NationStates Jolt Archive

Both of the sources are accurate.

You think tens of thousands of people move in unison without a single person or family going back, giving word, making trade, not finishing the trip?

What an incredibly obstinate and weak position for you to try and resort to with this latest tactic, perhaps it's time you just concede the point.

Both of the sources are accurate.

You think tens of thousands of people move in unison without a single person or family going back, giving word, making trade, not finishing the trip?

What an incredibly obstinate and weak position for you to try and resort to with this latest tactic, perhaps it's time you just concede the point.

Wow, good, you agree with me and try to make it sound like I was wrong.

Your premise shows that Nordic Peoples and the Germanics that encountered the Romans encountered each other.

You're right. Some of them went back and traded information and goods with the Norse. But then I said that first, didn't I? You tried to argue they were the same people rather than they evolved from the same people.

The groups known as the Visigoths, the Ostrigoths and the Vandals all ended up in places OTHER than Scandanavia. Thus, the Vikings did not evolve from them, according to your own source. The Norse didn't roam and meet with the Romans, according to your own source. Isolated Romans encountered some Norse peoples and wrote about them, not very thoroughly I might add. The first direct written records we have of the Norse mythology was in the late first millenia. Before that we only know they practiced some of the same rituals found in the written records and from the brief Roman records that they were multideists and that their rituals (like hanging a man from a tree and cutting out his bowels) were very gruesome.

However, to suggest this minor Roman interaction influenced the Norse is like saying the Vikings influenced the Native Americans. It's ridiculous on its face. The first encounters with Christians was in the eleventh century at the earliest. To say otherwise is like saying that the counquering of the Americas by Europeans began five hundred years earlier when the first Europeans landed in North America. Also ridiculous on its face.

Sorry my answer was so slow. I was busy real Christianity with a woman I just met at a company picnic. Teaching people to worship Christ and not Paul has priority over helping dig yourself deeper and deeper into this hole. Keep posting though. I'll gather up your contradictions tomorrow and post them together so we can all get a good chuckle. Everyone has enjoyed it so far. If you can't be right at least be entertaining, my friend.

There weren't any "Nordic" people until about the time the Roman empire fell, they were Germanic before that. By that time (fall of Rome) the Germanic tribes in the area had already been exposed to Christianity and Christ stories for over four hundred years, if you want to call that 'minimal exposure' so be it.

Your lack of basic understanding in this field makes this conversation unsalvageable, you have no idea what you are talking about, you keep referring to ethnic groups in the wrong time periods and misunderstanding how long the Romans influence the Germanic tribes, you've even denied that the Norse culture is a Germanic heritage... You don't even seem to comprehend the scope of your claim when you suggest that they were unexposed to the rest of Europe and Christ stories for essentially six hundred years...



EDIT: Good Luck with the Evangelizing.

Anyway, why do you think education about the current day dominant religions should be optional?
Because in the first place it belongs in college where people should be competent to decide for themselves if they want to learn about it.

I'm willing to bet my left arm that basic knowledge of them is far more important for most people that biology is.
Depends what you mean by important. Biology prior to colledge should be about teaching foundation science skills and preparing a student for possible college level science.

After all, all our societies are build on the back of some religion or other, and the vast majority of all humans are religious.
The vast majority of people live in a structure (ie a house) of some kind but we dont see the need to teach 'living in structures' in school.

Biology, for example, plays almost no role in social life, and it's impact on politics is - though growing - minute. I'd argue the exact opposite is true for religion.
I would argue that biology does play a part in social life, although it should probably play a greater part.

So why should it be optional?
Why shouldnt it be?

Core (compulsory) subjects should be about knowledge/learning foundation skills. Religion is not a foundation skill in this sense.

The fact is many subjects are not taught as core curriculum, there is no particular reason why religion should be taught as a core curriculum subject.

Athiests, Satanists, etc (escentially all the same) are growing in numbers, and so are deviants.
I hope you are joking...? :confused:

About the only way that I could see religion being taught in a school is this: take every religion that you can think of, toss them into a hat, and have each student pull one out. Each student is to practice their chosen religion for a month and then present a paper on how it has effected their life. After all, the only way to really understand a religion is to practice it.

Of course, the public outcry over such an assignment would not make it possible.

He hasn't used one iota of evidence or outside source. He is speculating, and speculating in error.

Pot, meet kettle.

Anyway, why do you think education about the current day dominant religions should be optional?

Because in the first place it belongs in college where people should be competent to decide for themselves if they want to learn about it.

Do you feel the same about history classes? If not, why?


I'm willing to bet my left arm that basic knowledge of them is far more important for most people that biology is.

Depends what you mean by important. Biology prior to colledge should be about teaching foundation science skills and preparing a student for possible college level science.

Sorry, what? You do realize I am talking about general education about religions, not sunday school, right? Whatever people - teachers & students - believe, belongs in their free time.
But! You can't seriously deny that present day religions play a staggeringly huge part in every day life in your society - unless perhaps you're Chinese. Even in a decidedly secular society, such as Sweden, the entire basis of current social norms is the Christian religion. Do you think kids shouldn't learn the basics about politics & history either?
- If I sound shocked, it's because I am somewhat...


After all, all our societies are build on the back of some religion or other, and the vast majority of all humans are religious.

The vast majority of people live in a structure (ie a house) of some kind but we dont see the need to teach 'living in structures' in school.

Strawman. Generally, raising a child is left to parents. Also, none of the residents will gain anything from learning how to build their house. There's nothing to compare here. Perhaps if you could pay someone to vote for whatever suits you best, and ensure you don't inadvertedly make a mess of social relations, there'd be grounds for comparison.


Biology, for example, plays almost no role in social life, and it's impact on politics is - though growing - minute. I'd argue the exact opposite is true for religion.

I would argue that biology does play a part in social life, although it should probably play a greater part.

Notice the "almost no" and "though growing"? I should very much like you to explain how basic biology skills are more relevant for a citizen than basic knowledge about the religions his & his neighbouring societies are based on. This claim sounds about as silly as evolution theory deniers...


So why should it be optional?

Why shouldnt it be?

Core (compulsory) subjects should be about knowledge/learning foundation skills. Religion is not a foundation skill in this sense.

The fact is many subjects are not taught as core curriculum, there is no particular reason why religion should be taught as a core curriculum subject.

Oh.. Right. We agree that the ability to read, write, do basic maths, basic biology, geography and some basic knowledge about politics & history, are critical for a citizen, right?
Unless you think such knowledge should be optional, why would you argue that knowledge about the most important factors in shaping all of that, should be optional?
... I really don't understand you...


About the only way that I could see religion being taught in a school is this: take every religion that you can think of, toss them into a hat, and have each student pull one out. Each student is to practice their chosen religion for a month and then present a paper on how it has effected their life. After all, the only way to really understand a religion is to practice it.

But why teach faith in school? I fail to see why a secular society would teach faith.
Wouldn't it be far more relevant to teach students the basics about the most widespread religions? To me it seems absurd to expect people to be able to understand 80% of current societies, and in particular current conflicts, without some understanding of what people in the societies believe in. It's like expecting a 3 year old to be able to explain what impact the industrial revolution had on modern societies...


Athiests, Satanists, etc (escentially all the same) are growing in numbers, and so are deviants.
Just imagine if this person had had some basic knowledge about religions. Wouldn't it be nice not to see so many completely ignorant people spew shite?

About the only way that I could see religion being taught in a school is this: take every religion that you can think of, toss them into a hat, and have each student pull one out. Each student is to practice their chosen religion for a month and then present a paper on how it has effected their life. After all, the only way to really understand a religion is to practice it.

Of course, the public outcry over such an assignment would not make it possible.

Of course. They only want CHRISTIANITY...and fundamentalist "Christianity" at that...taught in the schools.

The non-fundamentalist REAL Christians are quite comfortable enough in their own faith that they do not feel the need to push it on others.

The fundies know that their product is unappealing, and that it basically sucks. They seek to promulgate their faith, forcibly, and with the help of the police power of the government. Because that is the only way they can "attract" new people to accept their vision. Once the TRUE CHRIST...the one full of love, mercy, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness and patience...is presented, they know anyone with two ounces of brains or more would pick that one over theirs.

Strawman. Generally, raising a child is left to parents. Also, none of the residents will gain anything from learning how to build their house. There's nothing to compare here. Perhaps if you could pay someone to vote for whatever suits you best, and ensure you don't inadvertedly make a mess of social relations, there'd be grounds for comparison.



Yeah, tell the folks in New Orleans that.

He hasn't used one iota of evidence or outside source. He is speculating, and speculating in error.

Pot, meet kettle.

How nicely observant of you :rolleyes:

Outside of these I didn't source anything, I'm such a prick. :p

http://www.zianet.com/docdavey/norsemyth.htm
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/su/suiones.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse
Gwyn Jones, History of the Vikings Revised Edition, page 334-335
Gwyn Jones, History of the Vikings Revised Edition, page 27.
Gwyn Jones, History of the Vikings Revised Edition, page 26.
http://history-world.org/germanic_tribes.htm

But! You can't seriously deny that present day religions play a staggeringly huge part in every day life in your society - unless perhaps you're Chinese

In China's case, it's a philosophy-religion mix. Moral standards are based chiefly on Confucianism, but of course have elements of Taoism and Buddhism, depending on the person. How can you say that morality has no influence in China, when I have yet to meet a Chinese friend with parents who do not strictly adhere to Confucian practices regarding education, family, etc (we'd be better off if we all adhered to them, I tell you...)?

And in Sweden, which as you mentioned is quite secular, it is far more common and acceptable to directly defy Christian morality than it would be for the Chinese to do the same thing to Confucian philosophies.

While I'm on the subject, I don't see a problem with teaching about religions in schools as they are such a fundamental basis of our history and current society. So long as the information isn't a lie, I'm okay with it. I enjoy learning about religions besides my own - Islam, Confucianism, Shinto, etc.

Do you feel the same about history classes? If not, why?
Not entirely, because teaching history (depending on what is taught and how) can help achieve what should be the aim of primary and secondary education (preparing people for future learning, either formal or informal).

Sorry, what? You do realize I am talking about general education about religions, not sunday school, right? Whatever people - teachers & students - believe, belongs in their free time.
You have not been entirely clear about what exactly and how exactly you would have religious knowledge taught, (or at least not in any of the posts I remember). I do know that in the school system I went through one certainly doesnt get out of primary school without facts about religion being presented, but this is not religious education, it is factual. Religious education refers either to the teaching of religion or the teaching of religious scholarship. I dont think these things are necessary and practical subjects for inclusion in the basic core curriculum.

But! You can't seriously deny that present day religions play a staggeringly huge part in every day life in your society - unless perhaps you're Chinese.
So do cars, but 'car knowledge' doesnt form part of the compulsory core curriculum where I am from.

Even in a decidedly secular society, such as Sweden, the entire basis of current social norms is the Christian religion.
And so? I dont really need to know the historical particulars of social norms so much as I need to know about social norms generally.

Do you think kids shouldn't learn the basics about politics & history either?
Do you? I certainly have not stated or implied that I dont think such things should be included in the core curriculum.

- If I sound shocked, it's because I am somewhat...
I have no idea why. :confused:

Strawman. Generally, raising a child is left to parents.
It's not a strawman, certainly it seems to have sent you in the right direction, although in retrospect my presentation may have obscured the point to a degree.

Also, none of the residents will gain anything from learning how to build their house.
I'm not making an analogy involving teaching about house building, but rather teaching about living in houses. You seem to be suggesting this isnt necessary, I gather you agree that generally it is part and parcel of the kind of socialisation that should be left to parents. I feel the same way about religious education. Religion is supposed to be seperate from the state (where I live). It's not relevent to the rational for legislating or maintaining laws (even though it may have an intimate relationship with why some laws have been made in the past, or why some people want laws made now). Religion might be linked to social practises, but that doesnt mean I need formal education to navigate my way socially through these practises anymore than I need to know the history of handshaking to navigate my way through it's social applications. It's not necessary to know how to scholastically investigate religion (theology) or to know religious specifics, in order to social in a society that is not a theocracy, and in which one has lived thier entire schooling life. I dont believe I am socially impaired by lack of formal religious study/schooling or factual knowledge.

There's nothing to compare here. Perhaps if you could pay someone to vote for whatever suits you best, and ensure you don't inadvertedly make a mess of social relations, there'd be grounds for comparison.
What? :confused:

Notice the "almost no" and "though growing"?
Yes, but my point is not so much the role biology should play, but rather that it serves a purpose in achieving the aims early schooling.

I should very much like you to explain how basic biology skills are more relevant for a citizen than basic knowledge about the religions his & his neighbouring societies are based on.
I have never made such a claim. I believe that biology is more relevent than anything and everything else for our social life (not biology skills, biology itself) because it is the necessary condition of the rest.

This claim sounds about as silly as evolution theory deniers...
Thats because the claim is a 'strawman'. You stated that religion was more important to social life than biology, not more important than biology skills. Religion is an element of social life, biology is the cause of social life. Surely the necessary cause is 'more important' than one possible aspect of the effect?

Oh.. Right. We agree that the ability to read, write, do basic maths, basic biology, geography and some basic knowledge about politics & history, are critical for a citizen, right?
No, although they might be desirable. I dont know how you reckon what ought or ought not be in the core curriculum, but I reckon from the desired result (according to my own subjective belief obviously). I also include my understanding of human development. Basically there are a range of core skills and knowledges that will allow one to navigate further learning, (whether formal or informal) and will ensure a person is capable of critical reasoning with a fair degree of competency (that does not necessarily ensure people will utilise their capability of course, but at least it's there if they choose to exercise it).

Unless you think such knowledge should be optional, why would you argue that knowledge about the most important factors in shaping all of that, should be optional?
Such knowledge may not be a necessary condition for achieving the desired outcome of pre-tertiary (pre-college) education, further it may not be practical either.

There weren't any "Nordic" people until about the time the Roman empire fell, they were Germanic before that. By that time (fall of Rome) the Germanic tribes in the area had already been exposed to Christianity and Christ stories for over four hundred years, if you want to call that 'minimal exposure' so be it.

Your lack of basic understanding in this field makes this conversation unsalvageable, you have no idea what you are talking about, you keep referring to ethnic groups in the wrong time periods and misunderstanding how long the Romans influence the Germanic tribes, you've even denied that the Norse culture is a Germanic heritage... You don't even seem to comprehend the scope of your claim when you suggest that they were unexposed to the rest of Europe and Christ stories for essentially six hundred years...



EDIT: Good Luck with the Evangelizing.

You keep making the same false accusations and I keep reposting where I said they evolved from the Germanic peoples, just not the Germanics you were talking about (the Goths). The Goth tribes that encountered the Romans as they didn't return to Scandanavia. Those sources you keep talking about agree with me. I posted from your own source to show where the Goth (visigoth and ostrigoth) tribes and the Vandals ended up. You can't accept that they seperated around the time the Romans were becoming Christian and those Christians were encountering Germanic peoples and that seperate group became the Norse and later Viking cultures.

Also the fact that you suggest the Roman Empire could be considered Christian for 400 years further displays your ignorance of the subject.

Let's look at your source again, shall we? First you say that it is the Visigoths and the Vandals that migrated down to encounter the Romans. See below.

The Germanic tribes during the late roman era were migrating OUT of Scandinavia. The Vandals are from Denmark, the Visigoths from southern Scandinavia.

The source agrees that this happened. It also agrees with me when I say it only influences the peoples closest to the Roman Empire. But maybe I'm making it up. Let's check your source.

The way of life of all the Germanic tribes, at least before the influence of Rome affected those closest to the empire, was fairly similar.

Oh, what do you know I'm right AGAIN. They influenced those closest to them NOT all of the Germanic tribes unless of course you chose a misleading source.

Let's see if your own source says that the Visigoths or Vandals evolved into the Norse peoples as you claim.

The Visigoths

The first Germanic people to penetrate the frontiers of the empire were the West Goths , or Visigoths. The Goths had originally lived in southern Scandinavia and around the Baltic. But moving south in the second century they had split into two groups, the East Goths, or Ostrogoths, who had remained in southern Russia to live off the land as an army of conquerors, and the West Goths, or Visigoths, who drove the Romans out of Dacia (modern Rumania). The Goths were receptive to Roman ways of life, developed a taste for Roman luxuries, and adopted the Arian form of Christianity. Many were recruited into the Roman army, and even took offices of state in Constantinople itself. Thus, when the westward drive of a Mongolian people called the Huns from the steppes of Russia overwhelmed the Ostrogoths, the emperor Valens of Constantinople was not unwilling to permit the Visigoths to move into the empire in 376 to defend its Danube frontier. Apparently outraged at the treatment they had received from imperial officials, the Visigoths took up arms against the emperor, who was defeated and killed at the battle of Adrianople in 378. His successor Theodosius I placated the Visigoths with gifts of land and payment of tribute, and they in return furnished recruits to the imperial army. Relations with the Visigoths deteriorated after the death of Theodosius I in 395, when the empire was divided again between his two sons, Arcadius (reigned 395-408) who inherited the Eastern Roman Empire and Honorius (reigned 395-423) who inherited the Western Roman Empire. Furious at the conditions of military service imposed on his people, Alaric, the leader of the Visigoths, led his troops against Constantinople in 395, but was persuaded to divert his army into Greece, capturing Athens. Alaric, after declaring himself king of the Visigoths, led them north into Illyricum ( Yugoslavia ). In Italy , Honorius sought seclusion and luxury in the city of Ravenna , which was well protected by broad marshes, leaving his regent, the Vandal soldier Stilicho, to deal with Alaric's invasion of Italy after 403. Stilicho used strategic cunning as well as bribery to keep the Visigoths away from Rome; but, after Stilicho was unjustly executed on charges of treason, Alaric was able to besiege and finally in August 410 to capture and sack Rome. It was eight hundred years since a foreign invader had broken through the walls of Rome . "The world sinks into ruin," wrote St. Jerome . "Yes! but shameful to say our sins still live and flourish. The renowned city, the capital of the Ro- man Empire, is swallowed up in one tremendous fire; and there is no part of the earth where Romans are not in exile." Fortunately, Jerome was exaggerating. Few people were killed; the houses of nobles were plundered. The Forum was set ablaze, but all the churches were spared. Alaric even organized a fine procession to Saint Peter's to present the treasures he had saved for the pope. Alaric died shortly afterwards, and a river was temporarily diverted to provide a secure grave for him in its bed. The Visigoths then moved on to southern France and Spain , where they finally settled. Al- though they were tolerant of the Catholic worship in the areas they con- trolled, they were isolated from the Latin population for almost two centuries by their refusal to give up Arianism. They were finally converted toward the end of the sixth century.

The Vandals

Even before the Goths sacked Rome , another Germanic tribe, the Vandals, had pushed into the empire over the Rhine . Crossing France , they settled for a short while in Spain , from which the Visigoths expelled them. They then crossed the Straits of Gibraltar, conquered the rich province of North Africa, built themselves a fleet, and in 455 sacked Rome with greater thoroughness than the Visigoths. They took the treasures from the emperor's palaces on Palatine hill and even the tile from the roofs of the temples, and returned with their spoil to their new capital of Carthage . As Arian Christians, they persecuted their Catholic subjects, and thus, as a result of internal dissension, were so weakened that they fell easy prey to the armies of the East Roman Emperor Justinian in 533.

Hmmm... Looks like it says that after encountering the Romans they never looked back. Wow, this isn't looking good for you.

Now let's analyze your spurious accusations.

As to your assertion that the Viking and the Germanic tribes are not related is beyond me

I didn't say they weren't related. I said they weren't the same.

You repeat the accusation and further try to regurgitate stuff I'd already said was true and pretended like it disagreed with me.

Hmmm... perhaps that's why I mentioned the common ancestor. Perhaps you missed that. However a common ancestor does not make them the same people. They were culturally and geographically different by the point we are talking about.

Note: For verification of the accuracy of this post look to the above quotes from your source to see that around this time these tribes seperated.

However, the fact that I keep repeating that did decend from Germanic peoples just not the groups after they came down and fought for or against the Germans (depending on which tribe you're talking about and when) doesn't seem to phase you though. Let it not be said that you let a little thing like truth get in your way.

you've even denied that the Norse culture is a Germanic heritage

The above is from your latest post. So did you not read my olders posts, did you forget they existing the course of a short day or are you just being dishonest? Since I've interacted with you enough to know that you can remember over the course of a day and you replied to these specific points already, I'm going to have to go with the last option. It's unfortunate really. You keep getting caught and you keep doing it.

Oh, but this isn't the only time you were dishonest. Let's look at another time.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about do you? There were no Vikings anywhere in the world during the Roman age, none at all.

Which would be a reasonable accusation if not for my post FOUR HOURS earlier that you read since you replied to it.

The Germanic peoples that interacted with the Romans were not Vikings. The Vikings weren't known to come down out of the North until about 700 AD. Around that time they started to conquer parts of the north (becoming known as Vikings after the rivers they travelled) and they started to travel the seas.

Looks like I realized there were no people called the Vikings until they began travelling by boat on the Vikes, which is why they were called the Vikings. I even told you when it happened.

Let's look at another one.

Amusingly, I keep saying that the peoples divided and some of them went down and encountered the Romans while the tribes left behind evolved eventually into the Vikings. You pretend like I'm wrong and then later agree.

You think tens of thousands of people move in unison without a single person or family going back, giving word, making trade, not finishing the trip?

WHAT? You mean they SEPERATED into SEPERATE TRIBES? IMPOSSIBLE! That would have been an interesting point if I hadn't said it first and you hadn't denied it's truth.

Hmmm... now this isn't the first time I've caught you being dishonest even in this thread. You're not representing yourself well. I recommend that if you are going to continue your argument you not break any commandments while you do it. But do continue, the more you talk the more people realize that they can't trust you to honestly present an issue.

As to the referenced commandment - "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

But hey don't worry. That's just a little commandment. You don't have to follow that one.

"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19).

Ph33rdom's source: http://history-world.org/germanic_tribes.htm

God, this is the most boring threadjack ever. :D

*snip*

Hmmm... now this isn't the first time I've caught you being dishonest even in this thread. You're not representing yourself well. I recommend that if you are going to continue your argument you not break any commandments while you do it. But do continue, the more you talk the more people realize that they can't trust you to honestly present an issue.

As to the referenced commandment - "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

But hey don't worry. That's just a little commandment. You don't have to follow that one.


Bearing false witness means to accuse someone of doing something they are not guilty of. You incorrectly and through your ignorance of the subject call me a liar because you don't understand the operative points of the conversation.

If you remember the point of this offshoot of a topic, whether or not the Norse forefathers were exposed to Christ stories early in their development, or not. I said yes, you said no. You said they lived too far north and never encountered the Romans. We now both say that they hadn't evolved yet. Their ancestors, the Germanic tribes, most definitely were more than minimally exposed to Christ stories, six hundred years before the first Viking set sail and eight hundred years before any Norse Mythology was recorded. Your claim that Norse mythology in it's oldest form (document sources not older than ninth century AD) was previously unexposed to Christian thought is in error.

Looking at a groups culture and ethnicity do not prove their practiced religion. In the same way (once again) that Arab desert nomads still take on Arab desert nomads characteristics if they are Pre-Islam pagan, or Christian or Islam, they all still look like Arab nomads and have Arab nomad culture traits. The Germanic tribes and their descendents are the same, they are still Germanic tribes and descendents if they are pre-Norse Pagan, Christian exposed pagan or post-christian-exposed Norse pagan...They still have Germanic tribe characteristics but they do not all practice the same religion as each other.


Your lack of familiarity with this topic is not a sufficiently good excuse though, calling me a liar goes beyond the pale... How very non-Christ-like of you, nicely done. :rolleyes:

In China's case, it's a philosophy-religion mix. Moral standards are based chiefly on Confucianism, but of course have elements of Taoism and Buddhism, depending on the person. How can you say that morality has no influence in China, when I have yet to meet a Chinese friend with parents who do not strictly adhere to Confucian practices regarding education, family, etc (we'd be better off if we all adhered to them, I tell you...)?

If I in any way, shape or form implied that anything related to Chinese culture, cultural inheritance, religion, philosophy or present day society, is amoral or unethical, I humbly apologise. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, and I'm not even sure I want to know. Oh well.. As far as I know, I haven't attacked or belittled anything (execpt perhaps American society), and I never intended to either. It's far beyond the scope of this little debate.

And in Sweden, which as you mentioned is quite secular, it is far more common and acceptable to directly defy Christian morality than it would be for the Chinese to do the same thing to Confucian philosophies.

You just let me know if you find a spot where I said otherwise, ok? - I did have the privelege of being tought both geography & religion when I was in school, thus I'm perfectly aware of it.

While I'm on the subject, I don't see a problem with teaching about religions in schools as they are such a fundamental basis of our history and current society. So long as the information isn't a lie, I'm okay with it. I enjoy learning about religions besides my own - Islam, Confucianism, Shinto, etc.

The post you answered was originally a reply to Oekai. If you read back, you'll see that I'm talking about secular education about mainstream religions. As far as I know, all of europe has this kind of education, and even has it for the same reason I think it's a good idea. Namely, it's acutely relevant for all citizens in all societies to know some objective factual crap about various mainstream religions. Not only is it extremely helpful for understanding one's own society, but it's equally helpful in giving people an understanding of other cultures.

I don't approve of teaching faith at all, but I realize it's abusing people's right to indoctrinate their progeny. However, I fail to see why a public school system should touch the faith-end of religions with a ten foot pole. It only promotes misinformation, closed minds & prejudice.

Do you feel the same about history classes? If not, why?

Not entirely, because teaching history (depending on what is taught and how) can help achieve what should be the aim of primary and secondary education (preparing people for future learning, either formal or informal).

So... You don't see the wisdom of teaching kids history... But you can defend it, because there's such a thing as historians? You do realize that people (atheists/a-religious people too) study theology, right?

If you haven't realized yet, I veiw religion classes as something similar to social studies & history. We don't teach our kids this stuff to prepare them for a higher education in those areas.If that was the case, we'd do a much more thorough job of it. We teach the kids these things, because some basic background knowledge about the world & our societies is critical for everyone who lives on planet earth. Especially considering that many people won't educate themselves beyond the legal requirement.


Sorry, what? You do realize I am talking about general education about religions, not sunday school, right? Whatever people - teachers & students - believe, belongs in their free time.

You have not been entirely clear about what exactly and how exactly you would have religious knowledge taught, (or at least not in any of the posts I remember). I do know that in the school system I went through one certainly doesnt get out of primary school without facts about religion being presented, but this is not religious education, it is factual. Religious education refers either to the teaching of religion or the teaching of religious scholarship. I dont think these things are necessary and practical subjects for inclusion in the basic core curriculum.

You responded to an ongiong conversation I was having with another person. Just flip back a couple of pages. You probably should have, instead of just assuming I'm an American fundie Christian (I'm european & an atheist).

If you decide to do that, I have a feeling you'll realize we don't disagree on anything. At least, I don't think we do after reading this bit. So, I won't go over the rest of your post, as it seems to me you're disagreeing with me because you didn't know what the conversation was about before you joined in :)

Wow. I'm impressed with all the eloquent and intelligent individuals commenting on this thread (there is no sarcasm here). I appreciate everyones views on this subject. I must admit I havent had the time to read every single one though.

I would like to pose a question to the readers of this thread.

Why not allow each society the freedom to choose how they want to handle religion?

Currently, I live in Singapore. This country is called a democracy but to be honest it isn't. This isn't a criticism. The leaders are benevolent and (I think) really care about the society as a whole but they have complete control of the government. There are some problems but that would be a different conversation. My point is the government style here (mostly) works for the people. The society florishes amidst many other countries that are failing.

If France wants to support secular humanism, thats there choice. France disallows any faith related symbols in their school system, the US does (usually though I agree it can be biased against Christianity now). So muslim girls in French schools can't wear their head scarfs, but they can in the US. Some countries still enforce religious practices at public school (many arabic countries you might be thinking but Burma and Thailand do with Buddhism as well etc etc etc)

I personally don't like the US schools system. So I have a choice. I can send my son to a private school or do home schooling (whenever I go back there to live) or I can choose to live in another country where I like the choices presented to me. It's my understanding that the situation is more difficult for muslims in France but such is not my story to tell.

It seems the freedoms available to me are adequate. Let me list them.
1. The freedoms to express my wants to a representative
2. The freedom to vote
3. The freedom to spend my money and send my son to a private school (ie choice)
4. The freedom to immigrate/emmigrate

Perhaps the choices might be better but they are adequate to the needs of the people.

The most important one is the last one. My wife comes from a country with no freedoms and freedom number four is not easy. She was educated in a religion (no choice) and no private institutions are allowed. The country voted and the democraticlly elected government was but in prison. She was lucky to get out. When she was 30 years old she researched other religions and realized that she didn't believe what she'd been taught. She has changed her religion. I tell you this personal information to let you know I understand the dangers of mixing religion and the state.

But despite that I feel that if the people of that country want it that way they should have it. The sad part to me is not that religion is taught in schools but that the democratic choice of the people was taken from them and that even the right to leave was taken.

If people want socailism give it to them, if people want a dictator give it to them. If people want Buddhism taught in their public schools give it to them. Who are we to stand in judgement? Did "GOD" reveal to you that humanism was true and therefore an atheistic critical view of religion is the only way to handle religion? (There's a bit of sarcasm there, sorry...ok only a little bit sorry but sorry) For all you know they are right and they will be reincarnated higher up while you become a bug for not worshipping correctly (umm... don't correct my theology of Buddhism here, there are many kinds and some do believe this. I know from personal knowledge).

That being said. I do agree with many people here about the best way to handle religion in my country and I certainly will cast my vote to reflect that.

I would say the biggest (pardon the pun) sin of government today is that they don't try to reflect the wants of the voters but force people to accept their version of morality while saying they are keeping morality out of schools. That's impossible. You always are teaching some version of morality to children (ie you can't avoid the teaching of homosexual equality or lack thereof because you practice one or the other). Therefore you either support the philosophy of one of the religions or you support humanism, which calls itself a religion in the humanist manifesto.

My second comment is to the people that say religion should be taught in schools in a critical thinking methodology but not enforce the belief of said religion. That would be nice but I'm afraid is impossible. I've found that either the person was a believer and therefore subtlely supported the ideals or the person was not and supported critical thinking in it's literal sense. Even if the person teaching believed the same way as me I still found it annoying. If you think you found a teacher that didn't do this I'm afraid you are incapable of seeing said teachers bias, don't worry we've all been there done that.

My third comment is to Christians in the US. You major concern should be showing God's love to change the lives of people not the government. God doesn't care about the government he cares about people. According to the Bible he can (and does) change the government whenever He wants. So why concentrate on God's work... get back to yours.

I'd love to hear any comments on my question.

Yours,

Joel

The title of this post is: "Why is religion so bad..." which allows for a very wide spectrum of responses (as if NSers needed a reason to post off topic). My response to the question would be that religion that is "bad" has lost the conectionwith the reason for religion being given to humanity in the first place. Religions purpose has always been to uplift the human spirit, to promote unity and to improve the character of human beings. Anytime religion strays from these or similiar objectives it seems to me that has gone off its intended course.

Another important and related question is why do religions that teach the same basic spiritual principles and claim that they worship God so often become antagonist towards each other? One answer to this question could lie in the inability of religious authorities to recognise the new religion when it arrives.

If religious leaders were not hindered by ego, pride, love of power and blinded by their own bigotry, if they could recognise the renewed spirit of God's new Messenger there would be less religious hatred in the world.

If there is only one God, as most religions state, then why are there so many religions? The answer could be that there is only one religion the religion of God.

Bearing false witness means to accuse someone of doing something they are not guilty of. You incorrectly and through your ignorance of the subject call me a liar because you don't understand the operative points of the conversation.

I'll let people read the posts and judge for themselves. You pretty clearly accused me of things I didn't do. I proved it. You have a hard time admitting when you're wrong.

If you remember the point of this offshoot of a topic, whether or not the Norse forefathers were exposed to Christ stories early in their development, or not. I said yes, you said no. You said they lived too far north and never encountered the Romans. We now both say that they hadn't evolved yet. Their ancestors, the Germanic tribes, most definitely were more than minimally exposed to Christ stories, six hundred years before the first Viking set sail and eight hundred years before any Norse Mythology was recorded. Your claim that Norse mythology in it's oldest form (document sources not older than ninth century AD) was previously unexposed to Christian thought is in error.

According to you source the group that was exposed to the Romans settled in places other than Scandanavia. I've shown that several times.

Actually, your original point was that Odin stories are derivitive of Christ stories. You've definitely not shown anything of that. You don't seem to understand that were wasn't just one Germanic tribe so that if some were exposed all were. Your own sources show your claims to be untrue. The groups that were exposed evolved differently than those that weren't according to your own sources. Interesting that you've failed to acknowledge that, but it's not as if admitting error is one of your strong suits.

Looking at a groups culture and ethnicity do not prove their practiced religion. In the same way (once again) that Arab desert nomads still take on Arab desert nomads characteristics if they are Pre-Islam pagan, or Christian or Islam, they all still look like Arab nomads and have Arab nomad culture traits. The Germanic tribes and their descendents are the same, they are still Germanic tribes and descendents if they are pre-Norse Pagan, Christian exposed pagan or post-christian-exposed Norse pagan...They still have Germanic tribe characteristics but they do not all practice the same religion as each other.

Yes, except the ones that were exposed to the Romans were a evolved differently after being exposed (not physically). Their culture changed. That culture followed them to Souther Europe and Northern Africa. Your own source has them NOT returning to Scandanavia, and you've admitted they came out of Scandanavia to encounter the Romans. The very few Romans that came up into Scandanavia to encounter what would become the Vikings certainly cannot be counted as having some form of guidance on the culture. How does the fact they look alike demonstrate your case. They were culturally and geographically different. That's enough. I look like them as well. Am I a visigoth?

Your lack of familiarity with this topic is not a sufficiently good excuse though, calling me a liar goes beyond the pale... How very non-Christ-like of you, nicely done. :rolleyes:

I didn't call you liar. I demonstrated your dishonesty. It's amusing that even in the face of irrefutable evidence that you are falsely accusing me, you continue to make the same accusations and then claim offense. The simple way to prevent this issue in the future is to talk about your argument and what you believe and stop trying to tell me what I said and what I believe. You've proven time and again that you either aren't capable of or aren't interested in accurately summarizing my claims. But then if you accurately summarize my claims you couldn't argue against strawmen and pretend like you've been consistent or like your sources support your claims.

Christ had a habit of calling them like he saw them, which is exactly what I did. And then proved it. But then you don't believe in being Christlike so it's not as if your judgement is meaningful. Now if we were talking about Paul well then I'll admit you know much more about being a good Paulian.

Sorry Goodthoughts but actually the first post was why is it so bad it has to be brought out of everywhere.

The original poster was complaining about the removal of religion from school specifically and lemented it's loss on the grounds of educational value and importance to a large amount of the worlds society.

However, I appreciate your thoughts and would love to hear your response to this more specific question.

Actually, your original point was that Odin stories are derivitive of Christ stories.

Actually no, I only pointed out that the Viking Norse Mythology of The tree of life was not older than the Christ stories, that it was younger and if either religion copied the other, it was the Norse mythology that copied the Christ stories, not the other way around...


1) According to you source the group that was exposed to the Romans settled in places other than Scandanavia. I've shown that several times.

2) That culture followed them to Souther Europe and Northern Africa. Your own source has them NOT returning to Scandanavia, and you've admitted they came out of Scandanavia to encounter the Romans.

3) The very few Romans that came up into Scandanavia to encounter what would become the Vikings certainly cannot be counted as having some form of guidance on the culture.

4) You've proven time and again that you either aren't capable of or aren't interested in accurately summarizing my claims. But then if you accurately summarize my claims you couldn't argue against strawmen and pretend like you've been consistent or like your sources support your claims.


You keep saying stuff about isolation, and that the people who left never returned etc., because you misunderstand the significance of the events in the context of the history around them. The migrations are not descriptive of the environment of northern Germania of the time, they are the exception to the rule. Germania was not living in isolation from the rest of the world during the Roman era.

But you know what, even a precursory (preliminary or quick preview, whatever) scan on your part of the history we are talking about would have ended this charade of an argument of yours. I kept hoping that you would be responsible and look something up without further proposing a farce of an argument...

You sit there and pretend that because the Goths, the Vandals, the Visigoths, and all the other tribes that left the Germanic tribe homelands in search of greener pastures, or to get out of the way of more barbaric tribes raiding from the East, that the fact that they ended up in different locations somehow enables you to make the assumption that you know everything you need to know and can claim the Germanic stay-behinds lived in ignorance of their activities.

You don’t just assume that this is true but you assert as a basis of your argument that the Goths the Vandals and the Visigoths that stayed behind from those migrations never traded, never exchanged information, never looked beyond their own borders at all after the migrationion segments of their populations had left. You propose that we believe that none of their young men and women who left ever returned with stories of the outside world, or that traders in search of profits never found Germanic homelands, or that the Huns, the Romans and the Celts never brought information with them of the outside world and they never traveled at all. It’s absurd really, it’s outrageously uninformed and undeserving of serious reply because it just shows an utter lack of understanding on your part, not a valid argument at all.

I already told you that archaeological digs have shown that Roman made items were used in funeral practices in response to the presence of Roman trade and Roman exchange of manufactured products. Glass and other technologies were exchanged between the south and the north, for hundreds of years, literally, hundreds of years. So unless you think only illiterate deaf mutes were allowed to travel between Germanic territories and the Celtic Territories and Roman territories to the south then you have to admit that ideas and information was also exchanged between the outside world and the Germanic tribes.

So, you must concede that it is impossible that the Norse Mythology could be both older than first century AND remained uninformed of Rome and Christ stories. It cannot. It must either be younger and after the Fall of Rome (invented in the sixth century AD or later) or, the culture that created Norse Mythology was aware of Christ stories.

Rome establish trade with the north in 100 CE, when Prussian seaports were again opened to Imperial Vessels, but the invasion of iron-working technologies gave the Germans the abilities they needed to begin to prepare for an invasion of the south.

Evidence of these associates can be found in Tacitus', Germania et Agricola, which gives an account of the Germanic. It highlights the religious practices, as observed by Romans on the borders of a "war in flux", of the strange men of the North. Rome even recognized the Northern Kingdoms of the Alamenni, Thurngens, Goths, Franks, and Saxons as early as the Third century AD… They not only had knowledge of each other but they had trade and diplomatic relations with each other is a well known fact.

The Roman provinces, whose frontiers stopped well short of Denmark, nevertheless maintained trade routes and relations with Danish peoples, attested by finds of Roman coins. About AD 200 the first runic inscription appeared. Depletion of cultivated land in the last century BC seems to have contributed to increasing migrations in northern Europe and increasing conflict of Teutonic tribes with Roman settlements in Gaul. Roman artifacts are especially common in finds from the first century AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Denmark

Sorry Goodthoughts but actually the first post was why is it so bad it has to be brought out of everywhere.

The original poster was complaining about the removal of religion from school specifically and lemented it's loss on the grounds of educational value and importance to a large amount of the worlds society.

However, I appreciate your thoughts and would love to hear your response to this more specific question.

The orginal poster must wonder what is going on in this thread, just as I do after reader of few of the more recent posts in this thread. I will attempt to re-hijack this thread then by sharing my thougts.

In traditional society religion was/is not separate from secular life. Religion was taught and practiced as part of the normal rhythm of life. In the last several centuries as people began to mistrust religion, especially the more organized religions, and because of forced believe and pratice of religion it became important to separate the functions of religion and government. The result is, as the original poster pointed out, that too often the moral education is neglected. This is compounded by the fanatical insistence by some groups that they and they alone have the key to all spiritual knowledge and any other viewpoint comes from Satan. This polarization is most clearly seen in Christian and Islamic groups who teach that the world is soon to end and that their Messenger is the one true Messenger. They say these things in spite of many admonitions from their Messenger that all people should be treated with respect, kindness and love. Proof to me that they have drifted very far from the spiritual truth of their respective religions.

If it would be possible to just teach the important spirtual principles for various religions which are remarkable similiar it could possibly satisfy the original poster. I doubt if it would satisfy the religious fanatics.

Thank you for your thoughts.

I agree with much of what you stated. I have strong beliefs but I feel that many of the Christians in the US have forgotten what brought us out of Europe but I also believe those that insist on the "seperation of church and state" also misunderstand what brought us out of Europe and are mearly using this ideology to destroy religion due to their own differnet philosophy.

Many baptist preachers in England were jailed for speaking their beliefs including that everyone should have the freedom to believe what they want whether they are pagans muslims heretics or jews (this is near enough a quote). In England at that time the King was the head of the church therefore this was rebellion and worthy of death. When the US was started the people wanted the government seperate, that is true, but they also wanted it to support their rights. Nowadays very often this doesn't happen in the states (but it's not as bad as it is in completely secular societies like France where muslim girls are forced to commit what they believe to be sin by not wearing their headscarfs at school). They wanted a government that supported the individuals choice of religion, whatever that religion, not one that was afraid of religion and tried to expunge it from society.

Let me quote a great forfather of both my country and my religion.

John Leland (1754 - 1841) was a Baptist Minister that lived and worked in the state of Massachusetts. Leland was committed to separation, and helped Madison win the Virginia battles for religious freedom. In addition, he helped lead the fight to ratify the Constitution in Massachusetts. His writings under the name Jack Nips in THE YANKEE SPY was an effort to gain support for separation of church and state in Massachusetts.

Excerpt from July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802.

. . . Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .

Seperate quote

What leads legislators into this error, is confounding sins and crimes together -- making no difference between moral evil and state rebellion: not considering that a man may be infected with moral evil, and yet be guilty of no crime, punishable by law. If a man worships one God, three Gods, twenty Gods, or no God -- if he pays adoration one day in a week, seven days or no day -- wherein does he injure the life, liberty or property of another? Let any or all these actions be supposed to be religious evils of an enormous size, yet they are not crimes to be punished by laws of state, which extend no further, in justice, than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor (from The Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).

In a well regulated state it will be the business of the legislature to prevent sectaries of different denominations from molesting and disturbing each other; to ordain that no part of the community shall be permitted to perplex and harass the other for any supposed heresy, but that each individual shall be allowed to have and enjoy, profess and maintain his own system of religion, provided it does not issue in overt acts of treason against the state undermining the peace and order of society. (from The Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).

This is true conservative christianity at it's best and one I would like to see more of in the US.

But why teach faith in school? I fail to see why a secular society would teach faith.

"Human beings can't act unless they believe in something. Even the man who flaunts his atheism acts on the basis of some belief. All human affairs are no more than a sum of actions rooted in faith.

Belief is not something apart from life. Nor is it confined to a select group of people. The important thing is the extent to which one is aware of what he believes in. Most people never even question if the substance of their belief is absolutely correct. Right or wrong, just or evil -- they ignore it and go merrily on their way. Here, right here, is the root of unhappiness."

-Josei Toda

What could be taught in schools is not so much what to believe, but how to examine what one believes. Developing faith is not something that comes from promoting ignorance. Developing faith is something that comes from experience. If children, or adults for that matter, are not encouraged to examine their faith, then the result will be a population of cynics that refuse to try anything because there is no guarantee that it will be worth the effort.

EDIT:
Done. My apologies, Zagat

What could be taught in schools is not so much what to believe, but how to examine what one believes. Developing faith is not something that comes from promoting ignorance. Developing faith is something that comes from experience. If children, or adults for that matter, are not encouraged to examine their faith, then the result will be a population of cynics that refuse to try anything because there is no guarantee that it will be worth the effort.

Yea but your going to have to teach all the faiths or you can't teach it at all. I doubt most teachers will be able to teach a comprehensive course on all of the beliefs we have in the usual time of a semester.

Actually no, I only pointed out that the Viking Norse Mythology of The tree of life was not older than the Christ stories, that it was younger and if either religion copied the other, it was the Norse mythology that copied the Christ stories, not the other way around...



You keep saying stuff about isolation, and that the people who left never returned etc., because you misunderstand the significance of the events in the context of the history around them. The migrations are not descriptive of the environment of northern Germania of the time, they are the exception to the rule. Germania was not living in isolation from the rest of the world during the Roman era.

But you know what, even a precursory (preliminary or quick preview, whatever) scan on your part of the history we are talking about would have ended this charade of an argument of yours. I kept hoping that you would be responsible and look something up without further proposing a farce of an argument...

You sit there and pretend that because the Goths, the Vandals, the Visigoths, and all the other tribes that left the Germanic tribe homelands in search of greener pastures, or to get out of the way of more barbaric tribes raiding from the East, that the fact that they ended up in different locations somehow enables you to make the assumption that you know everything you need to know and can claim the Germanic stay-behinds lived in ignorance of their activities.

You don’t just assume that this is true but you assert as a basis of your argument that the Goths the Vandals and the Visigoths that stayed behind from those migrations never traded, never exchanged information, never looked beyond their own borders at all after the migrationion segments of their populations had left. You propose that we believe that none of their young men and women who left ever returned with stories of the outside world, or that traders in search of profits never found Germanic homelands, or that the Huns, the Romans and the Celts never brought information with them of the outside world and they never traveled at all. It’s absurd really, it’s outrageously uninformed and undeserving of serious reply because it just shows an utter lack of understanding on your part, not a valid argument at all.

I already told you that archaeological digs have shown that Roman made items were used in funeral practices in response to the presence of Roman trade and Roman exchange of manufactured products. Glass and other technologies were exchanged between the south and the north, for hundreds of years, literally, hundreds of years. So unless you think only illiterate deaf mutes were allowed to travel between Germanic territories and the Celtic Territories and Roman territories to the south then you have to admit that ideas and information was also exchanged between the outside world and the Germanic tribes.

So, you must concede that it is impossible that the Norse Mythology could be both older than first century AND remained uninformed of Rome and Christ stories. It cannot. It must either be younger and after the Fall of Rome (invented in the sixth century AD or later) or, the culture that created Norse Mythology was aware of Christ stories.

Rome establish trade with the north in 100 CE, when Prussian seaports were again opened to Imperial Vessels, but the invasion of iron-working technologies gave the Germans the abilities they needed to begin to prepare for an invasion of the south.

Evidence of these associates can be found in Tacitus', Germania et Agricola, which gives an account of the Germanic. It highlights the religious practices, as observed by Romans on the borders of a "war in flux", of the strange men of the North. Rome even recognized the Northern Kingdoms of the Alamenni, Thurngens, Goths, Franks, and Saxons as early as the Third century AD… They not only had knowledge of each other but they had trade and diplomatic relations with each other is a well known fact.

The Roman provinces, whose frontiers stopped well short of Denmark, nevertheless maintained trade routes and relations with Danish peoples, attested by finds of Roman coins. About AD 200 the first runic inscription appeared. Depletion of cultivated land in the last century BC seems to have contributed to increasing migrations in northern Europe and increasing conflict of Teutonic tribes with Roman settlements in Gaul. Roman artifacts are especially common in finds from the first century AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Denmark

See you do it again. I BLATANTLY said that they encountered the people that encountered the Romans but the Romans and the people who became the Vikings did not an any real way interact. Do I have to go through and repost my statements again. Seriously, are you even reading them?

At least now, you're admitting that they divided up and that the groups that migrated and encountered the Romans are not the same people that stayed behind and became the Vikings. I'll consider that progress and call it a night.

But if you like you can keep doing the research. Every time you change your argument it gets a little closer to mine. You're getting there.

Jacobia, where exactly do you think the "to be Norse" people (from your latest post) were living? Let's say during the third century AD, show a map or a piece of evidence etc., maybe a quote from a book etc., that suggests the "to-be" Norse people were living at "so-and-so" a place.

Then with that, we will be able to investigate the data of that area at that time and see if there were Roman or Nordic remains found in that area during the time that you say they were there...

This sounds fair enough doesn't it? You have to commit your argument to a place and time and we can then test it.

In the meantime, analyzing your current debate, I find you have a debate made out of water, if flows downhill and does not form a shape. But lets see what it was, shall we?

Bold added by me…
Actually, the records of it by Christian scholars is less that two thousand years old. It is suspected to be much, much older than that. It certainly pre-dates Christian contact. Also, the eddas which came post-Christian contact were influenced by this contact which may be what you're reflecting, but the original mythology existed before there was any contact with Christians.

Your first statement was that Norse mythologies pre-dates Christian contact, now you say the Norse hadn’t even evolved yet..

They didn't encounter the Norse. They encountered the Germanic peoples. You seem to have trouble telling the difference. That was the point. If encountering the Germanic peoples mattered then it would have mattered that they encountered them before the existence of Christ. Also, I'm sure you're aware that the documentation of the Germanic culture from these meeting is sparse at best. Are you even trying?

You said here that you still thought the Norse were living separate from the Germanic tribes at the time of the Romans… But now, you admit that they haven’t evolved yet. So which is it? did they or did they not exist seperately from the southern Scandinavian Germanic tribes? Becareful though, the answers are already linked in this thread...

I didn't say they weren't related. I said they weren't the same. The Norse cultures were of Northern Scandanavia and were the precursors of Vikings. The Germanic cultures (of the periods we are talking about) had the same ancestors but the cultures of Southern Scandanavia were considered Germanic (they had common ancestors but were different by the time AD rolled around). Read your own source. The Visgoths were from Southern Scandanavia. NOT Norther Scandanavia where the Norse were from. So yes, you can get much more Norse. Not all Scandanavians were Norse. Also you have not established that the Norse Mythology did not exist.fact, there is much evidence that it had already formed at this point and that it simply evolved a bit in later periods. It's origins are before the times it was recorded as evidenced by the practices of the Norse peoples when they began to migrate out of Northern Scandanavia.

Here you claim again that the Norse were living at a time before they existed. I didn't have to prove the Norse mytholodgy didn't exist yet if I prove the Norse didn't exist yet, which I did.

Hmmm... perhaps that's why I mentioned the common ancestor. Perhaps you missed that. However a common ancestor does not make them the same people. they were culturally and geographically different by the point we are talking about. Your argument is like saying that because Marco Polo interacted with the Chinese that he was actually interacting with Eskimos because Asians originally migrated to Alaska from Asia and then were seperated.

Here again you say that the Norse were separated from the Germanic tribes even before the fourth century AD, which is the very first possible point to argue the view for separate developement of Norse and Germanic (as shown by art types differing from animal motifs being used in Scandinavia when the other groups were starting to use plant motifs as inspiration for their art instead ~ thus, the first sign of seperation, in the fifth century AD).

Your premise shows that Nordic Peoples and the Germanics that encountered the Romans encountered each other. There is no record of the Romans encountering the Norse at all and even your own sources show that the Germanics never returned to Scandanavia after encountering the Romans [b](during the period we are discussing). So either they didn't descend for the Germanics or they split off prior to those specific groups of Germanics migrating south. Which is it? Or is your own source wrong.
*snip*

Then you argued that the Norse are unaffected by the minimal contact (and since the Norse didn't exist yet I suppose I have to agree that they were unaffected by the encourter :rolleyes: ) and then you also said that you think the German groups didn’t know about the Christ stories yet either…

*snip*
The Norse were occupying an area north of the Goths, south (more or less) of the Samis and west of the Finns. [b]They were all seperate peoples. In the period you're talking about the Goth left the Norse behind, travelled south, encountered the Romans (and these are the people the Romans knew anything about, really) and either were killed in a series of conflicts with the Romans and other peoples thereabouts or migrated to other parts of Europe, this was way before the Vikings and even further before the Romans had any influence over Norse cultural beliefs.

And yet, the Norse didn't even exist yet...

*snip*
You certainly have shown nothing of direct encounters between the Norse or their decendents and the Romans. The examples of Germanic tribes that encountered the Romans the Goths and the Vandals by your own source did not return. That was your only example of Germanics encountering the Romans after they were Christian. Are you even trying to make your argument?

I think I showed lots of Roman trade evidence with the Germanic tribes still in the north… You’ve now changed your argument to say that the Germanic tribes are not the Norse (again claiming they exist before they exist)…


You're right. Some of them went back and traded information and goods with the Norse. But then I said that first, didn't I? You tried to argue they were the same people rather than they evolved from the same people.


Really? When did you say that? You kept saying that they never went back and that they weren't even the same people as would become Norse .... When did you say they came back and traded information first?

The groups known as the Visigoths, the Ostrigoths and the Vandals all ended up in places OTHER than Scandanavia. Thus, the Vikings did not evolve from them, according to your own source. The Norse didn't roam and meet with the Romans, according to your own source. Isolated Romans encountered some Norse peoples and wrote about them, not very thoroughly I might add. The first direct written records we have of the Norse mythology was in the late first millenia. Before that we only know they practiced some of the same rituals found in the written records and from the brief Roman records that they were multideists and that their rituals (like hanging a man from a tree and cutting out his bowels) were very gruesome. *snip*

That's right, because they didn't exist yet, they didn't have the opportunity to meet the Romans, yes, good point. :rolleyes:

You keep making the same false accusations and I keep reposting where I said they evolved from the Germanic peoples, just not the Germanics you were talking about (the Goths). The Goth tribes that encountered the Romans as they didn't return to Scandanavia. Those sources you keep talking about agree with me. I posted from your own source to show where the Goth (visigoth and ostrigoth) tribes and the Vandals ended up. You can't accept that they seperated around the time the Romans were becoming Christian and those Christians were encountering Germanic peoples and that seperate group became the Norse and later Viking cultures.

Also the fact that you suggest the Roman Empire could be considered Christian for 400 years further displays your ignorance of the subject.

Really, you said the Norse evolved from the Germanic tribes? Somehow I must of missed that, lets look at the post quotes above this one shall we, yet again? Nope, it's not there. You said they both shared a common ancestor but they were at that point unrelated by culture and region... why did you change your mind for this post and then claim that you had been saying it all along?

*snip*
However, the fact that I keep repeating that did decend from Germanic peoples just not the groups after they came down and fought for or against the Germans (depending on which tribe you're talking about and when) doesn't seem to phase you though. Let it not be said that you let a little thing like truth get in your way.


Really, you said they decended from the Germans, you said common ancestor before, now it seems different?


The above is from your latest post. So did you not read my olders posts, did you forget they existing the course of a short day or are you just being dishonest? Since I've interacted with you enough to know that you can remember over the course of a day and you replied to these specific points already, I'm going to have to go with the last option. It's unfortunate really. You keep getting caught and you keep doing it.

Oh, but this isn't the only time you were dishonest. Let's look at another time.


Amusingly, I keep saying that the peoples divided and some of them went down and encountered the Romans while the tribes left behind evolved eventually into the Vikings. You pretend like I'm wrong and then later agree.


Wow, talk about changing your mind and pretending it never happened. You said they were different, now you say the evolved from them... :p

I'll let people read the posts and judge for themselves. You pretty clearly accused me of things I didn't do. I proved it. You have a hard time admitting when you're wrong.

You're right, they can read your posts above and decide for themselves the accuracy and consistency of your arguments.

See you do it again. I BLATANTLY said that they encountered the people that encountered the Romans but the Romans and the people who became the Vikings did not an any real way interact. Do I have to go through and repost my statements again. Seriously, are you even reading them?

Actually yes, perhaps you should go through them again...


At least now, you're admitting that they divided up and that the groups that migrated and encountered the Romans are not the same people that stayed behind and became the Vikings. I'll consider that progress and call it a night.

Yes I am, I admit that the germanic tribes become the Vikings... when did you decide this was true?

But if you like you can keep doing the research. Every time you change your argument it gets a little closer to mine. You're getting there.

Hmmmm, Who's getting closer to who's position, it would seem that your position is the one that floats around unanchored... :rolleyes:

You two could just make a new thread instead of hijacking this one you know.

You two could just make a new thread instead of hijacking this one you know.


Good point, I stop now.

I hate to say, Jocaiba, but I'm beginning to agree with Economic here. I mean, Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! I'm getting real tired of these long back and forth bullshit sessions with Ph33rdom. There is NO CHANCE Ph33r is EVER going to admit wrongness. Should intro Ph33r to Neo, if they haven't met yet.

sincerely, why not just give it up, move it to another thread, or go back and forth in TG's?

I like you Jocaiba, but this thing with Ph33r is driving me insane. I have read more than I ever cared to know about the Norse, Romans and Germanic peoples.

I don't recall signing up for an online-study course, you know?

So... You don't see the wisdom of teaching kids history...
Dont I?
But you can defend it, because there's such a thing as historians?
What? :confused:
You do realize that people (atheists/a-religious people too) study theology, right?
Of course I do, I made a direct reference to it in the post you are replying to...

If you haven't realized yet, I veiw religion classes as something similar to social studies & history.
Well then your view is out of sync with that of most others. I view religion as being more akin to philosophy than to social 'sciences'.

We don't teach our kids this stuff to prepare them for a higher education in those areas.If that was the case, we'd do a much more thorough job of it.
This is supposed to justify making it worse? My school system is premised on preparing students for latter life and the notion of life-long learning is key to stated philosphy of the education system. I completely believe that education systems are far from perfect, I dont see that as a good reason to make it even less ideal.

We teach the kids these things, because some basic background knowledge about the world & our societies is critical for everyone who lives on planet earth. Especially considering that many people won't educate themselves beyond the legal requirement.
Clearly it is not critical. Plenty of people dont have the foggiest idea about the world and society beyond their own narrow slice of it. Many manage to get along quite well. It is desirable that people have some basic background knowledge about the world and our societies, but teaching such knowledge does not require religion be included in the curriculum.

You responded to an ongiong conversation I was having with another person. Just flip back a couple of pages. You probably should have, instead of just assuming I'm an American fundie Christian (I'm european & an atheist).
I didnt make any such assumption. Ironically such a comment proves an assumption on your part. I have read the thread (thus the comment about remembering). The thread has been ongoing for days. For every comment made (in this thread) do you recall exactly which poster made it? Do you even recall what every comment made in this thread is? If so, congradulations, you have an incredible memory that I cannot hope to match.

If you decide to do that, I have a feeling you'll realize we don't disagree on anything.
As I stated, I dont believe religious education belongs in the core curriculum. I'm sure as heck not going to re-read every single comment. Considering it's a 50 page long thread, I think having read all the comments only once is acceptable (actually I do confess to skimming a bit through the 'Norse' argument posts).

At least, I don't think we do after reading this bit. So, I won't go over the rest of your post, as it seems to me you're disagreeing with me because you didn't know what the conversation was about before you joined in :)
I was commenting that religious education is not necessary in schools. I've read the whole thread but (and I suspect I'm in a majority here) I certainly dont claim to have kept track of who made exactly what comment throughout the entire thread.

It seems to me that your comments stated support for some form of dedicated teaching about religion in the core curriculum. Taking these comments in the context of my prior knowledge (certainly I learned facts about religions during my early education as a matter of course when learning about core curriculum subjects - how for instance does one teach about the politics of Henry VIII's reign without also teaching facts about religion?) I can only assume that since you appear to be supporting some change to the current way of doing things, that you are supporting dedicated religious education (ie that the core curriculum should include religious education in it's own right). I dont agree that it is necessary, pragmatic or desirable to have such teaching in early education.

Yea but your going to have to teach all the faiths or you can't teach it at all. I doubt most teachers will be able to teach a comprehensive course on all of the beliefs we have in the usual time of a semester.

I do think it's possible to have a balanced course without having to include everybody. After all, there are such things as world history courses that don't teach about every country on the face of the planet. Maybe we could limit the scope of the course to the top 10. According to infoplease (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904108.html), that would be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judiasm, Baha'ism, Confucianism, Jainism, and Shintoism. Before we start shouting "well, what about [insert religion here]?", you could have students do a report on any other religion that's not on the list.

As far as the actual teaching part of it goes, I think it would be better to have representatives of the religions listed come into the classroom to give a presentation rather than have a single teacher try to teach a religion that they either know little about or are not tolerant of.

snip
Can you please edit your post so it does not falsely attribute to me the comments you are replying to?

Thanks.

I do think it's possible to have a balanced course without having to include everybody. After all, there are such things as world history courses that don't teach about every country on the face of the planet. Maybe we could limit the scope of the course to the top 10. According to infoplease (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904108.html), that would be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judiasm, Baha'ism, Confucianism, Jainism, and Shintoism. Before we start shouting "well, what about [insert religion here]?", you could have students do a report on any other religion that's not on the list.

As far as the actual teaching part of it goes, I think it would be better to have representatives of the religions listed come into the classroom to give a presentation rather than have a single teacher try to teach a religion that they either know little about or are not tolerant of.

But those beliefs arent the only ones. If we are trying to make kids have a balanced view we cant limit the scope otherwise it wont be balanced. They will never learn about other options. I mean of the ten religions you listed other beliefs such as paganism, Indian religious beliefs, athiesm and agnostics are not even shown. How are kids suposed to have a balanced view of the spiritual if they aren't show all the options?

to b e honest, i think that religion should be keeped out of schools.
i meen if you want religion in schools, move to a cathlick one

But those beliefs arent the only ones. If we are trying to make kids have a balanced view we cant limit the scope otherwise it wont be balanced. They will never learn about other options. I mean of the ten religions you listed other beliefs such as paganism, Indian religious beliefs, athiesm and agnostics are not even shown. How are kids suposed to have a balanced view of the spiritual if they aren't show all the options?

The same can be asked for world history courses. How are people supposed to have an understanding of the world if they are not taught about Sri-Lanka, Lichtenstein, or Paraguay? This is why I had suggested to include a research paper on those not in the top 10. That way, there is the opportunity for students to learn about other religions.

As much as we would like everyone to know everything, it's not possible. The best we can do is the best we can do. Now, if you have a better idea on how to present a religious studies course, I'm interested in hearing what you come up with.

The same can be asked for world history courses. How are people supposed to have an understanding of the world if they are not taught about Sri-Lanka, Lichtenstein, or Paraguay? This is why I had suggested to include a research paper on those not in the top 10. That way, there is the opportunity for students to learn about other religions.
The reason why no one learns about the history of Sri-Lanka and such is that there isnt enough time in the semester so generally the important events/countries/national stuff is taught. If people only see ten religions being offered they would say its discrimination and such. I mean we have people suing over a phrase written on money and the pledge of alligance.

As much as we would like everyone to know everything, it's not possible. The best we can do is the best we can do. Now, if you have a better idea on how to present a religious studies course, I'm interested in hearing what you come up with.
Which is where the problem comes in. People who's religion isnt included or belief in no god will cry wolf. Do I think a religion course is a good thing yes. But I dont think it is basic knowledge that is necessary at that age. There are plenty of courses in college that offer in depth studies of religions and I think thats were it should really stay. Otherwise your going to get a cursory look at only a few religions. I mean even you say we should broden their horizens but how far are we really brodening them if we say pick 1 of ten choices?

wouldn't it be easier to make optional

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

What school do you go to? You can learn religion at any half assed university.

Jacobia, where exactly do you think the "to be Norse" people (from your latest post) were living? Let's say during the third century AD, show a map or a piece of evidence etc., maybe a quote from a book etc., that suggests the "to-be" Norse people were living at "so-and-so" a place.

Then with that, we will be able to investigate the data of that area at that time and see if there were Roman or Nordic remains found in that area during the time that you say they were there...

This sounds fair enough doesn't it? You have to commit your argument to a place and time and we can then test it.

In the meantime, analyzing your current debate, I find you have a debate made out of water, if flows downhill and does not form a shape. But lets see what it was, shall we?

Bold added by me…


Your first statement was that Norse mythologies pre-dates Christian contact, now you say the Norse hadn’t even evolved yet..



You said here that you still thought the Norse were living separate from the Germanic tribes at the time of the Romans… But now, you admit that they haven’t evolved yet. So which is it? did they or did they not exist seperately from the southern Scandinavian Germanic tribes? Becareful though, the answers are already linked in this thread...



Here you claim again that the Norse were living at a time before they existed. I didn't have to prove the Norse mytholodgy didn't exist yet if I prove the Norse didn't exist yet, which I did.



Here again you say that the Norse were separated from the Germanic tribes even before the fourth century AD, which is the very first possible point to argue the view for separate developement of Norse and Germanic (as shown by art types differing from animal motifs being used in Scandinavia when the other groups were starting to use plant motifs as inspiration for their art instead ~ thus, the first sign of seperation, in the fifth century AD).



Then you argued that the Norse are unaffected by the minimal contact (and since the Norse didn't exist yet I suppose I have to agree that they were unaffected by the encourter :rolleyes: ) and then you also said that you think the German groups didn’t know about the Christ stories yet either…



And yet, the Norse didn't even exist yet...



I think I showed lots of Roman trade evidence with the Germanic tribes still in the north… You’ve now changed your argument to say that the Germanic tribes are not the Norse (again claiming they exist before they exist)…



Really? When did you say that? You kept saying that they never went back and that they weren't even the same people as would become Norse .... When did you say they came back and traded information first?



That's right, because they didn't exist yet, they didn't have the opportunity to meet the Romans, yes, good point. :rolleyes:



Really, you said the Norse evolved from the Germanic tribes? Somehow I must of missed that, lets look at the post quotes above this one shall we, yet again? Nope, it's not there. You said they both shared a common ancestor but they were at that point unrelated by culture and region... why did you change your mind for this post and then claim that you had been saying it all along?



Really, you said they decended from the Germans, you said common ancestor before, now it seems different?





Wow, talk about changing your mind and pretending it never happened. You said they were different, now you say the evolved from them... :p



You're right, they can read your posts above and decide for themselves the accuracy and consistency of your arguments.



Actually yes, perhaps you should go through them again...




Yes I am, I admit that the germanic tribes become the Vikings... when did you decide this was true?



Hmmmm, Who's getting closer to who's position, it would seem that your position is the one that floats around unanchored... :rolleyes:


Ha, that was funny. You posted a quote where I said they descended from germanic peoples just not the peoples who left and then suggest I was saying otherwise. Can you read?

It's tiresome.

I hate to say, Jocaiba, but I'm beginning to agree with Economic here. I mean, Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! I'm getting real tired of these long back and forth bullshit sessions with Ph33rdom. There is NO CHANCE Ph33r is EVER going to admit wrongness. Should intro Ph33r to Neo, if they haven't met yet.

sincerely, why not just give it up, move it to another thread, or go back and forth in TG's?

I like you Jocaiba, but this thing with Ph33r is driving me insane. I have read more than I ever cared to know about the Norse, Romans and Germanic peoples.

I don't recall signing up for an online-study course, you know?

Fair enough. Again, people can read the posts and see my consistency and his, um, less than honesty. I'll leave it alone.

... Even if someone isn't religious it wouldn't hurt them to learn it; if only to study the beliefs of others.

I think that's a great idea.
Personally, I am an atheist. However I have studied the five major world religions, well, religiously. It's all very fascinating; it gives you major insight into the motivations for certain kinds of people, and also the impact on the development of society is important.

<Mega snipping>

It seems to me that your comments stated support for some form of dedicated teaching about religion in the core curriculum. Taking these comments in the context of my prior knowledge (certainly I learned facts about religions during my early education as a matter of course when learning about core curriculum subjects - how for instance does one teach about the politics of Henry VIII's reign without also teaching facts about religion?) I can only assume that since you appear to be supporting some change to the current way of doing things, that you are supporting dedicated religious education (ie that the core curriculum should include religious education in it's own right). I dont agree that it is necessary, pragmatic or desirable to have such teaching in early education.
Actually, I haven't suggested any changes so far. Not that I'm aware of anyway. That's just one of the reasons I don't think you'd be arguing anything with me if you'd read through the conversation.
Where I'm from, and in most other (if not all) public school systems in Europe, we do teach the kids about religion for a few years. Exactly when, how many hours and the exact number of years, vary from country to country, but the basic idea is to teach the wee ones basic religious history & give them some grasp of the various mainstream religions.
I'm not proposing to change it. Quite the opposite, I very much like the concept, and think it's (usually) implemented fairly well.
I know a number of people who've never bothered with learning anything else about religion. Other than reading the bible & Qu'ran once, I haven't either.

Anyway... Contrary to what you might think, we basically agree on things. You just haven't noticed;)

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Becuase at a public school, the students are comprised of more than just christians.

its "unfair" to have to learn about one given religion, and not others.
So, the only true fair way, is to leave religious education to the parents, and church.

Or..go to a parochial school.

Besides, public schools are funded by the state governments, and religion has no place there.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

In politics, you don't get to know the program of just one party, do you? You have to get a balanced overview of them all.
So, if religion gets taught, it can't focus on just one religion, but has to teach them all. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity and others. However, that doesn't seem to be what religious people want when they ask for religion to be taught at school, does it?. No overview of all world religions, but rather indoctrination of the one religion they themselves happen to believe in...

In politics, you don't get to know the program of just one party, do you? You have to get a balanced overview of them all.
So, if religion gets taught, it can't focus on just one religion, but has to teach them all. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity and others. However, that doesn't seem to be what religious people want when they ask for religion to be taught at school, does it?. No overview of all world religions, but rather indoctrination of the one religion they themselves happen to believe in...
Well, technically the same sort of bias can be found in politics, where people learn the platform of only one party and vote for that party. It totally undermines the democratic system, but they neither are aware of that nor care. These would be same people, I think, who demonize the opposition by stereotyping them.

I agree... when they insist Creation be taught in school, it is only one Creation story they are rooting for.

Fair enough. Again, people can read the posts and see my consistency and his, um, less than honesty. I'll leave it alone.
Actually, some of us sort of tuned them out. I hope you're not calling on our silence to verify your side. ;)

Well, technically the same sort of bias can be found in politics, where people learn the platform of only one party and vote for that party. It totally undermines the democratic system, but they neither are aware of that nor care. These would be same people, I think, who demonize the opposition by stereotyping them.

I agree... when they insist Creation be taught in school, it is only one Creation story they are rooting for. We were taught creation in physics.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.
Actually, currently at my public school I'm taking a comparitive religion class.
Right now we're studying Hinduism and are acting skits about the hindu gods.

We were taught creation in physics.
With a little "c".

This is true conservative christianity at it's best and one I would like to see more of in the US.[/QUOTE]

I really enjoyed the quotes that you posted. Some very interesting ideas that should be put into practice by more people. I am more interested in your comment about conservative christianity. I wonder when Chrisitianity became described as conservative, liberal, moderate, fundamental all of the many catagories that are used today? It seems to me to be very un-Christ like, don't you think? I wonder was Christ Republican, Wig, Tory, Democrat, or was He a member of the Green Party? With out a clear succesor unchallenged by most followers it does leave the Christian religion open for division. This is also true of most major religions today. Islam, Buddhism, Hindusm are also severely hampered by the many division and sects that have splintered from the Tree of Reality. The lone exception is the Baha'i Faith of which I am a member. The lack of division in the Baha'i Faith is one of the reasons that I originally became attracted to the religion.

The same can be asked for world history courses. How are people supposed to have an understanding of the world if they are not taught about Sri-Lanka, Lichtenstein, or Paraguay? This is why I had suggested to include a research paper on those not in the top 10. That way, there is the opportunity for students to learn about other religions.

As much as we would like everyone to know everything, it's not possible. The best we can do is the best we can do. Now, if you have a better idea on how to present a religious studies course, I'm interested in hearing what you come up with.

How about not HAVING a religious -studies course? It'll only cause trouble. Christian fundamentalists are the only ones pushing and pushing for this anyway, and they only want THIER brand of religion taught. They won't want the others taught to THEIR kids. They just want an opportunity to stuff their shit into the heads of other people's kids, who do not believe as they do...the better to make a moron army full of good little bigots.

You wanna learn about religion? Go to church. You want YOUR kid to learn about religion...take THEM to church. Quit trying to force your religion onto people who don't want it.

Let THEIR parents take them to the church OF THIER CHOICE...AND IF THEY SO CHOOSE!!

Quit worrying about other people's kids. worry about your own family. We'll worry about our own, thank you.

How about not HAVING a religious -studies course? It'll only cause trouble. Christian fundamentalists are the only ones pushing and pushing for this anyway, and they only want THIER brand of religion taught. They won't want the others taught to THEIR kids. They just want an opportunity to stuff their shit into the heads of other people's kids, who do not believe as they do...the better to make a mornon army full of good little bigots.

You wanna learn about religion? Go to church. You want YOUR kid to learn about religion...take THEM to church. Quit trying to force your religion onto people who don't want it.

This is precisely why I would want religion to be taught in schools: to eliminate the narrowness of perception of what religion is. One does not learn religion in a church. One learns Christianity in a church. For many people, there appear to be only two options for faith: Christianity and Atheism. If children are exposed to a number of different faiths, then they have more of a chance to discern what religion may be right for them instead of simply abandoning their efforts towards spiritual development because Christianity does not sit right with them. Not only that, they may start to realize that people of different faiths are not the monsters that religious propoganda makes them out to be.

OOC, do you profess to have a religion? Personally, I consider myself to be a Buddhist.

What is so wrong about teaching (insert religion) as an optional course after school hours as a recognized credit?!

Or even on school hours, i don't care!

Optional does not mean they are forced to take it!!!! *fumes*
If the funding can be found absolutly a general theology course would be awsome

This is precisely why I would want religion to be taught in schools: to eliminate the narrowness of perception of what religion is. One does not learn religion in a church. One learns Christianity in a church. For many people, there appear to be only two options for faith: Christianity and Atheism. If children are exposed to a number of different faiths, then they have more of a chance to discern what religion may be right for them instead of simply abandoning their efforts towards spiritual development because Christianity does not sit right with them. Not only that, they may start to realize that people of different faiths are not the monsters that religious propoganda makes them out to be.

OOC, do you profess to have a religion? Personally, I consider myself to be a Buddhist.

But the fundie Christians will not want the other religions taught, and sooner or later they'll get their way, and it'll devolve into little more than an indoctrination/brainwashing of good kids into a rotten belief system.

I am a Unitarian Christian myself. And I make that distinction, because I do not wish to be confused with fundamentalist whackjobs. I believe in the Christ and the God of love, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, patience, understanding and acceptance.
The whackjobs...whom I sometimes refer to as "Paulites" because they are more closely following the teachings of Paul of Tarsus rather than Jesus (and often Paul's techings were diametrically opposed to Jesus' teachings) they believe in the angry, wrathful, vengeful God of fire, Hell, damnation, and brimstone. Which is why they need to FORCE their product on others...no one wants it willingly!

Let's face it, if all you see of God is that He is an auditor before whom your books never balance...a teacher whose class you dread, and as a parent who abuses you but never affirms you...you will not "come boldly." In fact, it is likely that you will not come at all! Given a choice between my God and theirs...which would you pick? Which would most pick? Yet we both call ourselves Christian. Hence my need to set myself apart from them.
Also, I worship in a Unitarian Universalist church...and primarily this is because I have never found a single Christian church that wasn't full of the very whackjobs I detest...with a small scattering of the TRUE Christians like myself. We have a small Christian group at my UU church, and I like it that way. We explore the TRUE Christ...the one who loved the world, imperfect as it was...enough to die for it to save it. Not the one who wants to condemn everyone to Hell for not believing a certain way...or for minor transgressions...He loves us, and He knows our shortcomings. He knows we are not perfect and will screw up...and He knows that we need to call on His help when we do. He does not turn His back on anyone. He has infinite patience and forgiveness for those who ask it. Now, this does not give us carte-blanche to go on sinning...but, the thing is...if you are in a right relationship with Jesus, you truly do not WANT to sin. And I'm not talking about the petty dogmatic bullshit that men consider "sin." I mean that you try to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated, because you know that Jesus said...as you do to the least amongst you...so also you do unto me. (Paraphrase)
Bottom line is that Jesus wants us to be kind, open, and loving towards everyone...not just those of whom WE "approve." And that is my faith...that is MY brand of Christianity.

If the funding can be found absolutly a general theology course would be awsome
Only as long as it is OPTIONAL. and only if it is at a high enough level where the students can decide FOR THEMSELVES if they want to take it or not. Not in levels where they do not have the power to make decisions for themselves.

I fear that if it were mandatory...and done at too young an age, it would devolve into a mandatory indoctrination/brainwashing...and the creation of a moron army of good little bigots. And the world can definitely use FEWER bigots!

P.S. Before I get flamed by a moron army for my own "bigotry" let me state here for the record...yes...I am a bigot. I'm bigoted against bigots!!

i'm not worried about the lack of religion in schools and in politics but the lack of religion in everybody's everyday lives. it seems to be decreasing daily. however, if someone is force fed religion, then 9 times out of 10 they will shun it. i guess it's a good thing to find faith in god on your own.

Only as long as it is OPTIONAL. and only if it is at a high enough level where the students can decide FOR THEMSELVES if they want to take it or not. Not in levels where they do not have the power to make decisions for themselves.

I fear that if it were mandatory...and done at too young an age, it would devolve into a mandatory indoctrination/brainwashing...and the creation of a moron army of good little bigots. And the world can definitely use FEWER bigots!

P.S. Before I get flamed by a moron army for my own "bigotry" let me state here for the record...yes...I am a bigot. I'm bigoted against bigots!!
Yeah I would like to see it an optional course as well but I was thinking a general theology course

I just dont like seing information left out of students education (specialy something as big as theology) just because I may not agree with every religion that is discussed

As long as there is strict controlls for what the class can contain (VERY strict as to keep out what you discribed above ... a christian takeover)

Actually, I haven't suggested any changes so far. Not that I'm aware of anyway.
It more or less follows from where I'm at if you suggest any formal religious component within the core curriculum, you are suggesting a change. I also was not aware that it would not be a change in the context of the education system you are familiar with, however whether it is a change or the status quo, I disagree with religous teaching being any part of the core curriculum (and yes I do also include teaching specifically about religion).

I dont understand what you mean by 'why should it be optional?' if you dont mean that it should be a formal part of the core curriculum. I disagree with it being a formal part of the core curriculum (in early schooling), and I really dont understand how it can be non-optional unless it is formally part of the core curriculum.

Anyway... Contrary to what you might think, we basically agree on things. You just haven't noticed;)
I'm not sure if you intended it that way (perhaps you were actually being rhetorical), but I thought you were asking why religious teaching should 'optional', so I answered. I'm also not sure how it can be non-optional, and yet not be part of the core curriculum, and that I do disagree with.

However most of all, I just thought it made for interesting conversation. In fact I still do (explains why I keep coming back for more ;) ...).

i'm not worried about the lack of religion in schools and in politics but the lack of religion in everybody's everyday lives. it seems to be decreasing daily. however, if someone is force fed religion, then 9 times out of 10 they will shun it. i guess it's a good thing to find faith in god on your own.
I would argue that the strong tendancy for people to adopt their parents religion specialy when force fed it as a child would show that most do not "shun" it

I would argue that the strong tendancy for people to adopt their parents religion specialy when force fed it as a child would show that most do not "shun" it

Talk to most people who demonize the very idea of Christianity. Most of them were raised by parents who claim to be Christian.

Obviously, not everyone shuns it, some get indoctrinated - hook, line, and sinker. But many don't - and end up turning from religion altogether when they realize that what they have been force fed is not for them, rather than continuing a search on their own.

Talk to most people who demonize the very idea of Christianity. Most of them were raised by parents who claim to be Christian.

Obviously, not everyone shuns it, some get indoctrinated - hook, line, and sinker. But many don't - and end up turning from religion altogether when they realize that what they have been force fed is not for them, rather than continuing a search on their own.
I agree. I've read an extraordinary number of claims by athiests, agnostics and Wicca on these forums alone that they were once Christians.

<Snip>

I'm not sure if you intended it that way (perhaps you were actually being rhetorical), but I thought you were asking why religious teaching should 'optional', so I answered. I'm also not sure how it can be non-optional, and yet not be part of the core curriculum, and that I do disagree with.

However most of all, I just thought it made for interesting conversation. In fact I still do (explains why I keep coming back for more ;) ...).
Maybe you could fill me in on exactly how your country does things?

As I've said, in these parts, almost everyone has religion in the first 3-10 school years. Usually it only lasts a couple of years, and are introduced around the same time history is.
Students are tought objective factual stuff about all of the dominant world religions. Often emphasis is placed on teaching state religion (if there is one), but it's secular education. Faith never comes into it.

Basically, it's done because many people will leave the education system after 10-12 years, or not otherwise learn anything about religions for the remainder of their chosen education.
Even fiercely atheist people (such as myself) generally thinks this is a pretty good idea. It keeps religion out of history classes, and most importantly, it teaches students some basic things about both the society & the world they live in.

Generally speaking, the classes on religion are pretty useless - just like history classes for history students - for people who plan on studying theology later on. The point is to teach people some useful stuff about how the world works. Nothing more.

In one of my highschool history classes we learned about religions, not just one, pretty much all of the major religions that exist to this day. Our teacher presented the fundamental beliefs, the history, and the spread of each religion that we discussed. I found it very eye opening and may I add, non threatening to my Christianity, to learn about other diverse and different religions. I think I'm a better person for having taken that class... now how many highschool classes can you say that about? :p

Maybe you could fill me in on exactly how your country does things?

As I've said, in these parts, almost everyone has religion in the first 3-10 school years. Usually it only lasts a couple of years, and are introduced around the same time history is.
Well we dont have dedicated history classes until later in secondary school, in most schools it is optional.

Students are tought objective factual stuff about all of the dominant world religions.
Which to me is not really all that useful. I dont see how learning a bunch of facts about the subject is of much or any value without the necessary skills. If anything facts without comprehension can be more distorting than complete ignorance.

Often emphasis is placed on teaching state religion (if there is one), but it's secular education. Faith never comes into it.

Basically, it's done because many people will leave the education system after 10-12 years, or not otherwise learn anything about religions for the remainder of their chosen education.
And so? I dont see the value of learning a bunch of facts.

Even fiercely atheist people (such as myself) generally thinks this is a pretty good idea. It keeps religion out of history classes,
I dont see the point of that either. Why is this supposed to be desirable?

and most importantly, it teaches students some basic things about both the society & the world they live in.
Does it? Perhaps, perhaps not. I dont think it teaches anything essential for life in a non-theocracy.

Generally speaking, the classes on religion are pretty useless
Right... :confused: That's pretty much as I would expect...

- just like history classes for history students -
Probably explains why I have no desire to see history become a stand alone compulsory subject.


By people who have the training and skills and knowledge to teach a very complex issue and it's associated skills at a level that is accessable to students but not so simplifying that it risks distorting the subject matter and at any rate is reduced to a series of 'facts'...

[quote]The point is to teach people some useful stuff about how the world works. Nothing more.
Yes, but I suspect it actually does much less. I believe that it is at best inefficient, and borders on non-productive in the context of education as I know it. It doesnt teach skills so far as I can see, and it seems likely those being taught the facts are not sufficiently capable in the necessary skills to make the subject matter practical or even appropriate in early schooling. Further I have equal concerns about the skills of those deliverying the teaching.

i'm not worried about the lack of religion in schools and in politics but the lack of religion in everybody's everyday lives. it seems to be decreasing daily. however, if someone is force fed religion, then 9 times out of 10 they will shun it. i guess it's a good thing to find faith in god on your own.

Exactly. Especially seeing as how most of the "force-feeding" of religion is done by those who know damn well that their "religion" is extremely unappealing to begin with.

...

Trust me, when I was a kid PC meant Police Constable. I don't know what the fuck all the fuss is about. People should enjoy this; a media where your opponent, no matter how much you piss him off, can just curb your ugly face.

For me, this is pure therapy. In real life I'm much more likely to beat the shit out of people I disagree with. Being forced to think up suitably offensive remarks instead is great.

Those with a more (supposed/pseudo-) intellect than humor/sense will
ALWAYS turn into little cry-baby french schoolgirls at the first hint of
someone confronting them on their "holy-of-holies" concepts and go running
to the nearest "mommy" available.


(( Bashers with words... ))
Those guys usually aren't the problem.

(( Bashees BY words... ))
These guys, on the other hand, are a pain.

As always. I love "sensitive-types". They make good snacks.


The problem is that people whine & moan when they can't think up a suitable retort. Personally, I wouldn't allow 1/10 of the stuff the mods allow here. I prefer it this way (well, even more lenient actually), but there is no way in hell I'd want to be a mod in a place like this.
I mean, I've had people complain over others for calling religion stupid... Guess what I think religion is?
It's rather much a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" job. Half the time, the fine line of moddom has been snipped by some sobby-asses bunch of kids with a scissor.

Yeah,.. the poor mods. There seem to be two very distinct subsets of mod
around here. Those little children given power by the older folks who should
know better but are overworked, under paid, and/or lazy,.. and the
aforementioned overworked, under paid types.

Banning should NEVER be allowed, in my not-in-the-least-humble opinion, as
the /ignore switch should be the only tool for truly ridiculous posters.


Anyway, take care mate. I hope the mods don't strangle you.

Well,.. as you can see,.. Oekai did indeed bet banned,.. but there ARE ways
around such things, even unto IP banning.

Have a good one, and keep up the good fight. Truth, Justice, and the
American Way,.. and all that.. :)

-The REAL Iakeo

Yeah I would like to see it an optional course as well but I was thinking a general theology course

I just dont like seing information left out of students education (specialy something as big as theology) just because I may not agree with every religion that is discussed

As long as there is strict controlls for what the class can contain (VERY strict as to keep out what you discribed above ... a christian takeover) Yes… leaving religion out of the classrooms altogether and effectively ignoring its existence will also lead to bigotry. A course teaching about the beliefs of the various major religions ought to be mandatory for the first year or so, so that people don't think that Islam is by nature warlike, or Hinduism as satanic, or any kind of bigotry. Education is supposed to produce well-rounded people, remember, kids. :)

Yes… leaving religion out of the classrooms altogether and effectively ignoring its existence will also lead to bigotry. A course teaching about the beliefs of the various major religions ought to be mandatory for the first year or so, so that people don't think that Islam is by nature warlike, or Hinduism as satanic, or any kind of bigotry. Education is supposed to produce well-rounded people, remember, kids. :)

Yes, your point being that tolerance can and should be taught. MY point is that...what little tolerance might be taught in this way can easily be un-taught by bigot parents with a political agenda. And a fawning news media. And it wouldn't take long before such a class ceased to be about teaching tolerance, and would instead become a brainwash/indoctrination class instead...teaching bigotry instead of teaching tolerance. At least, that is what I fear.

There are far more in this country who want bigotry and hatred taught, rather than tolerance and acceptance. witness the struggle for acceptance and tolerance my own GLBT people to this day are still going thru in this country.

I can't even imagine how anyone could begin to teach a world governments class to students who have never yet been exposed to global ethnicity, or a global social sciences class, nor a word history course, without first prefacing the attempt with a thorough world religions study, and how global religions interact one with another and how they result in human decisions individually and societal tendencies overall.

To even suggest that world religion topics should be gagged and left out of middle school and high school level classes in advocacy of promoting ignorance over education because we are afraid of what the children 'might' think after being exposed to such ideas is quite simply, outrageous.

I don't understand the concept of promoting ignorance over education. Not at all.

WTF
HEy chuchies don't f-ing pray in my school and i won't thimk in your church!!!
Do us all a f-ing favor and quit using your goddam religion as a social crutch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! :mad: :sniper: :mp5:
Or thats what'll happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gotta damn problem with it then email me a Madhatter_24_7@yahoo.com
I'll Answer oh boy will I
You can teach ethnicity but nof-ing religion ok and its not f-ing compulsory give it the f#$k up!!!!

In one of my highschool history classes we learned about religions, not just one, pretty much all of the major religions that exist to this day. Our teacher presented the fundamental beliefs, the history, and the spread of each religion that we discussed. I found it very eye opening and may I add, non threatening to my Christianity, to learn about other diverse and different religions. I think I'm a better person for having taken that class... now how many highschool classes can you say that about? :p
Most people who've had secular classes on religions feel the same way. I do too. I'm willing to bet you have a far better understanding of both your own society, and forign nations because of it. Am I right?

Anyway, this is exactly why public schools teaches this stuff in most European countries. And it's why I'm a big proponent of doing it. I fail to see what faith or the lack of it, has to do with anything.

WTF
HEy chuchies don't f-ing pray in my school and i won't thimk in your church!!!
Do us all a f-ing favor and quit using your goddam religion as a social crutch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! :mad: :sniper: :mp5:
Or thats what'll happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gotta damn problem with it then email me a Madhatter_24_7@yahoo.com
I'll Answer oh boy will I
You can teach ethnicity but nof-ing religion ok and its not f-ing compulsory give it the f#$k up!!!!

The one-post wonder.

I agree. I've read an extraordinary number of claims by athiests, agnostics and Wicca on these forums alone that they were once Christians.

The central tenet of Christianity is belief in the trinity and man's divine spirituality. Most children brought up Christian are tought to trust in this completely, and they will be rewarded.

So it stands to reason that if this belief is lost, whether to cynicism or outside influence, it is a very powerful letdown.

You can't really understand history unless you are also taught about different effects religion has had on history and culture. No study of cultures or histories is complete without studying the cultures religions.

You can't really understand history unless you are also taught about different effects religion has had on history and culture. No study of cultures or histories is complete without studying the cultures religions.

But all religions, Christianity included, must be treated with the same skepticism as all religions. God and Satan must be viewed as being no more real than Marduk and Tiamat.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

You can learn about religion. However, the government is not allowed to (under equal protection) to endorse one religion over another. IE the schools can't teach only Christianity/Judiasm/Islam, but they are allowed to take a broad unbiased world religions type of look at history and their influences. They just can't teach a particular religion.

Its not scorned, simply not denominationally taught, which is how it should be. Forget all the people who are bigots against religion or anything else for that matter. As long as you don't endorse them with public funds, its fine.

Basic example: Schools could not say: "Write a three page paper on how mankinds divine immortal soul and how its proof of God's unconditional love."

They could ask: "Write a three page paper on how the concept of a divine soul affected art and literature in 16th century Europe." As the second does not endorse a religious viewpoint, unlike the first.

WTF
HEy chuchies don't f-ing pray in my school and i won't thimk in your church!!!


Fuckin' LOL!!!

Actually, in my church, you are allowed to think. That is one of the main reasons I go there, instead of to a Christian church...in spite of my self-identification as a Unitarian Christian.

I wirship in a UU church, because, there, I am free to worship God and Jesus...and I'm free to THINK...and to decide for myself what to think...i'm not told what to think or believe.

I agree. I've read an extraordinary number of claims by athiests, agnostics and Wicca on these forums alone that they were once Christians.

Yes, but that isn't too surprising... considering the majority of people on the forum seem to come from mainly Christian societies, where Athiests/Agnostics/Wiccans put-together are STILL a small minority.

Thus - regardless of what religion those people came to, or have now, they are almost guaranteed to have started out in a Christian-influenced environment.

WTF
HEy chuchies don't f-ing pray in my school and i won't thimk in your church!!!
Do us all a f-ing favor and quit using your goddam religion as a social crutch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! :mad: :sniper: :mp5:
Or thats what'll happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gotta damn problem with it then email me a Madhatter_24_7@yahoo.com
I'll Answer oh boy will I
You can teach ethnicity but nof-ing religion ok and its not f-ing compulsory give it the f#$k up!!!!

How do you really feel about this????