Thou hast clothed me, warmed and fed me...
Its not just children who have belief systems that are unsympathetic to life thrust upon them. We all do.
One great problem is that our political and economic leaders are such such a bizarre group of people. They have risen to the top on the basis of ruthlessness and selfish pursuit of their own interests.
They can't conceive that the bulk of humanity are co-operative, empathic and genuinely care about other people. Ideas like social Darwinism, Original Sin and Games Theory are a poison which enters into our lives from those who believe they understand the evil that is humanity.
The reality is that what sustains most people in psychological health is the belief that their relationships have meaning and they themselves are useful and meaningful to others.
The more the myth of the selfish individual is pushed on the world, the truer it becomes as more and more people despair and turn in on themselves and the pointless short lived thrills of consumption.Its not just children who have belief systems that are unsympathetic to life thrust upon them. We all do.
One great problem is that our political and economic leaders are such such a bizarre group of people. They have risen to the top on the basis of ruthlessness and selfish pursuit of their own interests.
They can't conceive that the bulk of humanity are co-operative, empathic and genuinely care about other people. Ideas like social Darwinism, Original Sin and Games Theory are a poison which enters into our lives from those who believe they understand the evil that is humanity.
The reality is that what sustains most people in psychological health is the belief that their relationships have meaning and they themselves are useful and meaningful to others.
The more the myth of the selfish individual is pushed on the world, the truer it becomes as more and more people despair and turn in on themselves and the pointless short lived thrills of consumption.Paraglider wrote:
Bibowen - I have already written three hubs on developing a code of ethics suitable for introducing to junior school children. I am not going to rewrite them here but you are welcome to check them out.
The core of your objection is that you believe ethics come from God or else they are arbitrary.
I have said that that cannot be true, because basic ethics are shared by most non-psychopathic people the world over, even though they believe in different Gods, or none.My problem with your comparison between agreement over ethics v. God’s existence (BTW How about placing them on the same level of comparision like “agreement over the existence of ethics v. agreement over the existence of God”) is that you have no way of knowing this. So, repeating it adds no force to your claim.
You stated, "I have said that that cannot be true, because basic ethics are shared by most non-psychopathic people the world over, even though they believe in different Gods, or none."
But my point is not that "belief in God" produces this shared experience of common ethics. Rather, it is God that instills His moral law in the heart of man as is mentioned in Romans 2. That is a possibility in your first scenario. Of course, in your second scenario, ethics could not come from God since He does not exist. At any rate, from what you stated, there is no reason why we must reject the claim that our collective "moral sense" comes from God. In fact, my claim would be that the search for ethics is illusory without appeal to God. You're not going to surmount the problem of trying to get "oughtness" from mere agreement.
98- Paraglider
- 2573 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 106
- Followers: 689
Will Apse wrote:
Its not just children who have belief systems that are unsympathetic to life thrust upon them. We all do.
One great problem is that our political and economic leaders are such such a bizarre group of people. They have risen to the top on the basis of ruthlessness and selfish pursuit of their own interests.
They can't conceive that the bulk of humanity are co-operative, empathic and genuinely care about other people. Ideas like social Darwinism, Original Sin and Games Theory are a poison which enters into our lives from those who believe they understand the evil that is humanity.
The reality is that what sustains most people in psychological health is the belief that their relationships have meaning and they themselves are useful and meaningful to others.
The more the myth of the selfish individual is pushed on the world, the truer it becomes as more and more people despair and turn in on themselves and the pointless short lived thrills of consumption.Will, I agree with that. There is no doubt that the lack of ethics among the power-crazed is the greatest threat to the majority.
But this discussion is (or was) more about the effect of introducing religious rituals to very young children. Do you have a position on that?Paraglider wrote:
Bibowen - I have already written three hubs on developing a code of ethics suitable for introducing to junior school children. I am not going to rewrite them here but you are welcome to check them out.
The core of your objection is that you believe ethics come from God or else they are arbitrary.
I have said that that cannot be true, because basic ethics are shared by most non-psychopathic people the world over, even though they believe in different Gods, or none.
You say such ethics are 'agreements' as if agreement were a bad thing?? You would rather have 'commandments' with no responsibility in their formulation. Choosing to follow 'commandments' is your right, but requiring others to do so is not.
Your insistence that what I call ethics is mere 'agreement' is strange. After all, what we call jam is also 'mere' agreement. It is generally agreed to include fruit and sugar, but not to include flour, yeast and salt. So we have agreement - this is jam; that is bread. We agree without appeal to the Jam God. So it is with ethics. Ethics is a human invention. Ask the ancient Greeks.Your concern seems to be with the mode of ethical transmission (i.e. they came from the Greeks) which is irrelevant as to whether or not we have any duty to obey those ethical guidelines that we use in rearing children. Furthermore, whether or not they are agreed upon by many people is useless in establishing whether or not they are necessary and binding. What kind of ethical instruction is this to children?: “it’s right because we decided it was so by consensus.”
Next, I was not attacking "agreement" per se, but any notion that ethics can be grounded in a consensus. The prohibitive weight that comes from a statement like "don't rape another person" does not originate from agreement. The "wrongness" to rape is unphased by agreement. Raping another person is wrong whether or not we agree on the proposition.
Next, your analogy about jam and bread fails because you’re simply dealing with the labeling of objects that have certain properties. But when considering ethics, we are not merely attaching a label to a particular act: "that is a homicide, while this is petty theft." Rather, we are also judging the relationships between objects. When we say "rape is wrong," we are not merely attaching a label based on our agreement to the statement. There is more to it: there is a prohibition behind it that says "you can't do this." It has the force of a rule, a commandment. That’s the kind of instruction that children need when they are young and you’re not going to get that by appeal to mere consensus.
Finally, the power of your illustration was not completely lost: after reading, I could only think of bread and jam. So, I fear that your illustration only had the effect of promoting hunger to all that passed this way.
BTW, Sourdough, lightly toasted, with raspberry or strawberry preserves.- 98
- Paraglider
- 2573 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 106
- Followers: 689
@Bibowen - you are setting up a false antithesis. I observe that non-psychopathic ethics are largely shared by people the world over. I don't really mind where people think these ethics arise from. Some think they come from a God (inevitably from their God of course!) Others think they have worked them out all by themselves. Others think they are intuitive, from nature. Others that they are consensual, from society. Society, of course, includes 'all of the above'.
Your apparent belief, that a large majority could not be found who would agree that rape is wrong, is a sad reflection of your respect for your fellow humans. In fact, it is an astonishing statement which I think you should reconsider.
Regarding the example of agreement about what constitutes jam, I was correct in guessing you would attack the example rather than address the analogy. Having apparently no answer to my argument on consensus, you've simply paddled back up the river and said "unless my God writes the ethics, there can be no ethics". That is actually the kind of argument one would discourage in the nursery. Paraglider wrote:
Will Apse wrote:
Its not just children who have belief systems that are unsympathetic to life thrust upon them. We all do.
Will, I agree with that. There is no doubt that the lack of ethics among the power-crazed is the greatest threat to the majority.
But this discussion is (or was) more about the effect of introducing religious rituals to very young children. Do you have a position on that?Sorry Paraglider it is such a difficult question. I thought going off at a slight tangent would be easier.
But if you wan't to know what i really think- I couldn't blame a parent who teaches young children their religious beliefs. Its a very secular position to suggest a parent should wait until the individual is grown up.
What I would say is that a parent who passes on ideas of original sin, of sexuality being evil, of any ideas that are anti-life (plenty of those in Abrahamic religions)is guilty of a great crime.
The prayer you remember and was confused by doesn't seem to fall into that category and I think most of what religious people pass on to children is meant to be positive and usually in reality, is. Besides, parents are human and need to express themselves in their family lives as in everything else. They also want their children to participate in their culture as fully as possible.
We are all burdened with sifting through what our families pass down to us to decide what is good and what is not. Its part of the human condition.
I wouldn't have been so sanguine twenty years ago.
I became a lot more tolerant of religion after living in a Buddhist society for a long time. People pour their goodness into their religious activities in a way that I didn't understand before.
Also religion is one of the few meaningful shared social activities that is not economic. It is worth nurturing for that reason alone. Work in our late capitalist societies not only determines social status, it increasingly determines personal identity. In fact, work seeks to dominate all of life. Religion resists the mechanization of humanity. It adds another dimension to life.
46- Evolution Guy
- 539 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 0
- Followers: 23
Bibowen wrote:
There is more to it: there is a prohibition behind it that says "you can't do this." It has the force of a rule, a commandment. That’s the kind of instruction that children need when they are young and you’re not going to get that by appeal to mere consensus.
Utter nonsense.
Any sensible parent says "I say you cannot do that," and does not need to use the threat of eternal damnation by an invisible super scary monster - or whatever else it is you use to frighten children into believing what you believe.
You are more concerned with making sure your children believe what you believe than with their well being and behavior. There is no need to use the threat of a "higher authority" with a child unless you feel the child will not obey you.
But the simple fact is - it is much, much more effective if you can get them believing in the scary monster before they are able to think properly for themselves.
How sad - because this is more for your benefit than theirs.
Not to mention unethical and morally questionable.Paraglider wrote:
@Bibowen - you are setting up a false antithesis. I observe that non-psychopathic ethics are largely shared by people the world over. I don't really mind where people think these ethics arise from. Some think they come from a God (inevitably from their God of course!) Others think they have worked them out all by themselves. Others think they are intuitive, from nature. Others that they are consensual, from society. Society, of course, includes 'all of the above'.
Your apparent belief, that a large majority could not be found who would agree that rape is wrong, is a sad reflection of your respect for your fellow humans. In fact, it is an astonishing statement which I think you should reconsider.
Regarding the example of agreement about what constitutes jam, I was correct in guessing you would attack the example rather than address the analogy. Having apparently no answer to my argument on consensus, you've simply paddled back up the river and said "unless my God writes the ethics, there can be no ethics". That is actually the kind of argument one would discourage in the nursery.As to the first paragraph, earlier you claimed evidence that ethics could not be derived externally (that's transmission) due to the greater consensus on ethics than on the belief in God's existence. You created the antithesis.
As to the second point, the majority you mention cannot establish the wrongness of rape. No one has said that such a majority could not be found that would recognize that rape is wrong. In fact, if that's your only point, I agree with you. Such behavior is denounced universally, but the more fundamental issue is whether or not such agreement makes rape wrong. Rape is wrong whether or not you and I agree on the point.
You also seem to be confused about what it means to respect someone or a group. I can show respect regardless of whether or not I agree with them. My respect is not conditional upon my sublime thoughts (or lack thereof) about humanity. This is just another ethical principle derived from Christianity, a principle that should be taught to children and one that you apparently do not grasp.
As for your third paragraph, I did address it. You simply jumped to your characterization of my argument rather than dealing with what I actually said. Your analogy does not apply because it only deals with labeling objects. However in ethics, we are not merely labeling; we are labeling and judging behavior. Your analogy falls short.
Regardless of your view of the value of ethics being rooted in "divine commandments," they are preferable to "do this because the group says so." I'm sorry, but peer pressure on steroids will not do as an ethical framework.- 46
- Evolution Guy
- 539 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 0
- Followers: 23
Bibowen wrote:
Paraglider wrote:
@Bibowen - you are setting up a false antithesis. I observe that non-psychopathic ethics are largely shared by people the world over. I don't really mind where people think these ethics arise from. Some think they come from a God (inevitably from their God of course!) Others think they have worked them out all by themselves. Others think they are intuitive, from nature. Others that they are consensual, from society. Society, of course, includes 'all of the above'.
Your apparent belief, that a large majority could not be found who would agree that rape is wrong, is a sad reflection of your respect for your fellow humans. In fact, it is an astonishing statement which I think you should reconsider.
Regarding the example of agreement about what constitutes jam, I was correct in guessing you would attack the example rather than address the analogy. Having apparently no answer to my argument on consensus, you've simply paddled back up the river and said "unless my God writes the ethics, there can be no ethics". That is actually the kind of argument one would discourage in the nursery.As to the first paragraph, earlier you claimed evidence that ethics could not be derived externally (that's transmission) due to the greater consensus on ethics than on the belief in God's existence. You created the antithesis.
As to the second point, the majority you mention cannot establish the wrongness of rape. No one has said that such a majority could not be found that would recognize that rape is wrong. In fact, if that's your only point, I agree with you. Such behavior is denounced universally, but the more fundamental issue is whether or not such agreement makes rape wrong. Rape is wrong whether or not you and I agree on the point.
You also seem to be confused about what it means to respect someone or a group. I can show respect regardless of whether or not I agree with them. My respect is not conditional upon my sublime thoughts (or lack thereof) about humanity. This is just another ethical principle derived from Christianity, a principle that should be taught to children and one that you apparently do not grasp.
As for your third paragraph, I did address it. You simply jumped to your characterization of my argument rather than dealing with what I actually said. Your analogy does not apply because it only deals with labeling objects. However in ethics, we are not merely labeling; we are labeling and judging behavior. Your analogy falls short.
Regardless of your view of the value of ethics being rooted in "divine commandments," they are preferable to "do this because the group says so." I'm sorry, but peer pressure on steroids will not do as an ethical framework.When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion. Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. Zechariah 14:1-2
- 98
- Paraglider
- 2573 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 106
- Followers: 689
@Bibowen - I disagree with you profoundly. You do not deny that you believe that only your God is the source of ethics, and without your God's ethics there can be no ethics.
When I meet such an entrenched wrongheadedness as that, I drop the conversation as pointless.
Enjoy your bread & jam. I recommend bramble. Good night
- 46
- Evolution Guy
- 539 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 0
- Followers: 23
Paraglider wrote:
@Bibowen - I disagree with you profoundly. You do not deny that you believe that only your God is the source of ethics, and without your God's ethics there can be no ethics.
When I meet such an entrenched wrongheadedness as that, I drop the conversation as pointless.
Enjoy your bread & jam. I recommend bramble. Good nightLOL
Took you that long to work it out? This one has an extremely low opinion of anyone who does not believe in the invisible super being. And is lying when he says he shows respect to some one regardless of whether he disagrees with them or not. Apparently lying is acceptable to the invisible super being and does not break their ethics. Another fine reason not to believe.
I do not understand why they cannot grasp that telling some one they are incapable of behaving in an ethical fashion or developing ethical standards unless they believe in the christian god is actually offensive to some of us.
He probably eats jelly not jam anyway.................. Evolution Guy wrote:
Bibowen wrote:
Paraglider wrote:
@Bibowen - you are setting up a false antithesis. I observe that non-psychopathic ethics are largely shared by people the world over. I don't really mind where people think these ethics arise from. Some think they come from a God (inevitably from their God of course!) Others think they have worked them out all by themselves. Others think they are intuitive, from nature. Others that they are consensual, from society. Society, of course, includes 'all of the above'.
Your apparent belief, that a large majority could not be found who would agree that rape is wrong, is a sad reflection of your respect for your fellow humans. In fact, it is an astonishing statement which I think you should reconsider.
Regarding the example of agreement about what constitutes jam, I was correct in guessing you would attack the example rather than address the analogy. Having apparently no answer to my argument on consensus, you've simply paddled back up the river and said "unless my God writes the ethics, there can be no ethics". That is actually the kind of argument one would discourage in the nursery.As to the first paragraph, earlier you claimed evidence that ethics could not be derived externally (that's transmission) due to the greater consensus on ethics than on the belief in God's existence. You created the antithesis.
As to the second point, the majority you mention cannot establish the wrongness of rape. No one has said that such a majority could not be found that would recognize that rape is wrong. In fact, if that's your only point, I agree with you. Such behavior is denounced universally, but the more fundamental issue is whether or not such agreement makes rape wrong. Rape is wrong whether or not you and I agree on the point.
You also seem to be confused about what it means to respect someone or a group. I can show respect regardless of whether or not I agree with them. My respect is not conditional upon my sublime thoughts (or lack thereof) about humanity. This is just another ethical principle derived from Christianity, a principle that should be taught to children and one that you apparently do not grasp.
As for your third paragraph, I did address it. You simply jumped to your characterization of my argument rather than dealing with what I actually said. Your analogy does not apply because it only deals with labeling objects. However in ethics, we are not merely labeling; we are labeling and judging behavior. Your analogy falls short.
Regardless of your view of the value of ethics being rooted in "divine commandments," they are preferable to "do this because the group says so." I'm sorry, but peer pressure on steroids will not do as an ethical framework.When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion. Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. Zechariah 14:1-2
Well, I can see that your knowledge about the Bible is improving, which appears to be better than your knowledge about evolution. But, I'm sure you'll agree that just quoting scripture won't get you very far on this forum.
- 46
- Evolution Guy
- 539 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 0
- Followers: 23
Bibowen wrote:
Evolution Guy wrote:
Bibowen wrote:
As to the first paragraph, earlier you claimed evidence that ethics could not be derived externally (that's transmission) due to the greater consensus on ethics than on the belief in God's existence. You created the antithesis.
As to the second point, the majority you mention cannot establish the wrongness of rape. No one has said that such a majority could not be found that would recognize that rape is wrong. In fact, if that's your only point, I agree with you. Such behavior is denounced universally, but the more fundamental issue is whether or not such agreement makes rape wrong. Rape is wrong whether or not you and I agree on the point.
You also seem to be confused about what it means to respect someone or a group. I can show respect regardless of whether or not I agree with them. My respect is not conditional upon my sublime thoughts (or lack thereof) about humanity. This is just another ethical principle derived from Christianity, a principle that should be taught to children and one that you apparently do not grasp.
As for your third paragraph, I did address it. You simply jumped to your characterization of my argument rather than dealing with what I actually said. Your analogy does not apply because it only deals with labeling objects. However in ethics, we are not merely labeling; we are labeling and judging behavior. Your analogy falls short.
Regardless of your view of the value of ethics being rooted in "divine commandments," they are preferable to "do this because the group says so." I'm sorry, but peer pressure on steroids will not do as an ethical framework.When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion. Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. Zechariah 14:1-2
Well, I can see that your knowledge about the Bible is improving, which appears to be better than your knowledge about evolution. But, I'm sure you'll agree that just quoting scripture won't get you very far on this forum.
Just reminding you of what your invisible super being thinks about rape. Where you get your ethics from.
Your ethical standards are atrocious. But I see you finally responded to something I said - and I suspect I know the good bok far better than you seem to. Paraglider wrote:
@Bibowen - I disagree with you profoundly. You do not deny that you believe that only your God is the source of ethics, and without your God's ethics there can be no ethics.
When I meet such an entrenched wrongheadedness as that, I drop the conversation as pointless.
Enjoy your bread & jam. I recommend bramble. Good nightWith your ethical system, you have no basis to call me "wrongheaded." My view might be wrong, but your view is irrelevant. Your view of ethics cannot surmount the problem that consensus is an inadequate ethical base. The fact is that what you call an ethical position really isn't an ethical position at all.
The wrong message to send children is that right and wrong are established by the group. We don't determine right and wrong: we recognize it. Your position on ethics is inadequate for the training of small children. The group, be it the playground circle, the thinktank, or the voters all have a responsibility to do what's right; they don't establish what is right.- 46
- Evolution Guy
- 539 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 0
- Followers: 23
Bibowen wrote:
With your ethical system, you have no basis to call me "wrongheaded." My view might be wrong, but your view is irrelevant. Your view of ethics cannot surmount the problem that consensus is an inadequate ethical base. The fact is that what you call an ethical position really isn't an ethical position at all.
The wrong message to send children is that right and wrong are established by the group. We don't determine right and wrong: we recognize it. Your position on ethics is inadequate for the training of small children. The group, be it the playground circle, the thinktank, or the voters all have a responsibility to do what's right; they don't establish what is right.Of course they do. Ethics do not come from anywhere but ourselves. If the group says it is OK - then it is OK - otherwise ethics would never have changed.
Example - slavery. Is that ethically acceptable according to your invisible super being or not? - 98
- Paraglider
- 2573 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 106
- Followers: 689
@Bibowen - I've already said goodnight to this discussion. Until you demonstrate to me that you believe the ethics of Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists and Agnostics (and others) are at least as valid as the ethics of Christians, I can't see any reason to take you seriously. The world does not need supremacists who hold the magic key to ethics, morality or the pearly gates. The world needs peacemakers and consensual thinkers.
Blackcurrant runs a close second. 
92- IntimatEvolution
- 503 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 53
- Followers: 137
I truly wish the world have more peacemakers.
95- Lita Sorensen
- 4846 posts
- Joined: 15 months ago
- Hubs: 90
- Followers: 473
Bibowen wrote:
Paraglider wrote:
@Bibowen - I disagree with you profoundly. You do not deny that you believe that only your God is the source of ethics, and without your God's ethics there can be no ethics.
When I meet such an entrenched wrongheadedness as that, I drop the conversation as pointless.
Enjoy your bread & jam. I recommend bramble. Good nightWith your ethical system, you have no basis to call me "wrongheaded." My view might be wrong, but your view is irrelevant. Your view of ethics cannot surmount the problem that consensus is an inadequate ethical base. The fact is that what you call an ethical position really isn't an ethical position at all.
The wrong message to send children is that right and wrong are established by the group. We don't determine right and wrong: we recognize it. Your position on ethics is inadequate for the training of small children. The group, be it the playground circle, the thinktank, or the voters all have a responsibility to do what's right; they don't establish what is right.I took what Paraglider stated as an issue for general discussion. Of course parents should have the right (unless they are abusing their children) to introduce their own children to their own ethical system or cultural faith system. Anything else--which you clearly hint at ("training of small children" - ALL small children?), would indeed be fascist indoctrination (you do not have the right to tell me, as a Buddhist, ie, how to raise and train my kid to believe in God as the source of ethical belief.)
Tolerant theists wouldn't want you 'on their side,' either.
95- rebekahELLE
- 1835 posts
- Joined: 5 months ago
- Hubs: 22
- Followers: 206
effective training of young children hopefully would include helping a child learn how to think, how to utilize his 5 senses.
that would involve allowing the child to ask questions and asking questions of the child.
to tell a child what to think is not training. if a child is forced to follow religious training, it does nothing of real value if the child doesn't understand what he's doing. it's like brushing his teeth, it's a routine, a ritual. the child may understand it's a good idea to brush his teeth, but he doesn't really understand the concept of tooth decay.
it's fine to explain why mommy is praying or going to church, but it's not the parent's role to indoctrinate their children. a child is a separate individual, not something to be molded into whatever mom or dad want him to be.
=) 
=| 
=( 
=D 
:O 
:/ 
:P 
:lol: 
:mad: 
:rolleyes: 
:cool: 
