'Tolerance' on American Universities???
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Thursday, November 30, 2006 23:02
VIEWED: 13408
PAGE 1 of 1
Today, I heard a brief commentary on the radio about Abby Nye, the author of Fish Out of Water: Surviving and Thriving as a Christian on a Secular Campus.
She seems to understand the fallacy of politically correct thinking better than most people I've met, heard or read on the subject (particularly at her age).
I then found this recent interview with her, which further cemented my appreciation for this young lady. 
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25053
I'm sure she'll soon find herself with a huge target painted on her face by the left. They don't like being exposed as hypocrites, and she's hit the nail on the head with her analysis of their politically-correct espousement of "tolerance".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I read the article. It seems a little schizophrenic. She makes several valid points but also several mistakes.
Quote:I'm not sure that classifies as hostility. If the professors had called the Koran or the Upanishads a "books of myth" she prolly would NOT have seen that as being particularly "hostile" towards Islam or Hinduism... in her viewpoint, that would simply be seen as statement of FACT. She seems to be reacting- rather badly- to the fact that others simply have a different view of her religion.
Nye: I was ill prepared to face the hostility and mocking of liberal professors often directed toward Conservative and Christian thought. I've had professors say Jesus was a homosexual, the god of Islam is the same god of Christianity, and sneer at the Bible calling it a book of myth - "that book with the talking snake and magic fruit."
Quote:I think there may be something else going on here besides "bias". Comments like "what is good" and what is faith" indicate to me that the student has not sufficiently explained the terms that she used to analyze the essay. Many misunderstandings and discussions are rooted in the definition of terms. It's something that we run into here all the time.
Early in my freshman year we were told to analyze an essay by Nicholas Maxwell titled "Cutting God in Half." The article purported that if God exists, he cannot be all loving and all knowing. We were told to write using our own worldview. I wrote from a Christian worldview and the professor returned my paper with 33 hand written comments on it such as, "What is good?" "What is faith?" I made an appointment with my professor and the head of the English department to discuss the paper. I asked point blank if I was going to be graded down for writing from a Christian perspective even though that is what the instructions called for. The head of the department looked me straight in the eyes and said "You cannot use the Bible in academic circles because it is regarded as a book of myth." End of discussion. That obviously presents quite a problem for Christian students who are told to write an opinion paper using their worldview.
Quote:It doesn't seem appropriate to insert religious practice into an English class. If the professor simply wanted to slwo the students down there are other forms of meditation and focusing that don't require a religious chant.
One of my friends was in a required English class where the professor had them begin each class session with a chant. When she asked what the chant was the professor said it was a chant to Buddha. My friend refused to chant so the professor lectured the class on intolerant students that would not participate. Can you imagine what would happen if a professor opened a class demanding the students sing the Doxology?
Quote:Is there any particular reason to include this in on a discussion of religion?
One day in philosophy class, my professor was upset at the looming war with Iraq, and apparently frustrated that the Resolution for Peace she had attached her name to in the student newspaper, along with a number of other faculty members, wasn't going to stop the tanks from rolling, she again began Bush-whacking. After a brief rant, she became side tracked on a tangent.
Quote:That part is true. I don't find the truth offensive.
She started talking, to herself more than to the class, in a soft voice about creationists. "Most Christians don't believe in creationism and most large churches don't teach creationism,"
Quote:How does she know that they haven't read the Bible? Maybe they read it, but intepret it differently.
First off, I find it offensive when professors claim to be an authority on Christianity when they haven't even read the Bible.
Quote:
I remember when I was in grad studies, during Easter, a certain grad student announced aloud that he was going to have a “crucifixion party”. Others laughed and he was very proud of himself. Obscene comments about Christianity were always comiNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
She pegs my bullshit detector to the needle.
Colleges are tolerant of everything but one thing.
Intolerance.
Especially that biblethumping, snotty-pushy "my way is the only right way" bullshit.
And I've made my feelings quite, abundantly clear on the pervasive and evil force that is the Christian Belief System as practiced, and the laughable concept that the slimy, evil gits are in any way "persecuted" whatsoever.
Their idea of being "persecuted" is people not falling to their knees and kissing their ass while professing the same beliefs, puh-lease.
They wanna whine about persecution cause not everyone agrees with them ? go look at the muslims who we're bombing into fleshy red piles of goop because our leaders think it's ok to persecute them cause they're not Christian.
Go read up on the fucking Crusades, why don't you ?
In my opinion they should be glad to be tolerated as they are, cause I for one, would like to see the evil bastards tied to a stake and screaming while the flames licked every closer, and fault me for it if you will, I would damned well ENJOY it.
And Antimason, don't bother shovelling any of that crap about how they're not Christians at me, they define what the hellspawned belief system in this day and age is - whether you like it or not, whether *I* like it or not, that's how it is.
And I hate em, it's a simple as they, for they are hateful - dress it up anyway you like, they're pushy, hateful, intolerant people who think every non-Christian belongs in hell, who would gleefully bring back the inquisition, and who's actions have stonewalled anything resembling enlightenment and civilization repeatedly for centuries.
In short, she should be glad for the Tolerance (of her and her crap!) that she claims not to exist, cause some folk would have been a LOT less tolerant about it - and I am one of em.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll admit, I've always found it amusing how American Christians tend to find themselves discriminated against by the law's refusal to grant them special status. "How dare they say we can't force our form of prayer into public schools? How intolerant!" "They refuse to teach our particular creation myth as the one revealed truth! What bigotry!"
And then they offer faux compromises. "Okay, if you don't want to join in the prayer, you can just stand silently out in the hallway, while the 98% of the student body who understand WHO THE ONE TRUE GOD IS pray for your heathen souls. And may God forgive us for our weakness."
The fact is, Christianity is the 500-pound gorilla of American sprituality, and so it has historically gotten its own way, from such things as Closed-On-Sunday blue laws and the 13-year disaster of prohibition to the current debates on so-called "scientific creationism".
My main problem with all of this is, having actually read the New Testament, and paying attention to the words in the red letters, I've come to the conclusion that most people who claim to be Christian have no idea of what the founder of their religion actually said or stood for. They have mistaken the envelope for the message, and have turned the organizational power structure of their own churches into a false God which they worship ahead of the Nazarine.
Despite this, I have met plenty of good, tolerant Christians in my life, people who actually try to live in the spirit of Christ. They make good neighbors, exactly the sort of people a Lawful Pagan like myself strives to emulate.
Heck, some of them even go to church...
"Religion is far too important a subject to take seriously." -- Rafael DeOro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Students at Butler should not be required to take courses on Islam, purchase the Qur’an, and much less follow religious rituals for the handling the Qur’an, unless Butler is a religious school. My guess is that Butler does not hold itself out to be a religious school, and therefore shouldn’t be requiring students to follow a religious curriculum. If such activity is required of students of Butler, given the decidedly anti-religious tones of most Academics, it would not be unfitting to view it with suspicion.
Evidently, the “biblethumping(sic), snotty-pushy ‘my way is the only right way’ bullshit” must be purely a Christian trait, because no one would push the Qur’an on anyone, and if someone protests to having the Qur’an pushed on them (as a requirement to graduate) they must be “snotty-pushy” “biblethumping(sic)” Christians. There is so much that is messed up about that. I sympathize strongly with Miss Nye, because she has probably had to endure a lot of ignorant people making snotty comments about her, simply because she holds a Christian opinion and doesn’t want to be indoctrinated in the Islamic religion anymore then those ignorant people want to endure someone’s “biblethumping(sic).” Now you extrapolate those ignorant people to positions of power within BU and you have an environment that might very well be called “neo-fascist,” but Miss Nye’s feelings are the last thing those ignorant people care about.
Christianity may be the 500-lb gorilla in the cage, but unlike its cousin the 500-lb orangutan, it doesn’t kill you if you disagree with it. Whatever majority Christians may hold in this country means little to a student on a university where Christianity is considered “quaint” and Islam is considered required study, if that student expects to graduate.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure that classifies as hostility. If the professors had called the Koran or the Upanishads a "books of myth" she prolly would NOT have seen that as being particularly "hostile" towards Islam or Hinduism...
True. She may not have found it to be hostile, but then she's not Muslim or Hindu, and I'm guessing that Muslim's and Hindu's may find such allegations against their texts as "hostile".
Thing is -- as she points out (and not just her, I've heard this from a multitude of sources over the past 18 years -- at least) that such things aren't being said by professors (at least not to the same degree) as they are being said against Christianity with relative impunity.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think there may be something else going on here besides "bias". Comments like "what is good" and what is faith" indicate to me that the student has not sufficiently explained the terms that she used to analyze the essay. Many misunderstandings and discussions are rooted in the definition of terms. It's something that we run into here all the time.
True, if that's what she's complaining about in that paragraph of her interview. However, I personally didn't read it that way -- I didn't see her as complaining about those specific statements as much as about not being permitted to use the Bible as "source" material for her definitions. You could be right, though. Perhaps, I just read it differently. We'd have to ask her to clarify.
BTW, although you and I avidly disagree on many of these issues, I have to state once again that I appreciate you taking the time to read opposing views, then commenting on them civilly. Others who believe as you do (and disagree with those who believe as I do), would go a lot further in such discussions if they responded with the decency and civility which you have responded with. Thanks again.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It doesn't seem appropriate to insert religious practice into an English class. If the professor simply wanted to slwo the students down there are other forms of meditation and focusing that don't require a religious chant.
I agree. However, I definitely agree with her that there is a slant against Christianity in such exercises, while virtually anything else goes.
I personally know of specific instances where grade school students (in my local area) were allowed to put on productions (which I attended) where they recounted the details of native American "religion", including "religious" chants. But these same students are prohibited for doing anything even remotely Christian.
In my view, the pendulum has definitely swung way too far to the opposite extreme. If one "belief" is to be allowed (tolerated), all should be allowed (tolerated). If one is to be restricted, all should be restricted. It isn't right to single out a certain "belief system" as inappropriate, while allowing virtually every other "belief system", which is what I found to be the gist of her whole argument.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is there any particular reason to include this in on a discussion of religion?
I don't know what her point was about that, either.
Perhaps she would allow you a follow-up interview from the left -- to clarify some points for us all -- in an effort towards fairness. Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:That part is true. I don't find the truth offensive.
She started talking, to herself more than to the class, in a soft voice about creationists. "Most Christians don't believe in creationism and most large churches don't teach creationism,"
Well, I don't know if it's true or not. I haven't seen any scientific polling on the subject. I only know that in my own circle of believers (which is quite extensive), it's not true. But, I also know that my own circle of believers isn't a true representation of a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Christianity may be the 500-lb gorilla in the cage, but unlike its cousin the 500-lb orangutan, it doesn’t kill you if you disagree with it.
I suggest you look up the following phrases and organizations: "The Burning Times" "Spanish Inquisition" "Christian Identity Movement" "Westboro Baptist Church".
Historically Christians -- or those professing to be Christians -- have been more than happy to spill blood in the name of the Prince of Peace. That fundamentalist Islamics have chosen to grab that particular baton and run with it at this point in history does not wash the blood from Christian hands.
But you are entirely right that the school in question shouldn't have been teaching religion qua religion. Opening a class with a Buddist chant was in-conceived, at best--if the idea was to get the students in a receptive mind, a simple "Om" chant would have been just as effective.
As to the course on the Koran and Islam, if the course was a means of indoctrinating students in Islam with an eye to conversion, of course it was wrong. On the other hand, if the idea was to have the students role-play in order to better understand the Islamic mind-set, that's a different matter. Teaching how an Islamic would treat and respect the Koran would be a part of that--If I was teaching a course on Christianity, I'd certainly require the students to avoid casually marking up or otherwise disrespecting the Bible.
(Side note: My personal copy of the Koran was a gift from a co-worker of my wife, who had to remove roughly an ounce of sticky-notes from it. He liked his copies annotated, but proper respect required him to refrain from marking them directly. When, thanking him, I cautioned him not to expect me to convert, he shrugged. "If I wanted to live in a country where everyone thinks alike, I would have stayed in Iran.")
By the way--I love the Cicero quote. It's exactly the reason I thank all the Gods for the first amendment.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem that I have with this girl's worldview is that she regrettably does not appear to have thought about the internal consistency of her beliefs.
The questions that her professor graded her with, and her reaction to them, indicates to me that she takes what Christianity has taught her as axiomatic instead of thinking about belief in G-d and then trying to generalise about it from there.
This is an inherently anti-intellectual attitude, and being a religious intellectual, is something I really don't like. The viewpoints she seems to be putting forward here are that you can't be religious and think critically about your religion, that you can't be Christian and think Muslims have a valid religion, and that you can't be American without being Christian (such as when she equates ridicule of Christianity with ridicule of America).
All of these viewpoints are incredibly intolerant and so they leave me wishing that she had been taught to assess her own beliefs for internal consistency. Were she properly schooled in analytic forms of logic, she would discover what is most important; that you can be religious and co-exist with other people. If she wants to be tolerated, she should not be so judging of other people's worldviews.
At my institution, I have had to deal with constant attacks from theists and atheists alike, since I ascribe to an uncommon theology. There are those who want me to convert to their religion, and those who want me to forget about religion and join them in amoralistic pursuits. They both have a point, but when I respond to them with cogent, internally consistent arguments, they see my point and stop arguing. Of course I can never prove or disprove what they are saying; the theist question is not answerable by scientific means. But I can point out to them that they can't convince me and I can't convince them because no one has evidence. This opens the door to discussions of theology with the understanding that no one is trying to change anyone else's beliefs, but rather to test their consistency. These kinds of discussions cause everyone to gain, really.
Basically, I prefer to encourage thinking about religion and tolerance of other viewpoints. This girl doesn't seem to have the capacity for this, and I think it's that lack of understanding that causes fighting between areligious and religious people.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Were she properly schooled in analytic forms of logic, she would discover what is most important; that you can be religious and co-exist with other people. If she wants to be tolerated, she should not be so judging of other people's worldviews.
Well said, the whole post in fact nails the salient point, and in a far more civil manner than I have any intent to be on the subject.
The best cure for intolerance is a flamethrower - because most of the people who practice it, choose to do so, you can blame upbringing all you want, at some point reality intervenes and they simply turn their back on it, and that's a choice.
How many of you reasonable folk come from somewhat racist families, and *chose* not to be racist because you saw it was utterly ridiculous, especially in light of the internet ?
(double especially OVER the internet, but that's a whole nother can o worms, that.)
So, they choose to be intolerant pushy jackasses, and I choose not to be at all civil about it, why should I - try being tolerant or patient with some of them "True Believers" and see what it gets you.
I make it clear right off that the best thing they can do is get thier little butts moving AWAY from me, as far as possible, and speedily, and in all honesty, a quick, profane explosion of verbal flameage, followed by their speedy (and usually permanent) retreat is a lot better than trying to tolerate the intolerant.
They wanna discuss theology, fine, they wanna discuss spiritualism or how religion affects social order and policy, yadda yadda, sure, fine, dandy.. shiny even...
But you try it, pick out ten random Christians and just try it, and then explain to me why I should even bother giving them the chance to open their hate spewing mouths ?
Oh, and FYI - I have zero mercy for *any* beliefs zealots, up to and specifically including Pagan ones, cause I'll send those Dianic stormtrooper bitches scurrying every bit as fast as thumpers, jihadis, and the occasional JW who has the misfortune to defile my porch (tho not for long!) with their presence.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So what? This is how you intend to define Christianity? You’re proving this woman’s point, the bigotry against Christians. If this is the game you want to play, I suggest you look up “Islamic Jihad,” “The Taliban,” “Hezbollah,” “Al Qaeda,” “Hamas,” and numerous other Islamic organizations that use murder and terror to impose their Islamic views, not 500 years ago, but today. No major Christian organization practices the kind of “religion” practiced by these Islamic groups today, and for you to suggest that this is the bases that we should use to assess this young woman’s situation, essentially argues her point.
Originally posted by RocketJock:
I suggest you look up the following phrases and organizations: "The Burning Times" "Spanish Inquisition" "Christian Identity Movement" "Westboro Baptist Church".
So if it is understanding that we want, perhaps we need to start a little closer to home. If someone can’t differentiate Christianity today from the Spanish Inquisition, then logically how do we expect them to differentiate Islam today from the Islamic Jihad? And understanding that, I think will help you understand Miss Nye’s point, and mine.
Quote:Thanks. Cicero is one of my favorite authors. Two thousand years ago he was predicting many of the same philosophical issues we deal with today in politics and religion. And for his troubles he had his throat cut. But that’s Roman politics.
Originally posted by RocketJock:
By the way--I love the Cicero quote. It's exactly the reason I thank all the Gods for the first amendment.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Colleges are tolerant of everything but one thing.
Intolerance.
Especially that biblethumping, snotty-pushy "my way is the only right way" bullshit.
Then colleges aren't tolerant of everything. It goes to how one defines 'intolerance'.
And as annoying as those biblethumping, snotty-pushy "my way is the only right way" types are, at least they're not cutting the throats of those who don't convert to their way of thinking.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
And as annoying as those biblethumping, snotty-pushy "my way is the only right way" types are, at least they're not cutting the throats of those who don't convert to their way of thinking.
Not yet maybe, but give them time.
Put ten "Christians" from different "Denominations" in a room together and see what happens. Maybe not throat-cutting but not "Love thy neihbour" either.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
and if someone protests to having the Qur’an pushed on them (as a requirement to graduate)
I'm too lazy to do the work, which would mean reading the lady's articles, then identifying the school, and searching its website, but I'll bet my share of the profits from the Train Job that reading the Quran is not officially, specifically required in the catalog of the school as a requirement to graduate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:So what? This is how you intend to define Christianity?
Originally posted by RocketJock:
I suggest you look up the following phrases and organizations: "The Burning Times" "Spanish Inquisition" "Christian Identity Movement" "Westboro Baptist Church".
YOU CHEATED!!!!
You deliberately did not quote the sentence before in his post where he quoted someone ( you?) as saying that Christians did not kill those who disagreed with their beliefs. Those references are certainlty correct as arguments against that position. Christians DID DO those things. That Muslims are still doing them cuts no ice. Nobody said the Muslims weren't...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You might find something like this in a course catalogue: Topics in Comparative Religion 201. In this course we will make an in depth survey of major modern non-Christian religions with special emphasis on Islam and Islamic traditions...
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I'm too lazy to do the work, which would mean reading the lady's articles, then identifying the school, and searching its website, but I'll bet my share of the profits from the Train Job that reading the Quran is not officially, specifically required in the catalog of the school as a requirement to graduate.
Then li'l Miss Acti-Christian takes the course as her personal Child's Crusade against the heathen and surprise, surprise it doesn't exactly go well for her. Hm.
Hey Cartoon, American Universities are very effed up places. Very hypocritical, very intolerant of a lot of things, but I don't think that gives your girl a blank check to promote her narrow-minded agenda.
Quote:She sees tolerance as a kind of weakness; the stance of hypocrites. She feels it would be hypocritical for her not to push her ideas on everyone else. How is that anything but antisocial?
In the words of Miss Nye:
G. K. Chesterton once said "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
I agree.
Today's "tolerance" makes the assumption that we all hold different beliefs but those different beliefs are all equal. That appalls me. If I'm going to take the time to believe in something, have a conviction, live it out, and stand up for what I believe in, what good is it if I don't even believe that my beliefs are true? And if my beliefs are true, why would I even consider a conflicting belief to be on the same level? I wouldn't! What good is a conviction if you don't believe it to your core and reject anything that is in opposition to it? Yet, this is what the new tolerance is about. A man without convictions would have an easier time saying that all beliefs are equal
I know she's practically a teenager and we can't expect her to understand the importance of humility and compassion, but what about you? Do you find her arrogance attractive? Within acceptable limits? Do you think tolerance has any place in society?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I looked up Butler U. It requires a course on the Koran to graduate with a major in Religion
-------------------------
Requirements for the Religion Major
* RL 101 Religions of the World
* RL 202 The Bible
* RL 347 History of Christianity
* RL 354 Islam
* RL 381 Topics in Theory and Method
* Two Courses in Asian Religions
* Twelve additional hours in Religion are required for a total of 33 hours. Courses on religion and related topics in other disciplines may be counted toward the Religion major with the permission of the department head.
www.butler.edu/philrel/?pg=971#religion_major
---------------------------------
Given the coursework that Nye talks about (the Bible, philosopy, Islam etc) I assumed that she majored in religion. So just out of curiosity, I looked at the bona fides of the religious studies professors and their areas of study:
Chad Bauman: Princeton Theological Seminary,Ph.D, Princeton Theological Seminary
Hinduism, Buddhism, Indian Christianity
James F. McGrath: Diploma in Religious Studies, Cambridge University; B.D., University of London; Ph.D., University of Durham
Biblical Studies, Religion and Science
Paul R. Valliere: B.A., Williams College; M.A., Columbia University/Union Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Columbia University.
Russian Orthodoxy, History of Christianity, Modern Religious Thought
Rabbi Arnold Bienstock: B.A., Columbia University; M.A., Jewish Theological Seminary; Rabbinical degree
Mary Ann Fadae: Islamic Studies
Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso: B.A., Temple University; M.A., Temple University; Rabbinical degree, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College
These are the people that Nye claims have never" read the Bible?? Most of Nye's negative reaction seems to be that she has never come across her religion as an object of study as opposed to an object of belief.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except of course the 500lb Gorilla does kill you if you disagree with it.
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cuhmal:
Christianity may be the 500-lb gorilla in the cage, but unlike its cousin the 500-lb orangutan, it doesn’t kill you if you disagree with it. Whatever majority Christians may hold in this country means little to a student on a university where Christianity is considered “quaint” and Islam is considered required study, if that student expects to graduate.
Quote:What like the Lords Resistance Army. Maybe Killing, Raping and selling into slavery over two thousand children a year for nearly the last twenty years is small time then?
No major Christian organization practices the kind of “religion” practiced by these Islamic groups today
This is typical of you Finn, you make a statement, it's shown to be wrong, you move the goal posts and proclaim "See I was right all along".
Quote:And you'd find that would happen a lot more often if you actually let them and you weren't such a snippy little shit all the time, oh well
Originally posted by cartoon:
Others who believe as you do (and disagree with those who believe as I do), would go a lot further in such discussions if they responded with the decency and civility which you have responded with. Thanks again.
.Quote:Cartoon is a religious fanatic
Originally posted by HKCavalier
I know she's practically a teenager and we can't expect her to understand the importance of humility and compassion, but what about you? Do you find her arrogance attractive? Within acceptable limits? Do you think tolerance has any place in society?
Religious schools rarely let non-religious students (or those of a different religion) in, and if they do they're often ostracised. I guess Miss Nye can count herself very very fortunate she wasn't a non-Christian in a Christian education establishment, if she were her experiences here would have seemed paradise.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello All,
This is Rocketjock's Daughter Angel. I just happened to be reading over daddy dears shoulder while he was on this thread and couldn't help but write a response of my own.
First of all let me say I am a practicing Pagan/Witchy Women,(
) and before any one starts claiming intolerance towards there religion try and be a Pagan and then we can talk.
Secondly when i was in seventh grade, some six odd years ago, we learned about Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I entirely enjoyed this part of my history curriculum. We learned some of the practices of each of these religions. There many children of different religions in my class and we were all very TOLERANT of each other. You cant claim that some one else is being intolerant when you are not TOLERANT enough to even learn about another religion and lifestyle.
Now that thats out of the way, here is the real reason i came on ...
Someone earlier mentioned how Christians do not kill people who disagree with there beliefs. I believe that someone needs to read some more history books, or some more current events. There are some Christian groups who have bombed abortion clinics because they don't believe that women should have abortions! There are other christians who have killed Gays and Blacks because they did not believe the same way of Christians. No one is saying that some Muslims are not killing people for there own beliefs, but Muslims killing people now does not mean that Christians and other religions have are not killing people now and have not killed in the past. one does not erase the other! 
--------------------------------------------------
"More people have died in the name of the Lord, then any natural disaster, disease, or gang war," -->Nelly
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I looked up Butler U. It requires a course on the Koran to graduate with a major in Religion
Thanx for doing the work I was too lazy to do.
Of course, If one is majoring in religion, one should study the Koran. Entirely appropriate.
If she was majoring in religion, then her argument is worthless. I thought she was studying something unrelated, or it was a General Ed requirement, which is what she implied.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:You might find something like this in a course catalogue: Topics in Comparative Religion 201. In this course we will make an in depth survey of major modern non-Christian religions with special emphasis on Islam and Islamic traditions...
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I'm too lazy to do the work, which would mean reading the lady's articles, then identifying the school, and searching its website, but I'll bet my share of the profits from the Train Job that reading the Quran is not officially, specifically required in the catalog of the school as a requirement to graduate.
Then li'l Miss Acti-Christian takes the course as her personal Child's Crusade against the heathen and surprise, surprise it doesn't exactly go well for her. Hm.
That's about how I figure it ,too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I always trim the quotes for brevity, assuming that if someone would like to see the complete post that I’m responding to they can simply scroll up, and if you do scroll up you’ll see quite clearly that, in fact, I did not say that Christians didn’t do those things, I said they don’t, and generally that is true. Christian terrorist organizations are not common; the majority of them are in Northern Ireland and those that do exist are generally very isolated, and largely more nationalist then Christian. Muslim terrorist organizations are common, and very Islamic, and several of them operate well a field of their base. So I didn’t cheat. I may have ranted, but I didn’t cheat.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
You deliberately did not quote the sentence before in his post where he quoted someone ( you?) as saying that Christians did not kill those who disagreed with their beliefs. Those references are certainlty correct as arguments against that position. Christians DID DO those things. That Muslims are still doing them cuts no ice. Nobody said the Muslims weren't...
Quote:So am I. But according to Sigmyn, a course on Islam is only required if you are seeking a degree in religion, which doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I'm too lazy to do the work, which would mean reading the lady's articles, then identifying the school, and searching its website, but I'll bet my share of the profits from the Train Job that reading the Quran is not officially, specifically required in the catalog of the school as a requirement to graduate.
Quote:That’s true, and I clearly should have been more precise in my language, but I was ranting, and ranting is often imprecise. But are you prepared to say that the kind of thing you mentioned above is equal to Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or any large armed paramilitary terrorist organization?
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Someone earlier mentioned how Christians do not kill people who disagree with there beliefs. I believe that someone needs to read some more history books, or some more current events. There are some Christian groups who have bombed abortion clinics because they don't believe that women should have abortions! There are other christians who have killed Gays and Blacks because they did not believe the same way of Christians. No one is saying that some Muslims are not killing people for there own beliefs, but Muslims killing people now does not mean that Christians and other religions have are not killing people now and have not killed in the past. one does not erase the other!
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They have Ann Coulter as a columnist for this website. I rest my case.
---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote - Vote Firefly!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
At the very top of the page with Miss Nye's interview, it says she graduated as a "Physician's Assistant". That wouldn't seem like a religion major to me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Christians don't kill folk ?
Go look at Iraq, and other numerous examples, but the primary one, that sets me into such a rage at them ?
Tempest Smith.
I am including some links here specifically for RJ's daughter to use in order to show other folk the true ugly face of intolerance and what it's end result usually is.
What happened
http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/amethystbt/wiccasadbuttrue.html
And current foundation for prevention.
http://tempestsmithfoundation.org/
Zealotry of any stripe leads to intolerance, which leads to violence, which leads to death - this is a simple, linear pattern oft repeated in history, and the entirety of the reason to crush zealotry of this sort in it's tracks.
Oh, and I can attest to Citizen's comment about being sent to a specific theologys' school when you are not OF that theology, it's not exactly pleasant nor does it lead to anything good.
"it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson
Long as someone isn't shovin it down your throat, why care what they BELIEVE, what really matters, in the end all that matters, is what they DO.
Religion never excuses Jackassery.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not yet maybe, but give them time.
Put ten "Christians" from different "Denominations" in a room together and see what happens. Maybe not throat-cutting but not "Love thy neihbour" either.
Well, we have throat cutting going on right now, and not just in Iraq, but all throught out the Muslim world. I find it curious that there are those who rail and rant , frothing at the mouth against Christianity, yet turn a blind eye toward what is happening with radical Islam. Christianity has gone through a reformation, while Islam is still stuck in the 1st millennium. Take your cracks at the bible thumpers, but I think most who do so are stomping on a camp fire while a forest fire rages on at their back.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ive made this point before, but i think its relevant if we're gonna make assumptions about christianity... what are we talking about when we say christian? if we go by the bible then that doesnt include moderate believers who arent practicing, since Paul says in Romans
Quote:
"now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag abour your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, and instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, becase you have in the law the the embodiment of knowledge and truth- you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? you who preach against stealing, do you steal? you who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? you who abhor idols, do you rob temples? you who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? as it is written: "Gods name is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you"
Quote:
"a man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. no, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. such a mans praise is not from men, but from God"
every christian should understand that the bible makes the distinction that a believer in Jesus is someone who does the WILL of God, which implies following his commands, the most important of which, according to Jesus himself is
Quote:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind. this is the first greatest command. second is 'love your neighbor as yourself. there is no commandment greater than these"
i just think that should be kept in mind by those of you scrutinizing us from the outside.
we believe that man has a fallen nature that is susceptable to sin, and the bible also explains why man has given his heart into the world and the desires of the flesh, which are material and earthly. Jesus says not to covet or love the world(and its possessions) because this age belongs to Satan(also the reason for the all-seeing eye), and finishes my point when he says
Quote:
"if you were Abrahams children, then you would do the things Abraham did. as it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told the the truth that i heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. you are doing the things your own father does. if God were your Father, you would love me, for i came from God and now am here. i have not come on my own; but he sent me. why is my language not clear to you? because you are unable to hear what i say. you belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desire. he was a murderer from the beginning, not holding ot the truth, for there is no truth in him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then what was she doing in the courses for Religious Majors? Perhaps poking her nose in where it didn't belong.
Originally posted by cartoon:
At the very top of the page with Miss Nye's interview, it says she graduated as a "Physician's Assistant". That wouldn't seem like a religion major to me.
How very Christian of her, I'm sure YOU approve.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bravo, Sig. I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Most of Nye's negative reaction seems to be that she has never come across her religion as an object of study as opposed to an object of belief.
Quote:This quotation illustrates the point. She has one Truth in her mind, and everyone who disagrees with or questions her Truth is hostile or ignorant.
If they would take the time to read the Bible they would see that it is pretty obvious that Allah of Islam is not the same God of Christianity. The message of Christianity is that mankind is sinful and God is holy, and this holy God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins so that we could be reconciled to God and have eternal life in Heaven. That profound message is nowhere to be found in the Koran. And if the god of Islam were the same god of Christianity, wouldn't they be telling the same story?
She cannot suspend her assumption that her interpretation of the Bible is Absolutely True in order to examine a different account of the same God. She cannot fathom the possibility that two different witnesses could tell different stories about the same guy. One witness is absolutely right, and therefore the other witness must not have seen the same guy. Moreover, this proves to her that those with different interpretations must not have read the Bible.
Just because this young lady's reasoning is fallacious and faulty on so many levels does not mean there is no hypocrisy on American campuses. People wishing to demonstrate academic intolerance of Christianity need to just make better arguments.
She also alleges:
Quote:I found this at the Butler U. website:
For example, all students at Butler were required to take a course on Islam.
Quote:Students with foreign study experience can be exempt from this requirement.
All Butler students must complete both semesters of Change and Tradition (ID 201 and ID 202) as a requirement for graduation. http://www.butler.edu/cnt/course_information.htm
What is C&T (ID 201 and ID 202)? The syllabus says:
Quote:Now I can see how C&T classes all require some study of Islam, as it is one of the major global cultures in the world. I can see how Christianity may be given less class time than Islam. The object of the class is to broaden student horizons and most American students are already very familiar with Christianity. It seems to me that if she takes offense at respectfully studying versions of truth other than her own, she should have attended a private Christian college where she would be shielded from such offenses.
As an introduction to the study of historical world cultures, Change and Tradition (C&T) has been a centerpiece of the Butler curriculum since 1983. Individual sections of C&T are taught by faculty from colleges and departments throughout the university. The one thing that binds us all together is a common interest in interdisciplinary study of global cultures.
http://www.butler.edu/cnt/Gen%20Syl%20ID202-06.doc
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's the test.
How would you feel about a university instructor who said, in class, that the Koran was "that book about crazy Mohammud talking with 'god' in his magic cave"? Or a department head said "You cannot use the Hindu Vedas in academic circles because they are regarded as books of myth"? How about a student suggesting a "Jewbaby killing party" during Passover?
Is it different to you, one way or another, when it's not Christianity being demeaned?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon: this is the curriculum requirrment for Physician's Assistant undergrad:
Quote:I looked very closely. Nowhere is there a requirement for Koranic Studies. Perhaps she is responding to the required course Change and Tradition which has already been mentioned, and is detailed as follows:
Pre-Physician Assistant Curriculum (First Year)
EN102 Freshman Writing Seminar ID103 Humanities Colloquium
CH105 General Chemistry (with lab) CH106 General Chemistry (with lab)
PH200 Physics for Health Sciences (without lab) Core (Div. 1 or 2)
BI105 Introductory Cell Biology (without lab)
H102 Public Speaking
PE101 Lifetime Fitness*+ Core (Div. 1 or 2)*
PE102 Lifetime Fitness Activity+
PX100 Health Sciences Seminar
*Interchangeable courses between semesters. Students must take both a division 1 and a division 2 core course.
+May be taken at anytime prior to graduation.
Pre-Physician Assistant Curriculum (Second Year )
Course
ID201 Change and Tradition
ID202 Change and Tradition
CH351 Organic Chemistry (with lab)
PX313 Clinical Biochemistry (no lab)
PX311 Human Anatomy (no lab)
PX315 Human Physiology (no lab)
BI323 Immunology (no lab)
BI325 Pathogenic Microbiology (with lab)
PS101 Psychology (Core Div. 3)*
MA260 Statistical Methods*
*Interchangeable courses between semesters. Students must take both Psychology and Statistical Methods.
AP301 History & Physical Assessment I AP302 History & Physical Assessment II
AP321 Clinical Medicine for PAs I
AP322 Clinical Medicine for PAs II
AP312 Pharmacology for PAs
AP305 Medical Procedures
AP313 Therapeutics for PAs I
AP314 Therapeutics for PAs II
AP405 Diag. & Ther. Procedures
AP331 Issues in Professional Practice
AP300 Problem-based Learning
Fourth Year Clinical Rotations
During the senior year, students are required to complete 12 months of clinical rotations (May through April). The sites for these experiential rotations are assigned within a designated radius of the Butler University campus. Students are responsible for providing their own transportation to these sites.
Students will have a one-month rotation in each of the following areas:
* family practice
* internal medicine
* pediatrics
* community mental health
* obstetrics and gynecology
* surgery
* orthopedics
* cardiology
* neurology, and
* emergency medicine.
In addition, students take a one-month selective rotation from one of four areas:
* family practice
* internal medicine
* pediatrics, or
* emergency medicine.
Students will have a two-week elective rotation scheduled in conjunction with two (2) weeks of vacation.
Finally, during the senior year, students will complete a five credit hour sequence of self-study courses reviewing clinical medicine, medical therapeutics, pharmacology, and history and physical exam skills. PSC courses are designed to help students strengthen their knowledge base as well as help them prepare for the national certification examination.
Quote:
An Overview : As an introduction to the study of historical world cultures, Change & Tradition (C&T) has been a centerpiece of the Butler curriculum since 1983. We invite you to explore with us the dynamic process by which civilizations—both past and present—form traditions and initiate change. Individual sections of C&T are taught by faculty from colleges and departments throughout the university. Binding us all together is a common interest in interdisciplinary study of global cultures. Though faculty varies, every C&T course has common goals. They are
To examine the process by which great world civilizations have formed their cultural traditions, the circumstances under which those traditions have been challenged by the forces of change, and the degree to which those traditions have persisted, evolved, or fragmented;
To establish the historical context for each culture that we study, and to explore the links between the present and the past;
To establish broad, tNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It depends on the class. If it was a class on comparative religion, the content and point is fair game, altho the professor should moderate his language to be less offensive. We have only Nye's word that the professor "sneered" at the Bible, but given some of her whoppers I'm not sure I trust her subjective impressions.
How would you feel about a university instructor who said, in class, that the Koran was "that book about crazy Mohammud talking with 'god' in his magic cave"?
Quote:They ARE books of myth. And if you're studying that myth then you have to use them... it's a question of HOW you use them. The assigmnent was to
Or a department head said "You cannot use the Hindu Vedas in academic circles because they are regarded as books of myth"?
Quote:I expect that she quoted the Bible extensively as proof that God can be both all-powerful and all-loving, but that her analysis was deficient. She most likely substituted statements of faith for analysis. eg "It says here in chapter verse ..."
analyze an essay by Nicholas Maxwell... and the professor returned my paper with 33 hand written comments on it such as, "What is good?" "What is faith?"
Quote:I'm not sure that's a direct comparison to having a "crucifixion party". There are real Jewish babies around to be killed but Jesus is nowhere to be found. One could be interpreted as an actual threat. The other could be intepreted as desecration of a mythic figure. I'm trying to find an equivalent...
How about a student suggesting a "Jewbaby killing party" during Passover?
Quote:No. IMHO all religions are equal. However, like any other subject that deserves to be talked about, it deserves to be talked about in an honest, logical manner that is respectful of the person being addressed. ---------------------------------
Is it different to you, one way or another, when it's not Christianity being demeaned?
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No. IMHO all religions are equal. However, like any other subject that deserves to be talked about, it deserves to be talked about in an honest, logical manner that is respectful of the person being addressed.
I'm not asking you to rationalize or explain the quotes of Butler College staff and students, or the modified versions I inserted above. I'm asking how they make you feel. Since you believe all religions are equal, you should feel the same amount of disgust, agreement, disinterest, or whatever about them all.
Even if you don't believe in someone's faith, there's no reason to insult it in their presence, even in an 'educational' setting. People who do might have tolerence issues themselves.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Here's the test.
How would you feel about a university instructor who said, in class, that the Koran was "that book about crazy Mohammud talking with 'god' in his magic cave"? Or a department head said "You cannot use the Hindu Vedas in academic circles because they are regarded as books of myth"? How about a student suggesting a "Jewbaby killing party" during Passover?
Is it different to you, one way or another, when it's not Christianity being demeaned?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Here's a test right back. one of the arguments against " under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, that got mostly ignored, was : what if you *H*A*D* to say " one nation , under Allah" ?
Now the shoe is on the other foot. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Turn the other cheek?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nope. Professors are human with all their own biases. Some opinions are offensive, some are simply illogical, but just like you do with opinions of everyone else, you listen and form your own conclusions. Students need to learn to separate opinion from fact.
Originally posted by Geezer:
Is it different to you, one way or another, when it's not Christianity being demeaned?
Apparently, Nye never learned.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
--Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Here's a test right back. one of the arguments against " under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, that got mostly ignored, was : what if you *H*A*D* to say " one nation , under Allah" ?
Now the shoe is on the other foot. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Turn the other cheek?
I'd just as soon they dropped 'under God' and 'in God we trust' and all the rest. I got no belief in deities of any kind and would like them out of politics alltogether.
p.s. But just because I don't believe in a deity, that doesn't mean I consider it proper to insult those who do.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I disagree. Professors should not be treated like everyone else, especially when they are lecturing. First of all, professors are being paid to teach and I think that a student has a right to assume, within reason, that he or she will be taught. If the student must assume that the professor is no more credible then any arbitrary person then the student cannot assume that he or she has been taught anything, and the university is essentially defrauding the student of his or her money. Just as important is that college professors are viewed as experts and the source of knowledge of our society. If society cannot expect that they can fulfill that status then they do not deserve to be viewed as experts or knowledgeable, they do not deserve to be paid, they do not deserve tenure or any special status in our society.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Nope. Professors are human with all their own biases. Some opinions are offensive, some are simply illogical, but just like you do with opinions of everyone else, you listen and form your own conclusions. Students need to learn to separate opinion from fact.
Any professor who claims that “Jesus was a homosexual” or the victims of 9/ll were “little Eichmanns” should be viewed with contempt, not only because such a statement are almost certainly a belligerent attacks, but also because in the absence of evidence, which doesn’t exist to my knowledge, they are patently untrue and not appropriate for people society has entrusted with passing on our knowledge.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How does this
Quote:make me FEEL? It depends very much on context. I find the comment on the Koran phrased in an insulting way, and given the current climate I would be worried about repercussions in ways that I might not worry if someone insulted Hinduism. Just facts of life. My reponse to the comment on the Vedas would depend. If I were writing a paper about the Vedas but couldn't reference them, I'd feel frustrated and likely complain to the Dean. If I were writing an analysis of ethics and kept referring to the Vedas as "proof" I would prolly feel embarassed by my own lack of analytical acumen. If I heard a comment about Jewbaby killing OR a crucifixian party and I thought it was anything other than a tasteless joke, I'd be frightened and call the police. Otherwise, I'd treat both a tasteless joke- the baby-killing one being more tasteless because it could be a real threat.
How would you feel about a university instructor who said, in class, that the Koran was "that book about crazy Mohammud talking with 'god' in his magic cave"? Or a department head said "You cannot use the Hindu Vedas in academic circles because they are regarded as books of myth"? How about a student suggesting a "Jewbaby killing party" during Passover?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But what if the professor came up with solid evidence to back up his/ her point?
Any professor who claims that “Jesus was a homosexual” or the victims of 9/ll were “little Eichmanns” should be viewed with contempt, not only because such a statement are almost certainly a belligerent attacks, but also because in the absence of evidence, which doesn’t exist to my knowledge, they are patently untrue and not appropriate for people society has entrusted with passing on our knowledge.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obviously, that would be something different.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
GEEZER:
I'd just as soon they dropped 'under God' and 'in God we trust' and all the rest. I got no belief in deities of any kind and would like them out of politics alltogether.
i agree..since the 'God' that theyre talking about is Lucifer, whom i pay no homage to nor hold an allegience with anyways. however it would be perfect if people would take the time to study the symbolism to recognize the differences between the God of christianity and the god of Luciferianism... since the masonic symbolism and language adopted by the american establishment is clearly idolatrous and occultic, not christian
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess Nye said this:
Quote:
I've had professors say ... the god of Islam is the same god of Christianity.
I heard a Methodist minister make the same argument in a sermon-- the two faiths diverge with Abraham's 2 sons Ishmael and the other one whose name I forget. Same theme elaborated in discussion and bible study by a very learned, thoughtful, and respected lay leader, speaker, and Bible student ( one guy, not 3.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Colleges are tolerant of everything but one thing.
Intolerance."
How long have you been living in Narnia?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why is everyone so down on intolerance anyway? What gives?
In my book:
Intolerance = Conviction
Tolerance = Negligence
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Why is everyone so down on intolerance anyway? What gives?
In my book:
Intolerance = Conviction
Tolerance = Negligence
Hehe... that explains a lot. You should get more books.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In the real world, though, professors diverge and opine during lecture. I don't know a single professor who doesn't (and I've been around academia). It doesn't mean they are not experts and they aren't teaching. It just means sometimes personal opinions, both on topic and off topic, get mixed in with good, solid education. Call it contamination if you will. It happens. They're human.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Professors should not be treated like everyone else, especially when they are lecturing.
It is up to the student to use a skill called critical thinking to sort that out. They are still getting the meat they paid for; they just have to do a little work and skim the fat off the broth.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
--Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, there's a whole bunch of scholarship that goes along with this, having to do with John, the beloved deciple and first century same sex marriage rituals. One may discredit the scholarship, but it's there. And none of it is necessarily part of anyone's belligerent attack. The whole issue of Human sexual identity before the 19th century is fascinating in its lability.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Any professor who claims that “Jesus was a homosexual”...should be viewed with contempt, not only because such a statement are almost certainly a belligerent attacks, but also because in the absence of evidence, which doesn’t exist to my knowledge, they are patently untrue and not appropriate for people society has entrusted with passing on our knowledge.
Your assumption of contemptible beligerence is made simply out of ignorance, which is not a problem in the university setting until it becomes beligerent itself. But beligerent ignorance is exactly what Miss Nye brings to the table.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, that may be. And I agree with you that unfortunately many students must learn to distinguish between what they are supposed to be learning from the irrelevant opinions of some professors. But it’s not something I would consider a desirable characteristic of university instructors. We send students to college to learn critical thinking, but require them to have critical thinking to learn. It’s a bit of a catch 22. Fortunately, there are more good professors then bad and lectures are often more likely to have more content then bologna, I believe, and so students who apply themselves will usually have a net gain in critical thinking and knowledge at the end of their four years. At least, that’s the hope, but the truth is that our society depends on the perception that professors are trustworthy.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
In the real world, though, professors diverge and opine during lecture. I don't know a single professor who doesn't (and I've been around academia). It doesn't mean they are not experts and they aren't teaching. It just means sometimes personal opinions, both on topic and off topic, get mixed in with good, solid education. Call it contamination if you will. It happens. They're human.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Any professor who claims that “Jesus was a homosexual”...should be viewed with contempt, not only because such a statement are almost certainly a belligerent attacks, but also because in the absence of evidence, which doesn’t exist to my knowledge, they are patently untrue and not appropriate for people society has entrusted with passing on our knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, there's a whole bunch of scholarship that goes along with this, having to do with John, the beloved deciple and first century same sex marriage rituals. One may discredit the scholarship, but it's there. And none of it is necessarily part of anyone's belligerent attack. The whole issue of Human sexual identity before the 19th century is fascinating in its lability.
There's scholarship on lots of things. There's scholarship disputing that Jesus actually existed. I think real historical experts would say such views are groundless.
If someone holds an opinion that goes against what is widely accepted, that usually says something about that person. Especially if it is an inflammatory opinion. In this case the girl was trying to convince us that her professors harboured anti-christian feelings, and on this evidence I am inclined to agree. I would similarly consider someone who denied the occurence of the Holocaust to be an anti-semite.
As for the comparison to Islam, I can see why a Christian would dislike it. Christians view themselves as being more civilised with regards to their treatment of women as well as being less violent. Whether or not they have grounds to make such claims is a matter for separate debate, though I myself would say that they do.
But, at the end of all this, is the statement "The God of Christianity is the same as the God of Islam" an offensive statement? Not really. The professor's motives for saying it seem to me more conciliatory than inflammatory. I was raised a conservative Christian (though I'm not any more) and in the past I would resist such a view, though I wouldn't mind somebody having it. You guys may not be wrong in thinking this girl is oversensitive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course there's scholarship disputing that Jesus even existed. There's very little scholarship that supports that He did. Outside the bible, there is no conclusive evidence that a single "Jesus" of the Bible existed, the main trouble being that nearly all of the history we have from that time period has been copied and maintained by Christian monks who were in no way above interpolating bits about their Lord and Savior into the manuscripts. Even the Biblical record has nothing but three years of preaching and a couple hagiographic anecdotes from Jesus's childhood.
Originally posted by kpo:
There's scholarship on lots of things. There's scholarship disputing that Jesus actually existed. I think real historical experts would say such views are groundless.
Quote:Like, maybe that that person is an individualist? Most professors that have any expertise in their field have heterodox opinions. You seem to have a pretty Soviet notion of what should be taught in college, kpo.
If someone holds an opinion that goes against what is widely accepted, that usually says something about that person.
You do know that the founding fathers of this country were non-Christian Deists, yes? They weren't athiests, but they did not worship Jesus. Did you know Jefferson wrote his own gospel, in which he excised all references to Christ's divinity?
And lumping early church scholarship which does not support one's religious beliefs with Holocaust deniers is pretty inflammatory itself, kpo. The Holocaust is a documented historical event of which there are living witnesses. The life of Jesus is not. Holocaust deniers deny one of the greatest crimes of the last century. Those who deny the historicity of Jesus may simply be looking at the evidence.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Of course there's scholarship disputing that Jesus even existed. There's very little scholarship that supports that He did. Outside the bible, there is no conclusive evidence that a single "Jesus" of the Bible existed, the main trouble being that nearly all of the history we have from that time period has been copied and maintained by Christian monks who were in no way above interpolating bits about their Lord and Savior into the manuscripts. Even the Biblical record has nothing but three years of preaching and a couple hagiographic anecdotes from Jesus's childhood.
From reading the above statement, one might firstly be lead to believe that the Bible is a merely single book by a single author. Such an assumption could not be more incorrect.
Setting aside the Hebrew Old Testament, the Christian New Testament is comprised of multiple, individual books written by (at minimum) nine different authors over a span of anywhere from 40 to 60 years (all within the first century). These individual books (by different authors) were not assembled into the Christian New Testament until 300 years after the fact.
So, firstly, the Bible is not one book, and it was not written by one author. It is a compilation of several books by several authors, all mentioning Jesus.
From reading the above statement, one might secondly be lead to believe that only the Bible (and possibly other "Christian" authors) mention Jesus. This assumption would also be incorrect as there are multiple, non-biblical references to Christ. Mostly notably, the first century, secular, Roman historian Flavius Josephus -- who mentioned Jesus specifically (including His miracles, His crucifixion by Pilate, as well as His appearance to His followers after His death).
Josephus was never a Christian by any stretch of the imagination.
There are also other, non-comtemporary, Roman historians who mentioned Jesus (and His followers), including Tertullian and Philo.
There is also a rather lengthy, contemporary account mentioning Jesus by a first century King of Edessa, named Agbarus.
So, for anyone to claim that "only" the Bible speaks of Jesus is showing either their prejudice or ignorance of both Christianity and secular history from the period.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Those who deny the historicity of Jesus may simply be looking at the evidence.
More likely, they're trying to ignore the evidence (see above).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon, you're giving me Josephus? Josephus is exactly the kind of source I'm talking about! He's the flippin' poster-child for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts. The man was a jew, but this devout jew supposedly wrote of a man named Jesus: "if it be lawful to call him a man...He was [the] Christ...for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." No.
A little googling confirms that the legend around Abgarus first appeared in the 4th century. Not a contemporary source.
The nutty thing is, Cartoon, I don't doubt the existence of Jesus Christ myself, but I don't base it on an either non-existent or else highly suspect historical record. I researched the hell out of this topic back when I was in college and I'm pretty confident that your other sources are equally insubstancial.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Cartoon, you're giving me Josephus? Josephus is exactly the kind of source I'm talking about! He's the flippin' poster-child for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts. The man was a jew, but this devout jew supposedly wrote of a man named Jesus: "if it be lawful to call him a man...He was [the] Christ...for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." No.
So, let me get this straight. If I say that Kennedy is a most liberal democrat, I'd be a posterchild for the Democrats?!! I don't think so.
Josephus was recording the history of what was being circulated at the time. That does not under any circumstances make him a cheerleader for the Christians, any more than my saying that Kennedy is a most liberal democrat makes me a cheerleader for the Democrats.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
A little googling confirms that the legend around Abgarus first appeared in the 4th century. Not a contemporary source.
You need to do more than google. The account was first written in the early 4th century by Eusebius -- who was quoting texts still in existence at that time (which he clearly states as much) written in the hand of Abgarus. Eusebius (who was a Christian) would likely not have gotten away with quoting something "still in existence" (which his readers could verifty) if that something were not still in existence.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The nutty thing is, Cartoon, I don't doubt the existence of Jesus Christ myself, but I don't base it on an either non-existent or else highly suspect historical record. I researched the hell out of this topic back when I was in college and I pretty confident that your other sources are equally insubstancial.
Like I said, some people would prefer to go out of their way to ignore the evidence, rather than believe it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, Cartoon, you haven't gotten it straight at all. As I said, Josephus is a shining example (poster-child) for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts, not a shining example of a Christian. I was suggesting that Josephus' writings are precisely the most infamous examples of Christian scribal interpolation on record.
Originally posted by cartoon:Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
He's the flippin' poster-child for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts.
So, let me get this straight. If I say that Kennedy is a most liberal democrat, I'd be a posterchild for the Democrats?!!
As to whether or not he's a cheerleader for the Christians depends on whether or not you credit the disputed passage:
Quote:These are not the comments of a jew. These are the comments of a Christian. He speaks of Christ's miracles as fact, not as "what was being circulated at the time."
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Quote:Cartoon, I've read all this stuff before. You really don't seem to understand the nature of historical writing in the ancient world. Nobody was fact checking back then. Much of what the ancients wrote as history we have to consider on the level of literature, nothing more. The only way to get a bead on what actually went down is to get disperate authors to agree, not by interpolating obvious Christian statements into their writings, but by finding contemporary commentators from various traditions who describe the same events. No non-Christian historian that I have ever read or met would consider the Eusebius story as anything more than a legend. I would be currious to read a modern day non-Christian scholar that credits any of your sources as evidence of Christ's historicity.
You need to do more than google. The account was first written in the early 4th century by Eusebius -- who was quoting texts still in existence at that time (which he clearly states as much) written in the hand of Abgarus. Eusebius (who was a Christian) would likely not have gotten away with quoting something "still in existence" (which his readers could verifty) if that something were not still in existence.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
No, Cartoon, you haven't gotten it straight at all. As I said, Josephus is a shining example (poster-child) for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts, not a shining example of a Christian. I was suggesting that Josephus' writings are precisely the most infamous examples of Christian scribal interpolation on record.
Okay. "Christian scribal interpolation".I guess that makes perfect sense. After all, I mean, by comparison, Josephus has pages and pages about Caligula's short reign, and only a few sentences about Jesus. A few sentences about Jesus, several pages on Caligula (both were upon the scene for precisely the same amout of time: one for three years, the other for four).
One would think that someone guilty of exhibiting "the most infamous examples of Christian scribal interpolation on record" would have cheered a bit more than three of four meagre sentences in his hundreds of pages of text on that century.
I can't see how such a corrupt, avid Christian cheerleader (as you claim Josephus was, even though he, himself, never claimed to be one), could've passed up an opportunity to really let it all out, and do a bit more than three or four sentences about Jesus (not to mention the early church) in his hundreds of pages of history relating to the first century, during which he lived (and his critics did not).
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
No non-Christian historian that I have ever read or met would consider the Eusebius story as anything more than a legend. I would be currious to read a modern day non-Christian scholar that credits any of your sources as evidence of Christ's historicity.
Yep. You're absolutely right. All these people who actually were there didn't know squat. Those who actually lived through those times apparently didn't know who existed and who didn't. Apparently, neither did the nine independent authors of nearly two dozen, individual books which were later incorporated into a single volume called "The Bible" (specifically the Christian New Testament of the Bible). Neither did the contempory, first century King who personally chronicled his contact with Jesus in a document which was still in existence (and quoted extensively) 290 years later in the early 4th century, when Eusebius included it in his writings.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
No non-Christian historian that I have ever read or met would consider the Eusebius story as anything more than a legend.
Well, Eusebius hung around with the Emperor Constantine, and his "Ecclesiastical History" was published during Constantine's reign -- who surely, would've read it (particularly as Constatine called the Council of Nicea specifically "clear up" any misconceptions about Christianity -- one would think he'd be interested in such things).
One would think that Constantine would be a good, contemporary character reference for any historian -- but, oh wait, Constantine claimed to be a Christian, too, so I guess we can't believe anything he would say, either.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I would be currious to read a modern day non-Christian scholar that credits any of your sources as evidence of Christ's historicity.
Oh, so Christian scholarship isn't scholarship? One must be a non-Christian to be impartial. I see. I understand perfectly well.
So, none of these people who actually lived through the events they described know anything, while everybody who came after them (and didn't witness any of this) knows everything.
I guess I can't fool you. Thanks for your intellectual openness.
Like I said, some people will contort in every which direction to avoid actual evidence.
Sorry. I'm out of my league, here, and know when it's time to stop.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh sweet irony
Originally posted by cartoon:
Like I said, some people will contort in everywhich direction to avoid actual evidence.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon, I'm sorry. In addition to disagreeing with me on some pretty fundamental issues, you've really misunderstood what I'm talking about. It is now clear to me that you don't understand what an "interpolation" is. It's not just a fancy version of "interpretation."
An interpolation occures when a scribe, in our case a Christian scribe, alters the text he's transcribing by adding a few lines here or there to give credence to his personal ideas of how the past should have been recorded rather than keeping fidelity with how it actually was recorded. Christian interpolations abound in the classical texts they transcribed. In the minds of these Christians who took the word of God as literal fact, they were simply correcting the histories they transcribed, doing God's good work, etc.
So, when I say that the stuff about Jesus in Josephus is interpolated, I mean that a Christian scribe, centuries after Josephus, inserted his own beliefs into Josephus' narrative. Josephus, from the evidence of all his other writing, is a devout Jew. It is extremely unlikely that a first century jew confronted with information about Jesus would have written about Him so dogmatically as the singular passage I quoted does.
So you really missed my point big time. All of your first century authors might be perfectly reliable, if it weren't for the Christian scribes who are responsible for the versions of these authors' texts which have survived. That's what makes the Dead Sea scrolls such an important find, as what was written on them has never been transcribed until today.
And your example of Caligula vs. Jesus actually supports my position, as interpolations tend to be short aphoristic comments and ammendations to the original text and not whole chapters (though I'm sure such vast interpolations and baulderizations do occur).
And, hey, Cartoon, please, I've been trying to answer and refute your assertions honestly, so all the dripping sarcasm and 's do nothing but undercut your own argument.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hostility indeed, but that is what we will have all the time. Good to see more people taking action.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's how Cartoon works, when it becomes obvious he is wrong he'll try and force you into a flame so that he in his head has a reason to ignore anything you post. The Guys a troll, complete with a couple of sock puppets to back him up.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And, hey, Cartoon, please, I've been trying to answer and refute your assertions honestly, so all the dripping sarcasm and
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Cartoon, I'm sorry. In addition to disagreeing with me on some pretty fundamental issues, you've really misunderstood what I'm talking about. It is now clear to me that you don't understand what an "interpolation" is. It's not just a fancy version of "interpretation."
Yes, I'm sorry, I did misread your post. BTW, I do know what an interpolation is, but I obviously read it incorrectly.
Body isn't what it used to be.I've also heard about the allegation of later scribes adding to Josphus's works. But, it is an allegation unsupported by any factual evidence. And, if I'm correct, wouldn't the burden of proof lie with the person/people making the allegations of tampering, as opposed to the text (as we have it today) having to proove that it hasn't been tampered with?
I'm also not familiar with what the oldest dated copies of Josephus's works still in existence may be, and would be curious to discover how old (or recent) they are.
I am, however, accutely aware of the history of Biblical manuscripts (both Old & New Testaments), and they are probably the best preserved (in relation to closeness of original authorship dates) of anything in all of antiquity -- which is another reason why the books of the New Testament should not be dismissed outright as a "single book which proves itself". As I stated previously, it was not a single volume until approximately 250 years after the individual volumes which comprise it were written.
If one is to take into account that all of those volumes were written by 8 or 9 individuals, and all mention that Jesus was indeed a real person, that has to bear some historical credence. I wonder how many contemporaneous documents mentioning "Alexander the Great" exist, by comparison?
EDIT: Okay, forgive me if I go off on a tangent here, but I actually have some research related to this -- about which I'd entirely forgotten. You may or may not already be aware of this, but according what I have in front of me, the two earliest biographies of Alexander were written by Arrian & Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C. That's not a whole lot of historical documentation that Alexander actually lived as a real person -- particularly in comparison to Jesus, who had multiple accounts by multiple authors who actually knew Him. (Yes, they were Christian, but that fact alone shouldn't automatically discount their testimony any more than one should automatically discount something a liberal says about liberals -- unless, someone is suggesting that we should only believe what conservatives say about liberals? Hmm... not such a bad idea.)
Also, contemporaneous accounts by Josephus and the King of Edessa, and not-long-after accounts by other secular, Roman historians (two of which had been named in a previous post). Remember -- Alexander had only two biographies, both written 400 years after his death. All of the above-mentioned accounts of Jesus are from within a single century and a half.
Yes, one might argue that aside from the written biographies of Alexander (much removed from the time of his life, notwithstanding), that there is also archeological evidence (image & name on coins, architecture, etc.), which doesn't exist related to Jesus, contemporaneously.
However, Alexander's name on ancient artifacts, in and of itself, does not prove he actually existed -- apart from the biographies. Five hundred years from now, someone could excavate someone's stash of action figures and trading cards -- but they're not going to believe that Spider-man was a real person on the basis of those items alone. There would need to be a written history, as well.
We believe Alexander existed because of the written history, not the artifacts (although, the artifacts support the history). And regarding written histories, there are not only more about Jesus, but those which exist are far more contempory to Jesus's life, than with Alexander.
Okay. End of EDI
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon- I'm fascinated that you say you have an intepretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially since the Israeli Antiquities Authority sat on the scrolls for 40 years, dribbling out translations at such a miserly rate that the Huntington Library finally made photographic records freely available in late 1991 out of sheer scholarly frustration. The translation is not YET complete, and there is no consensus on the translated portions. Here are some interesting quotes from someone who appears to have a historic- as opposed to relgious- interest in their content:
"The early editors (IAA) certainly appeared to be participating in an attempt to control the interpretation of the scrolls by limiting access to the evidence. This type of behavior has a foul reek even if the excuses used to explain it away may have some merit. Only small minds think they can get away with such a small-minded exercise."
"The diversity of the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls is somewhat surprising considering the impressions one gets from the early publications. If one small sect in the desert could hold such a diversity of incompatible views about itself, its God, its raison d'etre, its neighbors, and its enemies, then I will be flabbergasted. There is more going on than anyone has suspected and it looks as though it might take decades more to figure out, if we ever can, what it was."
"One tidbit that I find very revealing is that no two copies are alike. These people had, it seems, an opinion very different from that held by many modern religious authorities about the immutability of the biblical texts; even those with centuries of tradition already behind them, such as the Book of Isaiah. It might be concluded that each scribe considered it his duty to "improve", clarify or "correct" each text he copied. That gives me the impression of a rather more flexible religious canon during the intertestamental period."
http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/deadsea.htm
In the meantime, other authenticated versions of that time, including the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas, appear to contradict the canonical version of the New Testament.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Cartoon- I'm fascinated that you say you have an intepretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially since the Israeli Antiquities Authority sat on the scrolls for 40 years, dribbling out translations at such a miserly rate that the Huntington Library finally made photographic records freely available in late 1991 out of sheer scholarly frustration.
Sure.
Yes, I just purchased it this past summer. It's not "complete", in that it does not have a translation of the non-biblical scrolls. However, it contains a full translation of all of the biblical scrolls translated to date. It also footnotes where there are variations among the different scrolls. I found it extremely fascinating.
It is The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich. Published by Harper, San Francisco. First edition (1999). It is 659 pages in length.
It includes translations of the various scrolls of nearly every book in the Hebrew Bible (as translated thus far), and even compares the descrepencies (footnoted) against the Masoretic text, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch.
It also footnotes descrepencies among the various scrolls of the same text, etc. (which, as I stated previously, is minor and rare).
The most frustrating thing about the whole book is that some of the books of the Old Testament are extremely fragmentary -- in some cases, merely a few paragraphs. Fortunately, in other cases, they've translated near-complete books (like Isaiah). Other books which they have large portions from are Genesis, Psalms, and Deuteronomy.
Also, when I was deciding whether to purchase this or not, there was another similiar volume by other editors -- so, apparently, this isn't the only one available.
Hope this helps.
EDIT: Regarding the quote of your source as saying "no two copies are the same", I'm assuming he means the "commentary" scrolls. The commentary scrolls are not part of this volume, although this volume alludes to them. Apparently, there were myriads of "commentary" scrolls, where the Essene community wrote their opinions on the scriptures (much as we have people who write commentaries on the Bible, today).
The quote doesn't (as far as I can see) apply to the actual scriptural scrolls, as the volume I possess has footnotes related the few descrepencies which exist among the scrolls, themselves. As stated previously, probably 99.9% of them fall into the category of tense/gender, different word with same meaning, or a miscopied phrase or sentence in a different place.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was an interesting text of the NT that used to be called "what Jesus really said". It's still available, but under a new name which I don't remember. What the scholars did was remove all a-historical writings (the sermon on the mount was one), later additions etc. Then they printed the NT where the invalid stuff was in black and the rest was in red. More than 90% of the NT got screened out as not being contemporaneous with the time of Jesus.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Of course there's scholarship disputing that Jesus even existed. There's very little scholarship that supports that He did.
Wow. I’ll be honest, and admit that you’ve caught me by surprise with this move HK. After vehemently backing up the claim that Jesus was a homosexual, I never saw it coming that you would then argue the case that Jesus never existed. Perhaps you believe both points are true?
No, *sigh*, I don’t think you agree with either one - you’re just being contrary. That, and picking a fight on a subject where you are very learned, but one which I’m not really interested in debating, I’m afraid.
Out of all this your approach to history comes across as: ‘Don’t worry about what actually took place; everyone make a case for whatever you want to believe – then feel free to try and propagate that belief.’
Which I find disappointing.
Quote:
Like, maybe that that person is an individualist? Most professors that have any expertise in their field have heterodox opinions. You seem to have a pretty Soviet notion of what should be taught in college, kpo.
History is to some an extent an exact science, in that some things happened and some things didn’t (interpretation of historical events and their causes etc is another matter). I would prefer that exact sciences be taught just that way – exact, or as accurate as our limited evidence allows us. For all your tolerance of different views, I suspect that creationism is one academically heterodox view that you wouldn’t be able to stomach in a physics professor’s lecture. Wouldn’t you suppose that that professor had some bias that was influencing him, and be upset about it? Well that’s what’s I’m saying in the case of the professor with the spurious view that Jesus was a homosexual – he has an anti-christian bias.
Quote:
And lumping early church scholarship which does not support one's religious beliefs with Holocaust deniers is pretty inflammatory itself, kpo.
Yeah, that’s right, you be outraged. Your approach up till now has been to defend any spurious, inflammatory opinion, saying; ‘Ah, but there’s scholarship!’ and then telling us about the scholarship. But I touch on an opinion that is so spurious and so inflammatory that you can’t comfortably defend it, and then you do an about turn, do the politically correct thing and show contempt for this view, and act outraged that I use such an extreme example to make my point very clear. Nice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I understand HK's point to be that if you look at the bible, you could make a case for all sorts of things. And that is why one shouldn't take the bible literally, either as moral compass or as 'historical document' (think Galaxy Quest).
I don't think we could even accurately describe one day, let alone a 3000 year empire. Since history is an overwhelming amount of fact, the picking and choosing becomes paramount. So even history is subjective rather than exact.
Creationism - a system of belief not subject to testing or revision - as science ? That's an old discussion on this board, but I think you'll find that most people think it's OK to teach creationism - in say a comparative myths class - as long as it's not taught as a science.
I have more to say, but just don't have the time ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There was an interesting text of the NT that used to be called "what Jesus really said". It's still available, but under a new name which I don't remember. What the scholars did was remove all a-historical writings (the sermon on the mount was one), later additions etc. Then they printed the NT where the invalid stuff was in black and the rest was in red. More than 90% of the NT got screened out as not being contemporaneous with the time of Jesus.
Yes, I'm actually familiar with it, Rue.
Most (if not all) conservative, biblical scholars consider it hogwash. According to the standards they used to tear into the New Testament, there isn't a single ancient document which would hold up as authentic.The best thing the New Testament has going for it is the closeness of the dates of authorship to the earliest surviving manuscripts. Nothing else in antiquity comes close the amount of early surviving manuscripts -- period, much the less the degree of closeness (in some cases, nearly only a century after the period of authorship).
To utilize my previous example about the earliest biographies of Alexander, they were authored more than 4 centuries after Alexander's death. The New Testament was written within decades (approximately 3 to 7) after Christ's crucifixion, and we have surviving manuscripts of various parts of it dating from barely a century after they were written.
One thing I also like to point out when discussing New Testament manuscript authencity is the fact that the Apostle John lived at least until the year 100 AD. By most contemporary accounts, he lived a few years beyond that, into the first decade of the second century.
John, who walked with the Lord, would've certainly been acquainted with all of the New Testament documents -- those by the other Apostles: Matthew & Peter; those by the Apostle Paul; those by the Lord's brothers: James & Jude; as well as Luke's two volumes; and Mark's gospel (as told by Peter). (The author of Hebrews is much debated, but I'm sure John would've been familiar with that, as well.)
How can I be sure that John would've been familiar with all of these books? Well, for one thing, because John was a circuit preacher, who travelled practically everywhere between Rome and Jerusalem. All of these books were also circulated from one group of believers to another, and much copied in the process. These house-churches would have had their copies (of whatever they were priviledged to have acquired) while John was there among them.
Imagine you are the member of a local house-church (and that's what they all were until early in the 4th century, when the government-sponsored persecutions of believers was stopped by Constantine).
Now, imagine that the Apostle John stops by your assembly of local believers. This is one of the guys who actually walked and studied with the Lord. You know the first words out of your mouths are going to be -- "Was it true? Did this happen this way, or not?"
Aside from that, even more compellingly, some of the books of the New Testament even refer to other books from the New Testament. (And again, in the event that someone missed it in my previous post, the New Testament is a compilation of multiple books by multiple authors. So, if various books within the compilation agree with other books within the compilation, it's not like having Shakespeare merely agreeing to something else Shakespeare said. It's like having Dickens agree to what Shakespeare said, and then Stevenson agreeing to what Dickens said.)
One example of this is found in I Timothy 5:18, where the Apostle Paul quotes from Luke's gospel, and calls it "Scripture".
Another example can be found in II Peter 3:15, where the Apostle Peter makes reference to the writings of the Apostle Paul as written "with the wisdom that God gave him" (NIV)("God" is actually implied, not explicit in the Greek), and in verse sixteen, equates these writings of Paul's ("all of his epistles") with "Sc
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder who authored your translation? Apparently not much is available on-line, but according to what I found, the translation was tightly controlled by a very small group of people until 1991. This group of people (IAA) prohibits access to actual scrolls and the non-documentary artifacts found with the scrolls that would authenticate the provenance and findings.
For example, I saw a show about a religious text (I think it was a portion of Bible but I can't remember for sure) that had been written on vellum that had been scraped of it's previous writings. By UV(?) analysis the previous writings could be made out, as I recall they were somewhat heretical and were literally erased from existance.
Also, there is a difference between being able to trace a writing backwards as opposed to forwards. There were MANY contrary writings that were eliminated from official Church history, such as Thomas and Judas which were elided over time.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I wonder who authored your translation?
If you mean the book I have with a translation of the biblical scrolls, I mentioned that above: The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich. Published by Harper, San Francisco. First edition (1999). It is 659 pages in length.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, there is a difference between being able to trace a writing backwards as opposed to forwards.
Yes, but we don't need to trace textual history backwards if we're making our current translations from the oldest copies still in existence, right? Or am I missing something? (I'm not asking sarcastically, but genuinely, in the event that I've misread what you're saying. I've already misread one poster on this subject, so I'm already over my quota for allowable blunders per thread.)
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There were MANY contrary writings that were eliminated from official Church history, such as Thomas and Judas which were elided over time.
I can only state the criteria by which the early church determined which books were authentic.
Firstly, regarding the Old Testament, that was decided easily enough. They just chose to follow the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible -- although, they rearranged the order in which the books were presented. Why they rearranged the order, I have no clue. My personal preference is that they should've left the Old Testament in the original Hebrew order (not that the order in which the books are read should make any difference).
Regarding the New Testament, the first and foremost criteria for inclusion into the canon of Scripture was that the book had to have been of accepted apostolic authorship -- or accepted authorship of someone very closely associated with the apostles -- such as Luke (who was associated with Paul) or Mark (who was associated with Peter), as well as the Lord's brothers, James & Jude (who were both affiliated with the apostles; Paul even refers to James as one of the "pillars" of the church) -- but, which contained an internal consistency of message.
The only books in today's New Testament which were ever considered "dubious" by any of the pre-Nicean church fathers were James, II Peter, II John, III John, and Jude. And the only conservatively-orthodox, pre-Nicean church fathers to question their possible authenticity were the later Pre-Nicean church fathers, such as Origen (185-254) and Eusebius (260-340). The earliest church fathers, including Ignatius & Polycarp (both born near the end of the first century; and Polycarp was a student of the Apostle John), Iranaeus (120/140-200/203)(who was a student of Polycarp) and Clement (150-215) cast no doubts (at least none that have survived in their writings) about any of these books found to be "dubious" by Origen & Eusebius.
We also have surviving quotes from either Ignatius or Polycarp from three of the gospels, Acts, Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Hebrews, I Peter, I & III John. Iranaeus quotes (or alludes to) passages from everything in the New Testament except Philemon, II Peter, III John & Jude.
Curiously, none of these early church fathers recognized any of the "disputed" texts which were not included in the canon.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I understand HK's point to be that if you look at the bible, you could make a case for all sorts of things. And that is why one shouldn't take the bible literally, either as moral compass or as 'historical document' (think Galaxy Quest)
this is interesting... if the bible isnt to be taken as a moral compass, presumably because you disagree with it... then what determines your moral compass? what is this universal standard that youve tapped into? if their truly is no God, and we are just a variation of animal, than what is morality and what makes it emperical?
i wasnt present 2000yrs ago when Jesus initiated the greatest following ever... so barring first hand experience, im willing to take into consideration the accounts of Jesus' apostles, who were all brutally murdered for their first hand witness and testimony to Jesus' deity and ressurection. if Jesus' wasnt God, how did he survive his torture and suspension on the cross, only to be witnessed fully healed 3 days later?
you can say.. 'well, thats what the bible says happened, but its been interpolated'.. but then it needs to be explained why this person named Jesus' was so highly esteemed that people gave their lives for his cause. it doesnt seem logical to me that whole masses of people would voluntarily be persecuted for what they saw and testified to, if they didnt asbolutely believe it to be true... since i doubt someone would prefer death to submission, over events they werent convinced really happened anyways; that seems far fetched.
where is the evidence that refutes the biblical accounts ... ive heard that Jesus' was permanantly killed, never killed, never performed miracles, or never even existed; but the burden of proof is on the skeptics to provide an alternative version of history that can adjust all the variables that Jesus' presence created. considering, again, that we werent there... isnt that something we in the 21st century ought to be a little more reserved speculating about, if all of this documentation is incredulous to begin with?
nevermind the hypocracy and double standard of you all in the secular world; go dig up the sources that we used for information on Caeser and some other philosophers of antiquety and youll find that we based those 'facts' on a lot less recorded data, with even greater gaps between the occurance of events and their recording.. then we did with Jesus and his gospels. but i guess in this case, those sources and 'facts' are so much more credible than ours
Quote:
Creationism - a system of belief not subject to testing or revision - as science ? That's an old discussion on this board, but I think you'll find that most people think it's OK to teach creationism - in say a comparative myths class - as long as it's not taught as a science.
like evolution is science? prove to me that 'BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO'.. or an incomprehendable amount of time removed from us, when no one was present as witness, all the matter in the universe came from nowhere, and eventually, hundreds of millions of years since, mankinds earliest ancestor, the rock, goes from lifeless inadamacy to an organic lifeforce by its own volition! evolution says the rock chose to come alive, therefore the rock must be its own 'god', since it gave life to itself. evolution goes further, saying mankind makes continuous changes to himself genetically, over time, so that one day we may become a bird or a sea serpent. in other words the progenitor and common denominator of all life on earth- the rock, symbolizes in itself the divinity in mankind to be the God of himself
you may not recognize this concept from the bible.. but its the very same proposition Satan made to Eve in the garden of Eden, when he lied and said "you shall be as Gods"...
do i need to point out the destruction this
concept causes to the human psyche? evolution promotes a worldview and idealogy that allows the conscience to conform to its own discretions, with no universal laws, and an underlying premise t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im willing to take into consideration the accounts of Jesus' apostles, who were all brutally murdered for their first hand witness and testimony to Jesus' deity and ressurection.
Well, not quite John -- at least not as far as we know. But, yes, the other ten (plus Paul) were all murdered for their faith.
John came close a few times. According to Shaff's "History of Christianity", John was supposedly in Rome when Peter was executed and then when the city was set aflame by Nero. Apparently at that time, John was also designated for execution, but miraculously escaped the city.
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
you can say.. 'well, thats what the bible says happened, but its been interpolated'.. but then it needs to be explained why this person named Jesus' was so highly esteemed that people gave their lives for his cause. it doesnt seem logical to me that whole masses of people would voluntarily be persecuted for what they saw and testified to, if they didnt asbolutely believe it to be true... since i doubt someone would prefer death to submission, over events they werent convinced really happened anyways; that seems far fetched.
Exactly.
As Strobel points out in his book, people will willingly die for something which they believe to be true (but in actuality isn't), but that no one would likely be willing to die for a lie which they knew to be a lie. As you correctly stated, the Apostles all claimed to have seen Jesus raised from the dead. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, they would've been lying, and known they were lying. It's highly unlikely they would've allowed themselves to be gruesomely murdered (and in many cases, hideously tortured prior to their murders) for maintaining what they knew to be a lie.
Another point of noting is how these Apostles changed -- practically overnight. By their own admissions, when Jesus was crucified, all of the apostles but John were cowering in the shadows, behind locked doors.
Three days later, after seeing the risen Lord, they're suddenly enboldened. A few weeks later (after Jesus's ascension), they're proclaiming the risen Savior publically in the streets. They're threatened by the local officials with imprisonment and death, then beaten, and what do they do? They go right back out into the street and continue proclaiming the risen Savior.
Subsequently (a decade or so later), there's this guy from the Sanhedrian who relished persecuting these "believers in Christ" (delivering them over to be killed). One day he is on his way to arrest more Christians in another town (Damascus), when Jesus appears to him, and promptly instructs him to get his act together and stop persecuting Him (notice that Jesus equated the persecution of His followers with a persecution of Himself).
Before you know it, this former Sanhedrian hitman who hated believers in Christ, is the most vocal proponent of Christ -- the Apostle Paul -- who eventually wound up martyred for the Lord he had previously persecuted with a fury.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Like, maybe that that person is an individualist? Most professors that have any expertise in their field have heterodox opinions. You seem to have a pretty Soviet notion of what should be taught in college
universities teach evolution, but its not science, its a cleverly disquised gnostic myth with satanic origins. its a theory that even Darwin admitted was flawed and in many ways baseless; and nothings changed. 'long long ago and far away, all the matter in existence exploded from a particle.. that came from nowhere.. and we, well.. we come from a rock that finally chose to come alive'.. thats a theory, and unless im shown the physical evidence that i came from a rock that came from nowhere, then evolution is nothing more than a government* funded religion
Quote:
You do know that the founding fathers of this country were non-Christian Deists, yes? They weren't athiests, but they did not worship Jesus. Did you know Jefferson wrote his own gospel, in which he excised all references to Christ's divinity?
but they werent athiests. if the greatest influence among the founders came from Masonic concepts and idealogies, then masonry deserves to be scrutinized; which it has, and has been exposed to be entirely religious (Luciferian specifically) and represent a shared but paradoxical paradigm with christianity. this is the real significance of the all seeing eye of Osiris, since it is contained within a capstone that represents Lucifer- the god of this age. Jesus says in the bible that he is the capstone "that the builders rejected", not the god of this world. but regardless the intent of the founders or what they believed, America appears to be fullfilling its destiny set forth by these secret societies to become a new atlantis, the "novus ordo seclorum" or "a new order of the ages", which is to use America to establish the kindgom of antichrist
and regarding Islam, they do not believe Jesus is God.. so which God are they worshipping(this is the same for the Jews)? Allah, if he is the Creator, had to have manifested as JEsus; the NT makes that abundantly clear, so anything added or taken away from this concept is heretical and becomes occultic and antichristian
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is where we dust off our humanity, make choices, and take the responsibility for it instead of dumping it off on some mythical creation that excuses all of our stupidity and worst impulses.
this is interesting... if the bible isnt to be taken as a moral compass, presumably because you disagree with it... then what determines your moral compass? what is this universal standard that youve tapped into? if their truly is no God, and we are just a variation of animal, than what is morality and what makes it emperical?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, but my point is that there are OTHER texts just as old with contradictory statements. Out of the multiple threads of documentation that head off in all kinds of directions, some of which contradict others, if you restrict your study to a single line that talks about the divinity of Jesus it will perforce be internally consistent.
Yes, but we don't need to trace textual history backwards if we're making our current translations from the oldest copies still in existence, right? Or am I missing something? (I'm not asking sarcastically, but genuinely, in the event that I've misread what you're saying. I've already misread one poster on this subject, so I'm already over my quota for allowable blunders per thread.)
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But the documentation around Mohammed is MUCH more complete than around Jesus. And people gave their lives for Mohammed too... still are giving their lives. With the conflicting claims flaoting around as to the "real" Messiah ("Will the real Messiah please stand up?") it seems to me that the burden of prrof lies with the person making the claim.
where is the evidence that refutes the biblical accounts ... ive heard that Jesus' was permanantly killed, never killed, never performed miracles, or never even existed; but the burden of proof is on the skeptics to provide an alternative version of history that can adjust all the variables that Jesus' presence created. considering, again, that we werent there... isnt that something we in the 21st century ought to be a little more reserved speculating about, if all of this documentation is incredulous to begin with?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Holy crap! I'm gonna try to address the grim misunderstanding between us evident in your latest post, kpo, but I'm not very optamistic at this point that you'll pay attention to what I'm actually saying and find a way to curb your tendency to read into everything I've said to suit your prejudices. I don't know you and you don't know me. But I know what you've written and I try to limit my discussion to the actual substance of your posts.
Quote:What? I didn't "vehemently" back up the claim that Jesus was a homosexual, I simply asserted that there is respectable scholarship to back it up. Respectable scholarship doesn't mean conclusive proof. And just because I find the scholarship respectable doesn't mean I agree with it. There's also respectable scholarship suggesting that Jesus was married and that He survived the Crucifixion. Doesn't mean He did. I was defending the scholarship as sincere in the face of accusations that for one to assert that Jesus was homosexual was patently defamatory. I simply meant to say that there's a case to be made; that the position is sincere and not defamatory.
Originally posted by kpo:
Wow. I’ll be honest, and admit that you’ve caught me by surprise with this move HK. After vehemently backing up the claim that Jesus was a homosexual, I never saw it coming that you would then argue the case that Jesus never existed. Perhaps you believe both points are true?
And I'm not arguing that Jesus did not exist, either, only that you cannot determine that He existed from the historical record. Our certainty about the past is limited. That's all. Saying that Jesus existed and saying that there's rock solid historical proof to back it up are two different things.
Quote:I'm talking about the limits of evidentiary proof. Cartoon asserts that he has documented proof of Jesus' existence. I've studied that evidence and I didn't find it at all conclusive. Can it then be concluded that Jesus never existed? Not really. Only that proof of His life and His miracles have yet to be found.
No, *sigh*, I don’t think you agree with either one - you’re just being contrary. That, and picking a fight on a subject where you are very learned, but one which I’m not really interested in debating, I’m afraid.
And just so you get an idea of who I really am, I began my study of first century Christianity as the result of a series of dreams/memories I was having of the Crucifixion. Yeah. I have normal dreams like everyone else, but sometimes I've had dreams that come true; I've had vivid dreams of meeting people and then met them. Once I even had a dream about what kind of shoe I was going to buy (there's a lot of information on this board about my experiences, just look through the archives of the RWED for topics with the word "psychic" in them). So I began my study with the intention of finding evidence of an event for which I had no scientific proof (but no less compelling for that). I can't say that I was much surprised to find no conclusive evidence, but it made me sad.
Quote:An exact science? Are you kidding me? Of course, certain things happened in the past and certain things did not, I don't dispute that. I don't believe that reality is nothing but oppinion. But History is often a lot like puting together a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle with 750 pieces missing. Sometimes the same piece looks like it would fit in several different places. We don't know, so we make a case. There are limits to scientific knowledge and there are all kinds of things about which history cannot give us certainty. And in history as in science, you don't get nearer to the truth without questioning.
History is to some an extent an exact science, in that some things happened and some things didn’t (interpretation of historical events and their causes etc is another matter).
Ancient historical texts are full of fanciful additions and mythological events treated as fact. People back then didn't have our modern obsession with veritical reality. To pretend th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is a news story that is relavent to this issue. It looks like a good example of the unfair treatment that religious people sometimes face on campus.
Quote:
Originally posted on the FIRE website:
Mystery Shrouds Brown’s Suspension of Religious Student Organization
Today’s press release explains how Brown University suspended one of its largest and most active religious student organizations for reasons that remain unclear. The Office of the Chaplains and Religious Life (OCRL) suspended the evangelical Christian ministry of Trinity Presbyterian Church on September 13, 2006.
OCRL Director Janet Cooper Nelson explained that she suspended the group because its local sponsoring body, Trinity Presbyterian Church, had revoked its sponsorship. But Trinity’s senior pastor, David Sherwood, corrected Cooper Nelson in an e-mail by saying that “Trinity Presbyterian Church has not, in any sense, withdrawn its sponsorship.” Trinity is one of the 1,500 congregations of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which has a strong history of ministering to college students, and, as Rev. Sherwood explains to FIRE, greatly values its association with the Brown students.
The OCRL’s Allen Callahan then explained that the group had actually been suspended since last year, when its former leader failed to submit paperwork on time. Except the group didn’t know about any suspension last year, and was able to reserve rooms for meeting throughout the year. Unless there was some secret suspension in place, Callahan’s claim seems to be false.
Since the first two explanations for the suspension don’t hold water, the suspension rests on Callahan’s claim that the group has “become possessed of a leadership culture of contempt and dishonesty.” But what does that even mean? The students were also confounded by Callahan’s accusations, and sent his office a letter asking for clarification about its “culture of contempt and dishonesty,” but received no response.
So, in short, the OCRL suspended a group, pointed to two explanations that are at best mistakes (and at worst deliberate misrepresentations), and then hurled vague and unverifiable accusations at the group. The documentation shows nothing but a good-faith effort by the students to get the suspension lifted. But all one has to do is read Callahan’s e-mail carefully to see that it has been the OCRL that has acted arbitrarily and, dare I say, dishonestly, suspending the group based on what seems to be personal animosity dating back to past years.
Student groups—religious or otherwise—should not exist at the mercy of administrative caprice, especially at America’s most venerable institutions. Brown University encourages its students to forge their own path, famously telling them that at Brown, “you will be challenged to define liberal education for yourself.” But students whose definition includes membership in this evangelical Christian fellowship are just out of luck.
In response to FIRE’s October 27 letter, Brown says it will look into the situation. That is little consolation for the 100 students who are not allowed to meet on campus. The message that Brown is sending its students is that their associative rights rest at the discretion of a few administrators; displease the wrong people, and you might find your group mysteriously suspended.
Posted by Tara Sweeney on November 16, 2006, at 01:51 p.m.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is the problem. Folks believe in Jesus. So when they find specious evidence of His historical existence, they say to themselves, "Ah, see, there it is! Proof!" Folks like that are looking for validation and find it.
Originally posted by evilmike:
Here is a news story that is relavent to this issue. It looks like a good example of the unfair treatment that religious people sometimes face on campus.
So you find a case where a religious student organization is suspended and because you already believe religious students are persecuted on campus, you take this case as further evidence. It might be, but it's entirely likely that it is not. This article is really far too self-serving to FIRE and too full of holes. And yet it's posted as "an example" of Christian persecution on campus.
I worry that the whole of American discourse has been entirely made over in the image of partisan politics. Critical thinking has been replaced by mere team spirit. People endorse anyone who agrees with them in the broadest terms and trash everyone who disagrees with their "platform." Everything becomes a matter of winning and losing and numbers. I'm right because the people that I cite agree with me.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, but my point is that there are OTHER texts just as old with contradictory statements. Out of the multiple threads of documentation that head off in all kinds of directions, some of which contradict others, if you restrict your study to a single line that talks about the divinity of Jesus it will perforce be internally consistent.
Hi. Thanks for clarifying.
Okay, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your statement about "other texts just as old with contradictory statements" -- unless, of course you're referring to the type of "variations" I was speaking about previously (tense, gender, different word with same meaning, miscopied phrase or sentence in a different location).
In an effort to give the best overview I can (using the least amount of words) regarding the earliest, surviving manuscripts of the New Testament, from which our English (and other language) translations are derived...
Firstly, the Received Text (Greek). This was compiled in the early 16th century from what (at the time) were relatively few, of the oldest Greek manuscripts known at that time. Over the years, many critics have claimed this text to be of late Byzantine origin. However, this is obviously a false allegation, as there are close to 90,000 scriptural citations from this text within early Christian documents -- more than 4,000 of which were quoted in the writings of the earliest of church fathers before 400 AD, well before the Byzantine era.
The Papyrus Bodmer II or P66 (dated from between 125 & 200 A.D. -- initial dating had it closer to 200 A.D., but more recent dating pushes it back towards the first quarter of the second century) is a Greek manuscript consisting of (portions of) the book of John. It is the oldest (or one of the oldest) suriving Greek texts from the New Testament -- and it is in agreement with the Received Text.
Incidentally, this is yet another thorn in the side Bible critics, who, for years, have been insisting that many of the disputed passages in John were attributed to the work of late Byzantine copyists. However, as this papyrus pre-dates the Byzantine era, and these passages appear in this papyrus (which agrees with the Textus Receptus), that criticism has been pretty much been shot down in flames.)
The Old Syrian Text (called the "Peshitta") (which is in Aramaic) first dates from c. 150 AD. It is assumed that this text was translated from the Greek Received Text, as it is in agreement it.
The Old Latin Text (the "Old" Latin Vulgate -- not Jerome's, the other one -- three centuries prior to Jerome's) first dates from 157 AD, and was also likely translated from the Greek Received Text, as it is also in agreement with it -- as evidenced by a number of quotations from it (The Old Latin text) by the early church fathers.
The Gothic Text, first dates from c. 350 AD, and is similarly assumed to have been translated from the Greek Received Text, as it is also in agreement with it.
The Latin Vulgate was translated by Jerome in the 5th century.
The Majority (or Byzantine-type) Text is obviously of later, Byzantine origin. Although, the majority of New Testament texts fall into this category, there are no citations from it from the early church fathers (that would be difficult, as it didn't exist at the time).
To quote from Wikipedia...
Quote:
Among those who believe that the Byzantine text is only a secondary witness to the autograph, there is some debate concerning the origin of the Byzantine text and the reason for its widespread use. The suggestions that have been put forward are:
1) That Lucian of Antioch used his text critical skills to produce a recension. (Jerome makes separate references to Lucian's recensions of both old and new testaments).
2) That Constantine paid for the wide distribution of manuscripts which came from a common source. (There are several references in Eusebius of Caesarea to Constantine paying for manuscript productioNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So you find a case where a religious student organization is suspended and because you already believe religious students are persecuted on campus, you take this case as further evidence. It might be, but it's entirely likely that it is not. This article is really far too self-serving to FIRE and too full of holes. And yet it's posted as "an example" of Christian persecution on campus.
Actually, you're correct -- I jumped to an unsupported conclusion. It is a Christian organization that is being treated oddly (unfairly?) by a liberal university, but there isn't an established cause-and-effect.
However, it isn't hard to find other recent examples of this type of problem. For example: Emily Booker's recent difficulty at the University of Missouri. (Detail here -- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227964,00.html) Or the recent University of Wisconsin ban on RA religious activities in dorms (initially applied to Bible Studies and then widened.) ( http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6899.html)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am beginning to think I was initially correct in my allegation of bias (for which I had subsequently apologized).
Even if thousands of examples of bias against Christians were to be produced here (and I hope they aren't, because this thread is already too long for me -- dial-up, folks, sorry), still people would refuse to believe it because they don't want to believe it.
I see the bias in my life everyday. I see it in our local schools, in our local newspapers, I see it on TV, on the radio. I see it here in this forum.
People can deny it all they want. It exists, and anyone with eyes to see can tell as much.
Unfortunately, I don't have a search engine in my brain where I can instantly recall every bit of information I've observed or heard in my life-time (complete with footnotes), or I'd be able to produce more examples than could fill this forum.
Likewise, I don't have the time (nor inclination) to footnote everything I observe (or hear) from this point forward, in an effort to try to convince people that such prejudice exists, who (very frankly) would never concede to the fact if it jumped up and slapped them in the face.
Thanks, all, for participating, but this is flogging a dead horse.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
cartoon, I hope you'll stick around long enough to answer a few simple questions.
Do you believe that Christianity should be the official religion of the United States of America?
Do you believe that the government (federal on down to local) should help convert people to a particular religion?
In other words, Separation of Church and State: Yes or No?
On, and just for my own personal interest, do you consider yourself a member of a particular Christian denomination? I've been playing around with this theory that many Americans are working to weaken the separation of church and state in an effort to make Christianity the official religion of the United States. But it would never stop there. You'd have Protestants angling to kick out the Catholics, and everyone else banding together to get rid of the Mormons, until it got down to the strongest denomination. In my opinion, that denomination would be the Southern Baptist Convention. At which point we would have an American inquisition. So, by my way of thinking, if you're not a Southern Baptist (or another large denomination that has a shot at taking ultimate power), then you're working for the elimination of your own denomination.
* edit to change a few words
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I actually have to agree with Cartoon on that last point. I agree that there is a growing Bias against evangelical Christians.
But I belive the Bias is earned. For years Evangelicals have been expecting everyone to do as they do, and hold their religion above all others.
A timely example of this would be the outcry against newly elected Muslim Rep. Kieth Ellison, whom evangelicals are angry with for refusing to take his oath on a Bible, and instead on a Koran. They say he should not be allowed to serve if he will not swear on the Bible - despite the fact that useing a Bible, or any book, is not required by the Constitution.
The anti-christian vibe these days, as I see it, is a direct response to that mentality.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Storymark,
I agree about the, "direct response," part. And this has been said numerous times by others in this thread.
There is a movement to weaken, if not entirely eliminate, the separation of church and state in the US. Cartoon, from what I have read of his/her posts, subscribes to that view point. I personally think the greatest protection for members of organized religion in this country is a strong separation between church and state. So I will fight any and all attempts to weaken that protection.
If someone sees it as their God directed goal to tear down the wall between church and state, and they are impeded from furthering that agenda, and then they cry out that they are being biased against is that really bias?
What you have to realize is that any attempt to slow down this movement to eliminate the separation of church and state will be seen as bias. It is hugely important for this movement to be perceived as victims. "How come you won't let the public schools teach our children what we believe?" instead of "How come you won't let the public schools teach your children what we believe?"
It's all about a power grab. Leaders like James Dobson see the federal government as a great aid to help them in converting tens of millions to their beliefs. They neglect hundreds of years of history showing what happens when church and state are united. The founding fathers were a lot closer to the Thirty Years War then we are. Maybe we should pay more attention to why they were so strongly supportive of a separation of church and state.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree 100% Soupcatcher.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by SoupCatchercartoon
Do you believe that Christianity should be the official religion of the United States of America?
it depends on what you mean by that. would i prefer that America represented Jesus christ honorably to the rest of the world, then yes. i dont see anything harmfull in Jesus' message, its actually a revelation.. and i think its more of a mindset and less a traditional institutionalized "religion" per se. marrying the physical world with Jesus' meesage only creates problems and prohibits free will, which was never Jesus' intentions
the key is that this world, as Jesus himself says, is ruled by Lucifer; he is the God of this age. Jesus says many times "as it is, you do not belong to this world*", that "in this world* you will have trouble", but most of all "my kingdom is not of this world*." America is arguably the world superpower, so some compromises had to be made(and thats why i believe America may be Babylon the Great of Rev.) it doesnt matter what i want, the bible says that this age culminates in the global government of antichrist(which is why the sybolism is critical). the all seeing eye, the washington obelisk, the numerous pyramids and occultic iconographic geometrical shapes are directly linked to Egypt- who had a distinct pantheon of gods which to us were Lucifer and his fallen angels... or more appropriately 'pagan' and occultic
Quote:
Do you believe that the government (federal on down to local) should help convert people to a particular religion?
those are some really loaded questions...but you mean like the Federal government does with evolution? this religion teaches that man is his own god, that he made himself alive by choice billions of years ago when he was a lifeless rock. the really overt gnostic relations becomes apparent when you fastforward to the concept of mans eventual progressive evolution into a perfect godlike entity no longer recognizably human. people can believe that if they want, its expected in this age.. but acknowledge that its a religion and stop mandating it federally.
youre afraid of christianity.. you need to worry about the government and what its already pushing, which is.. evolution. you need to recognize that the people who make the money run the world, and they have for millennia associated themselves with the Egpytian, luciferian mysteries of the ancient world.. that Masonry and gnostic-evolution have since idealogically propogated. christians should know that until Jesus comes, the earth is ruled by Lucifer.. so any christian protecting the interests of this world* is then working for the antichrist- and conversely anyone working to bury and oppose Jesus' message are doing so aswell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wanted to add a little bit more on this topic.
There has been some discussion online (Andrew Sullivan, Ann Althouse, Glenn Greenwald et al.) about the use of the term Christianist. I agree with the overall goal that we need to differentiate between those who follow Christ (Christians) and those who want to use the power of the state to force others to become Christians (Christianists).
Christianists are a very vocal minority of Christians. An even smaller minority would be Christianists who use violence (abortion clinic bombers, etc.). What Christianists have been very effective in doing is to equate any opposition to Christianism as opposition to Christianity. Which is definitely not the case.
So when someone claims anti-Christian bias I think it is very important to actually determine if it is instead anti-Christianism. The vast majority of Christians, in my opinion, oppose Christianism. And it is very important that prominent Christian leaders stand up and say, "You will not try to tear down the separation of church and state in our name."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
posted by SoupCatchercartoon
Do you believe that Christianity should be the official religion of the United States of America?
it depends on what you mean by that. would i prefer that America represented Jesus christ honorably to the rest of the world, then yes. i dont see anything harmfull in Jesus' message, its actually a revelation.. and i think its more of a mindset and less a traditional institutionalized "religion" per se. marrying the physical world with Jesus' meesage only creates problems and prohibits free will, which was never Jesus' intentions
the key is that this world, as Jesus himself says, is ruled by Lucifer; he is the God of this age. Jesus says many times "as it is, you do not belong to this world*", that "in this world* you will have trouble", but most of all "my kingdom is not of this world*." America is arguably the world superpower, so some compromises had to be made(and thats why i believe America may be Babylon the Great of Rev.) it doesnt matter what i want, the bible says that this age culminates in the global government of antichrist(which is why the sybolism is critical). the all seeing eye, the washington obelisk, the numerous pyramids and occultic iconographic geometrical shapes are directly linked to Egypt- who had a distinct pantheon of gods which to us were Lucifer and his fallen angels... or more appropriately 'pagan' and occulticQuote:
Do you believe that the government (federal on down to local) should help convert people to a particular religion?
those are some really loaded questions...but you mean like the Federal government does with evolution? this religion teaches that man is his own god, that he made himself alive by choice billions of years ago when he was a lifeless rock. the really overt gnostic relations becomes apparent when you fastforward to the concept of mans eventual progressive evolution into a perfect godlike entity no longer recognizably human. people can believe that if they want, its expected in this age.. but acknowledge that its a religion and stop mandating it federally.
youre afraid of christianity.. you need to worry about the government and what its already pushing, which is.. evolution. you need to recognize that the people who make the money run the world, and they have for millennia associated themselves with the Egpytian, luciferian mysteries of the ancient world.. that Masonry and gnostic-evolution have since idealogically propogated. christians should know that until Jesus comes, the earth is ruled by Lucifer.. so any christian protecting the interests of this world* is then working for the antichrist- and conversely anyone working to bury and oppose Jesus' message are doing so aswell.
Reading your stuff tips me more towards atheism every time I read it.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
There is a movement to weaken, if not entirely eliminate, the separation of church and state in the US. Cartoon, from what I have read of his/her posts, subscribes to that view point. I personally think the greatest protection for members of organized religion in this country is a strong separation between church and state. So I will fight any and all attempts to weaken that protection.
I hope you are wrong on this issue. I don't see any viable concerted effort to eliminate church and state separations. There are obviously some who would like to see that, but I don't think they have any real ability to impact actual change to do so. If they did, believe me, there would be many conservatives such as myself right by your side opposing such measures.
Do you have examples of such efforts coming to successful fruition in recent years?
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
cartoon, I hope you'll stick around long enough to answer a few simple questions.
Sure. BTW, I just have one question to ask you, if I may. If you ever shaved, would you have to change your name? Okay. Nevermind.
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Do you believe that Christianity should be the official religion of the United States of America?
Absolutely not. I don't believe there should be any "official" religion anywhere. I can't speak for what other people believe, but the Bible is clear that belief in God cannot be mandated, it must be willingly embraced, or else one is just going through the motions. As it can't be forced, obviously I do not believe in forcing anyone into it. Duh.
I do believe in being able to present one's beliefs and leave it there. If someone is interested and asks questions, answer them. If they don't, leave it alone. (There is Biblical precedence for this view. Jesus told His followers to declare the gospel, but if it were rejected, to brush the dust from their feet and move on. Unfortunately, some people who follow the Lord seem to think they can force people to believe as they do. They can't. I don't. I won't.
I will, however, defend the manuscript authenticity of the scriptures as well as what the scriptures say, and do not very well tolerate those who attempt to twist them or create facts about their origins which are simply untrue.
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Do you believe that the government (federal on down to local) should help convert people to a particular religion?
Absolutely not -- for the same reason I gave to your previous question.
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
In other words, Separation of Church and State: Yes or No?
Absolutely, yes.
I believe that in recent decades that the U.S. Constitution has been severely twisted in this regard, however. I do believe in strict enforcement of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
A child reading from the Bible in a classroom, however, is not Congress establishing a religion. A teacher reading from the Bible in a classroom, likewise is is not Congress establishing a religion. Prohibiting a child or a teacher from reading the Bible in a classroom is, however, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Somehow, our courts have either failed basic competency tests, or they have chosen to ignore what's written and wing it as they go along.
Yes, the government should not sanction a religion -- any religion. Yes, the government should not prohibit the free exercise, thereof.
I can't recall anytime in my lifetime where the government (specifically "Congress" -- as the Constitution clearly states) attempted to establish a religion. However, I have frequently seen the government (via the courts) attempt to prohibit the free exercise, thereof.
Let me ask you a question, sir. (BTW, I'm a male, too. My bio clearly states as much.) Do you think that the posting of the "Ten Commandments" in front of a court house qualifies as Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? If so, why? Thank you.
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
On, and just for my own personal interest, do you consider yourself a member of a particular Christian denomination?
No. I believe the Bible is the final authority, not any particular denomination, pastor, priest, or assembly.
To add some background to all this, my father was a Catholic (non-practicing). My mother was a Baptist. I was baptised Catholic, raised Baptist (until 9), then Presbyterian (until 14), then United Methodist (until 18), then Primitive Methodist (until 24) -- received the Lord as my Savior (around the age of 25), and have attended independent, non-demoninational worship ev
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Do you have examples of such efforts coming to successful fruition in recent years?
Hi Razza,
Just off the top of my head, "Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006" which passed the House in September (and is hanging around in the Senate). It's an attempt to make Establishment Clause lawsuits much more difficult. It's pretty much the same thing as PERA 2005, which is talked about in this article: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hamilton/20060629.html
Quote:
excerpted from above link:
...
The big picture here is very informative if one wants to understand what is really happening. As I discussed in my last column, there has been an intense drive by religious entities, especially recently, to obtain financial benefits from the government..
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), for instance, gives religious landowners a new right to sue local government, attorneys' fees to do it, and a legal tool that permits them to use less expensive land for more intense uses. In short, it directly enriches religious entities. The flipside of this strategy is represented by PERA - which takes damages and attorneys' fees (and thus, effectively, the right to sue) away from those who would enforce the Establishment Clause prohibition on religious entities co-opting the government to deliver their message. So much for level playing fields.
Surely, it is clear that this is an era of religion's power grab, and as with all power ploys, it always pays to look for the money trail. The Clinton Administration set the stage for the transfer of wealth to religious entities, and the Bush Administration has finished the construction of a new Age of Establishment.
...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Just off the top of my head, "Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006" which passed the House in September (and is hanging around in the Senate). It's an attempt to make Establishment Clause lawsuits much more difficult.
Hi, Soup.
Do you honestly believe that when Veteran's memorials, the Boy Scouts, Public Seals or other public expressions name "God" that such is the government establishing a religion?
Please, tell me you don't. Please.
There are people who do believe that such remarks are unconstitutional, and to that I reply, "please, learn how to read" or (at the very least) "please, learn how to comprehend what you read."
The government paying for a statue that has "God" inscribed somewhere on it, is not the government establishing a religion by any stretch of a sane person's imagination. If they want to know what real government-established religion is -- go to Iran, or Saudi Arabia. They should try reading about Europe during the Middle Ages, or even the Roman Empire (when they were using Christians as nightlights because they wouldn't offer meat to a statue of Jupiter).
Those were government-established religions. Putting the word "God" on a statue is not. Allowing the Boy Scouts to mention "God" in a pledge, is not.
It's the people who don't want the word "God" or "Jesus" to appear in (or on) anything which receives government money that are making other people try to pass to laws to prohibit the courts from interfering in their free right to the expression of their faith.
While we disagree on some issues, you seem to be a very reasonable person, so I'd genuinely like your opinion on this. I don't know where you personally stand on this, sir, so please, honestly tell me if you think that putting the word "God" on a statue is in violation of the First Amendment. And, if so, how you come to that reason. I ask this seriously, as (for the life of me) I cannot see it how it does.
Thank you.
P.S. This thread has been continued elsewhere. Please, redirect any replies, comments and/or insults here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25599
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME