Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910
Results 181 to 187 of 187
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Thanks. I understood less at the end, but thats not your fault. There is just very little logic in the whole filed. Thanks for trying however.

    Yeah, I think some of it was my brevity at the expense of clarity. I know its off-topic, but if you're still interested I'd be happy to attempt to address the points that don't seem very logical.
  2.    #182  
    No, you're reading in to what I said. Its plain and simple. When secular laws are broken.
    Didn't mean to read into your statement. So let me ask follow-up questions instead.

    Why do you find it ok for people to condemn when "secular" laws are broken, but not ok for religious people to condemn?

    What makes condemnation in a "secular" frame of reference more palatable than such in a religious frame of reference?
  3.    #183  
    If was referring to Shopharim saying the old testament is the basis of Christianity. Even Christians should disown that part
    surur, why would you make this assertion when you have "no idea" what scripture the early christians relied upon?

    Since you have "no idea", allow me to inform. The "scripture" the early christians used was portions of what commonly now is referred to as the old testament.
  4.    #184  
    However I do note the gospels that made it to the bible were chosen by men, not God.
    Hmmmm. What method do you use to determine what God has chosen?
  5.    #185  
    That old self-referential argument. The bible as it is now is obviously the divinely inspired infallible scripture, and everything that has been discarded and added along the way is God's will, because its the Bible, as we all know the Bible is God's word.
    Actually, the evidence is not self-referencing, except to acknowledge that the manuscripts exist. From there, divine inspiration is concluded based on archaeology, history, and statistical probability.

    Further, the principles for qualifying text for inclusion in the canon of scripture are applied consistently.
  6. #186  
    Ok, I'm going to shock you all and post a serious response.

    The topic is about providing a context for the literature that the authors' or playwrights being studied have written. It is argued that providing a course on the bible would help this, and I have some sympathy for that argument but it is limited. Anyone who knows anything about the teaching profession knows that the time is limited which means that you would only have time to provide some overview of one version of the bible. For a start, which translation of the bible would you choose to teach about? The logical answer would be whichever translation influenced the author most. OK, was the author protestant or catholic? Was the author likely to have read the bible? Shakespeare quotes from the Geneva Bible (or Breeches Bible) so maybe we should use that translation when talking about Shakespeare?

    When it comes to providing a context for an author there are many many influences. The bible is not such an important one, in my opinion. Again using Shakespeare as an example you would do better to have an understanding of the politics of the time to understand his histories, the folklore of the time to understand his fantasies, his knowledge of Italy to understand his Italian plays, his sexuality to understand his sonnets - and how that sexuality would have been tolerated in the society of the time. I use him as one example but you could say the same about any author you chose to name. If we limit our understanding of context by concentrating on the bible rather than general society and which authors/playwrights the subject had read, then we will not gain anything.

    There is an argument for saying the bible has penetrated the general consciousness of society and therefore should be studied because it provides part of that societal framework. But how do we know that the bible was more or less pervasive as an influence than it is now? And in any case, should we be concentrating on teaching wider context at that level of study? When you start seriously examining influence and context that goes beyond high school level understanding of literature.

    If there is a specific book for which you need an understanding of a biblical text then in the study of that book the biblical text should be mentioned. I don't think there is solid ground for a general course on understanding the bible.
    Animo et Fide
  7. #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Anyone who knows anything about the teaching profession knows that the time is limited which means that you would only have time to provide some overview of one version of the bible.
    I agree with most of your statement, but you lost me at the start. Educators find time to teach what they believe to be important. For example, our public schools do a poor job of teaching geography and the sciences, yet they somehow make time for classes teaching social and sexual diversity, see "Bobby has Two Dads" and "How to Properly Put a Condom on a Cucumber" in Montgomery County schools in MD.

    If you can't "find time" to teach the best selling book of all time, then let's drop the silly classes our public schools offer now. Parents who believe public schools should offer prayer or religious study are written off as religious zealots, yet when classes such as the ones referenced above are taught, the educators pushing their agenda are call progressive. Letís drop the politics on both sides and maybe then we'll have time for geography and the sciences.
    Last edited by geatches; 06/17/2006 at 10:19 AM.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910

Posting Permissions