Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

RE not counted as a humanity in the Govt's new GCSE 'EBacc' Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by medbh4805)
    You studied a different exam board than I did, that could explain the difference. What is possible is that you were presented with some of the arguments, but not all of them.

    When I did my GCSE, the argument given to us was
    • Jesus only had male apostles
    • Jesus was a man

    Strawmen, easily defeated. These were not developed; more complex perspective, for example: that the priest represents Christ at the altar, and is acting out a ritual which involves the dynmaic between the bridegroom Christ and bride - the Church - and this necessarily entails that the priest be male. I don't believe that such an argument is beyond the scope of GCSE, students don't have to agree with it, but they should be presented with it.

    Pauls comments on the matter were omitted completely, one of my classmates said to me recently "But it doesn't say there can't be women priests in the Bible" :facepalm:
    I probably did have a different exam board, but even so, you'd expect an exam on a specific denomination to be more detailed than one on general Christianity. I think we had the basic idea about the bridegroom Christ and bride, though I don't think half the people in my class understood it, and I think Paul's comment was one of the teachings that we had to learn about equality, however it was presented as a flawed argument, as our teacher was very anti-Catholic. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'd admit that from the evidence it does look as though RE is pretty easy, but tbh I find it hardly comparable to Geograhy, for example, which is included.

    I think the point is that RE does (even if some specifications leave a lot to be desired) teach a basic understanding of other cultures and religious heritage which is important to understand, especially with the growing religious tension. I'm an atheist myself (or probably an agnostic atheist, as someone suggested) but I still think children should be taught to respect and understand religious belief. My spec (OCR Philosophy and Ethics btw - and we do not have those silly short answer questions :p: ) also enables you to think about bigger issues and morality which tbh I'd do anyway, but that's not the case for everyone and I do think that is something which every kid should have a chance to do and be rewarded for. Fact is, not including RE won't help to improve it's merit as a qualification - it will just slowly lead to it declining even more.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BookWormShanti)
    I'd admit that from the evidence it does look as though RE is pretty easy, but tbh I find it hardly comparable to Geograhy, for example, which is included.

    I think the point is that RE does (even if some specifications leave a lot to be desired) teach a basic understanding of other cultures and religious heritage which is important to understand, especially with the growing religious tension. I'm an atheist myself (or probably an agnostic atheist, as someone suggested) but I still think children should be taught to respect and understand religious belief. My spec (OCR Philosophy and Ethics btw - and we do not have those silly short answer questions :p: ) also enables you to think about bigger issues and morality which tbh I'd do anyway, but that's not the case for everyone and I do think that is something which every kid should have a chance to do and be rewarded for. Fact is, not including RE won't help to improve it's merit as a qualification - it will just slowly lead to it declining even more.
    I agree, there should be provision for RE - whether philosophy, theology or comparative religion - in the EBacc. I think what people are getting at is that the subject in its current form is worthless, because it doesn't really teach anything of substance, having been watered down to the extent it has.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bazoolium)
    I probably did have a different exam board, but even so, you'd expect an exam on a specific denomination to be more detailed than one on general Christianity. I think we had the basic idea about the bridegroom Christ and bride, though I don't think half the people in my class understood it, and I think Paul's comment was one of the teachings that we had to learn about equality, however it was presented as a flawed argument, as our teacher was very anti-Catholic. :rolleyes:
    Don't underestimate the disparity in difficulty between exam boards :rolleyes: I don't think it's possible to remove the biases of a teacher from the teaching of RE (my old teacher was a Socialist who used to go on and on about liberation theology :rolleyes: She was still a good teacher, and a very devout Catholic) I don't think it's a problem unless they stifle debate and don't allow students to disagree, or use their authority as a teacher to humiliate students who disagree with them.
    • Offline

      14
      (Original post by yawn)
      Your school was a Catholic school...what else do you expect but to be immersed in an ethos based on Catholic teaching? If you attended a Jewish, Muslim or Sikh school you would find exactly the same...an ethos that is based on the individual teachings of those faiths. If you didn't like it, you should have found a different school to attend, and freed up a place for someone who really did want such an education.



      You're not an atheist, you're an agnostic.

      ]quote]I object to the way the terms were simplified so heavily, that's all. It doesn't help young people try and figure out their own religious stance if you oversimplify and dumb down the varying viewpoints.

      Carry on objecting then. As far as those who don't have your hang-ups are concerned:

      Theism = belief in gods or a God, especially a God supernaturally revealed to Man.

      Atheism = belief that there is no god.

      Agnosticism = a belief that the existence of God is not provable.

      I'm not interested in pursuing this particular line of debate since it is moving away from the OP. Thanks for your input anyway.
      You're an arrogant **** aren't you?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by medbh4805)
      Don't underestimate the disparity in difficulty between exam boards :rolleyes: I don't think it's possible to remove the biases of a teacher from the teaching of RE (my old teacher was a Socialist who used to go on and on about liberation theology :rolleyes: She was still a good teacher, and a very devout Catholic) I don't think it's a problem unless they stifle debate and don't allow students to disagree, or use their authority as a teacher to humiliate students who disagree with them.
      Surely not differences to that great extent? I don't think a lack of explanation really accounts for difficulty, surely in some cases it would be made easier? And yes, removing bias from RS is extremely hard, but compared to the rest of that department, who were anglican and baptist ministers and were as non-biased as you can get, this teacher was completely awful. He once asked me why I went to my school (a CofE school, but extremely tolerant of other religions) because I was Catholic and would let those who thought that Catholicism was wrong in certain areas (specifically equality issues, having female priests etc.) have the last word every time.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by medbh4805)
      You studied a different exam board than I did, that could explain the difference. What is possible is that you were presented with some of the arguments, but not all of them.

      When I did my GCSE, the argument given to us was
      • Jesus only had male apostles
      • Jesus was a man

      Strawmen, easily defeated. These were not developed; more complex perspective, for example: that the priest represents Christ at the altar, and is acting out a ritual which involves the dynmaic between the bridegroom Christ and bride - the Church - and this necessarily entails that the priest be male. I don't believe that such an argument is beyond the scope of GCSE, students don't have to agree with it, but they should be presented with it.

      Pauls comments on the matter were omitted completely, one of my classmates said to me recently "But it doesn't say there can't be women priests in the Bible" :facepalm:
      The arguments in the bible against women priests are far and away less convincing than those in favour. I'm a Christian and I believe strongly in the ordination of women. I've heard most of the arguments against my view and they all fail to convince me. I know this is off topic, and would perhaps be dealt with better in its own thread rather than here, but I'd hardly take Paul's comments on the matter as gospel. Not everything in the Bible is 100% true or the word of God, Paul especially.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by bazoolium)
      Surely not differences to that great extent? I don't think a lack of explanation really accounts for difficulty, surely in some cases it would be made easier? And yes, removing bias from RS is extremely hard, but compared to the rest of that department, who were anglican and baptist ministers and were as non-biased as you can get, this teacher was completely awful. He once asked me why I went to my school (a CofE school, but extremely tolerant of other religions) because I was Catholic and would let those who thought that Catholicism was wrong in certain areas (specifically equality issues, having female priests etc.) have the last word every time.
      I once had a teacher who called me a fundamentalist because I disagreed with her and used the Bible to back up my arguments. When I told her fundamentalism is a Protestant movement, she seriously tried to convince the class that there is such a thing as "fundamentalist Catholicism". :facepalm2:

      Also, I believe there are differences in difficulty between exam boards, compare these chemistry past papers from CCEA
      http://www.rewardinglearning.org.uk/...ast_papers.asp
      and this one from AQA:
      http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp...W-QP-MAR09.PDF

      There are significant differences, no?
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by d123)
      The arguments in the bible against women priests are far and away less convincing than those in favour.
      I've found the exact opposite.

      (Original post by d123)
      I'm a Christian and I believe strongly in the ordination of women. I've heard most of the arguments against my view and they all fail to convince me. I know this is off topic, and would perhaps be dealt with better in its own thread rather than here, but I'd hardly take Paul's comments on the matter as gospel. Not everything in the Bible is 100% true or the word of God, Paul especially.
      What are your opinions on Salvation, are we justified then by our actions, by faith or by grace alone? What about justification? Should Christians follow Jewish dietary requirements? Should we circumcise male babies? Is Salvation available to Jews only or also to gentiles? Does Jesus' death really redeem us? The New Covenant? What about the Parousia?

      Do you agree with Paul's views on the above? If so, why do you accept these and reject his views on women?
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by medbh4805)
      I've found the exact opposite.



      What are your opinions on Salvation, are we justified then by our actions, by faith or by grace alone? What about justification? Should Christians follow Jewish dietary requirements? Should we circumcise male babies? Is Salvation available to Jews only or also to gentiles? Does Jesus' death really redeem us? The New Covenant? What about the Parousia?

      Do you agree with Paul's views on the above? If so, why do you accept these and reject his views on women?
      Salvation - I believe in universalism. God's grace allows everyone to enter heaven. I believe there is no necessity to follow Jewish food laws, circumcision is also unnecessary. Salvation is available to everyone, whether Jew or Gentile. Jesus' death is redemptive. I'm not 100% sure on what I believe about the second coming/parousia.

      I don't form my opinions based on Paul's views. Some of my opinions may be the same as his, some won't be. But that's purely coincidence. His letters are useful, and I'm not denying their role, but I don't take them as gospel when deciding what I do or do not believe.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by medbh4805)
      I once had a teacher who called me a fundamentalist because I disagreed with her and used the Bible to back up my arguments. When I told her fundamentalism is a Protestant movement, she seriously tried to convince the class that there is such a thing as "fundamentalist Catholicism". :facepalm2:

      Also, I believe there are differences in difficulty between exam boards, compare these chemistry past papers from CCEA
      http://www.rewardinglearning.org.uk/...ast_papers.asp
      and this one from AQA:
      http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp...W-QP-MAR09.PDF

      There are significant differences, no?
      Well, she's right. Fundamentalism exists in all walks of life, including Catholicism. You may not be a fundamentalist, but it is perfectly possible to identify as a Catholic and to have fundamentalist beliefs. Don't use :facepalm2: to undermine other people when they are actually right! Granted, the majority of fundamentalists tend to be evangelicals rather than Catholics, but Catholic fundamentalism definitely exists.
      • Offline

        1
        (Original post by d123)
        ... but Catholic fundamentalism definitely exists.
        Oops...this thread is really evolving, isn't it?

        If you don't mind me interjecting, can you define in what way fundamentalism exists in Catholicism?
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by d123)
        Well, she's right. Fundamentalism exists in all walks of life, including Catholicism. You may not be a fundamentalist, but it is perfectly possible to identify as a Catholic and to have fundamentalist beliefs. Don't use :facepalm2: to undermine other people when they are actually right! Granted, the majority of fundamentalists tend to be evangelicals rather than Catholics, but Catholic fundamentalism definitely exists.
        Please google "The Fundamentals", and when you have read up on them please tell me in what way Fundamentalism is compatible with Catholicism.

        If you're talking about Catholic Traditionialism to refer to a strict and traditional form of Catholicism, then this is the correct term to use, not Fundamentalism. Their beliefs are certainly not the same.

        (Original post by d123)
        Salvation - I believe in universalism. God's grace allows everyone to enter heaven.
        Jesus disagrees. (Matt 7:14, John 12:48, Matt 25:46). There's a good description of Hell in Luke 16.

        (Original post by d123)
        I believe there is no necessity to follow Jewish food laws, circumcision is also unnecessary. Salvation is available to everyone, whether Jew or Gentile. Jesus' death is redemptive. I'm not 100% sure on what I believe about the second coming/parousia.

        I don't form my opinions based on Paul's views. Some of my opinions may be the same as his, some won't be. But that's purely coincidence. His letters are useful, and I'm not denying their role, but I don't take them as gospel when deciding what I do or do not believe.
        On what basis do you believe these things then, if you don't take Paul as your authority? John and James are great, but they don't cover the same range of theology. Much in the Gospel is not explicit. Do you just arbitarily reject parts of the Bible when don't like what they say? What's your approach?
       
       
       
      Reply
      Submit reply
      TSR Support Team

      We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

      Updated: December 22, 2010
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      Useful resources

      Groups associated with this forum:

      View associated groups
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.