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.

Scary - I think many of us still only have kids younger than secondary, and the situation is rather different in our experience of primary. I am greatly encouraged by your description of KS3/4.

I'm more concerned - like the OP - that facts about a variety of religions aren't taught to everyone. - church schools opting out of curriculum, parents withdrawing kids, biased teachers (class teachers, not RE teachers) And that non-facts are promoted - assemblies in particular.

Theres no point any of us burying our head in the sand and either wishing religion would go away or that only our own existed. If we raise our children in ignorance, they won't be equipped to think and debate.

Carry on the good work!!

My problem is, I don't think religion should be included at all at primary stage, as it is simply to horrible for young children. It's very difficult to explain to young children why I find religion so unacceptable (the dreadful misogyny in all religions, the large-scale massacres by various gods treated as good things, treatment of children etc) without upsetting them, so it's hard to properly challenge the idea that religion is simply lovely that they get from school. By secondary level it's easier to say, 'Well let's have a look at this story of Rama and Sita. It may look like a sweet fairytale, but why is it so important that Sita was 'faithful' and 'chaste' when she was actually being held prisoner by a monster with supernatural powers. Why was it considered her fault if she had been raped? And why did she have to prove her 'chastity' - why wasn't HE asked to prove his chastity? what does this say about attitudes to women?" etc. Was it OK for Mohammed to order women to be taken into slavery? Could God be good if he asked Abraham to kill Isaac (even if he didn't mean to go through with it) and could Abraham be considered a good person if he was prepared to do so? All interesting of course, but hardly suitable for young children.

Greyriverside for PM that's what i say.

I always laugh sardonically when the religious start twittering on about how horrid non-believers are to them.

Only a few hundred years ago the religious were quite happy to burn to death anyone who disagreed with them. In some societies I understand that murder is still considered an appropriate response for apostasy.

the other weird thing is that religious people get so UPSET when their god/gods are criticised. I had understood the point of most gods is that they are ominopotent and ominscient, so I am sure they are well capable of looking after themselves by doing a bit of smiting of these horrid insulting unbelievers.

Can't now remember who said this, but its almost as good as Stephen f Roberts - good people do good things, bad people do evil thigs, but for a good person to do an evil thing, that takes religion.

Scaryteacher, I dont think anyone is saying that children shouldn't learn about other religions ( I agree it is v important for all the reasons you state) but rather that this should be in the context of history/geopgraphy and not singled out as a separate topic.

I would be sad to see Christmas Carols go though - they don't sing them in State Schools in NZ and I think it's sad that they play them at the shopping mall, but at school it can't get any more religious than Jingle Bells.

Whoever wrote that the devil had all the best tunes had not heard 200 kids singing "Lollipop" in full school assembly. "Swing low Sweet Chariot" snuck in though - obviously chosen by a teacher with no knowledge of Spirituals (or a covert attempt )

spero - Dawkins said that, I think.

CoteDAzur, have to throw in a vehement disagreement here - the DaVinci Code wasn't right about much, and the 'Jesus didn't start out as the son of God' is one of the things that particular fiction novel was in error about.

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming 'Jesus is God' is a fact that atheist posters will be able to check in a lab, but I will be quite clear that Christians believed Him to be God from the word go.

The fact that Muslims believe something different is entirely fine for them, and I've got no intention of telling Muslims that their faith history is accurately presented in The Satanic Verses, so I do get a bit when people tell me that the DaVinci Code is accurate about my faith history.

The Bible says quite clearly that Jesus while he was alive repeatedly said God was both his father and himself. Of course I don't believe him, but he seems to have believed it, and so did his followers.

KH - not sure its correct to say that they believed Jesus was God from the outset. It was acknowledged that he was divine but the exact nature of that divinity was up for grabs at the council of Nicea. Problem was Christianity clearly said "there shall be no other God but the lord thy God" - what then was Jesus? They also battled with the issue of whether Jesus was secondary to God and whether he could truly be said to be eternal or he had to "post-date" God. A bunch of bishops driven by a political agenda then came up with a mutually agreeable set of words. Those who did not agree were excommunicated.

This is one of the problems I have with Christianity and the teaching of it. I find that most people are quite vague about what they believe and have little idea of the relationship between God and Jesus or what the trinity is and what it means. I have also asked numerous times how the death of Christ absolved us of our sins and have never once been given an answer. I know have an impression of Christianity as a cosy religion which no longer really has any true tenets of faith (this is of course just my impression).

I went to a catholic school (not in the UK), we had mass once a week, it was run by nuns, all the pupils were catholic, however, we DID have religious education. It covered all the main world religions and lessons were given in partial manner by a teacher that gave us facts and information.

Religious education is not suddenly going to convert children! I think it helps children become more aware of all the different beliefs and hopefully make everyone more tolerant and accepting of other people?s views.

Religion and spirituality is something you LIVE, you feel, you incorporate in your life and is simply part of who you are. This feeling is not going to be forced upon your children by simple school lessons.

I am totally against fundamentalism of any kind, live and let live. And I think that maybe some education may help.

Gooseyloosey, yes, you're correct, the council of Nicea was discussing the exact nature of the divinity of Christ - but the DaVinci code claims it was inventing the idea of His divinity outright, and that everyone believed Jesus was just a normal man before then, which just isn't true.

And, actually, for a time the view of Arius was in more favour - and he believed that Jesus was a lesser being than God.

As it happens, I agree with you that many Christians are quite vague about what they believe nowadays - I've had many a conversation with a fellow Christian where they've been disdainful of the words 'doctrine' and 'theology'. It's just part of our culture nowadays, sadly. But I still maintain that this sort of education and knowledge is something for Christians to be sorting out for themselves, not teaching in state schools.

(BTW, given that you almost threw out a challenge there - the death of Christ is in place of His people. So He takes their place and receives the punishment due for their sins, because He has become truly man.

Because He is also God, and because He is sinless, He has no sin of His own to pay for, so the worth of His sacrifice is given to us, by faith. So it's a swap, basically - He suffers for our sins, and we are given the credit of His sinless life.

That's the potted version of the belief - has no-one ever told you? I wish I was surprised.)

Greyriverside - I don't know much about Hindu gods and frankly don't really care.

The only reason I know a bit about Islam is because I was born and raised in a Muslim country (not one where they kill non-believers, or yours truly wouldn't live to tell the tale) and had to sit through 1 hr/week RE class. Which only made me want to be Jewish, because our Jewish classmates spent that hour in the library

Jesus was a blood sacrifice, it is an echo of the history of blood sacrifice to the gods in pagan cultures. Not nice, though, is it?
As I remember one of my kids saying, 'That's horrible and unfair and stupid'. Well, yup!

if God is prepared to forgive and not give the 'punishment' we 'deserve', why then can't he do that without making a person especially to kill?

MsDemeanour, good question. And no, it's not a nice teaching, not a bit of it.

The answer I would give you is that God didn't 'make' a person just to punish - He came down Himself to take that punishment. He punished Himself, iyswim.

The reason why He couldn't just 'forgive' can be boiled down to justice. If a man committed murder, and went before a judge for it and was really really sorry, and the judge just let him off, would that judge be considered good, fair or trustworthy?

I would have said no. So if I, with all my sins (and there are many!) go before a perfectly good and just God and tell Him I'm really sorry for them and could He just let me off, please, then I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if I was still insisting that He was just and good and all that.

Now, if you believe that God is capricious and driven by random whims, then you could maybe ask for forgiveness, and maybe He would forgive you but you couldn't be sure at all. But that has never been a Christian teaching.

All of which presupposes that there is a God in the first place, and this is the point my atheist friends come in and mention the flying spaghetti monster

Blimey O'reilly, I look like I'm bible bashing the crap out of everyone today. I think I'll go and make some silly comments on a Doctor Who thread to restore balance.

UQD - Much as I admire Dawkins for having opened up the debate and put eloquent arguments in the hands of atheists, I have to point out that he misuses the concepts of 'likelihood' (probability) and 'evidence'.

Whether or not you have evidence for something has no bearing on its likelihood (probability).

Example: Throwing dice in a dark room. Probability of getting a six is 1/6 per die - because it has six faces and only one has six dots on it AND our repeated previous tests have shown 1/6 outcome. Once the die is thrown, if you can't see it and if you are not allowed to feel it for dots, you can't know for sure if the outcome is indeed a 6. Therefore you have no evidence. However, the probability of a 6 is still 1/6.

In a similar vein, the fact that we don't (yet?) have evidence of the existence of God does not prove he doesn't exist. And has no bearing on the probability of this existence. It only means we don't have the means of detection. We have no idea of the probability because we don't know how many 'faces' there are, so to speak.

Having said that, the rational decision should of course be agnosticism, rather than fervently believing that the outcome must have been a 6... or a 1... or whatever

Thanks KH - that is kind of where I had got to but I come unstuck with trying to work out why a compassionate God would require this - what was the point of it? As it is God who determines what's what on judgement day, couldn't he just give everyone a by ball then, what is actually achieved by the death of Christ? Also, is it all sins ever that are forgiven (if so, what is the point of Confession and Absolution) or only those accumulated up to the date of the crucifition?

Not trying to be awkward here, but it is nice to come across someone who can articulate their faith so I am grilling you unfairly as am genuinely interested.

But the dice example just doesn't work does it? We all know a die has six faces and only one has six dots on it. So whether you see it thrown or not, the probability and the evidence remain the same?

or am i missing something?

I've had some funny experiences which I still need to make sense of.
One example is that one night I dreamt that I was being beaten and at the same time I was the beater, it was a horrible thing that I was 'experiencing' from both sides. The next day I found out that there had been a beating in a nearby street. (People can say this was coincidence but it's not the only time.)
what on earth was the point of me being part of the horrible thing and being upset by it, it was nothing to do with me. And why would I be one with the beater aswell as the beaten?
I think that we will evolve to be more aware of our connection to each other and then maybe realise that if you hurt someone for whatever reason, it hurts everyone. That the person 'in the wrong' is also part of us and can't be seen as 'other'. That forgiving and feeling forgiven is essential for proper healing, moving on and living life well. Which is the point.
I believe that 'the kingdom is here now' because we don't understand time yet.

It is so infinitely interesting, I agree with scaryteacher.
I found Dawkins boring

Well, I should make it clear I'm coming at this from an evangelical protestant Christian perspective, not a Roman catholic or especially sacramental perspective, just to be fair to catholics who might be reading what I'm writing and thinking 'cheeky cow, that's not what I believe!'

I believe sins are 'backdated', if you like, so that Christ died for all sins, then and there (it's all a bit wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey, but yes, even sins that hadn't committed yet - this is an omniscient God we're talking about, right?)

OK, as I'm a protestant, I don't believe in the necessity of sacramental confession and absolution. I sin, I go straight to God in sorrow for it, thanking Him for the cross - not through a priest.

As to a compassionate God requiring the punishment of sin - well, the idea is that God is absolutely good. There is nothing bad in Him, not one thing. That's what is meant by 'holiness' - perfection so complete it cannot possibly just let a bit of evil go. So evil has to be dealt with in a way that also allows God's justice and holiness to remain intact (because otherwise He's not a very trustworthy God, and you probably shouldn't have to worship Him anyway. I know I wouldn't be keen to worship a God who thought that rape, murder, child abuse etc. were just things to shrug off as long as the culprit felt bad about it, iyswim.)

BTW, I am totally aware of the enormous rabbit trails this can open up about the stories in the Hebrew scriptures, and why did God allow sin in the first place etc., but I'm so not going to be able to follow them today, given that I've already written an essay in apologetics on this thread and I need to monitor some workbook practice this afternoon!

Re Jesus as God -

It is fairly clear from what we know of early Christianity that Jesus Christ was not considered to be 'God'. Disciples certainly didn't thought of him as 'God' and they didn't worship him.

In fact, Jesus says in the Bible "Why do you call me 'good'? Nobody is good except God" (Mark 10:18)

A number of historians tell of how "Son of God" was the title of Roman Emperors and bestowing this title on Jesus later on was a political move. Anyway, while Bible does refer to him as 'Son', this is clearly in a metaphorical way (a righteous person, preferred/loved etc) since "when everything has been put under him, then the Son himself will also become subject to the one who put everything under him" (Corinthians 15:28). That is, when Jesus dies he will answer to God just like everyone else.

"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-the God of our ancestors-has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you betrayed and rejected" (Acts 3:13)

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (Timothy 2:5)

These last two support the Muslim viewpoint that the same God sent Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad, imho.

If anyone is interested, I can go on with these quotes.

Spero - You don't have any evidence of the outcome of the dice unless you see (or touch the dots).

Probability remains the same.

Because you can't see the outcome, you don't know whether it's a 6 or any other number. You don't have any evidence.

Turn on the light, and you will know it's a 4. Because you will have seen it. Take a picture. That will be a better evidence.

Kay - I am amazed at the inventiveness of the human mind, the lenghts we will go to rationalize our beliefs.

It's called 'cognitive dissonance'.

The disciples didn't think of him as God and didn't worship him

----------

Except of course when they did.

Like when the religious authorities had chucked out someone whom He healed -

I'm sure you can quote lots of out-of-context sentences from the Greek scriptures to prop up any old argument. They managed it with slavery, too, doesn't mean it's accurate or right.

Sorry to offend you Kay but I haven't taken anything out of context.

It is not my fault that your Bible is made of contradictory statements

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
(Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34)

It doesn't sound like he is talking to himself, does it?

'cognitive dissonance'

ah, well, it's a step up from being called a fruitloop fundy, I suppose. Though not as alliterative. Which is a shame, I like alliteration.