How are you inferring that from the OP? If OP's kid is nine and at church, I'm pretty sure they know who Jesus is... unless they slept through every single Sunday School lesson ever.

Why not? Both are made up mythological creatures, so I'm pretty sure the order doesn't matter. Then again, stories involving zombies don't usually threaten an eternity of burning in hell, so they're probably more child-friendly..

That depends whether you take your kids to church.

I.wouldn't say "mythology" about christ existing. he is mentioned in texts other than the bible.

#76, There's a surprising scarcity of non-Christian texts relating to Jesus from the time of his life. Granted, it's widely accepted Jesus of Nazareth existed as a Jewish Rabbi, but whether he was who he allegedly claimed to be, whether he claimed to be anyone at all, or whether the teachings recorded decades later are accurate are widely disputed. For example, how do we know that the person we call St. Mark managed to get the Sermon on the Mount word-for-word when he dictated it to a scribe 40 years later?

I don't care if the majority will disagree, I really wanted to voice my support for this opinion. Religion dictates that you should have faith and not question, that is a really wrong attitude for a growing child.

I believe anyone, especially children, should question their religion. they should study other religions as well. if they return to their original religion, find a new one they fit in with better, or decide against any religion after studying and soul searching, then they found their peace

You're not wrong #42, in the words of Tim Minchin: Science adjusts its views based on what's observed; faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. You don't have to be an atheist to agree with that statement.

I'm going to get thumbed down or called a nut, but i guess it's fine. Firstly, religion isn't blindly following without questioning. In christianity the Bible says"come let us reason together". The truth is people tend to get caught in tradition rather than studying for themselves, and unfortunately, empty barrels make the most noise.

In regards to you, #61, religion is not opposed to science. Religion answers who, while science explains how.

Of course science and religion aren't opposed. Science is in search of truth, and scientists are more than happy to admit that they're wrong. Science is totally indifferent, whereas religious people take a permanent standpoint that questioning anything they say is blasphemy, and bend anything they see in their direction because of this bias. This often puts the two at odds because the historical inaccuracies are taken as undeniable facts. If you want the two to coexist, you need to reject most of the mythology behind religion, and then question the validity of the attributes of your chosen deity. Judging by all the people I've ever met, the more thought you give it, the further you stray from the core faith itself. Most people that actually think about these things start from a position where a collection of scrolls dating from less than 2 thousand to about 5 thousand years old, written by anonymous authors who didn't even know the Earth was round, put together randomly by a Roman emperor who needed holy books for his priests to convert might not be the most accurate thing in the world. Others reject scientific opinion that clashes with theirs. I'm no atheist, but you can't justify your religious beliefs based on the fact that science can't tread on their turf. You're perfectly welcome to put forward belief in God as an explanation for something (which I myself do), but if it gets demonstrated otherwise, you need to be ready to change your mind. Anyway, sorry about the rant, but you say the Bible tells people to question their beliefs (one of the very few strong-points it actually has), but then no-one questions the fact that the Bible has more historical inaccuracies than Mein Kampf, and it's clear that's not a book to be followed. If you want to add context to the quote I used in my last comment, I suggest you look up Tim Minchin's 'Storm', and then perhaps 'The Good Book', 'Thank you God' or 'If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out (Take my Wife)'.

Being religious == being unintelligent. My brother is very religious and has two masters degrees in chemistry and environmental science. Please don't generalize, thanks.

My apologies #88, I wasn't trying to say that. Being scientifically minded, I'm sure your brother would be happy to admit any flaws in the historical accuracy of his religion, and would happily change his mind if evidence pointed away from it. What I was getting at is that many religious folk see their holy books as the be-all and end-all of factuality. Those are the unintelligent ones, whereas those with a few brain cells actually question the validity of it, and if they arrive at the conclusion that it's correct, that's fine. But blind faith is more than unintelligible, it's ******* moronic.