O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in school

[TickTockMan]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Kulindahr, yet again, what you're promoting here is not the bible it's self, but your interpretation of it. The morality of the bible is not clear in the slightest, otherwise there wouldn't be so many interpretations.

The minute you have to tell me "how" to read something, it becomes interpretation, no matter how much you believe the opposite to be true. There is no abuse of the bible. It is so ambiguous, so utterly riddled with contradictions that your reading of it is no more or less valid than that of Fred and Shirleys.

And, frankly, that's why it needs to end.

I would give you an “amen”, but I don’t think it would be appropriate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Thankfully, evolution has given humans a need to value other human life. Being social beings, the necessity to do good for others is a social evolutionary advantage. Atheism needs no more input from the bible to be a moral person and be good to others than atheists need the bible to have a sexual need for procreation.

Right -- there's no philosophical grounding for morality, there's only self-interest. That's all the moral foundation you get from atheism. If it's to your advantage to be a Stalin, you can do it believing you're improving the species.

You must have missed the point where I said that I do not, nor does any atheist, believe that anyone should follow this way of living simply because it is the natural mechanism by which life functions. When you talked about the point of life and I responded by describing the purpose of life, I was not describing how life should be lived, only about how life operates. You then went looking for morality in a purely scientific construct (evolution by natural selection). It would be like looking for morality in the theory of gravity or the atomic theory. The universe is amoral, as are the mechanisms which govern it. Humans are very capable of overcoming this innate mechanism of life, we care for the less fit, do not execute the weaker of the fifth graders. Hell, every time a human uses contraception they are overcoming the mechanism by which life exists. There is no morality in the theory of evolution by natural selection (the "point of life" I described). There is morality in being human, though. It's an evolutionary advantage. Religion is just some people's excuse.

It's precisely like looking for morality in the theordy of gravity -- or, more appropriately, chaos theory, because the only morality an atheist can justify is akin to chaos: each person forms his own, whether it's to die for someone else or to kill as many someone's as possible.
And if morality is an evolutionary advantage, it's odd that it took a book claiming to be supernatural to bring it to society.

Stalin is a perfectly good example of the morality of atheism, demonstrating why atheism should never be allowed near a place of learning.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

To bring us back to the topic of the forum and and to the original topic of this thread, I would suggest teaching evolution in the biology classroom. I would advocate teaching the historical and cultural significance of religion in either a philosophy class or a Western civilization class.

I recommend a "Philosophy of Science" class, which I had at the 400 level in college, and which was one of the toughest courses I ever faced. We looked not just at what scientists say philosophically about science, but at world philosophies and religions and how they relate to science. Some, like Buddhism and Hinduism, fell into a category one could illustrate as, "Science? Learning things? It's nice to have a hobby"; others fell into a dismissal of science as unnecessary to "real goals". Only one small set actually provided a fertile ground for science.
Importantly, we looked at perversions of science, what some call "scientism", or "evolutionism".
There wasn't much time for it, but things got spiced up with looks at perversions of religions which in turn perverted science -- the principal representative being Creationism.

BTW, for benefit of those following the thesis of the thread: the class was taught by a conservative Lutheran priest who held an S.T.M. degree and an M.S. -- a Master of Sacred Theology (the initials come from the Latin word order) and a Master of Science, in biochemistry. His approach to teaching it showed the thread's thesis to be false.

 

[andysayshi]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

And if morality is an evolutionary advantage, it's odd that it took a book claiming to be supernatural to bring it to society.

There was no morality in human societies before Christianity?

 

[construct]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

The Bible cannot serve as any more a moral guide in our modern society than Seneca, Plutarch, and Marcus Aurelius. All of them tolerate slavery for example. See Paul's letter to Philemon and the household codes in the letters of Paul and Peter.

Neither can creationism or its bastard child intelligent design serve as a moral guide unless one argues for natural law, but then the fall affected all of nature. Lions don't lie down with lambs, at least not anymore. The ultimate expression of natural law is the divine Marquis. So such argument is specious.

Nevertheless, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have had a profound influence in the west. Muslims preserved the works of Aristotle and developed double entry bookkeeping. Christians developed art. Jews made major contributions in philosophy and other disciplines. Therefore, those contributions and others should be taught in public schools.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Kulindahr, yet again, what you're promoting here is not the bible it's self, but your interpretation of it. The morality of the bible is not clear in the slightest, otherwise there wouldn't be so many interpretations.

The minute you have to tell me "how" to read something, it becomes interpretation, no matter how much you believe the opposite to be true. There is no abuse of the bible. It is so ambiguous, so utterly riddled with contradictions that your reading of it is no more or less valid than that of Fred and Shirleys.

And, frankly, that's why it needs to end.

That's the same bullshit copout lots of [people offer.

I'm not "offering my interpretation", I'm pointing out what the book itself flat out says. At the risk of being repetitious, later parts of the Old Testament set aside earlier parts, and the New Testament sets aside all but the principles of the Old Testament. That's not some concept brought in, it's what's in the book. An example I've given before repeatedly is in the book of Acts, where the Apostles hold a council, and afterward declare that the Holy Spirit told them that the Old Testament law doesn't apply to anyone except Jewish folks born before Jesus came along. That's not interpretation, that's what the book says. So anyone running around trying to impose all the rules and details of the Old Testament on the basis of the Bible can accurately be portrayed as not knowing how to read -- or of being very good with scissors (or cut & don't paste).

It takes someone telling you "how" to read the periodic table -- so is that just "interpretation"? No. It takes someone telling you "how" to read French -- so is that just interpretation? It takes someone telling you "how" to read computer language--
But more to the point, it takes someone telling you how to read Shakespeare in order to get it, as also with Beowulf and any work with another language and culture behind it -- for that matter, it takes someone to tell you how to read fiction, a truth that the movie Galaxy Quest illustrates.

But I'm not telling you how -- what I'm telling you is what the Bible says of how. As for the Old Testament laws, it's said multiple times, from multiple angles, that their time is over. There's no ambiguity to that whatsoever -- just consider a quick sampling:

"You are not under law, but under grace."
"All things are 'lawful'."

So any accusation about religion based on pulling out parts of the Bible which the Bible itself says are doe with just demonstrates either an ignorance of the Bible, or a determination to criticise religion regardless of the truth.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

There was no morality in human societies before Christianity?

Does anyone else find it funny that morality never applies to God.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ[/ame]

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

I liked the slogan that an atheist group posted on the side of London buses:

That's priceless!

 

[FirmaFan]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

The Bible cannot serve as any more a moral guide in our modern society than Seneca, Plutarch, and Marcus Aurelius. All of them tolerate slavery for example. See Paul's letter to Philemon and the household codes in the letters of Paul and Peter.

Neither can creationism or its bastard child intelligent design serve as a moral guide unless one argues for natural law, but then the fall affected all of nature. Lions don't lie down with lambs, at least not anymore. The ultimate expression of natural law is the divine Marquis. So such argument is specious.

Nevertheless, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have had a profound influence in the west. Muslims preserved the works of Aristotle and developed double entry bookkeeping. Christians developed art. Jews made major contributions in philosophy and other disciplines. Therefore, those contributions and others should be taught in public schools.

That is all fine. I am all for that. I think that some may be confused when I say you can not teach religion in schools. I do believe that you can teach people about religion, but you can not teach religion. Teach about how christianity says that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected, but do not teach that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected. The difference is wording is small, but the difference in implications are huge. Only when testable, repeatable, falsifiable, verifiable empirical evidence for religion is found can we allow religion to be taught in schools. Until that time, I find no justification for even believing it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Oh lookie Kuli god mobbing another thread. I'm so surprised.

Look if anyone wants to believe in an all powerful, magic, sky papa, more power to them. However, it should not now, nor ever taught in a public school system. If you want to learn about "God" go to church, Sunday school, or put your kid in a private school.

It's always the fetid X-tians whining and bellowing about teaching about God and creationism in public schools. Can you imagine the howls they would have if their kid was taught a Buddhist / Taoist / Islamic believe system in a classroom? My god they have a complete meltdown when a school/institution decides to have no Christmas trees, or other overtly Xtian item on display.

I'm just trying to bring a little truth in where deception is being used.

If your paragraphs are meant to be linked to your first statement, you're joining in the deception, or at least misrepresentation.

Did you listen to that excellent presentation by Dr. Weber? You'd remember that during it he made the point that it is also Christians who are saying to keep religion out of science.

And that's why the thesis of this thread is false: it misrepresents the true situation in order to set up an attack on religion. So an accurate representation of this thread would be "God-bashing" -- which is why I chimed in, because the basis of the bashing is false.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

The Bible cannot serve as any more a moral guide in our modern society than Seneca, Plutarch, and Marcus Aurelius. All of them tolerate slavery for example. See Paul's letter to Philemon and the household codes in the letters of Paul and Peter.

"Household codes"? ? ?

The difference between Aurelius and the Bible is that the Bible points toward the abolition of slavery -- which is why Christians were the driving force behind getting rid of slavery.

Neither can creationism or its bastard child intelligent design serve as a moral guide unless one argues for natural law, but then the fall affected all of nature. Lions don't lie down with lambs, at least not anymore. The ultimate expression of natural law is the divine Marquis. So such argument is specious.

It's been my impression/understanding that Intelligent Design was its own critter, that got hijacked by the Creationists as a way of lying to the world. I got caught up in ID when it was about symmetry, balance, elegance in the universe all strongly suggesting a Designer -- but it had nothing to do with the Bible, and avoided reference to "God", "Allah" or any other word which might specify one religion over another.

Nevertheless, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have had a profound influence in the west. Muslims preserved the works of Aristotle and developed double entry bookkeeping. Christians developed art. Jews made major contributions in philosophy and other disciplines. Therefore, those contributions and others should be taught in public schools.

And Christianity has more than once dragged society kicking and screaming to a higher moral level -- even as particular Christians worked at going backwards.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Does anyone else find it funny that morality never applies to God.

It'snot funny -- it's a tautology.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

That is all fine. I am all for that. I think that some may be confused when I say you can not teach religion in schools. I do believe that you can teach people about religion, but you can not teach religion. Teach about how christianity says that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected, but do not teach that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected. The difference is wording is small, but the difference in implications are huge. Only when testable, repeatable, falsifiable, verifiable empirical evidence for religion is found can we allow religion to be taught in schools. Until that time, I find no justification for even believing it.

Are you proposing imposing this opinion of yours on everyone, regardless?

If so, how would you justify it to those who believe that religion should be taught in school, and those who go a step farther and say it should be the core of what is taught?

 

[construct]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

"Household codes"? ? ?

Yes, household codes. Fathers/children, husbands/wives, masters/slaves. You remember.

The difference between Aurelius and the Bible is that the Bible points toward the abolition of slavery -- which is why Christians were the driving force behind getting rid of slavery.

Where does the Bible point toward the abolition of slavery? All Paul does is politely request the Philemon free Onesimus because Onesimus had become a Christian and therefore a brother in Christ.

It's been my impression/understanding that Intelligent Design was its own critter, that got hijacked by the Creationists as a way of lying to the world. I got caught up in ID when it was about symmetry, balance, elegance in the universe all strongly suggesting a Designer -- but it had nothing to do with the Bible, and avoided reference to "God", "Allah" or any other word which might specify one religion over another.

Sorry. The Hebrew concept of the creative word is creationism.

And Christianity has more than once dragged society kicking and screaming to a higher moral level -- even as particular Christians worked at going backwards.

Sorry once again. It was particular Christians on both sides of those disputes.

 

[construct]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

It'snot funny -- it's a tautology.

Only for Nominalists. Not for Realists. Your "I'm not interpreting; I'm just reading" marks you as a realist.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

It'snot funny -- it's a tautology.

Damn Construct beat me to it.

Kuli, let me invite you to kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars.

 

[FirmaFan]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Are you proposing imposing this opinion of yours on everyone, regardless?

If so, how would you justify it to those who believe that religion should be taught in school, and those who go a step farther and say it should be the core of what is taught?

If people want religion taught as fact instead of being just educating people about what that religion proposes (as was the point of the post you responded to - teach about religion, don't teach religion), they would need to provide (I'm copying and pasting from my last post now) testable, repeatable, falsifiable, verifiable empirical evidence for the religion they want to teach.

And if you are going to entertain those who would wish that religion be taught in school, or to go a step further and make it the core of what is taught, how would you think they would justify teaching it to a group of students who all have different religious beliefs? When asking your question, I assume you were speaking of your religion and not Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan or many of the other religions that have existed past and present. There is no reason to select by default christianity to be taught in school, which has as much religious validity as any other. Something as subjective as religion (subjective even within the religion itself) can not be the core of teaching. The conflict it would create would alone negate any attempted teaching. Quoting Richard Dawkins: "isn't it a remarkable coincidence, nearly every person shares their religion with their parents, and it always just so happens to be the 'right' religion". People are indoctrinated into their religion at a very young age, and are henceforth convinced through repetitive religious teachings that their religion is the right one. How could anyone justify teaching religion in school when those they would be teaching are the product of several different, conflicting religions?

That's my justification for not having religion taught in school. Again, just to be clear, I am not against educating people about religion, but teaching it as fact, or as an equal alternative like was attempted with intelligent design, or as something to be followed can never be done.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Yes, household codes. Fathers/children, husbands/wives, masters/slaves. You remember.

I know the word pairs -- where's the "code"?

Where does the Bible point toward the abolition of slavery? All Paul does is politely request the Philemon free Onesimus because Onesimus had become a Christian and therefore a brother in Christ.

Right there is the seed! Paul understood in his gut that one ought not hold a fellow Christian as a slave. But the principle for that is that one for whom Christ died ought not hold another for whom Christ died as a slave -- but Christ died "for all", as Paul himself writes. It isn't much farther a step to realize that no one for whom Christ died ought to be a slave.
The other direction is that all are made in the image of God -- and it just isn't respectful to God to treat those He made in His image as property.

Sorry. The Hebrew concept of the creative word is creationism.

If by "creationism" you mean that "God creates things", sure -- but if you mean instead Creationism as we face today, no. The concept of the creative word does not require ancient literature to be misread and plain principles in God's revelation abused.

Sorry once again. It was particular Christians on both sides of those disputes.

Sure -- but some were delving into scripture and learning more, while others were clinging to what they liked and [STRIKE]ab[/STRIKE]using scripture as a tool to justify their wishes.

 

[EwanSF]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

That's the same bullshit copout lots of [people offer.

I'm not "offering my interpretation", I'm pointing out what the book itself flat out says. At the risk of being repetitious, later parts of the Old Testament set aside earlier parts, and the New Testament sets aside all but the principles of the Old Testament. That's not some concept brought in, it's what's in the book. An example I've given before repeatedly is in the book of Acts, where the Apostles hold a council, and afterward declare that the Holy Spirit told them that the Old Testament law doesn't apply to anyone except Jewish folks born before Jesus came along. That's not interpretation, that's what the book says. So anyone running around trying to impose all the rules and details of the Old Testament on the basis of the Bible can accurately be portrayed as not knowing how to read -- or of being very good with scissors (or cut & don't paste).

And again, we're back to this old chestnut. You interpret, for example, what jesus said about his purpose in the fullfilment of old testament law. That's your reading of it. You can tell me that it's black and white, plain to see, but the last few times, you've had to explain that particular tid-bit to me in a way that made fuck all sense. To me, that line, which I can't be arsed looking up again, looks to be a clear as day expaination with no wiggle-room. You tell me that's not what it means so to me, that can only mean that you've interpretted it that way. So no, it's not a bullshit copout.

It takes someone telling you "how" to read the periodic table -- so is that just "interpretation"? No. It takes someone telling you "how" to read French -- so is that just interpretation? It takes someone telling you "how" to read computer language--
But more to the point, it takes someone telling you how to read Shakespeare in order to get it, as also with Beowulf and any work with another language and culture behind it -- for that matter, it takes someone to tell you how to read fiction, a truth that the movie Galaxy Quest illustrates.

The difference bing that the periodic table and french are quantafiable things, with real-life application, not mythological bullshit. And although Shakespeare and other works of fiction, like your mad book, may require interpretation, descifering, what have you, to the best of my knowlege, there have been no human rights abuses anywhere in history as a result of a particular analysis of The Merchant of Venice.

But I'm not telling you how -- what I'm telling you is what the Bible says of how. As for the Old Testament laws, it's said multiple times, from multiple angles, that their time is over. There's no ambiguity to that whatsoever -- just consider a quick sampling:

"You are not under law, but under grace."
"All things are 'lawful'."

So any accusation about religion based on pulling out parts of the Bible which the Bible itself says are doe with just demonstrates either an ignorance of the Bible, or a determination to criticise religion regardless of the truth.

I'd quite like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that those two quotes mean what you're suggesting. As if that matters anyway, there are passages that contradict them. Difference being that you don't interpret them that way.

 

[construct]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

I know the word pairs -- where's the "code"?

Yes, code. The code was propounded by the Stoics and appropriated by primitive Christianity. That's why I referred to three representative Stoics in an earlier post.

Right there is the seed! Paul understood in his gut that one ought not hold a fellow Christian as a slave. But the principle for that is that one for whom Christ died ought not hold another for whom Christ died as a slave -- but Christ died "for all", as Paul himself writes. It isn't much farther a step to realize that no one for whom Christ died ought to be a slave.
The other direction is that all are made in the image of God -- and it just isn't respectful to God to treat those He made in His image as property.

Now, who's interpreting?

If by "creationism" you mean that "God creates things", sure -- but if you mean instead Creationism as we face today, no. The concept of the creative word does not require ancient literature to be misread and plain principles in God's revelation abused.

I have not misread the concept of dabar, and neither have you. Creationism as we face it today can be traced right back to the creative word.

Sure -- but some were delving into scripture and learning more, while others were clinging to what they liked and [strike]ab[/strike]using scripture as a tool to justify their wishes.

And who is to say what was happening in the hearts of those Christian defenders of slavery during their devotions? I have no reason to believe that they were anything but sincere.