[Closed] Explaining Death to a 4 Year Old

Guinea pig died when my daughter was 3. I buried it before she woke up. We opted for honesty and explained it had been old/poorly and had died. When asked where it had gone we said nowhere, it's sad that it's died but we have happy memories of it etc...

My MiL (new-agey, believes every 'out-there' thing possible, but not a religion) told her that it was in heaven, was now a star, its ghost would visit her, was up in the sky, it's waiting for her when she dies, etc, etc, etc... 😡
I could have handled a specific explanation that didn't match mine, it was the "lets just tell her a mish-mash of every belief all at once" that narked me...

Cue, confused child...

A few days later Charlie and Lola had an episode where their mouse died and they had a burial ceremony where they laid with it a few of it's favourite things. We then had to have a belated funeral service for the Guinea pig (I didn't exhume it), which seemed kind of surreal to me but seemed to help her.

Even now (2 years later) she regularly tells us it was sad when Buzz died but that she loved him and has happy memories of him (so that stuck with her). But she also occasionally comes out with "It'll be nice when Buzz comes to visit us"...

It clears out the old to make way for the new.

It clears out the old to make way for the new.

Yay, when do we get a new guinea pig?

And a new grandmother?

It's back to the old joke...

"- Granny... please make a noise like a frog...

- No Darling, I don't want to,

- But Granny... PLEEEEASE....

- No Darling... that would be undignified...

- But Granny... PLLLLEEEEASE make a noise like a frog!

- Oh - all right - but why do you want me to do that?

- Well dad says that when you croak we are going to Disneyland!"

Stoatsbrother - Member
No anti-Christian sentiment here so far. Strange how some people almost seek to be persecuted...

Mr Woppit - Member
Tell him that dead is dead. When a body dies, that includes the brain, so there's no more thoughts to generate any awareness of self or anything else. There's nothing "after" death, because it's death. You could pretty it up with "The Great Circle of Life and Death" dwibble if it will keep him from being upset, I suppose.

Of course, at some stage he's probably going to ask you about [b]why some self-deluded religious types[/b] think that death doesn't mean death, but then you'll just need to explain how [b]many people are unable to accept the obvious and try to convince themselves that Tinkerbell really does exist[/b], because otherwise it's all so unfair. Or something.

Not anti-Christian exactly, so you're technically right, stoatsbrother. Just more general anti-religious derision from Woppit. Then again, I guess he has been quiet these last few weeks, so it was time for the old venom.

Little trb was 4 when his great grandad died and now knows that we had a special bonfire and buried great grandad in the ground for the worms to eat.

As for animals going to heaven, that gets a bit freaky when you think of sharing it with all the chickens, pigs, cows, sheep & fish that most of us have eaten.
In fact that's the best reason to go veggy that I've ever come up with!

Unless of course we bend reality to suit our favoured religion, and only admit pets. 😀

[b]SR[/b] I don't think that [i]one[/i] post, in 24hrs, by someone whose views are well known counts as "a lot". Do you?

You kind of make my point actually... 🙂

trb: it's okay, if the animals are in heaven then they'll forgive you 😀

Go the pet shop and buy another rabbit.. in fact buy three

Show the kid the dead one.. and show him a live one.. show him the difference.. keep it on the physical plane..
Then give a demonstration of how a creature passes from living to dead by wringing the neck of the live one..

repeat
use the sleeping analogy if neccessary and some hallowe'en references..
Dissect the corpses to examine the biology of death.. observe the passing of the carrion back to earth and carbon over the coming weeks..

We did exactly this when our son's gran died, using old people that we befriended in the park..

worked a treat..

Explaining death to a kid is easy. This summer I had to explain what rob warner meant by "he's sweating like a whore in a church"

Just more general anti-religious derision from Woppit. Then again, I guess he has been quiet these last few weeks, so it was time for the old venom.

Damn, I was going for resigned, weary contempt. 😀

Great thread this, especially having kids myself. My heart goes out to the guys and gals who have had to deal with deaths of greater magnitude than my daughters pet rat - Archie.

The honesty option is the one we've always taken, and that includes santa and the tooth fairy. "You monster" I hear you cry, "fancy telling your kids that santa doesn't exist" - we did debate this but we felt that it just detracted from the notion of teaching our kids to be open and honest with us and so we should be with them - it can cause issues with other kids and parents at Christmas though :?.

With my hard hat firmly in place, I'd also like to challenge some thinking about the Jesus aspect to this.

we simply tell him that Jesus/God are believed in by a lot of people as real.

The way I see it, the issue is not whether Jesus was real or not. There is sufficient robust historical evidence to suggest that Jesus as a man existed. The question to be asking is was he telling the truth? If yes, then the implications of what he was saying are just as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago, if not, then he was clearly out to lunch or worse still. Whatever your view on this, it's insuffienct and inaccurate to suggest that Jesus is a made-up character.

even if it was true it was so long ago, everything is just 'stories' as no one was there

It's a good job we don't apply the same kind of mindset to other aspects of history? Sorry to be blunt, but come on.

We did exactly this when our son's gran died, using old people that we befriended in the park..

worked a treat..

PMSL

On the topic of religion, I refer your honour to exhibit [url= http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6e4_1318195408 ]A[/url]

If someone held an opinion based on absolutely not one jot of court admissible solid evidence, you'd think they were unhinged. But we tolerate belief religions.

As Col Jeff Cooper once said (about an entirely different subject) “…those who latch on to an unreasonable notion and thereafter refuse to listen to any further discussion of it have problems that are more amenable to psychiatry than to argument.”

ask a child to remember before they were born. it's the same.

There is sufficient robust historical evidence to suggest that Jesus as a man existed.

Really? So we have, what, documents written in his time? Eye-witness accounts? Records of his execution by the Romans? Archeological remains of Joseph & Son Carpenters Plc?

I think you'll find that there's no "historical evidence" whatsoever, let alone a sufficient quantity of the robust kind.

Whatever your view on this, it's insuffienct and inaccurate to suggest that Jesus is a made-up character.

Whatever your view on this, it's insufficient and inaccurate to rule out the idea that he might be.

If someone held an opinion based on absolutely not one jot of court admissible solid evidence, you'd think they were unhinged

Or visionary.

Or imaginative.

Or open to ideas.

Or loyal.

Or content.

Or a child.

There is sufficient robust historical evidence to suggest that Jesus as a man existed

Where?

living on a farm, the kids know fine when the cattle truck arrives for the cows they're off to become sausages.

They also know Christians are stupid

They also know Christians are stupid

What are Jews like?

A penny each from the corner shop.

GW - Member

They also know Christians are stupid

This is simply unnecessary.

... and innaccurate.

Archeological remains of Joseph & Son Carpenters Plc?

🙂 Like it!

I think you'll find that there's no "historical evidence" whatsoever, let alone a sufficient quantity of the robust kind.

In the context of what constitutes robust ancient evidence I would disagree and so would numerous(Christian and non-Christian)scholars. Sure, we don't have a you-tube video but the proximity of the New Testament writings to Jesus (100 years or so after Jesus' death), in terms of ancient evidence, is considered very reliable (I think 200 years is the accepted limit). With this in mind, the letters of Paul are thought to be less than 40 years after Jesus' death which is thus extremely reliable. There are also several 'secular' accounts of Jesus namely - Roman Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian of Samosata and Flavius Josephus (look em up), which point to Jesus.

I still contend that the real issue is was he telling the truth and not did he exist?

I think it's a great discussion to have and my intention is not to preach here, so apologies if it's coming across like that, but I do hold to the law of contradiction as far as this debate stands.

So the best we have is the NT writings which were a hundred years after his death, in an age where communication was hardly high-tech. Texts written about the years BC some 200 years later are are considered "extremely reliable?" By whom?

The letters of Paul are IIRC the oldest bits of the NT yes, but they do not refer to Jesus anywhere (and half of his output was written by someone else).

Tacitus, Suetonius, Flavius, all born 50-odd years after Jesus allegedly died. Lucian, way later, what, 200 years after JC died? Not exactly eye-witness accounts now, are they.

In the context of what constitutes robust ancient evidence

Well that's just a massive qualification of whatever eveidence you are talking about and in no way helps your claim.

Sure, we don't have a you-tube video but the proximity of the New Testament writings to Jesus (100 years or so after Jesus' death), in terms of ancient evidence, is considered very reliable (I think 200 years is the accepted limit).

Approximately six generation of people is considered to be reliable! That's really really poor.

With this in mind, the letters of Paul are thought to be less than 40 years after Jesus' death which is thus extremely reliable.

Errm correct me if I'm wrong but Paul wasn't one of the twelve appostle and did not therefore spend any time with Jesus. Why is this then considered to be reliable information? The timing of the writing is in any case irrelevant without considering whether or not the author has a vested interest.

All these points are however moot if the question of what people mean by Jesus is left unanswered. There may well be evidence of some bloke called Jesus at or around the time we are talking about (Jesus may even have been a common name for all I know) that however does not mean that this bloke was, as is claimed by christians, the son of God.

I’m not (as yet) a parent.

I would tell him that in the fullness of time he will come to an understanding of what death means (to him - on a personal level) but at the moment he ought not misspend any energy thinking about it.

What I’m totally against is religious indoctrination. You wouldn’t try to influence your child's view on politics so why try to shape their world view?

Hopefully as he grows older, free of uncritical beliefs, he will lean that secular morality is what encourages religion to address its own dogma on issues such as slavery and the treatment of women. Secular morality doesn’t concern itself with ethical non issues such as — what we eat, read or wear, when we work, or whom we have sex with. He will work out that there are startling omissions from testament god decrees like rape and child abuse. No doubt in conjunction with friends & family, he will come to conclude what the ethically correct things are to do in life , rather than because he grew up having been taught he must flatter a perverse sky fairy to avoid punishment in the hereafter.

deluded,

It really makes me laugh the way you and many others on here on similar threads go to such lengths to make yourselves sound ever so reasonable, but just end up sounding so sodding self righteous.

If you are hoping that your child might grow up "free of uncritical beliefs" it sounds like you are planning on being an integral part of The Second Coming yourself. Get real.

You say that what we eat, what we read, what we wear and whom we have sex with are ETHICAL NON-ISSUES ?!?!?

Are you currently eating a bluefin tuna sandwich whilst sporting a pair of mink pants knocked up in a Bangladeshi sweatshop whilst "reading" the terrorist handbook or a porn mag? (I'll refrain from speculating on your sex life) - no ethical issues there eh?

And why the need to try to belittle the genuinely held beliefs of Christians by refering to God as a "sky fairy" - is that a part of YOUR superior ethical code?

And why the need to try to belittle the genuinely held beliefs of Christians by refering to God as a "sky fairy" - is that just a part of your superior ethical code?

Because they're the ONES who always resort to RANDOM capital LETTERS in order to prove A point.

Personally, I'm offended at the Christians' constant dismissal of my sky fairy. His name his George and he smells of lavender.

All these points are however moot if the question of what people mean by Jesus is left unanswered. There may well be evidence of some bloke called Jesus at or around the time we are talking about (Jesus may even have been a common name for all I know) that however does not mean that this bloke was, as is claimed by christians, the son of God

Exactly! The question of whether Jesus was who he says he was is and should be the precise point of the debate.

Deluded - you have a very misunderstood view of what it means to be a follower of Jesus (i.e. a Christian - as opposed to 'being religious'). It's not a law and punishment based dogma as you seem to suggest and freedom from this was the whole point of Jesus' life and death. It's also not about when you work, who you do or don't have sex with, what you eat etc....God's not primarily concerned with those things, instead he's concerned about relationship and a love based relationship that offers freedom from all the fear and crap that this unfair world throws at us - with all it's 'secular morality'.

However, I'm not going to preach further as i don't think this is the right place. Plus the clever or not so in this case, arguments of man are not the way to God in my view.

I do have a point to make about what you term 'religious indoctrination'. I think I understand what you are driving at here but surely if you believed whole heartedly something to be the absolute truth wouldn't you want your kids to know about it?

Hopefully as he grows older, free of uncritical beliefs, he will lean that secular morality blah blah blah

I've just explained all this to my 2 year old.. he says you are a battyman.. read 'snow' by orhan pamuk before you have children to help broaden your view..

(that's from me.. a smelly earth chewing athiest worshipper of the bacchanal)

It really makes me laugh

Are you currently eating a bluefin tuna sandwich whilst sporting a pair of mink pants knocked up in a Bangladeshi sweatshop whilst "reading" the terrorist handbook or a porn mag? (I'll refrain from speculating on your sex life) - no ethical issues there eh?

Because they're the ONES who always resort to RANDOM capital LETTERS in order to prove A point.

If I weren't an ATHIEST I'd have to agree with you.

.God's not primarily concerned with those things, instead he's concerned about relationship and a love based relationship that offers freedom from all the fear and crap that this unfair world throws at us - with all it's 'secular morality'.

How do you know what god is and isn't concerned with?

If I weren't an ATHIEST I'd have to agree with you.

... flaps. (-:

deluded,

I'll go slower then.

You said:

Secular morality doesn’t concern itself with ethical non issues such as — what we eat, read or wear, when we work, or whom we have sex with.

I was trying to point out that all of those things do have an ethical dimension, whether or not you are religious.

We had the same issue with my goddaughter, now six and a half.

Two rabbits, one hamster & two cats [one drowned], karked it over the course of eighteen months.

Not being superstitious types, her parents talked about pets having shorter life spans, not suffering and their spirit living on if they are remembered.

So far so good, but she is incredibly bright for her age and more difficult questions are sure to follow soon.

What disturbs me though, is that my friends garden is starting to resemble a pet cemetery. We all know how that book ended. 😯

rightplacerighttime,

I'll go slower then.

You mention sweatshops in a non Christian country. Read Leviticus 25:44-46.

Of course those things have ethical 'dimensions'. That wasn't my point - which was they you don't need religious texts to tell you how to handle them.

Ah I see... your point was something different to what you actually wrote.

I don't think you do!

Read my second post ... and the other suggested material 😀

And why are you asking me to read the bible BTW after just rubbishing Christianity?

Hang on.

You wrote this:

Secular morality [b]doesn’t concern itself with ethical non issues such as[/b] — what we eat, read or wear, when we work, or whom we have sex with.

But now you tell me that your point was that:

[b]Of course those things have ethical 'dimensions'.[/b] That wasn't my point - which was they you don't need religious texts to tell you how to handle them.

So I was supposed to see that your point was the exact opposite of what you wrote was I?

Just a short apology will do.

Oh, and going back and editing posts to make them sound more reasonable AFTER someone has responded to them is considered unethical in some quarters.

BigJohn - Member
Ask him if he remembers what it was like before he was born and tell him it's just like that. No horrible feelings etc.

Then what happens if under regressive hypnotherapy he recalls his previous existence as a sixteenth century witch burned at the stake?

To the OP, in all seriousness you need to emphasise there is so much we don't know in life, but that it is a common held belief that we come back time and again until we get it right.

Then tell him about the Force.

Atheists = lazy Agnostics

I hope I can assume that the religious amongst us understand that Atheists don't accept the idea that a god exists?

Strange then, how one constantly hears the attempt from them to convince the Atheist of their argument, by reporting on this god's (or "sky fairy's" if you prefer) plans and intentions, as if that is going to sway someone who thinks the very idea of such an unproven super-being is essentially just plain silly...

No offense.