Abbott thinks reading the Bible should be compulsory in schools (1 Viewer)

[wendybird]

^ You should read Paul Davies - "Mind of God" Michael

I've just finished that and I'm onto "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene atm.

 

[jet]

^ You should read Paul Davies - "Mind of God" Michael

I've just finished that and I'm onto "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene atm.

Haha It'll go on my very very very large pile.

 

[Essjaybee]

And defending the concept of a god is the most original idea out...

I like how you seem to think being condescending here makes you look intellectually superior to the observer, the same one that's read you consistently spout nonsense.

Specific; aimed at a person.

And I love how atheists (or whatever you define yourselves as, following on from that debate earlier) seem to think being overbearingly arrogant and adopting a vicious mob mentality will somehow convince people of their 'cause'?

Stereotyping. I am an athiest and I don't believe in forcing that belief on other people. I think everybody should have the right to choose for themselves. But thanks for telling me what I supposedly think.

Abbott can go to hell.

+1

Well either be consistent about it, and include all religions or don't bother at all. Scripture class, in my opinion is enough, and for those who wants to take it further, there's always Studies of Religion.

Damn good point.

We are a Western country. You cannot deny that the most important and influential book of Western civilization has been the Holy Bible. It makes sense to have it seriously on the curriculum, if only to instill its historical significance in the development of this land and the predominant culture behind it. By all means teach it critically and without bias, but teach it none the less.

Well that really depends on the teacher to some extent.

there are pros and cons

cons
it is shoving religion down peoples throats, which is not helpful for spreading the gospel.


pros
they would have the chance to read the bible.

Then why not add this thread to the curriculum to. Obviously if it's not a text taught in schools people have absolutely no opportunity to read it.

We must defend the All Spark.

+1

lol, atheism is a faith now is it?

Faith: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person
Faith: complete confidence in a person or plan

There are many definitions of faith so yes, atheism can be considered a faith.

like iron said, we've been robbed of all the history & culture you get from knowing about the bible

Rob: Take something away by force or without the consent of the owner. If somebody wants to know about the Bible, they have that choice. If somebody chooses not to know, they aren't "robbed".

plus kids like yourself seem to think the bible is some mysterious old book full of good morals and old-fashioned rules, and just looking at it will make u a devout christian somehow?

No, but whether or not we read it should be our choice. Besides, many children have a passionate hatred for Shakespeare at some point from being FORCED to learn it in school. This isn't really much different.

you can't do the same thing with the koran because people will blow u up.

Stereotyping, generalising AND discriminating. Well aren't you charming?

 

[wendybird]

Hey, hey - i don''t know if its PC to be posting my rep messages, but this is too funny to pass up.

So, I got this from a poster named Planck

this is what he/she said:

fatuous pomo nonsense. You can write sentences without being so fucking pretentious.

Now really? Anyone else see the irony in that

1. He/She is gramatically incorrect, writes incoherently, and is using pretentious vocabulary while accusing me of the same?

2. Postmodernism? Come on now. Post-modernism has nothing to do with it my dear.

See this is why I find that while I deeply respect my Christian friends, I think that people like Planck give them a very bad name. Being that they make ALL christians look like they can't hold a decent discussion without resorting to ad hominems and childish insults.

Please, what are you trying to convince me of here? If you want to construct a good argument as to why we should learn the bible in the classroom - I would respect that. But this is just plain laugheable. Fail buddy.

 

[bio_nut]

You think Planck is a Christian...

...

...?

....

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh my god.

 

[wendybird]

I don't know (and don't care) if he is or if he's not.

But he IS giving Christians a bad name, unfortunately.

In fact, I don't even know WHAT he's advocating for. Presumably trolling.

I stand for indoctrination free schools and respect for both deism and atheism. (Or Agnosticism as the case may be)

 

[Cazic]

How the fuck does someone give a group a bad name without representing or admonishing that group?

Edit: Unless you alone constitute a representative of all Christians?

 

[Planck]

I negged you because you referenced authors and posted a post with no *actual* content other than

"Sometimes people think different people are different".

Well shit the bed dear, how fucking useful.

 

[wendybird]

Oh good god. Here we go...an internet catfight. Well merry christmas to you too.

Maybe I'm using the wrong language here - but (In my opinion) or rephrasing - TO ME.

He's taking the side of pro- God/ pro- teaching the bible in schools.

That would tend to be the argument of Christians (or the deistic sort).

By presumably taking that argument, he's making the common argument of deistic groups look bad.

Does that make sense?

Now can we drop it? I regret that I started it.

*sigh*.

Lets get back on topic. I preferred the actual discussion of bible in schools. That was more interesting than the semantic argument.

 

[wendybird]

I negged you because you referenced authors and posted a post with no *actual* content other than

"Sometimes people think different people are different".

Well shit the bed dear, how fucking useful.

Tbh. Dear. Talking about some interesting thinkers and making a non inflammatory or highly ignorant/biased post is probably more useful than some of the more red-neck posts around here.

ETA: And you think you're full of *actual* content - O profound one. *snickers*

 

[thongetsu]

What a douche!

 

[Cazic]

He's taking the side of pro- God/ pro- teaching the bible in schools.

That would tend to be the argument of Christians (or the deistic sort).

By presumably taking that argument, he's making the common argument of deistic groups look bad.

Does that make sense?

No, that does not compute at all. I'm an atheist to the bone, but I see value in examining the bible from a secular viewpoint - those writings intertwine the last couple of thousand years of history, and few other things can boast that, so the least we could do is be aware of it. So how exactly is my, and presumably Planck's, argument making Christians looks bad?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Tbh. Dear. Talking about some interesting thinkers and making a non inflammatory or highly ignorant/biased post is probably more useful than some of the more red-neck posts around here.

ETA: And you think you're full of *actual* content - O profound one. *snickers*

Oh both of you stop and stick to the topic please.

 

[wendybird]

No, that does not compute at all. I'm an atheist to the bone, but I see value in examining the bible from a secular viewpoint - those writings intertwine the last couple of thousand years of history, and few other things can boast that, so the least we could do is be aware of it.

Sure, but does it need to be compulsory? The very idea insults me tbh.

I went to a religious school (not an OVERLY religious one mind you) - and found that the way the school taught and wove in religious issues were fantastic. Yes, we had Chapel every week, but never did I feel that religion was forced on me or that it was being overbearing.

We had montly seminars about religion where speakers of SEVERAL faiths would discuss with us ethical and religious issues. There was no bible bashing.

Now THAT is what I would advocate for in schools. But reading the bible? I can't see what that would add. Like other posters said - its about HOW its done. What Mr Abbot suggests is really just paying lipservice to religion to appease his segment of voters, rather than any meaningful ethical/religious discussion or a clear headed look examination of Christianity or otherwise.

ETA: I probably came into this discussion too late to state what my parameters of argument were. I do NOT suggest that we not study or have an understanding of the bible or any other scripture. However I DO object specifically to Mr Abbot's brand of this argument.

If we study Christianity, then in all fairness we should study Islam as well. (Speaking as someone not particularly affilianted with either). That's exactly what the SOR course does. I don't think there is a dearth of spirituality in schools as Mr Abbot is implying.

 

[Cazic]

I didn't get the impression from Abbott's comments that he had "just reading" in mind. Do I have the wrong impression? I know Abbott doesn't have a secular / comparative religion view of this either, but classes that are nothing but read read read? Surely not?

 

[Ethanescence]

No, that does not compute at all. I'm an atheist to the bone, but I see value in examining the bible from a secular viewpoint - the last couple of thousand years of history are intertwined with those writings, and few other things can boast that, so least we could do is be aware of it.

I agree to an extent.

But I feel there are thousand of books (both fiction and non-fiction) that are more worthwhile examining, compared to the Bible. And while it's hard to deny that the Bible is heavily intertwined with history and culture, this is mostly due to the mass indoctrination that has occurred, rather than any true literary worth of the text itself.

And most of the people claiming to teach school children about the Bible due to its "influence" or "value", usually have an ulterior motive (e.g. they believe that if more people are aware of the Bible, more people will convert to Christianity).

Personally, I feel that if one wants to learn about the Bible, there should be an optional senior subject (years 11-12), focusing on religious studies and/or holy texts. And in most cases these subjects already exist, such as Studies of Religion.

If not, they can pursue their interests of the Bible through tertiary study, or private research. There is no need for compulsory Bible education and/or reading.

 

[Cazic]

I agree to an extent.

But I feel there are thousand of books (both fiction and non-fiction) that are more worthwhile examining, compared to the Bible. And while it's hard to deny that the Bible is heavily intertwined with history and culture, this is mostly due to the mass indoctrination that has occurred, rather than any true literary worth of the text itself.

And most of the people claiming to teach school children about the Bible due to it's "influence" or "value", usually have an ulterior motive (e.g. they believe that if more people are aware of the Bible, more people will convert to Christianity).

Personally, I feel that if one wants to learn about the Bible, there should be an optional senior course (years 11-12), focusing on religious studies and/or holy texts. And in most cases these subjects already exist, such as Studies of Religion.

If not, they can pursue their interests of the Bible through tertiary study, or private research. There is no need for compulsory Bible education and/or reading.

Mmm, we can't go the other way on this though and try and "circumcise " history by avoiding mention or discussion of the bible from syllabi.

From a literary point of view, sure, the bible isn't so great, but its influence is undeniable. It was a bad influence, but this will be clear with a proper study of the bible. I also think people would find studying the roots of the writings in the bible worthwhile. Genesis actually has an interesting history, though pretty much the polar opposite of the "revealed text" view that the church would have you believe.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

There is no need for compulsory Bible education and/or reading.

^That. Forcible reading is completely unnecessary! The idea of this "thing" comming into effect is laugable! I repeat, laugable!

 

[wendybird]

Well, Mr Abbot is being unhelpful in that he doesn't say a whole lot. I'm cynical enough to think that he's probably sh*t-stirring.

But here's what he does say.

"I think everyone should have some familiarity with the great texts that are at the core of our civilisation," said the Federal Opposition leader.

Ok. Fair enough. But define "great texts" please. And "civilisation". I suspect he's referring to Western civilisation - that is white, judeo-christian history. We'll do well to remember that the Ottoman empire was long before the various more modern ones (British etc), and that there have been greater civilisations and richer cultures before us.

Again, I refer to Edward Said and Orientalism. I'm not saying we should reject the notion of Western civilisation - but I do think its important to be pretty specific and careful here - otherwise we're just perpetuating more imperialistic bs at the expense of other cultures.

"That includes, most importantly, the Bible.

I'm fine with the bible. But I'd like him to justify that "most importantly" thanks. Nonetheless, I am prepared to accept that:

"I think it would be impossible to have a good general education without at least some serious familiarity with the Bible and with the teachings of Christianity.

Yes, I see how this makes sense. But here, I ask - the bible is pretty complex. Most religious ideas are complex. Reductionism can lead to false ideas being propogated, or exacerbate religious/cultural/racial divides. How will we ensure that that "some serious familiarity" is any good at all? Ie. clear minded, non biased, non bible bashing etc. Indeed, Abbot makes no mention of a secular approach, he only says..

"That doesn't mean that people have to be believers."

Sure. But that still doesn't say anything about the approach that this is going to take. At the end of the day he can't have his cake and eat it too. He can't have Christianity-lite and expect it to still be profound. He can't justify the Bible or the study specifically of the Bible without the same arguments being made for the Koran or any number of major beliefs.

In the end, this is all a giant quid pro quo, because the idea was ridiculous from the start and was shot down by the people who matter. Thank god it won't be taking place, nor at Abbot's behest.

 

[jet]

Mmm, we can't go the other way on this though and try and "circumcise " history by avoiding mention or discussion of the bible from syllabi.

From a literary point of view, sure, the bible isn't so great, but its influence is undeniable. It was a bad influence, but this will be clear with a proper study of the bible. I also think people would find studying the roots of the writings in the bible worthwhile. Genesis actually has an interesting history, though pretty much the polar opposite of the "revealed text" view that the church would have you believe.

It might not necessarily be an entirely bad influence. What about those Christians who gain moral principles which can be viewed as correct even in a secular world (e.g. do not kill)? Is it a bad influence then?