[Hogzilla]

Originally Posted by Lizzy11268

Frankly I'd rather give my children away to gypsies than send them to a Catholic school. Not for nothing, but you can never be sure WHAT they are teaching them behind closed doors. Wouldnt trust 'em as far as I could throw 'em and thats the absolute truth from my own personal point of view.

LOL. You're being a bit paranoid. I've taught in Catholic schools and I make Dawkins look like Mother Theresa, doctrinally.

Behind those mysterious closed doors you just get.... another school. The kids used to go to mass, usually once a week. It was just an extended assembly where a priest rabbited on and the kids glazed over.

I've said this before on these threads... I can remember at one school, my kids coming out and back into the classroom, after mass, and earwigging their comments and the gist of it was "That was a load of rubbish" and "Does anyone really believe that crap?" (The kids saying it, I was only thinking it). And these kids were Y5 and 6. They are not indoctrinated (I wouldn't know where to start and I was taught to teach by nuns!)

[Lizzy11268]

Originally Posted by Hogzilla

LOL. You're being a bit paranoid. I've taught in Catholic schools and I make Dawkins look like Mother Theresa, doctrinally.

Behind those mysterious closed doors you just get.... another school. The kids used to go to mass, usually once a week. It was just an extended assembly where a priest rabbited on and the kids glazed over.

I've said this before on these threads... I can remember at one school, my kids coming out and back into the classroom, after mass, and earwigging their comments and the gist of it was "That was a load of rubbish" and "Does anyone really believe that crap?" (The kids saying it, I was only thinking it). And these kids were Y5 and 6. They are not indoctrinated (I wouldn't know where to start and I was taught to teach by nuns!)

Would you believe I was taught by nuns as well?

I was you know

[SULLA]

Originally Posted by Glawster2002

And it is certainly not an accurate historical record of the history of the planet from its formation approximately 4 billion years ago, either.

You are confusing The Bible with the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis

[tewkesbury]

Originally Posted by SULLA

You do not appear to understand that The Bible is a collection of books, some of which, by their very nature, cannot be classed as fiction.

Some of it, by their very nature, can be classed as perverted porn - Lot's daughters getting their old man drunk so they could bonk his brains out ? Should children be reading this filth ?

[SULLA]

Originally Posted by tewkesbury

Some of it, by their very nature, can be classed as perverted porn - Lot's daughters getting their old man drunk so they could bonk his brains out ? Should children be reading this filth ?

I was never told about this at Sunday school

[Lizzy11268]

Originally Posted by SULLA

I was never told about this at Sunday school

Cherrypicking

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by Lizzy11268

Cherrypicking

Is that like when Lot's dad had the daughters? They lost their cherry as he 'picked' it

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by Richard46

Can I suggest that a way of doing this would be to allow all schools to select on the basis of what the parents believe. e.g. Parents who have shown a commitment to secularism could be given priority to non-faith schools with paid up members of the National Secular Society or the Humanist Association getting top priority.

/snip/

That would force me to form the British Secular Society and form an alliance with the Humanist society to bring down the anti-religionist NSS. No... actually that won't work ... I need to bring down the whole IHEC.

Who's with me? ............... no bugger apparently.

It seems to me people are either for or against religion - where is the inclusive group?

[Glawster2002]

Originally Posted by SULLA

You are confusing The Bible with the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis

And you are taking my reply to the following in isolation and out of context as my reply directly referred to the following:

Originally Posted by zackai48

The Bible presents an accurate historical record from the creation of the world up to the time of Christ. Luke who wrote his gospel and The Acts Of The Apostles is recognised as a noted historian. You may choose not to believe the Bible, but it is certainly not fiction.

So I would suggest you aim your reply at "zackai48" and not me.

[Lizzy11268]

Originally Posted by Chester666666

Is that like when Lot's dad had the daughters? They lost their cherry as he 'picked' it

[mrcreosote]

Originally Posted by bleuh111

The definition you've given is why the Bible is not fiction. Fiction is literary work specifically invented by the author as a story and presented as such. That's not the case with the Bible; its contents are presented as factual. The Bible might be wrong, the information presented might not be accurate, but it's the presentation of it that makes it a work of non-fiction.

Hmm - I'm not sure I can agree here. After all, there are plenty of fictional works that are not presented as such (off the top of my head: Spinal Tap and Blair Witch Project). It's only being aware of their context that either can be determined to be fiction. If we took the stance you present, we could argue that stories such as Epic of Gilgamesh (which is widely regarded as the first written story) are actually non-fiction as they were not written as fiction (not to mention classic works such as The Illiad).

[Stiffy78]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

That would force me to form the British Secular Society and form an alliance with the Humanist society to bring down the anti-religionist NSS. No... actually that won't work ... I need to bring down the whole IHEC.

Who's with me? ............... no bugger apparently.

It seems to me people are either for or against religion - where is the inclusive group?

I don't think that's true. A lot of people don't particularly care if people are religious - they care about unfair religious exemptions from laws and other special privileges accorded to religious organisations. Give everyone a level playing field and I think a lot of the talk that is perceived as anti-religious would disappear.

[bleuh111]

Originally Posted by mrcreosote

Hmm - I'm not sure I can agree here. After all, there are plenty of fictional works that are not presented as such (off the top of my head: Spinal Tap and Blair Witch Project). It's only being aware of their context that either can be determined to be fiction. If we took the stance you present, we could argue that stories such as Epic of Gilgamesh (which is widely regarded as the first written story) are actually non-fiction as they were not written as fiction (not to mention classic works such as The Illiad).

Blair Witch Project was presented as fiction, though - it may have had a documentary style, but there was never any pretence that it was anything other than a made-up story. Having said that, perhaps what I meant when I said "presentation" in my previous post wasn't clear. The authors of the books of the bible did not intend them to be read as a fictional story, that's the underlying point here. Whether that which is presented as facts within are right or wrong is really not relevant, it's the intention behind it that matters when classifying it as fiction or non-fiction. The Bible is not fiction, it is believed and intended to be believed.

Nonfiction is defined by being about and relating to that which is real or believed to be real, so I stand by that there's no reasonable basis for calling the bible fiction, but there is plenty of scope for arguing the purported facts inside the bible are wrong. But that doesn't make it fiction, just inaccurate.

[KarlSomething]

Fiction is imaginary. The Bible is as imaginary as any work of fiction. Sure, there may have been a man named Jesus or Moses. As there may have been a man named Arthur or Gandalf. Magic, no. And without that, it all falls apart. Even without looking at the mundane inaccuracies, because the entire tale relies heavily on magic. It was made up.

[Stiffy78]

Originally Posted by bleuh111

Blair Witch Project was presented as fiction, though - it may have had a documentary style, but there was never any pretence that it was anything other than a made-up story. Having said that, perhaps what I meant when I said "presentation" in my previous post wasn't clear. The authors of the books of the bible did not intend them to be read as a fictional story, that's the underlying point here. Whether that which is presented as facts within are right or wrong is really not relevant, it's the intention behind it that matters when classifying it as fiction or non-fiction. The Bible is not fiction, it is believed and intended to be believed.

Nonfiction is defined by being about and relating to that which is real or believed to be real, so I stand by that there's no reasonable basis for calling the bible fiction, but there is plenty of scope for arguing the purported facts inside the bible are wrong. But that doesn't make it fiction, just inaccurate.

There are plenty of people who believe 100% it is not based on any real events and still more who believe all the supernatural stuff and miracles are entirely fabricated.

How many people have to believe something is real and to what extent for that condition in bold to be met and something to be classed as non-fiction?

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by Stiffy78

I don't think that's true. A lot of people don't particularly care if people are religious - they care about unfair religious exemptions from laws and other special privileges accorded to religious organisations. Give everyone a level playing field and I think a lot of the talk that is perceived as anti-religious would disappear.

I was talking about official groups really. The Quakers have non-theist friends but they are unusual.

The end game for me is not one where we tolerate each others beliefs but one where we encourage and celebrate our differences.

At the organizational level I don't see anyone strongly representing that view.

[Richard46]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

I was talking about official groups really. The Quakers have non-theist friends but they are unusual.

The end game for me is not one where we tolerate each others beliefs but one where we encourage and celebrate our differences.

At the organizational level I don't see anyone strongly representing that view.

I think you have spotted a gap in the market there droogie.

ETA Seriously.

[Stiffy78]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

I was talking about official groups really. The Quakers have non-theist friends but they are unusual.

The end game for me is not one where we tolerate each others beliefs but one where we encourage and celebrate our differences.

At the organizational level I don't see anyone strongly representing that view.

Up to a point I agree with you but there are obviously some (not just religious) differences that I do not think warrant encouragement or celebration and I wager it is the same for pretty much everyone else.

Regarding differences in relgious beliefs specifically - if the privileges were removed I doubt it is something I'd give much thought to. It is not something I'd be vocal about but nor could I see myself actively encouraging religious belief. It would seem somewhat wrong to actively encourage someone to dedicate their lives to something I thought had no basis in reality.

Similarly I can't see many staunch theists gleefully encouraging and celebrating atheism and I don't blame them. If they sincerely believe what they say they do then encouraging people away from that wouldn't be a very nice thing to do would it?

I'm afraid I think tolerance and respecting the right of others to hold different beliefs is the best you can hope for.

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by Richard46

I think you have spotted a gap in the market there droogie.

ETA Seriously.

Originally Posted by Stiffy78

Up to a point I agree with you but there are obviously some (not just religious) differences that I do not think warrant encouragement or celebration and I wager it is the same for pretty much everyone else.

Regarding differences in relgious beliefs specifically - if the privileges were removed I doubt it is something I'd give much thought to. It is not something I'd be vocal about but nor could I see myself actively encouraging religious belief. It would seem somewhat wrong to actively encourage someone to dedicate their lives to something I thought had no basis in reality.

Similarly I can't see many staunch theists gleefully encouraging and celebrating atheism and I don't blame them. If they sincerely believe what they say they do then encouraging people away from that wouldn't be a very nice thing to do would it?

I'm afraid I think tolerance and respecting the right of others to hold different beliefs is the best you can hope for.

I feel as if I could establish 100% dominance in this particular market fairly quickly

[mrcreosote]

Originally Posted by bleuh111

Blair Witch Project was presented as fiction, though - it may have had a documentary style, but there was never any pretence that it was anything other than a made-up story.

Well, Blair Witch Project was presented as being real throughout it's lead-up campaign (with its hoax websites) and there was, at the time, considerable debate waged on the internet as to its veracity...

Originally Posted by bleuh111

The authors of the books of the bible did not intend them to be read as a fictional story, that's the underlying point here. Whether that which is presented as facts within are right or wrong is really not relevant, it's the intention behind it that matters when classifying it as fiction or non-fiction.

I would suggest that the definition of fiction as 'an invented story' applies to the Bible, regardless of whether the authors wanted to people to believe it or not. Although perhaps we could argue it as 'creative non-fiction'

[Richard46]

Actually droogie on second thoughts there is an organisation desperate to depict itself as celebrating everything. It is called the Church of England. For instance it admits women Bishops but allows you to ignore their authority if you are a committed sexist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...n-bishops.html

I fear that what you see as mutual celebration I just see as hypocrisy. I have to call it as I see it.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by mrcreosote

Well, Blair Witch Project was presented as being real throughout it's lead-up campaign (with its hoax websites) and there was, at the time, considerable debate waged on the internet as to its veracity...




I would suggest that the definition of fiction as 'an invented story' applies to the Bible, regardless of whether the authors wanted to people to believe it or not. Although perhaps we could argue it as 'creative non-fiction'

Yes, I was reading a little bit about William I yesterday. The book said that there is very little known about him and much of it can be considered to contain some truth but was written as propaganda and to promote a bigger picture, sort of, about his position. That wasn't seen as untrue, exactly, but it's not brute fact, either. I think some parts of Bible would be the same, including the NT. The Bible has many different facets to it, of course.

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by Richard46

Actually droogie on second thoughts there is an organisation desperate to depict itself as celebrating everything. It is called the Church of England. For instance it admits women Bishops but allows you to ignore their authority if you are a committed sexist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...n-bishops.html

I fear that what you see as mutual celebration I just see as hypocrisy. I have to call it as I see it.

Do you need me to point out the logical flaws in that post - or shall we just leave it there?

[ScotchMisst]

Originally Posted by Chester666666

Is that like when Lot's dad had the daughters? They lost their cherry as he 'picked' it

It's Lot's wife's fault for being a pillar of salt.

[CABLEDUDE]

I go to a catholic school - ask away any questions you have...