• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Teach the opposite in religion classes?

mulimulix

Free Thinker
Apr 20, 2010
391
4
Sydney, Australia
✟15,676.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
I just read something someone has posted and it got me thinking:

If creationists insist of teaching the opposing views in science classes (specifically evolution), why aren't the opposing views taught in religion classes? What case can a creationist make that would mean teaching creationism in science classes but not opposing Christian views (i.e. biblical contradictions, reasons not to believe etc.) in their classes?
 
M

MattRose

Guest
If a public school is mandating that students take a religion class, it will almost certainly be a comparative religion class. Christians who support creationism consider it to be a science. Thus in their eyes there is no conflict.
If a public school mandated that everyone take a christian religion class, that would cause a conflict (riot more likely).
 
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,821
3,120
Australia
Visit site
✟897,727.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is important for people to have hope. Christian religion teaches that there is a God to whom we are accountable to, and who loves us. People especially the young need good direction, love, and someone to be accoutable to, especially if their parents can not offer a good role model. It might as well be some one who cares for them. Contradiction, doubts, etc do not do anything to help build a well rounded child.

Secondly God is real, and he wants a relationship with those children. As Jesus said "Bring the little children unto me forbid them not".
 
Upvote 0

mulimulix

Free Thinker
Apr 20, 2010
391
4
Sydney, Australia
✟15,676.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
It is important for people to have hope. Christian religion teaches that there is a God to whom we are accountable to, and who loves us. People especially the young need good direction, love, and someone to be accoutable to, especially if their parents can not offer a good role model. It might as well be some one who cares for them. Contradiction, doubts, etc do not do anything to help build a well rounded child.

Secondly God is real, and he wants a relationship with those children. As Jesus said "Bring the little children unto me forbid them not".

Hmm, this wasn't an answer I was expecting to receive.

First of all, for you, obviously you think children need a creator to be morally (or otherwise) guided. Two points arise from this:

  • I simply believe this is incorrect. There are millions of children brought up without guidance from a creator and BILLIONS brought up without guidance from the Christian god specifically. I, and all my friends were not raised in religious families and all of us seem morally and psychologically sound.
  • As I mention above briefly, which god are you talking about? I assume you talk about the Judeo-Christian god, but if you were born in Iran, you would believe in Allah and if you were born in other countries, you would believe in gods you have never heard of.

There is simply no basis to say we need guidance from a creator to be raised properly. I am living proof of this, as well as all my friends, as well as many millions of people around the world. We are accountable to things other than a creator. We have morals which, while some similarities are present, are derived from common sense and experience, not laws created thousands of years ago of which, hundreds (out of 613) are simply outrageous.

Your last point about god being undoubtedly real is interesting. Can you provide ANY evidence for this without using personal experience? If there was empirical proof for your creator, atheists (not to mention, other religions) would not exist.
 
Upvote 0

Bear.Fr00t

Fruit Inspector
May 5, 2010
622
38
✟23,522.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I just read something someone has posted and it got me thinking:

If creationists insist of teaching the opposing views in science classes (specifically evolution), why aren't the opposing views taught in religion classes? What case can a creationist make that would mean teaching creationism in science classes but not opposing Christian views (i.e. biblical contradictions, reasons not to believe etc.) in their classes?

I don't have any problems with it. In fact it is a good thing to teach Christians what the world says and why it is false.
 
Upvote 0

Bear.Fr00t

Fruit Inspector
May 5, 2010
622
38
✟23,522.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
We have morals which, while some similarities are present, are derived from common sense and experience.
Or perhaps a creator created the morals that humanity follows, and placed these morals in our minds so we are convicted of right and wrong?

Your last point about god being undoubtedly real is interesting. Can you provide ANY evidence for this without using personal experience? If there was empirical proof for your creator, atheists (not to mention, other religions) would not exist.
Can you provide ANY evidence that the chair you sit in is real without using personal experience? I say it doesn't exist, because I can't see it. And besides, even if it exists doesn't mean it was created. Perhaps it just spontaneously came into existence because the probabilities support the chair spontaneously existing from nothing, no creator required.
 
Upvote 0
S

Spirko

Guest
mulimulix said:
There are millions of children brought up without guidance from a creator and BILLIONS brought up without guidance from the Christian god specifically.

No there aren't. They all have consciences, given to them by God.

I, and all my friends were not raised in religious families and all of us seem morally and psychologically sound.

Are you really morally sound? Let's test that, shall we?

Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever looked at a woman with lust? Have you ever been angry with someone without just cause? If you can answer yes to any of these, then you're not morally sound, you're a sinner, just like the rest of us.

As I mention above briefly, which god are you talking about? I assume you talk about the Judeo-Christian god, but if you were born in Iran, you would believe in Allah and if you were born in other countries, you would believe in gods you have never heard of.

Yep. That's true. But it's also irrelevant.

Even people born in Iran and even people who have never heard of God are still accountable to Him.


There is simply no basis to say we need guidance from a creator to be raised properly. I am living proof of this, as well as all my friends, as well as many millions of people around the world. We are accountable to things other than a creator.

We're all accountable to things other than God. I'm accountable to my wife. I'm accountable to the people in my church. I'm accountable to the law. I'm accountable to the government. But ultimately, we are both accountable to God.

He is the One we will stand before on Judgement Day and He is the One by who's standards we will be judged.

We have morals

Where did those morals come from?

which, while some similarities are present, are derived from common sense and experience, not laws created thousands of years ago of which, hundreds (out of 613) are simply outrageous.

Morality doesn't come from the law. The law exists to illustrate our immorality.

You say your morals are derived from common sense but what happens when common sense changes? And what is your common sense based on?

Your last point about god being undoubtedly real is interesting. Can you provide ANY evidence for this without using personal experience?

Yes. It's the planet you're standing on.

If there was empirical proof for your creator, atheists (not to mention, other religions) would not exist.

Of course they would. Atheists aren't atheists because they don't believe in God. Atheists are atheists because they hate God. They hate the idea that there is an authority who holds them to a strict moral standard and, just like the rest of us, atheists love their sin so much that they will fight to the death when anything threatens it.
 
Upvote 0

HisHomeMaker

Reading the Bible in 2011. Join me!
Nov 1, 2010
732
15
http://www.christianforums.com/f235/
✟23,461.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In my Anglican church it is not uncommon for the priests to offer scientific views that may seem counter to Christian views on an issue but they can provide scripture and historical reference that bring the two ideas together. I am thankful that our priests are very well educated. I know of several scientists, teachers and university professors who are members of my church. God's world and the natural world are one. Conflict between the two are created by man.
 
Upvote 0

mulimulix

Free Thinker
Apr 20, 2010
391
4
Sydney, Australia
✟15,676.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
Or perhaps a creator created the morals that humanity follows, and placed these morals in our minds so we are convicted of right and wrong?

This is ridiculous, it is complete speculation. I suppose a creator COULD have created the morals, sure.


Can you provide ANY evidence that the chair you sit in is real without using personal experience? I say it doesn't exist, because I can't see it. And besides, even if it exists doesn't mean it was created. Perhaps it just spontaneously came into existence because the probabilities support the chair spontaneously existing from nothing, no creator required.

The evidence I have that the chair I am sitting on is that it can be seen by others, can be touched by others and it manifests itself. Furthermore, we can do scientific tests on it to determine the materials it is made from and how strong it is etc.

You cannot do that with your god

I don't have any problems with it. In fact it is a good thing to teach Christians what the world says and why it is false.

Oh, good. I also wasn't expecting this answer. Thanks.

Are you really morally sound? Let's test that, shall we?

Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever looked at a woman with lust? Have you ever been angry with someone without just cause? If you can answer yes to any of these, then you're not morally sound, you're a sinner, just like the rest of us.

So if it still not morally sound to do these things in Christianity, god must've done a pretty bad job at giving people morals, eh? To answer the question, I think the lies I told have not caused any harm, the things I have stolen have not affected people greatly, looking at a woman in lust is completely normal and thus not immoral and why would I be angry at someone without just cause?


Yep. That's true. But it's also irrelevant.

Even people born in Iran and even people who have never heard of God are still accountable to Him.

It is in no way irrelevant. This is relevant.


Where did those morals come from?

I already explained this! I determine common sense from experience. Morality not given from god is seen in the wild all the time! Ex. Piranhas don't eat other piranhas because they know it would be detrimental to their society, so they work together.

Morality doesn't come from the law. The law exists to illustrate our immorality.

Ok, this makes no sense; you keep contradicting yourself. You say god gives us morality, and then say he is demonstrating our immorality. Pick one!

You say your morals are derived from common sense but what happens when common sense changes? And what is your common sense based on?

My common sense changes after experiences. As I get more experience, I learn different things to do in different situation; I don't usually call it morality, but rather call it experience.

Yes. It's the planet you're standing on.

Oh, no. I think you need to look at cosmology. If you are then going to go on to say what the chances of life are:

We have been discovering extra-solar planets since only ~1995, it is a very new science. Since 1995, we have discovered two earth-like planets out of 530 discovered to date. Seeing that there are 100 billion stars in the milky way, that would mean there are about 377358490 earth-like planets in the Milky Way alone; each with a chance of harboring life. Then what about all the other galaxies? They may have a better or worse ratio of earth-like planets. Note: All these extra-solar planets were discovered WITHOUT the use of telescopes designed to search for them. Wait until a telescope is launched into space designed to search for earth-like planets (which is under construction), then not only may we find more earth-like planets, but may find life.


377358490.5660377Of course they would. Atheists aren't atheists because they don't believe in God. Atheists are atheists because they hate God. They hate the idea that there is an authority who holds them to a strict moral standard and, just like the rest of us, atheists love their sin so much that they will fight to the death when anything threatens it.[/QUOTE]

Ok, this is ridiculous. How can someone hate something when they don't even believe it exists?!

In my Anglican church it is not uncommon for the priests to offer scientific views that may seem counter to Christian views on an issue but they can provide scripture and historical reference that bring the two ideas together. I am thankful that our priests are very well educated. I know of several scientists, teachers and university professors who are members of my church. God's world and the natural world are one. Conflict between the two are created by man.

This is cool. I've never heard of this before. What exactly does he talk about?
 
Upvote 0
S

Spirko

Guest
mulimulix said:
So if it still not morally sound to do these things in Christianity, god must've done a pretty bad job at giving people morals, eh?

No, to the contrary: the fact that these things are universally recognized as wrong shows that God did a very good job instilling people with a moral sense.

the lies I told...the things I have stolen... looking at a woman in lust...

So then you admit that you've lied, stolen, and looked at a woman with lust, which Jesus said is adultery. How is being a liar, a thief, and an adulterer morally sound?

It is in no way irrelevant.

It's very much irrelevant because being unaware of something does not make that thing untrue.

I already explained this! I determine common sense from experience.

But what you didn't explain is where those morals come from.

Ok, this makes no sense; you keep contradicting yourself. You say god gives us morality, and then say he is demonstrating our immorality. Pick one!

Actually, I said that the law demonstrates our immorality.

My common sense changes after experiences. As I get more experience, I learn different things to do in different situation; I don't usually call it morality, but rather call it experience.

So then, your morality is based on what you consider to be "common sense", which is subjective and depends on your reaction to an experience.

Oh, no. I think you need to look at cosmology.

Cosmology is precisely what I'm talking about.

Ok, this is ridiculous. How can someone hate something when they don't even believe it exists?!

You do know that God exists. Your "common sense" tells you that a creation cannot exist without a creator.
 
Upvote 0

mulimulix

Free Thinker
Apr 20, 2010
391
4
Sydney, Australia
✟15,676.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
No, to the contrary: the fact that these things are universally recognized as wrong shows that God did a very good job instilling people with a moral sense.

SOME of them are universally recognized. How about homosexuality? How about abortion? How about something as simple as eating meat?

So then you admit that you've lied, stolen, and looked at a woman with lust, which Jesus said is adultery. How is being a liar, a thief, and an adulterer morally sound?

You aren't listening! I explained it to you the sentence after the very quote you quotes me on!


It's very much irrelevant because being unaware of something does not make that thing untrue.

Yes, I know, but is that really a just, loving god if he punishes people for a rule they never knew about by a governing body they didn't know existed?



But what you didn't explain is where those morals come from.

It is as simple as what I told you earlier, nothing more.



Actually, I said that the law demonstrates our immorality.

But then we don't get our morals from god...


So then, your morality is based on what you consider to be "common sense", which is subjective and depends on your reaction to an experience.

Yes, problem?



Cosmology is precisely what I'm talking about.

Go on...


You do know that God exists. Your "common sense" tells you that a creation cannot exist without a creator.

Oh, do I know that god exists? I'm sorry, I forgot...
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,352
Winnipeg
✟251,568.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I just read something someone has posted and it got me thinking:

If creationists insist of teaching the opposing views in science classes (specifically evolution), why aren't the opposing views taught in religion classes?
They don't have to be; the North American culture is saturated with views opposing Christianity.

What case can a creationist make that would mean teaching creationism in science classes but not opposing Christian views (i.e. biblical contradictions, reasons not to believe etc.) in their classes?
See above.

Selah.
 
Upvote 0

HisHomeMaker

Reading the Bible in 2011. Join me!
Nov 1, 2010
732
15
http://www.christianforums.com/f235/
✟23,461.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In my Anglican church it is not uncommon for the priests to offer scientific views that may seem counter to Christian views on an issue but they can provide scripture and historical reference that bring the two ideas together. I am thankful that our priests are very well educated. I know of several scientists, teachers and university professors who are members of my church. God's world and the natural world are one. Conflict between the two are created by man.

This is cool. I've never heard of this before. What exactly does he talk about?

Hopefully the sermon notes are still online. I'll post some stuff as I find it.
 
Upvote 0

Sarrapin

Regular Member
Oct 20, 2010
114
11
✟22,789.00
Faith
Salvation Army
Marital Status
Single
If a public school is mandating that students take a religion class, it will almost certainly be a comparative religion class. Christians who support creationism consider it to be a science. Thus in their eyes there is no conflict.
If a public school mandated that everyone take a christian religion class, that would cause a conflict (riot more likely).

Pretty good points that undercuts the OP's entire argument. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
S

Spirko

Guest
SOME of them are universally recognized. How about homosexuality? How about abortion? How about something as simple as eating meat?

What about them? Every culture sees murder as being wrong. Even homosexuals instinctively know that homosexuality is wrong. That's why there is such a high rate of depression and suicide among homosexuals.

You aren't listening! I explained it to you the sentence after the very quote you quotes me on!

Yes, I was listening. You admitted that you did these things. That means that your claim that you live a "morally solid" life is false.

Yes, I know, but is that really a just, loving god if he punishes people for a rule they never knew about by a governing body they didn't know existed?

He punishes people for sin, which they know instinctively, is wrong.

It is as simple as what I told you earlier, nothing more.

But you didn't tell me.

But then we don't get our morals from god...

So then where do we get them?

Yes, problem?

Then you admit that your morality is subjective, which means that right and wrong are whatever you decide fits your needs at a given moment.
 
Upvote 0

mulimulix

Free Thinker
Apr 20, 2010
391
4
Sydney, Australia
✟15,676.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
What about them? Every culture sees murder as being wrong. Even homosexuals instinctively know that homosexuality is wrong. That's why there is such a high rate of depression and suicide among homosexuals.

You are missing the original point that there is no reason to believe it is murder before, say, a month after conception; it isn't conscious yet! I find it quite saddening that you think homosexuals and atheists are so simply because they want to be rebellious or something. I am an atheist because I see no reason to be anything otherwise. Homosexuals are homosexuals because that's who they are, they didn't choose to.



Yes, I was listening. You admitted that you did these things. That means that your claim that you live a "morally solid" life is false.

No, it doesn't. I can do a one-off thing which may be morally dodgy (different than morally wrong) and still have a morally solid life. Note that it is morally solid not morally perfect.



He punishes people for sin, which they know instinctively, is wrong.

And apparently not worshiping him is a sin, so if I were born in Iran, I would be sinning simply because I have never heard of the word "Christianity".



Then you admit that your morality is subjective, which means that right and wrong are whatever you decide fits your needs at a given moment.

To an extent. This still doesn't prove anything in your favour.
 
Upvote 0
S

Spirko

Guest
mulimulix said:
I find it quite saddening that you think homosexuals and atheists are so simply because they want to be rebellious or something.

That's what the Bible says and it has proven itself to be true.

Homosexuals are homosexuals because that's who they are, they didn't choose to.

Nobody chose to be a sinner, but those who refuse to repent do so because they make the choice not to repent.

No, it doesn't. I can do a one-off thing which may be morally dodgy (different than morally wrong) and still have a morally solid life. Note that it is morally solid not morally perfect.

How many people does one have to kill before they're a murderer? How many times does someone have to lie under oath in court before they're charged with perjury?

And apparently not worshiping him is a sin, so if I were born in Iran, I would be sinning simply because I have never heard of the word "Christianity".

God is not capricious. He is just. The Bible says that He shows mercy to those who have not heard the Gospel.

To an extent.

No, not "to an extent". In total.

This still doesn't prove anything in your favour.

Actually, it does.
 
Upvote 0
M

MattRose

Guest
...Even homosexuals instinctively know that homosexuality is wrong. That's why there is such a high rate of depression and suicide among homosexuals.
By condemning them as sinners and as abhorrent to nature, Spirko exemplifies "why there is such a high rate of depression and suicide among homosexuals." Keep up the evil work.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0