[j2_da_k]

Originally Posted by Qingu

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.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My sincerest apologies.

The lapse of common sense? I believe that it is obvious that someone intelligent created the universe. Something powerful, and creative. I don't think there is any kind of science that can prove otherwise. I usuall don't argue this point, because I believe that most atheist wont accept it anyways, because it isn't about common sense.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Qingu

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.

More like, fidelity to a non-Christian's inconsistant and anti-Christian interpretation of scriptural law is generally not used to determine who is a "good Christian" in a America.

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

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

As this isn't a debate on OT law, I'm going to refrain from going into it. That's what Theology is for.

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

Ah, thanks. I didn't catch that.

[JerryLove]

I believe that it is obvious that someone intelligent created the universe. Something powerful, and creative. I don't think there is any kind of science that can prove otherwise.

I believe it's obvious that a flying Spagetti monster was the thing that created the universe, and I don't think there is any kind of science that can prove otherwise

Originally Posted by Sean

More like, fidelity to a non-Christian's inconsistant and anti-Christian interpretation of scriptural law is generally not used to determine who is a "good Christian" in a America.

As pointed out, that's a theological debate. Though it's worth mentioning, that it's exactly the interpretation that the Jews talked about in the Bible used. Guys like Moses.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Sean

More like, fidelity to a non-Christian's inconsistant and anti-Christian interpretation of scriptural law is generally not used to determine who is a "good Christian" in a America.

Are you talking about me, or Augustine? I'm pretty sure Augustine was a Christian. So for that matter were Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, all of whom supported torturing or killing heretics and unbelievers.

(I guess I'd better get back on topic.)

[tlj009]

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.

No wouldn't it be more accurate to say that about "good Jews". Christians don't claim to follow the law. I believe Muslims do claim to follow their law.

[LefseRae]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I think atheists are in the best position to teach religion without bias, actually.

I don't think so. After all, Athiests pretty much think that religion is bunk. So wouldn't they be more likely to ridicule the reilgion, whatever it may be?

Originally Posted by Qingu

Would you rather take a public school class about Hinduism from a devout Hindu, or from me? (Edit: would you rather want your impressionable young child to take a class from a Hindu or from me?)

Well, not to get off on a tangent, but actually, I would rather they hear about it from ME. *smile* Question for you, Q, what age are you referring to? 10? 11? 12? 13? 14? 15? 16? (In that case, I'm an "impressionable young child". )

Originally Posted by Qingu

The NT has some pretty horrible stuff too, I think. In particular, Revelation, with its gleeful torture and mass-killings of unbelievers, would be another touchy subject in such a class.

I really can't see what you are referring to. All I can think of would be the parts that talk about how cruel the NWO (New World Order) was to the Jews and Christians! Yeha, God punished the NWO and the followers thereof, but that wasn't gleeful!

Originally Posted by JerryLove

His assertion, and I agree with him, is that athiests are generally the most likely to create a neutral presentation of information regarding religion.

I disagree, as stated above.

Originally Posted by tlj009

I disagree. An athiest would be more likely to degrade the Bible or point to "myths" in it.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by tlj009

Either way it doesn't matter. I hope that the religion of any teacher, teaching anything subject is never questioned.

AMEN.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

The fact is that basically nobody who cares enough about the Bible to make the class worthwhile will be able to offer a "neutral" perspective. But this is the basic problem with America's system -- in order to maintain "neutrality," the view of the State must be called the "neutral" view. But certainly nobody with any degree of wisdom thinks that reinforcing American State doctrine is a particularly "neutral" way to go about things.

No kidding.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Ha! I'd be a terrible teacher. Not only because I hate children.

You were a child once. *blink*

Originally Posted by Qingu

I don't know. To put it in perspective: there are ancient Greek myths with distasteful moral practices (Agememnon sacrificing his daughter to Artemis, for example), but we can read them without controversy because nobody believes them anymore.

True. Disgust, yes. Controversy, no.

Originally Posted by Qingu

But when you read a religious text in a class and you know that most of the people in the class believe it's the true word of God, it becomes much more controversial. Even when I read the Quran privately, and skim the barrage of violent threats and accusations of stupidity towards unbelievers, I feel a offended that people actually believe this about me. Maybe "offended" isn't the right word, but I certainly feel on the defensive.

I would like to speculate here. It is pretty well known that most so-called Christians haven't even read much, if any, of the Bible. Why couldn't the same be true of Muslims andthe Quran?

Originally Posted by Qingu

I will certainly grant that there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral, objective class, especially on a subject as divisive as the Bible.

Originally Posted by Qingu

However, would you agree that the best approach for such a class would be to treat the Bible the same way we treat other ancient, influential texts—like, for example, Plato's Republic?

A teacher who hates Plato's philosophy would probably teach the class differently than one who loved Plato's philosophy, but it seems like bias can be kept to a minimum by instituting some standards and a teaching approach that focuses on the historical context and literal meaning of the text. "Here is what Plato says," and "here is what people at the time of Plato widely believed"—rather than "Here is why Plato is right (or wrong)"

Perhaps a "just the facts" approach WOULD be best. But I'm not naive enough to think that would happen.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

To neither affirm nor deny the factual claim seems very neutral to me.

Possibly. However, I am not sure that the Bible could EVER be taught neutrally. It's far from being a neutral Book!

Originally Posted by Qingu

I would venture a guess that most atheists are more respectful and less disparaging of the Bible than I am.

I've seen some pretty awful things said about my Holy Book and my beliefs.

Originally Posted by Qingu

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.

Probably from a secular viewpoint for a secular school. I would say something, but I don't want to get off onto a tangent.

Originally Posted by Qingu

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

YES!

Originally Posted by Qingu

I agree. I've taken college classes by Christian and hard-core Jewish teachers and, well, these are the people who essentially taught me that ancient Judaism was an evolution of a Babylonian cult.

It was not!

Originally Posted by Qingu

And I agree that teachers should never be discriminated against for their beliefs, only their performance.

I wouldn't hire you to teach at my school.

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Athiests have their own agendas just like any member of any religion. You cannot teach religious minded coursed from an unbiased perspective unless you are truly agnostic or if a preconstructed course is made which everyone agrees on as unbiased that the teacher has to follow.

Whatever the answer, who the heck cares? I've had sooo many professors and teachers with various biases in other areas, why should so many people whine specifically about religion lessons being biased? I don't believe everything my teachers have ever told me. All through highschool I spent a decent enough time correcting teachers mistakes as is and college has been no different. People need to be able to take information in and filter it or else they'll be stupid in life.

Go Gavin!

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I would argue that agnostics are biased too.

EVERYONE is biased to some degree. It's human nature.

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.

"And they shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set them free", or something like that, yes?

Originally Posted by Qingu

This seems a-historical, since as soon as the Bible widely printed and readily translated into languages people could understand, people stopped taking it literally and soon thereafter the secular enlightenment happened.

Christianity was in trouble as soon as Constantine got his sticky mitts all over it. God's still in control. And I could find you numerous stories people who got saved just by reading through the Bible.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I realize that there is this Christian tradition of the whole "tole lege" conversion story. However, I don't think anyone who just picks up a Bible and reads it is going to be convinced of its truth. That doesn't happen unless your reading of the Bible is guided by a dedicated cult community of priests and fellow believers. Taking your small children to church and having them perform repetitive rituals associated with the Bible every week (often before they can understand English) is also a good way to ensure that they'll "accept it's truth."

Stop calling it a cult!

Originally Posted by Qingu

And this is why it is important to make sure such classes are not podiums for priests. The state should not sanction religious coersion.

Speaking the Truth is not coersion. Speaking your beliefs is not coersion. Speaking your opinions is not coersion. Fo'cryin'ou'loud.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

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

I would. A+ students would.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

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 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.

True.

Originally Posted by 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.

No kidding.

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

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 think we are. We just may not realize that someone else's beliefs are being pushed on us.

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

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.

Amen!

Originally Posted by Qingu

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

And from the Muslim state's viewpoint, the Quran is true and science is not. And from a Christian's viewpoint, the Bible is true, and science is not. It's all a matter of your pre-concieved paradigm.

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's excellent!

Originally Posted by Qingu

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

Not necesarily. Sometimes it's easier to understand Romans than it is to understand Ephesians, and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Qingu

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.

Not to mention that it is where you find so much about not following the Law!

Originally Posted by Qingu

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

Or did he mean Pandas? *grins*

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

The lapse of common sense? I believe that it is obvious that someone intelligent created the universe. Something powerful, and creative. I don't think there is any kind of science that can prove otherwise.

I agree, however, unfortunately, there is no kind of science that can prove it's true. (But a fixed-hole-in-a-sock awful lot seems to point towards someone or something! )

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I believe it's obvious that a flying Spagetti monster was the thing that created the universe, and I don't think there is any kind of science that can prove otherwise

There is no kind of science that can prove it's true. And anyhow, I don't see any spagetti anywheres.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Qingu

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.

Fair enough. I like Ephesians for its conciseness, though it is very similar to Romans. Ephesians tends to focus more on what Paul thought the Christian life should look like practically, though, which is a nice contrast to the heavy-handed theology of Romans.

Originally Posted by Qingu

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.

This is true. It was more of a "don't be afraid to think this stuff is loopy, but we're still here to try to understand it" attitude than a "let's have a debate about what you think is right!", though... and more of a "take this at face value and evaluate it for what it says," as opposed to some kind of stupid agenda like "You, too, can understand crisis in the Middle East... study Islam!" or "Christian extremists are overrunning the government... FIND OUT WHY!" It was just "Here's what these people believe; here's why they believe it; here are their scriptures / myths; here are some important religious events; pretty nifty, eh?" and nothing more, really. Too many comparative or evaluative religious courses seem to just want to mock or to analyze or whatnot, and not simply to study the religion. An example would be my course in Protestant Christianity in which the professor openly mocked Calvinism, saying "Nobody really believes this stuff, do they?" until I came out and said "Well, actually, I do."

I think we could have a comparative religion course like the one I took freshman year in a public high school and I think it would do a helluva lot of good for our society.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Nate

Fair enough. I like Ephesians for its conciseness, though it is very similar to Romans. Ephesians tends to focus more on what Paul thought the Christian life should look like practically, though, which is a nice contrast to the heavy-handed theology of Romans.

I feel like Romans is quoted and referenced more by Christians than Ephesians. I certainly could be wrong.

This is true. It was more of a "don't be afraid to think this stuff is loopy, but we're still here to try to understand it" attitude than a "let's have a debate about what you think is right!", though... and more of a "take this at face value and evaluate it for what it says," as opposed to some kind of stupid agenda like "You, too, can understand crisis in the Middle East... study Islam!" or "Christian extremists are overrunning the government... FIND OUT WHY!" It was just "Here's what these people believe; here's why they believe it; here are their scriptures / myths; here are some important religious events; pretty nifty, eh?" and nothing more, really.

I do wonder if your positive experience was due to the general awesomeness of Hinduism compared to most other religious faiths.

With all due deference to posters on this board—and I do love you guys—some of the best debates I've had about religion have been with Krishnas handing out Bhagavad Gitas outside the public library in the middle of the winter.

Qingu:So do you actually believe all that stuff with Arjuna shooting a million magical arrows into the sky at once?

Krishna dude: Of course! It's in the scriptures. You have to remember, they had sciences back then that we now have lost.

Qingu: You're completely crazy, man!

Krishna dude: (chuckles amicably and invites me to his temple for delicious Indian food)

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Qingu:So do you actually believe all that stuff with Arjuna shooting a million magical arrows into the sky at once?

Krishna dude: Of course! It's in the scriptures. You have to remember, they had sciences back then that we now have lost.

Qingu: You're completely crazy, man!

Krishna dude: (chuckles amicably and invites me to his temple for delicious Indian food)

Nice.

[JerryLove]

I don't think so. After all, Athiests pretty much think that religion is bunk. So wouldn't they be more likely to ridicule the reilgion, whatever it may be?

Do you think we ridicule Greek religious beliefs? Do we ridicule Shinto? Can you show some examples?

Possibly. However, I am not sure that the Bible could EVER be taught neutrally. It's far from being a neutral Book!

Seems like the "no true Scottsman" argument. All books are themselves.

I certainly do think that the Bible, or any book, can be taught without signifigant bias as to the authenticity of it. The fact that there can be forums discussing the nuances of Star Trek rather establish that it's possible to have a detailed discussion of something believed to be fiction without ridicule.

I don't think it's fiction that people have trouble being neutral on.

[LefseRae]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Do you think we ridicule Greek religious beliefs? Do we ridicule Shinto? Can you show some examples?

Not off the top of my head. I was simple stating my understanding of atheistis practice. I apologize if I was mistaken.

Seems like the "no true Scottsman" argument. All books are themselves.

I am not familiar with that arguement.

I certainly do think that the Bible, or any book, can be taught without signifigant bias as to the authenticity of it. The fact that there can be forums discussing the nuances of Star Trek rather establish that it's possible to have a detailed discussion of something believed to be fiction without ridicule.

That's just it! Christians don't believe it to be fiction!

I don't think it's fiction that people have trouble being neutral on.

Jerry....

Do you realize what that sounds like? If we are having trouble being Neutral in regards to the Bible, then it's not fiction! (according to that sentence)

[Nate]

There are no "atheist practices," Rosebud (aside from the disbelief in and disobedience of God)... only human practices, and human beings are marvelously different. There are some Christians who ridicule Christianity.

[LefseRae]

Okay, gotcha. Sorry 'bout that.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Godslilrosebud

That's just it! Christians don't believe it to be fiction!

Which is why they cannot be neutral. That's rather my point.

Jerry....

Do you realize what that sounds like? If we are having trouble being Neutral in regards to the Bible, then it's not fiction! (according to that sentence)

To be accurate "then you don't believe it's fiction".

I'm not trying to assert the Bible to be true or false in this thread. I'm asserting that Christians believe it's the divine word of God, and athiests believe it's a work of literature. Which camp do you think can give a more neutral reading of the Bible? I think a Christian discussing the Bible isn't just discussing the Bible. I think they are discussing God, the universe, and the purpose of life. I don't think that's neutral. I think an athiest discussing the Bible (in a Bible study class, not in a debate) is discussing the book, the people and culture from wence it came, what the writers ment, and how it's been interpreted.

I suppose your best candidate would be someone personally undecided... an agnostic. In the end, I don't think there's any real way to test the truth of your or my position though. It's going to be subjective.