Should religion be taught in schools?

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Why didn't he just tell them to stop. It seems he used to chat a lot to people around that time.
He also didn't seem to have a problem with the animal sacrifice later, had to have his fix of blood apparently.

God has made it plain in our consciences as to what is good and evil. People can still nonetheless choose to reject Him and do what is evil. Evil as far as I see it is simply what is is opposed to God's standards which are given to us for our best interest.

As for animal sacrifice it was in place precisely to give the Israelites an idea of the ultimate sacrifice of God Himself for mankind to make the clear point of forgiveness. Animal sacrifice was a precursor to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as far as I would see it anyway.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

The point of that was exactly a moral one. God did this to prove a point. He wasn't going to expect human sacrifice from Abraham, rather He Himself would ransom mankind from the weight of their sin. In that region at that time and (there is archaeological evidence to back this up if you look into the Phoenicians) actually offered child sacrifice to their gods. God stood out and said no to this practice by stopping Abraham. The point was precisely to show mankind that He didn't endorse that.

Indeed, if He did allow it to happen He would be going back on His promise, to make Abraham's children and all who later because His adoptive children through Christ great (Genesis 15, 17, Galatians 3 - 4, Romans 4).

Of course God had his reasons to order the murder of Issac. God always has good reason to do what most normal people would view as abhorrent - meanwhile poor Issac is sitting on the sacrifice table waiting for death.

seanbmc

After just finishing school last year all I can say is that religion class was the biggest waste of time that I have ever come across in secondary school.

What my class consisted of was a room full of 20 people, all of them with not one ounce of interest in the subject. And most teachers had realised this and just gave up after a while and just let us watch movies in the class, talk etc.

That said, I have come accross people who are interested in the subject, so I think that people should be given an option to learn the subject if they wish. I spent my time in religion class doing homework or just talking. This time could have been spent doing something else. (It was also the last class of the day, and people would just go home).

On a primary level the decsion is up to the parents, if you don't want your child taught religion, don't send them to a Catholic school.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

Of course God had his reasons to order the murder of Issac. God always has good reason to do what most normal people would view as abhorrent - meanwhile poor Issac is sitting on the sacrifice table waiting for death.

It's hardly abhorrent if God is simply saying that these other tribes may carry out human sacrifice but ultimately that it is not acceptable to Him.

Indeed, God won't expect anything from us other than to put our trust and faith in Him, repenting for what we've done wrong and aiming to live for what is right and true by following Him.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

God has made it plain in our consciences as to what is good and evil. People can still nonetheless choose to reject Him and do what is evil. Evil as far as I see it is simply what is is opposed to God's standards which are given to us for our best interest.

As for animal sacrifice it was in place precisely to give the Israelites an idea of the ultimate sacrifice of God Himself for mankind to make the clear point of forgiveness. Animal sacrifice was a precursor to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as far as I would see it anyway.

The biggest problem I have with religious people is that their god can do no wrong, everything written down in an ancient book no matter how abhorrent or disgusting (like animal sacrifice) is justified in some way.
In a book as large and wide ranging as the bible anything can be justified, with the consequence of untold suffering down through the ages and more yet to come.

Nervous Wreck

Seachmall wrote: »

Should we learn about religion? Obviously.

Should we be taught which is the right one? No, that's for your parents to do.

Bollocks.

I have no problem with people being religious if they choose to but the fact is that most people don't choose religion: they have it forced upon them from a young age by school or parents and are indoctrinated from then. One of the first questions a nurse asks the parents of a newborn is the child's religion. How the fuck would anyone know the child's religion before it can form rational thoughts? The question they're really asking is "What religion will be forced upon this child?" No parent should decide their child's religious beliefs. Sure when I first told my parents I was atheist, they didn't know what to do/say. They were in shock. It was only a couple years after that that they admitted to holding no religious beliefs of their own. Now that is indoctrination.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

It's hardly abhorrent if God is simply saying that these other tribes may carry out human sacrifice but ultimately that it is not acceptable to Him.

I think its pretty abhorrent to order someone to sacrifice their child, even if you don't plan to make them go ahead with it.

I understand that he likes to work in mysterious ways, but a simple "Listen lads, human sacrifice is not cool " would have been better.

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The biggest problem I have with religious people is that their god can do no wrong, everything written down in an ancient book no matter how abhorrent or disgusting (like animal sacrifice) is justified in some way.

I think most people on AH ignore the moral and ethical goodness of the Bible instead resorting to distort a minority which they happen to find disagreeable.

I don't believe that God can do wrong because the definition good and evil isn't independent from Him. Ultimately I believe in Christianity because I earnestly believe that if people followed its principles the world would be a much better place for all people. I couldn't say that if I honestly believed that God were evil.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In a book as large and wide ranging as the bible anything can be justified, with the consequence of untold suffering down through the ages and more yet to come.

Yeah, apart from the great deal of good that has actually come from it. I don't deny that people can distort Christianity, but I do deny that Christianity in and of itself is evil because simply put it's tripe.

dvpower wrote: »

I think its pretty abhorrent to order someone to sacrifice their child, even if you don't plan to make them go ahead with it.

I understand that he likes to work in mysterious ways, but a simple "Listen lads, human sacrifice is not cool " would have been better.

You may want to question the morality of Abraham rather than the morality of God then.

Zebra3

Jackobyte wrote: »

I think morality should be taught (Catholic parables are good to that extent)

What catholic parables?

flutterflye

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't think I have, no.

Well this was what he actually said;

If a god you believed in suddenly told you to start killing people or raping under age kids, I'm sure you wouldn't do it, likely for the reason that it's 'bad'.

Note the phrasing, the use of the word 'if'.
There was no mention of a god or religion telling anyone to kill or rape anyone in history.
It was a question about morals.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Which "religious nuts"? In AH, there are always more atheists than there are theists who post in these threads. Surely you could name a few of these nuts and perhaps describe why they don't make any sense?

At least I can decipher the militant atheist's posts.
The religious nuts' posts are jibberish, and they seem to continually misinterpret other points of view.

James G

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't think I have, no.

You have, actually. I was putting forward a hypothetical situation to explain how people would disagree with morality based decisions made by a god despite their belief that their morality is defined by that same god.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/and

Conjunctions rock.

I think you might have made a mistake with your hyperlinking there.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that God can do wrong because the definition good and evil isn't independent from Him. Ultimately I believe in Christianity because I earnestly believe that if people followed its principles the world would be a much better place for all people. I couldn't say that if I honestly believed that God were evil.

This is exactly the problem with religion, "god says it so it must be right".
The problem is everything you "know" about your god has come from the mouths or hands of man.

Yeah, apart from the great deal of good that has actually come from it. I don't deny that people can distort Christianity, but I do deny that Christianity in and of itself is evil because simply put it's tripe.

Just because someone did something good in the name of religion doesn't mean it couldn't have happened without said religion. It has been shown numerous times on this site how altruism is a necessary evolutionary adaptation for our survival as a social species.
Oh, and some nuns doing a few good deeds in the middle of a vicious religious war won't "balance the books".

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

You may want to question the morality of Abraham rather than the morality of God then.

I'd question the morality of both of them. God for ordering the murder and Abraham for going along with it.

Mike 1972

seanbmc wrote: »

That said, I have come accross people who are interested in the subject, so I think that people should be given an option to learn the subject if they wish. .

If someone has an interest in a subject they dont necessairly have to learn about it in school you know.

seanbmc wrote: »

On a primary level the decsion is up to the parents, if you don't want your child taught religion, don't send them to a Catholic school.

Because there are hundreds of non-catholic schools with plenty of spaces available in every part of Ireland :rolleyes:

partyatmygaff

flutterflye wrote: »

Note the phrasing, the use of the word 'if'.
There was no mention of a god or religion telling anyone to kill or rape anyone in history.
It was a question about morals.

I understood what he meant perfectly. I just saw his mention of killing and rape of underage children to be an allusion to the actions of certain members of the Roman Catholic church and what they have done over time and wanted to make it clear that their actions were in no way inspired by God.

At least I can decipher the militant atheist's posts.
The religious nuts' posts are jibberish, and they seem to continually misinterpret other points of view.

Not good enough. Name me a few of these nuts and their crazy posts and perhaps i'll believe you.

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Just because someone did something good in the name of religion doesn't mean it couldn't have happened without said religion. It has been shown numerous times on this site how altruism is a necessary evolutionary adaptation for our survival as a social species.
Oh, and some nuns doing a few good deeds in the middle of a vicious religious war won't "balance the books".

It doesn't, but let's look at what you say about the "evil" book. There was a study done in the UK (PDF 2.1MB) recently amongst evangelicals and this is what was found about the correlation between Bible reading and other behaviour:

The more time an evangelical Christian spends reading the Bible each week, the more active they are in other areas of their faith. They are more likely to volunteer, to give money, to pray frequently and talk about their faith.

The Bible encourages positive behaviour in peoples lives. How could an earnestly evil book do this?

The Guardian in covering this noted:

Recent research by Evangelical Alliance and Christian Research showed that 81% of evangelical Christians do some kind of voluntary work at least once a month. This compares with a much lower figure of 26% for the population at large, obtained in citizenship surveys by the Department for Communities and Local Government, and is consistent with comparable differences identified by researchers in North America.

Why is this? It isn't a modern phenomenon either.

flutterflye

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not good enough. Name me a few of these nuts and their crazy posts and perhaps i'll believe you.

I'm not singling any poster out.
That makes things personal.

I am not referring to one or two posts anyway.
It's the collective trend in this thread, and any similar thread.

There seems to be some sort of communication barrier, as if the religious people are speaking their own language.
And they appear to either have not read, or not understood opposing viewpoints, and reply with irrelevant nonsense.

I find it very hard to grasp most points that are made by these types of posts.

Tehachapi

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't, but let's look at what you say about the "evil" book. There was a study done in the UK (PDF 2.1MB) recently amongst evangelicals and this is what was found about the correlation between Bible reading and other behaviour:

The Bible encourages positive behaviour in peoples lives. How could an earnestly evil book do this?

The Guardian in covering this noted:


Why is this? It isn't a modern phenomenon either.

That is one of the most patronizing posts I've ever read on boards. To even suggest that bible-followers are more likely to be involved in volunteer/charity work is absurd and an insult to those genuinely involved in the voluntary sector for non-religious reasons.

Does this generosity extend to muslims, jews, hindus, etc or just YOUR religion? :rolleyes:

partyatmygaff

flutterflye wrote: »

I'm not singling any poster out.
That makes things personal.

Fine then. Send me a PM.

I am not referring to one or two posts anyway.
It's the collective trend in this thread, and any similar thread.

Excellent, you've a large sample from which you can draw me out a few examples.

There seems to be some sort of communication barrier, as if the religious people are speaking their own language.
And they appear to either have not read, or not understood opposing viewpoints, and reply with irrelevant nonsense.

Oh this is getting interesting. I can't wait for that PM.

partyatmygaff

Tehachapi wrote: »

That is one of the most patronizing posts I've ever read on boards. To even suggest that bible-followers are more likely to be involved in volunteer/charity work is absurd and an insult to those genuinely involved in the voluntary sector for non-religious reasons.

Does this generosity extend to muslims, jews, hindus, etc or just YOUR religion? :rolleyes:

To be quite honest, he wasn't suggesting anything. All he did was say that the Bible encourages benevolent acts of kindness and not evil acts as others erroneously claim. He then linked to a few studies which gives some evidence to what he said.

philologos

Tehachapi wrote: »

That is one of the most patronizing posts I've ever read on boards. To even suggest that bible-followers are more likely to be involved in volunteer/charity work is absurd and an insult to those genuinely involved in the voluntary sector for non-religious reasons.

Does this generosity extend to muslims, jews, hindus, etc or just YOUR religion? :rolleyes:

I don't see how it is patronising to quote the findings of a study and the Guardian commenting on that study. I'm simply saying that the Bible produces behaviour in people that is inherently good and that more evangelical Christians in Britain volunteer than the average.

How could such an evil book produce this? It is a correlation between the amount of time spent reading the Bible and the amount of time contributed.

I've said nothing about other religions.

Edit: Have you managed to answer my question yet? What relation does RE class have to studying IT / natural sciences at university?

sock puppet

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't, but let's look at what you say about the "evil" book. There was a study done in the UK (PDF 2.1MB) recently amongst evangelicals and this is what was found about the correlation between Bible reading and other behaviour:

The Bible encourages positive behaviour in peoples lives. How could an earnestly evil book do this?

Hmm I'd be sceptical about this. It seems to me that a third variable, a member's dedication to their church and religion, is influencing both time spent reading the Bible and time spent doing volunteer work. I doubt it's some magical property of the Bible that makes people want to help others.

pragmatic1

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Bollocks.

I have no problem with people being religious if they choose to but the fact is that most people don't choose religion: they have it forced upon them from a young age by school or parents and are indoctrinated from then. One of the first questions a nurse asks the parents of a newborn is the child's religion. How the fuck would anyone know the child's religion before it can form rational thoughts? The question they're really asking is "What religion will be forced upon this child?" No parent should decide their child's religious beliefs. Sure when I first told my parents I was atheist, they didn't know what to do/say. They were in shock. It was only a couple years after that that they admitted to holding no religious beliefs of their own. Now that is indoctrination.

Yeah the same thing kinda happened to me. Turns out my mass going father doesnt believe in God either. He just goes to keep my mother happy.

philologos

sock puppet wrote: »

Hmm I'd be sceptical about this. It seems to me that a third variable, a member's dedication to their church and religion, is influencing both time spent reading the Bible and time spent doing volunteer work. I doubt it's some magical property of the Bible that makes people want to help others.

Dedication to church wasn't even recorded in that study. Rather it seems that those who read and study the Bible less don't volunteer as much, and those who read it more volunteer more.

sock puppet

sock puppet wrote: »

Hmm I'd be sceptical about this. It seems to me that a third variable, a member's dedication to their church and religion, is influencing both time spent reading the Bible and time spent doing volunteer work. I doubt it's some magical property of the Bible that makes people want to help others.

To follow up on this the fact that the majority of them think homosexual actions are wrong would suggest that theiy only volunteer for certain organisations. It's also possible that many volunteer in organisations that advocate against things like homosexuality, making them the "bad" people.

philologos wrote: »

Dedication to church wasn't even recorded in that study. Rather it seems that those who read and study the Bible less don't volunteer as much, and those who read it more volunteer more.

Um that's why it's called a hidden variable obviously...

seanbmc

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If someone has an interest in a subject they dont necessairly have to learn about it in school you know.

What are you getting at? I said there should be an option there if they want it. And I'm talking about secondary education here, where you can choose to do certain subjects.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Because there are hundreds of non-catholic schools with plenty of spaces available in every part of Ireland :rolleyes:

http://www.educatetogether.ie/

And I'm sure there's more similar to that.

:rolleyes:

Irish Guitarist

Yes. I don't believe atheism should be rammed down childrens throats.

philologos

sock puppet wrote: »

To follow up on this the fact that the majority of them think homosexual actions are wrong would suggest that theiy only volunteer for certain organisations. It's also possible that many volunteer in organisations that advocate against things like homosexuality, making them the "bad" people.

There are a huge amount of Christians volunteering with the homeless, visiting prisoners, working with the elderly and so on.

As for the Christian position of homosexuality you might disagree with it but ultimately Christianity as a whole produces ethical and moral behaviour towards other people in society and this closely correlates with an interest in building a relationship with God and finding out more about Him.

sock puppet wrote: »

Um that's why it's called a hidden variable obviously...

How would that change anything? The choices are clearly made on the substance of belief. Even if it was on dedication to church one could still presume that someone who went to church regularly would have beliefs based on the Bible.

The two variables that were taken in this case were the amount that a person reads the Bible in a week, and the amount that they volunteer in a month. The correlation is there.

My point is that one can hardly say that Christianity encourages evil when you have people who on the basis of their Christian beliefs do a great deal of good.

dvpower

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Yes. I don't believe atheism should be rammed down childrens throats.

School children need religion instruction in order to prevent atheism from being rammed down their throats?

dvpower

seanbmc wrote: »

http://www.educatetogether.ie/

And I'm sure there's more similar to that.

:rolleyes:

ffs, we know that more than 90% of primary schools are catholic - why do you come on here an pretend that their is proper choice available? Nobody at all is going to buy that silliness

I dunno, in my Christianity, the maxim "judge not, lest ye be judged" runs roughshod over whatever a book says about people screwing each other.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" is kinda the central theme there too, so really I believe in people's own abilities. Give the benefit of the doubt, turn the other cheek, do what you can to live a virtuous life, and if it turns out in the end that it was wrong, then I acted in good faith.

Anyways, kids, they need to know about religion, and not as a human curiosity. Anything that tries to form their minds as against religion is just as indoctrinating as any religious education they may get, and is just as objectionable.

Let 'em know the lot, let 'em debate the lot, and let the answer "we don't know" be heard. Because we don't *know* what lies beyond the Big Sleep. There are different things we *believe* (and yes, the beleif that there is no God is a *belief*, no different from the *beleif* that there is one, or that there is many, or that it's the Force holding the universe together.)

Naikon

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Yes. I don't believe atheism should be rammed down childrens throats.

Atheism is the default natural state for a child.

sock puppet

philologos wrote: »

There are a huge amount of Christians volunteering with the homeless, visiting prisoners, working with the elderly and so on.

As for the Christian position of homosexuality you might disagree with it but ultimately Christianity as a whole produces ethical and moral behaviour towards other people in society and this closely correlates with an interest in building a relationship with God and finding out more about Him.

Society at large disagrees with the Christian position. And I know that they devote their time to worthwhile causes. I was making the point that not all voluntary work is "good".

How would that change anything? The choices are clearly made on the substance of belief. Even if it was on dedication to church one could still presume that someone who went to church regularly would have beliefs based on the Bible.

The two variables that were taken in this case were the amount that a person reads the Bible in a week, and the amount that they volunteer in a month. The correlation is there.

That's total crap. Voluntary work is, as far as I know, a pretty big part of Evangelism. Another big part is obviously reading the Bible. So the way I read it is that a committed evangelical would spend more time doing both of these things. You might think it semantics but I don't think the correlation between Bible reading and charity work implies causation as you seem to do. ie if everyone in the country were to start reading the Bible for an hour a day while keeping other aspects of their daily routine the same I doubt we'd see a huge spike in people doing volunteer work.

flutterflye

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I can't wait for that PM.

Do you actually think I'm going to send you a pm so we can have a private discussion about other posters?

Well, I'm not.

If you have not understood my post or have been oblivious to the type of posts that I have referred to, then let's just agree to disagree.

seanbmc

dvpower wrote: »

ffs, we know that more than 90% of primary schools are catholic - why do you come on here an pretend that their is proper choice available? Nobody at all is going to buy that silliness

The option is clearly there, just saying that it was. Nothing silly about it.

Belle E. Flops

I'm a teacher myself and I don't think religion should be taught in school, especially now that there are so many different religions in a classroom. I think it should be up to the parents to teach their children about whatever religion they are. Religion as a subject doesn't have a place in schools today in my opinion.

I wouldn't mind teaching a bit about a few different religions if it tied in with something we were doing in Geog/His, but to be expected to spend 2 and half hours teaching about the Catholic religion is pointless.

philologos

sock puppet wrote: »

Society at large disagrees with the Christian position. And I know that they devote their time to worthwhile causes. I was making the point that not all voluntary work is "good".

Which society disagrees at large with the Christian position which is summed up "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbour as yourself"?

sock puppet wrote: »

That's total crap. Voluntary work is, as far as I know, a pretty big part of Evangelism. Another big part is obviously reading the Bible. So the way I read it is that a committed evangelical would spend more time doing both of these things. You might think it semantics but I don't think the correlation between Bible reading and charity work implies causation as you seem to do. ie if everyone in the country were to start reading the Bible for an hour a day while keeping other aspects of their daily routine the same I doubt we'd see a huge spike in people doing volunteer work.

How are the findings "crap". Voluntary work doesn't just mean evangelism by any means. The Salvation Army for example do a huge amount of charitable work and it was founded on an evangelical Christian basis. In the RCC side of it St. Vincent de Paul was set up with a Roman Catholic foundation. Christians contributed to a huge amount of reform both in terms of prison conditions in Britain and also in terms of work conditions in Britain during the industrial revolution. To claim that Christianity doesn't motivate a general ethical character is simply put mistaken on so many counts.

If everyone read the Bible regularly and truly believed in what it said, and acted upon it I honestly believe the world would be a much better place. I think people could do with taking out the Bible and re-examining what it has to say to mankind rather than making an argument against a strawman caricature version of Christianity.

flutterflye

Does anyone know when the results of the census 2011 will be published?
I could only find preliminary results for population and gender.

I can't wait to see the most recent religious results.
It will give a better indication as to exactly how badly the whole issue of religion in schools is in need of revamping.

Belle E. Flops

Belle E. Flops wrote: »

I'm a teacher myself and I don't think religion should be taught in school, especially now that there are so many different religions in a classroom. I think it should be up to the parents to teach their children about whatever religion they are. Religion as a subject doesn't have a place in schools today in my opinion.

I wouldn't mind teaching a bit about a few different religions if it tied in with something we were doing in Geog/His, but to be expected to spend 2 and half hours teaching about the Catholic religion is pointless.

Sommmmme one wants to shirk off from worrrrk.

Tough shenanigans teach, the little brats gotta know, so you gotta go through the book of religions! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: besides, seriously, you really think parents are going to sit down with their kids and go through what they believe themselves? Kids need moral education of some sort, and if you shirk it to the parents there's going to be a sizable population who don't /can't give a f*ck, so the kids will pick it up from whatever they can find. You're going to have to go through hours and hours of morals one way or the other. Does it have to be Catholic? Heck no. But I do think parents need to be given the option of doing the traditional stuff during school time if they want it. I know I'll probably be looking for that for my kids (when I have them, and hopefully by then Emporor Pope-eltine pops his clogs and we get a more liberal Papa {Good God I beg you}).

sock puppet

philologos wrote: »

Which society disagrees at large with the Christian position which is summed up "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbour as yourself"?

Lol. Stop acting like a retard you clearly know what I meant. The Christian position on homosexuality is, by any measurement, wrong.

Voluntary work doesn't just mean evangelism by any means. The Salvation Army for example do a huge amount of charitable work and it was founded on an evangelical Christian basis. In the RCC side of it St. Vincent de Paul was set up with a Roman Catholic foundation. Christians contributed to a huge amount of reform both in terms of prison conditions in Britain and also in terms of work conditions in Britain during the industrial revolution. To claim that Christianity doesn't motivate a general ethical character is simply put mistaken on so many counts.

I don't dispute this. It isn't really relevant to what I posted though.

Belle E. Flops

Deleted User wrote: »

Sommmmme one wants to shirk off from worrrrk.

Tough shenanigans teach, the little brats gaoot know, so you gotta go through the book fo religions! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

Learn to spell and someone might take you seriously

partyatmygaff

flutterflye wrote: »

Do you actually think I'm going to send you a pm so we can have a private discussion about other posters?

Oh heavens no. I was more expecting a few examples of gibberish posts written by theists on AH. If you don't want to include names that's fine. I never mentioned discussing anything.

Well, I'm not.

Then i'm afraid i'll have to relegate your views on the differences between posts written by Theists and Atheists to the realm of unsubstantiated rubbish.

If you have not understood my post

On the contrary, I understood it and then some. You simply claimed that you have difficulty understanding posts written by theists as they're "jibberish"(sic) and appear to talk in a "different language" but have no such issues with deciphering the posts of militant atheists.

the post You said or have been oblivious to the type of posts that I have referred to

Perhaps I am oblivious to the type of posts of which you speak. Why not educate me on them? It'd be an awful shame if you didn't.


If you'd rather back down and retract your statement then that's fine too.

philologos

sock puppet wrote: »

Lol. Stop acting like a retard you clearly know what I meant. The Christian position on homosexuality is, by any measurement, wrong.

In your opinion. Christians claim that the place of sexuality is in a marriage and that's the principle I'd strive for as well. It isn't always easy but a marriage provides stability that isn't found elsewhere by and large and I can see good reason as to why that's the case as a general norm. It also provides a basis for the family unit, mother, father, children.

sock puppet wrote: »

I don't dispute this. It isn't really relevant to what I posted though.

It's hugely relevant to the thread. Christianity urged them to do the right thing in their societies.

flutterflye

Naikon wrote: »

Atheism is the default natural state for a child.

While this is true, I think Irish Guitarist has a point.
I think it is important for children to be made aware of an array of different world views to broaden their minds, choose for themselves, and just generally learn tolerance for others.

(How do you put a quote in a quote?)

KeithM89_old

Belle E. Flops wrote: »

Learn to spell and someone might take you seriously

Enough of the grammar Nazis. In case people have forgotten, its against the charter.

flutterflye

flutterflye wrote: »

I think it is important for children to be made aware of an array of different world views to broaden their minds, choose for themselves, and just generally learn tolerance for others.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. But if parents want to raise their kids a certain way, give them the option. I personally want an excuse to dress up my kids, bring over my male and female best freinds (honoured with "godparent" status) & get the family together when they're 7 and 12.

Religions: Any excuse for a party is a good excuse for a party.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

In your opinion.

Well spotted.

Christians claim that the place of sexuality is in a marriage and that's the principle I'd strive for as well.

Marriage is just a little ceremony people do. It does not imbue the married with some special property they might not have otherwise had.

It isn't always easy but a marriage provides stability that isn't found elsewhere by and large and I can see good reason as to why that's the case as a general norm.

How the hell can a little ceremony provide stability? Such nonsense. It's the people who decide to be together who provide 'stability'. Unless you think that marriage somehow puts the magic of a god into the couple...

It also provides a basis for the family unit, mother, father, children.

No. I think you'll find that copulating is the basis for having a family.

It's hugely relevant to the thread. Christianity urged them to do the right thing in their societies.

Na. You know why.

CelticSoul

It was never taught when I was in school. Oh sure, I had to learn the Cathecism off by heart. In fact in the Christian Brothers school that I attended, it was beaten into me, with a leather strap. In later years, I have discovered real Christianity. I have found a deep and personal faith in Jesus that provides me with a blueprint for living that works for me. I will gladly share this with anyone who wants to listen, including my teenage children, but I will not force my beliefs on anyone. So, do I think it should be taught in schools? well, as a way of life, I think the basics should be taught by someone who (1) believes in what they teach, and (2) can demonstrate through their own personal experience, that it is a concept worth following. After that it is up to the individual who wants to pursue this way of life, to find his or her way to a Christian Church or group of believers who will help and encourage them along the way.

sock puppet

philologos wrote: »

In your opinion. Christians claim that the place of sexuality is in a marriage and that's the principle I'd strive for as well. It isn't always easy but a marriage provides stability that isn't found elsewhere by and large and I can see good reason as to why that's the case as a general norm. It also provides a basis for the family unit, mother, father, children.

No it is not just my opinion. It's the position of society at large (bar some obvious exceptions like Iran) that homosexual acts are indeed acceptable. Same sex unions are also becoming increasingly accepted. So that really leaves two conclusions. Either the Christian position on this is out of date or else we are all wrong which can of course happen. I've yet to see any evidence of the latter though.

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

Religions: Any excuse for a party is a good excuse for a party.

It's only saving grace imo.

Sure tis the best thing about a wedding, funeral and baptisim.