People have always been cynical and somewhat dismissive about the promises of politicians – sometimes with good reason. Such cynicism however creates real problems in a democracy and opens the door to the kind of disillusionment that feeds more extreme forces.
But there is one area where politicians in the UK government and the Scottish government (and also the US and Australian governments). Whenever a social change is suggested the same pattern is followed.
- Campaigners argue for a ‘permissive’ change which is passed in the name of ‘tolerance and diversity’.
- After the law is passed within a few years it becomes a declarative change – showing what a tolerant and diverse nation we are.
- To criticise the new law itself becomes illegal (still done in the name of tolerance and diversity)
One example of this came this week from the Coalition for Marriage
David Cameron made the following promise during the SSM debate.
“You raise particular concerns about the role of teachers. Teachers will continue to have the clear right to express their own beliefs, or that of their faith, in a professional way. This includes the belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs.”
Last week we heard that an independent school is to be failed if its curriculum “suggests that same-sex marriages or civil partnerships should not be recognised as being lawful unions under civil law”.
I don’t think that David Cameron lied….I generally think that most politicians don’t lie- at least deliberately in this way. But they make promises in ignorance – they don’t really know what they are promising or how that promise can be kept.
That is the case with this promise from David Cameron. It was inevitable that the acceptance of SSM would become the compulsory view for all who wish to be involved in public life – including education. Contrary to what David Cameron promised teachers and schools will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. Its what happens when you make the State, God. Farewell to freedom of belief, speech and action.
Debate with Peter Tatchell on Same Sex Marriage
As a teacher it isn’t that difficult yet. I have the experience to tip toe through the minefield. Problem is, there is definitely a tightening of the net. It is becoming increasingly difficult to be openly Christian in schools.
Mostly it is having to deal with the smugness of atheist teachers who think they know best. However, senior managers are becoming more and more closed to the idea of having overtly Christian elements in school for fear of the secularists and atheists .
And so it should too.
Unless religion is taught as a subject – comparative religious studies, and all or as many as possible religions are taught – in the same vein as maths, geography or history then you have no right to promote any sort of faith-based worldview to the children in your care; any more than a history teacher has of subtly promoting his or her beliefs regarding their views on the perceived virtues of how wonderful communism is.
And yet all schools have an ethos and a faith based world view – because like it or not – atheism is a faith based worldview.
That is false.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods.
You have been told this numerous times I’m sure.
However, if you can offer anything, anything AT ALL to support your assertion that atheism is a faith based worldview then I will retract my statement immediately.
No atheism is a faith based philosophical view point based on naturalism – try reading anything by Julian Baggini – https://fivebooks.com/best-books/julian-baggini-on-atheism/ and John Grays latest book on the seven types of atheism
Nope. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods – nothing more.
So you want to teach without religion? Do you teach Maths without Maths? Do you teach Geography without Geography? Do you teach History without history? The fact is whatever view you hold religion affects your life and the entire history of all of the UK requires an understanding of Christianity and without it you don’t look at history at all.
Religions are all faith based.
So one can teach about religions – their origins, what they believe etc etc without promoting any particular religion as any sort of divine truth.
Why do you have an issue with this approach?
@ Arkenaten
…or any more than an evolutionary biologist can claim to be a theologian!! Richard Dawkins speaks like he is a theologian and he clearly is not! Neither are you so you can’t speak on theology. Indeed I wonder if you have any skill or job or do you spend all day every day trolling Christians. I feel like I am playing troll a troll. Don’t take me on again Arkenaten! You and your pal John Zande got beaten by girls over on the Irish Referendum discussion. Go get a job!
Oh dear ….
My comment was in response to D Roberts comment.
Would you like you address that, Martha?
1 Where do you get your “should” from in your firsts sentence? Can you scientifically prove it? It is a statement of philosophy, not science.
2 You ignore any teaching on law, morals, and ethics, even social sciences.
3 Remember, from your own blog, that when your chickens come home to roost, you state dinosaurs are your ancestors!! What a great grasp of science you have!
4 You might be amused to read “The Dawkins Delusion” by Alistair McGrath. It’s a good laugh.
And the preposterous statement by Stephen Hawking that philosophy is dead, is more than well countered by polymath prof John C Lennox in his short book “God and Stephen Hawking” is Hawking’s statement is indeed a philosophical statement that can not be scientifically proved.
Lennox : “A matter of logic: a self-creating universe? One of the main conclusions of(Hawkins book) The Grand Design is:” Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will CREATE ITSELF OUT of NOTHING” ….this key expression of Hawking’s BELIEF.” (emphasis mine)
Let’s have a good belly laugh or chuckle at the least.
“Could all of this be just a little too much ado about nothing”? asks Lennox, perhaps somewhat mischievously.
And there is much more in 96 pages of his books. Other books of his include, “God’s Undertaker -has science buried God.”
It is doubtful, that you will take up a challenge to read any of those books to be open-minded enough to be challenged, in your omniscience.
5 Your often trite opinion pieces on this blog seem to be a compulsive knee-jerk contrarian statement of philosophy, unprovable by science and is, philosophically, a presupposed product of a fully functioning brain and perfect, infallible, thought processes, with blind scientific foresight and baleful tidings with an abnegation of the vicarious liability of science.
6 You a clearly VERY RELIGIOUS-someone of great faith. Faith and trust do not form any part of your life, I take it? The great god of science in all its omniscience., omnipotence, omnipresence. A faith in scientism. Or faith in your own worldview, that it is the right one, your faith that there is no God. A non – god, a negative cannot be scientifically proven. It is a belief, a faith by which you live your life.
Enjoy this short, 4 min.video 4 min by Andy Bannister:
https://www.solas-cpc.org/is-atheism-a-belief-andy-bannister/
Or you could even splash out a buy his book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist.
On your own terms, you keep banging on and on and on and on and on about what you have absolute faith in, your non-belief, about what you don’t believe. You spend so much time on this blog, waste so much time on your non-belief, seeking to convert others to your belief. Indeed it is So much Ado about Nothing, methinks.
I think it comes down to the question of who you represent when teaching in a public or government school. You represent the government or public at large, not yourself or your particular Faith Tradition. Just like I represent not myself, but my company when I speak with people at my work. I do my job on behalf of my employer and as representing them and their interests. If I can’t do that, or if I feel that my interests or beliefs are more important to the point of conflicting with my responsibilities to them… I’m in the wrong and should probably look for a different position.
Teachers in a public/government school represent the governments and the public’s interests ‘at large’. They have a responsibility to remain neutral in regards to issues of faith and religion. If what you Believe, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, is primarily a Faith thing or based on your personal or religious convictions, and you attempt to represent that on your job or in your position as a public/government representative, you should have the responsibility to subjugate that desire to represent yourself and your convictions to the neutrality that your job requires or find a different position.
Not even as a teacher do you represent you. You represent the public’s interest and the religious neutrality that the government is responsible for as the servants of all the people, not just those who agree with you. -kia
Chilling….you will believe and speak only what the State says! Exactly what I was referring to….
Wow. You didn’t consider anything I said did you? That was totally not what I said and you know it. Have a wonderful day.
With all due respect Kia. You say – “I think it comes down to the question of who you represent when teaching in a public or government school”.
A teacher, whatever subject they teach, does not represent anybody surely? A teacher will, hopefully, have the relevant qualifications and training to teach whatever subject they are required to teach. If the subject were history, maths, physics or chemistry for example, wouldn’t we want the teacher to teach those subjects accurately and with a high academic standard in order to provide an excellent education for children? In those subjects, there is no room for as you call it, representing “the government or public at large” because not all MPs or MSPs (here in Scotland) are educated to the high standard required in those subjects, in order to be able to teach them. Furthermore, there is no way to assess what standard of education “the public at large” have in those subjects. The “public at large” is hoping that the Department for Education has excellent standards and measures in place for the training, recruitment and vetting of teachers. You quite rightly say a teacher represents “not yourself or your particular Faith Tradition”. The teacher above, D Roberts, did not say he/she was representing his/her faith tradition, the person simply stated that it was getting increasingly difficult to be openly Christian in the schools because of having “ to deal with the smugness of atheist teachers who think they know best”. D Roberts, above, did not even mention representing anything to pupils in that statement, just the difficulty of being open about one’s Christian faith presumably in the staff room as well as the classroom. The same particular teacher mentioned that the difficulty of keeping or introducing “overtly Christian elements” into schools was because of Senior Manager’s “fear of the secularists and atheists”, not because of, as you say, the “interests of the governments or public at large” were a higher standard.
You say….
“Just like I represent not myself, but my company when I speak with people at my work. I do my job on behalf of my employer and as representing them and their interests. If I can’t do that, or if I feel that my interests or beliefs are more important to the point of conflicting with my responsibilities to them… I’m in the wrong and should probably look for a different position.”
If, as you say, you represent your company and their interests, then I hope that you believe in the product, ethics and standards of the company you represent. Let’s say you represent Kia cars and you knew there was a safety issue with the particular cars you were trying to sell or bogus science claims about low carbon emissions . Would you still represent the interests of your employer?
You say “if my interests or beliefs are more important to the point of conflicting with my responsibilities to them… I’m in the wrong and should probably look for a different position.” Let’s say you are a Kia car sales person but you think Audi are much better cars, better value, better performance, and much safer but you still act in the best interests of your employer. Are you truly being honest and having at heart, the best “interests of the public at large”? Have you only got your employer’s interests in mind or have you the interests of the ‘public at large’ in mind? Integrity is a rare thing, and I would not be quick to claim ownership of it.
You say “Teachers in a public/government school represent the governments and the public’s interests ‘at large’.
So the teachers don’t aim to have the children’s interests at heart??!! Just the governments and the public ‘interest’? Are children pawns to further the interests of governments and ‘public at large’? I am sure most teachers want the best education possible for all children, as do the parents.
You say “They (teachers) have a responsibility to remain neutral in regards to issues of faith and religion.” Yes, in the maths class and the physics class and the chemistry class etc. In fact it is the militant Atheists who are not remaining neutral in the science class because they have repeatedly tried to further their ‘world view’ through downright BAD science! Christians have never taught religion in the science classroom but the Atheists have and do. They claim to be neutral but they further a multi-faceted agenda which I could very easily prove, although it would take me too much time and I’m not getting paid for this so I’ll not bother proving it, and in every area of society the militant Atheists, Humanists and Secularists seek to further their agenda by insidious means, intimidation and threat, undermining, dishonest claims, dividing people and destroying all our structures which have given cohesion and meaning to society for centuries.
When it comes to matters of ‘faith and religion’ as you mention, you say there is a responsibility to be neutral. A good RE teacher should be neutral. She/he is not a church minister or a clergy man. RE teachers are in the main, neutral and teach across a large range of ideas, religions and philosophies. The RE teacher may be a Christian, or may not. If he/she is a Christian, they, under the current regulations have to remain neutral. Perhaps an RE teacher may be confident that in teaching about Christianity that pupils might become interested. But they couldn’t even take that further. They are there to teach the facts about what each religion believes not to promote belief.
You go on to say – “If what you Believe, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, is primarily a Faith thing or based on your personal or religious convictions, and you attempt to represent that on your job or in your position as a public/government representative, you should have the responsibility to subjugate that desire to represent yourself and your convictions to the neutrality that your job requires or find a different position”
The discussion of marriage, may come up in RMPS and you say that the teacher must represent the public/government on this matter. In the first place the agenda pushed forward to include Same Sex Marriage was not the view necessarily represented by the “government or the public at large”. In Scotland, the legislation for the redefinition of marriage was imposed on the people because they knew well that this was not a view held by the “public at large”. Their sham consultation showed an appalling lack of integrity and the standard of English ‘represented’ on those ballot papers beggared belief. Does nobody know how to write a plain question any more? Or was it just designed to make sure you could not possibly understand the question and therefore give an informed answer , so convoluted and wandering were the questions?! The Scottish Executive wanted to be progressive and trendy and be the first in the UK to have Same Sex Marriage. This was an agenda pushed on the ‘public at large’ by a loud mouthed minority. In Westminster, they didn’t bother to consult the public they just imposed it, if I remember rightly, during the summer when people were less alert. They just passed the legislation through the back door. While, we are on it, let’s mention Ireland and the bullying tactics. A police presence at polling stations with great big signs saying that the “police back a ‘yes’ vote” because they were forced into doing so. It was also the ‘arty’ vote where actor’s views were presented for people who don’t have minds of their own. Pro-traditional marriage rallies attacked and silenced and any number of intimidating, twisting of truth, brainwashing, and for-political-gain tactics introduced as to make me despair of the country I was born in. They seem to be disintegrating into drunken depraved savages and yet they want to seem so cool, so progressive. Same Sex Marriage will destroy our civilisation and our children. That is not to say I don’t love gay people. There are plenty of gay people who did not want Same Sex Marriage. There are reasonable people across every element of society but our future is being forged by the depraved, unstable, bitter minorities who have the brass neck to lobby government and it seems that governments are intimidated too or think that if we “give them this”, then they will shut up and go away”! But ‘they’ never go away. The LGBTQ activists have an insatiable appetite for affirmation, and will even aim to use the smallest of our children to guarantee them rights and to satisfy their depraved appetites. If we keep giving ground to unstable, bitter minorities we will end up under absolute rule. It is not that far off.
You say “Not even as a teacher do you represent you. You represent the public’s interest and the religious neutrality that the government is responsible for as the servants of all the people, not just those who agree with you. -kia”
Yes, a teacher does not represent themselves. They are there to teach a subject. What about parents? Are parents to ‘represent’ the interests of governments and the public at large to their children? What sort of parenting would that be? We teach our children what we think is right and wrong. That varies from household to household, family to family and should not conform to ‘majority public opinion’ or the ‘interests of governments’.
On the subject of ‘marriage’. Where would our society be if for the last 5 thousand years, everyone was same sex attracted and married same sex partners?
Where did marriage come from?
Let me tell you the origin of marriage.
Genesis 1:27ff
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
That is what I have taught to my children since they were little. That is why they are happy, sane, confident and have a bright future. Because they have not been taught twisted lies, introduced by deceptive men who are not only content to deceive themselves but want to deceive everybody else too and aim to further their agenda through the school system, calling their view neutral, while it errodes and undermines everything good in our society one little bit at a time. Richard Dawkins has a lot to answer for but he seems to be hiding away now because he knows, that after a lifetime devoted to suppressing his own faith and the faith of others, his time is now running out and he still hasn’t a single scrap of evidence to substantiate his odious ideology under the guise of science, rather odious science.
Maybe Kia, if you are interested in education, you could start reading some of the excellent resources which refute Dawkin’s claims and Darwin’s. Maybe that wouldn’t suit you to do so because you are happy in your ‘neutral’ view. If you claim you have a neutral view, then don’t try and influence public opinion. There is too much at stake in the minds and lives of our precious children and young people. I will keep a ‘mind of my own’, not the interests of ‘the government or the public at large’. I tell my children when they are a certain age, not to believe what their parents have taught them, just because they feel obliged to. Neither are they obliged to abandon what we as parents have taught them. They know that. We give them the space to consider things for themselves as my husband and I model what it is to live a Christian life before them. Hopefully, if our walk matches our talk, a tall order, then they should see a world of a difference between what the ‘government and the public at large offers’ and would make no mistake about which was the the better path, the path to life, joy and happiness. Even eternal life!
“or find a different position”.
And that is exactly what is happening in my area. They can’t recruit new teachers for ‘love nor money’. Something must be wrong and deep down we all know what it really is,
Satan presents himself as unassuming, harmless. Like Eve, we listen to and accept the lies and soon that lie becomes an acceptable part of us and those around us. Things haven’t changed since the fall of man, have they?
I totally agree with what you say vicklea! But some things are too simple for the lofty minded who love many words with little substance and are full of their own importance. “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools” Rom 1:22.
But keep expressing the truth simply vicklea because there are some who need to hear you and there are those who will believe you! There will be many who will ridicule you, but don’t be put off by that! Matt 5:11ff
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you”
As it happens I recently attended the same-sex marriage of two men I have known for about fifteen years – they have been together for twenty years.
It’s odd that you would describe their marriage as the work of satan, of a supernatural being who is apparently intent on killing, destroying and stealing – I was overwhelmed with happiness for my two friends and I can tell you now that the room where the celebrant performed the ceremony, the speeches given by both of the married couple and the reception they received from those of us who attended was marked by a feeling of love and the celebration of that love.
Where you see evil – I saw love.
What exactly is that comment supposed to bring to this discussion I wonder – that gay marriage is a product of the work of satan?
@ John That’s exactly what is implied by that comment!
But vicklea is showing that these things happen in little steps and have been happening since the beginning of time. We are not getting more civilised and sophisticated, enlightened and free. We are unravelling and heading towards further chaos. Can’t you see it all around you? Look at people’s faces. People’s faces show emptiness, loneliness, pain, anger, despair.
If vicklea doesn’t mind, I will quote again what she has said “Satan presents himself as unassuming, harmless. Like Eve, we listen to and accept the lies and soon that lie becomes an acceptable part of us and those around us. Things haven’t changed since the fall of man, have they?”
Note she said “we”. She is not blaming anybody but she is lamenting that “we” fall for Satan’s lies , to our detriment. Just because we think Satan sounds fanciful, doesn’t necessarily mean that he is. He is very real and very evil. If you lived in certain cultures, certain parts of Africa for example, you would witness that they perceive Satan and demons to be very real indeed. Here, as vicklea is stating, he works in much more subtle ways. Sorry to offend, but I have to state the truth as it is. I believe vicklea stated the truth in love, not in condemnation, to warn and not to judge. Don’t be too quick to dismiss people’s point of view. You cannot prove Satan does not exist and if you would like some understanding of the nature of evil then it is half the battle to know there is a tempter and a slanderer. He comes to steal, kill and destroy. Surely we see that pattern worldwide at this present time. If we were aware of his tactics, then we might not give in so readily and give the enemy ground in our lives, homes, communities, and country. Satan likes two things; 1) for people to be unaware of his existence 2) to be frightened of him and give him too much power.
John,
as you’d probably guess, I believe that Satan is real, but I confess that — as with miracles — some Christians are so quick to invoke supernatural influence that they risk trivialising things or even cross a line to blame the devil for their own personal failures. In a former generation it was only a manner of speaking (and not just from Christians – it wasn’t a Christian who used to tell me that if I didn’t behave I’d ‘go to the bad fire.’)
However, principled non-approval of gay marriage has to have a voice in a free society. For some time now it’s been easy to bolster any case that’s perceived to be liberal by treating dissent as ‘hate speech.’ Thus it is — to take an example where I think you and I have most likely been on the same side — that anyone raising the slightest doubt about immigration was labelled as a racist and those of us who thought that immigration was an all-round good thing were happy to let nay-sayers be so labelled. An unfortunate consequence was that moderate ways of expressing concern were not developed and many people sounded racist because they just didn’t have another register available to them.
I don’t know why it is that many Christians react more negatively to gays than they do to philanderers, for example, though I suspect it has something to do with notions of respectability. Nor am I arguing that all problems would disappear if we could only solve the respectability notion —[1 John 1:8] — ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.’ Nevertheless, anyone wrestling with these and other related matters would be ill-advised to give up the genuine love of family members and friends who do not approve of some aspects of their behaviour; especially not for the sometimes insincere approval of politicians who find it convenient to approve.
Yours,
John/.
John, yes it is.
@ John
You say “I was overwhelmed with happiness for my two friends and I can tell you now that the room where the celebrant performed the ceremony, the speeches given by both of the married couple and the reception they received from those of us who attended was marked by a feeling of love and the celebration of that love.”
I don’t mean to be disrespectful to you or your friends but ‘feelings’ are no indication of truth or goodness. You were “overwhelmed with happiness” and the ceremony and speeches were “marked by a feeling of love and the celebration of that love”. That is your experience and interpretation of an event. But the problem is that the rest of society must interpret such an event in the same way and thereby enshrine this claim to ‘love’ in law and in particular to marriage. This does change marriage for the rest of us. My “love” for my husband is not the love that filled the church or the hearts of the guests! It is the agape love as described in ! 1 Corinthians 13:4ff
” Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. ”
My wedding day is only the beginning of love and a commitment to love. Because romantic love fades and cannot sustain a relationship. Love is an ‘action’ not a ‘feeling’ and frequently requires me to rise above my feelings because my feelings are frequently, vilely selfish and destructive to others. Marriage is a covenant. My commitment is not even really for my benefit but for my husband’s. I commit to loving him and respecting him and his position as head of our home. Obviously I am not a robot, but a person with hopes and dreams and faults and failings. I have to trust I am marrying someone who will not harm me but who will love and cherish me. He commits to honouring me and loving me for my benefit. When we both look to putting the other’s needs before our own then we can make a beautiful marriage. When we marry for selfish reasons, or break our marriage vows and harm and abuse our spouse, then you could say Satan has a foothold in the home. A Christian marriage is called to reflect Christ’s relationship with the church. The church is called the bride of Christ. The marriage bed is to be kept pure. Sexual love is very important.
Genesis 2:24ff
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
I could go on, but I would have to write a book and there are plenty of books written already John. I fully respect the rights of people to love whomsoever they wish and don’t doubt that they genuinely love them. I don’t doubt that some opposite sex and Christian married couples have abusive marriages where Satan has made inroads into their lives and home.
As Christians we are shown how to live in the Bible and bring our behaviour in line with the Bible, whatever our feelings are. Feelings cannot lead us and the feelings of some cannot lead the majority in society. That is what has gotten us to the chaotic position we are in.
I have a couple of close gay friends and I am able to show them love and respect while, at the same time, they know that I don’t believe their lifestyle is pleasing to God. I make it very plain to them that at times, my lifestyle, even as a Christian is not pleasing to God. It doesn’t matter what I think. I am only a person. But God’s standards are God’s standards and God’s standards remain whatever we do. God made marriage. It is what He says it is and I could be just as guilty of defiling marriage as anybody by speaking disrespectfully or abusively, behaving selfishly in matters of sex, walking out on my husband e.t.c. We all will be judged by God’s standards. Same sex marriage may very well be enshrined by law, but I am absolutely sure that God does not view it as marriage, ever! Meanwhile, I really need to put my own selfishness to death in my own marriage and leave no place for uncontrolled anger because then, Satan will get a foothold.
A last thought: Let’s say my husband loves me but I don’t love my husband. But I love my sister’s husband. She doesn’t love her husband but she stays for the children, to give them stability. He stays because it is too much bother to seek a divorce etc. But he loves me too. If our ‘love’ is the highest virtue in this scenario, wouldn’t the ‘right’ thing to do be for he and I to get together? Because we are talking about ‘love’. So I could leave my own husband heartbroken because I’m the only for him as far as he is concerned. I could divorce him and put him out of the family home and into a bedsit on his own and make sure he still pays alimony and I could get custody of our children and keep him away from them and cause him to be a broken man. I could move my new husband into the family home despite my children aching for their father and cause my children great harm and pain. I could leave my sister’s children without a father in the home and damage them too and reduce my sister’s income because she gets less of it now. I would also lose the love of my sister surely. What good could ever come out of that sort of ‘love’?
@ Arkenaten
JUNE 19, 2018 AT 11:49 AM
Oh dear ….
My comment was in response to D Roberts comment.
Would you like you address that, Martha?
I knew your comment was in response to D Roberts comment. Mine was possibly something of a ‘knee jerk’ response where maybe I was trying to metaphorically kick you on the shins! My point was that if people are going to teach subjects, they should be, at least, well educated in that subject, if not an expert, and that this should include theology, which is a perfectly valid subject and not for the feather minded. I stated that Dawkins speaks frequently on theological matters and he is not qualified to do so because he is not a theologian; he is an evolutionary biologist among a couple of other things. I say let the theologians teach theology! Hear! Hear! We have several excellent theologians in this country. Neither are you a theologian Ark so you are not qualified to speak. What ‘ogian’ are you besides Trollogian?
Teaching religion is not the same as teaching theology. I believe theology would be an excellent subject to be taught in schools from nursery age! Three year olds can get a grasp of the most profound truths when simply put. It gives them a solid foundation on which to build. In the past you had to study Theology first at Cambridge if you wanted to study Science. Now there!
Religious studies, as we now know them would really be better done under the banner of anthropology, in my opinion. Of course Ark, you have no respect for my opinion but Geoff above has given you plenty to think about which has great substance to it. Way to go Geoff!
@Arkenaten
Don’t you ever wonder why you are so ungracious towards David Robertson and Christians in general? David allows you express your views on his blog and I believe has done so for some time. Are you so short of stimulating articles and conversation that you have to spend so much time in the comments section of his blog? Are you really as nasty as you seem because I struggle to see any trace of decency in you at all?
I had a look on your own blog yesterday Ark and I noticed that, you are also given to ridiculing David Robertson there too. It was regarding a different subject (Messi tweet but that thread is closed so can I just introduce it in here if I may?). It’s quite slanderous really, because the analogies you use are taken out of context and could unfairly drum up some nasty opposition against him. It was your attempt at humour, rather sarcasm. It wasn’t in the slightest bit funny, just childish and nasty. I also notice that I’m featured there too. I must be hitting a nerve or two if I’m worthy of ridicule.
Here it is just to refresh your memory:
JUNE 13, 2018 ARKENATEN
Gotta love them Crispyians!
“Over at the Wee Flea, one of Scotland’s theological itches that really ought to be scratched, there is a post up regarding a Tweet claimed to have been written by Argentine soccer player, Lionel Messi concerning the team’s pre-tournament preparations in Israel.
And our Blogging Pastor, after having accepted the original Tweet as gen-you-whine, as is his wont, has had to eat humble pie, and issued this:
(Ark quotes David) I am sorry for simply believing what I read about Messi. This is my apology. Feel free to pass it on so that people can know the real story.
David Robertson.
(Also from Ark) Messi is generally regarded as a humble, down to earth bloke, and therefore such an erroneous Tweet is completely out of character. But I don’t suppose Robertson follows football that much so he got his nose out of joint straight away.He should have fact-checked
(Ark)So what has this got to do with Christianity?
Well, let’s use Messi’s fake Tweet and Robertson’s apology and see what happens if we substitute a name or two shall we?
(Ark ridicules David) I am sorry for simply believing what I read about Moses. This is my apology. Feel free to pass it on so that people can know the real story.
David Robertson.
(Ark) He should have fact-checked
(Ark ridicules David) I am sorry for simply believing what I read about Jesus. This is my apology. Feel free to pass it on so that people can know the real story.
David Robertson.
He should have fact-checked
(Ark ridicules David) I am sorry for simply believing what I read about the Gospels. This is my apology. Feel free to pass it on so that people can know the real story.
David Robertson.
He should have fact-checked
Ark.
World Cup 2018.”
(My comment)The we have your friend “Kia” saying great post! I’m questioning Kia’s intelligence or is he just agreeing with you because he doesn’t check his facts?
(My comment)Then we have our friend John Zande who has ran off with his tail between his legs after getting beaten by girls when the corner he backed himself into so small, he had to seek refuge in the comments section of Ark’s blog where he could suck his thumb for a while and wrap himself in the comfy blankets of those who agree with his irrational thought processes and deranged evil ‘science’. Zande was probably too scared to challenge David Robertson on his own blog as he seems to behave himself so well there. But he shows a somewhat schizophrenic personality with his comments about David on Ark’s blog and I am even mentioned.
WHY DON’T YOU SAY ALL THIS TO ME ON THIS BLOG JOHN ZANDE? TOO SCARED!?
“john zande
JUNE 13, 2018 AT 17:24
Fact-checking is not terribly high on the apologists’ list of to-do’s.
Did you read Martha’s rambling last comment?”
john zande
JUNE 13, 2018 AT 18:13
Frighteningly unhinged.
john zande
JUNE 13, 2018 AT 22:08
Martha is an Irish Christian lady (either a Catholic who hates Anglicans, or an Anglican who hates Catholics… I couldn’t quite work that out) who is really, really strange. She actually started off OK, but has descended into these essay-sized comments detailing her life, the battle against evil (I’m Satan’s work)… even the fact that she has to ask her husband for “permission” to participate in the thread.
Liked by 1 person
john zande
JUNE 13, 2018 AT 22:17
She did, and I think anything that doesn’t fit her *needs* is Satan’s work
Arkenaten
JUNE 13, 2018 AT 22:35
I just read one of the threads — phew. Some serious issues there!
Normal people do NOT write in such a manner.
(LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT PERSONALLY TO ME ARK? Martha)
Liked by 1 person
john zande
JUNE 13, 2018 AT 22:40
Seemed to have freaked the others out, too.
Like
Arkenaten
JUNE 13, 2018 AT 22:48
And she has to have her comments
vetted by her hubby!!! (my comment: “Not at all Ark, check the facts!)
I’ll bet even Robertson must be cringing at every post of hers’ he approves.
Like
john zande
JUNE 13, 2018 AT 23:52
Her words: “I asked my husband if it would be ok to dedicate myself to the blog, and kind man that he is he said yes.”
You have to go to the “newer comments” page.
So Zande would even try and drum up opposition against me, behind my back. Neither Ark, nor Zande have a shred of decency. I tremble for you both and people like you because very soon you will fall into the hands of the one true Holy God and there is nothing more terrifying. You came as ‘face to face’ with God as you could have, in the discussion regarding the Irish referendum and probably other discussions too and you persistently deny God. I await news of your terrifying and swift destruction.
Hebrews 10
“For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgement, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Also:
Revelation 21 ff
It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”