We are family

How will I speak to this child who cannot comprehend life as I comprehend?  What stories must I tell to reach this young inquirer?  How can I lay a buffet their young mind will discern?

I have yet to meet many who think explaining to a small child the complex morality of an adult world will do more than confuse (at best), or disturb (at worst).   I am learning again to see through a child’s eyes the new and complex “societal choices” we adults make without thought, and expect a young child to begin doing.  I am learning again that sharing my knowledge (through my eyes) hinders.  And I am learning (again) that young children are very manipulative!

And then there is the language of the bible.

A document of the “Chosen Family”.  Written as one would write for a child learning the “family stuff” of being one of the family.  How would one write such a document … what words would one put in the mouth of the adult narrator … ?

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man.  They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them.

The fact of drowning all life – or a child’s eyes?

Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed all of them —it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

The fact of extermination – or a child’s story?

On that day, anyone on the housetop who has belongings in the house must not come down to take them away; and likewise anyone in the field must not turn back.  Remember Lot’s wife.  Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it.


I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken and the other left.”

More reinforcing.

Then they asked him, ‘”Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”

Is that a bogeyman I see?

I think the bible is such a part of everyday life that we forget it was a set of words written for a certain set of people.   And like corporate, institutional, cultural, or organisational literature – there is an “on message” throughout.  An “on message” to teach the family what the family is all about.  So I no longer see value is debating “why God flooded the earth and killed all but one boatload” – or whether “God rained down a volcano on Sodom and turned Lot’s wife into salt”.   I used to.  But something changed.  I have children.

We are family.

We have ways of doing things your family doesn’t.  And that doesn’t matter – you are a family like us – only we do things differently.  So we will raise our children the same – but not the same – and we ALL speak with the eyes of a “child-adult” as we do.

And then there is the noise of being right …

there is no bogeyman” v “yes there is, Daddy said there is” … “there is no big brother watching you” v “he is not big brother he loves me” … “if he really loved you – even though he deffo isn’t real – why all the bad things – you misguided and belligerent idiot” v “if I could call you an asshole I would – but family rules say I can’t – so I won’t – but you are – and I know you are – and you know you are”

I hear that when young children (from different, or the same, families) are squabbling together.

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Should not be taken literally (either).


Have a great day – it’s Friday!

(whatever that means)!

8 thoughts on “We are family

  1. It’s strange, Paul… I would never even consider inserting religion into a child’s life. It’s utterly unnecessary. What is being built is a relationship between the child and the child’s caregivers, between the child and the child’s world. To try to intentionally insert an invisible third party seems to me to be quite… bizarre. It’s sort of like inserting an invisible 6 foot white rabbit named Harvey between the child and, say, cookies. It’s just really weird.


    • Hi again tildeb. Do you know what is even more strange … ?

      The “inserting religion into a child’s life” is not written anywhere in this post.

      So I am left wondering why you might have “found” that disturbing “evidence”? Because for someone who states they are untainted by any premise or “belief” (or even any “tildeb religion”) and only follows the evidence …

      That is really weird.


      • The meaning is there, Paul. Strange that you would deny it.

        You say,
        “I think the bible is such a part of everyday life that we forget it was a set of words written for a certain set of people. And like corporate, institutional, cultural, or organisational literature – there is an “on message” throughout. An “on message” to teach the family what the family is all about.”

        You are suggesting that you use the bible – interpreted by you, of course, with an emphasis I presume on what seems best able to support your idea of JSHG – to help teach children what the family is all about. I summarize that idea, of using a religious text as a teaching tool for small children, to mean inserting a third party – the ‘on message’ portion that derives from JSHG – into a child’s life on a day to day basis.

        I was questioning this intention because I think it is not only unnecessary but highly confusing to the child, to have some invisible third party be given authority by the child’s authority figures. I think the needs of children are best served on an honest and open child-centered basis and not on a religious teaching basis. But then, you know that I think this inclusion of religious indoctrination imposed on young minds is itself a pernicious and a very selfish act because it places the interests of the caregivers first rather than the health and welfare of the child (even if you mask this object as ‘Love’) and directly affects the one-to-one relationship the child develops with caregivers and the world he or she inhabits with this other hypothetical authority entity.


        • Sigh …

          You will find what you are looking for tildeb (that statement is good science).

          And you have – you always do. It is all that you want to find. And there ain’t nothing I can do to change that. Only you can. It is your premise (that statement is also good science) not mine. My premise is to look for love. Makes life a lot easier finding the premise that “fits”. I remain curious that you continue to deny so much good science. Or is that because you are riddled with “human” (premise and belief and all the “illogical stuff”) just like the rest of us?



          • I have no clue what you’re talking about. My family is steeped in love without any inclusion of any other agencies. If you want to really screw up kids, then introduce religion into their daily lives. Believe it or not, Paul, love and religion are not synonyms no matter how hard you try to make them appear to be so. Enjoy your grandkids but drop the whole religious aspect and just deal with them as honestly and openly and appropriately with love and concern as you can. You don’t need to include anything else.

            Liked by 1 person

            • tildeb, how can I say this more clearly: this post is not about “introducing religion into their daily lives” – your “premise” is getting in your way. You find an interpretation that fits your premise.

              This post is about the language of the bible and the ongoing squabbles over who is right.

              It was not intended to be a textbook example of the consequence of a premise, but you have provided the evidence (despite my attempt to allow you “the author’s interpretation”). Your premise means you must discard that as well.

              Thank you. That is how “religion” of the worst kind works as well.


    • Let me give you a helping hand:
      a) We have young grandchildren around the house. I am learning again that moving beyond yes/no requires me to “think through their eyes” except I never will.
      b) What “language” can I use to move beyond no/yes that they will understand (because it is a long time since I was a dad)
      c) The bible: where is the evidence of the Noah story, where is the evidence of Lot’s wife? And why write such accounts of mass death and killings?
      d) Don’t need evidence. Don’t need it to be true. So why those “stories”?
      e) Warrior nations and tribes: their reality was kill and killing, was prophecy and “the kingdom” and life ever after with the the world and all in it at their feet.
      f) How would one convince a bunch of peeps like that over hundreds of years? No comprehension of so much we take for granted today. No concept of “right” as we have today. None of that.
      g) You write for them and their reality – just as I try to speak to our small people’s reality.
      h) No “Harvey” involved (added as an edit for clarity: “… with the little people here.)

      Thought: you and I have much in common. Just you won’t allow that. And that makes no sense and is not good science either. So why not acknowledge and examine your own “Harvey” (or whatever it is called in your reality)? I call it a premise you will find evidence for – as you proved above. We are all human, tildeb. And being human is safe.

      And that is why I have nothing to fear of you, nor you of me. Honest.


  2. Pingback: Me don’t need help | Just me being curious

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.