Bible folk tales carry too much weight [Archive]

Autumnman

13th November 2009, 06:07 PM

Realise that most of them are stolen from even earlier cultures and not worry about it.

Seriously, folktales (and their related themes) of many, many sources deeply underlay almost every element of history and literature of most cultures. To worry about only the Biblical ones is Genetic Fallacy. To worry about it in general is to rail against human nature and the way we evolved to think.

Besides, the folktales (and all fiction) while superficially "not true", often do say factual things about who we are and how we behave.

Piscivore: I agree with almost everything you say above. The biblical "folktales" and the considerable cultural influence they continue to wield is cause for some concern. These biblical “folktales” have inspired religious doctrines and dogmas that continue to have profound cultural repercussions; such as, women’s rights, abortion rights, gay rights, stem cell research, the planning and the execution of our wars, and so on. Although the “folktales” themselves, unto themselves, may be perceived as benign; the religious doctrines and dogmas have long reaching, and often-catastrophic consequences. But one must be cognitive of the fact that these ancient biblical “folktales” are at the very foundation of the divisive and destructive religious frame of mind.

Autumnman

My religious professor said they don't have to be taken literally, learn from its message and move on. :)

aviolet4u: I also agree with your religious professor. But I suspect that these biblical “folktales” need to somehow be put in their proper perspective. Furthermore, I sense that these biblical “folktales” need to be examined closely to insure that the translations of them are in fact as accurate as they should be.

Autumnman

Tricky

14th November 2009, 03:23 AM

My religious professor said they don't have to be taken literally, learn from its message and move on. :)
Interestingly, that is what most educated people say, including religiously educated people. It is only ignorant people and religious huxters who say otherwise.

Hux

14th November 2009, 04:57 AM

As long as they maintain religious education in schools, some gullible little heads are going to think it is an alternative, legitimate, reality.

Autumnman

14th November 2009, 05:21 AM

As long as they maintain religious education in schools, some gullible little heads are going to think it is an alternative, legitimate, reality.

Hux: I agree with you, there should not be any religious doctrine or dogma taught in schools. Teaching young people to suspend their disbelief and abandon their mental faculty of reason should be strictly prohibited.
Anthropological studies that include the study of religion(s) is something all together different. The study of ancient languages and ancient narratives is also all together different. Perhaps an emphasis on such anthropological, linguistic, and literary studies and research would be a way of lessening the weight and influence of these biblical folktales and the religious doctrines and dogmas they have engendered?

Autumnman

Fiona

14th November 2009, 05:27 AM

Hux

14th November 2009, 05:52 AM

I am not sure the evidence supports this point of view. Religion is taught in schools in the UK yet we are far more secular than the USA so far as I can tell. It sounds plausible to say that teaching it in schools will lead to wider belief: but then you would think teaching French would lead to folk being able to speak french as well. Some things just are counter intuitive :)

That is true. religion is taught in our schools and we also have a state religion. Yet we remain one of the most secular countries in Europe. But the fact that we have religious lessons (part of the statute?) is ridiculous. Lets face it; its never about religion, its about the Church of England, Judaism in Jewish Schools and Catholicism in Catholic schools. Its never a world view and hardly likely to lead to wider belief.

Religious education used to be the passport to another useless (but numerically helpful) G.C.E (as it then was). Do they teach multiculturalism? I doubt it. For my part, I don't remember my teacher, at the start of every R.E. lesson stating "This is crap mind you. Its about as real as Zeus or Shiva but the law says I have to teach this". Nope it was all 'Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild' and no mention of Hell. In the days when kids could opt out of it, they did so like crap through a goose.

These are folk tales. Folk tales for an ignorant and often savage folk that needed, apparently, someone to write down, 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Education in this nonsense should not be compulsory. Let kids decide if they wish to waste their time on it or not. You will soon find the classrooms as empty as the churches here.

Fiona

14th November 2009, 06:02 AM

Ethnikos

14th November 2009, 06:04 AM

But the fact that we have religious lessons (part of the statute?) is ridiculous. Lets face it; its never about religion, its about the Church of England,. . .People need to be indoctrinated to understand that they are right, and God destroys those who are wrong, in order to have recruits to fight in the war.

Fiona

14th November 2009, 06:10 AM

Doesn't take, Ethnikos: that is the point. It acts more like a vaccine, if anything :)

Hux

14th November 2009, 06:19 AM

Sure. I can see no point in making it compulsory and was irritated when they did that: Blair was less than open about his agenda IMO.

But it doesn't bother me: I cannot see it does any harm because I cannot see it does anything at all except waste some time.

That might just be the biggest waste of all. As for it being a vaccine; I hadn't thought of it like that and you may well have a point there. However, I seem to have spent much of my adult life pondering how i became vaccinated and others never the less, succumbed to the disease!

Fiona

14th November 2009, 06:23 AM

I think family matters probably: and the views of the wider community to a lesser extent. If it worked I would be worried about religion in education: but most people here don't even oppose it much. It is not important enough.

Hux

14th November 2009, 06:30 AM

I live not far from Gateshead College that took on a 'creationist' as Head of Frikkin' science! Funded by Reg vardy (a fundamentalist but hes from Sunderland and therefore excused sanity) there is, I beleive a strong religious view and heavy lessons. He was ablt to stipulate this in his Gift. Blair and his cronies approved this.

The science bod(whos name escapes me now) is unapologetic in his views. This is a college for older kids. I think that matters. I cannot find any figures to support whether the kids there ignore it or not - but I think it should not be allowed and certainly the Science department needs a complete overhaul.

quarky

14th November 2009, 06:37 AM

Slightly off-topic, but I heard an interesting take on the virgin birth recently:

Roman soldiers evidently did some raping of young Jewish women. When they got pregnant, the virgin birth notion enabled some of them to not be ostracised.
According to this angle (sorry, I don't know where it came from) there were hundreds of Jesuses.

Hux

14th November 2009, 06:44 AM

Its got to be better than Parthenogenesis. But they wouldn't suggest that in a C of E class and certainly not in a Catholic school.

I do not recall them telling me about the numerous Gods that were born of Virgins, in school. It was as if the birth of Jesus was in some way special. Didn't people believe in Zeus for longer than Christianity? Didn't that count for something? Nope. it wasn't religious education; it was indoctrination. Madrassars with school ties on.

Ethnikos

14th November 2009, 07:14 AM

Doesn't take, Ethnikos: that is the point. It acts more like a vaccine, if anything :)

Maybe for being a practicing, church going, Christian, but the practice that is important to the "war mongering elite" is putting on a uniform and picking up a gun, all blessed by the clergy, as a patriotic duty, to God and Country.

in your case: throw in the Queen, too, as head of the Church.

jadey

14th November 2009, 07:26 AM

jadey

14th November 2009, 07:35 AM

Fiona

14th November 2009, 07:39 AM

I find this position to be baffling. How do they teach it in the UK? Can they teach us that in the US?

Do they teach it in a manner that suggests that it is folklore? That is the only way I can see the teachings being benign.

No they do not teach it as folklore: they teach it as religion. It makes little or no impact on the majority as religion

Fiona

14th November 2009, 07:41 AM

Maybe for being a practicing, church going, Christian, but the practice that is important to the "war mongering elite" is putting on a uniform and picking up a gun, all blessed by the clergy, as a patriotic duty, to God and Country.

in your case: throw in the Queen, too, as head of the Church.

Once again I have no idea at all what you are talking about Ethinikos. Can you join up the dots?

Hokulele

14th November 2009, 07:43 AM

Teaching young people to suspend their disbelief and abandon their mental faculty of reason should be strictly prohibited.

I don't know if I would go that far. I believe that fiction and fantasy do have their place in education and personal growth. Much the way Fiona described it as being a vaccination, I would suggest that teaching students how and when the suspension of disbelief can be helpful and when it can be incredibly harmful would be an extremely important and useful lesson for younger people.

Ethnikos

14th November 2009, 08:33 AM

Once again I have no idea at all what you are talking about Ethinikos. Can you join up the dots?

War making counties vier off from actual teaching in schools in favor of indoctrination. Like when I was in the seventh grade I was taught by my homeroom/geography teacher that communism was bad and the war was good. When I graduated high school, I was prepared to enlist in the military and ended up on a bombing campaign in Viet Nam.
My point is that aggressive warfare can be given support, in the country carrying it out, by religious beliefs, like, communism is a false religion and is therefore hated by God, and as good followers of God, we are permitted to carry out acts of violence against otherwise innocent people. So religion plays an important part of education, especially by a country which is basically operated from Israel, with again, otherwise innocent enemies (who oppose whatever god Israel happens to believe in), being permitted to be killed.
In the case of the "war mongering elite" of that country, it would be the destroyer god, otherwise identical to Satan. Worshiping the sword wielding hand of the angel of God is in fact idolatry, though they pretend to worship the "true" God. The normal religious person probably sees beyond the religious propaganda aspect of their personal belief system, and do worship God, but they are subjected to delusion by the dark side.
So, not much chance of a serious concerted effort by any secular institution, governmental or other wise, to destroy the popular folklore derived from the Bible and other holy books happening soon.

Autumnman

14th November 2009, 08:36 AM

I don't know if I would go that far. I believe that fiction and fantasy do have their place in education and personal growth. Much the way Fiona described it as being a vaccination, I would suggest that teaching students how and when the suspension of disbelief can be helpful and when it can be incredibly harmful would be an extremely important and useful lesson for younger people.

I agree with you.
However, you took my words out of context. Once someone has religiously suspended their disbelief their ability to distinguish between - fantasy, myth, fiction, & falsehood - and - fact, nature, truth, & reality - becomes severely impaired. In an older Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary the term “reason” is defined:
reason: The highest faculty of the human mind, by which man is distinguished from brutes ... a faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood and good from evil
Religion has the propensity to tout fiction and falsehood as fact and truth. This is a historically dangerous mode of behavior. For example: Jesus Christ is not a historical figure, he is a biblical figure, but regardless of this fact, many millions of modern people regard this mythical individual as being not only a historical figure, but as a real living spirit in the flesh in heaven who will return to planet earth on judgment day. It is important to note that some of the millions of modern people today hold positions of great authority and can take their nations to war with other peoples and nations, can manipulate the world’s fragile economic systems, and can make laws that will govern believers and non-believers alike.
What I stated above should be at very least a cause for concern.
Autumnman

Hokulele

14th November 2009, 08:44 AM

HansMustermann

14th November 2009, 08:45 AM

To be honest, I'd still object to teaching half of the Bible even as folklore. Not even because it's inseparable from religion, but because most of them have bad or counter-productive lessons and are just not the kind of thing I'd want children to take as an example.

E.g., Lot's story is the story where a guy is rewarded for offering his daughters to be gang-raped, plus it propagates the homophobic idea that gays left unchecked are some kind of public menace who'll try to screw everyone in sight up the rear end. You know, it's not just people who happen to be that way and stick to their homosexual partner, but outright as soon as two strangers show up in town, they form a posse to try to rape them. Not to mention the idea of a whole city (in fact more than one city) turning completely homosexual unless God steps in to stop that kind of thing. As if it were contagious or something.

It seems to me like a page taken from the southern homophobic BS, or more likely the other way around.

So, no, that's not a story I'd teach in school. Unless it's in a lesson about how many ways it's wrong and stupid. (And good luck getting that taught.)

E.g., Job's story is bad and counter-productive in several ways. And I'm not even talking about the usually discussed topic, namely that God would ruin someone's life just on a frat-boy bet. (Or the divine equivalent thereof.) Or the number of innocent servants "put to the sword" just to test Job, although they themselves had nothing to do with it.

I'm talking about the people involved. What does the book of Job teach about how one should act?

Job essentially does nothing to improve his fate or to avert or mitigate the problems he had. His only merit is maintaining a steady faith in an invisible sky-daddy and patiently waiting for it all to be over. E.g., when the message comes that the house has collapsed upon his own effing children, what does he do? Run to try to save any survivors in the ruin, maybe? Nah, praise God. Or, ok, so now he's been struck with poverty and disease, how does he rebound? Does he perchance work hard, invest, etc? Does he rely on his friends and good reputation to get back on his feet? Nah, he mopes around a bit going "oh, I wish I was never born", but maintains his faith in invisibly sky-daddy, and voila everything is given back to him. In fact, twice as much as he had before.

I'm sorry, but by now there are _much_ better stories and urban legends about dealing with adversity, or rebounding back after horrible misfortune. And of all lessons I might ever want to preach to someone about dealing with a bad hand, moping around and waiting for God to make it right is _not_ one of them.

And the guys that taunted Job while he was down? Well, they get to sacrifice to God and all is well and forgiven. Not much of a warning against doing like them, if anyone asks me.

And while I'm at it, the recurring theme of, "how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" rubs me the wrong way too.

So, yes, it's again not the kind of moralizing story I'd want to see taught. I don't care if it's religion or not, it's just an awfully bad lesson. We can do better than that in the meantime.

Autumnman

14th November 2009, 08:58 AM

I understand your point, Autumnman, but I am saying that encouraging examination of these sorts of ideas, rather than prohibiting them outright, will do more to foster critical thinking. This may be why people in the UK are overall less religious than those in the US.

Hokulele: We are in complete accord. I am all for encouraging the examination of these sorts of ideas. However, prohibiting religious doctrine and dogma from being taught in schools is quite different than schools teaching Comparative Religion. Teaching young minds that “Jesus is a historical entity as well as the God of Judgment Day” would be a very disruptive and dangerous curriculum.
Do you not agree?
Autumnman

Hokulele

14th November 2009, 09:08 AM

Hokulele: We are in complete accord. I am all for encouraging the examination of these sorts of ideas. However, prohibiting religious doctrine and dogma from being taught in schools is quite different than schools teaching Comparative Religion. Teaching young minds that “Jesus is a historical entity as well as the God of Judgment Day” would be a very disruptive and dangerous curriculum.
Do you not agree?
Autumnman

I disagree. As has been mentioned several times, the UK does teach a religious curriculum. I attended an Episcopal high school in the US, and it taught a religious curriculum (I am currently an atheist). I believe that many people think that children are somehow these blank slates where they unquestioningly accept everything they are told.

I do agree that I would prefer that Christianity be taught as a part of a comparative religion class, rather than be taught as the Only True ReligionTM, but I do not think it would cause the kind of damage some people seem to believe it would. As a qualification, I do think it might depend on which age group is involved in such a class, but that is just personal opinion, I do not have any hard data to back it up.

Now, religion taught as a replacement for things such as biology, physics, or social studies (politics), that I would definitely have a problem with.

I Ratant

14th November 2009, 09:47 AM

That might just be the biggest waste of all. As for it being a vaccine; I hadn't thought of it like that and you may well have a point there. However, I seem to have spent much of my adult life pondering how i became vaccinated and others never the less, succumbed to the disease!
.
Puzzles me too, unless you consider the average person prefers his thoughts to be guided on things like this, when he's much more interested in providing for his life right now. Food, shelter, family, recreation are more important in reality than spiritual satisfaction.
But it's way too simple to accept the guidance about the spectral world than ponder its existence or not; thinking is painful.
The rote learning of the ancient truths is easy. Considering the contradictions isn't.

I Ratant

14th November 2009, 09:49 AM

I Ratant

14th November 2009, 09:52 AM

I find this position to be baffling. How do they teach it in the UK? Can they teach us that in the US?

Do they teach it in a manner that suggests that it is folklore? That is the only way I can see the teachings being benign.
.
There's too many true-believers/militants here to permit a rational discussion of religion in school, therefore the continuous fighting about getting it into or excluded from schools.

Fiona

14th November 2009, 10:11 AM

War making counties vier off from actual teaching in schools in favor of indoctrination.

I would go further: when a country is at war all kinds of propaganda is used to secure the support and maintain the morale of the population: unless of course the government is incompetent and forgets (or fails) to do this (as we see in this country in respect of current wars)

Like when I was in the seventh grade I was taught by my homeroom/geography teacher that communism was bad and the war was good.

I put it to you this would not have worked if the surrounding culture disagreed. The water you swim in is decisive: school does little or nothing in face of it.

When I graduated high school, I was prepared to enlist in the military and ended up on a bombing campaign in Viet Nam.

In the case of Vietnam there were a great many people who actively opposed the war. I expect you will call "hindsight" because you have done this before: but people at the time could see more than one side to the question and they made that very plain. That you did not is not your geography teacher's fault: it is yours

My point is that aggressive warfare can be given support, in the country carrying it out, by religious beliefs, like, communism is a false religion and is therefore hated by God, and as good followers of God, we are permitted to carry out acts of violence against otherwise innocent people.

Sure: and it is given support by big ideas like "freedom" and "honour" and "our way of life". Anything the people hold dear can be used for propaganda purposes. "Communism is false religion" is hardly the most common charge levelled against it: it is more usually described in political terms as a totalitarian system which denies any freedom.

So religion plays an important part of education,

The connector "so" makes no sense in the way you are using it: though what you say may be true in your country.

especially by a country which is basically operated from Israel,

Which country would that be?

with again, otherwise innocent enemies

What is an innocent enemy?

(who oppose whatever god Israel happens to believe in), being permitted to be killed.

Er.....are you saying that all wars are religious wars? Including Vietnam? If that is what you are saying I beg to differ

In the case of the "war mongering elite" of that country,

You lost me: which country?

it would be the destroyer god, otherwise identical to Satan.

Er....are you saying that the american elite worships satan? that the Israeli elite worships satan? If you are do you have any evidence for that statement other than the idea that they do not think of god as you do? Cos that is really not very persuasive. What else you got?

Worshiping the sword wielding hand of the angel of God is in fact idolatry,

Is this some new definition of the word "fact" that I am not aware of?

though they pretend to worship the "true" God. The normal religious person probably sees beyond the religious propaganda aspect of their personal belief system, and do worship God, but they are subjected to delusion by the dark side.

??? How come you have a monopoly on this? You said before you did not know the nature of god: so it is a case of "I know what he is not like: he is not like the god of those I disagree with". That can't fly, Ethnikos

So, not much chance of a serious concerted effort by any secular institution, governmental or other wise, to destroy the popular folklore derived from the Bible and other holy books happening soon.

Well,no: it would lose them votes you see. The fault is with us, Ethnikos, and your continued refusal to accept any responsibility is part of the problem, not part of the solution

Hux

14th November 2009, 10:37 AM

I find this position to be baffling. How do they teach it in the UK? Can they teach us that in the US?

Do they teach it in a manner that suggests that it is folklore? That is the only way I can see the teachings being benign.

What they do is to tell it like it is. When most of the kids stop laughing, they continue. Take for instance when I was at school. We never had sex lessons so it was pointless talking about virgin birth. It was meaningless to us wee tykes. Nowadays there is sex education. So its pointless talking about virgin birth because no one believes it. Ether the sex ed teacher or the relig. Ed teacher is lying and it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out who.

We do not have a background of religiosity here so, for the most part, there's no one compelling you that you MUST believe it. Plus, we are not stingy with scientific truth. We might not be able to afford Bunsen Burners for everyone but we do fire up the one's we have. Thus, any kid exposed to the real world is bound to draw their own conclusions.

You could not by any stretch, suggest American kids are less smart. I expect it is just that they are not exposed to scientific and real world truth as much as should infect them with reason. They are perhaps the vaccinated ones?

Autumnman

14th November 2009, 10:43 AM

I disagree. As has been mentioned several times, the UK does teach a religious curriculum. I attended an Episcopal high school in the US, and it taught a religious curriculum (I am currently an atheist). I believe that many people think that children are somehow these blank slates where they unquestioningly accept everything they are told.

How long has the UK been teaching the Christian Religion as the Only True ReligionTM?

Let me use myself as an example. I grew up in a non-religious family. We lived in a small ranching and farming town on the Central Coast of California. My father was an agnostic and my mother liked Christmas. We only went to church a couple times; my parents just wanted my sister and I to have a taste of what it was like.
I went to secular, public schools, but the Pledge of Allegiance did have the “under God” clause in it, and our money was still stamped with “In God We Trust”. There were way too many churches in town for them not to have an underlying influence.
The Vietnam War was still raging when I got out of high school. Rather than being drafted I joined the Army. I became a Special Forces Green Beret and became a Special Operations Group Reconnaissance Team Leader in Vietnam. I was not religious, but I was not yet an atheist – if you know what I mean. As a Reconnaissance Team Leader I called in many B52 bomb strikes and then performed Bomb Damage Assessments. My actions horribly killed and maimed many human beings – not to mention the damage wrought on the jungle.
On the back of the Special Forces Handbook (ST31-180, Jan. 1965) there is written:
Almighty GOD, Who art the Author of liberty and the Champion of the oppressed, hear our prayer.
We, the men of Special Forces, acknowledge our dependence upon Thee in the preservation of human freedom.
Go with us as we seek to defend the defenseless and to free the enslaved. May we ever remember that our nation, whose motto is “In God We Trust”, expects that we shall acquit ourselves with honor, that we may never bring shame upon our faith, our families, on our fellow men.
Grant us wisdom from Thy mind, courage from Thine heart, strength from Thine arm, and protection from Thine hand. It is for Thee that we do battle, and to Thee belongs the victor’s crown.
For Thine is the kingdom, and the power and glory, forever. AMEN.

I do agree that I would prefer that Christianity be taught as a part of a comparative religion class, rather than be taught as the Only True ReligionTM, but I do not think it would cause the kind of damage some people seem to believe it would. As a qualification, I do think it might depend on which age group is involved in such a class, but that is just personal opinion, I do not have any hard data to back it up.
Now, religion taught as a replacement for things such as biology, physics, or social studies (politics), that I would definitely have a problem with.
Even from a secular, public school system surrounded by churches, in mine and many other cases, the Christian Religion helped to cause some major, bloody damage.
If the UK can pull off teaching that the Christian Religion is the Only True ReligionTM without major consequences down the road, I will be amazed.
Autumnman

Piscivore

14th November 2009, 11:10 AM

These biblical “folktales” have inspired religious doctrines and dogmas that continue to have profound cultural repercussions; such as, women’s rights, abortion rights, gay rights, stem cell research, the planning and the execution of our wars, and so on.
Not really- these things come from interpretations of the overt commandments in the Bible, not so much the folktales. The commandmants have been quickly outpaced and rendered inadequate for current culture- and most believers recognise this. It is only fundamentalists that cling to the "old ways"- but this is a human nature problem, as we can see reactionaries and fundamentalists in politcs, the arts, and other most fields other than religion.

The folktales, though, the stories- these are altered, readapted, and reinterpreted constantly to reflect current mores and thinking. In this way they are timeless.

Although the “folktales” themselves, unto themselves, may be perceived as benign; the religious doctrines and dogmas have long reaching, and often-catastrophic consequences.
But see- it is doctrine and dogma that is the problem, not the mythology. And doctrine and dogma is a problem anywhere, in any context. It is not the mythology that we need to worry about, at all.

But one must be cognitive of the fact that these ancient biblical “folktales” are at the very foundation of the divisive and destructive religious frame of mind.
They may lay "at the foundation" but they aren't responsible for the "divisive and destructive religious frame of mind" (ignoring for now the implication that all "religious frame[s] of mind" are divisive and destructive). The divisiveness comes from the concept that one's own "foundations" are the only correct ones possible, the destructiveness from the notion that therefore all others must be eliminated. These ideas are rooted in our evolutionary nature as tribal animals, and they can and have corrupted any number of "foundations"- geographic location, racial identity, sexual orientation, sports affiliation, artistic preferences, economic status, and almost any other quality that can discriminate one human being from another. Divisiveness and destruction is not exclusive to religion, neither are they inate to it.

HansMustermann

14th November 2009, 11:27 AM

Hux

14th November 2009, 12:05 PM

Autumnman wrote:
How long has the UK been teaching the Christian Religion as the Only True ReligionTM?

That depends upon which Christian religion you mean? Its been protestantism since the Reformation, stopping only briefly to hang a few Catholic Priests.

Uk religion is schools has been kind of amorphous. Gentle Jesus is always blond (sometimes Ginger. Ick) and he is always telling Parables. Oh and He did for our sins. There may even be moves afoot to offer a multicultural view of the religious world, but you can bet your sh*t is doesn't happen in Muslim or Jewish classrooms. You see, being a Christian in the UK (or the British Isles-there, I said it!) is almost to be apologetic in the sense of being sorry. Catholics have, I am told, all the guilt but being a Protestant in the UK means largely, squat. Entire generations of people grew up thinking you didn't have to go to church to be a Christian and you just need to be against everything the Poop says. Protestanism may have bred all the fundamentalist movements in America but here in the UK it just breeds indifference.

Im not sure what the figures are but there are not that many people in terms of percentages that admit to be being church goers. Except for Liverpool, which is more catholic than the Vatican.

Perhaps it was because Protestantism brought the Bible in English that finally rang the death knell for religion in general here. There's no finer way to make a disbeliever than to get him to read it. The worst fears of religion came to fruition the day they allowed the grunts to make their own sense of it. So religion in the UK is, I submit, a tradition and a dying one at that. Just like Xmas.

Piscivore

14th November 2009, 12:41 PM

I don't know, I haven't yet seen Onan's story reinterpreted as "it says contraception is ok" (or masturbation), and AFAIK it's still the basis of why the RCC is against condoms. Or since I mentioned that one, I've yet to see the Sodom and Gommorah tale reinterpreted to mean that God is perfectly a-ok with homosexuality. Or since I already mentioned that one, too, I've yet to see Job's tale reinterpreted to a more modern and practical "you have to get off your butt and work hard instead of moping around and wishing you were never born" or, in other words, "God helps those that help themselves." Etc.

Screw the commandments. Those stories on the side have caused even more harm, and continue to. E.g., AIDS is ravaging Africa, and the best the RCC can do is... tell them to not use a condom, 'cause wasting seed still ticks off God as much as it did for Onan.

Those are some good points, but how many people reference Sodom when objecting to homosexuality compared to Leviticus?

Seems to me the theme of "city gets destroyed because of its shortcomings" that lies at the heart of S&G has been repeated many many times in such diverse works as "Escape from New York", "Volcano", Camus' "The Plague", and many others, and "homosexuality" doesn't figure into them.

Hux

14th November 2009, 01:42 PM

If the Sodom story tells us anything it is that the nasty viscous bastard that some of you still worship, would sooner see two young girls raped multiply and mercilessly rather than have some chaps throwing their junk up other chaps.

Its not on really is it?

Autumnman

14th November 2009, 01:51 PM

Autumnman wrote:

That depends upon which Christian religion you mean? Its been protestantism since the Reformation, stopping only briefly to hang a few Catholic Priests.

Uk religion is schools has been kind of amorphous. Gentle Jesus is always blond (sometimes Ginger. Ick) and he is always telling Parables. Oh and He did for our sins. There may even be moves afoot to offer a multicultural view of the religious world, but you can bet your sh*t is doesn't happen in Muslim or Jewish classrooms. You see, being a Christian in the UK (or the British Isles-there, I said it!) is almost to be apologetic in the sense of being sorry. Catholics have, I am told, all the guilt but being a Protestant in the UK means largely, squat. Entire generations of people grew up thinking you didn't have to go to church to be a Christian and you just need to be against everything the Poop says. Protestanism may have bred all the fundamentalist movements in America but here in the UK it just breeds indifference.

Im not sure what the figures are but there are not that many people in terms of percentages that admit to be being church goers. Except for Liverpool, which is more catholic than the Vatican.

Perhaps it was because Protestantism brought the Bible in English that finally rang the death knell for religion in general here. There's no finer way to make a disbeliever than to get him to read it. The worst fears of religion came to fruition the day they allowed the grunts to make their own sense of it. So religion in the UK is, I submit, a tradition and a dying one at that. Just like Xmas.

Hux: Now that was one entertaining bit of UK history. Thanks,
Autumnman

Ethnikos

14th November 2009, 03:23 PM

In the case of Vietnam there were a great many people who actively opposed the war. I expect you will call "hindsight" because you have done this before: but people at the time could see more than one side to the question and they made that very plain. That you did not is not your geography teacher's fault: it is yoursI blame people like Obama's mentor, Bill Ayers, who made people who opposed the war seem worse than the Viet Cong.
Sure: and it is given support by big ideas like "freedom" and "honour" and "our way of life". Anything the people hold dear can be used for propaganda purposes. "Communism is false religion" is hardly the most common charge levelled against it: it is more usually described in political terms as a totalitarian system which denies any freedom. There was an element to it, like what I said, and the reason I would mention it is that it seems worse now than it was then.
The connector "so" makes no sense in the way you are using it: though what you say may be true in your country. Like Autumnman said, "under God" every day at school, if nothing else.
Which country would that be? The illegitimate Zionist regime, occupying Palestine.(not that I have anything against the average Jewish person living there, who I think were duped into going there. Lots of Russian Jews want to go back to their old country, meaning Russia, not Israel)
What is an innocent enemy?Muslims in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Er.....are you saying that all wars are religious wars? Including Vietnam? If that is what you are saying I beg to differ No, I mean all wars can be benefited by religion, just like Nazism was supported by the churches in Germany.
You lost me: which country? Israel. The people in the top of the government there, who want war against Iran.
Er....are you saying that the american elite worships satan? that the Israeli elite worships satan? If you are do you have any evidence for that statement other than the idea that they do not think of god as you do? Cos that is really not very persuasive. What else you got?Not always by that name. If you were to read the thread, "the Bible's great fiction" you would find the claim that, not until very late in the old history of Israel, was there an evil person going by the name, Satan, who was doing evil things to people. Well, who was going around doing evil things to people, before that? Could be that YHWH person. YHWH was taking the part of Destroyer, and if you believe in one, single god, then there's the one to blame for all evil. If you think you are helping God by destroying who you consider to be the enemy of God, you are playing the part of Satan. Jesus, as he sent out the Apostles into the world said, I see Satan falling to the ground. The days of killing people for God is over.
Is this some new definition of the word "fact" that I am not aware of?No. As an example, people worshipped the Bronze snake of Moses and the king got annoyed at that and had it destroyed. Worshipping God's methods is not worshipping God.
??? How come you have a monopoly on this? You said before you did not know the nature of god: so it is a case of "I know what he is not like: he is not like the god of those I disagree with". That can't fly, Ethnikos
Paul was ridiculing the Jews for thinking they were good. He asked them if they went out and attacked the temples because that is what they would be obligated to do if they were good Jews. Was Paul saying they should tear down every shrine they could find, to be better Jews? No, he was explaining to them that the old system is dead or dying, where you do genocide against those who disagree with your religion.
Well,no: it would lose them votes you see. The fault is with us, Ethnikos, and your continued refusal to accept any responsibility is part of the problem, not part of the solutionI am trying to be responsible right now, by pointing out that God does not want us killing people in His name.

HansMustermann

14th November 2009, 03:27 PM

Those are some good points, but how many people reference Sodom when objecting to homosexuality compared to Leviticus?

Seems to me the theme of "city gets destroyed because of its shortcomings" that lies at the heart of S&G has been repeated many many times in such diverse works as "Escape from New York", "Volcano", Camus' "The Plague", and many others, and "homosexuality" doesn't figure into them.

How many of those -- Leviticus included -- have even given the name of the sin?

Plus, you know, if you ask people about almost any other city mentioned in the bible, except for Bethlehem and Jerusalem, they've probably never heard of it. E.g., how many know that there was a genocide at Midian at all? But everyone and their little dog knows the names of Sodom and Gommorah. I don't know... it seems to me like it might have more influence, even by sheer virtue of being known by more people than those novels and movies you mentioned.

And how many other stories are reflected almost verbatim in a bigotted phobia? Again, if you look at some of the southern fears against homosexuality, it's _exactly_ the material from the bible story. It's exactly the same myth that it'll contaminate the whole town and they'll try to go corrupt any new face in sight. So I'd find it a remarkable coincidence if that was completely unrelated to the bible story.

Nevertheless, whether it's still referenced against homosexuality or not, the problem I was talking about is the inherent moral of the story. I don't see how that can be twisted to convey more liberal modern morals without rewriting it completely. It's a story which teaches a bad lesson, plain and simple. There's no way to move it with the times.

That's my main point, really.

Lensman

14th November 2009, 03:34 PM

How long has the UK been teaching the Christian Religion as the Only True ReligionTM?

<snip.
Autumnman

Feels like forever.
Back in the middle ages, teachers/tutors would all be churchmen.
Before the State took over control of education, most schools were started by churches.
The only way most people could learn the 3 "R"s , would be from a church/chapel environment.
All the schools in my village were initially instigated by the local churches/chapels.
The book you learned to read from would've been the bible.
Your English essays would be judged as much on their piety as on spelling, grammar & penmanship.
Yet now hardly anyone goes to church/chapel.
Where I work, out of 17 colleagues, only one man (my supervisor) is religious, 2 of us are out'n'out atheists, the rest don't say much about it.

I Ratant

14th November 2009, 04:29 PM

...
I am trying to be responsible right now, by pointing out that God does not want us killing people in His name.
.
And yet it's been done for centuries, and still goes on today.
When normal people finally reject the unsupportable fantasies of the existence of any of the gods, then perhaps the species can shrug off the chains of all religions and do the real right things for the right reasons.

Hux

14th November 2009, 06:27 PM

Ethnikos wrote:
I am trying to be responsible right now, by pointing out that God does not want us killing people in His name.

Where did that come from? The OT is full of His direct commandment to genocide and entreaty to kill non believers (especially in the Qu'ran for the latter)

Where does he state He doesn't want us killing people in His name? What does he intend for all the non Christians after the rapture?

Piscivore

14th November 2009, 09:42 PM

How many of those -- Leviticus included -- have even given the name of the sin?
Exactly. Sodom was destroyed for "The outcry to the LORD against its people". The exact nature of this "outcry" is not specified- or even from who the outcry came.

Plus, you know, if you ask people about almost any other city mentioned in the bible, except for Bethlehem and Jerusalem, they've probably never heard of it. E.g., how many know that there was a genocide at Midian at all? But everyone and their little dog knows the names of Sodom and Gommorah.
Right. I just bought a Simpsons comic that referenced it: as a Vegas-ish "Party town" that unfortunately wasn't there when Bart and Milhouse go there. No reference to homosexuality stated or implied. When, in "War Games", Professor Falken quips "I loved it when you nuked Las Vegas. Suitably biblical ending for the place, don't you think?"- was he reffering to homosexuality?

I don't know... it seems to me like it might have more influence, even by sheer virtue of being known by more people than those novels and movies you mentioned.

And how many other stories are reflected almost verbatim in a bigotted phobia? Again, if you look at some of the southern fears against homosexuality, it's _exactly_ the material from the bible story. It's exactly the same myth that it'll contaminate the whole town and they'll try to go corrupt any new face in sight. So I'd find it a remarkable coincidence if that was completely unrelated to the bible story.
Probably not- but correlation does not imply causation. Most religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality), even non-Abrahamic, to some degree do not accept homosexuality, that can't all be blamed on the Bible. What is more likely is that Homosexuality squicks some people, and the stories they write and repeat relfect these feelings, rather than the stories engendering the feelings. Also, given that the bigoted "southern" Christians read the exact same bible as their unbigoted fellows, the idea that the stories cause the bigotry looks even more specious.

Nevertheless, whether it's still referenced against homosexuality or not, the problem I was talking about is the inherent moral of the story. I don't see how that can be twisted to convey more liberal modern morals without rewriting it completely. It's a story which teaches a bad lesson, plain and simple. There's no way to move it with the times.

That's my main point, really.

But the "lesson" you are pulling from it is not the theme of the story at all. It is incidental. The story would be unchanged if one changed the "homosexual rape gang" into thieves, and the daughters offered (which the story- and the culture at the time- treats simply as property) to gold or other valuable.

Sodom and Gommorah is not about "Homosexuality bad". Sodom and Gommorah is about god punishing iniquity- any iniquity. And as I've pointed out, it HAS been adapted many times "to convey more liberal modern morals".

HansMustermann

15th November 2009, 12:45 AM

Unfortunately we're not talking about a Simpson comic that just references a missing town, we're talking about a story where the whole plot and setup is very much about homosexuality (and about a guy who offered his girls to be gang-raped, and got rewarded for it.)

I mean, if you're that determined to ignore the actual text and pretend it's just some completely disconnected and unsupported moral floating in the air, you could just as well say that Brokeback Mountain has nothing to do with homosexuality and is just about losing a friend. Or that Debbie Does Dallas is just a positive story about achieving your goals through hard work, determination and the help of your friends.

But even if you slice the moral apart like that, it still contains an offensive depiction of homosexuality nevertheless.

And even for the purpose of that "evil city gets destroyed for its sins" moral, it's a piss-poor way to make that point. There are better ways to make that point from a secular point of view, e.g., depict it as destroying itself as a result of its decay. A story which needs a divine intervention for that, isn't just poor writing, but ultimately failed to illustrate why that moral decay is bad, other than "invisible sky daddy doesn't like it." It's ineffective even for believers, since we have thousands of years as proof that the vast majority of people think they can bargain and trade favours with invisible sky daddy for forgiveness, and do what he forbade anyway.

Basically even if I pretend that it's some abstract moral and manage to completely ignore what's the actual sin and what's actually being punished there... it's still a bad folklore story. There are better ones to illustrate even that abstract lesson.

Fiona

15th November 2009, 01:21 AM

I think that in a sense you make Piscivore's point, HansMusterman. You are correct when you say E.g., how many know that there was a genocide at Midian at all?, as an example.

There are many, many stories in the bible: one can make a tale or a moral out of any of them: the ones which are known are the ones which reflect the values of the culture, so far as I can see: it is at worst a feedback loop.

I was brought up atheist. My knowledge of the bible comes from what I was taught at school; and a little from an exploration of religion in adolescence; and a lot from what is floating about in my culture. That is no different at all from my knowledge of Shakespeare. It is not much different from my knowledge of Grimm's fairy tales. And it makes exactly the same sort of impact. It helps me to do cryptic crosswords and to answer trivia questions. Anything which does that is "shared culture" and I think there is a value in such shared stories. It is a kind of cement and we need something of the sort, however derived.

You say that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah depicts homosexuality in negative light: and so it does. But for those of us who learned religion from the outside that is not part of the story until you come to actually read it. At school I was taught that the people were wicked but there was no mention of the actual behaviour, as Piscivore says. In the culture it is not much different from Gibbon's view of Rome: decadence leads to destruction. The difference is the immediacy but that is all. And references in crosswords and that kind of thing never mention homosexuality at all

I do not believe that teaching religion in school makes much impact on religiousity: I do believe that living in a group or sub group which is religious has an impact: and I suppose that is what I have been saying in this thread. If the society is secular the tales will still have an effect: but the nature of that effect is different. Where we are homophobic we tell homophobic tales: where we are conservative we tell tales of decadence and destruction: and they are the same tales.

HansMustermann

15th November 2009, 04:26 AM

Hmm? I'm not sure what positive, modern moral can be taken from the genocide and rape of the underage girl ordered by the Lord against Midian... for being nice and friendly to the Hebrews. But maybe I'm mis-understanding your point.

As for the story of Sodom and Gommorah, it seems to me like you're saying that if you _don't_ actually teach the story, and just give people a distorted version instead, yeah, you can get something modern and positive instead. But at that point,

A) you're not really teaching that story, you're teaching an own distortion. It's reusing just two city names and a tiny portion of the plot, to tell a different story. So what's the point of arguing about the value of those stories (even as folklore,) if in fact we're talking about _not_ actually teaching those stories? And

B) you could do the same with any other story. Like I've said before, at that point you could just as well use Debbie Does Dallas as a positive story of success through hard work, perseverence and the help of one's friends. (ETA: how's this for a summary? "Debbie wants to go to Dallas to join a famous cheerleader group, but doesn't have enough money. So she and all her friends do various jobs and services for the people in the town, to raise the money she needs.") It's actually less off the mark.

Fiona

15th November 2009, 04:36 AM

Er.....I am not arguing for any positive modern moral, so I am not sure what you mean.

On your second point: yes I am saying they do not teach the story as it is in the bible. They teach whatever moral lesson fits the culture.

And indeed you could use any story, so long as it had the currency. Shakespeare and the bible are two examples of books which are embedded in the culture in ways which have very little to do with their content: they are widely known of, and admired (I have never heard of Debbie Does Dallas, so I think the same cannot be said of that work); they have contributed to our speech patterns (if you don't know where a quote comes from in a trivia quiz you get quite a lot of hits if you say one or the other: I don't think that is true of Debbie Does Dallas either).

HansMustermann

15th November 2009, 04:42 AM

So basically it's little more than using the bible's good name as a currency, to teach something else. Well, fair enough then.

Fiona

15th November 2009, 04:51 AM

jadey

15th November 2009, 05:35 AM

What they do is to tell it like it is. When most of the kids stop laughing, they continue. Take for instance when I was at school. We never had sex lessons so it was pointless talking about virgin birth. It was meaningless to us wee tykes. Nowadays there is sex education. So its pointless talking about virgin birth because no one believes it. Ether the sex ed teacher or the relig. Ed teacher is lying and it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out who.

We do not have a background of religiosity here so, for the most part, there's no one compelling you that you MUST believe it. Plus, we are not stingy with scientific truth. We might not be able to afford Bunsen Burners for everyone but we do fire up the one's we have. Thus, any kid exposed to the real world is bound to draw their own conclusions.

Perhaps that is the difference. I've only been exposed to religious teaching via catholic school (grade school) and catholic church. Those "teachers" were very clear that one MUST believe what they are teaching or suffer eternal damnation. That's darn good motivation to believe.:boxedin:

You could not by any stretch, suggest American kids are less smart. I expect it is just that they are not exposed to scientific and real world truth as much as should infect them with reason. They are perhaps the vaccinated ones?

I actually think that my kid's public schools do stress science very seriously. Of course, I live in one of the upper echelon school districts so I can only speak from what I see my kids learning (grades 2 & 4).

Funny story: A babysitter once told my six year old the story of Noah's Ark, and she told him it was actually true. He said, "That's crazy, the lions would eat the other animals." I was soooo proud. :D

Piscivore

15th November 2009, 06:54 AM

Hmm? I'm not sure what positive, modern moral can be taken from the genocide and rape of the underage girl ordered by the Lord against Midian... for being nice and friendly to the Hebrews. But maybe I'm mis-understanding your point.

As for the story of Sodom and Gommorah, it seems to me like you're saying that if you _don't_ actually teach the story, and just give people a distorted version instead, yeah, you can get something modern and positive instead. But at that point,

That's what "adapted" means.

A) you're not really teaching that story, you're teaching an own distortion. It's reusing just two city names and a tiny portion of the plot, to tell a different story. So what's the point of arguing about the value of those stories (even as folklore,) if in fact we're talking about _not_ actually teaching those stories? And

B) you could do the same with any other story. Like I've said before, at that point you could just as well use Debbie Does Dallas as a positive story of success through hard work, perseverence and the help of one's friends.
Stories aren't history. They are not cast in stone. We can retell S&G without the homosexuality- we have.

(ETA: how's this for a summary? "Debbie wants to go to Dallas to join a famous cheerleader group, but doesn't have enough money. So she and all her friends do various jobs and services for the people in the town, to raise the money she needs.") It's actually less off the mark.
Sounds like a pitch for another "Bring It On" sequel.

jadey

15th November 2009, 07:00 AM

Culture is what it is, I think. People will always tell stories and they will always enjoy them and they will learn certain things from them. I don't think that is a bad thing. But what any given people chooses to pass on in story form is a reflection of their existing values. And that is really my point in this thread.

On this point, I agree.

Some have been arguing that teaching these stories in schools is damaging of itself. I disagree. I think the focus on this is itself mythological: the fact is that the UK and other countries do teach religion (including these stories in one form or another) in schools and it does not lead to more belief or more irrationality:

Fair enough, maybe religion can be taught in a more benign manner than that which I experienced.

they are no more powerful than red riding hood or the little mermaid. That some fear the biblical stories will do all this damage is a folk tale :)

I could agree with you here IF the biblical stories held no inherent "credibility". However, there is a large population of people who are taught from their earliest years that the "Good Book" (choose one) is the divinely inspired word of God. That it is literally true and accurate. (additionally, a large portion of the population have never read it). This lends the biblical stories immense "credibility" over little red riding hood. One can adapt the storyline in LRRH to reflect the cultural values of the time, or discard it altogether if it does not apply. Not so with the biblical stories, they are frozen in time and they do not evolve with the culture. The parts that people reference partially reflect the cultural values of the institution that owns & manages said good book, but more importantly INFLUENCES or DICTATES the cultural values of said institution. It seems preposterous to me that the RC church could maintain an anti-condom stance when there is good evidence that condom use would help prevent the spread of AIDS in the world. The appropriate passage(s) in the good book concerning contraception are DICTATING their cultural values, not merely reflecting them. I would suggest that there is a large portion of the RC membership worldwide that would like the RC church to change their official stance on contraception to more accurately reflect the RC memberships current cultural values. Ultimately, the RC church will reverse their stance on contraception (which is your point, I think). But for the time being, they are using it to support their position (which is contrary to your point, I think).

So, unfortunately, these "Good Books" have a lot of pretty nasty stories as HM has pointed out. A progressive thinking religious person (well, you know what I mean) might find that homosexuality isn't harming anyone, but be easily pursuaded otherwise by someone exerpting the story of S&G. That same person might think that reintroducing wolves into the wild is beneficial, and would not likely be swayed from his/her position by any reference to LRRH or the Big Bad Wolf.

Jeff Corey

15th November 2009, 07:00 AM

Hux

15th November 2009, 07:27 AM

To take that little ditty about Sodom further, how come the literalist never mention Sodom II - the Revenge? Lot takes his two daughters up into a cave to shelter. The two daughters decide a plan between them. The get the old geezer pissed and then screw his brains out when he is out cold. (Incidentally I wonder how long the second one had to wait for Dad to 'perform' again?).

This goes without comment. Were the people in thise days so perverse as to find such acts commonplace? no wonder they needed commandments - they were out of control. As Lewis Black puts it, "They were only ten hairs away from being Baboons"

This episode never seems to emanate from the pulpits.

Perhaps even funnier, are the contortions the literalists have to go through to explain it away. For my part, religious education when I was a nipper, held none of these stories. I remember learning about Amos and some of the other prophets but I was never told these people were just batsh8 crazy, dehydrated and delerious for the want of decent food and minerals.

Are fundamentalist children exposed to this crap? Are they allowed to have questions -DO they question anything? Bill Maher, (and a considerable lot of other people including Dawkins) reckons the religious have neurological disorder.There may or may not be something in that but I do wonder about people who maintain they can tell the difference between Jesus and the Tooth Fairy but they cant tell you why. Perhaps the worst part of religious education is detering the young from asking questions.

HansMustermann

15th November 2009, 07:28 AM

That's what "adapted" means.

Right, so if you "adapt" Story A to actually be the completely different Story B, but still call it Story A, you finally get something palatable. And you can pretend that you've found some value in Story A. Got it.

Sorry, no, I just can't see why would I do that travesty instead of just telling Story B and calling it Story B.

Stories aren't history. They are not cast in stone. We can retell S&G without the homosexuality- we have.

And you can tell Debbie Does Dallas without the prostitution part (I just have, above), but you wouldn't still call it Debbie Does Dallas. You can tell Dracula without vampires, but you wouldn't still call it Dracula. You can tell The Emperor's New Clothes to give a warning against pneumonia instead of against groupthink, but you probably wouldn't still call it The Emperor's New Clothes.

Except in the Bible's case apparently it's ok to take a story, transform it to this extent:

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=145

... but still pretend that it's still the same Bible story you started with. Just a little adapted.

Sorry, I'm still not particularly convinced. There's a reason for word meanings and names. I use word X to convey meaning X, and story name Y to mean precisely story Y. I fail to see the use in turning it all into a "I'm saying X, but obviously meaning Y" nonsense.

Sounds like a pitch for another "Bring It On" sequel.

Except, again, you wouldn't call that sequel "Debbie Does Dallas". Only for the Bible people seem to be hung up on finding value at all cost, even if they have to rewrite it wholesale... but still pretend it's the same story.

Piscivore

15th November 2009, 08:38 AM

Right, so if you "adapt" Story A to actually be the completely different Story B, but still call it Story A, you finally get something palatable. And you can pretend that you've found some value in Story A. Got it.

Sorry, no, I just can't see why would I do that travesty instead of just telling Story B and calling it Story B.

And you can tell Debbie Does Dallas without the prostitution part (I just have, above), but you wouldn't still call it Debbie Does Dallas. You can tell Dracula without vampires, but you wouldn't still call it Dracula. You can tell The Emperor's New Clothes to give a warning against pneumonia instead of against groupthink, but you probably wouldn't still call it The Emperor's New Clothes.

Except in the Bible's case apparently it's ok to take a story, transform it to this extent:

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=145

... but still pretend that it's still the same Bible story you started with. Just a little adapted.

Sorry, I'm still not particularly convinced. There's a reason for word meanings and names. I use word X to convey meaning X, and story name Y to mean precisely story Y. I fail to see the use in turning it all into a "I'm saying X, but obviously meaning Y" nonsense.
You're confusing "plot" with "theme" and "moral". They are different things.

The Plot of S&G is that these two particular cities are destroyed by the god of Abraham for displeasing someone enough to complain to god about their unspecified outrages, which may or may not include homosexuality (because really, was it the homosexuality, or the rape part that is the outrage? Lot offers his daughters, seems like he thought the rape gang might just want to rape something, anything).

The Theme of S&G is "City is destroyed for its wickedness" - a theme that is repeated in the Bible itself many times without reference to homosexuality, and has been repeated many times in many other cultures without reference to homosexuality.

The Moral of S&G is "Do what God says, or Else" a moral that is likewise repeated in the Bible itself many times without reference to homosexuality.

Except, again, you wouldn't call that sequel "Debbie Does Dallas". Only for the Bible people seem to be hung up on finding value at all cost, even if they have to rewrite it wholesale... but still pretend it's the same story.
"Star Wars" and "Eragon" are different works, but they tell the same story- young boy finds out he's something special and defeats a great evil.

Hux

15th November 2009, 08:46 AM

I do wish you would show a lot more respect to the message of 'Debbie Does Dallas'. Its bordering on the sacrilegious.

paximperium

15th November 2009, 08:51 AM

I do wish you would show a lot more respect to the message of 'Debbie Does Dallas'. Its bordering on the sacrilegious.
A male chicken in hand is worth two in the bush?

Fiona

15th November 2009, 10:48 AM

I could agree with you here IF the biblical stories held no inherent "credibility".

They don't

However, there is a large population of people who are taught from their earliest years that the "Good Book" (choose one) is the divinely inspired word of God. That it is literally true and accurate. (additionally, a large portion of the population have never read it). This lends the biblical stories immense "credibility" over little red riding hood.

No, it doesn't lend them any credibility. That people are taught to believe it by their families and their social group is true. That those same people may demand that it be taught in school is also true. But that does not mean there is any intrinsic damage from teaching it in school (aside from the waste of time I referred to above). The damage (if any) is done long before that.

One can adapt the storyline in LRRH to reflect the cultural values of the time, or discard it altogether if it does not apply. Not so with the biblical stories, they are frozen in time and they do not evolve with the culture.

To some extent, yes. But would you not concede that there are a great many interpretations of all parts of the bible? That christians disagree about loads of things: both between sects and across time? The words are pretty much frozen: the meaning is very far from that

The parts that people reference partially reflect the cultural values of the institution that owns & manages said good book, but more importantly INFLUENCES or DICTATES the cultural values of said institution.

I cannot agree with this. If this were true there would not be differences in values between different cultural or religious groups within one tradition; but there are

It seems preposterous to me that the RC church could maintain an anti-condom stance when there is good evidence that condom use would help prevent the spread of AIDS in the world. The appropriate passage(s) in the good book concerning contraception are DICTATING their cultural values, not merely reflecting them.

Most christian sects do not oppose condom use. It follows that the passages in the bible you refer to do NOT dictate those values. They might tell you they do but there is no reason at all to believe them

I would suggest that there is a large portion of the RC membership worldwide that would like the RC church to change their official stance on contraception to more accurately reflect the RC memberships current cultural values. Ultimately, the RC church will reverse their stance on contraception (which is your point, I think). But for the time being, they are using it to support their position (which is contrary to your point, I think).

I would go much, much further. Catholics completely ignore the church's stance on contraception in droves, in this country. Many take absolutely no notice of the church's position at all. This is also true in other european countries which are ostensibly catholic: a few years ago Italy had the lowest birth rate in the world ( I am not sure if that is still true) and I am fairly confident that they are not more abstemious than other peoples. The catholic stance just does not matter in the scheme of things. People do not change their behaviour on matters important to them on the basis of the church's say so, unless they already agree with it. This bogey man has few teeth and it isn't even green.

It is certainly arguable that this is not true in poor countries with low levels of education: but the problem there is not religion, really, even if that is true.

So, unfortunately, these "Good Books" have a lot of pretty nasty stories as HM has pointed out.

Sure

A progressive thinking religious person (well, you know what I mean) might find that homosexuality isn't harming anyone, but be easily pursuaded otherwise by someone exerpting the story of S&G.

That same person might think that reintroducing wolves into the wild is beneficial, and would not likely be swayed from his/her position by any reference to LRRH or the Big Bad Wolf.

Are you? Forgive me but I am always suspicious of arguments which rest on "well I would not act like that but those poor other people will". There is a name for that type of thinking, but I can't remember it at present, sorry

quarky

15th November 2009, 11:19 AM

Not sure what this thread is about, or even religion, for that matter.
I suspect that various pagan and polytheistic religions did not expect that their creation myths were to be taken literally. They may have been purposely fantastic so that they would be seen as metaphors. Turtles all the way down. What the heck.

Manipulation is religion, and it reigns supreme. In a secular school system, we were taught to hate and fear the "Godless" communists. Kids don't understand much by way of political realities. Communism turns its back on god. That was the main thing.

We barely got over that before the "Axis of Evil" showed up. Good and evil are religious terms, meant for kids; even atheist kids. People believe in obediance, not god. You obey because you will be punished if you don't. God is just weird gravy on top.

Other then some socio-pathic behavior, we kill because we obey, and we obey power.
Power doesn't believe in god, or anything in particular.

Hux

15th November 2009, 11:24 AM

I would expect the opposite. These people thought the stories were exactly the way it happened. They had no other explanation.

Piscivore

15th November 2009, 01:10 PM

I would expect the opposite. These people thought the stories were exactly the way it happened. They had no other explanation.

Why do you deny your ancient ancestors the capacity for understanding and enjoying fiction? We have plenty of evidence the ancient Greeks did not only understand the stories about their gods literally.

Autumnman

15th November 2009, 06:14 PM

The biblical folktale (or myth) of Adam & Eve has had a considerable impact on those cultures and societies that have been influenced by the Holy Bible. The woman supposedly disobeys God and causes her male counterpart to disobey God as well. Becoming subservient to the man is the woman’s punishment and the man is to rule over her (at least that is how the story is told).

In the New Testament St. Paul expounds on that theme: In 1 Timothy 2:11 thru 14
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

In Ephesians 5:22 thru 24
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Apparently Pauline Christianity employed the Adam & Eve myth to keep women under the control of men. And it has worked. In the USA women did not get the right to vote until early in the twentieth century, and women are still not paid as much as their male counterparts. For two thousand years Pauline Christianity’s take on the Adam & Eve myth has greatly contributed to the second-class stature of women in the societies influenced by that religious doctrine.

The English term female literally means: property of a man; fe meaning “cattle, chattel, property” of a “male”.

For me this is living proof of the powerful influence biblical folktales have upon the people, the language, and therefore the worldview of the cultures and societies that have embraced the Holy Bible.
Autumnman

Piscivore

15th November 2009, 09:32 PM

The biblical folktale (or myth) of Adam & Eve has had a considerable impact on those cultures and societies that have been influenced by the Holy Bible. The woman supposedly disobeys God and causes her male counterpart to disobey God as well. Becoming subservient to the man is the woman’s punishment and the man is to rule over her (at least that is how the story is told).

Once again, the onus is on you to provide evidence that the story is the cause of the discrimination, or if the story is simply correlated with the discrimination that plausibly existed before the story, and is instead plausibly largely the result of the physical differences in relative strength between the sexes, the vulnerability of the female during pregnancy, and the importance of the female as an offspring-producer when infant (and hell, adult) mortality was much higher.

It seems much more likely that the story was created and repeated to justify discrimination that already existed.

For me this is living proof of the powerful influence biblical folktales have upon the people, the language, and therefore the worldview of the cultures and societies that have embraced the Holy Bible.
Autumnman
Except that most other cultures- the ancient Greek and Japanese just for a start- also exhibit the same discrimination- if not moreso.

pakeha

15th November 2009, 11:23 PM

Except that most other cultures- the ancient Greek and Japanese just for a start- also exhibit the same discrimination- if not moreso.

A good point, Piscivore.

Piscivore

16th November 2009, 12:34 AM

A good point, Piscivore.

Thanks. And really, we can see males dominating females in most of the other primates. Are they victims of Bible stories as well? :)

Stories, are descriptive, not proscriptive. The stories we invent, enjoy and repeat reflect what we think, they don't dictate what we think.

Autumnman

16th November 2009, 08:41 AM

Once again, the onus is on you to provide evidence that the story is the cause of the discrimination, or if the story is simply correlated with the discrimination that plausibly existed before the story, and is instead plausibly largely the result of the physical differences in relative strength between the sexes, the vulnerability of the female during pregnancy, and the importance of the female as an offspring-producer when infant (and hell, adult) mortality was much higher.

To begin with I never said or implied that the Adam and Eve myth was the cause of the discrimination. I merely stated:
The biblical folktale (or myth) of Adam & Eve has had a considerable impact on those cultures and societies that have been influenced by the Holy Bible. The woman supposedly disobeys God and causes her male counterpart to disobey God as well. Becoming subservient to the man is the woman’s punishment and the man is to rule over her (at least that is how the story is told).
I end the above statement with (at least that is how the story is told); there is another way of translating and allegorically-interpreting the Hebrew version of Gen. 2:4 – 3:24 that presents the metaphorical “woman” in a much more favorable and powerful light.
And then I said:
Apparently Pauline Christianity employed the Adam & Eve myth to keep women under the control of men. And it has worked. In the USA women did not get the right to vote until early in the twentieth century, and women are still not paid as much as their male counterparts. For two thousand years Pauline Christianity’s take on the Adam & Eve myth has greatly contributed to the second-class stature of women in the societies influenced by that religious doctrine.

You jumped on a conclusion that I did not make.

That human males and females play different, complementary physical roles in mortal existence does not automatically lead to discrimination of one of the sexes. In Canaanite mythology women held powerful roles: The queen goddess Atherit was the wife of the God El; Atherit (Heb. ’asherah) was originally symbolized by a living tree. The princess goddess Anet was depicted as a powerful warrior. Her name was derived from the ancient word for “source” (Heb. `ayin = eye, mind, spring of water). The Goddesses of ancient Europe (6500 – 3500BCE) such as the “Great Goddess of Life, Death, and Regeneration”, the “Bird and Snake Goddess” (found also in Crete and Ancient Greece), the “Pregnant Vegetation Goddess” (similar to Demeter, Kore and Persephone in Greek mythology”, to name a few, also suggest that the image of woman was held in extremely high esteem.

It seems much more likely that the story was created and repeated to justify discrimination that already existed.

Let’s say that the “Adam & Eve” myth was created by the Septuagint version of the Hebrew narrative (in the Heb. version the personal name Adam does not exist), and the Alexandrian Greek version was repeated to justify the discrimination.

Except that most other cultures- the ancient Greek and Japanese just for a start- also exhibit the same discrimination- if not moreso.

The focus of this thread is biblical folktales not Japanese folktales. In regard to the “ancient Greeks”, as mentioned above, much of the “ancient Greek’s” mythology depicts the image of “woman” as being powerful and held in high esteem.

Thanks. And really, we can see males dominating females in most of the other primates. Are they victims of Bible stories as well? :)

Again, you are confusing the different and complementary roles played by males and females with the social discrimination of women.

Stories, are descriptive, not proscriptive. The stories we invent, enjoy and repeat reflect what we think, they don't dictate what we think.

I will quote P. Grimal
If the linguists have set an example for the mythologists, they have certainly not done so by chance: comparative linguistics and comparative mythology go together, since language is the mainstay of myth (myths, after all, can exist only through words) and since language is, inversely, informed by myth, with imposes on it a thousand and one traditional ways of viewing the world.

We are talking about the biblical stories that have been around for thousands of years, that were invented long ago and these “biblical stories” have been informing our evolving languages, thus informing the way we think, and influencing our worldviews. When a particular story has influenced the evolution of a language, and that language is used to form one’s thoughts, then to some degree that story has dictated what one thinks.

Autumnman

Hux

16th November 2009, 09:16 AM

Why do you deny your ancient ancestors the capacity for understanding and enjoying fiction? We have plenty of evidence the ancient Greeks did not only understand the stories about their gods literally.

I do not deny them that right nor the capacity. We have plenty of evidence that 'some' ancient Greeks thought little of the Gods and mythology but its simply the case that the history of the ancients shows us that their creation stories were the only explanation they had and believed. I would like to think they were more credulous and gullible but of course there is a sizeable amount of 'modern' humanity that believes these stories to be literal. When it came to their faiths, the ancients - for the most part - could not distinguish between fact and fiction. Much like Fundamentalists today.

Piscivore

16th November 2009, 09:59 AM

To begin with I never said or implied that the Adam and Eve myth was the cause of the discrimination.
If the Adam and Eve myth is not a cause of the problematic behaviour then why be concerned with it?

You jumped on a conclusion that I did not make.
Your opening post was decrying the "influence" these stories allegedly have on Christians. That's not a "conclusion", true, it is an assertion. But an "influence" is a cause of the effects that follow it- else it is just something that happened before and is unrelated.

That human males and females play different, complementary physical roles in mortal existence does not automatically lead to discrimination of one of the sexes.
No, it doesn't- nevertheless discrimination does occur and it is seen in different cultures all over the world and throughout history. It is not confined to post-Pauline cultures directly influenced by Biblical folktales.

In Canaanite mythology women held powerful roles: The queen goddess Atherit was the wife of the God El; Atherit (Heb. ’asherah) was originally symbolized by a living tree. The princess goddess Anet was depicted as a powerful warrior. Her name was derived from the ancient word for “source” (Heb. `ayin = eye, mind, spring of water). The Goddesses of ancient Europe (6500 – 3500BCE) such as the “Great Goddess of Life, Death, and Regeneration”, the “Bird and Snake Goddess” (found also in Crete and Ancient Greece), the “Pregnant Vegetation Goddess” (similar to Demeter, Kore and Persephone in Greek mythology”, to name a few, also suggest that the image of woman was held in extremely high esteem.
And? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "on a pedestal" being equivilent to "in a cage"?

Let’s say that the “Adam & Eve” myth was created by the Septuagint version of the Hebrew narrative (in the Heb. version the personal name Adam does not exist), and the Alexandrian Greek version was repeated to justify the discrimination.
Why should we "say" that? It most likely was recorded in the Hebrew narrative when the vastly older oral tradition was finaly written down. An oral tradition that likely included post-hoc rationalisations and justifications for most of the behaviours the culture of the people had evolved to include.

The focus of this thread is biblical folktales not Japanese folktales.
I didn't say anything about Japanese folktales. I said that Japanese culture was extraordinarily discriminatory against women despite the absence of the Biblical folktales in question.

In regard to the “ancient Greeks”, as mentioned above, much of the “ancient Greek’s” mythology depicts the image of “woman” as being powerful and held in high esteem.
Regardless of whetever "esteem" you think their mythology depicts (and really- Zeus and Apollo as a frequent rapists, poor girls getting punished left and right for nothing more than being good at something or being too attractive, Hera as the principle antagonist in the Herculese myths- high esteem? Really?) except for Sparta most women in Greece had very few rights compared to the menfolk.

Again, you are confusing the different and complementary roles played by males and females with the social discrimination of women.
From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights#Ancient_civilisations):
Hindu scriptures describe a good wife as follows "a woman whose mind, speech and body are kept in subjection, acquires high renown in this world, and, in the next, the same abode with her husband." In ancient Athens women were always minors and subject to a male, such as their father, brother or some other male kin. A women's consent in marriage was not generally thought to be necessary and women were obliged to submit to the wishes of her parents or husband. In ancient Rome a wife was considered "a minor, a ward, a person incapable of doing or acting anything according to her own individual taste, a person continually under the tutelage and guardianship of her husband." Under Roman Law a woman and her property passed into the power of her husband upon marriage. The wife was considered the purchased property of her husband, acquired only for his benefit. Furthermore women in Ancient Rome could not exercise any civil or public office, and could not act as witness, surety, tutor, or curator. Women were also not allowed to make a will or contract.
"Complimentary", right.

I will quote P. Grimal
We are talking about the biblical stories that have been around for thousands of years, that were invented long ago and these “biblical stories” have been informing our evolving languages, thus informing the way we think, and influencing our worldviews. When a particular story has influenced the evolution of a language, and that language is used to form one’s thoughts, then to some degree that story has dictated what one thinks.
Except you are forgetting that it is a two-way street. If only this were true than cultures could not evolve. That is demonstably not the case. As new ways of thinking emerge, language and myth are changed in turn. As has been demonstrated in this thread, these "biblical myths" are being changed, all the time. In our culture's most recent (overt) retelling of the Noah myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_almighty), the "destruction of the Earth for its wickedness" theme is discarded in favour of milquetoast statment on political corruption and environmentalism, the vengeful, destructive, angry god of the OT replaced by kind-hearted grandfatherly Morgan Freeman.

Pretty much the only reason these stories haven't changed as drastically as they could have is because they are written down.

Piscivore

16th November 2009, 10:06 AM

I do not deny them that right nor the capacity. We have plenty of evidence that 'some' ancient Greeks thought little of the Gods and mythology but its simply the case that the history of the ancients shows us that their creation stories were the only explanation they had and believed. I would like to think they were more credulous and gullible but of course there is a sizeable amount of 'modern' humanity that believes these stories to be literal. When it came to their faiths, the ancients - for the most part - could not distinguish between fact and fiction. Much like Fundamentalists today.
Do you have evidence of any of those assertions?

How do you know what ancient people thought?

Seems to me it is more correct to say only "the history of the ancients we have discovered so far shows us that these creation stories that were written down and survived are the only explanation of theirs of which we are aware."

It's like trying to reconstruct what the average man on the street in America thinks by reading the contents of a burned out public library.

Piscivore

16th November 2009, 12:19 PM

six7s

16th November 2009, 12:45 PM

Autumnman

16th November 2009, 02:22 PM

You do realise, Autumnman, don't you, that the argument you are putting forth is essentially the same one with which Fredric Wertham attacked comic books and Jack Thompson attacked videogames, right? And it fails for the same reasons. Bible stories don't make believers immoral monsters any more than comics make kids into delinquents or games make kids killers.

Some people will be immoral monsters, and some of them will be believers.

Some kids will be delinquents, and some of those kids will read comics.

Some kids kill, and some of those killers will be gamers.

There is no causal link. You're welcome to present evidence otherwise, of course. Until then, it's just the same old biased speculation, bare assertion, cherry-picking, confirmation bias, and genetic fallacy we've heard before.

Piscivore:
You must be arguing with someone else, because your argument has nothing to do with what I – Autumnman – have been stating.

I have never said that everyone – every human individual – is the same.
For thousands of years the Old and New Testaments contained within the Holy Bible have been presented and generally accepted as the Word & Moral Authority of the Judeo-Christian God.
Comic books and videogames can in no way be compared to the Holy Authority that has been attributed to the folktales of the Holy Bible.
(The above comments pertain to the cultures and societies that have embraced the “Roman Universal/Catholic Church” as well as the cultures and societies that have embraced the “Reformation & Protestant Christian Religion(s)”.)

We are talking about the Moral Authority and Holy Influence that Pauline Christianity has on the cultures and societies that have embraced the contents of the Holy Bible as being the “true, inerrant Word of the One True God.” For those who continue to believe that the Holy Bible is the true, inerrant Word of the One True God, what St. Paul says (for example, 1 Timothy 2:11 – 14 {11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.) is in fact what the One True God is saying. For those who continue to believe that what is written in the Holy Bible is the Word of God, they treat their women the way the Holy Bible tells them to treat their women. That is a fact!

For those of us who also live in those cultures and societies that regard the Holy Bible as the true, inerrant Word of the One True God, but do not regard the Bible as being anything other than a collection of ancient fables, myths, proverbs and allegories, we do not treat our women as second-class citizens who are subservient to men. We treat each other as human beings, with equal respect and dignity. However, according to the latest poles, we amount to less than 30% of the U.S. population. In the Healthcare Debate now occurring the legal practice of abortion cannot be part of Healthcare Reform, but male erectile enhancements can be paid for with tax payer dollars.

Obviously, we are out numbered.

Autumnman

jadey

16th November 2009, 03:03 PM

Piscivore

16th November 2009, 03:03 PM

We are talking about the Moral Authority and Holy Influence that Pauline Christianity has on the cultures and societies that have embraced the contents of the Holy Bible as being the “true, inerrant Word of the One True God.”
Which culture is that, exactly? It isn't America, where women vote, slavery is illegal, abortion is legal, church attendance and tithing is not compulsory, and Red Lobsters exist with impunity. Not even Vatican City fully does. Find me just one "culture or society" that has "embraced the contents of the Holy Bible as being the “true, inerrant Word of the One True God”" with anything but hollow lip service.

For those who continue to believe that the Holy Bible is the true, inerrant Word of the One True God, what St. Paul says (for example, 1 Timothy 2:11 – 14 {11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.) is in fact what the One True God is saying. For those who continue to believe that what is written in the Holy Bible is the Word of God, they treat their women the way the Holy Bible tells them to treat their women.
That's still just unevidenced assertion. Contrariwise, no culture currently has enshrined the Pauline dictates regarding women into law. Certain individuals may so practice something like these restrictions in their own house, but still there is no evidence that they might not have come to an opinion regarding the subservience of women before discovering the Bible.

That is a fact!
No, it is an assertion. You need evidence before we can even consider it as a "fact". And it is a meaningless assertion, since not all Christians are literalists. Actually, only little more than half report that they do. Given that they continue to live in the United States, where literal Biblical law is not the law of the land, is in fact prohibited from being the law of the land, and embraces a scientific, materialist culture that flies in the face of literal Biblical truth, one has to question just how devoted they are to they professed belief- or just how ignorant they are of the Bible.

For those of us who also live in those cultures and societies that regard the Holy Bible as the true, inerrant Word of the One True God,
Where is that, again?

but do not regard the Bible as being anything other than a collection of ancient fables, myths, proverbs and allegories, we do not treat our women as second-class citizens who are subservient to men. We treat each other as human beings, with equal respect and dignity. However, according to the latest poles, we amount to less than 30% of the U.S. population. In the Healthcare Debate now occurring the legal practice of abortion cannot be part of Healthcare Reform, but male erectile enhancements can be paid for with tax payer dollars.
And that's somehow the fault of the Adam and Eve story? It cannot possibly be that politicians are pandering to what they think people care about, and they get an idea about what people care about from just a few noisy protesters and lobbyists with their own personal axes to grind that may or may not have anything to do with religion? It isn't possible that people form opinions about issues like abortion not based on a book they demonstrably haven't much read, but simply follow along when someone else expresses a strong opinion on a subject they do not feel strongly about? That's not possible?

No, it's all because of a story.

Prove it. Don't assert it, show me some evidence.

Obviously, we are out numbered.
"Outnumbered" only by the apathetic, ignorant masses that care a lot more about getting home to watch television shows- which also flout the literal Biblical truths they supposedly revere so- than they do about "God".

Appeal to fear is another fallacy, my friend. It isn't evidence.

Piscivore

16th November 2009, 03:10 PM

I don't want this to be a derail, so someone please tell me if this is poor etiquette to follow this topic.
It is. Take a look at this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy#Crime_and_violence) and if you still want to discuss it, start a new thread and I'll follow.

Piscivore

16th November 2009, 03:39 PM

Piscivore:
You must be arguing with someone else, because your argument has nothing to do with what I – Autumnman – have been stating.

Oh, and if you've been asserting something besides "The stories in the bible cause/"influence"/brainwash people into acting in ways they otherwise would not, and on that basis should therefore be supressed/"undermined"/restricted" then do please tell me what it is you are talking about.

I Ratant

16th November 2009, 03:57 PM

Which culture is that, exactly? It isn't America, where women vote, slavery is illegal, abortion is legal, church attendance and tithing is not compulsory, and Red Lobsters exist with impunity. Not even Vatican City fully does. Find me just one "culture or society" that has "embraced the contents of the Holy Bible as being the “true, inerrant Word of the One True God”" with anything but hollow lip service.
...
.
Islam, which as an offshoot of Judaism sure takes the OT stuff (as redacted by Moh's editors) as the "true, innerrant word of the one true god", with many layings on of hands, and cutting them off, and other outrages against humanity.
Hardly lip service.
.
Where there is successful separation between church and state, the barbarities of the Old Time religions are generally prohibited, and seriously prosecuted when the believers step outside sane behavior.

Piscivore

16th November 2009, 04:13 PM

.
Islam, which as an offshoot of Judaism sure takes the OT stuff (as redacted by Moh's editors) as the "true, innerrant word of the one true god", with many layings on of hands, and cutting them off, and other outrages against humanity.
Hardly lip service.
.
Where there is successful separation between church and state, the barbarities of the Old Time religions are generally prohibited, and seriously prosecuted when the believers step outside sane behavior.

That may be true, or it may not- I don't pretend to know- but Our Mr. Autumnman specifically cited- in bold, no less :)-
(The above comments pertain to the cultures and societies that have embraced the “Roman Universal/Catholic Church” as well as the cultures and societies that have embraced the “Reformation & Protestant Christian Religion(s)”.)
and specifically mentioned "the contents of the Holy Bible as being the “true, inerrant Word of the One True God”- and the Holy Bible, last I looked, is not the Koran.

quarky

16th November 2009, 05:27 PM

I wonder if we could have a female Pope if a male Pope went trans-sexual while he was in power? That would rock.

Its been a man's world ever since animal husbandry started. The hunter-gatherer show was much more goddess friendly. There was birth control. You can only haul so many babies when you're on the move, and the ones you decide to haul are very significant, in terms of a group's energy expenditures.

I Ratant

16th November 2009, 06:21 PM

That may be true, or it may not- I don't pretend to know- but Our Mr. Autumnman specifically cited- in bold, no less :)-

and specifically mentioned "the contents of the Holy Bible as being the “true, inerrant Word of the One True God”- and the Holy Bible, last I looked, is not the Koran.
.
Half of it is. :)

Hux

17th November 2009, 06:03 AM

six7s

17th November 2009, 07:38 AM

Muslims believe that every single world of the Qu'ran is the actual word presented by God, via Gabriel, to Mo. The Qu'ran is therefore entirely inerrant and not for interpretation.

That is not true about the Jews and Gentiles and their books(except maybe for a few fundies) but the OT and the NT was never claimed to be the actual words of Yahweh baby!Never is a looooooong time, absolutely ;)

www.carm.org/ Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible (http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible)
The Christian Church as a whole claims that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. This means that God is the one who moved through the writers to communicate to us the words which God wanted us to hear. This inspiration, however, is not a dictation, but a movement of God's spirit through the writer, utilizing the personality and style of the writer. Inerrancy means that all that is written in the inspired documents is without error. Now, there is a comment worth mentioning here. Inspiration and inerrancy applies to the original writings, not to the copies. In other words, it is the original writings that are without error. The copies, sadly, have copyist errors in them.

Therefore, when critics of the Bible point out apparent contradictions, what they are doing is either failing to understand the context of the passages they are examining, or they have encountered a scribal copying error

<snip/>

Inspiration comes from God and when He inspired the Bible, it was perfect. Our copies of the original documents are not perfect, but they are very close to being so. The critics often mistakenly assume that even the copies are supposed to be perfect. But when I point out that God never said the copies would be perfect, they then ask how can the Bible be trusted at all? Quite simply, it is redundant in its facts and information sufficiently to guarantee accuracy.

<snip/>

If the Bible cannot be trusted as being reliable because it has only a small percentage of copyist errors, then neither can the above documents be trusted that have far less textual support.

Therefore, we can see that the Bible is an ancient document that has withstood thousands of years of transmission with remarkable accuracy and clarity. We can trust it to be what it says it is: the word of God.And some are surprised that others misinterpret their term 'apologetics'... Hah!

Hux

17th November 2009, 07:41 AM

Inspired by God is an entirely different thing to claiming each and every word is actual dictation as the Qu'ran claims.

Fiona

17th November 2009, 07:46 AM

Muslims believe that every single world of the Qu'ran is the actual word presented by God, via Gabriel, to Mo. The Qu'ran is therefore entirely inerrant and not for interpretation.

That is quite simply not true: the study of the koran and the interpretation of it is an important part of islamic studies and islamic jurisprudence. It is not different from judaism or christianity in that respect. They also believe it is the word of god but it needs to be interpreted.

six7s

17th November 2009, 08:04 AM

Inspired by God is an entirely different thing to claiming each and every word is actual dictation as the Qu'ran claims.:confused:

So?

You said:...the OT and the NT was never claimed to be the actual words of Yahweh baby!

The site I quoted says:
Inspiration and inerrancy applies to the original writings

jadey

17th November 2009, 02:00 PM

I would go much, much further. Catholics completely ignore the church's stance on contraception in droves, in this country. Many take absolutely no notice of the church's position at all. This is also true in other european countries which are ostensibly catholic: a few years ago Italy had the lowest birth rate in the world ( I am not sure if that is still true) and I am fairly confident that they are not more abstemious than other peoples. The catholic stance just does not matter in the scheme of things.
It matters if you are attempting to control the spread of AIDS in Africa. The catholic missionaries in Africa advocate against the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS because of the official stance of the RC church.

People do not change their behaviour on matters important to them on the basis of the church's say so, unless they already agree with it. This bogey man has few teeth and it isn't even green.

I'm don't know what a bogey man is :o
If the church changed their stance, wouldn't the missionaries change their behaviour and promote the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS? I think that would matter in the scheme of things.

Are you? Forgive me but I am always suspicious of arguments which rest on "well I would not act like that but those poor other people will". There is a name for that type of thinking, but I can't remember it at present, sorry

I'm not following. Are you saying that I was being condescending? That certainly was not my intention, but on a second read, I guess I should have left out the parenthetical part. Otherwise, I thought my point was fair. In reality, I was alluding to the beliefs of many of my family members who are wonderful people whom I love & respect dearly. They believe homosexuality is a sin against God. I think that biblical stories are the SOURCE of this belief, not merely reflective of it.

I think I understand your perspective on this issue, but I simply disagree that the biblical stories are as benign as other folklore. The difference being the context in which they are encountered. The biblical stories are presented to much of the populous in the context that "These stories are true and are the word of God." When these stories are taught (especially to young people) and constantly reinforced in this context, they can very much influence a person's beliefs and behaviour. However, if the biblical stories were just another group of books found on the library shelves that a person might freely choose to read and evaluate, the stories would have no more influence than any other folklore.

Autumnman

17th November 2009, 02:34 PM

I think I understand your perspective on this issue, but I simply disagree that the biblical stories are as benign as other folklore. The difference being the context in which they are encountered. The biblical stories are presented to much of the populous in the context that "These stories are true and are the word of God." When these stories are taught (especially to young people) and constantly reinforced in this context, they can very much influence a person's beliefs and behaviour. However, if the biblical stories were just another group of books found on the library shelves that a person might freely choose to read and evaluate, the stories would have no more influence than any other folklore.

jadey: I agree with you completely. Well said.
Autumnman

Fiona

17th November 2009, 02:58 PM

It matters if you are attempting to control the spread of AIDS in Africa. The catholic missionaries in Africa advocate against the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS because of the official stance of the RC church.

I did say that the position is different in poor and illiterate countries: and I also said that the problem there is not really religion. You can disagree, of course.

If the church was not there would the situation be better or worse? In terms of medical and famine relief? In terms of education? Poverty and illiteracy are the primary problems and while I agree that the church position on sex in general and AIDS in particular are not good, I do not see that as particularly relevant to the situation in your country or mine: which is, after all, what the OP is about

I'm not following. Are you saying that I was being condescending? That certainly was not my intention, but on a second read, I guess I should have left out the parenthetical part. Otherwise, I thought my point was fair. In reality, I was alluding to the beliefs of many of my family members who are wonderful people whom I love & respect dearly. They believe homosexuality is a sin against God. I think that biblical stories are the SOURCE of this belief, not merely reflective of it.

Fair enough. I did not mean to pick you up for condescension: it is rather that there really is a well established tendency for people to judge third party susceptibility to influence very differently from their own susceptibility to the same influence. If I could remember what to call it I could probably link: but I am afraid I can't. No matter

I think I understand your perspective on this issue, but I simply disagree that the biblical stories are as benign as other folklore.

Let me be clear: I do not see folklore as necessarily benign. We pass on a lot of our culture through stories and not all of our culture is good

The difference being the context in which they are encountered. The biblical stories are presented to much of the populous in the context that "These stories are true and are the word of God." When these stories are taught (especially to young people) and constantly reinforced in this context, they can very much influence a person's beliefs and behaviour. However, if the biblical stories were just another group of books found on the library shelves that a person might freely choose to read and evaluate, the stories would have no more influence than any other folklore.

We do not disagree, I think. As I said: the damage is done in the family and the social group. I cannot think of an ethical way to insist that people do not pass on their own views to their children, can you?

As an aside, much of our shared culture is not just left on library shelves for people to freely read: an enormous amount is passed on before a child can read or even talk properly. It is done through stories and songs and modelling and in many other ways: if you think only religion is influential in this way then I differ.

Yet many people do not take on religious views into adult life: many do not continue to want to be princesses or spacemen either. If your family happens to reinforce your perception that spaceman is a good and viable career path then perhaps they will turn out to be right or maybe not: but if not, and you continue with it, you cannot argue it is impossible to get out of that mindset: because most people do.

It seems to me that if you wish to explain the difference in religiosity between the USA and most other developed nations you need to look elsewhere: I have no idea how to explain that but it isn't bible stories or the difference would not exist

Piscivore

17th November 2009, 03:13 PM

I think I understand your perspective on this issue, but I simply disagree that the biblical stories are as benign as other folklore.
Ironically, you then go on to point out why they are:

The difference being the context in which they are encountered. The biblical stories are presented to much of the populous in the context that "These stories are true and are the word of God." When these stories are taught (especially to young people) and constantly reinforced in this context, they can very much influence a person's beliefs and behaviour.
Don't you see? It is not the stories that are the problem, it is those people using the stories to validate and justify what they already believe or want, and/or want others to believe.

See: Mark David Chapman. Catcher did not tell him to kill Lennon, he used it to try to justify what he already wanted to do. And even though he claims the seed of his anger towards Lennon was, in part, the "bigger than Jesus" line, he did not use the Bible to justify his anger.

It isn't the stories.

However, if the biblical stories were just another group of books found on the library shelves that a person might freely choose to read and evaluate, the stories would have no more influence than any other folklore.
Exactly the point. And contrariwise, almost any story can be used to justify some behaviour or another that someone else might not like.

Look at the Jedi religion. People find things in stories that they feel say somthing about who they think they are or who they want to be. About what they feel their place in the world is or what they want their place in the world to be. Something about the way the world works or how they wish the world works. And they embrace it, repeat it, modify it. Sometimes that works out well, sometimes it works something extraordinarily postive- and sometimes the opposite.

Stories are just a tool. The same hammer that builds a house for a disaster victim can kill an unloved child. Neither is the hammer's doing.

Piscivore

17th November 2009, 03:15 PM

We do not disagree, I think. As I said: the damage is done in the family and the social group. I cannot think of an ethical way to insist that people do not pass on their own views to their children, can you?

As an aside, much of our shared culture is not just left on library shelves for people to freely read: an enormous amount is passed on before a child can read or even talk properly. It is done through stories and songs and modelling and in many other ways: if you think only religion is influential in this way then I differ.

Yet many people do not take on religious views into adult life: many do not continue to want to be princesses or spacemen either. If your family happens to reinforce your perception that spaceman is a good and viable career path then perhaps they will turn out to be right or maybe not: but if not, and you continue with it, you cannot argue it is impossible to get out of that mindset: because most people do.

It seems to me that if you wish to explain the difference in religiosity between the USA and most other developed nations you need to look elsewhere: I have no idea how to explain that but it isn't bible stories or the difference would not exist

Well said.

jadey

17th November 2009, 05:21 PM

I did say that the position is different in poor and illiterate countries: and I also said that the problem there is not really religion. You can disagree, of course.

If the church was not there would the situation be better or worse? In terms of medical and famine relief? In terms of education? Poverty and illiteracy are the primary problems and while I agree that the church position on sex in general and AIDS in particular are not good, I do not see that as particularly relevant to the situation in your country or mine: which is, after all, what the OP is about
The highlite above is mine.
I didn't really get that from the OP.

Let me be clear: I do not see folklore as necessarily benign. We pass on a lot of our culture through stories and not all of our culture is good
Good point.

We do not disagree, I think. As I said: the damage is done in the family and the social group. I cannot think of an ethical way to insist that people do not pass on their own views to their children, can you?
Yes, you did make that point in an earlier post and I had missed it. No, I cannot think of an ethical way to do that. Honestly, I couldn't enforce it upon myself if I tried.

As an aside, much of our shared culture is not just left on library shelves for people to freely read: an enormous amount is passed on before a child can read or even talk properly. It is done through stories and songs and modelling and in many other ways: if you think only religion is influential in this way then I differ.
I concur.

Yet many people do not take on religious views into adult life: many do not continue to want to be princesses or spacemen either. If your family happens to reinforce your perception that spaceman is a good and viable career path then perhaps they will turn out to be right or maybe not: but if not, and you continue with it, you cannot argue it is impossible to get out of that mindset: because most people do.
Agreed, many do not. It is possible to get out of that mindset, but it can be very difficult.

It seems to me that if you wish to explain the difference in religiosity between the USA and most other developed nations you need to look elsewhere: I have no idea how to explain that but it isn't bible stories or the difference would not exist
Yeah, that's difficult to understand.

Piscivore

17th November 2009, 05:25 PM

Yeah, that's difficult to understand.

A lot of it has to do with multiculturalism and the relative youth of our country.

jadey

17th November 2009, 06:20 PM

Don't you see? It is not the stories that are the problem, it is those people using the stories to validate and justify what they already believe or want, and/or want others to believe.

I partially agree. As I stated in an earlier post to you (post #20)
Agreed. If all folktales were read as folklore, it would be as you say. However, some folktales have extremely powerful institutions promoting them as non-fiction.

To the OP, if we could get rid of these institutions, and let the books stand on their own merit, they would have negligible weight and influence.

Where I take exception is when you suggest that the stories only serve to validate and justify what they already believe. If I understand that correctly, it means that a person has independently come to believe something, and then they reference whatever story (or portion therof) that validates their personal belief. This is certainly true in many cases and I believe that we call this cherry-picking. The more generic the topic, the more likely that this can be true. However, when someone states that they believe that a man named Jesus Christ, son of god, died on a cross to save humans from their sins, my position is that the folktale serves as the SOURCE of their belief, not merely as a justification for an independent personal belief. I don't see how it could be otherwise.

jadey

17th November 2009, 06:23 PM

A lot of it has to do with multiculturalism and the relative youth of our country.

I'd like to hear more about that. Would that need to be a different thread?

Piscivore

17th November 2009, 07:37 PM

I partially agree. As I stated in an earlier post to you (post #20)

Where I take exception is when you suggest that the stories only serve to validate and justify what they already believe. If I understand that correctly, it means that a person has independently come to believe something, and then they reference whatever story (or portion therof) that validates their personal belief. This is certainly true in many cases and I believe that we call this cherry-picking. The more generic the topic, the more likely that this can be true. However, when someone states that they believe that a man named Jesus Christ, son of god, died on a cross to save humans from their sins, my position is that the folktale serves as the SOURCE of their belief, not merely as a justification for an independent personal belief. I don't see how it could be otherwise.
Easy, their parents teach it to them. They are told by someone they trust that these stories are true, and they may not yet have the tools or the experience to know that people they trust can still be incorrect.

The parents (or other trusted person) may use the stories as a vehicle, yes, but without the crucial element of authority and trust they are no more likely to believe the bible stories are true than Greek Myths or Star Wars.

Piscivore

17th November 2009, 07:38 PM

I'd like to hear more about that. Would that need to be a different thread?

Probably, but I don't have a lot more, it's just a sort of guess.

jadey

18th November 2009, 06:42 AM

Easy, their parents teach it to them. They are told by someone they trust that these stories are true, and they may not yet have the tools or the experience to know that people they trust can still be incorrect.

The parents (or other trusted person) may use the stories as a vehicle, yes, but without the crucial element of authority and trust they are no more likely to believe the bible stories are true than Greek Myths or Star Wars.

On this point, I agree completely.

Piscivore

18th November 2009, 06:48 AM

On this point, I agree completely.

That's why I say it isn't the stories that are the problem, it is trust- in other words, lack of critical thinking.

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 09:43 AM

That's why I say it isn't the stories that are the problem, it is trust- in other words, lack of critical thinking.

Are you saying that children, from one generation to the next, are supposed to “critically think” as their parents and various social leaders are indoctrinating them with the morally charged, divinely inspired stories of the Holy Bible?

You are out of touch with reality if that is indeed what you are stating.
Autumnman

Piscivore

18th November 2009, 10:03 AM

Are you saying that children, from one generation to the next, are supposed to “critically think” as their parents and various social leaders are indoctrinating them with the morally charged, divinely inspired stories of the Holy Bible?
Yes. The majority of people who are atheists here did exactly that. The fact that Western cultures are moving away from religion says that it is happening.

Kids figure out the Santa Clause thing. Kids frequently rebel against the teaching of their parents. Kids sneak into movies, steal booze, have sex, smoke and take drugs despite "the morally charged, divinely inspired" teachings of the bible and their parents.

You're positing a bogeyman in asserting these stories are an irresistable, infallible brainwashing device. That's just not the case. It's more fear-mongering. Show me some evidence to support your assertions instead of bringing this weak emotive bluster.

You are out of touch with reality if that is indeed what you are stating.
What "reality" is it you think I am out of touch with? The one full of "cultures and societies that have embraced the contents of the Holy Bible as being the “true, inerrant Word of the One True God.”"- that you nonetheless somehow cannot identify?

Pure_Argent

18th November 2009, 10:18 AM

Are you saying that children, from one generation to the next, are supposed to “critically think” as their parents and various social leaders are indoctrinating them with the morally charged, divinely inspired stories of the Holy Bible?

You are out of touch with reality if that is indeed what you are stating.
Autumnman

Not at all. It's what I did.

And the whole "divinely inspired" bit is something that atheists don't buy into. A doubter, therefore, would not be influenced by this claim.

jadey

18th November 2009, 10:46 AM

Are you saying that children, from one generation to the next, are supposed to “critically think” as their parents and various social leaders are indoctrinating them with the morally charged, divinely inspired stories of the Holy Bible?

At this point, I think that this is the way most of us have to do this if we are so inclined. I guess for some, this process is fairly simple, while for others, it is very difficult. I happen to have fallen into the latter camp. Personally, it was a solo endeavor. I was not aware of any support groups or forums such as this where one had access to other opinions/ideas. As hard as this may seem to believe, I never met an atheist until college (or at least anyone who might have expressed an atheistic idea). For that matter, I can't recall ever meeting someone who expressed a non-christian idea prior to college.

So, if you were to ask "What can be done to reduce the influence of the biblical tales and the institutions that support them" (a bit broader than your OP). I would say that forums such as these are helpful. I think that the advertising campaign that has been started that posts billboards that state "Don't believe in God, you're not alone" help open the lines of communication. I think just publicizing the fact that there are just average Joe atheists in the world who are comfortable with the answer "I don't know (yet)" to some of lifes intriguing questions is helpful. Perhaps, as Fiona and Hux suggested, teaching religion in school side by side with science would serve as a sort of vaccination? These are interesting ideas.

Hux

18th November 2009, 10:54 AM

Children generally are not stupid. Left to their own devices, i.e, not brainwashed, they will come up with some very pertinent questions.

When things don't make sense, they say so.

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 11:28 AM

Yes. The majority of people who are atheists here did exactly that. The fact that Western cultures are moving away from religion says that it is happening.

Kids figure out the Santa Clause thing. Kids frequently rebel against the teaching of their parents. Kids sneak into movies, steal booze, have sex, smoke and take drugs despite "the morally charged, divinely inspired" teachings of the bible and their parents.

You're positing a bogeyman in asserting these stories are an irresistable, infallible brainwashing device. That's just not the case. It's more fear-mongering. Show me some evidence to support your assertions instead of bringing this weak emotive bluster.

What "reality" is it you think I am out of touch with? The one full of "cultures and societies that have embraced the contents of the Holy Bible as being the “true, inerrant Word of the One True God.”"- that you nonetheless somehow cannot identify?

I went to a couple websites and found this information.

If you go to this website (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:1xDCpqZsZcYJ:home.comcast.net/~antaylor1/bestsellingbooks.html+all+time) you will notice that the #1 best selling book of all time happens to be the Holy Bible.
If you go to this website (http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/categorylist.html#BEST%20SELLERS) and scroll down to CENSORSHIP you will find this:
Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds.

I think these websites help to illustrate the reality I was referring to earlier. I have no idea if you will accept the above websites as evidence but what I found on these sites is, I hope, perceived as something other than "weak emotive bluster."

You're such a sweet talker!
Autumnman

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 11:35 AM

At this point, I think that this is the way most of us have to do this if we are so inclined. I guess for some, this process is fairly simple, while for others, it is very difficult. I happen to have fallen into the latter camp. Personally, it was a solo endeavor. I was not aware of any support groups or forums such as this where one had access to other opinions/ideas. As hard as this may seem to believe, I never met an atheist until college (or at least anyone who might have expressed an atheistic idea). For that matter, I can't recall ever meeting someone who expressed a non-christian idea prior to college.

So, if you were to ask "What can be done to reduce the influence of the biblical tales and the institutions that support them" (a bit broader than your OP). I would say that forums such as these are helpful. I think that the advertising campaign that has been started that posts billboards that state "Don't believe in God, you're not alone" help open the lines of communication. I think just publicizing the fact that there are just average Joe atheists in the world who are comfortable with the answer "I don't know (yet)" to some of lifes intriguing questions is helpful. Perhaps, as Fiona and Hux suggested, teaching religion in school side by side with science would serve as a sort of vaccination? These are interesting ideas.

I am with you 100%, jadey.
Autumnman

jadey

18th November 2009, 11:36 AM

Not at all. It's what I did.

And the whole "divinely inspired" bit is something that atheists don't buy into. A doubter, therefore, would not be influenced by this claim.

Would you at least allow that this can be a difficult process for many people? Would you agree that for many, there are strong external influences promoting and reinforcing biblical tales (friends, family, church) for many years? Would you agree that it is difficult for a child to invoke reason to deflect these influences.

Often, we propose that the atheist position is the default position to many of lifes intriguing questions.

How did we get here? We don't know entirely, but we can make a strong case for evolution ...

How did the universe begin? We don't know, but it appears there may have been a singularity from which arose some big explosion ...

What happens when we die? It appears that we rot.

From my perspective, the default position was the most difficult position to achieve. It took at least a decade of reasoning, self doubt, guilt, remorse, fear of eternal damnation, family squabbles, etc, to come to the default position. Why would this be? For those of us who have had a similar experience, this is very intriguing and also disturbing. In my experience, the biblical tales and the institutions behind them have a great amount of influence. From these posts I understand that from many peoples' experience', the tales and institutions had little or no influence. I find this to be pleasantly surprising, wonderful, encouraging. I personally need to take a broader view of what atheists experience.

Hux

18th November 2009, 11:38 AM

If you go to this website you will notice that the #1 best selling book of all time happens to be the Holy Bible

This may or may not be true but it says nothing much really, since for a considerable period it was the only selling book. Someone else said they couldn't recall a time it was ever in Amazons best seller list (or anyone elses for that matter)and, of course, even if Harry Potter overtook it, it has nothing to say about validating the contents.

Hux

18th November 2009, 11:44 AM

Would you at least allow that this can be a difficult process for many people? Would you agree that for many, there are strong external influences promoting and reinforcing biblical tales (friends, family, church) for many years? Would you agree that it is difficult for a child to invoke reason to deflect these influences.

Often, we propose that the atheist position is the default position to many of lifes intriguing questions.

How did we get here? We don't know entirely, but we can make a strong case for evolution ...

How did the universe begin? We don't know, but it appears there may have been a singularity from which arose some big explosion ...

What happens when we die? It appears that we rot.

From my perspective, the default position was the most difficult position to achieve. It took at least a decade of reasoning, self doubt, guilt, remorse, fear of eternal damnation, family squabbles, etc, to come to the default position. Why would this be? For those of us who have had a similar experience, this is very intriguing and also disturbing. In my experience, the biblical tales and the institutions behind them have a great amount of influence. From these posts I understand that from many peoples' experience', the tales and institutions had little or no influence. I find this to be pleasantly surprising, wonderful, encouraging. I personally need to take a broader view of what atheists experience.

Some of these tales have undoubted power, but when it comes down to it, making such bald statments as coming back to life from the dead, will usually incur the curiosity of a lot of children and they just arent going to fall for this rubbish, unless it has been driven into them beforehand. I sit not strange that for all the reverence Muslims give Jesus, they just don't buy that He died and resurrected? Do they not think a ringer was put in his place? Kids will follow the real world or what their PS3 suggests. In that world the zombies are dangerous.

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 11:48 AM

This may or may not be true but it says nothing much really, since for a considerable period it was the only selling book. Someone else said they couldn't recall a time it was ever in Amazons best seller list (or anyone elses for that matter)and, of course, even if Harry Potter overtook it, it has nothing to say about validating the contents.

I am certainly not trying to validate the contents of the bloody Holy frickin Bible.
The Holy Bible and its folktales continue to carry too much weight around the entire bloody world. If somehow the Bible could be stripped of its alleged divine authority and its stories be largely regarded as nothing more than ancient literature guys like GWBush would not be able to start bloody wars simply because he claimed he talked to his "father in heaven."
Autumnman

Pure_Argent

18th November 2009, 11:49 AM

jadey

18th November 2009, 12:04 PM

Some of these tales have undoubted power, but when it comes down to it, making such bald statments as coming back to life from the dead, will usually incur the curiosity of a lot of children and they just arent going to fall for this rubbish, unless it has been driven into them beforehand. I sit not strange that for all the reverence Muslims give Jesus, they just don't buy that He died and resurrected? Do they not think a ringer was put in his place? Kids will follow the real world or what their PS3 suggests. In that world the zombies are dangerous.

Oddly enough, I've never thought any of the tales were compelling or interesting. Well, except that part about heaven .. that was pretty cool .. I wish that part were true. My instructors always made sure that we were aware of that little clause about "Believe this or suffer eternal damnation." That was the primary reason that I had such trouble becoming an atheist, I just couldn't get past it. Let me tell you, Eternal Damnation would SUCK!

jadey

18th November 2009, 12:06 PM

Yep. But not impossible.

Yes, and I'd support making it easier.

Oh crap, does that make me a ... gulp ... evangelical atheist:eek:

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 12:53 PM

This may or may not be true but it says nothing much really, since for a considerable period it was the only selling book. Someone else said they couldn't recall a time it was ever in Amazons best seller list (or anyone elses for that matter)and, of course, even if Harry Potter overtook it, it has nothing to say about validating the contents.

Here is another website ( http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:E6duzQc26LcJ:www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html+best+selling+book) that describes the “Bible” as being the best selling book of all time, and this one provides a bit more information.
Autumnman

Piscivore

18th November 2009, 01:00 PM

I went to a couple websites and found this information.

If you go to this website (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:1xDCpqZsZcYJ:home.comcast.net/~antaylor1/bestsellingbooks.html+all+time) you will notice that the #1 best selling book of all time happens to be the Holy Bible.
So? I'm an atheist, and I have three. That just means that lots of people buy it- it says nothing at all on how they view the contents or how it affects their life.

If you go to this website (http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/categorylist.html#BEST%20SELLERS) and scroll down to CENSORSHIP you will find this:
And? All that shows is that people sometimes give religious reasons for actions you do not agree with.

Here's a site (http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedclassics/reasonsbanned/index.cfm) that documents CENSORSHIP that often has nothing to do with religion. There is NO "atrocity" or outrage one can blame on religion that cannot also be demonstrated to have been done for non-religious reasons.

I think these websites help to illustrate the reality I was referring to earlier. I have no idea if you will accept the above websites as evidence but what I found on these sites is, I hope, perceived as something other than "weak emotive bluster."
Nope. Your first example is "Post hoc ergo propter hoc"- people have bought lots of bibles because they think it is the "true, inerrant Word of the One True God.”, when there may be any number of possible reasons people buy bibles- and the second is "fallacy of the single cause"- people have censored books for religious reason, therefore censorship is a problem caused by religion.

Find me one of those "cultures and societies that have embraced the contents of the Holy Bible as being the “true, inerrant Word of the One True God.”"- that would go a long way towards demonstrating your alleged "reality".

Piscivore

18th November 2009, 01:07 PM

If somehow the Bible could be stripped of its alleged divine authority and its stories be largely regarded as nothing more than ancient literature guys like GWBush would not be able to start bloody wars simply because he claimed he talked to his "father in heaven."
No, he'd have just found some other reason.

There is NO "atrocity" or outrage one can blame on religion that cannot also be demonstrated to have been done for non-religious reasons.

Piscivore

18th November 2009, 01:08 PM

Yes, and I'd support making it easier.

Oh crap, does that make me a ... gulp ... evangelical atheist:eek:

A bit. :) A lot depends on what you are willing to do to make it "easier".

Fiona

18th November 2009, 01:11 PM

I am certainly not trying to validate the contents of the bloody Holy frickin Bible.
The Holy Bible and its folktales continue to carry too much weight around the entire bloody world. If somehow the Bible could be stripped of its alleged divine authority and its stories be largely regarded as nothing more than ancient literature guys like GWBush would not be able to start bloody wars simply because he claimed he talked to his "father in heaven."
Autumnman

I really think this is not the situation in most of the developed world, Autumnman. Now I may be wrong about this but it is my perception. Wars here are not started on the basis of relgion (not overtly, at least): nor can I think that would work in most of western europe or the antipodes, for example.

The problem is not religion nor religious stories, and that is the point I think Pisci is trying to make. All of those other countries have bibles and bible stories and a religious history: but it is largely history at least insofar as public life is concerned.

I fully accept it is very influential in America and that if you are brought up in that milieu it can be very difficult to get out of the mindset: but the question for me is why is this true in the USA and not so much in comparable countries? It cannot be the bible stories for reasons given: so where else can we look?

I do not know

Piscivore

18th November 2009, 01:15 PM

Oddly enough, I've never thought any of the tales were compelling or interesting. Well, except that part about heaven .. that was pretty cool .. I wish that part were true.
That did nothing for me. The closest I've ever been to "God" were for similar reasons Faust cosied up to Mephistopholes.

My instructors always made sure that we were aware of that little clause about "Believe this or suffer eternal damnation."
That was never a big part of our church. I can't even think of a time when "damnation" was even mentioned, and when we spoke of hell it was metaphorical.

That was the primary reason that I had such trouble becoming an atheist, I just couldn't get past it. Let me tell you, Eternal Damnation would SUCK!
As opposed to eternally worshiping? I can't tell the difference. :)

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 01:38 PM

No, he'd have just found some other reason.
But GWBush invoked, "His Father in Heaven." GWBush is what we refer to as a Right Wing, Socially Conservative, Republican as well as other things.

There is NO "atrocity" or outrage one can blame on religion that cannot also be demonstrated to have been done for non-religious reasons.

I do not disagree. However, this particular thread pertains to the question: Do Bible folktales carry too much weight. They have and still do carry way too much weight. If only they could be perceived by the masses as being nothing more than ancient literature. There are those of us who do regard the biblical narratives as nothing more than ancient literature. There are others who pay little or no attention to the bible. But the freedom to have these two options is a relatively new social development, and it is a social development that many still do not find as an alternative.

An individual's socialization plays a considerable role in forming that individual's thoughts, morals, and behavior. I am not implying that everyone is the same, or that everyone who is brought up Christian will remain Christian. I am not implying that all Christians are monsters or that all Christians are right wing, socially conservative, Republicans who love to start wars. But [i]right wing, socially conservatve, Republicans actually exist in the USA, and there is a considerable number of them - GWBush was elected President twice.
Autumnman

Piscivore

18th November 2009, 01:53 PM

But GWBush invoked, "His Father in Heaven." GWBush is what we refer to as a Right Wing, Socially Conservative, Republican as well as other things.
And? he said that because that's what he thought his Right Wing, Socially Conservative, Republican constiuents wanted and/or expected him to say. If you have any evidence besides one sound bite that "His Father in Heaven" is the primary reason he started the Iraqi war, please present it. Few of the rest of us doubt it was oil.

I do not disagree. However, this particular thread pertains to the question: Do Bible folktales carry too much weight.
And what I am trying to tell you is that they do not carry any weight of their own. At all. The only weight they appear to have is what people bring with them.

They have and still do carry way too much weight. If only they could be perceived by the masses as being nothing more that ancient literature.
So this all comes down to you bitching because "the masses" don't agree with you?

There are those of us who do regard the biblical narratives as nothing more than ancient literature.
Yes. A lot more than you seem to think.

There are others who pay little or no attention to the bible.
A whole hell of a lot more people than you seem to think.

But the freedom to have these two options is a relatively new social development, and it is a social development that many still do not find as an alternative.

An individual's socialization plays a considerable role in forming that individual's thoughts, morals, and behavior. I am not implying that everyone is the same, or that everyone who is brought up Christian will remain Christian. I am not implying that all Christians are monsters or that all Christians are right wing, socially conservative, Republicans who love to start wars. But [i]right wing, socially conservatve, Republicans actually exist in the USA, and there is a considerable number of them - GWBush was elected President twice.
Autumnman
I think you'll find that has more to do with Karl Rove and Fox News than Jesus.

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 01:53 PM

I really think this is not the situation in most of the developed world, Autumnman. Now I may be wrong about this but it is my perception. Wars here are not started on the basis of relgion (not overtly, at least): nor can I think that would work in most of western europe or the antipodes, for example.

The problem is not religion nor religious stories, and that is the point I think Pisci is trying to make. All of those other countries have bibles and bible stories and a religious history: but it is largely history at least insofar as public life is concerned.

I fully accept it is very influential in America and that if you are brought up in that milieu it can be very difficult to get out of the mindset: but the question for me is why is this true in the USA and not so much in comparable countries? It cannot be the bible stories for reasons given: so where else can we look?

I do not know

The USA is an extremely young - newly developed - nation. We have a very short history to draw from. Religious "freedom" was apparently one of the forces that helped found this "New Country". If indeed Europe has moved beyond this Religious Nonsense, I say "good for you." Religious Nonsense is still a BIG deal here in the USA. Most Republican candidates for President believed in "Creationism" and one even said "It would be easier to change the Constitution than to alter The Word of The Living God" - referring to the Bible.

Do you see what I am driving at?
Autumnman

Piscivore

18th November 2009, 01:57 PM

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 01:58 PM

So this all comes down to you bitching because "the masses" don't agree with you?

Piscivore: You are a bloody jerk. I have nothing more to say to you.
Autumnman

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 01:59 PM

Yes, Fear. Trying to scare people into agreeing with you. Religious nonsense is making a lot of NOISE right now, but they aren't anywhere close to "taking over".

Piscivore: I wasn't talking to you!
Autumnman

Hokulele

18th November 2009, 02:07 PM

Well, that is certainly one way to convince people that your arguments are correct. :boggled:

Piscivore

18th November 2009, 02:15 PM

Piscivore: You are a bloody jerk.
Probably. My wife would agree with you most of the time. It has no bearing on whether my arguments are correct or not though. :)

I have nothing more to say to you.
No, I don't imagine you do. Thank you for your time.

Fiona

18th November 2009, 02:18 PM

The USA is an extremely young - newly developed - nation. We have a very short history to draw from. Religious "freedom" was apparently one of the forces that helped found this "New Country". If indeed Europe has moved beyond this Religious Nonsense, I say "good for you." Religious Nonsense is still a BIG deal here in the USA. Most Republican candidates for President believed in "Creationism" and one even said "It would be easier to change the Constitution than to alter The Word of The Living God" - referring to the Bible.

Do you see what I am driving at?
Autumnman

In a way I do, I think. If it is the case that the USA is much more religious then other comparable countries (and I think it is) then that is a problem for people who think like you (and like me) in your country. But if we are not just noting the fact and bewailing it, then we have to look at the reasons for it with a view to seeking what might be solutions, do we not?

As I said: I have no idea what the reasons for this discrepancy might be. Some guesses:

Teaching religion in schools: this seems to be something which most americans oppose and I have the impression this is because of a commitment to the separation of church and state going back to your earliest days. The fact remains that many countries, including my own, do have a state religion and do teach religion in schools. Contrary to expectation that seems to be correlated with less religiosity and that appears to be true in many countries.

One of the things I have wondered about is what I described as the "vaccination" effect. If religion is taught in schools, it is discussed. Unless everyone believes exactly the same thing then this allows for some questioning, and perhaps it opens the way for doubt. It is certainly more difficult to ensure that a child will never meet an atheist as Jadey describes: or at least someone who interprets the bible very differently. Your home schoolers seem to be very aware of that :). So maybe that is something that should be reconsidered? I think that would be hard in the USA because there is a strong principle behind the separation and the idea seems to be quite shocking to at least some americans: but the evidence does seem to suggest there might be some effect there.

Welfare State: I have asked a lot of questions about the situation in America and I gather it varies greatly between states. So it is hard to get a picture for those of us outside. But it has occurred to me that your churches are very central to community life because your welfare provision is very heavily dependent on churches. This is not true in my country nor in most of europe. In another thread someone suggested (a little tongue in cheek, I think) that the reason fundamentalist and conservative christian groups oppose what they see as socialism was because it would muscle in on a big plank of their power: I think that idea is not ridiculous. I also think it would be anathema to most americans and if it was seen as a worthwhile enterprise it would take a very long time to sell it. Perhaps it is impossible

Size: it has sometimes occurred to me the church is important because of the sheer size of your country. As I understand it, it is stronger in rural areas than it is in cities (generally speaking). I wondered about that and it occurred to me that if I were to move to somewhere fairly remote (like Wick, for example) then I might find it difficult to integrate. One way of doing so would be to join a church: it is a sort of ready made pass to a new community and a lot of social life revolves around it. Americans seem to be a little more rural and a little more mobile than we are: so this social aspect may also support the church's power both through the pull I just described and perhaps from fear of exclusion if you do not fit in.

As I said, I am guessing. I do not live there nor have I ever visited. But if any of these kinds of mechanism are in play then trying to overturn belief through critical thinking is not going to get very far: it is the wrong kind of analysis really. Though I freely acknowledge that my mind tends to seek expanations in social structures and less in individuals: and that may in itself be a cultural difference because my impression is that americans are far more attracted to individualism, generally

Don't know if that makes any sense to you

Autumnman

18th November 2009, 02:45 PM

In a way I do, I think. If it is the case that the USA is much more religious then other comparable countries (and I think it is) then that is a problem for people who think like you (and like me) in your country. But if we are not just noting the fact and bewailing it, then we have to look at the reasons for it with a view to seeking what might be solutions, do we not?

As I said: I have no idea what the reasons for this discrepancy might be. Some guesses:

Teaching religion in schools: this seems to be something which most americans oppose and I have the impression this is because of a commitment to the separation of church and state going back to your earliest days. The fact remains that many countries, including my own, do have a state religion and do teach religion in schools. Contrary to expectation that seems to be correlated with less religiosity and that appears to be true in many countries.

One of the things I have wondered about is what I described as the "vaccination" effect. If religion is taught in schools, it is discussed. Unless everyone believes exactly the same thing then this allows for some questioning, and perhaps it opens the way for doubt. It is certainly more difficult to ensure that a child will never meet an atheist as Jadey describes: or at least someone who interprets the bible very differently. Your home schoolers seem to be very aware of that :). So maybe that is something that should be reconsidered? I think that would be hard in the USA because there is a strong principle behind the separation and the idea seems to be quite shocking to at least some americans: but the evidence does seem to suggest there might be some effect there.

Welfare State: I have asked a lot of questions about the situation in America and I gather it varies greatly between states. So it is hard to get a picture for those of us outside. But it has occurred to me that your churches are very central to community life because your welfare provision is very heavily dependent on churches. This is not true in my country nor in most of europe. In another thread someone suggested (a little tongue in cheek, I think) that the reason fundamentalist and conservative christian groups oppose what they see as socialism was because it would muscle in on a big plank of their power: I think that idea is not ridiculous. I also think it would be anathema to most americans and if it was seen as a worthwhile enterprise it would take a very long time to sell it. Perhaps it is impossible

Size: it has sometimes occurred to me the church is important because of the sheer size of your country. As I understand it, it is stronger in rural areas than it is in cities (generally speaking). I wondered about that and it occurred to me that if I were to move to somewhere fairly remote (like Wick, for example) then I might find it difficult to integrate. One way of doing so would be to join a church: it is a sort of ready made pass to a new community and a lot of social life revolves around it. Americans seem to be a little more rural and a little more mobile than we are: so this social aspect may also support the church's power both through the pull I just described and perhaps from fear of exclusion if you do not fit in.

As I said, I am guessing. I do not live there nor have I ever visited. But if any of these kinds of mechanism are in play then trying to overturn belief through critical thinking is not going to get very far: it is the wrong kind of analysis really. Though I freely acknowledge that my mind tends to seek expanations in social structures and less in individuals: and that may in itself be a cultural difference because my impression is that americans are far more attracted to individualism, generally

Don't know if that makes any sense to you

I reply quoting everything you have said just so I can have it essentially posted twice. Fiona, my friend, you have a wonderfully insightful mind.

Actually teaching the Bible in public schools and debating its content would be a great idea. I am not certain how that would actually work here; religious parents might just end up sending their kids to private - religious - schools rather than have them subjected to biblical debate. Having the federal government take over helping the poor, thus denying the "faith-based" enterprises and the churches that grip on socialization, is another great idea. However, having traveled around the USA and talked to many different aspects of our social network, the "socialism" debate would be indeed an ugly one. Furthermore, the US government is deep in dept. It has been for quite some time.

Everything you state in your quote above makes perfect sense to me. But my wife and I (and others of like-mind) are in the minority here in the good-young USA. I personally attempt to engage biblical-folk in discussions concerning their bible; I have studied and continue to study biblical Hebrew and Canaanite/Paleo Hebrew. But it's like swimming against the tide.
Thank you so much for your thoughts.
Autumnman

jadey

18th November 2009, 03:01 PM

In a way I do, I think. If it is the case that the USA is much more religious then other comparable countries (and I think it is) then that is a problem for people who think like you (and like me) in your country. But if we are not just noting the fact and bewailing it, then we have to look at the reasons for it with a view to seeking what might be solutions, do we not?

As I said: I have no idea what the reasons for this discrepancy might be. Some guesses:

Teaching religion in schools: this seems to be something which most americans oppose and I have the impression this is because of a commitment to the separation of church and state going back to your earliest days. The fact remains that many countries, including my own, do have a state religion and do teach religion in schools. Contrary to expectation that seems to be correlated with less religiosity and that appears to be true in many countries.

One of the things I have wondered about is what I described as the "vaccination" effect. If religion is taught in schools, it is discussed. Unless everyone believes exactly the same thing then this allows for some questioning, and perhaps it opens the way for doubt. It is certainly more difficult to ensure that a child will never meet an atheist as Jadey describes: or at least someone who interprets the bible very differently. Your home schoolers seem to be very aware of that :). So maybe that is something that should be reconsidered? I think that would be hard in the USA because there is a strong principle behind the separation and the idea seems to be quite shocking to at least some americans: but the evidence does seem to suggest there might be some effect there.

Welfare State: I have asked a lot of questions about the situation in America and I gather it varies greatly between states. So it is hard to get a picture for those of us outside. But it has occurred to me that your churches are very central to community life because your welfare provision is very heavily dependent on churches. This is not true in my country nor in most of europe. In another thread someone suggested (a little tongue in cheek, I think) that the reason fundamentalist and conservative christian groups oppose what they see as socialism was because it would muscle in on a big plank of their power: I think that idea is not ridiculous. I also think it would be anathema to most americans and if it was seen as a worthwhile enterprise it would take a very long time to sell it. Perhaps it is impossible

Size: it has sometimes occurred to me the church is important because of the sheer size of your country. As I understand it, it is stronger in rural areas than it is in cities (generally speaking). I wondered about that and it occurred to me that if I were to move to somewhere fairly remote (like Wick, for example) then I might find it difficult to integrate. One way of doing so would be to join a church: it is a sort of ready made pass to a new community and a lot of social life revolves around it. Americans seem to be a little more rural and a little more mobile than we are: so this social aspect may also support the church's power both through the pull I just described and perhaps from fear of exclusion if you do not fit in.

As I said, I am guessing. I do not live there nor have I ever visited. But if any of these kinds of mechanism are in play then trying to overturn belief through critical thinking is not going to get very far: it is the wrong kind of analysis really. Though I freely acknowledge that my mind tends to seek expanations in social structures and less in individuals: and that may in itself be a cultural difference because my impression is that americans are far more attracted to individualism, generally

Don't know if that makes any sense to you

Those are interesting ideas to ponder. Thanks for sharing.

Mr Clingford

19th November 2009, 12:47 AM

Fiona

19th November 2009, 06:52 AM

Just a small point regarding the teaching of Xtianity in schools in the UK. What is taught is that people believe this stuff. Furthermore, the beliefs of other religions are taught as well. There is no teaching that Xtianity is right. This is the case in the standard curriculum. Reg Vardy etc do things differently is my impression.

In a sense you are right. But the way this fits in with the conversation is interesting.

The 1944 education act made religious instruction the only compulsory subject in schools. It also made an act of religious worship compulsory and this was usually called "assembly" Parents did have a right to excuse their children from this: but many were not aware of this, and though those committed to another faith often did, it was not an option exercised by many. Faith schools were (and are) available, so those for whom their religion was important could choose one of those: these are not "private" in the sense of fee-paying (though some are, of course): they are supported by the state just as non-faith schools are.

As immigration etc made this country more diverse there were anomalies and the issue became more problematic. State support for faith based schools was not applied to all religions. Ethnic diversity was patchy and so in some areas there was not a sufficient number of particular faiths to justify a school of their own, even when that support was available. So in non-denominational schools there were typically small numbers of many different faiths.

The non-denominational schools responded (at least some of them did) by a shift from teaching religious practise towards teaching "about" religion: and this was a pragmatic decision: but naturally there was opposition to this from all sides of the religious community. So it became a matter for a change in the law.

The 1988 education reform act provided that all schools in england and wales must hold a daily act of christian worship and provide christian religious education. That this was a primary purpose of the act is shown by the fact that it is included in Section 1 (1)

It shall be the duty—

(a)of the Secretary of State as respects every maintained school;

(b)of every local education authority as respects every school maintained by them; and

(c)of every governing body or head teacher of a maintained school as respects that school;

to exercise their functions (including, in particular, the functions conferred on them by this Chapter with respect to religious education, religious worship and the National Curriculum) with a view to securing that the curriculum for the school satisfies the requirements of this section.

(my bolding)

Section 7 of that act states:

....in the case of a county school the collective worship required in the school by section 6 of this Act shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above, collective worship is of a broadly Christian character if it reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief without being distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.

and section 9 says:

3)Any agreed syllabus which after this section comes into force is adopted or deemed to be adopted <snip> ....shall reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.

Parents had to actively request exemption, as they had under the 1944 act (this part of the law remained unchanged).

So while there is some recognition of diversity and there is provision for education "about" religion, I do not think one can claim that this is an academic exercise; nor that there is no underlying presumption that Christianity is to be promoted.

There has been no fundamental change to the legislation as it relates to religious education since then, so far as I am aware. The education act of 1996 reiterates the requirements of the 1988 act (section 386): and the School Standards and Framework act 1998 does not make any substantive change.

Turning to the standard curriculum: the requirements are broader than the legislation implies. This is what the national curriculum authority has to say about key stage 3

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/religious-education/keystage3/index.aspx

and I think this is part of the reason that we see the "vaccination" effect I mentioned before: but there is no escaping the fact that this is done within the context of the law as outlined above: and that law makes it clear that the aim is to foster christianity, at least as I read it. Even if that is disputed, however, it is obvious that the importance of religion qua religion is actively promoted: and to me it is equally obvious that the wide ranging discussion will serve to encourage questions despite the aims of those who worded the 1988 act. In short I think this supports my point: in a less secular country the law as written would have led to a narrower curriculum than what we actually see: but in this country it is not possible to implement it in that way: folk will accept religious content in schools: but they will not accept monolithic content. And the curriculum as it is in practice means that no child can be isolated within a faith group as completely as Jadey was, unless they are home schooled or attend a faith school

Hux

19th November 2009, 06:59 AM

Arrrgh Fiona PLEASE! If that Avatar is Yoko Ono would you please change it?

Fiona

19th November 2009, 07:00 AM

No :)

Hux

19th November 2009, 07:12 AM

So its not enough that she singlehandedly destroyed one of the greates bands in the world, but that this screaming harpie actually thought she could sing. Her paintings stink.

And she is soooo frikkin' ugly. Cant you put up a nice Japanese Girl? There are so many. I mean look at her, she looks like someone set fire to her face and tried to put it out by stamping on it with golf shoes.

Fiona

19th November 2009, 07:13 AM

Away and fornicate by yourself, sunshine :)

Hux

19th November 2009, 07:17 AM

I see you dont deny it.

Mr Clingford

19th November 2009, 07:21 AM

Cor, I admire the effort you put into that post.

I think you are right about what the law says, but in practice Xtianity is not promoted. Assemblies, which Year groups may attend only once or twice a week, may have a thought for the day (but not like Radio4!), but no singing or prayers.

Some schools have weekly secular thoughts in their notices, but no more.

The idea of spiritual input, at least as it is suggested to teachers, can mean just pondering on life, nature, a non-theistic spirituality.

A lot of pupils dislike RE lessons, seeing them as irrelevant and boring and they don't see why they have to study the crap that people believe. I see religion is taught because it is a significant factor to many people, and the education system wishes to appear to promote some kind of spiritual development in pupils so as to suggest that the system is not just pushing out drones but is actually educating.

Fiona

19th November 2009, 07:22 AM

Couldn't be bothered to answer that drivel, Hux.

But we are off topic: take it to another thread (AAH preferably)

Hux

19th November 2009, 07:25 AM

Of course its off topic. Just like every other thread on here.

jadey

19th November 2009, 07:38 AM

And the curriculum as it is in practice means that no child can be isolated within a faith group as completely as Jadey was, unless they are home schooled or attend a faith school

I want to make sure that I am not misleading people into thinking that I grew up in an isolated environment in some small religious community in rural America. My father was in the US Air Force, so its actually quite the opposite case. Elementary school (K-6), I attended 5 different schools in 5 different cities in 4 different states. Grades 2, 4, and 5 were Catholic schools. Middle school (grades 7,8) in Colorado, High school (9-12) in Virginia, just outside Washington, DC. All of those locations were in suburban America. Virginia being the most culturally diverse.

Obviously, catholic school only teaches the one faith, and then it public school, there is no discussion whatsoever. It seems that if the US did teach religion in public school (in the manner that the UK does) I would have been exposed to more ideas, and it likely would have made the "acceptance" of atheism an easier process. Go figure.

Fiona

19th November 2009, 07:41 AM

Cor, I admire the effort you put into that post.

TY :)

I think you are right about what the law says, but in practice Xtianity is not promoted. Assemblies, which Year groups may attend only once or twice a week, may have a thought for the day (but not like Radio4!), but no singing or prayers.

Indeed:there is wriggle room: but an act of collective worship must be held in the school every day and it must be broadly christian. That the wriggle room is extensively used speaks to the fact that we are quite a secular society and that is part of my point: stories and even laws cannot impose if the background culture resists it. So I think, anyway

Some schools have weekly secular thoughts in their notices, but no more.

The idea of spiritual input, at least as it is suggested to teachers, can mean just pondering on life, nature, a non-theistic spirituality.

Not really: the law is quite clear and so are the requirements of the curriculum: in practice they cannot find enough religious people to deliver the curriculum and again this reinforces my point

A lot of pupils dislike RE lessons, seeing them as irrelevant and boring and they don't see why they have to study the crap that people believe.

Precisely. :) Vaccination effect: bore the pants off them, that is what I say!!

I see religion is taught because it is a significant factor to many people, and the education system wishes to appear to promote some kind of spiritual development in pupils so as to suggest that the system is not just pushing out drones but is actually educating.

Partly I think: but in fact it is a significant thing to many people and I think that it is quite important if we are to equip young people to understand the world they live in better: as some on this thread are saying, it is a strong factor in things which affect us whether we believe it or not.

In addition I think most young people do go through a phase of being interested in both morality and the intangible, as they grow: not sure if that is a developmental feature or a cultural one: I suspect it is the former. Idealism is part of that and interest in the "big questions" is fairly usual. So it is quite reasonable to accept they will explore those issues anyway and take it into account in schools

But the real reason it is taught is because the law requires it: the 1988 act happened in part because the religious noticed that it was falling away: their attempt to reintroduce faith as a central feature in our culture is not confined to this. I do not think they are making much progress: though when they do achieve something (ezekiel college and Tony Blair's disgraceful stance springs to mind) they make a lot of noise about it.

I would add that anything at all which tends to preserve the idea of education gets my support: I do not think the move to "training" serves us at all well in terms of promoting critical thinking: but that is for another thread