Last Call for Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

So to me the bible only points to more hints that humanity is an experiment...not by god however.

is right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I wouldn't either. The Bible doesn't condone homosexuality, but that is not a subject the Bible as a whole focuses on. It's like the WBC is applying selective parts of the Bible to a different god. Phelps' writing is very unimpressive and plagiarizes and distorts the words of 18th and 19th century preachers to supplement his sermons. For all practical purposes they fall into the same fringe category as churches that include things like kool-aid, rattlesnakes, or mock-crucifixion in their doctrine.

I disagree that he understands (or agrees with?) my concerns, as he's said the bible is pointless and should only be of use to future historians.

And yes, that is a problem, but there are ways to get around this - explicitly mentioned that teaching should be faith-neutral and drum it into to teachers teaching religious ed during their training, with safeguards in place (ie supervised for the first few weeks/an appropriate timeframe of teaching it, stating to students this is faith-neutral and they should raise any concerns if they think the teaching of the text is not faith-neutral) or perhaps only teaching it at a higher level, along with the option for students to opt out of the class if they find studying the bible particularly offensive. I was taught the bible in an incredibly enriching and faith-neutral way, it's not like it's something completely out there. It's much less destructive than simply dismissing a text of such great impact. The same should be done with other holy texts. In the UK in many, many schools, religious ed is compulsory, and does little harm.

I do understand that whether Christianity is factual is what is being dismissed here (I hope you do not mean the religion should be dismissed altogether as something to neutrally study, as I think that would close a lot of doors too), which is fair enough, however a few people are dismissing its importance altogether.

I am an atheist. I do not believe what Christianity preaches is true. I also believe that taking the bible literally is harmful. I simply believe Christianity and the Bible have had so much impact that it is not something to be dismissed.

But "future historians" aren't somehow special people. The only difference between a future historian and a present-day person is the social context change over time, which in my mind simply means that he feels that the present context has problems that make this a poor decision.


You're not really thinking much of the US experience, are you?

In the US, enforcement of the teaching of evolution is often an area where political dispute breaks out. The teaching of intelligent design though, is not only explicitly forbidden, but it is clearly not faith neutral, and given that we can't actually hold the line on something that should be straight-forward, it is grossly implausible that if we're talking about an area where we're toeing the line, that we'll avoid these kinds of issues. Especially since all enforcement is going to be local, and given that many of the higher authorities are simply not going to work much towards enforcing it anyway, even if they could.

The problem is that "opt-out" may simply make a situation worse for a non-religious student in a fundamentalist community.

Honestly, kittie, it's great to talk about your experience, but in the US, teaching the Bible will definitely, without question, without any practical ability to create safeguards, end up involving religious dogma taught in high school. Talking otherwise is nonsense and completely ignorant of the ongoing struggles the US has had with maintaining a secular education system in the first place. For a lot of schools this is possible, but in many more, we simply do not succeed and h ave situations that are toxic to students who are not of the Christian religion. So, that's great for the UK, but just looking at the surveys of religiosity in the UK, the US is more religious and has more problems keeping everything in order.


Honestly, I really bet that your question is simply far away from their purpose.

Is the Bible important? Only to people who will work in literature, history of thought, and religion. Beyond that, no, it really is not important. You may like it, but there's lots of books that could be taught, but that will not interest everybody. So, a person who is dismissing it may simply also dismiss those other fields. It may simply be rhetoric. I don't know.


It depends on one's interests. One can have a full intellectual life without reading much of the Bible. One won't be a classicist, but many people aren't anyway.

I never dismissed future historians, I simply take issue with the point that it is only of use to future historians - the bible is important to people other than them also, which I think people may be overlooking. Those interested in literature, art, theology, philosophy, politics (particularly US politics), modern culture and history, along with other fields I've probably missed out.

And I agree that one of my flaws is having little empathy of the US experience, although I don't believe this completely dismisses my point. All of this is theoretical anyhow, as none of our opinions are really ever going to be taken account in the wider scheme of things. I think if these reforms could take place and could be enforced, it would work, especially the "only teach it optionally and in higher levels of education" point, but I agree that this would never be enforced in the US. I am also not talking exclusively of the US when I talk about factoring faith-neutral bible into education, although I fear my "factor it into education" was a little off the topic of "the bible is important", which is my most prominent issue with this thread.

You also seem to assume I like the bible. I don't. It was dull to learn and I was thankful when it was over (I was taught it in early high school at a basic level, and had to study it in more in-depth at sixth form as a compulsory addition to my more advanced literature course), although I'm going to have to study it much more in detail for my university course. I said it was important and enriching. I also never said it was interesting to everybody, simply that it was important and should not be dismissed as a text, which some people are doing. I will never be interested in Freudian psychology, yet I will never disagree that Freudian psychology is important.
I also agree that dismissing the bible dismisses all of the other fields, which also makes me uncomfortable.

I remember when that happened. That is a shame.

I'm not supporting what the church did.

But at the same time, it's understandable that church services should be free of disruptions. The church that did this is just doing the same thing someone would do if it had been a family restaurant or even a bar. The church cites that he hit a child during mass. Are we to understand this guy has made himself a threatening presence at church gatherings?

I think the church made the wrong decision. At the same time, I wonder if this guy's mom did an adequate job of monitoring and modifying his behavior so that he'd be aware that what he was doing is inappropriate. We can't help being autistic. But being on the spectrum doesn't give us the right to act contemptuously towards others--in or out of church.

[EDIT] I missed the part about this guy being 13 years old... A restraining order against someone that age is a little much, and at that age maybe a little premature. But I still wonder exactly what it is the mother is doing/not doing to help him learn to be in better control, or maybe what accommodations the mom can make working together with church officials to help him adapt better.

That happened to me too, but it was more the pastor's ego doing that as he also kicked my mother out for being too poor to pay the church what he demanded. Once they switched pastors then we were welcomed back.

It is at a slow stage really I mean the religious have their claws so deep in government it will be hard for it to start declining and a fast rate.

Good Grief!

ruveyn

.... And if pigs had large enough wings, they'd be able to fly.


Most nations likely will have universities that teach the Bible. So that's not a relevant change.


Freudian psychology isn't important to study at all. Why not talk to me about aether theory or Lamarckism?

I don't think study of the Bible is very enriching compared to studying a multitude of other things. In fact, one can probably have a functional knowledge of the Bible's interaction with our culture without really knowing the Bible. I mean, if we're going to talk about ranking things of importance, I'd rather have a philosophy class, a stronger foundation in economics, a practically-oriented finance class, etc rather than introducing the Bible into study.

No they don't. Not only that, but the issue is really more related to demographics than politics. Politics are a lagging indicator because the elderly vote more often than the young.

Don't you think the pigs could fly was a tad rude and condescending? I did agree that they would never be enforced within the US and even that "bible in schooling" is a tangent to my main point/issue with this thread.

And my last paragraph, which you're replying to here, I was referring to the importance of the bible, not the importance of introducing it into to schooling, if you'd like to reply to my point again. I simply think that people shouldn't dismiss it's importance. Having "functional knowledge of the Bible's interaction with our culture" is far from dismissing how important the text actually is.

I have no idea what to say in response. I tend to be a blunt person, however, if I tended to insult you, I'd be much more overt, but honestly I am meaner to my friends than I was in that comment. Do we both agree though, that if pigs had large enough wings(and corresponding muscles) that they could fly?


Well, I interpreted "importance of the Bible" as relative importance. So, I simply compared that set of knowledge to other possible sets. It is possible that at this point, we may just be quibbling. We're both agreeing it has value. I'm deflating this importance because I feel as if I have plenty of intelligent discussions that do not explicitly or implicitly rely on the value of the Bible, and because I tend to deflate things. Having "functional knowledge of the Bible's interaction" is somewhat deflationary in that I am divorcing the text itself from the relevant knowledge.

Firstly, sorry if this appears scrambled, the is day 2 no sleep. I am more than happy to clarify anything I've poorly explained.

Thankyou for being mature. (I could easily have seen that escalating.) And oh, I completely agree and understand that there are many many fields that do not factor the Bible into them, but I don't think that this takes away from the fact that the Bible is important (the same way that, just because the Bible is important, I don't think that it lessens the importance of fields it doesn't factor into). And I think you may have misunderstood me on that point - I don't mean that reading the Bible cover to cover is completely important in all the fields I've mentioned, just that the Bible is important because of the impact it's had. But saying "The Bible is pointless" (the thing I'm taking issue with in this thread) is flawed, because it's pretty much dismissing the influence it's had over various other fields, or simply shows a lack of understanding of the influence the bible has actually had.
But yes, we agree it both has value. =3 The only thing I disagree with is "the bible is pointless", which was my original post in this thread.

I think I disagree with you, and definitely Joker. Politics has taken hold of religion. I don't believe for a minute most politicians are truly devout. Especially at higher power levels.