Editorial: As cornerstone of culture, Bible should be taught in public schools

[l2ltlarry]

The following article appeared in 'The Columbus Dispatch' on Friday, June 24th. It's probably controversial, but I think it connects with points I've attempted to make in my Nudity and Religion topic concerning the seeming conflict between CFF's homepage and the rules governing what can be discussed, and how, in the forums. It's my impression that simply quoting the Bible--uncommented upon--in the forums would, chances are, be considered hateful / flaming, with the poster or replier being warned or banned.

Today I drilled down to read the rest of the "Why Nude Recreation?" article which starts on the homepage. It gets much more specific, and I think several would think, objectionable. Seems to me that talking about Jesus and sin and quoting New Testament scriptures, as "Why Nude Recreation" does, would be unacceptable to some people here.


Here's the editorial:

As cornerstone of culture, Bible should be taught in public schools

Friday, June 24, 2005

PAU L GREENBERG

In this age of biblical illiteracy, the good news is that some public schools are offering classes in the Bible — much like monks in the Dark Ages laboriously copying the works of Plato and Aristotle in the sure faith that one day there would be a renaissance of classical learning.

But we live in times when the Book may be given a wide berth by prudent school administrators, lest they be accused of mixing church and state and wind up on the wrong side of a lawsuit.

These days there are few more effective impediments to education (and many another worthwhile endeavor) than the threat of litigation. This time it's the Bible that's been the victim of that well- known chilling effect. Sue one school district, and you can instill fear in a thousand others.

This is how the law of the land, or rather an exaggerated caricature of it in the minds of educators, winds up promoting ignorance.

How strange: Inquiring minds might be urged to study every failed prophet from Karl Marx to Che Guevara, but they're told not to eat of the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden. The most profound of books, both deeply conservative and genuinely revolutionary, is the one declared off- limits.

How did we get to this pass? Through a series of vague, confusing court decisions that left educators fearful of crossing some imagined line. The separation of church and state is a wholesome precaution in a free country. Unfortunately, it's been equated with the separation of religious ideas from American life. Can't be done. Not in a nation founded in the faith that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. (Talk about a concise summary of the theory of natural law!)

For the timid, or downright fearful, the safest course for public education has been to avoid any discussion of spiritual values. The result: Many students are sent out into the world without having been exposed to the King James Bible, which is not only Holy Scripture but a cornerstone, if not the very foundation, of English literature.

In such a culture, or absence of culture, ignorance has flourished.

According to a survey sponsored by the Bible Literacy Project, only one out of three American teenagers could say who in the Bible asked, ‘‘Am I my brother's keeper?" And only a third knew what happened on the road to Damascus.

To quote one teacher: ‘‘I'll make comparisons . . . like Noah and the ark, or like Moses, and I'll have kids kind of look at me: ‘Who's Noah?' ‘Who's Moses?' "

Another teacher felt compelled to drop Charles Portis' True Grit from the class reading list because, although it's the kind of book you'd think would be perfect for young Americans, the kids were stumped by its biblical allusions.

There's hope. Here and there, courses in the Bible as literature are springing up.

Both the National Bible Association and the First Amendment Center agree that the Bible should be offered in public school. So do the National Association of Evangelicals and People for the American Way, outfits that seldom agree about anything else.

God bless 'em all.

So long as public schools educate instead of indoctrinate, so long as they teach rather than preach, they should have no problem staying on the right side of the Constitution.

Of course it'll require some judgment, a little common sense and maybe a handy set of guidelines to conduct a class in the Bible as literature rather than as religious doctrine. But there are a lot of teachers out there capable of teaching such a course, and it would be a shame to go on turning out high-school graduates who are biblical illiterates.

Paul Greenberg is the Pulitzer prizewinning editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette.

paulgreenberg@adg.ardemgaz.com

[l2ltlarry]

The following article appeared in 'The Columbus Dispatch' on Friday, June 24th. It's probably controversial, but I think it connects with points I've attempted to make in my Nudity and Religion topic concerning the seeming conflict between CFF's homepage and the rules governing what can be discussed, and how, in the forums. It's my impression that simply quoting the Bible--uncommented upon--in the forums would, chances are, be considered hateful / flaming, with the poster or replier being warned or banned.

Today I drilled down to read the rest of the "Why Nude Recreation?" article which starts on the homepage. It gets much more specific, and I think several would think, objectionable. Seems to me that talking about Jesus and sin and quoting New Testament scriptures, as "Why Nude Recreation" does, would be unacceptable to some people here.


Here's the editorial:

As cornerstone of culture, Bible should be taught in public schools

Friday, June 24, 2005

PAU L GREENBERG

In this age of biblical illiteracy, the good news is that some public schools are offering classes in the Bible — much like monks in the Dark Ages laboriously copying the works of Plato and Aristotle in the sure faith that one day there would be a renaissance of classical learning.

But we live in times when the Book may be given a wide berth by prudent school administrators, lest they be accused of mixing church and state and wind up on the wrong side of a lawsuit.

These days there are few more effective impediments to education (and many another worthwhile endeavor) than the threat of litigation. This time it's the Bible that's been the victim of that well- known chilling effect. Sue one school district, and you can instill fear in a thousand others.

This is how the law of the land, or rather an exaggerated caricature of it in the minds of educators, winds up promoting ignorance.

How strange: Inquiring minds might be urged to study every failed prophet from Karl Marx to Che Guevara, but they're told not to eat of the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden. The most profound of books, both deeply conservative and genuinely revolutionary, is the one declared off- limits.

How did we get to this pass? Through a series of vague, confusing court decisions that left educators fearful of crossing some imagined line. The separation of church and state is a wholesome precaution in a free country. Unfortunately, it's been equated with the separation of religious ideas from American life. Can't be done. Not in a nation founded in the faith that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. (Talk about a concise summary of the theory of natural law!)

For the timid, or downright fearful, the safest course for public education has been to avoid any discussion of spiritual values. The result: Many students are sent out into the world without having been exposed to the King James Bible, which is not only Holy Scripture but a cornerstone, if not the very foundation, of English literature.

In such a culture, or absence of culture, ignorance has flourished.

According to a survey sponsored by the Bible Literacy Project, only one out of three American teenagers could say who in the Bible asked, ‘‘Am I my brother's keeper?" And only a third knew what happened on the road to Damascus.

To quote one teacher: ‘‘I'll make comparisons . . . like Noah and the ark, or like Moses, and I'll have kids kind of look at me: ‘Who's Noah?' ‘Who's Moses?' "

Another teacher felt compelled to drop Charles Portis' True Grit from the class reading list because, although it's the kind of book you'd think would be perfect for young Americans, the kids were stumped by its biblical allusions.

There's hope. Here and there, courses in the Bible as literature are springing up.

Both the National Bible Association and the First Amendment Center agree that the Bible should be offered in public school. So do the National Association of Evangelicals and People for the American Way, outfits that seldom agree about anything else.

God bless 'em all.

So long as public schools educate instead of indoctrinate, so long as they teach rather than preach, they should have no problem staying on the right side of the Constitution.

Of course it'll require some judgment, a little common sense and maybe a handy set of guidelines to conduct a class in the Bible as literature rather than as religious doctrine. But there are a lot of teachers out there capable of teaching such a course, and it would be a shame to go on turning out high-school graduates who are biblical illiterates.

Paul Greenberg is the Pulitzer prizewinning editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette.

paulgreenberg@adg.ardemgaz.com

[Qikdraw]

Quite simply no.

The US has no state religion. Doing this promotes Christianity over any other religion, and would then become defacto the state religion.

I think an elective course on Religion is ok. But it would have to be set around the history of some religions (Egyptian, Native American, Aztec, etc...) and also include Christianity, Hinduism, Buddism, Islam, and Judism, so that no one religion is paramount.

I was raised with Christian beliefs, and am still a beleiver, but God's word is not supposed to be forced down someone's throat.

Qikdraw

[vintagecarguy]

I wonder if the National Bible Association and the National Association of Evangelicals would be so supportive if a class on the Koran or Torah was given?How about an in depth study of Rationalism or Secular Humanism?I hope they would.
I for one would welcome all books to be studied and discussed by high school students.Even books that many would want burned.
I had a teacher in the mid eighties who began her world lit class with a story from the Bible to represent Hebrew lit.Too bad some of the students each year threw a fit,no not non-belivers,but radical Christians who thought it was disrespectful of the Bible to be read as just literature.
I hope shes still doing it.

[MJ_KC]

I wouldn't have a problem with a comparitive religion class being taught where the teacher shows the differences and similarities between many different religions.

In the public schools, I would not want to see classes devoted to just one religion because of the inevitable conflicts that would occur between students.

I had a high school teacher in a public school who started each class with prayer and Bible reading. That was a LONG time ago! Shortly after that the communist school faculty came through the dining room and confiscated everyone's Bibles--at least those who would surrender tham. I have to say I didn't surrender mine.

[namedun]

When I was in high school, we didn't have enough students for alot of the more interesting electives. I do remember however, that many of the more populated schools incorporated comparitive religious studies. Having read the bible, I'm quite biased, and would like to see it removed from the face of the earth, let alone schools.

[jon71]

I agree witht the article. We should be careful not to go as far as indoctrination but the Bible is literature. It is the most quoted and referenced piece of literature in the western world. Shakespeare is second (his entire works) followed by Greek/Roman mythology, history, and classic literature in general. No matter what your beliefs are you will encounter Biblical quotes and references, it would be handy to understand them.

[NudeTopher]

As with most others who have replied, I seriously disagree with this article.

There needs to be a seperation of church and state and teaching the bible (at the exclusion of all other religions) violates that seperation. If this was to be instituted in any public school it would not survive a test in the courts. Now, as others have said, if the schools want to offer a course in comp. religion that is fine-each and every religion would have to be presented in the same detail and with the same amount of validity.

Larry, if you, or if other parents have a problem with students not having a religious education that you consider adequate then the fault may be found in your mirror. Do you want your children to have a religious background? Then send them to religious school on their own time. Churches, synagoges, mosques all offer religious education for students. That is the appropriate place for such education to take place.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Shortly after that the communist school faculty came through the dining room and confiscated everyone's Bibles-- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying that the faculty and administration of your school was in-fact communist OR do you consider those that believe in the seperation of church and state to be communist? Personally, I couldn't care less if any student has a bible in their backpack; but I do have a problem if the public school starts to teach bible lessons.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
...would like to see it removed ... let alone schools. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When parents desire or demand the public schools teach religion (and only their religion of course) they are just showing that they are poor parents. If a parent wants to indoctrinate (oops teach) a particular belief system to their children that is fine. It is their right to do so. It is their responsibility to either do so personally or to send their children for religious training.

However, asking society in the form of the public schools to teach a belief system is just wrong. No doubt Larry doesn't understand that at least here in the States this isn't theocracy and if you want full-time religious indocrtrincation during the educational years you can send students to Catholic Schools, Christian Schools, Yashivas, or the school of the religion of your choice.

If you want your child to attend a public school then get off your butt-your kid's religious instruction is YOUR responsibility.

[Jennifer1]

well, i believe that religion should be taught but not religious studies, like we have R.E. class which teaches about the religions, all the religions from a thrid party perspective, which gives you a general view on them, meaning you can choose a religion maybe when your older that suits you and your beleifs.

Bible being taught in public schools, thats just wrong, so what teachings would be taught? Catholic, Prodesant, or one of the others.

[Bob S.]

I am in total agreement with the Comparative Religious studies course that could be created. But I wonder how many zealots would decry the course as being anti-Christain/Islam/Jewish/ etc. After all, for some people, to hold their religion as equal to another person's religion is blasphemy.

In fact, that has always been a major sticking point for me with people such as the Alabama Judge who wanted to keep the 10 Commandments statue in the Courthouse. He would have been up in arms if it had been a large Pagan statue or Islam statue, but since it agreed with his own religion, it was fine. The same with Paul Greenberg, the author of the article. He wants Christianity to be taught, but would probably be
upset if another religion was taught alongside it.

His other problem is turning to the schools for a cultural ignorance of Biblical references. The schools are not where children or anyone should be learning about those references, Churches are. He has only the populace to blame for that.

"Are you saying that the faculty and administration of your school was in-fact communist OR do you consider those that believe in the seperation of church and state to be communist?"

Topher, Jon-Marc was probably using it as an insult to those faculty members who went around stealing the students' Bibles. He was talking about two separate incidents. The first one was before the rules, the thefts were after the rules.

Bob S.

[gamblefish]

The article advocates teaching the Bible as literature, not as a religion as many of you appear to think. It is no different from kids studying The Odyssey or The Illiad or even the Koran. I see no problem with kids studying any of these texts, Bible included.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):

Are you saying that the faculty and administration of your school was in-fact communist OR do you consider those that believe in the seperation of church and state to be communist? Personally, I couldn't care less if any student has a bible in their backpack; but I do have a problem if the public school starts to teach bible lessons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I call them communists because they came into the dining room during lunch and confiscated personal bibles of any students who carried one. Those Bilbes did no one any harm, and I never heard any Christian students (including myself) who went around preaching at other students. I quietly read my New Testament during breaks and didn't bother anyone. Yet the atheists seemed to think they had the right to treat our beilefs as trash just because they don't believe in God and were offended by students who weren't afraid to live their beliefs by carrying and reading a Bible during their own private time even if it was on school property. Would those same people be offended by students reading mystery novels in school during their breaks? I seriously doubt it. It's just that many people are so much against God that they want to push Him out of everywhere--even to the point of denying peoples' right to carry and read a Bible in the presence of others because it offends them.

If you say it's all right to take Bibles away from Christians because they offend non-Christians, then you're saying it's all right to shut down nudist resorts because they offend other people.

Personally I believe that only Christian schools should teach the Bible. If we teach one religion in public schools, then we have to teach all of them.

I was confused in high school by being taught the falsehood of evolution as a FACT in the 60's, and then being taught the Bible in church, which IS a fact.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
I am in total agreement with the Comparative Religious studies course that could be created. But I wonder how many zealots would decry the course as being anti-Christain/Islam/Jewish/ etc. After all, for some people, to hold their religion as equal to another person's religion is blasphemy.

In fact, that has always been a major sticking point for me with people such as the Alabama Judge who wanted to keep the 10 Commandments statue in the Courthouse. He would have been up in arms if it had been a large Pagan statue or Islam statue, but since it agreed with his own religion, it was fine. The same with Paul Greenberg, the author of the article. He wants Christianity to be taught, but would probably be
upset if another religion was taught alongside it.

His other problem is turning to the schools for a cultural ignorance of Biblical references. The schools are not where children or anyone should be learning about those references, Churches are. He has only the populace to blame for that.

"Are you saying that the faculty and administration of your school was in-fact communist OR do you consider those that believe in the seperation of church and state to be communist?"

Topher, Jon-Marc was probably using it as an insult to those faculty members who went around stealing the students' Bibles. He was talking about two separate incidents. The first one was before the rules, the thefts were after the rules.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bob,

I think we have finally agreed on something. Your views that religious education are the task of parents and the religious institutions are exactly what I was saying.

Since our society is pluralistic, it would be absurd for every public building, every school, and even every court to be decorated with religious symbols to appease the public. It would make more sense to have ban religious symbolism from public buildings and schools; that way nobody's belief system is slighted.

BTW-The conservative author Paul Greenberg is quite unlikely to be Christian. His name makes me think he is Jewish which really makes me wonder if he wants NT or OT taught in the school systems.

Regarding Jon=Mark: I really am confused by his comments. I wonder if time has colored his memory.

On a regular basis teachers confiscate comic books, lighers, gum, cell phones, electronic games and lots of other distractions from students. These items get given back at the end of the period. I am willing to bet that these bibles got given back at the end of the day as well. I have a hard time believing that these bibles were kept by the teacher(s) forever.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamblefish:
The article advocates teaching the Bible as literature, not as a religion as many of you appear to think. It is no different from kids studying The Odyssey or The Illiad or even the Koran. I see no problem with kids studying any of these texts, Bible included. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is ineviteable that there would be discussions in the classroom on the factuality and truthfulness of the subject matter. Those discussions which would then be "defended by faith" are not appropriate for public school classrooms.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):

Are you saying that the faculty and administration of your school was in-fact communist OR do you consider those that believe in the seperation of church and state to be communist? Personally, I couldn't care less if any student has a bible in their backpack; but I do have a problem if the public school starts to teach bible lessons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I call them communists because they came into the dining room during lunch and confiscated personal bibles of any students who carried one. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">OK, so we have established that there is no proof that they were Communists. All they did was remove bibles from some students. These are two entirely different things. FYI I don't approve of their actions if in fact you (and the other students) were just reading them on your own time. Not being there we don't have all of the facts.</span>

Yet the atheists<span class="ev_code_BLUE">That is an improper leap. Just because they thought it was against school rules to have bibles out during the school day does not in any way mean that they may not be just as religious as you on their own time. Due to the school regulations, I am positive that they never got into detailed discussions with you about their spirituality.</span>

If you say it's all right to take Bibles away from Christians because they offend non-Christians, then you're saying it's all right to shut down nudist resorts because they offend other people.<span class="ev_code_BLUE"> I have no problem with any of my fellow students reading whatever they want on their own time. </span>

Personally I believe that only Christian schools should teach the Bible. If we teach one religion in public schools, then we have to teach all of them. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">My point - exactly.</span>

I was confused in high school by being taught the falsehood of evolution as a FACT in the 60's, and then being taught the Bible in church, which IS a fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><span class="ev_code_BLUE">[COLOR:BLUE]S L O W D O W N![ On this site it has been discussed to death that creationism is a BELIEF, not something that can be proven. You may be very secure in your belifs, but no matter how much you believe in creationism, it can't be proven. On the other hand, Darwinism and evolution may be proven. If you don't believe me, go have an indepth conversation with any oncologist. Ask them what they see on a daily basis. No matter how strong your faith. No matter how much you want to take every word of the bible literally, you can't refute that which can be proven in a laboratory. Creationsism is part of a belief system. Darwinism is a scientific fact. That is why Creationism is taught in bible studies and evolution is taught in the sciences. /COLOR]</span>

[Qikdraw]

I thought evolution was just a 'theory', and as such, not proven. Isn't that why they call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

They haven't found the missing link to tie humans to apes yet.

Plus I think people confuse evolution with survival of the fittest.

Qikdraw

[jon71]

Gamblefish is right, we are talking about the Bible as literature, which is undeiable, not religious indoctrination, which I personally would strongly oppose. As to the point Christopher brought up if a matter of belief or faith comes up the teacher would simply say "that is a matter of faith and different people have different interpretations of that." The teacher could also recommend the student talk to their parent and/or clergyperson. I am aware that sometimes these courses are proposed to "sneak in" indoctrination but there is no reason they can't be done legitimately.

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
It is ineviteable that there would be discussions in the classroom on the factuality and truthfulness of the subject matter. Those discussions which would then be "defended by faith" are not appropriate for public school classrooms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, something inappropriate like a discussion or debate might happen at school? Wow, like, bummer man...

You're not giving teachers very much credit.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamblefish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
It is ineviteable that there would be discussions in the classroom on the factuality and truthfulness of the subject matter. Those discussions which would then be "defended by faith" are not appropriate for public school classrooms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, something inappropriate like a discussion or debate might happen at school? Wow, like, bummer man...

You're not giving teachers very much credit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I am. It's just that when I see school boards in the bible belt wanting to put stick-on labels on science textbooks stating that science is a theory and not in accordance with biblical views that I see a major problem.

I am certain that Pagen, Jewish, Budhist, Muslim and Christian teachers could lead classroom discussions on the bible. But you might find it offensive when each becomes critical from their own veiwpoint based upon faith and upbringing.

Once again, I am in favor of students receiving religious instruction - in the home and religious institutions; not in the public schools.

[Michjoe]

I wonder who would sign up for this class? My guess is that schools could carefully design this class to avoid any objections and then nobody would sign up for it. I don't think students unfamiliar with religion would be eager to use an elective to learn about it. If the class included many religions, would the already religious people want to learn about them?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
I thought evolution was just a 'theory', and as such, not proven. Isn't that why they call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

They haven't found the missing link to tie humans to apes yet.

Plus I think people confuse evolution with survival of the fittest.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The word "Theory" in science does not mean an unproven guess: that is a hypothesis. In science a "theory" is a descriptive framework that explains how something works. In ordinary conversational English the equivalent word is "Law".

The "The Theory of Evolution" is on par with the "Theory of Gravitation", the "Germ Theory", the "Theory of Relativity" and "Quantum Theory".

As for a missing link, they have not only found common ancestors to modern humans and modern apes, but they have found remains of several other species of humans that are not ancestral to Homo Sapiens Sapiens (our species). There is no missing link. Taxonomically humans would be considered apes if we didn't automatically place ourselves into a separate category.

Pertaining to the issue of teaching the Bible in Public Schools. It is not only a good idea, it is perfectly permissable under the First Amendment so long as the schools maintain a scholarly rather than an advocacy position. Bill Clinton (http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html) made this perfectly clear to educators:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Teaching about religion: Public schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other scripture: the history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature, and the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries all are permissible public school subjects. Similarly, it is permissible to consider religious influences on art, music, literature, and social studies. Although public schools may teach about religious holidays, including their religious aspects, and may celebrate the secular aspects of holidays, schools may not observe holidays as religious events or promote such observance by students. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Mark

[Trailscout]

Evolution in the strictest sense of the word means change in organisms over time. The theory of evolution has several variations. Secular evolution presumes that these changes require no creator or outside intervention. Theories of Theistic Evolution generally assume that evolution of life on Earth happened according to Divine will and presume varying degrees of divine interaction with the creation process at its inception or at various stages along the way.

Most Christians and presumably Jews and Muslims object to their children being taught in the classroom that God was not involved in the appearance of life on Earth. This anti-theistic dogma takes valid scientific theory and makes an anti-religion out of it. I have seen it in some textbooks, but certainly not all are so stridently anti-religious.

Fossils of apes do not prove that they were ancestral to humans nor share a common ancestor, neither do fossils of extinct human races prove that they and modern humans share a common ancestor with apes.

Increasingly secular evolution is being discredited as an untenable hypothesis and often by non-Christian scientists. Intelligent design theory has been offered as an alternate hypothesis. There are quite a few books out there on the subject, but "Darwin's Black Box" is not a bad book to start with.

If you'd like to pursue this further, another term to use in Google searches (or your search engine of preference) is: irreducible complexity

[Ren]

So, in the beginning, God created man. Then what? Killed them off for millions of years so dinosaurs could run rampant? Then killed them off and over time returned us to the state of Adam and Eve?

The problem with the hypothesis of creationism is that logic is completely missing.

[Kari P]

One good thing in the USA society is the separation of church and state. You are road showers to many other countries (Finland and other Nordic countries included). Keep your status!

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Increasingly secular evolution is being discredited as an untenable hypothesis and often by non-Christian scientists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evolution is in dispute nearly everywhere except amoung serious scientists.

It is a mistake to think that Christians are opposed to Darwinian evolution, or that the scientists who support evolution are not Christian. It just isn't true. Most Scientists who are Christian have no conflict in their faith in accepting the truth of evolution. The official (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp) position of the Catholic Church supports evolution: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The official position (http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1820) of the United Methodist Church: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world, although we preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The positions of other major Christian Denominations: Creation and Inerrancy (http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html)

If anyone wants to get into the nitty gritty of the the evolution vs. creationism debate go to the talk.origins (http://news:talk.origins) usenet group. (Web version here. (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins))

Talk.Origins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/) - pro-evolution articles from Talk.Origins

True Origin (http://www.trueorigin.org/) - creationist rebuttals.

Evolution vs. Creationism (http://suhep.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ORIGINS/origins.html) - A collection of web links from both viewpoints.

-Mark

[webbguy]

I believe this " bible in school " thing is another one of Satans tricks. You go to school to learn to read and right, etc. you go to church of your choice to learn God's word. Like this ten commandments thing , we are losing our American rights, like owning guns, watching movies,tv, reading mags, and all most Americans can talk about is why can't we mount the statue of the ten commandments in the town square. if we study Gods word we already know them!!! Satan is deverting our thoughts to non-sense like that!!

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by webbguy:
You go to school to learn to read and right, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which obviously, you didn't... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[nfstan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Evolution in the strictest sense of the word means change in organisms over time. The theory of evolution has several variations. Secular evolution presumes that these changes require no creator or outside intervention. Theories of Theistic Evolution generally assume that evolution of life on Earth happened according to Divine will and presume varying degrees of divine interaction with the creation process at its inception or at various stages along the way.

Most Christians and presumably Jews and Muslims object to their children being taught in the classroom that God was not involved in the appearance of life on Earth. This anti-theistic dogma takes valid scientific theory and makes an anti-religion out of it. I have seen it in some textbooks, but certainly not all are so stridently anti-religious.

Fossils of apes do not prove that they were ancestral to humans nor share a common ancestor, neither do fossils of extinct human races prove that they and modern humans share a common ancestor with apes.

Increasingly secular evolution is being discredited as an untenable hypothesis and often by non-Christian scientists. Intelligent design theory has been offered as an alternate hypothesis. There are quite a few books out there on the subject, but "Darwin's Black Box" is not a bad book to start with.

If you'd like to pursue this further, another term to use in Google searches (or your search engine of preference) is: irreducible complexity </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scientific methodology seeks to provide explanations of observed phenomena. Therefore it must start with a body of observations. A hypothesis is an explanation consistent with the observations. Given a number of such explanations, Occam's Razor ("do not multiply hypotheses unnecessarily") suggests that the simplest explanation is likely to be the best. Hypotheses are necessarily contingent; they are tested against further observations and are discarded if inconsistent. The cycle of observation --> hypothesis ---> observation ---> ... continues until a well tested hypothesis emerges; this is a theory. A theory is still a hypothesis, though, and so is contingent; it might be falsified by further observations. Falsifiability is the hallmark of a scientific theory. "Theistic evolution" is not a scientific theory since it postulates an untestable, hence unfalsifiable, hypothesis ("God did it.").

"Scientific creationism" (flood geology and the like) and "Intelligent design" (Behe's "irreducible complexity" and Dembski's "specified complex information") try to cloak theistic evolution in scientific jargon. The creationist folks put the cart before the horse by starting with a hypothesis and tailoring observations to fit it. ID arguments are more subtle, but are characterized by their negativity: Behe asserts that certain biological features are too complex to have evolved naturally. Dembski uses the language of information theory in somewhat unorthodox fashion to claim that it's "impossible" (read "astronomically improbable") to generate complex specified information without intelligent intervention. Both their theses have been effectively refuted as examination of the literature of the controversy reveals. Behe has lately conceded some points but seems reluctant to abandon his thesis. Dembski's response seems to be to write another book to refute his critics. Go figure.

Scientifically, creationism and ID appear to be bankrupt. Sadly, they are alive and well on the political front.

Believe what you will, but please allow science its magisterium.

[sw1sweendog]

im non religious,if you want to read the bible do it at home,church or a hotel.noy in school.

[P.J.]

I object to stripping our society of our religious heritage but do not advocate that the government establish a state religious denomination, nor endorse one sect over another.

Why can't courses on Comparative religions be taught? In the public school, this could be a fair and balanced course, if overseen by the respective representatives of the faiths covered.

As for the theories of evolution, I do not consider it a sin to believe that man was created by means of evolution, although personally, I believe in creationism.

However, I consider evolution to be a theory, which should be taught along with creationism.

With the controversies that both evolution and creationism have generated I believe that both should be covered on equal footing, but in a way that leaves the question open to debate.

[Trailscout]

Stan, the flaw in your logic seems to have eluded you.

If you presume that the existence of God and his role as creator is untestable, and use that premise to refuse to consider the possibility of a creator, then yes secular evolution is the simplest possible explanation, but only because a simpler explanation, the direction of evolution by a supreme being is excluded from your self-limiting bag of answers to life's questions.

To you, Behe and Demski may seem to be stubbornly clinging to the concept of Intelligent Design, but a simpler explanation is that their arguments have not been refuted, merely attacked.

The high priests of secular evolution, particularly those in the media spotlight, would very much like you to believe that they are the dispassionate inerrant arbiters of truth. Thank the Lord, a few have arisen to point out the inadequacy of their theories, their bias against the Creator.

No, we will not meekly and uncritically accept their dogma as true science. The Apostle Paul warned against such men. I Timothy 6:20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:20&version=9;)

Further reading:
Anti-scientific aversions of science falsely so-called (http://www.webwitness.org.au/smst7.html)

[Jennifer1]

lol creationsim when i first heard this being mentioned in a something on channel 4, i though it was a joke, i mean to teach that instead of biology is just stupid, i mean at least science is trying to find how we arrived here and not just believing an old book written by Humans along time ago, back then they though the earth was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe and that any woman who had an ounce of intellegence was a witch(maybe thats later on in history but u get the idea), people of the past where uneducatied idiots(in the sense that most couldnt read and had no idea of there own past), who would just believe what there relgious advisor told them.

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
... people of the past where uneducatied idiots(in the sense that most couldnt read and had no idea of there own past), who would just believe what there relgious advisor told them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jennifer, in our modern world we have many who uncritically believe what their science teacher tells them. I don't think things have changed very much.

If you don't trust old books, maybe you should start with the "The Origin of the Species" and the "Descent of Man". Yes, Darwin's works are outdated books, but the Bible (written by men under the power of the Holy Spirit) remains. The difference is not the age of the book of course, but the wisdom of the author(s). God was the only one present at the moment of creation and is the ONE best qualified to dictate the story of humanity's arrival on this planet.

[jon71]

There doesn't have to be a conflict. The Bible can be taught in literature class. It is the most quoted and referenced piece of literature in the western world. The theory of evolution can be taught in science class because it is the most prominent theory of creation. Fyi many Christians believe both.Furthermore micro-evolution is a scientific law, only macro-evolution is still theoretical.

[Ren]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:


However, I consider evolution to be a theory, which should be taught along with creationism.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because you believe it, doesn't mean you're right. But I'll go with it a second, because I've heard different arguments.

Please answer this so I can see where you're coming from: How old is the Earth? Did dinosaurs exist?

[Jennifer1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
... people of the past where uneducatied idiots(in the sense that most couldnt read and had no idea of there own past), who would just believe what there relgious advisor told them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jennifer, in our modern world we have many who uncritically believe what their science teacher tells them. I don't think things have changed very much.

If you don't trust old books, maybe you should start with the "The Origin of the Species" and the "Descent of Man". Yes, Darwin's works are outdated books, but the Bible (written by men under the power of the Holy Spirit) remains. The difference is not the age of the book of course, but the wisdom of the author(s). God was the only one present at the moment of creation and is the ONE best qualified to dictate the story of humanity's arrival on this planet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hm, what does under the power mean? Possesed? Talking to god? or some other thing that would get you locked up in a looney bin nowadays?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by P.J.:


However, I consider evolution to be a theory, which should be taught along with creationism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe in your country, but the UK has moved away from relgion in schools, the number of religious based schools decreases every year. Creationsim will never be taught in our country the few catholic schools don't even try to have the laws changed to teach it.

[nfstan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Stan, the flaw in your logic seems to have eluded you.

If you presume that the existence of God and his role as creator is untestable, and use that premise to refuse to consider the possibility of a creator, then yes secular evolution is the simplest possible explanation, but only because a simpler explanation, the direction of evolution by a supreme being is excluded from your self-limiting bag of answers to life's questions.

To you, Behe and Demski may seem to be stubbornly clinging to the concept of Intelligent Design, but a simpler explanation is that their arguments have not been refuted, merely attacked.

The high priests of secular evolution, particularly those in the media spotlight, would very much like you to believe that they are the dispassionate inerrant arbiters of truth. Thank the Lord, a few have arisen to point out the inadequacy of their theories, their bias against the Creator.

No, we will not meekly and uncritically accept their dogma as true science. The Apostle Paul warned against such men. I Timothy 6:20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:20&version=9;)

Further reading:
Anti-scientific aversions of science falsely so-called (http://www.webwitness.org.au/smst7.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trailscout, your "simpler explanation" isn't; it doesn't explain the "supreme being".

Science, being based on observation, is necessarily self-limiting. It can say nothing about the unobservable. That is its strength. Why? Simply because admitting speculations about unobservables cannot lead to verifiable conclusions. Science per se is not antithetical to religion; it simply has nothing to say about it. As Gould has pointed out, science and religion are separate magisteria.

School science classes exist to teach science; let them do so for those who want to learn science.

The weakness of ID is that its arguments are negative: Thus and such a feature is too complex to have evolved naturally, therefore intelligent intervention occurred. The alternative, look for an alternate pathway, is not considered. Since plausible alternatives have been put forward for the examples cited, the conclusion is refuted.

I have read Dembski and much of the exchange that occurred on-line at the height of the controversy, so am not unfamiliar with the thesis. One needs to look beyond creationist tracts to get a balanced picture.

[David77]

There are two different versions of creation in the Bible.

<u>Genesis 1</u>
plants
animals
man & woman

<u>Genesis 2</u>
man
plants
animals
woman

The tribal story tellers of the Bible got their days and events mixed up in telling their legands. Both versions were recorded.

If a person wishes to teach strict creationism, one would have to decide which is true and which is false.

There are consistent series of clues that Genesis 1 story of creation was written by someone concerned with Israel and the second creation story, Genesis 2, by someone concerned with Judah.

[namedun]

From what we now know from fossil evidence (especially with those big obvious dinosaur bones), I think it's pretty safe to say that David 77's Genesis 2 can be thrown out. I'd like to bring up evolution if that hasn't been discussed already. I've often wondered why christians, and catholics in particular, have such a hard time with the idea. I mean, the bible doesn't mention it, but so what? The bible never says "humans always held the same physical characteristics". Besides, evolution is not something you can veiw in moment, so that's why it was never mentioned by any biblical authors. Why can't the theory (which I consider proven) still work as a fact? If you need plain evidence without asking any science type people, just look at wolves and domestic dogs. They used to be generally the same, but now there is a distinct and obvious difference between your average pack-hunting, vicious wolf, and the cute and cudly poodle. How do we know they had the same ancestors? Simple folk bred wolves into dogs and recorded it, no drawn out scientific arguements needed.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I've often wondered why christians, and catholics in particular, have such a hard time with the idea (of evolution) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Outside of the United States, the large majority of Christians (including Roman Catholics) have no problem with the theory of evolution.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
Creationsim will never be taught in our country the few catholic schools don't even try to have the laws changed to teach it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The official position (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp) of the Catholic Church is that Darwinian Evolution is correct. So called "Creation Science (http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm#menu)" is largely the bailiwick of Protestant non-scientists.

[melissastarr]

As a public school teacher (5th grade last year, 6th grade next year) I find that I can get away with talking about the Bible as long as I'm only sharing stories, anecdotes, poems, proverbs, etc. and not saying whether what the Bible says about salvation or creation is true. I've talked about creationism in the public schools, but only as one option the kids can choose from as they think about the beginning of the world. Also, we had a great discussion about whether you can believe in creationism and evolution at the same time- couldn't God have created those things which evolved? It was food for thought for many of the kids... even though I'm not an evolutionist in any sense. I figure most of the kids are Christians and the Bible is a historical book (among other things) so it can't hurt to talk about it.

Melissa

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by melissastarr:
we had a great discussion about whether you can believe in creationism and evolution at the same time- couldn't God have created those things which evolved? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You should explore ""Theistic Evolution (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world2.htm)", which is pretty much where I stand. I believe the "secular" mechanistic process of Darwinian Evolution is precisely the means God employs in the continuing creation.

The evidence of evolution left in the world is overwhelming, and I don't for a minute believe God would have 'salted' the Earth with false evidence of an evolutionary past that didn't occur. Evolution is real - the evidence that proves it is nothing less than the fingerprints of God, by dismissing it, you are denying the truth God left for us to see.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

"I think we have finally agreed on something."

Come now, Topher. This isn't the only thing we both agree on. We're both nudists, too! As for Jon_Marc's situation, it was absolutely wrong of them to take them during the students' free time, lunch. And from what i got from his story previously, they didn't care if they were reading them or just had them in their bookbags, they confiscated them.

"I was confused in high school by being taught the falsehood of evolution as a FACT in the 60's, and then being taught the Bible in church, which IS a fact."

Jon-Marc, a religious fact, which cannot be confused with a scientific or worldly fact. Faith cannot be the only support for something to be considered true.

As for the teaching of the Bible as literature, that would also open a can of worms. How would it be presented? Historical? Some of the stories are too steeped in faith or allegory that their hitorical value is invalid. Fiction? Gee, that will make some Christians/Jews happy, won't it? Religious studies? What about other religious texts?

And the teacher would also have to be chosen carefully. Get someone too much on the religious side, you are close to preaching. Get someone too far to the athiest or unbelieving side, parents will be angered about the tone of the class as anti-religious.

I don't think the class is doable, but it would be intersting.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"Most Christians and presumably Jews and Muslims object to their children being taught in the classroom that God was not involved in the appearance of life on Earth."

Trail, this confuses me because G*d isn't even mentioned in the class. No one is taught that G*d was not involved just as they should not be taught in public schools that He was involved. They should just be taught that Earth was formed and life appeared on Earth. It is up to the parents and their faith system to teach the children whether G*d was involved or not.

"If you presume that the existence of God and his role as creator is untestable..."

So Trail, please devise a test to prove the premise that G*d exists and another to prove that He created life as it says so in the Bible.

"No, we will not meekly and uncritically accept their dogma as true science."

And yet we shall meekly and uncritically accept your dogma as true science? Why? Because G*d said so? Prove that point scientifically.

"but the Bible (written by men under the power of the Holy Spirit) remains."

But the Bible is not a scientific text. It is more of a collection of fictional stories, fables, historical stories, and a mixture of all three.

The funny thing is nowadays, people who claim to be under the power of the Holy Spirit are usually put away.

Bob S.

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:


However, I consider evolution to be a theory, which should be taught along with creationism.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because you believe it, doesn't mean you're right. But I'll go with it a second, because I've heard different arguments.

Please answer this so I can see where you're coming from: How old is the Earth? Did dinosaurs exist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Ren...
I wish that I had enough answers to answer these questions.
I'm a Christian.
My faith, however, does not conflict with science.
I recall a fundamentalist preacher stating that science is the study of facts.
Furthermore, I'm convinced that if you check out the Old Testament of the Holy Bible, Isaiah 40:22 shatters the Dark Ages teaching that the world is flat.
I believe in creationism, but there are so many questions which are impossible to answer.
When the world was created, was the length of a day 24 hours? I do not know and I doubt that anyone has a conclusive answer which can be scientifically substantiated.
In some parts of the world at some parts of the year, there are very long periods of daylight.
To be honest, I have no idea how old the world is.
As for dinosaurs, there is no doubt in my mind that they did exist. The demise of the dinosaur opens up plenty of questions which may never be completely answered. I think that man existed at the same time as the dinosaurs.
At this moment, I admit to not being prepared to debate.

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:


However, I consider evolution to be a theory, which should be taught along with creationism.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because you believe it, doesn't mean you're right. But I'll go with it a second, because I've heard different arguments.

Please answer this so I can see where you're coming from: How old is the Earth? Did dinosaurs exist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hey Ren...
I already replied to this post, but failed to suggest addressing these questions to Melissastarr. (Sorry Melissa!) She is a teacher and in my honest opinion, more qualified than me to answer your questions.

[melissastarr]

My thoughts.....

If it's not a proven fact, and I don't believe evolution is, then give the kids all the theories and let them decide for themselves. It gives the kids ample opportunity to talk and debate amongst themselves and make up their own minds. Be sure to give them plenty of pieces of 'key evidence' for all of the theories and then talk about it. If nothing else, we'll be taching kids how to think... which is an area that kids aren't learning anymore.

In regard to dinosaurs, I have taught kids about the dinosaurs- even in a Christian school. I think there's ample evidence that they did exist. There is nothing, however, that indicates whether they existed in the same time period as humans. However, there are some mentions in the Bible about creatures that seem to be dinosaurs. Also, the dinosaur may have been the cause of people believing in dragons (dragons actually being dinosaurs, just using a different name), which has been a part of many cultures for many years- even before dinsosaurs were first dug up.

How old is the earth? We don't really know for sure. A lot of the dating that is done is inaccurate. Different scientists have come up with different conclusions on how old it is. Quite honestly, I don't see this as a big question and I don't really care about the answer. Maybe once the scientists get a conclusive answer we'll know, though. There's nowhere in the Bible that tells us how old the Earth is.

Sorry for such a long post!

Melissa

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
...There are consistent series of clues that Genesis 1 story of creation was written by someone concerned with Israel and the second creation story, Genesis 2, by someone concerned with Judah. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The book of Genesis was compiled from Hebrew genealogies by Moses several hundred years before the kingdom of Israel (northern ten tribes) broke off from the tribe of Judah.

There are not two accounts, merely two sections of verse in the creation poem, each telling the same story with different emphasis.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by melissastarr:
My thoughts.....

If it's not a proven fact, and I don't believe evolution is, then give the kids all the theories and let them decide for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Melissa, I guess you missed the definition of theory that Mark gave.

"The word "Theory" in science does not mean an unproven guess: that is a hypothesis. In science a "theory" is a descriptive framework that explains how something works. In ordinary conversational English the equivalent word is "Law"."

A scientific theory is not "a fact" but it's built on many facts that are already known. It isn't just a guess, it's built from solid scientific research. Creationism would not qualify. It's not created from any facts, it comes from folklore.

I think the word "theory" confuses people. The scientific term is quite different from it's general use and requires a lot more background.

[Trailscout]

Theory (any theory) is not a law. It is not helpful to equate the two.

The fossil record does not prove that organisms evolved without help from a higher power. It actually suggests, (but does not prove) that there were quantum leaps in differentiation and complexity at certain critical junctures. This was once thought to be gaps in the fossil record, but the increasing number of fossils have killed that possibility. So Stephen Jay Gould and other evolutionists have conjectured a sub-theory of punctuated equilbria they popularized as the "Hopeful Monster Hypothesis": macromutations in a geologically short period of time. Strict uniformitarians (many micromutations over eons of time) rebelled against this notion, but it was a new paradigm that did a better job of describing the fossils in the geologic column.

Gould was a Marxist and rejected the notion of a creator, but the theory never adequately explained an autonomous process that could generate these intervals of accelerated evolutionary change (macromutations).

Recognizing this critical flaw, intelligent design theorists posit intervention in evolution by an outside force or entity at these moments in Earth history.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
There are not two accounts, merely two sections of verse in the creation poem, each telling the same story with different emphasis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Doublets" are the telling of two accounts of the same stories in the
Bible. It so happens that in first account, the writer always uses the
word " Elohim" for "God". The second (twin) account always uses
the word "Yahweh" for "God". It is customary for scholars to refer to
the Elohim stories as (E) and the the Yahweh stories as (J).

There are consistent series of clues that the E stories were written by
someone concerned with Israel and the J stories by someone concerned
with Judah. For a complete discussion and listing of these doublets,
please refer to the book by Richard Elliott Friedman entitled "Who Wrote
The Bible". However, many scholars say the same thing.

Just to point out a few douplets we will start with the creation
accounts. The J account, first version account, is Genesis1:1-2:3. The
second version, the E version, is Genesis 2:4-24.

They describe the same events in different order. In the first version,
God created plants first, then animals, then man and woman.

In the second version, God created MAN first. Then he created plants.
Then, so that man should not be alone, God created animals. And last,
after man does not find a satisfactory mate among the animals, God
created woman.

Genesis 1
plants
animals
man & woman

Genesis 2
man
plants
animals
woman

The two stories have two different pictures of what happened. Now, the
first version of the creation story always refers to the creator as God
(Elohim) thirty five times. The second version always refers to him by
his name, Yahweh God - eleven times. The first version never calls him
Yahweh; the second version never call him God (Elohim).

Later comes the story of the great flood and Noah's ark, and it too, can
be separated into two complete versions that sometimes duplicate each
other and sometimes contradict each other, and again, one version always
calls the diety God (Elohim), and the other version always calls him
Yahweh.
The Flood is stated in Genesis 6:5-8:22.

The two do not just differ in terminology . They differ on actual
details of the story. One version has ONE PAIR of each kind of animal.
The other has seven pair of clean animals and one pair of unclean
animals. On gives a picture of the flood lasting a year (370 days). J
says it was forty days and forty nights. One says Noah sent out a
raven. J says a dove. One has a concern for ages, dates, and
measurements in cubits. J does not. Probably the most remarkable
difference of all between the two is their different ways of picturing
God. It is not just that they call the diety by different names. The
anthropomorphic quality of the J account (regretting past actions, etc.)
is virtually entirely lacking in the latter account. Their God is
regarded more as a transcendent controller of the universe.

There are two stories of the covenant between the diety and Abraham.
And, once again, in one the diety introduces himself as Yahweh, and in
the other he introduces himself as God
(Elohim). Genesis 15 and Genesis 17.

Another example - the E account makes Seth, the first child but the J
account makes Cain the first child.

There are many other examples of differing stories.

[Trailscout]

Adding detail about seven pair of clean animals does not negate the general single pair rule.

The rain lasted 40 days and nights, the flooded conditions lasted one year.

Noah sent first a dove and then a raven.

Cain was Adam's firstborn, but lost his birthright due to his murder of Abel. Seth become the heir in the messianic line.

The documentary hypothesis is clever but was based on a misunderstanding of Hebrew literary convention.

[hm0504]

If the Bible was "taught" in public schools, there would be a never-ending heated debate about how it should be "taught". Fundamentalists would be incensed at any teaching of, for example, that there are two different and separate creation stories, and non-fundamentalists would be fed up with teaching that says the Universe is just 6000 years old.

[Trailscout]

HM,

Two creation narratives would not contradict a fundamentalist view of scripture.

I am not a fundamentalist, but I know them well enough to speak from their perspective.

Moses could very easily have compiled elements of Midianite tradition (his father-in-law's people) with the traditions he learned from his own people. Then the Lord might have guided him as he wove the two narratives together.

What would be at issue for a fundamentalist and me as well is any suggestion that Moses wove contradictory stories together. Moses was way too smart a guy for that. He was educated in the best schools of Egypt and he had the Lord himself to guide the process of compiling Genesis from previous written narratives. And yes, it was written. Abraham was a literate gentleman originally from the very cultured city of Ur in what is now Iraq. We simply don't know when the oral narrative of the generations of Adam was first transcribed. It might very well have preceeded the Great Noachian Deluge.

Back to the main question.
I would prefer to send my own kids to private religious school to teach this tradition from a reverent context, but it would create a major hole in the education of America's youngsters if they were left ignorant of the spiritual and literary heritage of Western civilization.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Trailscout:

What would be at issue for a fundamentalist and me as well is any suggestion that Moses wove contradictory stories together. Moses was way too smart a guy for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But non-Fundamentalists do see the two stories as being contradictory. And they do not see Moses as being the literal author of the first bits of Genesis so that would be an issue too.

As I said, I do not see how the Bible could be "taught" in a way that wouldn't make many peope very angry.

[Trailscout]

Hm, I don't know anyone fundamentalist or otherwise who could deny that Moses merely compiled the stories that had been passed down through the patriarchs and probably by the time of Abraham committed to cuniform tablets or scroll.

Egyptians had a tendency to blot out the names of those who departed from the ancient gods. Moses was not the only one. King Tutankamen met a similar ignominy until archaeologists recovered his identity. But there is no reason to insist that Moses did not exist. Nor is there any reason to insist that he did not compile the existing narratives. As I said, he certainly had the finest education and was perfectly capable of the task.

There is remarkable harmony between what some call the two creation accounts. They merely vary in emphasis without any true conflict.

[Trailscout]

Trying to struggle back to the topic, it would be a travesty to deny children access to the biblical portion of the body of knowledge of western civilization. It's as bad as the schools that keep hispanic kids in a linguistic ghetto, never giving them the chance for English fluency.

Perhaps children from religiously observant homes (regardless of faith) could have outsourced education in religion, provided by instructors from their faith, letting more secular families learn about this aspect of western civ from the public schools and excusing the people of faith from having to attend the secular version of this material.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Hm, I don't know anyone fundamentalist or otherwise who could deny that Moses merely compiled the stories that had been passed down through the patriarchs and probably by the time of Abraham committed to cuniform tablets or scroll.

Egyptians had a tendency to blot out the names of those who departed from the ancient gods. Moses was not the only one. King Tutankamen met a similar ignominy until archaeologists recovered his identity. But there is no reason to insist that Moses did not exist. Nor is there any reason to insist that he did not compile the existing narratives. As I said, he certainly had the finest education and was perfectly capable of the task.

There is remarkable harmony between what some call the two creation accounts. They merely vary in emphasis without any true conflict. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my universe, it is commonplace to find people who do not regard Moses, alone, as having compiled and recorded the existing narratives into the Pentateuch (particularly the eulogy Moses' death); the textual and archaeological references clearly point to the Pentateuch as having been compiled long after Moses.

And I think it has been well established that there are many of us who cannot help but see that the conflicts between the Genesis chapters are not matters of "emphasis" but because they are two different stories.

Ultimately, you and I are simply emphasizing the point I made that it is impossible to "teach" the Bible in public schools because the population of the U.S. is so divided on its interpretation. You say, like many others with religiously conservative views, that there is hardly anyone who does not hold your views except maybe for a handful of pesky religious liberals. I say the contrary, that most Christians in the West feel that understanding the Bible requires first understanding science and history.

I think this author provides an excellent perspective on the things we've been discussing:
http://www.jerrybernard.com/lessons/WhoWroteTheBible.htm

[David77]

My public grade school in St. Louis Missouri many years ago, solved the problem of being educated about the Bible by letting any child to get off school early once a week to attend any church religious education class.
My mother compelled me to take advantage of this, and attend a Christian Science Bible class, eventhough I did not want to do so.

P.S. I have not been Christian Science for over 50 years, but have been Unitarian Universalist for those many years.

[David77]

hm0504,
Thank you for providing such a wonderfully enlightening website at;

http://www.jerrybernard.com/lessons/WhoWroteTheBible.htm

[Trailscout]

HM, I was careful NOT to say that Moses compiled the entire Pentateuch! He clearly had his hand in putting most of Genesis together from the writings of the patriarchs. Joshua son of Nun would have had ample opportunity to finish the biography of Moses and most of Exodus.
Think of it as one of those Russian dolls, nested within is another smaller doll, and a smaller one within that, etc...

[melissastarr]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
My public grade school in St. Louis Missouri many years ago, solved the problem of being educated about the Bible by letting any child to get off school early once a week to attend any church religious education class.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this is still the law. In my area there are Child Evangelism Fellowship people who go into the schools for one hour a week to uphold that law and give the kids religious education once a week. It's actually a pretty interesting law that, IMHO, isn't acted on nearly enough.

Melissa

[Bob S.]

"it would be a travesty to deny children access to the biblical portion of the body of knowledge of western civilization."

But why should the schools do that, Trail? Nobody has suggested denying anyone access to the Bible. There are places for that. They are called homes and houses of worship.

We see nowadays people who complain about how sex education is taught. Some people want more to be taught, others want less to be taught. The same with history, science, and a host of other courses.

A question. Would you trust the public school system to adequately teach the Bible--areligiously so as not to become preaching, but just enough so that the kids are familiar with the stories?

I know I don't. I trust them to teach many subjects, the Bible is not one of those, however. It is a religious text that must be taught within a religious context; otherwise it is a useless collection of stories on par with other anthologies.

I see the school system as having one vitally important role in society and church as another vitally important role in society. The two should not mix. Imagine a government telling a religious school they have to teach evolution. That is wrong. So is telling a public school to teach about creationsim.

Bob S.

[Ren]

Taking an hour a week to study religion is fine, but they shouldn't be going into the schools to do it.

[Ren]

I was just rereading the original post again. It says that it is too bad that kids leave school biblically illiterate. The true problem is that they leave school illiterate in a lot of subjects. Here in MA, they are imposing standardized testing for all sorts of subjects to serve as benchmarks to say, okay, you've learned enough. A recent study showed that since they made these assessments mandatory to graduate, the change in the amount of kids at certain colleges to take college-level remedial courses so they will be on a par to learn in the college has been negligible. The problem is, since imposing these "standards", the kids are being taught how to pass the test (MA government holds schools hostage to the test - no pass=no funding) and no real knowledge.

I could care less if kids come out of public school biblically illiterate. There's too much real-subject learning that's being missed as well.

[Jennifer1]

So if schools taught the bible what would happen to those who where Muslim, buddist or any those other religions, put them in a separete class because there religious belifes conflict with the schools teachings? (since in this modern world there are people for differnet cultures living in the same area).

You want to learn more about religion in schools go to a catholic school or something leave the rest of us to get on with our evil sciences.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
So if schools taught the bible what would happen to those who where Muslim, buddist or any those other religions, put them in a separete class because there religious belifes conflict with the schools teachings? (since in this modern world there are people for differnet cultures living in the same area).

You want to learn more about religion in schools go to a catholic school or something leave the rest of us to get on with our evil sciences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is perfectly legal (http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html) to teach kids ABOUT religion in public schools. AND it is a good idea. There is far too much ignorance about religion in general and about "other people's religions" in particular. Our kids need a better perspective than their parents have.

What is NOT permissible is to proselytize or advocate on behalf of any particular religion.

It is permissible to teach about the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon or even Dianetics as literature. But if you want to use them to advance your religion that will have to be done at home, at Church, or at some other non public school venue.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Teaching about religion: Public schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other scripture: the history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature, and the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries all are permissible public school subjects. Similarly, it is permissible to consider religious influences on art, music, literature, and social studies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>-Mark

[Trailscout]

I agree, Mark. In these times it is dangerous not to know what motivates people across the world to think and act as they do. Understanding all the major religions of the world is one necessary component of that task.

[Jennifer1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
So if schools taught the bible what would happen to those who where Muslim, buddist or any those other religions, put them in a separete class because there religious belifes conflict with the schools teachings? (since in this modern world there are people for differnet cultures living in the same area).

You want to learn more about religion in schools go to a catholic school or something leave the rest of us to get on with our evil sciences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is perfectly legal (http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html) to teach kids ABOUT religion in public schools. AND it is a good idea. There is far too much ignorance about religion in general and about "other people's religions" in particular. Our kids need a better perspective than their parents have.

What is NOT permissible is to proselytize or advocate on behalf of any particular religion.

It is permissible to teach about the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon or even Dianetics as literature. But if you want to use them to advance your religion that will have to be done at home, at Church, or at some other non public school venue.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Teaching about religion: Public schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other scripture: the history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature, and the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries all are permissible public school subjects. Similarly, it is permissible to consider religious influences on art, music, literature, and social studies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What i was getting at was that if you are at a public school there are going to be people of more than 1 religion there so are they going to be seperated into different classes to be taught about there own religous book or is one going to get forced on all them or are the minority just going to get pushed to the side and put into a class room while the rest are learning about the dominat religion in that school

Your quote about teaching about religion is the way it is im my school and all schools in the UK that are non dominatianal both public and private schools, we learn about all religions the goods the bads the basic beleifs and such and what makes it even better once you get to fourth year (around age 15/16) you can choose to drop the subject, but before then its Mandatory (i think the whole point is to combat ignorance since the UK does have a large number of different cultures for such a small country).

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
hm0504,
Thank you for providing such a wonderfully enlightening website at;

http://www.jerrybernard.com/lessons/WhoWroteTheBible.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks David77, if the Bible is going to be taught in public schools (as it actually is in some States), then this would be the material to use.

[pek1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
... people of the past where uneducatied idiots(in the sense that most couldnt read and had no idea of there own past), who would just believe what there relgious advisor told them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jennifer, in our modern world we have many who uncritically believe what their science teacher tells them. I don't think things have changed very much.

If you don't trust old books, maybe you should start with the "The Origin of the Species" and the "Descent of Man". Yes, Darwin's works are outdated books, but the Bible (written by men under the power of the Holy Spirit) remains. The difference is not the age of the book of course, but the wisdom of the author(s). God was the only one present at the moment of creation and is the ONE best qualified to dictate the story of humanity's arrival on this planet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen! I concur!

However, for those who don't like talking about Bible stuff, http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif there's always the weather, traffic, politics, sex...etc, etc... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Pete

[pek1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:

It is perfectly legal to teach kids ABOUT religion in public schools. AND it is a good idea. There is far too much ignorance about religion in general and about "other people's religions" in particular. Our kids need a better perspective than their parents have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, how do you propose "a better perspective" when the parents and adults know the material inside and out of what is being taught? Is the child, as you suggest, smarter than their teachers...both in the school and at home? I disagree.


Pete

[Ren]

I think the real problem is the emphasis on religion. At least if they're teaching about religion, it'd be nice to see the negative impact religion has had on civilization taught in full. Then maybe it would make people think twice about being religious.

Conquests, slavery, genocide, and wars are a few of the legacies of doing things in the name of a religion. I'd be okay with that kind of religious education in our schools.

Save the spirituality for the individual. Religion is a wall that blocks the blossoming of spirituality. Spirituality can be more beautiful than anything if only it wasn't held back by the prejudices of the people who affect the earthbound modes of worship.

[KirkOntario]

Pretty hard to read the great works of English literature without some knowledge of the Bible. Too bad an education in the Bible is disappearing from public schools for politically correct reasons that do a disservice to learning.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pek1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:

It is perfectly legal to teach kids ABOUT religion in public schools. AND it is a good idea. There is far too much ignorance about religion in general and about "other people's religions" in particular. Our kids need a better perspective than their parents have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, how do you propose "a better perspective" when the parents and adults know the material inside and out of what is being taught? Is the child, as you suggest, smarter than their teachers...both in the school and at home? I disagree.


Pete </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quote after Jennifer's name was from my earlier post.

By "a better perspective" I don't mean we need to teach Episcopal Christianity to Episcopals and Mormon Christianity to Mormons and Islam to Muslims. I mean we need to teach the kids about the other religions - the lack of knowledge of other religions is often directly proportional to prejudice against their followers.

-Mark

[David77]

Here is another thought.

We too often depend on persons to stand in front of us to teach us things.

Let us depend on ourselves to teach ourselves from books (and even vidio tapes) from the library.
More self-reliance is needed in learning.
We don't need someone to spoon-feed us all knowledge.

[Ren]

Here in the states, I hope we're not naive enough to think that teaching the content of the Bible is what the people who want the Bible taught in school. It's a way to sneak in their narrow worldview. If an allusion to the Bible comes up in literature, by all means teach what it means. You don't need a course diving into the Bible to learn that.

Never before has politically correct been presented at the point where it should be taken literally. Keeping the Bible out of our public schools is indeed correct according to our political document. Very good, Kirk.

[jon71]

I have to clarify one point David77. Videos and tapes are passive learning. They can be of some benefit, I think my daughter is picking up some things from my Schoolhouse Rock videos, but active learning is always preferable. Reading, taking notes, Q and A sessions, and anything "hands on" is the best. "Tell me and I forget. Show me and I remember. Let me do and I understand".

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Videos and tapes are passive learning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have learned much from the videos (or films) presented on my favorite TV channel, The History Channel. This History Channel presents excellent history and explanation of many subjects, including religions of the world.

I have even purchased some DVDs from the History Channel, and one is entitled, "A History of God" narrated by the theologian, Karen Armstrong, which is excellent and which I would like to use in my Unitarian Church gathering, eventhough it is 100 minutes long.

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=71928

[Bob S.]

"Pretty hard to read the great works of English literature without some knowledge of the Bible."

But as I have stated Kirk, this is not the failings of the public school system, but rather the Churches and families who are not teaching these stories in their correct context. Why is the public school so important to people that it is looked on to teach everything?

That is one of the problems these days. Society looks to the schools to take on more to teach the children when the parents and Churches should be doing a lot of the teaching. I favor forcing parents and the churches to have to teach many things to their children such as morality, citizenship, sex-ed, and a few other societal issues and give the schools some more time to teach more relevant subjects.

And Ren, you are right that I don't think PC has gotten that bad that allegorical references can't be made to Biblical stories or characters when discussing the literature and its similarities to past writings.

Bob S.

[SunGod]

Schools are places of learning, as such all things should be learned about. They just dont teach addition, they also teach subtraction, division, and so on. They dont just teach spanish, they also teach french, English, and other languages. Same should go for religion. Teach unbiased and legit info about all religions and let the now fully informed student mind make its own decision. So long as christian/jewish/muslim/pagan/etc. teachers do not proclaim their way as the only way, I would not have a problem with doing it this way.

[hm0504]

As we were discussing "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to Evolution on this thread a wee bit back, I thought I might draw your attention to this excellent article --
"Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory":
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2 (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&amp;n=2)

[Captain Curmudgeon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As cornerstone of culture, Bible should be taught in public schools </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll say! When I was a kid, it was the only source of erotic literature available:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>See Onan get it from the Lord for "casting his seed upon the ground"! <LI>See Judah fix it up with Tamar! (obnoxious music, though) (http://www.ishipress.com/tamar.htm) <LI>Do I even have to mention the Song of Solomon? Hotcha! <LI>And that whole Abishag business? It's good to be the King. Gat me a little heat, I can tell you! [/list]

And there's more! Thousands more! Step right inside!

[l2ltlarry]

Captain Curmudgeon, you make a good point. The Bible is chock full of all kinds of good stuff that many or most Americans haven't the foggiest idea that it's there. I think many or most don't grasp the point of the Bible being the cornerstone of our culture, so people talk all around that "fact". In the old days at least, the whole structure was measured and anchored from the cornerstone, so it was the most important stone in the building.

I think it would be good for people to re-read the editorial and digest the editor's point(s). All sorts of things that are "common knowledge" have foundations in the Bible and people don't even realize it. I believe that's what editor Paul Greenberg was trying to get across.

How much does it matter whether people know the foundations of their "common knowledge" or not? In the short term, it probably doesn't matter very much. In the long term, we development "cultural amnesia" and could pay the price that George Santayana is credited with "prophesying": "If we don't study history, we are condemned to repeat it." As Richard Weaver's book says, "Ideas have consequences." For better or worse, America was largely built upon ideas contained in the Bible.

Captain, as to "And that whole Abishag business? It's good to be the King. Gat me a little heat, I can tell you!", was this the King David incident, in which he "gat heat" when he was ill by "laying" with a "sweet young thing"?

[hm0504]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9008040/

[Captain Curmudgeon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
Captain, as to "And that whole Abishag business? It's good to be the King. Gat me a little heat, I can tell you!", was this the King David incident, in which he "gat heat" when he was ill by "laying" with a "sweet young thing"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Young virgin" is the way the KJV puts it. She later became a bone of contention between David's two heirs, Solomon and Adonijah. You can check it all out in the first couple of chapters of I Kings. (Not enough heat was gat: David croaked out with Abishag in his bed.)

[Captain Zen]

As another Captain, I must add my 5 cents, cheers!
First of all, the Bible's content has been modified, changed and censored by medieval dictatorial despots.
Google: Councils of Constantinopel. Reincarnation was removed from the Book in the year 533, and many other "adjustments" were made over time.
Written by bored shepherds looking in the nightsky, taken from scriptures from religions before them, the Book contains certain truths and wisdoms, it is a splendid mixture of lies and truths, confusing and disturbing.

http://www.otoons.com/sex/NC-17Bible.htm

CAUTION: If you are under the age of 95, or are offended by materials of a graphically sexual, violent, or politically tolerant nature, please refrain from visiting this site.

---------------------------------------------

The XXX-rated Bible

| Abortion | | Adultery | | Affirmative Action | | Bestiality | | Breasts | | Cannibalism | | Castration | | Child Abuse | | Child Murder | | Chuck Colson | | Dissolution of the Family | | Divorce | | Exhibitionism | | Feminism | | Flat-chested Women | | Fornication | | French-Kissing | | Gang-Rape | | Homosexuality | | Human Sacrifice | | Immigration | | Impotence | | Incest | | Interracial Marriage | | Masturbation | | Murder for Sex | | Necrophilia | | Pedophilia | | Polygamy | | Prostitution | | Raunch | | Ritual Child Sexual Mutilation | | Sexual Metaphor | | Sexual Slavery | | Size Queens | | Submission | | Unisexism | | Unwed Teen Pregnancy | | Vampirism | | Voyeurism | |

[Captain Zen]

Test Your Bible Knowledge
By MARK SCARAMELLA

1. According to Leviticus 10:10 which of the following is an abomination?
a. Homosexuality.
b. Reading the editorial pages of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.
c. Cannibalization.
d. Eating shellfish.

2. According to I Samuel 5:9-12 what happened to the Philistines who stole the Ark of the Covenant?
a. They were smitten with hemorrhoids.
b. They were made to return it.
c. They opened it and the terrible sight of it killed them.
d. They were forgiven.

3. According to Matthew 15:4 what is the punishment for cursing your father or mother?
a. Washing your mouth out with soap.
b. Three strokes of the lash.
c. Cutting out of the tongue.
d. Death.

4. According to Genesis 19:30-38 what happened to the righteous Lot when he went to Mount Zoar?
a. He dug his own grave.
b. His daughters got him drunk and had sex with him.
c. He saw the face of God.
d. He found the buried tablets which had been brought down from the mountain top by Moses.

5. According to Exodus 33:17-23 Moses could not see God's face. What body part did God say Moses could see?
a. God's "back parts"
b. God's feet.
c. God's knees.
d. God's ear.

6. According to Joshua 5:3 what did Joshua do with the sharp knives he made?
a. Cleaved sinners from their sins.
b. Cleaned the fish for the feast.
c. Circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
d. Cut the umbilical cords for all the newborns of the world.

7. According to I Kings 14:10 who is to be cut off from Jeroboam?
a. He that showeth disrespect to his father.
b. He that turneth away from the Lord.
c. Him that pisseth against the wall.
d. Him that doth not pay his debts.

8. According to Deuteronomy 28:27 what is the punishment for sin?
a. Hell.
b. Death.
c. Three strokes of the lash.
d. Hemorrhoids.

9. According to Matthew 19:12 there are three types of eunuchs. First is men who are born eunuchs. Second is men who became eunuchs as they matured. What is the third type?
a. Eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
b. Eunuchs who got married without God's permission.
c. Eunuchs who were improperly nailed to a cross.
d. Eunuchs who caught a disease.

10. According to Deuteronomy 21:18-21, what should parents do to stubborn boys?
a. They should be sent to a boarding school.
b. They should be sold into slavery.
c. They should be grounded for two weeks.
d. They should be brought to the city gates and executed by stoning.

11. According to Exodus 21:7 what happens if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant?
a. She shall not go out as the menservants do.
b. He (the man) shall be stoned in the town square.
c. She shall be freed by the new owner after a year of service.
d. She must marry the man to whom she has been sold.

12. According to Exodus 35:2 what is the penalty for working on the Sabbath?
a. Any earnings should be donated unto the Lord.
b. Seven Hail Marys.
c. Three strikes of the lash.
d. Death.

13. According to Leviticus 25:44 & 45, what types of people should bought as male and female slaves ("bondsmen and bondswomen")?
a. The heathen that are round about you.
b. The enemies that your army conquers.
c. Debtors.
d. Orphans.

14. According to Leviticus 20:20 what prevents you from approaching the altar of God?
a. Blindness.
b. A life of sin.
c. Paralysis.
d. Refusal to accept the Lord as your personal savior.

15. According to Luke 19:27 what does Jesus say you should do to enemies who do not allow Jesus to reign over them?
a. "Bring them hither, and slay them before me."
b. "Love them as you love your neighbors."
c. "Forgive them."
d. "Conquer them and force them into a life of righteousness."

16. According to Genesis 38:1-10 what happened to Onan after he "spilled his seed onto the ground" so as not to impregnate his brother's wife?
a. The lord killed him.
b. He was ordered to mop it up and use it at a later time.
c. He was castrated.
d. He was told never to touch his sister-in-law again.

17. According to Leviticus 1:9 what happens when you burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice?
a. It creates a pleasing odor for the Lord.
b. A feast is offered unto the multitude.
c. It should be salted and stored for winter consumption.
d. You have overcooked it.

18. According to Leviticus 15:19 what should happen when a woman menstruates?
a. She shall be put apart seven days.
b. She shall be immediately made clean.
c. Her husband shall not touch her.
d. She shall replace her clothing with clean clothing.

19. According to Matthew 10:34, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace...
a. ... But a sword."
b. ... But to ensure peace."
c. ... But salvation."
d. ... But revenge."


=========================
Answers: 1-d, 2-a, 3-d, 4-b, 5-a ((It sounds like God mooned Moses), 6-c, 7-c, 8-d (Also "scab and itch"), 9-a (Is the Bible saying you men should castrate themselves for the Lord? If so, the bible's not as sexist as some female critics imply.), 10-d, 11-a, 12-d, 13-a, 14-a, 15-a, 16-a, 17-a, 18-a, 19-a.

[Captain Zen]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
~ Epicurus (341–270 B.C.), Greek philosopher

[jon71]

Once more don't forger freewill.

[Nu]

Yes, the Bible should be part of the public school system.
Here in my part of Canada, the actions of just a few people have resulted in it not being part of the school process.
The bible is an important way of learning about how to act.
Bring it back!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nu:
Yes, the Bible should be part of the public school system.
Here in my part of Canada, the actions of just a few people have resulted in it not being part of the school process.
The bible is an important way of learning about how to act.
Bring it back! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But only to those who's religion includes the bible. What about the rest?

And what about the parts of the bible that aren't appropriate for kids? There's incest, rape and all kinds of nasties written about in there.

[nudistmatt]

Perhaps, I would rather it be an elective, and including ALL major religions.

[NudePete]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nu:
Here in my part of Canada, the actions of just a few people have resulted in it not being part of the school process. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually a great many of us support the clear separation of church and state (in this case in the form of provincial Ministries of Education). At one time I thought that the Americans did too. Silly me.

How can anyone say that Canada, or the USA, is populated exclusively with Christians? They are not, and the state educational systems are therefore no place to push the teachings of one religion over another.

Just look at the fundamentalist Islamic states for examples in how extreme religious fundamentalism of any sort is a bad idea. Diversity is one of our greatest assets. We need to protect this, and one way is by not imposing compulsory Christian education in the schools.

[Captain Zen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudistmatt:
Perhaps, I would rather it be an elective, and including ALL major religions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Yes, Yes, include all religions and see that the only thing they have in common is intolerance for the others. Then teach Buddhism, and get it over with. Leave "God" alone, He did his job and is since the 6 days of creation on vacation.
The mess the world is in today resulting from 2500 years of eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth have made almost all men blind and speechless.
Dump it all in the garbage and start zen meditation, and create a better world.
Buddhist have never used violence to defend their beliefs as did all the others. Buddha has nothing to defend.

[Bob S.]

"Yes, the Bible should be part of the public school system."

Whose bible, Nu? The Torah? The entire Christian Bbile? The Apochryphal accounts? The Koran? The Hindu writings? The teachings of Buddha? Native American religions? African religions? Aboriginal (Australia) religion? Greek/Roman mythoology? Celtic mythology? Ancient Egyptian mythology? Satanic teachings?

"He did his job and is since the 6 days of creation on vacation."

Now if you know basic Biblical knowledge, you would understand that to be false, Zen. There was the whole 10 Commandmants thing, which happened well after the seventh day. The Jewish Bible is rich with encounters with G*d. The New testament is based on G*d coming back to Earth.

And if you believe that He is on vacation, then you cannot believe that He is within you, thus invalidating your own spiritual beliefs.

Now getting back to topic, Intelligent Design, the thinly veiled attempt to bring religion back to the classroom, is being challenged in a courtroom. MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9444600/) has an article about it. The case is being heard in Pennsylvania and is being looked at as Scopes II.

Why can't the Christian and other religious fanatics just keep their teachings limited to their own private schools?

Bob S.

[Buff Man in MI]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Yes, the Bible should be part of the public school system."

Whose bible, Nu? The Torah? The entire Christian Bbile? The Apochryphal accounts? The Koran? The Hindu writings? The teachings of Buddha? Native American religions? African religions? Aboriginal (Australia) religion? Greek/Roman mythoology? Celtic mythology? Ancient Egyptian mythology? Satanic teachings?

"He did his job and is since the 6 days of creation on vacation."

Now if you know basic Biblical knowledge, you would understand that to be false, Zen. There was the whole 10 Commandmants thing, which happened well after the seventh day. The Jewish Bible is rich with encounters with G*d. The New testament is based on G*d coming back to Earth.

And if you believe that He is on vacation, then you cannot believe that He is within you, thus invalidating your own spiritual beliefs.

Now getting back to topic, Intelligent Design, the thinly veiled attempt to bring religion back to the classroom, is being challenged in a courtroom. MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9444600/) has an article about it. The case is being heard in Pennsylvania and is being looked at as Scopes II.

Why can't the Christian and other religious fanatics just keep their teachings limited to their own private schools?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second that! Would it be alright to teach Baptists about Catholocism and the Pope? Would it be okay to require that the everyone participate in a Catholic Rite of Confession? Where exactly precisely does the line go and who determines what is okay and what is not? There is a reason for separation of church and state. How screwed up do you want me to make your kids exactly? If you think it is important then you set aside an hour a night and teach your kids whatever you want.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Whose bible, Nu? The Torah? The entire Christian Bbile? The Apochryphal accounts? The Koran? The Hindu writings? The teachings of Buddha? Native American religions? African religions? Aboriginal (Australia) religion? Greek/Roman mythoology? Celtic mythology? Ancient Egyptian mythology? Satanic teachings?

Now getting back to topic, Intelligent Design, the thinly veiled attempt to bring religion back to the classroom, is being challenged in a courtroom. MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9444600/) has an article about it. The case is being heard in Pennsylvania and is being looked at as Scopes II.

Why can't the Christian and other religious fanatics just keep their teachings limited to their own private schools?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes to all of the above. If the Bible is taught in schools, then other holy books need to be taught as well. Students need to learn critical thinking. I personally believe that faith is strengthened by critical thinking. If a faith does not withstand such thinking then it is not a faith that I want.

If schools are not willing to expose students to the major religious views of the world then leave religion out of the schools.

"That is “a disturbing prospect,” the Discovery Institute said — judges should not be telling scientists “what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not.”

[Captain Zen]

Now if you know basic Biblical knowledge, you would understand that to be false, Zen. There was the whole 10 Commandmants thing, which happened well after the seventh day. The Jewish Bible is rich with encounters with G*d. The New testament is based on G*d coming back to Earth.
said Buff Man

Say I:
The god within me is NOT the god from the bible, is not a "HE", is not angry, does not retaliate, is not a burning bush. It is more like a void within me, a shining light, a spark of the universe. Do not think to know who or what this "god" within me is, I am studying this phenomena day and night, when I find out, I'll tell you.
Untill then, my "god" is nobodies bussiness but my own, if at all.
The "g+d" you create for yourself you steal from outside of you, from any book or scripture or priest or shaman, is a useless, or better said a used god.
Mine is original, new, fresh, never been used or abused by anyone else but me. Unique, patented, fresh, indestructable and beautiful, inaccessible for anybody else. This "god" is ME.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nu:
Yes, the Bible should be part of the public school system.
Here in my part of Canada, the actions of just a few people have resulted in it not being part of the school process.
The bible is an important way of learning about how to act.
Bring it back! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nu, in another thread on another topic Soundman asked us to remember that not all nudists are liberal and conservatives such as himself do not believe in being tolerant. Now, let's think about this for a minute. In that thread, on genital decoration, we are just talking about a relatively small sub-sect of society, nudists; now we are discussing education and religion which involves the entire population.

Can you imagine the outrage and the storming of schools from those that don't believe in either a tolerant society or an analytic review of their particular religion? The school boards would require armed guards!

---When it comes to Christianity, can you imagine the reaction from the Christians if they feel that a Christian of another sect (i.e. a Lutheran discussing Baptists) was dismissive of their sect? How about if the teacher was Jewish and pointed out some foibles and fallacies. Wouldn't this be even worse if the teacher was Muslim?

---The problems are not limited to just the teaching of Christianity. When it was time to lecture on Islam, would it be taught from a Sunni, Shia, or another perspective? Would Judiasm be presented from an Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform position.

Canada, like the United States and many other countries are made up of people of multiple faiths. Neither Canada or the US is a Christian nation. Your position Nu, is that you just assumed that Canada is a Christian nation and therefore (only) the Christian bible would need to be taught.

Each and every religion offers religious instruction to their youth. Sunday schools, Hebrew Schools, and Mosques all offer programs for the children of their congregations. Why do you think that this is not enough and religious instruction must be included in the public schools?

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">If the trend to raise the influence of religion in the (public) school system continues we are all going to be in trouble. To take it to an absurd extreme: We are seeing the fundamentalists wanting to put stickers on text books stating that when learning about evolution students should temper their views of science with creationism. Where will our society be in a generation or two when science has been replaced by religion?</span> <span class="ev_code_RED">What happens when a certain sect of Christians gain control? IF THE CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS HAVE THEIR SAY MEDICAL SCHOOLS WILL BE CLOSED! </span>

Now I ask you Nu, do you really want religion to be taught in the public schools? Do you want a return to a time when science was villified since it countered the teachings of the church? The next bus to the Dark Ages leaves from Gate 2.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudePete:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nu:
Here in my part of Canada, the actions of just a few people have resulted in it not being part of the school process. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually a great many of us support the clear separation of church and state (in this case in the form of provincial Ministries of Education). At one time I thought that the Americans did too. Silly me.

How can anyone say that Canada, or the USA, is populated exclusively with Christians? They are not, and the state educational systems are therefore no place to push the teachings of one religion over another.

Just look at the fundamentalist Islamic states for examples in how extreme religious fundamentalism of any sort is a bad idea. Diversity is one of our greatest assets. We need to protect this, and one way is by not imposing compulsory Christian education in the schools. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">True that! Unfortunately, when it comes to conservatives they disdain diversity. How many posts on CFF are from conservatives that when you boil down their posts are really saying "they only want to be surrounded by those that they perceive as similar to themselves?</span>

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they only want to be surrounded by those that they perceive as similar to themselves </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you demonstrate that this natural human tendency is unique to conservatives?

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they only want to be surrounded by those that they perceive as similar to themselves </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you demonstrate that this natural human tendency is unique to conservatives? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Deductive Logic:

Liberal people are accepting of others, they promote multi-culturalism, and desire inclusiveness. Therefore, they are significantly different then the conservatives who only want to be with those perceived as similar to themselves.

[Trailscout]

For a long time German schools censored their recent history of Nazi-ism. It was thought that students should not learn about the Nazis lest they inadvertently promote this philosophy.

Apparently this did not work, because Neo-nazis and fascist skinheads emerged in Germany in the 1980's and later. It is possible that censoring the past may have prevented children from having the historical perspective to make up their own minds and they succumbed to the same doctrine of hate that their parents generation fell victim to.

If we deliberately leave our schoolchildren ignorant of the religions of the world, they will not understand much of world history, they will not understand other cultures and they will be prone to misunderstand people they meet from those cultures.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Whose bible, Nu? The Torah? The entire Christian Bbile? The Apochryphal accounts? The Koran? The Hindu writings? The teachings of Buddha? Native American religions? African religions? Aboriginal (Australia) religion? Greek/Roman mythoology? Celtic mythology? Ancient Egyptian mythology? Satanic teachings?

Now getting back to topic, Intelligent Design, the thinly veiled attempt to bring religion back to the classroom, is being challenged in a courtroom. MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9444600/) has an article about it. The case is being heard in Pennsylvania and is being looked at as Scopes II.

Why can't the Christian and other religious fanatics just keep their teachings limited to their own private schools?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes to all of the above. If the Bible is taught in schools, then other holy books need to be taught as well. Students need to learn critical thinking. I personally believe that faith is strengthened by critical thinking. If a faith does not withstand such thinking then it is not a faith that I want.

If schools are not willing to expose students to the major religious views of the world then leave religion out of the schools.

"That is “a disturbing prospect,” the Discovery Institute said — judges should not be telling scientists “what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not.” </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree with Bob S. and Still_Boreas. If one is going to "teach the Bible" in a public school system, then there has to be general agreement as to what is to be taught about the Bible. Clearly, if one reads back a bit on this thread, there are tremendously different views about the history of the Bible and what the Bible says.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they only want to be surrounded by those that they perceive as similar to themselves </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you demonstrate that this natural human tendency is unique to conservatives? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think one has to emphasize that, in this context, one is talking about social conservatives. Taking homosexuality for example...

A liberal would say that if some people are gay, OK. A social conservative would say nobody is allowed to be gay, everyone must be heterosexual.

On book censorship, a liberal would say if someone wants to read "Catcher in the Rye", they can. A social conservative would say nobody may read that book.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they only want to be surrounded by those that they perceive as similar to themselves </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Accepting the existence of dissimilar people's right to exist is one thing, and "wanting only to be surrounded by them" is a completely different thing. The corrollary to the quoted statement is that (non-conservatives) only want to be surrounded by people dissimilar to themselves. I posit this is not true. All people, not just conservatives, tend to prefer association with their contemporaries. My question was, can this be demonstrated to be false?

[Captain Zen]

If you refer to the zombie type of people you are right. They all behave like fowl or other animals that will only stay with the same kind.
I as an awakened one like different people, and travelled all my life in countries with other kinds of people, food, beliefs, languages, just to see how diverse my planet is.
To enjoy the togetherness of us all on this here ball of dirt flying through the universe.
The non thinking brain dead people yes, they are so blind that they do not see others, and when by accident they are confronted with others they get mad, out of fear for the unknown. Blame the educational nationalistic government for the sorry state the general public is in.
The place I choose to live in now,, has 5% of people similar to me, the rest is a mix of others, Indian, African, Middle Eastern, Chinese, South and North American, and all the Creole mixed types.
And I love it! It enhances every body's uniqueness. It promotes respect for all.

[Baron Lake]

Corollary? Not even logically implied by the statement regarding "conservatives". I'll agree that most, not all, are more comfortable around the like minded. I much prefer the broadminded and tolerant. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It would, however, be pretty boring to have friends who only agreed with your ideas.
b.l.

[Captain Zen]

My statement proves that there is no rule for this. Out of ignorance and fear ppl stick to their own kind.
Baron Lake: broadmindedness and tolerance are not always going together. I am pretty broadminded, but I do not tolerate for instance the double standards applied to religions.
And when I report/mention the enormous difference between Judaism and Zionism I get flak from the moderator...

[Bob S.]

"The "g+d" you create for yourself you steal from outside of you, from any book or scripture or priest or shaman, is a useless, or better said a used god."

Zen, If I may use your words to refute that insulting sentence, my "god" is nobodies bussiness but my own, if at all. You have no idea who my own personal G*d is so you cannot assume to know I came to know Him. You try so hard to sound self-important and somehow more enlightened than everyone else. But you just come out sounding arrogant. Why not just accept that everyone else can be as enlightened as you?

"Liberal people are accepting of others..."

How many conservatives are welcome in the democratic caucuses? How many anti-abortionists would be allowed to work at a pro-choice call center?

Everyone wants to be surrounded by people who share their own beliefs, Topher. Democrats and Republicans alike.

"they promote multi-culturalism, and desire inclusiveness."

But would liberals accept and embrace those who were mono-cultural and desired exclusiveness? Or are they only accepting of those who share their multi-cultural and inclusiveness philosophies? And actually, those are catch phrases that mean different things to different people, even among liberals.

Bob S.

[Captain Zen]

Zen, If I may use your words to refute that insulting sentence, my "god" is nobodies bussiness but my own, if at all. You have no idea who my own personal G*d is so you cannot assume to know I came to know Him. You try so hard to sound self-important and somehow more enlightened than everyone else. But you just come out sounding arrogant. Why not just accept that everyone else can be as enlightened as you?

Of course you may use and refute my words...
Indeed I have no idea who your personal god is, and it is not the one I speak of, but if you have "him" ( why is it a male?) from old books, "he" is a used one, over and over and over again. Old or New Testament? Retaliating or loving? Not much choise, or frustrating in the middle? You say I can not assume you know your god. This "Him" and "He" has not helped this world to become a better place, as far I can see. My god has no gender, form or substance, read the Tao Te King.
I accept anybody can be more enlightened than me, and some here ssurely are...

[jon71]

I've sort of said this before but it bears repeating. We have free will. You and I choose to make the world a better place or a worse one. Let me state clearly that there is no neutral. I will attempt an old phrase "Evil does not triumph when evil people do evil things, that is to be expected. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing". GOD's will is done on Earth when people of conscience help the less fortunate, when we speak up against discrimination, injustice, or cruelty, when we conduct ourselves morally (in reality not a self righteous facade), when we raise our sons and daughters to be genuinely good people. All these things and countless more is how GOD's will is carried out. When we act in a selfish or malevolent manner, even if we try and claim a good reason it is Satan's will that is being carried out. One example though there are many more. A person is panhandling on the street. Some people go by with their nose in the air and say to themselves "I'll give nothing, they'll only use it to buy booze or drugs anyways". Is that possible, certainly, but they might also use it to buy a meal that will keep them alive one more day. Dressing up the selfishness is a haughty self-superior attitude doesn't change the fact that someone chose not to help because they are, in their heart of hearts, a stingy s.o.b. GOD is not deceived even if other people are. Let me reiterate, our actions make the world a better place and we take those actions either listening to an angel on one shoulder or a devil on the other (to use the metaphor most of us grew up with).

[Captain Zen]

Empty and calm and devoid of self
Is the nature of all things.
No individual being
In reality exists.

There is no end or beginning,
Nor any middle course.
All is an illusion,
As in a vision or a dream.

All beings in the world
Are beyond the realm of words.
Their ultimate nature, pure and true,
Is like the infinity of space.

-Prajnaparamita

[namedun]

Brahman

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'll agree that most, not all, are more comfortable around the like minded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Right! As I look back on my statement, I should not have said All. I meant all types, not just conservatives. Not all of ANY faction fits any single mold. Thanks for pointing that out.

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob S.:

"Liberal people are accepting of others..."

How many conservatives are welcome in the democratic caucuses? <span class="ev_code_BLUE">I certainly believe that more politicians with someconservative stances may be found in the Democratic Party then some with liberal stances are welcomed under the "Big Tent" <cough cough> of the Republican Party. For example, for decades the Republican Party has been viewed as pro-big business and pro-war - you may recall the term "industrial-mililtary complex"; yet the Democratic Party does have more then it' fair share of those who may be termed as "hawkish."

Can the converse be found to be true? Hmm. How many in the Big Tent have a disdain for big business in favor of socially progressive ideals i.e. health care? Are there any Republicans who would turn their back on the millions upon millions in campaign donations from the insurance lobby to favor national health care? How many under the Big Tent spoke out against the millions of dollars donated by the banking lobbies to retain the safety net of bankruptcy for those who drown under the weight of catastrophic health care bills? There are numerous examples of Democrats who don't agree with the party line yet few of Republicans that don't tow the party line.</span>


How many anti-abortionists would be allowed to work at a pro-choice call center? <span class="ev_code_BLUE">What a cute rhetorical question. The question would not be if this person would be accepted due to their beliefs; but could the person do their job. Would somebody that doesn't believe in a woman's right to have control over their own body be able to counsel a woman seeking an abortion? Or, would that person belittle the caller and not provide the necessary abortion information? In short could an anti-abortionist do the job. If in good conscience they could not do the job of course that person shouldn't work there.

Despite the cute sounding term "pro-life" it is an intellectually dishonest term because NOBODY is pro-death. It is just a co-opting of the language. As you know from reading my prior posts a true "pro-life" person would by extension NOT just care about "life" before birth - but would also care about the quality of life after birth, be anti-war, and anti-death penality. That being said I will refrain from further comments so as not to hijack this thread.</span>

Everyone wants to be surrounded by people who share their own beliefs, Topher. Democrats and Republicans alike.

"they promote multi-culturalism, and desire inclusiveness."

But would liberals accept and embrace those who were mono-cultural and desired exclusiveness? Or are they only accepting of those who share their multi-cultural and inclusiveness philosophies? And actually, those are catch phrases that mean different things to different people, even among liberals.<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Since these boards are nudist lets put this in nudist terms. At a nudist venue I am positive that liberal/progressive nudists only care that there are other nudists present. The liberal/progressive nudists would not care about the race, religion, or sexuality of the other nudists.

Can the same be said about the conservatives on this board? Can you imagine somebody like PJ accepting progressive Islamic, Jewish, or other non-Christian nudists into his mileau? This would be particularly true if in addition to their religion they were not heterosexual. Could you imagine him interacting/accepting the company of a Pagen lesbian family? We know that Trailscout wants to exclude gay people from nudist venues he has posted this on more then one occasion. You would be hard pressed to find progressives who would want to limit attendence to those similar to themselves (race, religion, sexuality, etc.). </span>

[Trailscout]

Christopher forgets that birds of a feather flock together, even if the birds are nudist. Every nudist resort tends to have its own personality. They do not attempt to be all things to all people.

Perhaps, bringing us back to topic, we should abolish public schools and open up education to subcontractors just like the park service does with food franchises at national parks. The present system is trying to appeal to all people and cannot achieve that illusory goal.

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trailscout:
Christopher forgets that birds of a feather flock together, even if the birds are nudist. Every nudist resort tends to have its own personality. They do not attempt to be all things to all people. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Actually, Christopher has not forgotten a thing. Many people believe there is more to ""opposites attract" theory then to the birds of a flock theory. In fact, many believe that excluding others from nudist and non-nudist venues based on the attempt to enable birds that identify together to exclude others based upon perceived differences such as race, marital status, religion, gender, and sexuality is called segregation and is thinly veiled prejudice.</span>

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:

Perhaps, bringing us back to topic, we should abolish public schools and open up education to subcontractors just like the park service does with food franchises at national parks. The present system is trying to appeal to all people and cannot achieve that illusory goal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">There is no reason to abloish the public schools. We need to strengthen those public schools that lack the resources (quality teachers, labs, materials, computers, etc) that the more affluent schools offer. We need to convince those Southern states that neither value education nor fund it properly that they need to get up to speed so that all our students may succeed in life.</span>

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Actually, Christopher has not forgotten a thing. Many people believe there is more to "[i]"opposites attract" theory then to the birds of a flock theory. In fact, many believe that excluding others from nudist and non-nudist venues based on the attempt to enable birds that identify together to exclude others based upon perceived differences such as race, marital status, religion, gender, and sexuality is called segregation and is thinly veiled prejudice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Christopher is arguing against something no one is advocating.

I am sure that some resorts try to appeal to the wild party crowd and conservative family nudists, but I can also point to resorts that are not trying to be the nudist resort for everyone.

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
There is no reason to abloish the public schools. We need to strengthen those public schools that lack the resources (quality teachers, labs, materials, computers, etc) that the more affluent schools offer. We need to convince those Southern states that neither value education nor fund it properly that they need to get up to speed so that all our students may succeed in life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead of trying to convince a state of anything, try convincing the parents.

I have affluent friends in a well-funded public school. Their child has been allowed to neglect his school work. He is skilled with computer games, but not much else. A little late they are realizing their mistake. Now they hope that he will somehow gain the motivation for academics that they failed to nurture during his teen years.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
There is no reason to abloish the public schools. We need to strengthen those public schools that lack the resources (quality teachers, labs, materials, computers, etc) that the more affluent schools offer. We need to convince those Southern states that neither value education nor fund it properly that they need to get up to speed so that all our students may succeed in life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead of trying to convince a state of anything, try convincing the parents.

I have affluent friends in a well-funded public school. Their child has been allowed to neglect his school work. He is skilled with computer games, but not much else. A little late they are realizing their mistake. Now they hope that he will somehow gain the motivation for academics that they failed to nurture during his teen years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trailscout, if you take a moment to read my posts on the "EDUCATION" thread, you will see how strongly I believe that it's part of parental responsibility to instill a love of learning as well as a committment to be involved in the child's academic career. However, there is an entire region of our nation that always comes in last in both the educational rankings and earnings rankings. Since the parents don't understand that education is the best way to break the cycle of poverty then I believe that it's the state's responsibility to do everything possible to properly fund education and enable the next generation not to be illiterate, ignorant and poor.

[Bob S.]

"but if you have "him" ( why is it a male?) from old books, "he" is a used one, over and over and over again."

Why do I use the masucline pronoun, Zen? Habit and a preference to choose one consistent pronoun. My G*d is also genderless in the human terms, but I am not willing to refer to G*d as It.

"This "Him" and "He" has not helped this world to become a better place, as far I can see."

That is because you are looking at those who would distort the idea of G*d and use it in a negative way. You seem to see so much hatred and violence in the world that you cannot see how people have used G*d's name and ideas for good. Religion can bring people together or it can drive people apart. Look more at the bringing together. You'll only find what you seek, not what you are blind to.

"There are numerous examples of Democrats who don't agree with the party line yet few of Republicans that don't tow the party line."

Topher, look harder.

"Despite the cute sounding term "pro-life" it is an intellectually dishonest term because NOBODY is pro-death."

There are too many terms in that dispute. pro-life/pro-choice, pro-abortion/anti-abortion, etc. In fact, many issues are like that. I simply choose from among the various possibilities. And as for co-opting the language, in this idea, referring to an abortion as a medical procedure is also a co-opt (I am not going to argue pro-con abortion nor will I state my own views regarding the issue).

Every side co-opts language with regard to making their side more impressive. People are not against religion in public schools, they are for the separation of church and state. "It's for the children" is a famous co-opt of the language, especially when it is really not for the children, but to curtail a group's rights.

"The liberal/progressive nudists would not care about the race, religion, or sexuality of the other nudists."

There are some who are like that. I am not going to doubt that there are conservatives who will not accept others, but there are also liberals/progressives who would feel that way as well. You want to make it out to seem that liberals are morally better than conservatives. It isn't that way. Every side has good apples and bad apples. There are intolerant liberals just as there are intolerant conservatives in the same percentages. The only difference is the issues where they are intolerant.

Bob S.

[Captain Zen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Despite the cute sounding term "pro-life" it is an intellectually dishonest term because NOBODY is pro-death."
Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, o, Bush is pro life but keeps the death penalty, and kills innocent Iraqis, how does that mix?

[l2ltlarry]

A letter, this time, in yesterday's 'Columbus Dispatch':


Schools need to discuss human origin
Saturday, October 01, 2005


Recent newspaper articles document the ongoing debate regarding what should be taught in our schools about the origin of humanity and the universe.

One article noted that Michael Ruse, a Florida State University philosophy professor and ardent ally of Darwinism, characterized the debate as "a struggle for the hearts and souls of people, with deep implications for the ways in which we live our lives and regulate our conduct. It is a religious or metaphysical battle, not simply a dispute about scientific theory."

Ruse could not be more right. The next stage of the battle will occur in federal court in Harrisburg, Pa., regarding the teaching of "intelligent design," along with the Darwinian theory of evolution, in the Dover Area School District.

Is there any subject taught in our schools in which the question of the origin of all existence isn’t relevant, and in which various perspectives lead to different conclusions?

Where does "matter" come from? What is thought? Are the remarkable diversity and complexity of plant and animal life accidents or purposeful? Are smells, sounds, colors, tastes and texture, accidents or purposeful?

What is the meaning of existence? Is life brief or eternal? Is matter eternal? Or did something come from nothing? Or, is God eternal?

Is the correct view of this existence contained in the materialist’s motto, "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you may die"?

Or is it, as the Darwinists have taught, that the survival of the fittest prevails as a result of natural selection, mutations and adaptations, where fit is defined as that which achieves pre-eminent power to copulate and produce more progeny?

Is the gratuitous role that sex plays in Hollywood, on the Internet or in war when the victors often violently rape the women of the conquered, our model for being? Or, is an eternal relationship with God the reason for which this universe was designed?

Is learning finite or eternal? If finite, why learn anything? Is wisdom or idiocy the preferred position? Does liberty without virtue become license? And then, does licentiousness lead to vicious anarchy or not?

Isn’t there a profound insight in Forrest Gump’s maxim, "Stupid is as stupid does"?

Isn’t it anti-education not to consider the above questions and clearly instruct students in the alternative answers so that they can make informed decisions about origin and existence? Isn’t education’s objective, by definition, to improve the students’ mental, moral and artistic faculties? Shouldn’t this also include the fact that Christianity claims that the Son of God played the crucial role in creation according to John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, and Hebrews 1:2?

Certainly, some religions regard as their points of origin things as diverse as a bearded man, mountains, a wild hare, a scarab beetle or a rock from the heavens. So why not consider the idea that the Son of God, who became Jesus, dwelt among us? Doing so would not violate our Constitution, either, despite what some of the narrow-minded contend. Isn’t comparison and contrast good for thought? Or, are we merely to be governed by our appetites? Given our Declaration of Independence, isn’t it astounding that in the 21 st century a federal court is being asked to decide what should be taught in our schools? Is this a sign of progressive thought or another example of regression into intellectual, moral and social darkness?

WILLIAM M. YAVELAK

Belmont (Ohio)


In evolutionist Roger Lewin's book, 'In the Age of Mankind', the questions are asked: "Who are we? Where did we come from? How did we get here?"

In my opinion, to suppress or deny discussion of these questions in public venues and public schools because of political correctness is public policy run amuck (or amok?).

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
A letter, this time, in yesterday's 'Columbus Dispatch':


Schools need to discuss human origin
Saturday, October 01, 2005


Recent newspaper articles document the ongoing debate regarding what should be taught in our schools about the origin of humanity and the universe...
------------------------------------------------

Between the upcoming trial in PA and a school board in KS wanting to put stickers on science text books warning that in their myopic view that evolution is only a theory I worry about our future. I am worried that future generations of Americans will not have scientists or physicians.

Some random but related thoughts:

1. If the religious believe that it is God that creates life and they believe that it is God that decides when it's time for that life to cease:
A) Why have physicians? If you go for treatment of a life threatening illness or injury would you not be interfering with God's will?
B) Will those that wish to defile science, such as Larry, give up upon medical treatment and become Christian Scientists?
C) Why live a healthy life? Why not eat like a pig, consume vast amounts of fat, calories, and red meat? After all, if you are going to die from heart disease it's God's will. Only God will decide when you die so you may as well enjoy each and every meal without worry for it's long term effects on your heart and circ. systems.

2. So you think that mutation and evolution are theories that can't be demonstrated; you are 100% positive in your belief that what is - is. I suggest that you study oncology and hematology. You may change your mind when you see the evidence with your own eyes.

I know of a brilliant girl who was near the top of her class in medical school. After studying oncology and hematology she found it necessary to quit medical school. What she saw with her own eyes was in direct conflict with her religious beliefs. (FYI - she is now a dental student since intellectual honesty is not a requirement.)

3. Larry, since you started this thread there have been many that have posted saying that if Christianity (the bible) is to be taught in the public schools...then you would also have to teach Jewish Studies (Torah), Islamic Studies (Koran).... I noticed that you have not responded. How would you feel if in the discussion of all religions Christianity was seriously questioned in some classroom discusions? Would you consider that Christian bashing?

4) If the schools in KS are allowed to put stickers on science texts stating that the contents do not refect a Christian theological viewpoint how would you feel about the flip side of that coin? How would you feel if the bibles had a sticker that said "the contents may not be in agreement with emperically proven scientific facts"?

Let's leave science in the public schools and let's leave religion in Sunday Schools, Hebrew Schools, and Mosque Schools.

[Captain Zen]

Nice letter. Those who does not accept these arguments should go to a mental hospital or a monastry and stay there.

[Boreas]

Good points Christopher and Larry.

I think the biggest issue is that if the Bible is not the infallible "Word of God" then the whole premise, or most of the premise of Christianity is seriously questioned. If you believe you are the one true faith and that your scriptures are from God then you cannot let in other evidence or faiths into your worldview without a cisis of identity.

So, if your Bible tells you that the world was created in seven days then you just can't accept anything else.

For the record, I would consider myself a Christian, but not a fundamentalist. I am not bashing Christianity.

[Trailscout]

Again we hear the argument that American school children should be left ignorant of one of the pillars of Western civilization, the Bible.

Let's leave discussions about predestination and free-will to other threads. Likewise the merits or demerits of Intelligent Design theory have no bearing on matters of cultural heritage.

What if public schools should decide that no mention should be made of Europe in any class lecture? Sounds absurd, but we might as well leave out all history and social science if we are going to randomly kick out the foundations of education.

[jon71]

Many Christians believe the Bible but don't think creation took place is one gross of hours. I believe that GOD is the author of creation and don't worry about whether it was a literal six days as we know them now or a more colorful description of six epochs. That detail is not important, my belief that GOD was and is in charge is. As to the "why have doctors?" question some people do believe that but I believe that GOD gave us brains and HE expects us to use them.

[Trailscout]

Jon, I agree with all you said. I will add that we should not teach kids that there has always been one unchanging paradigm of scientific thought. We can learn from the mistaken theories such as spontaneous generation, transmutation of the elements, the rotation of all heavenly bodies around the Earth.
Kids should spend as much time learning about the process of scientific inquiry as they do the actual results.

[Bob S.]

"Again we hear the argument that American school children should be left ignorant of one of the pillars of Western civilization, the Bible."

No one here is suggesting that, Trail. The Bible is important for those who believe in it and they have their places to study it. Those places are called homes and houses of worship.

The US public school system has inroduced many subjects that used to be taught at home. Sex-ed is one example. Look how that subject has gotten people upset. Should schools talk about masturbation? Homosexuality? Wearing condoms? The two sides in this battle are still fighting over what to teach in sex-ed and this has been going on for more than a decade.

Now teaching religion will be even more divisive. Who teaches it? What do they teach? How will they teach it?

As for the ID discussion, only those of a weak faith would attempt to quash discussion of the alternative. As Topher mentioned, what if a bookstore started selling the Bible with a sticker in front saying that these stories cannot be completely verified historically and may be fiction or exaggerated truths.

Everyone would be upset with that. Stickers on science books are the same thing.

Nothing in a science book I have ever read has ever come close to proving or disproving anything written in the Bible. In fact, the theory of evolution from the Big Bang on can be found in the creation story.

Feeling threatened by a science book shows that one doesn't have a strong faith to begin with.

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Despite the cute sounding term "pro-life" it is an intellectually dishonest term because NOBODY is pro-death."
Bob S.

Zen, Topher wrote that, not me. Please, if you are going to quote someone, get the author correct.

Bob S.

[hm0504]

Fine reply Bob S. I would definitely like to see an answer to the question as to "what would be taught" about the Bible as a cornerstone of culture.

Bob S., if you could use the quote function like so:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Albinus:

Bob S., if you could use the quote function...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it would be much easier to read your posts, particularly when you reply to more than one poster in one post.

Thanks,

[l2ltlarry]

To those who say the Bible is not "scientific", consider just this one argument that it is. One can drive out Monument Boulevard to the intersection of Belmont Avenue in Richmond, VA and there will find the 'Pathfinder of the Seas' monument. (Before you start that drive, you can visit the state capitol building and find, I believe, two busts of the person who is called the "pathfinder of the seas", Matthew Fountaine Maury.) While at the capital building, you can't miss the large statue of George Washington standing in the rotunda. I stood back quite a ways from the statue and took a picture of it, and in the picture, only two words can be seen at that distance: Washington and Christ. In years past, most of our nation's citizens were not as opposed to all things "Bible" as those who are reshaping society today.

At Belmont and Monument Boulevard, the monument is a large globe of the world with Maury seated in front. On his lap are his sea charts and beside his left foot is a Bible. Maury discovered the "paths of the seas" which the Bible's Psalm 8 talks about. He said, "If the Bible says there are paths in the sea, there must be. I will find them." And he did. As I recall, Maury was a scientist at the US Naval Academy. His discovery was of the jet streams of the oceans; it's said that this discovery doubled the speed of shipping in his day.

A word about "scientific". At root, the word means "to know". In Latin, it is 'scien', in Greek, it is 'gnosis' or 'gnoscere'. In English, it's 'know'. The "scientists" who have appropriated the word and redefined it much more narrowly are doing a disservice to the much broader and more timeless meaning, "to know".

[Boreas]

That may be so Larry. We do know more since Washington's time, like that germs cause diesease, not God's wrath for instance. The Bible has a different role in today's society. That does not make it a worthless document by any means.

The US is not a Christian country anymore. I know it was founded on Christian principles, but again times have changed.

To have the Bible taught as a religious document in public schools without teaching other paths to God is pure ethnocentrism. The Bible is certainly worth being taught. It just should not be taught in public schools the way it is taught in Sunday school or private Christian schools.

[hm0504]

Actually, Larry, Matthew Fountaine Maury did NOT "discover" ocean currents, as sailors had known of them for centuries, and created crude maps of them.

Indeed, if one reads Psalm 8:8 and the surrounding context, it is pretty evident that "paths in the seas" was not writtent there as some mystery to be uncovered thousands of years later, but was indeed well known by the fishermen of the time.

What Maury did was to carefully catalog those currents, and winds, etc., which though notable in itself, is not the same as discovering.

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
To those who say the Bible is not "scientific", consider just this one argument that it is...[/QUOTE

You may wish to do a little reading before posting that Maury discovered the jet streams.

I know, sometimes those pesky little things like facts get in the way of what you would like to believe.

Here is a good place to start:

google search for: Matthew Foutaine Maury (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Matthew+Fountaine+Maury)

[Bob S.]

"if you could use the quote function"

Albinus, I am not a fan of the quote function. I feel it takes up too much space. All I have to do is put the name in the response I am giving. Sometimes, I choose to do it in the middle or the end of the first sentence.

I'll try to see how I can better implement it.

"Maury discovered the "paths of the seas" which the Bible's Psalm 8 talks about."

Larry, Nostradamus predicted many events that have happened. Of course, we are looking at them in hindsight and making them fit.

Bob S.

[nacktman]

I have not posted in a bit but as I read through the posts on this thread I noticed several fallacies that are being foisted as facts. I will comment on only three.

One early one stated the "the bible is the most quoted literature today" or words to that affect. It is not, and no Shakespeare's works are not either, neither are they even second. Sorry to burst any sensibilities, but the writings of the Chinese philosopher known to us as Confucius is the most quoted literature in the world followed by the old Summerian version of the saga of Gilgamesh from which most old testament section of "the bible" is drawn from.

Another was that the United States was founded on christian principles, wrong. The United States were founded on principles that were set forth by far older cultures and not remotely "christian". The foundtions of the governance of the new nation were of Babalonian, Summerian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman law as well as traditions of the ancient Celtic peoples of Eurasia. All of which are refered to as Pagan cultures by the uninformed.

The mistaken idea that christianity is any sort of cornerstone let alone a cornerstone of society or civilization is proven false every day, economics are the true cornerstone(s) of civilization (and of wars I might add). Pay attention to the events happening in the world and the evidence is there.

Humans began to form "civilized" groups for mutual benefit so that more could be done with the available resources, everyone sharing everything...that's the true defintion of Communism.

As the technology increased humans began to "specialize" and one group or individual produced more that they could use or something someone else wanted and trade and bartering came into being and humans met to trade and barter and in doing so they discovered the need to enact some type of regulations that could be agreed upon...and that's the definition of Democracy.

When such regulations could not be agreed upon conflicts within and between groups began...the definition of War.

In answer to the posted question there should not be any class taught in any school that attempts to foster the undeniable fallacy and disjointed of the tennets of "the bible" on students.

The entire book and that is all the title means as well "book" is an anthology of older traditions stolen whole or retooled to meet the world view of its many editors as the stories where collected from other written and older oral traditions in antiquity.

The book has been altered with each translation with new additions and wholesale removals and cut and paste jobs, most notably in "modern" times during the Council of Trent during the Medieval's dark days.

A class on the thousands of differing religions and philosophy taught from the comparative position would be a class worth teaching and learning from.

Those that profess to be christian may believe as they wish. They should however be reminded that their chosen sect was a minor and disappearing sect when the Roman emperors seized upon the theme "turn the other cheek" as a means to control and enslave the populus further, because "your reward is not of this earth" gave them liscence do as they pleased...voila...christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire. In so doing helped to hasten the fall of the empire because any time one religion comes to dominate a society the society begins to fester and decay...within a couple hundred years a empire that took close to a millinea to reach its peak was in shambles.

The United States has only been around for a couple hundred years or so...history does prove that societies rise and fall and the fall is always brought about by "the conservative" elements within those societies and the rise is always brought about by "the liberals and radicals" within those societies. Think about the climate in the United States today and which way do you think its society is going? Hint...it's not rising...this only two centuries into its existence.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
"if you could use the quote function"

Albinus, I am not a fan of the quote function. I feel it takes up too much space. All I have to do is put the name in the response I am giving. Sometimes, I choose to do it in the middle or the end of the first sentence.

I'll try to see how I can better implement it.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you do not like QUOTE function, may I suggest addressing only a single person's quotations in a post. Otherwise, for me at least, it is hard to spot when I've been quoted and may need to respond. That's because if the beginning of a post is about someone else's quotation (someone who happens to be on mental ignore list because he/she frequently posts material I do not find worth reading), I tend not to read the end of the post.

Remember, whitespace (including indentation) is your friend!

[hm0504]

Though I have some significant disagreements with the Roman Catholic church, I have long applauded their overall excellence when it comes to the study of Scripture (not that the R.C. Church and I always agree there). Nonetheless, I happily keep my annotated of the Roman Catholic "New American Bible" nearby as it is an invaluable reference when questions of Scripture come up. (The New Jerusalem Bible is good too.)

Anyway, the Roman Catholic bishops of Britain have just published "The Gift of Scripture" largely as a response to the gross misteachings about the Bible springing from the spread of American fundamentalism into the British Isles. More here:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05104.shtml

[Bob S.]

"Remember, whitespace (including indentation) is your friend!"

Can I indent Albinus? If so, that would be so much easier.

You
want
white
space?
http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Here
is
some
white
space.

Bob S.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anyway, the Roman Catholic bishops of Britain have just published "The Gift of Scripture" largely as a response to the gross misteachings about the Bible springing from the spread of American fundamentalism into the British Isles. More here:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05104.shtml


Albinus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Albinus, you might like "Sins of Scripture" By John Shelby Spong. He says much the same thing.

[l2ltlarry]

Still_Boreas (and others), I honestly don't know how the Bible could be taught in schools today. If it were possible, it would have to be non-indoctrinational; in some way, the point would be to investigate how much of our culture can be found to have roots in the Bible.

Still_Boreas, it's interesting that you use the word 'ethnocentrism', because when the Bible says "Go therefore and teach all nations...", the word translated "nations" is "ethno" or "ethnic", meaning "everybody"/"all who have experienced nativity or been born (which of course is all of us). Adding -centrism to ethno-, could mean "everybody-centered" which probably isn't a bad thing, even though "ethnocentrism" sounds negative, not positive. Interesting how words don't always mean what they seem to mean at first glance.

hm0504, the monument says pathfinder. I see very little difference between finder and discoverer, since dis-cover (the same as apo-calypse) means to remove the cover.

You say, "Indeed, if one reads Psalm 8:8 and the surrounding context, it is pretty evident that "paths in the seas" was not writtent there as some mystery to be uncovered thousands of years later, but was indeed well known by the fishermen of the time." According to the biography I read, Psalm 8:8 was what triggered Maury's investigation and "find".

[l2ltlarry]

By NudeTopher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You may wish to do a little reading before posting that Maury discovered the jet streams.

I know, sometimes those pesky little things like facts get in the way of what you would like to believe.

Here is a good place to start:

google search for: Matthew Foutaine Maury </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NudeTopher, help me out. What in the Google search leads you to believe that Matthew Fountaine Maury did not discover (or find) the "paths of the seas"? The first few hits confirmed my statement.

Obviously he did something important. The monument at Belmont and Monument Boulevard didn't just fall out of the sky. Someone apparently was impressed enough with whatever he did to cause the 'Pathfinder of the Seas' monument to come into existence.

[l2ltlarry]

nacktman, thank you for taking the time to present your alternative view. I'm still thinking about how to reply. As some posters have done, I don't want to do a lengthy point-by-point response if I can do it another way. You surely do give much to think about. As business guru Stephen Covey says, we see things in the ways we do because of the mental maps or models we carry around in our heads. He calls them paradigms. I believe, as Covey does, that it's important that our paradigms and "reality on the ground" are as alike as possible. Sometimes this requires a paradigm shift, or breaking with one model and accepting a new one.

For now, I'm still thinking.

[hm0504]

Larry, please read carefully what I wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Actually, Larry, Matthew Fountaine Maury did NOT "discover" ocean currents, as sailors had known of them for centuries, and created crude maps of them.

Indeed, if one reads Psalm 8:8 and the surrounding context, it is pretty evident that "paths in the seas" was not writtent there as some mystery to be uncovered thousands of years later, but was indeed well known by the fishermen of the time.

What Maury did was to carefully catalog those currents, and winds, etc., which though notable in itself, is not the same as discovering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All Nudetopher and I are saying is that there is a difference between discovering a totally new, unknown phenomenon (which Maury did not do with regard to ocean currents) in contrast to carefully cataloging a known phenomenon (which is what Maury did do).

If I read Genesis 1 and say "The Bible says there are birds" and I go outside a see a bird, it does not mean I am the discoverer of birds. On the other hand, if the Bible inspires me to catalog all the different types of birds, perhaps discovering a few new species on the way, that is great but it is not the same as discovering that birds, in general, exist.

Maury was undoubtedly a very clever person (he did many fine things other than oceanography), but he did not "discover" ocean currents any more than I discovered birds this morning.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Still_Boreas, it's interesting that you use the word 'ethnocentrism', because when the Bible says "Go therefore and teach all nations...", the word translated "nations" is "ethno" or "ethnic", meaning "everybody"/"all who have experienced nativity or been born (which of course is all of us). Adding -centrism to ethno-, could mean "everybody-centered" which probably isn't a bad thing, even though "ethnocentrism" sounds negative, not positive. Interesting how words don't always mean what they seem to mean at first glance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that may be so. It is certainly interesting. The definition I used is this:

"Main Entry: eth·no·cen·tric
Pronunciation: "eth-nO-'sen-trik
Function: adjective
: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior
- eth·no·cen·tric·i·ty /-sen-'tri-s&-tE/ noun
- eth·no·cen·trism /-'sen-"tri-z&m/ noun" from the Miriam-Webster online dictionary.

Also, you say that the word means nations. Generally in today's usage, ethnocentrism would be when you believe your own nation to be superior. It still fits.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Still_Boreas (and others), I honestly don't know how the Bible could be taught in schools today. If it were possible, it would have to be non-indoctrinational; in some way, the point would be to investigate how much of our culture can be found to have roots in the Bible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quite agree. Additionally, if you are going to teach the Bible in schools today, you will have to teach the other sacred texts. This is a multi-cultural, multi-faith society/world today. The only way that the Bible should be taught as a religious text in school is in a Christian private school.

[xgsft]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:

I quite agree. Additionally, if you are going to teach the Bible in schools today, you will have to teach the other sacred texts. This is a multi-cultural, multi-faith society/world today. The only way that the Bible should be taught as a religious text in school is in a Christian private school. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly Still. How many of these fundies who are trying to get the bible taught in school going to agree to let the koran, the Rigveda, or the Torah. My bet would be very, very few.

[l2ltlarry]

Lest we get too far afield, let me repeat what Paul Greenberg, a Pulitzer Prize winner and editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has to say (in part):


From the original editorial:

"These days there are few more effective impediments to education (and many another worthwhile endeavor) than the threat of litigation. This time it's the Bible that's been the victim of that well- known chilling effect. Sue one school district, and you can instill fear in a thousand others.

This is how the law of the land, or rather an exaggerated caricature of it in the minds of educators, winds up promoting ignorance.

How strange: Inquiring minds might be urged to study every failed prophet from Karl Marx to Che Guevara, but they're told not to eat of the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden. The most profound of books, both deeply conservative and genuinely revolutionary, is the one declared off- limits.

How did we get to this pass? Through a series of vague, confusing court decisions that left educators fearful of crossing some imagined line. The separation of church and state is a wholesome precaution in a free country. Unfortunately, it's been equated with the separation of religious ideas from American life. Can't be done. Not in a nation founded in the faith that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. (Talk about a concise summary of the theory of natural law!)

For the timid, or downright fearful, the safest course for public education has been to avoid any discussion of spiritual values. The result: Many students are sent out into the world without having been exposed to the King James Bible, which is not only Holy Scripture but a cornerstone, if not the very foundation, of English literature.

In such a culture, or absence of culture, ignorance has flourished.

According to a survey sponsored by the Bible Literacy Project, only one out of three American teenagers could say who in the Bible asked, ‘‘Am I my brother's keeper?" And only a third knew what happened on the road to Damascus.

To quote one teacher: ‘‘I'll make comparisons . . . like Noah and the ark, or like Moses, and I'll have kids kind of look at me: ‘Who's Noah?' ‘Who's Moses?' "

Another teacher felt compelled to drop Charles Portis' True Grit from the class reading list because, although it's the kind of book you'd think would be perfect for young Americans, the kids were stumped by its biblical allusions.

There's hope. Here and there, courses in the Bible as literature are springing up.

Both the National Bible Association and the First Amendment Center agree that the Bible should be offered in public school. So do the National Association of Evangelicals and People for the American Way, outfits that seldom agree about anything else.

God bless 'em all.

So long as public schools educate instead of indoctrinate, so long as they teach rather than preach, they should have no problem staying on the right side of the Constitution.

Of course it'll require some judgment, a little common sense and maybe a handy set of guidelines to conduct a class in the Bible as literature rather than as religious doctrine. But there are a lot of teachers out there capable of teaching such a course, and it would be a shame to go on turning out high-school graduates who are biblical illiterates."


Chances are, Paul Greenberg, being a Pulitzer Prize winner is not a stupid person. And most editors would not think like this, let alone author such an article for their newspapers.

I think he addresses some of the concerns and proposes ways the Bible, "a cornerstone if not the very foundation of English literature" could be incorporated into public school curriculums.

As to those who think the Bible's content did not have an important part in the founding of this country, I think you have to discount or dismiss an awful lot of historical writings.

As Greenberg says, " The separation of church and state is a wholesome precaution in a free country. Unfortunately, it's been equated with the separation of religious ideas from American life. Can't be done. Not in a nation founded in the faith that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

As to the belief of several repliers that if the Bible is taught, then "the koran, the Rigveda, or the Torah", and "the thousands of other beliefs" would also have to be taught, none of these other belief systems have been even remotely associated with the founding of America. They may be valuable to learn, but do not have anything to do with what Paul Greenberg is proposing, which is educating students in ways that they can understand the storylines of important literary works.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
Lest we get too far afield, let me repeat what Paul Greenberg, a Pulitzer Prize winner and editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has to say (in part):
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Larry, when you evaluate information, do you actually vet from whence that infomration comes? Have you ever heard of the expression "consider the source"? Your conclusisions vis-a-vis Maury were offbase and not much is different here.

The editiorial you quote must be vetted:

1. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is far from a Democaratic newspaper. It is among the most conservative/reactionary papers in the country.

2. Greenberg is so reactionary, and so conservative that he recently lost his radio show due to complaints.

3. The sources mentioned in the editorial are not quite what they seem. Greenberg misleads the reader by making it seem like the "First Amendment Center" and various religious groups that normally disagree are united on this issue. However, a bit of research would inform you that "The First Amendment Center" is actually a proreligious group; it is a part of Vanderbilt University. Not only was Vanderbilt originally started as a religious school, it is currently only one of five universities in the United States that offers a school of divinity (read biblical training of church leaders).

4. As many have posted, if the Christian bible is to be taught then other religions must be taught as well. However, Greeberg thinks this is unncessary. If you do some research, you will find that at one time schools here used to teach the bible - but the Christians sued since they couldn't agree on which version of the Christian bible to teach. Hmmm. Not much has changed.

You really must learn to critically examine that which you read before you believe it and post it. Greenberg wrote an editorial NOT a news article. Editorials are written based upon opinion are frequently intellectually dishonest. When one considers his sources in this editioral it becomes quite obvious that he was being less then intellectually honest with the reader.

[hm0504]

Maybe this was answered before, but isn't the idea that churches are supposed to teach the Bible -- typically on Sunday mornings?

If people don't know the Bible, then obviously the churches are doing a lousy job. Shouldn't the issue be addressed there first?

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Maybe this was answered before, but isn't the idea that churches are supposed to teach the Bible -- typically on Sunday mornings?

If people don't know the Bible, then obviously the churches are doing a lousy job. Shouldn't the issue be addressed there first? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Albinus, you most certainly know the answer to this. If you state that the churches are doing a poor job teaching religion and the bible you will be accused of bashing. Perhaps too much Sunday School time is being devoted to "debunking science" and there isn't enough time for bible study.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
How did we get to this pass? Through a series of vague, confusing court decisions that left educators fearful of crossing some imagined line. The separation of church and state is a wholesome precaution in a free country. Unfortunately, it's been equated with the separation of religious ideas from American life. Can't be done. Not in a nation founded in the faith that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. (Talk about a concise summary of the theory of natural law!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you can help me out here Larry. The Federalist Society has recruited the religious right to join the neo-con view of a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. The Christian religious right is more then happy to take up the cause thinking that this will help lead to the establishment of a theocracy.

That being stated - and the oft repeated lines about how religious the founding fathers of our nation were....<span class="ev_code_BLUE">could you please tell me how many times God is mentioned in the Constitution?</span>

[hm0504]

I think it would be very worthwhile to teach about the religious beliefs of America's founding fathers because many of them were indeed rational, innovative, free-thinkers (which is probably what helped them get the job). Unfortunately, the pervasive myth in American society that the founding fathers were fundamentalist, evangelical Christians would probably make such teaching impossible.

Anyway, here's what you likely wouldn't learn in school:
http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

If America was intended to be a Christian nation, its constitution would look nothing like its actual consititution and lot more like the one Iraq is voting on today which makes it quite clear that Islam is the religion of Iraq, all laws must obey Islam, and (in my view) basically gives the Muslim clerics the highest authority in the land, though they are not specifically mentioned as political leaders.

[Bob S.]

larry:"As to those who think the Bible's content did not have an important part in the founding of this country, I think you have to discount or dismiss an awful lot of historical writings."

Ancient Greek society provided the ideas of democracy that our country was founded on. How many schools have Plato as mandatory reading? Christianity was based on Judiasm; therefore if your statement above is accurate, Judaism is the base religion for this country (and for all countries who have are mainly Christian or Muslim).

Bible content aside, the laws of the land are not based on or answerable to the Bible or anyone's translation.

larry:"none of these other belief systems have been even remotely associated with the founding of America."

Just Judaism and Christianity? How about the Celtic religions? Ancient Roman/Greek religions? Norse religions? All Native North American religions?

A society is affected by the history of all its inhabitants, not just the personal history of its founders. To understand the founding fathers, you must understand the UK and its history. And its history goes back far, well before William the Conquerer. Go into the Roman occupation of the Anglo-Saxon lands. They took ideas such as democracy from the ancient Greeks, so we must understand their lives and beliefs as well.

The fathers also had to deal with the natives and we learned some practices from them as well. We must then understand their lives and beliefs as well. Our fathers were slave owners. How and why were the Africans willing to sell their own peoples to the European and North Americans? We must understand their lives and beliefs.

Christianity may have been the basis of the founding fathers' religions larry, but that was not the only thing they based their beliefs on. They had the whole of their society and all global influences to form their overall beliefs and make the laws. Did the Bible guide them to form a democratic republic? Did the Bible guide them to take slaves?

Bob S.

[l2ltlarry]

There is certainly much to consider in your rebuttals. And obviously a lot of effort has been put forth to find and present your arguments. I've stated before that I come here to learn things because I love to learn. I take the advice of a long-ago corporate controller whom I worked for: "Learn everything you can from everyone you can. There's no one so dumb you can't learn something from him or her, and the smart people are usually willing to tell you everything they know. Learn everything you can from everyone you can."

Looking at your replies and reading several related Google sites, I would say that people certainly have lots of different ways of looking at things. Before I get labeled a fundamentalist, Religious Right fanatic or whatever other label of that sort people may apply, this is what I said in "Social nudism policies/etiquette: too much or too little?",

"I'm a huge, huge fan of freedom and liberty and I think I'm capable of figuring out for myself everything the "authorities" would like to figure out for me. To quote just one liberty passage from the Bible, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Don't submit again to a yoke of bondage." But almost everyone does, in religion and churches and in nudism and in its organizations. Things seem to work pretty much the same everywhere."

I'm well aware from personal experience of the dangerousness of churches and religions. That being said, I'm a "take hold of one extreme without letting go of the other extreme" type of person. I don't want to embrace any extreme with both arms.

I did a little "vetting" of Paul Greenberg as suggested and found another good article. So thanks for the suggestion.

In response to:

"That being stated - and the oft repeated lines about how religious the founding fathers of our nation were....could you please tell me how many times God is mentioned in the Constitution?",

I have a book authored in 1945 by eight or so famous people, two of whom were Eleanor Roosevelt and Senator William Howard Taft (if I recall correctly), addressing the question of why God was not mentioned in the Constitution. (As I said, people have many different ways of looking at things.) These famous people's argument was that the U.S.A. was premised upon God and He therefore went without saying. God was assumed.

So, whether you agree or disagree, that was their way of looking at it.

[l2ltlarry]

Bob, I'm not a fan of Christianity or religion in the usual senses of those words. Far too much damage has been done by organized Christianity and organized religion for me to think kindly toward them. I believe in thinking for myself; if I can't figure things out for myself, then I'll wait until I do. My belief is that there are timeless and universal principles underlying all of life and nature. I've studied life as hard as I can. I've also dug deeply into the Bible; I find that underneath any and every translation, there's a whole other world. The other world seems to be little known, but it agrees with science (but not anti-God science), knowledge, mathematics, logic, rationality, reason, and "founding- fathers-type" thinking (but not slavery and like atrocities). It does say "Do unto others....



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Christianity may have been the basis of the founding fathers' religions larry, but that was not the only thing they based their beliefs on. They had the whole of their society and all global influences to form their overall beliefs and make the laws. Did the Bible guide them to form a democratic republic? Did the Bible guide them to take slaves? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:

I did a little "vetting" of Paul Greenberg as suggested and found another good article. So thanks for the suggestion.

In response to:

"That being stated - and the oft repeated lines about how religious the founding fathers of our nation were....could you please tell me how many times God is mentioned in the Constitution?",

I have a book authored in 1945 by eight or so famous people, two of whom were Eleanor Roosevelt and Senator William Howard Taft (if I recall correctly), addressing the question of why God was not mentioned in the Constitution. (As I said, people have many different ways of looking at things.) These famous people's argument was that the U.S.A. was premised upon God and He therefore went without saying. God was assumed.

So, whether you agree or disagree, that was their way of looking at it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't be serious.

1. How well can your vetting abilities be when you still state that Paul Greenberg writes articles? An article is a factual account while an editorial is an opinion. The differences are more then semantic! FYI - Paul Greenberg is an editorial writer. His beliefs, thoughts, and musings may or may not be based in fact.

Vetting, questioning, and research have the aim to seperate fact from fiction. Taking an editiorial as fact violates the intellectual process!

2. It is always dangerous to make assumptions and it is even more dangerous to assume what people were thinking.

Saying that the founding fathers didn't make mention of God in the Constitution one single time because their belief in God was to be assumed is neither accurate nor intellectually honest. It is a rationalization. Try reading the Constitution, you will see that there were no underlying assumptions - everything was specifically spelled out.

In fact, that is what the neo-cons want now - Courts that only deal with that which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. They don't want assumptions made. You can't have it both ways.

[hm0504]

Geez, I always assumed the reason Buddhism was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is because Buddhism was inherently assumed to be the basis of the U.S. Constitution.

Seriously, NudeTopher has it exactly right. A constitution i supposed the be THE list of founding principles that a country operates. The idea that a core concept would not be mentioned is absurd.

[nacktman]

l2ltlarry, I just reread this thread and noticed your response to my post.

I thank you, if you can think, you can do.

I hoped to foster topical debate on points I saw lacking in other posts.

Should you formulate your response and wish to let it be known I would like to hear it.

[usmc1]

Let's see if we can flog some life into this old dead horse.

I'm all for teaching the bible in several contexts in public school.

1. As ancient literature arising from the superstitions, mores and tradiitons of desert tribes and how this gives us historical insight into the lives of those ancient desert dwellers.

2. As comparitive religion illustrating how religious thought evolved in different parts of the world as humans sought to define the human condition and explain thier relationship with the unknown "All".

3. As literary history explaining how different writers took things some things and ommitted others from oral traditions and shaped them into a unified whole.

4. As a tool of propaganda and opinion shaper, and how the bible evolves and changes, and is written differently for various religions to reinforce their interpretation of that which is called "God".

In these contexts the bible would be a marvelous teaching text or primer instilling in students a certain ability for wariness and critical thinking when it comes to the written word reflecting rather narrow world views.

[David77]

usmc1,
Very insightful post! That is the way we study and view the bible in our Unitarian church, but I would hope that the bible is not taught in the public schools as there would be too much sectarianism.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
usmc1,
Very insightful post! That is the way we study and view the bible in our Unitarian church, but I would hope that the bible is not taught in the public schools as there would be too much sectarianism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it would be a great idea if the churches started teaching the Bible! Fortunately, there's a quite good video series to help them get started:
http://www.livingthequestions.com/

I know a few have, such as David77's, but it would be wonderful if the idea would catch on a bit. That might take some of the pressure for the public schools to have to teach it.

[David77]

Excellent author! I have read many of John Dominic Crossan's books. He is my favorite.

Another excellent book, which we are now using for discussion of the bible at my church, is the book by John A Buehrens entitled "Understanding the Bible" "An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers, and Religious Liberals".

http://www.uua.org/bookstore/product_info.php?cPath=9&products_id=1225 (http://www.uua.org/bookstore/product_info.php?cPath=9&amp;products_id=1225)

This book can also be found at Amazon.com

[Boreas]

Thanks for the link Albinus. That looks interesting.

I agree with usmc1's views on teaching the bible in schools. Of course, the same criteria could be applied to other religious texts.

We have to move beyond seeing the bible as a document to be read literally. There is no way a literal interpretation of the bible can be applied in today's world, or any time for that matter.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
Excellent author! I have read many of John Dominic Crossan's books. He is my favorite.

Another excellent book, which we are now using for discussion of the bible at my church, is the book by John A Buehrens entitled "Understanding the Bible" "An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers, and Religious Liberals".

http://www.uua.org/bookstore/product_info.php?cPath=9&products_id=1225 (http://www.uua.org/bookstore/product_info.php?cPath=9&amp;products_id=1225)

This book can also be found at Amazon.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That looks interesting too!

I think I have mentioned Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong in here. HIs latest book, "The Sins of Scripture" is very thought provoking.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think I have mentioned Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong in here. HIs latest book, "The Sins of Scripture" is very thought provoking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have read books by Borg and Spong too and very much like them. I must read the book you have mentioned, "The Sins of Scripture". Thank you.

[Trailscout]

Many Christians might enjoy some of the books available at this Web site:

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://www.carm.org/index.html)

[David77]

It is better to seek truth where ever you may openly find it, than to seek reasons for believing what you already believe - Therefore, I do not like any apologetics.