Religion
Related: About this forumWhat do our religions teach us that we don't learn otherwise?
I know religion is very important to millions and millions of people worldwide.
In the USA and most of Western Europe, the predominant religions are Christian, Jewish, or Islamic.
In other parts of the world, other religions or "systems of thought" (e.g.Buddhism) prevail.
My question is to those who have studied one or more religions, (so atheists might be included here): what does religion teach us that we cannot or do not learn in other ways?
Is the message of Jesus as savior an allegorical message? Is the message of Noah, or Adam and Eve, or Job, or other Judeao Christian messages only allegory? Do we gain something special from these teachings, or from other religious activities and customs, (e.g. keeping Christmas in Christmas), that we do not or will not ever get any other way?
What is the unique "gift being religious brings folks?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tama
(9,137 posts)rational answer to that question would require a rational and objective definition of religion, which does not exist - academic study of religions uses family-resemblance instead of clear definition, or studies generally world views.
Academic study of religions does agree that what is central to most religions is 'religious/spiritual experience', which most consider ineffable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffability
Would you be interested in reframing your question to "what does religious/spiritual experience teach us that we cannot or do not learn in other ways?"
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)I think I meant approximately what you stated. "what we cannot and do not learn in other ways".
In fact, I asked that in the one of the paragraphs.
tama
(9,137 posts)had links to blog with good discussion on the subject from scientific point of view.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)see whatever evidence is out there, but a "scientific point of view" is a pretty broad area.
Can you be specific to the topic of this thread?
tama
(9,137 posts)"Scientific point of view" is here mainly theoretical/hypothetical/speculative explanations for phenomena that are supported by some evidence:
"# It is not necessary to assume that the right amygdala is specialized to produce negatively colored motions and left amygdala positive emotions. Same applies also to the proposed roles of right and left hippocampi. In fact, according to Wikipedia article about lateralization of brain function depression is linked with hyperactive right hemisphere and selective involvement in "processing negative emotions, pessimistic thoughts and unconstructive thinking styles". A relatively hypoactive left hemisphere is said to be "specifically involved in processing pleasurable experiences" and "relatively more involved in decision-making processes". One can interpret this in many manners. The hyper-activity of right hemisphere could tend to cut its connection with its magnetic body and cause a depressive mood.
Intense nerve pulse activity could cause this if nerve pulse generation breaks coherence of the EEG oscillation due to the oscillating membrane potentials inducing generation of signals to the magnetic body. The reduced neural activity of left hemisphere would mean a better connection to the magnetic flux tube and positive emotional coloring.
# Note that this picture conforms with spiritual practices which teach that the manner to achieve piece of mind and bliss is to stop thinking, which indeed means reduce neural activity and more stable connection to the magnetic body. If one takes this conceptualization seriously, one could conclude that the modern hectic society tends to split the connections to the personal magnetic bodies. Since they represent higher levels in the hierarchy of conscious entities, this would lead to a loss of spirituality and also social regression if magnetic bodies are responsible for social structures and cultural evolution.
# For about 26 years ago I had also a long-lasting "enlightment" experience - actually two of them. The general structure of these experiences fits with thde proposed general format. The first experience began with the experience of getting in contact with what I spontaneously called Great Mind. I started to make all kinds of questions which I imagined of writing to a monitor that I saw in front of me. Later I realized that the writing was not necessary. I also understood that our communication was severaly estricted by the fact that my language did not yet have words for to express the messages of this Great Mind so that the messages contained a lot of "blancos".
I had an experience of profound understanding but did not know what I understood. I also felt that everything around me has extremely deep meaning. One of the first questions I did was "How long I will live?". From the humorous reply expressed as an endless rapid running of a counter containing a long sequence of digits I understood that there is no death. I also asked "Am I alone in this Universe?". The reply was enigmatic "You are a God!".
Later it somehow became clear that this God like entity was actually in some sense me. A possible interpretation could be that a new higher layer to the hierarchy of layers of my personal magnetic body had emerged as this God like creature became a part of my personal magnetic body. Much later I realized that this paradoxical realization was the analog for Brahman=Atman identity of Eastern philosophies. "
"Magnetic body" is prediction of Matti's theory, something to do with the idea of number theoretically scalable hbar - which is pretty fundamental and revolutionary idea that can solve many hard problems of theoretical physics.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Starting with the most OUTRAGEOUS claims about what science is:
"Scientific point of view" is here mainly theoretical/hypothetical/speculative explanations for phenomena that are supported by some evidence"
.... SOME EVIDENCE? If evidence doesn't fit any theory, in a "scientific point of view", it is soundly REJECTED!
And then you conclude with the most pseudo-scientific "point of view"
"Magnetic body" is prediction of Matti's theory, something to do with the idea of number theoretically scalable hbar - which is pretty fundamental and revolutionary idea that can solve many hard problems of theoretical physics."
Which, of course, has not much evidence, but you are SO WILLING to conclude: "which is pretty fundamental and revolutionary idea that can solve many hard problems"
NOT UNTIL it does, and not without any evidence. But that doesn't seem to bother you from postulating, " is pretty fundamental and revolutionary idea that can solve many hard problems"
It is NOT pretty "fundamental" it is an hypothesis, at best, unsupported, so far, from any mass of evidence, just one non-peer reviewed experiment. Do you grasp and adhere to a solid rational idea about how peer review in science works, or do you just cling to the latest fad in hypothesizing as long as it supports your religious views?
I'm not at all sure how your entire post talks about how religion has "taught" us anything we cannot learn otherwise. Care to go there? That is the original question.
tama
(9,137 posts)is nothing but problems with reading comprehension, so it needs no further comment.
Your second point fails to see what was meant by "hard problems": theoretical problems that are based on current evidence and unexplained anomalies, such as Great Unificatory Theory to unify quantum theory with general relativity, to explaining particle masses and nuclear physics, and especially in that field Matti's idea about scalable hbar (together with many other ground braking ideas) has produced predictions that are much better in tune with evidence from LHC than other models. Magnetic body is just another prediction based on those ideas, central in Matti's TOE that includes also theory of consciousness.
That is the nature of scientific progress, theoreticians theorize models to explain existing evidence and theoretical problems related to that, and during that process also develop new predictions to be tested, as you should know, producing theories that are correct until proven wrong. BTW the "worst" criticism against theories: "Not even wrong", comes originally from Wolfgang Pauli, a religious/spiritual physicist you maybe would also like to call "woo crackpot" or something like that, because of his interest Jungian synchronity etc.
***
But all of that is besides the point and the topic of this thread. The point was that Matti mentions his own spiritual experiences, which are "ineffable" in the way of receiving more than lifetime of information in a short period of time, more than can be communicated in words and currently known math. He mentions them because his theory is largely product of those experiences, spending a lifetime to communicate his experiences in the language of theoretical physics and mathematics, at most advanced level. That is actually quite common, great mathematicians in their most creative state often go through something that can be called a mathematician's "psychosis", opening of mind to new information and levels of order, to be communicated in abstract language of math. I've mentioned LSD's role in DNA, etc. etc. etc. One could go as far as saying that religious/spiritual experiences, that are also called 'inspiration', 'intuition' etc., are the very source of all genuine creativity, going back to shamanistic roots of all art, science and religion. Of course hard work plays equally important role, but that was not your question.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)postulate "another way of knowing" that ONLY religions could give us.
PERHAPS religion has advanced ideas like snakes talking, or the possibility of a birth to a woman without regular conception, but in the end:
Even your post states "Of course hard work plays equally important role"
So religion itself has taught us "NOT ONE THING"!
thought you were seriously curious and entertaining an open mind, with this round of the same question, when I asked is it OK to talk about the experience, not the institution.
From my point of view, religious institutions are just like all other institutions, they become their own highest purposes. No need to beat that dead horse, at least with me. 
IF you are interested in the experience - call it "other way of knowing" all you want - that academic study of religions, "neurotheology" etc. all agree that is at the core of religions, but of course not being limited to "religions" only. I pointed out that the "ineffable" experience by various names and degrees is also behind truly creative scientific discoveries etc. Each experience is of course unique, but at least at most profound levels there is also some sense of deeper unity.
As for the "hard work" statement, that also being required when turning the experience into work of art, scientific theory etc., does not take anything away of the equal importance of the non sine qua ineffable experience.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Why does it have to be unique?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)That seems like it is pretty unique. Thats my opinion, anyway. Everyone is entitled to theirs.
rug
(82,333 posts)Wouldn't you agree?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Wouldn't you agree?
rug
(82,333 posts)Tolerance is quite subjective.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Subjective. It's like a get out of jail free card.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)a justification for their hypocrisy.
Why is there an image of Newt Gingrich coming into my brain?
tama
(9,137 posts)in other ways openly religious/spiritual persons face also "higher" social expectations of obligations to live up to their faith, about being "real" and not just pretending, in matters of genuine compassion etc.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)if you are caught doing something bad, all you have to do is ask for forgiveness. and all will be well. In addition, I find that it encourages, not compassion, but condescension, even in the most charitable acts, many Christian charities have strings attached to them, or are discriminatory(Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, etc.)
tama
(9,137 posts)do not exclude each other, just add to the variety of life.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)or did you misread the OP?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Different Christians have different tenets.
Some people's Christianity is so different from other people's Christianity that it seems like two different religions.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus do not. The man taught tolerance. Period. The fact that "Christianity" has been co-opted by hate groups and right wing bigots is no different, imo, to Hitler or Stalin hiding behind the word socialism or militant atheists who think atheism is about embracing bigotry and mocking those of faith.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)He said men are the head of women. Christ was also intolerant of the money changers in the temples.
He did teach tolerance toward people like Hitler and Stalin.
The fact that "Christianity" has been co-opted by hate groups and right wing bigots is no different, imo, to Hitler or Stalin hiding behind the word socialism or militant atheists who think atheism is about embracing bigotry and mocking those of faith.
Jokes about religion are just as bad as Hitler? How silly.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are examples here of both how he improved the status of women and how he continued the status quo.
Jesus' radical treatment of women:
Christ overthrew many centuries of Jewish law and custom. He consistently treated women and men as equals. He violated numerous Old Testament regulations, which specified gender inequality. He refused to follow the behavioral rules established by the three main Jewish religious groups of the day: the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees. "The actions of Jesus of Nazareth towards women were therefore revolutionary."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)and region he is associated with.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Christ means Messiah. I don't see Jesus as a Messiah, son of god, because I don't believe in a god. You can pick and choose what you want to believe about what has been written about Jesus.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)but I don't think anything is holy. I do it because I believe using the language of my debate opponents will help keep the focus on the issue at hand. I used to use phrases like "sky daddy," but that just detracted from any real point I was trying to make.
Similarly, phrases like "militant atheist" detract from a message of tolerance.
Disclaimer: I don't use the phrases of my debate opponents if they are using nasty slurs.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I feel neither the need to insult them with terms like Sky Daddy, nor do I feel the need to cater to them by adopting adjectives that I would never use. Referring to Jesus by name and not by title does nothing to detract from the debate. Calling the the bible holy is using a descriptor I would feel hypocritical about. And rampant hypocrisy was what turned me off religion in the first place. I think Jesus felt the same way. Phrases like "militant atheists" are used to describe extremists who attack and deride believers at each and every opportunity. You must have noticed that they lurk around here.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)don't actually have, so don't feel using words like "holy" or "Christ" are hypocritical for me. I disbelieve in more things than the average skeptic, so I would have to use quotes, qualifiers, disclaimers, etc. often if I used your approach.
Using the phrase "militant atheist" compares atheists who make jokes to other types of militants, who actually kill people; e.g., militant Christians who blow up abortion clinics and militant Muslims who perform honor killings. The rhetoric is over the top. It equates jokes to actual death and destruction.
If a Muslim made jokes about atheism, but was peaceful, we would not call that Muslim a militant or an extremest.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Let's clarify what militant means, though I suspect you already know.
mil·i·tant
adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting
I would equate definition #1 with making "jokes" at the expense of religious believers. It is as bigoted as Pat Robertson's comments about Haiti's pact with the Devil.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)If you can't tell the difference, then that's your problem.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)How about those who mock the opinions of the NRA?
Is making fun of homeopathy or astrology bigotry?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Synonyms: dogmatism, illiberalism, illiberality, illiberalness, intolerance, intolerantness, narrow-mindedness, opinionatedness, partisanship, sectarianism, small-mindedness
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and/or sexual orientation, age, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I am asking for your opinion.
You think people who make jokes about religion are bigots, like Hitler and Stalin. Do you extend the same to jokes about political ideas? Both religious ideas and political ideas are deeply held, and are generally a part of one's identity.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Being intolerant of the idea or belief itself is not the same. Making fun of an idea or belief is not bigotry. Demeaning and ridiculing people for their spiritual or religious beliefs or trying to exclude them from common causes based on their religious affiliation is bigotry.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Please cite where Jesus said men are the head of women.
And where did Jesus teach tolerance toward people like Hitler and Stalin?
The rest of the post is not understandable. Can you rephrase it?.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)1 Corinthians 11:2-16
[font color=maroon]2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. [/font]
Matthew 5:43-48
[font color=maroon]43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
[/font]
The bold part of my reply was a quote from the post I was replying to, followed by a judgement of the quote. I should use the box quote, but I always forget the code, so I often use bold.
I am surprised you are not familiar with these passages, especially "love your enemies."
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Not a very tolerant attitude, is it?
tama
(9,137 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)they seem to make up rather important monumental quotes that formed a backbone of many Christian faiths for many many hundreds of years.
Or is this part of the Chinese menu Christianity, where one gets to accept or reject whatever one wants from the Bible?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Where does that come from?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)or equally out of the mouths of atheists. All depends on your agenda. I remember something about "let him without sin cast the first stone" and "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" and "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". What you choose to harvest is up to you. I don't claim these ideas as being originally christian, but so what, that's how they came to me and I like them. The stuff I don't like I delete. But I don't go around telling others what to delete or believe like a fucking bible thumper or intolerant atheist.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)The difference is I take nothing on faith, yet you have faith in the Bible, yet still cherrypick from it. I'm at least internally consistant, can you say the same?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I also take nothing on faith. That doesn't mean that certain parables from a book I read as a kid didn't have value and stick, in spite of my rejecting much religious drivel. I don't dwell on the negative crap, but I treasure the few nuggets I found. Feel free to wallow in the shite. It's your choice. Just refrain from slinging it my way. Most atheists are not intolerant bigots. We are decent, tolerant people who share most of the same values as people of faith.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I embrace good ideas and reject bad ones. And with particularly bad ideas, I make fun or oppose those ideas.
On edit: Tolerance should only apply towards people, not ideas or beliefs.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I may not tolerate certain beliefs, but I can still be tolerant of the holder of such beliefs. Nor need I tolerate him if his behavior displays intolerance of entire groups of people based on their faith, rather than their actions.
I think what makes many atheists angry is that they think all those of faith are responsible, in some way, for the death and destruction wrought on humanity in the name of various gods and religious sects. That is where the bigotry, or narrow mindedness comes into play.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)What kind of "tolerance" is that?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)When an honor killing occurs, I blame Islam for perpetuating a cultural practice that has no place in modern society, that is simply horrific.
When people throw stones at children for "not dressing modestly" according to their Ultra-Orthodox Jewish faith, I blame that faith for putting that idea in their heads.
When someone beats their own child to death based on Biblical precepts, I blame Christianity for putting that bloody book on a pedestal.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)I don't blame their religion, I blame the guys that do it.
Sorry, folks, there has to be a line in the sand... beat your kids for a god, or fly planes into buildings for a god, no way those people get a pass.
Religions like that have become too too powerful, and too too evil, and need to be challenged, as do those that follow such inhumane ways of thinking.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)are in no way from Jesus, but from the Johannine community much later.
Eliminator
(190 posts)Find me a single major religion that tolerates gay people.
I thought so.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)New Religious Movement, neo-Pagans, New Agers of various stripes, Wicca and many reconstructionist religions, and a few sects that adopt many of the beliefs of the above that are affiliated with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And help those in need. Good Samaritan was a big one for me.
Eliminator
(190 posts)There is not a single thing you can learn from religion that you can't learn without religion. In fact, I would argue that religion is more of an "anti learning" tool, where people are taught to believe in falsehoods, and to not question those beliefs. In other words, to NOT learn about the world around them.
Religion is used as a weapon. It is the way kings and queens over the centuries have kept the population under control. It is the way owners of giant corporations keep people under control today. It's how Saudi Arabia and Iran run things, it's how George W. Bush convinced millions to start a war.
It's a tool for wealthy to keep owning their property, and it has to go. Yesterday.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)broadside against atheism, we would never hear the end of it.
But many of us on the believers list also believe atheism is a legitimate perspective, and have respect both for the notion and those who hold it.
The above post makes all rational discussion impossible.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)stop "all rational discussion", of a topic just because of the expression of an opinion of one single poster in a single post.
I ask: is THAT "What our religions teach us that we don't learn otherwise?"
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)for you to tolerate? Your firm and lifelong religious beliefs cannot withstand such an outright insult? You must close down dialog because you, yourself, found it offensive?
Logic and beliefs of others are worth discussing only when you yourself do not take offense to those remarks? When you chose to be offended, YOU decide it's time to stop talking?
Eliminator
(190 posts)You can't make that case on atheism, because atheism doesn't make claims that are verifiably false. Atheism doesn't demand people not question their beliefs. Atheism isn't used to convince 19 people to fly airplanes into buildings in the name of a deity. Atheism isn't taking evolution out of school textbooks. Atheism isn't keeping gay and lesbian couples from exercising their full rights. Atheism isn't making it against the law for women to drive.
If the truth is painful, so be it. It's the truth. Rick Santorum just came 8 votes away from winning the Iowa Caucus. The fact that so many people can vote for a homophobic bigot such as him should scare you. And it probably does. But will you deny that religion allows a politician like him to come so close to a win? Have we forgotten so quickly how George W. Bush got elected?
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)"broadside" accusations about atheism: the it created Communism, that it created Nazism, that it was responsible for the greatest number of deaths of human beings in all of history, that it turned children into criminals, drug addicts, etc. etc. etc. and on and on and on.
None of them are true, for sure, but I've seen them all over the world, all over religious websites, and even here in the religion forums of DU. That didn't stop folks who are atheists or agnostics from continuing to ask questions about religions, in an effort to gain insight into how other people think.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You want to eliminate all religion because tyrants have used religion to manipulate the masses. Do you want to eliminate all weapons? Political ideas have been used in the same way - China, USSR, North Korea.
Fear is used as a weapon and some use religion to compensate for their fear. Some carry non-religious beliefs. Some carry guns.
Religion and guns, for many, are only tools that aid in dispelling fear.
I would be interested to know which Kings and Queens you are referring to.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They superficially appear to be asking a question about which one might be curious. They are often followed up by statements by the OP that they are "sincerely interested" or "genuinely curious" and have done this to "effort to gain insight into how other people think."
But further replies seem to indicate that their primary purpose is to pull people in to attack or ridicule anything they might have to say that runs counter to the firmly held beliefs of the initial poster. When I say beliefs, btw, I am referring to statements such as this:
"So religion itself has taught us "NOT ONE THING"!"
How does this lead to any kind of civil discourse about the question being posed?
behind that behavior mechanism may be genuine interest and curiosity, perhaps only subconscious such, in "religious/spiritual experience" or what ever you call it.
Also, when there is lot of anger about something, what ever, it's better to get it out of your system than keep it in and let it fester. Strong negative emotions can also be great source of creativity,
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have also been interested in the anger. Although I have some sense of where it might come from and acknowledge that many groups and individuals have been harmed by organized religions, I can not be sure of that as it applies to some of our members.
I was particularly unaware of the intolerance and prejudice shown towards atheists or agnostics, but have learned much more about that here.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)in Catholic school. Always the cynic, I answered, "Sure, the importance of rank hypocrisy in getting along in life."
After she picked her lower jaw up off the floor, she stammered something about how I'd managed to learn the most important lesson of all so it wasn't a total disaster.
I should explain I'd stomped off in disgust at the ripe old age of 10, so the question had been a long time coming.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Most catholic schools have a good scholastic record. Doesn't really have much to do with their faith.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Parochial School of Religion, the classes those of us not in a Catholic school took as "Sunday school", but it usually was on Wednesdays or Thursdays. When we got older(closing in on Confirmation), instead of a basic class, we studied current issues with the Church, such as abortion, and we took sides and debated them. It was my first real taste of debate and thinking of issues in different ways. Of course, I then extended this type of thinking to the religion itself and that's how I became an atheist.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Fortunately, I didn't have to suffer such torture. My C of E vicar was one of the coolest guys I've ever known. It was a congregation that opposed his liberal views, and a driver's license, that steered me away from the church.