|
29510. pelty - 6/25/2009 3:48:17 PM Ms. No,
"Why can't each be true? Just because I like sushi and you don't, that doesn't mean sushi is worse for one of us than the other."
Each cannot be true because they have at their heart dissonant assertions. I say "There is a God" and AC (I think) says "There is no God." One of us is wrong here. Now, divergent viewpoints such as ours can coexist well enough, but at some point we will have the opportunity to find out who is right and who is wrong. Your sushi example is not exactly of the same species as it is possible for both of us to have different feelings on the matter and both of them be true. I do not like sushi. You do. There is not lurking in the background the question of whether sushi truly is Tasty (as though there is some Platonic Form of Tasty). On the other hand, when it comes to G/god, we are making a statement about his existence. He either is a being that exists or does not exist. Now, whether this being is (or is not) the Christian God is an entirely different matter, of course. I am not interested in discussing that at the present time, but I do think that your sushi example falls a little short, if I am reading it correctly.
"Each belief system is true to those who hold them, so long as none of us harms others with what we believe. The fact you believe Jesus died for our sins is true for you...that I don't believe it doesn't make it less true for you. I happen to believe Jesus was a wise man with the personal magnetism to sway people into believing what he believed...your belief that he was divine doesn't make what I believe about him to be any less true to ME."
I agree that the truth as we hold it is true to US, but objectively one of us has to be wrong. Either Jesus is only a wise man with exceptional rhetorical and persuasive abilities who died an ignoble death and from whom arose a religious movement *or* I am right and he is a "theos aner", a divine man, whose death had a salvific effect, etc. I would aver here, however, that ours represent but two poles on a larger spectrum into which we could insert different views. For example, we could allow the Muslim perspective of Jesus which differs on some key points, and I am sure others could be brought up as well. Nevertheless, if any of the differing views are correct, only one of them can be. Jesus cannot have died on the cross (Christian perspective) and not died on the cross (Muslim perspective). Relativism is all lollipops and rainbows but when the rubber meets the road it cannot hold up. 29511. pelty - 6/25/2009 3:51:21 PM "As to morality, if we're all working toward the same goal...goodness, peace, the happiness of all...what does it matter if it's a secular or a religous goal?"
For the living of life on this earth and enjoying peace and happiness, it doesn't matter. 29512. pelty - 6/25/2009 4:00:17 PM "So, while most of my discomfort has to do with overly aggressive Christians --- the sort of folks who turn to you at the bus stop and ask if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior --- some of my discomfort is certainly attributable to having been raised to believe that religion isn't for polite discussion."
I am not entirely comfortable with this myself a) because I would not want to be approached in this manner and b) I have serious doubts about its efficacy.
"I've had to mediate a couple of religion-based raised voice discussions over the past year, but nothing too terribly awful. I have been shocked and apalled, however, by the lack of scholarship among many of my students with regard to their religious knowledge."
Re; the first sentence, I originally read it that you have had to "medicate a couple of..." which, I must say, alarmed me a bit!
Your second point is a hot one for me. I understand the desire to keep religion out of the public schools, but in doing so we have raised a generation of students who have no knowledge of the basics about a text that sits at the foundation (whether we like it or not) of our culture. I think that a historical, rather than religious, introduction to religious texts - Bible, Quran, etc. is a valuable component of education. Religion is a vital component of the human experience (even for those who reject religion since they still have to interact with religionists). Why we do not allow it to be taught in a way that gives people a basic literacy is beyond me (well, I understand the concerns people have, but I think we should move beyond them as we are doing a disservice to our young people). 29513. anomie - 6/25/2009 5:05:01 PM Pelty,
As far as I know nothing prevents public schools from teaching the bible as you suggest. It is a common misperception generally, and a flase claim of some Christian groups in particular who really want schools to indoctrinate instead of educate. 29514. anomie - 6/25/2009 5:07:11 PM "divine man" Now there's a doozie! It begs for a new category of existance and new word. 29515. anomie - 6/25/2009 5:15:09 PM Pelty, sorry for the late response, but it was back in post 29467 where you said:
"My take, though I know it will not win many fans here, is that Christians should worry more about introducing people to Jesus, who is capable of changing hearts on social matters (not to mention some other pretty important stuff!), ".
29516. Ms. No - 6/25/2009 5:24:44 PM Pelty,
You've gotten Judith and I confused. Judith had the post about sushi.
But you did have my post about medicat-...er, mediating correctly.
As to a class in comparative religion, I would have no objections provided the teacher wasn't pushing any particular faith.
The problem, as AC points out, is not that religion can't be discussed in schools but that a certain segment of Christians want only their version taught....and they also want it taught in science class.
The people objecting most vigorously to a comparative religion class would not be atheists and agnostics, but fundamentalist Christians.
All of which is moot in my state since we don't have the funding to teach any electives whatsoever in the vast majority of schools. 29517. Ms. No - 6/25/2009 5:26:37 PM oh, horrors!!! I said Judith and I. What kind of English teacher am I???? The kind who started off saying "Judith and I have similar..." and then went back and edited incompletely.
sheesh. 29518. pelty - 6/25/2009 5:59:44 PM anomie writes:
"As far as I know nothing prevents public schools from teaching the bible as you suggest. It is a common misperception generally, and a flase claim of some Christian groups in particular who really want schools to indoctrinate instead of educate."
Thanks for the clarification (and for showing me where I used "introduce"). I am most certainly not for indoctrination but would love to see a class on biblical literature (or, if it makes those who are worried about faith-pushing, a comparative class would be fine). One does find such classes on the university level and perhaps it is more appropriate for this age group. I just would like to see a greater amount of religioliteracy (I decided to make up a word).
and Ms. No writes: "The people objecting most vigorously to a comparative religion class would not be atheists and agnostics, but fundamentalist Christians."
You are half right, but I think you credit far too much restraint to the ACLU, et al, in your statement.
29519. pelty - 6/25/2009 6:06:50 PM "'divine man' Now there's a doozie! It begs for a new category of existance and new word."
I used the term because it is a technical phrase in certain academic circles and because it accurately reflects the (proto-)orthodox view of Jesus. Nerdy, I admit, but I am trying to find new lingo for you, anomie (even though that usage was addressed to AC, I think)!! 29520. pelty - 6/25/2009 6:10:58 PM "oh, horrors!!! I said Judith and I. What kind of English teacher am I???? The kind who started off saying "Judith and I have similar..." and then went back and edited incompletely."
I am to blame, I am afraid, for your exposure. I apologize for confusing you w/ J@H. 29521. anomie - 6/25/2009 6:29:21 PM Pelty, it's not that I don't understand the jargon, (Divine Man), it's that the jargon is used for things that are incomprehensible. Problem is, when we put a name on something, we are sometinmes fooled into thinking we understand it, when we are really no further ahead than we ever were.
Divine Man is incomprehensible in any context. In fact, any attempt to explain just digs a deeper hole. 29522. pelty - 6/25/2009 7:18:02 PM "Divine Man is incomprehensible in any context. In fact, any attempt to explain just digs a deeper hole."
True. At its heart, the Christian assertion that Jesus is/was both human and divine is irrational (which is not the same as untrue) and is born out of a long history of debate over his nature. If you are looking for answers on this most extreme of paradoxes from me or anyone else, then you will continue to be frustrated in your attempts to find conversation partners, I am afraid. While I do believe that there are rational reasons to believe that Jesus was more than just a man, I would never deny that there are certain enigmata (or, as you might prefer, voids in rationality?) that we cannot know or fully explain. It is here where that fuzzy idea of "faith" kicks in, something into which I gather you would put little stock. I recognize that such talk likely is deeply unsatisfying to you and, like you, I yearn to understand it better myself. A difference between us in this matter, though, is that I am willing to live with the tension that exists between reason and faith whilst, I suspect, you are not. I cannot blame you for that, but I am certain that I cannot remedy it either. 29523. anomie - 6/25/2009 7:50:18 PM Pelty I have to say you are actually a breath of fresh air in that you don't pretend to some deeper insight into the language of the faithful, or some such. Most have simply claimed I don't understand the deeper insights into these mysterious concepts, (as they avoided any further interchange), or claimed I had a chip on my shoulder against Christianity), (as they refused any further conversation). But you seem to admit the obvious, which is refreshing.
Now, as for "faith". What say you about doubt and faith? Is faith a stance held in spite of doubt? Is it certainty without evidence? What exactly do YOU mean by faith? Ha!
Answers are totally optional on your part. No need to open another can of worms. 29524. Ms. No - 6/25/2009 9:34:37 PM Pelty,
I really don't think the ACLU would get fussed over it. They'd have no case provided the class was comprehensive and, as I mentioned, the teacher was fair minded.
I should have included fundamentalists of any faith, however, not just Christians. The truth is, though, that other than Christians, most fundamentalists don't seek to have their children educated in the public schools.
I blame the tendency for lack of scholarship on the tent-revival movements in the early part of the 20th century. I think the idea that any man can commune directly with God is one of the best things that came out of the Protestant break from the Catholics, but it did lead in a roundabout way to anyone being able to jump up, say he's moved by the spirit and begin preaching to others.
This means you get a lot of people who simply haven't bothered to become Biblically or historically educated and then they go and spread their lack of education to their congregants. 29525. judithathome - 6/25/2009 11:32:56 PM For the living of life on this earth and enjoying peace and happiness, it doesn't matter.
It is I...JaH...responding. ;-)
Since that is all I'm interested in...the here and now...that is not only fine but more than enough for me.
29526. wabbit - 6/25/2009 11:53:48 PM I've always been in favor of comprehensive religious education in the public schools. I think it is fundamental to understanding that any one religion does not exist in a vacuum. I was fortunate enough to get a smattering of religious learning mixed in with history when I was in Junior High (public school, go figure). I'd like to see children learn not only about the religious practices of the ancients (Egypt, Greece, Rome), but also how and why more modern religions developed and spread.
I agree with Ms. No in that I doubt the ACLU would be involved unless it were one particular religion being proselytized rather than taught objectively.
And Pelty, what a treat it is to have you here again. Thank you. 29527. anomie - 6/26/2009 12:46:19 AM Such an education might counterbalance some of the indoctrination and mental abuse kids get from parents and Sunday school teachers. Kids who are taught at an early age about Satan, and that they are worthy of hell and damnation (just for being born!) unless they sell their souls to God or Christ, or Joseph Smith, or whomever, don't have much of a chance unless they find some other role models or examples. 29528. pelty - 6/26/2009 3:39:44 PM Ms No,
"I blame the tendency for lack of scholarship on the tent-revival movements in the early part of the 20th century. I think the idea that any man can commune directly with God is one of the best things that came out of the Protestant break from the Catholics, but it did lead in a roundabout way to anyone being able to jump up, say he's moved by the spirit and begin preaching to others.
This means you get a lot of people who simply haven't bothered to become Biblically or historically educated and then they go and spread their lack of education to their congregants."
An interesting theory, though I would bet that biblical illiteracy cannot be traced to any one phenomenon. Still, your theory may well be a component of it. I have definitely been to some churches where the pastor seems less than adequately trained in biblical exegesis, but I never returned to them! 29529. judithathome - 6/26/2009 3:45:34 PM the pastor seems less than adequately trained in biblical exegesis
I'd be willing to bet that 9/10s of the congregations in churches across the land would not know what that term means, anyhow. ;-)
Dick Cavett once made a great pun using "exegesis" and referring to lapsed Christians...I wish I could remember it!
|
