[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

I am glad that the Bible is at least being used. I'll take your bat Mr. Atheist man, sir. I think if the kids have to read the Bible, then they will be more likely to accept it's truth. The truth always has a way of working itself out.

Even assuming that this is true, how many of the students do you expect will actually read the assignments?

Originally Posted by Sean

Hindu

I actually agree with Sean, because I think it would be a really enlightening experience for students to hear a class taught from a thoroughly non-Western perspective. (Assuming we could find some really hardcore Hindus.)

Originally Posted by Qingu

You know what would be interesting. If we all made syllabi for this hypothetical class.

Off the top of my head, I'd probably do something a bit like this:
6 Weeks 1: Genesis 1-12
6 Weeks 2: Abraham, Moses, & David
6 Weeks 3: Wisdom & Prophets
6 Weeks 4: Gospels
6 Weeks 5: Paul
6 Weeks 6: General Epistles, Revelation

But that may not be entirely helpful. Probably most significant is how central I would make the Creation-Fall-Redemption sequence in early Genesis. But it's also possible that I would spend only 3 weeks on that and dwell more on the Exodus event.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I would venture a guess that most atheists are more respectful and less disparaging of the Bible than I am. Not all atheists are evangelical. (Though that could be changing nowadays.)

John raises the point that professors with strongly-held beliefs about their subjects tend to teach more interesting and engaging classes. However, I think many atheists (like me) are intensely interested in religion and mythology and history and actively learn about religions, not to convert or deconvert people but because religions are interesting and important.

So I think someone with this sort of academic interest in Christianity would be a better teacher (for the purposes of a public school class) than someone who is interested in it because he believes it's the absolute word of God and anyone who doesn't believe the same is going to hell.

An atheist whom public schools could get would either have an agenda, intentionally or unintentionally, or not be intelligent enough to be teaching the course, to be honest.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Sean

Hindu

(now that I think about it, I'd rather take a Hinduism class from a Hindu too. )

[Gsus_Rawks]

I don't really see how having a Christian teach a class on the Bible is any different from having someone who believes Science teaching a science class - or someone who believes history teaching a History class.

I don't think that its good having Christianity pushed on students during a secular education - but aren't we a students used to that happening all the time?

I have had a plethora of ideas and beliefs pushed on me before - Why is that constitutional? Because those ideas and beliefs aren't "Christian"? I think that ridiculous.

I don't believe the classroom is a place for Christians to push their agenda, but I also think that all teachers should take a step back to see that they do it every day in class.

Why is teaching a theory as truth okay is Science class but not in a Bible class? I think that theory is theory and it should be introduced and taught that way regardless of the setting or class name.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

An atheist whom public schools could get would either have an agenda, intentionally or unintentionally, or not be intelligent enough to be teaching the course, to be honest.

I think there are more of us than you realize.

Here's my sketchy syllabus:

1. Genesis.
• Babylonian mythology
• creation stories and flood stories
• the covenant
• the patriarchs

2. History of Israel
• Exodus
• wandering the desert
• conquest of Canaan
• skim over Kings

3. Laws
• Code of Hammurabi, ANE legal system
• Exodus and Deuteronomy
• Leviticus

4. The Writings and Prophets
• Job, Psalms—explanation for evil
• history lesson about Assyrian and Babylonian conquering
• Prophets, new ideas about messiah, new views about salvation from oppression

5. Paul
• History lesson about Rome and Judaism in late antiquity
• Discuss letter-writing as a form
• Galatians and Romans in depth

6. The gospels
• More Roman history, the destruction of the Temple
• Synoptic gospels, Q
• John

7. Revelation
• Contemporary Jewish apocalyptic literature
• Revelation, focusing on what the symbols meant at the time it was written

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

Why is teaching a theory as truth okay is Science class but not in a Bible class? I think that theory is theory and it should be introduced and taught that way regardless of the setting or class name.

Because from the secular state's perspective, science is true and the Bible is not necessarily true.

In the same way, students should be taught about Kepler's laws as though they described reality. Students should not be taught about the philosophy of Friederich Nietzsche as though it describes reality, or Greek mythology as though it describes reality.

Like it or not, you live in a secular society, and a secular government funds secular schools.

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I think there are more of us than you realize.

Here's my sketchy syllabus:

1. Genesis.
• Babylonian mythology
• creation stories and flood stories
• the covenant
• the patriarchs

2. History of Israel
• Exodus
• wandering the desert
• conquest of Canaan
• skim over Kings

3. Laws
• Code of Hammurabi, ANE legal system
• Exodus and Deuteronomy
• Leviticus

4. The Writings and Prophets
• Job, Psalms—explanation for evil
• history lesson about Assyrian and Babylonian conquering
• Prophets, new ideas about messiah, new views about salvation from oppression

5. Paul
• History lesson about Rome and Judaism in late antiquity
• Discuss letter-writing as a form
• Galatians and Romans in depth

6. The gospels
• More Roman history, the destruction of the Temple
• Synoptic gospels, Q
• John

7. Revelation
• Contemporary Jewish apocalyptic literature
• Revelation, focusing on what the symbols meant at the time it was written

It would also be beneficial if, when teaching on Romans and such books, the teacher would explain the passages that show that the OT Law has been fulfilled through Christ, but it seems that this is all diving into teachers needing to be seminary-grads to teach .

EDIT: Hm... Noticed that you'd be teaching John, so you would be teaching part of the life of Jesus. It would probably be wise to do an overview using Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, though, but that's just the way I'd do it. Profs are allowed to be different .

(None of this is meant snidely, so I apologize if it comes off that way, it's not meant to.)

[Nate]

Regarding Hinduism and being taught it:

One of my favorite educational experiences of all time was the time we had two real live Hindu Pandits come into my Intro to World Religions course (undergrad, first freshman semester) to give the lecture(s) on Hinduism. In fact, that was one of the best courses I ever had, precisely because the professor encouraged us to ask questions from our own specific religious viewpoints (and asked his own questions from his own viewpoint: staunch, traditionalist Catholic... carried a rosary to class) rather than asking us all (including himself) to remain neutral.

[Nate]

Why Galatians (as opposed to Ephesians, which would have been my "other" Pauline epistle of choice), Q?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by DaGeek

It would also be beneficial if, when teaching on Romans and such books, the teacher would explain the passages that show that the OT Law has been fulfilled through Christ

How is the law to not eat pork fulfilled through Christ?

Are you discussing the claim that the law si fulfilled? That would be covered in sections 5 and (moreso) 6.

Are you prophecy regarding the Christ? That would be covered in 4.

EDIT: Hm... Noticed that you'd be teaching John, so you would be teaching part of the life of Jesus. It would probably be wise to do an overview using Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, though, but that's just the way I'd do it. Profs are allowed to be different .

That's what the "Synoptic gospels" are. He is covering them.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Nate

Why Galatians (as opposed to Ephesians, which would have been my "other" Pauline epistle of choice), Q?

Doesn't Ephesians just restate a lot of what Romans states better?

I picked Galatians because it's Paul's angriest letter. Also because it gives a glimpse into history—the existence of these rival Christian sects with apparently very different views than Paul, at who Paul is apparently royally pissed.

[j2_da_k]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Careful there, tiger. The Christians who aren't for stoning unbelievers to death aren't good Christians.

I have no idea where you get this. It is not at all based on fact, and it isn't true. It was a lie that was meant as a bash. Do I go around insulting the obvious lapse of common sense it takes to be an atheist? No, I do not. A word of advice: Don't go to a Christian website and insult christians.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by DaGeek

Tt would probably be wise to do an overview using Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, though, but that's just the way I'd do it.

Like Jerry said, Matthew, Mark and Luke are refered to as the Synoptic gospels because they have very similiar and often identical content.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Nate

Regarding Hinduism and being taught it:

One of my favorite educational experiences of all time was the time we had two real live Hindu Pandits come into my Intro to World Religions course (undergrad, first freshman semester) to give the lecture(s) on Hinduism. In fact, that was one of the best courses I ever had, precisely because the professor encouraged us to ask questions from our own specific religious viewpoints (and asked his own questions from his own viewpoint: staunch, traditionalist Catholic... carried a rosary to class) rather than asking us all (including himself) to remain neutral.

That does sound like a fun class. ("Real live Hindu Pandits" sounds kind of weird though ... were they in a cage? )

The difference, I think, is that you're talking about a college course. I think it's assumed that college students are less impressionable than high school students (not true in every case, obviously). I don't know how I'd feel about a public high school class encouraging kids to go all out with religious debate. It seems like it would be hard to moderate.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Even assuming that this is true, how many of the students do you expect will actually read the assignments?

Three.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

I have no idea where you get this. It is not at all based on fact, and it isn't true. It was a lie that was meant as a bash. Do I go around insulting the obvious lapse of common sense it takes to be an atheist? No, I do not. A word of advice: Don't go to a Christian website and insult christians.

This was in response to the claim that "Muslims who don't follow the laws of the Quran aren't good Muslims."

Fidelity to scriptural law is generally not used to determine who is a "good Christian" in America, so it seems hypocritical to judge Muslims by the same standard. Which is all I was pointing out. That said, I'm curious to hear about this lapse of common sense I'm apparently suffering from.