Christian parents sue government over school's transgender policies

And even given that.

'If you are a Christian, by definition you believe that God is the creator of the world.''

'Do most Christians believe that God created us male and female in his own image? Well, yes. Yes they do...'

I still know.. KNOW. That is not true of most/ all people in England who would describe themselves as Christian.

Plus there's a group round here who I would put a good wedge of cash on, them taking that literally.

Do you think it's ok for you to claim to speak for the millions of Christians in England? Why do you think that's ok?

You must know that your statements on what millions of individuals MUST believe, by definition, is just not true. Surely.

Ah ok.

So the approach is to pick and choose which bits are to be believed as written, and which bits to be reinterpreted as science etc moves forward.

So the bit which says God created it all can be picked out as to be believed, and the bits which these days feel unbelievable, to be recast as not really meant like that.

Ok fair enough. Different branches of faiths commonly take different interpretations of their holy texts.

Although I've got to ask.

When this was written, the stars seas skies universe etc created by God in 6 days. Would have been fair enough given the knowledge etc at the time.

Why would anyone from that time write it symbolically? Why is it clear that back then, given it would have seemed like a pretty comprehensive explanation. Would they have thought. Ah but this bit is the important belief bit. I'll surround it with all this detail because... Reasons.

Well yes but it is a symbolic account for many Christians, I would say the majority.
What happens in Genesis 2? Adam and Eve's sons get married. There's no hoha about where the women come from, so clearly accepted that there weren't only two humans (and their two offspring) in existence.

'The Bible doesn't specify whether God created us through evolution, but it's clear that God is the author of all life.'

The Bible specifies how everything in the universe was created in great detail

It's been a while but iirc

God put the garden of Eden on the earth and created man in his own image.

Eve came as a bit of an afterthought from Adam.

Then the temptation thing. Snake persuades eve. Eve persuades Adam. Despite snake and Adam clearly having big part in apple consumption it's all eve's fault. Off you go no more paradise garden, oh eve pain in childbirth for you.

All the animals etc are to be ruled over by man.

Stars sky earth oceans plants etc all created God.

6 day work 7th day rested.
It's really very specific indeed.

I can check s Bible I've got in spare room from can't quite remember. Centuries ago which may be more... I've noticed a lot of more modern versions seem to be a bit changed from what I remember. Language etc.

The error I think you're making, and it's a biggie.

Is that stacks of people who would tick Christian (Jewish etc) if asked.

Don't actually believe much of it at all, if any.

Plenty of people who tick Christian are-

Ticking the societal default but have haven't been to church prayed even thought about it for years.

Are the religion due to culture rather than belief.
Eg loads of friends Irish/ Italian descent. Don't actually believe much if any, and RC is pretty firm on some things that are in direc opposition to what they think.
Plenty of Jewish friends eat pork is another example.

Get something out of going to church (synagogue etc). A regular thing to do each week. Time out of busy life to themselves to just be. Enjoy the cadence of familiar ritual. See friends/ neighbours or meet new people. Like the singing. Like the surroundings. And so on.

Wanting to get into certain schools (yikes blue touchpaper topic).

Think it's the right thing to do for kids.

Go with a relative because they want them to. Time together etc.

I mean loads more.

You MUST know that. Surely you must?

I'm confused here about who is saying what.

There is no way that 99% of people who would describe themselves as Christian or Jewish etc in England believe in the creation story.

That God literally created man. IE. Don't believe in evolution, that we are related to other great apes etc.

No way.

People may not believe in God or a higher spirit or being but they do believe in biology and facts.

Indeed they do, as do 99% of the population of the world. Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religious groups believe it too.

Just had a quick look though about the hosp jewellery thing.

Not in depth but she was a theatre nurse.

My mum worked in theatre and for obv reasons there are very strict requirements.

Re all clothing. Clogs. Etc. Hair covered.

I'm sure you've read in the news about things getting left in patients eg gauze.

A dangly necklace dropping in during surgery is obvious risk surely?

Generally no jewellery is worn may be some exemptions.

Also risk to wearer and patient in some circs during surgery.

Just read theatre nurse and thought... Erm...

Something about turbans hair coverings for religion. No idea if ok in NHS surgery or not. They're somewhat more obvious and large than a necklace though...

Re Street preaching I've got interesting experience with that as well!

Anyway like I said. Court not court whatever. No skin off my nose.

My earlier posts explain why better prob.

But yes. People can look at the site and draw their own conclusions.

I know what I think. Others can make their own minds up.

I think we are at cross purposes.

That's not what I've been saying at all.

I was referring to previous points I'd made so understand not read it's a long thread!

'Tbh, I intensely dislike the whole idea of "modesty" and covering up and am very uncomfortable at how often it is dragged in to support the "gender critical" argument'

Can you expand on this though? Sounds interesting.

I'm an atheist. I have very little time for the concept of respecting religious beliefs which is a different concept from respecting the right to hold religious beliefs as long as those beliefs are not imposed on non- believers.

Of the cases listed many concern street preachers. I cannot see how, in a democracy, anyone can reasonably object to that, provided there is no incitement to violence or intimidation of passers by. If one isn't interested, carry on walking.

Even as an atheist I find it concerning that criminal sanctions should be brought against street preachers.

Another case concerns the dismissal of a nurse for wearing a small but visible cross. I couldn't support anyone being dismissed for that. I would not be happy at all with a nurse saying she would pray for me but a cross is, to my mind, no different from the scarf wearing Muslim women regularly co-opted on here to support "gender- critical" views. Such women are, I'm told, incapable of adjusting their head scarf if a trans woman is present.

Tbh, I intensely dislike the whole idea of "modesty" and covering up and am very uncomfortable at how often it is dragged in to support the "gender critical" argument. However it seems hypocritical in the extreme to support the right of women to wear garments dictated by oppressive, misogynistic religious views but not support the right of another woman to wear a small cross. Either all religious symbols are banned in a work environment or they are permitted- provided they don't interfere with the ability to carry out a job.

Do most Christians in England actually believe that though?

I would argue not. 7 days, no evolution, etc etc.

I would say believing those things is a pretty extreme form of belief here.

And as I say. The other cases this org has supported are on the site and people can draw their own conclusions.

These parents adhere to Christian beliefs which the church has held to for centuries. Namely, that God created us male and female in his own image.

The school labelled them transphobic because they were not ok with being told that they and their sons had to affirm a boy presenting as a girl. They were being intimidated by the school into renouncing their beliefs. It was not enough to just tolerate differing views - they were being intimidated into actually affirming views which they do not hold to.

I know many Christian parents will be grateful that they are fighting this battle for them.

It's sad to see how readily people will ridicule Christians, even on mumsnet.

Possibly not entirely. I knew a teenage boy who was very religious CofE, and at 16 ish came out as gay. A mutual friend attended a church group with him a few years later and said that there was much discussion about homosexuality being wrong etc. A few years later he identifies as a woman. I don't know anything about his transition, we no longer have contact, but it seems highly possible to me that the combination of his sexuality and religion may have played a part. To add this pressure would not have come from his family in perhaps the same way as it might in fundamentalist American Christianity.

Just to add, I mean the middle Anglican churches, not all Anglicans as some Anglicans are Anglo-Catholic and some Anglicans are Evangelical.

‘I am not sure what you mean by 'mainstream'? Mainstream churches, all churches, believe in evangelism. It would be rather missing the point not too.’

Are you not just confusing evangelism with Evangelical churches?

All churches believe in evangelism but not all are in the Evangelical tradition.

The Evangelical tradition is within Protestantism and has a focus on salvation through faith alone, conversion experiences due to being born again and the inerrancy of the bible.

I am assuming when Nice Gerbil refers to mainstream she means the ‘middle’ Anglican churches which most non Christians see as the face of Christianity in the U.K.

It is the kind of Christianity that vicars present in school assemblies, that secular people have at their church weddings, and that Catholics and Evangelicals often go towards at ecumenical events.

Conservative charismatic evangelical churches are not in the majority in England. They are absolutely mainstream theologically. The word mainstream has two meanings. They are one but not the other. Maybe in the future they will be the majority but that isn't today. Who know where and how the spirit will blow?

Off to lead a quiet contemplative Eucharist and preaching on the vulnerability of leadership.

Mostlydrinkstea the churches you write off as 'not mainstream' - evangelical charismatic churches, who don't agree with women ministers or same sex marriage are some of the fastest growing churches. They nearly all have got rid of pews, barely use the organ in favour of music groups/worship bands. Many are Church of England and very much part of the establishment. It is mainstream for churches to consider the bible divinely inspired.

All this 'not mainstream' sounds just like TRAs saying 'GC are only a minority so we don't need to listen to them' or 'only a tiny group are worried about the word mother'.

Mainstream in the context of Christian Churches in England would be those that sign up to the doctrine of the Trinity. This leaves Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses outside of the mainstream tent.

Another way of looking at mainstream is to look at what the majority of churches do and say. That will vary between different countries. In England very conservative churches are rare. Christian concern is very conservative. They are against women in leadership and same sex marriage. They are mainstream theologically but in a minority in their conservatism in England.

When you start digging into what conservatism looks like in churches it is often social conservatism dressed up in doctrinal clothes. Lots of small c conservative congregations just don't like change and will object to women priests and SSM because it is new. They will also fight tooth and claw to keep the pews and the worship that was familiar to them when they were young.

I can only speak for how it is in England. My suspicion is that Scotland is more conservative than England and that in America conservatism, which is likely to include no women in leadership, reading the Bible literally, no SSM and deep ambivalence towards LGBTQ+ is mainstream.

It's confusing.

I'm sure you know what mainstream means!

I don't feel that you're replying to what I'm actually saying.

There is no doubt that different flavours of Christianity/ different churches etc have different views.

Some more liberal etc some more fundamentalist.

You agree with that surely?

I am not sure what you mean by 'mainstream'? Mainstream churches, all churches, believe in evangelism. It would be rather missing the point not too.