This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

People care more about Christ's death than they do his life.

#21fudrickPosted 2/6/2013 7:36:03 AM
bratt100 posted...
History is written by all sides and often times the loudest wins out. Can I prove an event that happened 2000 years ago? No. What I can do it take the evidence and come up a reasonably accurate picture.


So you believe that history should not be taught in a secular classroom, I presume?

bratt100 posted...
In the case of corraboration you have millions of people who where directly effected by both world wars. Now let's say we have a global event (super volcano ect.) events such as these would have billions of individual accounts.


Sure, millions were affected by the wars. How many actually have documented surviving accounts which we can use to corroborate the events of the wars, though?

bratt100 posted...
I'm not saying our understanding of history is perfect because it's far from it but given the information at hand we can make very reasonable assumptions. Can I prove that Alexander took over the known world? No, but I can show you the evidence to support it and you would be a fool to deny it. To me that is a proof however inacurrate the definition.


So wait, can you prove ancient history or not? You've contradicted yourself here.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#22almasbabyPosted 2/6/2013 3:37:14 PM
C_Mat posted...
EDlFlCATION posted...
While the resurrection was obviously important I think his teachings sometimes take too much of a backseat to it.

I think people should look at his teachings once in a while and not just concentrate on the miracles.


If you look at Jesus as mainly a teacher, you'll focus on his teachings and become a religious moralist (legalism).

If you look at Jesus as mainly a savior, you'll focus on his act of saving us (the cross) and let it make you humble.


Yes, I think spiritually Jesus' death is more important than his life. Most people don't need Jesus as a moralist. Your parents are the ones who should teach you how to behave. But to be saved? That's something beyond any human power.
#23fudrickPosted 2/6/2013 3:40:23 PM
almasbaby posted...
Your parents are the ones who should teach you how to behave.


Well, most parents use religious dogma to do so, so it's not necessarily all that different
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#24Julian_CaesarPosted 2/6/2013 4:51:13 PM
From: bratt100 | #016
In the case of a secular (reality based) classroom repetition and being able to perform experiments to prove they are correct are used to cement actual facts. You could attempt the call that brain washing but in this case they are teaching things that are real and provable. NO RELIGION CAN DO THE SAME. Not a single one.


Again, the nature of information being discussed has absolutely no bearing on whether that information is being repetitively taught for the purpose of excluding other possible ideas (rather than because it's true). That's what I mean by "brainwashing." And yes...it happens quite a lot in the secular world. Professors are not inherently more scrupulous than religious teachers just by virtue of teaching scientific facts rather than religious beliefs. They might be more scrupulous as a matter of training (since a lot of church instruction is done by non-professionals), but that has nothing to do with the actual material being taught.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#25bratt100Posted 2/6/2013 7:48:56 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
From: bratt100 | #016
In the case of a secular (reality based) classroom repetition and being able to perform experiments to prove they are correct are used to cement actual facts. You could attempt the call that brain washing but in this case they are teaching things that are real and provable. NO RELIGION CAN DO THE SAME. Not a single one.


Again, the nature of information being discussed has absolutely no bearing on whether that information is being repetitively taught for the purpose of excluding other possible ideas (rather than because it's true). That's what I mean by "brainwashing." And yes...it happens quite a lot in the secular world. Professors are not inherently more scrupulous than religious teachers just by virtue of teaching scientific facts rather than religious beliefs. They might be more scrupulous as a matter of training (since a lot of church instruction is done by non-professionals), but that has nothing to do with the actual material being taught.


The reason we use repetition is because it works, that is how we learn. Teaching the scientific process is much more important than teaching a religious ideology. It's worth more to mankind and there is a reason why belief in a deity coincides with a lower IQ and education standards. The way we teach can be used for good and bad...it's the reason why we still have so many racists in the world...and Christians and bigots and sexists.

They simply haven't been taught how to think rationally and how to question. These are traits that need to be learned and once they do learn this, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. The same goes for religious teachings, many children are taught that evolution is silly and many scientific principles are inherently flawed and they get to them at a very important time in there life, a time when we soak up new information, accurate and inaccurate and it likes to cement those after a few years.
---
If you believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster and are 100% proud of it copy this to your sig.
#26bratt100Posted 2/6/2013 7:52:07 PM
fudrick posted...
bratt100 posted...
History is written by all sides and often times the loudest wins out. Can I prove an event that happened 2000 years ago? No. What I can do it take the evidence and come up a reasonably accurate picture.


So you believe that history should not be taught in a secular classroom, I presume?

Did I say that?

bratt100 posted...
In the case of corraboration you have millions of people who where directly effected by both world wars. Now let's say we have a global event (super volcano ect.) events such as these would have billions of individual accounts.


Sure, millions were affected by the wars. How many actually have documented surviving accounts which we can use to corroborate the events of the wars, though?

More from one event then every religion that has ever existed.

bratt100 posted...
I'm not saying our understanding of history is perfect because it's far from it but given the information at hand we can make very reasonable assumptions. Can I prove that Alexander took over the known world? No, but I can show you the evidence to support it and you would be a fool to deny it. To me that is a proof however inacurrate the definition.


So wait, can you prove ancient history or not? You've contradicted yourself here.


No contradiction, I clearly stated that to me that is proof enough despite the dictionary definition.
---
If you believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster and are 100% proud of it copy this to your sig.
#27Hustle KongPosted 2/6/2013 8:18:44 PM
Good gods. Being warned for the past two days and having I read brat's... well-thought-out posts without being able to reply has been trying. Kudos to the lot of you for trying to get through to him.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#28bratt100Posted 2/6/2013 9:21:15 PM
Hustle Kong posted...
Good gods. Being warned for the past two days and having I read brat's... well-thought-out posts without being able to reply has been trying. Kudos to the lot of you for trying to get through to him.


In what way where they trying to get thought to me. IMO liberalism has gone to damn far. We are just expected to accept stupidity into our schools and homes and not call an idiotic concept by its name.

I'm tired of listening to fools who try and justify there backwards beliefs. As if the belief in a thing without evidence is in any way comparable to things we can support with evidence. There feelings are in no way relevant to the reality of the situation.

God most likely does not exist. We have no evidence to support such a being which means we have to reason to believe. But fools well be fooled.
---
If you believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster and are 100% proud of it copy this to your sig.
#29fudrickPosted 2/6/2013 9:23:14 PM
bratt100 posted...
Did I say that?


Not precisely, but you did say the following two things:

bratt100 posted...
In the case of a secular (reality based) classroom repetition and being able to perform experiments to prove they are correct are used to cement actual facts. You could attempt the call that brain washing but in this case they are teaching things that are real and provable.


bratt100 posted...
History is written by all sides and often times the loudest wins out. Can I prove an event that happened 2000 years ago? No.


So I can only presume that you don't support teaching ancient history in secular classrooms.

bratt100 posted...
More from one event then every religion that has ever existed.


I was addressing the inaccuracy of your "millions or billions" comment

bratt100 posted...
No contradiction, I clearly stated that to me that is proof enough despite the dictionary definition.


That sounds a lot like something a christian would say about the bible
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#30Julian_CaesarPosted 2/6/2013 9:29:27 PM
From: bratt100 | #025
They simply haven't been taught how to think rationally and how to question. These are traits that need to be learned and once they do learn this, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. The same goes for religious teachings, many children are taught that evolution is silly and many scientific principles are inherently flawed and they get to them at a very important time in there life, a time when we soak up new information, accurate and inaccurate and it likes to cement those after a few years.


St. Augustine. Thomas Aquinas. St. Francis of Assisi. Isaac Newton. Galileo. Descartes. Those men all believed in God (in some form or fashion), and also were taught how to think rationally and how to question. Religion is not in and of itself a roadblock to critical thinking; rather, the current American climate has led to an association (or correlation) between parents being "Christian" (again, in some form or fashion) and teaching their children silly things like "evolution is wrong." Whereas in the past in America, it would have been unheard to raise a child without Christian teaching...and yet this country produced many, many intelligent thinkers who rejected the status quo in all types of fields.

I don't deny that in America today, there is an observed association between religious persons and "backwards" scientific thinking. It's possible that the observation is more skewed because of media coverage skewing to the extreme viewpoints, but in all likelihood the association does exist to some degree. What I deny is that this association is inherent to religious persons as a function of their being religious. I just don't think history upholds that viewpoint at all.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.