Mary says YES!

Absolam

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

It just goes to show the underlying fragility of belief to continue dodging the question. However, the admit such to themself (never mind a board full of atheists) would be catostrophic, so Absolam will continue to happily live in consentual ignorance.

I'm sure consentual ignorance is a lovely place, but I'm afraid I've never been there.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

It matters because I'm interested to see what the reasoning is (if any) behind the question. It's not like I'm trying to save time by not replying, no.

But asking what the reasoning is doesn't stop you replying to the question. You could do both, whereas you're using it as a ploy to avoid answering.

Or maybe you're just extremely suspicious generally, and always refuse to answer any questions not submitted in triplicate and with a full explanation of why the person is asking in the first place! :rolleyes:

Absolam wrote: »

Aw, I think if I was clearly desperate to avoid answering, I'd probably ignore the poster or something like that...

That'd be another possible strategy, but in your case it would mean you'd soon be conducting a monologue.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

But asking what the reasoning is doesn't stop you replying to the question. You could do both, whereas you're using it as a ploy to avoid answering.

Of course it doesn't stop me. But without the reasoning I can't see any good reason to answer.

volchitsa wrote: »

Or maybe you're just extremely suspicious generally, and always refuse to answer any questions not submitted in triplicate and with a full explanation of why the person is asking in the first place! :rolleyes:

Could be. Not likely; it wasn't the case with Cabaals question, you'll notice.

volchitsa wrote: »

That'd be another possible strategy, but in your case it would mean you'd soon be conducting a monologue.

I am cut to the quick! And when I think of how many of your questions I have so diligently answered, well... I guess the fact that I never ignore anyone will just have to speak for itself

Jimmy Bottlehead

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure consentual ignorance is a lovely place, but I'm afraid I've never been there.

Course not. Nobody who lives there does so knowingly.

Absolam

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Course not. Nobody who lives there does so knowingly.

So we may well have been neighbors? You do look familiar in fairness....

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

I'm still wondering if (and in fairness, why) you think for the purposes of the discussion at hand, there is (or should be) a difference between the two?

Because you're telling kids that this **** is true, and therefore by implication could happen to them, and they should act accordingly (do Gods will and recieve the spirit etc!). That is the purpose of this discussion.

How many times have we heard about adults recalling tales of 'waiting for the call from god' to become a priest/nun/christian brother. Or children doing things they wern't supposed to do because they were 'chosen by god' (adults too, remember David Koresh and Jim Jones!). If you havn't heard about that then I think this discussion is lost on you.

So I've answered your question, and I've shown you mine first out of courtesy, but if if you don't have faith and conviction in your beliefs then you may decline to answer.

And... if someone thinks there's no difference between a real happening and a made up story then I can see why kids might find it confusing.

Impregnation of Mary by God = I believe this is a made up story
or....
Impregnation of Mary by God = I believe this did really happen

?

Bristolscale7

Most of the Catholic apologists on this forum are having a hard time mustering the conviction of their beliefs regarding this awful piece of official Church teaching. Imagine how hard it is for thousands of poor half-ass Catholic teachers who have to present this to a class: "Teacher, can I get pregnant like Mary?" "No Timmy, but Susan sitting next to you can."

robindch

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Imagine how hard it is for thousands of poor half-ass Catholic teachers who have to present this to a class: "Teacher, can I get pregnant like Mary?" "No Timmy, but Susan sitting next to you can."

"But even if you're confused, both of you should say "Yes!" to any strange people in bedroom."

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Because you're telling kids that this **** is true, and therefore by implication could happen to them, and they should act accordingly (do Gods will and recieve the spirit etc!). That is the purpose of this discussion.

Well, firstly, I'm not. This is a Grow In Love textbook, not me. And secondly, no it's not. There's no implication that this could ever happen to anyone else (other that the OPs inference); Christianity (and the Grow in Love) doesn't even imply that anyone will ever be asked by God to do what Mary did. It's kind of a part of the story (in fairness not part of what's quoted from Grow in Love so you may not be familiar with the mythology); this is a one off deal where Mary (of her own free will) brings salvation into the world in counterpoint to Eve (of her own free will) bringing sin into the world.
But the purpose of this discussion is not to discuss that, it's to discuss the OP; that the lesson presented by Grow In Love, rather than teaching children that Mary placed her faith in God despite her misgivings and brought mankinds salvation into the world, instead teaches children that they should accept the advances of sexual predators who creep into their rooms in order to procure them for paedophiles when their other lessons teach them this is the wrong thing to do.
Whether or not anyone thinks the story of the immaculate conception ( a story about a young woman specifically not having sex by the way) is true, mythical, a fable, a parable, allegorical, or just a story with no inherent value at all, seems to be irrelevent to the op; all that is relevent is what children are learning from it.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

How many times have we heard about adults recalling tales of 'waiting for the call from god' to become a priest/nun/christian brother.

I've heard it twice. Or at least, I've heard the story of adults receiving the call from God twice. I'm not sure if it would make a difference to the OP if I'd never heard it or heard it a hundred times though?

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Or children doing things they wern't supposed to do because they were 'chosen by god' (adults too, remember David Koresh and Jim Jones!). If you havn't heard about that then I think this discussion is lost on you.

How many of David Koresh and Jim Jones followers would you say were influenced by the story of the immaculate conception, do you think? If we took them as a percentage of everyone who has heard the story, do you think they would amount to more or less than one hundreth of one hundreth of one hundreth of one per cent?

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So I've answered your question, and I've shown you mine first out of courtesy, but if if you don't have faith and conviction in your beliefs then you may decline to answer.

Ah... I see what you're doing there! If I have faith and conviction in my beliefs I have to answer right? Because you said so.... Hmm. But the thing is, your answer just shows exactly how irrelevant your question is to the OP. What I believe makes absolutely no difference to it. What you believe makes no difference to it.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

And... if someone thinks there's no difference between a real happening and a made up story then I can see why kids might find it confusing.
Impregnation of Mary by God = I believe this is a made up story
or....Impregnation of Mary by God = I believe this did really happen?

So, hopefully, if you look at it now, you can see how it makes no difference? Trying to discuss what someone else believes simply drags you wide of the OP. I get that the thread is an opportunity for those who feel they need to attack religious beliefs to give it a shot, but it doesn't mean we all have to feel compelled to participate

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Most of the Catholic apologists on this forum are having a hard time mustering the conviction of their beliefs regarding this awful piece of official Church teaching. Imagine how hard it is for thousands of poor half-ass Catholic teachers who have to present this to a class: "Teacher, can I get pregnant like Mary?" "No Timmy, but Susan sitting next to you can."

Half ass Catholic teachers might say that. But in fairness, most primary teachers have some qualifications in religious education, and they will have the support of teachers notes and videos. So most of them, if it occurs to a child to ask if they might get pregnant like Mary will know enough to say "No Timmy, nobody can. Only Mary in the story". But it will be a great opportunity for them to explore how people can get pregnant, and how saying no to other people can be a good thing, like in their other lessons. Hurrah, you've solved the OP!

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

...in counterpoint to Eve (of her own free will) bringing sin into the world.

Hehe, do they teach that as fact, too?

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Hehe, do they teach that as fact, too?

I don't know to be honest. It is a feature of feminist theology though, if the subject interests you?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

But it will be a great opportunity for them to explore how people can get pregnant, and how saying no to other people can be a good thing, like in their other lessons. Hurrah, you've solved the OP!

You think primary school teachers will get into this sort of discussion with a 6 year old?

Irish schools are not this progressive I'm afraid, there are reasons for this and surprise, surprise they are the same reasons why this discussion thread exists to begin with.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

You think primary school teachers will get into this sort of discussion with a 6 year old?
Irish schools are not this progressive I'm afraid, there are reasons for this and surprise, surprise they are the same reasons why this discussion thread exists to begin with.

Is that a bigger assumption than the one in the OP? I have to say, by orders of magnitude it doesn't seem so. If a child is going to ask about becoming pregnant, and is receiving instruction on saying no to strangers, do you think their teacher is going to blank the question, or try to give an appropriate answer that doesn't include confusing deities with sexual predators?

And I really don't think the thread exists because primary school teachers don't have full and frank discussions about sexual intercourse with 6 year olds.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Is that a bigger assumption than the one in the OP? I have to say, by orders of magnitude it doesn't seem so. If a child is going to ask about becoming pregnant, and is receiving instruction on saying no to strangers, do you think their teacher is going to blank the question, or try to give an appropriate answer that doesn't include confusing deities with sexual predators?

And I really don't think the thread exists because primary school teachers don't have full and frank discussions about sexual intercourse with 6 year olds.

It has been absolutely established that some of that deity's representatives are perfectly capable of being sexual predators. Giving them the free gift of children who have been taught in school that god will be pleased if they co-operate when asked really does not seem like a good idea.

Now you can nit pick and go off on as many irrelevant tangents as you like, you will not change this basic fact, which has been the main pivot of the argument since the start.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Absolam wrote: »

So we may well have been neighbors? You do look familiar in fairness....

I'm a handsome Caucasian male with a six pack and a beard. Of course I look familiar.

Now follow me into the light, my son.

Balf

eviltwin wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't think many parents even care.....

Oh, parents care deeply.

Deeply enough to dig deep into their pockets, and pay to send their children to schools with a religious ethos:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/private-schools-pupil-numbers-and-day-fees-30592044.html

frostyjacks

I see none of the Irish media have ran with this 'story'. I guess they're all controlled from the Vatican.

If you twist the premise of any story, you could introduce sexual connotations to it to fit your argument. The other night, parents dressed their children up and sent them out to roam the streets, looking for sweets off strangers. We should really ban Halloween too.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

Well, firstly, I'm not. This is a Grow In Love textbook, not me. And secondly, no it's not. There's no implication that this could ever happen to anyone else (other that the OPs inference); Christianity (and the Grow in Love) doesn't even imply that anyone will ever be asked by God to do what Mary did. It's kind of a part of the story (in fairness not part of what's quoted from Grow in Love so you may not be familiar with the mythology); this is a one off deal where Mary (of her own free will) brings salvation into the world in counterpoint to Eve (of her own free will) bringing sin into the world.
But the purpose of this discussion is not to discuss that, it's to discuss the OP; that the lesson presented by Grow In Love, rather than teaching children that Mary placed her faith in God despite her misgivings and brought mankinds salvation into the world, instead teaches children that they should accept the advances of sexual predators who creep into their rooms in order to procure them for paedophiles when their other lessons teach them this is the wrong thing to do.
Whether or not anyone thinks the story of the immaculate conception ( a story about a young woman specifically not having sex by the way) is true, mythical, a fable, a parable, allegorical, or just a story with no inherent value at all, seems to be irrelevent to the op; all that is relevent is what children are learning from it.
I've heard it twice. Or at least, I've heard the story of adults receiving the call from God twice. I'm not sure if it would make a difference to the OP if I'd never heard it or heard it a hundred times though?
How many of David Koresh and Jim Jones followers would you say were influenced by the story of the immaculate conception, do you think? If we took them as a percentage of everyone who has heard the story, do you think they would amount to more or less than one hundreth of one hundreth of one hundreth of one per cent?
Ah... I see what you're doing there! If I have faith and conviction in my beliefs I have to answer right? Because you said so.... Hmm. But the thing is, your answer just shows exactly how irrelevant your question is to the OP. What I believe makes absolutely no difference to it. What you believe makes no difference to it.

So, hopefully, if you look at it now, you can see how it makes no difference? Trying to discuss what someone else believes simply drags you wide of the OP. I get that the thread is an opportunity for those who feel they need to attack religious beliefs to give it a shot, but it doesn't mean we all have to feel compelled to participate

Grand, I'll take it from your use of the word 'story' (and in subsequent posts) that you don't actually believe it happened.

So getting back to the OP, are kids being told that this is just a story and not actually true? Like, are teachers explaining this like it's an allegory and it's ok to say to kids... "well this didn't actually happen it's only a story"?

I'm just wondering because I'd like to know if my child came home and told me said 'story' and thought it was true should I be ringing the teacher to get them to clarify?

Hotblack Desiato

Balf wrote: »

Oh, parents care deeply.

Deeply enough to dig deep into their pockets, and pay to send their children to schools with a religious ethos:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/private-schools-pupil-numbers-and-day-fees-30592044.html

They can get that for free in 96% of primary schools and almost all secondaries, so clearly it's not the religion they're paying for.

Absolam

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

I'm a handsome Caucasian male with a six pack and a beard. Of course I look familiar.
Now follow me into the light, my son.

Sure. House next door to mine right? I've heard the noises.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

It has been absolutely established that some of that deity's representatives are perfectly capable of being sexual predators. Giving them the free gift of children who have been taught in school that god will be pleased if they co-operate when asked really does not seem like a good idea.

It hasn't been established that any of them are capable of passing themselves off as supernatural beings, has it? Or that, on encountering a supernatural being, anything in Catholic teaching encourages people to have sexual encounters with them? I've yet to see anything in the lesson that even tells children "god will be pleased if they co-operate when asked"

looksee wrote: »

Now you can nit pick and go off on as many irrelevant tangents as you like, you will not change this basic fact, which has been the main pivot of the argument since the start.

I suppose I could, but I think I'll stick with what has been the main pivot of the objection in the first place; the lesson says no such thing.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Grand, I'll take it from your use of the word 'story' (and in subsequent posts) that you don't actually believe it happened.

And what difference do you think it makes now that you've drawn your own conclusions?

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So getting back to the OP, are kids being told that this is just a story and not actually true? Like, are teachers explaining this like it's an allegory and it's ok to say to kids... "well this didn't actually happen it's only a story"?

But that's not the OP? Whether or not they're told it's just a story, or that it's true, makes no difference to whether or not they're being told they should agree to the recommendations of deity impersonating sexual predators in their bedrooms procuring them for others. Does it? Or are we reading a different OP entirely?

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I'm just wondering because I'd like to know if my child came home and told me said 'story' and thought it was true should I be ringing the teacher to get them to clarify?

So, to be clear; your concern is not that the story is going to lead your child to be open to sexual predators, it's that they might be confused as to whether the story is true or not? And that the teacher would need to clarify that, rather than you?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Is it just me, or is this guy being acutely obtuse?

anothernight

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Is it just me, or is this guy being acutely obtuse?

It's not just you. You get used to it eventually, don't worry.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

And what difference do you think it makes now that you've drawn your own conclusions?

Well then we can both agree on the fact that children are being told something to be true in when in fact tis all a makey up story. So now we can move on to the next stage (or rather, I'll do it for you).

Absolam wrote: »

But that's not the OP? Whether or not they're told it's just a story, or that it's true, makes no difference to whether or not they're being told they should agree to the recommendations of deity impersonating sexual predators in their bedrooms procuring them for others. Does it? Or are we reading a different OP entirely?

Yes, good question, does it make a difference or not? Lets look at 2 scenarios.. one pertaining to be real, the other an overt made up story.

1. Kid told that the big bad wolf came and ate a child because she didn't do the will of god.
Child says: "is this true, did this happen?"
Teacher says: "no absolutely not, it's just a story to show you to do gods will"

2. Kid told that the big bad wolf came and ate a child because she didn't do the will of god.
Child says: "is this true, did this happen?"
Teacher says: "yes it did, so you should do gods will"

So which one do you think would harm the child more? I know you'll be hesitant to answer any of my questions, but I would venture that most folk would think that option 2 is more detrimental.

Absolam wrote: »

So, to be clear; your concern is not that the story is going to lead your child to be open to sexual predators, it's that they might be confused as to whether the story is true or not? And that the teacher would need to clarify that, rather than you?

Where did I say that wasn't my concern. You've just sidestepped into that because I didn't mention it!!! Maybe you are indeed concerned about giving a child misinformation on how to deal with sexual predators, (maybe not!)
I'm trying to see where you're coming from first (and i think I have established that), then I can bring it on a little bit further into the 'sexual predator' stuff.

Is it not your concern that the 'story' could lead a child to be open to sexual predators?

looksee

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Is it not your concern that the 'story' could lead a child to be open to sexual predators?

No,that is not his concern at all, his primary concern is to keep finding different angles to waffle about, in the hope that he will give the impression that he is 'winning' the discussion. There is absolutely no distinction between his belief in the bible and the interpretation of a bit of it by a modern writer/artist, who might, just might have got it wrong.

Risk to a child is irrelevant relative to the holy word that has been approved by the Vatican.

Bristolscale7

For the really ****ing thick, this may help them grasp the issue.

"Grow in Love":


and



http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/serial-paedophile-priest-told-rape-victim-she-was-gods-little-angel-20140318-34zjm.html

looksee

:rolleyes: Honestly, the victim would not really have thought she was an angel as she had not grown any wings. And anyway the article does not say the victim was a child. :rolleyes:

(hope I have put in enough 'sarcasm' indicators there...)

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Well then we can both agree on the fact that children are being told something to be true in when in fact tis all a makey up story. So now we can move on to the next stage (or rather, I'll do it for you).

Well, let's not start from an incorrect assumption; you think it's a fact that children are being told something to be true in when in fact tis all a makey up story. I don't take a position on it, since the stipulation is not part of the OP, nor does it seem relevant to it.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Yes, good question, does it make a difference or not? Lets look at 2 scenarios.. one pertaining to be real, the other an overt made up story.
1. Kid told that the big bad wolf came and ate a child because she didn't do the will of god.
Child says: "is this true, did this happen?"
Teacher says: "no absolutely not, it's just a story to show you to do gods will"
2. Kid told that the big bad wolf came and ate a child because she didn't do the will of god.
Child says: "is this true, did this happen?"
Teacher says: "yes it did, so you should do gods will"
So which one do you think would harm the child more? I know you'll be hesitant to answer any of my questions, but I would venture that most folk would think that option 2 is more detrimental.

Weren't you supposed to be showing how it make a difference to the OP though? Don't get me wrong; I understand you're concerned that teaching a child that something is true when it is a belief is an issue, but that's not the issue that's presented in the OP.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Where did I say that wasn't my concern. You've just sidestepped into that because I didn't mention it!!! Maybe you are indeed concerned about giving a child misinformation on how to deal with sexual predators, (maybe not!) I'm trying to see where you're coming from first (and i think I have established that), then I can bring it on a little bit further into the 'sexual predator' stuff.

Well, the OP is actually about the 'sexual predator' stuff. You haven't attempted to show that any of the lesson presented actually does make a child more likely to succumb to a sexual predator, so from that is it unreasonable to think it's not an issue you particularly interested in pursuing? Your posts to date on the thread have largely centred on your idea that schools teach religion as fact, haven't they?

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Is it not your concern that the 'story' could lead a child to be open to sexual predators?

No it's not; that's my point. I can't see anything either in the story or the Grow In Love lesson presented that would lead a child to be more open to sexual predators. I can see how an adult could (deliberately) reinterpret the story to present such a notion, but not how a child would arrive at it on their own, and particularly not with the guidance of a school teacher.