Mary says YES!

gctest50

ABC101 wrote: »

In the Gospel readings..... Mary is startled by the act of the Angel Gabriel appearing to her. If an Angel appeared to me..... I would be startled too.

The Angel Gabriel tells her not to be afraid, "the Lord is with thee".

The message is explained to Mary, and Mary agrees. Mary consents.

What is wrong with that? ............................................................

Cos they don't exist maybe ? seeing things that are not there is no huge deal -as long as you know they are not real

yer bible is like a giant handbook-of-things-not-to-do that has become a bit scattered over the years


start praying when your mate gets knocked down ? nope - get help

missus tells you an angel knocked her up ? nope

- that excuse is right up there with "this roman soldier knocked on the door, then fell over the mat and accidently stuck it in me" sort of excuse
.

ABC101

gctest50 wrote: »

Cos they don't exist maybe ? seeing things that are not there is no huge deal -as long as you know they are not real

yer bible is like a giant handbook-of-things-not-to-do that has become a bit scattered over the years


start praying when your mate gets knocked down ? nope - get help

missus tells you an angel knocked her up ? nope

- that excuse is right up there with "this roman soldier knocked on the door, then fell over the mat and accidently stuck it in me" sort of excuse
.

That's a comment for a different thread, evidence of God etc

Let's try and stay on topic can we?

pauldla

ABC101 wrote: »

That's a comment for a different thread, evidence of God etc

Let's try and stay on topic can we?

Actually, I think it is kind of relevant.

The Annunciation story is no big deal to a believer, so to speak. It's a tale of a young woman accepting the will of the God and bringing about the Incarnation. In this instance, it's being framed in the reference of a young girl, to make the story more accessible to Infants. So what?

To the unbeliever, though, this tale seems utterly bizarre, and the need to present it to young children in this way by an organisation that has a very checkered history when it comes to young children is, to say the least, very questionable.

For myself, I'd be quite pissed off if this hogwash was being taught to my daughter.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Not entirely true. While children in general can have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction studies have shown that religious children have more difficulty doing so.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12138/abstract

I'm familiar with that study, but they were specifically concerned with children from religious backgrounds vs. children from non-religious backgrounds, as opposed to objectively examining children's ability to be skeptical, which is the basis of how they form judgements (they offer some explanations as to why children raised with religion would appear to be less skeptical), but I believe that this study is often mistakenly presented as evidence that religious children (don't let Richard Dawkins ever hear you refer to 'a religious child' ) have any difficulty in distinguishing fact from fiction. Children process new ideas differently based upon previous experiences they can relate those concepts to, and that's why it appears that religious children aren't as skeptical as non-religious children.

Here's a more comprehensive analysis though of children's thinking -

Revisiting the Fantasy-Reality Distinction: Children as Naïve Skeptics

Abstract

Far from being the uncritical believers young children have been portrayed as, children often exhibit skepticism toward the reality status of novel entities and events. This paper reviews research on children’s reality status judgments, testimony use, understanding of possibility, and religious cognition. When viewed from this new perspective it becomes apparent that, when assessing reality status, children are as likely to doubt as they are to believe. It is suggested that immature metacognitive abilities are at the root of children’s skepticism, specifically that an insufficient ability to evaluate the scope and relevance of one’s knowledge leads to an over-reliance on it in evaluating reality status. With development comes increasing ability to utilize a wider range of sources to inform reality status judgments.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Children process new ideas differently based upon previous experiences they can relate those concepts to, and that's why it appears that religious children aren't as skeptical as non-religious children

I think you'll find that is exactly the problem posters here are having with the idea of presenting children with a situation in which it is quite ok for a child to be approached in her bedroom by an authority figure wanting her to do something that makes her feel uncomfortable and worried.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you'll find that is exactly the problem posters here are having with the idea of presenting children with a situation in which it is quite ok for a child to be approached in her bedroom by an authority figure wanting her to do something that makes her feel uncomfortable and worried.

volchista I'll be honest, I'm not even sure how to address the issue they're having, because it's so ripped out of context that I can understand why, when it's ripped out of context, the issue seems immediately apparent to some people, but, when regarded in context, then no, I really can't agree that any issue exists.

I can see of course how an adult could interpret it to mean what they're suggesting it means, but I imagine it's not explained that way at all to a child who is a child of religious parents. A child who's parents are not religious will have a completely different understanding of the religious curriculum as a whole anyway.

ABC101

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you'll find that is exactly the problem posters here are having with the idea of presenting children with a situation in which it is quite ok for a child to be approached in her bedroom by an authority figure wanting her to do something that makes her feel uncomfortable and worried.

You are distorting what is written in the Gospel.

Mary was a young woman... not a 6 year old child.

Mary was startled / afraid when she saw the Angel Gabriel at first.

Angel Gabriel told her not to be frightened / afraid.

Mary is now no longer afraid.

Angel Gabriel gives Mary the message.

Mary freely consents to God's will.

Angel Gabriel departs.

How you can infer that this is the same as a child in their bedroom being approached by a figure of authority (i.e. adult) who wants to do something abusive is ridiculous.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

volchista I'll be honest, I'm not even sure how to address the issue they're having, because it's so ripped out of context that I can understand why, when it's ripped out of context, the issue seems immediately apparent to some people, but, when regarded in context, then no, I really can't agree that any issue exists.

I can see of course how an adult could interpret it to mean what they're suggesting it means, but I imagine it's not explained that way at all to a child who is a child of religious parents. A child who's parents are not religious will have a completely different understanding of the religious curriculum as a whole anyway.

I get the impression you think posters are suggesting that children will think it is literally the case that Mary had a sexual relationship with the Angel. I can't speak for others, but that's not my point at all.

I already described my own feeling of shock and disbelief at 13 that a trusted adult could do something "wrong" and ask me to behave in a way that I was entitled, indeed supposed, to refuse to. I know that for a younger child in a more complicated family situation it may have been much harder to refuse, and I also think that this "updated" and "child-friendly" version of the annunciation could well be a further brake on a child's ability to stand up for itself in a way which requires a certain amount of independence and in fact disobedience.

You don't agree - but you haven't explained why the risk of you being wrong for even one child is worth taking.

Hotblack Desiato

frostyjacks wrote: »

Trolling

:pac:

volchitsa

ABC101 wrote: »

You are distorting what is written in the Gospel.

Mary was a young woman... not a 6 year old child.

Mary was startled / afraid when she saw the Angel Gabriel at first.

Angel Gabriel told her not to be frightened / afraid.

Mary is now no longer afraid.

Angel Gabriel gives Mary the message.

Mary freely consents to God's will.

Angel Gabriel departs.

How you can infer that this is the same as a child in their bedroom being approached by a figure of authority (i.e. adult) who wants to do something abusive is ridiculous.

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about the Annunciation story itself, I'm talking about this particular version of it which is in a schoolbook for teaching to 6 year olds.

This version introduces new elements, particularly in the pictures used, and those elements are particularly troubling in terms of trying to teach children that it is not acceptable for adults in authority to ask them (not Mary) to do something that makes them feel unhappy and ill at ease.

recedite

amdublin wrote: »

Ps. Just to get things straight. Is it really being taught in schools that the angel Gabriel IMPREGNATES Mary?? From my school days I just remember the angel Gabriel coming to Mary and TELLING her she was going to have a baby. "Don't be afraid you are going to have baby"

ABC101 wrote: »

IMO there sees to be a lot of confusion about the issue of the Annunciation, certainly confusion on this thread.
The A.I. article about the story makes a number of assumptions, some of which are incorrect, perhaps deliberately so.

The Annunciation was the event where the Angel Gabriel sent by God appears to Mary and informs her that God wishes her to take part in his plan.
The Annunciation is not a sexual event, which is what seems to be suggested by a number of posters on here.

The A.I. article does quote the text of the lesson as Mary is described as a young woman.
Where the A.I. article seems to object is that the cartoon image used is appears to depict Mary as a young child saying Yes to a form of abuse
....For A.I. to infer that the cartoon image portrays Mary as a young child is dishonest IMO.

Lets clear up this confusion about who impregnated Mary in the story. The angel Gabriel warned Mary in advance and told her not to panic, not to tell anybody about it, and to submit to what was going to happen. In modern parlance, he "groomed" her. Then his boss came along and did the deed, in the form of the holy spirit.
According to the bible (Luke)

And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" 35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God." 38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

Just noticed there is a justification for the holy fertility treatment of older women in the same verse! I wonder why they never mention that :pac:

As for whether the girl in this new primary school book is depicted as child or adult, that is in the eye of the beholder. IMO it looks like a child.
Biblical scholars reckon Mary would have been about 12 -14 years old, so perhaps this version is more biblically or historically accurate, but also more disturbing than the spiel taught to the previous couple of generations.

Perhaps more important is the age group that this lesson is taught to.

Traditional pagan fairly tales of Europe such as Little Red Riding Hood have survived because parents see the opposite message there, one that they really want the child to learn. Don't go off on your own, and don't trust what the stranger tells you. Beware of the bad guy taking on the disguise of a trusted authority figure.

evolving_doors

ABC101 wrote: »

You are distorting what is written in the Gospel.

Mary was a young woman... not a 6 year old child.

Mary was startled / afraid when she saw the Angel Gabriel at first.

Angel Gabriel told her not to be frightened / afraid.

Mary is now no longer afraid.

Angel Gabriel gives Mary the message.

Mary freely consents to God's will.

Angel Gabriel departs.

How you can infer that this is the same as a child in their bedroom being approached by a figure of authority (i.e. adult) who wants to do something abusive is ridiculous.

Sorry i got it wrong, it wasnt the angel that did the impregnating, it was god himself.
Did joseph get a say in any of this cuckolding?

But back to my original question, what is the teaching point of this lesson?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I get the impression you think posters are suggesting that children will think it is literally the case that Mary had a sexual relationship with the Angel. I can't speak for others, but that's not my point at all.

No, no, not at all, I get that posters are suggesting, like the article even suggests, that -

This is an extraordinary and dangerous message to give to young children. ‘SAY YES’!, even if you are afraid and confused. Just trust someone that comes to your bed in the night.

Young children are expected to complete a maze to help Gabriel to find his way to Mary, who is portrayed as a child in her bed at night, and then the children have to trace out the word ‘YES’.

The text describes Mary as a young woman, despite portraying her as a little girl without adult characteristics, but the message of saying ‘Yes!’ while being afraid and confused is dangerous regardless of the age of the character.

If parents decide to opt out their children from the religion class they are responsible for their supervision. Our children are still left sitting at the back of the class absorbing the Catholic Church message: ‘SAY YES’!, even if you are afraid and confused. Just trust someone that comes in the night.

They're suggesting that children are being taught to accept being sexually molested and abused by strangers that come into their bedroom at night. It's at best a pretty misguided and quite frankly disgusting interpretation that plays on parent's fears for their children, and Atheist Ireland are doing themselves no favours IMO in trying to make the connection to the sexual abuse of children.

volchitsa wrote: »

I already described my own feeling of shock and disbelief at 13 that a trusted adult could do something "wrong" and ask me to behave in a way that I was entitled, indeed supposed, to refuse to. I know that for a younger child in a more complicated family situation it may have been much harder to refuse, and I also think that this "updated" and "child-friendly" version of the annunciation could well be a further brake on a child's ability to stand up for itself in a way which requires a certain amount of independence and in fact disobedience.

That's exactly the kind of perception Atheist Ireland are banking on to reinforce their scaremongering.

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't agree - but you haven't explained why the risk of you being wrong for even one child is worth taking.

Because the risk simply doesn't exist. It's nothing more than scaremongering based on their twisting of a story to produce a particularly heinous narrative, which they are hoping will relate to parent's fears for their children. The more I think about it, the more I think it's likely to backfire spectacularly for them, and tbh, I wouldn't be sorry for them if it does.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, no, not at all, I get that posters are suggesting, like the article even suggests, that -

They're suggesting that children are being taught to accept being sexually molested and abused by strangers that come into their bedroom at night. It's at best a pretty misguided and quite frankly disgusting interpretation that plays on parent's fears for their children, and Atheist Ireland are doing themselves no favours IMO in trying to make the connection to the sexual abuse of children.

That's exactly the kind of perception Atheist Ireland are banking on to reinforce their scaremongering.

Because the risk simply doesn't exist. It's nothing more than scaremongering based on their twisting of a story to produce a particularly heinous narrative, which they are hoping will relate to parent's fears for their children. The more I think about it, the more I think it's likely to backfire spectacularly for them, and tbh, I wouldn't be sorry for them if it does.

Sorry, I must have missed your explanation of why the risk doesn't exist - as opposed to "is unlikely to exist". Perhaps you could recap?

One eyed Jack

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Sorry i got it wrong, it wasnt the angel that did the impregnating, it was god himself.
Did joseph get a say in any of this cuckolding?

But back to my original question, what is the teaching point of this lesson?

The learning objectives and faith formation goals are listed at the foot of the picture linked in the article (frankly I'm surprised they even included that much) -

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Grow-in-Love4-8.jpg

expectationlost

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The learning objectives and faith formation goals are listed at the foot of the picture linked in the article (frankly I'm surprised they even included that much) -

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Grow-in-Love4-8.jpg

I've read a few of the teachers instructions, and I've found it hard to conceive how the simple drawings and stuff in the kids book match the lesson that are supposed to learn

but the main lesson in this seems to be is to honour Mary because of her huge trust in God?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Sorry, I must have missed your explanation of why the risk doesn't exist - as opposed to "is unlikely to exist". Perhaps you could recap?

Sorry, I didn't think you would interpret that so literally tbh. The risk of a stranger entering the home of a child and going up to their bedroom to sexually abuse them on the back of this story is so statistically insignifigant that it isn't even worth entertaining as a scaremongering tactic.

The idea that a child would interpret this story so literally and allow themselves to be sexually abused, based on this story, is a risk so remote, that you could use the same tenuous link to argue anything that puts a child at risk of being abused should be banned.

Forget about evaluating the actual risk any more, now we can just argue potential instead, and ban anything we don't like on the basis that it could potentially be damaging to a child.

ABC101

recedite wrote: »

Lets clear up this confusion about who impregnated Mary in the story. The angel Gabriel warned Mary in advance and told her not to panic, not to tell anybody about it, and to submit to what was going to happen. In modern parlance, he "groomed" her. Then his boss came along and did the deed, in the form of the holy spirit.
According to the bible (Luke) Just noticed there is a justification for the holy fertility treatment of older women in the same verse! I wonder why they never mention that

As for whether the girl in this new primary school book is depicted as child or adult, that is in the eye of the beholder. IMO it looks like a child.
Biblical scholars reckon Mary would have been about 12 -14 years old, so perhaps this version is more biblically or historically accurate, but also more disturbing than the spiel taught to the previous couple of generations.

Perhaps more important is the age group that this lesson is taught to.

Traditional pagan fairly tales of Europe such as Little Red Riding Hood have survived because parents see the opposite message there, one that they really want the child to learn. Don't go off on your own, and don't trust what the stranger tells you. Beware of the bad guy taking on the disguise of a trusted authority figure.

WRT the cartoon image....my opinion is different.

1) It is a cartoon image.... not possible to tell what age the figure of Mary is exactly.

2) IMO.... the figure of Mary is much older than 14. My reason being is that her ankles are rather fat, waistline rather 'pear shaped'.... sort of physical characteristics of a woman in her 40's or older if you ask me.

3) The addition of a headscarf.... while most probably very common among young and old women 2000 years ago would not be common today. IMO... if I see a cartoon character of a woman wearing a head scarf I think of a woman in her 60's or 70's in today's culture. In fact I think she looks more like Mother Teresa of Calcultta if you ask me!!

Getting back to the article written by ADMIN...

'As part of the new Catholic religion course ‘Grow in Love’, six year old infants in Irish schools are being taught that ‘Mary says YES’! to God ‘working through her’ by making her pregnant, despite Mary being afraid, confused and not understanding what was going on"

Clearly false and misleading statement..... taking the Gospel out of context.

Mary was startled / afraid initially when the Angel appeared.....

It is not the case that Mary is afraid of God's plan.

Mary is a believer in God... she trusts God...and while she may not understand the logic of God..... it is dishonest to state that she is afraid of God's plan.

Either ADMIN does not understand the Gospel Readings.... or is deliberately misconstruing the facts.

ADMIN then goes on to mention the Maze Puzzle which is used. Not sure what relevance this is to Child protection policy / prevention of child abuse.

Crosswords / maze puzzles are all used in school from time to time, in different subjects too. When I did various activities in school I never felt abused / taken advantage of.

Does ADMIN think this is some form of trickery / deception?

It is very clear that ADMIN has taken the initial fear that Mary had on seeing the Angel Gabriel for the first time ...... and carried this fear over to following God's plan. When that is not the case.

Clearly disingenuous indeed.

pauldla

expectationlost wrote: »

I've read a few of the teachers instructions, and I've found it hard to conceive how the simple drawings and stuff in the kids book match the lesson that are supposed to learn

but the main lesson in this seems to be is to honour Mary because of her huge trust in God?

Yes, I think that's the point; unquestioning belief and trust in God. Of course, God unfortunately not being directly to hand, it follows that one should look to his Anointed Representatives, though this of course does not need to be stated explicitly.

As I said above, hogwash.

One eyed Jack

expectationlost wrote: »

I've read a few of the teachers instructions, and I've found it hard to conceive how the simple drawings and stuff in the kids book match the lesson that are supposed to learn

but the main lesson in this seems to be is to honour Mary because of her huge trust in God?

Well, the main lesson with regard to faith formation is written right there -

It is intended that the children will honour Mary, because she is the Mother of Jesus.

Pherekydes

ABC101 wrote: »

Either ADMIN does not understand the Gospel Readings.... or is deliberately misconstruing the facts.

What facts?

Are you referring to the annunciation as a fact? Who was there to verify it? Was there someone with Mary when she experienced these things? Like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

ABC101

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Sorry i got it wrong, it wasnt the angel that did the impregnating, it was god himself.
Did joseph get a say in any of this cuckolding?

But back to my original question, what is the teaching point of this lesson?

O.k...... glad we are getting some of the confusion sorted out.

The point of the lesson would be explaining...

1) The example Mary gives which is that...... Mary is a believer submitting her will to God's will.

2) The important role Mary .... as a woman had in the role of Jesus Christ on Earth.

3) There are other points... like the fulfilling of the prophets that Jesus would be a descendant of the line of David etc.

ABC101

Pherekydes wrote: »

What facts?

Are you referring to the annunciation as a fact? Who was there to verify it? Was there someone with Mary when she experienced these things? Like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

The facts of what is written in the Gospel.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't think you would read that so literally tbh. The risk of a stranger entering the home of a child and going up to their bedroom to sexually abuse them on the back of this story is so statistically insignifigant that it isn't even worth entertaining as a scaremongering tactic.

The idea that a child would interpret this story so literally and allow themselves to be sexually abused, based on this story, is a risk so remote, that you could use the same tenuous link to argue anything that puts a child at risk of being abused should be banned.

Forget about evaluating the actual risk any more, now we can just argue potential instead, and ban anything we don't like on the basis that it could potentially be damaging to a child.

No, sorry Jack, you're the one who has repeatedly taken things to be literally meant. I certainly didn't think that's what you meant, and why you think I did is a bit beyond me.

It's not primarily about strangers, because the Angel Gabriel, and God etc are not presented as strangers to Mary, and are not strangers to the children. They are well known characters to them. Fantasy and reality are not always clearly defined at six or seven, so the idea of Gabriel turning up in your home making it unlikely may not be clear to children. Especially as this, remember, and contrary to your belief, is being taught as factually true.

So IMO it's a story that is more about trusted authority figures, not about strangers. My point is about the real shock that a child feels when any attempt at abuse by a trusted adult occurs, and the difficulty for a child to decide to disobey when obedience is the normal behaviour for the child. I know that can be the case because it was the case for me, and I have no reason to think other children are less shocked - in fact that shock is often mentioned in one form or another by people who have been abused as children.

So given that this shock which can lead to an inability to react and to passivity (and this is probably exactly what the grooming/abusing adult is counting on) anything that might falsely reassure the child that this scary situation might turn out ok if they just accept it is potentially an abuser's dream.

Avatar MIA

ABC101 wrote: »

O.k...... glad we are getting some of the confusion sorted out.

The point of the lesson would be explaining...

1) The example Mary gives which is that...... Mary is a believer submitting her will to God's will.

2) The important role Mary .... as a woman had in the role of Jesus Christ on Earth.

3) There are other points... like the fulfilling of the prophets that Jesus would be a descendant of the line of David etc.

From a non christian point of view which looks on the Catholic Church Hierarchy as an organisation that should have no contact with children never mind being in charge of their education - as evidenced by how much they have abused trust in the past the above is a load of auld rubbish. And that it has pedophile enabling propaganda it should not be allowed within a mile of any child.

Avatar MIA

ABC101 wrote: »

The facts of what is written in the Gospel.

Wrong forum if you think that's going to be taken seriously.

expectationlost

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, the main lesson with regard to faith formation is written right there -

It is intended that the children will honour Mary, because she is the Mother of Jesus.

think people are asking why.

ABC101

Avatar MIA wrote: »

From a non christian point of view which looks on the Catholic Church Hierarchy as an organisation that should have no contact with children never mind being in charge of their education - as evidenced by how much they have abused trust in the past the above is a load of auld rubbish. And that it has pedophile enabling propaganda it should not be allowed within a mile of any child.

Only a very small % of religious members of the R.C. Church were actually child abusers.

The majority of child abuse is carried out by people who are not members of any particular religious organisation.

Initially the response of the Church Authorities was appalling... moving pedophiles around with the expectation that they would reform.

Thankfully the R.C. church as learn t from this appalling misjudgement and now has very strict controls in place.

recedite

ABC101 wrote: »

IMO.... the figure of Mary is much older than 14. My reason being is that her ankles are rather fat, waistline rather 'pear shaped'....

I wouldn't say fat, but its like the face of a child on a woman's body. Also, just noticed some other imagery there relating to the "deflowering" of a virgin. A bee in the room is landing on a flower. The girl is reclining on virginal white bedsheets. The flower is a lily, imagery associated with Mary, and also with the transition from chastity and virginity to motherhood and fertility. Its all about giving in to this trusted authority figure, in a sexual way. Its about saying yes, despite the fears and misgivings.

ABC101

recedite wrote: »

I wouldn't say fat, but its like the face of a child on a woman's body. Also, just noticed some other imagery there relating to the "deflowering" of a virgin. A bee in the room is landing on a flower. The girl is reclining on virginal white bedsheets. The flower is a lily, imagery associated with Mary, and also with the transition from chastity and virginity to motherhood and fertility. Its all about giving in to this trusted authority figure, in a sexual way. Its about saying yes, despite the fears and misgivings.

Well in fairness.... Mary retained her virginity by virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not have a penis.

The incarnation of Jesus in the womb of Mary would not be a sexual event as we physical humans would understand it.

And I state again.... the fears / misgivings are related to the initial appearance of the Angel Gabriel..... NOT to the fact that the Holy Spirit came to her later on.