• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not going to church does not mean one does not believe in Christian ideology or that one does not consider themselves a Christian. Also the above line of thinking seems to assume that if more people in the UK and Scandinavia went to church the society would be more violent. This would probably be a false assumption and in fact the violence levels could be even lower then they are now if more people became Christian.


That is indeed possible. About 67% of the British population in 2000 considered themselves Christian - the gulf is between attendance and belief advocated. 85% of Swedes in census describe themselves as Lutheran - a far higher percentage. So both are still "Christian nations", in Britain legally so, as the Church of England is a state church. Sweden disestablished in 1999 - Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Finland remain legally Lutheran nations with State churches.

cj x
 
This site is related to what I just said in post 1420.

From the article "Come All Ye Faithful" from the BBC:

"Births, deaths and marriages. They're the only events that get most people in the UK through church doors these days and even that is too often for some.

But this doesn't stop the majority of us calling ourselves Christian. More than half of British people say they believe in God despite only one in seven actually attending a Christian church service each month, says a new study."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6517807.stm
 
That is indeed possible. About 67% of the British population in 2000 considered themselves Christian - the gulf is between attendance and belief advocated. 85% of Swedes in census describe themselves as Lutheran - a far higher percentage. So both are still "Christian nations", in Britain legally so, as the Church of England is a state church. Sweden disestablished in 1999 - Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Finland remain legally Lutheran nations with State churches.

cj x

What do you mean by disestablished?
 
Not going to church does not mean one does not believe in Christian ideology or that one does not consider themselves a Christian. Also the above line of thinking seems to assume that if more people in the UK and Scandinavia went to church the society would be more violent. This would probably be a false assumption and in fact the violence levels could be even lower then they are now if more people became Christian.
And Dawkins considers himself culturally christian as well....
 
And Dawkins considers himself culturally christian as well....

Yup and I myself am still a member of the Swedish Church since when you aree baptized in sweden you are automatically a member of the swedish church and since most parents baptize their children when they still are infants alot of people are members of the swedish church (I think its about 80% of the population). And if you are not baptized as a kid chances are that you would want to get confirmed just to get all the gifts that comes along with it(atleast here in sweden), and confirmation requires that you are baptized so the few that werent baptized will then become members of the church when they are confirmed.

I am just about to send in my "resignation" to the church though (not a moment to late) so I´ll atleast save a few 100 dollars a year.

By the waj cj now I know what u meant by disestablished but practically it didnt do much of a difference.
 
Last edited:
Not going to church does not mean one does not believe in Christian ideology or that one does not consider themselves a Christian. Also the above line of thinking seems to assume that if more people in the UK and Scandinavia went to church the society would be more violent. This would probably be a false assumption and in fact the violence levels could be even lower then they are now if more people became Christian.

And Dawkins considers himself culturally christian as well....

My quote is talking about people who "do believe" in God (albeit non-church goers), not those who don't believe in God.
 
Thank GOD I live in sweden. That sounds HORRIBLE.

Over here (atleast in my experience) its woo woo over religion and if you are religious you are probably a little weird.

Funny how we never have problems with any schoolshootings or other comparable tragedies although we should be the most immoral country in the world (if atheistic means immoral).

Ofcourse we are a small country but still, (I guess you could pick almost all of Scandinavia).

And safe-keeper praying is DEFINATELY not required by law in sweden, if you were to pray I think you may have a bigger chance of being bullied though. Never seen a student praying in a swedish school.
I feel I should say something to correct some possible false impressions.

Schools have to have some provision for the spiritual side of pupils, but 'spiritual' is being used in a very wide sense here; it can mean no more than thinking about others in need or what is important in life. In the two secondary schools in which I have been in the last year there have been no services or praying in assemblies or classes.

And children who profess to be Christian are mocked as a general rule by fellow pupils.
 
My quote is talking about people who "do believe" in God (albeit non-church goers), not those who don't believe in God.
But you said:
Not going to church does not mean one does not believe in Christian ideology or that one does not consider themselves a Christian.
One can identify themselves as christian and not mean religiously christian.
All of this is really moot as you still haven't.
1.) Povided evidence that the resurrection is posisble.
2.) Provided evidence that the 10 commandments are a solid moral foundation. Indeed, the 10 commandments fail to prevent:
spousal rape, slavery, physical beating of children...
 
I feel I should say something to correct some possible false impressions.

Schools have to have some provision for the spiritual side of pupils, but 'spiritual' is being used in a very wide sense here; it can mean no more than thinking about others in need or what is important in life. In the two secondary schools in which I have been in the last year there have been no services or praying in assemblies or classes.

And children who profess to be Christian are mocked as a general rule by fellow pupils.

Ok thanks for the clarification that makes more sense.
 
I like in the UK, where School Prayer is not just allowed, it's required by law. Since the 1940's a "collective act of worship" has been required daily in all English & Welsh schools, and while schools vary in how they apply this, it is the norm. By default this is a Christian act, though followers of other religions and atheists may be choose not to attend with written parental consent (very few actually do in my experience), and in Schools with a high diversity of faith backgrounds the content can be multi-faith to reflect that. The government takes this seriously enough to last year prosecute a couple of schools for failure to comply as i recall.

Still, I grew up with prayers in my class first thing, then Assembly where we sang hymns and listened to the days announcements and a short talk, then after lunch paryers again, then prayers as we ended the day. My school was not very religious - this is State schools I'm talking about. I don't know how typical my experience was, but it was consistent over Primary Middle and Upper school, right from 5 to 16.

We of couse also have a legal responsibility to learn about Religion in class, also worth noting...

I feel I should say something to correct some possible false impressions.

Schools have to have some provision for the spiritual side of pupils, but 'spiritual' is being used in a very wide sense here; it can mean no more than thinking about others in need or what is important in life. In the two secondary schools in which I have been in the last year there have been no services or praying in assemblies or classes...

Sounds like 2 different opinions above, but either way I think it's a good idea. Although I'm pretty sure the ACLU (in America) would be against students having a time period to think about others in need and would fight it in court.

And Mr. Cllingford, I'm curious, did someone tell you there was no praying in those schools and what were the names of those two schools if you don't mind telling us.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like 2 different opinions above, but either way I think it's a good idea. The ACLU would probably be against students having a time period to think about others in need.

And Mr. Cllingford, I'm curious, did someone tell you there was no praying in those schools and what were the names of those two schools if you don't mind telling us.
Doc,

This link from the BBC gives an overview of the current situation. It point's out that 3/4's of schools don't bother with the law in this regard.

I think this shows how out of date the law is and how out of sync with the wishes of parents and the population as a whole. Today you get far more people taking schools to court over school uniform and jewellery than the lack of collective worship.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like 2 different opinions above, but either way I think it's a good idea. Although I'm pretty sure the ACLU (in America) would be against students having a time period to think about others in need and would fight it in court.


And DOC is wrong again.

ACLU of Tennessee said:
As long as 1) the moment of silence is free from any direction by school officials, 2) there is no state coercion or element of preference during the moment of silence for a particular religion or for religion in general, and 3) students are left to meditate, reflect, or pray silently as they see fit, the moment of silence does not violate the Establishment Clause. In summary, if the school tells students they may use the moment of silence as they wish, the activity does not violate the Constitution.

Source:

http://www.aclu-tn.org/pdfs/briefer_religion_in_public_schools.pdf
 
Well cj.23's experience and mine are separated by 20 years or so and what Lothian posts chimes in with what I know.

(These were two state schools in the south of England).


Concerning how uncool it is to be Xtian - I don't think that has changed!
 
Last edited:
Sounds like 2 different opinions above, but either way I think it's a good idea. Although I'm pretty sure the ACLU (in America) would be against students having a time period to think about others in need and would fight it in court.
Let's ignore your complete FAIL in regards to your bizarre ACLU hate for now.

I can't help but wonder, do you really think a generic moment of silence is good enough for you?
Would you be "OK" with students who spent that time:
Praying To Allah?
Considering joining Scientology?
Fantasizing about the boy/girl sitting next to them?
Consider helping others by joining Socially concerned entities like the ACLU?

Remember that these "moments of silence" which are nonsponsored are actually times for the kids to consider what ever they want. By making a universal silence, children are encouraged to think and believe that all religions are equal in the world.


Is this really ok by you?
 
Can wiccans cast silent spells?

Can Satanists commune with Satan?

Does god really need moments of silence slated for him in public schools? Isn't he omnipresent and able to read your thoughts. Can't you talk to him during any momenet you feel like it?

I think generic moments of silence are fine, but I might use mine to mock those who look like they are listening to voices in their head. (I'd do it silently of course).
 
Let's ignore your complete FAIL in regards to your bizarre ACLU hate for now.

I think the ACLU does some good work. It's just that they are obsessed and have a definite agenda in my opinion against any speck of religion in the public arena. Which would be against what Thomas Jefferson, who was a frequent church goer in the US capitol building, believed.
 
I stand by my statement. In my opinion, the ACLU would be against schools having a moment of silence to think about people in need.
DOC, you can stand by your statement. It simply makes you both demonstrably wrong and willifully foolish.

This is not a personal attack, rather a observation of the facts.

To put it another what, What would you think of a person who was to say. "I don't care what evidence you present, air is actually a form of chocolate."
 
The last year of my stay in Houston, our High School had a minute of silence every day that we, the student body, could spend doing whatever wanted inside our heads - praying, meditating, mourning how Christians could no longer force their religion down other peoples' throats by leading them in prayer, plotting the murder of Richard Dawkins... whatever.

Please direct me to the negative ACLU response to this tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom