The Word is not the Bible, the concept of The Word is to call Jesus Christ to very voice of God, not necessarily that Jesus is the literal writings. Is Jesus a person or a font? God is not the Bible, the Bible is a musty book that discusses God and revelations of God, but GOD is by no means trapped in the Bible. He is a Living God, and active force, which transcends simple limitations like books and material reality ;)

Jesus said, "Search the scriptures for in them you hope to find eternal life, but these speak of me, so why not come to me and live?" He didn't say, keep reading, he didn't say stop reading, but he did say, why not come Me (ie, directly)

Under what criteria did you equate DND's replies to be the worst?

proof or it didn't happen

the word = the word of god. that verse means that the bible is legit-god-inspired.

jesus=person

for liking god so much you have a pretty pessimistic view of the the bible. i often hear it called the Living Word.

actually, I read the bible quite religiously, at least several times a day and kiss it venerably every time, however I would never limit God or my worship to something as material as the Bible.

Further, referring to Christ as the Word is not in reference to the Holy Scriptures, the traditions of the Church Fathers interpret Christ as the Logos (the Word) to mean the very manifestation of the Word (ie, the Voice) of God Incarnate. Even a five year old could understand that Jesus cannot be both a man, a God and also a book. It is silly to think that the Bible (ie, the book) is somehow Jesus himself! Jesus=Jesus, the Bible=Bible, and the "Word of God" as referenced by John 1:1 has nothing to do with writings, but rather the incarnation of God's Voice into the human form of Jesus' living Body...

but this my friend, is all summed up in the Mystery of the Incarnation ;)

fuck all y'all.

jesus christ.

You Irish chicks are the exact kind of trouble I like getting into.

I was raised Roman Catholic but am also an atheist.

dont be such a fucking cliche you fucking henry miller epigone.

iron out every wrinkle of her cunt but don't kiss ass. for fucks sakes.

I said I liked banging Irish chicks who had a religious upbringing, I didn't say I appreciated a poem she wrote or that I thought her quiche came out well.

While I like its phrasing the Henry Miller reference eludes me. Did he like dipping into shepherd's pie too?

And I don't iron cunt wrinkles, being a supporter of female circumcision.

about the schools. if they are not particularly religious schools people have chosen to go to, if they are public or non-religious, the way I see the mention of God or Jesus or whatever by a teacher or authority constitutes a disrespect to these kids' religious freedom.

again, on abstinence, of course it can't be taught or encouraged, it is a personal decision people are entitled over their own bodies. Abstinence is not a fact, it is not science so how can it be part of the school curriculum?

Ideally, behaviour shouldn't be encouraged, you should simply encourage kids to think for themselves.

Kids are kids. The more you tell them not to, the more you keep bringing it up, the more repressed and irresponsible they will be. Numbers have been showing that in places where they teach abstinence kids don't use condoms, they have higher rates of teenage pregnancy, etc.

Repression and encouraging virginity always had the opposite effect - just look at what they say about catholic girls.

there is nothing unnatural about being a teenager and wanting to have sex, if they do or don't it's their personal choice, but making them feel inadequate for having those desires is crossing boundaries.

But isn't silencing all mention of God or Jesus, itself, an authoritarian act that discourages kids from thinking for themselves? What should be done is disestablishing the religious authority but not censuring religious language. Retaining the ability to talk about religion is precisely the way one can disestablish it. It is approachable and able to be criticized openly.

Not sure what you mean. Of course, it IS being taught. It IS a fact.

Way back in the dark ages (early 80s) when I had Health Class we were taught, correctly, abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs. And that was about the scope of that lecture. One sentence.

We were also, in rudimentary terms, about other methods of birth control and STD control and their relative effectiveness.

Yes, hormone birth control is 100% effective is used correctly but how many teens are capable of that (100% of the time).


Similarly, we were also taught Creationism. Some people believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that God created all the animals pretty much the way they are now. And then we moved on to evolution.

There is no problem with the topic being taught as long as further information is given.

I've always thought that abstinence is too obvious to teach.

in my school, when they told us that you couldn't get pregnant or get stds if you were abstinent, somebody would always say "but what if you jack off in some skank's panties and she puts them on without knowing"

the teachers never had an answer for that, they should get people who actually know shit to teach sex ed

I don't think it's about silencing all mentions of God, Jesus or any faith but the context in which it's taught. I see no wrong in christianity being taught as a religion, alongside other religions, within the confines of a 'religion studies' class. I actually think this is an essential part of any broad education as religion is clearly a very real aspect of the world. I oppose it when religion becomes an invisible, overarching way in which to discuss all topics. I don't mind it when this happens in explicitely faith tied schools, but I personally see no place for such schools within the public, state funded sector, or at least within any state that claims to be seperate from any faith.

But why is it necessarily invisible and overarching? I think education works best under a seminar approach so confining subjects totally to their individual classes loses the important lesson of how all these subjects are interrelated. Giving a general overview of Christianity, for instance, is quite necessary for a class on early European history. In other classes, too, religion as a social institution can be relevant to the subject. I suppose I don't understand what you mean of religion as a way to discuss all topics, even though I went to a Jesuit university.

Raised Roman Catholic. Fell away from the Church around 18. Married in the Church around 24 to appease family (and to have a nice setting for the wedding!).

Was no-religion for a coupla decades. In 1990s "discovered" Buddhism and became a lay-ordained Zen Buddhist (in the soto tradition). Still adhere to the Zen B ideas and principles but don't practice (sit) much anymore.

you're talking about the UK. Where religion studies include all religions. That's good and also required. But we're talking americas. We're they don't even call it religious studies, they call it the truth, and if you don't accept it you will probably face some problems.

if i'm going to an institution that's explicitly religious then of course, i have to expect it. but then again, we're talking about public schools and institutions that have people from several backgrounds.

teaching abstinence as the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and stds is like saying the only 100% way not to get food poisoning is not to eat.

Of course, and that's not what I meant at all. To talk about Christianity's role in the evolution of history, literature, politics, the arts and even science is utterly crucial. That's an entirely different matter to letting a teacher working in a state school invisibly allow their faith to colour the student's understanding of various topics. It's the same with any faith, be it religious or secular. I disapprove just as much of Marxist teachers talking about history solely from a Marxist perspective without declaring it as just that, a position, and not providing even-handed accounts of other positions that might contradict it. In essence, I disapprove of any kind of teaching method that could be seen as providing a kind of ideological indoctrination, be it faith based, politically biased or even secular.