Raising hands in worship
I see that some of us are comfortable raising our hands in worship and some are not. And clearly there are personality differences. My mom loves the Lord a lot! More than me, I know. And yet she doesn’t raise her hands in worship. That’s partly personality and also partly physical and other ailments. My mom hasn’t felt good in a long time. Her manners of expression in worship are usually putting her fingers in her ears [if the music is too loud, which happens rather frequently], crossing her arms [if she’s angry], and crying [if she’s really touched by the music or sermon or altar service].
I used to be so scared to raise my hands in service. I always wondered what people would think of me, but as I grew in the Lord I finally said it didn't matter what people thought because it was just me and God. I used to be super uncomfortable, but I realized who I am in Christ and eventually I could do it through Christ. . . . I'm not saying they have to be jumping around and going crazy, but even just intimate time with Jesus, they're missing. I can see where some stuff might be intimidating to people. However I don't think that is an excuse to, as you say, sit there and be sour and gloomy. Worship is a time for honoring and loving on the Lord. It shouldn't be seen as a chore or something that's boring.
Personally, I'm the type that likes to dance. I'm not up and wild simply because I also run the powerpoint slide for the worship songs, but usually can't simply stand still during worship. Being in a state of worship makes me bubbly and I have to move because it is exciting to me.
For raising hands in public, I don't really do it often unless the band is playing a song that tugs at me especially and I raise my hand because I want to. Otherwise, I'll just express my love to God in a different way.
Like smartypants, I used to care what others thought somewhat. I didn’t raise my hands in worship that much, if ever. But the last few years have been really different! My inhibitions are going away. I don’t care what others think so much anymore. Is it a status thing? Of course not. I heard the Prestonwood Singers in person a few weeks ago, and when they sang “Lord, You’re Holy” and “I Am” I couldn’t help myself! I raised my hands and jumped out of my seat and sang at the top of my lungs! [Thank God no one heard me cause I was lip-synching. lol] At the same time, like Aslan I don’t raise my hands during every song, just the ones that really move me spiritually and make me see how awesome Jesus is. Unlike Fencer, I’m not the kind of person who dances. I never was. But a good friend of mine named Josh is. He’s 18 and loves to dance in the altars … and parking lots … and stores – all to Christian music! He’s sold out to Jesus. He eats and drinks Jesus 24/7. He cares nothing for the things of this world. He doesn’t watch TV or movies. He lays hands on people in front of Target and Jesus heals them. He’s a Jesus freak and he’s great.
@Fencer: like you, I need to learn to sit still in Jesus’ presence, i.e. Psalm 46:10, Luke 10:39-42. I want to be like Mary, not Martha! The devil will do anything to keep me from praying. Check out this book called "Secrets of the Secret Place."
I for one am not at all comfortable with lifting my hands, or anything of the sort. If I was forced to do it I'd just feel really really silly and out of place. I don't see any reason why other people shouldn't do it, as long as they want to, I just don't like to. Just because I'm not closing my eyes/ shouting amen/raising my hands/dancing or whatever doesn't mean I don't have the same feelings... inside.
So if there's anything to be concerned about, I'd be more concerned about how we appear to the world we're trying to witness to. Whether it's the noisy dancer or the silent starer, we're called to be Fools for Christ, not Weirdos for Christ.
Personality is one thing. However, caring what others think is another. And that’s an inhibition. I’m not convinced it’s a good one either. We need to examine our hearts and ask ourselves, do we care more about what others think or about what Jesus thinks? Whom do we try to please? I don’t care how I appear to the world. I’m not here to please the world. I’m here to please Jesus. And if that means being a weirdo for Christ, then so be it! Jesus died for us in a public spectacle; we can’t raise our hands and voices in praise? The Son of God, Light of the world, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the great I AM, the most wonderful and holy being in the universe … came to this earth as a human being, made Himself a servant, and as the Lamb of God died a horrible death on a cross reserved for the wicked – so us wretched sinners deserving of hell can have eternal life and be like Jesus and go to heaven! That doesn’t produce passion in us? Why do we love God so little?! Jesus paid much too high a price for us! We don’t love and thank and praise Him enough! Everywhere I turn, I see people who want more passion for Jesus, not less. But those people are so few! Most are asleep spiritually! Passion for Jesus conference in Kansas City Thursday-Saturday [International House of Prayer = 24/7 prayer and praise!]: “Prophets, pastors, evangelists are everywhere. Where are the Nazarites?” – those consecrated and sold out to and consumed by Jesus? I want to be a Nazarite! [Numbers 6, Judges 13:20, 1 Kings 18:38, Psalm 104:4, Romans 12:1, Ephesians 5:2]
What do you eat and drink all day? Jesus Christ and the Word … or the world, sin, and self? What produces passion in you? Because we all have passion for someone or something. That’s how we’re designed. Our passion should be for Jesus Christ and lost souls. If it isn’t, we need to examine our hearts. God has great passion for us! You want evidence? The cross! So why can’t we give all of ourselves to God? Why the inhibitions? Why do other things and people produce passion in us that should be reserved for Jesus Christ, our Creator and Redeemer? Have we really understood and received with our whole beings what Jesus has done for us? We need to sit in Jesus’ presence. We need to stand in awe of Him. We need to glorify Christ with our whole being. That’s why we’re here!
Inhibitions in worship, prayer, service…
-rebellion
-pride
-sin
-worldliness
-pleasure [instead of pain, sacrifice]
-caring what others think
… we want to please others and ourselves instead of God!
Do you want passion in worship? Do you want inhibitions to disappear? Then seek the baptism and fullness of the Holy Spirit. You know how people act when they’re drunk on alcoholic beverages? It’s the same with the Spirit! He’s like new wine in our hearts and souls! When the apostles received the Spirit in Acts, the mockers said they were full of new wine [2]. Peter was bold on the day of Pentecost! We should be too! We’re called not to be drunk with wine but to be filled with the Spirit [Ephesians 5]. Last days = Pentecost or holocaust! [Thank you, Ergun Caner.] In the Spirit, now, and in heaven, later, all inhibitions will disappear! We will truly worship God the way we were designed!
Bethany College of Missions [BCOM] ... this is Acts Christianity. This is normal! International House of Prayer [IHOP] ... this is Acts Christianity. This is normal! Guess what? I want to be like my friend Josh and BCOM and IHOP. I want normal Christianity. I want Acts!
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Verses:
Song of Solomon 1:4: Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.
2:3-5: As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love. Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love.
8:6-7: Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love [is] strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned.
Matthew 24:12-13: And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Luke 7:47: Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
1 John 2:15-17: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Revelation 2:4-5: Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
3:15-16, 19: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. ... As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Songs:
You won’t relent
You won't relent until You have it all
My heart is Yours
I set You as a seal upon my heart
As a seal upon my arm
For there is love that is as strong as death
Jealousy demanding as the grave
And many waters cannot quench this love
Come be the fire inside of me
Come be the flame upon my heart
Come be the fire inside of me
Until You and I are one [Song of Solomon 8:6-7]
Oh How He loves us
He is jealous for me,
Loves like a hurricane, I am a tree,
Bending beneath the weight of his wind and mercy.
When all of a sudden,
I am unaware of these afflictions eclipsed by glory,
And I realise just how beautiful You are,
And how great Your affections are for me.
And oh, how He loves us so,
Oh how He loves us,
How He loves us all
Yeah, He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves.
Yeah, He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves.
We are His portion and He is our prize,
Drawn to redemption by the grace in His eyes,
If grace is an ocean, we’re all sinking.
So Heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss,
And my heart turns violently inside of my chest,
I don’t have time to maintain these regrets,
When I think about, the way…
He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves us,
Oh how He loves.
Yeah, He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves us,
Whoa! how He loves
Great is He / He is wonderful
Great is He
Who's the King of Kings
And the Lord of Lords
He is wonderful! [repeat]
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
He is wonderful! [girls only]
Hallelujah
Salvation and glory
Honor and power
He is wonderful! [guys only]
Too high a price
Your love endured the cross
Despising all the shame
That afternoon when midnight fell
Your suffering cleared my name
And that sin-swept hill became
The open door to paradise
The cost was great yet you paid the price
You paid much too high a price for me
In tears and blood and pain
To have my soul just stirred at times
Yet never truly change
You deserve a fiery love
That won't ignore your sacrifice
Because you paid much too high a price
You grace inspires my heart
To rise above the sin
Of all the earthly vanity
That seeks to draw me in
Then to tell a jaded world of love
That truly saved a life
A love that paid
Much too high a price
Consume me
Consume Me Oh Lord, My God
Consume Me Oh Lord, My God
For your ways are better than my ways
And your thoughts much higher than mine
And the light you give is much stronger
Than anything that I hold on to
Anything I leave behind
Consume Me Oh Lord, My God
Consume Me Oh Lord, My God
To understand is better than silver
And your wisdom much finer than gold
And the light you give is far brighter
Than any darkness that surrounds me
Than anything that might take hold
Consume Me Oh Lord, My God
Consume Me Oh Lord, My God
Let me dwell within your presence
Let me know your ways
Let me learn to let go of my will
Let me drown in the river that is flowing from your heart
Oh Lord, My God,
Consume Me, Oh Lord, My God
Consume Me, Oh Lord, My God
Consume Me, Oh Lord, My God
Holy Fire burn my heart
Leave behind your precious gold
Holy Fire burn my heart
Leave behind your precious gold
Consume Me Oh Lord, My God
Consume Me Oh Lord, My God
Consume Me Oh Lord, My God
Books: Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist – John Piper [click here for his blog], Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God – Francis Chan, Fan the Flame: Living out your first love for Christ – Joseph Stowell, Passion for Jesus – Mike Bickle, The Seven Longings of the Human Heart -- Mike Bickle
April Fool’s Day
Okay, I know most of you are gonna disagree with me. But still, consider the following. In the old days [ancient Israel and 50-100 years ago], your word was your bond – which is one reason why people didn’t play many practical jokes ... or tell untrue stories to deceive. When they did, their intent was malicious, not playful, even when they were on the Lord’s side. Remember Rebekah [Genesis 31] and Rahab [Joshua 2] and Jael [Judges 4] and Delilah [Judges 16]? My point: there is power in the name of Jesus, power in the written and spoken Word of God. God’s Word is HIS bond. He doesn’t play practical jokes. He doesn’t deceive. He doesn’t lie. Should we? We’re so attuned to the world and conformed to it that we can’t see the world for what it is: corrupt. Maybe we need to put on our Bible glasses... I’ve decided I’m not interested in April Fool’s Day anymore, and I don’t plan to participate. You can do what you want—as God leads you.
I do make room for nitpicking when people say that “we are brides of Christ.” The Church is Christ’s bride; I am not Christ’s bride.
Redemption is personal. Jesus drank MY cup – the cup of God’s wrath for MY sins. What about Song of Solomon? It’s clearly allegorical. And it’s a marriage between two people. It’s personal. What about the 5 wise virgins and the 5 foolish ones in Matthew 25? These are individual people marrying Christ. Yes, the Church is the Bride. But it's made up of redeemed people. I am the Bride of Christ too.
There's something much worse than a well-used, falling apart respectfully graffiti-ed Bible; a dusty rarely/never read Bible.
Agreed! My Bible is heavily written in; I've personalized it. I gotta make notes somewhere! I don't want my Bible to be so sacred that I don't write in it. Doing so is not disrespect. I understand my notes; it's not a distraction. I have a list of common words and phrases in the front and back flaps of my Bible, that I've researched. So all I do is find the word or phrase, go to the page number, and there are all the references, with the meaning of the word in Greek or Hebrew. A Bible is not a flag. Bad comparison.
RE: creation / evolution / theistic evolution / natural selection ... I think ya'll know where I stand. Just check out the creation/evolution thread in my old Narnia prayer group. [It's not mine anymore ... I handed it over to others so I could concentrate on Jesus. ]
(edited ... to add Bible verses)
Creationists who believe in Natural Selection merely believe in something they call Micro-Evolution. Yet in Evolutionary Theory the distinction between micro and macro Evolution is false, they are one and the same process.
Evolutionary Theory is built on the foundation of Natural Selection: small changes over time add up to speciation in the long term when populations are isolated from each other through migration or environmental changes. Though Gould has famously promoted the idea that rapid environmental changes can produce rapid speciation (10s of thousands of years vs 100s of thousands ).
Evolution does include other factors such as the introduction of Mutations (if beneficially adaptive the creature survives and passes on the altered gene, if not it dies and the altered gene with it). But it is at the core a theory of Natural Selection.
Good Doctor, I note that you implied Creationists "invented" Natural Selection. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that some Christians support Natural Selection on a very limited basis. Some Christians support Guided Evolution. And some Christians also accept the full blown theory of Evolution. And some Christians will deny any form of Evolution or Natural Selection.
Then there are those that believe Evolution occurs but that God is the "mechanism" of Change rather than Natural Selection (not precisely the same as Guided Evolution which posits that Natural selection occurs but God "tweaks" the process to attain the outcome God desires).
Of course none of the above precludes that many Evolutionary scientists were, and are, Christians, including some of the other developers of various theories of Natural Selection in the 19th century.
And as I have always stated: Creationism as metaphor is not incompatible with Evolution. And Miraculous Creationism as literally described in Genesis can never be disproved by Science . But neither can it be proved by Science and is thus not a scientific explanation
.
On the topic of "defacing the Bible", I plead guilty . But having more than one Bible handy I can mark up the study edition and leave the rest unmutilated.
GB
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" -- Carl Sagan
Shadowlander and FencerforJesus, I didn't intend to get into an argument about Evolution at all with you, or the Doc, apart from Doc's assertion that it was Creationists who 'invented' natural selection, a driver of Evolution, which to my mind actually contradicts what he has to say about Evolution.
What I intended to comment about as regards ILF's post, was Doc's reply to her as follows:
References to fantastic British sci-fi programmes aside, what you seem to have just done is the very same thing, Fauns. That is, you opposed people of two different religious views with your religious view, which says: people shouldn’t do that. Well, why not? I’m not necessarily agreeing that the Christian guy did everything right, but it’s also not right (I can show this from the Bible, God’s Word) to claim both of them were all wrong and that “people shouldn’t let religions come between them.” Is that your religion?
I was merely pointing out that the Public Instruction Act of 1880 and its successors, require children under the age of 15 to attend school compulsorily, including ILF and her arguing fellow classmates, that this situation applies, to my knowledge, not only in NSW but in all the other states of Australia. To my knowledge and belief, English, Maths and Science are required subjects elsewhere in Oz, not only in NSW, and that Evolution is a core unit of the Science curriculum, which students need to complete if they are going to pass their final examinations, even if the schools they attend are alternative religious schools and not public ones.
If parents have a problem with this they can and should take it up with the authorities, who won't shoot them, since we don't have Capital punishment in Oz. Meanwhile, ILF has every right to complain about boys disrupting her class, regardless of how and why they are doing it. As ILF was saying, conflicting religious beliefs are not a good reason for disrupting classes. At the end of the day, if ILF and friends complete their lessons and pay attention to the teacher, they will have a competent knowledge of whatever it is they believe or do not believe about Evolution. Which they can discuss on boards like this one, or in essays as Gandalf's Beard suggests.
This, according to DFAT, is the Government attitude to religion, according to the Australian Constitution. So ILF is right again about people arguing about religion, in class in a public school of all places. And ILF's personal beliefs about religion don't enter into the argument at all, contrary to what the good Doc says. Especially if the class is not at that time, Religion, or even Comparative Religion, a compulsory 1 unit HSC subject in Catholic and probably other religious schools, including Islamic and Jewish ones. That is to ensure that if people argue about religion at least they, too, will have a competent knowledge of whatever they choose to believe or not believe.
And finally 'Separation of Church and State' is found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson as he tried to explain the 1st Amendment. It was taken completely out of context as the Admendment clearly states the governemnt is to stay out of church affairs but says nothing about the church staying out of state affairs.
I'm sure whatever Thomas Jefferson has to say about the 1st Amendment is very interesting and relevant to you. But over here in Australia, where ILF, W4J, myself and other NarniaWebbers live, it is the Australian Constitution and the views of our own founding fathers which are more relevant. Including especially the views of Sir Henry Parkes, five times Premier of New South Wales, who wanted universal and free education, who did much to establish it, and who is considered the Father of Australian Federation. When you look at everything you can about his original NSW 1867 Public Schools Act, it does stop Churches from interfering too much in State Affairs, including Education.
In short, I am answering the Doc's question: why not.
I certainly understand the basis behind the occasional marking of certain verses, but by the same token I tend to look at it as defacing the Bible a little bit too...what are you thoughts on this?
While the Bible is the Word of God, its paper body is not in any way superior to the paper body of any other book. It's just paper and ink--nothing sacred. The message is sacred, regardless of whether it's presented in traditional codex form, or on Kindle, or read aloud on a CD or MP3 or whatever.
We must always respect the Word--if the 'grafitti' is made out of disrespect, there's a problem. But as long as the excessive note-taking is done without malice to the message I can't see any harm in it.
But while I don't look down note-taking, I must confess that I cringe at the thought of writing in a book. Tim Challies recommends marking up every book you want to learn from, but I've never been able to bring myself to do it.
I'm an unashamed marker of books This goes for the Bible and everything else I read. I don't make notes, I just underline/highlight stuff. In smaller books I tend to just make a list at the front somewhere of relevant pages but with a book the size of the Bible this isn't really feasible.
There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
Somehow, I missed Fencer's commentary regarding the establishment of religion . Thanks for highlighting it Wagga
.
1st Amendment US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Respecting an establishment" is a clear statement prohibiting the State from promoting religion in general, and/or a particular religion over another. This is a de facto "separation" of Church and State. Any religion attempting to insinuate itself into the State and affect the government's policies towards elevating religion in general or in particular over and above the State's statutes is an inherent violation of this constitutional clause.
section 116 Australian Constitution:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust under the Commonwealth
I expect that by seeing these clauses side by side Wagga, you can see that Australia and The US's constitutional stance regarding "establishment" is equivalent.
In the end though, religious or not, the moral and ethical views of individuals in a Democracy or Republic can have some bearing on policy outcomes, and that is not necessarily a bad or good thing. It rather depends on whether the policies inhibit or expand the individual's personal liberty in favour of, or at the expense of, someone else's liberty.
Certainly in a public school setting, the promotion of religious views in the classroom is a violation of the "establishment" clause (though this should not prohibit classes on comparative religion). But neither should religion be so dismissed from the classroom as to not allow some freedom for students to discuss and debate certain issues in a non-disruptive manner (the "free exercise" clause).
And regarding ILF's assertion that people shouldn't allow their religious views to disrupt their friendships, I couldn't agree more . Respecting diversity of viewpoints has long been a habit of mine.
GB
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" -- Carl Sagan
A Bible is not a flag. Bad comparison.
I'm telling my mom on you!
"Respecting an establishment" is a clear statement prohibiting the State from promoting religion in general, and/or a particular religion over another. This is a de facto "separation" of Church and State. Any religion attempting to insinuate itself into the State and affect the government's policies towards elevating religion in general or in particular over and above the State's statutes is an inherent violation of this constitutional clause."
The Founding Fathers were, to my understanding, trying to prevent one thing here, and that is the the promotion of a state religion, which you speak of here. The Netherlands at the time were Lutheran, and their state religion matched this. The Spanish I think were a Catholic nation for a time as well. Going to church in said country meant you were of that promoted sect. The Founders wanted to ensure that this was not the case in the newborn US and that if you wanted to go to church you could go to the church of your choice, not the government's. To conclude that it was meant that the Founders wanted a government that was "God-free" is kind of ludicrous, especially when all of the founding documents are loaded to the gills with references to God, and when at least half of said folks were God-fearing men themselves. Even the ones who were on the fence (Jefferson, for instance) believed in and had a healthy respect for God.
The Constitution is a very libertarian document in and of itself and was designed so that the government kept out of the citizens' way as much as possible. But please don't doubt for a second that the Founders didn't want God's blessing upon that newfangled system of government they helped create. They said as much in the documents themselves.
Certainly in a public school setting, the promotion of religious views in the classroom is a violation of the "establishment" clause (though this should not prohibit classes on comparative religion). But neither should religion be so dismissed from the classroom as to not allow some freedom for students to discuss and debate certain issues in a non-disruptive manner (the "free exercise" clause).
This may surprise you but I largely agree with you here. A teacher, for instance, can't ram Creationist views down a student's throat, true, but let's take measure of the situation here. I'm all in support of promoting a side by side Evolution versus ID teaching methodology, with the teacher offering both and providing supporting evidence for each. Let the students make up their own minds, but ensure you teach them both. I think if this happened you'd see a lot of the furor surrounding the teaching of Evolution at public schools would probably die away, and at the same time you'd be providing students with more knowledge and perhaps giving them an "outside the box" approach to the subject.
I don't mind if a student wants to discuss religion in school, but I don't want my kids being taught it there. And if this surprises anyone let me reverse the situation here and ask what would happen is the new Satanist teacher decides to do "religion day" in Social Studies and begins proseletyzing to your child on his or her own beliefs. Chilly thought, yes?
Kennel Keeper of Fenris Ulf
I don't write in books, but I don't really have an issue with someone writing in their Bible. If it isn't malicious in nature, I don't think God's gonna get mad at them for it.
Not touching the evolution vs. creation one. I'm undecided and I'm bored with the discussion
Personality is one thing. However, caring what others think is another. And that’s an inhibition. I’m not convinced it’s a good one either. We need to examine our hearts and ask ourselves, do we care more about what others think or about what Jesus thinks?
Inhibitions in worship, prayer, service…
-rebellion
-pride
-sin
-worldliness
-pleasure [instead of pain, sacrifice]
-caring what others think
… we want to please others and ourselves instead of God!![]()
Okay, I'm not entirely certain what point you're trying to convey here. Are you seriously claiming that people who aren't dancing and jumping and everything are either rebellious, prideful, sinful, too worldly, or obsessed with pleasure and other people's opinion? Because that's a pretty presumptuous claim to make and I hope I'm misunderstanding you.
Also, what exactly is "Jesus healing"? I've never heard this term before.
Well Shadow, I don't think Creationism should be taught in a public school as an equally valid alternative scientific theory to Evolution (though that's fine in Sunday School I suppose ), as that strikes me as a violation of the general application of the "establishment" clause. But given the current state of affairs I'm not opposed to the debate itself being a small part of classroom discussion. I think it would be disingenuous to not cover such a significant aspect that is relevant to the topic from a historical, cultural, and personal perspective
.
Shadowlander:
I don't mind if a student wants to discuss religion in school, but I don't want my kids being taught it there. And if this surprises anyone let me reverse the situation here and ask what would happen is the new Satanist teacher decides to do "religion day" in Social Studies and begins proselytizing to your child on his or her own beliefs. Chilly thought, yes?
You stole my line . I have used that argument almost word for word in many discussions about Religion in public schools
.
GB
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" -- Carl Sagan
Somehow, I missed Fencer's commentary regarding the establishment of religion. Thanks for highlighting it Wagga
And thank you in turn for your comparison between the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and that of the USA. And I agree with you and ILF about friends not arguing about religion.
By the way, even those in public schools and high schools are free to go to Scripture lessons under teachers supplied by the local church of their denomination. And I did mention also the HSC Comparative Religion course, also available to Public School students, which caused such a stink last year, when a lot of people complained about a question about Muslim society and the Koran which they claimed had not been in the course. There are also various Sunday Schools for faiths as diverse as Anglicans, Salvation Army and United Church participants, as well as for Jewish children.
However, those who have few children of their denomination at the local school, or who do not espouse any particular religion are apt to complain their children are having religion thrust down their throats if there is too much emphasis on Christian festivals and scripture in the School routine. After all, only 64% of Australians are Christian according to the latest census, and only part of that demographic would attend public schools. Those who do, also include the Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikh and Islamic adherents whose children are also free to attend public schools, like anyone else.
These students certainly would complain if the state schools chose to teach Evolution alongside Religious studies, if Shadowlander's ideas were to be put into operation. They also would complain about the extremely unlikely Satanist teacher, thrusting his/her ideas on children, given that all teachers have to have a police check run on them. The latest idea to take the place of formal Scripture classes is an Ethics curriculum, for example. How would Evolution, not accepted as a religious or ethical belief, fit into such a curriculum, when so many people, Christians included, do not accept Creationalism, based on religious belief, as a genuine science?
The Founding Fathers were, to my understanding, trying to prevent one thing here, and that is the the promotion of a state religion, which you speak of here. The Netherlands at the time were Lutheran, and their state religion matched this. The Spanish I think were a Catholic nation for a time as well.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people were disagreeing in Europe about Religion at that time. The Anglican Church had its main reason to be in opposition to the Spanish, in particular, whose King, Philip II had wed Mary Tudor, and who was trying to bring England back into the Catholic fold. And yes, Catholicism was then and for a long time afterwards, until the 20th century, the main religion of Spain. Don't forget that Philip II was the same Spanish king who sent the Armada after Elizabeth I, his sister-in-law, and the then ruler of England.
The Netherlands might have started off Lutheran but ended up being more Dutch Reformed Church, espousing more Calvinist ideas, whatever they contributed to USA. Whilst retaining quite a few Catholics, a remaining legacy of their Spanish origins. Don't forget, too that whilst the Puritans fled England because of Anglicans, there were also Anglicans fleeing from Cromwell's Puritans, or from James II's neo Catholics, and also Irish Catholics fleeing Orangemen's persecution. Not to mention the Scots, Presbyterian or not, fleeing Highland closures and the aftermath of Culloden. Then there were Anabaptists, Quakers, Amish and many others. Not to mention Methodists, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, the Sallys, and then Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
No wonder that your founding fathers didn't want a State Religion, and no wonder that Australians also quietly ditched the notion. And by the way, our Founding fathers also claimed strong Christian beliefs.
Well Shadow, I don't think Creationism should be taught in a public school as an equally valid alternative scientific theory to Evolution (though that's fine in Sunday School I suppose
*puts up his sarcasm detecting windsock and sticks a wet finger up in the air*
Uh-oh...looks like a big one's coming in!
Now your statement strikes me as particularly condescending, seeing as how the Atheist Science movement is a relative newcomer to the scene. But I've got thick skin and can take it .
*picks up his copy of "Big Book of Science Rules"*
Ok, I'm looking for the part where it says that Science must not include God...let's see...nothing on page 1...nope, not in the Preface...Hmm...where is that dratted rule? It's got to be in here somewhere...nope, doesn't seem to be there. Where can I find this? Do you know? Because if it's not there then your conclusions would be based on an assumption, and you know what they say about assuming, yes?
You stole my line . I have used that argument almost word for word in many discussions about Religion in public schools.
Hey, you got your peanut butter in my chocolate!
Hey, you got your chocolate in my peanut butter!
Remember that commercial?
I know the example is extreme, but the sharper contrast it provides only illustrates the issue that much better. Hey, we agree about something not movie or food related!
*notices his sarcasm windsock seems to have gotten disconnected from the pole and has flown away*
Kennel Keeper of Fenris Ulf
220Christian your beliefs are dangerously close to those of Christo-platoists (I think that's what they're called) - that any earthly pleasure is sinful. Not cool.
Currently watching:
Doctor Who - Season 11
I'm not sure that was what 220 was refering to W4J. There is a difference between having pleasure on earth and wordly pleasure. Having pleasure on earth is simply doing the things we like. I like to play video games, watch movies, play sports, read a book, etc. These things do give me pleasure but none of them are sinful. However wordly pleasure (which I believe is what 220 is refering to) is seeking pleasure in anything but God. What also gives me pleasure is doing the things God wants me to do. I love being with kids, doing ministry, and serving where I can. So having pleasure is one thing; having pleasure in things of the rebellious worldview is something else.
As far as education of evolution vs creation in public schools, again, the state should not be the one that determines what is taught in the schools. It is quite interesting that teachers are usually allowed to teach whatever they want. One history teacher in particular comes to minid. The class was pre-Civil War US History. I got more of his opition of then President W Bush than I got of pre-Civil War US History. I asked to talk to a dean about it because I wasn't getting the education I was paying for, and they said there was nothing they could do about it. But if you look at history, practically every time (with very few exceptions) any time the issue of 'separation of church and state' is brought up in the public setting is when it involved any indication of Christianity. When any other religious ideas, groups steps forward, it is 'freedom of speech'.
Not only that, in spite of the 1st Admendment, the US government is enforcing evolution. I don't mind if teachers want to teach it. But teachers are being forced to teach it and only it. And if they reveal anything to the contrary, they are often fired. I know several who have been simply because they would not teach evolution as fact when it is just an unprovable theory (with so many errors and holes that have been growing exponentially). On top of that, any time a scientist discovers something that reveals another hole in the evolutionary theory, their funding gets cut immediately. This is more the rule than the exception.
So the government is no longer doing what it was set up to do. I had an interesting discussion with come classmates a few days ago about how some people are making a move to remove a number of our US founding fathers from the history textbooks, because of thier religious beliefs. Well, here are some startling stats. Of the 55 signers of the US Declaration of Independence (one of whom I am directly descended), 52 were active members of thier church (Jefferson may have been one of the 3 that were not, but I could be wrong about that). In the Declaration, there are 27 Biblical violations. What is being taught in schools is the reason of taxation without representation. That is #17 of those 27. I'd have to go look it up, because I don't have it memorized, but wouldn't it be nice to know the first of those things that was on Jefferson's mind when he penned the Declaration?
It will get some thinking going, which unfortunatly is not being taught in schools. Students are being told what to think, not how to think. If schools spend more time teaching students how to think instead of what to think, evolution would not still be there. So keep thinking.
Be watching for the release of my spiritual warfare novel under a new title: "Call to Arms" by OakTara Publishing. A sequel (title TBD) will shortly follow.
On raising hands in worship:
If you want to, that's great. If you don't want to, that's also great. No one should feel that they have to do one or the other.
caring what others think is another. And that’s an inhibition. I’m not convinced it’s a good one either. We need to examine our hearts and ask ourselves, do we care more about what others think or about what Jesus thinks? Whom do we try to please?
I don't think this applies to the lifting of hands. Yes, we should care more about what God thinks than what the people around us think, but raising hands is not essential to worship. It is not a requirement. If you feel you need to, go ahead and do it. If you don't feel you need to, then don't. I used to be part of a liturgical dance team, and I have absolutely no objection to dancing during a worship service, but it has its proper place. From my own personal experience, I have found that dance is best used as a special thing, it loses its meaning if you see it all the time. But, if during the course of worship I feel the need to dance I usually do. The raising of hands works the same way. If you feel called to raise your hands, then do. But realize that it is not a bad thing if you don't. Even with all the time I spend dancing, I find my worship more meaningful if I just sit still and soak it in. Yes, we should not care what other people think of us if we feel called to raise our hands or get up and dance, but if we don't care what they think if we do, then we shouldn't care what they think if we don't. And I don't think it matters to God whether we raise our hands or not. (I feel like I kept repeating myself, oh well)
Believe it or not Shadow, I didn't mean to sound sarcastic . I think it's fine for religious private schools, and churches to teach whatever they want. I just don't think public school is the place to promote religious doctrine.
The reason Science in the classroom doesn't include God, is because God is beyond Science. God can be neither proven nor disproven (i.e. unscientific ). Therefore any promotion of God in a public school setting is promoting a general religious view, thus violating the "establishment" clause.
Thus Fencer, this nullifies your point that the State should have no say about the curriculum in PUBLIC schools. Public Education is for everyone, believer and non-believer alike. Of course the government, as an instrument of collective will, should set basic curriculum standards.
And part of those standards should be covering prevailing Scientific thought, including Evolution. Teachers do have some leeway in setting curriculum, but it is in the collective interest to ensure that basic standards are met, without favouring religion in general or particular.
Religion should only be brought up in a Public School setting in a neutral manner in comparative religion classes, or in context of its Historical impacts on Culture. The reason "Church and State" is invoked particularly against Christianity is because Christianity is the prevailing religion in our society. In a prevailing Islamic republic, it would behoove them to inveigh against promoting Islam in the schoolroom.
GB
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" -- Carl Sagan