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.