Cyprus-Forum.com

[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.

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 parts of religion courses that deal with actual historical events can be included in history courses, if they are important enough.

The Lord of the Rings is a multi-million dollar production that at least has some entertainment value. Unfortunately there is nothing entertaining in wasting your time with religion nonsense when you could be doing something more useful.

[ZoC]

hey potassium, quit bitching and get back to bible class. this stuff is important!

and while ur there, get your teachers to give you answers to the following questions:

1. which genealogy connecting king david to jesus (or rather joseph, who wasn't even - supposedly - jesus's real father) are we to believe - matthew or luke? they are both entirely different.
2. did jesus die the day before passover (john) or the day after passover (mark)?
3. just who discovered the empty tomb? was it mary magdelene on her own? mary and a bunch of other women? mary and a disciple? all four gospels contradict each other.
4. likewise, who was inside the empty tomb? one man? two men? two angels? different story every time.

once your teacher has sorted all that out, there are a few hundred other discrepancies in the gospels that need clearing up for us... cheers.

[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.

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.

Optional is fine after a certain age (say 10) but before that Religious Studies are good at leveling all to an expected moral code of conduct derived over thousands of years of our western-style of civilisation. It combines philosophy and history in an easily acceptable form for the very young. I don't have a problem with this although I always told my son that God and gods are mythical and so is Santa Claus - right from the start.

As for physics; un-provable ideas, when practically applied, are similar to the results one sees with mentally-ill patients who derive a great deal of benefit from religion. The ideas in religion are un-provable but they can work miracles as a panacea and cure many mentally-ill patients. This is not too different to how some physicist have faith in their theories.

Most priests, like physicists, also have no problem admitting that some things cannot be proven. They are Mysteries.

[Jackos]

@ZOC

Doesn't the fact that there are discrepancies between the gospels make the events less likely to have been made up? If the events were made up (and very few historians think they are) then wouldn't there just be one single source?

[Get Real!]

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.

I hope the missus is not browsing the forum!

[Get Real!]

@ZOC

Doesn't the fact that there are discrepancies between the gospels make the events less likely to have been made up? If the events were made up (and very few historians think they are) then wouldn't there just be one single source?

The bible spanned some 1500 years and 40+ authors to be completed so the probability that it’s a hoax decreases considerably because it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to get so many people over so many years to collaborate towards a sham.

[supporttheunderdog]

Argument # 6: The Historicity of Jesus Argument.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page10.htm

[potassium]

Optional is fine after a certain age (say 10) but before that Religious Studies are good at leveling all to an expected moral code of conduct derived over thousands of years of our western-style of civilisation. It combines philosophy and history in an easily acceptable form for the very young. I don't have a problem with this although I always told my son that God and gods are mythical and so is Santa Claus - right from the start.

As for physics; un-provable ideas, when practically applied, are similar to the results one sees with mentally-ill patients who derive a great deal of benefit from religion. The ideas in religion are un-provable but they can work miracles as a panacea and cure many mentally-ill patients. This is not too different to how some physicist have faith in their theories.

Most priests, like physicists, also have no problem admitting that some things cannot be proven. They are Mysteries.

That is my point, that is why I made this post, optional religious studies.

Wasn't it a little harsh telling your son that there is no Santa Claus from the beginning? It could have affected (If it already didn't) the other kids' point of view on this just like it did on mine when I was several years younger.

[supporttheunderdog]

@ZOC

Doesn't the fact that there are discrepancies between the gospels make the events less likely to have been made up? If the events were made up (and very few historians think they are) then wouldn't there just be one single source?

The bible spanned some 1500 years and 40+ authors to be completed so the probability that it’s a hoax decreases considerably because it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to get so many people over so many years to collaborate towards a sham.

Argument # 1: The Bible is the Infallible Word of God.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page5.htm
Argument # 2: The Bible is inerrant and contains no contradictions. Its 66 books are harmonious and its 40+ writers agree on what they wrote.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page6.htm

[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?

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

The Bible is a fantasy in the sense that it's a compilation, anthology, of short stories which circulated around 2,000+ years ago. People were curious about how we and the world came to be and these were the featured main themes. Some things in the Bible are based on real-life events (plagues, relationships, floods) but these were fodder for the imagination. It's filled with the repetitive patterns of symbols (as popularized by the Olympic Gods) and suchlike which were passed around the tribes which interacted with each other. As for the Koran, that's a political construct of more recent years.