christian teachings for children

[accountansiyot]

I believe that the mind of a child is blank. Thus, the child is curious in everything in this world and also the child wants to know something in this world. But what if the things we taught of the child is dangerous, meaning would lead into wrong interpretation as what the norms is. That's the problem we are facing. There are knowledge that are not acceptable in our social norm. Do you remember the debate, political discourse and even court trials of teaching and some academic institutions which teach the theory of evolution? Many atrocities happen in this period. Many anomalies also. Society at that time and even at present don't believe in the theory of evolution because it disputes the creation idea in the Bible. Many Christians especially the devout ones are against this teachings which is taught at school especially to the children who don't know the depth of it at all. It would lessen the credibility of the church and even held the church questionable in their teachings, doctrines and principles. The church I mean Christianity. The one being affected in this situation is the church. Children's won't believe anymore in them. A sad fact.

The publication of the The Chronicles of Narnia in the 20th century has some Christian parallel as what expects said. And now it is even filmed and shown in the whole world. And the film earns big about it. Anyway, expects said that the book is an allegory of Christianity although is it fictional. But the basic Christian truth are present in there. It would be fun for children to know about this and interesting as well since children wants fantasy more than the in depth teachings of Christianity. But sooner they need to grasp the in depth teachings of Christianity.

Now, I thought about this question, which would be better taught at school especially to young children. The Theory of Evolution or The Chronicles of Narnia?
I know some would say none would be better. But we can't avoid that do we? Some would cite examples based on this two concepts. And besides, don't we want a easier way of teaching. Anyway, to entertain your mind, lets analyze the repercussions of teaching these two things.

First, the Theory of Evolution, well, we know already that the church is not agreeable to this theory. First argument, it is a theory and not a fact so why not stop teaching about this because it doesn't provide factual evidences. Scientifically speaking, religion has no factual evidences as well. That argument would backfire the church. But the concept that it is a theory and not a fact is a big deal already. Do we mean that the school would allow theory that are unproven to be taught in their subjects? That's pathetic right? I won't consider that as a school but a place of lies. So we say no to Theory of Evolution.

Then, lets proceed to The Chronicles of Narni. In the book, it has ideas that are parallel to Christian ideas. It is an allegory to the church, meaning the book doesn't water down the concept of the church insteat it supported it. So, is this nothing wrong if we teach this in school. Well, if we put it in literature, nothing's wrong about it. But in religion, a big no would do. Even though it is pro-Christianity, it would not give it a right to be taught due to the fact the characters involved in the book is fictional. If we take it in the religion subject, implication would be that the church supports the magical creatures like centaurs and dwarves, magic and talkinga animals. This is lunacy! I would disagree.

[Cellomaster2238]

When you are referring to a scientific theory like the theory of evolution, the definition of the word theory is completely different than the one used in normal conversation. A scientific theory starts out as a hypothesis based off critical observation. The hypothesis is tested through experimentation and is accepted, rejected or modified depending on the results. The experimenting process is repeated by thousands of scientists thousands of times until something called a theory is finally accepted. There is countless evidence backing up a theory. If an acceptable, repeatable experiment proves the theory or part of the theory wrong, the theory is rejected or modified again. You could look at a theory as a best-fit model to current human understanding of the natural world.

[NikolaiI]

I think so many of the classics just basic literature have good moral support of Christianity. Dostoevsky is a big one. Then there are so many philosophers, like Emerson and Kierkegaard. Education is good and helpful. The most important thing, is that it must be mixed half and half with spiritual growth, as well as physical well being. The mind and the body are not exactly one, but they are certainly not two either. So meditation awakens physical and mental consciousness, and unifies well-being. And physical exercise brings them into alignment as well. All of these are necessary for the bringing up of children.

I think all Christians should read Emerson and Kierkegaard. If someone were reluctant because they thought they were difficult, this is understandable, but they are not too difficult, actually anyone can awaken enough intelligence to read them.

[jgweed]

Is the OP's argument that schools should not teach evolution, since it is a mere scientific "theory," but that they should teach religious superstition, just because it is "hidden" in some piece of literature?

"Well, if we put it in literature, nothing's wrong about it."

Theoretically, this argument seems to promote a kind of intellectual dishonesty of the most damaging import; practically, it would allow, for example, students to read all sorts of propaganda if only disguised as literature---one need only consider all the novels, short stories, and poetry written under Hitler....

[blazeofglory]

We should not smear their minds with religious follies and vagaries

[Redzeppelin]

Is the OP's argument that schools should not teach evolution, since it is a mere scientific "theory," but that they should teach religious superstition, just because it is "hidden" in some piece of literature?


Religion isn't "superstition; you may think it to be so, but that doesn't make it so. Superstitions have not profoundly changed the lives of people for the better, ended slavery in Europe and America, and extended charity to many needy people around the world. I think the differences are pretty obvious.




We should not smear their minds with religious follies and vagaries

Well, the way your statement is made (kind of a question-begging construction), who'd disagree with that? But the statement's inherent assumption is that religion is merely "follies" and "vagaries." Not true - at least in all circumstances. In your opinion that may be so - but your opinon (like everybody else's) is not fact. Many, many people find that religion provides a deeper, more profound existence.

[Virgil]

First, the Theory of Evolution, well, we know already that the church is not agreeable to this theory.

Who says that? Which church are you referring to? The Roman Catholic church acknowledges evolution.

[Adopt]

Where I grew up they didn't indulge you into the Theory of Evolution until highschool years, which is well after a child's mind is blank. Obviously teenagers are curious, but blank? At this point in life they think for themselves.

I'm more concerned about parents growing children up into religions. I believe the individual should be presented all options from an unbiased point of view and pick for themselves how they want to live their lives.

[blazeofglory]

We corrupt children with baseless ideas. Even if we have listened to a hundred discourses and moral preachings we are not far from being violent. I do not think that educating children on particular beliefs will help.

I do not mean moral science is unnecessary. But driving children to religiosity creates a kind of division, segmentation.

Let children live differently and not smeared by any ideological rubbishes at all.

[Dark Muse]

Religion of any kind should not be taught in school. It should be up to the parents how they want to deal with religion in the rearing of their children.

As well children can be taught mortal values and ethics without having any religion drilled into their heads.

Children should be allowed to grow with an open view of religion, and explore such subjects when they are older and can better understand, as well as than be allowed to think for themselves and choose whichever path they think is right for them.

I do not think that people are going to stop believing in religion just because they are not force fed it as children, but rather it seems most the people I know whom have left the church or no longer believe came from strong religious families, and were turned away from the religion because it was imposed upon them when they were not given a choice to choose it for themselves.

As for the Chronicles of Narnia I do not think children are actually going to read any sort of religious meaning into them, unless they are being instructed to by their parents. When I was a kid I read the books, but they were not presented to me in a religious context. I liked the story because it was about a really cool talking lion, and I always loved animals.

[Bakiryu]

We should not smear their minds with religious follies and vagaries


We corrupt children with baseless ideas. Even if we have listened to a hundred discourses and moral preachings we are not far from being violent. I do not think that educating children on particular beliefs will help.

I do not mean moral science is unnecessary. But driving children to religiosity creates a kind of division, segmentation.

Let children live differently and not smeared by any ideological rubbishes at all.

I completely agree with you. That is, in fact, what I was going to say. :)

[blazeofglory]

Yes, we have indoctrinated children and that is why we have violence.

[Big Al]

Religion isn't "superstition; you may think it to be so, but that doesn't make it so. Superstitions have not profoundly changed the lives of people for the better, ended slavery in Europe and America, and extended charity to many needy people around the world. I think the differences are pretty obvious.

su·per·sti·tion [soo-per-stish-uhn]
–noun
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

First of all, Christianty has also changed the lives of others for the worst. Second, how did Christianity end slavery? And third, no, the differences are not pretty obvious.

[aabbcc]

First, the Theory of Evolution, well, we know already that the church is not agreeable to this theory. First argument, it is a theory and not a fact so why not stop teaching about this because it doesn't provide factual evidences. Scientifically speaking, religion has no factual evidences as well. That argument would backfire the church. But the concept that it is a theory and not a fact is a big deal already. Do we mean that the school would allow theory that are unproven to be taught in their subjects? That's pathetic right? I won't consider that as a school but a place of lies. So we say no to Theory of Evolution.
I believe that many people are mislead by viewing words "theory" and "fact" to be antonyms - which they are not. Try to view it this way - you have got a certain base of positive facts (for example, apple which had fallen down from the tree is a fact that occurred), and when you are ordering those facts trying to understand how they are mutually connected, and proposing a mechanism that stands behind natural phenomena, then you are making a theory. Theory, by that definition, is in start imperfect, for it necessarily somewhat steps into the realm of speculation - certainly, it is backed up by positive facts, but it does not remain at them, whilst trying to explain and predict the world. You can view theory as the best current explanation we have for natural phenomena and the behaviour of the world, and science functions on the principle of opposed theories. So once upon a time we thought that the apple fell down to the Earth simply because of gravity and the relation between masses, nowadays we think that that gravity itself is a result of curving of space/time, ecc. That is how science advances.

Schools, for one, need to be in accordance with time and place one lives in, but they must also consider child's intellectual development in order for them to be able to be presented certain theories and ideas (personally, I was never taught in any science lesson any scientific theory as an absolute truth, but rather as an idea which at the present time explains the world the best - and that is how I believe it should be). That is why it is generally not advisable to introduce children to Einstein before they were introduced to Newton, even though from current standpoint Einstein's theory explains the world and space and relations between objects much better; likewise, the current model of the atom we have is generally not that which you are introduced to in your first year of Chemistry in elementary school but, rather, at some point in high school; so the theory of evolution is nothing different in that aspect. In order to be understood and critically questioned, it assumes that children are already able to distinguish religion from science as explanatory systems, able to understand how science and scientific theory work, at it is presented to them in the way they can comprehend with their current preknowledge (for the discussion about evolution is, for understandable reasons, completely different in fifth and in eleventh grade). Given that, I see perfectly nothing wrong with teaching evolution as theory, as the best model we have currently to explain something, on appropriate level for each age group. That does not mean that somebody is trying to indoctrinate your child or lie to them - they are trying to educate them, and whether you like it or not, whether you are religious or not, science is one of the fundaments of one's education in today's world. Refusing that fundament would mean insisting on blatant ignorance out of prejudices - which I doubt you wish for your child.

The problematic thing is that most people - unfortunately, parents included - view school as an institution which presents facts to children. Well, it is not. Nobody has monopoly over truth, and schools serve simply to expose children to different ideas and explain the world to them the best they can, but carefully and always stressing and keeping in mind that they are teaching ideas, not facts. This is true of humanistic subjects as well - nobody is going to teach you art, they can only present to you various views on art, theories of art, or present it in historical development, but it is impossible to "teach" art to somebody, just as it is impossible to "teach" science to somebody.
Exposure to various ideas and learning to think critically and find one's own way amongs those ideas is actually the goal of the school in XXI century, because the information is simply too much, they are contradictory, and world changes too fast. The era of learning things as facts is behind us... thank G-d.

[aabbcc]

Religion of any kind should not be taught in school. It should be up to the parents how they want to deal with religion in the rearing of their children.
As much as I theoretically agree with these statements, I believe that going to the extreme with them is not rather good either. :) Generally, I dislike extremes for each of the extremes presents something intollerant and violent in itself - teaching one religion to be the only and correct view of the world, condemning the rest, behaving as if one has monopoly over truth, neglecting other explanatory systems in favour of omnipresent religion (for example, science and philosophy and their respective ways of thinking) is one extreme, you shall agree. In the other hand, neglecting religion as an explanatory system (i.e. not specific religion, but the phenomenon of religion as such), neglecting cultural and historical heritage of specific religions important for time and place one lives in, pretending as if none of that existed and behaving as if one had monopoly over truth, only by different means (e.g. exalting science to the throne of religion as one, ultimate and only view of the world) is, I believe rational person shall agree, extreme of the other end.

The correct approach, at least in my view, lies somewhere in the middle.
Without getting into private/religious schools and how they should handle the issue - for it is understandable that their approach can be somewhat different - I believe that in public schools in secular countries, which by definition should not be biased, there should not exist any form of mandatory religious education of the kind that specific religion is studied and taught from the point of view of a practising believer (I am, personally, even a bit more extreme - I do not think that public schools are a place for even elective presence of such subjects, but perhaps I am being somewhat too extreme here :)), nor that any public school should encourage and organise any kind of prayers and organised religious worship in their building, have religious symbols (except in cases in which they are part of the architecture, as in some old buildings - in that case it is art rather than indoctrination) including things such as crucefices on the walls, or propose any kind of typical religious behaviour. From that point of view, I believe children should be protected from the terror of the majority over minority, and vice versa, and that religion should not be something dividing children or encouraging Us/Them way of thinking. I believe that, as far as regards practical worship or proclaiming to be on somebody's side, publis schools should be absolutely neutral.

However, having in mind the importance of culture, heritage and history, I would never entirely expel out of public schools some things which de facto belong to the realm of religion. For example, I would never go as far not to allow religious art to be presented (e.g. Byzantine art, Orthodox Christian icons, religious sculptures or paintings, architecture of most important and known churches, etc); not to allow religious literature to be presented (excluding interpreting any work as holy scripture - yes, I think Bible or Qur'an should be introduced to children as a part of history and literature studies, but I think that it should be viewed and presented in historical and literary point of view rather than religious); not to talk about the phenomenon of religion in Sociology classes, not to acquaint children with most important religions and religious trends in the world they live in, for that kind of extreme would be promoting ignorance of the other end, and I still think that schools should, unbiased, expose children to some of those ideas as well, presenting various religions (perhaps as a part of non-biased subject which would teach world mythologies and religions, or something similar) and streams of thought which do not follow strictly scientific or philosophical logic.

Regarding one's personal beliefs and upbringing, that is up to the parents, as long as they also educate their children in tolerance and respect for the others. I don't know if you agree with me, but I wanted to point why I think that going to the extremes of expelling religion entirely out of schools is not the best idea either, despite thinking that schools should principally teach some other things.

[aabbcc]

[...]not smeared by any ideological rubbishes at all.
The problematic thing about this is that it is impossible to raise somebody outside of ideology of any kind. Some might wish to be more 'correct' than the others in that aspect, but it is impossible to live or educate somebody in ideology-free circumstances, if you take the word "ideology" to the extreme.

Religion is a form of ideology per se; so were totalitarian societies lead by certain national ideologies; however, why do you believe that our current way of organising the society and the way it works is not an ideology in itself? Democracy, for example, is a kind of ideology, whether you wish to accept that or not, for it does proclaim for itself that it is the best way of organising property, relations between people, ecc. Paneuropeism, a trend which took over Europe some decades ago and is continuing today with the spreading of EU, is an ideology as well... Any set of organised ideas used to prescribe the relations between people, behaviour, moral norms, is an ideology, whether or not it is backed up by irrational belief in higher being and formal religion. You do not even have to look at political systems, you can look around yourself, and you will see plethora of examples of ideology; perhaps the current trends of global ecology are the best example of how ideology is 'masqued' in our time. All of that is ideology, and you inevitably belong to some of them, and you will likewise inevitably raise up your children in the spirit of some of the ideologies, in the spirit of your values and set of beliefs (for, even the lack of belief will be backed up by some kind of belief - for example in absolute supremacy of science, despite it, in the end, being axiomatic system as well).

Passing onto your children what you think is good is natural, and of course that you are first going to offer your children that which you have and then, if they refuse and if you are a normal person and not a fanatic, let them find their truths somewhere else. But you inevitably will pass onto them something, if nothing else than at least the spirit of non-violence, tolerance, blah blah. One has to interpret a world around them in some way, and interpretation is always going away from the positive facts, is necessarily speculation and necessarily just one of the possible ones, which you will inevitably wish to offer your children.

However, thinking that you are absolutely ideology-free, that one can be ideology-free, and bashing different ideological and religious systems as "biased" as opposed to your supposed neutrality, is in my opinion, not good.
I am not judging off this post alone, blaze; you certainly seem to be peaceful, seem promoting ideas similar to my own, one can see that you have thought about those things intensively, maybe, after all, you are just not taking the word "ideology" as literally as I do and do not apply it to all sets of phenomena as I do, so maybe in the end we do agree; but I have to stress that I think that thinking one is or can be pure of any ideology is extremely wrong and, even moreso, extremely dangerous.

[blazeofglory]

Children are defenseless beings and we kind of stuff their minds with our belief and disbelief and corrupt them. They judge things from our minds, see beauty from our eyes, and build a fort dogmas and superstitions. They become constricted.

We with our religions, beliefs and learning have not been able to vanquish our brutal natures. We simply assail or attack their inborn sense of freedom and dunk them in a dungeon of our beleifs.

Let them fly and do not cut their wings of imagination, molding them into a decrepit, dilapidating their capacities for flight.

Do not smear their minds with the rubbishes of Christianity and in doing so you are being unjust.

[DooRag]

The mind of a child is not blank. In fact, there is a lot more going on in their mind than ours. They can interpret more sounds than us, have more sensations, and, physically, have many more neurons than us.

[blazeofglory]

The mind of a child is not blank. In fact, there is a lot more going on in their mind than ours. They can interpret more sounds than us, have more sensations, and, physically, have many more neurons than us.

At least theirs is empty of the stuff, the dirty stuff our minds are stuffed with.

[blp]

I was brought up by atheists who read me the Bible and the Chronicles of Narnia, as well as the Greek myths, The Oz books, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory etc. and explained the theory of evolution and the mysteries of human reproduction early.

Among all the things I was read as a child, I think the Bible was, in many ways, the worst and I'm not joking. The King James version is beautiful literature, but bible morality is something I found extremely confusing, troubling and frightening. Punishments, which are often violent, are meted out not on the basis of people's actions but their circumstances and, of course, the whole thing culminates in a bloody crucifixion. This kind of thing is not easy for a six year old to take on board, to put it mildly. If a parent read stories like this to a child outside of a religious context, they'd rightly be called irresponsible. Not an easy choice to make, however, given that it's also virtually impossible to understand European culture without these stories, but I think, if I was going to do the same with a child today, I'd take a lot of care to ensure they understood that this was an inhumane and primitive belief system that was worth knowing about, but from which right thinking people were trying to move on.

Or, well, anyway, I'd take a little more time to ask them what they thought and, if they said they thought it was horrible or upsetting, I'd tell them I agreed.

[blazeofglory]

Let children live the way they like it. But it is a pity they can not do so, for we indoctrinate them from the time of their birth.

We can not clear them of the tangles of religions.

[blp]

Let children live the way they like it. But it is a pity they can not do so, for we indoctrinate them from the time of their birth.

We can not clear them of the tangles of religions.

I don't see why not. I'm not very tangled in religion. I was just perturbed by the horrible story book when I was little'un.

[blazeofglory]

I don't see why not. I'm not very tangled in religion. I was just perturbed by the horrible story book when I was little'un.

It i s a big challenge to be out of it.