RE studies 'should cover atheism'

[Russ]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

NP, my mistake

I went to a Catholic school

That explains it then

Actually so did I, primary and secondary. I learn more about in the first 6 months of being a Christian than throughout my whole Catholic schooling. Maybe that was just my school though.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Russ D

That explains it then

Actually so did I, primary and secondary. I learn more about in the first 6 months of being a Christian than throughout my whole Catholic schooling. Maybe that was just my school though.

I wasn't actually catholic either, at the time I was fairly involved in the Methodist church (through choice as well )

[Maggy J]

Now this is going off topic but could everyone who is going to quote another PLEASE,PLEASE make sure to aknowledge the person who you are quoting.I ask this because I have got a little confused about whom is replying to whom and quite frankly I really don't have the patience or time (I've a blasted headache again)to find where all the quotes come from.

Thanking whoever in advance.

Incog.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Perhaps some of us need to spend less energy analysing the beliefs of other faiths/denominations and get our own houses in order first.

The whole 'atheism' idea in schools is too big a subject IMO to be included in an RE syllabus. Perhaps it can be included with something like Sociology? Perhaps in some kind of science? I'm no expert on schooling so I wouldn't know, but as someone who has (fairly) extensively researched Christianity and the NT I can say I believe it to be an important subject which we should all learn something of in order for improved understanding of why some people do and say thing the way they do.

Sorry Russ but I have to,as a teacher,disagree with the first point above.WE need to understand what makes others tick and understanding why others believe what they do is the first step.Perhaps you should have said it is time to stop 'judging' other people's faith,religions and beliefs(or disbelief).

I also as a teacher have to disagree about your next point.
I can't see where else it will 'fit' and the RE syllabus in schools isn't that full that it can't take in some of these other faiths,religions,beliefs,philosophies as well as the moral and ethical studies.The REAL problem is as so many RE teachers have discovered,is making it 'attractive' and 'less boring' to the majority of students.

Hands up those of you who went to sleep during RE when you were in school.
This is the real dilemma for teachers of RE,comparative religion and philosophy.

Incog.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I also as a teacher have to disagree about your next point.
I can't see where else it will 'fit' and the RE syllabus in schools isn't that full that it can't take in some of these other faiths,religions,beliefs,philosophies as well as the moral and ethical studies.The REAL problem is as so many RE teachers have discovered,is making it 'attractive' and 'less boring' to the majority of students.

Hands up those of you who went to sleep during RE when you were in school.
This is the real dilemma for teachers of RE,comparative religion and philosophy.

Incog.

I agree completeley.
Oh and I would have loved to have been able to goto sleep during RE but we where unlucky enough to have RE with our Year co-ordinator who was also possibly the most evil
Didnt stop me scoring highest in the year though 90+%

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I was lucky, we had 2 RE teachers,

We had an RE teacher who was a complete and utter terrorising b*stard. We were so pleased when he turned up in the paper after having been done for indecency in a West London toilet

[BBKing]

Anyone except Russ is invited to skip over this or have soft cushions standing by in case of keeling over with boredom.

Catholics may consider themselves Christians, but it's widely believed they're not

But Catholicism is extremely widely spread*, so therefore it follows from your statement that the belief that they _are_ Christians is quite widely spread, so you've contradicted yourself. It's the 800lb gorilla of religions. I don't think I'm being too outre to suggest that the adherents of all the other faiths in the world aren't aware of the nuances of two verses of the Bible as interpreted by yourself, and consider Catholicism as a Christian religion too, so lets add up:

1bn Catholics consider themselves Christians
2bn Christians
6bn people in the world
4bn non-Christians

So the maximum number of people who could consider Catholicism a non-Christian religion is 1bn out of 6bn in total, or 17%, under the pretty big assumption that all non-Catholic Christians regard Catholicism as non-Christian. In other words _at least_ 83% consider Catholicism a Christian faith. In other words, it's widely believe that Catholicism is a Christian faith.

Toleration - if you're tolerant, you should accept the right of Catholics to believe they are Christians, if you state baldly that they aren't, you aren't being tolerant, as this is a direct attack on a core tenet of their faith.

The vast majority of Catholics are born in to Catholicism, that is their parents decide for them. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't work this way: you must chose God for yourself, not by proxy.

The vast majority of all religious people are born into it, Catholic, Protestant, Islamic or Zoroastrian (100% in the latter case). Does that mean that they won't be saved? It's going to be rather lonely up there, y'know, if God has really hidden the secret of eternal salvation in the interpretation of the small print of the Bible.

Catholicism, incidentally, doesn't deny the need to be born again, but merely regards the requirement to be born again to be met by a conventional splashing-water-about baptism, which is a requirement of Catholicism anyway.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Different interpretations there then, where does your interpretation of 'born again' differ from this and why?

*'The Catholic Church is the world's largest religious body' - www.adherents.com - also the source for the other numbers.

[Russ]

But Catholicism is extremely widely spread*, so therefore it follows from your statement that the belief that they _are_ Christians is quite widely spread, so you've contradicted yourself. It's the 800lb gorilla of religions. I don't think I'm being too outre to suggest that the adherents of all the other faiths in the world aren't aware of the nuances of two verses of the Bible as interpreted by yourself, and consider Catholicism as a Christian religion too, so lets add up:

1bn Catholics consider themselves Christians
2bn Christians
6bn people in the world
4bn non-Christians

So the maximum number of people who could consider Catholicism a non-Christian religion is 1bn out of 6bn in total, or 17%, under the pretty big assumption that all non-Catholic Christians regard Catholicism as non-Christian. In other words _at least_ 83% consider Catholicism a Christian faith. In other words, it's widely believe that Catholicism is a Christian faith.

You may consider it to be widely believed, but that does not make it so.

Toleration - if you're tolerant, you should accept the right of Catholics to believe they are Christians, if you state baldly that they aren't, you aren't being tolerant, as this is a direct attack on a core tenet of their faith.

I've not once denied them the right to call themselves Christians if they so desire. But if you want to think I'm intolerant then that's fine. I know I'm not so I have no need to defend myself.

The vast majority of all religious people are born into it, Catholic, Protestant, Islamic or Zoroastrian (100% in the latter case). Does that mean that they won't be saved?

That's right. The Bible states the only way to salvation (ie heaven) is through Jesus. Being 'born in to it' means nothing - do you really think you are saved if your parents decide you are but you chose not?

Catholicism, incidentally, doesn't deny the need to be born again, but merely regards the requirement to be born again to be met by a conventional splashing-water-about baptism, which is a requirement of Catholicism anyway

Which of course when done to an infant means nothing, Biblically. Any version of the Bible require baptism to be complete submersion. The 'sprinkle water on the head' has been added by man and adopted by Catholics, amongst others.

Why?

Different interpretations there then, where does your interpretation of 'born again' differ from this and why?

It doesn't - John clearly states baptism is part and parcel of being saved.

'The Catholic Church is the world's largest religious body'

And The Sun is the UK's most popular paper, it doesn't mean it's any good. I'm not trying to compare Catholicism with that down-market rag but as everyone knows, just because something is the most popular doesn't mean it's right, more valid or even correct.

Look, I'm not really interested is trying to separate who is and isn't a Christian. Catholics, Christians, Anglicans etc all have a common purpose: to serve and follow God through Jesus Christ. We may do things in certain ways which seem unconventional to others but we should be looking at our own state of affairs first before trying to right others. All I have is some points about Catholicism which I've never been able to have answered. It doesn't look like I'll have any success here either as there are no practising Catholics on nthw who have stepped forward to offer answers. Really, I'd like to be proven wrong on the impressions I have of Catholicism but to date, this has not happened.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Graham. Read the next bit carefully.

You see? I BELIEVE. Me. I think. My opinion.

Yes, I *KNOW* that's why I wrote immediately under that...

"You *believe* they've been taught incorrectly. I'm sure that they don't. Therefore the only difference is the *OPINION* about what the Bible says!"

Please will *you* read a bit more carefully.

I'm not saying "I'm right" I'm saying the NT is right. And before you come out with all that again, it's NOT "my version" of the NT - it's the version which is there for all to see.

And I've already pointed out that there's more than *ONE* version of the New Testament which is "there for all to see". And there's certainly more than *ONE* interpretation of what a lot of it means!!

Oh whatever Graham, I'm getting tired of you making your mind up about me as if you knew anything about me. Oh no, hang on, I can diffuse the above by adding that what you've just said is "just your opinion...."

And I'm getting tired of you dodging the issue whenever I ask a hard question that you don't want to address, yet, at the same time, you keep saying things like "No Catholic has been able to answer this!" as if you've proved something thereby.

Don't swear at me, son.

Don't patronise me, grandpa

The word "mayest" is not currently used in modern english. Had I seen it in a sentance I would assume it was an older version of the word "must", considering how similar they sound.

I'm not going to bother getting into dictionary definitions here, but it rather makes my point that we *can* disagree about the meaning of a word that, according to you, is (or should be) clear in its meaning. Now imagine we're not just talking about an old word in "our" language, but one in another language entirely, and one that may(!) have been the result of a translation into that language from an even older one!!

Originally Posted by Russ D

Look, at the end of the day, believe in whatever you choose. If you feel this religion lark is a load of cobblers then you are free to do so, just please respect the fact there are those of us who wish to learn more and want our children to do the same. I don't get in your way and I don't expect you to get in mine. You may disagree with me, as I may disagree with you, but we can all live in harmony if we understand that some will believe this, while other believe that.

And I have *NO* problem with all of the above.

Where the problem comes in is if someone says that *THIS* should not be taught because it's "not religion" even though it's a perfectly valid "on the other hand" opinion.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Graham

Whoops, spot that "False Dilemma" fallacy!

"Either it's *this extreme* or it's *that extreme* there's no other possibilities than the two presented here, don't even *think* of trying to say 'perhaps it's neither or perhaps it's somewhere in the middle...'"

Sorry, Towny, but you seem to want to have things absolutely clear cut, however you should know that life isn't as black and white as that.

Sigh ...

You seem to have completely missed the point here. I am not pushing one extreme world-view over another. Possibly the fact that you think you know what my world-view is, is clouding your reading of what I'm actually saying.

I'm discussing, in general terms, the concept of absolute truth. Absolute truth is, by its very nature, an 'absolute' or 'extreme' position. Either it exists, or it does not, or maybe it does but is unreachable and therefore not relevant. If you hold to the former, you may hold that you have discovered the source of that truth and live your life accordingly, judging other lifestyles against that yardstick with a clear consicence. If you go for either of the latter alternatives, you must necessarily revert to a morality derived either by yourself as an individual or within your community, and in recognising this you are prevented from judging your own take on the universe as 'better' than anyone else's.

When presented with the inescapable logical conclusion of this position, those that hold to it normally object as you did -

Originally Posted by graham

I'm sorry, but that is a complete non-sequitur and *not* a "logical conclusion" of post-modernity!

Post Modernism does *not* blithely say that "everything's ok" and that everyone should be free to do whatever they want, no matter the consequences. It *includes* the validity of concepts of responsibility and that people should be answerable for what they do.

It does teach that there are no "moral absolutes", but that cannot and should not be stretched to equating Mother Teresa and David Koresh as if there was no difference between the two.

Your argument appears to boil down thus: 'this is not a conclusion of post modernity because it just isn't!'

Postmodernism does indeed say there are no moral absolutes, and it does say that it would be wrong to suggest that there is no difference between Mother Teresa and David Koresh. But then, I never said there was no difference between them. Their lifestyles clearly betrayed that they acted according to wildly different internal moralities. What I actually said is that postmodernism logically requires that their lifestyles be treated as morally equivalent, which is something quite different. Postmodernism allows no higher morality capable of ruling either Mother Teresa or David Koresh as the 'better' person.

One person gave a lifetime of selfless service to the poor and needy; the other apparently brainwashed a houseful of people into defending him with their lives. Clearly these are different, but when viewed entirely from outside their own moral constructs, who is to say which is 'better'? If an absolute standard either does not exist or is not knowable, how exactly do you propose to make such a judgement? You say that postmodernism allows for concepts of responsibility and answerability, but you don't begin to suggest how it proposes to address these issues, where two entirely different moralities come into conflict. Responsible to whom? Answerable to whom? The very concepts of responsibility and answerability require a higher authority to which they are responsible and answerable. When two mutually exclusive moralities, whose adherents have no relationship with or obligations towards one another, come into conflict, exactly who or what is the arbiter of the dispute? And by what, or whose, authority?

I respectfully suggest that postmodernism cannot answer this problem. Any individual, nation, religious group or supra-national organisation that arbitrates or rules in such a situation has declared its own morality superior to that which it judges, and at that moment the core principle of postmodernism - that there are no moral absolutes - collapses like a house of cards.

Postmodernism is a reactionary movement that adds little to the human race's body of knowledge and understanding. It has no long-term future because even its most enthusiastic adherents are reluctant to accept the logical conclusion to what it proposes.

[Xaccers]

i didn't realise I was being post modernist

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

i didn't realise I was being post modernist

Join the club.No not the post modernists,the confused club.

Incog.

[Xaccers]

Anyway. scrap RE and replace it with theology

[Russ]

No