How exactly did you misunderstand this? could you not read past the mentioning of pedophilia, and then plug in your own sense of righteousness, so you could soap box or champion your beliefs over what was actually said?
The reason we don't let under age children have sex is because it would psychologically damage them. Letting children explore other religions in some basic sense or letting mature adults explore spiritually distinct religions is not even close to letting children experiment with sex.
Are the young in Spirit any less subject to issues that far exceed the consequences of anything that could happen to this earthly body?
Just because there is a risk does not mean you should shelter them from everything as if they are made of paper/glass
I did not make that conclusion, you Infact did. The question was asked why should someone young in the (christian) faith not seek out and explore other faiths. I was describing the need for us to teach our young to preserve and protect their spiritual purity from outside influences at least till one reaches spiritual maturity. You are the one equating or drawing the parallel of the teachings of the other specific religions to the perversions of a pedophile.
You hardly made it absolutely clear you weren't implying that underage children having sex was due to pedophilia or due to their own desire, which is much rarer, I'd wager. Spiritual purity is hardly something you can ever maintain, far as I'm concerned. To expose children to other religions and their teachings at a young age will not be a problem. If the child makes that choice when they grow up to be a young adult, it is their choice, and not yours or even the parents' to try to change if they are of a mature enough age to discern these things as individuals.
If you let someone explore things and then maintain the general teachings that those things are bad, the previous exploration will not be a corrupting influence, but an influence of experience. People don't necessarily get so influenced that they will not break tradition and choose other belief systems. Even children who are raised just in Christianity may eventually apostatize from that religion even when they had not been exposed to other religions or been allowed to explore.
The only thing I borrowed from this analogy is that those "other faiths"(such as atheism or the religion that surrounds scientific discovery and belief) are much more mature and sophisticated that anything the young christian has in his arsenal that he can use to protect himself with, and i also gave an example of a young man who is struggling with this very issue.
You have no justification to say that every new person of other religions are more sophisticated than a new person in Christianity. In fact, it would work teh same way with other religions. They would claim Christianity might lead Muslims from Islam, or Jews from Judaism, or the like. Then again, not every religion cares whether the person makes such a choice, since they value the person's individual search over their affiliation or lack thereof with some spiritual "Church" (e.g. Buddhism or Hinduism).
One example does not a consistent principle of caution make.
My message was of preservation of the spiritually young, not labeling what others believe in specific religions. You made that observation on your own.
A fair mistake. But you still seem to misunderstand the intents of other religions. For one thing, not every religion is evangelistic, so it's not as if exploring it will actually suck the person in, unless they are gullible and susceptible to begin with. You could have a very discerning or skeptical Christian that could nonetheless explore other religions and still maintain their faith even if they were new. You're presuming every new Christian is the same, which hardly seems fair.
This enlighten approach can be taken from any position outside of Christianity, because no matter which "faith" one decides on. the ultimate goal has been accomplished in that the "believer" is no longer worshiping the God of the bible.
You are painting every non Christian religion or lack thereof with an unfair stroke. Just because someone chooses a different religion does not mean that there was some conspiracy or agenda behind it. The individual's choice is only partly influenced by others.
If I choose to be a Buddhist because of its feeling of fulfillment and compelling reasoning in contrast to other religions, including but not limited to Christianity, then there is no reason for you to say I was motivated by hatred or agenda against the God of the Bible in my conversion and apostasy from Christianity.
And when did I claim it was "enlightened" or implied "enlightenment" in any way? I was affirming that this approach is considerate of every individual's inalienable right to choose their beliefs without pressure from outside or guilt at feeling like they're letting people down if they decide they can no longer believe in Christianity/native faith.
Are you really saying that a young Christian who is uncertain and waffles between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is better than a committed Buddhist apostate from Christianity who has done much contemplation and finally made the decision based on various factors?