|
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! 29530. pelty - 6/26/2009 4:05:29 PM "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."
Of course, referring back to the earlier posting, the definition of "happiness" for a person or group is one of those thorny questions that can lead to a distinct lack of "happiness" for another individual or group. 29531. pelty - 6/26/2009 4:47:55 PM "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!"
A great set of questions, anomie, and you are right to press me for definitions. As I am sure you know, the biblical definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1 is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." By this standard, my faith is imperfect. Unfortunately, I have more in common with Thomas than Peter. I suspect that you and I are alike in that we both like to know the ins-and-outs of things about which we are passionate, its mechanics, and so forth (unfortunately, I am not passionate about something handy like cars or home improvement!). It is the nature of metaphysics that we can not know everything we would wish. For me (and I cannot stress those two words enough), though, there is enough evidence to make a decision not to make that final leap of faith more irrational than to make the leap. I think my lack of faith is frequently more entangled with issues endemic to evangelicalism with which, while I would not say that I definitively "disagree" with them, I have, shall we say, reservations about them. The primary one that comes to mind is biblical inerrancy, a construct that, someday, I would like to research a bit more. Certainly in antiquity, this concept is one that would not have been recognized as it is in its current state. The authority of the texts was a given, I think it is fair to say, but there was also a fair number of interpretive moves, allegorization being the primary one (more with the Jewish scriptures [a process already begun most prominently by the Jewish Philo of Alexandria, but taken up by Christian interpreters as well] than the NT in the first couple centuries) that would surely be frowned upon by modern exegetes (cont.)... 29532. pelty - 6/26/2009 4:48:05 PM For me, the slavish adherence to biblical inerrancy borders on bibliolatry. (***Lingo alert***) My hope for salvation lies not in the book but in the person of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection, not in the Bible being correct in every detail. Now, I do think it is correct on the basics and many of the details, but if Luke got his facts wrong on Quirinius (and this is a debated point; I have seen solid arguments in both directions), does it mean that he must therefore be wrong on every detail? From my perspective, not necessarily. I can be right about the big picture of a thing (e.g. my wife is going to take an airplane to the BVI on Sunday) and slip up on minor details (I thought her plane was going to leave at 6:30 a.m, but it is 7:30). Thus, I lean towards lending to the Bible authority, but am reserving my opinion a bit on inerrancy. This leaves me open to certain attacks, though this may be too harsh a term, from both Christians and non-Christians, but it is where I feel most intellectually honest at the moment... but please don't poke holes, I am not sure my faith could take it!! Ha! ;-)
Did I answer your questions, anomie, or did I just leave them behind in the dust as I went off on a new topic? If it is the latter, make me re-phrase and/or get on task!
BTW, the part about my wife going to the BVI is true which means I have Daddy duty for the next ten days or so and I would expect my participation here to be limited at best. If you say/ask something and I do not respond, it is not because I am ignoring you. I will try to get back to you as time allows. 29533. judithathome - 6/26/2009 4:48:39 PM That's why my definition of "happiness" is informed by "so long as it doesn't hurt others." A hard row to hoe, no doubt, and if carried to an extreme, we could do nothing in this life...can't eat meat, it harms the animals; can't make money at the expense of others; can't own more than anyone else; can't go to war, it harms others....we'd all be totally stalled when it came to living.
...can't breathe...it depletes oxygen for others...ha! 29534. anomie - 6/26/2009 4:59:13 PM Pelty, you answered the question about faith very well, afaic. I am skeptical of religious people who won't admit to doubt. I think the lack or absence of doubt actually dilutes an claim to having "faith". I mean, what's the use of faith if we have certainty.
Interesting, your comments about innerrancy. But I think you contradict yourself by making a distinct as to whether the whole Bible is perfect or merely some of it, or some of it's teachings. You may narrow it down, but you are still clinging to a concept of innerancy in a text - something external to a living God - which would put you right back in with the idolators.
And then there's still the problem of whether a particular interpretation is perfect, and I've yet to see any Christian claim perfection within himself. 29535. pelty - 6/26/2009 5:51:36 PM "That's why my definition of "happiness" is informed by "so long as it doesn't hurt others." A hard row to hoe, no doubt, and if carried to an extreme, we could do nothing in this life...can't eat meat, it harms the animals; can't make money at the expense of others; can't own more than anyone else; can't go to war, it harms others....we'd all be totally stalled when it came to living.
...can't breathe...it depletes oxygen for others...ha!"
:-) So is your philosophy ultimately a practical one, do you think? I am not sure that we have to go too far towards an extreme to start encountering a problem with the impingement on a person's happiness. Is there a better, more definable, word we should use in place of "happiness"? I am struggling to come up with one, at the moment. When we speak of harm, do we mean *any* kind of harm? Emotional, physical, mental? I may be more cynical than you, but I just do not see how we can go through life where all of us are always happy. Well, I am sure you feel that way, too, so I am trying to wrap my head around where we draw the line between "life's a b&^ch" and "John and Jane are limiting my happiness." I am not trying to be a smart-arse, but it seems as though there is a certain impracticality to your system, though I am sure I am just not understanding it because it is somewhat complex. Have you thought it through in a way that will clarify how your view can actually work in the world in which we currently live? Thanks.
|
