Religions on Education committee

[paulb]

plus debating scripture is a waste of time. even more so with a raging athist that studies something they don't believe in.

Did christ not teach the children. why worry athists your sure its not true so why worry. if the parents are sending their kids to get rid of the for a week without knowing what was involved then who is at fault.

 

you get strange/over keen folks in every organization it can spoil what they are trying to do. To be involved with the camp i trust that they all have advanced crb checks.

 

maybe a little mentorship to insure the message was age appropriate. However what happened to the saviour of the world was not nice. but the message should have been on his love and sacrifice not on the pain.

[Ghostrider]

If they really wanted to do a Christian act, then drop all bible classes and any mention of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, etc., during the camp and simply concentrate on providing a service/doing a good deed to the community by having somewhere kids can go to meet others and enjoy the activities - now would that be so bad or wouldn't the Lord approve?

 

Think about it... CHRISTian.

It's not Christian is Christ is not involved.

 

A nice thing to do of course, and something Christians wouldnt disagree with but it wouldnt be a Christian event now would it.

 

Why not? Is it not possible to live according to the (alleged) principles taught by "Christ" and pass them on to others, without also having to feel the need to be compelled to "convert" others in to believing the associated belief system where they (allegedly) came from. Surely behaving as "Christ" (allegedly) taught people to behave, is as "Christian" as preaching about believing in the complete belief system they originate from. Why on earth must the name "Christ" be envoked to make the difference between a "Christian" event and a "non-Christain" event when the event itself remains identical in both scenarios.

 

Point in hand, the blurb put forth ahead of these camps occuring this year appears to have conveyed the impression that they would be held following christian behaviour principles, but without overt "preaching" or "conversion" techniques employed. The reality of the situation however is that at least some attendees have come away feeling very much "preached" at and having been "scared" in to being tempted to convert.

 

Bottom line, either the advertising was inaccurate in its description of what was planned by the organisers to be offered, or the goods delivered failed to achieve the standard the organisers planned they would. That, as I read it, is the basis of the criticisms levelled.

 

The camp advertised a certain level of service, some clients who attended left with the distinct impression the level of service provided did not comply with that advertised. Perhaps it might be the "Christian" thing to do for the organisers to establish whether their standard of advertising was at fault, or one or more of the individuals they had entrusted to provide said services failed to perform as expected, and apologise to those clients affected accordingly. Rather than either attempt to ignore the issue, or try and justify why it was "okay" based on the mindset of a "believer", as quite frankly that mindset is wholly incomprehensible to the vast majority of us "unbelievers", to the point of it coming over very akin to two different languages.

[Ghostrider]

And from a "faithful", Christians gain much encouragement from the witness and testimony of others,.....

 

Which has us "unbelievers" questioning what level of self-serving if not selfishness is afoot in the going forth and "spreading the word" and "saving" us who are pretty damn happy sinning our way from womb to wherever the corpse finally falls.

 

.....but the basis of thier faith is the life and works of Jesus Christ, no other..

 

Considering that the only material evidence that any such person may have ever existed, never mind what they may have done or said, is wholly circumstantial and without the slightest provenance, it is only a smoke and mirrors deal at very best. You either believe the blurb speaks the truth, or dismiss it as a fairy story, an individual choice.

 

If "christians" respect all humans as equals, as a matter of respect IMHO "spreading the word" should be restricted to putting forth promotional material, then responding to those adults who make further enquiries of their own free will. What parents teach their children is their business, but having strangers "teach" children is a whole other ball game, and needs careful monitoring. IMHO no child should be exposed to the "preaching" of religion from an outside source, as I'd argue they in general are too impressionable and too immature and inexperienced to make a safe judgement call based on wholly circumstantial evidence.

 

Preferably children should be accompanied by a parent/guardian to any and all "preaching" events, at the very least a parent/guardian should be in full possession of all relevant facts before allowing a child to any such event unaccompanied. The fact that none of these appear to have occured in some cases who have attended these camps this year is the crux of the matter.

 

What makes the whole episode potentially so unacceptable and reprehensible, is that an adult attending any event who finds themselves being preached at, or preached at in a style and manner they find unacceptable (eg. fire and brimstone, dancing around in the pulpit til exhausted preachers) can simply walk out, and/or remove any children in their care as and when they see fit. The children attending these camps did not have that choice as far as I am aware, some probably felt they had no choice at all but sit through whatever was thrown their way.

 

These camps are held less than a mile from my front door, and it also concerns me that folk in general, and perhaps those of us local to it in particular, know so very little about it. To be honest since this thread started I've been feeling a little like I would imagine someone living close to some covert wartime facility does, when its finally revealed what has been going on unknowingly literally under their nose. Yes, I have always been aware that the "Christian Youth Camp" existed in the old Social Club now for 15+ years or so, however the impression I have always been given of it, was that it was a place where children of church attending parents, who had decided to teach their children in to the ways thier church of choice, could send their kids to have a break with other kids who were also of like mind, which I'm prefectly fine with. The revelation that that is not the case, and that all Shetland children, regardless of location or pre-existing belief, are being encouraged to attend, I fine somewhat less comfortable about.

[the pursuit of oblivion]

Paul B wrote ;

 

if the parents are sending their kids to get rid of the for a week without knowing what was involved then who is at fault.

 

 

I would suggest the people at fault are those that produced misleading leaflets and came into the schools and persuaded the kids to attend the camp on false premise.

 

Some of us who have no interest in christianity but want to be open-minded felt after hearing this pitch via our kids, that it might be a "soft" introduction to our children into this strange belief system. Especially with the severe peer pressure that this approach to recruitment to the camp caused! Unfortunately this was a mistake. We kind of assumed it was a christian thing not to tell lies.

 

And we have absolutely no interest in debating your beliefs but when christians infringe on our rights by pushing to have themselves undemocratically parachuted on to education committees and then falsely persuading our kids to attend their indoctrination camps we feel compelled to defend ourselves.

 

And then when we are forced into debate we like to do some research so we can speak with some knowledge. That's why when we have to we can easily come up with stuff like this;

 

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

 

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

 

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

 

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.

 

We have as much interest in debating christianity as we do in debating the tooth fairy. The religious debate from faith - they just believe because they do, regardless of evidence. Some of us like to base our opinions on the facts available. That's why there is no point in ever debating with a christian, muslim, jew, hindu, sikh, jehovahs witness, mormom.... ad infitum. All we ask is please keep your peculiar beliefs to yourselves and don't interfere with our lives or our kids.

[EM]

However what happened to the saviour of the world was not nice.

Whatever happened to the alleged saviour lies squarely at the feet of the author of the whole farcical scheme; namely the omnipotent Mr G. If it wasn't nice, it seems to me to be an indication that the deity is not as nice as some clearly believe.

[unlinkedstudent]

maybe a little mentorship to insure the message was age appropriate. However what happened to the saviour of the world was not nice. but the message should have been on his love and sacrifice not on the pain.

 

Blimey, that's an eye opener, I deffo don't remember the 10 Commandments being conveyed to me in this way:-

 

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm#2

 

2 I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

 

21 And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it.

 

Never mind the kids, I'm getting tied up in knots already and thinking that a holiday in Egypt will never be the same again. Good grief, no pyramids then? How then, metaphorically or literally, does one explain bondage to a youngster? Come to think of it, how do you explain any of the 10 Commandments to a youngster?

 

<< Goes off muttering bless me father for I have sinned ...

 

 

 

 

 

[paulb]

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him:

 

2 and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying,

 

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

 

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

 

6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

 

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

 

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

 

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.

 

10 Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 

11 Blessed are ye when [men] shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

 

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.

 

13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.

 

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.

 

15 Neither do [men] light a lamp, and put it under the bushel, but on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house.

 

16 Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

 

17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

 

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

21 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

 

22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

 

23 If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,

 

24 leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

 

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

 

26 Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing.

 

27 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

 

28 but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

29 And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell.

 

30 And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.

 

31 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

 

32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

 

33 Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

 

34 but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God;

 

35 nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.

 

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.

 

37 But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil [one].

 

38 Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

 

39 but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

40 And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

 

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two.

 

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

 

43 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy:

 

44 but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you;

 

45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.

 

46 For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

 

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others?] do not even the Gentiles the same?

 

48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

this is what you should have been taught in school.

Romans 13:8-10 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

[Ghostrider]

.....this is what you should have been taught in school.....

 

Why?

[Guest posiedon]

paulb, these are things allegedly said by some Jew (who wasn't worth a mention at the time) 2,000+ years ago but never written down at the time, it's not a good idea to quote the buy-bull, you'll just get Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus et al quoted back at you.

 

And you know you have no answers to the questions that will be asked.

 

Are you a buy-bull literalist? Or just a cafeteria "Christian" You know? Pick the bits that agree with your views and disregard the rest?

 

Do you believe the Adam and Eve story?

If not then there was no "original sin" If there was no original sin then your Jesus character is redundant/not needed.

 

So tell me paulb, do you believe in talking snakes, Adam and Eve?

 

And the rest of Genesis 1 (which is contradicted in Genesis 2)?

[scoots]

Here's a rather interesting passage from the "Good Book", or so I always thought.

 

"23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!†24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria."

 

Try as I might, I've never been able to have a Christian provide a rational explanation for this passage and where it fits with the whole "Turn the other cheek/Love thy neighbour" bit of the New Testament.

 

I mean, FORTY TWO CHILDREN torn to pieces on the request of a prophet, at Yahweh's command, for calling a man "baldy"??!!

 

The answer to all this is quite simple. Paul. The same Paul quoted by his

namesake here. Or Saul of Tarsus, as he was known, before his "conversion". The man who created "Christianity", with his writings and preaching. You brought him up, paulb, so let's look at him, shall we?

He was a bounty hunter of sorts. A colluder with the Roman oppressors, who actively sought out, hunted down and delivered the followers of Jesus (who were a small Jewish sect), as well as other Jews who protested against Roman occupation. Think Vichy France. He would deliver them, knowing they

were to be imprisoned, tortured and, in many cases, executed in fairly nasty fashion. He got paid to do this, and it earned him honorary Roman citizenship.

 

Now this vile excuse for a man was out riding his steed one day, going to pick up his latest load of prisoners for his masters, when he was struck blind by a bright light. He had a "visitation" from Jesus (who was dead by this

time) and Jesus basically asked him to be his follower and main man, or else he wouldn't get his sight back (" to see the light" originates from this).

 

So he said yes and he did, and he got his sight back. Then he went round preaching HIS take on the teachings or message of Jesus, which rather than the return to fundamental Judaism taught by Jesus, became an entirely separate entity, blaming the Jews for his death and thereby promoting hatred of them ever since.

 

And here's the important bit. The ACTUAL leader of the rag-tag band left behind by Jesus, James the Just, had to send out emissaries following after "Paul" as he was now known, assuring people that this was NOT what their leader or movement was about. Paul spent the remainder of his life promoting HIS version of the life and teachings of a man HE NEVER MET OR HEARD, and later on, insuring that HIS message was the one that would be carried forwards as "Christianity" by his Roman masters.

 

In this day and age, it would be evident that he suffered a stroke, or psychotic break, and never really changed his attitude towards the Jewish people.

 

Jesus. Was. A. Jew. If he lived, this is a fact.

 

BTW, he wasn't from Nazareth either. It didn't exist at the time of his birth. Again, this can be proven from actual historical documentation of the time, rather than the mistranslation or mispronunciation of Nasorean (or thereabouts) which was another name for the fundamentalist Essene sect of Judaism.

 

So, to sum up, Christianity did NOT come from Jesus. It came from a man who never met him, who thoroughly disliked Jews, who "saw a light" and was "chosen" to follow this dead man he'd never met, and who promoted HIS OWN version of the life of a man he'd never met (got that yet?!), and in doing so, promoted the hatred and persecution of an entire race that continues to this day (killers of Christ? Murderers of the Son of God?).

 

Again, in this day and age, he'd be labelled for what he was and would be leading the equivalent of the BNP.

 

Or can you explain the incongruity of the teachings of Old and New Testament, paulb?

 

You know, the Angel of Death murdering babies in the name of Yahweh? The extinction of three nations on the way to The Promised Land? Sodom? Gomorrah? Even poor old Lot's wife?

 

Turn the other cheek? Love thy neighbour?

 

Yup. Oooookaaaaay then.

 

Once again, I don't have a beef with Christianity, or with any other religion. I DO have an issue with any of them trying to push their beliefs onto my child. Or children fullstop.

 

Let adults decide. I mean, surely if it was good enough for "Paul"...?

[shetlandpeat]

After all of that, if there is a quorum of 3 for the committee, then it is possible for the non-elected religious representatives to BE that committee.

[shetlandpeat]

... and Ofsted now do all the work, will having a 1/4 religious committee be a problem, as there is now continuation from ABCs to A levels and adult education.

Not around here. Ofsted is, like A levels, English. We have HMIE and Highers.

 

As I said, thanks for that so, I thought I may get an opinion, let me make it easier, lets change the wording and see if an answer comes.

 

 

Anyhow, since ALI have gone and HMIE now do all the work, will having a 1/4 religious committee be a problem, as there is now continuation from ABCs to Highers and adult education. The GOV inspector should address this as well. Should they not?

[Ghostrider]

Never mind the kids, I'm getting tied up in knots already and thinking that a holiday in Egypt will never be the same again. Good grief, no pyramids then? How then, metaphorically or literally, does one explain bondage to a youngster?

 

The ancient Egyptians could well have been big bondage fans, after all the "walk like an Egyptian" phrase had to originate from something they got up to.

[scoots]

paulb, I take it you've read verse 17, that you quoted there? If Jesus did say this, seems to me it's a clear message that every Christian has got it wrong, and you should all be Jews, instead!

[the pursuit of oblivion]

Well now were on the subject....

 

Paul B.

 

Answer me this.

 

If I am a good person, bring up my kids well, care about society, give to charity, care and love my parents, despair about the injustice in the world, despair about the plight and poverty of the third world , speak out against injustice, support amnesty international and abhor violence. If I do all these things and more and live my life on the principal of do unto others what you would have done to yourself, is your God going to send me and my family to some unimaginable place called hell that he has created for those that do not believe in him?

 

Also take into account that if we take your premise that your god exists then he has given me and all other humans powers of reason, deduction, enquiry and intelligence. If your god then exists he has also given us the most flimsy, unbelievable, unrecorded, inconsistent version of his existence or his reason for being and the same goes for the record of his alleged son’s supposed time on earth.

 

Therefore if we use the skills he has allegedly given us to dismiss the flimsiest of evidence for his and his alleged son’s existence, as we must do if we are to use them correctly, and he still sends us to hell for not believing in him, he must be the cruellest god humans could ever imagine. What would St Peter say when we arrived at the gates, - “Ah yes, you used all the gifts god gave you to correctly deduct that his existence was entirely illogical, well done, now off to hell to burn forever in excruciating pain, oh and take those smart ass kids of yours with you as wellâ€.

 

On the other hand if we don't get sent to hell for not believing then everything christianity is built on especially the book it uses for its rules, falls down and there is absolutely no point believing in a god or gods.

 

Either scenario the argument for god falls down. It is just not logical on any level you can imagine.