Cyprus-Forum.com

[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.

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?

"Who is teaching" or to be more specific who got them to teach it like that A.K.A the system.

I have to admit, the only parts of orthodox christianity that interested me is the artwork and Satanism, which they haven't taught us yet.
Even though I liked the movie I don't like medieval themed fantasies.

[GreekIslandGirl]

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.

I'm afraid it did and I had one angry mother complain to me during Year 1 that her daughter came home crying when my son told her. Strangely enough, the mum was a Muslim married to an Englishman and she was trying to act super-English. It's less harsh telling them the myth of Santa is just another story than later them finding out you were part of the great deception. They're quite happy to get the presents without the make-believe of a stranger bringing them. It's not like religion where the mystery of God is kept as such, throughout life, and no one pretends He visits. The Santa Claus concept is clearly creepy. But at bedtime, I still read 'Twas the Night Before Christmas, every Xmas Eve, to my son till he was 11.

(The problem with "Optional" is that no kid would take this option and hence miss out on a great deal. Also, disillusioned parents would unduly influence here, and the child may never experience the amazing stories to be had.)

[ZoC]

@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?

i'm flattered that u think i might have an answer to your question but i'm by no means an expert in the bible and this ought to be addressed to a suitably qualified historian. or maybe potassium's bible class teacher.

with my limited knowledge, i don't think the gospel stories were made up - not entirely anyway - and nor have i made that suggestion.

but, in any event, i'm not sure i accept the premise of ur question. consider this.

in the three little pigs story there is discrepancy over whether both the first two pigs (with the houses made of straw and sticks, respectively):

a) escaped from the wolf;
b) were eaten by the wolf.

would this make the events less likely to have been made up?

[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.

I'm afraid it did and I had one angry mother complain to me during Year 1 that her daughter came home crying when my son told her. Strangely enough, the mum was a Muslim married to an Englishman and she was trying to act super-English. It's less harsh telling them the myth of Santa is just another story than later them finding out you were part of the great deception. They're quite happy to get the presents without the make-believe of a stranger bringing them. It's not like religion where the mystery of God is kept as such, throughout life, and no one pretends He visits. The Santa Claus concept is clearly creepy. But at bedtime, I still read 'Twas the Night Before Christmas, every Xmas Eve, to my son till he was 11.

(The problem with "Optional" is that no kid would take this option and hence miss out on a great deal. Also, disillusioned parents would unduly influence here, and the child may never experience the amazing stories to be had.)

If I was a parent and my 1st grade kid got told in school that Santa doesn't exist I would thank the parents' of that kid because I would escape from too much decoration and expensive gifts + finding the perfect time to buy them and put them under a tree without the kid noticing.

[ZoC]

@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.

not sure where you're going with this... how can the author of 'genesis' collaborate with, say, the author of 'mark', when they are separated by centuries?

i don't have a problem with wishful thinking if it helps make life a little more bearable, but it's unbecoming to play fast and loose with historical facts. u don't need to justify having a comfort blanket. it makes perfect sense.

[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.

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.

I do have a problem with this because I don't agree that Religious Studies have any positive effect when it comes to morals. On the contrary those who take Religious Studies seriously often become racist and intolerant. Religious studies should be optional from the first grade and it should be up to the parents to decide if their children should take such courses.

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.

If the aim of Religion is to help mentally ill patients, and if it is shown to have such a positive effect on them, then religion studies should be mandatory in mental-institutions, not schools.

[ZoC]

If the aim of Religion is to help mentally ill patients, and if it is shown to have such a positive effect on them, then religion studies should be mandatory in mental-institutions, not schools.

indeed. thankfully, cyprus is blessed with a great number of such institutions. and they're exempt from tax, which is only right and proper given the valuable work they do helping the afflicted.

[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?

i'm flattered that u think i might have an answer to your question but i'm by no means an expert in the bible and this ought to be addressed to a suitably qualified historian. or maybe potassium's bible class teacher.

with my limited knowledge, i don't think the gospel stories were made up - not entirely anyway - and nor have i made that suggestion.

but, in any event, i'm not sure i accept the premise of ur question. consider this.

in the three little pigs story there is discrepancy over whether both the first two pigs (with the houses made of straw and sticks, respectively):

a) escaped from the wolf;
b) were eaten by the wolf.

would this make the events less likely to have been made up?

My short answer is Yes.

Using your example:

Let's assume that two eye-witnesses X and Y were found, X which holds A (escaped) and Y which holds B (eaten). If X and Y were to collaborate beforehand in order to make the story of the 3 little pigs believable then they would both hold either A or B but not both.

Assume the story is true and X and Y did not collaborate. X saw the pig initially escape and shortly afterwards Y saw the wolf catching up and eating the pig. This is acceptable as facts A and B are not mutually exclusive.

Hope this example makes my point a little clearer.

[ZoC]

@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?

i'm flattered that u think i might have an answer to your question but i'm by no means an expert in the bible and this ought to be addressed to a suitably qualified historian. or maybe potassium's bible class teacher.

with my limited knowledge, i don't think the gospel stories were made up - not entirely anyway - and nor have i made that suggestion.

but, in any event, i'm not sure i accept the premise of ur question. consider this.

in the three little pigs story there is discrepancy over whether both the first two pigs (with the houses made of straw and sticks, respectively):

a) escaped from the wolf;
b) were eaten by the wolf.

would this make the events less likely to have been made up?

My short answer is Yes.

Using your example:

Let's assume that two eye-witnesses X and Y were found, X which holds A (escaped) and Y which holds B (eaten). If A and B were to collaborate beforehand in order to make the story of the 3 little pigs believable then they would both hold either A or B but not both.

Assume the story is true and A and B did not collaborate. A saw the pigs initially escape and shortly afterwards B saw the wolf catching up and eating the pig. This is acceptable as facts A and B are not mutually exclusive.

Hope this example makes my point a little clearer.

crystal. but I am unwilling to assume the story of the three little pigs is true. no sir, not by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin... because i find the whole thing somewhat implausible, for a number of reasons.

what if we assume X and Y both reported the pigs flying, am i to assume u would accept that fact also?

in any event, scenario (a) and (b) are mutually exclusive, because in (a) both pigs escape the wolf by entering the third pig's house (the one made of brick)... so they can't have been eaten by the wolf because, as much as he huffed and puffed, he could not blow the house down.

[Jackos]

but I am unwilling to assume the story of the three little pigs is true.

You picked the story. I'm using the fictitious story to make a logical argument. In any case we don't have any eye-witnesses.

what if we assume X and Y both reported the pigs flying, am i to assume u would accept that fact also?

What if archaeologists were to find the remains of pre-historic pig with wings? Do you believe in dinosaurs?

in any event, scenario (a) and (b) are mutually exclusive, because in (a) both pigs escape the wolf by entering the third pig's house (the one made of brick)... so they can't have been eaten by the wolf because, as much as he huffed and puffed, he could not blow the house down.

Your assuming that I know the rest of the story.