Right to be peeved? Kids nativity content

Easter is already its pagan name

According to Wiki, by the time it was adopted it was simply the term for April when Easter generally falls. The actual christian festival has a direct link to the Jewish festival of Passover. The story of the resurrection takes place when Jesus is in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. Many other countries adopt a word that derives from the Latin for Passover, such as La Pascale in French (also one of the nick names for Paris Roubaix). Whatever it is called it should fall at the same time (unless you are a member of one of the Orthodox church who have stuck with the Gregorian calendar).

Is believing in Intelligent design a prerequisite to believing in god?

I don’t think so.

There’s God, and there’s the Bible – if you don’t believe that the Bible is the literal word of God then you are free to treat it however you like – as parables, stories or scholarly writing. I think Old testament is treated this way by Jews afaik.

I thought that treating the bible as a literal truth was a fairly modern thing; the book as intended as guide to be interpreted hence “bible lessons”

Is believing in Intelligent design a prerequisite to believing in god?

I guess it depends upon how you define Intelligent Design, but it is most associated with creationists, so certainly in this country the answer would be very much no.

I know people who believe in both God and big bang theory. Since no-one knows anything about why the big bang happened and what happened before it, if such a concept even exists, then there’s absolutely tons of room for God. It could’ve been absolutely anything, all theories are about as valid as each other in this respect.

It’s also possible to beleive in God and Jesus without having to believe that the bible is a particularly accurate account of the events surrounding Jesus.

Bencooper: do you think that the nativity play was part of the formal curriculum (as that term is properly understood by educators)?

It was held in normal school hours, as were the dress rehearsals etc, so I’m going to go with yes – though I don’t know what definition educators would use.

OP. I think you acted accordingly. I don’t think the school should be booking David Icke for Crassmass talks after a school play, we need more people to speak up, we already have loads and loads of sheep who accept the staus quo just ‘because’.

Christmas is very clearly for Christians. Don’t choke while stuffing your greedy chops in the name of Cheesarse.

which bit of “we just happened” offends which law of thermodynamics?

What confusion? I thought the issue was we don’t live in an open system unless you are happy with the concept of infinite.

The law of thermodynamics doesn’t explain everything it just explains what happens in a closed system, that is what it is, there is no extrapolation into everything, into life the universe or any other bullshit.

and maybe it’s wrong, I don’t care if it is, that’s science and we keep advancing and keep correcting, and keep understanding that we need to learn more. But it is the best explanation we have and the thirst to learn more is the bedrock of real knowledge.

Christmas is very clearly for Christians

It very clearly isn’t! A couple of weeks of excess, bingeing and extravagance is pretty much the exact opposite of what Jesus would want, I reckon!

It’s a story, just like lots of other stories only it’s also been heavily commercialised, you can’t expect to enjoy Christmas without being ‘educated’ into the Nativity thing.

I don’t know who I find most irritating Theists or Atheists, they’re both unable to prove their point and howl fowl at each other.

Just go along with it, live and let live, for the moment you live in a Christian country that used to believe in all this, we all went through it, didn’t stop us applying logic in later life and questioning the whole bollox of it all.
Hey if the next lot get control you’ll be fasting, your mrs will be covered up and all manner of sharianess applied, won’t you be moaning at that? No, probably not, they’d stone you.

If we have to have a religion taught to kids, then perhaps the turn the other cheek mob is the lessor of two evils.

My kids attend a CofE school. Eldest was 5 when he twigged that the Bible may not be true.

Hey if the next lot get control you’ll be fasting, your mrs will be covered up and all manner of sharianess applied, won’t you be moaning at that?

House! What do I win?

It very clearly isn’t! A couple of weeks of excess, bingeing and extravagance is pretty much the exact opposite of what Jesus would want, I reckon!

Christmas is for christians like BNP rallies are for BNP supporters (not for people who just fancy a stroll/ enjoy the electric atmosphere 😯 )

Throw the shackles off friend, try starting by celebrating your secular christmas on the 26th or even the 29th if you’re brave enough.. maybe change the name too; something like ‘The Molgrips family Journey of life end of year reflection and celebration extravaganza event’ and accept the new world with open arms.
You never know it might be fun and unique and represent you and yours a little better while also pulling away from Crassmas nonsense.

House! What do I win?.

their only brain cell?

“Just go along with it, live and let live, for the moment you live in a Christian country”
Apart from the fact it no longer is a Christian country how do you suppose it ever got to be a Christian Country?

Eldest was 5 when he twigged that the Bible may not be true

As is the case for many children. See the work of James Fowler and Scott Peck for stages of faith development.

That said, I’m sure you sought to expand his definition of ‘true’ by explaining various epistemological categories, and how empirical truth represents just one form.

I know people who believe in both God and big bang theory. Since no-one knows anything about why the big bang happened and what happened before it, if such a concept even exists, then there’s absolutely tons of room for God. It could’ve been absolutely anything, all theories are about as valid as each other in this respect.

The great atheist/agnostic biologist Stephen Jay Gould would agree with you whole-heartedly.

He, like many men of science, understood that faith and science were not two competing categories of thought.

^^ what I am forever saying. The 2 are not incompatible.

they really are separate

Faith is a a belief in a think known but not proven and science is the exact opposite as it seeks to remove the infinite error that faith can cause. I dont see how they could be more opposite tbh
Furthermore in each “universe” we have in one we have an all powerful deity that made everything and can controls all in the other we dont its just random shit,laws and time.
Only one of these accounts can be true.

“If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I’d bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that’s right. I’d be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.

From your own link he really did not think or believe as you claim and neither do many men* [ sic] of science

I have known one devout evolutionary biologist but they were largely incoherent when they tried to reconcile these two beliefs. It really is one or the other though some agnostics and religious science types claim they can somehow co exist.

Christians have been trying to get in our midwinter festival for centuries, the sweet baby jeesus story is harmless enough, if the kids treat it like the gruffalo or aliens love underpants and other classics.
There’s not really any need for a vicar to show up and start preaching tho, so it’s fair enough to send an email. Unless they have appropriate clerics turn up for every religious festival, eid, diwali , hanuka etc in which case it’s probably a really good school that will help toward creating an integrated and egalitarian society for all, rather than isolationism and ignorance.

try starting by celebrating your secular christmas on the 26th or even the 29th if you’re brave enough

How do you know I don’t? 🙂

Since I celebrate by eating lots, not working and generally indulging and having a good time, it lasts well over a week and starts on the 23rd. I may start calling it Saturnalia. Or maybe Bacchanalia.. 😉

but they were largely incoherent when they tried to reconcile these two beliefs

Incoherent to you, maybe 😉 but you aren’t the one who has to understand it.

We have a celebration in the middle of winter because it’s cold, dark, and generally shitty. We need to eat, drink, dance, and sing to stop ourselves from committing suicide while we’re waiting for spring. Christians decided to confiscate the winter celebrations and turn it into a celebration of the birth of Christ.

Now that I’ve got a son I feel like I’m walking a tightrope. On the one hand I don’t want any religious hocus pocus put in his head. When he asks me what happens when he dies I’m going to tell him he’s dead and that’s it (I may play around with the wording a bit). I don’t want him being indoctrinated into the far easier to accept idea that we never really die.

On the other hand I don’t want him to be the weird kid who has to go to a special room when the other kids are rehearsing because his parents don’t want him involved in harmless religious activities.

So, I bite the bullet and just let him get on with it. But if some god botherer then got up and started throwing the fact that he’d gotten all the kids to dance to his tune in my face I would be very pissed off. So I’d say an email was the very least they could expect.

Only one of these accounts can be true.

As you know from past discussions on this question, I really can’t agree with you.

I have used this analogy before, but we don’t read the great poets and say, because their language is something other than empirically-verifiable, that what they said was not true. ‘True’ and ‘false’ do not come into it.

In some ways, I would argue that religion is like poetry. And as you will see in that video I posted a few posts back (on this thread), it is entirely possible to be both atheistic and agnostic, just as it is possible to be theistic and agnostic.

The categories we end up arguing on here so often oversimplify these and many other categories.

The only thing I think that should offend any of us is hatred and extremism in all areas of human activity, as opposed to some minister who talked about the Christian basis of Christmas at, well, Christmas.

Unless they have appropriate clerics turn up for every religious festival, eid, diwali , hanuka etc in which case it’s probably a really good school that will help toward creating an integrated and egalitarian society for all, rather than isolationism and ignorance.

Fair enough. Or no clerics at all, as per Canada.

Anyway, science isn’t necessarily all about “proof”. It’s about hypotheses and weight of evidence in favour or against.

Educated guesses then?
Like a religion but with an external faith system rather than an internal one?

I hypothesise that god exists because…

The weight of evidence convinces me that god exists because…

are two sentences I’ve never heard uttered by a sane person.

I was talking about SCIENCE not religion!

Incoherent to you, maybe but you aren’t the one who has to understand it.

True but it would have been more useful it at least made sense 😉

The only thing I think that should offend any of us is hatred and extremism in all areas of human activity, as opposed to some minister who talked about the Christian basis of Christmas at, well, Christmas.

Talking is fine expecting me to pray is another thing entirely and something i personally find oppressive – ok not really but you get the gist its up there with asking me to eat meat at a barbecue just because you are and its a barbecue.

TBH using aesthetics where there is no absolute truth is daft its an entirely binary choice we either have a science universe or a god universe we dont have a bit of both

which we call proof once we have enough evidence. you are technically correct but you get the point the alws of motion are true because they are true and we can prove i t

God is true because you think it and have no evidence.

Respectfully if you were to employ the approach of science to god you would find no data to support the hypothesis and if you were to apply faith to science you would have homeopathy, a heliocentric earth and a number of other unlikely outcomes

Science and religion aren’t incompatible at all (sorry Johnnie Boy). They’re totally bedfellows.

However.

As science progresses, religion must continually be on the back foot, retconning “ah, well, it’s all allegorical apart from the bits you haven’t disproved yet” as we go.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

(In unrelated news, I’m utterly disappointed that I’ve been dropping pop culture references and quotes all day and no-one’s picked up on any of them.)

^^ what I am forever saying. The 2 are not incompatible.

Anyway, science isn’t necessarily all about “proof”. It’s about hypotheses and weight of evidence in favour or against.

I was talking about SCIENCE not religion!

So science is compatible with religion so long as you’re not tied to the idea of testing hypotheses and weighing evidence?

So science is compatible with religion so long as you’re not tied to the idea of testing hypotheses and weighing evidence?

Of course it’s compatible. Some things you science about, some things you don’t.

You can science yourself silly on the formation of the universe AFTER the big bang, and still have plenty of room for believing in God before it.

Two questions that God is a neat answer for:

1) Why are the fundamental constants the way they are to create complex structures in the universe that lead to matter and life?

2) Why did the big bang happen?

Note that I am not proposing God as an answer for these questions, I don’t believe in God.

are two sentences I’ve never heard uttered by a sane person.

I’ve tried over and over again to explain that this is not necessarily the point, but you don’t seem capable of understanding that. Ironic, when you’re trying to make yourself out to be the clever one 🙂

There’s a big difference between saying “We don’t know what happened” and “The Purple Spaghetti Monster did it!”

If you’re religious then you’re conceding that there are some things that can’t be explained by science. All your left with then is magic.

I’ve tried over and over again to explain that this is not necessarily the point, but you don’t seem capable of understanding that. Ironic, when you’re trying to make yourself out to be the clever one

I joined this thread less than an hour ago. What have you been trying to explain to me?

I went to kids nativity and afterwards endured the vicar spouting and the obligatory head down prayer but once it had finished that was it. The kids enjoyed themselves and so did the parents. Last thing on my mind would be to be posting a thread about it let alone emailing the bloody school I hope it’s in the trash folder and the teachers are out on the lash this eve discussing some belltip that emailed earlier 😉

There’s a big difference between saying “We don’t know what happened” and “The Purple Spaghetti Monster did it!”

Likewise, there’s a big difference that you all are missing between saying

“It was God that did it” and

“I believe that God did it”

If you’re religious then you’re conceding that there are some things that can’t be explained by science.

Not at all! If God is real, he must have a basis on which He exists. This basis must be knowable by someone or something, if not by humans.

What have you been trying to explain to me?

This same debate has been going on for years. I forget who’s been a part of it since I first joined in, so apologies if you’ve not been on a religious thread before.