Is it immoral to teach children Christianity?

[VermilionUK]

It's been debated all over the place: Should we teach our Children Christianity?

By this, I mean: should children be taught to become Christian?
Or are people violating children's right to choose?

I personally think that they should be taught about Christianity (and the flaws of it), and left to make up their own choice.

If we look at the famous "Jesus Camp" we can see how it can be - in many ways - brainwashing. But of course this is an extreme example.

So, question for discussion: Should Children be taught to follow Christianity? Or is it immoral in todays society?

There's also a poll - if there isn't an option applicable to you, then please explain your thoughts.

[Megaboomer]

Is it immoral to "teach" children about Santa Claus? No.
Is it immoral to not tell the children at a certain age that Santa Claus is nothing more than one of the thousands of man-made myths? Yes.

Replace Santa Claus with Christianity or whatever religion and you have the answer.

--- this is not even close to a good analogy because so much of the biblical things are proven to be historical and truth.
---none, in fact has been proven to be myth.
---the fact is that the bible is the best and most reliable source for truth in recorded history.

[T-mash]

--- this is not even close to a good analogy because so much of the biblical things are proven to be historical and truth.

And so much in the bible has been proven to be wrong.

---none, in fact has been proven to be myth.

The very start of the bible is one big logical mess.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
Proposing that the Earth has been around longer than stars and anything else in the universe. This is not correct as has been proven by observing stars and our universe.

"And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."

God created "Light" and "Darkness" before creating the sun and stars... our source of light. He called Light day and Dark night. Day and night and a day are determined through our planet's position to the sun, which at this point hasn't been created yet.

"'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;"

The assumption that starts are placed in our galaxy just so we can use them to make zodiac signs is rather silly and on top of that our zodiac system (or other forms thereof) has been around looooong looong loooooooong before the bible.

"God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"

Do I need to clarify that the moon isn't a light?

---the fact is that the bible is the best and most reliable source for truth in recorded history.

Recorded history in some terms goes hand-in-hand with the bible. In others however it shows that it does not in fact is a very reliable source for truth about history.

[Megaboomer]

--- this is not even close to a good analogy because so much of the biblical things are proven to be historical and truth.

And so much in the bible has been proven to be wrong.

--- not true... please provide more dicrepensies that have been PROVEN and if you have any more questions i'll set you straight.

---none, in fact has been proven to be myth.

The very start of the bible is one big logical mess.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
Proposing that the Earth has been around longer than stars and anything else in the universe. This is not correct as has been proven by observing stars and our universe.

---- No actually scientists have proven that the universe all came into being at once.
---also if you look at the Hebrew text this usage of heaven is in the plural sense referring to the sky, stars, abode of God ect. So you’re wrong on this one

"And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."

God created "Light" and "Darkness" before creating the sun and stars... our source of light. He called Light day and Dark night. Day and night and a day are determined through our planet's position to the sun, which at this point hasn't been created yet.

---you just got to do some word study if you want to understand what the writer meant or ask a scholar who has studied Hebrew because you’re thesis is lacking.
---the type of light used here describes and includes the light from the sun. the fact is that God created all these things in the universe at once.

"'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;"

The assumption that starts are placed in our galaxy just so we can use them to make zodiac signs is rather silly and on top of that our zodiac system (or other forms thereof) has been around looooong looong loooooooong before the bible.

----why does this matter if there are older documents that agree with the bible.

"God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"

Do I need to clarify that the moon isn't a light?

----what does it matter if the moon isn’t the source of light? it still reflects the light of the son and if you do your research more carefully you’ll see that the Hebrew word for light used in this passage refers to “the sun and moon� and not a source of light.

---the fact is that the bible is the best and most reliable source for truth in recorded history.

Recorded history in some terms goes hand-in-hand with the bible. In others however it shows that it does not in fact is a very reliable source for truth about history.

--- Please give reference for recorded history that goes contrary to the bible.

[T-mash]

---- No actually scientists have proven that the universe all came into being at once.

Have cosmologists proven that every star was created on the same day, that the earth was created before the stars and that there is a gap of maximum 2 days between every single celestial body in our universe? That is very fascinating, where can I read all about these new discoveries?

---also if you look at the Hebrew text this usage of heaven is in the plural sense referring to the sky, stars, abode of God ect. So you’re wrong on this one

then why did it later say that he created the stars again? Not enough stars?

---you just got to do some word study if you want to understand what the writer meant or ask a scholar who has studied Hebrew because you’re thesis is lacking.

First of all. If you need to do a word study to understand what the writer meant it's one hell of a crappy book. Perfect gods do not write crappy books I'd imagine, though. Second of all you refuse to show me why I was wrong and only said I was.

---the type of light used here describes and includes the light from the sun.

So there was light from the Sun before he created the sun? That's indeed something only a divine being could ever manage. It's also very likely to be nonsense when you think about it.

the fact is that God created all these things in the universe at once.

The fact is that your own book claims what you say the fact is is not the fact at all, as a matter of fact. The bible quite clearly puts the creation of the universe in a chronological order, which is also in stark contrast to what one would reasonably assume should have happened.

----why does this matter if there are older documents that agree with the bible.

Because that means we already knew this stuff before your god told us? In fact we already knew this stuff before the universe was formed according to your average Christian time-line. Does it not strike you as odd that we have human history dating back further than the creating of the universe according to a common religious claim?

----what does it matter if the moon isn’t the source of light?

Scientifically speaking it matters a ton of the moon is a light bulb (star) or only reflects light from it's surface.

it still reflects the light of the son and if you do your research more carefully you’ll see that the Hebrew word for light used in this passage refers to “the sun and moon� and not a source of light.

Yes, I did say it was the moon and the sun.. that is what my argument was about.... Why do you think I said "Do I need to clarify that the moon isn't a light?". I did say it refers to the sun and the moon.


I can keep this up all day long because your bible is filled with things that are wrong but here you go:

Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. (Matthew 4:8)

How can you see the entire world from a high mountain? For one thing you can't see that far.. for another.. the earth is.. you know.. not flat.

“...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...� (Isaiah 45:18:)
“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.� (Chronicles 16:30)
“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...� (Psalm 93:1:)
“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...� (Psalm 96:10)
“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.� (Psalm 104:5:)

The earth is immovable? Doesn't seem to go well with our general understanding that the earth revolves around the sun....

--- Please give reference for recorded history that goes contrary to the bible.

Tower of Babylon? Language originating because god cursed us into speaking other tongues?

[Jayhawker Soule]

First, full disclosure: I, along with the overwhelming majority of Jews I know, accept the Torah as a human tapestry with profound mythic elements. That said, it is both sad and tiresome to watch these persistent, shallow and ignorant efforts at Bible-bashing. So, for example, ...

The very start of the bible is one big logical mess.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
Proposing that the Earth has been around longer than stars and anything else in the universe.

That is a childish and simplistic interpretation of an outdated translation.

"And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."

God created "Light" and "Darkness" before creating the sun and stars... our source of light.

Actually, scientists (as opposed to silly little critics) will tell you that photons existed before "the sun and stars."

So, Ms. T-mash, did Genesis get it right? Hardly. But its shortcomings are arguably far more justifiable than yours and its intent far more noble.

[T-mash]

The very start of the bible is one big logical mess.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
Proposing that the Earth has been around longer than stars and anything else in the universe.

That is a childish and simplistic interpretation of an outdated translation.

It's also quite true. Simplistic interpretation? Want to share what the "complex interpretation" is then? The very first line, which very clearly states it all began with creating heaven and earth... is completely false by any form of cosmology we accept. This is a simple fact. Childish and simplistic? Why?

Unless you are proposing it is common understanding that the creation story is shuffled around to form a puzzle or that it should be read backwards or that somehow the translation means something completely different than every single bible claims... I don't see how you are making a valid point here by just calling it childish.

So please show me what this complex and up-to-date translation is that I should be reading instead. Thanks in advance.

Actually, scientists (as opposed to silly little critics) will tell you that photons existed before "the sun and stars."

So, Ms. T-mash, did Genesis get it right? Hardly. But its shortcomings are arguably far more justifiable than yours and its intent far more noble.

I'm sorry, that must be a translation problem too then. Is the correct translation "In the begining, God created photons"? If so, show me. If not, what are you trying to say?

[Jayhawker Soule]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
Proposing that the Earth has been around longer than stars and anything else in the universe.

That is a childish and simplistic interpretation of an outdated translation.

Share what the "complex interpretation" is then? The very first line, which very clearly states it all began with creating heaven and earth... is completely false by any form of cosmology we accept. This is a simple fact.

Really? (This will be wasted on you, but others might find it interesting ...)

The widely used Stone Edition Tanach renders Genesis 1:1 as ...

• 1:1 In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth

and treats verse two as a parenthetical.

Similarly, we read in the authoritative JPS Torah Commentary and Etz Hayim, and The Torah: A Modern Commentary ...

• 1:1 When God began to create heaven and earth
  1:2 -- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water --
  1:3 God said: "Let there be light"; and there was light.

The translations in Friedman's Commentary on the Torah and Alter's highly acclaimed The Five Books of Moses are similarly rendered.

The only thing "simple" here is your certitude, and it is simply wrong.

Actually, scientists (as opposed to silly little critics) will tell you that photons existed before "the sun and stars."

I'm sorry, that must be a translation problem too then.

No, solely an understanding problem: yours.

[T-mash]

Really? (This will be wasted on you, but others might find it interesting ...)

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
15. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

May I kindly redirect you to this topic: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

The widely used Stone Edition Tanach renders Genesis 1:1 as ...

• 1:1 In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth

and treats verse two as a parenthetical.

How in particular does this change what I stated before? First of all. The Stone Edition Tanach is not at all used widely by Christians, is it? The arguments I made were in response to the bible (Christian). So if I use what the accepted Christian translation is I fail to see how that is childish.

"In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth – when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters – God said, “Let there be light,� and there was light. God saw the light was good, and God separated between the light and the darkness. God called to the light: “Day,� and to the darkness he called: “Night.� And there was evening and there was morning, one day."


Better then? If so how does this not also state that the Earth was created before "light"? If not, is this also not the correct translation?

Similarly, we read in the authoritative JPS Torah Commentary and Etz Hayim, and The Torah: A Modern Commentary ...

• 1:1 When God began to create heaven and earth
  1:2 -- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water --
  1:3 God said: "Let there be light"; and there was light.

The translations in Friedman's Commentary on the Torah and Alter's highly acclaimed The Five Books of Moses are similarly rendered.

The only thing "simple" here is your certitude, and it is simply wrong.

Am I? Does that not quite clearly state that:
Step 1) Create Heaven and Earth
Step 2) Create light (which are stars and suns)

No, solely an understanding problem: yours.

Correct. I fail to understand how, while reading whatever book you prefer to bring up seems to claim the same thing, you somehow pretend it doesn't?

All I asked was an explanation of why I am not correct and all you refer me to is different translations which propose the same inherently flawed statement.

At any rate this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does that not quite clearly state that:
Step 1) Create Heaven and Earth
Step 2) Create light ...

No, it does not ...

... (which are stars and suns)

No, it is not.

[T-mash]

Does that not quite clearly state that:
Step 1) Create Heaven and Earth
Step 2) Create light ...

No, it does not ...

Allow me to try and answer this incredibly well-put out argument you propose. God was floating above the earth's water and said "Let there be light". He made the light (which are stars and the sun, which is itself a star) AFTER he made the earth. How you fail to see this simple matter of chronology escapes me. Are you suggesting he was floating above the water of the earth before he made the water of the earth?

... (which are stars and suns)

No, it is not.

You're giving me a hard time here with your well-informed scientific arguments, but I'll try. Actually... I won't.. If you do not think Stars are our main source of where our light comes from then you are woefully uneducated. Call that a personal attack if you must but let's look at a drawing of a 5 year old. A sun with beams of light shining towards us. If a 5 year old understands that the sun provides light, how on earth can you not? You are either 2000 years behind in your knowledge of scientific advancement or, as my guess is, you are deliberately trying to play dumb due to lack of arguments. Feel free to correct me on this.

And before I forget:

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).