Religious education in schools

Gunslinger said:
We know where homo sapiens evolved from and every other animal for that matter, we are animals and primates and were all related, just extracting humans from the biological tree of life and replacing it with magically created by a sky wizard from dust hypothesis completely falsifies the record and changes the history of human civilization into some magical fairytale

Hence why i said evolution disproves all religions, because it explains how we got here, you have a magical story that explains our origins that simply cannot co-exist with modern
understanding of evolution, geology and cosmology in every way possible

If you want to suggest the possibility of a magical being, fine, but as soon as you reference the bible or any other modern religion its too easy to falsify

I mean, i can assume you think evolution is BS and we were created 3000 years ago, so please offer your explanation of the fossil record and how we can trace
back our lineage to hundreds of thousands of years ago by simply digging up stuff
Click to expand...
"I mean, i can assume you think evolution is BS and we were created 3000 years ago, so please offer your explanation of the fossil record and how we can trace back our lineage to hundreds of thousands of years ago by simply digging up stuff"
Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions with little evidence! How about applying some of that falsifying scientific genius to that little lot 😀
"i can assume you think evolution is BS" Well can you now 😀 if you can point me to the paper on evolution, written by an evolution expert, that denies any of the truths of the Catholic faith, then I will call it out as BS. But you can't. The first widely published attempt to use the Bible to construct a timeline for Creation maxed out at the date for day 1 as 23rd October 4004 AD. But we can forgive Bishop Ussher for that as he was, after all, a Protestant desperate to prove the Catholics wrong 😀 It is however a long way past your guess of 3000 years so he was more right than you 😜 The Catholic Church allows a lot of latitude of personal belief when it comes to the age of the known Universe, but then I suppose we can be fairly relaxed about it as one of our Catholic seminary best, Fr Georges Lemaître, who came up with the still standing Big Bang theory. Take that, Ussher! "Simply digging up stuff" and using the principles of the theory of Uniformitarianism😀
 
theboydom said:
"I mean, i can assume you think evolution is BS and we were created 3000 years ago, so please offer your explanation of the fossil record and how we can trace back our lineage to hundreds of thousands of years ago by simply digging up stuff"
Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions with little evidence! How about applying some of that falsifying scientific genius to that little lot 😀
"i can assume you think evolution is BS" Well can you now 😀 if you can point me to the paper on evolution, written by an evolution expert, that denies any of the truths of the Catholic faith, then I will call it out as BS. But you can't. The first widely published attempt to use the Bible to construct a timeline for Creation maxed out at the date for day 1 as 23rd October 4004 AD. But we can forgive Bishop Ussher for that as he was, after all, a Protestant desperate to prove the Catholics wrong 😀 It is however a long way past your guess of 3000 years so he was more right than you 😜 The Catholic Church allows a lot of latitude of personal belief when it comes to the age of the known Universe, but then I suppose we can be fairly relaxed about it as one of our Catholic seminary best, Fr Georges Lemaître, who came up with the still standing Big Bang theory. Take that, Ussher! "Simply digging up stuff" and using the principles of the theory of Uniformitarianism😀
Click to expand...
3000 years, 4000 years, i can give you 250000 years but there were humans kicking around then , even going back nearly 3 million years we had homo species

So i guess your god just fannied around with primitive life for billions of years, then suddenly decided to intervene in the most illiterate part fo the world at
the time (nowhere else in the world of course), the middle east and started to perform miracles for a while , then just stopped again and retreated back
to his magical sky kingdom

And then god sacrificed his son, except he didn't as if has eternal life to begin with there is actually no point to any physical death is there if you live on anyway
in some magical afterlife

Honestly is such a ridiculous nonsensical story, i am actually amazed people are invested in it
 
theboydom said:
I assure you it was not a complacent remark, apologies that it came across that way. I was merely pointing out that slavery went on, and is still going on, because people will always exploit those unable to protect themselves. "I don't need a religion to worship God as I understand it. In fact, I see religion as a hindrance to true revelation" welcome to Protestantism 😀 You are your own God, mediating your own religion through your own pick n choose revelation. Been tried many times. Best of luck.
"What about if I reject him permanently, finally, in perpetuity? What do have to say to me then? I suspect it won't be nice" Well the God I worship does not send people to Hell, he simply respects our choice. C. S. Lewis probably said it most eloquently in The Great Divorce:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in hell chose it. Without that self-choice there could be no hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.”
Click to expand...
There you go. Hell as a threat, the time-old dagger glints in its sheath. No, I'm not a Protestant, though had I been born in the 1500s I would certainly have opposed to cruel and corrupt Catholic church that prompted the Reformation. You supplied a quote, here's mine. In his foreword to his collected works, Dylan Thomas wrote:
"These poems were conceived for the love of man and in praise of God
And I'd be a damned fool if they weren't."
What this means to me is that the concept of 'God' is necessary to the human - and the poet above all (see Milan Kundera's Life is Elsewhere for a mordant exposition) - because. as Nero hinted, it tethers the ego to a concept of universal awe and a community of mortal understanding, mortal doubt. That doubt is human, but it does not require a religion to give it form; all it requires is a commitment to the common understanding and a will to work for the good of mankind and the planet. In doing so I am 'worshipping' the sense of universal belonging and doubt through which I love (and am grateful for) my life, this world and my fellows. My mortal doubt will not be solved by religion, because religions are, in all iterations, expressions of earthly power. You reveal such is your comments: only your church can forgive me. Put another way, you need me. Your concept of being 'saved' only works with the comfort of those who are damned working away for you in the background.

My Catholic mother-in-law, whom I absolutely adore, flocked along with her peers recently, to view, with awe, the hip bone of St Teresa, a 19th century French nun who started having 'revelations' (or manic depressive episodes perhaps); conveniently, at the very time in the mid-19th century the church was losing followers and really needed a blockbuster to bring the masses back into their movie theatres. For sure, the modern individual seeks ersatz 'revelation' in all sorts of similarly bizarre and mistaken places, but if you think St Teresa's hipbone is going to be where they find it, then you are cracked in the head. What your church is to you likely bound up with a sense of your childhood self and the fears it incubated, your deep love for your family, and your feelings of hope and belonging when you attend in its stained glass clad walls. That's absolutely fine. Your error is to believe that your path to peace is the only real path. You are wrong.
 
theboydom said:
We are built to worship, so think about what you place your highest value on, and generally that is what you are worshipping. I choose to worship the God who sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to save me (and the rest of mankind) through the Church he established. Plenty of people have and always will worship other gods, some choose to worship other people or material things. That won't stop because RE is taught differently (or not at all) in schools, it is a fundamental urge in all of us.
Click to expand...

‘We are built to worship.’

Holy shiiiiiiit. 😮
 
equaliser said:
There you go. Hell as a threat, the time-old dagger glints in its sheath. No, I'm not a Protestant, though had I been born in the 1500s I would certainly have opposed to cruel and corrupt Catholic church that prompted the Reformation. You supplied a quote, here's mine. In his foreword to his collected works, Dylan Thomas wrote:
"These poems were conceived for the love of man and in praise of God
And I'd be a damned fool if they weren't."
What this means to me is that the concept of 'God' is necessary to the human - and the poet above all (see Milan Kundera's Life is Elsewhere for a mordant exposition) - because. as Nero hinted, it tethers the ego to a concept of universal awe and a community of mortal understanding, mortal doubt. That doubt is human, but it does not require a religion to give it form; all it requires is a commitment to the common understanding and a will to work for the good of mankind and the planet. In doing so I am 'worshipping' the sense of universal belonging and doubt through which I love (and am grateful for) my life, this world and my fellows. My mortal doubt will not be solved by religion, because religions are, in all iterations, expressions of earthly power. You reveal such is your comments: only your church can forgive me. Put another way, you need me. Your concept of being 'saved' only works with the comfort of those who are damned working away for you in the background.

My Catholic mother-in-law, whom I absolutely adore, flocked along with her peers recently, to view, with awe, the hip bone of St Teresa, a 19th century French nun who started having 'revelations' (or manic depressive episodes perhaps); conveniently, at the very time in the mid-19th century the church was losing followers and really needed a blockbuster to bring the masses back into their movie theatres. For sure, the modern individual seeks ersatz 'revelation' in all sorts of similarly bizarre and mistaken places, but if you think St Teresa's hipbone is going to be where they find it, then you are cracked in the head. What your church is to you likely bound up with a sense of your childhood self and the fears it incubated, your deep love for your family, and your feelings of hope and belonging when you attend in its stained glass clad walls. That's absolutely fine. Your error is to believe that your path to peace is the only real path. You are wrong.
Click to expand...
Hell is impossible as a concept anyway, what would the purpose of it be, you make an error in life according to the magical rules and your punished forever, no possibility of parole regardless of good behaviour, prison is a far
more intelligent system of punishment , at least you can atone for your mistakes

It was dreamt up to contrast against heaven, because if you only had heaven that would absolutely suck, what is anybody supposed to do in it, it would be a celestial north korea, can't achieve or ascend to anything, no purpose in it ,
a magical entity knowing everything you think , say or do for ever, no thanks

Life only makes sense if its finite
 
Lot of ignorance on this thread. Many people commenting on the content of education in a schools with a religious character do so without having any recent experience of the breadth and quality of religious education taught in such schools. Intolerance or more precisely hatred of religion is always spewed out on here, amusingly from the same people who deplore governments removing our freedoms. I have stopped trying to have a balanced argument on here about religion as the pitchfork folk don’t do balance when it comes to people of faith. Parents can chose whether they do or do not want a school with a religious character for their child. It is a choice I hope they can continue to exercise.
 
theboydom said:
But I would say that your fundamental error there is to equate all religions as equally false. Your argument also suffers from the fact you are making it. I could say that you are only making that argument because of where you were born.
Click to expand...
Stockton-on-Tees?

My parents are Christian. My Mam more so than my Dad, but I was also free to have my own beliefs. Lots of people around the world don’t give their offspring that chance.
 
Duffman said:
Lot of ignorance on this thread. Many people commenting on the content of education in a schools with a religious character do so without having any recent experience of the breadth and quality of religious education taught in such schools. Intolerance or more precisely hatred of religion is always spewed out on here, amusingly from the same people who deplore governments removing our freedoms. I have stopped trying to have a balanced argument on here about religion as the pitchfork folk don’t do balance when it comes to people of faith. Parents can chose whether they do or do not want a school with a religious character for their child. It is a choice I hope they can continue to exercise.
Click to expand...

To be fair, people of faith aren’t exactly renowned for discussing the topic with balance either.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
To be fair, people of faith aren’t exactly renowned for discussing the topic with balance either.
Click to expand...
Compare the posts on FMTTM of people of faith trying to impose their beliefs on others (haven’t seen many indoctrination threads) to those damming religion and seeking to remove people of faiths choice to believe? Can’t think of any on the first part of that question but absolutely loads of the second bit.
 
Duffman said:
Compare the posts on FMTTM of people of faith trying to impose their beliefs on others (haven’t seen many indoctrination threads) to those damming religion and seeking to remove people of faiths choice to believe? Can’t think of any on the first part of that question but absolutely loads of the second bit.
Click to expand...
I don’t think suggesting we have non-affiliated schools is removing anyone’s right to believe?

It would be like saying all schools should play cricket. And if not, we’re removing people’s right to like cricket.
 
Duffman said:
Lot of ignorance on this thread. Many people commenting on the content of education in a schools with a religious character do so without having any recent experience of the breadth and quality of religious education taught in such schools. Intolerance or more precisely hatred of religion is always spewed out on here, amusingly from the same people who deplore governments removing our freedoms. I have stopped trying to have a balanced argument on here about religion as the pitchfork folk don’t do balance when it comes to people of faith. Parents can chose whether they do or do not want a school with a religious character for their child. It is a choice I hope they can continue to exercise.
Click to expand...
Most reasoned comment on here.
 
Quicksilvera said:
Where do you stand on this? Should our children be taught religious studies?

I think so, I would also frame it different and maybe call it humanity studies or something, I think if our children learn about all religions and their customs and cultures it will help to prevent hatred, I would also use the subject to talk about race and other nations customs.
Click to expand...
In many inner city schools teaching RE would be a challenge. Firstly the kids are not all from a Christian background, and my neighbours daughter is a head teacher at a school in the centre of Stockton where 17 different languages are spoken.
I believe that Jesus lived, is real, and was on a journey to teach love and peace. I also believe that Mohammad was real, a few centuries later, with exactly the same ideals. However, as for there being a "God on high", reincarnation and afterlife I believe was a method of controlling the uneducated masses, centuries ago, but people now re more questioning and enquiring.
Anyhoo, everyone should the freedom for opinion and belief, but is there a right and, wrong?

#UTB
 
atypical_boro said:
I don’t think suggesting we have non-affiliated schools is removing anyone’s right to believe?

It would be like saying all schools should play cricket. And if not, we’re removing people’s right to like cricket.
Click to expand...
People of faith choose a school with a religious character to help support them in discharging the responsibilities they took on when they had their child baptised / enter into that faith. I would argue that taking away that choice of school is taking away or at best undermining their right to support their child’s faith development (belief’s ).
About 1/3 of England and Wales government funded schools are schools with a religious character about 10% nationally are Catholic with the vast majority of others being CofE with a small number of Jewish, Sikh and Muslim schools. The church owns the land on which those schools stand in a partnership between the church and the state. It has worked well since 1944 and not sure why it needs to change now?
 
Last edited:
Duffman said:
People of faith choose a school with a religious character to help support them in discharging the responsibilities they abandoned when they had their child baptised / enter into that faith. I would argue that taking away that choice of school is taking away or at best undermining their right to support their child’s faith development (believe).
About 1/3 of England and Wales government funded schools are schools with a religious character about 10% nationally are Catholic with the vast majority of others being CofE with a small number of Jewish, Sikh and Muslim schools. The church owns the land on which those schools stand in a partnership between the church and the state. It has worked well since 1944 and not sure why it needs to change now?
Click to expand...
fixed
 
atypical_boro said:
I don’t think suggesting we have non-affiliated schools is removing anyone’s right to believe?

It would be like saying all schools should play cricket. And if not, we’re removing people’s right to like cricket.
Click to expand...
Cricket isn't a fantasy though. But it is boring :)
 
Duffman said:
People of faith choose a school with a religious character to help support them in discharging the responsibilities they took on when they had their child baptised / enter into that faith. I would argue that taking away that choice of school is taking away or at best undermining their right to support their child’s faith development (belief’s ).
About 1/3 of England and Wales government funded schools are schools with a religious character about 10% nationally are Catholic with the vast majority of others being CofE with a small number of Jewish, Sikh and Muslim schools. The church owns the land on which those schools stand in a partnership between the church and the state. It has worked well since 1944 and not sure why it needs to change now?
Click to expand...
Because the number of folk who actually hold religious beliefs in the UK has significantly diminished in the last 80 years, and will continue to do so over the next 80 years.

The state and religious beliefs should be kept completely separate in my view, and that includes education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top