Brian:

...I think it is generally acknowledged that post-modernism is in retreat since the heydays of the liberationists in the 60’s and 70’s. But what now? Beware the pendulum returns!
Gathering on the far horizon are the ultra conservative creationists and the fundamentalists. Are we to defend traditions of moral imperatives from liberal or conservative? To be forewarned is to be forearmed!

The author wrote: "This year is an opportune time for we in the English-speaking world to recognise this breakthrough"

We is the object of the preposition, for. It should be: "This year is an opportune time for us in the English-speaking world to recognise this breakthrough"

Protestant Bible? I have a Bible taken from a hotel room. It has 1217 pages. The New Testament starts on page 929. It really is the Jewish Bible with a Christian addendum.

The author wrote: "The movie Gods and Generals was set in the American Civil War. I was affected by this fine movie. It reminded me of the extent that the influence the Bible had on the people of that era. In the movie the marriage of General Thomas Jackson had in it three individuals - the man, the woman and God."

General Jackson was a religious man who fought for slavery. Biblical influence justified slavery. "The Arrogance of Faith" tells how the slavers got their inspiration and justification from scripture.

>> Atheists should respect the historical role that the Bible has played as the first step towards the technology that we have today. <<

Oooer.

I'd better start with the self flagellation then, here's me thinking that we owe respect to many early cultures such as the Greeks, Egyptians, Sumerians, Chinese and many, many more.

What a shame many Christians are unable, today, to understand even the most basic understanding of how science works.

Ah the "good" book!

Applied Christian history 101

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

All done under the aegis and inherently bloody imperative of Constantine's sword.

As I have mentioned before this image is featured in The Pentagon of Power by Lewis Mumford. A book which describes the historical developments of the Western drive to gain total power and control over every one and every thing. And which describes the multitude of incremental factors that created what Mumford called the Invisible Mega-Machine, or the archetypal pattern, or the "culture" of death, that now patterns the entire world. And which describes the changing historical manifestations of the Mega-Machine.

The Mega-Machine really took off in a big-time way after the European Renaissance and the emergence of powerful new technologies which also gave the always essential PSYCHOTIC Western man the technological means to conquer the world with his MAXIM guns.

Beginning with the European Renaissance Protestant Christian-ISM arose simultaneously with the "culture" formed in the image of scientism. Which is to say that it was the other ("religious") side of the same reductionist coin that mis-informed scientism.

"From 313, when the Roman emperor Constantine opened the gate to an explosive expansion of Christianity, the church had evolved into a type of state. It was a huge bureaucratic organisation ruled by a king-like figure in the pope".

One of the first things it did was to shut down education, burn libraries and even stopped the children of slaves from learning to read.

Most of those monks who illuminated and hand-copied the Bible during the Dark Ages were in fact illiterate.

The notion that information was power persisted for centuries and progress was made in spite of - not because of the Bible.

The assumption that the United States was founded on the basis of religion is fanciful nonsense, a myth created after the fact.

Fairly tenuous link there.

Using the same logic as the article, one could extrapolate other equally ludicrous headlines to push a cause:

"What Hiroshima owes to the pope."

"What Laika owes to the pilgrims."

"What Benjamin Franklin owes to a german printing press."

Conversely one could link the invention of the wheel to the absence of the protestant bible.

<< Conversely one could link the invention of the wheel to the absence of the protestant bible. >>

Ha ha ha!

Exactly.

Sounds a lot like special pleading to me.

"The Bible in the local language became the bridge between fearing to study the natural world and the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world. Without that bridge, there would have been no crossing."

I could find nothing in the article that even remotely suggested that before the Bible was published, people "feared to study the natural world", nor that its publication led to "pursuit of knowledge".

The growth and spread of published works in the fifteenth and sixteenth century would surely have been far more important than the translation of one single book. Universities as well as churches printed books. The general public also started to read around the turn of the sixteenth century...

http://www.presscom.co.uk/print1.html

"But their [Lyonnese printers'] principal output continued to be books in the vernacular — romances, household manuals of health or husbandry, the "Romant de la Rose," "La Légende dorée," "Le Miroir de vie humaine," and "La Somme Rurale," a handbook for the guidance of the local magistrates in the performance of unaccustomed judicial functions. Many of these were adorned with pictures, designed to widen the possible market."

A bridge too far, perhaps, Mr Holden?

The most profound catalyst for the world's "bridge" from ignorance to knowledge was the printing press, invented by Johannes Gutenberg around 1440.

I think this behooves Protestants to say thank you Mr Gutenberg (and he couldn't have created the press without a wheel or two).

Dear Ammonite,

Gutenberg did not invent the printing press. He was the first to introduce it to Europe. The first known printed book was in 868 in China.

To summarise: modern secular science owes a great deal to religion and the Bible, just as vaccination owes a great deal to smallpox.

Yes, yes, in the 17th century, nobody could have abandoned the state religions. After all they so well constrained who got what positions in all walks of life.

In that time, citizens also pissed and crapped in the streets, had no social welfare programs, surgeries were performed without anaesthetic and the church could arrange persecution of even aristocrats who made insufficient public adherence to trivial doctrine.

Like public defecation, I see no reason to equate *historical* unavoidability of religion with *current* merit.

Rusty

Brian

Your article was interesting.

However while the belief of many pioneers of modern science that the universe would be lawful (because, as Christians, they believed thatit had been created by a lawful God) was a significant factor in the emergence of successful science, the technological application of such knowledge depended on the liberty that was possible as a by-product of widespread Christian adherence and the separation of church and state (see 'Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions')
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/EvangelicalAtheism.htm#Foundations

John Craig

...To the post-modern moral reconstructionists above. We await the alternative to the moral code of Christian ethics, so roundly condemned and deconstructed by atheists since the 60’s; replaced by a hegemony of social liberations, culminating in the gay-abandon of homosexuals and feminist extremes.

Hi Dan: here's my alternative --

I. Do what you want as long as it won't hurt somebody else.

II. If it might hurt someone else then think about it rationally and weigh the consequences.

That should do us till the 23rd Century or thereabouts. And look -- I've got rid of eight commandments!

Jon J,
Not an original idea JJ; it is similiar to ideas contained in Hebrew thought and Christian teachings from two millenium BC.
You said "Do what you want as long as it won't hurt somebody else". This by itself is self centered and obsession with onself does affect relationships.
The scripture places importance on love and care of others as fulfilling all aspects of human social interaction [the Law]. Love and the value of the pure and sacred things applied to all human actions is the "Golden Rule".

Though I dislike the bloody history of Henry the Eight his rebellion against the Pope and the Catholic Church initiated freedom of personal belief for a whole Nation; and it happened to be English. Prior to this good Christians were executed as heriticts for opposing the Roman Church.

The development of the freedom of the people to read the Biblical text had nothing to do with Constantine, in fact it was the opposite. Whycliffe an Oxford scholar in 1380's gave us the first hand written English Bible and later in 1611 King James authorised a text that in its time best represented the Hebrew and Greek text into English. It was this new freedom to read and live by the book rather than the religious control of the Roman Church that at that time opened the mind to new and free thinking of ideas.

Words fail me.

Christianity suppresses knowledge and once killed those with an evidence based view of the world.

We're a good 1500 years behind technologically, thanks to Rome and the desecration of humanity.

Imagine the wealth of philosophy and human tolerance if not for the bible.

There'd be no Islamic extremists - as Mohammad formulated his scam using Christian figures and his legitimacy (flying to Jerusalem with Gabriel) was finalised by a Christian Bishop.

Then there's Hell. A Christian concept. Without the threat of damnation martyrs would not be killing themselves to ensure salvation.

What a horrid, appalling book still dividing people and cultures today.

what is clear is the totally dysfunctional society that results from those who have rejected God's Word. All societies that adhered to biblical principles prospered, were largely functional and were clearly blessed. Since secular 'bibles'took over we have lawless societies where kids are sexualised, violence is a regular event, pornography invades most households, vows mean zit, suicide among the young is common and we are more self righteous than ever before.

Firesnake,
Obviously you have little knowledge of reality. Christian Reformers and their followers in the 18th - 19th century have been leaders in the advance of technology. Nations influenced by Christian values in this last 50 years have had great developments in technology.

Before Christ entered the human thought circle the Romans had developed some of the cruelest means of death to prisoners and opponents - hense the crucifixion of Christ. The Bible had no influence on Babylonian, Assyrian, Roman behaviour before the Christian influence - they all were brutal agressors. Early Christians suffered death by torture at the hands of Roman guards, so to make a claim that the Bible caused inhumanity to man is false. You said "What a horrid, appalling book still dividing people and cultures today." NOT True. I can go anywhere in the world and be immediately among friends of different cultures and nationalities. So to claim the Bible divides people on cultural or racial difference is false. I suggest you be informed by visiting a large Church near you and observe the diversity that exists.

The bible has been translated into over 1800 languages and dialects using the local culture and customs to give understanding to its message. It transforms warring head hunters into peace loving Saints.

Dear Philo,

Belief in a humanoid god and all the other mumbojumbo did not make the Nazis less cruel than the Romans. By and large the Christian churches supported Hitler. Although there has been a great attempt to rewrite history and deny the Christianity of Nazi Germany because some of the Nazis rejected Christianity it was primarily a product of Christians. The Nazis had a concordat with the Vatican, support of most of the Lutheran churches and Christian chaplains in its armies.

"THe Arrogance of Faith" by Wood tells how the slaveholders in the southern United States supported and justified slavery by appealing to the Bible where it is not only accepted but had Paul telling the slaves they should serve their masters.

The Spanish justified their genocide in the New World by their bringing of Christianity.

Christianity has time after time suported violence and oppression by citing the Bible. Primitive belief in a humanoid god has justified barbarous behaviour.

It might be a better world if we got rid of Christianity and realised that the Bible fairy tales are no more to be believed than the Greek, Roman, Norse and other legends.

david f,
Same old ignorant nonsense from you. The topic is the protestant Bible. The English protestants were not NAZI as you imply, nor does Paul endorce slavery. Paul was encouraging a work ethic worthy of Christ among his followers. If you were enslaved Christian by a Roman general you would act in a way that impressed your master. That is not an endorcement of slavery but of good work practices. Joseph was once an Egyptian slave but by his devotion exhalted to chief minister of Food in the Egyptian Government. Daniel was captured as a slave by the Babylonians and by his devotion became an advisor to the King. Our Australian soldiers were often enslaved to perform for the enemy. To be a good worker was worthy of recognition.

You continually quote this misinformed mantra. Please check context and Christ teaching and mission to free the enslaved. He says he came to set the captive free [Luke 4: 18].

OK John j

...What the world owes the protestant bible is a road map of a “moral code” for all humanity. Its centre piece is compassion (metaphysical empathy):…

“It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice”.

….Shakespeare.

Dear Philo,

I nowhere implied that the English were Nazis. I wrote that the Nazis were mostly Christian and were mostly supported by both Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany. Christians of good will admit their religion's horrible past and try to work for a better future.

From the website of the Evangelical Sisterhood of St. Mary, a Lutheran sisterhood:

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel4.htm

After the age of the apostles, the theory arose that God was through with the Jews, that the Church was the New Israel and that the Jews were being punished for the crime of killing God. Later, when Christianity became the state religion, this theology was used as the basis for anti-Jewish policies … In time, the Jews were blamed for every calamity. A case in point is the Black Death, said to have been caused by the Jews poisoning the wells. In the name of Jesus unimaginable atrocities were committed: Jews were humiliated, deprived of their rights, baptised by force, burnt at the stake -- thousands upon thousands of them. Christian festivals, such as Easter, were sometimes chosen as a time to attack Jews. While burning the Jewish population in the synagogue in Jerusalem, the Crusaders sang 'Christ, We Adore Thee'.

Whether it was the Crusades, or, more recently, the pogroms, or, most horrific of all, the Holocaust -- Christian anti-Semitism paved the way for these atrocities. Is it any wonder that the name of Jesus is not loved by Jews -- and that the cross is, for them, a symbol of persecution?

Anglican Bishop Spong finds the roots for hate in the New Testament:

http://johnshelbyspong.com/sample-essays/the-terrible-texts/

ANTI-SEMITISM:

And the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’” (Matt. 27:25)

No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed. People convinced that these words conferred legitimacy and even holiness on their hostility have killed millions of Jewish people over history. Far more than Christians today seem to understand, to call the Bible “Word of God” in any sense is to legitimize this hatred reflected in its pages.

david f,
What you are showing is not the teachings and attitudes of Christ and the apostles in your posts but attitudes of a Roman State Church and those influenced by its attitudes and teachings. Both Jesus and Paul were both Jewish by heritage and nationality and Jesus wept for his brothers and Paul said of himself he would be willing to be a cast away if his brothers came to faith. They were not vengeful or angry as those attitudes are carnal and reflected much as the Roman State.

The Protestant faith taught:
All men are equal
All men are sinners
All men are loved by God
All men are worth redeeming
All me are free to believe
Go and tell this message to the World

This view of man included their persecutors. "Bless those that persecute you.' Jesus.

Dear Philo,

Unfortunately you apparently have the mindset that many Christians have. They maintain that the horrible record of Christianity has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.

The following words of Jesus are appropriate.

Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Bishop Spong and the Sisterhood of St. Mary have chosen to recognise those fruits. With their attitude Christianity may have a better future. With your attitude of denial and calling names at people who mention those fruits Christianity will continue its barbaric practices. So far Christianity has made the world worse.

"Know them by their fruits": Indeed.
Secular society is it's own proof. Science and technology have resulted in more good than 40,000 years of religion and faith.

Some of us a re taught true respect as children. Respect for others, ourselves, and to knowledge and the Common Good(which I believe is the root of the God cults).
Most traditional religious teachings are to despise "others" and to obey and believe "those above". Moses killed and pillaged when he escaped Egypt and even Jesus thought slavery was OK.
To divide humanity into those that must be obeyed and those who can be killed without guilt is religions first gift to children...many other "gifts" such as fear, guilt and intellectual laziness soon follow. Whilst thinking themselves moral, these unconscious attitudes of disrespect and ignorance lead to most of the worlds current problems.

BTW. "ignorance" means "tendency to ignore, to not seek knowledge", it is not a casual insult! E.g. Folks who deny evolution are clearly ignorant as the evidence is simply overwhelming...if you care to look.

Religion is the organisational incarnation of humanities innate desire to bully others and to "clan up" to fight competing humans. It is parasitical on society in that it follows trends in ethics and knowledge and is innately conservative in nature...which would be fine if we ever get perfect knowledge and a perfect society. In the mean time we need honesty and fact based knowledge, not faith based dogma and entrenched power.

Ozandy and David F,
You both have fallen into the trap of believing what carnal people have done in the name of Christianity. No where can you identify the attitudes and teachings of Christ to support their behaviours. People call themselves Buddah's but no where did Buddah teach or act in the way many so called Buddahists have acted. Their actions deny their faith in the attitudes and teachubgs of Buddah. To be truly Christian one must adhere to the attitudes and teachings of Christ.

Philo: Exactly!
Well said. Most, well almost all Christians do not follow Jesus, nor do Buddhists follow Buddha.
There is often little wrong with the teachings per-se, but the organisations that call themselves followers and seek respect on that basis are flawed and often evil. Folks that use religion to persecute others are also not "true" Jesus followers, yet I cannot find a single church that does not practice either persecution or institutionalised ignorance. At best they are patsies for the likes of Bush and the "war on drugs" profiteers, at worst they actively campaign for unworkable laws that assume religious superiority...hence my bully instinct comment. The really, really bad ones often call for killing, torture and unjust imprisonment. ("God hates Fags", "kill abortionists", etc)
If the Bible has been altered by latter scholars so that (e.g.) "Self is the path to God" in Hebrew becomes "I am the path to God" (ie. the complete opposite meaning), how is it that the Bible can be trusted for any guidance?
If the followers of Jesus can't agree what He wants...how do we pick the "true" ones?
Far better to aim for Good and understand the world: the big mysteries are pointless if you cannot feed yourself or heal illness or purify water. Secular philosophy goes to the heart of Good. Religions are cultural distractions that deserve no authority beyond personal spiritual beliefs. If God exists He would rather a person be Good in His world then follow a 2000 year old dogma that cripples minds and holds back progress.

Philo plays the "if they did a bad thing, they weren't real Christians" card.

Philo claims to be a "real Christian". He also is anti-homosexuality, believes women should take unwanted pregnancies to full-term instead of abortion - just check posting history.

Discrimination against others for being different is bigoted behaviour and, therefore, bad. But Philo claims only good people are Christians.

Round and round we go.

Meanwhile back on topic ...here's a couple of scientific institutions inspired by the protestant bible:

http://www.dayspringcollege.org.au/
http://www.westlifechurch.org.au/ministries/school-of-the-supernatural

Would be quite useful for raising the dead, righteous mote removal, poking a camel through the eye of a needle, guilt free casting of the first stone, accurately predicting the end of the world once and for all and consulting the akashic record without the need for astral projection.

Ozandy,
I suggest you find out just what is happening in third world countries and by whom. One large church nearby sends over 24 construction teams each year to install fresh water in third world villages. Their national governments squander their wealth on weapons

Pride in the so called "Protestant Bible" is ill founded. It was not given to them alone and the King James version of it is far from ideal.

The original Bible was written mostly in Hebrew and partly Arimaic by the Jews when they called themselves "Children of Israel", and then translated into Greek. Even the New Testiment basically came from them because at that time there were no Christains so named.

The Latin version was somewhat late and inaccurate when it too appeared. The Masonite version which is mostly based on the Hebrew and Greek works, is perhaps the most accurate and satisfactory. There are versions of it in modern English and not of the kind with the older Jamite English words of the 17th centuary.

The Bible remains the world's most popular book and its has been translated into more languages than there are nations.

Dear Philo,

You are correct. Leaders of third world countries squander their wealth on weapons. By far the biggest weapons supplier is that mainly Christian county, the US. Other developed Christian countries are also big weapons suppliers. The arms trade exacerbates poverty, leads to conflict and we possibly agree that it is immoral. Although some Christian denominations such as the Quakers oppose that trade most churches including the Quakers do nothing to censure their members who are engaged in that trade.

david f,
What did Jesus say about weapons? Matthew 26: 52 "Those that live by the sword shall die by the sword". After he told Peter the former zealot to put away his sword. Peter had just cut of the ear of the High Preist's servant and Jesus compassioinately healed his ear. Again he said do good to those that persecute you

Dear Philo,

We both selectively quote Jesus, but there really isn't any evidence that it makes much difference to people. Christians and other people pay attention to what they want to pay attention to.

Jesus in the BIble also made warlike remarks:

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

The above is Jesus, the troublemaker. It certainly doesn't sound as though he has anything against weapons. He is pushing a sick, jealous love. Any figure, secular or religious, that would ask you to put him ahead of your daughter isn't worth much. I find Jesus in the above passage just a sick, arrogant personage. He certainly isn't worthy of me and possibly not worthy of you.

Davidf,
Jesus is not condoning violence, he is identifying to stand against injustice may not give you a peaceful life but a threatened life by the sword. In His life he stood for honesty and justice which ultimately led him to torture and having a sword thrust into his side. To follow him may mean crucifixion and a sword.

To understand the mind of Jesus is to take both verses. They were spoken within the three years of his public life. At the beginning when he was tempted by the leader of the Jewish zealots held out in the desert, in Matthew 4: 1 - 10 he refused to take up weapons and join them in their endeavour to overthrow Roman occupation by the sword; and at his arrest in Matthew 26: 52.

Dear Philo,

A figure who asks you to put your family below him is simply not worth a pail of warm spit. That is the demand of tyrants.

davidf,
Your heart continues to misrepresent Jesus teaching.

Christ does not represents a flesh and blood dictator that you propose, attracting admiration of a chest beating man; but the life giving character that expresses the very nature of God. You can only have love above family by first valuing the character of God. Family can only operate harmoniously as each person denies self and cares for the other as God cares

There are four Greek words that are translated love in English, and phileo is the word here and means - to have respect for.
Jesus taught if a person loves [phileo has respect for] God he will act in his character above the words or character of any family member. That is each man must individually follow God above the character or ideas of parents or family. This breaks the cycle of ingrained religious indoctrination - "think and act independently on the teachings I give", paraphrase of the words of Jesus.

Dear Philo,

Jesus is reported to have said that only him can one enter the kingdom of heaven. That is an arrogant remark. It doesn't matter how good you are. It doesn't matter what you have done. The only way is to swallow his mumbojumbo. There are other arrogant remarks - "I am the way, the truth, the light" You buy that nonsense. It remains arrogant nonsense. I see no point in continuing. Be well.

david f,
Do you want your ball also?
Jesus is representing the character of God. To follow his way, his truth and his life is the way to God.

You either believe in his way, his truth, his life or you reject it. That you prefer to reject it is your decision not to live a godly life. That is also arrogance - "I know better".

You had better start showing your better way, your better truth and a life to be followed. There is no arrogance in demonstrating a better way, a better truth a better life. Thousands are making fortunes each day claiming to be doing just that.

Dear Philo,

Every religion claims it has the truth. Christianity is just one of many with similar claims. There is no reason to that any of them have the truth. It's that simple.

You believe in one thing. Other people believe in another thing. No matter how strongly you believe that something is so that doesn't make it so.

The problem is not with belief. You may believe what you will. The problem is that missionary religions feel that because they believe something strongly other people should share that belief.

david f,
I agree; Any teacher who believes his stuff feels responsible to tell it to make changes to the status quo.

That summarizes the problem quite neatly, Philo.

>>david f, I agree; Any teacher who believes his stuff feels responsible to tell it to make changes to the status quo.<<

Personally, I would prefer that these folk stick to an agreed curriculum, rather than impose their own beliefs on susceptible children, who might still believe that any adult knows best, or who might not yet be courageous enough to contradict their "teacher".

Merely believing that you are right excuses nothing.

Pericles,
The topic is the influece the Protestant Bible has made to the World. In particular I was speaking about the teachings of Jesus. Obviously you would have preferred the teachings of the old Roman Empire pre Christ, or the teachings of Marx or Mao. Unfortunately they do not have the universal divine truth that applies to all men's spirit.

You said,'Personally, I would prefer that these folk stick to an agreed curriculum". As for what you said it is out of context. Now you are telling me Jesus should not have given his teachings which were contrary to the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees according to their set cirucculum. NONSENSE!

It is not I who takes these things out of context, Philo.

>>Pericles, The topic is the influece the Protestant Bible has made to the World. In particular I was speaking about the teachings of Jesus.<<

That's as maybe. However, I was referring to your advertisement for evangelization, which unfortunately so many Christians insist upon taking to heart...

>>Any teacher who believes his stuff feels responsible to tell it to make changes to the status quo<<

...and using them as justification for their conversion programmes in schools.

Maybe you should take time out to explain to them, that just because they "believe their stuff", it doesn't give them licence to force it upon unformed minds in the hope that it will "make changes to the status quo".

Pericles,
You should have posted on another topic, "Chaplains in schools".
What you said here is out of context.

Isaac Newton told his views against common belief. Did it make a difference to how we viewed the world? Jesus gave his teaching against common beliefs. Did it make a difference to how we lived in the world? Curriculum is set by beliefs held at the time, sometimes beliefs have to be challenged.

Fair comment.

>>Pericles, You should have posted on another topic, "Chaplains in schools".<<

It certainly would have been equally pertinent there.

Except that you posted your sound-bite here, on this thread.

>>Any teacher who believes his stuff feels responsible to tell it to make changes to the status quo<<

It was such a frank admission that "any teacher" should place the transmission of his/her own belief system above that of the requirements of the job. It so clearly describes what the missionary/chaplains consider to be their prime objective, I couldn't let it pass without comment.

I suppose I could have cross-posted, but that would be cumbersome.

Pericles,
Religion is a subject covered by the HSC in NSW. I have a copy of the curriculum, 'Senior High School studies in religion',though I have never taught in State Schools. The RE teachers also have a set curriculum to teach by. I have a brother and two sisters [one a deputy principal]who were teachers in State and religious schools. We have five State School teachers in our Church [one a principal] they will influence children by attitudes and views.

Chaplains do not teach religion or hold a class. They are there to encourage students individually. The only time they might address a class is if one of the class has died and the class might suffer some trauma from it.

Wow! We have diverted our course from the original topic, haven't we! I originally avoided this article and thread because I was getting sick of all the religion-based topics and their circular arguments. As it kept reappearing, though, I thought I'd take a look.

On the surface, I get where Mr Holden is coming from. The Protestant Bible was distinguished from the Catholic Bible first by its translation into the vernacular, then by the removal of some 'apocrypha'. The Catholics took a long time to catch on that this was a good thing, and have still held onto those apocryphal books. Interestingly, when doing some recent study for my Masters, those apocrypha (Maccabees, among others) were the only books of the bible that we used as historical sources (with some reservations). But I diverge.

The benefit of translating the bible into the vernacular was that it allowed ordinary people to read and think for themselves, rather than having teachings dished out to them. It credited some of the recipients with a bit of intelligence (or, perhaps, assumed that they were too stupid to question and would swallow it whole). It follows, then (at least according to this line of thinking), that the Protestant Bible provoked a renaissance of mind, of sorts.

I'm not sure how far I support that argument. I think it was a good thing that the bible was demystified and 'opened up' to the people, but I don't think it was the catalyst that changed our society for the better. People were already questioning, looking outside the Church for answers to life's big questions and proposing alternatives. If you look at the popularity of puritanical movements which rose after the widespread distribution of local-language bibles, and if you look at the self-righteous bigotry that still exists among many religious people (protestant or not), it's possible to support the alternative argument that the Protestant Bible led not to the opening of minds, but to the self-justification of closed minds whose owners now had access to scriptures to back up their beliefs.

Otokonoko

Thanks for heading the thread back on topic. Very informative and honest. A freethinker.

Wish more Christians could take such an objective look at their religion. Huh, make that anyone who remains fixed and close-minded on their chosen ideology.

The risk by releasing any text to the public is to enable people to think for themselves and many do - and to question. A decision made by men for everyone.

Now to open the minds of the dogmatists... maybe not, maybe no-one is home.

;P

I've just finished watching 12 DVD's on the Tudors [Henry VIII} a bloody period of English history of people protesting against the Papal authority as they read the bible in their language
Though Henry's personal motive was carnally based and often ill advised it brought about about reformation against the power of the Roman Church.

The moral is be genuine to your understanding of the truth even if it means martyrdom.

Au contraire, Philo.....

The moral is that if you wield immense power in your own realm, you get to make your own rules (religion).

Philo wrote: "The moral is be genuine to your understanding of the truth even if it means martyrdom."

That moral justifies the suicide bombers who are genuine to their understanding of the truth.

Truth is not a matter of understanding. It is a matter of facts and proof. If your premisses are sound, your logic is reasonable and the facts support your reasoning you may have something approaching the truth. Regardless of how sure you are that you have the truth you may be proven false. Newton's laws of motion were accepted for several hundred years until Einstein showed them indequate.

Philo, you consistently confuse religious belief with truth. No matter how strongly you believe something is true and even if you martyr yourself for what you believe that does not make it true.

david f,
There is a distinct difference between suicide and martyrdom. One is you take your own life because of your beliefs: the other is others take your life because of your beliefs.

You should know me bt now I do not advocate death.

Dear Philo,

You wrote: "The moral is be genuine to your understanding of the truth even if it means martyrdom."

Whether or not you advocate death the suicide bombers were genuine to their understanding of the truth.

The truth is not a matter of understanding or belief. Neither the suicide bombers nor you are dealing in truth. You both are dealing in religious belief. You both confuse religious belief with truth. No matter how sincerely or how passionately you feel something is true that does not make it true