Religion in Schools and the Effect on Students

[Lady Vulpix]

It makes me so angry for those who actually call and live as Catholics - to have their religion tainted by those who use it just as a name or part of their identity without much meaning in their lives. (That makes me angry about every religion though. If you're botherng to call yourself something, live it).

There are different approaches to a religion. If people ask, I'm Jewish. But I don't follow all the traditions and I don't even agree with all the rules. There's a lot more to being a part of a religion and/or a community than following rules blindly. I think people should do what feels right for them.

[PancaKe]

There are different approaches to a religion. If people ask, I'm Jewish. But I don't follow all the traditions and I don't even agree with all the rules. There's a lot more to being a part of a religion and/or a community than following rules blindly. I think people should do what feels right for them.

I disagree with what you say. If someone chooses to say they follow a certain religion, then they don't, it reflects poorly on the entire religion and makes those who are actually faithful and living it look like idiots.

Lets say that a religion states something such as "sex outside of marriage is wrong" or "alcohol isn't allowed" (i'm not being specific to any belief here by the way). Now, if a person says "hey, I follow religion X" and it's common knowledge that people of religion X or Y or Z aren't allowed to drink, or aren't allowed to have sex outside of marriage, and this person is partaking in these activities, dosen't it make you wonder 1) why they bother to associate themselves with this religion when they clearly don't have any personal regard for it, and 2) how does it make those who do follow these rules look? Why would people bother to follow the rules when nobody else does it?

I don't think its right to say "I support left wing 100%" but to disagree with their policies, or vote for right wing. You would say that's just silly. So why do we make exceptions based on what feels right for a person in regards to religion?

[Heald]

PancaKe: I think maybe what LV was saying (although if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me) is that there is a distinction between fundamentalists within a religion (i.e. those who take every law/commandment/holy book literally as law) and those who have a more modern approach. An example would be a fundamentalist Christian who believes sex before marriage and homosexuality are sins, whereas a more modern, liberal Christian may think those are outdated principles but still believe in God, Jesus and try to apply Jesus' teachings to modern life.

[PancaKe]

PancaKe: I think maybe what LV was saying (although if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me) is that there is a distinction between fundamentalists within a religion (i.e. those who take every law/commandment/holy book literally as law) and those who have a more modern approach. An example would be a fundamentalist Christian who believes sex before marriage and homosexuality are sins, whereas a more modern, liberal Christian may think those are outdated principles but still believe in God, Jesus and try to apply Jesus' teachings to modern life.

I would still say, to the liberal Christian, that you can't pick and choose which parts of the bible are outdated and which parts aren't. If Jesus' teachings on homosexuality or sex outside of marriage are outdated, then you could say that all of Jesus' teachings and actions are outdated - including his death on the cross and what they claim that achieved. Sure, some things are contextual - but not outdated.

[Heald]

I would still say, to the liberal Christian, that you can't pick and choose which parts of the bible are outdated and which parts aren't. If Jesus' teachings on homosexuality or sex outside of marriage are outdated, then you could say that all of Jesus' teachings and actions are outdated - including his death on the cross and what they claim that achieved. Sure, some things are contextual - but not outdated.

Except Jesus taught that the old ways were not important and it was his teachings of loving God and loving others that matters. He never mentioned anything about premarital sex or homosexuality; those are mentioned in the Old Testament, right next to where it says you're not allowed to eat pigs and shrimps and other nonsense. It depends what you define as 'God's word'. Some people argue that because it was Moses, not God, who was giving these laws concerning shrimp and homosexuality, it wasn't God's word, but Jesus said to forget the old laws and embrace his new laws.

[Mew Master]

I would still say, to the liberal Christian, that you can't pick and choose which parts of the bible are outdated and which parts aren't.

Although I consider the whole thing to be outdated, that's not the discussion here. I think it comes down to the degree on what you consider to be against your own moral code of conduct, whether or not you view it to be the word of God or not. This argument also stands against what degree of literal interpretation you but into the Bible. Which parts are meant to be literal and which are not, and how do you make that distinction?

If Jesus' teachings on homosexuality or sex outside of marriage are outdated, then you could say that all of Jesus' teachings and actions are outdated - including his death on the cross and what they claim that achieved.

I disagree. Some things can be oudated, but not all has to be thrown out. That's the basic argument against science from a Creationist standing. Just because Jesus taught that "judge not yet he be judged" (dunno if he actually said it, but it fits with his character) and "love thy neighbor as thyself" still hold true even though some other teachings we view as immoral savage things to do to one another. The other question I have is this: If you think God and his teachings to be eternal, then what God said in the Old Testament stands in the New Testament, so which do you choose to follow and why? I've heard that Jesus goes against some of the Ten Commandments put forth in Deutronomy and Exodus but I'm not exactly sure which.

If someone can take the good things that Holy Scripture says, and use those to enrich their lives while realizing that the negative things done or advocated in that same scripture conflict with their own moral view, they aren't being "bad (insert advjective of religion here)" they're realizing that some things that were practiced and advocated thousands of years ago are no longer acceptable in society and therefore, don't agree with them. I think a liberal view of scripture is better than adhering to "All or nothing" view on "if some things are wrong, then it all has to be thrown out." No offense to those that have those views, but it seems like a very closed minded world-view to me.

Some things can be acceptable, while others cannot. The passage in Deuteronomy (I think, it may be Exodus) where it says "If a man lay with a man as he does with a woman. They both shall be stoned to death and their blood shall be upon them" not only makes many stomachs churn, it's incompatible with modern society's views on equality and human rights. The same can be said for "stoning a girl for having sex before marriage," "stoning an unruly child by the town," and "working on the Sabbath." Granted these are only a few passages out of the Bible that come to mind. (Although not NEARLY as bad ass for having God send a bear to kill 42 kids because they made fun of you for being bald).

Sure, some things are contextual - but not outdated.

But part of the context has ties to the date in which it was written and the society that accepted such barbaric behavior. Context and Outdated Society Morals are intertwined if not one and the same.