To think that religous education should be complusory for EVERYONE

[ReallyTired]

I think that everyone should learn about ALL the major relgions in the world, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, or Athesist or agnostic.

However I think that religous education should be taught as "This is what Christians believe" rather than "This is what WE believe". Children should not be subjected to attempts to convert them to different relgions, but they need to understand and tolerate difference. Ie. Learn that there are times that we should agree to disagree.

A basic knowledge of the five world's major relgions helps children understand current affairs, history and avoid offending people from other cultures to themselves.

If parents want their children brought up as a Christian, Muslim, athesist or pagan then they can take their children to church/ Temple/ Mosque out of school hours.

I like the assemblies at the the special school I work at. They have no relgious songs, but the school has fun singing pop songs. Although the songs are non religous they have lyrics encouraging good behaviour.
All the children are included and gain from the experience.

ooh look at this stuff! It is better than dr who!! woohoo

[stern]

I'm sorry, I don't believe that's possible.

(better than Doctor Who, that is)

why get so het up about what people choose to believe? People aren't having a go at you about being an atheist

lol @ Mr Benedict. It's not often that you get to start a paragraph with "In 1982, I died from terminal cancer"

I certainly think his views should be compulsary in all schools even if we have to drop geography and history to fit them in

scaryteacher - "no evidence at all that the early beliefs of the church have been distorted"

And how were we to know there was any distortion? No video or even audio recordings from when Jesus Christ was alive, gospels are of questionable reliability (written a long time after J.C., and not necessarily by people whose names are on them. It appears entirely possible that there would be a Chinese whispers effect or natural distortion through the years/centuries, even if there was no willful distortion.

I would be interested to see where you read Quran say 'Mary is part of the Trinity'. There is a full chapter of Mary in the Quran, and iirc, it portrays her in a singularly positive light (no other woman gets such glowing praise) but nowhere is she called God or a part of God that I can recall.

Mohammad was illiterate so you are probably right, he had probably formed an opinion on Christianity from observing Christians rather than reading the Bible. How many (common/poor) people had a Bible, anyway? This was way before printing was possible and books had to be copied by hand, so would it be possible that not only did Mohammad not read the Bible, but he didn't even know anyone who had a Bible?

"If [Quran was a divine product, sent down page by page], surely it would present my beliefs accurately, even if only to tell me I was wrong?"

And maybe the current belief system of Christianity (your beliefs) is not the same as that of 600 AD (beliefs of early Christians).

Rosylily - I would be wary of any near-death experience story, but yours is especially hard to believe because anyone revived after an hour of death (even if that were possible) would be a vegetable. Brain cells start to die after minutes and increasingly severe brain damage follows with every passing minute.

oi, I'm not scaryteacher, Cote

When I talk about the beliefs not having been distorted, I'm talking about the manuscript evidence from pretty early on being the same as much later manuscripts. I can quite easily check for myself whether or not the Christian faith has changed since 600AD - most of the early church fathers are easily read now, and I've yet to read anything which differs significantly from what I currently believe.

But it's a much more detailed issue than can easily be covered in this format, so I'd urge you to look it up for yourself (and honestly, I'd urge that about anything I say anyway).

I agree that Mary is spoken of in high terms in the Quran, certainly, and of course the Quran doesn't call her God - the whole point I was making is that the Quran rebukes what it considers to be the error of the Christians, but it doesn't get the belief right. I've got some passages noted in my copy of the Quran, as when I first read it I thought 'But that's not what i believe anyway' but I don't have it to hand right now, so that'll have to rest until another time.

I'm sure it was entirely possible that Muhammad didn't know anyone who had a bible. I even think it's quite possible that he hadn't come across any mainstream orthodox Christians.

oh yeah Cote, you are right! they didn't cover that point!
Stuff it, who cares, it sounds great, I'm believing it!
Am off to hug trees.......