The new fundamentalists

[TeePee]

that is what one might think, however there has been a DIRECT correlation between those countries that have been preaching abstinence and the decline of AIDS, vs those countries that simply supply condoms. I come from Africa. I come from a country with one of the highest rates of infection in the world (over 33%). Many of my friends work with AIDS patients there every day, and are involved with AIDS prevention. Believe me, these people WANT to know what the best method is for preventing transmission, for purely practical reasons, not to prove scriptural points.

I call bull****. Prove it.

[TeePee]

If you're going to go on about evolution, understand that intelligent design is also a SCIENTIFIC explanation of the world, with its own hypotheses illustrating the hypthetico-deductive method. LOL

No it isn't. Intelligent design doesn't offer hypotheses which are subject to change with new data, new interpretations or demonstrations of error, as in the scientific method. Intelligent design sets out a conclusion 'a creator' and then looks for evidence to support it, and only to support it, excluding all else. This is not scientific.

[Woodchuck2000]

says who? only your blinkered idea of it. anyone who really seeks to understand Christianity might want to look at Christ. Seems logical to look at the main exponent of a belief system rather than what other people claim about it.

Oh, I quite agree! I believe that fundamental Christianity should be based solely on the teachings of Christ as a person, not on a rigid and lteral interpretation of scripture. That's not what you said though - you said that fundamental Christianity is about taking bullets for strangers and dying for one's faith...

So perfect is His Word that God issued this warning: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it,....." Deuteronomy 4:2.

Let's get our timelines straight here - Deuteronomy was written long before the New Testament (or indeed much of the Old!). If you interpret that quotation literally, then including the Gospels in scripture is prohibited.

This warning is further emphasized in the last book of the Bible: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book" Rev. 22:18-19.

Note "The words of the book of prophecy." which makes it clear that that passage refers strictly to Revalations. Note also, that the canon of scripture as we have it was compiled long after that revalation was given. Once again, if you try to apply that out of context to the whole Bible, you get timeline issues in that most of the letters were included after revelation was written.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2nd. Tim. 3:16-17).[/I]

This does not imply that scripture is either complete or infallible. It says that it's inspired of God (not written by God, we should note!) and if you read it and digest it, you should be a nicer person afterwards.

In terms of your other quotations, they still do not suggest that Christ believed the Scriptures to be literally true. I would once again suggest that he was not a fundamental Jew in the sense that existed 2000 years ago. Christ was, above all, a radical.

So, I am a fundamentalist, believing fundamentally in the truth of the written Word, but also understanding it to be open (necessarily) to interpretation. As context changes, so meaning changes, which is why even within my own experience, reading the same text twice does not necessarily bring forth the same meaning. The Bible is not an old book full of old stories; it is as real, alive and pertinent to modern life as it has ever been.

On a deconstructionalist note, what do you mean by the 'truth of the written word'? To me, that implies that scripture contains a single and unique 'truth'. Can two different interpretations be equally valid?

[Woodchuck2000]

This goes against everything I know, even most CoE christians that make up the christian majority would say that the bible is a metaphor and that clearly the earth isnt 6000 years ald. The headmaster of these schools actualy belives this and see's no issue with dinosaurs and humans running round at the same time.

How can our government allow this perversion of education to continue?

I am not even getting into the sleath selection that is alleged to exist either.

So, thoughts?

My thoughts on the original post, by the way, are that religious education should be scrapped in schools in favour of extra classes on the proper use of apostrophes...

[Mike Fishcake]

I believe that humankind created humankind in a self-perpetuating paradox which tethers the beginning of the universe to the end of time but hey, that's just the kind of guy I am.

[G4Z]

Woodchuck, yeah great I add one apostrophe where I shouldn't and you feel the need to point it out?

I know its a grammatical error, does it detract from the legibility of the post?

I have to say up until that I was quite impressed by your posts, very well thought out its just a shame you feel the need to be a grammar nazi.


I agree with you that schools should in fact use the time wasted on the teaching of religion to teach things like language.

Would it surprise you that I cannot remember at any point having a grammar lesson at school (apart from first learning to write in my first year or two at primary school), but I do remember the time wasted with prayers in school assembly?


I might write a post to respond to fuddam later.

[ajbrun]

Totally. My son goes to a state school. It is not a COE school. It has no direct religious affiliation. However, when Christmas comes around, they have very specific discussion of the Christian origins of Christmas, and celebrate it as such. They also mention other religious festivals, including Eid etc, as they should. But no-one is arrogant enough to boldly declare that Christianity is a load of rubbish that should be kicked out of the education system, that despite it being the largest system of organised belief on the planet, it has no place in school.

I don't think the topic has anything to do with banning religious festivals at school, or even religious education. What this is about is teaching creationism as a scientific theory. Do you not think that for something to be classed as a scientific theory, it at least needs some evidence? Last time I looked, the only 'proof' that the earth was created in 7 days by god was in the bible. I seriously doubt this can be taught in a school as fact.

If you're going to go on about evolution, understand that intelligent design is also a SCIENTIFIC explanation of the world, with its own hypotheses illustrating the hypthetico-deductive method. LOL

Could you please explain how it can be classed as scientific.

[fuddam]

Care to link to the study that shows that "DIRECT" correlation?

Also, correlation is not the same as causation.

well, first google found this:
look at page 8, point 4.2.1 - translated to read:

It is known today that in Uganda the sexual abstinence undoubtedly played a significant role in the reduction of the infections by the HIV. This result started again the interest for this method of protection against the accidental pregnancies and the infections sexually transmissible (STI) as by the HIV.

come from the WHO

hokay?

[TeePee]

No.
Firstly, it hasn't come from the WHO, it's a reference in a WHO report to: Shears, K.H. Abstinence: An option for Adolescents from Network magazine. Choosing something in another language is a great way to cite a reference noone can dispute, but this article was written in english, and can be found in full here: http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Networ...olabstnanc.htm

What the article actually says is that advocating abstinence MAY reduce the rate of HIV transmission, that no study has shown that abstinence-only is effective, although several are looking into it, and that Uganda's comprehensive ABC approach (which advocates condom use) has shown very effective results.

Try again.

[fuddam]

I don't think the topic has anything to do with banning religious festivals at school, or even religious education. What this is about is teaching creationism as a scientific theory. Do you not think that for something to be classed as a scientific theory, it at least needs some evidence? Last time I looked, the only 'proof' that the earth was created in 7 days by god was in the bible. I seriously doubt this can be taught in a school as fact.

Could you please explain how it can be classed as scientific.

Well, any SCIENCE cares to look at all the options, not just the ones that suit one's theories.

If you look at wikipedia here, even the term creationism is far from uniform or singular in meaning. My position is that the argument simply comes down to whether one believes in a God-sourced universe or not.

In terms of SCIENCE, any responsible scientist would not discount the possibility that God exists. He / She has no proof that God does NOT exist (unlike many people here, who seem to be privvy to such information). He / she would retain an open mind, during whatever scientific endeavour.

So, for example, when looking at how the world came into being, especially the factors that are required for the sustaining of life on this planet, a scientist (one would hope) would look at the role of chance, at the percentage possibility of life coming into existence in different scenarios.

Well, to cut a long story short, the number of absolutely freakish factors that all seem to work simultaneously for life to both arise and continue, might lead that scientist (as it has for many) to conclude SCIENTIFICALLY that it is implausible for them all to be pure coincidence. For example, shift the earth 100m one way or the other in its orbit and you have a different set of cirumstances arising; but in the position it sits, everything is perfect. And has been. Consequently that scientist might conclude that the only rational explanation is one that includes creation (as many have).

So, back in the school, a teacher might inform the class that one theory of life is evolution by purely natural means, however fantastical that is, and likewise that so many factors point to a design in the origin of life, based on scientific analysis. What the teacher is NOT doing is shoving evolutionary theory down the throats of the students as FACT, which is what a lot of you would (and do) favour.

Just as a simple application, once the teacher mentions that Godless evolution is a theory, a natural question from the class would be to ask what alternatives there are. In the face of the evidence, the teacher could posit that there is a God-sourced evolution theory.

of course, all remains conjecture, since one cannot prove either way.

[TeePee]

Science DOES look at all the options. Any scientist would conclude that the coincidences which lead to that first spark of life, the right mix of amino-acids, is, over a long enough time period (being millions, not six thousand years), not just probable, but inevitable. The continuation of life from that point involves a small amount of chance, and a large amount of logical process. No belief is necessary, this is simply the best possible explanation for ALL of the evidence.

ID requires belief, it starts with the conclusion, a fanciful story and then tries to justify it, ignoring all the evidence. Natural selection, for example is a FACT, but is totally ignored by ID. ID is not based on evidence or a scientific method, and has no place in a science lesson. Teach it in religious studies lessons, by all means, along with myths from other world religions.

[fuddam]

No.
Firstly, it hasn't come from the WHO, it's a reference in a WHO report to: Shears, K.H. Abstinence: An option for Adolescents from Network magazine. Choosing something in another language is a great way to cite a reference noone can dispute, but this article was written in english, and can be found in full here: http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Networ...olabstnanc.htm

don't patronise me. I want to call you a patronising git, in fact, but I won't as it wouldn't be very Christian of me. I stated that is was the first example I googled, and gave the google translation into English. You amaze me with your reactionary nature, truly.......

What the article actually says is that advocating abstinence MAY reduce the rate of HIV transmission, that no study has shown that abstinence-only is effective, although several are looking into it, and that Uganda's comprehensive ABC approach (which advocates condom use) has shown very effective results.

at NO point did I, or the people in the documentary, ever claim abstinence was the sole solution. Jeepers, there you go again, Teepee, putting words in my mouth. Did you watch the docu, by the way? I sincerely hope so, before you put on your romper suit to jump in here. Only an idiot would assume that there isn't a role to play for condoms in inhibiting the spread of HIV. I note you never mentioned the role of circumcision, so you were also remiss.

Yes, most of you will have no idea what a difference it makes. Just to satisfy your curiosity, one of those docu programs (Horizon, Panorama etc) had a study into why certain cultures were showing lesser rates of HIV infection than others, in rural Africa, yet living cheek by jowl. Turns out the foreskin itself is very susceptible to the transmission of disease, and so where circumcision is practised, infection drops. NO, am not talking about it in relation to the Bible etc (before some of you saddle up )

Further, in the docu, the 'journalist' asked the subject whether she advocated contraception during her talks. She said it was not mentioned, as it would (quite rightly) confuse the audience with mixed messages, ie Abstinence is good with go ahead and use contraception when you fail. Seeing as sex education starts at school for ages as young as 5 (unreal!!!!!!), it would take an deliberately obtuse student to avoid knowing that contraception exists, and that it can prevent STDs.

She was advocating abstinence. That is her message. Contraception is a separate issue, albeit related.

to go back to the WHO, here is another example, IN ENGLISH:

Effective intervention against AIDS requires simultaneous efforts to reduce the risk of infection, reduce vulnerability to exposure, and alleviate the impact of HIV. Prevention tools are varied. To prevent sexual transmission, they include—abstinence, postponement of first sexual intercourse, reducing the number of partners, condom use and treatment of sexually transmitted infections.

There, do you feel better now, Teepee? Righteous? Smug?

[fuddam]

Science DOES look at all the options. Any scientist [really? support that assertion with evidence] would conclude that the coincidences which lead to that first spark of life, the right mix of amino-acids, is, over a long enough time period (being millions, not six thousand years), not just probable, but inevitable. The continuation of life from that point involves a small amount of chance, and a large amount of logical process. No belief is necessary, this is simply the best possible explanation for ALL of the evidence.

ID requires belief, it starts with the conclusion, a fanciful story and then tries to justify it, ignoring all the evidence. Natural selection, for example is a FACT, but is totally ignored by ID. ID is not based on evidence or a scientific method, and has no place in a science lesson. Teach it in religious studies lessons, by all means, along with myths from other world religions.

your primary problem, Teepee, in this subject, is an assumption that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive, in opposition.

Read some more.

I personally know of many scientists who have been led to the conclusion that ID is the most plausible explanation, NOT starting with it as a hypthosis which they then want to prove. You are arrogant in assuming that scientists who posit ID ignore evidence or scientific method.

Please SHOW where you obtained this special knowledge. Please.

[fuddam]

I believe that humankind created humankind in a self-perpetuating paradox which tethers the beginning of the universe to the end of time but hey, that's just the kind of guy I am.

42

[TeePee]

Nothing remiss, I simply proved your 'evidence' false. By all means, please try again.


The subject in the documentary obviously isn't following the program which has produced such successful results in Uganda...

[fuddam]

I call bull****. Prove it.

another one googled off the top:

http://www.avert.org/zambia-aids-prevention-care.htm

Between 1996 and 2003, seven major national surveys investigated sexual behaviour, and many people have seen evidence of favourable trends in their findings, especially with regard to increased use of condoms. However, one particular report adjusted the data to compensate for differences in surveillance methods, and arrived at an interesting conclusion. The proportion of men engaging in the highest-risk activity – sex with a non-cohabiting partner in the last year without using a condom last time – fell from 25% in 1996 to 12% in 2003. Yet it seems that this trend is not due to greater use of condoms: in each survey, about 40% of men having sex with non-cohabiting partners reported using a condom on the last occasion. The change has in fact occurred because fewer men are having sex, and of those who are not abstaining an increased proportion are remaining faithful to one cohabiting partner. There is also evidence of a rise in the average age at which men first have sex.16 It seems that, in recent years, messages promoting abstinence and fidelity may have had a greater impact on levels of high-risk behaviour than those advocating condom use.

The evidence of increased abstinence and fidelity is encouraging. However, promoting these two strategies alone is not enough. While the exact statistics may be open to debate, what is clear is that much more needs to be done to encourage the full ABC – including consistent condom use.

the same report mentions politicians who derided the use of condoms as advocating promiscuity. Please do not lump me in with them. Resist the dark side.