Thread: When did Sunday Church stop being enough?

I have a simple question, I am a Presbyterian, and at our church we have a Nursery school, a running around kids school, and a teen school, where people socialize after and before the services. There are always people at the church till 8 or 9 at night! It's a great bunch of people and when I'm done with my Sunday at Church I have that great glowy feeling to last me into the week.

Here is what I don't get. Creationism is taught in the Sunday Schools. It's fun, it aready exists, people go, it's not packed so there is room for more. So.....In my town's case, it doesn't seem efficient to force religious curriculum....and religious curriculum teachers, into a school system that would cost tax payer money when this material is ready to be taught on Sunday at your local church.

Two things strike me, maybe the Church is not just teaching Creationism to students who want that, but they are trying to spread the word too, at taxpayer's expense, in schools Is that right? How does a creationism teacher keep from doing just that?

The other, Is Church just trying to mark thier territory like a bear would slash a tree trunk, or a dog pisses on a bush, to force this Creationist curriculum into public schools to show the heathens that they won't be stiffled.

So why not just got to Church on Sunday School Creationism seekers, and support your local Church in the process?

This is pure speculation, but I believe as our scientific understanding of the earth, the universe and our history as a species becomes clearer and extends to further reaches, that knowledge becomes more and more at odds with religious interpretations of the same topics. Every day it becomes more difficult to accept the Bible (or other religious documents) as literal truth and simultaneously trust the scientific community with their discoveries and research. In order to maintain the doctrines of the former a more and more aggressive approach would seem to be required.

"Creationism is taught in the Sunday Schools. It's fun,"


How is being taught a bunch of Fundamentalist propaganda "fun"?

Originally Posted by Goldwater

1) Why does the church seek to expand its influence, or its teachings' influence, when it already not at its full capacity?

2) Why does it seem like this is more of a power struggle with 'heathen' ideas?

please correct me if you think that the above is not an accurate representation of your OP.

Assuming that it is...

1)

Let's imagine that you are the head of the church for a minute. (I am going to compare Christianity to Judaism here a bit)
In Judaism, there is an idea that there are two separate, and distinct parts of the community life. The first part is the family. The second part is the synagouge..

To Jews, the family is the most important and holiest part of the Jewish Community that there is. There is no greater good deed available in the world than that of raising kids, of raising them properly, and keep everything at home in order. This is why, oftentimes, you will see more orthodox Jews cringe when they see that women are trying to do things that are generally reserved for men. For instance, one thing that is essentially reserved for men, is the putting on of tefillen. Tefillan is a little black box that you put on in a special way on your head and arm, and inside of it are some prayers. This is something that is reserved for men, but some women want to put it on so "they can perform the mitzvah (good deed) of putting on tefillen"
To this, the response by many in the orthodox movement is that they are not trying to be holier, but they are trying to be more like men and less like women. They have not exhausted their supply of good deeds, but before they have, boom: they wish to do something that is reserved for a man. The details are not important right now.

Why do I bring this up? This talks about the relations between men and women, and the relations between family and community center, or in this case, the synagauge, but in your case your church.

There is a theory, in Judaism, that once you go beyond the family, you proceed to become less and less holy of a person. People might think that a Rabbi is the holiest of persons, however, this is not the case: the holiest persons are those that keep and raise a good family. One line of reasoning why this is the case is that a nation of people is built not upon church's or temples, but on families - but I have digressed.

This contradicts the more Catholic notion that the holiest man in the world is the pope, or by and large the Christian notion that the holiest man or person is not a 'family man', but a man of the church whose sole purpose is devotion towards Jesus Christ.

Correct me if I am wrong on any points.

What I'd say is that the Church leaders, by the nature of their position as being community leaders, look at their community and see that their community is filled with messages that they find brings down the spirit of their community. Children are being taught wrong things, schools aren't going to the will of the Church; and this bothers them, because when the community stops revolving around the Church, it proceeds to lose its foundation: its influence within the community. This is why I'd say the church wishes to do what its doing. This, is why it seems like a power struggle.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

please correct me if you think that the above is not an accurate representation of your OP.

Assuming that it is...

1)

Let's imagine that you are the head of the church for a minute. (I am going to compare Christianity to Judaism here a bit)
In Judaism, there is an idea that there are two separate, and distinct parts of the community life. The first part is the family. The second part is the synagouge..

To Jews, the family is the most important and holiest part of the Jewish Community that there is. There is no greater good deed available in the world than that of raising kids, of raising them properly, and keep everything at home in order. This is why, oftentimes, you will see more orthodox Jews cringe when they see that women are trying to do things that are generally reserved for men. For instance, one thing that is essentially reserved for men, is the putting on of tefillen. Tefillan is a little black box that you put on in a special way on your head and arm, and inside of it are some prayers. This is something that is reserved for men, but some women want to put it on so "they can perform the mitzvah (good deed) of putting on tefillen"
To this, the response by many in the orthodox movement is that they are not trying to be holier, but they are trying to be more like men and less like women. They have not exhausted their supply of good deeds, but before they have, boom: they wish to do something that is reserved for a man. The details are not important right now.

Why do I bring this up? This talks about the relations between men and women, and the relations between family and community center, or in this case, the synagauge, but in your case your church.

There is a theory, in Judaism, that once you go beyond the family, you proceed to become less and less holy of a person. People might think that a Rabbi is the holiest of persons, however, this is not the case: the holiest persons are those that keep and raise a good family. One line of reasoning why this is the case is that a nation of people is built not upon church's or temples, but on families - but I have digressed.

This contradicts the more Catholic notion that the holiest man in the world is the pope, or by and large the Christian notion that the holiest man or person is not a 'family man', but a man of the church whose sole purpose is devotion towards Jesus Christ.

Correct me if I am wrong on any points.

What I'd say is that the Church leaders, by the nature of their position as being community leaders, look at their community and see that their community is filled with messages that they find brings down the spirit of their community. Children are being taught wrong things, schools aren't going to the will of the Church; and this bothers them, because when the community stops revolving around the Church, it proceeds to lose its foundation: its influence within the community. This is why I'd say the church wishes to do what its doing. This, is why it seems like a power struggle.

So if Catholics are involved they probably ARE using the schools as an avenue to spread the word. Correct me if I misscharacterize, as opposed to teaching the theory of creationism, which is 90% over after Genesis, and 100% over after Noah and the floods. And since you already have the Bible open, you might as well cover thou shalt not fornicate with high school hotties.

I don't get how some citizen can make this argument to a lawmaker and have the lawmakwer say OK. Just go to Church on Sunday, why the school on weekdays with the religion!?!

Originally Posted by Goldwater

So if Catholics are involved they probably ARE using the schools as an avenue to spread the word. Correct me if I misscharacterize, as opposed to teaching the theory of creationism, which is 90% over after Genesis, and 100% over after Noah and the floods. And since you already have the Bible open, you might as well cover thou shalt not fornicate with high school hotties.

I don't get how some citizen can make this argument to a lawmaker and have the lawmakwer say OK. Just go to Church on Sunday, why the school on weekdays with the religion!?!

Think about it in terms of power or influence.
The Church derives its influence from its presence in the community.
Lawmakers derive their influence from their presence in the community.

If a Lawmaker butts heads with the Church, they will be essentially gearing up for a fight with something that they probably will not want to do.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

"Creationism is taught in the Sunday Schools. It's fun,"


How is being taught a bunch of Fundamentalist propaganda "fun"?

Propaganda is always intriguing, that's why it catches on so often.

Creationism is not propaganda. Why are Evolution and Creationism always separated, Can't both exist?

I'm simply flabbergasted that Presbyterians believe in creationist nonsense at all. Here I thought they were taking a "wait & see" approach. You know, they actually funded a pretty amazing report on the matter (Report of the Creation Study Committee (Presbyterian Church in America)) back in 2000. It can be boiled down as such:

Ultimately, the church is not the authoritative source for determining what is or is not scientific truth. Traditionally, this has been left to the scientific community to decide. However, in our generation that scientific community has become progressively more hostile to the truths of special revelation. Thus, the church must be prepared to address the claimed "scientific truths" of the science communities and be prepared to "manage by fact" as the data from the science pours forth. The present day intelligent design movement would appear to be a good example of how the church in the broader evangelical context can be effective in this manner.

Originally Posted by Babylon

Propaganda is always intriguing, that's why it catches on so often.

Creationism is not propaganda. Why are Evolution and Creationism always separated, Can't both exist?

Sure they can. But to be on equal footing, one must have evidence which can be weighed. To date, no one has brought forth credible evidence suggesting either of Genesis' creation stories are true. Until that happens, it does not belong in science curriculum. What next, are we gonna start teaching alchemy in place of chemistry? Astrology in place of astronomy?

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

Sure they can. But to be on equal footing, one must have evidence which can be weighed. To date, no one has brought forth credible evidence suggesting either of Genesis' creation stories are true. Until that happens, it does not belong in science curriculum. What next, are we gonna start teaching alchemy in place of chemistry? Astrology in place of astronomy?

Good points, and I do not believe Public schools should offer the "Creationist" side of the story. Parents who want this should take their kids to church.

I learned both, and now as an adult, I still do not have enough evidence Dis-proving either. DO I believe we were monkeys? No. Do I believe we were created in a garden? Not at all.