I don’t talk alot of politics with my kids. However, my advice would boil down the same way - decide for yourself. they’ll be 18 soon enough and will then be allowed to pull the lever however they see fit. I can argue my case I suppose, but again, they have a much better chance of understanding my argument if they approach from a non-biased standpoint.
Religion is no different. Once their life has some context and they can understand the history theyve read...then they can make an informed decision. How many versions are there? Muslims, Jews, Christians (how many Christian flavors?), Mormons, Budhist, etc...Choose one or choose none. Just make your own choice.
As for the murder question...that’s absolutely ridiculous. How many societies on earth tolerate murder? I suppose a few. And those that do probably use religion to justify it. Muslim killing Christians or Jews.
Youre basically saying because i don’t give my kids a religous education I can’t teach them what’s morally right or wrong? Sure. Rape? Sure son. Decide for yourself if its good or bad. Give me a break.
Here’s my point. I could have my 8 year old son listen to a 1-hour presentation from a religous scholar representing Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. All would make compelling arguments that theirs is the one true faith and the only way to salvation/heaven/reincarnation/ whatever...
He will not have the experience and or mental capacity to judge who is correct. That will only come with more life experience and independence. If he wakes up at 25 and through experience and/or revalation decides the Jews have it right...so be it. He can drive over and see the local Rabbi. He can then decide how he wants to feel about people praising or mocking his decision. He can form his own response to kind Christians telling him he’s damned himself to hell.
“Youre basically saying because i don’t give my kids a religous education I can’t teach them what’s morally right or wrong?”
I did not say that at all. Nor imply it. I was addressing your logic, or lack of consistency in your reasoning.
I got to tell you, you are presenting liberal party line logic.
I’ve heard this “let the kids decide” over and over from the liberals.
“As for the murder question...that’s absolutely ridiculous. How many societies on earth tolerate murder?”
Does whether or not others tolerate something define right and wrong?
History is full of men who have claimed that they came from God, or that they were gods, or that they bore messages from God - Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Christ, Lao-tze, and thousands of others, right down to the person who founded a new religion this very day. Each of them has a right to be heard and considered. But as a yardstick external to and outside of whatever is to be measured is needed, so there must be some permanent tests available to all men, all civilizations, and all ages, by which they can decide whether any of these claimants, or all of them, are justified in their claims. These tests are of two kinds: reason and history. Reason, because everyone has it, even those without faith; history, because everyone lives in it and should know something about it.
Reason dictates that if any one of these men actually came from God, the least thing that God could do to support His claim would be to pre-announce His coming. Automobile manufacturers tell their customers when to expect a new model. If God sent anyone from Himself, or if He came Himself with a vitally important message for all men, it would seem reasonable that He would first let men know when His messenger was coming, where He would be born, where He would live, the doctrine He would teach, the enemies He would make, the program He would adopt for the future, and the manner of His death. By the extent to which the messenger conformed with these announcements, one could judge the validity of his claims.
Reason further assures us that if God did not do this, then there would be nothing to prevent any impostor from appearing in history and saying, "I come from God," or "An angel appeared to me in the desert and gave me this message." In such cases there would be no objective, historical way of testing the messenger. We would have only his word for it, and of course he could be wrong.
If a visitor came from a foreign country to Washington and said he was a diplomat, the government would ask him for his passport and other documents testifying that he represented a certain government. His papers would have to antedate his coming. If such proofs of identity are asked from delegates of other countries, reason certainly ought to do so with messengers who claim to have come from God. To each claimant reason says, "What record was there before you were born that you were coming?"
With this test one can evaluate the claimants. Socrates had no one to foretell his birth. Buddha had no one to pre-announce him and his message or tell the day when he would sit under the tree. Confucius did not have the name of his mother and his birthplace recorded, nor were they given to men centuries before he arrived so that when he did come, men would know he was a messenger from God. But, with Christ, it was different. Because of the OT prophecies, His coming was not unexpected. There were no predictions about Buddha, Confucius, Lao-tze, Mohammed , or anyone else; but there were predictions about Christ. Others just came and said, "Here I am, believe me". Christ alone stepped out of that line saying, "Search the writings of the Jewish people and the related history of the Babylonians, Persians, and Romans." Even the pagan, Tacitus, speaking for the ancient Romans, says, "People were generally persuaded in the faith of the ancient prophecies, that the East was to prevail, and that from Judea was to come the Master and Ruler of the world." China had the same expectations, as did the Greeks.
Another distinguishing fact is that once He appeared, He struck history with such impact that He split it in two, dividing it into two periods: one before His coming, the other after it. Buddha did not do this, nor any of the great Indian philosophers. Even those who deny God must date their attacks upon Him, A.D. so and so, or so many years after His coming.
The story of every human life begins with birth and ends with death. In the Person of Christ, however, it was His death that was first and His life that was last. It was not so much that His birth cast a shadow on His life and thus led to His death; it was rather that the Cross was first, and cast its shadow back to His birth. His has been the only life in the world that was ever lived backward.