Abandoning God's teachings has weakened our education system (From Lancashire Telegraph)

If the old education system was still in place it would be in Special Measures.

These days we do not tolerate individual schools in which 30% do not get 5 A-C GCSE's including Maths and English.

In the 'good old days' only 30% of children even took 'O' levels (which might not include Maths and English). So the entire system produced less than the minimum standard expected of an individual school today.

44 TEACHERS out of 200 thousand get roughed up a bit and you want to impose your Godly rules, regulations and moral codes on everyone in the education system.


Many more are killed and injured on building sites and I don't hear how God can be used to eradicate those injuries and deaths.


Your logic seems to suggest, that if one bus out of a million has a crash it's the fault of the entire evil transport system.

I agree, religious teaching has obviously been ineffective and futile for a long time. I will agree with you on that point and it's not often I do that!

Our own hearts simplest, unseen desire to feel thankful, is our greatest strength.

Do we recognise our innate desire to feel thankful or do we have a habit of forgetting it.

To forget this one, unseen desire is not an education.

When we are thankful, we understand everything that is happening right now and all is well, all is well, all is just perfect, just right. When we remember our unseen nature and fundamental desire, is just to feel thankful. Again.

Remembering this unseen desire you have can save you from a lifetime of trouble.

Very recently I asked an A* student to show me that kinetic energy is ½mv², a standard piece of business in my day. He couldn't, saying that the textbook he was copying from just quoted the result. His teacher, the head of department, was on a course and that was the reason he was left to copy from the textbook. This sort of treatment of students is common in schools of all stripes, faith-based or not.

Graham Hartley wrote:
Very recently I asked an A* student to show me that kinetic energy is ½mv², a standard piece of business in my day. He couldn't, saying that the textbook he was copying from just quoted the result. His teacher, the head of department, was on a course and that was the reason he was left to copy from the textbook. This sort of treatment of students is common in schools of all stripes, faith-based or not.

Consider a body of mass m moving with speed v acted upon by a force which decelerates the body to zero speed. The work done by the force is equal to the kinetic energy of the body. This is an outline which can be used with or without calculus to give the required result. Thanks for supporting the cause of proof in education, Graham Hartley.

Elisha and the Two Bears (2 Kings 2:23-24)

23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

This example is often used to show how The Lord treats naughty boys, but careful reading (at least of this version) shows that the prophet's curse and the actions of the bears are not related. I don't know the details of the case against this teacher but he surely did not curse the boy and thereby cause him to be torn apart by, say, two dangerous dogs (bears not readily available in Great Harwood) because the boy is yet alive. If the account in 2 Kings was intended to show how The Lord punishes naughty boys then this is an example to follow.

Graham Hartley wrote:
Very recently I asked an A* student to show me that kinetic energy is ½mv², a standard piece of business in my day. He couldn't, saying that the textbook he was copying from just quoted the result. His teacher, the head of department, was on a course and that was the reason he was left to copy from the textbook. This sort of treatment of students is common in schools of all stripes, faith-based or not.

This is a bad argument. A student who is not taught something can't then do it, What a surprise. All the example shows is that he may have been taught different things from you. What you would also have to show is that he had been taught far less than you were.

When I did history O level, I studied the Franco-Prussian war. I can still remember bits about it. My daughter who sat history GCSE knows nothing about the Franco-Prussian war. Because she was not taught it. However she knows far more about nineteenth century US history than I do, because that is what she studied.

So who had the better history education? Discuss.

Excluded again wrote:

Graham Hartley wrote: Very recently I asked an A* student to show me that kinetic energy is ½mv², a standard piece of business in my day. He couldn't, saying that the textbook he was copying from just quoted the result. His teacher, the head of department, was on a course and that was the reason he was left to copy from the textbook. This sort of treatment of students is common in schools of all stripes, faith-based or not.

This is a bad argument. A student who is not taught something can't then do it, What a surprise. All the example shows is that he may have been taught different things from you. What you would also have to show is that he had been taught far less than you were. When I did history O level, I studied the Franco-Prussian war. I can still remember bits about it. My daughter who sat history GCSE knows nothing about the Franco-Prussian war. Because she was not taught it. However she knows far more about nineteenth century US history than I do, because that is what she studied. So who had the better history education? Discuss.

I agree that it's a bad argument, but I saw nothing in the terms and conditions of corresponding here which excludes bad argument.

I disagree with your claim that the example shows this student may have been taught different things. The only evidence in the example is that he was not familiar with a standard piece. I didn't have the chance to conduct a full study, so I can't submit evidence in the matter of what he has been taught vs what I was taught.

Ah, the Franco-Prussian war; 1870 - the year is about all I can recall. What remains important to me at this long distance from Ordinary level History (1968 in my case) and even longer distance from 1870 is my approach; I can look up facts if I've forgotten them but if I've forgotten principles then it's more work. I decided long ago that I would remember principles so that I could use them to work out the rest. I thinks this approach works well enough in history as it does in science, which surprises me.

Thanks to that wag half-mv squared.

For 'thinks' above please read 'think'.

I wonder how many muslim pupils are banned from school because they are innundated / brainwashed with the koran and we all know they are not all goody two shoes .

" Several proverbs and texts of God’s word outline the wise way to bring up children". for example?

BritainfortheBritish wrote:
I wonder how many muslim pupils are banned from school because they are innundated / brainwashed with the koran and we all know they are not all goody two shoes .

Racist scum

A few points spring to mind (as a former East Lancs teacher).

-Corporal punishment does not work. It may have a very short-term deterrant upon a child, but the psychological ramifications are profound. The child loses any respect for the teacher who administers it and learning is negatively affected. A child wants to learn nothing from somebody who administers violence. The child wants to avoid any contact with that individual.

-I fail to see any justification at all for violence against children (except self defence if you are being robbed)

-I fail to see any justification whatsoever for using violence against a seven year old.

-All allegations of violence must be fully investigated.

-The defence of "his head his my hand" seems a little implausable.

(report from t'internet)

""I was trying to stop his head from rolling around so I put my hand out to stop him. That’s when he slammed into my hand and there was contact.
However another teacher, Thomas Lowe, claimed he did see Mr Cope striking the child and recalled him saying: ‘Do you want another? I can hit you again.’"""

____________________
__

-Chatting to my Dad, he told me how a few years back he bumped into a former teacher of his (now retired) who was liberal with the cane at school
"Still enjoying beating children?" Asked my dad. Needless to say the former teacher beat a hasty retreat, possibly even fearing some payback.

Excluded again wrote:

Graham Hartley wrote: Very recently I asked an A* student to show me that kinetic energy is ½mv², a standard piece of business in my day. He couldn't, saying that the textbook he was copying from just quoted the result. His teacher, the head of department, was on a course and that was the reason he was left to copy from the textbook. This sort of treatment of students is common in schools of all stripes, faith-based or not.

This is a bad argument. A student who is not taught something can't then do it, What a surprise. All the example shows is that he may have been taught different things from you. What you would also have to show is that he had been taught far less than you were. When I did history O level, I studied the Franco-Prussian war. I can still remember bits about it. My daughter who sat history GCSE knows nothing about the Franco-Prussian war. Because she was not taught it. However she knows far more about nineteenth century US history than I do, because that is what she studied. So who had the better history education? Discuss.

It's not what we are taught that counts it's what we understand, what we have understood that counts well for us.


There are teachers and there are masters. Teachers will teach what they know, but a master will remove all ignorance and doubt until you understand the subject.

The best education is to learn about something that is Perfect for the student. Histories are never going to be Perfect for the student.

Hi Revkev.
While I totally agree with you that unfairness and unjust rulings are wrong, I cannot see how you conclude that religious teachings will make everything OK. All of us want well behaved children, I tought my children the difference between right and wrong without reference to bibles and gods. There have always been badly behaved children and thankfully they have always been a minority. I could use the argument that if there is an all powerfull god why hasn't he made everyone kind and well behaved anyway.
If you want the real teachings of the bible enforced then anyone who is a non-beliver , disrespects their parents, is gay or works on a Sunday should surely be put to death.
I also refer you to the wonderful christian teaching environments of the catholic church in ireland, amazing how the influence of god and the bible gave guidance to those loving priests.
Over the years there has been far more abuse of children by adults of so called faith than the other way round. That's the real digrace Revkev.

Children don't need any logic to feel thankful. They can feel thankful for no reason. They don't need a reason. Education lumps reasons on to their little shoulders, and a lifetime of living reasonably can be enough to make anyone lamentable.


The secret, the prize, the golden treasure and the mother and father of all accomplishments is to feel thankful without needing or adding any logical reason. Feel the Gratitude that has no reason sticking to it and you will be rewarded. A little practice, and you will be Liberated.

Until that beautiful feeling is felt, it will always feel like there is something still missing and nothing will ever replace a feeling like that.


The purpose and meaning of the human condition, and the way everything is set up, is to just feel thankful without requiring or needing any logic.

Religion has no place in a school environment.

Forcing religion and religious beliefs on any child is not only cruel, but immoral.

A child's attitude and behaviour is, in large, affected by his upbringing and environment.

As much Gratitude as you will ever need fo feel is there. Gratitude is an Ocean that does not perish.

We can only be as kind as the kindness we have felt. We can only be as clear as the clarity we have felt. When we feel we understand, we understand, and when we feel touched by wisdom we become wise.


Children feel Immortally thankful. I have no idea what we think we are teaching them at school, but we don't remind them in or out of our schools to keep hold of that feeling they feel.

The world's teachings teach us to forget that feeling and we try to replace it with God and guesses and other pets.


I have nothing against pets.

The need to feel thankful cannot be replaced. It can only be acknowledged.

Even the need to feel This One Feeling is immense.

Who is alive and who isn't alive is determined by this Feeling.

Children are driven by feeling, they are feeling machines, feeling driven, who depend on the miracle of feeling to get by from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep.

We don't have to become anything to feel thankful.

We don't have to change anything we don't want to.

We don't have to do anything.

We win when we feel this feeling.

logics are for losers.

What is the point of being an Adult anyway ?

It's that feeling your heart desires.

l m h jones wrote:
" Several proverbs and texts of God’s word outline the wise way to bring up children". for example?

Hello Imh,
Some examples...
.
Genesis 18:19 For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.”
.
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
.
Isaiah 54:13 All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children.
.
Colossians 3:21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.
.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of Godmay be competent, equipped for every good work.
Teaching Children Bible Verses
.
Deuteronomy 4:9 “Only take care, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your children and your children’s children—
.
Deuteronomy 6:6-9 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Isaiah 38:19 The living, the living, he thanks you, as I do this day; the father makes known to the children your faithfulness.

l m h jones wrote:
" Several proverbs and texts of God’s word outline the wise way to bring up children". for example?

Some more examples, Imh,
.
Matthew 7:12 ”So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
.
2 Timothy 1:5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.

2 Timothy 3:14-15 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
.

l m h jones wrote:
" Several proverbs and texts of God’s word outline the wise way to bring up children". for example?

Hi Imh,

Here's some Bible Verses About the Discipline of Children.
.
Proverbs 13:24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
.
Proverbs 23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.
.
Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.
.
Proverbs 29:17 Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart.
.
Ephesians 6:4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
.
P.S.
Of course, political correctness and modern liberal discipline frowns on physical punishment.
.
My parents loved me enough to chastise me with smacks around the legs and backside, and I had the red marks (banned today by our soft, inadequate society) to show for it. They administered punishment without anger, but with loving, consistent disciplined sternness. In other words, I knew where I stood, and I knew that I didn't rule the roost. I always knew that I was secure in my parents home be cause they were in charge and loved us.
.
I remember my headmaster giving me a smart, sharp slap across the face when I willfully disobeyed him. It kept me in line as a six-year-old kid who was, by far, too big for his boots. I certainly know that the strap at school held a healthy deterrent for me and most normal kids.
.
I loved my kids enough to smack them when they were young. Later on, as they grew up, I found that I didn't need to. They knew where the line was and they knew the consequences of crossing it.

Joseph Yossarian wrote:
A few points spring to mind (as a former East Lancs teacher).

-Corporal punishment does not work. It may have a very short-term deterrant upon a child, but the psychological ramifications are profound. The child loses any respect for the teacher who administers it and learning is negatively affected. A child wants to learn nothing from somebody who administers violence. The child wants to avoid any contact with that individual.

-I fail to see any justification at all for violence against children (except self defence if you are being robbed)

-I fail to see any justification whatsoever for using violence against a seven year old.

-All allegations of violence must be fully investigated.

-The defence of "his head his my hand" seems a little implausable.

(report from t'internet)

""I was trying to stop his head from rolling around so I put my hand out to stop him. That’s when he slammed into my hand and there was contact.
However another teacher, Thomas Lowe, claimed he did see Mr Cope striking the child and recalled him saying: ‘Do you want another? I can hit you again.’"""

____________________

__

-Chatting to my Dad, he told me how a few years back he bumped into a former teacher of his (now retired) who was liberal with the cane at school
"Still enjoying beating children?" Asked my dad. Needless to say the former teacher beat a hasty retreat, possibly even fearing some payback.

HI Joe,
The kids who were with me at my school when I was growing up seemed to have a great respect for the teachers, even though they administered the strap.
.
Psychological arguments are like statistics. You can prove anything by quoting selective parts.

Carlost wrote:
Hi Revkev.
While I totally agree with you that unfairness and unjust rulings are wrong, I cannot see how you conclude that religious teachings will make everything OK. All of us want well behaved children, I tought my children the difference between right and wrong without reference to bibles and gods. There have always been badly behaved children and thankfully they have always been a minority. I could use the argument that if there is an all powerfull god why hasn't he made everyone kind and well behaved anyway.
If you want the real teachings of the bible enforced then anyone who is a non-beliver , disrespects their parents, is gay or works on a Sunday should surely be put to death.
I also refer you to the wonderful christian teaching environments of the catholic church in ireland, amazing how the influence of god and the bible gave guidance to those loving priests.
Over the years there has been far more abuse of children by adults of so called faith than the other way round. That's the real digrace Revkev.

Hi carlost,
You write above..
.
"I could use the argument that if there is an all powerfull god why hasn't he made everyone kind and well behaved anyway."
.
I think we've covered this quite a few times in our previous online chats. God could have made us all well-behaved robots. However, he loved us enough to give us free will, so you Carlost and me could choose to right or wrong.
He chose to make us human not mechanical.
Being a free-thinker, I thought you might appreciate God's courage in doing this.

AndyW wrote:
Religion has no place in a school environment.

Forcing religion and religious beliefs on any child is not only cruel, but immoral.

A child's attitude and behaviour is, in large, affected by his upbringing and environment.

Thanks, Andy, for your opinion, which is opposite to mine.
.
With regard to the last thought, I suppose the jury is still out on what makes us what we are - nature or nurture.
.
However, I think I lean towards your thinking: what we do to kids has a great affect on them.

Ken Shuffles wrote:
Children are driven by feeling, they are feeling machines, feeling driven, who depend on the miracle of feeling to get by from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep.

Hi Ken,
The trouble is when children have feelings that are wrong.
.
The feel they should be in charge in the home.
From the Terrible Two stage onward, they feel they want their own way.
They feel like hitting out at nursery, or school..etc.
They feel like bullying other kids.
.
Feelings have to be disciplined, would you not say, Ken.

RK::
HI Joe,
The kids who were with me at my school when I was growing up seemed to have a great respect for the teachers, even though they administered the strap.Psychological arguments are like statistics. You can prove anything by quoting selective parts.

____________________
_____
Ok I'll take the bait. Here is my disclaimer:
-I have worked as a teacher, so perhaps I know a little bit about the subject. (A long time ago admittedly)
-I find corporal punishment - the deliberate use of violence against children - to be morally abhorrent; completely without justification; a failure of an adult to act in a reasonable and respectable fashion and above all cowardly.
.
Violence between adults is illegal, yet Rev K and his ilk seem to think that violence against children, the most vulnerable of society, should be acceptable.

Some people confuse fear with respect. Use of violence as a teaching aid quite simply does not work. All it does is temporarily instil fear into a child to stop them from their course of action through immediate compliance as a reflex reaction to fear. It does not change behaviour. It does not educate. It breeds resentment. (I still hate my old maths teacher, the sadist; and it took me another 30 years to enjoy maths, )

It also teaches children that if they want another child to follow their will then violence is an acceptable tool (grown-ups use it after all!)

Corporal punishment is physical abuse of children. It is that simple. The UN calls it “legalised violence against children”.


Rev, you may think it didn’t do you any harm. But the reality is that it has quite probably contributed to you supporting the use of violence against children. It has contributed to your adoption of sadism as a disciplinary tool.

The reality also is that physical punishment is linked to increased aggression in children (obviously, as it teaches that violence is acceptable, ), antisocial behaviour, lower achievement, depression and so on.


"Spare the rod and spoil the child"

This is one of the most despicable use of religious texts to justify cruelty and violence that there is.
This sort of “guidance” from the bible completely removes any moral line between physical punishment and abuse. Not that there is much difference anyway.
It is tantamount to god’s blessing to be violent to children. It is beyond awful.

ps.....you blatant hypocrite rev. You are more guilty than anybody on this website of selectively quoting. You deliberate take comments out of context to back your prejudices

pps the existence of atheists who have never been beaten and have never subjected anybody to violence and have altruism in their hearts and have happy families and have never been in trouble must be quite difficult for you to grasp.

We survive quite well without
hitting our children
treating our wives as chattle
telling women what to do with their bodies
discriminating against gay people
thinking a big god that is bigger and better than all the others of history magically created everything
(continue RK prejudice list ad nauseam)

Joseph Yossarian wrote:
RK::
HI Joe,
The kids who were with me at my school when I was growing up seemed to have a great respect for the teachers, even though they administered the strap.Psychological arguments are like statistics. You can prove anything by quoting selective parts.

____________________

_____
Ok I'll take the bait. Here is my disclaimer:
-I have worked as a teacher, so perhaps I know a little bit about the subject. (A long time ago admittedly)
-I find corporal punishment - the deliberate use of violence against children - to be morally abhorrent; completely without justification; a failure of an adult to act in a reasonable and respectable fashion and above all cowardly.
.
Violence between adults is illegal, yet Rev K and his ilk seem to think that violence against children, the most vulnerable of society, should be acceptable.

Some people confuse fear with respect. Use of violence as a teaching aid quite simply does not work. All it does is temporarily instil fear into a child to stop them from their course of action through immediate compliance as a reflex reaction to fear. It does not change behaviour. It does not educate. It breeds resentment. (I still hate my old maths teacher, the sadist; and it took me another 30 years to enjoy maths, )

It also teaches children that if they want another child to follow their will then violence is an acceptable tool (grown-ups use it after all!)

Corporal punishment is physical abuse of children. It is that simple. The UN calls it “legalised violence against children”.


Rev, you may think it didn’t do you any harm. But the reality is that it has quite probably contributed to you supporting the use of violence against children. It has contributed to your adoption of sadism as a disciplinary tool.

The reality also is that physical punishment is linked to increased aggression in children (obviously, as it teaches that violence is acceptable, ), antisocial behaviour, lower achievement, depression and so on.


"Spare the rod and spoil the child"

This is one of the most despicable use of religious texts to justify cruelty and violence that there is.
This sort of “guidance” from the bible completely removes any moral line between physical punishment and abuse. Not that there is much difference anyway.
It is tantamount to god’s blessing to be violent to children. It is beyond awful.

ps.....you blatant hypocrite rev. You are more guilty than anybody on this website of selectively quoting. You deliberate take comments out of context to back your prejudices

pps the existence of atheists who have never been beaten and have never subjected anybody to violence and have altruism in their hearts and have happy families and have never been in trouble must be quite difficult for you to grasp.

We survive quite well without
hitting our children
treating our wives as chattle
telling women what to do with their bodies
discriminating against gay people
thinking a big god that is bigger and better than all the others of history magically created everything
(continue RK prejudice list ad nauseam)

Hi Joe,
What would you have done in this deputy head's position?
.
You get called into a classroom because a boy is out of control, angry, refusing to do as he's told and he's already attacked other students.
Everybody is scared.
The teacher has run out of ideas.
.
So you feel you have to physically protect those in the classroom and, as gently but as persuasively as possible, you remove the lad to another room.
.
You are struggling with the lad on your own. He refuses to behave, screams that you should get off him and leave him alone, but if you do he might run off out of school (a bad outcome as he's your responsibility) or run amok around the school and assault more staff and pupils (another bad outcome).
.
You keep your cool.
You calmly tell him to quieten down. You try to put the lid back, and calmly restrict him hitting out.
You're joined by a new member of staff who's come to help. As he does so, the boys head collides forcefully with your hand as you reach out to keep control of the boy.
In the struggle and noise that follows, the new teacher thinks he hears you say to the lad that "he'll get hit again if he continues".
.
The magistrates on hearing evidence from both sides accept the deputy head's version rather than that of the new teacher. They rule that it cannot be proved that the deputy struck the pupil deliberately.
.
As an ex-teacher, would you have done things differently?
As an ex-teacher, do you not have at least some sympathy with the deputy who found himself in a near-impossible situation?

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. phew! i have trained my children to be non judgmental especially when dealing with people from different cultures races etc etc..ticked that box, the spare the rod thing? interesting discussion around children and witchcraft on radio 4 today same theme i assume? scares me that religion should be used to justify hitting those smaller than yourself..why not try hugs/patience instead? or even discussion? how can hitting a kid be a behavior corrective? and Deuteronomy? one of the main reasons i gave up on the church was the selective readings..we no longer stone people for adultery/rape so why use the same book as a justification for thrashing "obedience" into kids?

So the boy was seven years old and being handled by a much larger adult, I guess. I further guess that the boy was not carrying scissors, a sharp pencil or any other dangerous instrument. My advice, then, would have been for the deputy head, class teacher, classroom assistant, caretaker,... as many adults as could be mustered to close around him, speaking reassuringly, without grabbing, whilst removing other children from the area. It would be an odd case indeed if the boy's wild outpouring lasted more than a couple of minutes. One of more of those adults might take a kick, but that's what tea-and-sympathy in the staffroom is for. Later, devise a policy for this sort of eventuality. One wonders why the boy behaved like that, what his history is. And his future?

SWP supporter wrote:

BritainfortheBritish wrote:
I wonder how many muslim pupils are banned from school because they are innundated / brainwashed with the koran and we all know they are not all goody two shoes .

Racist scum

How can the truth be racist and also religion is not a race . Thicko !!!
You and your ilk are what is going wrong with our country . You call people scum for telling the truth.
pc wimp !

AndyW wrote:
Religion has no place in a school environment.

Forcing religion and religious beliefs on any child is not only cruel, but immoral.

A child's attitude and behaviour is, in large, affected by his upbringing and environment.

I believe it does but only this countrys main religion which is Christianity .
But for some reason seems to be being put on the back burner and kids are being taught about islam . This is really wrong !

Revkev wrote:

Carlost wrote:
Hi Revkev.
While I totally agree with you that unfairness and unjust rulings are wrong, I cannot see how you conclude that religious teachings will make everything OK. All of us want well behaved children, I tought my children the difference between right and wrong without reference to bibles and gods. There have always been badly behaved children and thankfully they have always been a minority. I could use the argument that if there is an all powerfull god why hasn't he made everyone kind and well behaved anyway.
If you want the real teachings of the bible enforced then anyone who is a non-beliver , disrespects their parents, is gay or works on a Sunday should surely be put to death.
I also refer you to the wonderful christian teaching environments of the catholic church in ireland, amazing how the influence of god and the bible gave guidance to those loving priests.
Over the years there has been far more abuse of children by adults of so called faith than the other way round. That's the real digrace Revkev.

Hi carlost,
You write above..
.
"I could use the argument that if there is an all powerfull god why hasn't he made everyone kind and well behaved anyway."
.
I think we've covered this quite a few times in our previous online chats. God could have made us all well-behaved robots. However, he loved us enough to give us free will, so you Carlost and me could choose to right or wrong.
He chose to make us human not mechanical.
Being a free-thinker, I thought you might appreciate God's courage in doing this.

Hi Revkev
How did I know that you would respond with that (free will ) old chestnut, I could almost hear your response when I wrote the sentence. This is the get out of jail card for all religious people when they haven't got a rational and coherent response, i treat it with the disdain it deserves. I notice you have given no response to my other points which are far more serious. Do you accept that there has been too much abuse of children in schools which support the faith values you are promoting. Many adults have used and abused their religious stance to frighten and abuse children in a so called christian environments. Faith schools at best are devisive and at worst breed disharmony and bigotry ( jus look at yourself with regard to gay people ). The problems caused by indoctrnating children ( let them use their god given free will ) with whatever faith their parents happen to have has caused more social unrest than a minority of unruly children has ever done..

Revkev wrote:

Joseph Yossarian wrote: RK:: HI Joe, The kids who were with me at my school when I was growing up seemed to have a great respect for the teachers, even though they administered the strap.Psychological arguments are like statistics. You can prove anything by quoting selective parts. ____________________ _____ Ok I'll take the bait. Here is my disclaimer: -I have worked as a teacher, so perhaps I know a little bit about the subject. (A long time ago admittedly) -I find corporal punishment - the deliberate use of violence against children - to be morally abhorrent; completely without justification; a failure of an adult to act in a reasonable and respectable fashion and above all cowardly. . Violence between adults is illegal, yet Rev K and his ilk seem to think that violence against children, the most vulnerable of society, should be acceptable. Some people confuse fear with respect. Use of violence as a teaching aid quite simply does not work. All it does is temporarily instil fear into a child to stop them from their course of action through immediate compliance as a reflex reaction to fear. It does not change behaviour. It does not educate. It breeds resentment. (I still hate my old maths teacher, the sadist; and it took me another 30 years to enjoy maths, ) It also teaches children that if they want another child to follow their will then violence is an acceptable tool (grown-ups use it after all!) Corporal punishment is physical abuse of children. It is that simple. The UN calls it “legalised violence against children”. Rev, you may think it didn’t do you any harm. But the reality is that it has quite probably contributed to you supporting the use of violence against children. It has contributed to your adoption of sadism as a disciplinary tool. The reality also is that physical punishment is linked to increased aggression in children (obviously, as it teaches that violence is acceptable, ), antisocial behaviour, lower achievement, depression and so on. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" This is one of the most despicable use of religious texts to justify cruelty and violence that there is. This sort of “guidance” from the bible completely removes any moral line between physical punishment and abuse. Not that there is much difference anyway. It is tantamount to god’s blessing to be violent to children. It is beyond awful. ps.....you blatant hypocrite rev. You are more guilty than anybody on this website of selectively quoting. You deliberate take comments out of context to back your prejudices pps the existence of atheists who have never been beaten and have never subjected anybody to violence and have altruism in their hearts and have happy families and have never been in trouble must be quite difficult for you to grasp. We survive quite well without hitting our children treating our wives as chattle telling women what to do with their bodies discriminating against gay people thinking a big god that is bigger and better than all the others of history magically created everything (continue RK prejudice list ad nauseam)

Hi Joe, What would you have done in this deputy head's position? . You get called into a classroom because a boy is out of control, angry, refusing to do as he's told and he's already attacked other students. Everybody is scared. The teacher has run out of ideas. . So you feel you have to physically protect those in the classroom and, as gently but as persuasively as possible, you remove the lad to another room. . You are struggling with the lad on your own. He refuses to behave, screams that you should get off him and leave him alone, but if you do he might run off out of school (a bad outcome as he's your responsibility) or run amok around the school and assault more staff and pupils (another bad outcome). . You keep your cool. You calmly tell him to quieten down. You try to put the lid back, and calmly restrict him hitting out. You're joined by a new member of staff who's come to help. As he does so, the boys head collides forcefully with your hand as you reach out to keep control of the boy. In the struggle and noise that follows, the new teacher thinks he hears you say to the lad that "he'll get hit again if he continues". . The magistrates on hearing evidence from both sides accept the deputy head's version rather than that of the new teacher. They rule that it cannot be proved that the deputy struck the pupil deliberately. . As an ex-teacher, would you have done things differently? As an ex-teacher, do you not have at least some sympathy with the deputy who found himself in a near-impossible situation?

Personal circumstances (mine or any other) are irrelevent to your points "spare the rod...." comments.

There is no justification whatsover for use of violence against a child.
It really is that simple.

The True Human Being and the Monster are both there. When we are content, everything falls into place. When we are not content that same Human Being can be a Monster.


Who rules in a beater of children? A True Human Being or a Monster who is not content.

Revkev wrote:

Ken Shuffles wrote: Children are driven by feeling, they are feeling machines, feeling driven, who depend on the miracle of feeling to get by from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep.

Hi Ken, The trouble is when children have feelings that are wrong. . The feel they should be in charge in the home. From the Terrible Two stage onward, they feel they want their own way. They feel like hitting out at nursery, or school..etc. They feel like bullying other kids. . Feelings have to be disciplined, would you not say, Ken.

Who is ruling our logic and our emotions is a fair point Kev. Who is in command of our logic and our emotion? Is it a Monster governing them both or a True Human Being.


Emotional intelligence can be just as variable and self serving as rational intelligence.


Emoting is not Feeling.

Anger, fear, confusion, pain, sorrows and doubts are emotions.

ALL of our hopes and our fears have so far been misplaced.

l m h jones wrote:
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. phew! i have trained my children to be non judgmental especially when dealing with people from different cultures races etc etc..ticked that box, the spare the rod thing? interesting discussion around children and witchcraft on radio 4 today same theme i assume? scares me that religion should be used to justify hitting those smaller than yourself..why not try hugs/patience instead? or even discussion? how can hitting a kid be a behavior corrective? and Deuteronomy? one of the main reasons i gave up on the church was the selective readings..we no longer stone people for adultery/rape so why use the same book as a justification for thrashing "obedience" into kids?

Hi I m h,
Do you honestly think I'm advocating leaving out hugs leaving and patience and discussions?

Joseph Yossarian said:
«Violence between adults is illegal, yet Rev K and his ilk seem to think that violence against children, the most vulnerable of society, should be acceptable.»

Quite right. Violence between adults IS illegal. That's why police were looking for whoever did this to Emma Winnall:

http://tinyurl.com/9
z2dmbu

That's violence for you.

Joseph Yossarian also said:
«There is no justification whatsover for use of violence against a child.
It really is that simple.»

Quite right again. Except no-one's talking about violence in this context, are they? No-ones talking about beating a child unconscious so that he's hospitalised and in intensive care, are they?

What we're discussing here is disciplining a child. Revkev is a "carrot and stick" man, as am I. You're all carrot, it seems.

PS Emma Winnall died 4 weeks later from complications arising from her injuries, which included a fractured skull and broken arm.

Children give us their Love and devotion and we should be responding likewise with our love and devotion. When we feel the kindness we are kind. When we don't feel the kindness, we are hurting and when we hurt,we sow the seeds of hurt.


When we feel the kindness, accept the feeling of kindness, we are kind and we sow seeds of kindness.

Most of our behaviour is driven by our way of thinking and emoting and what this world will not tell us is that we are only fulfilling our real potential when we are driven by what it is we need to be feeling.

Gratitude is a feeling and we need to feel that. Peace is a feeling and we need to feel that. Beauty, admiration, appreciation and mercy are feelings.

What moves us is a feeling and we need to feel that.

There can be no peace on earth until we recognise the need to discover the sense and feeling that brings an endless amount of peace.

Carlost wrote:

Revkev wrote:

Carlost wrote:
Hi Revkev.
While I totally agree with you that unfairness and unjust rulings are wrong, I cannot see how you conclude that religious teachings will make everything OK. All of us want well behaved children, I tought my children the difference between right and wrong without reference to bibles and gods. There have always been badly behaved children and thankfully they have always been a minority. I could use the argument that if there is an all powerfull god why hasn't he made everyone kind and well behaved anyway.
If you want the real teachings of the bible enforced then anyone who is a non-beliver , disrespects their parents, is gay or works on a Sunday should surely be put to death.
I also refer you to the wonderful christian teaching environments of the catholic church in ireland, amazing how the influence of god and the bible gave guidance to those loving priests.
Over the years there has been far more abuse of children by adults of so called faith than the other way round. That's the real digrace Revkev.

Hi carlost,
You write above..
.
"I could use the argument that if there is an all powerfull god why hasn't he made everyone kind and well behaved anyway."
.
I think we've covered this quite a few times in our previous online chats. God could have made us all well-behaved robots. However, he loved us enough to give us free will, so you Carlost and me could choose to right or wrong.
He chose to make us human not mechanical.
Being a free-thinker, I thought you might appreciate God's courage in doing this.

Hi Revkev
How did I know that you would respond with that (free will ) old chestnut, I could almost hear your response when I wrote the sentence. This is the get out of jail card for all religious people when they haven't got a rational and coherent response, i treat it with the disdain it deserves. I notice you have given no response to my other points which are far more serious. Do you accept that there has been too much abuse of children in schools which support the faith values you are promoting. Many adults have used and abused their religious stance to frighten and abuse children in a so called christian environments. Faith schools at best are devisive and at worst breed disharmony and bigotry ( jus look at yourself with regard to gay people ). The problems caused by indoctrnating children ( let them use their god given free will ) with whatever faith their parents happen to have has caused more social unrest than a minority of unruly children has ever done..

Hi Carlost,
It's an old chestnut because it always comes up because millions know the good sense of this argument, millions know it makes sense from their experience, millions know it to be true in their lives.
.
God is not an Adolf Hitler.
He's not a Pol Pot.
He's not a dictator.
He is the King of Kings who, incredibly, gives you the freedom to say that his truths are 'old chestnuts'.
.
Thankfully, he also gives us brains to think this through and to recognise the sense of obvious things.
.
I do accept that there has been too much abuse, and often at the hands of those associated with a religious stance. Of course, abuse also happens in non-faith schools, organisations and activities apart from the church. It suggests that those who choose to abuse children are attracted to groups that bring them into contact with children. This is not a religious thing.
.
The liberal/humanist/sec
ular world indoctrinates our kids as much as, if not more so, than the church. And the way many children and adults behave these days, this godless world is having an appalling effect... Out-of-control kids; adults drinking themselves to death; drug abuse at an all-time high; personal debt in trillions... family break up... and on and on.
.
Would you agree that this is not the responsibility of church indoctrination?

Ken Shuffles wrote:
What moves us is a feeling and we need to feel that.

Feelings are fickle.
Those who base their lives on feelings are fickle.
Would you agree, Ken?

Those who base their lives on logics and emotion are vulnerable. Mercy, Love, Serenity, Contentment, Freedom and Kindness and Joy are core values worth keeping. The feeling that Life brings us is a fundamental experience worth keeping hold of.

Life is the Most Loyal Feeling in town and The Feeling of Life looks good on the human condition. People are searching everywhere, for something or other to make them fulfilled but the Feeling and Joy of Life is within every person. Religion trains people to look elsewhere for the ultimate thing in Kindness and the ultimate experience and it does not look at or even begin to address the world the way it is.


There is nothing new about the errors of humanity. Religion has not solved these errors and is not part of the solution.

There are two sides to everything only because we have been given the ability of choice. If there were no faculty of choice there would only be one of everything.


We can search or we can find using the same energy, faculty and ability.

Did you find the beauty and discover the love you have for your Self today ?

Until we are moved by this breath no greater mercy is made available.

from Revkev - 'Thankfully, he also gives us brains to think this through and to recognise the sense of obvious things.'

It appears that He also gives us 'faulty' brains which operate so as to lead humans to oppose what Revkev considers obvious. Brains, 'faulty' or not, capable of rather more than proscribed.

If I was able to present what I know to be so from my study of mathematics and physics at university to an audience of influential religious people of a few generations before mine then I would expect torture and death. Yet I expect that if I was able to make the same presentation to scientists of that period then I do not expect that torture and death would follow.

This is of interest to me as one concerned to preserve and pass on what is known to this individual, this 'faulty?' brain.

Graham Hartley said:

«Yet I expect that if I was able to make the same presentation to scientists of that period then I do not expect that torture and death would follow.»

I wouldn't be too sure about that.
Cosimo Boscaglia, neither priest nor theologian, was a professor of philosophy (what we would now call a professor of scientific theory) at the University of Pisa in Italy. He is the first person known to have accused Galileo of possible heresy for defending the heliocentric system of Copernicus, in 1613.

The prevailing scientific opinion of the time was that the Ptolemaic system (that the Earth is fixed at the centre of the Universe) was the correct explanation of the observations. The Church merely accepted this scientific opinion. It was the science of the day through the Church which opposed Galileo. The Church had yet to learn that to marry the science of today is to be a widow tomorrow. It still has to learn that lesson.

Watchkeeper wrote:
Graham Hartley said:

«Yet I expect that if I was able to make the same presentation to scientists of that period then I do not expect that torture and death would follow.»

I wouldn't be too sure about that.
Cosimo Boscaglia, neither priest nor theologian, was a professor of philosophy (what we would now call a professor of scientific theory) at the University of Pisa in Italy. He is the first person known to have accused Galileo of possible heresy for defending the heliocentric system of Copernicus, in 1613.

The prevailing scientific opinion of the time was that the Ptolemaic system (that the Earth is fixed at the centre of the Universe) was the correct explanation of the observations. The Church merely accepted this scientific opinion. It was the science of the day through the Church which opposed Galileo. The Church had yet to learn that to marry the science of today is to be a widow tomorrow. It still has to learn that lesson.

Watchmaker, your reading of history is wider than mine; I have only Ordinary level 1968 and a careful reading of Bronowski's The Ascent Of Man pp 196 - 218, where Galileo's story is given with the assistance of Vatican Secret Archives (Bronowski's capitals).

All comment removed from the LT news report of the teacher's situation; what mischief!

form Revkev -

'God is not an Adolf Hitler.
He's not a Pol Pot.
He's not a dictator.'

My 'faulty-brain' memory is that there is evidence in the Bible which supports Revkev's view, and also evidence there to support its opposite.

Revkev wrote:

Carlost wrote:

Revkev wrote:

Carlost wrote:
Hi Revkev.
While I totally agree with you that unfairness and unjust rulings are wrong, I cannot see how you conclude that religious teachings will make everything OK. All of us want well behaved children, I tought my children the difference between right and wrong without reference to bibles and gods. There have always been badly behaved children and thankfully they have always been a minority. I could use the argument that if there is an all powerfull god why hasn't he made everyone kind and well behaved anyway.
If you want the real teachings of the bible enforced then anyone who is a non-beliver , disrespects their parents, is gay or works on a Sunday should surely be put to death.
I also refer you to the wonderful christian teaching environments of the catholic church in ireland, amazing how the influence of god and the bible gave guidance to those loving priests.
Over the years there has been far more abuse of children by adults of so called faith than the other way round. That's the real digrace Revkev.

Hi carlost,
You write above..
.
"I could use the argument that if there is an all powerfull god why hasn't he made everyone kind and well behaved anyway."
.
I think we've covered this quite a few times in our previous online chats. God could have made us all well-behaved robots. However, he loved us enough to give us free will, so you Carlost and me could choose to right or wrong.
He chose to make us human not mechanical.
Being a free-thinker, I thought you might appreciate God's courage in doing this.

Hi Revkev
How did I know that you would respond with that (free will ) old chestnut, I could almost hear your response when I wrote the sentence. This is the get out of jail card for all religious people when they haven't got a rational and coherent response, i treat it with the disdain it deserves. I notice you have given no response to my other points which are far more serious. Do you accept that there has been too much abuse of children in schools which support the faith values you are promoting. Many adults have used and abused their religious stance to frighten and abuse children in a so called christian environments. Faith schools at best are devisive and at worst breed disharmony and bigotry ( jus look at yourself with regard to gay people ). The problems caused by indoctrnating children ( let them use their god given free will ) with whatever faith their parents happen to have has caused more social unrest than a minority of unruly children has ever done..

Hi Carlost,
It's an old chestnut because it always comes up because millions know the good sense of this argument, millions know it makes sense from their experience, millions know it to be true in their lives.
.
God is not an Adolf Hitler.
He's not a Pol Pot.
He's not a dictator.
He is the King of Kings who, incredibly, gives you the freedom to say that his truths are 'old chestnuts'.
.
Thankfully, he also gives us brains to think this through and to recognise the sense of obvious things.
.
I do accept that there has been too much abuse, and often at the hands of those associated with a religious stance. Of course, abuse also happens in non-faith schools, organisations and activities apart from the church. It suggests that those who choose to abuse children are attracted to groups that bring them into contact with children. This is not a religious thing.
.
The liberal/humanist/sec

ular world indoctrinates our kids as much as, if not more so, than the church. And the way many children and adults behave these days, this godless world is having an appalling effect... Out-of-control kids; adults drinking themselves to death; drug abuse at an all-time high; personal debt in trillions... family break up... and on and on.
.
Would you agree that this is not the responsibility of church indoctrination?

As I have said many times before there are good people and there are bad people both believers and non believers. I could say that my moral code is slightly better than your particualr ( christian ) one as I agree with most of your Christian ethics of not killing, being kind to one another, helping the less fortunate etc. etc. but I am not bidgoted against gay people, think women are inferior or think people of other opinions are gointg to suffer in hell for eternity. In other words many people do not need a god to be good, and many people of faith do bad things, It is the way of the natural world and has nothing to do with gods. Even god keeps out of it by giving everyone free will, he might just as well not exist, ( does he exist? hmm let me think, probably not). If you need to belive in nonsense to make you a good person thats OK, but don't assume everyone who thinks differently is automatically bad, or inferior in some way. Its your arrogance of belief that spoils you.

Every Being has a hunger to be content every day regardless of all the other differences and all the other circumstances. Everyone has this desire to be content, and that desire to be content does not go away. Even when you are content, the desire to be content is still there. Whatever the hearsay, old or modern, this one desire to be content will not leave your existence.


Everyone has an innate hunger to be content and that one simple desire is worth focusing on and addressing.

Religious people have a plan. They have a plan for today a plan for tomorrow and a plan for us and a plan for the beginning and a plan for the end. They do their plan, and they believe and think and emote and do according to their plan.


They get so busy with the plan of someone else, that they forget the purpose of their own existence which is to feel the beautiful contentment they thirst for on this journey.

The hunger to be content needs to be known. It needs to be felt.

Ken Shuffles wrote:
Until we are moved by this breath no greater mercy is made available.

How do you know this, Ken?

Revkev wrote:

Ken Shuffles wrote: Until we are moved by this breath no greater mercy is made available.

How do you know this, Ken?

I am not made moving or set in motion by anything else, and I can accept that. Something has to be moving the dust otherwise it's just dust.


I might invent some other thing was responsible, if I couldn't accept that.


I don't doubt that I am companioned and backed up by the divine. I have no evidence that suggests otherwise.


I know it's not promised forever, but I have no evidence that the divine will not return to me, therefore I never doubt the divine will.

When I was born, the first thing I needed to feel was content and out of nowhere, out of nothing, the first thing that came was a breeze and with that breeze I felt content. Today, almost 60 years later and that same breeze is with me, and the same desire to feel content is also with me.


Why anyone would need to count to three is beyond me.

As long as I can feel that contentment, Life is working for me. When I don't feel that contentment, nothing works. Nothing is right. Nothing is well. Nothing is ever good enough and something is always missing.

What is the use of there being a God or not being one, if I cannot be beautifully content with my existence.

The feeling of Life comes with us so we can be content. We can ignore this one true feeling but when we feel content, in that moment, we are free. The same problems and issues might still be there, but our real contentment and our peace is not moved by problems and issues.

If contentment is dependent on resolving the worlds problems and issues, then we human beings are going to have a problem being content.


We breath so that we can be content or there is no benefit from breathing.

We all need a breath to think and emote with and there is nothing optional about that reality for believers and non believers alike.

Graham Hartley said:

«Yet I expect that if I was able to make the same presentation to scientists of that period then I do not expect that torture and death would follow.»

Take your knowledge of immunology and inoculation back to the time before Jenner and see what treatment you get. Good grief - scientists didn't accept the existence of ATOMS until the early 20th Century! Ludwig Boltzmann (he of the famed Boltzmann constant in the equation S = k.logW) committed suicide, and this was one reason why he did so - as Bronowski chronicles.

If you subscribe to the "impartial scientist fearlessly pursuing the facts in the face of prejudice and superstition" nonsense, you need to read more history.

It has rightly been said that new scientific theories do not become orthodox by sheer weight of evidence, but only by the deaths of those who already hold the orthodox view.

Look at these eminent scientists who oppose the Big Bang theory:

http://www.cosmology
statement.org/

and with names like Arp and Bondi, "eminent" is certainly the right word. Yet these views are ignored and Big Bang is the orthodoxy.

Facts are facts. Yet the interpretation of the facts is in the hands of the orthodox. It was ever thus. Your time travelling thought experiment fails.

Watchkeeper wrote:
Graham Hartley said:

«Yet I expect that if I was able to make the same presentation to scientists of that period then I do not expect that torture and death would follow.»

Take your knowledge of immunology and inoculation back to the time before Jenner and see what treatment you get. Good grief - scientists didn't accept the existence of ATOMS until the early 20th Century! Ludwig Boltzmann (he of the famed Boltzmann constant in the equation S = k.logW) committed suicide, and this was one reason why he did so - as Bronowski chronicles.

If you subscribe to the "impartial scientist fearlessly pursuing the facts in the face of prejudice and superstition" nonsense, you need to read more history.

It has rightly been said that new scientific theories do not become orthodox by sheer weight of evidence, but only by the deaths of those who already hold the orthodox view.

Look at these eminent scientists who oppose the Big Bang theory:

http://www.cosmology

statement.org/

and with names like Arp and Bondi, "eminent" is certainly the right word. Yet these views are ignored and Big Bang is the orthodoxy.

Facts are facts. Yet the interpretation of the facts is in the hands of the orthodox. It was ever thus. Your time travelling thought experiment fails.

I can't respond to this, beyond saying that I can't.

Revkev wrote:

l m h jones wrote:
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. phew! i have trained my children to be non judgmental especially when dealing with people from different cultures races etc etc..ticked that box, the spare the rod thing? interesting discussion around children and witchcraft on radio 4 today same theme i assume? scares me that religion should be used to justify hitting those smaller than yourself..why not try hugs/patience instead? or even discussion? how can hitting a kid be a behavior corrective? and Deuteronomy? one of the main reasons i gave up on the church was the selective readings..we no longer stone people for adultery/rape so why use the same book as a justification for thrashing "obedience" into kids?

Hi I m h,
Do you honestly think I'm advocating leaving out hugs leaving and patience and discussions?

i think that slapping a child in the face and then having a hug and a discussion is like a convicted wife beater saying that she deserved it and i apologized afterwards. i think that any use of physical violence against a child is morally outrageous and i think that any religion that condones that violence is morally repugnant

l m h jones said:

« i think that any use of physical violence against a child is morally outrageous and i think that any religion that condones that violence is morally repugnant»

This really is pathetic. NO-ONE is talking of using physical violence or condoning violence against children. I posted the case earlier of Emma Winnall who was hospitalized with a fractured skull, broken arm and other injuries as a result of VIOLENCE. She died four weeks later. Why anyone would want to use the word VIOLENCE in connection with disciplining children is beyond me.

Joseph Yossarian pointed out (rightly) that violence is illegal. Are you seriously suggesting that's what Revkev is advocating - broken arms, fractured skulls and law-breaking?

If the Biblical account is true, God is a candidate for violence towards children.

If one wants to follow God's ways, there is much to follow in the direction of violence. And admire, if one is an admirer of His.

Toti Aiyrk said:

« If one wants to follow God's ways, there is much to follow in the direction of violence. »

Nonsense.

If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.

Never pay back evil with more evil. Do things in such a way that everyone can see you are honourable.

See that no one pays back evil for evil, but always try to do good to each other and to all people.

Don’t repay evil for evil. Don’t retaliate with insults when people insult you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing. That is what God has called you to do, and he will bless you for it.

Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone.

Watchkeeper wrote:
Toti Aiyrk said:

« If one wants to follow God's ways, there is much to follow in the direction of violence. »

Nonsense.

If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.

Never pay back evil with more evil. Do things in such a way that everyone can see you are honourable.

See that no one pays back evil for evil, but always try to do good to each other and to all people.

Don’t repay evil for evil. Don’t retaliate with insults when people insult you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing. That is what God has called you to do, and he will bless you for it.

Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone.

What I have read of this matter in the Bible is indeed nonsense.

'Good Without God' is an atheist slogan. I prefer 'God Without Good', as it seems do some writers in the Bible.

Toti Aiyrk wrote:
'Good Without God' is an atheist slogan. I prefer 'God Without Good', as it seems do some writers in the Bible.

Hi Toti,
The atheist slogan 'Good without God' is impossible, according to God.
.
In his word he says that our so-called good works without him are like filthy rags.
Our good works are useless in his sight unless first we've come to him.
.
The reason is that we will always do our good works for motives other than the good of the person we do them for.
And those reasons will invariably contain some selfishness; i.e like filthy rags.
.
Motives for doing good without God include,
"because I feel good doing them"
"because I like to help others"
"because it makes me look good"
"because it fulfills me"
.
All the above include "I" or "Me".
All self-centred.
Discuss!

Toti Aiyrk said:

« 'Good Without God' is an atheist slogan. I prefer 'God Without Good', as it seems do some writers in the Bible. »

Define "good".

Watchkeeper wrote:
Toti Aiyrk said: « 'Good Without God' is an atheist slogan. I prefer 'God Without Good', as it seems do some writers in the Bible. » Define "good".

In Genesis 1, God defines what is good.

Revkev wrote:

Toti Aiyrk wrote: 'Good Without God' is an atheist slogan. I prefer 'God Without Good', as it seems do some writers in the Bible.

Hi Toti, The atheist slogan 'Good without God' is impossible, according to God. . In his word he says that our so-called good works without him are like filthy rags. Our good works are useless in his sight unless first we've come to him. . The reason is that we will always do our good works for motives other than the good of the person we do them for. And those reasons will invariably contain some selfishness; i.e like filthy rags. . Motives for doing good without God include, "because I feel good doing them" "because I like to help others" "because it makes me look good" "because it fulfills me" . All the above include "I" or "Me". All self-centred. Discuss!

A few weeks ago you berated atheists for not doing enough charitable work "together".

You were shown to be completely wrong.

Yet you still attempt to devalue their charitable works by falsely relating such works to selfishness. This is beyond pathetic. It is insulting. It shows hat you do not admit that you were in fact wrong. It shows that as a true dogmatic you cling to your beliefs even when the evidence with which you are directly confronted shows that you are wrong.

It is what we have come to expect from your column. We have come to expect you to give no respect whatsoever to those who hold your extremist views as wrong.

Now you have the brass neck to suggest that such works are not of the same value as those of believers because they are not done for god.

Why you do not seem to understand the basic principle of altruism is beyond me.

A clue: It is the opposite to selfishness. It is selfless concern for others with no strings attached.

Let me give you some examples:
"Because they need help"
"Because they will benefit from assistance"
"Because their need is greater than mine"
"Because their work is a benefit to society"

Selfishness has nothing to do with giving to charitable causes whatsoever.

You are just as wrong on this as you were about your column on atheists who give to charity.

Pointing out that which brings the greatest relief, joy, contentment, fulfillment for the human being and gives the greatest relief from suffering, pains, lies and death under any conditions and in any circumstances is possibly the greatest good. To point toward the self of the person, to encourage a person to fall in love with the taste of their own mouth as well as the tastes of other foods is good. In fact, it is more certain to be more beneficial to a person, for that person to develope a sense of love for just that feeling within themselves, than it is to react to the body, the thoughts, the emotions and actions of any other. The original love is in reality, the very same true feeling of love we can feel within our own self.


Enjoying this realm of feeling is eternally good and does not take away anything from anyone else and does not depend upon what anyone thinks or emotes or acts.



The current definitions of good are all variable, and as the definitions of good are variable so are the current effects.



There is an experience, that is beyond good, that is beyond God.



To understand how we are, we MUST first of all know WHO we are and WHAT we are. What we were yesterday, and what we ARE NOW and will have the potential to be tomorrow if there is one, is the ultimate experiencing machine for the ultimate feeling.


In the light of this one unique feeling, all thoughts, concepts, emotions and acts, and any other misleading and incomplete information we may have picked up about the meaning and purpose of our human condition, whether before or after death is totally blown and swept away to the point where it is all put to one side and doesn't really matter much.



In a universe where all thoughts and emotions and actions are variable, and both the good and the bad are variable, the INVARIABLE thing is more fascinating than anything else and I find that which is NEVER variable in a variable universe, very, very, VERY interesting.

Are you looking for one moment worth investing in ?

The rewards are immediate.