on the part of the religous cult/sect/group?
Can't this wholesale conditioning of youngsters be seen as diluted form of child abuse?

Everyone has a right to raise their child under their belief system. Anyone who says otherwise is not being practical. When the child matures they can then make their own decisions but whatever faith or lack of faith the parent has gets first dibs. This is basic human nature.

Yes, THEIR child, but then how do people justify raising OTHERS' children under their belief system?

clovis what is in the best interest of the child is both parents and that is what the court recognizes.....If they agreed to commit to the rearing of the child it is only fair that she retain visitation IMO....

gosh sop much about parenting is setting aside petty squabbles and putting the kid and what is best for the kid first.....

because these two didn't work out as a couple doesn't mean they didn't work as guides for the child...

and on another note Many parents now adays are waiting for maturity before bringing in a beleif construct if they do... You can easily parent and be relgious yourself and allow your child room to develop and mature and grow ..you would just tell them this is what i beleive and one day you will find some thing that you beleive. ...

.

some parents as myself encourage a exploration of all religions from all povs incluidng the beleivers because this creates unity if you can understand another you create peace and celebrate diversity and honor them as individuals..i nca't possibly profess to tell them who they should be.... ....

..Its when we think we must be right we run into issuses .i am not opposed tio religion unless its presented as a dogma and impsoed on another as the chioce or best choice.... when we do this we create a disservice to our kids and our culture.. .... ..you do not have to beleive in or belong to anything to learn all about it from any pov..........

Isn't NOT teaching someone spiritual values ALSO teaching them something?

People act like not teaching your children about your spiritual beliefs is like leaving a page blank so that it can be written on later, but that is not how things work, and we all know it, so it's really dishonest to act like this is so. If you don't teach your kids your spiritual values then you are, by default, teaching them that your spiritual values are worthless.

If you're an atheist, I would expect you to teach your kid atheist beliefs, if your agnostic, the same, or Wiccan, or Satanist, etc. because if you hold those beliefs then you consider them to be important and true, if you are not teaching your children your beliefs, then you are communicating to them that they are not important or worse you are telling the child you don't think he or she is important or good enough to be brought into that area of your life.

... What? Who are we to say which pages of one's psyche can and cannot go back and be written upon? How arrogant is it to claim all of us are constrained to that rule? That certainly isn't what happened with me, so you've proven yourself wrong right off the bat. I went back and rewrote my beliefs. By not teaching them spiritual values your are most certainly NOT teaching them your beliefs are worthless. You're respecting their free will and the fact that they have the right to believe what they want, not just because YOU believe it's right.

I certainly don't plan on teaching my child based on Wiccan beliefs. How utterly unfair is that? They'll get to choose what they want to believe. It's their life, not mine, so why should I make such an important decision for them? How can you even begin to ratify making a personal decision for someone so impressionable? By not teaching them one's own personal spiritual beliefs, one is most definitely NOT saying that their child is not good enough for said beliefs. I don't see how that logic can be assumed whatsoever.

we are teaching our children how to be in unity with the culture we are a part of and its diverse, to teach only of our spiritual values is limiting and unrealistic IMO ....the ability to adapt to the situations and circumstances and to learn from our experiences and self correct and be responsible for our choices and willing to change/suspend our views far more important and useful then spiritual values. IMO .


yet i can see the value of ritual and tradition if it appeals to you ...

...You show what you value by your behaviors and the beleifs you hold, for one and by your behaviors you can aslso show how you embrace others values and principles... children are very adept at understanding loud and clear what you are saying.....


how are you defining teaching is what I'd wonder....because when i define teaching its about assimilating as much data and incorportating new data to add to our picture to see in a perspective that is all inclusive.....

OK, so by your own argument there is nothing wrong with teaching a child the spiritual values and beliefs held by the parents since they can always CHOOSE to adopt other values. So what is the problem with teaching children spiritual values?

Except for the fact that my parents didn't shove religious dogma down my poor innocent throat so I had enough sense to be able to logically analyze religious practices.

The "problem" is religions teaching intolerance of other religions and the concept that "if you're not for us, you're against us and deserve to die." We don't need more of those people.

What values are you teaching would be my question.....because we agree to a beleif because that is what we have been told to do doesn't say its of value or merit..

to infer that your path is the only valualbe path would create a dogma,...

so what is a spiritual value to you and how are you so sure it should be good enough for your child and based on what and how do you arrive at this conclusion???.


.

Sounds like you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth: either it doesn't matter what spiritual values you are raised with because you are free to choose as you get older, or you are "locked" into whatever you're raised with.

The interesting thing is that you are reflecting the values your parents raised you with. They did not stress any values to you, so you also don't stress any values... and in so doing you ARE "stuck" with the brainwashing you got as a child.

There has to be two sides to every argument, Iams. It depends on the individual and at what age they are exposed to religious doctrine. Naturally, an older child would be more likely to disagree with religious dogma, whereas a younger child is more likely to accept religious dogma because they don't know any better. My brother is a Christian as is the rest of my family, whereas I am a Pagan, the exact opposite of Christianity. We cannot assume children will be one or the other, so it's better to be safe than sorry in the long run, wouldn't you agree? Just as not all people are succeptible to AIDS, but does that mean we should get rid of condoms? NO! Of course not. Just because some of the population can be resistant to something doesn't mean we don't need to be cautious about said thing.

I never said my parent's didn't expose me to religion, Iams. Don't assume they never took me to church or tried to make me read the Bible. YES they DID expose me to religious beliefs, BUT they did NOT press those beliefs on me. They did not say "Be a Christian or be disowned". They said, "Look at the doctrine and see if it fits you, because it fits us." There's a BIG difference. To say I am the same as my parents is very, very wrong. I cannot assume you know that, because I would have to spill my entire life story out here on this thread, which isn't what I like to do. I'll just let you know my parent's and I are quite different, even in our religious, moral, ethical, and spiritual beliefs. But again, I'm not going to go into personal detail here. Just don't assume things like that, please.

I guess we shouldn't teach our children to avoid drugs, smoking, and promiscurity either should we? After all, who are we to brainwash our children into thinking that its ok to do drugs and what not. While we're at it, lets not teach them to drink and drive either. After all, why can't we just allow them the luxury of arriving at their own conclusions?







What competent parent would allow someone else to raise their child?


They can make that decision for themselves when they get older. We should also let a child walk into the street right? After all, we believe its right not to just walk into oncoming traffic. Maybe the child should have the free will to decide whether or not he/she desire to get hit by a car?



They are not just some person, they are your child. What you speak of is the basis of incompetent parenting. You're suggesting that you shouldn't give your child some sense of direction. A parents job is to raise his/her children. Not to appease his child with "free will."

You imply that we shouldn't teach our children anything at all. After all, why not just let our children decide everything for themselves? Like whether or not they should go to school? Whether or not they should do drugs? Whether or not they should drink and drive? Whether or not they should have unprotected pre-marital sex with as many people as they want? Why even parent the child? Why not let it make its own decisions?

"I guess we shouldn't teach our children to avoid drugs, smoking, and promiscurity either should we? After all, who are we to brainwash our children into thinking that its ok to do drugs and what not. While we're at it, lets not teach them to drink and drive either. After all, why can't we just allow them the luxury of arriving at their own conclusions?"





Thats a very weak reply as we are discussing non provable beleif systems.
Moral integrity is a fundamentaly human attribute and not a religious one.
You must have a very poor view of humanity in general to make such a statement.

EEEHHH since when do we need a religon to know when and how to stay away from drugs etc??? WHAT???


You dont need a faith in god to know that drugs are bad etc...anyone can teach a child that WITHOUT using religion

"Moral Integrity" is completely relative without religion.You can't say anything is moral without religion.

Morals are defined by society and they change according to the needs of society....

morality has ot do with how we determine what is right and wrong... and that changes Kaizen...

Only non-religious morality does this. Religious morality is not subjected to the frailties of non-religious morality.

lol, kaizen what frailties would this be hon.. sweetie you can't possibly think that religion is the only moral dictum in truth many don't need it.....

kaizen religion is a social construct lol...

You say that only because you are personally biased against religion. Morality is not something that should change, that's not morality at all, it's merely an opinion. It's a highly dangerous way of thinking. It could lead to a holocaust-like paradigm.

I believe if you are a parent that believes in sharing faith with your kids and you find it makes everyone happy, then IAMS, that's what is best for you and your family...what I mean is, if faith is what it takes, keep up the good work.

I am not stupid or blind, I can tell that you love your family and I sense they love you right back, not to mention how faith from within you all, is what makes you bond and gain peace, it makes you love life...and im not blind, I can look at a family portraite and tell if people are just forcing on smiles for the sake of a pic, but you and your family didn't force on smiles for the sake of it...NO...those where actual signs of happiness...

As for me, I allow my child to experience what it is like to have a holy faith ..Becky happens to be the only real christian in our family....it makes her happy and to me that's what counts

I will not force religion on to her in order to teach her, I feel there are ways I can make her understand that drugs etc are a bad choice...if it means I shock her with certain stories, then that's what it can take....after all it worked on me and I never looked back

Why naturally?

I didn't say they didn't either, I said they didn't stress specific values and I based that on what you said.

Lady, I am a big proponent of personal responsibility which is why I believe that it is important to teach our children the values we live our lives by, and why I am also quite certain that it will do little to no harm because people choose who they are. There are many people here on UM who were raised in "Christian" homes of various levels of fundamentalism and and yet are today not Christian fundamentalists or even Christian. You yourself are a perfect argument for why teaching a certain set of values does not "lock" someone into a particular set of values. I think the teaching of values is important because it shows the child the importance of having values and the importance parents place on the child herself.

Quite true and I might add not teaching your child something is still teaching them something. Those claiming letting them decide for themselves as a philosophy to child rearing are actually saying something else and we all know what it is. There is still not doubt in my mind it does not matter because parents will parent as they have for over many millennia and that is to pass on what they believe.

You know changing ones perception can be very hard, but their is a line from brainwashing and from not exercising one's mind. When I was a child I was 'forced' to believe that there was a God, the 10 commandments and all of these other Christian things ha-ha. But even though I was a child I still had my OWN beliefs..yes children have their own beliefs I know hard to believe since most would think o they will get brainwashed. Do parents have an influence on children, of course, but trust me children can think for themselves.

Now I could see in some situations where brainwashing children and then letting them kill people or severe hatred towards a race is horrible, and it's happened.

But giving them beliefs that teach not to kill others or at least negativity in general, doesn't hurt to put some ideas in their head. Most tell their children of bed time stories do they not of dragons and other creatures that don't exist today and no one calls that brainwashing.

It becomes a problem, when the kid is not a kid and lives in the fantasy world. Each human as a will power to believe what they want to, children will assume things adults tell them, but it doesn't mean they are stuck with that belief forever.

Even though I was taught to believe their was a god, I made up my own rules to follow by, I believed in everyones god and respected their spirtuality. I found it better to spend my time watching others in their religion than in my own. I am an observer, and from this I've seen many different perspectives on life none which can be wrong, only if you feel they are to you.

Man, for some reason when you wrote this post... I got the lyrics to the song Freewill by Rush stuck in my head. It's actually one of the few Rush songs I love. LOL.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill

Teach a kid nearly anything from a young age in the same way people do with Christianity, and odds are they'll believe it. It's the main reason why I was a Christian before I even had a choice to be. It was "hardwired" into my brain that there was a God. It was natural to me to just accept the idea that God exists. It felt like a common and obvious truth to me, even though there were no reasons for me to feel this way other than being raised to think it.

So no, it's not a good idea. My girlfriend is a Christian, and we agreed NOT to teach our kids that God DOES exist, but let them read the bible and other religious texts when they are old enough to make their own choice.

I raised my daughter without any specific belief. She did occasionally go to meetings with me though. Nothing wrong with that though. She also went to Mass with her step-grandfather who used to be a priest. She has stayed in an Ashram in India with my mother. She lived in the South Pacific with both pentacostal preachers, and native ancestor worshippers. She spent the last year in Japan among the Shinto. She's blessed that she's been exposed to as much as she has. She in fact, has no belief that I'm aware of. If she does, it leans toward Shintoism... But, she should believe whatever works best for her and her life.

That being said... my own belief is one that no one should be forced into a belief. My church doesn't consider children born into Friends families to in fact be Friends. They can't choose the path until they are much older. Most choose something other than Friends initially... many also come back in their 30's and 40's. It's kind of interesting. But it's up to the individual in my opinion.

I think not teaching specific religious/spiritual beliefs is easier for non-religious people than it is for religious. Let me explain - a non-religious person can go through day-to-day life and never mention God (or no-God) to their kids. But a religious person? What happens when the kid walks in on mum-and-dad's Bible reading time? They look at the book and say "What's that"? How do mommy and daddy respond? What happens on Sundays when the parents want to go to church? Do they leave their 3-year old kid at home all alone? Do they take turns going to church? What if they are both active in the church community (let's say one cooks the lunch for church while the other is a Sunday School Teacher) - they both ahve to be at church. Do they quit their duties for the next 14 years simply to stop having to bring up their children in a religious community?

For a religious couple, it would be impossible to maintain ties with their religious community while simultaneously keeping their child away from taht community.

I know when I have kids I will bring them up to believe in the Christian God. Once they are old enough to choose for themselves, I won't force them to go to church or to read the Bible or to pray. But until that time comes, I think to do any less than what I feel is best for my children would be dishonest to myself, my partner, my child, and to the God that I follow.

Just something to think about,

It's not as hard to do as you might think PA.

In fact, I found it to be quite simple.

Of course, my belief has no outward displays or symbols we cling to. Going to church with me amounted to sitting around reading a book for an hour (great way for a youngster to learn there are times to be quiet). When people did speak, she listened. When she went to mass with my father in law, she loved the gargoyles and singing. When she asked me, I told her I had beliefs and what those beliefs were. When she had questions I answered them in the best way I knew how.

Didn't mean she grew up believing what I do. In fact, I'm quite sure she does not... or at least not in the same way. She does tend to keep our family philosophies and values though. No harming people, animals or environment, respect for our things and keeping things minimal and simple, being generous, respectful, and kind, staying out of debt, no gambling, and a few others too ... those ARE tenets of my faith, however... I was raised that way, and I was NOT raised as a Friend. Not even close.

There are ways to install the values without necessarily installing the religion. Now, I woud recommend that any family do what they believe to be the right thing where their children are concerned. I simply chose to not indoctrinate my kid. I don't regret a second of it--I felt that was best for our situation. Low and behold.. I was right too! LOL.

Of course, one of the beliefs I have is that a child can't "follow God" ... they can only choose that for themselves, and it's generally about the age when they are ready to choose their own belief anyway. So in my opinion, it does no good to indoctrinate them anyway. *shrug* I know, you won't agree with that... I understand.

I do agree to an extent, MMW. I wouldn't call teaching your child what you believe to be "indoctrination". The word itself is highly negatively charged - not necessarily because of what it means but by the implications it brings. I mean, most of us send our children to school. We thus "indoctrinate" them early to the school system. But we don't think of it that way. We just think of it as "senidng them to school to learn".

I see what you're trying to say, but by teaching my child what I believe is not "indoctrination" - that implies forcibly making them do and believe everything I say (or "brainwashing" for lack of a better term). Rather, it is sharing with those closest to me what my worldview is. When i go to church, my child would go with me, and in doing so would see that this weekly event has some special significance. My child may not understand the importance of it, but unless we stay away completely from the church community, we are "indoctrinating" that child into a worldview similar to our own.

Regardless if parents teach their children what they believe or not is still teaching them. Even if it is teaching them disbelief. If a parent believes in a more eclectic approach and discovering for themselves from varied sources what to accept and not and then takes a bit from here and there that in itself is a belief and is being passed on. I do not disagree with you MMW that you have done your child well for you have taught them exactly what you believe even if you claim you do not expect them to be a Friend you are still incorporating the values of the Friends because as you stated they themselves believe in allowing a child to decide and in your view that sometimes can mean them returning to the Friends in later adulthood.

In the end there is nothing wrong with a parent who is a Christian to have their child grow up as a little Christian regardless if that child changes their mind later. On the same token there is nothing wrong with a parent who is a non believer in teaching their child not to believe as well regardless if that child comes to believe later on their own.

Now I also believe that not all Christians have to indoctrinate their children for one aspect of indoctrination is that it does not accept questioning. Many here who assume all Christians, especially fundamentalist and evangelicals, engage in indoctrination and that just is not true. I grew up allowed to question as much as I wanted to and in retrospect my parents did not discourage it one bit for they understood that it is part of the learning process and how can a belief stand up on its own merit without questioning.

So in sum there is nothing wrong at all with teaching your children to be Bible believers and good Christians and as always they will be able to decide for themselves anyways at a later age. As always though someone's opinion reveals more about themselves than it does what they are commenting on. And for those so against teaching children to be Christians all it is really saying is that they disagree with Christianity. MMW though provided an excellent and balanced view on this and rightfully so because it reflects her beliefs.

So anyone who does not believe is correct in also passing on disbelief to their children. The only wrong that can be in this matter is when one starts to dictate how other parents should raise their children. I do not particularly place value in extreme examples either that some have offered and will, such as ZOMG they are raising their child to hate or become a suicide bomber, for they are meant to appeal to emotion rather than to the broader issue of parenting as in how it effects the majority. If anyone wishes to discuss that they should be aware it is in a specific context of that problem and does not reflect accurately or even remotely how fundamentalist of any faith rear their children. Not all fundamentalist when it comes to belief are extremists when it comes to society for that matter.