Church of England primary school could "create divides"

Picture from stock

Picture from stock

First published in News Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

A proposed new Church of England free primary school could "create divides" in Watford, according to a humanist who opposes the scheme.

John Dowdle, president of the Watford Area Humanists, is critical of the proposals to open a faith school in central Watford.

Father David Stevenson, of St John’s Church, in Sutton Road, is spearheading the bid to build a new primary school in the town centre.

Plans are that St John’s Church of England Primary School will be ready to open in September 2015.

However, Mr Dowdle has raised concerns that a religious free school could cause friction in the town, and that it could have a damaging impact on the area’s diversity.

He said: "As a humanist and secularist I just find it ridiculous that we are getting more and more of these schools opening up.

"This will just create divides between people. We call it the United Kingdom and this will disunite people."

However, Father David said that he is responding to the "needs" of the people in the area, many of whom he says are supporting St John’s Church’s application.

Father David said: "The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education.

"We are allowing parents to have a choice. If people want to send their children to a church school then that is their right.

"What tension does it create and how does it split up the community?

"We have the support of people who are from a range of religious backgrounds and we are responding to the needs of the community."

Father David hopes to submit an application for the free school to the Department For Education in May.

While a site as not yet been allocated, intentions are that it will be located near to Central Primary, in Derby Road.

Mr Dowdle said that, while Father David and those leading the campaign may have "good intentions", the management of the school once it is up and running might not be under his control.

He said: "I’m against religious free schools as a matter of general principle. We’ve got an increasingly secular society and yet it seems to be local government policy to promote religious schooling in this country.

"I have nothing against Father David, but this school may not end up being in his control.

"We have had these cases in America where you have these extremist-motivated governors who suddenly start taking a grip on what is taught to their children.

"I’m worried what things could look like down the road and how the curriculum is taught."

Father David said the school will be following the national curriculum and that it will be subject to the same scrutiny as any other school, meaning that it will be visited by education watchdog, Ofsted.

Father David added: "We intend to teach children the national curriculum and educate them on science and give them a full understanding that it doesn’t have to conflict with faith."

Comments (105)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:25am Fri 7 Mar 14

WOReader says...

Religion continues to be one of the greatest problems and devisive issues in the World today. Young children have impressionable minds and are affected by indoctrination no matter how subtle. Many will get this at home and schools like this will have the effect of reinforcing it. Of course, many people are able to shake off this indoctrination when they reach adulthood but not everyone is able to do this. Schools like this belong to the past.
Religion continues to be one of the greatest problems and devisive issues in the World today. Young children have impressionable minds and are affected by indoctrination no matter how subtle. Many will get this at home and schools like this will have the effect of reinforcing it. Of course, many people are able to shake off this indoctrination when they reach adulthood but not everyone is able to do this. Schools like this belong to the past. WOReader
  • Score: -1

11:32am Fri 7 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

"The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education.

I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation.

This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands.

Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?
"The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education. I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation. This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands. Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites? Cuetip
  • Score: 8

11:59am Fri 7 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

"Father David added: "We intend to teach children the national curriculum and educate them on science and give them a full understanding that it doesn’t have to conflict with faith."

Science does conflict with faith regardless. They are incompatible when kids are expected to believe that a big sky fairy created everything, we all derived from one incestuous family, Noah's ark and the great flood killed everything on the planet and the complete lack of evidence for everything that the bible presents as truth. What nonsense.

Faith is merely an excuse for not having to think for yourself.
The churches have caused social and scientific stagnation for two thousand years in an attempt to ensure their version of control is maintained and until the last few hundred years simply killed anyone who asked difficult questions.
Faith schools regardless of the flavour of religion are reinforcing their own dogma on children as seen recently that exam questions are being omitted as the answers are incompatible with the schools teachings.

Education free of subversive and indoctrination would be a good start to protect our children from this subtle abuse and its wider consequences.
"Father David added: "We intend to teach children the national curriculum and educate them on science and give them a full understanding that it doesn’t have to conflict with faith." Science does conflict with faith regardless. They are incompatible when kids are expected to believe that a big sky fairy created everything, we all derived from one incestuous family, Noah's ark and the great flood killed everything on the planet and the complete lack of evidence for everything that the bible presents as truth. What nonsense. Faith is merely an excuse for not having to think for yourself. The churches have caused social and scientific stagnation for two thousand years in an attempt to ensure their version of control is maintained and until the last few hundred years simply killed anyone who asked difficult questions. Faith schools regardless of the flavour of religion are reinforcing their own dogma on children as seen recently that exam questions are being omitted as the answers are incompatible with the schools teachings. Education free of subversive and indoctrination would be a good start to protect our children from this subtle abuse and its wider consequences. Popeonarope
  • Score: -1

1:02pm Fri 7 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Cuetip wrote:
"The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education.

I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation.

This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands.

Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?
So what is your solution?
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: "The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education. I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation. This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands. Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?[/p][/quote]So what is your solution? yellow hornet
  • Score: 3

3:19pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
"The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education.

I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation.

This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands.

Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?
So what is your solution?
A simple exam of the lack of joined up thinking was the proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub with an ugly high density block of flats with absolutely no consideration about the lack of school spaces and the horrendous parking pressures in local streets eg Judge St, Cecil St, Regent St, etc.

Another example is the over development of flats in Rembrandt Hse at the congested corner of Hagden Lane and Whippedell Rd.

There is still this assumption that flat dwellers don't have children or need cars.

The planned long term development of Watford Junction must have joined up services eg proper space for a local local school. The old Watford Springs site and the surrounding area have seen the ramming in of housing units with no consideration of the pressure on Watford Fields. Likewise in Nascot with Willow Grange and Cala Homes.

They all come with 'affordable banners'.
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: "The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education. I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation. This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands. Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?[/p][/quote]So what is your solution?[/p][/quote]A simple exam of the lack of joined up thinking was the proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub with an ugly high density block of flats with absolutely no consideration about the lack of school spaces and the horrendous parking pressures in local streets eg Judge St, Cecil St, Regent St, etc. Another example is the over development of flats in Rembrandt Hse at the congested corner of Hagden Lane and Whippedell Rd. There is still this assumption that flat dwellers don't have children or need cars. The planned long term development of Watford Junction must have joined up services eg proper space for a local local school. The old Watford Springs site and the surrounding area have seen the ramming in of housing units with no consideration of the pressure on Watford Fields. Likewise in Nascot with Willow Grange and Cala Homes. They all come with 'affordable banners'. Cuetip
  • Score: 3

4:58pm Fri 7 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Cuetip wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
"The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education.

I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation.

This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands.

Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?
So what is your solution?
A simple exam of the lack of joined up thinking was the proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub with an ugly high density block of flats with absolutely no consideration about the lack of school spaces and the horrendous parking pressures in local streets eg Judge St, Cecil St, Regent St, etc.

Another example is the over development of flats in Rembrandt Hse at the congested corner of Hagden Lane and Whippedell Rd.

There is still this assumption that flat dwellers don't have children or need cars.

The planned long term development of Watford Junction must have joined up services eg proper space for a local local school. The old Watford Springs site and the surrounding area have seen the ramming in of housing units with no consideration of the pressure on Watford Fields. Likewise in Nascot with Willow Grange and Cala Homes.

They all come with 'affordable banners'.
Cuetip you argue that proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub is an example of the lack of joined up thinking.

I didn't know the history of this so I looked it up on the Council website. I was amazed that the Council turned it down due to lack of parking provision. So you really are peddling falsehoods in your answer.

I suggest you do your homework before posting falsehoods
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: "The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education. I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation. This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands. Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?[/p][/quote]So what is your solution?[/p][/quote]A simple exam of the lack of joined up thinking was the proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub with an ugly high density block of flats with absolutely no consideration about the lack of school spaces and the horrendous parking pressures in local streets eg Judge St, Cecil St, Regent St, etc. Another example is the over development of flats in Rembrandt Hse at the congested corner of Hagden Lane and Whippedell Rd. There is still this assumption that flat dwellers don't have children or need cars. The planned long term development of Watford Junction must have joined up services eg proper space for a local local school. The old Watford Springs site and the surrounding area have seen the ramming in of housing units with no consideration of the pressure on Watford Fields. Likewise in Nascot with Willow Grange and Cala Homes. They all come with 'affordable banners'.[/p][/quote]Cuetip you argue that proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub is an example of the lack of joined up thinking. I didn't know the history of this so I looked it up on the Council website. I was amazed that the Council turned it down due to lack of parking provision. So you really are peddling falsehoods in your answer. I suggest you do your homework before posting falsehoods yellow hornet
  • Score: 1

9:38pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
"The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education.

I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation.

This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands.

Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?
So what is your solution?
A simple exam of the lack of joined up thinking was the proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub with an ugly high density block of flats with absolutely no consideration about the lack of school spaces and the horrendous parking pressures in local streets eg Judge St, Cecil St, Regent St, etc.

Another example is the over development of flats in Rembrandt Hse at the congested corner of Hagden Lane and Whippedell Rd.

There is still this assumption that flat dwellers don't have children or need cars.

The planned long term development of Watford Junction must have joined up services eg proper space for a local local school. The old Watford Springs site and the surrounding area have seen the ramming in of housing units with no consideration of the pressure on Watford Fields. Likewise in Nascot with Willow Grange and Cala Homes.

They all come with 'affordable banners'.
Cuetip you argue that proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub is an example of the lack of joined up thinking.

I didn't know the history of this so I looked it up on the Council website. I was amazed that the Council turned it down due to lack of parking provision. So you really are peddling falsehoods in your answer.

I suggest you do your homework before posting falsehoods
Well done but the homework isn't quite finished. I like a challenge.

Glad to see you do some research but check out the parking for block of flats being built at the corner of St John’s Rd or the parking provision for the new flats at the bottom of Essex Rd. Should they have been turned down for lack of parking?

At the Verulam Arms DC meeting, the Chair invited Mr Tony Gordon, a local resident, to speak to the committee. Mr Gordon said that he had lived in his home for eight years and had bought it because it was an end of terrace property. He felt that the proposed development would change his home into a mid-terraced house.
Mr Gordon also addressed problems of parking on Ridge Street and noted that only 15 parking spaces had been included in the proposed development. He said that this would further impact on parking problems in the area.
That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons and NOT JUST PARKING:
1. The proposed main building fronting St Albans Road, by reasons of its design and height, is considered to be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the properties on Ridge Street and surrounding area, contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.
2. The proposed development fails to provide adequate on-site car parking for the occupiers of the development and their visitors and is likely to exacerbate existing on-street parking congestion, contrary to saved Policies T22, T24 and T26 of the Watford District Plan 2000.
I was actually flabbergasted that this ugly proposal had the audacity to get as far as the committee stage as it’s such an insult to local people.

The council is supposed to adhere to its clear policies on need for eg joined up thinking on maintaining the character of areas, disapproving of properties that over dominate nearby properties. How come the once leafy Nascot area is now defined as an area that suffers from a lack of open space? Why do developers feel that they can simply ignore these WBC policies ?

While you are busy reading through WBC DC records check what happened at eg to the Diamond Rd flats and Watford Fields when the residents stood up as one against encroachment on their green space and the council saw £250,000 disappear. Sometimes don't you think the key has much to do with votes and elections as a way of appeasing the residents.
Do you think that they are different standards for different wards?

Look up at the different styles of brick used on the St Albans Rd shop fronts eg the corner shop adjacent to the Verulam Arms pub with a sort of biscuit colour, or the hideous green felt roof dormer extension above the shop at the corner with Brixton Rd. Check out Queens Rd for architectural consistency or for the defined character area of the area.
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: "The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education. I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation. This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands. Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?[/p][/quote]So what is your solution?[/p][/quote]A simple exam of the lack of joined up thinking was the proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub with an ugly high density block of flats with absolutely no consideration about the lack of school spaces and the horrendous parking pressures in local streets eg Judge St, Cecil St, Regent St, etc. Another example is the over development of flats in Rembrandt Hse at the congested corner of Hagden Lane and Whippedell Rd. There is still this assumption that flat dwellers don't have children or need cars. The planned long term development of Watford Junction must have joined up services eg proper space for a local local school. The old Watford Springs site and the surrounding area have seen the ramming in of housing units with no consideration of the pressure on Watford Fields. Likewise in Nascot with Willow Grange and Cala Homes. They all come with 'affordable banners'.[/p][/quote]Cuetip you argue that proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub is an example of the lack of joined up thinking. I didn't know the history of this so I looked it up on the Council website. I was amazed that the Council turned it down due to lack of parking provision. So you really are peddling falsehoods in your answer. I suggest you do your homework before posting falsehoods[/p][/quote]Well done but the homework isn't quite finished. I like a challenge. Glad to see you do some research but check out the parking for block of flats being built at the corner of St John’s Rd or the parking provision for the new flats at the bottom of Essex Rd. Should they have been turned down for lack of parking? At the Verulam Arms DC meeting, the Chair invited Mr Tony Gordon, a local resident, to speak to the committee. Mr Gordon said that he had lived in his home for eight years and had bought it because it was an end of terrace property. He felt that the proposed development would change his home into a mid-terraced house. Mr Gordon also addressed problems of parking on Ridge Street and noted that only 15 parking spaces had been included in the proposed development. He said that this would further impact on parking problems in the area. That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons and NOT JUST PARKING: 1. The proposed main building fronting St Albans Road, by reasons of its design and height, is considered to be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the properties on Ridge Street and surrounding area, contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31. 2. The proposed development fails to provide adequate on-site car parking for the occupiers of the development and their visitors and is likely to exacerbate existing on-street parking congestion, contrary to saved Policies T22, T24 and T26 of the Watford District Plan 2000. I was actually flabbergasted that this ugly proposal had the audacity to get as far as the committee stage as it’s such an insult to local people. The council is supposed to adhere to its clear policies on need for eg joined up thinking on maintaining the character of areas, disapproving of properties that over dominate nearby properties. How come the once leafy Nascot area is now defined as an area that suffers from a lack of open space? Why do developers feel that they can simply ignore these WBC policies ? While you are busy reading through WBC DC records check what happened at eg to the Diamond Rd flats and Watford Fields when the residents stood up as one against encroachment on their green space and the council saw £250,000 disappear. Sometimes don't you think the key has much to do with votes and elections as a way of appeasing the residents. Do you think that they are different standards for different wards? Look up at the different styles of brick used on the St Albans Rd shop fronts eg the corner shop adjacent to the Verulam Arms pub with a sort of biscuit colour, or the hideous green felt roof dormer extension above the shop at the corner with Brixton Rd. Check out Queens Rd for architectural consistency or for the defined character area of the area. Cuetip
  • Score: -1

9:56pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Forgot to mention that the latest Lib North Watford Focus leaflet actually mentions concerns about ' the design of the new building' for the Verulam Arms pub as well as parking. Just a shame that there isn't more consistency over parking provision.
Another quote from the same leaflet as we approach election time 'resist development that would make parking worse'. The residents near Rembrandt Hse would have loved to hear that battle cry especially those in King George's Ave.
Forgot to mention that the latest Lib North Watford Focus leaflet actually mentions concerns about ' the design of the new building' for the Verulam Arms pub as well as parking. Just a shame that there isn't more consistency over parking provision. Another quote from the same leaflet as we approach election time 'resist development that would make parking worse'. The residents near Rembrandt Hse would have loved to hear that battle cry especially those in King George's Ave. Cuetip
  • Score: 1

10:22pm Fri 7 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Cuetip wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
"The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education.

I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation.

This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands.

Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?
So what is your solution?
A simple exam of the lack of joined up thinking was the proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub with an ugly high density block of flats with absolutely no consideration about the lack of school spaces and the horrendous parking pressures in local streets eg Judge St, Cecil St, Regent St, etc.

Another example is the over development of flats in Rembrandt Hse at the congested corner of Hagden Lane and Whippedell Rd.

There is still this assumption that flat dwellers don't have children or need cars.

The planned long term development of Watford Junction must have joined up services eg proper space for a local local school. The old Watford Springs site and the surrounding area have seen the ramming in of housing units with no consideration of the pressure on Watford Fields. Likewise in Nascot with Willow Grange and Cala Homes.

They all come with 'affordable banners'.
Cuetip you argue that proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub is an example of the lack of joined up thinking.

I didn't know the history of this so I looked it up on the Council website. I was amazed that the Council turned it down due to lack of parking provision. So you really are peddling falsehoods in your answer.

I suggest you do your homework before posting falsehoods
Well done but the homework isn't quite finished. I like a challenge.

Glad to see you do some research but check out the parking for block of flats being built at the corner of St John’s Rd or the parking provision for the new flats at the bottom of Essex Rd. Should they have been turned down for lack of parking?

At the Verulam Arms DC meeting, the Chair invited Mr Tony Gordon, a local resident, to speak to the committee. Mr Gordon said that he had lived in his home for eight years and had bought it because it was an end of terrace property. He felt that the proposed development would change his home into a mid-terraced house.
Mr Gordon also addressed problems of parking on Ridge Street and noted that only 15 parking spaces had been included in the proposed development. He said that this would further impact on parking problems in the area.
That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons and NOT JUST PARKING:
1. The proposed main building fronting St Albans Road, by reasons of its design and height, is considered to be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the properties on Ridge Street and surrounding area, contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.
2. The proposed development fails to provide adequate on-site car parking for the occupiers of the development and their visitors and is likely to exacerbate existing on-street parking congestion, contrary to saved Policies T22, T24 and T26 of the Watford District Plan 2000.
I was actually flabbergasted that this ugly proposal had the audacity to get as far as the committee stage as it’s such an insult to local people.

The council is supposed to adhere to its clear policies on need for eg joined up thinking on maintaining the character of areas, disapproving of properties that over dominate nearby properties. How come the once leafy Nascot area is now defined as an area that suffers from a lack of open space? Why do developers feel that they can simply ignore these WBC policies ?

While you are busy reading through WBC DC records check what happened at eg to the Diamond Rd flats and Watford Fields when the residents stood up as one against encroachment on their green space and the council saw £250,000 disappear. Sometimes don't you think the key has much to do with votes and elections as a way of appeasing the residents.
Do you think that they are different standards for different wards?

Look up at the different styles of brick used on the St Albans Rd shop fronts eg the corner shop adjacent to the Verulam Arms pub with a sort of biscuit colour, or the hideous green felt roof dormer extension above the shop at the corner with Brixton Rd. Check out Queens Rd for architectural consistency or for the defined character area of the area.
All very interesting but you were wrong about the Verulam Arms Pub.

The application was turned down.
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: "The main thing about having the church school is that we are responding to people’s request for church school education. I always thought that the crisis in school's places had little do with religion and is to with a virile over devlopment of the town as shown by the explosion of high density blocks within a stone's throw of St Johns which has a relatively small mature congregation. This is well illustrated by the demands to expand nearly all the primary schools - regardless of faith - and eat into into their limited play space. We're not too far off from siting Free Schools on industrial parks if development isn't matched to the town's ability to cope with the planned increased numbers of many thousands. Has anyone thought of the huge disruption to children and staff in existing schools ( not forgetting the the local residential streets) by turning significant areas of their campus into building sites?[/p][/quote]So what is your solution?[/p][/quote]A simple exam of the lack of joined up thinking was the proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub with an ugly high density block of flats with absolutely no consideration about the lack of school spaces and the horrendous parking pressures in local streets eg Judge St, Cecil St, Regent St, etc. Another example is the over development of flats in Rembrandt Hse at the congested corner of Hagden Lane and Whippedell Rd. There is still this assumption that flat dwellers don't have children or need cars. The planned long term development of Watford Junction must have joined up services eg proper space for a local local school. The old Watford Springs site and the surrounding area have seen the ramming in of housing units with no consideration of the pressure on Watford Fields. Likewise in Nascot with Willow Grange and Cala Homes. They all come with 'affordable banners'.[/p][/quote]Cuetip you argue that proposal to over develop the Verulam Arms Pub is an example of the lack of joined up thinking. I didn't know the history of this so I looked it up on the Council website. I was amazed that the Council turned it down due to lack of parking provision. So you really are peddling falsehoods in your answer. I suggest you do your homework before posting falsehoods[/p][/quote]Well done but the homework isn't quite finished. I like a challenge. Glad to see you do some research but check out the parking for block of flats being built at the corner of St John’s Rd or the parking provision for the new flats at the bottom of Essex Rd. Should they have been turned down for lack of parking? At the Verulam Arms DC meeting, the Chair invited Mr Tony Gordon, a local resident, to speak to the committee. Mr Gordon said that he had lived in his home for eight years and had bought it because it was an end of terrace property. He felt that the proposed development would change his home into a mid-terraced house. Mr Gordon also addressed problems of parking on Ridge Street and noted that only 15 parking spaces had been included in the proposed development. He said that this would further impact on parking problems in the area. That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons and NOT JUST PARKING: 1. The proposed main building fronting St Albans Road, by reasons of its design and height, is considered to be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the properties on Ridge Street and surrounding area, contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31. 2. The proposed development fails to provide adequate on-site car parking for the occupiers of the development and their visitors and is likely to exacerbate existing on-street parking congestion, contrary to saved Policies T22, T24 and T26 of the Watford District Plan 2000. I was actually flabbergasted that this ugly proposal had the audacity to get as far as the committee stage as it’s such an insult to local people. The council is supposed to adhere to its clear policies on need for eg joined up thinking on maintaining the character of areas, disapproving of properties that over dominate nearby properties. How come the once leafy Nascot area is now defined as an area that suffers from a lack of open space? Why do developers feel that they can simply ignore these WBC policies ? While you are busy reading through WBC DC records check what happened at eg to the Diamond Rd flats and Watford Fields when the residents stood up as one against encroachment on their green space and the council saw £250,000 disappear. Sometimes don't you think the key has much to do with votes and elections as a way of appeasing the residents. Do you think that they are different standards for different wards? Look up at the different styles of brick used on the St Albans Rd shop fronts eg the corner shop adjacent to the Verulam Arms pub with a sort of biscuit colour, or the hideous green felt roof dormer extension above the shop at the corner with Brixton Rd. Check out Queens Rd for architectural consistency or for the defined character area of the area.[/p][/quote]All very interesting but you were wrong about the Verulam Arms Pub. The application was turned down. yellow hornet
  • Score: 1

2:39pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Robin10 says...

The comments seem to have diverted into a discussion about town planning and car parking . As one of the founders of the proposed school I thought it might be helpful to interject with some facts and information surrounding the proposed school:

This School is being opened to help with the shortfall of primary school places in Watford. The need for primary school places is reasonably urgent. The only way to open new school is under the free school initiative / policy

The School will be part of the St Alban Diocese family of schools. The Diocese of St Albans already supports and runs over 135 successful schools with in the Diocese.

This school will offer local parents a choice, so if parents wishes to choose a school under pinned by Christian values, the choice is theirs. If they prefer not to have their child attend a Christian school they can opt for a different school as their first choice. Creating more school places increases the choice for all.

The school will teach the national curriculum. For more details and the facts about the school please see the website. www.saintjohnswatfor
dschool.org.uk If you are a parent wishing to find out more please do get in contact with us.
The comments seem to have diverted into a discussion about town planning and car parking . As one of the founders of the proposed school I thought it might be helpful to interject with some facts and information surrounding the proposed school: This School is being opened to help with the shortfall of primary school places in Watford. The need for primary school places is reasonably urgent. The only way to open new school is under the free school initiative / policy The School will be part of the St Alban Diocese family of schools. The Diocese of St Albans already supports and runs over 135 successful schools with in the Diocese. This school will offer local parents a choice, so if parents wishes to choose a school under pinned by Christian values, the choice is theirs. If they prefer not to have their child attend a Christian school they can opt for a different school as their first choice. Creating more school places increases the choice for all. The school will teach the national curriculum. For more details and the facts about the school please see the website. www.saintjohnswatfor dschool.org.uk If you are a parent wishing to find out more please do get in contact with us. Robin10
  • Score: 12

5:17pm Sat 8 Mar 14

LSC says...

@Robin10. The school will teach the national curriculum, that's great. That is what a school should do; it is what the NC is for. So all young minds learning across the country have a level playing field, because they are all learning the same things.
In an ideal world, that is how it would be. Every school as good as any other at educating children in a broad range of subjects that will serve them well in later life. Of course, in real life there might be good or bad teachers, or better facilities in one school over another and that could influence choice and outcome of education. But we should be looking at evening schools out in their standards, not creating extra differences from the very start.

Religion, of any kind, has no place in real education. It stifles it by definition. We need the next generation to ask questions, to solve problems and to ponder theories.

How can they do that when religions claim they already have all the answers? Even when they fly in the face of observable facts? How can people subject their children to this confusion and expect them to be mentally at peace?

So much of the bible has been proved incorrect; how can you in one lesson teach them about dinosaurs before humans existed and in the next lesson teach them Adam and Eve were there first?

How can you teach them about freshwater Salmon returning up streams to their spawning grounds and that is how the species survives, and then tell them in Noah's time the world was covered in salt water which would mean no streams or fresh water?

WHY would you want to do this to children?
@Robin10. The school will teach the national curriculum, that's great. That is what a school should do; it is what the NC is for. So all young minds learning across the country have a level playing field, because they are all learning the same things. In an ideal world, that is how it would be. Every school as good as any other at educating children in a broad range of subjects that will serve them well in later life. Of course, in real life there might be good or bad teachers, or better facilities in one school over another and that could influence choice and outcome of education. But we should be looking at evening schools out in their standards, not creating extra differences from the very start. Religion, of any kind, has no place in real education. It stifles it by definition. We need the next generation to ask questions, to solve problems and to ponder theories. How can they do that when religions claim they already have all the answers? Even when they fly in the face of observable facts? How can people subject their children to this confusion and expect them to be mentally at peace? So much of the bible has been proved incorrect; how can you in one lesson teach them about dinosaurs before humans existed and in the next lesson teach them Adam and Eve were there first? How can you teach them about freshwater Salmon returning up streams to their spawning grounds and that is how the species survives, and then tell them in Noah's time the world was covered in salt water which would mean no streams or fresh water? WHY would you want to do this to children? LSC
  • Score: -8

7:24am Mon 10 Mar 14

andyandyandy says...

Religion has no place in schools.
Religion has no place in schools. andyandyandy
  • Score: -9

11:00am Mon 10 Mar 14

garston tony says...

JD such free schools exist across the country and far from causing 'friction' places in them are in high demand from ALL sections of the community.

What you are about is trying to deny people the free will to live their lives as they reasonably wish, you have this wholly laughable superiority complex to go with that ignorant chip on your shoulder which you think gives you the right to dictate to others. Shame on the WO for once again throwing integrity out of the window in order to give a voice to such a verbally flatulent person.


Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is ackowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really dont know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against.



LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stiffle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that.

You've also tried using the fresh/salt water 'issue' before and it was explained to you how that you didnt actually have a point. Its parr for the course that you choose to ignore facts in order to try (and fail) to make some point. So once again, and this is something you can do in a fish tank at home for goodness sake, a fish can adapt from living in fresh water to salt water and vice versa. There also exist not just fresh water springs in oceans around the world but also pockets of fresh water on sea beds where fresh water creatures live quite happily. David Attenborough, a devout evolutionist, featured one of them in one of his nature programs a few years ago so unless you want to challenge one of your own you really need to give it up now!
JD such free schools exist across the country and far from causing 'friction' places in them are in high demand from ALL sections of the community. What you are about is trying to deny people the free will to live their lives as they reasonably wish, you have this wholly laughable superiority complex to go with that ignorant chip on your shoulder which you think gives you the right to dictate to others. Shame on the WO for once again throwing integrity out of the window in order to give a voice to such a verbally flatulent person. Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is ackowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really dont know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against. LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stiffle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that. You've also tried using the fresh/salt water 'issue' before and it was explained to you how that you didnt actually have a point. Its parr for the course that you choose to ignore facts in order to try (and fail) to make some point. So once again, and this is something you can do in a fish tank at home for goodness sake, a fish can adapt from living in fresh water to salt water and vice versa. There also exist not just fresh water springs in oceans around the world but also pockets of fresh water on sea beds where fresh water creatures live quite happily. David Attenborough, a devout evolutionist, featured one of them in one of his nature programs a few years ago so unless you want to challenge one of your own you really need to give it up now! garston tony
  • Score: 10

12:20pm Mon 10 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

Isn’t it a shame that as soon as someone attempts to try and help the community there will always be those who climb aboard the doom and gloom bus and try to drive straight through the idea, of course we live in a democracy which means that everyone can have an opinion but because it’s a democracy it also means there are some of us who applaud Father David for having the vision to provide something so sorely lacking in such a large town as Watford.

Following last weeks deplorable annual secondary transfer mayhem I sincerely hope he will extend that vision and launch a senior faith school its about time that we had a bit more choice and with enough schools on offer then those who don’t like faith schools wont need to pick will they.
Isn’t it a shame that as soon as someone attempts to try and help the community there will always be those who climb aboard the doom and gloom bus and try to drive straight through the idea, of course we live in a democracy which means that everyone can have an opinion but because it’s a democracy it also means there are some of us who applaud Father David for having the vision to provide something so sorely lacking in such a large town as Watford. Following last weeks deplorable annual secondary transfer mayhem I sincerely hope he will extend that vision and launch a senior faith school its about time that we had a bit more choice and with enough schools on offer then those who don’t like faith schools wont need to pick will they. invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 13

4:09pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LSC says...

"What you are about is trying to deny people the free will to live their lives as they reasonably wish"

Are we talking about the children here? I don't recall my parents asking me which school I wanted to go to at 4. Surely we are talking about the parents wishes, not the kids. And by the time the kids develop what we might call free will, it is usually too late after all the indoctrination. After 10 years or so of being constantly told THERE IS A GOD by all around them, they will believe it.
It took less time for the Vietnamese to 'turn' American POWs into communists while in captivity. And those POWs were adult Marines. Brainwashing a child is a lot easier because you start with a blank canvas.

It's wrong.

We have indeed had the fish arguement before and we will never agree on it. You say 'adapt', I say at best 'evolve' but it is a moot point as the flood never happened. But a fact to those on the fence, if the world was covered with so much water to cover Mount Everest, it's mass, and therefore gravitational pull would have increased so much that the moon would have hit us, and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
"What you are about is trying to deny people the free will to live their lives as they reasonably wish" Are we talking about the children here? I don't recall my parents asking me which school I wanted to go to at 4. Surely we are talking about the parents wishes, not the kids. And by the time the kids develop what we might call free will, it is usually too late after all the indoctrination. After 10 years or so of being constantly told THERE IS A GOD by all around them, they will believe it. It took less time for the Vietnamese to 'turn' American POWs into communists while in captivity. And those POWs were adult Marines. Brainwashing a child is a lot easier because you start with a blank canvas. It's wrong. We have indeed had the fish arguement before and we will never agree on it. You say 'adapt', I say at best 'evolve' but it is a moot point as the flood never happened. But a fact to those on the fence, if the world was covered with so much water to cover Mount Everest, it's mass, and therefore gravitational pull would have increased so much that the moon would have hit us, and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. LSC
  • Score: -5

5:32pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LSC says...

For those still not convinced, here is an experiment you can try at home, if you have an old fashioned record player. I just did it myself.
Place a jewelry type bead in the turntable, and start it at 33rpm. The bead will sit there spinning quite happily, enjoying the ride. Like the Earth does around the Sun.
Now replace the bead with something of greater mass; I used a glass marble, to represent the Earth being heavier and larger. Start the record player. The marble flies straight off the turntable and frightens the cat.

Simple, simple physics.

Even if we didn't fly off into space completely, centripetal force laws dictate our orbit would have increased in size and slowed considerably, which would mean a new ice age by being further from the sun (you only have to look at the delicate weather balance we have between the climate of Norway and the UK to see what difference a few hundred miles make, and we are talking millions here) and the length of a year would increase considerably. But that MIGHT explain why Noah was supposed to be about 600 years old; perhaps the years WERE shorter before the flood?
For those still not convinced, here is an experiment you can try at home, if you have an old fashioned record player. I just did it myself. Place a jewelry type bead in the turntable, and start it at 33rpm. The bead will sit there spinning quite happily, enjoying the ride. Like the Earth does around the Sun. Now replace the bead with something of greater mass; I used a glass marble, to represent the Earth being heavier and larger. Start the record player. The marble flies straight off the turntable and frightens the cat. Simple, simple physics. Even if we didn't fly off into space completely, centripetal force laws dictate our orbit would have increased in size and slowed considerably, which would mean a new ice age by being further from the sun (you only have to look at the delicate weather balance we have between the climate of Norway and the UK to see what difference a few hundred miles make, and we are talking millions here) and the length of a year would increase considerably. But that MIGHT explain why Noah was supposed to be about 600 years old; perhaps the years WERE shorter before the flood? LSC
  • Score: -5

5:35pm Mon 10 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

How can you rattle on about denying people the free will to live their lives and indoctrination and in your very next breath, ramming your own thoughts down everyone’s throat?
I don’t care what you choose to believe in or otherwise and I’m sure you couldn’t care less about my beliefs, but the difference here is if you don’t like the idea of a faith school don’t send your child there.

This is about another school being provided in an area that is desperately short of schooling and there are as many people who want this as those of you who don’t.
Like I said earlier, it just seems a shame that as soon as anyone puts there head above the parapet, you all shoot it down with your arrows of righteous indignation.
If you spent as much time progressing your own school as you have trawling around all the age old arguments, you wouldn’t have to worry about us who are delighted this excellent idea could happen.
How can you rattle on about denying people the free will to live their lives and indoctrination and in your very next breath, ramming your own thoughts down everyone’s throat? I don’t care what you choose to believe in or otherwise and I’m sure you couldn’t care less about my beliefs, but the difference here is if you don’t like the idea of a faith school don’t send your child there. This is about another school being provided in an area that is desperately short of schooling and there are as many people who want this as those of you who don’t. Like I said earlier, it just seems a shame that as soon as anyone puts there head above the parapet, you all shoot it down with your arrows of righteous indignation. If you spent as much time progressing your own school as you have trawling around all the age old arguments, you wouldn’t have to worry about us who are delighted this excellent idea could happen. invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 7

5:37pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LSC says...

But I doubt that, because that would mean we were closer to the Sun, which would mean no polar ice caps, which would mean no penguins or polar bears to put into the Ark, wouldn't it?

Simple science, and I'm not even talking O level, disproves the bible.

And you want the bible taught in schools?
But I doubt that, because that would mean we were closer to the Sun, which would mean no polar ice caps, which would mean no penguins or polar bears to put into the Ark, wouldn't it? Simple science, and I'm not even talking O level, disproves the bible. And you want the bible taught in schools? LSC
  • Score: -4

5:44pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LSC says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
How can you rattle on about denying people the free will to live their lives and indoctrination and in your very next breath, ramming your own thoughts down everyone’s throat?
I don’t care what you choose to believe in or otherwise and I’m sure you couldn’t care less about my beliefs, but the difference here is if you don’t like the idea of a faith school don’t send your child there.

This is about another school being provided in an area that is desperately short of schooling and there are as many people who want this as those of you who don’t.
Like I said earlier, it just seems a shame that as soon as anyone puts there head above the parapet, you all shoot it down with your arrows of righteous indignation.
If you spent as much time progressing your own school as you have trawling around all the age old arguments, you wouldn’t have to worry about us who are delighted this excellent idea could happen.
They aren't my thoughts, they are facts. True, I do not have to send my child there, but wouldn't it be bizarre if I lived next door to it?
Why can't it just be a school? For children. To learn in. Then they can all go there, whatever their parents do or don't believe. How is that a radical proposition?
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: How can you rattle on about denying people the free will to live their lives and indoctrination and in your very next breath, ramming your own thoughts down everyone’s throat? I don’t care what you choose to believe in or otherwise and I’m sure you couldn’t care less about my beliefs, but the difference here is if you don’t like the idea of a faith school don’t send your child there. This is about another school being provided in an area that is desperately short of schooling and there are as many people who want this as those of you who don’t. Like I said earlier, it just seems a shame that as soon as anyone puts there head above the parapet, you all shoot it down with your arrows of righteous indignation. If you spent as much time progressing your own school as you have trawling around all the age old arguments, you wouldn’t have to worry about us who are delighted this excellent idea could happen.[/p][/quote]They aren't my thoughts, they are facts. True, I do not have to send my child there, but wouldn't it be bizarre if I lived next door to it? Why can't it just be a school? For children. To learn in. Then they can all go there, whatever their parents do or don't believe. How is that a radical proposition? LSC
  • Score: -4

5:53pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Robin10 says...

This School is being opened to help with the predicted shortfall of primary school places in Watford. The need for primary school places is urgent. The only way to open new school is under the free school policy.

All parents are free to choose to apply for a place for their child, that includes parents of all faiths and none.

The school will teach the national curriculum, including science & evolution.
Children will learn about different faiths and Religious Education will be taught according to the Hertfordshire County Council agreed syllabus.

For more details and the facts about the school please see the website. www.saintjohnswatfor
dschool.org.uk If you are a parent wishing to find out more please do get in contact with us.
This School is being opened to help with the predicted shortfall of primary school places in Watford. The need for primary school places is urgent. The only way to open new school is under the free school policy. All parents are free to choose to apply for a place for their child, that includes parents of all faiths and none. The school will teach the national curriculum, including science & evolution. Children will learn about different faiths and Religious Education will be taught according to the Hertfordshire County Council agreed syllabus. For more details and the facts about the school please see the website. www.saintjohnswatfor dschool.org.uk If you are a parent wishing to find out more please do get in contact with us. Robin10
  • Score: 5

6:00pm Mon 10 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

I doubt from your arguments you have actually studied the bible I could be wrong of course but if you had, I think you would not be so quick to judge, equally going on your augments on the basis that cookery has been taught in schools but with so many conflicting suggestions as to the good or bad effects of various ingredients such as sugar or salt perhaps its best not to teach it . As science is always looking to disprove itself, we should drop that subject as well in case we have taught the wrong thing. Physical education Oh dear we are told exercise is healthy but then again too much can be bad for us, lets drop that then. That of course leaves languages but with so many which should we use? Ok so lets drop that oh I know lets not bother with education, that would elevate the need for a school and you won’t have to be against it

Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong
I doubt from your arguments you have actually studied the bible I could be wrong of course but if you had, I think you would not be so quick to judge, equally going on your augments on the basis that cookery has been taught in schools but with so many conflicting suggestions as to the good or bad effects of various ingredients such as sugar or salt perhaps its best not to teach it . As science is always looking to disprove itself, we should drop that subject as well in case we have taught the wrong thing. Physical education Oh dear we are told exercise is healthy but then again too much can be bad for us, lets drop that then. That of course leaves languages but with so many which should we use? Ok so lets drop that oh I know lets not bother with education, that would elevate the need for a school and you won’t have to be against it Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 5

6:10pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LSC says...

"Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong"

Like shooting fish in a barrel. If numbers prove who must be right, then the population of the planet is 7 billion, and only 2 billion of them are christian (and many of them argue amoung each other like catholics and protestants, baptists and plymouth brethren).

So therefore, by your own argument, you are wrong. QED.
"Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong" Like shooting fish in a barrel. If numbers prove who must be right, then the population of the planet is 7 billion, and only 2 billion of them are christian (and many of them argue amoung each other like catholics and protestants, baptists and plymouth brethren). So therefore, by your own argument, you are wrong. QED. LSC
  • Score: -3

6:18pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
I doubt from your arguments you have actually studied the bible I could be wrong of course but if you had, I think you would not be so quick to judge, equally going on your augments on the basis that cookery has been taught in schools but with so many conflicting suggestions as to the good or bad effects of various ingredients such as sugar or salt perhaps its best not to teach it . As science is always looking to disprove itself, we should drop that subject as well in case we have taught the wrong thing. Physical education Oh dear we are told exercise is healthy but then again too much can be bad for us, lets drop that then. That of course leaves languages but with so many which should we use? Ok so lets drop that oh I know lets not bother with education, that would elevate the need for a school and you won’t have to be against it

Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong
But 4.9 billion non Christians can be?
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I doubt from your arguments you have actually studied the bible I could be wrong of course but if you had, I think you would not be so quick to judge, equally going on your augments on the basis that cookery has been taught in schools but with so many conflicting suggestions as to the good or bad effects of various ingredients such as sugar or salt perhaps its best not to teach it . As science is always looking to disprove itself, we should drop that subject as well in case we have taught the wrong thing. Physical education Oh dear we are told exercise is healthy but then again too much can be bad for us, lets drop that then. That of course leaves languages but with so many which should we use? Ok so lets drop that oh I know lets not bother with education, that would elevate the need for a school and you won’t have to be against it Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong[/p][/quote]But 4.9 billion non Christians can be? Su Murray
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LSC says...

And that is the nature of the Beast. How many of those 2 billion are under 5 and don't even know what you are talking about, but were christened and therefore christians? How many christians are quakers, christian scientists, jehovers witnesses, mormons, Westboro baptist church, Greek orthodox, Russian orthodox, and so on and so on.

If you want to make your point by sums, being C of E is quite obviously very, very wrong indeed.
Perhaps we should teach more maths and logic in schools and less fairy stories, you'd have got that.
And that is the nature of the Beast. How many of those 2 billion are under 5 and don't even know what you are talking about, but were christened and therefore christians? How many christians are quakers, christian scientists, jehovers witnesses, mormons, Westboro baptist church, Greek orthodox, Russian orthodox, and so on and so on. If you want to make your point by sums, being C of E is quite obviously very, very wrong indeed. Perhaps we should teach more maths and logic in schools and less fairy stories, you'd have got that. LSC
  • Score: -3

6:52pm Mon 10 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

Oh dear so to score points you are happy to include all the other faiths well I can see the irony if you can't ? I'm not here to score points or disabuse your faith or lack of , it's just bizarre that two other schools have been proposed and you say nothing but a faith school is mentioned and look at you galloping of like a crusade which is bizarre as unless it's changed religious education is mandatory in all schools as I say and I repeat . What you choose to believe in is up to you just because I have a different belief should not mean I have to defend it there are two free schools and now a faith choice as well let's let the parents decide shall we
Oh dear so to score points you are happy to include all the other faiths well I can see the irony if you can't ? I'm not here to score points or disabuse your faith or lack of , it's just bizarre that two other schools have been proposed and you say nothing but a faith school is mentioned and look at you galloping of like a crusade which is bizarre as unless it's changed religious education is mandatory in all schools as I say and I repeat . What you choose to believe in is up to you just because I have a different belief should not mean I have to defend it there are two free schools and now a faith choice as well let's let the parents decide shall we invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 6

7:23pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

"Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is acknowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really don't know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against." (sic)

Of course it conflicts, they are diametrically opposed Tony. Your words show your arrogance and mistrust of science and those that practice it regardless because as a flawed creature man can only make flawed assumptions? "Made up as proof"?.... Do you actually understand what evidence is? Perhaps you can provide examples of why the bible is proof? i would be interested to see the comparison as it always makes me laugh when you go on about proof; when you demand perfect evidence from science but are incapable of providing any for the nonsense in the bible for obvious reasons.

"Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved." - Acts 2:2; Romans 10:13
"Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - Matthew 7:21
"Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved." - Acts 2:39

Even the bible cant agree with itself.


"LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stifle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that." (sic)

I agree there is a small percentage of recognized scientists who are of a religious persuasion. None of them however, have written any article in the peer review in defense of creationism as any mention of a sky fairy would get the paper thrown out and their PhD revoked and rightly so.
While the percentage of theists in the scientific and engineering community is very low
"Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is acknowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really don't know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against." (sic) Of course it conflicts, they are diametrically opposed Tony. Your words show your arrogance and mistrust of science and those that practice it regardless because as a flawed creature man can only make flawed assumptions? "Made up as proof"?.... Do you actually understand what evidence is? Perhaps you can provide examples of why the bible is proof? i would be interested to see the comparison as it always makes me laugh when you go on about proof; when you demand perfect evidence from science but are incapable of providing any for the nonsense in the bible for obvious reasons. "Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved." - Acts 2:2; Romans 10:13 "Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - Matthew 7:21 "Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved." - Acts 2:39 Even the bible cant agree with itself. "LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stifle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that." (sic) I agree there is a small percentage of recognized scientists who are of a religious persuasion. None of them however, have written any article in the peer review in defense of creationism as any mention of a sky fairy would get the paper thrown out and their PhD revoked and rightly so. While the percentage of theists in the scientific and engineering community is very low Popeonarope
  • Score: -3

7:28pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
I doubt from your arguments you have actually studied the bible I could be wrong of course but if you had, I think you would not be so quick to judge, equally going on your augments on the basis that cookery has been taught in schools but with so many conflicting suggestions as to the good or bad effects of various ingredients such as sugar or salt perhaps its best not to teach it . As science is always looking to disprove itself, we should drop that subject as well in case we have taught the wrong thing. Physical education Oh dear we are told exercise is healthy but then again too much can be bad for us, lets drop that then. That of course leaves languages but with so many which should we use? Ok so lets drop that oh I know lets not bother with education, that would elevate the need for a school and you won’t have to be against it

Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong
the number of theists among the uneducated masses is significantly higher. Ill let you draw you won conclusions.
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I doubt from your arguments you have actually studied the bible I could be wrong of course but if you had, I think you would not be so quick to judge, equally going on your augments on the basis that cookery has been taught in schools but with so many conflicting suggestions as to the good or bad effects of various ingredients such as sugar or salt perhaps its best not to teach it . As science is always looking to disprove itself, we should drop that subject as well in case we have taught the wrong thing. Physical education Oh dear we are told exercise is healthy but then again too much can be bad for us, lets drop that then. That of course leaves languages but with so many which should we use? Ok so lets drop that oh I know lets not bother with education, that would elevate the need for a school and you won’t have to be against it Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong[/p][/quote]the number of theists among the uneducated masses is significantly higher. Ill let you draw you won conclusions. Popeonarope
  • Score: -3

7:30pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

Apologies - having a four year old on my lap while typing is creating some random posts. Hopefully you get the gist.!
Apologies - having a four year old on my lap while typing is creating some random posts. Hopefully you get the gist.! Popeonarope
  • Score: 1

7:33pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong

I actually laughed, and atheists get called arrogant. :o)
Finally whilst you may criticise the bible 2 billion Christians cant be wrong I actually laughed, and atheists get called arrogant. :o) Popeonarope
  • Score: -2

7:54pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LSC says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
Oh dear so to score points you are happy to include all the other faiths well I can see the irony if you can't ? I'm not here to score points or disabuse your faith or lack of , it's just bizarre that two other schools have been proposed and you say nothing but a faith school is mentioned and look at you galloping of like a crusade which is bizarre as unless it's changed religious education is mandatory in all schools as I say and I repeat . What you choose to believe in is up to you just because I have a different belief should not mean I have to defend it there are two free schools and now a faith choice as well let's let the parents decide shall we
I'm not here to attack YOUR faith. I'm here to ask you to let your children chose their own.
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: Oh dear so to score points you are happy to include all the other faiths well I can see the irony if you can't ? I'm not here to score points or disabuse your faith or lack of , it's just bizarre that two other schools have been proposed and you say nothing but a faith school is mentioned and look at you galloping of like a crusade which is bizarre as unless it's changed religious education is mandatory in all schools as I say and I repeat . What you choose to believe in is up to you just because I have a different belief should not mean I have to defend it there are two free schools and now a faith choice as well let's let the parents decide shall we[/p][/quote]I'm not here to attack YOUR faith. I'm here to ask you to let your children chose their own. LSC
  • Score: -4

10:30pm Mon 10 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end
I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 6

11:24pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LSC says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end
I'm sorry, but you are quite wrong.
Of course people have the right to say you are wrong as a parent. That is why we have care homes and social services dealing with exactly when parents get it wrong.

Of course I don't believe a child of 4 can choose, that is my point!
I fully agree with you, that a child that age doesn't have the right to make a choice on when to cross the road.

But we aren't talking about health and safety, which is the job of an adult to enforce. We are talking about their mental health, or in your language, their soul and spirituality. Even if I believe what you do, nobody else has a right in anyone else's soul. Let them find their own path.

There is no danger of them being run over, just a danger they might discover they don't believe what you believe. And then you have to look in a mirror and realise they are growing up with their own opinions, and they just might be right, and you wrong.

Scary, isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but you are quite wrong. Of course people have the right to say you are wrong as a parent. That is why we have care homes and social services dealing with exactly when parents get it wrong. Of course I don't believe a child of 4 can choose, that is my point! I fully agree with you, that a child that age doesn't have the right to make a choice on when to cross the road. But we aren't talking about health and safety, which is the job of an adult to enforce. We are talking about their mental health, or in your language, their soul and spirituality. Even if I believe what you do, nobody else has a right in anyone else's soul. Let them find their own path. There is no danger of them being run over, just a danger they might discover they don't believe what you believe. And then you have to look in a mirror and realise they are growing up with their own opinions, and they just might be right, and you wrong. Scary, isn't it? LSC
  • Score: -5

12:26am Tue 11 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

Clearly you do not have a faith you make that abundantly clear but what us so alarming is that in your desire to push you non belief you are more zealot than those who do you also have a totally misconception of what a faith school is about and perhaps you should investigate more before you start making assumptions indeed I can make an assumption which could be totally wrong but by the way you speak I wonder if you actually have children or if you do wether they are of school age. We make many choices for our children as they grow up a lot having nothing to do with religion and from experience I can say that not all of the choices I made did my children take to, peas after all are not every ones cup of tea but One learns from experience perhaps your idea of not letting a child experience faith his based on fear
Clearly you do not have a faith you make that abundantly clear but what us so alarming is that in your desire to push you non belief you are more zealot than those who do you also have a totally misconception of what a faith school is about and perhaps you should investigate more before you start making assumptions indeed I can make an assumption which could be totally wrong but by the way you speak I wonder if you actually have children or if you do wether they are of school age. We make many choices for our children as they grow up a lot having nothing to do with religion and from experience I can say that not all of the choices I made did my children take to, peas after all are not every ones cup of tea but One learns from experience perhaps your idea of not letting a child experience faith his based on fear invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 5

1:08am Tue 11 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end
As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end[/p][/quote]As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway. Su Murray
  • Score: -3

8:22am Tue 11 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote:
I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end
As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.
Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end[/p][/quote]As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.[/p][/quote]Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 5

10:10am Tue 11 Mar 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
"What you are about is trying to deny people the free will to live their lives as they reasonably wish" Are we talking about the children here? I don't recall my parents asking me which school I wanted to go to at 4. Surely we are talking about the parents wishes, not the kids. And by the time the kids develop what we might call free will, it is usually too late after all the indoctrination. After 10 years or so of being constantly told THERE IS A GOD by all around them, they will believe it. It took less time for the Vietnamese to 'turn' American POWs into communists while in captivity. And those POWs were adult Marines. Brainwashing a child is a lot easier because you start with a blank canvas. It's wrong. We have indeed had the fish arguement before and we will never agree on it. You say 'adapt', I say at best 'evolve' but it is a moot point as the flood never happened. But a fact to those on the fence, if the world was covered with so much water to cover Mount Everest, it's mass, and therefore gravitational pull would have increased so much that the moon would have hit us, and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
I despair LSC, you really dont think kids that grow up in a religious environment wont be able at some point to make their own mind up about what they believe!? The fact that there are countless examples of kids abandoning their faith shows how wrong you are, but of course you ignore facts that dont support your blinkered view.

Your argument could equally apply to your own beliefs, I could argue it is equally wrong for children to be brought up believing in man made big bang and evolutionary theory as if they are constantly told it is true for 10 years they'll believe it . The vast majority of people that believe in these theories, including some that post on here, do so precisely because that is how they were brought up and when challenged they know precious little to nothing about it. They also tend to know even less about religious beliefs yet often dont hesitate to ridicule or have passionate hatred for it.

And for someone who claims to be 'scientifically' minded its interesting to note that despite being given evidence that fish could adapt you choose to ignore it. This perfectly shows what I am saying.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "What you are about is trying to deny people the free will to live their lives as they reasonably wish" Are we talking about the children here? I don't recall my parents asking me which school I wanted to go to at 4. Surely we are talking about the parents wishes, not the kids. And by the time the kids develop what we might call free will, it is usually too late after all the indoctrination. After 10 years or so of being constantly told THERE IS A GOD by all around them, they will believe it. It took less time for the Vietnamese to 'turn' American POWs into communists while in captivity. And those POWs were adult Marines. Brainwashing a child is a lot easier because you start with a blank canvas. It's wrong. We have indeed had the fish arguement before and we will never agree on it. You say 'adapt', I say at best 'evolve' but it is a moot point as the flood never happened. But a fact to those on the fence, if the world was covered with so much water to cover Mount Everest, it's mass, and therefore gravitational pull would have increased so much that the moon would have hit us, and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.[/p][/quote]I despair LSC, you really dont think kids that grow up in a religious environment wont be able at some point to make their own mind up about what they believe!? The fact that there are countless examples of kids abandoning their faith shows how wrong you are, but of course you ignore facts that dont support your blinkered view. Your argument could equally apply to your own beliefs, I could argue it is equally wrong for children to be brought up believing in man made big bang and evolutionary theory as if they are constantly told it is true for 10 years they'll believe it . The vast majority of people that believe in these theories, including some that post on here, do so precisely because that is how they were brought up and when challenged they know precious little to nothing about it. They also tend to know even less about religious beliefs yet often dont hesitate to ridicule or have passionate hatred for it. And for someone who claims to be 'scientifically' minded its interesting to note that despite being given evidence that fish could adapt you choose to ignore it. This perfectly shows what I am saying. garston tony
  • Score: 5

10:12am Tue 11 Mar 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
For those still not convinced, here is an experiment you can try at home, if you have an old fashioned record player. I just did it myself. Place a jewelry type bead in the turntable, and start it at 33rpm. The bead will sit there spinning quite happily, enjoying the ride. Like the Earth does around the Sun. Now replace the bead with something of greater mass; I used a glass marble, to represent the Earth being heavier and larger. Start the record player. The marble flies straight off the turntable and frightens the cat. Simple, simple physics. Even if we didn't fly off into space completely, centripetal force laws dictate our orbit would have increased in size and slowed considerably, which would mean a new ice age by being further from the sun (you only have to look at the delicate weather balance we have between the climate of Norway and the UK to see what difference a few hundred miles make, and we are talking millions here) and the length of a year would increase considerably. But that MIGHT explain why Noah was supposed to be about 600 years old; perhaps the years WERE shorter before the flood?
LSC, wrong again. The water already existed on the planet, no additional mass was added so therefore your analogy is completely wrong.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: For those still not convinced, here is an experiment you can try at home, if you have an old fashioned record player. I just did it myself. Place a jewelry type bead in the turntable, and start it at 33rpm. The bead will sit there spinning quite happily, enjoying the ride. Like the Earth does around the Sun. Now replace the bead with something of greater mass; I used a glass marble, to represent the Earth being heavier and larger. Start the record player. The marble flies straight off the turntable and frightens the cat. Simple, simple physics. Even if we didn't fly off into space completely, centripetal force laws dictate our orbit would have increased in size and slowed considerably, which would mean a new ice age by being further from the sun (you only have to look at the delicate weather balance we have between the climate of Norway and the UK to see what difference a few hundred miles make, and we are talking millions here) and the length of a year would increase considerably. But that MIGHT explain why Noah was supposed to be about 600 years old; perhaps the years WERE shorter before the flood?[/p][/quote]LSC, wrong again. The water already existed on the planet, no additional mass was added so therefore your analogy is completely wrong. garston tony
  • Score: 5

10:25am Tue 11 Mar 14

garston tony says...

Popeonarope wrote:
"Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is acknowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really don't know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against." (sic) Of course it conflicts, they are diametrically opposed Tony. Your words show your arrogance and mistrust of science and those that practice it regardless because as a flawed creature man can only make flawed assumptions? "Made up as proof"?.... Do you actually understand what evidence is? Perhaps you can provide examples of why the bible is proof? i would be interested to see the comparison as it always makes me laugh when you go on about proof; when you demand perfect evidence from science but are incapable of providing any for the nonsense in the bible for obvious reasons. "Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved." - Acts 2:2; Romans 10:13 "Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - Matthew 7:21 "Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved." - Acts 2:39 Even the bible cant agree with itself. "LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stifle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that." (sic) I agree there is a small percentage of recognized scientists who are of a religious persuasion. None of them however, have written any article in the peer review in defense of creationism as any mention of a sky fairy would get the paper thrown out and their PhD revoked and rightly so. While the percentage of theists in the scientific and engineering community is very low
Pope, people of faith are not frightened of science. I embrace it, my business wouldnt exist without it, my body benefits from it every day and my life is surrounded by the outcomes of its discoveries.

But you know why I dont feear big bang and evolutionary theory. Because unlike the science that enables me to keep my ailments in check, or the science that allows me to sit here and communicate on this forum, or the science i use in order to provide myself and my employees with an income the 'science' of big bang and evolution is not proven, it is guess work. The fact that you refuse to see that, the fact that you continue to use guesses to attack my beliefs says it all.

Oh, and top marks on once again taking biblical texts out of context. Its a classic ploy, LSC you've had first hand experience of people taking your words out of context in order to attack you. Would you like to explain to Pope why its not an intelligent thing to do?

Oh and Pope, maybe you should take a history lesson and look at how many of the major discoveries which science still relies on today where made by people of faith. And I dont know what you're reading but I read plenty of articles etc from people of faith who also happen to be scientists. Maybe you should expand your reading
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: "Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is acknowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really don't know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against." (sic) Of course it conflicts, they are diametrically opposed Tony. Your words show your arrogance and mistrust of science and those that practice it regardless because as a flawed creature man can only make flawed assumptions? "Made up as proof"?.... Do you actually understand what evidence is? Perhaps you can provide examples of why the bible is proof? i would be interested to see the comparison as it always makes me laugh when you go on about proof; when you demand perfect evidence from science but are incapable of providing any for the nonsense in the bible for obvious reasons. "Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved." - Acts 2:2; Romans 10:13 "Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - Matthew 7:21 "Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved." - Acts 2:39 Even the bible cant agree with itself. "LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stifle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that." (sic) I agree there is a small percentage of recognized scientists who are of a religious persuasion. None of them however, have written any article in the peer review in defense of creationism as any mention of a sky fairy would get the paper thrown out and their PhD revoked and rightly so. While the percentage of theists in the scientific and engineering community is very low[/p][/quote]Pope, people of faith are not frightened of science. I embrace it, my business wouldnt exist without it, my body benefits from it every day and my life is surrounded by the outcomes of its discoveries. But you know why I dont feear big bang and evolutionary theory. Because unlike the science that enables me to keep my ailments in check, or the science that allows me to sit here and communicate on this forum, or the science i use in order to provide myself and my employees with an income the 'science' of big bang and evolution is not proven, it is guess work. The fact that you refuse to see that, the fact that you continue to use guesses to attack my beliefs says it all. Oh, and top marks on once again taking biblical texts out of context. Its a classic ploy, LSC you've had first hand experience of people taking your words out of context in order to attack you. Would you like to explain to Pope why its not an intelligent thing to do? Oh and Pope, maybe you should take a history lesson and look at how many of the major discoveries which science still relies on today where made by people of faith. And I dont know what you're reading but I read plenty of articles etc from people of faith who also happen to be scientists. Maybe you should expand your reading garston tony
  • Score: 2

10:30am Tue 11 Mar 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote: Oh dear so to score points you are happy to include all the other faiths well I can see the irony if you can't ? I'm not here to score points or disabuse your faith or lack of , it's just bizarre that two other schools have been proposed and you say nothing but a faith school is mentioned and look at you galloping of like a crusade which is bizarre as unless it's changed religious education is mandatory in all schools as I say and I repeat . What you choose to believe in is up to you just because I have a different belief should not mean I have to defend it there are two free schools and now a faith choice as well let's let the parents decide shall we
I'm not here to attack YOUR faith. I'm here to ask you to let your children chose their own.
So LSC where do I sign up to your campaign to not have big bang and evolutionary theory taught in school either?

Oh, of course you dont mind THAT actual man made theory being forced fed to children therefore (if we follow your own perculiar reasoning) removing their choice to believe what they want when they grow up.

What utter predictable, hypoctritical tosh
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: Oh dear so to score points you are happy to include all the other faiths well I can see the irony if you can't ? I'm not here to score points or disabuse your faith or lack of , it's just bizarre that two other schools have been proposed and you say nothing but a faith school is mentioned and look at you galloping of like a crusade which is bizarre as unless it's changed religious education is mandatory in all schools as I say and I repeat . What you choose to believe in is up to you just because I have a different belief should not mean I have to defend it there are two free schools and now a faith choice as well let's let the parents decide shall we[/p][/quote]I'm not here to attack YOUR faith. I'm here to ask you to let your children chose their own.[/p][/quote]So LSC where do I sign up to your campaign to not have big bang and evolutionary theory taught in school either? Oh, of course you dont mind THAT actual man made theory being forced fed to children therefore (if we follow your own perculiar reasoning) removing their choice to believe what they want when they grow up. What utter predictable, hypoctritical tosh garston tony
  • Score: 1

10:33am Tue 11 Mar 14

garston tony says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
Clearly you do not have a faith you make that abundantly clear but what us so alarming is that in your desire to push you non belief you are more zealot than those who do you also have a totally misconception of what a faith school is about and perhaps you should investigate more before you start making assumptions indeed I can make an assumption which could be totally wrong but by the way you speak I wonder if you actually have children or if you do wether they are of school age. We make many choices for our children as they grow up a lot having nothing to do with religion and from experience I can say that not all of the choices I made did my children take to, peas after all are not every ones cup of tea but One learns from experience perhaps your idea of not letting a child experience faith his based on fear
I have to agree, its a point I see and make often.

They argue so ferociously that religion shouldnt be taught to children but are happy for their own BS beliefs to be rammned down kids throats.
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: Clearly you do not have a faith you make that abundantly clear but what us so alarming is that in your desire to push you non belief you are more zealot than those who do you also have a totally misconception of what a faith school is about and perhaps you should investigate more before you start making assumptions indeed I can make an assumption which could be totally wrong but by the way you speak I wonder if you actually have children or if you do wether they are of school age. We make many choices for our children as they grow up a lot having nothing to do with religion and from experience I can say that not all of the choices I made did my children take to, peas after all are not every ones cup of tea but One learns from experience perhaps your idea of not letting a child experience faith his based on fear[/p][/quote]I have to agree, its a point I see and make often. They argue so ferociously that religion shouldnt be taught to children but are happy for their own BS beliefs to be rammned down kids throats. garston tony
  • Score: 4

1:01pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
Popeonarope wrote:
"Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is acknowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really don't know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against." (sic) Of course it conflicts, they are diametrically opposed Tony. Your words show your arrogance and mistrust of science and those that practice it regardless because as a flawed creature man can only make flawed assumptions? "Made up as proof"?.... Do you actually understand what evidence is? Perhaps you can provide examples of why the bible is proof? i would be interested to see the comparison as it always makes me laugh when you go on about proof; when you demand perfect evidence from science but are incapable of providing any for the nonsense in the bible for obvious reasons. "Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved." - Acts 2:2; Romans 10:13 "Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - Matthew 7:21 "Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved." - Acts 2:39 Even the bible cant agree with itself. "LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stifle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that." (sic) I agree there is a small percentage of recognized scientists who are of a religious persuasion. None of them however, have written any article in the peer review in defense of creationism as any mention of a sky fairy would get the paper thrown out and their PhD revoked and rightly so. While the percentage of theists in the scientific and engineering community is very low
Pope, people of faith are not frightened of science. I embrace it, my business wouldnt exist without it, my body benefits from it every day and my life is surrounded by the outcomes of its discoveries.

But you know why I dont feear big bang and evolutionary theory. Because unlike the science that enables me to keep my ailments in check, or the science that allows me to sit here and communicate on this forum, or the science i use in order to provide myself and my employees with an income the 'science' of big bang and evolution is not proven, it is guess work. The fact that you refuse to see that, the fact that you continue to use guesses to attack my beliefs says it all.

Oh, and top marks on once again taking biblical texts out of context. Its a classic ploy, LSC you've had first hand experience of people taking your words out of context in order to attack you. Would you like to explain to Pope why its not an intelligent thing to do?

Oh and Pope, maybe you should take a history lesson and look at how many of the major discoveries which science still relies on today where made by people of faith. And I dont know what you're reading but I read plenty of articles etc from people of faith who also happen to be scientists. Maybe you should expand your reading
Historically many of those scientists were in fear of there lives or livelihood if they said they had doubts about their faith. It is not unreasonable to suggest that is why they may have seemed to be theists or at least agnostic. Modern scientists who say they are creationists have betrayed their charge to bring knowledge and enlightenment into the world and as i said none of them have published any paper that includes any element of their faith.

The bible is full of out of context words Tony, it is very easy to find opposite meanings, contradictions and unqualified statements. I would have thought a supreme being would have ensured that his words were presented with a little more credibility instead of appearing to have been written by a bunch of fanatics hundreds of years later. Weird!

You are a member of an organisation that crushes creativity, critical thinking and inquiry and opposes free thought. Spouting on about how much better your life is because of science make you a hypocrite of the highest order.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: "Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is acknowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really don't know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against." (sic) Of course it conflicts, they are diametrically opposed Tony. Your words show your arrogance and mistrust of science and those that practice it regardless because as a flawed creature man can only make flawed assumptions? "Made up as proof"?.... Do you actually understand what evidence is? Perhaps you can provide examples of why the bible is proof? i would be interested to see the comparison as it always makes me laugh when you go on about proof; when you demand perfect evidence from science but are incapable of providing any for the nonsense in the bible for obvious reasons. "Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved." - Acts 2:2; Romans 10:13 "Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - Matthew 7:21 "Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved." - Acts 2:39 Even the bible cant agree with itself. "LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stifle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that." (sic) I agree there is a small percentage of recognized scientists who are of a religious persuasion. None of them however, have written any article in the peer review in defense of creationism as any mention of a sky fairy would get the paper thrown out and their PhD revoked and rightly so. While the percentage of theists in the scientific and engineering community is very low[/p][/quote]Pope, people of faith are not frightened of science. I embrace it, my business wouldnt exist without it, my body benefits from it every day and my life is surrounded by the outcomes of its discoveries. But you know why I dont feear big bang and evolutionary theory. Because unlike the science that enables me to keep my ailments in check, or the science that allows me to sit here and communicate on this forum, or the science i use in order to provide myself and my employees with an income the 'science' of big bang and evolution is not proven, it is guess work. The fact that you refuse to see that, the fact that you continue to use guesses to attack my beliefs says it all. Oh, and top marks on once again taking biblical texts out of context. Its a classic ploy, LSC you've had first hand experience of people taking your words out of context in order to attack you. Would you like to explain to Pope why its not an intelligent thing to do? Oh and Pope, maybe you should take a history lesson and look at how many of the major discoveries which science still relies on today where made by people of faith. And I dont know what you're reading but I read plenty of articles etc from people of faith who also happen to be scientists. Maybe you should expand your reading[/p][/quote]Historically many of those scientists were in fear of there lives or livelihood if they said they had doubts about their faith. It is not unreasonable to suggest that is why they may have seemed to be theists or at least agnostic. Modern scientists who say they are creationists have betrayed their charge to bring knowledge and enlightenment into the world and as i said none of them have published any paper that includes any element of their faith. The bible is full of out of context words Tony, it is very easy to find opposite meanings, contradictions and unqualified statements. I would have thought a supreme being would have ensured that his words were presented with a little more credibility instead of appearing to have been written by a bunch of fanatics hundreds of years later. Weird! You are a member of an organisation that crushes creativity, critical thinking and inquiry and opposes free thought. Spouting on about how much better your life is because of science make you a hypocrite of the highest order. Popeonarope
  • Score: 4

1:19pm Tue 11 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

WOReader wrote:
Religion continues to be one of the greatest problems and devisive issues in the World today. Young children have impressionable minds and are affected by indoctrination no matter how subtle. Many will get this at home and schools like this will have the effect of reinforcing it. Of course, many people are able to shake off this indoctrination when they reach adulthood but not everyone is able to do this. Schools like this belong to the past.
Really? Yawn.

Ill thought out, pompou,s piety from one of the hard of thinking.

Next!
[quote][p][bold]WOReader[/bold] wrote: Religion continues to be one of the greatest problems and devisive issues in the World today. Young children have impressionable minds and are affected by indoctrination no matter how subtle. Many will get this at home and schools like this will have the effect of reinforcing it. Of course, many people are able to shake off this indoctrination when they reach adulthood but not everyone is able to do this. Schools like this belong to the past.[/p][/quote]Really? Yawn. Ill thought out, pompou,s piety from one of the hard of thinking. Next! CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Tue 11 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

Everyone has a belief system and they are all in essence, arbitary.

If someone has something I want should I
a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day.
b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it.

One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced.

I get really bored of people being "hip" by spiting religion in general.

People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society and these faith schools generally give a higher standard of education because there is a big "buy in" from parents.

Good luck to the school, staff, pupils and parents, say I.
Everyone has a belief system and they are all in essence, arbitary. If someone has something I want should I a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day. b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it. One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced. I get really bored of people being "hip" by spiting religion in general. People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society and these faith schools generally give a higher standard of education because there is a big "buy in" from parents. Good luck to the school, staff, pupils and parents, say I. CaptainPC
  • Score: 2

1:47pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

"So LSC where do I sign up to your campaign to not have big bang and evolutionary theory taught in school either?"

I have said many times that it should be taught as THEORY. I have also said that children should be taught ABOUT religion, but not taught religion.
Do you know, I can still recite the lords prayer off the top of my head?
That is from primary school, and it wasn't even a religious one. But by the law back then, we had to have a christian assembly. I don't believe in the words, I don't like the words, but I can remember every single one. I am walking proof that if you get them young enough, it sticks. In my case not forever, but if my family had been more religious and I'd gone to a religious secondary school, I'd wager that I would now be religious to some degree.

Going briefly back to the flood, there isn't enough water in the Earth' s core to cover it to that depth. Even if there was, the Earth would be larger, so would effectively spin faster on it's outer edges, and the gyroscopic consequenses of that alone would also throw us off into space. THE FLOOD COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. That is just one example at the core of all the fairy stories that is a provable big fat lie.

Unless of course you choose the christian get out clause when you don't understand science: "God sorted it out. After all, he is god."
"So LSC where do I sign up to your campaign to not have big bang and evolutionary theory taught in school either?" I have said many times that it should be taught as THEORY. I have also said that children should be taught ABOUT religion, but not taught religion. Do you know, I can still recite the lords prayer off the top of my head? That is from primary school, and it wasn't even a religious one. But by the law back then, we had to have a christian assembly. I don't believe in the words, I don't like the words, but I can remember every single one. I am walking proof that if you get them young enough, it sticks. In my case not forever, but if my family had been more religious and I'd gone to a religious secondary school, I'd wager that I would now be religious to some degree. Going briefly back to the flood, there isn't enough water in the Earth' s core to cover it to that depth. Even if there was, the Earth would be larger, so would effectively spin faster on it's outer edges, and the gyroscopic consequenses of that alone would also throw us off into space. THE FLOOD COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. That is just one example at the core of all the fairy stories that is a provable big fat lie. Unless of course you choose the christian get out clause when you don't understand science: "God sorted it out. After all, he is god." LSC
  • Score: 1

1:54pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

"People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society"

I couldn't agree more. I just happen to think that includes children.

"If someone has something I want should I
a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day.
b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it.

One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced."

And there you defeat your own argument.
The a) option Is generally how the world works. As most of the world is not christian, we most draw the conclusion that christianity has nothing to do with that outcome. 99% of muslims don't bash each other, and 99% of moaist Chinese don't either. Christianity cannot claim to be the cause of the peaceful majority of mankind.
"People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society" I couldn't agree more. I just happen to think that includes children. "If someone has something I want should I a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day. b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it. One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced." And there you defeat your own argument. The a) option Is generally how the world works. As most of the world is not christian, we most draw the conclusion that christianity has nothing to do with that outcome. 99% of muslims don't bash each other, and 99% of moaist Chinese don't either. Christianity cannot claim to be the cause of the peaceful majority of mankind. LSC
  • Score: 1

2:03pm Tue 11 Mar 14

garston tony says...

Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Popeonarope wrote: "Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is acknowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really don't know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against." (sic) Of course it conflicts, they are diametrically opposed Tony. Your words show your arrogance and mistrust of science and those that practice it regardless because as a flawed creature man can only make flawed assumptions? "Made up as proof"?.... Do you actually understand what evidence is? Perhaps you can provide examples of why the bible is proof? i would be interested to see the comparison as it always makes me laugh when you go on about proof; when you demand perfect evidence from science but are incapable of providing any for the nonsense in the bible for obvious reasons. "Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved." - Acts 2:2; Romans 10:13 "Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - Matthew 7:21 "Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved." - Acts 2:39 Even the bible cant agree with itself. "LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stifle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that." (sic) I agree there is a small percentage of recognized scientists who are of a religious persuasion. None of them however, have written any article in the peer review in defense of creationism as any mention of a sky fairy would get the paper thrown out and their PhD revoked and rightly so. While the percentage of theists in the scientific and engineering community is very low
Pope, people of faith are not frightened of science. I embrace it, my business wouldnt exist without it, my body benefits from it every day and my life is surrounded by the outcomes of its discoveries. But you know why I dont feear big bang and evolutionary theory. Because unlike the science that enables me to keep my ailments in check, or the science that allows me to sit here and communicate on this forum, or the science i use in order to provide myself and my employees with an income the 'science' of big bang and evolution is not proven, it is guess work. The fact that you refuse to see that, the fact that you continue to use guesses to attack my beliefs says it all. Oh, and top marks on once again taking biblical texts out of context. Its a classic ploy, LSC you've had first hand experience of people taking your words out of context in order to attack you. Would you like to explain to Pope why its not an intelligent thing to do? Oh and Pope, maybe you should take a history lesson and look at how many of the major discoveries which science still relies on today where made by people of faith. And I dont know what you're reading but I read plenty of articles etc from people of faith who also happen to be scientists. Maybe you should expand your reading
Historically many of those scientists were in fear of there lives or livelihood if they said they had doubts about their faith. It is not unreasonable to suggest that is why they may have seemed to be theists or at least agnostic. Modern scientists who say they are creationists have betrayed their charge to bring knowledge and enlightenment into the world and as i said none of them have published any paper that includes any element of their faith. The bible is full of out of context words Tony, it is very easy to find opposite meanings, contradictions and unqualified statements. I would have thought a supreme being would have ensured that his words were presented with a little more credibility instead of appearing to have been written by a bunch of fanatics hundreds of years later. Weird! You are a member of an organisation that crushes creativity, critical thinking and inquiry and opposes free thought. Spouting on about how much better your life is because of science make you a hypocrite of the highest order.
Pretty much the most innacurate posting ever!

But then what can you expect from someone who doesnt know about what they say they believe let alone anyones elses beliefs?

Like I said, you need to expand your reading!
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: "Pope, science does not conflict with the Bible. The only thing that does is what 'scientists' and others have made up and cant prove. Oh the irony of claiming what I believe is made up by man whilst using what is acknowledged to be made up as 'proof'. Like so many other evolutionists you really don't know about what you claim you believe or for that matter what you are against." (sic) Of course it conflicts, they are diametrically opposed Tony. Your words show your arrogance and mistrust of science and those that practice it regardless because as a flawed creature man can only make flawed assumptions? "Made up as proof"?.... Do you actually understand what evidence is? Perhaps you can provide examples of why the bible is proof? i would be interested to see the comparison as it always makes me laugh when you go on about proof; when you demand perfect evidence from science but are incapable of providing any for the nonsense in the bible for obvious reasons. "Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved." - Acts 2:2; Romans 10:13 "Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - Matthew 7:21 "Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved." - Acts 2:39 Even the bible cant agree with itself. "LSC people of faith are scientists, engineers, designers, medical researchers, entrepreneurs and all the other jobs/traits etc that involve exploration and discovery and progress of the world around us. Having a faith does not stifle anyone and you only need to look at how many of the major scientific discoveries over the centuries were and are made by people of faith to see that." (sic) I agree there is a small percentage of recognized scientists who are of a religious persuasion. None of them however, have written any article in the peer review in defense of creationism as any mention of a sky fairy would get the paper thrown out and their PhD revoked and rightly so. While the percentage of theists in the scientific and engineering community is very low[/p][/quote]Pope, people of faith are not frightened of science. I embrace it, my business wouldnt exist without it, my body benefits from it every day and my life is surrounded by the outcomes of its discoveries. But you know why I dont feear big bang and evolutionary theory. Because unlike the science that enables me to keep my ailments in check, or the science that allows me to sit here and communicate on this forum, or the science i use in order to provide myself and my employees with an income the 'science' of big bang and evolution is not proven, it is guess work. The fact that you refuse to see that, the fact that you continue to use guesses to attack my beliefs says it all. Oh, and top marks on once again taking biblical texts out of context. Its a classic ploy, LSC you've had first hand experience of people taking your words out of context in order to attack you. Would you like to explain to Pope why its not an intelligent thing to do? Oh and Pope, maybe you should take a history lesson and look at how many of the major discoveries which science still relies on today where made by people of faith. And I dont know what you're reading but I read plenty of articles etc from people of faith who also happen to be scientists. Maybe you should expand your reading[/p][/quote]Historically many of those scientists were in fear of there lives or livelihood if they said they had doubts about their faith. It is not unreasonable to suggest that is why they may have seemed to be theists or at least agnostic. Modern scientists who say they are creationists have betrayed their charge to bring knowledge and enlightenment into the world and as i said none of them have published any paper that includes any element of their faith. The bible is full of out of context words Tony, it is very easy to find opposite meanings, contradictions and unqualified statements. I would have thought a supreme being would have ensured that his words were presented with a little more credibility instead of appearing to have been written by a bunch of fanatics hundreds of years later. Weird! You are a member of an organisation that crushes creativity, critical thinking and inquiry and opposes free thought. Spouting on about how much better your life is because of science make you a hypocrite of the highest order.[/p][/quote]Pretty much the most innacurate posting ever! But then what can you expect from someone who doesnt know about what they say they believe let alone anyones elses beliefs? Like I said, you need to expand your reading! garston tony
  • Score: -2

2:12pm Tue 11 Mar 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
"People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society" I couldn't agree more. I just happen to think that includes children. "If someone has something I want should I a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day. b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it. One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced." And there you defeat your own argument. The a) option Is generally how the world works. As most of the world is not christian, we most draw the conclusion that christianity has nothing to do with that outcome. 99% of muslims don't bash each other, and 99% of moaist Chinese don't either. Christianity cannot claim to be the cause of the peaceful majority of mankind.
So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?

What an absolute stuck up idiot you are, you're about to disappear up your own posterior if you carry on like this!
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society" I couldn't agree more. I just happen to think that includes children. "If someone has something I want should I a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day. b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it. One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced." And there you defeat your own argument. The a) option Is generally how the world works. As most of the world is not christian, we most draw the conclusion that christianity has nothing to do with that outcome. 99% of muslims don't bash each other, and 99% of moaist Chinese don't either. Christianity cannot claim to be the cause of the peaceful majority of mankind.[/p][/quote]So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it? What an absolute stuck up idiot you are, you're about to disappear up your own posterior if you carry on like this! garston tony
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Tue 11 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
"People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society"

I couldn't agree more. I just happen to think that includes children.

"If someone has something I want should I
a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day.
b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it.

One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced."

And there you defeat your own argument.
The a) option Is generally how the world works. As most of the world is not christian, we most draw the conclusion that christianity has nothing to do with that outcome. 99% of muslims don't bash each other, and 99% of moaist Chinese don't either. Christianity cannot claim to be the cause of the peaceful majority of mankind.
I did not claim that Christianity caused the peaceful majority of mankind.
I did imply that it heavily influenced the mores of Western Society.
Do you understand that?
You then go on to use as counter argument the fact that other ideologies would also end up at option a). The examples you use are both belief systems.

I'm not claiming that there is a God and he is an answer to everything, I'm just saying that people of faith should be allowed to believe that.

As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society" I couldn't agree more. I just happen to think that includes children. "If someone has something I want should I a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day. b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it. One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced." And there you defeat your own argument. The a) option Is generally how the world works. As most of the world is not christian, we most draw the conclusion that christianity has nothing to do with that outcome. 99% of muslims don't bash each other, and 99% of moaist Chinese don't either. Christianity cannot claim to be the cause of the peaceful majority of mankind.[/p][/quote]I did not claim that Christianity caused the peaceful majority of mankind. I did imply that it heavily influenced the mores of Western Society. Do you understand that? You then go on to use as counter argument the fact that other ideologies would also end up at option a). The examples you use are both belief systems. I'm not claiming that there is a God and he is an answer to everything, I'm just saying that people of faith should be allowed to believe that. As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 11 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
"People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society" I couldn't agree more. I just happen to think that includes children. "If someone has something I want should I a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day. b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it. One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced." And there you defeat your own argument. The a) option Is generally how the world works. As most of the world is not christian, we most draw the conclusion that christianity has nothing to do with that outcome. 99% of muslims don't bash each other, and 99% of moaist Chinese don't either. Christianity cannot claim to be the cause of the peaceful majority of mankind.
So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?

What an absolute stuck up idiot you are, you're about to disappear up your own posterior if you carry on like this!
I reckon he's gone.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "People are free to have their own beliefs within the bounds of civil society" I couldn't agree more. I just happen to think that includes children. "If someone has something I want should I a) Work really hard and hope to be able to afford it one day. b) Smash their head in with a rock and take it. One of those is a natural reaction one is a response fed through centuries of conditioning-mainly, in this country, Christian influenced." And there you defeat your own argument. The a) option Is generally how the world works. As most of the world is not christian, we most draw the conclusion that christianity has nothing to do with that outcome. 99% of muslims don't bash each other, and 99% of moaist Chinese don't either. Christianity cannot claim to be the cause of the peaceful majority of mankind.[/p][/quote]So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it? What an absolute stuck up idiot you are, you're about to disappear up your own posterior if you carry on like this![/p][/quote]I reckon he's gone. CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

2:45pm Tue 11 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
"So LSC where do I sign up to your campaign to not have big bang and evolutionary theory taught in school either?"

I have said many times that it should be taught as THEORY. I have also said that children should be taught ABOUT religion, but not taught religion.
Do you know, I can still recite the lords prayer off the top of my head?
That is from primary school, and it wasn't even a religious one. But by the law back then, we had to have a christian assembly. I don't believe in the words, I don't like the words, but I can remember every single one. I am walking proof that if you get them young enough, it sticks. In my case not forever, but if my family had been more religious and I'd gone to a religious secondary school, I'd wager that I would now be religious to some degree.

Going briefly back to the flood, there isn't enough water in the Earth' s core to cover it to that depth. Even if there was, the Earth would be larger, so would effectively spin faster on it's outer edges, and the gyroscopic consequenses of that alone would also throw us off into space. THE FLOOD COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. That is just one example at the core of all the fairy stories that is a provable big fat lie.

Unless of course you choose the christian get out clause when you don't understand science: "God sorted it out. After all, he is god."
"God sorted it out. After all, he is god."

You can't actually argue against that though can you?

You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God.

Mug.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "So LSC where do I sign up to your campaign to not have big bang and evolutionary theory taught in school either?" I have said many times that it should be taught as THEORY. I have also said that children should be taught ABOUT religion, but not taught religion. Do you know, I can still recite the lords prayer off the top of my head? That is from primary school, and it wasn't even a religious one. But by the law back then, we had to have a christian assembly. I don't believe in the words, I don't like the words, but I can remember every single one. I am walking proof that if you get them young enough, it sticks. In my case not forever, but if my family had been more religious and I'd gone to a religious secondary school, I'd wager that I would now be religious to some degree. Going briefly back to the flood, there isn't enough water in the Earth' s core to cover it to that depth. Even if there was, the Earth would be larger, so would effectively spin faster on it's outer edges, and the gyroscopic consequenses of that alone would also throw us off into space. THE FLOOD COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. That is just one example at the core of all the fairy stories that is a provable big fat lie. Unless of course you choose the christian get out clause when you don't understand science: "God sorted it out. After all, he is god."[/p][/quote]"God sorted it out. After all, he is god." You can't actually argue against that though can you? You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God. Mug. CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

3:41pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

"So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?"

I didn't actually say that, but it does consist of a set of rules that you must follow or you will face torture for eternity. Civil society does generally frown upon torture in response to 'crime', but that is a bit of a side issue.

"As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that."

Once again, I have never said that. I said formal state education should not influence children in spiritual matters. Sure children might meet a great teacher who is religious and talk to them about it, and be influenced. That is human nature. But children have to go to school and it is wrong to preach to them in that setting. They can't walk out, like I could as an adult.
That is my point.
"So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?" I didn't actually say that, but it does consist of a set of rules that you must follow or you will face torture for eternity. Civil society does generally frown upon torture in response to 'crime', but that is a bit of a side issue. "As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that." Once again, I have never said that. I said formal state education should not influence children in spiritual matters. Sure children might meet a great teacher who is religious and talk to them about it, and be influenced. That is human nature. But children have to go to school and it is wrong to preach to them in that setting. They can't walk out, like I could as an adult. That is my point. LSC
  • Score: 1

3:44pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

"You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God.

Mug."

I don't believe science is bigger than god, because there is no god. Belief doesn't come into it. Atheism is not a belief system. It does not involve faith. Can't you understand that?
"You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God. Mug." I don't believe science is bigger than god, because there is no god. Belief doesn't come into it. Atheism is not a belief system. It does not involve faith. Can't you understand that? LSC
  • Score: 3

3:50pm Tue 11 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
"You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God.

Mug."

I don't believe science is bigger than god, because there is no god. Belief doesn't come into it. Atheism is not a belief system. It does not involve faith. Can't you understand that?
This is the point that you miss. You cannot prove that there isn't a God so you put your faith in men. Science is constantly evolving and what was previously "Scientifically proven" is no longer the case.

YOu are entitled to your belief in man's explanation of the universe, but if you propose this as "Truth" and deny any gainsaying you are guilty of exactly the same sort of dogmatic belief you criticise others for.

Why not just live and let live?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God. Mug." I don't believe science is bigger than god, because there is no god. Belief doesn't come into it. Atheism is not a belief system. It does not involve faith. Can't you understand that?[/p][/quote]This is the point that you miss. You cannot prove that there isn't a God so you put your faith in men. Science is constantly evolving and what was previously "Scientifically proven" is no longer the case. YOu are entitled to your belief in man's explanation of the universe, but if you propose this as "Truth" and deny any gainsaying you are guilty of exactly the same sort of dogmatic belief you criticise others for. Why not just live and let live? CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

3:53pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

"I'm not claiming that there is a God and he is an answer to everything, I'm just saying that people of faith should be allowed to believe that."

And I totally agree! Anyone CAPABLE OF MAKING AN INFORMED CHOICE CAN BELIEVE WHAT THEY WISH.
But that catergory does not include children.
We do not allow children to see certain films, or play certain video games.
Why is that?

Because we are frightened such things will mess with their minds, that's why. Because we know children can't tell fact from fiction. Because they cannot MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE.
But you are happy to fill their heads with what YOU admit is only a belief, not a fact.

That's quite sick actually when you look at it like that.
"I'm not claiming that there is a God and he is an answer to everything, I'm just saying that people of faith should be allowed to believe that." And I totally agree! Anyone CAPABLE OF MAKING AN INFORMED CHOICE CAN BELIEVE WHAT THEY WISH. But that catergory does not include children. We do not allow children to see certain films, or play certain video games. Why is that? Because we are frightened such things will mess with their minds, that's why. Because we know children can't tell fact from fiction. Because they cannot MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE. But you are happy to fill their heads with what YOU admit is only a belief, not a fact. That's quite sick actually when you look at it like that. LSC
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

CaptainPC wrote:
LSC wrote:
"You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God.

Mug."

I don't believe science is bigger than god, because there is no god. Belief doesn't come into it. Atheism is not a belief system. It does not involve faith. Can't you understand that?
This is the point that you miss. You cannot prove that there isn't a God so you put your faith in men. Science is constantly evolving and what was previously "Scientifically proven" is no longer the case.

YOu are entitled to your belief in man's explanation of the universe, but if you propose this as "Truth" and deny any gainsaying you are guilty of exactly the same sort of dogmatic belief you criticise others for.

Why not just live and let live?
I cannot prove there is no god, that is true. I also cannot prove there isn't a tree in my living room. Perhaps I just can't see it.
But there isn't. a tree in my living room. The facts and evidence have taken me beyond saying 'I believe there isn't a tree there', or 'I have faith in my sight, and cannot see a tree, so there probably isn't one'.
There simply isn't one.

Live and let live indeed. That also applies to children. Let them live, and find out for themselves about matters that cannot be proven.
Teach them the facts. To read, to write. Teach them geography and language.
Give them the tools to let their brains develop into open minds.
Then let them decide.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God. Mug." I don't believe science is bigger than god, because there is no god. Belief doesn't come into it. Atheism is not a belief system. It does not involve faith. Can't you understand that?[/p][/quote]This is the point that you miss. You cannot prove that there isn't a God so you put your faith in men. Science is constantly evolving and what was previously "Scientifically proven" is no longer the case. YOu are entitled to your belief in man's explanation of the universe, but if you propose this as "Truth" and deny any gainsaying you are guilty of exactly the same sort of dogmatic belief you criticise others for. Why not just live and let live?[/p][/quote]I cannot prove there is no god, that is true. I also cannot prove there isn't a tree in my living room. Perhaps I just can't see it. But there isn't. a tree in my living room. The facts and evidence have taken me beyond saying 'I believe there isn't a tree there', or 'I have faith in my sight, and cannot see a tree, so there probably isn't one'. There simply isn't one. Live and let live indeed. That also applies to children. Let them live, and find out for themselves about matters that cannot be proven. Teach them the facts. To read, to write. Teach them geography and language. Give them the tools to let their brains develop into open minds. Then let them decide. LSC
  • Score: 2

4:06pm Tue 11 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

I am truly amazed at the amount of posturing and general bile that is issuing forth from the righteous anti faith brigade, it seems that the only way you feel you can get your points across is to spew forth pure venom at anyone who does not agree with your views. It is such a shame that you cannot channel your energy’s in a more positive way I have my faith and im not ashamed to say it, I’m not pushing it down your throat or scoring points, suffice it to say for me to believe is enough, I don’t have to justify it and I don’t have to knock anyone who doesn’t have faith. it’s a freedom of choice, as is being able to choose to send my child to a faith school and that is the real issue here. A faith school is being organised who for? Clearly not for anyone who doesn’t want to send there child there but for those of us who do.
I am truly amazed at the amount of posturing and general bile that is issuing forth from the righteous anti faith brigade, it seems that the only way you feel you can get your points across is to spew forth pure venom at anyone who does not agree with your views. It is such a shame that you cannot channel your energy’s in a more positive way I have my faith and im not ashamed to say it, I’m not pushing it down your throat or scoring points, suffice it to say for me to believe is enough, I don’t have to justify it and I don’t have to knock anyone who doesn’t have faith. it’s a freedom of choice, as is being able to choose to send my child to a faith school and that is the real issue here. A faith school is being organised who for? Clearly not for anyone who doesn’t want to send there child there but for those of us who do. invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

Bile? I have been insulted more than twice on this thread, but not once responded.
Pure venom? I'm asking you not to mess with children's heads before they are old enough to think for themselves. You think that makes ME somehow evil?
Bile? I have been insulted more than twice on this thread, but not once responded. Pure venom? I'm asking you not to mess with children's heads before they are old enough to think for themselves. You think that makes ME somehow evil? LSC
  • Score: 1

4:26pm Tue 11 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
"I'm not claiming that there is a God and he is an answer to everything, I'm just saying that people of faith should be allowed to believe that."


And I totally agree! Anyone CAPABLE OF MAKING AN INFORMED CHOICE CAN BELIEVE WHAT THEY WISH.
But that catergory does not include children.
We do not allow children to see certain films, or play certain video games.
Why is that?

Because we are frightened such things will mess with their minds, that's why. Because we know children can't tell fact from fiction. Because they cannot MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE.
But you are happy to fill their heads with what YOU admit is only a belief, not a fact.

That's quite sick actually when you look at it like that.
So what you are saying is that children should only be taught what you believe and then they can make a judgement for themselves at age 16/18/21?

I'm no great apologist for religion and I despise bigotry, but to me your comments come across as bigotted.

This school is about education but overseen by the CoE. These aren't rabid indoctrinators but just people of faith. You can help shape your kids,within the bounds of civil society, and these parents can help shape their's.

I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning.

Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?

If so do you think that is:
a) Arrogant
b) Ignorant
c)Deluded
d) Look it just is!!!! SCience said so and I saw it on tv!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "I'm not claiming that there is a God and he is an answer to everything, I'm just saying that people of faith should be allowed to believe that." And I totally agree! Anyone CAPABLE OF MAKING AN INFORMED CHOICE CAN BELIEVE WHAT THEY WISH. But that catergory does not include children. We do not allow children to see certain films, or play certain video games. Why is that? Because we are frightened such things will mess with their minds, that's why. Because we know children can't tell fact from fiction. Because they cannot MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE. But you are happy to fill their heads with what YOU admit is only a belief, not a fact. That's quite sick actually when you look at it like that.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that children should only be taught what you believe and then they can make a judgement for themselves at age 16/18/21? I'm no great apologist for religion and I despise bigotry, but to me your comments come across as bigotted. This school is about education but overseen by the CoE. These aren't rabid indoctrinators but just people of faith. You can help shape your kids,within the bounds of civil society, and these parents can help shape their's. I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning. Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact? If so do you think that is: a) Arrogant b) Ignorant c)Deluded d) Look it just is!!!! SCience said so and I saw it on tv!!!!! CaptainPC
  • Score: 1

5:08pm Tue 11 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

Now why would you think I was referring to you? Through the various comments which I assume you have read, there has been some harsh bordering on nasty stereotypical comments combined with general mockery about people with faith its not called for. I do not normally get involved in these comments columns and quite frankly im shocked at peoples attitude in truth you have only asked the same request and its clear that you and I do not agree on that point, but at no time have I said you are evil. I’ve not called any one evil and this is what I do not understand one comment made yet other thing is read into it. In answer to your request and please for the sake of keeping this level accept, that I am in no way accusing you of anything.

I do ask have you ever been to a modern day faith school or are you basing your views on a preconception. I appreciate that there are a lot of zealots in all walks genres and faiths but in my experience this is not of that ilk it is true the education does seem to be of a higher standard because the parents do want to help more but that is because they actually care about the school they want their child to go to you seem to think this will stop a child making a choice I took my son out of a state school as it was appalling in its educational ability and has since been changed to an academy. I put him in a faith school where he had assembly and hymns ect and not wishing to boast he is now 20 at university with a fistfull of A levels and from the age of 15 has been an atheist I not running around in ash and sackcloth at this, he is my son and that’s his choice his sister is still at a primary faith school when she is of age im sure she will make her choice but at least I’ve done what I feel is right by my children so from experience I still say if you want to send your child to a a faith school you should be allowed to and those who don’t like the idea don’t have to .
Now why would you think I was referring to you? Through the various comments which I assume you have read, there has been some harsh bordering on nasty stereotypical comments combined with general mockery about people with faith its not called for. I do not normally get involved in these comments columns and quite frankly im shocked at peoples attitude in truth you have only asked the same request and its clear that you and I do not agree on that point, but at no time have I said you are evil. I’ve not called any one evil and this is what I do not understand one comment made yet other thing is read into it. In answer to your request and please for the sake of keeping this level accept, that I am in no way accusing you of anything. I do ask have you ever been to a modern day faith school or are you basing your views on a preconception. I appreciate that there are a lot of zealots in all walks genres and faiths but in my experience this is not of that ilk it is true the education does seem to be of a higher standard because the parents do want to help more but that is because they actually care about the school they want their child to go to you seem to think this will stop a child making a choice I took my son out of a state school as it was appalling in its educational ability and has since been changed to an academy. I put him in a faith school where he had assembly and hymns ect and not wishing to boast he is now 20 at university with a fistfull of A levels and from the age of 15 has been an atheist I not running around in ash and sackcloth at this, he is my son and that’s his choice his sister is still at a primary faith school when she is of age im sure she will make her choice but at least I’ve done what I feel is right by my children so from experience I still say if you want to send your child to a a faith school you should be allowed to and those who don’t like the idea don’t have to . invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 1

6:33pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Robin10 says...

Goodness a lot of comments.
If anyone would like to know the facts about the school please visit our website. www.saintjohnswatfor
dschool.org.uk.
The school will be teaching the national curriculum, evolution will be taught as well as Religious Education according to the County Councils agreed syllabus. All School are required to teach RE.
The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them.
The details of our curriculum will be shared as soon as they are ready and we have an experienced team of educational experts working on this now.
The school will have a team of Governors, be inspected by Ofsted and have transparent and open policies and processes.
The School will be open to children of all faiths and none. If you are a parent interested in selecting this School, please join all the other Parents who have already pledged their support for the school.
Please do get in touch if you would like any facts or information, we would love to hear from you.
Goodness a lot of comments. If anyone would like to know the facts about the school please visit our website. www.saintjohnswatfor dschool.org.uk. The school will be teaching the national curriculum, evolution will be taught as well as Religious Education according to the County Councils agreed syllabus. All School are required to teach RE. The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them. The details of our curriculum will be shared as soon as they are ready and we have an experienced team of educational experts working on this now. The school will have a team of Governors, be inspected by Ofsted and have transparent and open policies and processes. The School will be open to children of all faiths and none. If you are a parent interested in selecting this School, please join all the other Parents who have already pledged their support for the school. Please do get in touch if you would like any facts or information, we would love to hear from you. Robin10
  • Score: 1

8:40pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

"There will be 60 places per year for Reception age children, 50% will be for those who live in the local area and up to 50% of those will be allocate to parents who attend regularly a Christian Church in the local area. As a Church School the ethos will be based on Christian values and there will be a daily act of Christian collective worship which will be inclusive for all children.

Public money will subsidize this school yet you are deciding which children can attend based on faith. It shows why faith schools are wrong, unethical and biased.
"There will be 60 places per year for Reception age children, 50% will be for those who live in the local area and up to 50% of those will be allocate to parents who attend regularly a Christian Church in the local area. As a Church School the ethos will be based on Christian values and there will be a daily act of Christian collective worship which will be inclusive for all children. Public money will subsidize this school yet you are deciding which children can attend based on faith. It shows why faith schools are wrong, unethical and biased. Popeonarope
  • Score: 7

8:55pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

"The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them."

Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that?
Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus.

Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers?
What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
"The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us? LSC
  • Score: 3

9:05pm Tue 11 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

LSC wrote:
"The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them."

Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that?
Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus.

Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers?
What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
Once again you are resorting to ridicule you should try to get yours point across without such behaviour and perhaps you should read the book you are so happy to attack
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]Once again you are resorting to ridicule you should try to get yours point across without such behaviour and perhaps you should read the book you are so happy to attack invictorguesthouse
  • Score: -1

9:07pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

"I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning.

Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?"

What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system.

No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science.
"I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning. Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?" What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system. No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science. LSC
  • Score: 4

9:09pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
LSC wrote:
"The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them."

Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that?
Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus.

Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers?
What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
Once again you are resorting to ridicule you should try to get yours point across without such behaviour and perhaps you should read the book you are so happy to attack
Ridicule? I apologise. I thought I asked a question. Can you answer it?
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]Once again you are resorting to ridicule you should try to get yours point across without such behaviour and perhaps you should read the book you are so happy to attack[/p][/quote]Ridicule? I apologise. I thought I asked a question. Can you answer it? LSC
  • Score: 1

10:00pm Tue 11 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

I am not conceited enough to believe I know all the answers in my opinion the bible makes a person ask questions as much as it gives answers I also think it was written at a time when the authors gave there best comprehension of events of the time In a more knowledgable world we should look at what is said and try to consider their understanding of the time whilst reading what they say but as I say that is my own opinion and belief

As to your question for our children surely we need to give them some knowledge to enable them to question ?
And as for the internal combustion engine because we are shown it works we accept it but at some point between theory and practice someone had to believe in it to try and see if it would work
I am not conceited enough to believe I know all the answers in my opinion the bible makes a person ask questions as much as it gives answers I also think it was written at a time when the authors gave there best comprehension of events of the time In a more knowledgable world we should look at what is said and try to consider their understanding of the time whilst reading what they say but as I say that is my own opinion and belief As to your question for our children surely we need to give them some knowledge to enable them to question ? And as for the internal combustion engine because we are shown it works we accept it but at some point between theory and practice someone had to believe in it to try and see if it would work invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Robin10 says...

LSC wrote:
"The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them."

Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that?
Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus.

Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers?
What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
LSC. It looks like we agree those are good values. These will under pin the school ethos.

I think all schooling should teach children to question, reason and explore. That is why those words feature in our vision for the School. The Bible certainly gives us some good frameworks to consider things, I do not think it gives all the answers and we have never said this.

Parents have said they would like a Church of England School in Watord, so I am pleased we are able to try and respond to that need.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]LSC. It looks like we agree those are good values. These will under pin the school ethos. I think all schooling should teach children to question, reason and explore. That is why those words feature in our vision for the School. The Bible certainly gives us some good frameworks to consider things, I do not think it gives all the answers and we have never said this. Parents have said they would like a Church of England School in Watord, so I am pleased we are able to try and respond to that need. Robin10
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
I am not conceited enough to believe I know all the answers in my opinion the bible makes a person ask questions as much as it gives answers I also think it was written at a time when the authors gave there best comprehension of events of the time In a more knowledgable world we should look at what is said and try to consider their understanding of the time whilst reading what they say but as I say that is my own opinion and belief

As to your question for our children surely we need to give them some knowledge to enable them to question ?
And as for the internal combustion engine because we are shown it works we accept it but at some point between theory and practice someone had to believe in it to try and see if it would work
Well this is where it gets interesting. Because unlike you, there are many who say the bible is the word of god. Verbatum.
So you admit you are one human being, with your own thoughts and interpretations. Which is fine. Fair play to you.
Do you think YOUR interpretations should be taught in school as fact or Fred down the road who see's it slightly differently?

I ask again, what questions do you want your children to ask that the bible doesn't answer?

Straight question. Deserves a straight answer.
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I am not conceited enough to believe I know all the answers in my opinion the bible makes a person ask questions as much as it gives answers I also think it was written at a time when the authors gave there best comprehension of events of the time In a more knowledgable world we should look at what is said and try to consider their understanding of the time whilst reading what they say but as I say that is my own opinion and belief As to your question for our children surely we need to give them some knowledge to enable them to question ? And as for the internal combustion engine because we are shown it works we accept it but at some point between theory and practice someone had to believe in it to try and see if it would work[/p][/quote]Well this is where it gets interesting. Because unlike you, there are many who say the bible is the word of god. Verbatum. So you admit you are one human being, with your own thoughts and interpretations. Which is fine. Fair play to you. Do you think YOUR interpretations should be taught in school as fact or Fred down the road who see's it slightly differently? I ask again, what questions do you want your children to ask that the bible doesn't answer? Straight question. Deserves a straight answer. LSC
  • Score: -1

11:10pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

invictorguesthouse wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote:
I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end
As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.
Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down
No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments!

As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing.

With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS.

I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'.
[quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end[/p][/quote]As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.[/p][/quote]Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down[/p][/quote]No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments! As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing. With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS. I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'. Su Murray
  • Score: -2

11:13pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LSC says...

Robin10 wrote:
LSC wrote:
"The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them."

Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that?
Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus.

Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers?
What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
LSC. It looks like we agree those are good values. These will under pin the school ethos.

I think all schooling should teach children to question, reason and explore. That is why those words feature in our vision for the School. The Bible certainly gives us some good frameworks to consider things, I do not think it gives all the answers and we have never said this.

Parents have said they would like a Church of England School in Watord, so I am pleased we are able to try and respond to that need.
I agree they are good values. Not christian, muslim or bhuddist. Just human values.
Like in my answer above, there are many who claim the bible does contain the answers to everything.
Look at the strict catholic schools, or the quakers to see how children are bullied into your religion. Can you promise that wont happen?

No, you cant. They will learn and remember the lords prayer like I had to, before I had any idea of what it actually meant.

WHY do some parents want a C of E school, rather than just a 'school'?
[quote][p][bold]Robin10[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]LSC. It looks like we agree those are good values. These will under pin the school ethos. I think all schooling should teach children to question, reason and explore. That is why those words feature in our vision for the School. The Bible certainly gives us some good frameworks to consider things, I do not think it gives all the answers and we have never said this. Parents have said they would like a Church of England School in Watord, so I am pleased we are able to try and respond to that need.[/p][/quote]I agree they are good values. Not christian, muslim or bhuddist. Just human values. Like in my answer above, there are many who claim the bible does contain the answers to everything. Look at the strict catholic schools, or the quakers to see how children are bullied into your religion. Can you promise that wont happen? No, you cant. They will learn and remember the lords prayer like I had to, before I had any idea of what it actually meant. WHY do some parents want a C of E school, rather than just a 'school'? LSC
  • Score: 1

12:00am Wed 12 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote:
I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end
As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.
Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down
No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments!

As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing.

With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS.

I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'.
I agree the area of abuse away fro the clear cut and obvious is a grey area not hopefully society is improving on that as we progress. Regretfully in every area of society there are those who display such extreme and outrageous behaviour and shamefully they are the ones who seem to become the stereotype for the rest. Then of course the rest of us then associate each group as that I agree with you that very kind of ridiculous behaviour of looking down on others beliefs or non beliefs is wrong as is the banning of literature for everyone should have the right to learning but that is families not schools the faith school my son went to had Harry potter . I can understand your feelings on who pays but equally as a tax payer I'm happy my tax would support a faith school I personally like the ethos and I have from experience not seen any thing other than creative and well rounded results
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end[/p][/quote]As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.[/p][/quote]Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down[/p][/quote]No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments! As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing. With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS. I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'.[/p][/quote]I agree the area of abuse away fro the clear cut and obvious is a grey area not hopefully society is improving on that as we progress. Regretfully in every area of society there are those who display such extreme and outrageous behaviour and shamefully they are the ones who seem to become the stereotype for the rest. Then of course the rest of us then associate each group as that I agree with you that very kind of ridiculous behaviour of looking down on others beliefs or non beliefs is wrong as is the banning of literature for everyone should have the right to learning but that is families not schools the faith school my son went to had Harry potter . I can understand your feelings on who pays but equally as a tax payer I'm happy my tax would support a faith school I personally like the ethos and I have from experience not seen any thing other than creative and well rounded results invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 0

12:31am Wed 12 Mar 14

LSC says...

Without going into what you you say, I do wish your school had taught you punctuation.
Your post might well contain words of wisdom, but they are hard to read.
Just saying.
Without going into what you you say, I do wish your school had taught you punctuation. Your post might well contain words of wisdom, but they are hard to read. Just saying. LSC
  • Score: 0

1:23am Wed 12 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

LSC wrote:
Without going into what you you say, I do wish your school had taught you punctuation.
Your post might well contain words of wisdom, but they are hard to read.
Just saying.
Tsk!

Are you suggesting children should be 'indoctrinated' with grammar rules ;-)

Btw shouldn't it be 'may well'?

Just saying like................
..
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: Without going into what you you say, I do wish your school had taught you punctuation. Your post might well contain words of wisdom, but they are hard to read. Just saying.[/p][/quote]Tsk! Are you suggesting children should be 'indoctrinated' with grammar rules ;-) Btw shouldn't it be 'may well'? Just saying like................ .. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

8:26am Wed 12 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

Su Murray wrote:
LSC wrote:
Without going into what you you say, I do wish your school had taught you punctuation.
Your post might well contain words of wisdom, but they are hard to read.
Just saying.
Tsk!

Are you suggesting children should be 'indoctrinated' with grammar rules ;-)

Btw shouldn't it be 'may well'?

Just saying like................

..
Yes apologies for punctuation. I always rattle on and am too busy changing the predictive text this iPad is determined to insert and I hope no one try's to blame a faith school for my poor punctuation to clarify I went to a state school
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: Without going into what you you say, I do wish your school had taught you punctuation. Your post might well contain words of wisdom, but they are hard to read. Just saying.[/p][/quote]Tsk! Are you suggesting children should be 'indoctrinated' with grammar rules ;-) Btw shouldn't it be 'may well'? Just saying like................ ..[/p][/quote]Yes apologies for punctuation. I always rattle on and am too busy changing the predictive text this iPad is determined to insert and I hope no one try's to blame a faith school for my poor punctuation to clarify I went to a state school invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 0

9:12am Wed 12 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

LSC wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote:
I am not conceited enough to believe I know all the answers in my opinion the bible makes a person ask questions as much as it gives answers I also think it was written at a time when the authors gave there best comprehension of events of the time In a more knowledgable world we should look at what is said and try to consider their understanding of the time whilst reading what they say but as I say that is my own opinion and belief

As to your question for our children surely we need to give them some knowledge to enable them to question ?
And as for the internal combustion engine because we are shown it works we accept it but at some point between theory and practice someone had to believe in it to try and see if it would work
Well this is where it gets interesting. Because unlike you, there are many who say the bible is the word of god. Verbatum.
So you admit you are one human being, with your own thoughts and interpretations. Which is fine. Fair play to you.
Do you think YOUR interpretations should be taught in school as fact or Fred down the road who see's it slightly differently?

I ask again, what questions do you want your children to ask that the bible doesn't answer?

Straight question. Deserves a straight answer.
I agree that there is a lot of extremism in all areas of society but in my experience faith schools are run on the national curriculum and are moderate, not extreme it it's faith teaching as to your question. I freely admit I can't answer it as for me it is not a straight question as I have said I do not believe the bible holds all the answers I believe it's more of a guide for the individual to get there themselves, but that is my personal belief. I also believe people should be able to question anything they do not understand and equally they should respect others opinions even if they disagree with them but what I can't explain is why I have faith I do and it's enough for me it doesn't mean I wouldn't question it ,You keep quoting the Lord's Prayer and your still being able to repeat it.Looking at it I can only think it's recognition of god that you object to not the actual teaching of forgiveness but now as I can't answer your question let me ask you. Why are you so against people having belief or faith ?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I am not conceited enough to believe I know all the answers in my opinion the bible makes a person ask questions as much as it gives answers I also think it was written at a time when the authors gave there best comprehension of events of the time In a more knowledgable world we should look at what is said and try to consider their understanding of the time whilst reading what they say but as I say that is my own opinion and belief As to your question for our children surely we need to give them some knowledge to enable them to question ? And as for the internal combustion engine because we are shown it works we accept it but at some point between theory and practice someone had to believe in it to try and see if it would work[/p][/quote]Well this is where it gets interesting. Because unlike you, there are many who say the bible is the word of god. Verbatum. So you admit you are one human being, with your own thoughts and interpretations. Which is fine. Fair play to you. Do you think YOUR interpretations should be taught in school as fact or Fred down the road who see's it slightly differently? I ask again, what questions do you want your children to ask that the bible doesn't answer? Straight question. Deserves a straight answer.[/p][/quote]I agree that there is a lot of extremism in all areas of society but in my experience faith schools are run on the national curriculum and are moderate, not extreme it it's faith teaching as to your question. I freely admit I can't answer it as for me it is not a straight question as I have said I do not believe the bible holds all the answers I believe it's more of a guide for the individual to get there themselves, but that is my personal belief. I also believe people should be able to question anything they do not understand and equally they should respect others opinions even if they disagree with them but what I can't explain is why I have faith I do and it's enough for me it doesn't mean I wouldn't question it ,You keep quoting the Lord's Prayer and your still being able to repeat it.Looking at it I can only think it's recognition of god that you object to not the actual teaching of forgiveness but now as I can't answer your question let me ask you. Why are you so against people having belief or faith ? invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 1

10:52am Wed 12 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
"I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning.

Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?"

What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system.

No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science.
If what you call science is a combustion engine, then, I am afraid, you are very, very stupid.
You also fail to understand the question I posed to say "No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything." The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't....

I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole.

No one is forcing anything on you or your family, they are just trying to live THEIR lives as they see best. You object to that for whatever reasona nd you are an enemy of democracy, society and decency.

Try and read a few books.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning. Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?" What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system. No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science.[/p][/quote]If what you call science is a combustion engine, then, I am afraid, you are very, very stupid. You also fail to understand the question I posed to say "No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything." The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't.... I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole. No one is forcing anything on you or your family, they are just trying to live THEIR lives as they see best. You object to that for whatever reasona nd you are an enemy of democracy, society and decency. Try and read a few books. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Wed 12 Mar 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
"So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?" I didn't actually say that, but it does consist of a set of rules that you must follow or you will face torture for eternity. Civil society does generally frown upon torture in response to 'crime', but that is a bit of a side issue. "As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that." Once again, I have never said that. I said formal state education should not influence children in spiritual matters. Sure children might meet a great teacher who is religious and talk to them about it, and be influenced. That is human nature. But children have to go to school and it is wrong to preach to them in that setting. They can't walk out, like I could as an adult. That is my point.
Actually the Bible doesnt say anything about people suffering for eternity in hell.

Its a popular misconception and I admit one that even some Christians seem to believe
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?" I didn't actually say that, but it does consist of a set of rules that you must follow or you will face torture for eternity. Civil society does generally frown upon torture in response to 'crime', but that is a bit of a side issue. "As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that." Once again, I have never said that. I said formal state education should not influence children in spiritual matters. Sure children might meet a great teacher who is religious and talk to them about it, and be influenced. That is human nature. But children have to go to school and it is wrong to preach to them in that setting. They can't walk out, like I could as an adult. That is my point.[/p][/quote]Actually the Bible doesnt say anything about people suffering for eternity in hell. Its a popular misconception and I admit one that even some Christians seem to believe garston tony
  • Score: 1

2:11pm Wed 12 Mar 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
"You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God. Mug." I don't believe science is bigger than god, because there is no god. Belief doesn't come into it. Atheism is not a belief system. It does not involve faith. Can't you understand that?
Well you DO have to have a certain amount of faith in science and in whichever eminent person's theory is currently flavour of the month. Until it is proven wrong and they move onto the next one of course.

Seeing as when it comes to big bang/evolution science seems to be mostly involved in disproving its own theories you could say its as much a leap of faith to believe what Professor so and so says is how things happened than what the Bible account of creation is.

Its down to you to choose what you believe, it is rather tiresome to be continually told by people who believe in actually man made stuff that they are right and I am wrong in my beliefs
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "You can mock and shrug your shoulders and everything else, but it comes down wo whether you BELIEVE science is bigger than God. Mug." I don't believe science is bigger than god, because there is no god. Belief doesn't come into it. Atheism is not a belief system. It does not involve faith. Can't you understand that?[/p][/quote]Well you DO have to have a certain amount of faith in science and in whichever eminent person's theory is currently flavour of the month. Until it is proven wrong and they move onto the next one of course. Seeing as when it comes to big bang/evolution science seems to be mostly involved in disproving its own theories you could say its as much a leap of faith to believe what Professor so and so says is how things happened than what the Bible account of creation is. Its down to you to choose what you believe, it is rather tiresome to be continually told by people who believe in actually man made stuff that they are right and I am wrong in my beliefs garston tony
  • Score: 1

2:24pm Wed 12 Mar 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
"The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us.

I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning.

Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one.

My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine garston tony
  • Score: 1

2:43pm Wed 12 Mar 14

garston tony says...

Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end
As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.
Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down
No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments! As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing. With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS. I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'.
When I went to see the HP films every single time there were kids in the audience who were visibly petrified by the experience, every single time parents were having to take their children out as it was too much for them. Seeing as a book can offer a more vivid experience to a reader as it involves their own imagination I think that parents who didnt want their kids exposed to the HP books (which have a very dark undercurrent) when they were not ready should be applauded and not looked down as, what was it you wrote, 'lesser and not so good'.

You are right some Christians do have that attitude, but that attitude exists in all walks of life regardless of beliefs as you yourself have proven
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end[/p][/quote]As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.[/p][/quote]Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down[/p][/quote]No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments! As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing. With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS. I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'.[/p][/quote]When I went to see the HP films every single time there were kids in the audience who were visibly petrified by the experience, every single time parents were having to take their children out as it was too much for them. Seeing as a book can offer a more vivid experience to a reader as it involves their own imagination I think that parents who didnt want their kids exposed to the HP books (which have a very dark undercurrent) when they were not ready should be applauded and not looked down as, what was it you wrote, 'lesser and not so good'. You are right some Christians do have that attitude, but that attitude exists in all walks of life regardless of beliefs as you yourself have proven garston tony
  • Score: 1

3:26pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

garston tony wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end
As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.
Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down
No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments! As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing. With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS. I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'.
When I went to see the HP films every single time there were kids in the audience who were visibly petrified by the experience, every single time parents were having to take their children out as it was too much for them. Seeing as a book can offer a more vivid experience to a reader as it involves their own imagination I think that parents who didnt want their kids exposed to the HP books (which have a very dark undercurrent) when they were not ready should be applauded and not looked down as, what was it you wrote, 'lesser and not so good'.

You are right some Christians do have that attitude, but that attitude exists in all walks of life regardless of beliefs as you yourself have proven
I didn't say parents shouldn't make judgements on what they feel their children are ready to see or read. I just find it odd that some parents didn't/don't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books on religious grounds. I don't see the logic - especially when many of the same parents would allow their children to read the Narnia books, which also have dark undertones.

I don't see how my stating that as an opinion suggests I consider myself better than anyone else.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end[/p][/quote]As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.[/p][/quote]Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down[/p][/quote]No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments! As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing. With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS. I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'.[/p][/quote]When I went to see the HP films every single time there were kids in the audience who were visibly petrified by the experience, every single time parents were having to take their children out as it was too much for them. Seeing as a book can offer a more vivid experience to a reader as it involves their own imagination I think that parents who didnt want their kids exposed to the HP books (which have a very dark undercurrent) when they were not ready should be applauded and not looked down as, what was it you wrote, 'lesser and not so good'. You are right some Christians do have that attitude, but that attitude exists in all walks of life regardless of beliefs as you yourself have proven[/p][/quote]I didn't say parents shouldn't make judgements on what they feel their children are ready to see or read. I just find it odd that some parents didn't/don't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books on religious grounds. I don't see the logic - especially when many of the same parents would allow their children to read the Narnia books, which also have dark undertones. I don't see how my stating that as an opinion suggests I consider myself better than anyone else. Su Murray
  • Score: -1

3:52pm Wed 12 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

garston tony wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
invictorguesthouse wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end
As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.
Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down
No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments! As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing. With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS. I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'.
When I went to see the HP films every single time there were kids in the audience who were visibly petrified by the experience, every single time parents were having to take their children out as it was too much for them. Seeing as a book can offer a more vivid experience to a reader as it involves their own imagination I think that parents who didnt want their kids exposed to the HP books (which have a very dark undercurrent) when they were not ready should be applauded and not looked down as, what was it you wrote, 'lesser and not so good'.

You are right some Christians do have that attitude, but that attitude exists in all walks of life regardless of beliefs as you yourself have proven
I think that in everything it is up to the individual and the individual's conscience as to what they think is or is not appropriate I did not intend to look down on those who chose not to let there children read Harry Potter, but I do take issue if they were trying to impose that on those who were happy for there children to read it on those as in everything including where to send your child to school it should be freedom of choice
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]invictorguesthouse[/bold] wrote: I don't think anyone can attack a persons faith or lack of it we are what we are, I believe, you do not . Who's to say which of us is wrong I'm not going to change and neither will you I really cannot believe you think a four year old has the ability to choose we don't let them decide at that age when to cross a road or what to eat or when to go to bed. As a parent I do what I feel is right for my children that is my prerogative and no one has the right to say otherwise, to do that will be as crass as calling someone uneducated because they dare to disagree, all in all we all have our opinions some of us don't feel the need to voice them perhaps as much as others do personally I'm not a career comment maker and feel this particular discussion is near it's end[/p][/quote]As a parent you do what you feel is right for your children. Fair enough. Presumably you agree the same 'prerogative' should apply to non religious families? Or different religious families? What about Pagan families? What about abusive parents should they have the same rights? Assuming anyone could agree what is abusive anyway.[/p][/quote]Of course I agree the same prerogative extends to non faith/different faith families ( I'm not so sure what you mean about abusive I'm sure your not condoning it ) but that has been my whole point no one has the right to dictate to another, if a person does not want to send there child to a faith school then they can choose put it's name down for one of the state schools equally if I want to send my child to a faith school I should be able to. it seems as though the assumption is that it's compulsory to have to attend as I have said before if you don't want your child to go there don't put it's name down[/p][/quote]No I'm not condoning 'abuse'. Though to some extent I'm questioning how we decide what is and what isn't abuse. Extremes such as physical beatings and neglect are clear cut, but there are grey areas. Some people consider indoctrinating children in a religious belief as abusive. See Boris Johnson's recent comments! As it happens, I don't agree with that view. However, I do find some aspects of religious upbringing difficult to accept. For instance Christian families that wouldn't allow their children to read the Harry Potter books. Or Christians that look down on 'non Christians' as some how lesser and not as good. And I'm sorry to say this is not an uncommon thing. With regards faith schools specifically, we still have ostensibly a state education system in this country. I believe state schools should be secular although they should teach children about all the different belief systems. I am of the opinion they should be overseen by local authorities whereas Free Schools are outside of that system. We have already seen that this can lead to a huge difference in provision. Gove's drive to force all new schools to be 'Free Schools' (though of course tax payers are still paying for them), and existing schools to become Academies (thereby handing over land and buildings we own to private companies) is a worrying trend that is basically leading to Schools being profit driven. Rather like what is happening with the NHS. I accept your right to send your child to a faith school. But, if you make that choice I believe you should have to pay for it yourself. Faith schools should be Private - not paid for by taxes. Just like Rudolf Steiner schools. Or indeed any other 'alternative'.[/p][/quote]When I went to see the HP films every single time there were kids in the audience who were visibly petrified by the experience, every single time parents were having to take their children out as it was too much for them. Seeing as a book can offer a more vivid experience to a reader as it involves their own imagination I think that parents who didnt want their kids exposed to the HP books (which have a very dark undercurrent) when they were not ready should be applauded and not looked down as, what was it you wrote, 'lesser and not so good'. You are right some Christians do have that attitude, but that attitude exists in all walks of life regardless of beliefs as you yourself have proven[/p][/quote]I think that in everything it is up to the individual and the individual's conscience as to what they think is or is not appropriate I did not intend to look down on those who chose not to let there children read Harry Potter, but I do take issue if they were trying to impose that on those who were happy for there children to read it on those as in everything including where to send your child to school it should be freedom of choice invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 1

5:14pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
"So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?" I didn't actually say that, but it does consist of a set of rules that you must follow or you will face torture for eternity. Civil society does generally frown upon torture in response to 'crime', but that is a bit of a side issue. "As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that." Once again, I have never said that. I said formal state education should not influence children in spiritual matters. Sure children might meet a great teacher who is religious and talk to them about it, and be influenced. That is human nature. But children have to go to school and it is wrong to preach to them in that setting. They can't walk out, like I could as an adult. That is my point.
Actually the Bible doesnt say anything about people suffering for eternity in hell.

Its a popular misconception and I admit one that even some Christians seem to believe
Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Mark Chapter 9
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 18:8 - Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matthew 13:50 - And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Lots and lots of Hell stuff in the bible... its one book i have read.

Tony your slacking.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?" I didn't actually say that, but it does consist of a set of rules that you must follow or you will face torture for eternity. Civil society does generally frown upon torture in response to 'crime', but that is a bit of a side issue. "As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that." Once again, I have never said that. I said formal state education should not influence children in spiritual matters. Sure children might meet a great teacher who is religious and talk to them about it, and be influenced. That is human nature. But children have to go to school and it is wrong to preach to them in that setting. They can't walk out, like I could as an adult. That is my point.[/p][/quote]Actually the Bible doesnt say anything about people suffering for eternity in hell. Its a popular misconception and I admit one that even some Christians seem to believe[/p][/quote]Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Mark Chapter 9 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 18:8 - Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. Matthew 13:50 - And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Lots and lots of Hell stuff in the bible... its one book i have read. Tony your slacking. Popeonarope
  • Score: 4

5:28pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
"The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us.

I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning.

Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one.

My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine
And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically?

You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting.

Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told.

Good without god; Education without fear.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine[/p][/quote]And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically? You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting. Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told. Good without god; Education without fear. Popeonarope
  • Score: 3

9:35pm Wed 12 Mar 14

LSC says...

I've been working, sorry, so a lot of points to address. If I miss one, it isn't me avoiding it.

Tony: "I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you"

No, but they are coming in thick and fast. More thick than fast. I quote:
"I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole."

That's fairly insulting. Especially as I work for a charity and just did a 12 hour day, as well as working for them all weekend for no pay. And no god makes me do it either, I just like helping people.

I will state again my position as people seem confused. I am not attacking any individual's faith or beliefs. I think you are wrong, and am happy to debate points about it, but at the end of the day you can believe what you wish. You are grown ups.
Children are not grown ups, and that is what I am attacking. I am attacking faith taught as fact, which we all know it is, by every religion, all over the world. That is wrong, as is the big bang being taught as fact, I have always said so. It is simply a theory that I don't pretend to understand which apparently fits the facts as we currently know them.
The alternative is creation and Adam and Eve, which don't fit the facts as we currently know them, and with every passing year we move further from them.
So I know where my money would be, were I a gambling man.

Any parent who told a child from a young age that they must join the Army when they leave school, made them take subjects to suit that, enrolled them in the Cadets etc would be considered a 'bad parent'. This kid might want to be an Estate Agent.
But somehow it is ok with religion to do the same thing. Tell them what they are first, then deal with it later if they rebel.
I've been working, sorry, so a lot of points to address. If I miss one, it isn't me avoiding it. Tony: "I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you" No, but they are coming in thick and fast. More thick than fast. I quote: "I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole." That's fairly insulting. Especially as I work for a charity and just did a 12 hour day, as well as working for them all weekend for no pay. And no god makes me do it either, I just like helping people. I will state again my position as people seem confused. I am not attacking any individual's faith or beliefs. I think you are wrong, and am happy to debate points about it, but at the end of the day you can believe what you wish. You are grown ups. Children are not grown ups, and that is what I am attacking. I am attacking faith taught as fact, which we all know it is, by every religion, all over the world. That is wrong, as is the big bang being taught as fact, I have always said so. It is simply a theory that I don't pretend to understand which apparently fits the facts as we currently know them. The alternative is creation and Adam and Eve, which don't fit the facts as we currently know them, and with every passing year we move further from them. So I know where my money would be, were I a gambling man. Any parent who told a child from a young age that they must join the Army when they leave school, made them take subjects to suit that, enrolled them in the Cadets etc would be considered a 'bad parent'. This kid might want to be an Estate Agent. But somehow it is ok with religion to do the same thing. Tell them what they are first, then deal with it later if they rebel. LSC
  • Score: 0

9:58pm Wed 12 Mar 14

LSC says...

CaptainPC wrote:
LSC wrote:
"I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning.

Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?"

What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system.

No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science.
If what you call science is a combustion engine, then, I am afraid, you are very, very stupid.
You also fail to understand the question I posed to say "No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything." The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't....

I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole.

No one is forcing anything on you or your family, they are just trying to live THEIR lives as they see best. You object to that for whatever reasona nd you are an enemy of democracy, society and decency.

Try and read a few books.
You don't make sense.

" The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't...."

So that includes the bible, does it? Probably not true forever, in your own words. Perhaps it's time has come.

You are correct, no-one is forcing anything on my family, although I'd be a bit peeved if I lived next door to the school but felt unable to send my children there. But those families that do ARE forcing something upon their children. Something that I don't think they have the right to do.

I have read lots of books thank you. I've even co-written one that was published. So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning. Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?" What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system. No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science.[/p][/quote]If what you call science is a combustion engine, then, I am afraid, you are very, very stupid. You also fail to understand the question I posed to say "No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything." The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't.... I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole. No one is forcing anything on you or your family, they are just trying to live THEIR lives as they see best. You object to that for whatever reasona nd you are an enemy of democracy, society and decency. Try and read a few books.[/p][/quote]You don't make sense. " The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't...." So that includes the bible, does it? Probably not true forever, in your own words. Perhaps it's time has come. You are correct, no-one is forcing anything on my family, although I'd be a bit peeved if I lived next door to the school but felt unable to send my children there. But those families that do ARE forcing something upon their children. Something that I don't think they have the right to do. I have read lots of books thank you. I've even co-written one that was published. So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it. LSC
  • Score: -1

10:59pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

@LSC

"So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it".

You're right proper polite LSC. My family just told folk to "stick it in your pipe and smoke it". ;-)
@LSC "So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it". You're right proper polite LSC. My family just told folk to "stick it in your pipe and smoke it". ;-) Su Murray
  • Score: -1

12:03am Thu 13 Mar 14

LSC says...

Su Murray wrote:
@LSC

"So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it".

You're right proper polite LSC. My family just told folk to "stick it in your pipe and smoke it". ;-)
And you are a right Scamp with your comments Su!
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @LSC "So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it". You're right proper polite LSC. My family just told folk to "stick it in your pipe and smoke it". ;-)[/p][/quote]And you are a right Scamp with your comments Su! LSC
  • Score: -1

10:34am Thu 13 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
CaptainPC wrote:
LSC wrote:
"I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning.

Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?"

What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system.

No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science.
If what you call science is a combustion engine, then, I am afraid, you are very, very stupid.
You also fail to understand the question I posed to say "No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything." The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't....

I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole.

No one is forcing anything on you or your family, they are just trying to live THEIR lives as they see best. You object to that for whatever reasona nd you are an enemy of democracy, society and decency.

Try and read a few books.
You don't make sense.

" The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't...."

So that includes the bible, does it? Probably not true forever, in your own words. Perhaps it's time has come.

You are correct, no-one is forcing anything on my family, although I'd be a bit peeved if I lived next door to the school but felt unable to send my children there. But those families that do ARE forcing something upon their children. Something that I don't think they have the right to do.

I have read lots of books thank you. I've even co-written one that was published. So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it.
It does include the Bible, yes. Are you stupid?
What it comes down to is no one is forcing anything on you, a faith school is not harming you, but you object to other people choosing to live their life/bring up their kids how they want.

I can't see any motivation in what you say other than spite.

If the book you co-wrote is anything like as spiteful and small minded as the stuff you post on here then I am sure I would rather smoke it than read it.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning. Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?" What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system. No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science.[/p][/quote]If what you call science is a combustion engine, then, I am afraid, you are very, very stupid. You also fail to understand the question I posed to say "No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything." The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't.... I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole. No one is forcing anything on you or your family, they are just trying to live THEIR lives as they see best. You object to that for whatever reasona nd you are an enemy of democracy, society and decency. Try and read a few books.[/p][/quote]You don't make sense. " The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't...." So that includes the bible, does it? Probably not true forever, in your own words. Perhaps it's time has come. You are correct, no-one is forcing anything on my family, although I'd be a bit peeved if I lived next door to the school but felt unable to send my children there. But those families that do ARE forcing something upon their children. Something that I don't think they have the right to do. I have read lots of books thank you. I've even co-written one that was published. So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it.[/p][/quote]It does include the Bible, yes. Are you stupid? What it comes down to is no one is forcing anything on you, a faith school is not harming you, but you object to other people choosing to live their life/bring up their kids how they want. I can't see any motivation in what you say other than spite. If the book you co-wrote is anything like as spiteful and small minded as the stuff you post on here then I am sure I would rather smoke it than read it. CaptainPC
  • Score: 3

12:41pm Thu 13 Mar 14

LSC says...

"What it comes down to is no one is forcing anything on you, a faith school is not harming you, but you object to other people choosing to live their life/bring up their kids how they want.

I can't see any motivation in what you say other than spite."

I see. So if it doesn't affect me directly, I should keep any opinions I have to myself.
What a strange outlook, that I am afraid I cannot share. I confess I have never been raped, or know anyone who has, but I reserve the right to have opinions on rapists. I am not in a wheelchair, but I care deeply about disabled access. I can afford to heat my home, although I worry about those that can't, even though I don't think I know any.
It is quite a long list actually, of things that do not affect me but I still have an opinion about. Wars, fox hunting, student loans, the pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre...

And one of the things I have an opinion about is children being indoctrinated to ideas that they are too young to comprehend and take in context. Even if that does not include my children.
"What it comes down to is no one is forcing anything on you, a faith school is not harming you, but you object to other people choosing to live their life/bring up their kids how they want. I can't see any motivation in what you say other than spite." I see. So if it doesn't affect me directly, I should keep any opinions I have to myself. What a strange outlook, that I am afraid I cannot share. I confess I have never been raped, or know anyone who has, but I reserve the right to have opinions on rapists. I am not in a wheelchair, but I care deeply about disabled access. I can afford to heat my home, although I worry about those that can't, even though I don't think I know any. It is quite a long list actually, of things that do not affect me but I still have an opinion about. Wars, fox hunting, student loans, the pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre... And one of the things I have an opinion about is children being indoctrinated to ideas that they are too young to comprehend and take in context. Even if that does not include my children. LSC
  • Score: 1

1:46pm Thu 13 Mar 14

invictorguesthouse says...

I really do think that despite everyone’s difference of opinion, whilst mild sarcasm is an outlet for exasperation, there is no need for people to be rude or insulting. We are meant to be adults and be able to hold an argument without sinking to such depths
I really do think that despite everyone’s difference of opinion, whilst mild sarcasm is an outlet for exasperation, there is no need for people to be rude or insulting. We are meant to be adults and be able to hold an argument without sinking to such depths invictorguesthouse
  • Score: 1

3:27pm Thu 13 Mar 14

garston tony says...

Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine
And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically? You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting. Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told. Good without god; Education without fear.
And yet just today I was reading in the news that scientists, you know the people you worship, studying some volcano and what has come out of it in Brazil having discovered evidence of there being an amount of water deep deep in the earth than is thought to exist in all the oceans, rivers, not so deep reservoirs and systems etc.

Its funny isnt it, science is a one way street for you. No evidence for big bang yet you say we dont know all about the earth and the universe so you dont discount it and indeed despite the total lack of evidence believe in it totally.

But you dont see there being enough water to cover the earth and suddenly you forget the mantra 'we dont know all about the earth' and its suddenly ha ha youre wrong. Well actually you are, and science is once again supporting the Bible.
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine[/p][/quote]And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically? You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting. Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told. Good without god; Education without fear.[/p][/quote]And yet just today I was reading in the news that scientists, you know the people you worship, studying some volcano and what has come out of it in Brazil having discovered evidence of there being an amount of water deep deep in the earth than is thought to exist in all the oceans, rivers, not so deep reservoirs and systems etc. Its funny isnt it, science is a one way street for you. No evidence for big bang yet you say we dont know all about the earth and the universe so you dont discount it and indeed despite the total lack of evidence believe in it totally. But you dont see there being enough water to cover the earth and suddenly you forget the mantra 'we dont know all about the earth' and its suddenly ha ha youre wrong. Well actually you are, and science is once again supporting the Bible. garston tony
  • Score: 1

3:43pm Thu 13 Mar 14

garston tony says...

Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote: "So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?" I didn't actually say that, but it does consist of a set of rules that you must follow or you will face torture for eternity. Civil society does generally frown upon torture in response to 'crime', but that is a bit of a side issue. "As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that." Once again, I have never said that. I said formal state education should not influence children in spiritual matters. Sure children might meet a great teacher who is religious and talk to them about it, and be influenced. That is human nature. But children have to go to school and it is wrong to preach to them in that setting. They can't walk out, like I could as an adult. That is my point.
Actually the Bible doesnt say anything about people suffering for eternity in hell. Its a popular misconception and I admit one that even some Christians seem to believe
Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Mark Chapter 9 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 18:8 - Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. Matthew 13:50 - And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Lots and lots of Hell stuff in the bible... its one book i have read. Tony your slacking.
Oh dear Pope, you're really not trying.

You yourself quote texts (out of context again, well done) that show that those that are not saved will die, they will be destroyed. The 'eternal' bit is that it is a permanent death, they will cease to exist for ever more. Or cease to exist for eternity.

No text in the Bible, especially when taken in context, supports this idea that those not saved will be tortured for every more.
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "So now religion is not within the bounds of civil society is it?" I didn't actually say that, but it does consist of a set of rules that you must follow or you will face torture for eternity. Civil society does generally frown upon torture in response to 'crime', but that is a bit of a side issue. "As to parents not influencing their own children-Really? How would you police that." Once again, I have never said that. I said formal state education should not influence children in spiritual matters. Sure children might meet a great teacher who is religious and talk to them about it, and be influenced. That is human nature. But children have to go to school and it is wrong to preach to them in that setting. They can't walk out, like I could as an adult. That is my point.[/p][/quote]Actually the Bible doesnt say anything about people suffering for eternity in hell. Its a popular misconception and I admit one that even some Christians seem to believe[/p][/quote]Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Mark Chapter 9 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 18:8 - Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. Matthew 13:50 - And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Lots and lots of Hell stuff in the bible... its one book i have read. Tony your slacking.[/p][/quote]Oh dear Pope, you're really not trying. You yourself quote texts (out of context again, well done) that show that those that are not saved will die, they will be destroyed. The 'eternal' bit is that it is a permanent death, they will cease to exist for ever more. Or cease to exist for eternity. No text in the Bible, especially when taken in context, supports this idea that those not saved will be tortured for every more. garston tony
  • Score: 1

3:56pm Thu 13 Mar 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
I've been working, sorry, so a lot of points to address. If I miss one, it isn't me avoiding it. Tony: "I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you" No, but they are coming in thick and fast. More thick than fast. I quote: "I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole." That's fairly insulting. Especially as I work for a charity and just did a 12 hour day, as well as working for them all weekend for no pay. And no god makes me do it either, I just like helping people. I will state again my position as people seem confused. I am not attacking any individual's faith or beliefs. I think you are wrong, and am happy to debate points about it, but at the end of the day you can believe what you wish. You are grown ups. Children are not grown ups, and that is what I am attacking. I am attacking faith taught as fact, which we all know it is, by every religion, all over the world. That is wrong, as is the big bang being taught as fact, I have always said so. It is simply a theory that I don't pretend to understand which apparently fits the facts as we currently know them. The alternative is creation and Adam and Eve, which don't fit the facts as we currently know them, and with every passing year we move further from them. So I know where my money would be, were I a gambling man. Any parent who told a child from a young age that they must join the Army when they leave school, made them take subjects to suit that, enrolled them in the Cadets etc would be considered a 'bad parent'. This kid might want to be an Estate Agent. But somehow it is ok with religion to do the same thing. Tell them what they are first, then deal with it later if they rebel.
LSC you may not have made direct insults against another individual but you are insulting when you make claims like because I have a faith i'm closed minded, not interested in the world around me, that I brainwash my children and have removed their ability and choice to think for themselves, that I am brainwashed myself and so on and on.

Those and comments like that are not as you claim attacking the principle of faith taught as fact but attacking the faith itself and those that follow them too. And thats before you get onto the whole sky fairy, itsy bitsy Jesus comments.

And once again your analogy completely falls down. If a parents tells their child that they must join the army and brings them up to do so there still comes a point where the child themselves can make a decision to do so or not, the parent can not force them to sign the paper work to do so and if they so wish the child can go and pursue their dreams of being an estate agent.

Ditto with faith, a child may be brought up a Christian in a Christian environment but there comes a point where that child can decide for themselves whether to carry on believing or not. I'd point out, as I have several times now, that many people brought up as Christians DO leave the church proving my point
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I've been working, sorry, so a lot of points to address. If I miss one, it isn't me avoiding it. Tony: "I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you" No, but they are coming in thick and fast. More thick than fast. I quote: "I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole." That's fairly insulting. Especially as I work for a charity and just did a 12 hour day, as well as working for them all weekend for no pay. And no god makes me do it either, I just like helping people. I will state again my position as people seem confused. I am not attacking any individual's faith or beliefs. I think you are wrong, and am happy to debate points about it, but at the end of the day you can believe what you wish. You are grown ups. Children are not grown ups, and that is what I am attacking. I am attacking faith taught as fact, which we all know it is, by every religion, all over the world. That is wrong, as is the big bang being taught as fact, I have always said so. It is simply a theory that I don't pretend to understand which apparently fits the facts as we currently know them. The alternative is creation and Adam and Eve, which don't fit the facts as we currently know them, and with every passing year we move further from them. So I know where my money would be, were I a gambling man. Any parent who told a child from a young age that they must join the Army when they leave school, made them take subjects to suit that, enrolled them in the Cadets etc would be considered a 'bad parent'. This kid might want to be an Estate Agent. But somehow it is ok with religion to do the same thing. Tell them what they are first, then deal with it later if they rebel.[/p][/quote]LSC you may not have made direct insults against another individual but you are insulting when you make claims like because I have a faith i'm closed minded, not interested in the world around me, that I brainwash my children and have removed their ability and choice to think for themselves, that I am brainwashed myself and so on and on. Those and comments like that are not as you claim attacking the principle of faith taught as fact but attacking the faith itself and those that follow them too. And thats before you get onto the whole sky fairy, itsy bitsy Jesus comments. And once again your analogy completely falls down. If a parents tells their child that they must join the army and brings them up to do so there still comes a point where the child themselves can make a decision to do so or not, the parent can not force them to sign the paper work to do so and if they so wish the child can go and pursue their dreams of being an estate agent. Ditto with faith, a child may be brought up a Christian in a Christian environment but there comes a point where that child can decide for themselves whether to carry on believing or not. I'd point out, as I have several times now, that many people brought up as Christians DO leave the church proving my point garston tony
  • Score: 1

5:32pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine
And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically? You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting. Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told. Good without god; Education without fear.
And yet just today I was reading in the news that scientists, you know the people you worship, studying some volcano and what has come out of it in Brazil having discovered evidence of there being an amount of water deep deep in the earth than is thought to exist in all the oceans, rivers, not so deep reservoirs and systems etc.

Its funny isnt it, science is a one way street for you. No evidence for big bang yet you say we dont know all about the earth and the universe so you dont discount it and indeed despite the total lack of evidence believe in it totally.

But you dont see there being enough water to cover the earth and suddenly you forget the mantra 'we dont know all about the earth' and its suddenly ha ha youre wrong. Well actually you are, and science is once again supporting the Bible.
Tony... thats a volcano under the water, fairly common.

About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. By your calculation the land (the other 30%) would have to hold, based on Igor Shiklomanov's estimate of global water distribution, at least 1 billion cubic miles of water to reach Mount Everest. Even if the wet areas between the crusts hold 'vast amounts of water' it would not be enough.

This would be a increase of at least 5 times as much as we currently have. Simply not possible but i dont expect you to understand that.

Maybe it was turned into wine they all drank it... would explain all the stories they wrote later!
Maybe aliens stole it or maybe, just maybe it didnt happen at all...!


I have an old battered King James bible given to me by my late grandfather, full of highlights, notations and bookmarks. The quotes are in print in front of me. So the burning in hell is not eternal, just a horrendous torture in fire that is everlasting, burning those that did not do as they were told. That's alright then.
Im sure if you had an enema the rest of you would fit in a matchbox.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine[/p][/quote]And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically? You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting. Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told. Good without god; Education without fear.[/p][/quote]And yet just today I was reading in the news that scientists, you know the people you worship, studying some volcano and what has come out of it in Brazil having discovered evidence of there being an amount of water deep deep in the earth than is thought to exist in all the oceans, rivers, not so deep reservoirs and systems etc. Its funny isnt it, science is a one way street for you. No evidence for big bang yet you say we dont know all about the earth and the universe so you dont discount it and indeed despite the total lack of evidence believe in it totally. But you dont see there being enough water to cover the earth and suddenly you forget the mantra 'we dont know all about the earth' and its suddenly ha ha youre wrong. Well actually you are, and science is once again supporting the Bible.[/p][/quote]Tony... thats a volcano under the water, fairly common. About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. By your calculation the land (the other 30%) would have to hold, based on Igor Shiklomanov's estimate of global water distribution, at least 1 billion cubic miles of water to reach Mount Everest. Even if the wet areas between the crusts hold 'vast amounts of water' it would not be enough. This would be a increase of at least 5 times as much as we currently have. Simply not possible but i dont expect you to understand that. Maybe it was turned into wine they all drank it... would explain all the stories they wrote later! Maybe aliens stole it or maybe, just maybe it didnt happen at all...! I have an old battered King James bible given to me by my late grandfather, full of highlights, notations and bookmarks. The quotes are in print in front of me. So the burning in hell is not eternal, just a horrendous torture in fire that is everlasting, burning those that did not do as they were told. That's alright then. Im sure if you had an enema the rest of you would fit in a matchbox. Popeonarope
  • Score: 6

6:23pm Thu 13 Mar 14

WatfordAlex says...

LSC wrote:
CaptainPC wrote:
LSC wrote:
"I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning.

Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?"

What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system.

No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science.
If what you call science is a combustion engine, then, I am afraid, you are very, very stupid.
You also fail to understand the question I posed to say "No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything." The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't....

I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole.

No one is forcing anything on you or your family, they are just trying to live THEIR lives as they see best. You object to that for whatever reasona nd you are an enemy of democracy, society and decency.

Try and read a few books.
You don't make sense.

" The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't...."

So that includes the bible, does it? Probably not true forever, in your own words. Perhaps it's time has come.

You are correct, no-one is forcing anything on my family, although I'd be a bit peeved if I lived next door to the school but felt unable to send my children there. But those families that do ARE forcing something upon their children. Something that I don't think they have the right to do.

I have read lots of books thank you. I've even co-written one that was published. So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it.
Just think though, if you spent less time arguing on here then maybe you would have time to co-author some more books! Another comment thread with nearly 100 posts and I suspect everyone involved still thinks exactly what they did at the start
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "I do admit faith is a belief-the clue is in the name, but I also contend that what you call science is a belief system too. Both shift with new learning. Serious question: Do you honestly believe that we are at the Zenith of understanding and everything that we "scientifically" know now is incontrovertable fact?" What I call science is the internal combustion engine. I don't 'believe' it works. It just does. It is not a belief system. No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything. We have much to learn. It is the bible that says 'these are the facts, stay where you are and do what you are told ', not science.[/p][/quote]If what you call science is a combustion engine, then, I am afraid, you are very, very stupid. You also fail to understand the question I posed to say "No I do not think we are anywhere near knowing everything." The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't.... I can only conclude that you are an ignorant bigot with a large space in your life which you try to fill by undermining the happiness of others. My suggestion would be that you try and find something more worthwhile to fill that hole. No one is forcing anything on you or your family, they are just trying to live THEIR lives as they see best. You object to that for whatever reasona nd you are an enemy of democracy, society and decency. Try and read a few books.[/p][/quote]You don't make sense. " The question was whether that which is "true" now will remain so forever? Any sensible person would realise that it probably isn't...." So that includes the bible, does it? Probably not true forever, in your own words. Perhaps it's time has come. You are correct, no-one is forcing anything on my family, although I'd be a bit peeved if I lived next door to the school but felt unable to send my children there. But those families that do ARE forcing something upon their children. Something that I don't think they have the right to do. I have read lots of books thank you. I've even co-written one that was published. So stick that in your pipe and enjoy smoking it.[/p][/quote]Just think though, if you spent less time arguing on here then maybe you would have time to co-author some more books! Another comment thread with nearly 100 posts and I suspect everyone involved still thinks exactly what they did at the start WatfordAlex
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Thu 13 Mar 14

LSC says...

Some children do indeed leave their faith Tony, and I am aware that for a time you were one of them, before deciding that it actually was for you after all.
That's great, and I doff my hat to you and I hope your parents supported you during that time as if nothing had changed (I'm assuming they were of the same faith, if not, I apologise if my assumption causes offence).
But I am sure you are aware it is not that easy for everyone.
In Northern Ireland, part of our very own UK, a change, or lack of, religion could cost you your career at best. A catholic or atheist would not get a job in the shipyards, full stop. And that is right in our own backyard.
The person would be shunned by their family, spat at in the street. In extreme cases tarred and feathered, or girls would have their heads shaved and be tied to a lampost.

I happen to know this because I was good friends with a chap called Kieth Hatfield, a BBC reporter now sadly deceased. He once released a catholic girl so tied in Derry, and was shot in both kneecaps for doing it. I saw the bullet wounds myself.
The girl's crime? Dating a protestant.

So don't give me cuddly christianity.

In the Middle East and much of Africa and Asia, the 'wrong' religion will still cost you your life.
My conclusion therefore is that religion should be kept out of children's lives until they are old enough to understand it, and the consequences that might go with it. I do not think that is unreasonable.

The result would probably be less religious people, but also less people shot in the kneecaps, which is a fair trade in my book.
Some children do indeed leave their faith Tony, and I am aware that for a time you were one of them, before deciding that it actually was for you after all. That's great, and I doff my hat to you and I hope your parents supported you during that time as if nothing had changed (I'm assuming they were of the same faith, if not, I apologise if my assumption causes offence). But I am sure you are aware it is not that easy for everyone. In Northern Ireland, part of our very own UK, a change, or lack of, religion could cost you your career at best. A catholic or atheist would not get a job in the shipyards, full stop. And that is right in our own backyard. The person would be shunned by their family, spat at in the street. In extreme cases tarred and feathered, or girls would have their heads shaved and be tied to a lampost. I happen to know this because I was good friends with a chap called Kieth Hatfield, a BBC reporter now sadly deceased. He once released a catholic girl so tied in Derry, and was shot in both kneecaps for doing it. I saw the bullet wounds myself. The girl's crime? Dating a protestant. So don't give me cuddly christianity. In the Middle East and much of Africa and Asia, the 'wrong' religion will still cost you your life. My conclusion therefore is that religion should be kept out of children's lives until they are old enough to understand it, and the consequences that might go with it. I do not think that is unreasonable. The result would probably be less religious people, but also less people shot in the kneecaps, which is a fair trade in my book. LSC
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Thu 13 Mar 14

LSC says...

"Just think though, if you spent less time arguing on here then maybe you would have time to co-author some more books! Another comment thread with nearly 100 posts and I suspect everyone involved still thinks exactly what they did at the start"

You probably have a good point, but lively debate keeps the mind sharp. Besides, I tend to paint now rather than write.
"Just think though, if you spent less time arguing on here then maybe you would have time to co-author some more books! Another comment thread with nearly 100 posts and I suspect everyone involved still thinks exactly what they did at the start" You probably have a good point, but lively debate keeps the mind sharp. Besides, I tend to paint now rather than write. LSC
  • Score: 0

9:18am Fri 14 Mar 14

garston tony says...

Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine
And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically? You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting. Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told. Good without god; Education without fear.
And yet just today I was reading in the news that scientists, you know the people you worship, studying some volcano and what has come out of it in Brazil having discovered evidence of there being an amount of water deep deep in the earth than is thought to exist in all the oceans, rivers, not so deep reservoirs and systems etc. Its funny isnt it, science is a one way street for you. No evidence for big bang yet you say we dont know all about the earth and the universe so you dont discount it and indeed despite the total lack of evidence believe in it totally. But you dont see there being enough water to cover the earth and suddenly you forget the mantra 'we dont know all about the earth' and its suddenly ha ha youre wrong. Well actually you are, and science is once again supporting the Bible.
Tony... thats a volcano under the water, fairly common. About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. By your calculation the land (the other 30%) would have to hold, based on Igor Shiklomanov's estimate of global water distribution, at least 1 billion cubic miles of water to reach Mount Everest. Even if the wet areas between the crusts hold 'vast amounts of water' it would not be enough. This would be a increase of at least 5 times as much as we currently have. Simply not possible but i dont expect you to understand that. Maybe it was turned into wine they all drank it... would explain all the stories they wrote later! Maybe aliens stole it or maybe, just maybe it didnt happen at all...! I have an old battered King James bible given to me by my late grandfather, full of highlights, notations and bookmarks. The quotes are in print in front of me. So the burning in hell is not eternal, just a horrendous torture in fire that is everlasting, burning those that did not do as they were told. That's alright then. Im sure if you had an enema the rest of you would fit in a matchbox.
Interesting, so you cherry pick your scientific facts to do you?

I didnt get a chance to look further into the story yesterday but from what I did hear the scientiest were looking at elements they said came from 600km + down which indicated far greater quantities of water than is known to exist.

But of course, this doesnt fit your beliefs so you ignore this bit of science as it actually indicates that it could be possible for there to be enough water on this planet to flood it as per the Bible.

You are a bitter person arent you
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine[/p][/quote]And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically? You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting. Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told. Good without god; Education without fear.[/p][/quote]And yet just today I was reading in the news that scientists, you know the people you worship, studying some volcano and what has come out of it in Brazil having discovered evidence of there being an amount of water deep deep in the earth than is thought to exist in all the oceans, rivers, not so deep reservoirs and systems etc. Its funny isnt it, science is a one way street for you. No evidence for big bang yet you say we dont know all about the earth and the universe so you dont discount it and indeed despite the total lack of evidence believe in it totally. But you dont see there being enough water to cover the earth and suddenly you forget the mantra 'we dont know all about the earth' and its suddenly ha ha youre wrong. Well actually you are, and science is once again supporting the Bible.[/p][/quote]Tony... thats a volcano under the water, fairly common. About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. By your calculation the land (the other 30%) would have to hold, based on Igor Shiklomanov's estimate of global water distribution, at least 1 billion cubic miles of water to reach Mount Everest. Even if the wet areas between the crusts hold 'vast amounts of water' it would not be enough. This would be a increase of at least 5 times as much as we currently have. Simply not possible but i dont expect you to understand that. Maybe it was turned into wine they all drank it... would explain all the stories they wrote later! Maybe aliens stole it or maybe, just maybe it didnt happen at all...! I have an old battered King James bible given to me by my late grandfather, full of highlights, notations and bookmarks. The quotes are in print in front of me. So the burning in hell is not eternal, just a horrendous torture in fire that is everlasting, burning those that did not do as they were told. That's alright then. Im sure if you had an enema the rest of you would fit in a matchbox.[/p][/quote]Interesting, so you cherry pick your scientific facts to do you? I didnt get a chance to look further into the story yesterday but from what I did hear the scientiest were looking at elements they said came from 600km + down which indicated far greater quantities of water than is known to exist. But of course, this doesnt fit your beliefs so you ignore this bit of science as it actually indicates that it could be possible for there to be enough water on this planet to flood it as per the Bible. You are a bitter person arent you garston tony
  • Score: 0

9:28am Fri 14 Mar 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
Some children do indeed leave their faith Tony, and I am aware that for a time you were one of them, before deciding that it actually was for you after all. That's great, and I doff my hat to you and I hope your parents supported you during that time as if nothing had changed (I'm assuming they were of the same faith, if not, I apologise if my assumption causes offence). But I am sure you are aware it is not that easy for everyone. In Northern Ireland, part of our very own UK, a change, or lack of, religion could cost you your career at best. A catholic or atheist would not get a job in the shipyards, full stop. And that is right in our own backyard. The person would be shunned by their family, spat at in the street. In extreme cases tarred and feathered, or girls would have their heads shaved and be tied to a lampost. I happen to know this because I was good friends with a chap called Kieth Hatfield, a BBC reporter now sadly deceased. He once released a catholic girl so tied in Derry, and was shot in both kneecaps for doing it. I saw the bullet wounds myself. The girl's crime? Dating a protestant. So don't give me cuddly christianity. In the Middle East and much of Africa and Asia, the 'wrong' religion will still cost you your life. My conclusion therefore is that religion should be kept out of children's lives until they are old enough to understand it, and the consequences that might go with it. I do not think that is unreasonable. The result would probably be less religious people, but also less people shot in the kneecaps, which is a fair trade in my book.
And once again LSC, yes a very sad story, but you are not differentiating between what the Bible teaches and what people do of their own accord.

God does not call for people to be kneecapped for dating someone of a different denomination, people do that and other horrendous things for their own reasons not Gods.

Yes I was lucky that I wasnt shunned etc when I gave up my faith but whatever the circumstances people DO have the choice to stay or leave. If they choose to 'stay' in a religion because it is easier to do that than face the consequences that is their choice. This type of choice is not limited to faith either, just this week there was a program about the miners strikes on the TV and there was a chap whose father hasnt spoken to him for however long it has been because he chose to cross the picket line. There was a lady in the Ukraine who was Russian married to a Ukrainian whose family have disowned her because she refused to leave him over what is going on over there right now. Familes fall out over football teams for trying out loud
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: Some children do indeed leave their faith Tony, and I am aware that for a time you were one of them, before deciding that it actually was for you after all. That's great, and I doff my hat to you and I hope your parents supported you during that time as if nothing had changed (I'm assuming they were of the same faith, if not, I apologise if my assumption causes offence). But I am sure you are aware it is not that easy for everyone. In Northern Ireland, part of our very own UK, a change, or lack of, religion could cost you your career at best. A catholic or atheist would not get a job in the shipyards, full stop. And that is right in our own backyard. The person would be shunned by their family, spat at in the street. In extreme cases tarred and feathered, or girls would have their heads shaved and be tied to a lampost. I happen to know this because I was good friends with a chap called Kieth Hatfield, a BBC reporter now sadly deceased. He once released a catholic girl so tied in Derry, and was shot in both kneecaps for doing it. I saw the bullet wounds myself. The girl's crime? Dating a protestant. So don't give me cuddly christianity. In the Middle East and much of Africa and Asia, the 'wrong' religion will still cost you your life. My conclusion therefore is that religion should be kept out of children's lives until they are old enough to understand it, and the consequences that might go with it. I do not think that is unreasonable. The result would probably be less religious people, but also less people shot in the kneecaps, which is a fair trade in my book.[/p][/quote]And once again LSC, yes a very sad story, but you are not differentiating between what the Bible teaches and what people do of their own accord. God does not call for people to be kneecapped for dating someone of a different denomination, people do that and other horrendous things for their own reasons not Gods. Yes I was lucky that I wasnt shunned etc when I gave up my faith but whatever the circumstances people DO have the choice to stay or leave. If they choose to 'stay' in a religion because it is easier to do that than face the consequences that is their choice. This type of choice is not limited to faith either, just this week there was a program about the miners strikes on the TV and there was a chap whose father hasnt spoken to him for however long it has been because he chose to cross the picket line. There was a lady in the Ukraine who was Russian married to a Ukrainian whose family have disowned her because she refused to leave him over what is going on over there right now. Familes fall out over football teams for trying out loud garston tony
  • Score: 0

9:48am Fri 14 Mar 14

Robin10 says...

If you would like to know any information about the school please visit our website or Facebook page.
http://www.saintjohn
swatfordschool.org.u
k/index.php
We now need parents to sign up to support the school. In the last 7 days another 25 parents have signed up chosing St John's Church of England School as first choice for their Children's Edcuation.
The School will teach science, including evolution, and have a strong focus on reading and writing. We are aiming to give children the best education we possibly can and improve the choice of schools available in Watford. Please support us if you can.
If you would like to know any information about the school please visit our website or Facebook page. http://www.saintjohn swatfordschool.org.u k/index.php We now need parents to sign up to support the school. In the last 7 days another 25 parents have signed up chosing St John's Church of England School as first choice for their Children's Edcuation. The School will teach science, including evolution, and have a strong focus on reading and writing. We are aiming to give children the best education we possibly can and improve the choice of schools available in Watford. Please support us if you can. Robin10
  • Score: 2

12:02am Sat 15 Mar 14

LSC says...

"I didnt get a chance to look further into the story yesterday but from what I did hear the scientiest were looking at elements they said came from 600km + down which indicated far greater quantities of water than is known to exist.

But of course, this doesnt fit your beliefs so you ignore this bit of science as it actually indicates that it could be possible for there to be enough water on this planet to flood it as per the Bible."

Tony, you aren't daft. We agree that some scientific facts are theory, some are provable fact.
Even if that much water existed underground (and I'm sceptical due to pressure and temperature issues with that) , VERY simple science, that you can witness at home, would show that transferring that amount of mass (ie water) from the core to the outer reaches would simply throw this planet into space.
It is very, very basic physics, not even 'science'. It can be proven in a front room, not even a lab.
The flood did not happen. It could not happen. I'm not sure what else to say except that people who still believe it should not be in charge of the education of children.
"I didnt get a chance to look further into the story yesterday but from what I did hear the scientiest were looking at elements they said came from 600km + down which indicated far greater quantities of water than is known to exist. But of course, this doesnt fit your beliefs so you ignore this bit of science as it actually indicates that it could be possible for there to be enough water on this planet to flood it as per the Bible." Tony, you aren't daft. We agree that some scientific facts are theory, some are provable fact. Even if that much water existed underground (and I'm sceptical due to pressure and temperature issues with that) , VERY simple science, that you can witness at home, would show that transferring that amount of mass (ie water) from the core to the outer reaches would simply throw this planet into space. It is very, very basic physics, not even 'science'. It can be proven in a front room, not even a lab. The flood did not happen. It could not happen. I'm not sure what else to say except that people who still believe it should not be in charge of the education of children. LSC
  • Score: 2

12:05am Sat 15 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?
LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine
And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically? You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting. Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told. Good without god; Education without fear.
And yet just today I was reading in the news that scientists, you know the people you worship, studying some volcano and what has come out of it in Brazil having discovered evidence of there being an amount of water deep deep in the earth than is thought to exist in all the oceans, rivers, not so deep reservoirs and systems etc. Its funny isnt it, science is a one way street for you. No evidence for big bang yet you say we dont know all about the earth and the universe so you dont discount it and indeed despite the total lack of evidence believe in it totally. But you dont see there being enough water to cover the earth and suddenly you forget the mantra 'we dont know all about the earth' and its suddenly ha ha youre wrong. Well actually you are, and science is once again supporting the Bible.
Tony... thats a volcano under the water, fairly common. About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. By your calculation the land (the other 30%) would have to hold, based on Igor Shiklomanov's estimate of global water distribution, at least 1 billion cubic miles of water to reach Mount Everest. Even if the wet areas between the crusts hold 'vast amounts of water' it would not be enough. This would be a increase of at least 5 times as much as we currently have. Simply not possible but i dont expect you to understand that. Maybe it was turned into wine they all drank it... would explain all the stories they wrote later! Maybe aliens stole it or maybe, just maybe it didnt happen at all...! I have an old battered King James bible given to me by my late grandfather, full of highlights, notations and bookmarks. The quotes are in print in front of me. So the burning in hell is not eternal, just a horrendous torture in fire that is everlasting, burning those that did not do as they were told. That's alright then. Im sure if you had an enema the rest of you would fit in a matchbox.
Interesting, so you cherry pick your scientific facts to do you?

I didnt get a chance to look further into the story yesterday but from what I did hear the scientiest were looking at elements they said came from 600km + down which indicated far greater quantities of water than is known to exist.

But of course, this doesnt fit your beliefs so you ignore this bit of science as it actually indicates that it could be possible for there to be enough water on this planet to flood it as per the Bible.

You are a bitter person arent you
Its still not enough to produce the flood. Not even close.
But when have facts ever been a hindrance to a bible story.
Actually, im more of a red wine person.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The school will teach key Christian values of loving one another, respect, sharing our resources and looking after each other. We want our Children to flourish and become lifelong learners, questioning the world around them." Those values have nothing to do with christianity specifically. I have them, and I'm not one. How do you explain that? Those values owe nothing to a god, a church, or the ickle baybee jeebus. Answer me this. How can your children question the world when you have already given them all the answers? What questions would you like them to ask? What don't we know that your book doesn't tell us?[/p][/quote]LSC I would point out AGAIN that having a faith does not preclude someone from 'questioning' the world around us. I'm truly sorry if anything i've said has been a direct insult aimed at you, however everytime you post something like the above you are directly insulting me and the many many Christians who are open minded and questioning. Maybe not all do that, but a vast proportion do. How many atheists do you know (who arent involved in science for instance as a job) study big bang/evolution regularly, often daily? I and many other Christians study what we believe on a regular basis, and i'm pretty confident based on a lot of the comments posted that i've also spent more time studying big bang/evolution than most of the anti religious lot too and I am not the only one. My faith actually encourages me to do this, so you really can shove your constant ignorant comments where the sun doesnt shine[/p][/quote]And yet you cannot see the impossibility of so much you claim happened in the bible as true. Noahs Ark and the Great flood? Really! Water over the whole world... not possible. Where did it all go? As a hydraulics engineer i would like to know? Maybe you could explain it to me scientifically? You may consider yourself open minded and in some ways you are but there are millions who are not as fortunate as you to live in a democracy in the modern age. Look at the counties like Iran and Pakistan to see how it was when the churches were in power and broke every tenet that were supposed to be protecting. Science it a 'work in progress'. In time it will answer more and more and may one day erase mankind's fear of the unknown. All the more reason not to delay this by teaching children nonsense about resurrections, hell and a big sky fairy that loves them only if they do what they are told. Good without god; Education without fear.[/p][/quote]And yet just today I was reading in the news that scientists, you know the people you worship, studying some volcano and what has come out of it in Brazil having discovered evidence of there being an amount of water deep deep in the earth than is thought to exist in all the oceans, rivers, not so deep reservoirs and systems etc. Its funny isnt it, science is a one way street for you. No evidence for big bang yet you say we dont know all about the earth and the universe so you dont discount it and indeed despite the total lack of evidence believe in it totally. But you dont see there being enough water to cover the earth and suddenly you forget the mantra 'we dont know all about the earth' and its suddenly ha ha youre wrong. Well actually you are, and science is once again supporting the Bible.[/p][/quote]Tony... thats a volcano under the water, fairly common. About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. By your calculation the land (the other 30%) would have to hold, based on Igor Shiklomanov's estimate of global water distribution, at least 1 billion cubic miles of water to reach Mount Everest. Even if the wet areas between the crusts hold 'vast amounts of water' it would not be enough. This would be a increase of at least 5 times as much as we currently have. Simply not possible but i dont expect you to understand that. Maybe it was turned into wine they all drank it... would explain all the stories they wrote later! Maybe aliens stole it or maybe, just maybe it didnt happen at all...! I have an old battered King James bible given to me by my late grandfather, full of highlights, notations and bookmarks. The quotes are in print in front of me. So the burning in hell is not eternal, just a horrendous torture in fire that is everlasting, burning those that did not do as they were told. That's alright then. Im sure if you had an enema the rest of you would fit in a matchbox.[/p][/quote]Interesting, so you cherry pick your scientific facts to do you? I didnt get a chance to look further into the story yesterday but from what I did hear the scientiest were looking at elements they said came from 600km + down which indicated far greater quantities of water than is known to exist. But of course, this doesnt fit your beliefs so you ignore this bit of science as it actually indicates that it could be possible for there to be enough water on this planet to flood it as per the Bible. You are a bitter person arent you[/p][/quote]Its still not enough to produce the flood. Not even close. But when have facts ever been a hindrance to a bible story. Actually, im more of a red wine person. Popeonarope
  • Score: 8

12:17am Sat 15 Mar 14

LSC says...

"God does not call for people to be kneecapped for dating someone of a different denomination, people do that and other horrendous things for their own reasons not Gods."

I think most gods say they should be put to death. Islam certainly does, and christian law seems to lean that way. Moses killed a few for not towing the line. God killed millions apparently. The flood, Soddom and Gamorah.
All for leaving the fold, something you say everyone has a right to do under your god. Until he kills them, that is.
"God does not call for people to be kneecapped for dating someone of a different denomination, people do that and other horrendous things for their own reasons not Gods." I think most gods say they should be put to death. Islam certainly does, and christian law seems to lean that way. Moses killed a few for not towing the line. God killed millions apparently. The flood, Soddom and Gamorah. All for leaving the fold, something you say everyone has a right to do under your god. Until he kills them, that is. LSC
  • Score: 1

1:58pm Thu 3 Apr 14

lutondown says...

I myself am irreligous but one thing for sure is Dowdle does not represent the view of the majority of people at all. Where is he when communtiy centres are built as disguise for a mosque?
until the demograhics change, and change they will, the C of E is the denomination of the country and people who are so ashamed of their country and full of self loathing should have no credance.
sad as it is Dowdle will make life as difficult for this motion, one day he will get his wish and the free society along with his idealist humanist movement will not be allowed
I myself am irreligous but one thing for sure is Dowdle does not represent the view of the majority of people at all. Where is he when communtiy centres are built as disguise for a mosque? until the demograhics change, and change they will, the C of E is the denomination of the country and people who are so ashamed of their country and full of self loathing should have no credance. sad as it is Dowdle will make life as difficult for this motion, one day he will get his wish and the free society along with his idealist humanist movement will not be allowed lutondown
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree