Texas school to offer Bible class

[swilphil]

Intolerance for people that believe differently....raging mysogeny....the impetus for millions of deaths (from the Inquisition through the Crusades through modern day gay bashing)...the belief that ignorance is somehow superior to knowledge....

These very things are the reasons why a comparative religions class would be appropriate. Religion has had such a huge impact on our society.

....It has no business being taught in a school as anything other than a piece of literature.

I do agree that it should be taught as a piece of literature or as part of a social studies curricula, not as a Bible study class (that's what church and parents are for). If you look at current high school literature anthologies, you will find passages from the Bible, as well as writings from Hinduism, Judiasm, and Buddhism.

 

[katerkat]

I don't know - as someone who has a degree in comparative religion, I can see how the Bible can be taught non-evangelical. After all, I had a non-evangelical class for both Testaments, plus the Qu'ran and other religious texts. They are fascinating from a historical perspective - all religion is. I consider my degree to be kind of an in-depth history degree.

I think if the class is non-evangelical, voluntary and there's plenty of other options for the electives, it's not an issue.

 

[DisDuck]

First of all let me thank those who use the correct terminology The Torah instead of 'The Old Testament'. It is sort of a peeve for me as there is no such book in my religion. Then, thanks to WDWHound for the update on some of the translation source. The original Hebrew is a more accurate source. One question though, do you know if a 'christian' translator uses an actual Torah Scroll or a 'book' copied from The Torah?

On the immediate subject, I would like to see the written curricula so better gauge how this subject will be taught. In a public school environment it should be part of the history department as an elective and be completely inclusive which means not just mono-theistic religions but also pan-theistic ones as well. It could be taught as a 'from why religion exists to how we got where we are today' including the 'why so many sects'. In effect a history of philosophical development.

If it is going to be 'preachy', even hinting at one religion is better than another or 'more truthful' then it has no place in public school.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I don't see it as a big deal. At Christmas time, schools focus on every religion BUT Christianity. I think that's strange. But that's just me.

Separation of church and state isn't a reality. As much as people would like it to be. (Putting flame suit on.)

It is what it is. The reference to God abounds in documents and American rituals.

Why wouldn't people, young people be interested in the influences of their country?

God is on our money.
God is referenced in our courthouses.
God is referenced in the swearing in of our POTUS.
God is referenced in our ceremonies, marital and death.
(And there are many more cases I'm sure it's just too early to think of them.)

If people aren't interested they won't take the class. Censoring the class would be kind of like book banning to me.

Before the "government sponsored religion" is brought up, IMO many religions are taught in schools what's the difference?

 

[helenabear]

Government sponsored religious teachings.

So I guess my Greek Mythology class was wrong to take... after all that included stories about worshipping gods...

what's the difference... it's a literature class, no big deal if it is an elective!


I am honesetly sick to death (not directed at one person) of those who claim to be liberal but are so dang judgemental and intolerant of people who are religious. These people are just as close minded and cruel to those they claim are the intolerant ones.

Makes no sense to me at all!!!!!

 

[BuckNaked]

First of all let me thank those who use the correct terminology The Torah instead of 'The Old Testament'. It is sort of a peeve for me as there is no such book in my religion.

For Christians, the correct term is "The Old Testament". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Torah was made up of the first five books of our Old Testament. If that is the case, then why should you care whether or not Christians refer to the Old Testament as such, since it is made up of much more than just the Torah?

 

[tiger95]

Have you even read the book? Lets take these one by one:
Intolerance for people that believe differently
You should read Jesus' teachings more closely. He demands the exact oposite.

raging mysogeny....
What? Women in the Bible are treated no differently than other women in the culture of the times. Paul used Women to found his church. Jesus included women in his followers. Try reading Greek myths if you want mysogeny. Should we ban the teaching of Greek mythology too?

the impetus for millions of deaths (from the Inquisition through the Crusades through modern day gay bashing)
Evil people can and do use anything for evil means. It can be religion, govenrment, geography, skin color, economic status or system... The list goes on and on. ANYTHING can be used for evil means, but that doesn't make it the thing being used evil. Should we stop teaching about Democracy? Many have been wrongly killed in its name.

the belief that ignorance is somehow superior to knowledge
Show me where in the Bible this beleif is stated. Faith and education can go hand in hand and the Bible actually encourages education.

Everything yoiu have mentioned is a misinterpretation based on stereotypes of the Bible. Perhaps if kids studied it, we wouldn't have such misinterpretation, but no, that cant be allowed.

Very well said WDWHound.

JD

 

[JennyMominRI]

For Christians, the correct term is "The Old Testament". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Torah was made up of the first five books of our Old Testament. If that is the case, then why should you care whether or not Christians refer to the Old Testament as such, since it is made up of much more than just the Torah?

Personally,If I am speaking to a Christian about their version of the scriptures I'll call it an OT..If I'm talking about the Jewish Scriptures..I'll call it Torah or Tanakh.
There are differences betwee the 2 books,Hundreds of words that are different. The words Hell and Devil are nowhere to be found in the Tanakh ..There is no *virgin* prophecy in the Tanakh etc.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Sarcasm intended... that's right zippa.. all of us who are not catholic/christian are amoral.

I never said it; I never (intentionally) implied it. Glad you put the sarcasm warning in there.

 

[swilphil]

Thanks for the information, Jenny, and I like your approach about references to the Torah and Old Testament. I think the original complaint was about saying that Jews read the Old Testament, which isn't what they call it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[DisDuck]

Because The Torah is a stand-alone 'bible'. It is what we read from as our 'bible' at services. Other 'books' are not part of The Torah, they are just that 'books'. Such as The Book of Esther (read for purim). By incorporating them under the heading of 'The Old Testament' the impression that can be given is that they are part of the 'jewish bible' which is not the case. I believe 'words' carry meaning; therefore, using The Old Testament as a reference to the 'jewish bible' as opposed to using The New Testament refering to the 'christian bible' is incorrect. There is only one Torah (The Pentatuch or Five Books of Moses) which is used by all Jews (reform, consevative, orthodox, hasidic) unlike the different christian sects (ie. 1 for the mormons, 1 for the methodists, 1 for the presbytarians, etc.). WDW pointed out to me that some 'new testatments' use the original hebrew as source for translation of our bible but many others do not so there is most likely inaccurate passages in went 'you' call the old testament. If 'you' were to create a section in 'your' bible called The Torah without the 'other books' and use the original hebrew as the source that would be a more accurate representation of what 'you' call the old testament.

 

[ncgolfer]

I am honesetly sick to death (not directed at one person) of those who claim to be liberal but are so dang judgemental and intolerant of people who are religious. These people are just as close minded and cruel to those they claim are the intolerant ones.

Makes no sense to me at all!!!!!

I made the same point in a previous post and got called some very nice names by the "tolerant", "loving", "open" liberal folks, so get ready!

 

[WDWHound]

For Christians, the correct term is "The Old Testament". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Torah was made up of the first five books of our Old Testament. If that is the case, then why should you care whether or not Christians refer to the Old Testament as such, since it is made up of much more than just the Torah?

I believe the word "Torah" is actually used in several ways (Mr Duck, please correct me if I am wrong here). The formal definition is the the one Buck just sited, It is also commonly used to decribe all the books in the Tanakh, which Chirstians call the Old Testament. It can also be used to describe the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history. All of these uses for the word Torah are considered proper and its meaning depends on the context in which it is used.

DISDuck: You question regarding which source was used for the Torah is a very good one and I do not know the answer, but I intend to find out. When I do, I will let you know.

 

[chadfromdallas]

So I guess my Greek Mythology class was wrong to take... after all that included stories about worshipping gods...

what's the difference... it's a literature class, no big deal if it is an elective!

Makes no sense to me at all!!!!!

One has an Agenda, the other doesn't

 

[DisDuck]

zippa.. while I was being sarcastic in many of your posts there is a definite impression that 'christian' values are more important than other values, ie. without religion, in particular christian, there would be no morals. So if that is not the impression you wish to leave then be more specific in word usage. Particularly in an online chat thread, inflection and body language is impossible to discerne so words can be misintepreted if not specific enough. I try to be which leads to be 'rambling' at times as I want to make my positions as clear as possible.

Thanks for chiming in Jenny. You stated what I have been poorly attempting in my comments. I think there is a general belief that OT is what we use as our 'bible' which is not correct and in my fumbling way I was trying to point this out.

 

[BuckNaked]

I believe the word "Torah" is actually used in several ways (Mr Duck, please correct me if I am wrong here). The formal definition is the the one Buck just sited, It is also commonly used to decribe all the books in the Tanakh, which Chirstians call the Old Testament. It can also be used to describe the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history. All of these uses for the word Torah are considered proper and its meaning depends on the context in which it is used.

Thanks - I just didn't (and still don't) understand DisDuck's original complaint, i.e., tarheel's use of the term "Old Testament" when she spoke of a class that she had taken on the Old Testament. From that simple statement, DisDuck just assumed (given his subsequent statments) assumed that she was talking about the Torah, and he took offense.

I believe 'words' carry meaning; therefore, using The Old Testament as a reference to the 'jewish bible' as opposed to using The New Testament refering to the 'christian bible' is incorrect.

I haven't seen anyone do that on this thread, so I'm still confused as to why you find it offensive. tarheel simply discussed a class that she had taken on the Old Testament.

I'm sorry that you don't like it that the Christian refer to the Old Testament as such, but in our religion, that's what it's called. I think you are reading way too much into someone's reference to it as such.

 

[DisDuck]

WDW.. The Torah(Pentatach) is our 'bible'. Other books like The Book of Esther are stories of events in our history. The Talmud can be considered commentaries on The Torah. So while christians might include 'everything' under one title, OT, it would be incorrect to actual think that this is what is used in our service. For a complete picture there is also a 'book' called The Haftorah which is also commentary on the Torah which is read as part of the Shabbos service (saturday). Since Jenny is going thru conversion classes she can probable give a clearer explanation of the differences. Bottomline thou is there is only one 'bible' The Torah.

 

[OceanAnnie]

One has an Agenda, the other doesn't

So what is it then? A fear thing? There are zealots in all religions.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I think people have a hard time that Jews get bothered by the Torah and OT getting lumped together as the samething.. Imagine if a few hundred years from now, some group takes your New Testament,Adopts it as their own, changes the Christian understanding of it , forms a new religion based on it gives it a new name and claims that you (Christians ) don't know how to read it and understand it the way it's meant to be understood. To top that all off. They add a new book too it and call it a fulfilment of your books and then tell you your own religion(christianity) is obsolete

Note..I know no one on this thread has said that,but these are pretty much things that have been said to jews for millenia now

 

[pamlet]

Because The Torah is a stand-alone 'bible'. It is what we read from as our 'bible' at services. Other 'books' are not part of The Torah, they are just that 'books'. Such as The Book of Esther (read for purim). By incorporating them under the heading of 'The Old Testament' the impression that can be given is that they are part of the 'jewish bible' which is not the case. I believe 'words' carry meaning; therefore, using The Old Testament as a reference to the 'jewish bible' as opposed to using The New Testament refering to the 'christian bible' is incorrect. There is only one Torah (The Pentatuch or Five Books of Moses) which is used by all Jews (reform, consevative, orthodox, hasidic) unlike the different christian sects (ie. 1 for the mormons, 1 for the methodists, 1 for the presbytarians, etc.). WDW pointed out to me that some 'new testatments' use the original hebrew as source for translation of our bible but many others do not so there is most likely inaccurate passages in went 'you' call the old testament. If 'you' were to create a section in 'your' bible called The Torah without the 'other books' and use the original hebrew as the source that would be a more accurate representation of what 'you' call the old testament.

This is such an interesting conversation. As to the Bible being taught in public school. I do think it would be fine as long as it had a narrow curriculm and was taught from a purely historical perspective. That said - I AM a Christian.. we homeschool our son for health reasons, however prior to that both of our boys were in Christian schools BECAUSE we wanted the Bible as part of their curriculm. I would NOT want someone who does not see the Bible as we do teaching that to our children. As they go on to college and into adulthood they can learn what others teach. I feel strongly that you should teach children in the way you feel is correct. High school is a good time to start learning about other religions - but it should be in a very non-judgemental way.

I went to both a Christian high school, and a Christian University. I took comparitive religion courses in both - and even more interesting a Denominational Doctrine's course in college. That gave a comparason of all Christian faiths ... that one REALLY got down to the nitty gritty... laugh..

DisDuck - I understand your concern - and wanting to show that the Torah is your Bible... This is what I was taught in school. Just wanted to make one comment tho'... from a Christian denominational standpoint - there are many translations of the Bible - but not by denomination.. (Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.)... with the exception of Catholicism and the Mormon's.

I'm just now paying more attention to different translations - It's interesting to see the differences in language. I can't say I know a lot about the differences - and was raised on the King James. I still like the King James - not so much that I think that it's "the only" translation - but I like the formality of the language, and that is what I'm used to...