denominational schooling?

kiwi123

Hi all,

Doing philosophy in college and ended up getting into a discussion about religion as part of education, whether schools should be denominational, non denominational, multi denominational or interdenominational. Very topical at the minute. Was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the subject?

Deus Ex Machina

I think that children should be made aware of various religions, their origins, their history and what form they take today, if any. I think it is also important that the philosophical positions which are implicit within some religious beliefs are explained, as well as their alternatives. I don't see how teaching one single religion is going to broaden the mind of a child, in fact I would say that the opposite effect is more likely.

af_thefragile

I agree. Children should be taught about different religions in school in an unbiased way.
So there shouldn't be an emphasis on a single religion but just getting the student aware of the different faiths out their and what the people believe in.

Religion has always been an important topic in shaping philosophy. And I don't see it disappearing anytime. Although since Neitzsche's "Death of God" the impact of religion from philosophy has diminished significantly, you can't ignore the fact that religion still shapes majority of the people's life in the world and it can't be ignored and put asides from studies.

A lot of the laws and morals we have today in the world have been derived from religious thought and in many cultures religion is the prime focus of life. There's lot of great things one can learn from religious works. Not just about how to worship God but about the philosophy of life, morals, good deeds and sustaining the society and the world.

kiwi123

I would completely agree and be very supportive of the educate together model. However as the constitution guarantees to provide for the religious education of a child, i don't see a more diverse system coming into play soon. The current monopoly the Catholic Church have on the education system just doesn't represent society. There are many who say that to separate religion from education will in fact narrow education for students and also as Catholicism has played such a dominant role in Irish history, many would consider it part of Irish culture and that to remove it would be removing part of the culture. Really not sure if i agree with that or not.

philologos

More diverse != Secular only might be worthy of note.

Selkies

Personally I think that religion doesn't deserve it's own subject.
If the goal is to broaden the mind of the child then teach philosophy instead.

philologos

Why doesn't religion deserve to be taught if it is such a major influence?

Turtyturd

Jakkass wrote: »

Why doesn't religion deserve to be taught if it is such a major influence?

Because Ireland is no longer the religiously opprssed country it once was. And religion is an outdated concept, a simpler means of controlling the masses for a simpler time. The majority of the influence it has was obtained through means of fear and intimidation.

philologos

Turtyturd wrote: »

Because Ireland is no longer the religiously opprssed country it once was. And religion is an outdated concept, a simpler means of controlling the masses for a simpler time. The majority of the influence it has was obtained through means of fear and intimidation.

I disagree that religion is an outdated concept, as Christianity worldwide has never been better off than it is now. Likewise other religions are flourishing. Christianity is as relevant to peoples lives as it was at its beginnings in Jerusalem.

People don't "control" the masses, in respect to Christianity. It is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That's the emphasis if one reads the New Testament. Very Karl Marx of you it must be said, but many of the states he influenced controlled the masses far better than anyone could.

Fear and intimidation? What? - Let me tell you this. I chose to believe in Christianity, because I started to love the person that God was. Not out of being terrified, but out of being inspired at what I was reading in the Bible.

Back to education though - Religious belief in Ireland is still one of the highest in Western Europe if we take into account figures on church attendance both in Ireland and in Northern Ireland. In the case of Northern Ireland Protestantism is still holding its ground, and in Ireland Roman Catholicism is still very much holding its ground within society.

So yes, people should be informed about the way society is on a religion level. The option should be made available for them to think and to decide to believe for themselves.

I also don't think that religion = oppression of necessity, and it would be grossly dishonest to suggest such.

DinoBot

kiwi123 wrote: »

I would completely agree and be very supportive of the educate together model. However as the constitution guarantees to provide for the religious education of a child, i don't see a more diverse system coming into play soon. The current monopoly the Catholic Church have on the education system just doesn't represent society. There are many who say that to separate religion from education will in fact narrow education for students and also as Catholicism has played such a dominant role in Irish history, many would consider it part of Irish culture and that to remove it would be removing part of the culture. Really not sure if i agree with that or not.

The constitution guarantees to provide for the religious education of a child but it does not go as far as to try to define what that religious education must be. The educate together schools do facilitate the organisation of voluntary faith formation classes outside school hours.

The educate together model uses the stance that no child should be discriminated based on their religion. So it has an inclusive model with respect to religion. So all faiths are allowed to be expressed within the class room. At the end of the day when you teach only one faith your not really arming your kids for real life. And same if you teach none. But if your the type that is not not comfortable taking about other gods or lack of gods to your kids then its probably not the school for you.

My two teenage boys have gone through the educate together primary school system and I found it to work very well. They have both gone on to study religion in secondary school.

looksee

I would like to see religion/philosophy taught as a theoretical subject. Although I grew up in a mildly religious (Protestant) home, and subsequently independently became very involved in the church and its teachings for about 10 years through my teens, I began to fall away from it.

Now I feel a little sad that the whole business of religion means absolutely nothing to me, and I can not really understand how people can be so intense about it.

I can see its social value, and that it served a useful purpose when the only law and order was that dictated by the Church. The ceremonial created by the various churches is beneficial for major personal events, birth and marriage and death. I have a strong sense of the value of life and its purpose, appreciation of the world around us.

So, as an ex-Sunday School teacher, I now have to say, no, teach children about love and mystery, gratitude and wonder, and what various religions believe, and philosophical reasoning; but beyond that, whose version of God do you encourage, even if you accept the existence of God, everything else about religion has been created by man.

It is not the business of the State to teach these beliefs. Let parents and churches teach, certainly, but school is not the place for it.

odonohue

Good points.I agree with you.

philologos

looksee wrote: »

So, as an ex-Sunday School teacher, I now have to say, no, teach children about love and mystery, gratitude and wonder, and what various religions believe, and philosophical reasoning; but beyond that, whose version of God do you encourage, even if you accept the existence of God, everything else about religion has been created by man.

Can we really be sure of that?

looksee

Can you give me an example of an aspect of religion that has not been created by man?

The bible was certainly written by man, regardless of where the inspiration came from, and as soon as people start writing or telling a story, it goes the way the teller wants it to.

Even if you accept that Jesus was the son of God, it was his followers, men, who told the story and made the rules. They might have been teaching God's word, but it was their own interpretation. Jesus had occasion to remonstrate with his followers while He was on earth, why would they suddenly all become infallible after His death.

Since then, all the details of belief and worship have at the very least been filtered through the minds of men. Some popes have shown themselves to be very fallible. Much of the ritual has been built up over centuries, and is now considered to be inseperable from faith.

The Immaculate Conception is a very recent creation, invented to patch a perceived flaw in dogma, did God do that, or men?

The Rosary and the Stations of the Cross are deeply symbolic to Catholics, but they were not instructed by Christ; with the best intentions, they were created by men.

Other Christian faiths do similar things. Methodism on the one hand has no decoration in the church because of the commandment about graven images. On the other hand members of the church are strongly opposed to drink and gambling, to the extent of not using wine for communion and not even allowing 'a twopenny raffle'. Yet Jesus specifically mentioned and drank wine, and created it for the wedding at Caanan.

That is my problem with religion, someone comes up with an idea, an angle on what God wants, and starts to spread it. I can believe in God, though not maybe the conventional one, but why should I accept the words and actions invented by someone along the way in my dealings with my concept of God.

When you look at it, most of religion is a social activity, and nothing wrong with that, just don't expect me to go along with it.

philologos

looksee wrote: »

Can you give me an example of an aspect of religion that has not been created by man?

The bible was certainly written by man, regardless of where the inspiration came from, and as soon as people start writing or telling a story, it goes the way the teller wants it to.

The Bible was written by man, but it was revealed by God according to Christians. It wasn't "created", or "made up" by individuals according to that view, but rather God revealed Himself to humanity, and then it was transcribed.

This is the reason why I think it's highly debatable that the Bible was made up or created by humans. From a Christian perspective, it is certainly of God, and it reveals truth about Him. It even contains His direct words in many cases.

looksee wrote: »

Even if you accept that Jesus was the son of God, it was his followers, men, who told the story and made the rules. They might have been teaching God's word, but it was their own interpretation. Jesus had occasion to remonstrate with his followers while He was on earth, why would they suddenly all become infallible after His death.

I'm not sure I am in agreement. Jesus said that His Spirit would be with the Apostles, and that He would reveal more to them after His ascension.

I'm not sure of the Gospels are as "dubious" as you are making them out to be, this is why I think it would be inaccurate to say that everything in religion is created by man. This is highly contested.

You're right to say that numerous elements of liturgy, hymns, prayer books, doctrinal basis' and so on have been created by men to greater facilitate their faith. I don't believe one can say the same for the Bible itself though.

looksee wrote: »

Since then, all the details of belief and worship have at the very least been filtered through the minds of men. Some popes have shown themselves to be very fallible. Much of the ritual has been built up over centuries, and is now considered to be inseperable from faith.

I would consider there to be a difference between the position of Pope, and the authority that people place on the Bible.

looksee wrote: »

The Immaculate Conception is a very recent creation, invented to patch a perceived flaw in dogma, did God do that, or men?

I'm aware. That would be a reason to put it in the man created category, rather than the God revealed, God inspired category. I personally don't subscribe to the Immaculate Conception (Mary being born without sin) as it is extra-Biblical.

looksee wrote: »

The Rosary and the Stations of the Cross are deeply symbolic to Catholics, but they were not instructed by Christ; with the best intentions, they were created by men.

I agree, this falls under liturgy. Liturgy is certainly man created. That's not my issue with what you said.

looksee wrote: »

Other Christian faiths do similar things. Methodism on the one hand has no decoration in the church because of the commandment about graven images. On the other hand members of the church are strongly opposed to drink and gambling, to the extent of not using wine for communion and not even allowing 'a twopenny raffle'. Yet Jesus specifically mentioned and drank wine, and created it for the wedding at Caanan.

Again, this is down to practice and liturgy.

looksee wrote: »

That is my problem with religion, someone comes up with an idea, an angle on what God wants, and starts to spread it. I can believe in God, though not maybe the conventional one, but why should I accept the words and actions invented by someone along the way in my dealings with my concept of God.

I don't think it is like this at all. I wouldn't say that people come up with an angle in the case of the Biblical text. I would say that God reveals His will to man slowly over time. How well we understand it is down to us however.

looksee wrote: »

When you look at it, most of religion is a social activity, and nothing wrong with that, just don't expect me to go along with it.

It may well be, but this doesn't mean that it is all made up in any respect. I'm not denying that Christian community or any other community doesn't involve social interaction. Indeed, that social interaction often helps us to be better Christians. We can talk with each other about our problems, share our joys, and figure out how best we understand God together.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't say that people come up with an angle in the case of the Biblical text. I would say that God reveals His will to man slowly over time.

How very convenient.. Fortunately, for those of us who are less patient, science has moved at a faster pace, proving much of Biblical text to be pure fiction - 'fairytales' being the particular genre.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

How very convenient.. Fortunately, for those of us who are less patient, science has moved at a faster pace, proving much of Biblical text to be pure fiction

In what respect?

I wouldn't consider it to be science vs Christianity, because one deals with very different questions than the other. I don't think anything has been "proven" or "disproven" absolutely in respect to the God debate. It's as open as it ever was.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think anything has been "proven" or "disproven" absolutely in respect to the God debate. It's as open as it ever was.

That is a very bold statement.

Would I be correct in thinking you believe that the world was created in six days? Furthermore, is this what should be taught to schoolchildren, as opposed to the scientifically proved theory of evolution?

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

That is a very bold statement.

Deservedly bold

Jarndyce wrote: »

Would I be correct in thinking you believe that the world was created in six days? Furthermore, is this what should be taught to schoolchildren, as opposed to the scientifically proved theory of evolution?

Six 24 hour days? Alas, no. Genesis isn't intended to be a science book, it is intended to be an account of why the universe is as it is. Not how it came to be.

This is my current position on it, given that the sun and the moon were created on the 4th day of Creation. This makes the length of those days, somewhat more up for discussion, than many would make it out to be. Most likely, this was a direct challenge to worship of the sun and the moon, to indicate that there was a God who made all of these things, including the things you now worship.

I think that YEC (Young Earth Creationism) should be taught in religion class, as it is hugely important to what people are advocating in the world, particularly in the USA, and in Turkey, and even in other Western nations to a lesser extent.

There are also a number of other Christian views to Creation (older earth, theistic evolution and so on), that need to be discussed, again in the religion class.

Edit: As for YEC, much of its growth can also be attributed to atheist detractors suggesting that Christianity or Islam in the case of Turkey and science can never be compatible. The more hard line ones opposition gets, more likely you will also become more hard line yourself.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

Six 24 hour days? Alas, no. Genesis isn't intended to be a science book, it is intended to be an account of why the universe is as it is. Not how it came to be.

Unfortunately, it fails miserably in both respects.

Children ought not to be taught religious fiction to explain such fundamental questions about our universe - many of which have been answered by science. Such teachings are a pernicious practice that serves only to indoctrinate innocent and impressionable minds.

There are more than enough fairytales and fables which, combined with good parenting, can instill good ways of living to children. Children should not be subjected to the heinous practice of telling them that should they disobey the man in the clouds then they shall burn in hellfire for all eternity. It has no place in modern day society. Would you not agree that religion has caused enough damage?

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

Unfortunately, it fails miserably in both respects.

A bold statement? :pac:

Jarndyce wrote: »

Children ought not to be taught religious fiction to explain such fundamental questions about our universe - many of which have been answered by science. Such teachings are a pernicious practice that serves only to indoctrinate innocent and impressionable minds.

You're making quite a leap to assume that Judeo-Christianity is fiction. Questions concerning why we are the way we are, what are we here for, how should I live, how should I care for others, how should I honour what is around me?

These questions aren't dealt with by science. Indeed, science needs to be ethical. It can be abused. Christianity has offered society, a huge wealth of its ethics, and how we do justice, amongst other things.

As for indoctrination, I'm sceptical of this term to be quite honest with you. Parents teach their children numerous things throughout life, sharing their values is also a key role for a parent. If those values come from Judeo-Christianity so be it. I find it suitably ironic that atheists should be moralising to Christians considering how much they claim not to appreciate it the other way around.

Jarndyce wrote: »

There are more than enough fairytales and fables which, combined with good parenting, can instill good ways of living to children. Children should not be subjected to the heinous practice of telling them that should they disobey the man in the clouds then they shall burn in hellfire for all eternity. It has no place in modern day society. Would you not agree that religion has caused enough damage?

Again, claiming that Christianity is a fairytale just isn't enough, it doesn't end the debate over what is true and what isn't. You are going to claim that Christianity is false, I am going to claim that atheism is false, very much so. What we need is to argue for that position more clearly rather than declaring the other side to have nothing of value of say.

I think you may well have many valuable arguments for me in respect to atheism, arguments that will probably strengthen my faith after researching them in more depth.

I agree, that men have caused untold damage, by missing the point. The work of man is when things go wrong. I aspire to Jesus in all that I do. I'm trying to be like Him, more and more. I believe if the world all did this in earnest, this world would be a better place. People might get it wrong, it doesn't mean that Jesus Christ got it wrong, and it doesn't mean that I give up trying to be all that I should be while I still live on this earth.

Man can seek out, wealth, fame, honour, enjoyment, pleasure, even love in another human being, but all they are doing is hinging who they are to worldly things. True purpose, is ultimately resolved in something that will outlast you and I. When I die, on a material level, I will return to the dust*, but God will outlast me forever. It is in Him, that I can really know who I am.

* N.B - I do believe in the afterlife, but materially, as far as this world is concerned, I will more likely than not, not be remembered.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

These questions aren't dealt with by science. Indeed, science needs to be ethical. It can be abused. Christianity has offered society, a huge wealth of its ethics, and how we do justice, amongst other things.

That's very interesting! Ethics and justice like the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? Not to mention the myriad abuse of children and vulnerable people.

May I ask, do you emphatically reject certain parts of the Bible, and if so, which?

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

That's very interesting! Ethics and justice like the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? Not to mention the myriad abuse of children and vulnerable people.

The works, all of men, not of God, and certainly not representative of Him.

It's amazing that just because I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, that I must defend the works of men? I simply won't, because I regard these things to be wrong under God.

Edit: Many people with similar beliefs to mine died in the Spanish Inquisition.

Jarndyce wrote: »

May I ask, do you emphatically reject certain parts of the Bible, and if so, which?

What do you mean by reject?

I regard the whole Scripture as being useful for the teaching of righteousness, but I also believe that it can be twisted and abused to suit man's aims. It can be distorted if we don't keep a watchful eye as to how people use it.

Part of this means, correctly establishing context, establishing what kind of book is it. Remember, the Bible contains differing texts with differing purpose, some are historical, some are poetic, some are moral, some are legal if you consider the Jewish Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), and prophetic. I seek out the truth in all Scripture, seeking the correct context, so as to make a good reading that is truly applicable to my life.

I still have a lot to work out, probably taking numerous times of reading the text.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

The works, all of men, not of God, and certainly not representative of Him.

I might add that one such man was the Pope.


What do I mean by reject? I mean that their are so many chapters of the Bible that are repugnant to common sense and basic human morality. In particular, as you have mentioned, the books of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Verses of these books do not need to be twisted or distorted in order to appear as malicious and evil as they in fact are.

So my question is, do you truly reject these passages? By that I mean does your conscience say that "I could never subscribe to such vile filth - that, for example, homosexuals should be killed."?

I think that repeated readings of the Bible will not necessarily further your understanding of life and the nature of things. Rather, it may only further entrench your views in the aforementioned vile babble, which is obviously not desirable.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

I might add that one such man was the Pope.

Not all Christians regard the Pope as being the sole representative of God on earth. Indeed, not all Christians are Roman Catholics.

Jarndyce wrote: »

What do I mean by reject? I mean that their are so many chapters of the Bible that are repugnant to common sense and basic human morality. In particular, as you have mentioned, the books of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Verses of these books do not need to be twisted or distorted in order to appear as malicious and evil as they in fact are.

I believe that most of these verses when put into adequate context, do not seem as repugnant as one can make them seem. I do understand that the gravity of the punishments for certain crimes can seem difficult for many to understand.

What the Jewish law does do, is three fold. 1) Cultural laws, concerning what people eat, what people wear and so on, 2) Legal laws, concerning crime, 3) Moral laws, concerning how it is appropriate for people to behave.

For Christians when Christ came, the cultural and the legal were fulfilled. Indeed, Christ broke down the barriers between Jewish people and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:8). The moral law was retained, the rest fulfilled.

Jarndyce wrote: »

So my question is, do you truly reject these passages? By that I mean does your conscience say that "I could never subscribe to such vile filth - that, for example, homosexuals should be killed."?

I don't reject them, I regard them as being fulfilled. I believe that the judgement will come at the end of time, and if Jesus has paid the price for my sin, then who am I to demand that of others.

That is the key difference between Judaism and Christianity. If you do not show mercy to others, you will not be forgiven. I personally do not think that homosexuals should be put to death, no. I also don't reject the former Scriptures, I regard them as being fulfilled.

As for whether homosexual activity is wrong, I do believe this, but I certainly don't seek to kill anyone over my views of morality. Indeed, I don't see this as being any worse than anything I have done in the past. We're all sinners, but we all need Christ's grace.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I think that repeated readings of the Bible will not necessarily further your understanding of life and the nature of things. Rather, it may only further entrench your views in the aforementioned vile babble, which is obviously not desirable.

I would suggest a complete reading, rather than seeking for what you are looking to find. Passages have to be understood within their context, if they aren't then of course there will be misunderstanding.

I believe that God and only Him is the source of who I am truly. The world can tell me numerous things about who I am, but only God can really establish who I was, who I am, and who I will be.

Tell me this, do I come across as vile from my belief in Christianity, or do I come across as civil?

Jarndyce

You come across most civil, however that it not to say that the Scripture to which you subscribe is not pernicious. For example, you do not reject Leviticus and Deuteronomy (though you say you do not believe that homesexuals should be killed). It strains imagination and credulity as to how one might reconcile the heinous views in the aforesaid books as being acceptable 'in their context'. I can only say that they are quite simply not. The irony of Judaism and Christianity is that, though they purport to extol virtues of morality, they are indelibly linked to views which are anything but moral.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

You come across most civil, however that it not to say that the Scripture to which you subscribe is not pernicious.

Surely, if I were basing my life on something disgusting, if I valued it so much, it would surely affect my behaviour towards you in a negative way. The reality is, that the Bible has much to say about how humans need to behave in a positive manner towards each other, about human potential, about human value, in both testaments.

Jarndyce wrote: »

For example, you do not reject Leviticus and Deuteronomy (though you say you do not believe that homosexuals should be killed). It strains imagination and credulity as to how one might reconcile the heinous views in the aforesaid books as being acceptable 'in their context'. I can only say that they are quite simply not. The irony of Judaism and Christianity is that, though they purport to extol virtues of morality, they are indelibly linked to views which are anything but moral.

The vast majority of Leviticus, deals with ceremonial values, but it does deal with morality, likewise Deuteronomy. The vast majority. If one reads through it they will find many things that resonate with them. I am inspired by much of what is in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Values which are even lacking in some areas of our society.

Let me demonstrate:
Leviticus 19, is where Jesus draws His teaching that one should love their neighbour as themselves. Jesus spoke about this teaching numerous times, the most notable being the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, where He shows that Jewish scribes how much they have lost the point of their own faith.

Leviticus 19:9-19 wrote:

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
“You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
“You shall not oppress your neighbour or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning. You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour. You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbour: I am the LORD.
“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbour, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the LORD.

Likewise, Deuteronomy 15:

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 wrote:

If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the LORD against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

Is this just purporting to extol values of morality, or do these actually extol values of morality? This is what the vast majority of the Jewish law does, and it is what Jesus and the Apostles in the Christian church reinforced.

Jarndyce

Leviticus- Chapter 20

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

That is a lot of blood and slaying. Since homosexuality is now accepted by medical science as being biologically determined, this barbaric and vile view has should only be seen as such.

Indeed, you appear most civil, however, as you don't expressly rebuke them, there is clearly a tacit approval of verses such as these. That, I find troubling.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

That is a lot of blood and slaying. Since homosexuality is now accepted by medical science as being biologically determined, this barbaric and vile view has should only be seen as such.

Has it? I thought, it was still out for the jury. Personally, I believe that God created life and He has the right to take it away, but I am also thankful that He has shown mercy.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Indeed, you appear most civil, however, as you don't expressly rebuke them, there is clearly a tacit approval of verses such as these. That, I find troubling.

I don't explicitly rebuke them, because I believe that we are all deserving of death, but we have been spared it by Christ:

Romans 1:29-32 wrote:

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

I don't believe that anyone should be put to death, considering that they haven't done anything that is beyond what I would have done. Or at least that they aren't any more deserving of it than I am.

This is the Christian view, feel free to ask a group of ultra-Orthodox Jews what they think. As a Christian, I am called to read the Scriptures as Christ read the Scriptures, keeping them in context with God's eternal plan for us.

Cannibal Ox

If some of this sounds a bit confrontational, I don't mean it to be! I'm half working through it as I write it.

Jakkass wrote:

Questions concerning why we are the way we are, what are we here for, how should I live, how should I care for others, how should I honour what is around me?

These questions aren't dealt with by science. Indeed, science needs to be ethical. It can be abused. Christianity has offered society, a huge wealth of its ethics, and how we do justice, amongst other things.

I agree, those questions are not answered by science, but they are dealt with by philosophy and, I'd argue, the connection between philosophy and science is far more intuitive then science and christianity.

I think that Christianity, as an institution, is emphatically conservative, and it has for centuries been resistant to scientific change and social change which does not reinforce its own doctrines. Lets take contraceptives as an example.

I'd argue that this, or at least the frame within which we deal with it, is an ethical dilemma that stems from science, our knowledge of HIV/AIDs, our understanding of the human, and our means to combat it, are all products of science. We would not understand HIV/AIDS in the way we do or what could be an effective response to it without science.

As far as I know, there is no justifiable reason outside of theology and christian belief to condemn contraceptives. Christinaity is the dominant religion in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 68% of all people living with HIV/AIDS live, and where HIV/AIDS is at endemic levels.

I'm not trying to say that Christianity is causing HIV/AIDS, and I'm not trying to say that if the Pope came out and said, use contraceptives, that it would eradicate AIDS/HIV.

I am trying to use it as an example to point out that when faced with an ethical dilemma that stems from our scientific knowledge, and when we have the means to help combat, or at least stem AIDS/HIV, Christianity relies on two thousand years worth of theology centered on a single book that was written two thousand years ago to assess the ethical implications of it.

That is why I think Christianity is institutionally and intellectually conservative, is not flexible enough to deal with the very rapid changes that have happened in human societies and in technology over the past two hundred years, and as a result, is not an intuitive partner for science.

Philosophy, I'd argue, on the other hand is. Yes, you could argue that all Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato, and yes, Kant was a very big footnote, but because philosophy emphasizes the critical capacity of human beings to challenge the world around them, material and immaterial, it allows a space for human beings to challenge those ideas that were set down by Plato and others over two thousands years ago, and to respond to the changes in human societies.

I have no problem with people having faith. I think it's a good thing, and I think it has been responsible for some wonderful moments in human history. But, its inability to be responsive and adaptive to the changes in human society, which I think could be viewed as both a great strength and a great weakness, and it's reliance on a very, very old book makes me think that it is an unsuitable bed fellow for science in the way that you seem to be implying.

This would partly be my problem with teaching it in school too. I don't think christianity lends itself to a critical approach to the world as philosophy does. I think it is important that kids are taught how to think critically and how to effectively analyze the world around them as it is.

This is strictly on a practical level, but I don't think it would be entirely appropriate to teach religious beliefs in such a setting, where I think they should come under a searching and critical enquiry, because I think many religious groups would be horrified if religion were taught in such a way.

philologos

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

If some of this sounds a bit confrontational, I don't mean it to be! I'm half working through it as I write it.

Thanks for the post, I'll try my best to get through it, my answer might be inadequate but it is something!

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I agree, those questions are not answered by science, but they are dealt with by philosophy and, I'd argue, the connection between philosophy and science is far more intuitive then science and christianity.

I agree, they are dealt with by philosophy. As a philosophy student I would encourage people to read philosophy, not to be drawn too far away with it but it is something that can help people along. Ultimately, I don't regard philosophy as a substitute to Christianity, but it is useful to say the least. I even find it useful in defending my faith, or in listening to peoples questions. You can tell a lot about what philosophy is underpinning people as you listen to what they are saying.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think that Christianity, as an institution, is emphatically conservative, and it has for centuries been resistant to scientific change and social change which does not reinforce its own doctrines. Lets take contraceptives as an example.

Christianity is comprised of a lot of churches, not just any single institution at least in its current form. What we are about to do, if we are to genuinely deal with contraceptives, is take a view limited to the RCC and discuss it. Practicising members of the RCC are better to answer anything to do with their position on contraception for you. I believe that contraception isn't a negative thing. I would hold that marriage is the most suitable place for sexual expression however for numerous reasons.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I'd argue that this, or at least the frame within which we deal with it, is an ethical dilemma that stems from science, our knowledge of HIV/AIDs, our understanding of the human, and our means to combat it, are all products of science. We would not understand HIV/AIDS in the way we do or what could be an effective response to it without science.

On HIV / AIDS condoms aren't the only solution, but I think that they should probably play a part in the solution. Behaviour also needs to change, monogamy is also effective in decreasing the spread of HIV / AIDS and has been used in countries such as Uganda.

Reasonable enough I would have thought?

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

As far as I know, there is no justifiable reason outside of theology and christian belief to condemn contraceptives. Christinaity is the dominant religion in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 68% of all people living with HIV/AIDS live, and where HIV/AIDS is at endemic levels.

You're assuming that all Christians do.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I'm not trying to say that Christianity is causing HIV/AIDS, and I'm not trying to say that if the Pope came out and said, use contraceptives, that it would eradicate AIDS/HIV.

Read back a few posts to see what I said about the Pope.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

That is why I think Christianity is institutionally and intellectually conservative, is not flexible enough to deal with the very rapid changes that have happened in human societies and in technology over the past two hundred years, and as a result, is not an intuitive partner for science.

I don't know really to be honest with you. There are many Christians involved in science, who use their Christianity as an effective guide as to how they should best do their science. Christians in Science is an example of such a group in Ireland.

Likewise, doctors, and other medical professionals who are Christians use their faith as a guide as to act ethically in their professions.

One can say that it isn't effective, but there are examples left, right and centre as to where Christianity is being used as an ethical guide.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Philosophy, I'd argue, on the other hand is. Yes, you could argue that all Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato, and yes, Kant was a very big footnote, but because philosophy emphasizes the critical capacity of human beings to challenge the world around them, material and immaterial, it allows a space for human beings to challenge those ideas that were set down by Plato and others over two thousands years ago, and to respond to the changes in human societies.

This negates the idea that Christians have actually contributed to philosophy, and continue to do so in a big way.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I have no problem with people having faith. I think it's a good thing, and I think it has been responsible for some wonderful moments in human history. But, its inability to be responsive and adaptive to the changes in human society, which I think could be viewed as both a great strength and a great weakness, and it's reliance on a very, very old book makes me think that it is an unsuitable bed fellow for science in the way that you seem to be implying.

I don't know. If Christianity wasn't responsive, it wouldn't be here. Despite assertions that Christianity is dying over the last 200 years, globally Christianity is in the best position it has ever been, and it is growing on a daily basis.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

This would partly be my problem with teaching it in school too. I don't think christianity lends itself to a critical approach to the world as philosophy does. I think it is important that kids are taught how to think critically and how to effectively analyze the world around them as it is.

I really don't know where this comes from. Although, I am a philosophy student so maybe I am a happy medium between both! I believe learning only comes through critical thinking, and it is through thought and reading that I have grown in my faith over the last few years, and I am thankful of that. I believe even philosophy can be an aid in such positions.

I do believe that if not advocated correctly, Christianity can hinder critical thought, as with any ideology. I believe atheism if advocated incorrectly can hinder critical thought, with people making unwarranted assumptions of Christianity being a fairy tale for example, or people generalising Christians based on a handful of experiences. These too do not bode all that well for critical thought, and indeed it goes both ways.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

This is strictly on a practical level, but I don't think it would be entirely appropriate to teach religious beliefs in such a setting, where I think they should come under a searching and critical enquiry, because I think many religious groups would be horrified if religion were taught in such a way.

I think it's the most appropriate. People need to know what is going on in the world at the very least, people have an inherent curiosity, which is another.

As for critical enquiry, I'd be fine with that as long as that atheism and agnosticism aren't exempt from such critical enquiry. Too long it has been the assumption that they are. Bring it on, but only bring it on if you are willing to have your own views under scrutiny rather than turning the class into one which involves the advocacy of atheism or agnosticism if we are really serious about critical inquiry that is.

I think faith schools should be allowed to exist, but I think secular schools need to be considered by the State.

Jarndyce

Jakkass, while you advocate critical thought (and rightly so), I notice that your current reading list comprises solely of pro-religion works (I am referring to your signature).

I would like to recommend a video for you, the relevant part of which takes no longer than 40mins to view. I would hope that you approach it with an open mind in respect of your existing beliefs. It provides a good argument (though not as detailed as both you or I would like) to show that Christianity is based on pagan beliefs and allegorical myth. You may well have heard of it - 'The Zeitgeist'.

Here is the link for the Zeitgeist movie. It is the movie on the right hand side, 'Zeitgeist - The Movie', not 'Zeitgeist - Addendum', though both are well worth watching in their entirety.

I would look forward to hearing your thoughts on the first 40mins of 'The Zeitgeist', should you choose to watch it.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

Jakkass, while you advocate critical thought (and rightly so), I notice that your current reading list comprises solely of pro-religion works (I am referring to your signature).

At present yes. I have read critiques of Christianity in the past.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I would like to recommend a video for you, the relevant part of which takes no longer than 40mins to view. I would hope that you approach it with an open mind in respect of your existing beliefs. It provides a good argument (though not as detailed as both you or I would like) to show that Christianity is based on pagan beliefs and allegorical myth. You may well have heard of it - 'The Zeitgeist'.

I have heard about it, and it has been thoroughly refuted, with many of the sources used in the film, coming from one writer with many pen-names. Highly dubious.

The commentary on Mithra, is particularly flawed. Mithra was not born of a virgin according to Mithraism, rather he was born as a fully grown man from a rock! Not to mention that we don't have any texts of Mithraism that pre-date the New Testament. Similar criticisms are true of the accounts of Horus, and Osiris.

Ensure your scepticism goes into these sources as well.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I would look forward to hearing your thoughts on the first 40mins of 'The Zeitgeist', should you choose to watch it.

I've watched it already. Take a search of Zeitgeist in the Christianity forum.

Jarndyce

I'll check that out. I'm not aware that it has been thoroughly refuted? Much less so than the Bible, that's for sure! While it's not a rock of Biblical refutation, it is however food for thought. I have not had time to check out every source but all of those that I check out appeared valid. As I said, it's not as comprehensive and reliable as I would like, but it provides a solid basis of argument. Again, to say that it has been thoroughly refuted seems more inaccurate than any alleged inaccuracy therein.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

I'll check that out. I'm not aware that it has been thoroughly refuted? Much less so than the Bible, that's for sure! While it's not a rock of Biblical refutation, it is however food for thought.

The Bible hasn't been refuted once. It's been criticised certainly, but refuted is an entirely different thing. Whether such criticism is valid is up for debate.

Zeitgeist on the other hand, has been shown to be fraudulent. Mithraism is different than the way it is portrayed in the documentary. This is true of the other pagan traditions in the film. The case for plagiarism of Christianity from them is minimal if not obsolete.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I have not had time to check out every source but all of those that I check out appeared valid.

You really should if you are to make accusations of same for other people.

Jarndyce wrote: »

As I said, it's not as comprehensive and reliable as I would like, but it provides a solid basis of argument. Again, to say that it has been thoroughly refuted seems more inaccurate than any alleged inaccuracy therein.

Take a Google search even "Zeitgeist Refuted" and see how much material there is that deals with the claims in that film. Skeptic's magazine even did a critique.

In addition, they did a documentary in favour of 9/11 being a conspiracy. I take it you subscribe to this view as well?

Jarndyce

Do actually think that Jonah lived for three days inside a whale?

When Satan took Jesus to the top of a mountain to view the entire world, this is only possible if the world is flat. I think that has been scientifically proven?

Virgin births?

Resurrections?

Talking to burning bushes?

Parting seas?

Walking on water?

Talking snakes?

The list in endless. I do not wish any school to teach such nonsense to my children. There is plenty of childrens' books out there that provide better entertainment for children, without threatening them that they will burn in hell.

Jarndyce

As for 9/11. I don't know the exact details of what happened. Very few people do. What I do know, however, is that the truth has not been made available. Can you suggest any plausible reason why the collapse of Building 7 was omitted from the 9/11 Report? A 47 floor skyscraper that collapsed from 'fire damage'? The only skyscraper in history to have ever collapsed in such a way. Regardless of some of the theories as to who was behind the atrocities, the facts of physics and architecture raise questions that have not been answered.

If you accept everything in the 9/11 Report then I suspect that you would also accept the Warren Commission's Report in the same unquestioning way. For someone who claims to address issues using critical thinking, it appears that you do anything but.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

The list in endless. I do not wish any school to teach such nonsense to my children.

Good point. What about other people who do believe who want their children to learn about faith?

That's why I have suggested that both secular schools, and faith schools should exist. I believe you should have the right not to have your children learn about this, but I do believe the Constitution (rightfully) puts across the parents right to provide for the moral and religious education of their child.

All the examples, above, can be dealt with with a correct context reading of the passage and even with a bit of research. It involves more than a face-value reading, which is more akin to those with whom you criticise for saying that the earth was created in 6 24-hour days.

Jarndyce wrote: »

There is plenty of childrens' books out there that provide better entertainment for children, without threatening them that they will burn in hell.

Jarndyce, I've been more than respectful to you in this discussion. Shouldn't I be able to expect the same in return?

cat42

Jakkass wrote: »

Thanks for the post, I'll try my best to get through it, my answer might be inadequate but it is something!



As a philosophy student I would encourage people to read philosophy, not to be drawn too far away with it

My sentiments on religion exactly!:rolleyes:

As for the whole denominational question...well i attended a very Catholic school..and as a non religious person it was nothing less than terrifying! We had 'RE' alright and you could even agrue that we learnt about other religions but in this awfull air of disbelief and supposed superiority where even when we did discuss other religions their was always this assumption that they were a load of crap.

Ironically i was the only one against the death penatly in my ultra Catholic religion class...

philologos

cat42 wrote: »

As for the whole denominational question...well i attended a very Catholic school..and as a non religious person it was nothing less than terrifying! We had 'RE' alright and you could even agrue that we learnt about other religions but in this awfull air of disbelief and supposed superiority where even when we did discuss other religions their was always this assumption that they were a load of crap.

This is why there should be alternatives, there needs to be more balance in the education system and I wouldn't deny that at all.

Personally I benefited a good bit from my CofI education, although I didn't appreciate it until the end of my time at school.

cat42 wrote: »

Ironically i was the only one against the death penatly in my ultra Catholic religion class...

Support for the death penalty also exists in populations that would be very much secular. In the UK there are a lot of people who think the death penalty should be reintroduced. 67% supported it in 2003.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe you should have the right not to have your children learn about this, but I do believe the Constitution (rightfully) puts across the parents right to provide for the moral and religious education of their child.

The Constitution was published in 1937, a different era in many many ways. If people did not attend church on Sunday they would be ostracized in their communities. Contraceptives were illegal. The homosexual act of buggery was a crime. Each of these three despicable circumstances are directly attributable to Catholic Church and its wild dogma.

Jakkass wrote: »

All the examples, above, can be dealt with with a correct context reading of the passage and even with a bit of research. It involves more than a face-value reading, which is more akin to those with whom you criticise for saying that the earth was created in 6 24-hour days.

I can only describe that as a cop-out. You made the same point about passages of Scripture which condemns homosexuals to death. Context cannot justify such passages where those passages continue to be believed. I would have more respect for someone who would take an a la carte approach and say "No. That offends both my intelligence and moral compass. I excise that passage from my Biblical beliefs because it is so patently vile." But to merely refer to the nebulous cop-out of 'context' and seemingly continue to, at a minimum, tacitly approve such hate is truly mind-boggling.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

The Constitution was published in 1937, a different era in many many ways. If people did not attend church on Sunday they would be ostracized in their communities. Contraceptives were illegal. The homosexual act of buggery was a crime. Each of these three despicable circumstances are directly attributable to Catholic Church and its wild dogma.

I wouldn't attribute teaching ones child about ones faith and values to be in any way ethically wrong. Indeed, all parents whether religious or not do this in the home.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I can only describe that as a cop-out. You made the same point about passages of Scripture which condemns homosexuals to death. Context cannot justify such passages where those passages continue to be believed. I would have more respect for someone who would take an a la carte approach and say "No. That offends both my intelligence and moral compass. I excise that passage from my Biblical beliefs because it is so patently vile." But to merely refer to the nebulous cop-out of 'context' and seemingly continue to, at a minimum, tacitly approve such hate is truly mind-boggling.

It's not a cop-out at all. All of those passages, when looked at in context all make sense. Including the ones you regarded as being heinous a few pages ago. If one read the entirety of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, one would soon see that there is much more to them than what you have pointed out.

Likewise, in the case of Jesus and Satan, Jonah and all the other examples. One can look up commentaries, and think about the implications of what is written there.

Your criticism, really only works if God doesn't exist. All these things would be possible, if God really did exist in the world. However, if God does not exist, then of course they wouldn't be at all viable. It all comes down to mere assumption, and if that is the calibre of this debate, then it will get very repetitive very quickly.

I'd recommend you to read up, and see what Christians think about those passages rather than assuming what we think.

As for respect, have as little respect for me as you like. It would be courteous to do so, but I will continue dealing with your posts in a respectful manner as you deserve to be regarded.

Cannibal Ox

@Jakkass,

On HIV/AIDS and other bits:
I agree with you about contraception being only part of the solution and the viability of monogamy as part of such a solution. You're also absolutely right when you say the view of contraceptives I'm getting at is held by the Roman Catholic Church and that we need to distinguish between them and other christian churches.

It's not really the discussion I want to have though. I was trying to use HIV/AIDS and contraception as an example of how the Catholic Church responds to an ethical demand brought about by, or framed with, our scientific knowledge through its own system of thought that frames its response.

What I'm trying to get at is that, in my opinion, this response, at least the intellectual response (don't me wrong, there are thousands of great christian and catholic organisations out there that do wonderful work "on the ground" all over the world) is itself framed within a two thousand year old belief system that I'd suggest is not as responsive, or as flexible, or as adaptive as philosophy is to contribute to scientific questions.

So I'm not trying to negate the contribution of christianity, or other religions, to philosophy, but I am trying to point out that responses framed by christianity are exactly that, framed by a particular religious system of belief that is two thousand years old, created, or revealed, in a very different time, and a very different social and cultural context.

I'm not trying to claim that christianity has never changed, but I do think that even when it has changed, it has still done so within the framework of a particular system, and this system is not responsive enough to deal with scientific changes in, to me, a satisfactory way.

Let me put it this way, you couldn't claim that God did not create the universe under a christian system, but you could claim that God did not create the universe under a philosophical system. Christianity, as a system of thought and of belief, puts up blockages of what is and isn't allowed. It restricts the possibilities rather then opens up the possibilities.

I think this is falling into a pragmatic-lite argument What I'm trying to say is that I think that a twining, as it were, between philosophy and science would be more satisfactory and more practical then a twining between religion and science because philosophy is more adaptive and more, I suppose, "loose" then religion is.

On school:
My problem with teaching religion in school in a critical way is that, again, practically, I don't think parents would be delighted, particularly if they are believers, to have their child's religion critically taught to them in a school. In other words, I think it'd take a very brave politician to stand up and say "we're going to teach religion critically in schools".

I do like your idea of separate faith schools and I think it is certainly a possible solution, and I'd have no problem, in fact I'd encourage, every subject to be critically taught. Especially science and religion.

philologos

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

On HIV/AIDS and other bits:
I agree with you about contraception being only part of the solution and the viability of monogamy as part of such a solution. You're also absolutely right when you say the view of contraceptives I'm getting at is held by the Roman Catholic Church and that we need to distinguish between them and other christian churches.

The reference commonly used by proponents of the RCC stance on contraceptives is Genesis 38. I'm not sure that it is referring to contraceptives.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

What I'm trying to get at is that, in my opinion, this response, at least the intellectual response (don't me wrong, there are thousands of great christian and catholic organisations out there that do wonderful work "on the ground" all over the world) is itself framed within a two thousand year old belief system that I'd suggest is not as responsive, or as flexible, or as adaptive as philosophy is to contribute to scientific questions.

Irrespective, of whether it is 2,000 years old, I find the large bulk of values that exist in Christianity are very much relevant to my 21st century life, and other 21st century lives. I guess, it's because of the anecdotal evidence I have seen to the contrary, even in how the Scriptures speak to my life, that I find that it just isn't the case that it can't respond to 21st century problems effectively.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

So I'm not trying to negate the contribution of christianity, or other religions, to philosophy, but I am trying to point out that responses framed by christianity are exactly that, framed by a particular religious system of belief that is two thousand years old, created, or revealed, in a very different time, and a very different social and cultural context.

I'm merely saying that a huge bulk, even of modern philosophy is done by people who are some form of Christian. Admittedly, most are Roman Catholic, as philosophy never really took off amongst Protestants.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I'm not trying to claim that christianity has never changed, but I do think that even when it has changed, it has still done so within the framework of a particular system, and this system is not responsive enough to deal with scientific changes in, to me, a satisfactory way.

I don't know why change is so good. To be quite honest with you, if I could even catch a glimpse of New Testament values as they were exhibited in the first century (yet translating them into the 21st) , I would consider that a great thing.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Let me put it this way, you couldn't claim that God did not create the universe under a christian system, but you could claim that God did not create the universe under a philosophical system. Christianity, as a system of thought and of belief, puts up blockages of what is and isn't allowed. It restricts the possibilities rather then opens up the possibilities.

Why would I want to? I find it unreasonable, that this universe did not have a Creator.

As far as I am concerned, people have the choice to be a Christian or not. I freely decided that I believed in Jesus Christ. Other people have the same opportunity.

I would consider my faith to be more liberating than not, in the long scale of things. I believe hinging ones hopes and dreams onto what is contained within this finite world, if anything is the most restrictive of all philosophies and belief systems.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think this is falling into a pragmatic-lite argument What I'm trying to say is that I think that a twining, as it were, between philosophy and science would be more satisfactory and more practical then a twining between religion and science because philosophy is more adaptive and more, I suppose, "loose" then religion is.

It's more that you are saying that Christianity can't be relevant in 21st century lives, but I find it so difficult to believe that given the numerous examples I've come to see first hand of this. Particularly in respect to the social gospel, and our responsibilities to each other as human beings. A huge bulk of that is done by Christian motivation.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

My problem with teaching religion in school in a critical way is that, again, practically, I don't think parents would be delighted, particularly if they are believers, to have their child's religion critically taught to them in a school. In other words, I think it'd take a very brave politician to stand up and say "we're going to teach religion critically in schools".

I would expect them to say, we are going to take atheism and agnosticism critically in our schools. If we are going to criticise religion, we are going to have to criticise other approaches to belief including secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism, and so on.

The other approach, would be just to teach them neutrally instead of trying to emphasise criticising everything. The approach would be teach about each, and allow the criticism to take place by the individual.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I do like your idea of separate faith schools and I think it is certainly a possible solution, and I'd have no problem, in fact I'd encourage, every subject to be critically taught. Especially science and religion.

It's the same idea the State have at the minute.

Cannibal Ox

Jakkass wrote:

The reference commonly used by proponents of the RCC stance on contraceptives is Genesis 38. I'm not sure that it is referring to contraceptives

When I was writing my last two posts, I was thinking of Augustine and Casti Connubii, and I've now found out that Augustine used Genesis 38, and it was also used in Casti Connubii. I never knew that!

I'm not particularly won over by it, what with the killing, and, with my admittedly limited theological knowledge, it doesn't seem entirely clear to me whether Onan was killed because he slept with his dead brothers wife outside of marriage, or because he used a "natural" contraceptive, or all three.

Irrespective, of whether it is 2,000 years old, I find the large bulk of values that exist in Christianity are very much relevant to my 21st century life, and other 21st century lives. I guess, it's because of the anecdotal evidence I have seen to the contrary, even in how the Scriptures speak to my life, that I find that it just isn't the case that it can't respond to 21st century problems effectively.

The reason I mentioned Plato in my first post is because, in many ways, there are many values that I find in Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Mill, and others that I find relevant to my life and the world around me. There are also values in the New Testament that I think are valuable to the world.

I suppose my point of departure is that, intellectually, I don't hold those values as being absolute, or as being a consistent position with which I should orientate my values, in the way that I would have to if I was christian.

That doesn't mean that, practically speaking, I don't hold on to a set of values as being a good guide and of doing good actions, but my problem with holding onto a belief system and using it to orientate your ethical queries is that you are orientating yourself in particular ways and finding your answers according to that orientation.

I'm merely saying that a huge bulk, even of modern philosophy is done by people who are some form of Christian. Admittedly, most are Roman Catholic, as philosophy never really took off amongst Protestants.

I'm not trying to claim that Christianity hasn't had an impact on philosophers lives, but when I think of philosophers like Spinoza, or scientists, like Darwin, or even artists like Caravaggio, it isn't hard for me to argue that people whose views critique or contradict christian teaching have rarely been embraced with open arms.

I don't know why change is so good. To be quite honest with you, if I could even catch a glimpse of New Testament values as they were exhibited in the first century (yet translating them into the 21st) , I would consider that a great thing.

I think change is good, because our world is always changing, and science and philosophy, both being a form of critical inquiry into our world, are always changing.

In general, absolutes make me nervous, particularly absolutes that are defended by the erection of monolithic institutions that try to stand outside of time, as it were, and, at the same time, try to dictate a way of life for all time and for all people.

I think that isn't exactly what you are advocating, it seems much more personal and local for you, but it is hard for me to separate christianity from an absolutist system that seeks to stand away from society and at the same time mold society.

Why would I want to? I find it unreasonable, that this universe did not have a Creator.

I think I'm repeating myself, but I think by doing that you create blockages to thought, when I think we should be seeking to free up thought. I don't think you can escape your own subjective beliefs when you inquire into any matter, but I do think it is incumbent upon us to try to open up ways of thinking, rather then close them off.

As far as I am concerned, people have the choice to be a Christian or not. I freely decided that I believed in Jesus Christ. Other people have the same opportunity.

I completely agree! No issue with it what so ever.

I would consider my faith to be more liberating than not, in the long scale of things. I believe hinging ones hopes and dreams onto what is contained within this finite world, if anything is the most restrictive of all philosophies and belief systems.

I think this is interesting in the sense that what I think you're saying hits on the idea that either we have a transcendental or an immanent form of knowledge, do we find meaning in the world around us, or do we find meaning above and beyond the empirical world.

I'm not really sure either way. I think it is useful to have beliefs above and beyond the empirical world, but I also think if they are absolute beliefs, it can create problems.

It's more that you are saying that Christianity can't be relevant in 21st century lives, but I find it so difficult to believe that given the numerous examples I've come to see first hand of this. Particularly in respect to the social gospel, and our responsibilities to each other as human beings. A huge bulk of that is done by Christian motivation.

I would say that christianity can be relevant to individual lives, but I don't think, in a pragmatic sense, that it should be prefered over philosophy when we talk about which is more appropriate to twin with science.

On the other hand, I would also say it seems to be counter-productive to oppose religious thought to science and to portray them as diametrically opposed.

I think they both have a place in the world, personally and socially, but I would be nervous about twinning them.

I would expect them to say, we are going to take atheism and agnosticism critically in our schools. If we are going to criticise religion, we are going to have to criticise other approaches to belief including secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism, and so on.

I'm not so confident it would be allowed as you! I would hope it would happen in that way, but I don't think it'll happen at the moment.

Long post

philologos

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

When I was writing my last two posts, I was thinking of Augustine and Casti Connubii, and I've now found out that Augustine used Genesis 38, and it was also used in Casti Connubii. I never knew that!

I'm not particularly won over by it, what with the killing, and, with my admittedly limited theological knowledge, it doesn't seem entirely clear to me whether Onan was killed because he slept with his dead brothers wife outside of marriage, or because he used a "natural" contraceptive, or all three.

Here's my take on it:

It is referring to the Jewish law concerning that if a deceased man has a wife who is childless that one of the brothers in that family would give a child to the deceased (Deuteronomy 25). Onan intentionally went about it so that that purpose would never actually be fulfilled. That's the point as far as I think it, rather than using contraceptives.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

The reason I mentioned Plato in my first post is because, in many ways, there are many values that I find in Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Mill, and others that I find relevant to my life and the world around me. There are also values in the New Testament that I think are valuable to the world.

Well, it is the philosophy forum, you should be able to cite whichever philosophers you wish to cite. I personally find the person of Socrates to be quite principled, and that he had a lot in common with the Jewish thinkers on the other side of the sea.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I suppose my point of departure is that, intellectually, I don't hold those values as being absolute, or as being a consistent position with which I should orientate my values, in the way that I would have to if I was christian.

That's the difference I guess. If we are to believe in a God, who knows best for humanity, then of course these values will be absolute.

I don't consider that restrictive, in the sense that you have a choice to subscribe to Christianity or not.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

That doesn't mean that, practically speaking, I don't hold on to a set of values as being a good guide and of doing good actions, but my problem with holding onto a belief system and using it to orientate your ethical queries is that you are orientating yourself in particular ways and finding your answers according to that orientation.

I'd agree, that's exactly what I am doing. That's the point of the exercise. In my daily life, I try to live it, as I was created to live it and to find my purpose in this world. I realise, that this world isn't mine, it's God's and that He wants me to live according to His intention.

Ultimately when it comes down to it, the ethical standards will rest with Him, if I am to believe in a Final Judgement.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think change is good, because our world is always changing, and science and philosophy, both being a form of critical inquiry into our world, are always changing.

I'm not sure. I don't think we should come along and black line sections of the Bible. I do support reading the Bible and finding solutions for our age in there, and I believe that they can be found, even in a 2,000 year old book (and older in some parts).

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

In general, absolutes make me nervous, particularly absolutes that are defended by the erection of monolithic institutions that try to stand outside of time, as it were, and, at the same time, try to dictate a way of life for all time and for all people.

Subjectivity, in relation to morality makes me nervous. It's plain dangerous putting morality in the hands of the beholder. Humans have an inherent ability of being able to decide on action based on what is convenient for them, or what is best for them, rather than what is right by others. Right and wrong become meaningless if we construct them, as we can have no certainty that they will ever resonate between people. That's why universality is really needed in terms of ethics. I'm not the only one to have said this, and indeed the Greeks such as Plato in his dialogues put across the need for a universal ethics.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think that isn't exactly what you are advocating, it seems much more personal and local for you, but it is hard for me to separate christianity from an absolutist system that seeks to stand away from society and at the same time mold society.

That is what I am advocating. I believe that the Gospel is true, and that it is for everyone.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think I'm repeating myself, but I think by doing that you create blockages to thought, when I think we should be seeking to free up thought. I don't think you can escape your own subjective beliefs when you inquire into any matter, but I do think it is incumbent upon us to try to open up ways of thinking, rather then close them off.

Again, I thoroughly disagree, I arrived at my position by free thought, and if I desire, I can lose my position by free thought. Mind you, even atheism has assumptions that cannot be gone down, one cannot ever consider that God really exists, and has a presence in the world if one is to be an atheist. That element of thought could be said to be cordoned off, but actually, these people have decided to be atheists, and they know by free thought they can become a Christian or any other number of faiths.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think this is interesting in the sense that what I think you're saying hits on the idea that either we have a transcendental or an immanent form of knowledge, do we find meaning in the world around us, or do we find meaning above and beyond the empirical world.

Well, I personally have found even in respect to my own personal life, and indeed before I started to take faith as seriously as I do now, that hinging hopes onto things in this world, was fruitless.

If you are rich, you will get rich, but what next?
If you are looking for fame, you will get fame, but what next?
If you are looking for intimacy, you will get intimacy, but what next?

All these actions are not end goals, they are a means to something else.

An interesting point I heard recently was, that if we put our hope beyond this world, we can realise that for everything we are not He is. We have a role and a purpose and there is perhaps a reason why we cannot have everything, and perhaps there is a life that we are called to live using our own gifts and abilities.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I'm not really sure either way. I think it is useful to have beliefs above and beyond the empirical world, but I also think if they are absolute beliefs, it can create problems.

You're clearly the opposite to me. I believe subjectivity is outright dangerous. An example of where subjectivity gets dangerous is looking at dictatorship. When you decide that right and wrong is for you to decide, it usually ends up with people doing terrible things to one another. When you decide that right and wrong are beyond yourself, that's when you realise that you have a duty to live correctly by your neighbour, and that it is beyond you to decide.

Even looking at the US Declaration of Independence on the second line:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is because these rights are given by our Creator, that we truly cannot deny them to others without facing some form of consequence ourselves. It is because they are truly beyond us, that they are universal, and that they should be heeded.

If it is up to us, rights can be given and taken away freely by human beings. If they are up to God, they are not ours to give or take away, they simply are.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I would say that christianity can be relevant to individual lives, but I don't think, in a pragmatic sense, that it should be prefered over philosophy when we talk about which is more appropriate to twin with science.

I can't really say much other than that I outright disagree :pac:

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

On the other hand, I would also say it seems to be counter-productive to oppose religious thought to science and to portray them as diametrically opposed.

I agree, it actually causes people to become more opposed to you in most cases. I mentioned earlier about the possible effect that atheist polemicists will possibly have on young earth Creationists.

recedite

Jakkass wrote: »

An interesting point I heard recently was, that if we put our hope beyond this world, we can realise that for everything we are not He is. We have a role and a purpose and there is perhaps a reason why we cannot have everything, and perhaps there is a life that we are called to live using our own gifts and abilities.

Nice thought, but I prefer it when kids are taught to face up to the reality of this life.

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't attribute teaching ones child about ones faith and values to be in any way ethically wrong. Indeed, all parents whether religious or not do this in the home.

Yes, and thats where your indoctrination should stay.

Jakkass wrote: »

Six 24 hour days? Alas, no. Genesis isn't intended to be a science book, it is intended to be an account of why the universe is as it is. Not how it came to be.

This is my current position on it, given that the sun and the moon were created on the 4th day of Creation. This makes the length of those days, somewhat more up for discussion, than many would make it out to be. Most likely, this was a direct challenge to worship of the sun and the moon, to indicate that there was a God who made all of these things, including the things you now worship.

I think that YEC (Young Earth Creationism) should be taught in religion class, as it is hugely important to what people are advocating in the world, particularly in the USA, and in Turkey, and even in other Western nations to a lesser extent.

There are also a number of other Christian views to Creation (older earth, theistic evolution and so on), that need to be discussed, again in the religion class.

Edit: As for YEC, much of its growth can also be attributed to atheist detractors suggesting that Christianity or Islam in the case of Turkey and science can never be compatible. The more hard line ones opposition gets, more likely you will also become more hard line yourself.

These are indeed the only two possible responses that religion can come up with when evidence is presented that undermines its tenets. The first, is to bend like a bamboo in a storm, as in "a day in this context actually means x billion years" which is a cop out. The second, as in YEC, is to remain resolute to the ideas and to be smashed on the rock of reality.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible was written by man, but it was revealed by God according to Christians. It wasn't "created", or "made up" by individuals according to that view, but rather God revealed Himself to humanity, and then it was transcribed.

"revealed" !! Does that mean he passed a Dictaphone to the scribes? Why wouldn't he just make a few thousand copies appear. Then the followers could have got on with proselytising instead of wasting time on the transcripts.

Jakkass wrote: »

Tell me this, do I come across as vile from my belief in Christianity, or do I come across as civil?

You are hoping to win over converts by your exemplary manner, but a deluded gentleman is still deluded.


Basically, as long as the taxpayer is paying the teachers salaries, they should only teach that which is accepted as fact by society.
Any other dogma can be taught at home, or else in a 100% privately funded institution.

Shield

Warning issued. No public comment on mod actions please.

recedite wrote: »

You are hoping to win over converts by your exemplary manner, but a deluded gentleman is still deluded.

philologos

It might help me a long a bit if I outline what you've said that are assertions, rather than reasoned arguments.

recedite wrote: »

Nice thought, but I prefer it when kids are taught to face up to the reality of this life.
Yes, and thats where your indoctrination should stay.

Assertions: Christianity doesn't pertain to reality.
Children are indoctrinated into Christianity.

Problems: What are you defining as reality?
How do you account for many people who come to faith well after the age of reason?
How do you account for many people who were raised Christian but then become something else, whether atheist, agnostic, or other believer?
Surely taking into account the circumstances described in the last question, one could reasonably assume that more often than not being taught something at childhood doesn't guarantee it will be the case well into adulthood?

Both assertions unsubstantiated.

recedite wrote: »

These are indeed the only two possible responses that religion can come up with when evidence is presented that undermines its tenets. The first, is to bend like a bamboo in a storm, as in "a day in this context actually means x billion years" which is a cop out. The second, as in YEC, is to remain resolute to the ideas and to be smashed on the rock of reality.

Assertions: Anyone who holds a view that the earth is in fact old, and that God was involved in the scientific processes that brought us to this point in time are in effect undermining their position.
In turn, those who are Young Earth Creationists are actually affirming the truth described in Genesis chapter 1.

Problems: There are numerous ways of understanding Creation. They are actually listed in the Wikipedia article on Creationism.
It assumes that Christians who believe in a old earth are actually conforming to what secularists affirm. This is not true either. Rather, it is about seeing it from a perspective where we have God's creation that we can actively study and learn about through science, and an understanding of the why behind Creation.

Another problem is that if one studies the Genesis 1 account, on the fourth day of Creation, the sun and the moon were created. This most likely was to suggest that what people commonly worshipped, was actually just a Creation of God in itself, and it is to Him that we should give honour and praise. This allows us to question whether or not a day was a 24 hour day, or a period of longer length. The sun is crucial in establishing time, the earth's rotation around the sun determines the number of days in a year. It determines the day and the night.

recedite wrote: »

"revealed" !! Does that mean he passed a Dictaphone to the scribes? Why wouldn't he just make a few thousand copies appear. Then the followers could have got on with proselytising instead of wasting time on the transcripts.

In most Christian understandings, God chose to do it this way, because He wants us to be actively involved in His plan. I.E - Contrary to the point of view of atheists and agnostics, we have a universal purpose which God has given us. God has a plan for our lives if we are willing to accept it.

This is the biggest difference between the Christian world, and the world that atheism and agnosticism generates.

recedite wrote: »

You are hoping to win over converts by your exemplary manner, but a deluded gentleman is still deluded.

Assertions: I am attempting to win over converts by a message board.
In turn I am also deluded.

Problems:
With I being deluded - too many.

Winning over converts on a message board - First of all, I don't believe I win over anyone. If God wishes to use me to convince people that Christianity is the truth, it will be by Him that people are convinced.

Second of all, a message forum isn't where this is done. There is only so far that argument can convince. I believe the relational aspect of living out a Christian life is also important in convincing others that the Christian life is one that is worthy to live.

recedite wrote: »

Basically, as long as the taxpayer is paying the teachers salaries, they should only teach that which is accepted as fact by society.
Any other dogma can be taught at home, or else in a 100% privately funded institution.

Assertions: Tax payers don't want to pay for this.

Problems: People of faith are in a majority, not a minority in Ireland still. Therefore their taxes should be spent effectively, as well as yours. Our constitution secures freedom to the parent to educate their child in both moral and religious matters. The common use of this in practice is in faith based schooling. As such the State if it is to remain faithful to the Constitution is to provide means for people of faith to learn about that faith and the morality that it brings, and for atheists and agnostics to attend secular schools along with others who are interested in doing so.

I don't think atheists and agnostics should decide what the State does with the taxes of religious believers, and I believe it would be an unwarranted intrusion of atheism and agnosticism into State matters if it were to do so.

In the UK they have faith based and secular schools both funded by the Government and there is no reason why we can't do so either.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think atheists and agnostics should decide what the State does with the taxes of religious believers, and I believe it would be an unwarranted intrusion of atheism and agnosticism into State matters if it were to do so.

It's called 'rationalism'. To spend taxpayers' money on the encouragement of pernicious delusions is not the direction in which civilized Western society should be going.

Apparently you want to keep the line between Church and State well and truly blurred. That's retrograde and downright abominable.

P.S

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity doesn't pertain to reality.

Smartest thing I've heard you say so far. You are absolutely right

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

It's called 'rationalism'. To spend taxpayers' money on the encouragement of pernicious delusions is not the direction in which civilized Western society should be going.

It's based on a subjective understanding of rationalism, that precludes the idea that one can both believe in God, and be rational. That's what's absurd about it. Thankfully, I don't have such a limited view of what being rational involves, and thankfully this isn't actually the philosophical precedent given that many philosophers who believed in God could also very easily be said to be rational. From Aristotle, to Thomas Aquinas and beyond into our age.

You make the same assertion that faith is any more a delusion than your irreligion. This is what I am sceptical of, and indeed it is a grandiose leap.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Apparently you want to keep the line between Church and State well and truly blurred. That's retrograde and downright abominable.

Very Biblical language! - Carrying on though, faith schools exist in just about every secular nation. I cited the UK as an example, as it is often regarded to be one of the most secular nations in Europe.

I personally support liberty of conscience, liberty of parents to decide how to educate their children within reason, and liberty of belief. I don't believe that faith should be driven out of peoples lives. I support neutrality and fairness of the State in legislating. This means not having atheist hobbyhorses as well as not having hobbyhorses for any position, but rather to secure civil liberties.

That's all it involves. The word secular is abused to suggest that people have the right to divorce faith from peoples lives. This is truly abominable in my view.

I resent any attempt to hinder parents rights in respect to their children.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Smartest thing I've heard you say so far. You are absolutely right

Outlining an assertion. You're welcome to repeat those assertions if you will, but don't expect me to regard them as valid arguments.