Mary says YES!

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

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.

In fairness, none of the above is actually true. I understand why you would want it to be true, but you should consider that there just might be a little more to the world than the somewhat narrow view you're taking.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

For the really ****ing thick, this may help them grasp the issue.
"Grow in Love":
and
serial-paedophile-priest-told-rape-victim-she-was-gods-little-angel-

So to be clear; contrary to the proposition put forward this particular paedophile didn't masquerade as a supernatural entity in order to lure a child into another paedophiles grasp?
Just (for the really ****ing thick) checking that just because the word 'angel' appears in both doesn't mean that the Grow In Love story about the Immaculate Conception actually facilitated this guy. That's not actually the suggestion being put forward,is it?

Balf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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.

I'd suggest we might say "It's not particularly the religion that they're paying for. But they're certainly buying into it."

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

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.

This "point" is complete twaddle, and indeed the other lad who has quit the topic refused to even discuss it and just kept repeating it as if saying it sufficient times made it true.
So, why do we bother to tell kids that loaded guns, wild snakes and open fires are dangerous, when apparently (your logic) they are too young to understand that these things are dangerous?

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This "point" is complete twaddle, and indeed the other lad who has quit the topic refused to even discuss it and just kept repeating it as if saying it sufficient times made it true.

Well, it's certainly 'complete twaddle' that anything either in the story or the Grow In Love lesson presented would lead a child to be more open to sexual predators, but I'll certainly consider any reasonable argument put forward that it could be. I just haven't seen one yet.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So, why do we bother to tell kids that loaded guns, wild snakes and open fires are dangerous, when apparently (your logic) they are too young to understand that these things are dangerous?

Not my logic, to be fair, I never said any such thing. I certainly agree we should tell children that sexual predators are dangerous, even if they're too young (according to Cabaal) for primary school teachers to have that sort of discussion with them; didn't we have some allusions early on in the thread to an NSPCC Underwear Rule campaign? It seems there are ways to make children aware of potential hazards even if they're quite young.

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

W

Not my logic, to be fair, I never said any such thing. I certainly agree we should tell children that sexual predators are dangerous, even if they're too young (according to Cabaal) for primary school teachers to have that sort of discussion with them; didn't we have some allusions early on in the thread to an NSPCC Underwear Rule campaign? It seems there are ways to make children aware of potential hazards even if they're quite young.

But don't you think that teaching children not to do things that make them uncomfortable in one class, then turning around and teaching in religion class that doing things that make them uncomfortable is a good thing, regardless of whether they understand it as physical acts or more as stealing, is confusing and counterproductive?

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

But don't you think that teaching children not to do things that make them uncomfortable in one class, then turning around and teaching in religion class that doing things that make them uncomfortable is a good thing, regardless of whether they understand it as physical acts or more as stealing, is confusing and counterproductive?

Shouldn't we try to avoid blurring the points? For instance, we don't as far as I know teach children that they should not do things that make them uncomfortable; we teach them that there are situations that may make them uncomfortable, and that there are appropriate responses to that.
A child may be uncomfortable eating their vegetables, but they still must do as their mother tells them.
Nor is this religion class teaching children that doing something that makes them uncomfortable is a good thing; it's teaching them that Mary, despite her uncertainty, had enough trust in God to agree to his request. It's a fairly specific set of circumstances set out here, and there's nothing in Christianity that indicates that anyone expects those circumstance to ever occur again; in fact in the wider philosophy part of the point of the story is that it will never occur again. I'm sure a teacher can have plenty of discussion around all of that, but I'm also sure it's not saying children should trust strangers (or even trusted adults) to have sex with them. Certainly no more so than telling them they have to finish their dinner if daddy says so.

realdanbreen

gctest50 wrote: »

yip .... time to get this sky-fairy stuff away from kids at school time for once n for all

Oh no! The Sky fairy arguement!
Grow up ffs.

robindch

realdanbreen wrote: »

Oh no! The Sky fairy arguement!
Grow up ffs.

Would you care to address it? Or would you prefer to sit there, swearing without a meaningful reply?

realdanbreen

robindch wrote: »

Would you care to address it? Or would you prefer to sit there, swearing without a meaningful reply?

I've shot your whole 'err, it all started with a bang years ago' to pieces so many times at this stage Robin that it's become boring, to me at any rate.

oldrnwisr

realdanbreen wrote: »

I've shot your whole 'err, it all started with a bang years ago' to pieces so many times at this stage Robin that it's become boring, to me at any rate.

Well, no. Stating that you're too stupid or bored to understand the multitude of explanations that have been given to you on this forum is not shooting anything to pieces.

realdanbreen

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, no. Stating that you're too stupid or bored to understand the multitude of explanations that have been given to you on this forum is not shooting anything to pieces.

Wow! a 'multitude of explanations' eh. then I guess that you won't have any problem posting ONE that is not a rambling theoretical load of horse crap.
Over to to you then.....

robindch

realdanbreen wrote: »

[...] it's become boring, to me [...]

No need to infuse everything you write with the same tedium though.

Anyhow, any more four-letter words from you and you'll be receiving one of the forum's coveted yellow cards.

oldrnwisr

realdanbreen wrote: »

Wow! a 'multitude of explanations' eh. then I guess that you won't have any problem posting ONE that is not a rambling theoretical load of horse crap.
Over to to you then.....

Well there's this and this for a start. Perhaps if there are things you don't understand about the Big Bang theory then maybe you can post a list of questions about the details of the theory and they can be answered by me or other posters. That may be more successful than one long explanation and might avoid you dozing off like last time.

Oh and there's a wonderful irony in someone asking for an explanation of a theory not to be theoretical.

realdanbreen

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well there's this and this for a start. .

Wow! So the explanation was that easy all along! It's strange that it hasn't caught on with too many people.

Cabaal

realdanbreen wrote: »

Wow! So the explanation was that easy all along! It's strange that it hasn't caught on with too many people.

It has,
But perhaps not the type pf people you hang around with,

If you have problems understanding atleast some of the concepts involved in this, then a good place to start would be this https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtPAJr1ysd5yGIyiSFuh0mIL

I know my 7 year old nephew really finds these videos interesting,

realdanbreen

Cabaal wrote: »

It has,
But perhaps not the type pf people you hang around with,

That's for sure!

If you have problems understanding atleast some of the concepts involved in this, then a good place to start would be this https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtPAJr1ysd5yGIyiSFuh0mIL

I know my 7 year old nephew really finds these videos interesting,

That may be the case but I don't think too many adults do.

anothernight

realdanbreen wrote: »

That may be the case but I don't think too many adults do.

Too many adults in your circle of friends, perhaps.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

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.
.

When you say 'OP' do you mean the opening post content or the content of the article it is referring to?

Hotblack Desiato

Balf wrote: »

I'd suggest we might say "It's not particularly the religion that they're paying for. But they're certainly buying into it."

If they want a fee paying school, they've no other option but a religious ethos school.

If they don't want a fee paying school, there are very few options that are not religious.

Irish parents do not choose religious education for their children - it is the default and it is very difficult or impossible to avoid it.

looksee

Children are taught to believe that God, Jesus, Mary etc are or were real

They are taught to believe that an angel came and told Mary that she was going to give birth to a child and even though Mary was doubtful about it, God wanted her to co-operate and was pleased with her.

The artist/author thought it was a good idea to show Mary as a young girl/child sitting on her bed in the night time.

If Mary had been shown (as is usual) as a young woman of marriageable age, in her house in the day time we would not be having this discussion. The authors of the book chose to represent Mary as more or less a child, in what should e a safe environment, being visited and coerced in the night. It was a really stupid idea, and you can accept it was a stupid idea without compromising your religious beliefs.

The Randy Riverbeast

Never knew there was creationists on boards, there's all sorts but that's a new one for me.

Absolam wrote: »

So to be clear; contrary to the proposition put forward this particular paedophile didn't masquerade as a supernatural entity in order to lure a child into another paedophiles grasp?
Just (for the really ****ing thick) checking that just because the word 'angel' appears in both doesn't mean that the Grow In Love story about the Immaculate Conception actually facilitated this guy. That's not actually the suggestion being put forward,is it?

Ah, you must be looking at a different part of the grow in love curriculum. We're talking about when Mary got pregnant here.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

When you say 'OP' do you mean the opening post content or the content of the article it is referring to?

I mean the opening post which includes the article it refers to
You may think, in fairness, that Kiwi is not referring to the idea that the lesson teaches children to say yes to sexual predators even if they are afraid and confused when she calls it ridiculous, inappropriate, and slightly shocking. I suppose she could be referring to the notion that religion is taught as fact, but I don't get that impression from her subsequent posts?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

If Mary had been shown (as is usual) as a young woman of marriageable age, in her house in the day time we would not be having this discussion. The authors of the book chose to represent Mary as more or less a child, in what should e a safe environment, being visited and coerced in the night.

That might be true, though I'm not sure you can really say the authors have represented Mary as being coerced, and you could certainly say they have represented her as being of marriageable age for the time. But I don't think we're having this discussion really because of what the authors have actually done; we're having it because some people have chosen to interpret what the authors have done in a particular way, and taken umbrage at their own interpretation.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Irish parents do not choose religious education for their children - it is the default and it is very difficult or impossible to avoid it.

Recedite has posted information on the patronage thread which showed that when given the opportunity to express a preference, the majority of parents in submissions opted for Catholic ethos schools though? So it would seem a very large proportion do (or would if they had the choice) choose religious education for their children.

Absolam

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Ah, you must be looking at a different part of the grow in love curriculum. We're talking about when Mary got pregnant here.

Fair cop guv, I was looking at the other picture from the curriculum in the original post

Though, to be even handed, I don't think either excerpt from the curriculum facilitated that particular predator, do you?

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

That might be true, though I'm not sure you can really say the authors have represented Mary as being coerced, and you could certainly say they have represented her as being of marriageable age for the time. But I don't think we're having this discussion really because of what the authors have actually done; we're having it because some people have chosen to interpret what the authors have done in a particular way, and taken umbrage at their own interpretation.

Your argument has been pretty thin for a good while, I think this is just about breaking point.

Bristolscale7

Slightly off topic but I'm sure the little junior infants appreciate learning that without Mary there would be no Christmas (nice pedagogical 'hook' to engage their minds)! In a few years they will learn the corollary: without communion $$ there is no Nintendo 3DS.

realdanbreen

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I'm sure the little junior infants appreciate learning that without Mary there would be no Christmas (nice pedagogical 'hook' to engage their minds)! In a few years they will learn the corollary: without communion $$ there is no Nintendo 3DS.

Or if their parents were atheist they might appreciate being told that when they die they can be buried out back with shep the dog.

lazygal

realdanbreen wrote: »

Or if their parents were atheist they might appreciate being told that when they die they can be buried out back with shep the dog.

Pretty sure atheists have the same burial options in local authority owned burial grounds as everyone else.