Letter from school..

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

We started the debate with you defending christianity, and when this does not work, you turn to hinduism. I'll have you know that hindus by and large regard christianity as insufficient at best...which you probably already figured out.

This is all in your own mind. It seems you are unable to grasp what "religion" means, and the fact that I am talking about "religion".
I make no distinction between the "religion" of the hindus, and the "religion" of Jesus, and the fact that you do, is not my responsibility.

Simple. English is a recent invention. English slang is even more recent. Plus, by your own scriptural reference the only body organ that could be personified are the kidneys as these were considered to be the emotive generator (the word 'reins' are 'kidneys'):

What scriptural reference?

The point is...elsewhere was considered the source point of emotions, not the heart. Therefore any hint that the word "heart" was used as we do today to personify emotions is invalid.

The hebrew transliteration of the word "heart" is Leb.
Here is a summation of meanings.

inner man, mind, will, heart, understanding
inner part, midst
midst (of things)
heart (of man)
soul, heart (of man)
mind, knowledge, thinking, reflection, memory
inclination, resolution, determination (of will)
conscience
heart (of moral character)
as seat of appetites
as seat of emotions and passions 1a
as seat of courage

As soon as I brought up something which shows christianity in a weaker light you switch to hinduism...a religion that developed largely independantly of christianity. Why? I'm asking YOU because YOU do it. And you did it again in this reply. Can't you stand on the religion you began supporting (and i assume you're owned by?)

Why do you assume that I am a christian?
Did you fail to understand me when said "christianity" is not "religion"?

How do you know that?

Read the links provided regarding booze addiction, and here is a link about the decline of religion in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1043986.stm

......that your theist compatriots can't be theists because Jan says alcoholism and religion are mutually exclusive?

[/QUOTE]

A person can believe in God without being part of "a religion", you know. :bugeye:
What I actually said was; "People who genuinely believe God is real don't tend to go round the pubs with the sole intention of getting rat-arsed."

Physically, as a statistical comparison, this is true. However, discrimination because of this is morally reprehensible; and this segregation finds support almost to the roots in the major religions.

What occurs, is that, man takes advantage of the situation to the point where it becomes totally inhumane, then at that time a religion is prescribed where the rules apply to the consciousness of that particular society, at that time. So though the rules may seem barbaric to you, it may just be a case of "...you should have seen the way it was before".

I'd love to see you fight her though.

I'm aint getting my head kicked in for no one?

"Deep" is exactly the word I'd choose too

Why the roll eyes?

CORRECT...it is a choice, so why defend the school?

From what I understand, the school does a good job of teaching. Maybe I am wrong, but that's the impression I get. That being the case, it should be defended. What I don't believe, is that the child is being forced-fed religion, because if that was the case, it would have been closed down long-ago, especially in this anti-religous atmosphere.
Also, I don't agree that singin hymns are a form of indoctrination, anymore than singing along to the Pussy Cat Dolls is.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oniw17,

That is a devout christian, a christian is one who accepts christ as their savior.

This is true, but when one "accepts christ as their savior", it means they have devoted themself to christ. It is this "devotion" that makes them "christian".

Of course there are good christians and bad christians, just as there is good and bad to every genre.

A bad christian would be someone who says they are christian, but does not follow in the footsteps of christ. Technically, that make him a non-christian. To say that he is a bad "christian", misses the point of christ altogether.

I could easily say that you're not a christian because you haven't become an anchorite or a monk or a cardinal, or a bishop, and therefore you aren't a true follower of christ, you haven't devoted your entire life to christ.

And you'd be correct in your analasys.

Have you studied Thomas Aquinas? St. Augustine?

No.

How then, can you be a true a true christian.

In this day and age?
With a great deal of difficulty, i would imagine.
It was so even at the time when christ was on the earth.

If you choose to talk in absolutes, you must use absolutes, and not half-assed absolutes. If the christian must be the perfect christian, then they must be the perfect christian.

In religious terms, the ideal of perfection is to follow in the footsteps of the perfect (christ, in this case).

Yes, I'm aware that christians are very cocky, they also say "there is a god," rather than "I believe in God."

I've heard athiests remark "there is no god" rather than "I believe there is no god".

It doesn't make a difference, personal belief defines a christian, there aren't any eternal requirements to be a christian.

I believe it is important for you to view religion like this, in order to justify your ignorance.
A "personal belief" can consist of anything, a christian is defined by their faith in Jesus christ, choosing to live in accordance with his teachings and examples, which can only be done if they believe this to be the right way.

Being the best at soemthing takes qualifications other than belief.

It takes both belief and qualifications.

As a christian, haven't you been paying attention?

Why do you assume I am a christian?

How do define someone who follows the morals that Jesus expressed in Matthew, but who doesn't believe in god? Do you define them as a christian? NO! Why? Because chistianity is based on belief, NOT practice.

You are mixing the institution of christianity with the teachings and example of christ, I believe this is where our wires are getting crossed.
The morals of Jesus, is not the actual religion of Jesus, they are a standard of living, which helps the practitioners to advance their spiritual consciousness. It brings them to the mode of goodness.
To be a good person does not mean you have to be religious.

Jan.

 

[Oniw17]

This is true, but when one "accepts christ as their savior", it means they have devoted themself to christ. It is this "devotion" that makes them "christian".

No, t's not. That makes them an ideal christian.....How about this, what do you classify someone who believes in god, excepts christ as their saviour, but isn't 100% devout? What are they if not a christian? Can you explain that to me? Are they an anti-christian?

A bad christian would be someone who says they are christian, but does not follow in the footsteps of christ. Technically, that make him a non-christian. To say that he is a bad "christian", misses the point of christ altogether.

So...there is no such think as a christian? Then why can't we use the meaning that most people would except, one who believes in christ as their saviour?

I've heard athiests remark "there is no god" rather than "I believe there is no god".

Again, yes there are cocky people in all groups.

I believe it is important for you to view religion like this, in order to justify your ignorance. A "personal belief" can consist of anything, a christian is defined by their faith in Jesus christ, choosing to live in accordance with his teachings and examples, which can only be done if they believe this to be the right way.

What ignorance is that? You seem to think the same thing. Really though, what ignorance am I trying to justify?

Why do you assume I am a christian?

I said I classify that person as a christian, because you asked me how I would group that person. Then, I asked you if you've been paying attention. I didn't assume anything.

You are mixing the institution of christianity with the teachings and example of christ, I believe this is where our wires are getting crossed.The morals of Jesus, is not the actual religion of Jesus, they are a standard of living, which helps the practitioners to advance their spiritual consciousness. It brings them to the mode of goodness.To be a good person does not mean you have to be religious.

I am? I thought that was you? You're the one who said a christian was defined by practice and not belief.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D,

This is all in your own mind. It seems you are unable to grasp what "religion" means, and the fact that I am talking about "religion".
I make no distinction between the "religion" of the hindus, and the "religion" of Jesus, and the fact that you do, is not my responsibility.

Self serving justification, it lumps ALL religion as one thought and one philosophy, where it reality they do not work like that. As a matter of fact, many religious philosophies are incompatible, e.g. the total non-violent tenets of the Jains as opposed to the warlike jihad-happy Islamic fundamentals.

The psychology and origins of religions are different, and pulling various strengths from all of them to fill the weak potholes in the others shows desperation in the face of logic.

What scriptural reference?...



The hebrew transliteration of the word "heart" is Leb.
Here is a summation of meanings.

inner man, mind, will, heart, understanding
inner part, midst
midst (of things)
heart (of man)
soul, heart (of man)
mind, knowledge, thinking, reflection, memory
inclination, resolution, determination (of will)
conscience
heart (of moral character)
as seat of appetites
as seat of emotions and passions 1a
as seat of courage

Even so, even IF the dialect existed, it was not used in the biblical quotations I pasted there for you.

But you know what? Never mind, I knew it was folly to battle illogic with illogic, and did so against my better judgement as I said. It is a common strategy of the theist to weave 'scriptural' webs to confuse the issues at hand.

Read the links provided regarding booze addiction, and here is a link about the decline of religion in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1043986.stm

May I ask a personal question? (i assume yes here). In this paragraph, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or insensitive mind you, but have you had a bad experience with alcohol yourself? I sense a deep rooted problem with it from you.


And the decline of religion in the UK article was ALMOST a reason to celebrate were it not for the fact that folks are turning to others. As a matter of fact, since you make no distinction among religion oh noble and philosophical Jan, the so called decline is not all that large, since - according to this article - the decline in Christianity correlated to an increase in other religions. To you that should just mean a mere relocation of place of worship. And also according to you, the statistical numbers are less important, because anyone can lie about statistics. However, see the CoE's opinion on the stats:

"It is not about a fall in the number of people who worship but the way worship has changed over the years"

I imagine you'll lend more credibility to this interpretation, because after all, the Church of England is indistinguishable from other religions right?

A person can believe in God without being part of "a religion", you know.

What I actually said was; "People who genuinely believe God is real don't tend to go round the pubs with the sole intention of getting rat-arsed."

How do you measure "genuine belief?". I'm sure the drunk theists out there 'genuinely believe' in god.

Be that as it may, let's reword:

Originally reworded by Enterprise-D
"......that your theist compatriots can't be theists because Jan says alcoholism and god are mutually exclusive?"

What occurs, is that, man takes advantage of the situation to the point where it becomes totally inhumane, then at that time a religion is prescribed where the rules apply to the consciousness of that particular society, at that time. So though the rules may seem barbaric to you, it may just be a case of "...you should have seen the way it was before".

This is more self serving justification. Barbarism is barbarism, no matter the level to which it was perpetrated "before".

Why the roll eyes?

Think about other words usually used with 'deep'.

From what I understand, the school does a good job of teaching. Maybe I am wrong, but that's the impression I get. That being the case, it should be defended. What I don't believe, is that the child is being forced-fed religion, because if that was the case, it would have been closed down long-ago, especially in this anti-religous atmosphere.
Also, I don't agree that singin hymns are a form of indoctrination, anymore than singing along to the Pussy Cat Dolls is.

Jan.

SL said (see below, or click the little #1), that the school takes its students to a daily WORSHIP session, which of course includes singing hymns. For you to focus on only the singing hymns is extremely fraudulent and it assumes a lack of perception on my part. Don't think this was escaping my attention before.

...I took my daughter out of school because they were going for a service at a local church, (and before the christians start damning me to hell), I also took her out of school the day before because they were having a service at a synagogue...

Once more Jan, it does not matter what you agree is a form of indoctrination, the only point here that matters is that the school ordered a seven year old to attend church without the approval of her rightful, legal and biological parent. Albeit they did not order her as Hitler might have, but she's still seven and she still trusts her teachers to do what's in her best interest and followed along innocently. The only people however empowered to decide what is in her best interest is SL and his wife (SL I'm assuming there's a wife). Not the school and certainly not you (and not ME for that matter...were SL suddenly to become christian and send his daughter to a nun factory, I would have nought to say).

On top of which, while it is non-violent, starting a seven year old child attending church is still a form of indoctrination.

in·doc·tri·nate to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions

..Junior School is a community school and therefore has no religious bias. However, the law states that schools provide a daily act of worship which should be wholly or mainly of a christian character.

There is no such provision in the law. The law stated that 51% of the time is allocated to christianity. There is no "wholly". And 51% is hardly mainly, even though it's technically a majority. Where's the moderate islamic teachings? The hinduism? The buddhism?

This school in my opinion is run by a theist administration hiding behind a soon-to-be obsolete law, which grants them very little power to begin with, a little power that they're seeking to abuse subtly.

 

[SnakeLord]

What I actually said was; "People who genuinely believe God is real don't tend to go round the pubs with the sole intention of getting rat-arsed."

People who genuinely believe there isn't a god don't tend to go round pubs with the sole intention of getting rat arsed either. Sure, there are people - probably of most beliefs that do get rat arsed, and some that even plan to get rat arsed, but you're seemingly trying to imply that it's only god believers that don't go out to get rat arsed when I know of many non-believers that don't go out to get rat arsed either.

What I don't believe, is that the child is being forced-fed religion, because if that was the case, it would have been closed down long-ago, especially in this anti-religous atmosphere.

This isn't an "anti religious atmosphere". Churches are still the only establishment that get away without paying any tax, theres a church on every street corner, they even have their own tv slots and it is a legal requirement for schools to conduct daily religious worship of a wholly christian nature to all kids regardless of their own personal beliefs. I wouldn't call that "anti religious".

Also, I don't agree that singin hymns are a form of indoctrination, anymore than singing along to the Pussy Cat Dolls is.

And if you were forced to sing Pussycat Dolls songs when you didn't even like them/weren't asked whether you liked them? That is the issue here, try to remember it.

P.S You didn't respond to my last post. I'm upset :\

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

Um...so why do imams and pastors insist that he does?

Maybe they do, but that would be for their benefit, not Gods.

I reiterate, and (perhaps) on behalf of SL...it is not the fact that the school has these procedures...it is the fact that they seem to wish to force that which is a choice upon SL's daughter. That is a moral no-no, and quasi-legal at best.

It boils down to the fact that anything vaguely religious, is viewed by you as CRAP, you see it as FORCEFULL INDOCTRINATION. Based on my experience in a UK school, I, nor anyone else I know (from my school), ever suffered in any way from school assemblies, or religious education. What you and SL are implying, sounds alien to me, as a UK citizen.

Maybe. But I'm asking you. You dove from christianity to hinduism, to general support of generic religion. Since you seem to know it all about theisms, and you asked for scriptural reference, I posed the question to you.

Maybe the real question is; what is religion?
I didn't "dive" from christianity to hinduism, I spoke from a religious perspective. The sectarianism thing is in your head.

Why'd you give up so easily? I at least expected a reason why you think humanity should fall on its knees just because a (purported) being is omnipotent.

Because you sealed it by stating your personal belief. It cannot go any further.

Typical priest answers:

Who/what am I? A child of god. That's all you need
What happens when I die? If you pray and worship the lord you go to paradise, if you don't you burn in the eternal hellfires
Although my body changes, why am I still the same person? Because god made your soul, your body is only an earthly vessel
Who/what is God? Your father and and the father of jesus your saviour
Why do bad things happen to good people? Because it's all part of the lord's grand plan. Trust that it is good.
What is the purpose of life? To worship the lord thy god, and to love one another as I have

The majority of christian theists...and i daresay many islamic ones accept variances to these answers as unmitigated truth. How is this conducive to independant thought and development of intellect?

The majority?
What do you think being conducive to independant thought, and development of intellect, entails?
And how do you know that a belief in God is not a positive attribute?

I assume you meant "found by athiests". There are no answers attributable to 'atheism' per se.

Well, stop acting like there is.

A person's personal fantasies about worship (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with inventions or discoveries.

Who are you to say what it has and has not to do with?

(I must say when I start to get passionate, I become a little less surgical). I would be so bold as to say however that a scientist unencumbered by christianity or islam has more drive and ambition to unlock the 'secrets of the universe'.

And how do you know this?

What I should have said was theisms lend nothing to the discovery of the correct answers of functions of the universe. Theism also does not prompt anyone to discover anything outside the covers of their respective books.

This discussion is getting stupid.


Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Jan do keep up, I've posted newer news than this

Enterprise-D,
Maybe they do, but that would be for their benefit, not Gods.

And how is a seven year old to know this?

It boils down to the fact that anything vaguely religious, is viewed by you as CRAP, you see it as FORCEFULL INDOCTRINATION. Based on my experience in a UK school, I, nor anyone else I know (from my school), ever suffered in any way from school assemblies, or religious education. What you and SL are implying, sounds alien to me, as a UK citizen.

Dude, it is indoctrination when the audience has no choice in the matter. A child wont fight her teacher if they go on a field trip to church. She won't say anything when the nice man in the pretty white and gold robes tells her to kneel down and say some utterances. And if left unchecked by SL, she becomes a christian...and she didn't know why.

What I say it boils down to is theist leaders are afraid that the balderdash that they pass off as ultimate truth is too hard to teach when an uninitiated has arrived at age 16, or 18, or 22...why? If it's truth, it should be obvious and easy to teach to a reasonable adult not so?

Maybe the real question is; what is religion?
I didn't "dive" from christianity to hinduism, I spoke from a religious perspective. The sectarianism thing is in your head.

I dealt with this...you're diving. LG does it too...christianity failed him, so he's talking hinduism now.

And hold up...doesn't sectarianism require me to be owned by a religion in the first place? To be able to discriminate against others? Technically...I should be an omnisectarian in my omnibenevolent endeavour to omnisecularize the world right?

Just to clarify...and feel free to tell me if I'm wrong, but the word "sectarianism" means discrimination against a religious body in favour of another ... in colloquial pejorative.

As I understand it though, "sectarianism" was political in the first place, referring to societal class divisions and struggles?

Anyone...is Jan using the word "sectarianism" to demonize me? Booga booga.

Because you sealed it by stating your personal belief. It cannot go any further.

So...humanity should NOT fall on its knees to worship then? It's only I that believe that theists insist that we should?

The majority?
What do you think being conducive to independant thought, and development of intellect, entails?

Logic. Research. Experimentation. Development of intrinsic abilities. The ability to challenge ridiculous panacea answers.

And how do you know that a belief in God is not a positive attribute?

It's neither positive or negative. It's what the believers try to do has the connotations of negativity.

Well, stop acting like there is.

I wish you quoted the rest of what I said. I also said there are no answers ascribable to theism either.

Who are you to say what it has and has not to do with?

This is self evident. Scientific answers are found via empirical methods. Since religion provides anything but empiricism, it cannot be credited with any contribution to scientific discoveries. People who ARE religious can be credited, but their religion itself cannot be.

And how do you know this?

I asked.

This discussion is getting stupid.

This is your opinion. I've challenged you that theism provides very little to intellectual pursuits. You haven't answered me, or tried to prove me wrong in any way. Asking rhetorical questions does not prove me incorrect.

 

[SnakeLord]

Based on my experience in a UK school, I, nor anyone else I know (from my school), ever suffered in any way from school assemblies, or religious education.

You turned out religious.. I don't think you can instantly dismiss the actions of your school as having any part in what you have become.

I'm being ignored :\

 

[Godless]

This discussion is getting stupid.

No shit!! so why the hell did you percist, when you obviously lost!!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D

And how is a seven year old to know this?

How does a 7 year old "know" anything?

Dude, it is indoctrination when the audience has no choice in the matter.

What's indoctrination?

A child wont fight her teacher if they go on a field trip to church. She won't say anything when the nice man in the pretty white and gold robes tells her to kneel down and say some utterances. And if left unchecked by SL, she becomes a christian...and she didn't know why.

Then get her out of the school.

What I say it boils down to is theist leaders are afraid that the balderdash that they pass off as ultimate truth is too hard to teach when an uninitiated has arrived at age 16, or 18, or 22...why?

I don't.

If it's truth, it should be obvious and easy to teach to a reasonable adult not so?

If what is truth?

I dealt with this...you're diving.

I'm not.

And hold up...doesn't sectarianism require me to be owned by a religion in the first place?

Doesn't ring any bells.

So...humanity should NOT fall on its knees to worship then? It's only I that believe that theists insist that we should?

???

Logic. Research. Experimentation. Development of intrinsic abilities. The ability to challenge ridiculous panacea answers.

Explain how you justify that led to this dialouge.

It's neither positive or negative. It's what the believers try to do has the connotations of negativity.

Explain how you know this?

This is self evident. Scientific answers are found via empirical methods. Since religion provides anything but empiricism, it cannot be credited with any contribution to scientific discoveries. People who ARE religious can be credited, but their religion itself cannot be.

How is it self-evident?

This is your opinion. I've challenged you that theism provides very little to intellectual pursuits. You haven't answered me, or tried to prove me wrong in any way. Asking rhetorical questions does not prove me incorrect.

All you want to do is attack theism. Fair enough, but it makes really boring conversation, especially as have no real understanding of the subject. I have explained things from a religion perspective, but you just knock them back in favour of your own simplistic ideas. That's tedious.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You turned out religious.. I don't think you can instantly dismiss the actions of your school as having any part in what you have become.

I'm being ignored :\

I'm not going to go over the same points again and again, I don't have the time. Everything is in my posts.

Godless “

This discussion is getting stupid. ”

No shit!! so why the hell did you percist, when you obviously lost!!

LOL!!!
Lost?
What exactly?
Do people like you enter into discussions for the sole purpose of winning. because it sure feels like that.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D
How does a 7 year old "know" anything?

PRECISELY!!

What's indoctrination?

I defined it already...see the Encarta definition I placed.

Then get her out of the school.

You have no right to make such a demand. SL pays taxes and he has the right to tell the school to stop teaching his child religion.

I don't.

Please be more specific.

If what is truth?

If religion is truth

I'm not.

Doesn't ring any bells.

Sectarianism at Answers.com

Sectarianism at Wikipedia


Both of these imply that one has to belong to a particular sect or party to discriminate against another. How does telling you that you're jumping from religion to religion to justify your truths make ME sectarian?

???

Are you playing? You said MY personal belief is that theists insist that humanity worship their respective god. So I'm asking you if you think I'm hallucinating when (for example) Jehovah's Witnesses appear at my gate?

Explain how you justify that led to this dialouge.

You asked:

What do you think being conducive to independant thought, and development of intellect, entails?

...so I answered you. In short...religion is NOT conducive to independant thought and highly retards the development of intellect.

Explain how you know this?

Simple. A belief in and of itself is worth nothing more than a string of words. Words are neither positive or negative. What people learn from these words and DO with their beliefs or because of their beliefs is the problem. And this particular thread dealt with one such action...a school indoctrinating a multi-ethnic metropolitan selection of children into christianity.

How is it self-evident?

Science is empirical. Religion is not. They are therefore mutually exclusive With respect to the processes, experimentation and evidence collection involved in scientific and technological advances.

All you want to do is attack theism. Fair enough, but it makes really boring conversation, especially as have no real understanding of the subject. I have explained things from a religion perspective, but you just knock them back in favour of your own simplistic ideas. That's tedious.
Jan.

All you want to do is discredit a lack of unquestioning belief. This is completely unfair to a debate, especially when I address your posts via my own perspective. This is the point of discussion, to bring to fore different ideas and hash them out. For you to insist that I post scripture and religion simply means you are only willing to engage a debate on your own terms. This is what I call tedious.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Do people like you enter into discussions for the sole purpose of winning. because it sure feels like that

Well, winning is fun Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oniw17,

No, t's not. That makes them an ideal christian.....

Ideal christian = christian.
Jesus is the standard.

How about this, what do you classify someone who believes in god, excepts christ as their saviour, but isn't 100% devout? What are they if not a christian?

You must first define 100% devout?

So...there is no such think as a christian?

Yes.

Then why can't we use the meaning that most people would except, one who believes in christ as their saviour?

I'm not suggesting you can't use it, but you must give more information as to what the belief entails, as it just doesn't pop out of thin air.

What ignorance is that?
Really though, what ignorance am I trying to justify?

I gave you a definition of "a christian", one who follows in the footsteps of christ, and you totally ignored it for your own half-baked version, which actually explains nothing.

I said I classify that person as a christian, because you asked me how I would group that person. Then, I asked you if you've been paying attention. I didn't assume anything.

you said,

As a christian, haven't you been paying attention?

Sounds like an assumption to me.

I am? I thought that was you? You're the one who said a christian was defined by practice and not belief.

Did you really look at the definition i posted?

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

I'm not going to go over the same points again and again, I don't have the time. Everything is in my posts.

And I showed how all the things in your posts were wrong.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D

Self serving justification, it lumps ALL religion as one thought and one philosophy, where it reality they do not work like that.

Why wouldn't it work like that, especially as the scriptures essentially say the same thing.
I'm talking from a scriptoral point view.

The psychology and origins of religions are different, and pulling various strengths from all of them to fill the weak potholes in the others shows desperation in the face of logic.

I am talking about religion, not religious sects.
You need to use the literal basis of their philosophy in order to justify statements like these. Otherwise your just talking a load of huwee.

Even so, even IF the dialect existed, it was not used in the biblical quotations I pasted there for you.

And you'd know that, heh?

But you know what? Never mind, I knew it was folly to battle illogic with illogic, and did so against my better judgement as I said. It is a common strategy of the theist to weave 'scriptural' webs to confuse the issues at hand.

Its funny, your in a religion forum, but you are scared of scriptures.

May I ask a personal question?

No you may not ask a personal question. Thank you.

And the decline of religion in the UK article was ALMOST a reason to celebrate

I thought as much.

As a matter of fact, since you make no distinction among religion oh noble and philosophical Jan, the so called decline is not all that large, since - according to this article - the decline in Christianity correlated to an increase in other religions.

You mean like 'new age' or human secularism?

To you that should just mean a mere relocation of place of worship.

And also according to you, the statistical numbers are less important, because anyone can lie about statistics. However, see the CoE's opinion on the stats:

I take stats with a pinch of salt, and only posted them as a request.
Its just quite obvious when you live here.

I imagine you'll lend more credibility to this interpretation, because after all, the Church of England is indistinguishable from other religions right?

Huh???
Haven't you read anything I've said?

How do you measure "genuine belief?". I'm sure the drunk theists out there 'genuinely believe' in god.

Read a scripture and find out.

Be that as it may, let's reword:

Originally reworded by Enterprise-D
"......that your theist compatriots can't be theists because Jan says alcoholism and god are mutually exclusive?"

Where did I say that?

This is more self serving justification. Barbarism is barbarism, no matter the level to which it was perpetrated "before".

I think the subtelty of the point is lost on you, and it is best to leave you with your own thoughts.

Think about other words usually used with 'deep'.

Oh wait!
You mean.......nooooooo!!
You mean 'shit'?

SL said (see below, or click the little #1), that the school takes its students to a daily WORSHIP session, which of course includes singing hymns. For you to focus on only the singing hymns is extremely fraudulent and it assumes a lack of perception on my part. Don't think this was escaping my attention before.

Then explain what other forms of torture this wicked institution bestows on its students. Please?

Once more Jan, it does not matter what you agree is a form of indoctrination, the only point here that matters is that the school ordered a seven year old to attend church without the approval of her rightful, legal and biological parent.

We all did it, there's absolutely nothing wrong, unless you can contradict me on that. Those are the rules.

Albeit they did not order her as Hitler might have, but she's still seven and she still trusts her teachers to do what's in her best interest and followed along innocently.

Oh! So she's been hurt then?
Sorry I didn't realise.

On top of which, while it is non-violent, starting a seven year old child attending church is still a form of indoctrination.

Well, I disagree (indoctrinate), based on the fact that most schools do this, and yet religion is on the decline in the UK. Seems like these educators are on your side of the fence.

This school in my opinion is run by a theist administration hiding behind a soon-to-be obsolete law,

When it becomes obselete, run out and get the champagne. Until then, accept it.

Jan.

 

[Oniw17]

you said, Sounds like an assumption to me

I'm done arguing about what a christian is with you. I don't care. You should tell all of those people world-wide who think they're christians that they're sadly mistaken, because there is no such thing. All those churches aren't christian chruches, they're something else. Sort of like Blade. However, this part that I quoted, I will respond to, because if I let you take my words out context, then I have to let everyone. You said something to the extent of:

If someone believes that christ is there saviour, but doesn't follow his example, how do you classify them?

I answered :"As a christian, haven't you been payin attention" As a christian... that's how I classify that person. Then, 'haven't you been paying attention'...to what I said in my first post. Where's the assumption? I don't blame you though, because many times I've been taking out of context on this forum, which is why I try not to make serious posts any more, because I usually have to make 10x as many posts explaining exactly what it was that I was saying. Really though, you should pay better attention. It's really frustrating otherwise. Maybe it's me though, and I expect everyone else's memory to be as good as mine...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

PRECISELY!!

Erm...no, I asked how does a 7 year old "know anything" in response to the question; And how is a seven year old to know this?
What method do they apply?

You have no right to make such a demand.

I have as much right as SL to make demands.

Please be more specific.

There's no need, I believe you can adequately understand that response.

Both of these imply that one has to belong to a particular sect or party to discriminate against another. How does telling you that you're jumping from religion to religion to justify your truths make ME sectarian?

My point was that you look at religion from a sectarian point of view, I look at it from the point of 'religion'.

Are you playing? You said MY personal belief is that theists insist that humanity worship their respective god. So I'm asking you if you think I'm hallucinating when (for example) Jehovah's Witnesses appear at my gate?

No. I aint playing, I really don't know what you're talking about here.

...so I answered you. In short...religion is NOT conducive to independant thought and highly retards the development of intellect.

Why does it?

Simple. A belief in and of itself is worth nothing more than a string of words.

Tell that to ONIW.

Words are neither positive or negative. What people learn from these words and DO with their beliefs or because of their beliefs is the problem.

What problem?

And this particular thread dealt with one such action...a school indoctrinating a multi-ethnic metropolitan selection of children into christianity.

I don't see it like that, based on my experience, and the fact that SL's problem is that he hates relgion.

Science is empirical. Religion is not. They are therefore mutually exclusive With respect to the processes, experimentation and evidence collection involved in scientific and technological advances.

That still doesn't explain why;

A person's personal fantasies about worship (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with inventions or discoveries.

I demand a proper explanation.

All you want to do is discredit a lack of unquestioning belief.

???

This is completely unfair to a debate, especially when I address your posts via my own perspective.

If we all argued from our own perspective, it would be complete chaos.
You dislike of religion is purely subjective, it is of no more value, in discussion, as saying I don't like the chicago bulls.

This is the point of discussion, to bring to fore different ideas and hash them out.

You don't have ideas, you assume you absolute ignorance is quite alright.
Learn more about 'religion' instead of focusing Joe bloggs religion, who lives at no. 44.

For you to insist that I post scripture and religion simply means you are only willing to engage a debate on your own terms. This is what I call tedious.

Errr...excuse me? The scripture is the foundation of religion.
Are you for real?

jAN.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D
Why wouldn't it work like that, especially as the scriptures essentially say the same thing.
I'm talking from a scriptoral point view.

No they do not. While they do have similar roots, Mormonism and RC do not resemble much. Hinduism has absolutely NO similarities to Christianity. How could they...they were developed in different areas.

And where you see scriptural similarities, I see assimilation by the religion with greater military power.

I am talking about religion, not religious sects.
You need to use the literal basis of their philosophy in order to justify statements like these. Otherwise your just talking a load of huwee.

The word is "hooey"

And this is even more self serving justification. I have said already...a debate is for a clash of differences. I don't need to use YOUR weapons of choice to wear down your arguments.

And you'd know that, heh?

Yes. Do you?

Its funny, your in a religion forum, but you are scared of scriptures.

Babycakes, I don't care about it. There's a huge difference.

You mean like 'new age' or human secularism?
...
I take stats with a pinch of salt, and only posted them as a request.
Its just quite obvious when you live here.
...
Huh???
Haven't you read anything I've said?

Secularism is not a religion. Therefore while it is TRUE that people are rejecting the ancient ideas of religions, they aren't worshipping anything in replacement. (New Age is just modernised hippie-ism...still not a religion...pardon me New Age folks...a little lack of PC there)

But of course, you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that in the article, the drop in CHRISTIAN membership saw a rise in ISLAM membership. Theists are still there Jan dude, just with a different pew to kneel in.

You also ignored the fact that the Church of England is only concerned about it's OWN membership, not religion as a whole. But since you stated and I quote:

This is all in your own mind. It seems you are unable to grasp what "religion" means, and the fact that I am talking about "religion".
I make no distinction between the "religion" of the hindus, and the "religion" of Jesus, and the fact that you do, is not my responsibility

Then you need not be worried about a mere shift in place of worship. The Islam theists are still Christian, and the Hindu theists are still Christian. To you there's no difference.

Read a scripture and find out.

You'd like me to return to your homefield wouldn't you? However, my POINT Jan is that christian theists all over the world figure they're genuine. They ALL read your scripture. How do YOU figure out who's genuine to any point of accuracy. Where is your scale of accuracy. And who are you to JUDGE anyone as genuinely religious? Isn't it your own philosophy that "judge not, lest ye be judged thyself"???

Where did I say that?

I said that not you. You should re-respond to it.

I think the subtelty of the point is lost on you, and it is best to leave you with your own thoughts.

Ah yes, more barbs; like I said, when I reduce a debating opponent to hurling insults like this at me, I consider it a win for me.

Oh wait!
You mean.......nooooooo!!
You mean 'shit'?

I'll leave this question to the philosophers, Jan darling.

Then explain what other forms of torture this wicked institution bestows on its students. Please?

Demonizing my intentions doesn't take away from the fact that conquest and indoctrination need not be physical or torturous or forced, or even obvious. Get over yourself.

We all did it, there's absolutely nothing wrong, unless you can contradict me on that. Those are the rules.

Jan...you sweetly adorable thickhead...the LAW states it is up to the PARENT to withdraw THEIR child WITHOUT CHALLENGE from worship sessions of the school. The problem Jan, once more with feeling, is NOT the time allocated for attendance of worship sessions. The problem Jan, keep up here, is the fact that the school is RESISTANT to withdrawing SL's darling innocent daughter. THAT is immoral AND illegal.

Oh! So she's been hurt then?
Sorry I didn't realise.

Purposely demonizing what you don't get again.

Well, I disagree (indoctrinate), based on the fact that most schools do this, and yet religion is on the decline in the UK. Seems like these educators are on your side of the fence.

It doesn't matter what the trend of religion is. The POINT Jan has been reiterated and belted all over your head. You can't seem to absorb it. (the point was reiterated above)

When it becomes obselete, run out and get the champagne. Until then, accept it.
Jan.

Again Jan...We don't care if the school provides the facility. SL as the child's father has EVERY LEGAL right to reject attempts to teach his child religion.

Face it, you are on the side of the school because misery loves company.

Onto your next post.............

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D,
Erm...no, I asked how does a 7 year old "know anything" in response to the question; And how is a seven year old to know this?
What method do they apply?

That's why Jan, it is up to SL to tell the school to remove her from religious practice. She is not at the age to determine whether it is beneficial to her or not and as her legal parent SL has absolute rights to do so. NOT the school. Therefore...you are incorrect.

I have as much right as SL to make demands.

Quite so. I do apologize. However, I have the right to tell you your demands are actually the ones that are unreasonable and were you to have any political power at all, I would also call them dictatorial.

There's no need, I believe you can adequately understand that response.

If you don't think that it's too hard to brainwash a 22 year old into theism, you'd be right for the most part.

My point was that you look at religion from a sectarian point of view, I look at it from the point of 'religion'.

Ah but i don't. If you'd started in the reverse order i'd tell you to stick with Hinduism. However, sectarians discriminate against other religions or political parties in favour of the one that owns them.

1. I'm not in politics
2. I'm not religious

So how can I be discriminating against any religious sect? I'm just telling you you're looking for answers in other religions where the first one you selected failed miserably.

Why does it?

Religion encourages people to accept god as the ultimate answer and not challenge the bible. Or allah as the answer and not challenge the quran. Or lord shiva as the answer and not challenge the 'vita. Etc etc. This is clearly indicative of assimilated group mentality.

Religion encourages it's followers to be skeptical of science and anything that challenges their book and god. This is clearly an impediment to intellectual development.

Tell that to ONIW.

Why?

What problem?

Problems like challenging SL from removing his daughter from church when CLEARLY it is his legal right to do so.

I don't see it like that, based on my experience, and the fact that SL's problem is that he hates relgion.

So what? Let him hate religion. It's still his legal RIGHT to remove his daughter from the church.

That still doesn't explain why;

This is a stupid answer.

I demand a proper explanation.

Would someone figure out a way to explain this in monosyllabic words? Obviously I'm saying something wrong here.

???

If we all argued from our own perspective, it would be complete chaos.
You dislike of religion is purely subjective, it is of no more value, in discussion, as saying I don't like the chicago bulls.

You don't have ideas, you assume you absolute ignorance is quite alright.
Learn more about 'religion' instead of focusing Joe bloggs religion, who lives at no. 44.

Errr...excuse me? The scripture is the foundation of religion.
Are you for real?

JAN.

Dude...sweetie baby honeypot sugarlump. This is total, complete and mountainous bullsh*t. A debate ENCOURAGES a difference of ideas and a difference of perspective. You're trying to get me mired into your quicksand of faith, and I am telling you I have no wish to.

Arguing against any stance requires a different opinion. Since I am arguing against RELIGION, esp christianity as in this case, it is useless for me to find obscure scripture to attempt to defeat a scriptural pronouncement.

I am standing on a pillar of logic and proving you illogical at every argument and failure...even repeating that your defense of the school's reaction is morally questionable and illegal by virtue of the article's own paraphrasal of the LAW. Yet still you are trying to get me to talk about scripture and talking about "accept it because it's the rules.

Jan, my (almost) final word is, you are incorrect in your interpretation of the law. The school cannot insist in any manner that SL's daughter continue attending any religious function. Also, SL is in no way bound to remove his daughter from this school as it is his right as a citizen to receive education for his children since he pays taxes (even though it IS my personal opinion that he should consider doing so...especially if he can be successful in encouraging a noticeable number of parents to do the same).

Further, I have walloped you with logic and your own circular arguments, yet you doggedly continue. It is clear that you and I have dominated this entire thread, and so far none of the theists that cared to witness have jumped forward and defended you. It is because legally speaking SL is in the right, and no right thinking person, theist or athiest or cartoon or god or FSM can tell him he's wrong under provisions of UK law.