Kevin's Watch

rusmeister wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:Rus, I have absolutely no desire discussing my kids--or anything else--with someone like you.

So you want a yes-man's club.
Great minds think alike, eh?

It's not like that at all. I have many debates with many people with whom I disagree--many of them are Christians. It's not your world view that's the problem. It's you.

You put Cail on your "to ignore" list. I'm doing the same thing to you. And I ask you to do the same with me. I think it's a supreme waste of time talking to you.

Aliantha wrote:Z -- I don't agree with rus on much, as you know. But I do agree with him on exposing kids to violence before they're ready.

I agree, too. But where do you draw the line? Road Runner and the Coyote? There's a spectrum. Kids are better able to tell their limits than you are. Some kids are stronger and more mature than others.

Cybrweez wrote:I like everyone's definition of indoctrination - learning something you don't agree with. Of course, we never indoctrinate others ourselves, b/c we're only telling them the truth. Its everyone else saying something different that indoctrinates. I find it a bulletproof concept, and I'll take it and run with it.

That's not my definition. My parents tried to force me to believe their mythology on the threat of eternal damnation and pulling the "you live under my roof" card. I've told my kids they can believe whatever they want. We didn't start out telling our kids that there is no god. We simply didn't discuss it at first. A child's default belief system doesn't include an infinitely powerful man you can't see. Atheism is where they start. You don't have to teach them this, just like you don't have to teach kids that Zeus doesn't exist for them to be born without a belief in him. All you have to do to raise atheists is just let them be themselves. If you think that's indoctrinization, then we're talking about two completely different things.

I guess a definition, as always, is a good starting point. B/c the OP talks about cracking jokes at someone's bumper stickers. Valid joke or not, I don't imagine its the only joke or sarcasm leveled by you toward some religion to your kids. When little kids, who look up to their parents, see the belittlement of something (whatever that something is), its indoctrination - teaching them to think like you. It may be sub conscious, and not a sit down, let me tell you why this particular thing is nonsense, but its the same end result - Daddy thinks this is stupid.

Zarathustra wrote:

Aliantha wrote:Z -- I don't agree with rus on much, as you know. But I do agree with him on exposing kids to violence before they're ready.

I agree, too. But where do you draw the line? Road Runner and the Coyote? There's a spectrum. Kids are better able to tell their limits than you are. Some kids are stronger and more mature than others.

Absolutely, there's a spectrum, and some kids are more mature than others. But there's also peer pressure and wanting to fit in. Magickmaker wanted to see "Titanic" because Batty and some of her friends were seeing it. I took them all to the movie and spent a big chunk of it with Magickmaker's head buried in my side. I had to keep murmuring stuff to her like, "They're all just actors, and at the end of the day, they go home and have dinner with their families." At one point, she and I hung out in the lobby for awhile. It was just too intense for her at that age.

I don't usually have a problem with cartoon-ish violence, maybe because I grew up with Roadrunner and Coyote and the Three Stooges.

Cybrweez wrote:I guess a definition, as always, is a good starting point. B/c the OP talks about cracking jokes at someone's bumper stickers. Valid joke or not, I don't imagine its the only joke or sarcasm leveled by you toward some religion to your kids. When little kids, who look up to their parents, see the belittlement of something (whatever that something is), its indoctrination - teaching them to think like you. It may be sub conscious, and not a sit down, let me tell you why this particular thing is nonsense, but its the same end result - Daddy thinks this is stupid.

Yes, that's a good point. We influence in subtle ways. I'm aware of that.

But to be clear, I was making fun of this guy giving everyone death threats with his bumpersticker, and yet living his life in a way that literally threatens his own life ... it was both the hypocrisy and the audacity of threatening others with his bumper message ... not his religion that I as belittling.

Our kids don't have to be indoctrinated by our jokes. I say sarcastic things all the time and my kid will get offended and say (for instance), "That's racist!" And then I'll have to explain to him that not every statement which involves a racial issue is racist ... his school has just made him hypersensitive to race issues. He has his own mind, and disagrees with me all the time.

I've got an interesting situation with my own kids and their religious upbringing.
My wife is Catholic.
I was raised Catholic but dropped out at around age 10, become very well read on it's hypocrisy but love the message/lessons of Jesus's teachings. (as I've stated in my "Jesus the man" thread)

My wife wanted them raised Catholic.
I took the stance that the Catholic faith is fine, let my kids learn the basics about God. I want them to have an emotional security blanket if life hits the fan for them.
For myself the concept of Heaven is silly but it would be nice....
I want my kids to have that as well.

I assumed I'd be there to influence them away from the silly things and point them towards science whenever I can.

So far it's worked out well.
My daughter is now 11 and we can have an "intelligent" discussion/debate about religion.
It's fun seeing her thoughts on topics progress.

It will be even more interesting when one of my kids doesn't want to go to church with my wife anymore and would rather stay home with me.
Maybe as a compromise with my wife I'll make them read about science and math for an hour instead.


Interesting comments about Santa (He's real and you're all bastards for saying otherwise!).
How is he any different from Jesus?
They are both ridiculous stories we are taught as children.
And yet one survives childhood and the other doesn't.

Z, did you have your kids believe in the whole Santa thing at all?

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Interesting comments about Santa (He's real and you're all bastards for saying otherwise!).
How is he any different from Jesus?
They are both ridiculous stories we are taught as children.
And yet one survives childhood and the other doesn't.

Z, did you have your kids believe in the whole Santa thing at all?

Santa is different from Jesus because your "eternal soul" doesn't depend upon believing in him. And many other reasons.

We did the Santa thing. It's pretty harmless. I thought of it as a metaphor for us, the parents. After all, that's a metaphor that I know has a literal counterpart. And when they're old enough to figure it out on their own, they get a nice lesson in how to let go of childish beliefs, and see the deeper meaning. That's an important lesson that many adults still have not grasped.

Dude, you kids are going to a lake of fire to fry!

But I guess at least you'll be together.

Zarathustra wrote:I thought of it as a metaphor for us, the parents. After all, that's a metaphor that I know has a literal counterpart. And when they're old enough to figure it out on their own, they get a nice lesson in how to let go of childish beliefs, and see the deeper meaning. That's an important lesson that many adults still have not grasped.

I see a new thread in our future... 'Jesus - a metaphor on how to be a good person.' ?

dw

Zarathustra wrote:

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Interesting comments about Santa (He's real and you're all bastards for saying otherwise!).
How is he any different from Jesus?
They are both ridiculous stories we are taught as children.
And yet one survives childhood and the other doesn't.

Z, did you have your kids believe in the whole Santa thing at all?

Santa is different from Jesus because your "eternal soul" doesn't depend upon believing in him. And many other reasons.

We did the Santa thing. It's pretty harmless. I thought of it as a metaphor for us, the parents. After all, that's a metaphor that I know has a literal counterpart. And when they're old enough to figure it out on their own, they get a nice lesson in how to let go of childish beliefs, and see the deeper meaning. That's an important lesson that many adults still have not grasped.

The best thing I read once about children finding out was to tell them that now *they* get to be Santa. I think it's a nice transition.

In a similar vein -- we celebrated Christmas with my Mom's side of the family on Christmas Eve, where I remember being driven around by my uncle and older cousins looking for Santa Claus, and getting to see a lot of Christmas lights/displays in the mean time. After about an hour of doing this, we would end up at my grandparent's house, to find that Santa had already visited there.
Once I no longer believed in Santa, we still went on that hunt, to give "Santa" time to make his preparations.
And, once I got my driver's license, I continued the tradition with the younger cousins. And now they do the same with my niece and nephew, and the various cousinlings.

dw

No difference b/w Jesus and Santa? Unbelievable.

Cybrweez wrote:No difference b/w Jesus and Santa? Unbelievable.

Why? If you're not Christian, then they're both just legends. Jesus was a real person once. So was St. Nicholas. And?

Is there a difference to you between Muhammad and the Buddha? Why not?

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Interesting comments about Santa (He's real and you're all bastards for saying otherwise!).
How is he any different from Jesus?
They are both ridiculous stories we are taught as children.
And yet one survives childhood and the other doesn't.

Z, did you have your kids believe in the whole Santa thing at all?

Santa is different from Jesus because your "eternal soul" doesn't depend upon believing in him. And many other reasons.

We did the Santa thing. It's pretty harmless. I thought of it as a metaphor for us, the parents. After all, that's a metaphor that I know has a literal counterpart. And when they're old enough to figure it out on their own, they get a nice lesson in how to let go of childish beliefs, and see the deeper meaning. That's an important lesson that many adults still have not grasped.

The best thing I read once about children finding out was to tell them that now *they* get to be Santa. I think it's a nice transition.

I like that. My ex-wife was told that Santa is the "spirit of Christmas." It's a subtle distinction, but an important one, and one that I like. Her parents never told her that Santa was a corporeal being, although did say Santa gave these particular presents. It's not exactly lying to your kids, though it doesn't make as much sense when they are young than when they are older. I think it's pretty smart.

I've transitioned back and forth between not wanting to tell my then future offspring and wanting to be the jerk who spoils all the fun for his kids. I have come down on the side of Santa because it was so wonderfully magical and exciting, and I don't want to deprive my kids of that. I want Christmas to go back to being more than an obligation, and go back to being fun again, and I want my kids to believe in magic and good, at least until reality slaps them in the face somewhere around high school or college when the last shred of belief of magic and goodness fades.

And I suspect I'll probably raise my kids the same as Z for a while, until they hit an age where they will understand what is being taught, and not just parrot their father/mother's beliefs until they can figure it out for themselves. Obviously, there is no way we can do that, especially with a grandmother whose life is all about her church, but I'd prefer to save that discussion as long as I can.
I'm not an atheist. I'm one of the "ignorant," as Rus calls us. I had said in another thread that I wanted to introduce my kids to as many religions as possible so that they can see the whole menu as opposed to just picking the cheeseburger for them until they are old enough to order for themselves. Until then, they must starve!

Ok, it's not the best analogy.

aliantha wrote: Why? If you're not Christian, then they're both just legends. Jesus was a real person once. So was St. Nicholas. And?

Is there a difference to you between Muhammad and the Buddha? Why not?

Yep, still unbelievable. To keep it simple, no one actually believes Santa is real, lives in the north pole, and flies around delivering presents. Much like the infamous Spaghetti Monster analogy, its pure nonsense to compare such things. The only purpose is to try to belittle, a useful tactic in today's type of debate, of course I would say childish debate.

In that regard, Muhammad and Buddha are nothing like Santa.

Cybrweez wrote:
Yep, still unbelievable. To keep it simple, no one actually believes Santa is real, lives in the north pole, and flies around delivering presents.

But a virgin birth, turning water into wine, walking on water, controlling the weather, bringing others back from the dead, healing the sick with a touch, coming back from the dead himself and then floating up in the air to heaven is believable to you?

How is one more credible than the other in your eyes?

Cybrweez wrote:No difference b/w Jesus and Santa? Unbelievable.

People are really oversimplifying what I said and reading it the wrong way. I was speaking of the way beliefs gained in childhood work out: A child might come to understand that Santa is a story and not real as they grow older because their parents don't believe it and treat it that way, even while allowing their children to participate in the story until they're old enough to understand. Similarly, a child raised in an atheist household, even if not specifically taught "god doesn't exist", might find they naturally come to feel the same way because of the influence of having parents who don't treat it as real.

If anyone actually thought I was comparing god to Santa (other than in the "it's totally not true" aspect), you need to pay more attention to context.

Zarathustra wrote: Kids are better able to tell their limits than you are.

I'll let this amazing quote speak for itself to the general audience of parents.

Edit: on second thought, I'll clarify. Sure, kids know that they are tired or thirsty before we do. But what is morally good for them?

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

Cybrweez wrote:
Yep, still unbelievable. To keep it simple, no one actually believes Santa is real, lives in the north pole, and flies around delivering presents.

But a virgin birth, turning water into wine, walking on water, controlling the weather, bringing others back from the dead, healing the sick with a touch, coming back from the dead himself and then floating up in the air to heaven is believable to you?

How is one more credible than the other in your eyes?

This is a good question. Do you really want an answer, or do you already have it and therefore could hear nothing that I might say?

I know Murrin has clarified his original remarks, but I'd still like to pursue this.

Cybrweez wrote:

aliantha wrote: Why? If you're not Christian, then they're both just legends. Jesus was a real person once. So was St. Nicholas. And?

Is there a difference to you between Muhammad and the Buddha? Why not?

Yep, still unbelievable. To keep it simple, no one actually believes Santa is real, lives in the north pole, and flies around delivering presents. Much like the infamous Spaghetti Monster analogy, its pure nonsense to compare such things. The only purpose is to try to belittle, a useful tactic in today's type of debate, of course I would say childish debate.

In that regard, Muhammad and Buddha are nothing like Santa.

You missed my point.

Jesus is sacred to Christians. Santa is a secular myth (altho his story has roots in that of St. Nicholas, which is why my question to you asked you to compare *him* to Jesus, not Santa). Obviously you would see a difference between your holy man and the guy in the red suit who we all know doesn't exist.

My second question didn't have anything to do with Santa. Read it again: "Is there a difference to you between Muhammad and the Buddha? Why not?" My point was that a Christian wouldn't see much of a difference at all between Muhammad and Buddha -- they're founders of religions that he or she doesn't follow and probably doesn't know much about. But a Muslim or a Buddhist would be baffled, and perhaps even offended, at the Christian's cavalier treatment of his or her holy man. And almost to a person, the Christian will not be able to figure out why the other person is so upset.

I suppose religious people of *all* stripes have these types of blinders on. They think everybody should respect their own gods, but have very little interest in respecting the gods of others.

HLT, others have expanded on my original point. It seems you're the only one who really thinks there is no difference. There's a big differfence when no one even claims that some story is true, and another claims eye witness accounts and has actually affected people for millenia. The fact you don't believe the eyewitness accounts is a different matter. iow, just show me the eyewitness accounts of santa and the group of people who look out their windows in anticipation of his coming. (murrin, I wasn't responding to you)

ali, I'm not sure of the reason for your question? Of course there's a difference b/w muhammad and buddha. i'm not sure what respecting of others holy men you're talking about in this context? I thought I already said that muhammad and buddha are like jesus rather than santa.

But what do you mean by respect other people's gods? Why would I? Are you saying the atheist should respect all gods? I see no difference. And I see both as silly. And I don't know why that would be classified as blinders.