Well, it wasn't. Given that, what do you say?
Free will and religious faith
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
I guess I would try and fathom why correct spelling of words that even a 10 year old could breeze through on a spelling bee is something you consider praiseworthy coming from a person who is over three times that in age
(of course this given that you weren't being sarcastic - about now its becoming clearer that you were actually being rhetorical)
Interesting analysis. If I only allowed you say, two words, what would you say?
whats up?
Sad.
I really appreciate that you can spell the word "sad" completely correct with no flaws
I really appreciate that you can spell the word "sad" completely correct with no flaws
Thank you.
imagine how much more grateful you would be if you were praised for a quality that was actually distinct
eg - Supe I really appreciate how you lend an authoritative hand to discussions about advanced physics based on your training and experiences in the field
Again, thank you.
Imagine how much more progress you might make if you offered a simple "you're right" or "thank you" when someone makes a statement, without nitpicking it or semantically dissecting it to death. It's called establishing common ground. No debate or discussion ever goes anywhere without it.
well apart from agreeing with my spelling of the word "contending", you don't seem too do to much of that yourself either
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity ... are you ever going to address the point at hand?
Well, it wouldn't be a KJV. Probably an RSV or, as the intellectual-property owners prefer, NRSV. You know, even the Good News Bible includes the violence and hatred, the genocide and sexism, and even the bit in Genesis where God seems to be afraid of Adam and Eve.
The notion of selections from the Bible is not in and of itself problematic, either. The problem with TCW's propaganda is that much of it doesn't make sense to begin with—again, if you can get "this is all going according to God's Plan" out of Genesis 3.23, I'd be happy to give the point some thought. But then we extend this idea to TCW for Kids, and the suggestion that what should be selected out are the things that run contrary to the shiny-happy image of God that people try to teach children.
I mean, at least the Franciscan nun who taught theology my sophomore year of high school was honorable enough to explain, say, that God struck Onan down for disobedience. Furthermore, she admitted that she understood why her students asked the question in the first place; there are still folks (evangelical Protestants, mainly) who try to frame that story as God punishing masturbation°. The intervening years have communicated a strong suggestion that Jesuits, at least, ought to be praised for not instructing the teachers to pretend the episode isn't included in the Bible. Students may find God's execution of Onan a bit ridiculous, but at least they're considering the matter.
To remove portions of the Bible that might complicate a propagandous representation of God only compounds a lack of faith. In the first place, presenting God as He appears in the Bible should be sufficient. It suggests one lacks faith in God to present a lie in lieu of the real thing. To add to that distortion by censoring the Bible reiterates the suggestion that one lacks faith, since the Word of God is apparently not strong or communicative enough that parents and teachers trust its power to communicate the sacred covenant of Christian faith.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that children should not be indoctrinated in such matters to begin with. However, as that expectation is unrealistic in the face of what appears to be a form of mass hysteria, the least the "faithful" could do is not lie about God and the Bible. If it is important enough to force the faith onto children in order to condition them before they are capable of preserving their better judgment, the least people could do is make sure that forced faith is honest.
____________________
Notes:
° God punishing masturbation — It is a tempting thought to wonder how much the Puritan pornography of the Anti-Catholic League figures into this marvel of illogic. Disobedience versus wasted seed in general is a question of its own, but the sexual act of Onanism is more accurately described as coitus interruptus than masturbation.
Lightgigantic said:
Well, it wouldn't be a KJV. Probably an RSV or, as the intellectual-property owners prefer, NRSV. You know, even the Good News Bible includes the violence and hatred, the genocide and sexism, and even the bit in Genesis where God seems to be afraid of Adam and Eve.
The notion of selections from the Bible is not in and of itself problematic, either. The problem with TCW's propaganda is that much of it doesn't make sense to begin with—again, if you can get "this is all going according to God's Plan" out of Genesis 3.23, I'd be happy to give the point some thought. But then we extend this idea to TCW for Kids, and the suggestion that what should be selected out are the things that run contrary to the shiny-happy image of God that people try to teach children.
I mean, at least the Franciscan nun who taught theology my sophomore year of high school was honorable enough to explain, say, that God struck Onan down for disobedience. Furthermore, she admitted that she understood why her students asked the question in the first place; there are still folks (evangelical Protestants, mainly) who try to frame that story as God punishing masturbation°. The intervening years have communicated a strong suggestion that Jesuits, at least, ought to be praised for not instructing the teachers to pretend the episode isn't included in the Bible. Students may find God's execution of Onan a bit ridiculous, but at least they're considering the matter.
To remove portions of the Bible that might complicate a propagandous representation of God only compounds a lack of faith. In the first place, presenting God as He appears in the Bible should be sufficient. It suggests one lacks faith in God to present a lie in lieu of the real thing. To add to that distortion by censoring the Bible reiterates the suggestion that one lacks faith, since the Word of God is apparently not strong or communicative enough that parents and teachers trust its power to communicate the sacred covenant of Christian faith.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that children should not be indoctrinated in such matters to begin with. However, as that expectation is unrealistic in the face of what appears to be a form of mass hysteria, the least the "faithful" could do is not lie about God and the Bible. If it is important enough to force the faith onto children in order to condition them before they are capable of preserving their better judgment, the least people could do is make sure that forced faith is honest.
____________________
Notes:
° God punishing masturbation — It is a tempting thought to wonder how much the Puritan pornography of the Anti-Catholic League figures into this marvel of illogic. Disobedience versus wasted seed in general is a question of its own, but the sexual act of Onanism is more accurately described as coitus interruptus than masturbation.
that was a long answer that addresses many issues but I was asking whether you, if you were given the task of presenting the bible to children (even if it was to teach the bible according to your atheistic values) would present
- a selection of incidents from the bible (in other words omit some portions)
- or the bible in it's completeness (without omitting anything)?
Lightgigantic said:
The latter. Number two. The second option.
Short enough answer for you? Or was that three times longer than it needed to be?
Analogously, of course, it's like asking you if, should your doctor ever inform you that you have cancer, would you:
1. Pray?
2. Shoot yourself and get it over with?
2. Shoot yourself and get it over with?
You'll notice I left "seek treatment" off the list, and did not specify that the cancer was terminal. My point being that, in addition to working so hard to change the subject, you're being
... You know what? I think I'd rather see where the hell you're going with this. You might surprise me yet.
it would be interesting to see what sort of syllabus you could come up with to fully incorporate every incident of the bible for a class of children
I can only gather that you don't have much experience teaching children or you are a genius