The Christian Theology Education Thread

[Boo Khaki]

Respect of right to believe/worship is wholly different from respecting the beliefs themselves. I will fight to my last breath to protect the former, even though I think it's ridiculous, but I will also fight to my last breath to protect the right to examine, criticise, and even mock the actual beliefs.

If something is ridiculous, why should it be protected from ridicule? If people can insist they have absolute faith, and do not require evidence or proof, then surely that is well past the point of surety whereby any attempt to mock or ridicule is water off a duck's back?

I commonly hear the complaint that nobody dares critique or mock Islam, but Christianity is considered fair game. Apart from the obvious fact that Christianity is still the prevalent religion in Scotland, and by far and away the one that intrudes most upon my life, the claim itself is utterly without basis. I'll happily ridicule Islam and Muslims for being ridiculous where and when I encounter it. There is no hierarchy of religious nonsense. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

36 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Any rational person who looks at basic Christian teachings realises how totally irrational they are.  Yet we are told we should ‘respect’ people’s ‘beliefs’.  Why?

 

I think you can have a distinction between "respecting" beliefs and "respecting" people. People are entitled to being respected, but not entitled to respect for their "beliefs" which are, after all, just opinions. Above the level of simply respecting someone's right to exist, the amount of respect I am prepared to give someone is dependent on their words and actions. 

As for beliefs in the sense of "religious faith", I find them all daft to varying degrees.  I therefore give no supernatural beliefs any respect, and they receive the same "respect" from me as the actions of faith healers, psychics and mediums. The people who hold these beliefs are entitled to respect on the basis I set out above.  To me, religions are today what they have always been - a means of a group of humans conning people into servitude and submission based on nothing more convincing than "I'm telling you, a wizard did it -my wizard, nobody else's wizard - and the wizard wants you to do what I say and give me money". 

The con is particularly strengthened where other aspects of control work a system together... we have a Head of State apparently appointed by the grace of a God, religious influence in education and undue prominence given to religions in state occasions and, of course, Bishops in the legislature. 

Religions already have too much respect IMO. 

[Granny Danger]

52 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Respect of right to believe/worship is wholly different from respecting the beliefs themselves. I will fight to my last breath to protect the former, even though I think it's ridiculous, but I will also fight to my last breath to protect the right to examine, criticise, and even mock the actual beliefs.

If something is ridiculous, why should it be protected from ridicule? If people can insist they have absolute faith, and do not require evidence or proof, then surely that is well past the point of surety whereby any attempt to mock or ridicule is water off a duck's back?

I commonly hear the complaint that nobody dares critique or mock Islam, but Christianity is considered fair game. Apart from the obvious fact that Christianity is still the prevalent religion in Scotland, and by far and away the one that intrudes most upon my life, the claim itself is utterly without basis. I'll happily ridicule Islam and Muslims for being ridiculous where and when I encounter it. There is no hierarchy of religious nonsense. 

First bold bit:  it’s been a while since I was at school but I always remember being told that we should respect people’s beliefs.  The one time I asked why I didn’t receive a satisfactory answer.

Second bold bit: not all religious beliefs/practices are the same, some are more pernicious than others.  I believe how apostates are treated is an indication of how nasty a particular religion is.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Granny Danger

[RH33]

From what I can tell assembly as we knew it doesn't happen at my kids school. The P7's seem to lead it based on promoting schools values and achievements.

I'd get rid of any get of segregated education weather that is private, religious, language. And ensure every child had access to breakfast and lunch and a sound educational basis.

But I acknowledge that's an utter fantasy.

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Second bold bit: not all religious beliefs/practices are the same, some are more pernicious than others.  I believe how apostates are treated is an indication of how nasty a particular religion is.

I probably should have followed that up and said - As well as there being no hierarchy, there is also no threshold where a belief suddenly becomes above critique, or where it is plainly ridiculous it ceases to be a valid target for ridicule. 

I've sometimes encountered religious people, mostly Christians again, with that being the predominant religion, who ask me why I think I have the right to mock someone's beliefs. I think it's a perfectly valid question, but it needs put into context. If I were to spend my Sundays standing outside churches, pointing, laughing, and shouting 'haha look at the morons who believe in complete nonsense!" then of course, that's completely unacceptable because it's totally unnecessary, it's uninvited, and it's not in any way participating in a dialogue. I do not, never have, and never would engage in that sort of behaviour, yet I've been spoken to like that is exactly what I'm doing when I participate in internet discussions. For a start, a setting like this is obviously an invitation to debate, there's a tacit implication that all viewpoints are welcome, and it's not in any way a personal attack in the sense that you could argue standing outside a church shouting at people would be. It's an anonymous forum, so as much as I accept that people will be dicks on the internet in a way that they wouldn't dare face to face, that anonymity also means it's impossible to personally attack someone in the exact same way.

What @Salt n Vinegar says about the difference between people and beliefs is perfectly apt and relevant here. If you invite people to discuss, debate, and argue beliefs, then provided it's the beliefs you are mocking and ridiculing, and not the person, then I really don't see any grounds for complaint. I suppose you could claim that the beliefs are so profound and a part of the person's identity that you are also mocking the individual, but I wouldn't accept that because, again, that's frequently used as a silencing tactic simply because people get uncomfortable when you point out the contradictions and irreconcilable nature of some of their beliefs. 

I think incredulity is often mistaken for hostility, and it's not the same thing. If I ridicule something, it's because I genuinely can't accept that grown adults with unimpaired cognition would give credence to such a thing. I would equate it to something like the paranoia shown by some with regard to footballing officiating and refereeing decisions. I don't personally attack people because they think there is a conspiracy to defraud their team of results and trophies, but I won't hesitate to tell them that I think that belief is utterly batshit and not worthy of respect. It doesn't mean I don't think that person is worthy of respect, it's just an expression of incredulity that an apparently sensible, normal, mentally well person could give credence to that theory, when any objective observer can see that officiating tends towards being garbage for every team, and that the outcomes of competitions suggest that no such victimisation is in play.

Asking WHY I feel the need to mock or ridicule is also perfectly valid, and I think that just stems from anger and resentment if I'm honest. As I said, I don't stand outside churches, I don't engage the bible class folk who I frequently see in the precinct, I don't turn people away from my door, I'm not rude to visitors, I simply tell them I'm not interested and wish them a good day. I don't want religion in my life, so I make a point of not inviting it into my life. I just wish religion would do me the same courtesy and stop imposing itself upon my life. It's because of that imposition that I feel perfectly justified in pointing out the parts of it I find ridiculous.

[Cosmic Joe]

40 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

I probably should have followed that up and said - As well as there being no hierarchy, there is also no threshold where a belief suddenly becomes above critique, or where it is plainly ridiculous it ceases to be a valid target for ridicule. 

I've sometimes encountered religious people, mostly Christians again, with that being the predominant religion, who ask me why I think I have the right to mock someone's beliefs. I think it's a perfectly valid question, but it needs put into context. If I were to spend my Sundays standing outside churches, pointing, laughing, and shouting 'haha look at the morons who believe in complete nonsense!" then of course, that's completely unacceptable because it's totally unnecessary, it's uninvited, and it's not in any way participating in a dialogue. I do not, never have, and never would engage in that sort of behaviour, yet I've been spoken to like that is exactly what I'm doing when I participate in internet discussions. For a start, a setting like this is obviously an invitation to debate, there's a tacit implication that all viewpoints are welcome, and it's not in any way a personal attack in the sense that you could argue standing outside a church shouting at people would be. It's an anonymous forum, so as much as I accept that people will be dicks on the internet in a way that they wouldn't dare face to face, that anonymity also means it's impossible to personally attack someone in the exact same way.

What @Salt n Vinegar says about the difference between people and beliefs is perfectly apt and relevant here. If you invite people to discuss, debate, and argue beliefs, then provided it's the beliefs you are mocking and ridiculing, and not the person, then I really don't see any grounds for complaint. I suppose you could claim that the beliefs are so profound and a part of the person's identity that you are also mocking the individual, but I wouldn't accept that because, again, that's frequently used as a silencing tactic simply because people get uncomfortable when you point out the contradictions and irreconcilable nature of some of their beliefs. 

I think incredulity is often mistaken for hostility, and it's not the same thing. If I ridicule something, it's because I genuinely can't accept that grown adults with unimpaired cognition would give credence to such a thing. I would equate it to something like the paranoia shown by some with regard to footballing officiating and refereeing decisions. I don't personally attack people because they think there is a conspiracy to defraud their team of results and trophies, but I won't hesitate to tell them that I think that belief is utterly batshit and not worthy of respect. It doesn't mean I don't think that person is worthy of respect, it's just an expression of incredulity that an apparently sensible, normal, mentally well person could give credence to that theory, when any objective observer can see that officiating tends towards being garbage for every team, and that the outcomes of competitions suggest that no such victimisation is in play.

Asking WHY I feel the need to mock or ridicule is also perfectly valid, and I think that just stems from anger and resentment if I'm honest. As I said, I don't stand outside churches, I don't engage the bible class folk who I frequently see in the precinct, I don't turn people away from my door, I'm not rude to visitors, I simply tell them I'm not interested and wish them a good day. I don't want religion in my life, so I make a point of not inviting it into my life. I just wish religion would do me the same courtesy and stop imposing itself upon my life. It's because of that imposition that I feel perfectly justified in pointing out the parts of it I find ridiculous.

I think you might be overthinking this pal. 

Live and let live

[Doctor Manhattan]

48 minutes ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Live and let live

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, Cosmic Joe said:

I think you might be overthinking this pal. 

Live and let live

If only the religious fuckwits took this view.

 

[tamthebam]

Jesus did say "turn the other cheek" which is why you can slag Christianity (nowadays. Back in the Middle Ages it was a different matter..)

Whereas some looney said "slag Islam and I'll cut your head off" which is why you don't. Peace be upon the Prophet 

[vikingTON]

On 05/08/2023 at 21:22, Ziggy Sobotka said:

This is the current situation for the 85% of school pupils who attend non-denominational schools.

Erm no, it really isn't. The local minister of whichever Protestant denomination prevails in that part of Scotland holding services is the giveaway there. 

On 05/08/2023 at 17:48, Granny Danger said:

FWIW there should be an element of religious studies in school, probably as part of modern studies.  Children should be educated about religion in schools but not indoctrinated.

So you have zero causal grounds for complaint about Scotland's education system then.

[scottsdad]

My kids had no church services at all through primary school, and have none at secondary.

When I was at school in the 80s and 90s, it was a different story. We had ministers coming to school, we had end-of-term visits to the church (and not just Christmas/Easter, either). In primary 1 we said the Lord's Prayer every day. 

 

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

My kids had no church services at all through primary school, and have none at secondary.

When I was at school in the 80s and 90s, it was a different story. We had ministers coming to school, we had end-of-term visits to the church (and not just Christmas/Easter, either). In primary 1 we said the Lord's Prayer every day. 

 

Did you think god was called Harold?  (Old joke)

 

[Wee-Bey]

45 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm no, it really isn't. The local minister of whichever Protestant denomination prevails in that part of Scotland holding services is the giveaway there. 

Fair enough, although this must be done on a school by school or local authority basis as this doesn't happen in my kid's school(s).

[Boo Khaki]

17 hours ago, Cosmic Joe said:

I think you might be overthinking this pal. 

Live and let live

I'll accept that as fact when religion finally fucks off out of my life completely, and I don't have to sit and watch nonsense like the Lords Spiritual interfering in legislation, children being subject to compulsory worship in schools, or politicians who are elected to represent and enact the will of the electorate hiding behind 'religious belief' to abdicate responsibility on votes that would likely enrage grey-haired and religious constituents, especially so when the same fuckers have never given any outward indication of faith or religiosity beforehand.

[btb]

6 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

I'll accept that as fact when religion finally fucks off out of my life completely, and I don't have to sit and watch nonsense like the Lords Spiritual interfering in legislation, children being subject to compulsory worship in schools, or politicians who are elected to represent and enact the will of the electorate hiding behind 'religious belief' to abdicate responsibility on votes that would likely enrage grey-haired and religious constituents, especially so when the same fuckers have never given any outward indication of faith or religiosity beforehand.

What's the difference between right wing grey haired god-botherers & say Trades Unionists in terms of lobbying for policies they like?

[Boo Khaki]

7 minutes ago, btb said:

What's the difference between right wing grey haired god-botherers & say Trades Unionists in terms of lobbying for policies they like?

Nothing much, but it's the lack of transparency that irritates me. We can't progress certain legislation in the UK despite the intended outcome increasingly becoming the view of the wider public, because suddenly when it comes to a 'conscience' vote, half the fucking HoC who have never expressed any form of religious belief in the past suddenly decide that they can't vote for a bill because 'god and jesus and stuff'. It's a fucking farce.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[Salt n Vinegar]

4 minutes ago, btb said:

What's the difference between right wing grey haired god-botherers & say Trades Unionists in terms of lobbying for policies they like?

Dearie me.  Trades unions actually, demonstrably exist. Trades union members actually, demonstrably exist.  Folk representing things that actually, demonstrably exist should be allowed to influence Government policy.

Anyway, Poseidon isn't happy that his views are being ignored. No doubt we'll hear from him shortly.

[Granny Danger]

12 minutes ago, btb said:

What's the difference between right wing grey haired god-botherers & say Trades Unionists in terms of lobbying for policies they like?

The Tories will try to accommodate the former whilst Starmer will ignore the latter.

 

[btb]

12 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Dearie me.  Trades unions actually, demonstrably exist. Trades union members actually, demonstrably exist.  Folk representing things that actually, demonstrably exist should be allowed to influence Government policy.

Anyway, Poseidon isn't happy that his views are being ignored. No doubt we'll hear from him shortly.

Dearie me, right-wing, gray haired god botherers actually, demonstrably exist.

Oh and by the way weren't you the guy who said "I think you can have a distinction between "respecting" beliefs and "respecting" people" - what changed your mind.?

No doubt I'll hear from you again shortly.

Edited August 7, 2023 by btb

[Doctor Manhattan]

On 05/08/2023 at 22:06, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

I may be the only saddo here that loves watching this type of thing, but I do find it fascinating.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument is powerful IMO.  The debate is a good one, with both men coming across as respectful and humble.. traits which these type of debates often lack.

Finally found time to get through this enjoyable and surprisingly well-mannered 75 or so minutes, thanks. At the end of the day so much of it boils down to linguistic and philosophical sophistry, and – as both parties admitted – there are multiple other possible interpretations of many of the building blocks on both sides of the argument on such things as quantum mechanics, freewill, and the nature of time / timelessness.

I was reminded of a book that was thrust upon me in a Glasgow street many, many years ago by a contingent of Hare Krishnas, entitled “Easy Journey to Other Planets” which through tortuous non-logic and unwarranted leaps of deduction “proved” that this was possible if you only believed hard enough, although it also seemed to depend on how you actually defined “other planets”.

TL;DR – if yer auntie had baws she’d be your uncle.