Originally posted by ChurlantIt appears the Bible is biased against goats. (goats are generally more intelligent and independant minded than sheep).
The left hand does worst in the parable of the sheep and goats. The sheep are set on Christ's right hand and the goats on the left. Those on the right inherit the kingdom of god while those on the left depart into everlasting fire.
Actually the interpretation that this parable is biased against the left hand is wrong. In many cultures it is normal to put someone you dont trust on your left (if you are right handed) because it is easier to defend yourself if he tries to attack you. (just try pulling a knife and stabbing someone on your right and you will see). It does however imply the possibility that God is right handed. However it is just a parable so you never know.
It is also true that many cultures (and some religions) both then and now require cirtain tasks to be done only with the right hand due to the left hand being used for ablutions, but the nun in question may have been just trying to enforce uniformity. I believe saluting is also only done with the right hand.
Originally posted by flyUnityFly... it was catholic school and she was told it was evil.
I dont think it was because of religious reasons, maybe just so it creates less problems when eating at a table full of people, or so she would get teased less or something, Anyways Im a leftie, and a proud one 🙂
P-
Originally posted by twhiteheadI actually agree quite readily. My only intention with my original post was to show a possible path of reasoning the nun may have taken. I think we can agree that not everyone interprets the Bible equally. I have very little doubt that some heavy fundamentalists would easily take scripture's "left-hand, right-hand" references and extrapolate these biases into very literal, left-handed bias.
It appears the Bible is biased against goats. (goats are generally more intelligent and independant minded than sheep).
Actually the interpretation that this parable is biased against the left hand is wrong. In many cultures it is normal to put someone you dont trust on your left (if you are right handed) because it is easier to defend yourself if he t ...[text shortened]... een just trying to enforce uniformity. I believe saluting is also only done with the right hand.
-JC
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitReally?
Fly... it was catholic school and she was told it was evil.
P-
Let's assume for a moment your story is correct. How does one wacky nun's views translate into doctrine? Do you have any official Church (since you make it clear it's the Catholic view of God you have a gripe with) documents that say anything about this?
OTOH, your story may not be correct. I was originally left-handed until my parents forced me to use my right hand - and I have absolutely no memory of this event; I wouldn't even have known about it if my parents hadn't told me many years later. Your story has too much of an "evil Nun" stereotype feel to it - it's quite possible your mother is editorialising her memories of those years. It's not uncommon for people to string together unconnected events in their memory and sincerely believe those memories. It's clear your mom was unhappy at this school.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI remember nuns at my school doing this - St Mungo's Primary, Glasgow, late 1960s, early 1970s.
Really?
Let's assume for a moment your story is correct. How does one wacky nun's views translate into doctrine? Do you have any official Church (since you make it clear it's the Catholic view of God you have a gripe with) documents that say anything about this?
OTOH, your story may not be correct. I was originally left-handed until my pa and sincerely believe those memories. It's clear your mom was unhappy at this school.
I wasn't left-handed (I'm a different kind of leftie, which god apparently aint too keen on either, but that's a different thread), but a couple of classmates where, and they were whacked across the knuckles with a ruler when they picked up a pencil with their left hand.
In saying that, this form of punishment was fairly routine. I also remember queuing up to have some work checked by the nun, and we were expected to hand over our work and hold our hand at the edge of the nun's desk. For every one we got wrong, the ruler was applied sharply to the knuckles.
I agree that there isn't any doctrine to justify this, but it doesn't alter the fact that it seems to be a widespread practise.
PS I also understand it was illegal to be left-handed in the old Stalinist Albania - the parents of a left-handed child would be fined. I think this was about efficiency in the workplace - factories etc would be designed for right-handed people, so left-handed people were considered potentially less efficient workers.
Originally posted by RedmikeBut Phlab wants to put the blame squarely on God (and the Church).
I remember nuns at my school doing this - St Mungo's Primary, Glasgow, late 1960s, early 1970s.
I wasn't left-handed (I'm a different kind of leftie, which god apparently aint too keen on either, but that's a different thread), but a couple of classmates where, and they were whacked across the knuckles with a ruler when they picked up a pencil with their ...[text shortened]... -handed people, so left-handed people were considered potentially less efficient workers.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, that's always a fair enough starting point.
But Phlab wants to put the blame squarely on God (and the Church).
In this case though, I think the church's 'only' blame is in terms of the malicious behaviour of some of its individuals, and there have been many cases much worse than hitting kids with rulers.
Originally posted by RedmikeBut, as your Albanian case shows, it's not true to say that if these schools were not run by the Church*, none of this would've happened.
Well, that's always a fair enough starting point.
In this case though, I think the church's 'only' blame is in terms of the malicious behaviour of some of its individuals, and there have been many cases much worse than hitting kids with rulers.
At some point, one should look for causes rather than a scapegoat.
---
* And, in many cases, if these schools weren't run by the Church, there simply wouldn't have been a school for kids to go to - at least when the schools were first set up.
Originally posted by lucifershammerFair enough, but just because the church isn't the only organisation which did this, and just because the church may have been the only educational option, doesn't mean the church isn't responsible for the actions of its nuns and priests.
But, as your Albanian case shows, it's not true to say that if these schools were not run by the Church*, none of this would've happened.
At some point, one should look for causes rather than a scapegoat.
---
* And, in many cases, if these schools weren't run by the Church, there simply wouldn't have been a school for kids to go to - at least when the schools were first set up.
Originally posted by RedmikeIt doesn't mean the Church is responsible for every action of its nun and priests either.
Fair enough, but just because the church isn't the only organisation which did this, and just because the church may have been the only educational option, doesn't mean the church isn't responsible for the actions of its nuns and priests.
Originally posted by RedmikeCertainly. But let's not get anachronic here - corporal punishment was (and, in most of the world, still is) the cultural norm and Church schools followed that.
No, not every action. But I think the apparently common practise of beating children in there care is something they should take some responsibility for.
And, frankly, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that mild levels of corporal punishment (not abuse, of course) are harmful for children.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, that's fair enough - it was only in the 1990s we abolished corporal punishment in schools in Scotland.
Certainly. But let's not get anachronic here - corporal punishment was (and, in most of the world, still is) the cultural norm and Church schools followed that.
And, frankly, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that mild levels of corporal punishment (not abuse, of course) are harmful for children.
I disagree about such corporal punishment not being harmful to children - in my own case I cannot see a penguin without breaking into a pavlovian recitation of the 9 times table.😉