If you want NT stuff..
[quote=Matthew 5:17]
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[/quote]
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets, and hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.

[quote=Mark 7:9-10]
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
[/quote]

Again, Jesus only reitorates OT stuff, cussing up some Jews for not killing their disobedient children.

[quote=Mark 6:11]
But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
[/quote]

Any city that doesn't 'recieve' the followers of Jesus shall be destroyed in a manner worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. (Luke 10:10-15 repeats this exact sentiment. but there's a lot more repetition in the NT, as expected I suppose)

[quote=John 3:36]
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
[/quote]

The 'wrath of God' is on all unbelievers.

[quote=Acts 3:23]
For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
[/quote]

Those who refuse to follow Jesus must be killed..


[quote=Romans 1:31-32]
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
[/quote]

Homosexuals again! Not only must homosexuals (those "without natural affection") be killed, but people that support homosexuals (those "that have pleasure in them") must also die.


Not quite related, but an interesting one theologically..

[quote Ephesians 1:4-5]
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will
[/quote]

We are predestined by God to go to either heaven or hell, and none of our thoughts, words, or actions can affect the final outcome. Heh, so much for free wil. (Peter 1:2 reitorates this)

I was going to start quoting Revelations until I realised just how much crazy there is in the entire thing, so I didn't even bother.


Also, amusingly.. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell because he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. Jesus thinks this fair (Luke 16:19-31, I don't quote it because it's quite long).

An interesting manner of style in the NT is how Jesus loves the phrase 'there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth'. I'm quite liking it too, actually.

Because people generally say "sizzle" after seriously flaming someone.

You do a wonderful job of taking a word completely out of context. Next time, I suggest you use a religious definition of a word when it's coming from a religious context.

When one man is rich, there are several who are poor because of it. Take Bill Gates, for example.

Let me ask you: Is it right for one man to live in luxury and another in poverty?

Hahahahhaha. Oh christ you're funny.

But you didn't answer the question.

Because it's an invalid question. Bill Gates HELPS our economy--the more rich people there are, the more jobs there are, the more middle class people there are, the less people in poverty there are.

In theory and, so far, in practice

No, but still you typed this on an expensive computer, through an expensive phone line, sitting in expensive clothes on an expensive chair in an expensive chair, all of which you have by virtue of others not having it. Can't blame you, because I am the same.

Let's ask a random African kid about this matter... whoops I was going to ask him but he died of famine before I could ask

[QUOTE=Joseph McCarthy]I don't wanna be hearin' no commie talk, all right boys?[/QUOTE]

THRAWN'S A COMMIE

[quote=Ronald Reagan]Silence, godless sodomite![/quote]

Well, yeah, the reason I posted that quote was in its fairly obvious parallells with Marxist dialogue.



Right, so if predestinate in a religious context doesn't mean predestinate (to determine in advance).. what does it mean? As far as I know, predestinate is one of those words that really is only a theological word, I've never seen it used in any other context.

God damn it, why does this thread exist?

Why does anything exist? God willed it.

To reach back a wee bit...



Yes, and this is possible, assuming that the teacher is in any way competent. It's not hard to study a religion and talk about it without any severe bias filtering through - you just have to be learning about the religion to learn about the religion, as opposed to learning about the religion to find the differences between your own beliefs and theirs. Some people, however, mistake this for actually believing in the principles of the religion itself - I've been trying to correct my mis-informed mother about the beliefs of Islam, and she's started to suspect that I've secretly converted to Islam.



Teaching the impact of religion on history only teaches the impact of religion on history, not about religion. An optional course of religious studies - examining the beliefs and history of a religion - is, when presented properly (by someone like I outlined above), a beneficial experience. Religion is a powerful factor in the world, and you're only demonstrating your idiocy if you purposefully choose to remain ignorant of (and then speak on) religion.

R.E. is now a compulsary GCSE for us Englanders (although I took my GCSEs in 1999 when it most certainly wasn't and I didn't take it).

I learned loads about the the Great Schsim and the European (and later English) reformations in History A-Level, in fact loads more than I think you do in the R.E. GCSE just because history and politics were so tightly spun together circa 1550.

Anyways...

/me goes back to cold turkey sarnies and the like.

When doing comparative religion, being an atheist is a big advantage really. For an atheist, it doesn't really matter whether you're Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, they're all equally theist (and so equally untrue). Whether they're true or not is actually irrelevant as it is the differences and individual nuances of each that is being investigated.
I thoroughly enjoy studying religion (and also spend much of my time correcting people's misunderstandings of Islam), because it is indeed very interesting, but all this study does nothing to convince me that any of it is actually true. Quite the contrary, really.

So perhaps religious education lessons could be taught with the limitation that the teacher must be an atheist (as well as all other relevant teaching qualifications), as an atheist will disbelieve all religions and so offer no particular bias to any of them.
Of course this won't apply in a Philosophy lesson, which is where atheism itself will be examined.

[Pre-empt: Yes, I know I'm going to get "Hey, I was taught RE by a Christian and he was good!" or "Hey, I was taught by an atheist and he was a jerk!" type responses, but of course those individual cases don't really mean anything, as the argument here is based on an atheist being less likely to offer bias to any religion]

Atheists are not special people. Granted, an atheist (generally) is not going to have a bias for a religion, but that, by no means, does not mean that the atheist won't have a bias against a religion or religions. To bar anyone of theist background in favor of one of an atheist background is discrimination - you're saying that a person is automatically more qualified simply because they believe there there is no God or gods.

A good RE teacher should teach from the standpoint that the current religion is true - i.e., the difference between "Muslims believe Muhammed was visited by the angel Gabriel" and "Muhammed was visited by the angel Gabriel." The kind of disconnection you seem to be implying is needed for a proper RE course seems, to me, to simply suck the life and appeal out of the course - learning about the religion from the viewpoint of someone who believes it, a viewpoint that you, yourself, do not necessarily share.

No, indeed, discussing a religion as if it were true is certainly the best way to explain things (as indeed I have somewhere previously on this thread with regards to Islam, previous page I think). But an atheist would find this easier to do than a theist.
Is Jesus the son of God? Christians certainly think so. Muslims don't, Jews don't. But atheists simply don't care at all (because God doesn't exist), so the atheist will have no opinion on this otherwise terribly controversial and important issue and be able to adopt any of those three positions with ease.

Everything that is an issue for theists, everything that spawns discussion or controvesy within theists (like Catholocism vs. Protestantism) is simply a non-issue for atheists.

Except for they would then be biased against ALL religions, since they believe that none of them are really true. I fail to see how having an atheist teach a religion class is any different from someone of any particular religious belief. Certainly someone of a particular religion could be biased towards that, but to claim an atheist won't be biased against religion is absurd.

[QUOTE=Rogue Leader]Except for they would then be biased against ALL religions, since they believe that none of them are really true. I fail to see how having an atheist teach a religion class is any different from someone of any particular religious belief. Certainly someone of a particular religion could be biased towards that, but to claim an atheist won't be biased against religion is absurd.[/QUOTE]

Because they'll be biased against all of them. Atheism isn't a religion so isn't going to be discussed in a religious education class. Whether a religion is true or not isn't going to be discussed in a religious education class either (and shouldn't).

I agree that whether it is true or not should not be discussed in a religion class. But since an atheist believes that NO religion is true, what is stopping them from teaching that bias in class anymore than someone of a particular religion promoting their own faith?

[QUOTE=Rogue Leader]I agree that whether it is true or not should not be discussed in a religion class. But since an atheist believes that NO religion is true, what is stopping them from teaching that bias in class anymore than someone of a particular religion promoting their own faith?[/QUOTE]

Because that bias is irrelevant. The fact that they all believe in God is a given, as it is a religious education class.

What is significant in a religious education class is what different religions believe, and possibly why they believe it. Like how Muslims recognise Muhammed as the last prophet, but Christians don't. A Muslim teaching that is more likely to offer bias as to how Muhammed is is the last prophet and that Christians are in the wrong for not accepting him. Certainly it's likely to be more subtle than that and the teacher probably isn't even going to be aware that he's doing it. But an atheist simply isn't going to care. It makes no difference to an atheist whether Muhammed is the prophet of a God or not, and so the atheist is going to be able to present the Christian and Muslim viewpoints as equal (or rather, be able to critically analyse each position).
Maybe this would result in an unenthusiastic teacher, but not necessarily. You can still be interested in a topic without having any consideration for opposing viewpoints.


This sort of method of sorting out conflicts has been used in the Middle-East. I don't remember where precisely, but there was one particular site that Christians and Muslims fought eachother bitterly over, because it was considered holy for them both and they both wanted control over it. In the end, they both agreed to give this site to the Jews, because it had no significance to them at all, and it is still looked after by the Jews today.

I fail to see how that bias is irrelevant. Perhaps the atheist won't care, but I doubt that people who believe in God would appreciate the teacher ridiculing their belief in a God simply because he doesn't believe in one. Now I'm not saying that just because the teacher is an atheist, they would do that, but its just as possible for that to happen as for a person of a different religion to teach that theirs is correct over others. The bias most certainly is relevant, just as much as any other persons bias towards a particular religion.

[QUOTE=Rogue Leader]I fail to see how that bias is irrelevant. Perhaps the atheist won't care, but I doubt that people who believe in God would appreciate the teacher ridiculing their belief in a God simply because he doesn't believe in one. Now I'm not saying that just because the teacher is an atheist, they would do that, but its just as possible for that to happen as for a person of a different religion to teach that theirs is correct over others. The bias most certainly is relevant, just as much as any other persons bias towards a particular religion.[/QUOTE]

But the ridiculing won't happen, because 'God' isn't an issue in a religious education class (ironic as it may seem). A philosophy class, certainly, but a religious education class is going to be about more specific issues within theism that the atheist will simply have no opinion on whatsoever.
An atheist won't favour Catholocism over Protestantism, because the atheist thinks Christianity as a whole is incorrect. An atheist won't favour Christianity over Islam because the atheist thinks theism as a whole is incorrect. That is what makes the atheist preferable when discussing Catholocism vs. Protestantism (rather than asking a Catholic, or a Protestant), or when discussing Christianity vs. Islam (rather than asking a Christian or a Muslim).
If you asked the atheist about atheism vs. theism, then yes, you'll get one particular answer, but atheism vs. theism isn't an issue that is going to be raised in a religious education class.

Mort, the quality you're describing - a person who holds no unequal bias against any religion - is a quality, among others, that would make a good teacher for a RE course. However, he/she does not have to be an atheist to have this quality. An atheist may be less likely to be biased, but that's no reason to bar theists from teaching the class.

I never said this quality was exclusive to atheists, only that atheists are more likely to have it.

By allowing only atheists to teach this lesson, you are more likely to have a better standard of teaching. Are you going to alienate good, theist teachers? Yeah, probably. But on the whole, there will be a better standard of teaching on average. If you have two teachers that are otherwise identical, but one as an atheist and the other a theist, then the atheist is probably preferable. Do bad, atheist teachers exist? Yes, of course. But on average, an atheist is more likely to be better suited to the job. This is what I was saying in my pre-emptive reply a few posts up.

The reason we'd do this is because biased teaching in a religious education class is incredibly damaging to a child, serving no purpose but to go right down the same road of indoctrinating them into dogma the same as has been done for thousands of years previous.

My religious studies teacher was very strongly Christian, but he portrayed all religions and religions perspective (including atheism) in a very positive light. Then again, he was basically the best teacher in the world ever.

Also, being atheist doesn't mean you're not religious.

Point is, if a teacher is dedicated enough to get qualified to teach on all major world religions, it's likely that the majority will be convey the subject in a fairly impartial manner. There will always be exceptions, but there are teaching review boards and the like to deal with minority cases.

How is an atheist more likely to be unbiased then a religious person? What do you base this on? If by personal experience, then I can certainly think of plenty of my own experiences with atheists who were as far from unbiased as you could possibly be. I don't see any sort of support for your claim that just because a person is an atheist, they are somehow a better teacher on average (please note that I am still speaking of within the limits of the religion class, and not outside of it).

Yes, see my pre-emptive reply to this.



No, because, like I said, 'personal experience' is meaningless in any argument ever. To see what I base my arguments on, try reading them.

More like: God damn, why does someone have to **** up every thread by turning it into a debate?

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]More like: God damn, why does someone have to **** up every thread by turning it into a debate?[/QUOTE]

Yes, it's awful isn't it, all our utterly pointless and shallow threads keep getting ruined by constructive debate. Here I am, totally looking forward to a pageful of 'lol', or 'i agree with you!!!' or some thoroughly 'surreal' picture that is just as amusing the thousandth time later, and instead I get a thread of casual intellectualising! How dissapointed I am to find that there is one single thread on the forum that isn't about people posting pictures of crap that no-one cares about or replies that no-one will ever read! It's utterly disgusting how some people actually reply to other people on a thread, shunning the accepted tradition of completely ignoring an entire thread of posts and replying just to the first post!

Good lord, it's a good thing you're here, because what a thread really needs is a reply expressing dissaproval of the thread itself, thus prolonging the life of the thread you dissaprove so much of!

I have read your arguments. I agree that atheists would be biased against ALL religions. Of that there can be little doubt. There isn't any difference between an atheist trying to force a disbelief of God on students in a religion class then a person of a certain religious affiliation promoting his own faith over others. Both have no place in a religion class taught in a school. I don't disagree with the fact that atheists will not be biased toward any certain religion. I disagree with your assertation that they will somehow be more qualified for the job then theists for teaching an unbiased religion class. Promoting a disbelief in God is not unbiased. So again, what do you base your argument on that an atheist would somehow be more qualified and more preferable for teaching a religion class over a theist?

[QUOTE=Rogue Leader]I have read your arguments. I agree that atheists would be biased against ALL religions. Of that there can be little doubt. There isn't any difference between an atheist trying to force a disbelief of God on students in a religion class then a person of a certain religious affiliation promoting his own faith over others. Both have no place in a religion class taught in a school. I don't disagree with the fact that atheists will not be biased toward any certain religion. I disagree with your assertation that they will somehow be more qualified for the job then theists for teaching an unbiased religion class. Promoting a disbelief in God is not unbiased. So again, what do you base your argument on that an atheist would somehow be more qualified and more preferable for teaching a religion class over a theist?[/QUOTE]

Because the existence of God isn't an issue in a religious education class. A philosophy class, certainly, and that's a different matter. "Does God exist?" is a question in a philosophy class, but not a religious education class. In a religious education class, 'God' is a given, and so issues within theism are explored. The atheist simply won't get the chance to 'promote disbelief', because all the issues will be theist issues and be meaningless to the atheist.

I don't normally participate in these but there was something in his conversation that bothered me. Not all religious people are close-minded. Granted, there are more than enough that are, but that's not the point. Hence why most of you don't know that I am a Christian. (Non-denom, PM me if you are curious as to the standards on it). Do I hate gays? No. In fact, one of my best friends is a bisexual female. Do I think its right? No, but I don't go shoving it down your throat, do I? Do I hate other religions? Nope. Got a friend who was a Muslim too. Just a few bad eggs ruins it for every I think. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, not every Latter-day Saint is going to harrass you to join their church over the phone ( not sure where I heard that one before, but I know I've heard it about them). I'm not perfect, no body else is either. Part of this "free will" thing we got. Let people make their own choice and let them live with it.

For the more visually inclined..


The big circle is theism and everything within it is theism. A religious education class is this circle, and will discuss everything within it (whereas, say, a Christian education class will discuss only the Christianity circle). The blue dot is a teacher who is a Protestant Christian. The red dot is a teacher who is a Sunni Muslim.

When discussing something involving Protestantism vs. Catholocism, the blue dot teacher is more likely to be biased towards Protestatism because blue dot is within the Protestant circle. When discussing something involving Christianity vs. Hinduism, blue dot is more likely to be biased towards Christianity because blue dot is within the Christian circle.
Red dot is not likely to be biased towards either Protestantism or Catholocism, because red dot is not within the Christianity circle at all. However, red dot is likely to be biased in a discussion of Sunni vs. Shi'ite. Red dot is (possibly) less likely to be biased in a discussing of Shi'ite vs. Sufi.
Both red dot and blue dot are equally unlikely to be biased in a discussion about Something vs. Something Else within the Hinduism circle (I was too busy drawing pretty circles to actually do any research, sorry), because neither of them are within that circle.

Green dot over on the far left (ho ho) is an atheist. He isn't in the theist circle at all. He is in the same position as blue dot and red dot with respect to Hinduism. But he is just as unbiased with respect to Christianity (and therefore Catholocism or Protestantism) or Islam (and therefore Sunni, Shi'ite or Sufi), because he is outside their circles too.


Blue dot would be better than red dot if you're talking about issues within Islam. Red dot would be better than blue dot if you're talking about issues within Christianity. Blue dot and red dot are equally good if you're talking about issues within Hinduism.
Green dot is better than blue dot if you're talking about issues within Christianity.
Green dot is better than red dot if you're talking about issues within Islam.

Therefore, green dot is the best.

* Yes, I'm perfectly aware that there are lots more circles within these circles.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then, because I certainly think there would be ample opportunity for an atheist to express disbelief any religion in such a class. Certainly, as you said, the existence of God isn't an issue, but when discussing religion, I can certainly see plenty of opportunites for an atheist to state that all religions are wrong.

Edit: There seems to be something wrong with that link though.

[QUOTE=Rogue Leader]I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then, because I certainly think there would be ample opportunity for an atheist to express disbelief any religion in such a class. Certainly, as you said, the existence of God isn't an issue, but when discussing religion, I can certainly see plenty of opportunites for an atheist to state that all religions are wrong.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps so, but he'd disbelieve all of them equally, so it'd all cancel out because the real issues are those within each religion. Perhaps he'd be an unenthusiastic teacher, but that is far preferable to one simply spreading dogma. It is better for them not to learn at all than for them to be indoctrinated.

Have you ever been/met an atheist? It is quite possible to believe that if there is one true religion, it would be a certain one, even though you don't believe it or God.

That's amusing. Exactly what do you consider constructive about posting the exact same argument several times? And if you actually used a shred of your "intellect," you'd realize the intent of this thread had nothing to do with the religious debate it's turned in to. So really, the only thing disgusting is the rubbish you and others have posted time and time again. Ahhh yes, this thread will end like all the others, either locked or floating off the first page without the first person conceding.