Mary says YES!

Fleawuss

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you want a little religious fiefdom with no state oversight then fire away but don't take any state funding and don't call it a school.

The state has a duty to ensure that schools, publicly funded or private, meet the required standards of curriculum and child protection.

The problem I have with this text is not that it seems creepy to an adult eye, or that an adult can read rather a lot of subtext into it.

My problem with it is that it undermines the Stay Safe message taught in schools.




Did I know it to be false at age six - no.
Did I think there was something rather funny-peculiar about it - yes.
Did I have any enthusiasm for it - no.
Would I have avoided it if offered a choice - probably.
Do I think that young children should be protected from indoctrination at school - absolutely.

Undermining the stay safe programme. Nail on the head. Mixed messages from opposed visions of women and authority. Crucially the problem is revealed here to be fundamental; the RCC is rooted in cultural norms from 3000 to 2000 years ago. Angels telling virgins that god the spirit wants to make them pregnant with God the son is a story for the credulous. It has nothing of value to say today.

La Fenetre

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a subject on the Irish primary school curriculum?
Wanna read the question again...

I learned that a national school many many years ago, including a bit of astronomy too I might add. Great days.

Fleawuss

frostyjacks wrote: »

The stranger danger argument would only work if it was a stranger that appeared to Mary. It wasn't; it was God. Even a six year old would point that out. They're not as stupid as people here seem to think.

How on earth would Mary the Jewish virgin recognize God? Had she met him before? Given that Jews weren't supposed to even pronounce the name of Yahweh how would she recognize him? With the eyes of faith of course.

Such is the logic of the religious mindset.

Anyway it was an aggelos she met. Not God. He came along later.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As a matter of interest, could you list the other subjects that are not taught as facts? You know, maybe English and Maths are taught as things that may or may not exist, but sure, learn them anyway and see what happens?

Are languages taught as facts now? Perhaps the idea that it is, is why good communication skills appear to be a difficult concept for many adults. I know many children who are multilingual, I can't say the same for many Irish adults who struggle with their own native tongue.

Math does not exist, it is also a conceptual and cognitive process, and children are expected to be able to come up with answers for themselves using arithmetic and logic.

There are numerous subjects are not taught as fact in Irish schools. The most apparent subject that is taught as fact is history which, ironically enough, has always tended towards only giving one side of the story. Quite apt really that you should ask with the 1916 Rising currently a hot topic being discussed in Irish schools up and down the country. Depending upon whom you ask, the leaders of the Rising were either martyrs, or terrorists.

I really think in the greater scheme of Irish education, especially now that Irish schools are becoming more and more multicultural, there are bigger issues than the text of a story and trying to impart that story to children of parents who identify as Roman Catholic, but whose first language is not English.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a subject on the Irish primary school curriculum?
Wanna read the question again...

Yes Dan, science is a subject on the Irish primary school curriculum -


http://www.curriculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum-Areas/Social-Environmental-and-Scientific-Education/Science


It has been for the last 16 years, since 1999.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes Dan, science is a subject on the Irish primary school curriculum -


http://www.curriculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum-Areas/Social-Environmental-and-Scientific-Education/Science


It has been for the last 16 years, since 1999.

Click... looking for some mention of likelihood of alien life... nope... didn't think so Jack.
Wanna try again?

Fleawuss

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Click... looking for some mention of likelihood of alien life... nope... didn't think so Jack.
Wanna try again?

Of course the child the Virgin Mary had could be classed as half alien. I wonder could we test some communion bread for alien dna? That would be a real story!

La Fenetre

Technically, anything not of this earth is extra terrestrial, so yes the Angels and God already are.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Click... looking for some mention of likelihood of alien life... nope... didn't think so Jack.
Wanna try again?

Not particularly, seeing as you appear to be unable to process any information that isn't literal.

I do wonder though, you're prepared to accept anecdotal evidence that suits you, such as anecdotes that suit your belief that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish primary schools, and yet, when presented with anecdotal evidence which contradicts your beliefs about what is taught in other subjects that you don't seem to have been aware were even on the curriculum, you reject that evidence out of hand because it doesn't suit you -

La Fenetre wrote: »

I learned that a national school many many years ago, including a bit of astronomy too I might add. Great days.

Dan you've often mocked people who identify as religious for their apparently experiencing cognitive dissonance. You appear to be oblivious to your own cognitive dissonance in this instance. I guess like so many people who are oblivious to so much - what you don't see, doesn't appear to trouble you.

You've also often mocked people who identify as religious for being of apparently lesser intelligence than those people who do not identify as religious. If being comfortable with ignoring evidence you appear to be wilfully blind to (in order to resolve the discomfort of cognitive dissonance), is a sign of higher intelligence, I think we're going to have to come up with new standards by which we quantify and measure intelligence.

You appear to have rendered the current standards meaningless.

Fleawuss

La Fenetre wrote: »

Technically, anything not of this earth is extra terrestrial, so yes the Angels and God already are.

Bring along one for testing then.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not particularly, seeing as you appear to be unable to process any information that isn't literal.

I do wonder though, you're prepared to accept anecdotal evidence that suits you, such as anecdotes that suit your belief that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish primary schools, and yet, when presented with anecdotal evidence which contradicts your beliefs about what is taught in other subjects that you don't seem to have been aware were even on the curriculum, you reject that evidence out of hand because it doesn't suit you -





You've often mocked people who identify as religious for their apparently experiencing cognitive dissonance. You appear to be oblivious to your own cognitive dissonance in this instance. I guess like so many people who are oblivious to so much - what you don't see, doesn't appear to trouble you.

You've also often mocked people who identify as religious for being of apparently lesser intelligence than those people who do not identify as religious. If being comfortable with ignoring evidence you appear to be wilfully blind to (in order to resolve the discomfort of cognitive dissonance), is a sign of higher intelligence, I think we're going to have to come up with new standards by which we quantify and measure intelligence.

You appear to have rendered the current standards meaningless.

This is laughably transparent linguistic sleight of hand: fact here, truth over there and ta da you claim I'm contradicting myself somehow.
Utter tripe.
I'm sorry you're so upset you couldn't answer the question. And quite a lack of self awareness issue there with your whining about "standards". Everything is truth now. Apparently facts don't exist at all! How entertaining! Pity it's garbage.

La Fenetre

Fleawuss wrote: »

Bring along one for testing then.

There is no evidence for alien life as of yet, that doesn't mean there is none.

Out of interest, what scientific test would you carry out to prove an angel or God were not just very advanced powerful aliens ?

Fleawuss

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is laughably transparent linguistic sleight of hand: fact here, truth over there and ta da

For people trained in theology or philosophy of religion or apologetics like many older clerics this is an occupational hazard. Religion cannot do other than pull tricks like this. Impressive to the credulous but once people ask "what are they actually talking about in reality" the smoke clears and well, there's nothing there. Cue post about "reality" i.e. The philosophical contortions about the word. Ta da dum.

Fleawuss

La Fenetre wrote: »

There is no evidence for alien life as of yet, that doesn't mean there is none.

Out of interest, what scientific test would you carry out to prove an angel or God were not just very advanced powerful aliens ?

Bring along an angel or God and we'll make a start.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

There is no evidence for alien life as of yet, that doesn't mean there is none.

Out of interest, what scientific test would you carry out to prove an angel or God were not just very advanced powerful aliens ?

That's something along the lines of the Scientology theory isn't it? Which, with hilarious irony, many Christians consider to be a crazy cult.

La Fenetre

Fleawuss wrote: »

Bring along an angel or God and we'll make a start.

No idea then, I see.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

That's something along the lines of the Scientology theory isn't it? Which, with hilarious irony, many Christians consider to be a crazy cult.

Nothing to do with Scientology. Scripture says God is an infinite spirit. There may be billions of types of extraterrestrial life, who knows, physical, non physical/spiritual but only one infinite God.

Fleawuss

La Fenetre wrote: »

No idea then, I see.

You haven't got one then. Just pretending. Surprise.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

Nothing to do with Scientology. Scripture says God is an infinite spirit. There may be billions of types of extraterrestrial life, who knows, physical, non physical/spiritual but only one infinite God.

There may well be billions of extra terrestrial species! There also may be some sort of a higher power (god if you like). But there is no proof of the existence of one is there? And even in the extremely unlikely event that there was some higher power discovered and it's existence proven, the chances of it being the same god that is worshiped by any of the worlds organised religions, are less than zero!

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There may well be billions of extra terrestrial species! There also may be some sort of a higher power (god if you like). But there is no proof of the existence of one is there? And even if there was some higher power, the chances of it being the god that is worshiped by any of the worlds organised religions are zero!

You are correct, there is not one cintillea of evidence of alien life . . . yet, but that does not mean it exists, or does not exist. Some have the belief it does, and NASA alone spends billions on finding even a microbe to start with. I wouldn't say it's zero, if Christ was telling the truth. Time will tell I suppose. In the meantime, let's stay chilled and enjoy the universe !

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is laughably transparent linguistic sleight of hand: fact here, truth over there and ta da you claim I'm contradicting myself somehow.
Utter tripe.
I'm sorry you're so upset you couldn't answer the question. And quite a lack of self awareness issue there with your whining about "standards". Everything is truth now. Apparently facts don't exist at all! How entertaining! Pity it's garbage.

Just like there doesn't appear to exist any evidence to support your claims that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish schools... and yet you believe this to be a fact?

I'm not at all upset that I couldn't answer the question. I answered the question, but I'm disappointed that due to your apparent incapacity to understand and interpret non-literal concepts, you appear to be struggling with my answer and instead of addressing it, dismiss it and attempt to cover over your dismissal with a critique of the language I use.

I'm given to thinking you may also have struggled to grasp the rudimentary concepts of the english language then too as you don't appear to be able to conceptualize much beyond the literal meaning of words.

Context it appears, is lost on you. At least Dan you can take comfort from the fact that you are not alone in that regard, your misunderstanding is shared by many strangers on the Internet that you can trust, who make claims about trusting strangers coming in the night from a story that implies no such thing.

Fleawuss

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There may well be billions of extra terrestrial species! There also may be some sort of a higher power (god if you like). But there is no proof of the existence of one is there? And even in the extremely unlikely event that there was some higher power discovered and it's existence proven, the chances of it being the same god that is worshiped by any of the worlds organised religions, are less than zero!

If Capt Kirk was right the Prime Directive is the way to go.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

You are correct, there is not one cintillea of evidence of alien life . . . yet, but that does not mean it exists, or does not exist. Some have the belief it does, and NASA alone spends billions on finding even a microbe to start with. I wouldn't say it's zero, if Christ was telling the truth. Time will tell I suppose.

So you agree that it's a bit silly to worship something that can't be proven to exist? I mean I would look a bit silly if I spent a lot of time worshipping aliens that I can't prove the existence of, and trying to placate them by engaging in strange rituals so they don't punish me would I not?

La Fenetre

Fleawuss wrote: »

If Capt Kirk was right the Prime Directive is the way to go.

No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space or the fact that there are other worlds or civilizations.

Not if the borg get you first . . .

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So you agree that it's a bit silly to worship something that can't be proven to exist? I mean I would look a bit silly if I spent a lot of time worshipping aliens that I can't prove the existence of, and trying to placate them by engaging in strange rituals so they don't punish me would I not?

I don't know, NASA spends billions on something that can't be proven to exist either, and people seem pretty picky about only one extra terrestrial spirit being the infinite source of everything. Little green men, if they exist or not, don't get much of a look in.

Fleawuss

La Fenetre wrote: »

No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space or the fact that there are other worlds or civilizations.

Not if the borg get you first . . .

That's accomplished pretending.

La Fenetre

Fleawuss wrote: »

That's accomplished pretending.

It's life Jim, but not as you know it. We come in peace ! (shoot to kill)

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

I don't know, NASA spends billions on something that can't be proven to exist either, and people seem pretty picky about only one extra terrestrial spirit being the infinite source of everything. Little green men, if they exist or not, don't get much of a look in.

I think in this instance NASA and spending the money on discovering and exploring in order to increase our knowledge. This is a totally different concept to blindly accepting something that cannot be proven to exist.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think in this instance NASA and spending the money on discovering and exploring in order to increase our knowledge. This is a totally different concept to blindly accepting something that cannot be proven to exist.

Indeed, and they've a rightly a huge focus on trying to find even a microbe of evidence.
I think evidence can prove something either way, but until then it'll just have to be a belief / non belief.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not at all upset that I couldn't answer the question. I answered the question, but I'm disappointed that due to your apparent incapacity to understand and interpret non-literal concepts, you appear to be struggling with my answer and instead of addressing it, dismiss it and attempt to cover over your dismissal with a critique of the language I use.

Listen, you got caught red handed using bolloxology, I feel kinda sorry for you at this stage. Truth for this, fact for that, utter tripe "one is more this than the other" definition. Everybody saw straight through it from the start. It's lame word juggling.
Now your latest wheeze is "non-literal concepts". Well that makes you sound clever doesn't it? You're claiming truth is non-literal now? You are, aren't you?