Is it moral to teach children that there are talking snakes?

Children should be taught about things that can be proven. They should not be taught theories from a book. If the childs parents wish for them to learn about religion, then this should take place at home, not in school.

Personally, I believe that the greatest things that children can be taught are not "facts" but rather life lessons that promote curious and inquiring minds and a propensity to think for themselves.

No. He did not take away the gift of life already given. He simply chose not to give more of it.

Here is an example:

Let us say that I give you a dollar every day and you come to expect that dollar every day. You even begin to think that the dollar a day you receive is yours and it is your right to receive it. Now, for whatever reason, I stop giving you that dollar a day (but the dollars that I gave you are still yours). Have I taken anything from you or have I simply chosen not to give you any more of what was mine to give or not give as I chose?

No. He did not take away the gift of life already given. He simply chose not to give more of it.

By committing global genocide?

Your argument is spacious at best.

Children should be taught about things that can be proven. They should not be taught theories from a book. If the childs parents wish for them to learn about religion, then this should take place at home, not in school.

Before eve disobeyed God you can see that he already questioned God goodness. God told them not to eat from the tree, but she is responding to the Satan said that God told us not to eat and not to touch. (there was no prohibition of touching the tree).
Adam and Eve preferred to believe someone else than God, specifically, that God was holding something good from them. All the Satan needed to do, is to spark that doubt and the fire of disobedience covered Adam and Eve, and spread to the all humanity.

Before eve disobeyed God you can see that he already questioned God goodness. God told them not to eat from the tree, but she is responding to the Satan said that God told us not to eat and not to touch. (there was no prohibition of touching the tree).
Adam and Eve preferred to believe someone else than God, specifically, that God was holding something good from them. All the Satan needed to do, is to spark that doubt and the fire of disobedience covered Adam and Eve, and spread to the all humanity.

So why was the tree even there in the first place?

Is it moral to teach children to hate their own bodies and to abhor relying on their own minds? Is it moral to teach children to base their lives on something that has no arguments in favor of it of any motivating interest? I think not.

The question of the Bible's blatant absurdities I think takes second place to the insidious brainwashing that permeates throughout. My first impulse was to offer that Christianity be taught as something cultural, in the same style as teaching the classics. Then I thought again, and I would hesitate to expose a child to a system of thought so self-immolating.

Why you would use authority (parental or teacher role) to instill in a child reverence for madness seems unintelligible to me to say the least... But in a nation willing to consider a bailout for automakers, it may make sense to teach children that a dead madman, oops, I meant a resurrected messiah and his tent-making mouthpiece offer the path to salvation. Though I've always wondered- salvation from what, exactly?

Ah, but I think it is more useful to take "their" Bible away from them than to use it against them. Then use of rational thought is devastating because it requires falling back on either infinite regression or a plethora of logical fallacies on their side.

How do we know the Bible is true?

Because God says so.

How do we know that God is real or true or this.that way?

Because the Bible says so.

Question begging anyone?

Of course it can be said that no amount of logic will convince a believer. This is true in many cases, and I am sympathetic to anyone who experiences as I have the failure of reason to convert as faith does. This it seems, leads us to a question for another thread: Are reason and faith compatible at all? Prima facie, it seems not at all. I think a deeper investigation will comfirm my hypothesis.

Their beliefs cannot be taken away. They can only be changed. Taking their Bible away only leaves a void in their book case. They would still believe in 10 headed monsters. This belief cannot be deleted from their files. The file must then be marked as fiction and not as fact.

If logic will not work on a mind then we can say that that mind is somehow deformed or sick. Indoctrination has made it ill.

Is logic and faith compatible. Not blind faith for sure. Faith lead by logic, yes.

Regards
DL

It seems to me that the successful approach is not to try and change belief, which simply will not happen, but rather to reduce the influence of the religious (fundamental or otherwise) in society. I honestly couldn't care less if someone wanted to believe in talking snakes or ten headed monsters, the contention begins when one who holds this sort of belief wants to assert that it is moral or correct. Abdication of reality is fine, so long as you keep your abdication to yourself.