Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

No matter how hard we try, can any of us really picture GR as an Angel...?

Funnily enough... I can!

...godzilla with wings.

Now that's more like it! ...

[repulsewarrior]

No matter how hard we try, can any of us really picture GR as an Angel...?

Funnily enough... I can!

...godzilla with wings.

Now that's more like it! ...

...or the dragon in Shrek, that marries the donkey.

[supporttheunderdog]

534562_465723303493747_583179418_n.jpg

[Piratis]

Potassium, you'll probably find it easier to study religion much as you would study a history lesson or a Literature lesson. Take it as a narrative of civilisation. Reacting against being taught any such subjects is punishable with detentions etc in any country. In theory, banning the study of religion is as bad as those Baptists who ban the teaching of evolution in schools. It's all the same dogmatism.

It is not the same at all. Evolution is not a dogma, it is part of biology. For me, teaching a dogma several hours every week for 12 years is a huge waste of time at the very least. I understand that many parents want their children to be taught religion and I didn't suggest that religion courses should be baned. They should be made optional and let the students and their parents decide if they want to take religion courses or something else. Do you see any problem with this approach?

When your rights are violated you have every right to react.

[potassium]

.... since I decided to become an atheist.

I don't think you can "decide" to become an atheist unless you somehow think it's a fashion accessory.

Otherwise, as far as teaching of religion goes - my own son goes to a very expensive British school which is independent and not Church associated in any way but he still has to study "Religious Education" even if he doesn't want to sit the exam at the end.

He is an atheist; but unlike you he finds the philosophical debates in our religious history very stimulating and has a big enough brain that he can contain his own preferences and a bigger picture quite happily.

May I suggest you open up ...

(I wouldn't use Swedes as an example in cognitive studies. I have found them to be profoundly deficient. )

Somebody who "decides" to become atheist is somebody who used his own brain to come to logical conclusions and this shows that he has "big enough brain". Those who are atheists because this is the way they were brought up are not necessarily more intelligent than average.

We're probably simply talking semantics here but I don't think it's a conscience decision to "become an atheist". It evolves from a passive accumulation of facts and unanswered questions. If you are taught from very young that there's a God, then it takes a long time to shake off that comfort blanket. You don't wake up one morning and suddenly "decide" to become an atheist. There's also a certain degree of genetic predisposition to being a skeptic. The seeds might already be there (so no forceful decision needed). These things act to make one an atheist (or at least agnostic).

That is why I said "decided", because I made a final choice or judgment. Even though I had been thinking about this since the beginning of secondary school.

[potassium]

Potassium, you'll probably find it easier to study religion much as you would study a history lesson or a Literature lesson. Take it as a narrative of civilisation. Reacting against being taught any such subjects is punishable with detentions etc in any country. In theory, banning the study of religion is as bad as those Baptists who ban the teaching of evolution in schools. It's all the same dogmatism.

The problem is that we are being taught almost the same stuff repeatedly, which is why I don't really like religion class. On the other hand, in history, you are taught every year something different.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Potassium, you'll probably find it easier to study religion much as you would study a history lesson or a Literature lesson. Take it as a narrative of civilisation. Reacting against being taught any such subjects is punishable with detentions etc in any country. In theory, banning the study of religion is as bad as those Baptists who ban the teaching of evolution in schools. It's all the same dogmatism.

It is not the same at all. Evolution is not a dogma, it is part of biology. For me, teaching a dogma several hours every week for 12 years is a huge waste of time at the very least. I understand that many parents want their children to be taught religion and I didn't suggest that religion courses should be baned. They should be made optional and let the students and their parents decide if they want to take religion courses or something else. Do you see any problem with this approach?

When your rights are violated you have every right to react.

Hey, Piratis, my dear, I didn't say that Evolution was a dogma. But, the banning of certain studies is dogmatic. Not the studies themselves, necessarily. I wouldn't even say that religion was itself dogmatic (Christianity has certainly evolved over the millenia). Certain ideas might be dogmatic. But right-minded people can soon work those out.

- If we were being fair, we would see religious instruction as no different to teaching Physics or History at school. Both these subjects teach a lot of un-provable ideas.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Potassium, you'll probably find it easier to study religion much as you would study a history lesson or a Literature lesson. Take it as a narrative of civilisation. Reacting against being taught any such subjects is punishable with detentions etc in any country. In theory, banning the study of religion is as bad as those Baptists who ban the teaching of evolution in schools. It's all the same dogmatism.

The problem is that we are being taught almost the same stuff repeatedly, which is why I don't really like religion class. On the other hand, in history, you are taught every year something different.

That sounds like a problem with who is teaching the religion class rather than a fault of the subject itself. There is certainly as much to teach about religion as history itself. The two subjects can run parallel to each other or intertwine (like the double helix ). Maybe you've decided to switch off thinking about what is being taught because you have dismissed the subject as worthless. I loved all the stories and escapism in the Bible; but that fantasy world may not suit some people. Do you like reading fantasies like The Lord of the Rings?

[Piratis]

Potassium, you'll probably find it easier to study religion much as you would study a history lesson or a Literature lesson. Take it as a narrative of civilisation. Reacting against being taught any such subjects is punishable with detentions etc in any country. In theory, banning the study of religion is as bad as those Baptists who ban the teaching of evolution in schools. It's all the same dogmatism.

It is not the same at all. Evolution is not a dogma, it is part of biology. For me, teaching a dogma several hours every week for 12 years is a huge waste of time at the very least. I understand that many parents want their children to be taught religion and I didn't suggest that religion courses should be baned. They should be made optional and let the students and their parents decide if they want to take religion courses or something else. Do you see any problem with this approach?

When your rights are violated you have every right to react.

Hey, Piratis, my dear, I didn't say that Evolution was a dogma. But, the banning of certain studies is dogmatic. Not the studies themselves, necessarily. I wouldn't even say that religion was itself dogmatic (Christianity has certainly evolved over the millenia). Certain ideas might be dogmatic. But right-minded people can soon work those out.

- If we were being fair, we would see religious instruction as no different to teaching Physics or History at school. Both these subjects teach a lot of un-provable ideas.

But nobody said anything about banning of any studies. We are talking about making them optional.

I don't know how much of Physics are "un-provable ideas", but what is certain is that many of those ideas have been practically applied and have actual results. If anything is unprovable in physics then the physics instructor will have no problem to state this clearly to the students. On the other hand the Religion teachers try to pass their utter bullshit as the absolute truth.

[supporttheunderdog]

Potassium, you'll probably find it easier to study religion much as you would study a history lesson or a Literature lesson. Take it as a narrative of civilisation. Reacting against being taught any such subjects is punishable with detentions etc in any country. In theory, banning the study of religion is as bad as those Baptists who ban the teaching of evolution in schools. It's all the same dogmatism.

The problem is that we are being taught almost the same stuff repeatedly, which is why I don't really like religion class. On the other hand, in history, you are taught every year something different.

That sounds like a problem with who is teaching the religion class rather than a fault of the subject itself. There is certainly as much to teach about religion as history itself. The two subjects can run parallel to each other or intertwine (like the double helix ). Maybe you've decided to switch off thinking about what is being taught because you have dismissed the subject as worthless. I loved all the stories and escapism in the Bible; but that fantasy world may not suit some people. Do you like reading fantasies like The Lord of the Rings?

The bible is Fantasy?( i am not arguing if it is, asking if that is your view of it) but describing the bible as Fantasy is as offensive to some as it is to decribe the
koran to others - it is also interesting how you describe Christianity as changing as society has changed - that very much suggests to me that there is a large measure of the religion being man made, in particular the God as described in the bible, who tends to dsplay many human attributes to the point it seems higly likely he is made in mans' image. Note I am not denying the existence of God - only suggesting that if god exists (an Agnostic position) it is not the god portrayed in the bible or for that matter Koran.(and now I have offended the varuius fundamentalist groups
0








9