Pat Robertson quote / Church kicks out all Democrats

[Easy Mac]

They generally read books that can be finished in class.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The Bible is probably the most significant piece of literature in existence. It's not worth reading in a literature class? And 'spelling and grammar' errors? What the fark are you talking about???

significant for its religious value, not because the fairy tails contained therein have serious literary value.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The Bible is probably the most significant piece of literature in existence. It's not worth reading in a literature class? And 'spelling and grammar' errors? What the fark are you talking about???

Did you know that the Hebrew text has many spelling errors that are cleaned up in translations?

Here is an example, the first in the Bible:

Genesis 8:17-
uvekhol haremes haromes al haaretz hvtzeh itakh
and all the creepers that creep on the ground with you

hvtzeh is misspelled. It should be haytseh. A vav was printed in the original instead of a yud. The word that appears there is non existent. It is known to be an error, but Jews do not fix the errors. Rather, they leave it in the text without vowel points and print the correction in the margin with vowel points.

In Genesis 30:11
vatomar leah bagad vatikra et shemo gad
and said Leah he has betrayed and she called his name Gad

Gad means fortune.

bagad means "he has betrayed". It is an obvious mistake. Again, the correction appears in the margin. It should have been ba-gad. This means "fortune has come" and makes sense in the context, especially since Gad means "fortune". An alef was left out and one word was formed from two, which radically changed the meaning of the verse.

Gen 24:33
vayiysem (meaningless) appears instead of vayusam (and was put)

Gen 25:23
shnei gayyim (two valleys) appears instead of shnei goyyim (two nations)

Gen 36:5, Gen 36:15
The name ya'ush is misspelt as ya'ish

Gen 39:20
Asurei- hamelech (the prohibited of the king) appears instead of asirei ha-melech (the prisoners of the king)

Exodus 4:2
The text reads mizeh beyadekha (which means "from this in your hand") when it should read, mah zeh beyadekha ("what is this in your hand")

Exodus 37:8, Exodus 39:4
The word "katzotav" ("it's ends") is misspelt, with an extra vav appearing in the word.

Leviticus 11:21
asher-lo ("which to it" [means "which has"]) is mis-spelt with an alef, making it asher-lo' (which means "which not" and makes no sense in the context)

Numbers 1:16
kru'ei is spelled with a yud instead of a vav, changing its meaning from "called/appointed" to "read" or "readable"

Numbers 32:7
lamah tani'un (why do you hinder) is spelt lamah tanu'un making it meaningless.

Numbers 34:4
vehayu totze'otav ("it's terminations will be") The verb "to be" is in third person singular instead of third person plural, and appears incorrectly in the text as vehayah..., which is very wrong. It's like saying "ils sera" in French or "ellos sera" in Spanish.

Deut 5:10
Accidentally reads "to those who love me and keep his commandment" instead of "those who love me and keep my commandments".

Deuteronomy 21:7
"Our hands did not spill this blood" The "did not spill" is in third person singular even though "our hands" is clearly plural. It should read lo shafkhu instead of the textual error lo shafkhah. This is sort of like saying "They did not did" instead of "they did not do" in English.

Deut 32:13
"the heights of the land" has a double-plural. It's like saying "heightses" in English.

Deut 33:2
Ashdat lamo means nothing. Ashdat is the first part of a semikhut (a compound conjugation) for the word ashedah, which is the slope of a mountain (The NIV goes this route, but admits textual difficulty in a footnote). But this interpretation is wrong grammatically, since the word appearing is ashdat, not ashedah which means that another noun should appear following it.

Ashdat har would mean "mountain slope", but ashedah would be "slope". Ashdat by itself means nothing.

The marginal text shows that this was a mistake and should be esh-dat , spelt the same, but with a space in between the first two and last two letters. This would mean "fire of judgement for them" (or "fire of religion"- since the word for "religion" in Hebrew, also means "judgement".) The NASB uses this rabbinic correction for their interpretation, but they interpret this as refering to lightning- which is a liberty taken by them, which, although logical, may or may not be correct.

All these Hebrew spelling errors are fixed up in Christian translations.













there are more.....human error? sure. not a big deal IMO but remember these prophets were writing the word of god.

[Flasch186]

When we say that the Bible is inspired, we are saying it is inspired in the original documents. "Inspiredness is not a quality attaching to corruptions which intrude in the course of the transmission of the text, but only to the text as originally produced by the inspired writers. The acknowledgment of biblical inspiration thus makes more urgent the task of meticulous textual criticism, in order to eliminate such corruptions and ascertain what that original text was."1 Therefore, when critics of the Bible point out apparent contradictions, what they are doing is either failing to understand the context of the passages they are examining, or they have encountered a scribal copying error. The fact is that there are indeed copyist errors on the biblical documents and they account for many alleged contradictions. Remember, it is the autographs (original writings) that are inspired and inerrant, not the copies. The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the", "but", etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5% and none of these copying errors affects doctrinal truths. Following are some types of copyist errors:

*

Dittography - Writing twice what should have been written once.
o

A good example would be writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else.
*

Fission - Improperly dividing one word into to words.
o

Example: "nowhere" into "now here."
*

Fusion - Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word.
o

"Look it is there in the cabinet... or Look it is therein the cabinet."
*

Haplography - Writing once what should have been written twice.
o

A good example would be "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end.
*

Homophony - Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation.
o

Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another example.
*

Metathesis - An improper exchange in the order of letters.
o

Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."

Additionally, we need to clarify that the copies have "repeated" copyist errors. This means that each of these copy errors is counted as another, when in reality, they are repeated mistakes. Following is an illustration of how these variants, as they are called, are counted.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by yabanci

significant for its religious value, not because the fairy tails contained therein have serious literary value.

Even secular thinkers as diverse as Bloom and Ouspensky would disagree with you.

[Flasch186]

Grammatical errors: Biblical scholars have noted that almost every page of the Bible, whether written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek contains both spelling and grammatical errors. Although some spelling errors could be attributed to mistakes by later copyists, it appears reasonable to assume that some of the grammatical errors were in the original copy. If one assumes that the Bible is not inerrant, then one would expect errors of all types to creep into the Bible: errors in fact, errors in belief, errors in spelling and errors in grammar. But if the Bible is inerrant, one wonders why the original writings were not free of errors in grammar.

[Flasch186]

Finally:

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Even secular thinkers as diverse as Bloom and Ouspensky would disagree with you.

it's silly to say that if these stories were NOT contained in the bible, they would be considered the most important literary works of all time. You'd have to show me quotes and context to make me believe this is what they were saying.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

dont lump me in asshat - Pro choice is not equal to pro-death, like you want people to believe.

just stick to defending your own hypocrisy...you need to focus on that because you fail miserably.

Speaking of lumps...

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Speaking of lumps...

[Flasch186]

Bubba

its noble that you let your beliefs stand in the way of thought and tolerance...reminds me of this pic...Im just feelin' picture-y today

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Bubba

its noble that you let your beliefs stand in the way of thought and tolerance...reminds me of this pic...Im just feelin' picture-y today

Too bad for whatever reason I can't see your pics on my screen. Enjoy 'em all to yourself. Fact is though, my final thought to you, regardless of how educated, intelligent, sophisticated or whatever else you believe yourself to be...as soon as you name-call (and I don't mean using a term like liberal for the sake of argument or whatever) you lose all credibility. Preach your hate to the rest of your collective hive (like-minded name-callers).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Too bad for whatever reason I can't see your pics on my screen. Enjoy 'em all to yourself. Fact is though, my final thought to you, regardless of how educated, intelligent, sophisticated or whatever else you believe yourself to be...as soon as you name-call (and I don't mean using a term like liberal for the sake of argument or whatever) you lose all credibility. Preach your hate to the rest of your collective hive (like-minded name-callers).

What name calling? Asshat LOL

as a matter of fact asshat is lingo around here ....asshat is not so bad.

If thats the curse word youre referring to, you're over reacting. Other than that the worst thing youve done IMO is try to rule America under a Christian thumb....thats not so bad, could be worse. You could be a satanist and want the same thing.

And dont you think that the collectiive comment fits your side like a glove, "No one should have a choice on abortion!! no one should be able to study evolution (Kansas)!! No one should be able to teach safe-sex!!"

I dont hate you, I rarely hate anyone.....Remember, I'm not against gay marriage, or think republicans are worse than nazis or terrorists. I accept you for you....I'd rather have a KKK member wear white robes around me than a suit - at least I know what the robes stand for and I can see the snake for the snake, the suit hides the scales.

[Flasch186]

DOLA:

why is it that you and St. never respond to a rebuttal. I just showed that there are many, well documented sites regarding spelling and grammar errors in the bible, yet nothing. Its like you throw a rock and run.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

DOLA:

why is it that you and St. never respond to a rebuttal. I just showed that there are many, well documented sites regarding spelling and grammar errors in the bible, yet nothing. Its like you throw a rock and run.

Well, I was really thinking more of another poster when I put that out...guess your comment just gave me the chance to unload it on you. That was wrong of me, but the other guy can suck rocks waiting for me to ever respond to him again.

Actually thought your post on biblical grammer was pretty interesting. Just know that most modern Biblical scholars already do study it in the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramec (or the Arabic wording I take the last to mean). So all this stuff gets sorted out in the subsequent Bible studies and teachings in churches, over radio, on dvds or whatever. Everything is pretty methodically sourced, if not by me.

BTW, cannot bring up KKK without mentioning that the only member of congress ever to have been not only a member, but a Grand Wizard of the KKK is Senator Robert Byrd of West Va. Democrat. Thought the GOP was supposed to be the racists?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

BTW, cannot bring up KKK without mentioning that the only member of congress ever to have been not only a member, but a Grand Wizard of the KKK is Senator Robert Byrd of West Va. Democrat. Thought the GOP was supposed to be the racists?

REACH - do you hnestly think people dont think that the Democratic party lines itself up with minorities moreso than the Rep. party? If so, you truly are living in a dreamworld, whether its accurate or not.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I have a friend, an English teacher, who has an official reprimand for teaching the Bible in a world literature class. There was no prosletyzing, since the class was never actually taught; the reprimand was for the curriculum devised by the teacher. The teacher's union wouldn't touch the case.

I think the Bible should be able to be taught in English class, in a perfect world. But this is not a perfect world, and many people would take an opening like that and turn it into a 'praise Jesus' class, and then the lawsuits would start rolling in. So the schools can not risk the liability. And it's not like the Bible is the only controversial book not to be allowed into an English class.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, I was really thinking more of another poster when I put that out...guess your comment just gave me the chance to unload it on you. That was wrong of me, but the other guy can suck rocks waiting for me to ever respond to him again.

No offense, but you really don't seem to answer anyone anyway. You throw wild accusations out there (founding fathers being deists is a liberal conspiracy, schools are pushing the secular humanist agenda, etc) then don't back them up when challenged.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

No offense, but you really don't seem to answer anyone anyway. You throw wild accusations out there (founding fathers being deists is a liberal conspiracy, schools are pushing the secular humanist agenda, etc) then don't back them up when challenged.

Ya, it's tough for him to argue when even the Bible can't back up his positions.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think the Bible should be able to be taught in English class, in a perfect world. But this is not a perfect world, and many people would take an opening like that and turn it into a 'praise Jesus' class, and then the lawsuits would start rolling in. So the schools can not risk the liability. And it's not like the Bible is the only controversial book not to be allowed into an English class.

That's pretty much my point, exactly. People are offended by religion and don't believe it's possible to discuss it rationally without harming children, or something. School is ideally a place of reason; we should not be teaching out of fear of who we might offend or anger, but rather we should be teaching subjects in a style that allows our children to think for themselves. I think banning religion from the public schools is reactionary and stupid, since religion is a huge part of most people's lives, and a massively important subject in the world today.

[st.cronin]

Dola- Flasch, the whole spelling/grammar thing is just a digression. If it's a big deal, then you're suggesting the Bible be held to a higher standard than Shakespeare or Chaucer, for example. Also, the Bible transcends Christianity. There are books in the Bible that are important to Jews and Muslims as well.

Also, add Asimov to the list of secular thinkers who considered the Bible important (I'm just going by own bookshelf here - so far I've found Asimov, Bloom, and Ouspensky, 3 very different secular thinkers, all of whom consider the Bible something worth writing books about.)

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's pretty much my point, exactly. People are offended by religion and don't believe it's possible to discuss it rationally without harming children, or something. School is ideally a place of reason; we should not be teaching out of fear of who we might offend or anger, but rather we should be teaching subjects in a style that allows our children to think for themselves. I think banning religion from the public schools is reactionary and stupid, since religion is a huge part of most people's lives, and a massively important subject in the world today.

I agree, I am FOR teaching about religion in Religion classes. I had one in my school and it was great. HOWEVER, the teacher needs to be able to be vanilla. Not favor one religion over another. He or she needs to be able to address throughout a school year, at least all of the major religions AND the thought of atheists that there is no god. He or she also needs to be sure that BASIC and the other religious entities that exist (student driven) in the school do not use the platform to push theirs. If they dont want to learn about other religions than don't sign up for the class...its usually an elective anyways.

There is a small difference that means everything between us and that is:

I say teach ABOUT religion (generally) vs.
you say teach religion

If you cannot be satisfied with Religion being taught as a part of historical significance, literary significance, etc. than send your kid to your local pastor controlled school. Otherwise, keep the teaching of religion OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Dola- Flasch, the whole spelling/grammar thing is just a digression. If it's a big deal, then you're suggesting the Bible be held to a higher standard than Shakespeare or Chaucer, for example. Also, the Bible transcends Christianity. There are books in the Bible that are important to Jews and Muslims as well.

Also, add Asimov to the list of secular thinkers who considered the Bible important (I'm just going by own bookshelf here - so far I've found Asimov, Bloom, and Ouspensky, 3 very different secular thinkers, all of whom consider the Bible something worth writing books about.)

...but before you read that you were SHOCKED that there was. SO perhaps you dont know everything. Be open minded.

[clintl]

On the Bible's literary value...

The works the Bible should be compared to are those of other civilizations of the ancient world. Do the stories of Job, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, and Jesus stand up to those of Odysseus, Aeneas, Gilgamesh, etc? I think that it's pretty obvious they do. And if the spelling and grammar need to be cleaned up, just remember that English as a language didn't even have standardized spelling rules in Chaucer's and Shakespeare's times, and The Iliad and The Odyssey were likely originally oral works, not written.

As far as teaching the Bible in literature classes, or teaching about it in social studies classes, I have no problem with it as long as it's not used to promote religion, but rather, to understand literary analysis or understand the influence the Bible has had on western civilization. But I want the latter to be done honestly (i.e. both the good and bad effects of Christianity taught). But I don't think that's the goal of those so hot to get the Bible back in the classroom.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

They generally read books that can be finished in class.

There are many parts of the Bible than can be read independently of the rest in literature classes. The Book of Job, which does not connect narratively and chronologically with the rest of the Bible, and which is one of richest books metaphorically, is one obvious choice.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by clintl

Go read the article sabotai linked to. Observational data exists of evolution happening.

This is false. Mutations may be taking place, this is not evolution. There is no evidence existing that ANY ADDITION to genetic blueprints that give place to genetic mutation. Darwin and others claim that this must have happened in the past, but (IRONY) it must be taken on FAITH that it actually did occur.

This would be needed for fish to develope lungs, for example, to change from water creatures to breathing air in order to develope to the next phase. Does not happen.

Even on the level of bacteria, DOES NOT HAPPEN. Either bacteria mutates to lose genetic material and thus survives by not being susceptable to what is killing off other bacteria, or a genetic mutation or 'defect' prevents the bacteria from absorbing water/nutrients/anti-bacterial killing agent that gets the rest but allows the 'super-bug' to prosper.

Mutation=Defects, NOT evolution (natural selection is proven and real, but that is not evolution)

Book Evolution of Living Things "Mutations do NOT produce any kind of Evolution"

Dr. L Spetner ...Never found Evidence of new new additional genetic material to genetic blueprints (Paraphrased)

[clintl]

If a species splits into two separate species (as is the documented case in that article - you have several instances after splits of fertile organisms that cannot mate with the species it split from, and that is one of the things that differentiates one species from another), that is evolution, plain and simple. Mutation IS the evolutionary mechanism, not some completely different from evolution. Mutation can (and usually does) produce genetic defects, but it can also produce new genetic variations that have a better chance at survival.

The concept is pretty simple:

Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

This is false. Mutations may be taking place, this is not evolution. There is no evidence existing that ANY ADDITION to genetic blueprints that give place to genetic mutation. Darwin and others claim that this must have happened in the past, but (IRONY) it must be taken on FAITH that it actually did occur.

This would be needed for fish to develope lungs, for example, to change from water creatures to breathing air in order to develope to the next phase. Does not happen.

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0858139.html

The Bony Fishes

The bony fishes are distinguished from other living fishes by their bone skeletons and by the presence of either a swim bladder (which functions as a float) or, in a few fishes, lungs. The bony fishes are divided into two subclasses, the fleshy-finned fish and the ray-finned fish. The latter group includes over 95% of all living fish species.

The earliest bony fishes were fleshy-finned. They evolved during a period of widespread drought and stagnation and gave rise to the amphibians (the first terrestrial vertebrates) on the one hand and to the ray-finned fish on the other. The only surviving fleshy-finned fishes are the lungfishes and one species of coelacanth (see lobefin). These fishes retain some of the traits of ancestral bony fishes: fleshy fins with supporting bones (precursors of the limbs of land vertebrates), internal nostrils, and lungs.

Ray-finned fishes, now predominant in both fresh and marine waters, represent an advanced adaptation of the bony fishes to strictly aquatic conditions; they are the most highly successful and diverse of the fishes. In nearly all of these fishes the lung has evolved into a hydrostatic organ, the swim bladder. The fins in this group consist of a web of skin supported by horny rays. Each ray is moved by a set of muscles, giving the fin great flexibility. Most ray-finned fish have overlapping scales made of very thin layers of bone. Their skeletal structure is light but strong and most have excellent vision.

Originally Posted by BW

Even on the level of bacteria, DOES NOT HAPPEN. Either bacteria mutates to lose genetic material and thus survives by not being susceptable to what is killing off other bacteria, or a genetic mutation or 'defect' prevents the bacteria from absorbing water/nutrients/anti-bacterial killing agent that gets the rest but allows the 'super-bug' to prosper.

Mutation=Defects, NOT evolution (natural selection is proven and real, but that is not evolution)

Book Evolution of Living Things "Mutations do NOT produce any kind of Evolution"

Dr. L Spetner ...Never found Evidence of new new additional genetic material to genetic blueprints (Paraphrased)

Face it your wrong....its all over Al Gore's internet. Google...heard of it?

Meant in fun...

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by clintl

If a species splits into two separate species (as is the documented case in that article - you have several instances after splits of fertile organisms that cannot mate with the species it split from, and that is one of the things that differentiates one species from another), that is evolution, plain and simple. Mutation IS the evolutionary mechanism, not some completely different from evolution. Mutation can (and usually does) produce genetic defects, but it can also produce new genetic variations that have a better chance at survival.

The concept is pretty simple:

Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution

Just using semantics at this point. I say its not, you say it is. I cited my sources for saying its not. Mutation is NOT evolution

[Flasch186]

BW - so if there is a ton of evidence on your sife, mostly from Faith based sites and a ton of info from scientists on the otherside....can you see why over 50% of Americans disagree and that most Americans, and Humans believe that Evolution took place and continues to take place. Therefore, What make you think that Intelligent Design should be taught in PUBLIC schools?!

IMO, it shouldn't....

Here comes the donut:

Teach ABOUT religion (historical context etc.)

Don't TEACH religion

BW - Do you like that? Or is that not focused in on Christianity enough.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Just using semantics at this point. I say its not, you say it is. I cited my sources for saying its not. Mutation is NOT evolution

It's not semantics. You are saying that mutation always results in loss of genetic information. I'm saying that mutation results in a change in the genetic information. It can be either loss of information or new information. That's a fundamental disagreement.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

BW - so if there is a ton of evidence on your sife, mostly from Faith based sites and a ton of info from scientists on the otherside....can you see why over 50% of Americans disagree and that most Americans, and Humans believe that Evolution took place and continues to take place. Therefore, What make you think that Intelligent Design should be taught in PUBLIC schools?!

IMO, it shouldn't....

Here comes the donut:

Teach ABOUT religion (historical context etc.)

Don't TEACH religion

BW - Do you like that? Or is that not focused in on Christianity enough.

I have no problem with that. Not asking public schools to teach my faith or religion, but do not want the current Stalinist restrictions on talking about it in any form. And discussing the Judeo-Christian philosophy behind our system of government should be taught and opened up to discussion with various sources cited (so teachers could claim the Deist thing, as well as allow evidence for Christian influence on the framers.)

Still want an answer on the Darwin thing. As I understand it, Darwin does postulate that genetic material must have been added ealier for evolution to take place. Yet no evidence of this exists. So that puts Darwin's THEORY, like religion, in the area of FAITH. Intelligent design becomes just as valid a theory. Sorry.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by clintl

It's not semantics. You are saying that mutation always results in loss of genetic information. I'm saying that mutation results in a change in the genetic information. It can be either loss of information or new information. That's a fundamental disagreement.

Ok, and we're both agreeing that nothing new is/has been added. I can respect that.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Still want an answer on the Darwin thing. As I understand it, Darwin does postulate that genetic material must have been added ealier for evolution to take place. Yet no evidence of this exists. So that puts Darwin's THEORY, like religion, in the area of FAITH. Intelligent design becomes just as valid a theory. Sorry.

Are you seriously using Darwin's writings as the definitive statements regarding the theory of evolution? You realize he died over 120 years ago, right? You realize that the scientific study of this theory has advanced a great deal since then, right?

Relying on Darwin to be the definitive statement about evolution would be like relying on Charles Babbage as the definitive statement on computers.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Are you seriously using Darwin's writings as the definitive statements regarding the theory of evolution? You realize he died over 120 years ago, right? You realize that the scientific study of this theory has advanced a great deal since then, right?

Relying on Darwin to be the definitive statement about evolution would be like relying on Charles Babbage as the definitive statement on computers.

Yeah, but Darwin can still be mentioned in the public schools, and God can't.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yeah, but Darwin can still be mentioned in the public schools, and God can't.

A complete non-sequiter and not true in any event, but I'll explain the difference: Darwin is known to have existed - there is evidence of such. The theories which Darwin put forth are based on the scientific principle which relies on experimentation and repeatable, predictable evidence, as well as a strong incentive to challenge and improve upon previous areas of study in the interest of getting at the truth.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yeah, but Darwin can still be mentioned in the public schools, and God can't.

again, not true, and a LIE. Religion classes are taught all over the country in Public Schools. I took one myself, its an elective in most schools. It is a blatant LIE and simply inflammatroy to say GOD cannot be mentioned in Public School.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...but before you read that you were SHOCKED that there was. SO perhaps you dont know everything. Be open minded.

Er, no, not even close, I just didn't understand what the point was...

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I agree, I am FOR teaching about religion in Religion classes. I had one in my school and it was great. HOWEVER, the teacher needs to be able to be vanilla. Not favor one religion over another. He or she needs to be able to address throughout a school year, at least all of the major religions AND the thought of atheists that there is no god. He or she also needs to be sure that BASIC and the other religious entities that exist (student driven) in the school do not use the platform to push theirs. If they dont want to learn about other religions than don't sign up for the class...its usually an elective anyways.

There is a small difference that means everything between us and that is:

I say teach ABOUT religion (generally) vs.
you say teach religion

If you cannot be satisfied with Religion being taught as a part of historical significance, literary significance, etc. than send your kid to your local pastor controlled school. Otherwise, keep the teaching of religion OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL.

Actually I do not disagree with you, but I don't think you understand how hard it is to teach 'about' religion in the public schools. Whatever the courts/ACLU say, the public schools have basically retreated from any possibility of an appearance of deviation from political correctness. The whole Title IX disgrace is a good parallel. I have many friends who are teachers, most of them secular humanists, and they all have told me you can't talk about religion, except in such a limited fashion as to be pointless. I just read a long article in I believe it was the New Yorker about a history teacher in California who was fired for talking about the Bible and Christianity. Not a single witness said he was prosletyzing.

[Flasch186]

Again

Bullshit

In religion class, you can talk Christianity when its it's turn. Then Islam, then Judaism, hinduism, etc. my teacher's did it just fine.

If a teacher starts talking Christianity in Science class than YES there is a problem. English class is inappropriate as well SINCE Christianity and other religions are learned about in RELIGION class. Fuck it, St. If you dont get that distinction then you'll only be happy when its talked about in every class, LIKE, say, um private school. Christianity has NO PLACE in Public schools outside of Humanities and Religion class. DONE!! Its that simple.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Again

Bullshit

In religion class, you can talk Christianity when its it's turn. Then Islam, then Judaism, hinduism, etc.

If a teacher starts talking Christianity in Science class than YES there is a problem. English class is inappropriate as well SINCE Christianity and other religions are learned about in RELIGION class. Fuck it, St. If you dont get that distinction then you'll only be happy when its talked about in every class, LIKE, say, um private school. Christianity has NO PLACE in Public schools outside of Humanities and Religion class. DONE!! Its that simple.

Well, my high school doesn't have a religion class.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, my high school doesn't have a religion class.

history? humanities? Religion is a big part of history, there you go, learn all about ALL the religions in a 9 week span there.

check your electives.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

history? humanities? Religion is a big part of history, there you go, learn all about ALL the religions in a 9 week span there.

check your electives.

Well that's fine except in my bathroom there is that article in the New Yorker (a liberal, secular publication) detailing the story of that California high school history teacher I mentioned above who was fired for, not prosletyzing, not spreading the Gospel, but teaching about the Bible in a world history class. We actually agree; I just think you don't realize how chilled the atmosphere actually is. The public high school in my brother's district doesn't have a Bible in it's LIBRARY. It was removed because a student complained.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well that's fine except in my bathroom there is that article in the New Yorker (a liberal, secular publication) detailing the story of that California high school history teacher I mentioned above who was fired for, not prosletyzing, not spreading the Gospel, but teaching about the Bible in a world history class. We actually agree; I just think you don't realize how chilled the atmosphere actually is. The public high school in my brother's district doesn't have a Bible in it's LIBRARY. It was removed because a student complained.

IMO, its fine to have a bible in the library right next to the Quran, torah, etc.

And if that is simply one case fo the teacher being fired, without a tape recording, lets assume you're right and his teaching was vanilla enough to not sound like he was pushing one religion over another, than his firing is stupid.

[yabanci]

These people better learn to hate gays if they want to get into heaven.

Priest Denies Gays' Supporters Communion

Monday May 16, 2005 1:31 AM
By JOSHUA FREED
Associated Press Writer

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A Roman Catholic priest denied communion to more than 100 people Sunday, saying they could not receive the sacrament because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show support for gay Catholics.

Before offering communion, the Rev. Michael Sklucazek told the congregation at the Cathedral of St. Paul that anyone wearing a sash could come forward for a blessing but would not receive wine and bread.

A group called the Rainbow Sash Alliance has encouraged supporters to wear the multicolored fabric bands since 2001 on each Pentecost Sunday, the day Catholics believe the Holy Spirit came to give power to Christians soon after Jesus ascended to heaven. But Sunday's service was the first time they had been denied communion at the altar.

Archbishop Harry Flynn told the group earlier this month that they would not receive communion because the sashes had become a protest against church teaching.

Sister Gabriel Herbers said she wore a sash to show sympathy for the gay and lesbian community. Their sexual orientation ``is a gift from God just as much as my gift of being a female is,'' she said.

Ann McComas-Bussa did not wear a sash, but she and her husband and three children all wore rainbow-colored ribbons and were denied communion. ``As a Catholic, I just need to stand in solidarity with those that are being oppressed,'' she said.

While other parishioners sat or kneeled after going to the altar, sash-wearers remained standing with their hands cupped as a symbol they still wanted the sacrament. Their silent protest lasted about five minutes, until the congregation rose to hear the announcements and the benediction before being dismissed.

The Rainbow Sash Alliance says that by wearing the sash, members ``publicly claim our place at Christ's table, sacramentally expressing the truth in our lives, and calling the church to embrace a new day of integrity and freedom.''

Organizer Brian McNeill wrote to Flynn last month, explaining that the sashes are a symbol ``to celebrate the gift of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sexuality.''

Flynn wrote back to say the sashes are ``more and more perceived as a protest against church teaching,'' declaring that it has never been acceptable ``to use the reception of communion as an act of protest.''

Parishioner Larry Pavlicek was not sympathetic. As a divorced man, he said he has to live with the church's teaching that he cannot remarry and cannot have sex outside of marriage.

``If you're going to be a Catholic, either live with it or call yourself something different,'' he said. ``They're trying to change something that has been taught by the church for 2,000 years.''

Archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath said Flynn made the decision to deny communion after a cardinal asked U.S. bishops to adopt a consistent policy on the sashes. Catholics in Chicago and other cities such as Melbourne, Australia, have also worn sashes. Some have been denied communion, others have not.

Last year, some conservative groups in St. Paul kneeled in church aisles to block sash-wearers from receiving communion.

[Flasch186]

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Ok, and we're both agreeing that nothing new is/has been added. I can respect that.

Wow... Does BW even read the things he's responding to? Ridiculous... You guys must have the patience of saints to deal with this.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Wow... Does BW even read the things he's responding to? Ridiculous... You guys must have the patience of saints to deal with this.

Its kind of fun....sometimes shocking that some people still live with blinders on (no offense, just my opinion), but still fun because you dont usually get to have these conversations in real life.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

There is no evidence existing that ANY ADDITION to genetic blueprints that give place to genetic mutation.

This can be easily refuted by a simple logic test. Say mutation X changes gene A into gene B, what you would call a 'loss' of information. It is therefore perfectly logical that there would exist a mutation Y which changes gene B into gene A. This would be a gain in information.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

And discussing the Judeo-Christian philosophy behind our system of government...

I'm not a Bible expert, but I am pretty sure God never mentions the need for three seperate but equal branches of government, with a bicameral legislature. What Judeo-Christian philosophy is behind our system of government?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Wow... Does BW even read the things he's responding to? Ridiculous... You guys must have the patience of saints to deal with this.

Just more semantics, I'm using 'new' in reference to additional genetic material (none exists), he's using 'new' to describe mutation. As the book states I quoted earlier "mutation is NOT evolution." Sorry, but your the slow one to not grasp the differences discussed here.