Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   29% of UK teachers favor teaching creationism
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1 of 103 (488316)
11-09-2008 8:27 PM


So I've noticed that the US gets nailed alot here on EvC for the lack of scientific support by the community and teachers.
I always wondered how the UK favored the teaching of creationism or ID; did they have the same problems as the US, or were they above this?
I found this article in the Guardian,
Creationism should be taught as science, say 29% of teachers | Teaching | The Guardian
Heres a few quotes,
quote:
Creationism should be taught as science, say 29% of teachersJames Randerson, science correspondent guardian.co.uk,
Friday November 7 2008 00.01 GMT The Guardian, Friday November 7 2008 Article history
Twenty-nine per cent of teachers believe that creationism and intelligent design should be taught as science, according to an online survey of attitudes to teaching evolution in the UK. Nearly 50% of the respondents said they believed that excluding alternatives to evolution was counter-productive and would alienate pupils from science.
Nearly nine in 10 respondents agreed with Reiss that teachers should engage with pupils who raise creationism or intelligent design in science lessons. Reiss said at the time that creationism was not science and he did not advocate giving it equal time alongside evolution, but he was forced to step down after furious reactions to his comments in the media from some Royal Society fellows.
Creationism should be taught as science, say 29% of teachersJames Randerson, science correspondent guardian.co.uk, Friday November 7 2008 00.01 GMT The Guardian, Friday November 7 2008 Article historyTwenty-nine per cent of teachers believe that creationism and intelligent design should be taught as science, according to an online survey of attitudes to teaching evolution in the UK. Nearly 50% of the respondents said they believed that excluding alternatives to evolution was counter-productive and would alienate pupils from science.
The survey, by the website and TV station Teachers TV, also found strong support for the views of Prof Michael Reiss, the former director of education at the Royal Society, who resigned in September over comments about including creationism in science lessons.
Nearly nine in 10 respondents agreed with Reiss that teachers should engage with pupils who raise creationism or intelligent design in science lessons. Reiss said at the time that creationism was not science and he did not advocate giving it equal time alongside evolution, but he was forced to step down after furious reactions to his comments in the media from some Royal Society fellows.
"This poll data confirms that the debate on whether there is a place for the teaching of creationism in the classroom is still fierce," said Andrew Bethell, chief executive of Teachers TV. Teachers TV emailed 10,600 education professionals, of which 1,210 responded. Because the sample is self-selecting, only those teachers with the strongest views might have replied.
Most controversially, 29% said they either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the government's guidelines on teaching evolution which states that "creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science national curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science". Fifty-three per cent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
Thirty-one per cent of respondents and 18% of the 248 science teachers in the sample said they thought creationism or intelligent design should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, although this question did not specify whether it was referring to science lessons or the curriculum in general. Twenty-two respondents said they had been pressured to teach creationism or intelligent design by their school.
But senior Royal Society fellows disagreed with his position. "I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting creationism should be discussed in a science classroom," said Sir Richard Roberts, winner of the 1993 Nobel prize for Medicine.
It seems to me that, even though by a smaller percent, the UK suffers the same problems in that even some of their intellectuals(29%) favor the teaching of creationist.
One question I have is to the members of EvC from the UK, Do you see this type of thinking, that creationism should be taught in schools as(a) A growing trend amongst intellectuals (for any number of reasons that could be debated as sub-topics) or, (b) Declining but does still have an affect on the school system , or (c) Just a small narrow minded opinion that usually gets ignored?
I have always debated here on EvC that I consider the US being a (c) even though one could make a good argument for (b).
So I would like to know where the UK falls on this and why?
Also, the most recent poll I found for US teachers, all though High School teachers, is much less than in the UK (US 16%)
Page not found - THIRTEEN - New York Public Media
quote:
A recent survey by Penn State researchers of high school science teachers yielded the surprising results that an estimated 16% in the U.S. believe in creationism. With this large a number potentially spreading creationist doctrine, is it any surprise that the recent documentary ”Expelled”, about those who study the concept of intelligent design is so popular? Recently in the P.O.V. blog, writer Tom Roston has questioned the film ”Expelled’-but more for it’s techniques, and implications for future documentary productions.
What does that tell us about the differences between the teachers in the US and the UK? Or does it reflect anything at all about public opinion?
If promoted I don't know where it would go, I guess Coffee House?
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words, but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen. ~ JBR

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Granny Magda, posted 11-09-2008 9:26 PM onifre has replied
 Message 4 by ikabod, posted 11-10-2008 4:15 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 11-10-2008 7:08 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 11-24-2012 2:48 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 11-24-2012 3:00 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 11-25-2012 3:21 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 11-26-2012 8:19 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 97 by kofh2u, posted 11-28-2012 4:51 PM onifre has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 103 (488320)
11-09-2008 8:40 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 3 of 103 (488327)
11-09-2008 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by onifre
11-09-2008 8:27 PM


Not Sure About the Survey
HI Oni,
I always wondered how the UK favored the teaching of creationism or ID; did they have the same problems as the US, or were they above this?
I wish. No, the UK has creationists as well. In fact we have quite a lot of state-funded religious schools, although most are not creationist. I believe there are a few Evangelical Christian, Jewish and Islamic schools that do push creationism, but they are thankfully a minority.
The national curriculum dictates what must be taught in lessons here, but it does not preclude the teaching of other topics, such as creationism. UK ministers have criticised the teaching of creationism as science, but no action has been taken to prevent it.
It seems to me that, even though by a smaller percent, the UK suffers the same problems in that even some of their intellectuals(29%) favor the teaching of creationist.
Given some of the people who once "taught" me, I would be hesitant about automatically labelling UK teachers as "Intellectuals".
Having said that, I'm wouldn't put much faith in this poll. 1210 respondents does not sound very convincing to me, especially given that the survey was self-selecting and had a response rate of only about 11%. With numbers like that, it wouldn't take much for a strong bias to creep in. Of course, it's pretty worrying that a result like this can be reached at all, but I'm a bit sceptical about it.
From the article;
quote:
Thirty-one per cent of respondents and 18% of the 248 science teachers in the sample said they thought creationism or intelligent design should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, although this question did not specify whether it was referring to science lessons or the curriculum in general.
31% just seems surprisingly high for such a strong statement. I mean, equal time? That is quite a bold statement. I find it hard to believe that many teachers, from right across the board, would show so much support for creationism. Tellingly...
quote:
Twenty-two respondents said they had been pressured to teach creationism or intelligent design by their school.
Only 22 can be bothered to do anything to actively promote creationism. This is not surprising. Creationism just isn't that strong an issue over here. Most people aren't interested. Those who are tend to represent fairly small groups of Evangelicals. Religion as a whole is much less a visible issue here than in the US, more a private matter. When creationism does encroach on schools it is in the religious schools. Creationism in the comprehensive system (the bulk of public-funded schools) is nigh on unthinkable. What specific kind of creationism would you teach in a multi-cultural inner-city school. without upsetting someone?
One question I have is to the members of EvC from the UK, Do you see this type of thinking, that creationism should be taught in schools as(a) A growing trend amongst intellectuals (for any number of reasons that could be debated as sub-topics) or, (b) Declining but does still have an affect on the school system , or (c) Just a small narrow minded opinion that usually gets ignored?
I would say (c), but as to whether it is growing or not, I couldn't say. I doubt that the demand is there to make up any large scale movement for creationism in UK schools. Most Christians here are Anglican and they're generally not creationist. I think the main difference though, is the less prominent role that religion plays in British society.
Mutate and Survive.
PS: By the way, search your car for drugs indeed! Very funny! There must be some back there somewhere...

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by onifre, posted 11-09-2008 8:27 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by onifre, posted 11-10-2008 12:04 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 4 of 103 (488343)
11-10-2008 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by onifre
11-09-2008 8:27 PM


In the UK( England and Wales ..not sure about Scotland ) there is religious education lessons for all up to age 15/16 . This teaches the " facts " about the worlds main religions , and so creation is covered here .
I think this tend to blunt the issue of creationism in science classes , also if you talk to any science teacher , I work in education , the national curriculum , written by the government , is very full and leaves little room for more content .
Looking at the information about those Polled it says 10600 education professionals , it would be more interesting if we knew how many where active current teachers of science ,and/or RE .
It is also worth noting that there are many schools in the UK that are religious schools selecting their pupils on the bases of religion and offering a religious educational environment ,and not just Xtian ones ,some of these are private (non state funded) which do not have to follow the national curriculum, again how many of those that responded belong to such schools.
From the conversations I hear in school , in what is a prime Guardian reader area , there is no mention of creationism by teachers or parents , there is a near by catholic school in which things may be different .
Also, we have a fair number of Muslim pupils , these receive extra faith specific education outside of the school ,which covers their beliefs , thus separating it from mainstream education and so there is no pressure or moves to have those views added to the schools educational timetable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by onifre, posted 11-09-2008 8:27 PM onifre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 5 of 103 (488344)
11-10-2008 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by onifre
11-09-2008 8:27 PM


I do wonder why these percentages should really surprise anyone: non science teachers know about as much about science as any other university graduate.
What does an English teacher typically know about science? No more than any non science bod I would imagine.
That said teaching ID as part of the scientific method (and how it is not a workable method) would be a valuable part of teaching the scientific methodology.
The UK education system is geared towards diversity (in comprehensive schools) and the teaching of creationism would raise the question 'which one?'
One big difference to America (in terms of religion) is that (apart from the shouting man near the recycling bottle bank in the town car park) most people keep their religious views to themselves and it is only a narrow band of people who would attempt to push creationism.
That said, faith schools might not like it but they have to teach evolution. My girlfriend went to a catholic faith school and was told by her biology teacher that she (the teacher) did not believe in evolution but they had better learn it or they would fail any exam with evolution as a question in it.
She went on to say that one of her school chums wrote in the exam 'I don't believe in evolution' and went on to fail the exam and did not get her entry grades for university.
Chalk one scalp up to religious ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by onifre, posted 11-09-2008 8:27 PM onifre has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


(1)
Message 6 of 103 (488346)
11-10-2008 8:26 AM


what 29%?
Isn't the headline very misleading?
If only 1,210 people out of 10,600 bothered to respond then that is just less than 11.5% of the people polled. If it is 29% of the people who responded then I make it 351 people out of 10,600. I might be wrong though since numbers is not my forte.
So, we should say that 29% of those who replied blah, blah, blah.
The main body of the text also says that it was 'education professionals' who were contacted, now this could be anybody couldn't it?
Wouldn't it be better if they had contacted 10,600 science teachers instaed of the 284 that they did contact?
As you all know, I have taught (and still sometimes teach) religious education, and I have tutored at uni as well, so I am quite involved in this area, and I have met very few real fundamentalists in person. The ones I have met tend to look at creationism as a philoophy rather than a science, or they tend to focus on the 'problems' with evolution' rather than the evidence FOR creationism.
IMO, the evidence for creation IS philosophical, and science classes must include practical experiments, so what on earth would the creationism syllabus look like?

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 7 of 103 (488367)
11-10-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Granny Magda
11-09-2008 9:26 PM


Re: Not Sure About the Survey
Thanks for the reply Granny Magda,
The national curriculum dictates what must be taught in lessons here, but it does not preclude the teaching of other topics, such as creationism. UK ministers have criticised the teaching of creationism as science, but no action has been taken to prevent it.
As I figured, it pretty much reflects the same attitudes in the US amongst intellects.
Given some of the people who once "taught" me, I would be hesitant about automatically labelling UK teachers as "Intellectuals".
lol, yeah I can agree with that too.
Only 22 can be bothered to do anything to actively promote creationism. This is not surprising. Creationism just isn't that strong an issue over here.
Contrary to what is believed about the US, creationism isn't that strong of an issue either, ID seems to be what is pushed since creationism is basically religion and ID is the way they try to sneak it through the system. So far they have failed. I wonder if the creationist in the UK will make that euphamistic shift to ID instead of pushing for creationism?
I would say (c), but as to whether it is growing or not, I couldn't say. I doubt that the demand is there to make up any large scale movement for creationism in UK schools. Most Christians here are Anglican and they're generally not creationist. I think the main difference though, is the less prominent role that religion plays in British society.
Religion in that sense is obviouslly different here, where most if not all US politicians admit to one form of religion or the other; with a very minor exception for a very small few who are atheist...a very, very small few. Mostly, they are religious to some degree, at least publically. So 'christianity' can be influential, but it is forced out of the school system for now with the seperation of church/state.
PS: By the way, search your car for drugs indeed! Very funny!
Thanks,

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Granny Magda, posted 11-09-2008 9:26 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 8 of 103 (681323)
11-24-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by onifre
11-09-2008 8:27 PM


Religion is not really a spoken about much here. It's genearlly seen as something we've got over. Church attendance has been dropping for decades. Creationism - of the YEC kind - is defuct.
But there is a resurgence of evangelicalism which irritates me greatly and I blame on you guys.
The recent rejection of women bishops and the Catholic abuse scandals has displayed how corrupt and out of date our religious institutions are but it will probably open a door for the born agains - a revertion to a form of extremism, but fewer of them, hopefully.
I think you can ignore tha survey - it's obviously broken.
As for education, the national curriculum kills any chance of creationism being taught as science.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by onifre, posted 11-09-2008 8:27 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 11-25-2012 11:12 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 103 (681325)
11-24-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by onifre
11-09-2008 8:27 PM


...according to an online survey of attitudes to teaching evolution in the UK.
As in what? A web poll, or an actual opinion poll? If the former, well, meaningless stat is meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by onifre, posted 11-09-2008 8:27 PM onifre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 10 of 103 (681389)
11-25-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tangle
11-24-2012 2:48 PM


It's a well made point to say Brits just don't talk about religion that much.
I'm absolutely forbidden to talk about religion if I'm at any kind of social function because it's just not done.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 11-24-2012 2:48 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 103 (681391)
11-25-2012 1:46 PM


Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
To me the abandonment of Christianity in the UK is very sad, of course, what else would you expect of me? It's like you guys are shoving a beautiful history into obscurity, now embarrassed by what used to be your glory and the cause of your rise to world power and prosperity. Not that your history was just a sweet straightforward path of course, lots of bloody stuff and ups and downs along the way. Somewhat similar Christian history in the US, we've both been losing power and prestige for some time, we're both going down to oblivion it seems because we've rejected what made us great but don't even recognize what made us great.
I think first of all "Saint" Patrick, whose true history hardly anyone knows, an early Briton who brought true Christianity to the Irish. TRUE Christianity. No, he wasn't a Roman Catholic, he was a member of an earlier church, a true church, and the religion he planted in Ireland was true Christianity, not Roman Catholicism. Rome later co-opted him and stuck one of those ridiculous bishop's hats on his head in their portraits of him, and then of course they also co-opted the religion of Ireland. I wrote an appreciation of him at my blog a few years ago.
Then there was John Wycliffe who translated the Bible into English back in the 14th century. I don't trust Wikipedia on anything having to do with the conflict between Rome and its critics but the link on Wycliffe looks like it covers most of the basics at least. And I know some here will answer that the Protestants "also" mistreated the Catholics, because that's the propaganda they've promoted, wish I could disabuse you of such nonsense but I'm still learning about all this myself. Not that Protestants are above committing abuses, but most of it was defensive against Rome and most of the stuff that makes them out to be equally guilty is pure lies.
John Tyndale who had better manuscripts to work from made the English translation that became 95% of the King James Bible and got burned at the stake for it.
There were the English former priests Latimer and Ridley who were also burned at the stake for rejecting Rome. We honor them as great men of the faith.
John Bunyan of course wrote the great classic Pilgrim's Progress, spent time in prison for refusing to bow to the Anglican church's law against public preaching.
You probably all hate Cromwell, but he was a hero of the Protestant faith too, slandered by Rome as so many of them are.
John Knox, GREAT leader of the faith, prayed that God would give him Scotland.
I'll forget most of the greats I'm sure, I'm just ticking off a few that come to mind.
George Whitfield was a leader of the Great Awakening through his preaching right before the American Revolution. John Wesley preached at the same time and rode all over the eastern part of the US on horseback to get the gospel out. Charles Wesley's hymns are classics.
Charles Spurgeon, Reformed Baptist, considered the "prince of preachers" in the late 19th century. J C Ryle, great Anglican preacher and leader of the late 19th century, love to read his books. A W Pink, Reformed writer whose books I also collect. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones Anglican preacher who lived into the 1960s as I recall. I love listening to old tapes of him preaching. Had been converted in the great revival in Wales in the early 20th century.
ABE: Oh yes, mustn't forget John William Burgon, 1813-1888, who's quoted in my signature, one of those "Anglican divines" who defended the true faith.
None of this is about Creationism in particular but none of these great names would have rejected the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
And here's a British creationist speaking on the evidence for the Flood as found in the Grand Canyon, really good presentation of the evidence, done in that laid-back style you Brits are also known for. None of the posturing of a Hovind, or the flares of temper so many of us in America are prone to, just a quiet reasonable presentation of the evidence.
The sun went down on the British Empire a long time ago. Sad. But there are still true Christians there same as here. Sometimes they write to me through my blogs.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 11-25-2012 2:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 11-25-2012 2:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 11-25-2012 2:40 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 103 (681392)
11-25-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
11-25-2012 1:46 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
None of this is about Creationism in particular but none of these great names would have rejected the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
What makes you think that? Isn't it possible that they also dealt in the real world and if given the overwhelming facts that show the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not factual but rather just fable that they would acknowledge those facts, or do you think (which is entirely possible considering that many of those you mention were pretty delusional anyway) that they would abandon reality and retreat into myth?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 1:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 13 of 103 (681393)
11-25-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
11-25-2012 1:46 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
The sun went down on the British Empire a long time ago. Sad.
No it isn't.
We didn't win that empire by praying for it Faith. We got it by invading other peoples' countries and slaughtering any who resisted. The British Empire, like all empires, was corrupt evil and a great shame on our nation. None of the benefits that British rule brought to its subjects could be worth the blood price they paid. It belongs in the past.
But there are still true Christians there same as here.
As per your definition of "true Christians"? Vanishingly few and fewer with every year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 1:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 2:39 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 11-25-2012 2:47 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 103 (681394)
11-25-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Granny Magda
11-25-2012 2:35 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
The rise to such prominence is always due to God's blessings, but there were negative aspects of it too, you lost those blessings partly because of how you dealt with the peoples you colonized. Almost nothing's ever completely good or evil in this world.
ABE: I'm going to take this back. I think the British Empire's rise was due to God's blessings but I have to admit that there have been a lot of purely evil empires that have risen to great prominence too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 11-25-2012 2:35 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 11-25-2012 3:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 15 of 103 (681395)
11-25-2012 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
11-25-2012 1:46 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
I can see where you are comming from but as a Brit it seems clear to me that the average C of E xian is definitely NOT a True Christian.
They know very little about what the Bible actually says and think that by being generally nice you are being Christian. They go to church and sing the songs and give to charity and love Jesus very much but that is about it. There seems to be no in group identification as Christians.
My mum in law is a prime example: church on Sunday, charity work, generally nice but does not particularly self identify as 'Christian first'.
I think that self identifying as 'Christian first' is very much on the decline in the UK so even if you exhibit Christan behaviour you still are not being a 'proper' Christian because they are just 'going through the motions' because it feels good.
When I was growing up hardly any of my school chums were religious because it (Christianity) was so watered down, soft and woolly that you would get called 'gay' (as in girly).
Christianity in the UK is a sanitised, anaemic relgion that has no kudos for many under the age of 40. It's just not cool and there is no social cache in professing xian beliefs so no one does. Out of sight out of mind.
As a non religious type I like this state of affairs as xianity seems to be quietly dying out as the believers grow older and die off with fewer and fewer replacements each year (similar to what may happen to the GOP as the angry old white men die off).
I think part of the problem is that the C of E has tried to mould itself to a changing society but has by doing so it has ceased to be actual Christianity (warts and all) and became an airy fairy religion that no longer has the charisma to pull in adherents.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 1:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 2:58 PM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024