PDA

View Full Version : Waterloo will not consider high school Bible class


Jenson71
10-12-2008, 08:07 PM
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/10/12/news/metro/doc48f1f0ede7bc0425906322.txt

By ANDREW WIND, Courier Staff Writer

WATERLOO ó A Christian activist says she isnít ready to give up efforts to add a Bible course to Waterloo Community Schoolsí curriculum.

Rochelle Arnold of Waterloo hopes to press her case with the Board of Education at some point, however, she admits the recommendation against providing such a class was not unexpected.

"Not really a big surprise, but kind of disappointing," said Arnold, a parent, who operates Change the World Ministries.

But that doesnít mean she accepts the end result.

"Frankly, itís discrimination and itís intolerant of religious beliefs," she said.

Arnold may look to local or state human rights organizations as another avenue to address her concerns with the decision.

Arnold delivered petitions with 576 signatures to the board in August asking that the elective class in middle or high school be offered to students. The 300-page teacherís guide prepared by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools "fully complies with the Constitution," she noted.

Students would use only the Bible as a textbook.

Arnold told board members the class is intended to equip students with an understanding of the Bibleís influence on everything from literature to American culture.

"This is not any particular church or religious sect," Arnold said after the meeting.

She noted, though, that a portion of the petition signatures were collected at her church, Celebrations First Assembly of God.

"Our aim is not to proselytize," she said. "Itís just studying the Bible objectively."

Officials agreed to review the curriculum but issued a recommendation last month that the district not add the suggested course or infuse materials into an existing class. The decision keeps open the possibility of looking at the curriculum later.

The recommendation came to light last week because of inquiries by the Courier.

"If a course such as this were to be added as an elective, it really shouldnít stand alone so weíre not putting one religion above another," district spokeswoman Sharon Miller said.

In a memo accompanying the recommendation, Debbie Lee, the districtís secondary curriculum coordinator, wrote that any class would also include the literature of other major world religions, such Islam, Judaism and Hinduism.

Miller said the district does teach about religions that are an integral part of American culture "but we canít teach students what to believe. We really do see that certainly as the prerogative of the family and the faith community."

Arnold doesnít see a conflict.

"Thatís exactly what I asked for, just to teach about it," she said.

However, the organization whose curriculum she promotes has been criticized for taking a religious rather than an academic approach to the Bible.

The Ector County Independent School District in Odessa, Texas, settled a federal lawsuit in March after agreeing to stop teaching a class using the organizationís curriculum. The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the People for the American Way Foundation on behalf of eight parents in the Odessa area.

Support

Nonetheless, two University of Northern Iowa professors say the Bible should be part of public schools along with literature of all major world religions.
"I think that studying the Bible in public schools is a very good idea and there are a number of reasons for it," said Jerry Soneson, interim head of the philosophy and world religions department. "One of them is that students need to understand the Western religious heritage that we come out of."

Religion professor Kenneth Atkinson, a biblical studies scholar, said the topic is "more important now than in the past." I've had a New Testament and Early Christian Writings class with him - it was excellent.

"My students, they donít know the Bible, they havenít heard the stories. To understand Western literature, you really need to understand the Bible," Atkinson said.

"If you look at the writings of the founding fathers, they were informed by religion," he added. "If you do it properly, I think itís a wonderful education."

Soneson said fundamental questions should be asked about the textsí reliability, the context, the authorship and other writings of that time.

"In teaching the books of the Bible in the public schools, it really ought to be treated as we treat any other ancient book," he said. "A historical point of view is different from a religious point of view."

Neither professor was very familiar with the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, but after Soneson reviewed materials posted on the organizationís Web site he voiced concern with the Bible translation the curriculum is based on.

"The use of the King James Version is itself problematic because itís language of the early 17th century," he said, noting the translation is beautifully written but the meaning is hard to grasp.

"Their scholarship at the time was relatively new and thereís lots of technical language mistakes in the translations," Soneson said.

As a result, he said "this is not Godís word."

"Even if you take the New Testament or the Hebrew Bible as Godís word, this is not Godís word," he said.

He advocates a modern translation of the Bible, like the New Revised Standard Version.

Soneson and Atkinson voiced concern about Arnoldís proposed curriculum not having a textbook beyond the Bible.

"Thatís the problem: Most public school teachers donít have the academic background (in biblical studies)," Atkinson said. "The problem is if you just have the Bible, most people interpret like you do in church."

Soneson prefers using a contemporary textbook.

"Not a textbook that is interested ultimately in presenting a religious point of view," he said.

"The problem with presenting it as a religious text is it looks like indoctrination," Soneson said. "We couldnít legitimately do that unless we did the same with all other religious texts."

Contact Andrew Wind at (319) 291-1507 or andrew.wind@wcfcourier.com.

DTLB58
10-12-2008, 08:12 PM
Once they make it an elective the next they will want is for it to be a requirement. :shake:

I don't understand, if we want our children to learn the bible we will take them to the church of our choosing.

IMO, Church and state shouldn't mix.

Adept Havelock
10-12-2008, 08:14 PM
I'm fine with it, as long as it is a literature course.

IMO, it is a historically important work of fiction with some basis in fact, not unlike The Iliad and The Odyssey.

tiptap
10-12-2008, 08:16 PM
We read and wrote papers on JOB in my senior high school English Class. It isn't anything new.

Adept Havelock
10-12-2008, 08:19 PM
We read and wrote papers on JOB in my senior high school English Class. It isn't anything new.

Nice. That's one of my favorite Heinlein novels.

http://www.amazon.com/Job-Comedy-Justice-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0345316509/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223864424&sr=8-1

Jenson71
10-12-2008, 08:20 PM
Here is the website for the organization that designed the curriculum the group in the article wanted: http://www.bibleinschools.net/

"To date, our Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit."

And here is the curriculum guide:

http://www.bibleinschools.net/images/pdf/CurrTOB805.pdf

tiptap
10-12-2008, 08:25 PM
Nice. That's one of my favorite Heinlein novels.

http://www.amazon.com/Job-Comedy-Justice-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0345316509/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223864424&sr=8-1

That reading came much later.

irishjayhawk
10-12-2008, 08:33 PM
I'm fine with it, as long as it is a literature course.

IMO, it is a historically important work of fiction with some basis in fact, not unlike The Iliad and The Odyssey.

This and my own caveats:

1) not mandatory
2) not the only religious course available (Koran class, etc)

kcfanintitanhell
10-12-2008, 08:34 PM
So, should a group of books that has inspired intolerance, hatred,and genocide into our global culture be required reading?
I'm fine with it.
Then bring on the Koran.

jidar
10-12-2008, 08:53 PM
I'm fine with it, as long as it is a literature course.

IMO, it is a historically important work of fiction with some basis in fact, not unlike The Iliad and The Odyssey.

Even if it was taught in schools people would be pissed off and argue about how it's taught. Best to leave it alone.

irishjayhawk
10-12-2008, 08:54 PM
Even if it was taught in schools people would be pissed off and argue about how it's taught. Best to leave it alone.

Valid point as well.

jAZ
10-12-2008, 09:21 PM
I voted No, seperation based on the information in the article.

But there are ways in which I think it can work an be helpful.

It must be as part of an advanced (ie, Jr/Sr level) philosophy class.

It must cover all major modern relgious and atheism/agnosticism.

It can't be required.

It must approach the subject as a philisophical discussion where there are no right answers, but the process is the value.

It can't be taught as part of a science class, the concept of creationism vs evolution can be discussed.

It can have right and wrong answers, but the questions have to be of the sort "which religion held the following... ?".

It must be regulated with all of the above and a requirement that the teacher can't posit their own religios views because it's not relevant or necessary for discussion.

The students can offer their own opinions as part of the discussions, but they can't attack each others religions and they won't ever be graded on their opinions, but recitation of the facts (ie, which religion believes that "xyz.."?).

Students can be kicked out of the class for being disruptive if they attack other students opinions in a way that disrupts any students ability to learn. That means atheists can't (verbally) attack Christians and Christicans can't attack Jews and Jews can't attack Muslims.

morphius
10-12-2008, 09:35 PM
I'd rather see a religions class instead of a bible class, as studying history without understanding the role that religions played is a bit like studying mathematics without those pesky numbers.

Mr Luzcious
10-12-2008, 09:43 PM
No. A public school isn't an appropriate place for such a class, in my opinion. Send your kid to a private school if you want that. Or do it yourself, even better.

HolyHandgernade
10-12-2008, 09:45 PM
I would vote Yes, except for how it is worded. Do you mean the historicity of the Bible, or the Bible's influence in history?

Our local high school added two relgion based electives, The World's Religions and The Bible in Literature. I was for both of those classes, which actually surprised some of my neighbors.

Most of the objection to the Bible based courses actually comes from religious groups. They don't like the Bible taught objectively or as one of many possible options culture has to offer.

The Bible's influence in history and literature is undeniable, and should be offered as an elective. Teaching the Bible as history or as the only option is another matter altogether.

-HH

Adept Havelock
10-12-2008, 09:49 PM
I would vote Yes, except for how it is worded. Do you mean the historicity of the Bible, or the Bible's influence in history?

Our local high school added two relgion based electives, The World's Religions and The Bible in Literature. I was for both of those classes, which actually surprised some of my neighbors.

Most of the objection to the Bible based courses actually comes from religious groups. They don't like the Bible taught objectively or as one of many possible options culture has to offer.

The Bible's influence in history and literature is undeniable, and should be offered as an elective. Teaching the Bible as history or as the only option is another matter altogether.

-HH

I agree.

SNR
10-12-2008, 09:50 PM
I took at course on the Bible at a religious school (St. Olaf College). It was a a required course, but it was also at a private college.

It was one of the best courses I took in all of college. I learned the different versions (King James versus New Revised Standard, etc...) the original texts (Greek text, Leningrad Codex, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc...) and the purpose of all the quirky things in the biblical books, especially in the old testament. A majority of the "prophet" writings are nothing more than political statements... telling stories in order to make a point. It also gave a history of some of these stories (the flood story is found in various different cultures such as Babylon, who enslaved Judah when these would be written by the new priests re-establishing Judah under the Persians.)

This kind of teaching of the Bible inspires critical thinking from students, and teaches them to learn the difference between real historocity and simply memorizing a recalling of events and dates.

That being said, the odds of a useful class being taught in this way in all public high schools that offer it are slim to none. Sadly.

SNR
10-12-2008, 09:51 PM
I would vote Yes, except for how it is worded. Do you mean the historicity of the Bible, or the Bible's influence in history?

Our local high school added two relgion based electives, The World's Religions and The Bible in Literature. I was for both of those classes, which actually surprised some of my neighbors.

Most of the objection to the Bible based courses actually comes from religious groups. They don't like the Bible taught objectively or as one of many possible options culture has to offer.

The Bible's influence in history and literature is undeniable, and should be offered as an elective. Teaching the Bible as history or as the only option is another matter altogether.

-HHYeah, this. I agree.

HolyHandgernade
10-12-2008, 09:54 PM
Can one really appreciate Steinbeck's, Grapes of Wrath, if they are unfamiliar with Genesis and Exodus?

-HH

Jenson71
10-12-2008, 09:55 PM
I would vote Yes, except for how it is worded. Do you mean the historicity of the Bible, or the Bible's influence in history?


I meant the historicity of the Bible, although the latter would be an acceptable choice as well, in my opinion.

irishjayhawk
10-12-2008, 09:58 PM
Can one really appreciate Steinbeck's, Grapes of Wrath, if they are unfamiliar with Genesis and Exodus?

-HH

I hate Grapes of Wrath.

Demonpenz
10-12-2008, 09:58 PM
I voted yes. The more souls we can save the better

HolyHandgernade
10-12-2008, 10:00 PM
I meant the historicity of the Bible, although the latter would be an acceptable choice as well, in my opinion.

Yeah, I don't see much historicity in the Bible. I was a history major in college, and frankly, the Bible doesn't hold up well under historical and scientific scrutiny. That's why they had to invent a whole new discipline, Biblical Studies, to create an atmosphere for which certain connections are assumed.

That said, the Bible's influence in history is undeniable, both for good and for ill. It has shaped empires and nations, fostered discovery and ignorance. In that sense, ignorance of the Bible puts a student at a disadvantage in understanding culture.

-HH

irishjayhawk
10-12-2008, 10:04 PM
Yeah, I don't see much historicity in the Bible. I was a history major in college, and frankly, the Bible doesn't hold up well under historical and scientific scrutiny. That's why they had to invent a whole new discipline, Biblical Studies, to create an atmosphere for which certain connections are assumed.

That said, the Bible's influence in history is undeniable, both for good and for ill. It has shaped empires and nations, fostered discovery and ignorance. In that sense, ignorance of the Bible puts a student at a disadvantage in understanding culture.

-HH

This.

Jenson71
10-12-2008, 10:09 PM
Yeah, I don't see much historicity in the Bible. I was a history major in college, and frankly, the Bible doesn't hold up well under historical and scientific scrutiny. That's why they had to invent a whole new discipline, Biblical Studies, to create an atmosphere for which certain connections are assumed.

There's a ton of history in the Bible. Whether certain events are true or not could be...oh I don't know - part of the subjects of a certain class offered in high school?

Logical
10-12-2008, 10:11 PM
There's a ton of history in the Bible. Whether certain events are true or not could be...oh I don't know - part of the subjects of a certain class offered in high school?Personally I think you are letting your affinity for Catholicism cloud your view.:spock:

Jenson71
10-12-2008, 10:13 PM
Personally I think you are letting your affinity for Catholicism cloud your view.:spock:

How so?

Logical
10-12-2008, 10:17 PM
How so?It has been clear now for a couple of years that the biggest influence in your life has been the search for you to validate to yourself that Catholicism is the right and valid path. That anything that can be promoted in public life that helps your self validation be agreed with and receives some sort of approval. If God is all powerful and all knowing, he does not need his work to be validated in our public schools. If a person wants a religious education for their children they should send them to private religious institutions such as the many very fine Catholic schools.

Mr Luzcious
10-12-2008, 10:21 PM
It has been clear now for a couple of years that the biggest influence in your life has been the search for you to validate to yourself that Catholicism is the right and valid path. That anything that can be promoted in public life that helps your self validation be agreed with and receives some sort of approval. If God is all powerful and all knowing, he does not need his work to be validated in our public schools. If a person wants a religious education for their children they should send them to private religious institutions such as the many very fine Catholic schools.

Agreed (in regards to your last statement, not necessarily to your commentary on Jenson). Although HH's suggestion of an "Influence of the Bible" class sounds profitable.

Jenson71
10-12-2008, 10:32 PM
It has been clear now for a couple of years that the biggest influence in your life has been the search for you to validate to yourself that Catholicism is the right and valid path. That anything that can be promoted in public life that helps your self validation be agreed with and receives some sort of approval. If God is all powerful and all knowing, he does not need his work to be validated in our public schools. If a person wants a religious education for their children they should send them to private religious institutions such as the many very fine Catholic schools.

On this issue, I stand for education, in all of its manifestations. Catholic support nor support for this group was never mentioned by me in this thread, and it goes without saying that 1.) this group is not Catholic and 2.) I fully support Catholic education and more parents sending their children there.

I do, however, want to embrace the idea that my Catholic beliefs have shaped (not cloud) my views. Thank you.

Mr Luzcious
10-12-2008, 10:34 PM
On this issue, I stand for education, in all of its manifestations. Catholic support nor support for this group was never mentioned by me in this thread, and it goes without saying that 1.) this group is not Catholic and 2.) I fully support Catholic education and more parents sending their children there.

I do, however, want to embrace the idea that my Catholic beliefs have shaped (not cloud) my views. Thank you.

In fact it should shape your views.

Logical
10-12-2008, 10:35 PM
...

I do, however, want to embrace the idea that my Catholic beliefs have shaped (not cloud) my views. Thank you.I am sure in your mind that is true.:(

Jenson71
10-12-2008, 10:35 PM
In fact it should shape your views.

Exactly, thank you. As if I'm to feel bad or dishonest for that if it were the case.

Mr Luzcious
10-12-2008, 10:36 PM
I am sure in your mind that is true.:(

Maybe your Deist beliefs are just obstructing your view. :)

Logical
10-12-2008, 10:38 PM
Maybe your Deist beliefs are just obstructing your view. :)

I don't think Deist have beliefs that could obstruct anything, that is sort of the point of Deism.

Mr Luzcious
10-12-2008, 10:41 PM
I don't think Deist have beliefs that could obstruct anything, that is sort of the point of Deism.

Well I'm sure there's something. :harumph: I doubt anyone is truly objective.

Jenson71
10-12-2008, 10:47 PM
I don't think Deist have beliefs that could obstruct anything, that is sort of the point of Deism.

Your Western mind originating in Classical Greek Civilization is obstructing your view.

Yes, even deism has beliefs that obstruct things. Deists would probably argue if someone called them a relativist.

Logical
10-12-2008, 10:49 PM
Your Western mind originating in Classical Greek Civilization is obstructing your view.

Yes, even deism has beliefs that obstruct things. Deists would probably argue if someone called them a relativist.I am definitely a relativist, everything is relative. Even people who follow the Koran, Bible, and Buddhism have to know that.

Jenson71
10-12-2008, 11:11 PM
I am definitely a relativist, everything is relative. Even people who follow the Koran, Bible, and Buddhism have to know that.

Does the sun actually rise in the east?

HolyHandgernade
10-12-2008, 11:24 PM
There's a ton of history in the Bible. Whether certain events are true or not could be...oh I don't know - part of the subjects of a certain class offered in high school?

There really isn't. There's clues about culture, but there is very little that can really be considered "historical". Maybe a few of the lists from Kings and Chronicles after Solomon, but almost everything else is based on cultural belief and common mythology. The Old Testament has been edited to give the illusion of Jewish cohesiveness and monotheism, and therefore is not history, but propaganda. The New Testament, much like the Old, has no author which can be identified, no date which can be affixed, no certainty of how certain books are even related to one another. Why does Paul seem to know nothing of the Gospel Jesus' life and teachings?

First, you would have to separate myth from chronicle. The Jesuits tried to do just that, then found they didn't have hardly anything left. That, in a nut shell, is why it is not history.

-HH

Logical
10-13-2008, 12:09 AM
Does the sun actually rise in the east?No, the Sun does not rise at all, the earth rotates in an axis relative to the Sun that makes it appear in the Eastern sky and then disappear in the Western sky.

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 12:22 AM
There really isn't. There's clues about culture, but there is very little that can really be considered "historical". Maybe a few of the lists from Kings and Chronicles after Solomon, but almost everything else is based on cultural belief and common mythology. The Old Testament has been edited to give the illusion of Jewish cohesiveness and monotheism, and therefore is not history, but propaganda. The New Testament, much like the Old, has no author which can be identified, no date which can be affixed, no certainty of how certain books are even related to one another. Why does Paul seem to know nothing of the Gospel Jesus' life and teachings?


I reject this narrow view of what makes something historical. The Bible is a library of books - all written in a historical context - in a historical period of time, by historical men, that feature by all means, historical events. To deny this is absurd. To study this is education.

(BTW, Paul never knew the Jesus of the Gospel, that's why he didn't write about Jesus' life much)

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 12:22 AM
No, the Sun does not rise at all, the earth rotates in an axis relative to the Sun that makes it appear in the Eastern sky and then disappear in the Western sky.

But, from my point of view it rises in the east. Are you claiming that my point of view is wrong?

Logical
10-13-2008, 12:32 AM
But, from my point of view it rises in the east. Are you claiming that my point of view is wrong?Yes, don't feel bad men for years felt the earth was flat. Sorry that you have not advanced to basic Astronomy.

Logical
10-13-2008, 12:36 AM
I reject this narrow view of what makes something historical. The Bible is a library of books - all written in a historical context - in a historical period of time, by historical men, that feature by all means, historical events. To deny this is absurd. To study this is education.

(BTW, Paul never knew the Jesus of the Gospel, that's why he didn't write about Jesus' life much)Probably because the Jesus of the Gospel is the purest work of fiction of all time. I really love that part where he dies and rises into heaven (as if the space above earth is somehow heaven). Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, so many men have risen into heaven, and don't forget the women folk as well.

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 12:56 AM
Yes, don't feel bad men for years felt the earth was flat. Sorry that you have not advanced to basic Astronomy.

What? I thought everything was relative. If everything was relative, then I can't be wrong.

Don't tell us you're a relativist and that everything is relative, CRONUS. Not everything is relative. Even deists acknowledge this, as they should, because they value reason and rationality.

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 01:02 AM
Probably because the Jesus of the Gospel is the purest work of fiction of all time. I really love that part where he dies and rises into heaven (as if the space above earth is somehow heaven). Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, so many men have risen into heaven, and don't forget the women folk as well.

I can't emphatically declare to you enough that the modern, secular scholarship says there was a historical Jesus.

But let's go against what historical scholarship has said, (because that's always a great idea for finding truth, right?) and say there was no Jesus. No one. That it was entirely "the purest work of fiction." Could we still look at The Bible in a historically critical way? The answer is yes. Even for the New Testament. We can ask, who were these four writers, and what are they talking about? We can still ask who Paul was and what he established, and what were the issues going on in the churches at the time of his writing.

Thig Lyfe
10-13-2008, 01:25 AM
I voted "Yes - as long as it is objective and historically based".

Unfortunately, it seems like this wouldn't usually be the case.

Logical
10-13-2008, 01:29 AM
I can't emphatically declare to you enough that the modern, secular scholarship says there was a historical Jesus.

But let's go against what historical scholarship has said, (because that's always a great idea for finding truth, right?) and say there was no Jesus. No one. That it was entirely "the purest work of fiction." Could we still look at The Bible in a historically critical way? The answer is yes. Even for the New Testament. We can ask, who were these four writers, and what are they talking about? We can still ask who Paul was and what he established, and what were the issues going on in the churches at the time of his writing.What the subterfuge religious folks will use to get their way is really devious. Congratulations MaoTseTung would be proud.

Logical
10-13-2008, 01:33 AM
What? I thought everything was relative. If everything was relative, then I can't be wrong.

Don't tell us you're a relativist and that everything is relative, CRONUS. Not everything is relative. Even deists acknowledge this, as they should, because they value reason and rationality.Reason and rationality are nothing but forms of relativism based on solid learning from science. Your misunderstanding of astronomy merely makes your relativism outside the bounds of rationale reasoning that is easily founded in science. If you want to say your opinion (no matter how wrong) is valid relative to what a less than stellar education has taught you. Then I guess I would give you that.

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 01:52 AM
What the subterfuge religious folks will use to get their way is really devious. Congratulations MaoTseTung would be proud.

Yes, scholarship and education are so totalitarian. Especially when you're a relativist. Oh, unless you're saying it's all a conspiracy! The crazy religious people have either infiltrated or bribed their way to the top!

Reason and rationality are nothing but forms of relativism based on solid learning from science. Your misunderstanding of astronomy merely makes your relativism outside the bounds of rationale reasoning that is easily founded in science. If you want to say your opinion (no matter how wrong) is valid relative to what a less than stellar education has taught you. Then I guess I would give you that.

Solid science comes from reason and rationality. And scientific facts are not relative. They are true. Got it? They are true. Stop the attack on science. We've had enough of the disrespect towards science. I am wrong. The sun does not rise. To say so is WRONG. It's not an opinion, it's not valid, it's not of worth. It's WRONG.

Logical
10-13-2008, 02:02 AM
Yes, scholarship and education are so totalitarian. Especially when you're a relativist. Oh, unless you're saying it's all a conspiracy! The crazy religious people have either infiltrated or bribed their way to the top!

Unfortunately in a non-theocratic state what you suggest must be true, whether it is bribery or infiltration through nefarious and or conspiratorial methods.

Solid science comes from reason and rationality. And scientific facts are not relative. They are true. Got it? They are true. Stop the attack on science. We've had enough of the disrespect towards science. I am wrong. The sun does not rise. To say so is WRONG. It's not an opinion, it's not valid, it's not of worth. It's WRONG.

You seem to be catching on, very good. By the way if it is not the earths rotation around the Sun, then just ask your Jesus to change it tomorrow, if if does I will admit he exists.

HolyHandgernade
10-13-2008, 07:11 AM
I reject this narrow view of what makes something historical. The Bible is a library of books - all written in a historical context - in a historical period of time, by historical men, that feature by all means, historical events. To deny this is absurd. To study this is education.

(BTW, Paul never knew the Jesus of the Gospel, that's why he didn't write about Jesus' life much)

Well, it doesn't really matter what you reject to fit your own belief pattern. There are those who reject the scientific method as well, claiming intelligent design is an alternate scientific theory, despite the fact it cannot be tested. Could intelligent design be a study of education? Sure, but not as science. It could be part of a philosophy course or a sociology course.

Can Biblical Studies be part of education? Sure, its just not a history course. You might use history to help determine your text study to corroborate things, but that does not make the texts themselves history books. Are we now to include King Arthur as history as well? There's a difference between verifying something as occurring in history from claims of fictional/mythological/literary creations being inserted into the historical timeframe. Believe it or not, but you can account for the majority of history with complete disregard to the stories in the Bible. History (and other disciplines such as archeology) simply does not corroborate the majority of the Bible stories, anymore than the Greek myths add to the history of that time period.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
10-13-2008, 07:12 AM
Paul writes about a "risen Christ" and never places Jesus on Earth.

-HH

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 08:22 AM
I reject this narrow view of what makes something historical. The Bible is a library of books - all written in a historical context - in a historical period of time, by historical men, that feature by all means, historical events. To deny this is absurd. To study this is education.

(BTW, Paul never knew the Jesus of the Gospel, that's why he didn't write about Jesus' life much)

You reject anything that remotely puts down the accuracy of the faith you use to define you. When people call you on your mental gymnastics, you get angry.

For now, I hope you don't eat eggs and I hope you realize that without dates, history is pretty worthless.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 08:23 AM
Well, it doesn't really matter what you reject to fit your own belief pattern. There are those who reject the scientific method as well, claiming intelligent design is an alternate scientific theory, despite the fact it cannot be tested. Could intelligent design be a study of education? Sure, but not as science. It could be part of a philosophy course or a sociology course.

Can Biblical Studies be part of education? Sure, its just not a history course. You might use history to help determine your text study to corroborate things, but that does not make the texts themselves history books. Are we now to include King Arthur as history as well? There's a difference between verifying something as occurring in history from claims of fictional/mythological/literary creations being inserted into the historical timeframe. Believe it or not, but you can account for the majority of history with complete disregard to the stories in the Bible. History (and other disciplines such as archeology) simply does not corroborate the majority of the Bible stories, anymore than the Greek myths add to the history of that time period.

-HH

A question for you, HH:

When does a belief system become relegated to "myth"?

tiptap
10-13-2008, 09:34 AM
But, from my point of view it rises in the east. Are you claiming that my point of view is wrong?

It is not reflective of a greater truth.

HolyHandgernade
10-13-2008, 10:05 AM
A question for you, HH:

When does a belief system become relegated to "myth"?

My definition of "myth" is a story that explains why things are the way they are via a supernatural intervention. Myth is a means of relation, not necessarily an "untruth". So, one can genuinely relate a contemplative insight in mythical terms. What one should be cautious of, however, is then trying to take that mythological relation and believing the relation as literal fact. Nobody searches for "Plato's Cave", but we're pretty sure we've found Jesus' birthplace? That's the difference between understanding a myth in its intended form from believing the form is a literal description of historical/empirical events.

-HH

Dave Lane
10-13-2008, 10:35 AM
I'd say 3,4 and 5

Dave

Dave Lane
10-13-2008, 10:37 AM
A question for you, HH:

When does a belief system become relegated to "myth"?

When there is no evidence empirical or otherwise that belief in whatever it is exists.

Belief = the suspension of logic normally.

Dave

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 11:32 AM
She is wrong here.

Should be left for out of the school. If she wants to send her kids to a Christian school , so be it.

Mr. Laz
10-13-2008, 11:35 AM
as long as the class is and stays AN ELECTIVE class .... it's all good.



it should NEVER and i repeat NEVER become ANY sort of requirement.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 12:13 PM
My definition of "myth" is a story that explains why things are the way they are via a supernatural intervention. Myth is a means of relation, not necessarily an "untruth". So, one can genuinely relate a contemplative insight in mythical terms. What one should be cautious of, however, is then trying to take that mythological relation and believing the relation as literal fact. Nobody searches for "Plato's Cave", but we're pretty sure we've found Jesus' birthplace? That's the difference between understanding a myth in its intended form from believing the form is a literal description of historical/empirical events.

-HH

That kind of answers my question. I guess a better way to state it is when does a belief system become like the Greek and Roman stories viewed now? When does it go from "truth" to "fiction/story"

HolyHandgernade
10-13-2008, 12:21 PM
That kind of answers my question. I guess a better way to state it is when does a belief system become like the Greek and Roman stories viewed now? When does it go from "truth" to "fiction/story"

I think it depends on the veracity and relevance of the culture that believes it as such. There's no evidence to back it up, so it eventually gives way to the next belief system whose culture has the most relevance. Egypt gave way to Greece, Greece gave way to Roman Catholocism. The difference now is that next belief system structure (hypothetical/deductive) has no room for the stories, so there's more resistance to accepting it.

What the rational mindset fails to understand is that consciousness develops in levels or layers as well. So when it's champions get to that stage, they try to wipe out all the developmental sequences that led up to it and ask everyone else to "jump". You can't just delete culture, you have to find ways to incorporate it.

-HH

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 01:19 PM
Well, it doesn't really matter what you reject to fit your own belief pattern. There are those who reject the scientific method as well, claiming intelligent design is an alternate scientific theory, despite the fact it cannot be tested. Could intelligent design be a study of education? Sure, but not as science. It could be part of a philosophy course or a sociology course.

Can Biblical Studies be part of education? Sure, its just not a history course. You might use history to help determine your text study to corroborate things, but that does not make the texts themselves history books. Are we now to include King Arthur as history as well? There's a difference between verifying something as occurring in history from claims of fictional/mythological/literary creations being inserted into the historical timeframe. Believe it or not, but you can account for the majority of history with complete disregard to the stories in the Bible. History (and other disciplines such as archeology) simply does not corroborate the majority of the Bible stories, anymore than the Greek myths add to the history of that time period.

-HH

I don't argue that the Bible is a history book. It's not. I argue that it is a historical object that deserves historical study because there is history to it. That is what we shall study.

Archeology does give credence to a few (not all) parts of some (not all) stories of both the Bible and Greek myth. Our modern mind instantly rejects that there could be any basis of fact for these myths. But immediately stopping at that point is anti-education. Research has shown that in reality, there is some basis of fact to them.

Archeology would definitely be an element of study for any solid Bible class.

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 01:20 PM
Paul writes about a "risen Christ" and never places Jesus on Earth.

-HH

That's because he never knew a Jesus on earth. To talk about a Jesus on earth as if he actually knew him would be dishonest and the people he wrote to would know it.

HC_Chief
10-13-2008, 01:22 PM
as long as the class is and stays AN ELECTIVE class .... it's all good.

it should NEVER and i repeat NEVER become ANY sort of requirement.

Yep.

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 01:22 PM
You reject anything that remotely puts down the accuracy of the faith you use to define you. When people call you on your mental gymnastics, you get angry.

For now, I hope you don't eat eggs and I hope you realize that without dates, history is pretty worthless.

This has nothing to do with my religious faith.

HolyHandgernade
10-13-2008, 02:30 PM
That's because he never knew a Jesus on earth. To talk about a Jesus on earth as if he actually knew him would be dishonest and the people he wrote to would know it.

Yeah, but that's a bit of a problem, isn't it? The Gospels are not written until after 70 CE (if not later). Paul writes between the alleged life of Jesus and the Gospels. Wouldn't he know something of Jesus' life from interacting with the followers? Nope, he completely disregards it, and goes into his own Christology. But, this is an argument for a different thread.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
10-13-2008, 02:34 PM
I don't argue that the Bible is a history book. It's not. I argue that it is a historical object that deserves historical study because there is history to it. That is what we shall study.

Archeology does give credence to a few (not all) parts of some (not all) stories of both the Bible and Greek myth. Our modern mind instantly rejects that there could be any basis of fact for these myths. But immediately stopping at that point is anti-education. Research has shown that in reality, there is some basis of fact to them.

Archeology would definitely be an element of study for any solid Bible class.

I think this is more college level material, a bit heady for high school students.

-HH

Basileus777
10-13-2008, 02:35 PM
I have no problem with it....in private schools. Religion has no place in public schools. If you want your children to learn about the Bible, send them to a private school or other Bible classes, or teach them yourself.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-13-2008, 02:39 PM
I have no problem teaching the Bible as a piece of literature. It's an excellent and rich source.

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 02:57 PM
Personally I think you are letting your affinity for Catholicism cloud your view.:spock:

Personally, I think you're letting your hatred of religion cloud yours.

Logical
10-13-2008, 03:03 PM
Personally, I think you're letting your hatred of religion cloud yours.I don't hate religion, I just want to make sure it has no place in our government.

Mr Luzcious
10-13-2008, 03:11 PM
That kind of answers my question. I guess a better way to state it is when does a belief system become like the Greek and Roman stories viewed now? When does it go from "truth" to "fiction/story"

When people stop believing it.

Programmer
10-13-2008, 04:09 PM
If you want to have a bible class in school then would you also want a quran class in schools? How about all of the other offshoots of religion?

It's a case of take one take them all.

|Zach|
10-13-2008, 04:18 PM
If you want to have a bible class in school then would you also want a quran class in schools? How about all of the other offshoots of religion?

It's a case of take one take them all.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=81637&stc=1&d=1222885122

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 04:26 PM
I don't hate religion, I just want to make sure it has no place in our government.

It threatens your belief system (worship of state), so of course you do....

Adept Havelock
10-13-2008, 04:35 PM
I don't hate religion, I just want to make sure it has no place in our government.

Oh, I don't know. A government run by Discordians could be entertaining. Hail Eris! :p

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 05:36 PM
I think this is more college level material, a bit heady for high school students.

-HH

I can agree with that. I think study of religions in school is a good thing (basic doctrines, holy days, practices, etc.). Something as deep and unsettled as Biblical scholarship will run into a lot of problems, even right away with depending on what translation to use. Also, most high school teachers don't have background for it, as Atkinson says in the opening post.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 05:48 PM
This has nothing to do with my religious faith.

You got defensive when CRONUS suggested your views might be clouded.

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 06:34 PM
You got defensive when CRONUS suggested your views might be clouded.

That's because it was ignorant.

Adept Havelock
10-13-2008, 06:40 PM
That's because it was ignorant.

No. There is nothing ignorant about raising the possibility that strongly held beliefs might affect your perspective/opinion.

For instance, I have a strong belief that religion is little more than organized superstition. I know that has an influence on my perspective/opinion about some things. I also know it might prevent me from seeing something "clearly".

You're better than that, Jenson.

Jenson71
10-13-2008, 07:07 PM
No. There is nothing ignorant about raising the possibility that strongly held beliefs might affect your perspective/opinion.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with that. But have a basis for the suggestion. Don't come out of left field with a spock face shooting down what I have to say because for some unknown reason you think it's clouded by my religious views. Add to that some psychology suggesting that an evangelical Bible class in public schools will somehow validate my Catholic beliefs.

I took a secular approach to the subject of the thread, and he projected I was validating my Catholic beliefs.

Finally, I like CRONUS and I think he offers a sound and intelligent opinion on this board, I want to be clear on that.

Adept Havelock
10-13-2008, 07:33 PM
I agree that there is nothing wrong with that. But have a basis for the suggestion. Don't come out of left field with a spock face shooting down what I have to say because for some unknown reason you think it's clouded by my religious views. Add to that some psychology suggesting that an evangelical Bible class in public schools will somehow validate my Catholic beliefs.

I took a secular approach to the subject of the thread, and he projected I was validating my Catholic beliefs.

Finally, I like CRONUS and I think he offers a sound and intelligent opinion on this board, I want to be clear on that.

:thumb:

Logical
10-13-2008, 07:44 PM
I agree that there is nothing wrong with that. But have a basis for the suggestion. Don't come out of left field with a spock face shooting down what I have to say because for some unknown reason you think it's clouded by my religious views. Add to that some psychology suggesting that an evangelical Bible class in public schools will somehow validate my Catholic beliefs.

I took a secular approach to the subject of the thread, and he projected I was validating my Catholic beliefs.

Finally, I like CRONUS and I think he offers a sound and intelligent opinion on this board, I want to be clear on that.Just to be clear, I did not mean it in a demeaning way. I stated my opinion then explained it, again based on my opinion. Sorry if it offended you, that was not the intent. Just an observation, I am sure others have other observations.