Texas school to offer Bible class

[wvrevy]

You can say the same things about love. A person can have it in their heart and not have any proof. Actions in the past tense are nothing more than "stories". Nothing tangible. But people believe in love and go with it.

It's a good thing.

No, love is an emotion...a mental "attachment" to something or someone. My personal definition of love is that the happiness and well being of the person loved is essential to your own.

I can feel love towards a fictional being (love that Harry Potter, for example), but that doesn't make the object real.

 

[Galahad]

No, love is an emotion...a mental "attachment"

Just to confuse things further..... In most places in biblical texts, love is not a emotion but a verb. Attachment is not relevant. People are admonished to love regardless of their feelings.

 

[wvrevy]

I can't speak for other's - but I personally have been insulted by your comments - whether you think so or not.

I'm honestly sorry you feel that way. I tend to be a bit of a smart aleck at times, and it gets me in trouble When I was saying the things I was (calling religion a fairy tale, for instance), I was doing so with a specific purpose in mind. I've always been a firm believer that, if you cannot defend your beliefs, then you need to re-examine them. I use a strong and, admittedly, somewhat condescending tone when I argue religion, simply because I really wish people would closely examine their most cherished beliefs and see the inconsistancies.

Take WDWHound for example...if everyone took his interpretation of the bible (mostly Christ's teachings of kindness, charity, and goodwill towards all mankind) I would be a whole lot more respectful of the Christian religion as a whole. Unfortunately, there are a large number of people out there (and quite a few in power in our government) that use religion as a way to divide people rather than unite them. So when I get into a debate like this, I try to point out those inconsistancies.

Again, I do apologize if I've offended, as that wasn't my goal. I just wish people would examine those most cherished beliefs, instead of holding to them in the face of any argument.

 

[wvrevy]

Just to confuse things further..... In most places in biblical texts, love is not a emotion but a verb. Attachment is not relevant. People are admonished to love regardless of their feelings.

And that seems to have worked so well around the world

 

[Galahad]

And that seems to have worked so well around the world

Actually, taken as a whole I think a defensible case can be made that it has. That brings up an interesting question, I think I'll start a new thread. Think we can play nice?

 

[Figment]

Math lesson:

refuse to quietly let the sheeple brainwash my child into being one of them, I'm "intollerant" of other beliefs ? Hey, I've said it a million times...if you want to believe in a fairy tale and waste every Sunday morning for the rest of your life, be my guest.

+​

"The Bible: Why it is pure bunk and anybody that believes it probably still believes in the Tooth Fairy".

does not equal​

I have not personally insulted anyone on this thread.

 

[chobie]

Again, I do apologize if I've offended, as that wasn't my goal. I just wish people would examine those most cherished beliefs, instead of holding to them in the face of any argument.

I wouldn't worry about offending people who stand up and applaud every time the liberals on this board are called "pathetic and insipid".

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I agree. Everyone is free to believe what they want (as you have said before) but there's no need for the condescending tone. I understand that you obviously don't agree with that poster or the idea of a religious class in schools. But when you start using mocking and condescending tones to describe all religion and those who believe in it...it's rather insulting.

I like you, and I think that you are a good poster! Thats why I'm picking your post!

On a lot of the anti-gay and anti-liberal threads people say a lot worse, and sometimes nobody bothers to admonish them. I guess that it is more acceptable to bash that segment of the population.

I still don't see how admonishing wvrevy for believing that religion is fake, is proving the point that teaching religion in the schools will have a positive effect on the students?

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

I wouldn't worry about offending people who stand up and applaud every time the liberals on this board are called "pathetic and insipid".

The people who were offended were the ones who don't do that

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

I like you, and I think that you are a good poster! Thats why I'm picking your post!

On a lot of the anti-gay and anti-liberal threads people say a lot worse, and sometimes nobody bothers to admonish them. I guess that it is more acceptable to bash that segment of the population.

I still don't see how admonishing wvrevy for believing that religion is fake, is proving the point that teaching religion in the schools will have a positive effect on the students?

Thanks, I like you too I think anti-gay/liberal/etc people have said a lot worse too. I was simply pointing out that out wvrevy said he didn't like being talked down to yet he was doing the same thing to many others. I wasn't trying to prove anything. Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe. I don't see a problem with a religious class as an elective but many do and that's fine

 

[Galahad]

I still don't see how admonishing wvrevy for believing that religion is fake, is proving the point that teaching religion in the schools will have a positive effect on the students?

I don't think that was the point. It is one thing to say"

"I believe religion is fake".

That is not insulting to anyone.

It is another to say:

"I believe people that believe in religion are stupid to waste their Sundays on such nonsense".

That is insulting, even if you haven't put someone's name in the sentence. The discussion is not moved forward by that. Just as folks are insulting in the gay/anti-gay threads and that insulting takes away from the discussion, so this takes away from the discussion, IMO.

 

[tiger95]

Tell me how it differs from...ok, call it a "fable"...Tell me how it differs from a fable, and I'll stop calling it that. (And don't just come back with "'cause it's true"...you have no proof of that because there can be no proof of it).

A large percentage of the Bible is just like any other history book, it is man's account of past events. The difference is that those writers were ordained by God to intrepret those events.

The difference is that Christians, read the Bible with Faith and a belief that it is the one and only word of God. And God in turn reveals to those people his will for there lives.

JD

 

[LoraJ]

A large percentage of the Bible is just like any other history book, it is man's account of past events. The difference is that those writers were ordained by God to intrepret those events.

The difference is that Christians, read the Bible with Faith and a belief that it is the one and only word of God. And God in turn reveals to those people his will for there lives.

JD

God ordained them, is that a fact or a belief?

 

[WDWHound]

I'm honestly sorry you feel that way. I tend to be a bit of a smart aleck at times, and it gets me in trouble When I was saying the things I was (calling religion a fairy tale, for instance), I was doing so with a specific purpose in mind. I've always been a firm believer that, if you cannot defend your beliefs, then you need to re-examine them. I use a strong and, admittedly, somewhat condescending tone when I argue religion, simply because I really wish people would closely examine their most cherished beliefs and see the inconsistancies.

Take WDWHound for example...if everyone took his interpretation of the bible (mostly Christ's teachings of kindness, charity, and goodwill towards all mankind) I would be a whole lot more respectful of the Christian religion as a whole. Unfortunately, there are a large number of people out there (and quite a few in power in our government) that use religion as a way to divide people rather than unite them. So when I get into a debate like this, I try to point out those inconsistancies.

Again, I do apologize if I've offended, as that wasn't my goal. I just wish people would examine those most cherished beliefs, instead of holding to them in the face of any argument.

I was actually going to make a comment about concescension, but after reading this, all that remains for me to do is to appolgize for responding in kind. I did imply that you have not read the Bible and that your opinions should not be seriously considered. While this was in respoinse to the fact that I felt you were not taking other peoples views seriously, I had no right to respond that way and for the please accept my appology.

Interstingly enough, we might have found some common ground in all of this. I think we both agree that no one can claim to have the one true interpretaion of the Bible, whether you beleive in it spiritually or not. There are so many views of the book, from both inside the religious world and outside of it, that we are well served to listen and to try to understand each others point of view as best we can, especially when we don't agree.

I think we both agree that a course on any sacred text should not be taught as a religious validation of the text. A High School course on the Bible should never teach "Jesus died for your sins". I beleive it could and should teach something like "this verse is one of the reasons Christians beleive Jesus died for their sins". The goal is to learn about the beleifs of others, but not to endorse or disparage them.

I think we both feel that if the Bible is taught, other religious texts should also be examined. The only argument against this point would be to note that the dominant religion in this country is Christianity, and so if you only had resources to teach one sacred text, the Bible might be the best choice, since it teaches about the values of the largest segment of our culture. Still, this is VERY risky, as it might appear to be an endorsement of this text over others that could not be taught. Best probably to teach all the magor faiths or nothing. If I have my druthers, students would spend at least a year in comparative religions courses in high school, and advanced classes on each of the religious texts would be available, but I doubt that will ever happen.

Lastly, I think we both agree that the such course should never replace the teaching of any scientific theory.

How does that sound to you?

 

[ncgolfer]

My apologizies to WVREVY as well, and WDW hounds comments are my exact feelings as well.

 

[WDWHound]

Again, I do apologize if I've offended, as that wasn't my goal. I just wish people would examine those most cherished beliefs, instead of holding to them in the face of any argument.

Just a note, and I mean this respectfully, Its just as frustrating for those of faith to encounter someone who doesn't beleive in faith and holds to that in the face of any agrument.

I agree that all Christains should examine their faith. We should seriously consider not just the challenges raised by the faiths of others, but also the challenges raised by those who do not beleive in faith. Faith that can not be challenged is not faith. Christ allowed Thomas To reach out and touch him when he had doubts. It is normal and healthy to have questions and doubts. It is not an affront to God. If what you beleive is true, it will be all the stronger for the re-examination.

However, and I do mean this respectfully, this cuts both ways. I honestly wish those who do not have faith would seriously consider the possibility that those of faith are correct for time to time. It is a common agrument that Christians cling to their most cherished beliefs instead of examining them, but many (not all) atheists also tend to do the same. Billions of people accross thousand of years have beleive in a God or Gods. I know its is difficult for some to seriously consider their views, becuase their mind wants to respond with all the scientific concepts that argue against it, but just like those of faith should serious examine those scientific concepts, I those who do beleive in faith should re-examine the concepts of faith from time to time.

 

[tiger95]

God ordained them, is that a fact or a belief?

Answer this question for me, you love your SO/Wife/husband/children, is that a fact of belief?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Thank you WDWHound for some meaningful, profound discussion. It's refreshing and helpful, especially compared to those who insult and make snide remarks at every opportunity in these posts.

The world would be a better place if more people read the Bible and saw God's love.

 

[LoraJ]

Answer this question for me, you love your SO/Wife/husband/children, is that a fact of belief?

What does whether or not I love my boyfriend have to do with people ordained by God?

What if I didn't have a boyfriend? What is your point?

 

[WDWHound]

Thank you WDWHound for some meaningful, profound discussion. It's refreshing and helpful, especially compared to those who insult and make snide remarks at every opportunity in these posts.

Thanks Joe, but If I am forced to be honest, I made my own share of snide remarks on this thread. I may have felt provoked, but as WVRevy pointed out, I provoked right back and I am not proud of that.