Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Palindrome wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Could you explain what you mean by not secular enough?

The best example is that the House of Lords has 26 Bishops, who are there purely because they are Bishops. They may not have a great deal of political power, in the scheme of things they have very little, but they do have some tangible imput into the rulership of this country.

I will admit that I don't know alot about your government. But how is a Bishop being there purely because they are a Bishop different than Lords Temporal being there simply because he is a Lord? Would you feel differently if there were no Lords Spiritual, but instead have Bishops (or any other members of a religion) be appointed?

There are also other things like state funded religious schools, prayers said at all council meetings and overtly religious content in non religious BBC broadcasting.

I can understand your critizism of those things.

 d-usa wrote:

I will admit that I don't know alot about your government. But how is a Bishop being there purely because they are a Bishop different than Lords Temporal being there simply because he is a Lord? Would you feel differently if there were no Lords Spiritual, but instead have Bishops (or any other members of a religion) be appointed?

The whole thing badly needs reformed but the Bishops presence is more of an issue for me as they are there purely for theological reasons.

To the best of my knowledge whilst schools are supposed to have an assembly each day i don't think there's a requirement for it to have religious teachings as such..

That said my bog standard secondary school ( 11-16 year olds for those overseas) we were supposed to sing hymns at one or two of them, course by the time we were 13 or older you'd just stand there bored or maybe sing "hilarious" alternative lyrics.

Palindrome wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I will admit that I don't know alot about your government. But how is a Bishop being there purely because they are a Bishop different than Lords Temporal being there simply because he is a Lord? Would you feel differently if there were no Lords Spiritual, but instead have Bishops (or any other members of a religion) be appointed?

The whole thing badly needs reformed but the Bishops presence is more of an issue for me as they are there purely for theological reasons.

I see, thanks for sheding some light on that.

For a lot of things like that I can understand people not wanting to have somebody appointed only because they are a bishop. My only concern would be if it goes so far in the other direction that you might end up with something like "no Bishops" can be appointed. I think that ideally you would end up with something like "it is perfeclty fine to appoint religious clergy, as long as being clergy was not the reason they were appointed".

 d-usa wrote:
What about participation in them. Is it some sort of "everybody come here" kind of deal, or are there pretty easy options for not participating?

Generally you can opt out if your parents write to the school and opt you out or you are over 18. Generally you stand outside until the religious bits are over then come in for the announcements. I'm not sure if things have changed since i was at school.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What about participation in them. Is it some sort of "everybody come here" kind of deal, or are there pretty easy options for not participating?

Generally you can opt out if your parents write to the school and opt you out or you are over 18. Generally you stand outside until the religious bits are over then come in for the announcements. I'm not sure if things have changed since i was at school.

I see.

That's kind of crappy. I kind of think that kids should be able to decide if they want to participate in the religious bits or not independent of parents writing to school. But I also think it's kind of crappy that you are standing outside somewhere like you got a contagious disease while everbody gets their religion on. Seems like the ideal scenario would be to have two separate deals. Start out with the announcements, then have a separate time for "meditation" or whatever and let the religious folks be religious and the non-religious can play games or do whatever.

 d-usa wrote:
I kind of think that kids should be able to decide if they want to participate in the religious bits or not independent of parents writing to school.

While I understand the sentiment, I'm not sure 8 year-olds typically aren't quite savvy enough to truly understand the implications of that kind of decision. Certainly there is a point in time where a young human has to sart making those kinds off decisions, but I would have to think that would be in the teens at the very least.

The other problem with the system of sending a kid outside is that, sure the kid isn't participating, but now he/she is singling themselves out as different, which in primary school is often not a good thing. The idea should be to minimize ostracism, not create situations that emphasize it. The idea you mention about everyone getting quiet time for whatever it is they want to do is a better option then saying to everyone "NOW THIS CHILD WILL BE CLEAVED FROM US FOR NOT BELIEVING, AND RETURN IN 10 MINUTES".

What's the age of consent in the UK? Seems like you should be old enough to legally exclude yourself from religion if you are legally old enough to feth...

You have to be 16 to get married and join the military and leave school
17 to start driving
18 to drink

So you can shoot up the enemy of the country, but need a permission slip from mum to skip religion in school?

You guys sounds as weird as the southern USA.

 d-usa wrote:
old enough to feth...

So 25?

 sebster wrote:


And if people lose the word of God because of an insistance in ludicrous nonsense like a literal Noah's Ark, that ought to be a problem.

But if you don't think so, then carry on.

Sebster there are many Christians that don't accept the Genesis accounts as literal truth, but they believe it to be a Moral allegory. I mean this isn't news to us on this forum, that doesn't change the fact that I believe they are in error, but being in error doesn't necessarily make someone a heretic or an unbeliever. I think you underestimate the power of the Gospel.

One example is my own conversion..As I have mentioned, before my conversion(this was way before Dawkins ad Hitchens made it big), I was a hardcore Athiest, Believing that the Bible was a good moral book but was full of mythological nonsense. But when I started to actually search, I came to find out that I had it all wrong, and I had a conversion experience with the Lord. Even after my initial conversion I wasn't sure if the stories were myth or literal. As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.

Having said that, I do acknowledge that there are passages in the Bible that are metaphor, for example Jesus said that He is the "door" but we know he didn't mean he was a literal wooden door. Also it's debated whether or not the talking serpent was indeed a reptile snake or if "serpent" was in reference to some other demonic entity. It's an interesting debate but fundamentally it doesn't matter. To be honest if I was wrong about my young earth creation stance, it wouldn't effect my relationship with Jesus at all.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.

Meant by whom?

At my school we have assembly's twice a week, and since my school was originally christian, we have a short (1-2 lines) prayer at the end, which consists of us lowering our heads slightly as the teacher says some words. So i your atheist or any other religion, you just tune out the prayer and no-one cares.

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.

Meant by whom?

The Author of course..believed to be Moses.

We know there are different types of literature in the Bible, poetry, law, allegory, prophetic writings, and historical writings, letters. When you look at the account from just a literary style in the hebrew it is not the same style as the poetry found else where in the Bible, it is written as a historical narrative.

If you compare the Hebrew style in Genesis 1 to Hebrew style in Genesis 37-50(Story of Joseph),Joshua 1-10(Hebrews enter promised land) and other historical narratives the style is the same. As opposed to poetry such as.Genesis 49--(Jacobs blessing), Exodus 15(Song of Moses), Numbers 23-24(Oracles of Balaam)...and others

Source"Thousands not Billions" section by Dr. Stephen Boyd.
here is a link to some of his work.. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=24

That's not what ultimately influenced my decision though..it only reinforced it.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.

Meant by whom?

The Author of course..believed to be Moses.

Not believed to be Moses by anyone who has seriously studied the issue (by that I mean, who is not studying the text as a secondary matter where the primary concern is ideological -- for example, trying to "prove" the earth is mere thousands of years old). Moreover, what evidence is there that the author(s) of Genesis conceived of history in the sense by which we mean "literal"?

I wonder, and I don't mean this in even a slightly derogatory way, if you have ever considered conversion to Islam. I think your approach to sacred text would be more at home among Muslims.

 Manchu wrote:
and I don't mean this in even a slightly derogatory way.

This being the first sign that something derogatory is about to be said, maybe you should just skip it and move on to what you actually want to say

 LordofHats wrote:
This being the first sign that something derogatory is about to be said, maybe you should just skip it and move on to what you actually want to say

I meant exactly what I said, thank you very much, which is that no derision is intended. The idea that eternal truth is communicated directly from God to man, in the literal sense, is much more important to the Muslim (and Mormon) rather than Christian tradition. Although I don't in any degree sympathize with that aspect of the Muslim tradition (or Mormon one, for that matter), I want to be clear that I am not substituting an attack on GG's claims with arguments against Islam.

Oh I'm just joshing with you

Though I'm sure that Fundamentalists would disagree with your view, and biblical literalism is hardly new, nor is biblical inerrancy.

I'm pretty sure hats was just busting your chops on that one.

Edit: Ninja'd

Literalism, at least of the fundamentalist mold, is actually pretty novel in the history of Christianity.

Palindrome wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

One of the things mentioned in the article is that the UK is the most non-religious state in western Europe. I don't know if the UK is more or less stable and benign than the USA, Greece, Iceland, etc.

The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.

There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.

The USA is an atheist state, and is pretty stable and benign. France, and Japan, also.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

One of the things mentioned in the article is that the UK is the most non-religious state in western Europe. I don't know if the UK is more or less stable and benign than the USA, Greece, Iceland, etc.

The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.

There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.

The USA is an atheist state, and is pretty stable and benign. France, and Japan, also.

I would call it a secular state, rather than an atheist state. Calling it an atheist state would seem to imply a stance one way or the other, which in theory the government of a nation with religious freedom shouldn't be doing. I also realize that the reality might be different than what is on paper.

The reality is the state is atheist in theory but has many references to Christianity in practicality.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reality is the state is atheist in theory but has many references to Christianity in practicality.

There are in reality many references to God and Christianity. Having a separation of church and state, that is, having a secular state, isn't the same as having an atheist state. Calling it an atheist state implies a stance on religion and spirituality, which theoretically the state should not have, as it is for individuals to choose their own religion or lack thereof.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reality is the state is atheist in theory

What about the (concept of) state implies the non-existence of God?

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.

Meant by whom?

The Author of course..believed to be Moses.

Not believed to be Moses by anyone who has seriously studied the issue (by that I mean, who is not studying the text as a secondary matter where the primary concern is ideological -- for example, trying to "prove" the earth is mere thousands of years old). Moreover, what evidence is there that the author(s) of Genesis conceived of history in the sense by which we mean "literal"?

I wonder, and I don't mean this in even a slightly derogatory way, if you have ever considered conversion to Islam. I think your approach to sacred text would be more at home among Muslims.

Wow talk about a "no true scotsman" argument...we've got a prime example of one right here.....how ironic...


GG

PS..I'm well aware of the documentary hypothesis Manchu..

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reality is the state is atheist in theory

What about the (concept of) state implies the non-existence of God?

Yes. Secular would be a better word than atheist.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.

Meant by whom?

The Author of course..believed to be Moses.

Not believed to be Moses by anyone who has seriously studied the issue (by that I mean, who is not studying the text as a secondary matter where the primary concern is ideological -- for example, trying to "prove" the earth is mere thousands of years old).

Wow talk about a "no true scotsman" argument...we've got a prime example of one right here...

I don't think so. I am distinguishing between people who study the Bible for the sake of studying the Bible and people who study the Bible according to a priori commitments to premises incompatible with scientific theories.

 generalgrog wrote:
Wow talk about a "no true scotsman" argument...

I don't think so... you want to believe that the creation myth set out by the bible is the literal truth, knock yourself out. I don't think anyone else will be joining you for that particular party.