EPTOn November 12 2012 07:26 BuddhaMonk wrote:
The bible is totally fine with stoning adulterers
The bible is totally fine with stoning adulterers
not Christ, fairly explicitly (let he who is without sin cast the first stone)
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1453
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
not Christ, fairly explicitly (let he who is without sin cast the first stone) | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:28 oneofthem wrote: for the vast majority of christianity's history people didn't read the bible. that's a big issue. Yes. I think the Bible needs to be defended against atheists and Christians alike. We really should do a better job of teaching it in schools, so people understand it better. Most people on both sides just kinda miss the point edit: but of course, better education is pretty much just the solution to EVERY problem | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
edit: of course i'd like to see such a course well taught in high school. but there is like, no chance dat happens. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
get real | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
liek, literally spawn of satan pogroms against the cute philosophy majors running these courses. we'll call it atheist burning. | ||
|
dream208
5 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote: Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history? get real Maybe because it is outdated? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit @ above: lol you're cute ^.^ | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i have some sympathy for religious ideals of the 'sacred' person. it is important. but there are other ways of getting to it without religious metaphysics. i reserve a special place for the likes of levinas, kierkegaard etc. | ||
|
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:39 sam!zdat wrote: Yeah, I'm talking critical examination here. Explain e.g. how Genesis has four authors from vastly different time periods, read some non-canonical stuff, all of it. That stuff is fascinating. edit @ above: lol you're cute ^.^ Yeah... I think a lot of Americans won't take too kindly to that idea. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: but secularists who think we should ignore the bible are just as benighted as fundamentalists who think we should legislate from it | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote: Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history? get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On November 12 2012 06:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex. but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not. Do you eat shell fish? The Bible prohibits that too... | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote: Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... | ||
|
farvacola
United States18874 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:40 oneofthem wrote: if you teach that expect not only death threats but actual death. i have some sympathy for religious ideals of the 'sacred' person. it is important. but there are other ways of getting to it without religious metaphysics. i reserve a special place for the likes of levinas, kierkegaard etc. I would be 100% behind teaching existential concepts at an earlier age; this is total fantasy sadly. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote: nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... they already do that in history of the world classes. not very in depth mind you. like a Civ 4 kind of experience. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:41 Tarot wrote: Yeah... I think a lot of Americans won't take too kindly to that idea. ugh... and that is why I do sometimes get really mad at Christians (and some secularists). taking an objective and critical (and skeptical) view of the Bible in the setting of a classroom is very important for both Christians and non-Christians to be able to better understand their own culture (and in the case of the Christian, their faith). I'm not a literalist (totally not a word but whatevs), but even if I was, I would still support taking a non-literal view of the Bible (and any other religious text) when in academia. man, I didn't really want to start a theological debate with my comments guys, I was trying to focus on the political aspect of it. my mistake, because that inevitably leads to religious debate. let's just, for the sake of the thread, say I concede on those issues and move on | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote: Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. Teaching about it is okay, but prosletisizing is a nono. Analyzing it for symbolism, the way it was translated, how its evolved, the different writing styles of authors, evolving doctrine and things like that is fine. One of my good friends is taking a class about medicine and healing in the Bible. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: but then again I'm a Hegelian and I don't even really believe that there's any such thing as separation of church and state in the first place, I think it's total nonsense | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? I think a better question is how you justify trying to force your beliefs on other people. | ||
| ||
