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

Lawsuit against school for mandatory Christian assembly

#51bratt100Posted 5/1/2013 8:40:43 AM
Not no sense but worthy of further study.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#52mikmalotPosted 5/1/2013 10:53:26 AM(edited)
mrplainswalker posted...
Maverick3000 posted...
From: mrplainswalker | #046
And my point is that you either take the bible literally, or you treat it as total fiction.


And your point is a bad one. The Bible is not one giant continuous book, and some parts are meant to be taken as actual accurate historical documents and some aren't. And for the most part, there isn't that much debate on which is which.


What?!? You must be joking. There is massive debate about which parts should be literal.

It's like the story of Achilles. You can either believe all the supernatural BS in there is accurate, you can believe none of it is...or you can take the moderate Christian approach!!

"Well, Achilles was definitely dipped in magical liquid by the Gods leaving only his heel mortal. That makes total sense. But Apollo never sent a plague to the Greeks. That's completely ridiculous."

It's all arbitrary nonsense. The only reasonable way to interpret the bible is to treat all supernatural stuff as nonsense. What's left over is merely "plausible." Not definite. Treating some of the supernatural as literal and other as myth...without any basis no less...is just plain stupid.


No, he's right. The Bible was written by many people over...about 1500 years (edit, I'm bad at math. It's probably closer to 600-1000 years). You see, we have this little thing called the historical-critical method, where we look at the history in the text (the story it tells) the history behind the text (who wrote it, why, etc), the history of the text (did the author draw on older sources? has the text been revised/rewritten?), what was the purpose of the text? Why was it written? What does the language of the texts tell us about the text itself? What can we learn about the history of/in/behind the text from contemporary archaeology?

When we put all of this together, we come to conclusions like the creation account is not meant to be taken literally. We also recognize that perhaps not all of the history recorded is completely accurate (we have to remember that ancient historians were less interested in recording objective facts than we are. Of course we're not much better).

The Historical-Critical Method is kind of a given in most branches of theology, and so the only time most theologians spend much time talking about it is if they have any particular idiosyncrasies in their approach to it.

Your black and white insistence that it's one or the other shows just how little you know about theology, biblical interpretation, etc. Normally that's not a problem (not everybody is interested in these things), but when you come onto a board spouting this either/or nonsense, then it's helpful if you know what you're talking about.

I mean, you're going to come in and talk about what's "reasonable", when we have people who are smarter than you and I (probably you and I combined) who have dedicated their lives to studying these things? "Oh, never mind guys, you can quit your life's work! Some guy on a message board says it's all nonsense!"

One of my pet peeves is when people make definitive statements on things on which they have little to no background on. That's like me coming in and saying "Evolution doesn't make complete sense to me, so it's all nonsense."

-edit- It doesn't have to make sense to you, just look past your own epistemological arrogance to see that it makes sense for others. Again, the example of evolution: it doesn't make complete sense to me, but there are people who I respect for whom it makes sense, and that's enough for me to at the very least accept that it's a viable option (for the record, I accept it as fact)
#53Polish_CrusaderPosted 5/1/2013 1:34:38 PM
TheBlackCat13 posted...
Polish_Crusader posted...
Whats the problem?


It's illegal, for one thing.


-The only illegal part was trapping people in. Tell me what is illegal about gathering people together and having a prayer? I see that in almost every restaraunt i go into.
#54Hustle KongPosted 5/1/2013 3:38:33 PM
Restaurants aren't part of the state. There would have been ZERO problem if this was a student function, organized by students, with optional attendence. Do you not see the ****ing difference between that and free people praying in a restaurant?
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#55Julian_CaesarPosted 5/1/2013 7:51:03 PM
From: mikmalot | #030
I apologize, I missed this the first time through. I think fundamentalism, as it is largely expressed in this country, is an inherently warped expression of of the Christian faith, especially since so much of it is tied up with American nationalism.


Yes, indeed.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#56Julian_CaesarPosted 5/1/2013 7:53:29 PM
From: Chaos Scade | #047
DarkContractor posted...
From: Chaos Scade | #014
DarkContractor posted...
I love how prideful non solo scriptura people tend to be

even though solo scriptura is the only correct way to approach theology


omg lmao




ill defend it too


ok u better only use the bible in doing so tho


lol
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#57mrplainswalkerPosted 5/1/2013 8:19:56 PM
No, he's right. The Bible was written by many people over...about 1500 years (edit, I'm bad at math. It's probably closer to 600-1000 years). You see, we have this little thing called the historical-critical method, where we look at the history in the text (the story it tells) the history behind the text (who wrote it, why, etc), the history of the text (did the author draw on older sources? has the text been revised/rewritten?), what was the purpose of the text? Why was it written? What does the language of the texts tell us about the text itself? What can we learn about the history of/in/behind the text from contemporary archaeology?

When we put all of this together, we come to conclusions like the creation account is not meant to be taken literally. We also recognize that perhaps not all of the history recorded is completely accurate (we have to remember that ancient historians were less interested in recording objective facts than we are. Of course we're not much better).


With that same methodology, we would also come to the conclusion that the story of Christ shouldn't be taken literally. I mean, take a look at your questions. Who wrote the text? Unknown. Does it draw from older sources? Most likely. What can we learn from archaeology? Nothing. Etc.

Your black and white insistence that it's one or the other shows just how little you know about theology, biblical interpretation, etc. Normally that's not a problem (not everybody is interested in these things), but when you come onto a board spouting this either/or nonsense, then it's helpful if you know what you're talking about.

I mean, you're going to come in and talk about what's "reasonable", when we have people who are smarter than you and I (probably you and I combined) who have dedicated their lives to studying these things? "Oh, never mind guys, you can quit your life's work! Some guy on a message board says it's all nonsense!"


This is nothing but an appeal to authority, and thus essentially worthless. There are plenty of smart people who believe dumb things in certain areas. This isn't my first time I'm seeing the "You just just understand the intricacies of these complex theological notions" nonsense. Why bother with nuance when we can't even get past square one? It's like arguing about the mechanics of warp drive when we haven't yet established that Star Trek is an accurate portrayal of future technologies.

One of my pet peeves is when people make definitive statements on things on which they have little to no background on. That's like me coming in and saying "Evolution doesn't make complete sense to me, so it's all nonsense."

It's nothing at all like that. For one thing, if somebody came to me asking for reasons why the theory of evolution makes sense...there are many I could point to. I wouldn't even need to appeal to authority! But more importantly, I don't need an extensive background on Greek mythology to make a definitive statement that Zeus is probably not the cause of lightning. I don't even need to know anything whatsoever about the cause of lightning. All I need to know is that you haven't demonstrated that Zeus even exists at all, and I can reject the whole notion outright.

And like I've said several times now...the bible has no contemporary support. Show me how I'm wrong in this, or it doesn't matter how many times you say "Barth...Pannenberg...Pannenberg....Barth...Barth." I don't care about appeal to authority. Do you even understand what they're saying? If so, then let's have it. Their ideas should stand on their own merits if they're worth the paper they're printed on.
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#58mikmalotPosted 5/1/2013 8:29:16 PM
Appeal to authority is only a problem when the authority is not qualified to make claims on the matter. Eminent theologians are qualified to make claims about theology.

I'll deal with the rest tomorrow.
---
Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he wants another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.
#59mrplainswalkerPosted 5/1/2013 8:35:37 PM
mikmalot posted...
Appeal to authority is only a problem when the authority is not qualified to make claims on the matter. Eminent theologians are qualified to make claims about theology.

I'll deal with the rest tomorrow.


I'm not saying they aren't qualified to make claims. I'm saying that you are appealing to authority by simply saying "Barth believes in X and he's a GENIUS. Therefore X is correct."

If somebody asked me why the theory of evolution is the best model we have for the diversity of life, my response wouldn't be, "Well, Francis Collins believes it and that's good enough for me!!"
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#60SSj4WingzeroPosted 5/1/2013 9:58:26 PM
darkmaian23 posted...
Polish_Crusader posted...
Whats the problem?

I wish they did that at more schools.


I expected you to post something like this when I was making the topic. The problem is that the Constitution guarantees separation of church and state as well as religious freedom. Public schools cannot have mandatory religious gatherings. Not only was this one mandatory, but people who objected and wanted to leave were apparently prevented from doing so.

This is both illegal and immoral.


No, the constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state. Separation of church and state has been upheld by the Supreme Court as the only way to ensure free exercise of and lack of government legislation in religion, but it is by no means an explicit right.

In any case, this clearly violates the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment. I don't believe there's anything wrong with a school bringing in a religious authority, but there is something wrong with preventing people from leaving. School should be sued, and rightfully so.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?