Should Christianity be taught of it's truth in history class?

[pyramid33]

Should school's teach about Christianity in history classes?

Is it productive?

 

[Steve77]

Yeah I believe that there is a lot that students can get by being taught more into depth about Christianity. Students would be able to learn many good morals and many different life lessons. There is also a lot that students can learn from the bible.

 

[Albion]

Should school's teach about Christianity in history classes?

Is it productive?

Yes and yes. Otherwise, half of Western history would be left out of the lesson.

(But I note that the way you phrased the question in the title was different.)

 

[Alive_Again]

Most Christians of the "Protestant" persuasion have no problems reviewing and assessing the victories and defeats of Christians from the beginning to now.

Protestants know of the imperfection of man and look only to the Head of the church, Jesus Christ for order, perfection, and beauty.

The reality of church history is that it was and is, as Paul said it would. Grievous wolves came among the flock. A mixture took place and a leavening process stole much of its power. A "form of godliness" set in and it is good that people are not settling for less. There is a hunger and a thirst for more.

Catholic history has weaved a web of "unbroken infallability" when it comes to interpreting faith and doctrine. Close inspection of church history disproves that completely. The truth becomes awkward and its defense is necessary in order to maintain the veneer of victory.

Catholics that I have run across on the forum tend to take "accusations" that disprove what they revere and believe to be "attacks".

I remember when I found out there really was no Santa Claus. I remember breaking the news to a Cousin as well. It burst the bubble of the fable. The good news is, that there is Jesus and we don't need Santa Claus.

We don't need infallabile leadership and the mistakes other Christians have made (especially in leadership) are not our mistakes. If we can acknowledge those mistakes and learn from them, we can avoid making them ourselves.

Many Catholics are somewhat offended by the Protestant Reformation. They see it as a bad thing that cost unity. But the real truth is that there can be no real unity when things become at odds with God's ways.

Those painted as "villains" (Protestant reformers) are really heroes. They helped bring about change in Catholicism and allowed for fellowship outside for those who believe differently.

It is prideful to say that those who don't do it our way are less favored or blessed than others. It is prideful for Protestants to say that they have it better because they are Protestants.

But the truth is what it is, if you experience freedom and liberty and supernatural power in your meetings and others do not, then you truly are more blessed. But it is available for everyone.

If we see each other as one, completely fallible, as well as all other parts of the body, then we can rest in our dependence on the true Head of the Church. We can be grateful for the advances that have been made since this great darkness entered into the church at large.

I do believe there has always been a remnant that has walked in power since the beginning. We don't really know why they are, but it is important to be open to learning from those who bear more fruit and not walk in religious pride.

 

[alasthai]

Catholic history has weaved a web of "unbroken infallability" when it comes to interpreting faith and doctrine. Close inspection of church history disproves that completely. The truth becomes awkward and its defense is necessary in order to maintain the veneer of victory.

Catholics that I have run across on the forum tend to take "accusations" that disprove what they revere and believe to be "attacks".

I remember when I found out there really was no Santa Claus. I remember breaking the news to a Cousin as well. It burst the bubble of the fable. The good news is, that there is Jesus and we don't need Santa Claus.

We don't need infallible leadership

Um, so you claim that they are wrong, accuse them of ignorance/misrepresentation of history, compare their faith with a belief in Santa Claus, and then you wonder why they think you are attacking them??

 

[alasthai]

Should school's teach about Christianity in history classes?

Is it productive?

By "teach about Christianity", do you mean "teach the Gospel narrative", or do you mean "teach about the history of Christianity"?

If you mean the former, then no, they should not. That should be taught in classes on religion or philosophy (and every school should teach those, and should include agnosticism and atheism in them).

If you mean the latter, then yes, they should, because we get too many students these days who have no idea where their culture and language came from.

 

[Alive_Again]

Originally Posted by Alive_Again

Catholic history has weaved a web of "unbroken infallability" when it comes to interpreting faith and doctrine. Close inspection of church history disproves that completely. The truth becomes awkward and its defense is necessary in order to maintain the veneer of victory.

Catholics that I have run across on the forum tend to take "accusations" that disprove what they revere and believe to be "attacks".

I remember when I found out there really was no Santa Claus. I remember breaking the news to a Cousin as well. It burst the bubble of the fable. The good news is, that there is Jesus and we don't need Santa Claus.

We don't need infallible leadership
​

Um, so you claim that they are wrong, accuse them of ignorance/misrepresentation of history, compare their faith with a belief in Santa Claus, and then you wonder why they think you are attacking them??

Wrong in the unbroken infallibility? Certainly.

I do not accuse them of misrepresentation of history, I only relate my experience in attempting to present history. I am usually accused of "attacks" on their beliefs.

If their belief in infallible leadership is an "attack", then history itself is the one doing the challenge. I have agenda of my own, or a need to belittle anyone's beliefs. In a discussion of church history, we must be open to the facts, without accusation or the questioning of personal motives.

The "Santa Claus" thing is not intended to be an insult. There was a Saint Nicholas. Many of his popular attributes are fable (some are not). To give Santa Claus as an example is to correlate the use of fables and "attacks" against belief systems that are errant.

To be sure, church history is not about "Catholicism", although within it are those within the Catholic system. Church history in truth, is about the family of God (not a religious system). It's about its battle with the spirit of religion and the leaven of hypocrisy and deception.

It's still going on today pretty much in all churches.

To think that the leadership has escaped those fallen virtues is a fable.

In History class, we have the choice to skirt the issues of the war against what was considered heresy, and the lives that were taken. These are important truths that led to the Reformation.

 

[alasthai]

I do not accuse them of misrepresentation of history, I only relate my experience in attempting to present history. I am usually accused of "attacks" on their beliefs.

That is presumably because you claim, as you have claimed here, that "church history disproves that (i.e. their belief) completely. The truth becomes awkward", and "history itself is the one doing the challenge". In so doing, you claim that their representation of history is false. You thus believe either it is inadvertently false, in which case 1 000 000 000-or-so Catholics are only guilty of being stupidly ignorant about something which is apparently very easy to demonstrate (since it can be proved "completely"), or it is deliberately false, in which case at minimum the Vatican and the huge number of Catholic historians are guilty of lying in misrepresenting it and the rest of the billion Catholics are guilty of being stupidly trusting in someone who lies to them about something so easily disproved.

Can you really not see how that is offensive?

The "Santa Claus" thing is not intended to be an insult.

Then it might be useful not to employ him, given that he is a stereotype for an object of naive belief, which, again, is an attack.

In History class, we have the choice to skirt the issues of the war against what was considered heresy, and the lives that were taken. These are important truths that led to the Reformation.

They are also important truths after the Reformation, when wars were conducted and lives were taken by both sides (q.v. the last four hundred years of Irish history). The thoroughly partisan-looking mentioning the failings of one side while overlooking those of the other appears, once more, like an attack.

Quite possibly, the reason for their thinking that you are attacking them is how you talk about them.

 

[South Bound]

Should school's teach about Christianity in history classes?

Is it productive?

Of course it's productive. When I taught, I always included it in my lessons. How can you hope to understand Western Civ, let alone American history, without it?

From Constantine to Charlemagne to the Reformation to Calvinism and the Protestant work ethic to the Puritans, no Christian history, no Western civilization and no America.

 

[Alive_Again]

The truth becomes awkward", and "history itself is the one doing the challenge". In so doing, you claim that their representation of history is false.

As no history has been represented, it cannot be either supported or refuted. What is false, is the high level of sanctity given to its leaders in various periods of history. In the last 200 years, this has been taken to the highest level. I believe the facts prove that to be false.

Do you realize if 60 Minutes chose to present just a few of the facts, that the foundation upon which that which is claimed to be held in such high regard is unreliable. But they won't because of the 1 billion Catholics they might offend.

The question is, should Christianity be taught of its truth in history class? This seems to presume we're talking about the truth of its history, not preaching the Word.

Of course, anytime you can project the message you would, but where the controversy lies, is it profitable to admit to its history?

I do not direct any "attacks" any anyone. I merely state in answer to the question of the OP, that it brings on claims of personal attacks to attempt to do so in their hearing.

...in which case at minimum the Vatican and the huge number of Catholic historians are guilty of lying in misrepresenting it and the rest of the billion Catholics are guilty of being stupidly trusting in someone who lies to them about something so easily disproved.

I can tell you that it is NOT factually represented, so how can they "trust" in it?

It is quite common at the first indicated factual support that this is so, protests are lodged to the effect that it now becomes some kind of "fight" that must be broken up, with both parties sent home.

But the facts remain. Why do you think the question is even asked?

The historical facts are so stark, that much of church history is the reason for many atheists having no confidence whatsoever in the church. They've seen the form but not the power.

If people can just accept certain facts without being "offended" or "attacked", the truth can be known and the reality presented.

Again, I am not stating that anyone is gullible,but I know that those facts are NOT presented in many Catholic church circles. And why would they be? It undermines the implied absolute authority. Since you've got Catholics in secular history class, accusations begin to fly about accuracy of claims.

If you just went by what is admitted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, it would be enough. The only reason we even mention the name "Catholic" is because that is what it was for so long.

...an object of naive belief, which, again, is an attack.

It's hard for some Catholics to get out of that mode. It's not an attack. If "Person A" is known for being the temporal leader of the church, and they are personally responsible for thousands of deaths and acts of cruel torture, then it is NOT an attack to merely represent the facts.

When say, "Harry Reasoner" presents that in the 1600's, Popes A thru E consistently displayed the character traits of unbelievers, then it is not an attack to point this out. It is just history.

For it to be an attack, you would have to have malicious intent. This is something you cannot just imply someone has.

It only seems to be an "attack" when it touches something someone personally holds to be truth.

What's surprising about discussions of church history, is that people were actually burned at the stake. This wasn't just in one administration, it lasted centuries. As the thread would seem to elude to, can we not present church history for what it was... Not stopping there, preach it for what it is.

Not condoning the past, but moving past it without taking the sins of others personally.

What people in their churches should rather employ, rather than a "defense" by claiming "attacks", is to demonstrate reality; to just preach Jesus and not the church.

In History class, we have the choice to skirt the issues of the war against what was considered heresy, and the lives that were taken. These are important truths that led to the Reformation.

They are also important truths after the Reformation, when wars were conducted and lives were taken by both sides (q.v. the last four hundred years of Irish history). The thoroughly partisan-looking mentioning the failings of one side while overlooking those of the other appears, once more, like an attack.

​

Yes, the reality should be represented. If certain Protestants were equally guilty (say in England) of persecuting Catholics, then it is fair to mention this. It's not about preaching "Protestantism" or "Catholicism". It's about preaching the gospel, the cross, Jesus & the resurrection.

Church history is the road we've taken since the beginning. From powerful manifestations of spiritual gifts, to the world entering in and quenching the Spirit. From enduring the dark ages, to standing in opposition to the glorification of self; from unbelievable corruption, to reformation and real experience; to what lies ahead...

 

[dmpeace]

Since the bible is the truth it should be taught the secular world system teaches lies just look at the decay of our society and trying to banish God from all things.