Texas Public School Bible Classes Teach Races Come from Noah’s Sons, B

[betsy]

deleted.

Edited February 3, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Agree. But it's better for us Christians to teach our own children,and hone them with leadership skills.

Sorry to digress from the acrimony, but I can't resist. Much to Sharkman's dismay, I can always pick out who is a parent and who isn't. It's uncanny, really.

You have no children.

[betsy]

betsy, on 02 February 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

Agree. But it's better for us Christians to teach our own children,and hone them with leadership skills.

Sorry to digress from the acrimony, but I can't resist. Much to Sharkman's dismay, I can always pick out who is a parent and who isn't. It's uncanny, really.

You have no children.

Well, I can't resist either.

You were able to "pick out" I'm not a parent.... because I told you. Search your foggy mind and maybe you'll remember. I told you too that I ran a daycare. And you passed that information to another forum member in another topic.

So don't go hallucinating, imagining anything "uncanny" about that. There's nothing uncanny about it. No paranormal activity on your end, either.

And while you're busy wading through in there, can you also find the reason what having no children has to do with this? You got anything against natural non-parents?

I think any thinking person will say that I have more understanding and experience with children compared to a lot of parents. Including my years at the military daycare, I had more than 1000 of them - from infancy to 13 years of age! And yes, I did have a 13 year old among them. And I call them, "my kids!"

And I did some tutoring too! Count that in.

So yep...I definitely know what I'm on about when it comes to children. Which is why I'm so gungho about Christian organizations taking care of our own.....and others whose parents want their children to be taught with Christian values as a foundation. Needless to say, they'll be introduced to JESUS!

Speaking of which, do you know where your children are, btw?

Going back to my statement above about teaching our children with leadership skills......the Catholic Schools have shown that they do excel with schooling children. I can always tell who among my kids go to Catholic schools....they seem to stand out, in a positive way.

Cheers!

Edited February 3, 2013 by betsy

[Guest Manny]

The "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Yes, I can see now how you and betsy can mesh well.

You can see that, from up there.

[GostHacked]

Pretty much any organizations can teach kids leadership skills. Whether good or bad leadership skills being taught is another question.

Some even learn it on their own, and some are just naturally good at leadership.

[Canuckistani]

Some even learn it on their own, and some are just naturally good at leadership.

I guess this is a Godwin and all, but I bet the Hitler Youth taught great leadership skills. Well, except for blindly following the dogma of course.

[BubberMiley]

You were able to "pick out" I'm not a parent.... because I told you. Search your foggy mind and maybe you'll remember. I told you too that I ran a daycare. And you passed that information to another forum member in another topic.

I wasn't aware that parents weren't allowed to run daycares. But don't get in a huff. I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out my uncanny abilities to create character profiles with limited information.

[betsy]

BubberMiley'

I wasn't aware that parents weren't allowed to run daycares. But don't get in a huff. I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out my uncanny abilities to create character profiles with limited information.

You quoted my statement about children and declared I got no children.

betsy, on 02 February 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

Agree. But it's better for us Christians to teach our own children,and hone them with leadership skills.

'BubberMiley'

Sorry to digress from the acrimony, but I can't resist. Much to Sharkman's dismay, I can always pick out who is a parent and who isn't. It's uncanny, really.

You have no children.

I didn't say you're attacking me.....but your message seem to imply that being a natural non-parent somehow excludes - or reduces the weight of one's opinion on this particular matter.

We're not talking about actual childbirthing experience(s).

Well in my case, I gave out the information that I have no natural children of my own, a long time ago. I don't know what you're on about Sharkman. Nor what the heck you're talking about. And I don't know what's uncanny about you stating a known fact about me.

Unless you've forgotten that I gave that information....or maybe you're having a eureka moment....you mean it's uncanny how you can remember.

Edited February 3, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

You're right. I may have read that and filed it away, and that might be how I generated the profile. It may not be so uncanny after all.

But I do believe that people who are parents have a different outlook on the world than those who are not, and this difference can be seen in the way they relate with others. I can usually pick out the parents at a cocktail party. I can even distinguish the ones with grown children from the ones with wee ones.

But maybe it's just the fact that they can rarely put two sentences together without mentioning them.

[WIP]

I don't need to elaborate on human origins, since I don't really care a hoot if you believe we all developed from the urine of an alien pissing in the ocean....my belief is rooted in FAITH. NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCES NECESSARY.

And apparently your "FAITH" isn't informed by evidence! Though it does seem to be accompanied by rage and as close to swearing as you feel you are allowed to step. I am curious about human origins, but don't have a personal need for a perfect explanation. I am content with just letting the process of discovery go on and if there are mistakes and dead ends along the way, that's just part of finding the true story about who and what we are. So, the present controversy regarding Neanderthal's relation to us (which most feel is settled by recent mapping of the Neanderthal genome) is still disputed by at least a minority of geneticists. This is a dispute among experts on genetics that the rest of us will just have to wait for a clear consensus to develop again. But, regardless of whether there was some interbreeding of our ancestors with at least a few neanderthals or not, the story of human evolution gathered through fossil and genetic evidence can not be squeezed through a rigid fundamentalist adherence to Genesis...like the Texas school boards are trying to do! Whether modern day Christians want to consider Noah and his sons as real, living breathing people, if they go the next step and try to apply it to where whites, blacks, asians, aboriginals etc. come from, then they are leading children down a dangerous path that will make already bad race relations even worse!

I've made the point time and time again, that I don't object religious faith in principle....although it's not something I live by in my own life. I have irritated more than a few atheists here who are dogmatic about making everyone choose science and naturalism over religion and supernatural beliefs, and been banned from one atheist forum for challenging notions like 'everyone's worldview should be as scientifically accurate as possible', or 'everyone will be happier and live better lives once religion disappears', and I learned that new atheists have coined a couple of derogatory terms for those like me or similar: "Faitheist" and "Accommodationist." So, on one side we have the dogmatic Christian extremists like you, and on the other side we have a small, vocal group of new atheists who are creating a secular version of fundamentalists! While most of us would like to live somewhere in the middle, or at least be open to the idea that different people have different needs in finding meaning and purpose in life. You want a stark contrast, where it's either my religion or no religion at all....just like your ideological enemies that you troll with on the other side.

You, on the other hand have to elaborate and explain your stance. And you're doing so poorly at it.....what more, when we peel away the onion skin, you're left with nothing .....except the possibility of the......magic pie in the sky! UFO! STAR TREK!

And speaking of Star Trek, that same name was cited as an example in the topic, What Is A Christian, post# 153.

http://www.mapleleaf...ic=19334&st=150

So, yup. Trekkies.

"And speaking of Star Trek!" Who the hell was speaking of star trek besides you? I am still not sure what the hell your point was with this reference and link back to an argument you had on the bible last year, except that Shwa....who seems to have bailed out this place over a year ago, made a similar point to you when you were claiming that science proves the bible, when you apparently offered up some flimsy fundamentalist tract about 51 "scientifically proven facts" in the bible, then he could counter that there are:

more than than 51 "scientifically proven facts" in your average Star Trek novel, but I wouldn't be looking for Captain Kirk anytime soon.

Which was a good point btw! The scientific accuracy of Star Trek would not justify claims that Star Trek characters actually exist, or will exist in our future.....but, apparently that went right over your head, like so much else does! I would go with a present day example that the fact that New York City exists, does not prove that Spiderman/Peter Parker is web-swinging his way among the skyscrapers in Manhattan or the Bronx.

Which still has nothing to do with my objections to Texas fundamentalists trying to force schools to teach that the present day races are descendents of Noah's sons! There are reasons to be horrified by this reactionary development; and they go beyond denigrating science to rekindling the race theory that was used to justify enslaving Africans and colonialization of non-whites in the rest of the world. Texas is marching....or should I say: goose-stepping it's way back to back to white supremacism, and they may as well put their bedsheets back on if they're going to go down this road.

And, in that comment by Shwa, that you consider so bad that you felt the need to resurrect it.... I noticed that he made a point about dogmatism on the other side when he referred to his own challenges to using science to establish morality.....but that flew right over your head again....or you just didn't want to consider it! Whatever, he hasn't posted anything here since 2011. The other object of your withering criticism - Canadien...who, if I recall correctly, is a liberal Catholic, hasn't posted in four months. So no wonder it seems like there is less of a rational middle ground here on science and religion!

I have rarely gone to the members tab very often, since I don't come here to socialize, but the lists of members who maybe post a comment or two and then disappear is huge, while only a tiny minority are posting thousands of comments! Seems like most people join here and give up real fast; it's a topic for another discussion, but it would be worth opening it why it's only a tiny handful who stick around, and it seems like the best, most informed commenters, who were active for several years have just thrown in the towel and walked away.

Edited February 3, 2013 by WIP

[WIP]

You're right. I may have read that and filed it away, and that might be how I generated the profile. It may not be so uncanny after all.

But I do believe that people who are parents have a different outlook on the world than those who are not, and this difference can be seen in the way they relate with others. I can usually pick out the parents at a cocktail party. I can even distinguish the ones with grown children from the ones with wee ones.

But maybe it's just the fact that they can rarely put two sentences together without mentioning them.

Somehow I can figure that if you're going to cocktail parties, you're in with a different crowd than I am! And, you're right that having children changes one's outlook on life. Conservatives will go on and on about how new parents become more conservative, at least on social issues, and that's true. Although I would point out that a lot of the conservatism comes from the excitement and fear of bringing a new baby into this world. We want everything to go perfect and are afraid of threats to their safety and of them making bad choices. Although it also needs to be pointed out that by the time the 2nd or 3rd kid comes around, most parents have learned to relax a little....so we end up back to being more liberal again, and that's where the story of the youngest being spoiled comes along.

And, if we have children, we have to...or should have to...take a longer view of the future. I'm not sure if this applies too far, but I am a little dismayed at those who just want to leave present day dysfunctions for them to figure out. But again, that attitude does come more from those with no future, who have a hard time visualizing a world mid-21st century, since they won't be around to enjoy it themselves. Same with economic ideas from the right. I would guess that most libertarians are young men living in mom's basement, and that provides them the comfort of being completely selfish about life and their attitudes about the world.

[Guest Manny]

I wasn't aware that parents weren't allowed to run daycares. But don't get in a huff. I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out my uncanny abilities to create character profiles with limited information.

So what? You keeping a spreadsheet or something? The fact you would just throw something like that out there adds nothing to the debate. Only makes you look like a creep.

[cybercoma]

Agree. But it's better for us Christians to teach our own children,and hone them with leadership skills. With Christian values as solid foundation, I think if these training remain consistent with Christ's teachings, it will benefit society and will make the world a better place.

Cheers.

Allahu Akhbar! Spoken like a true Muslim.

[Guest Manny]

Spoken like a true Muslim.

The translation of muslim is, person devoted to god.

[Mighty AC]

And apparently your "FAITH" isn't informed by evidence! Though it does seem to be accompanied by rage and as close to swearing as you feel you are allowed to step. I am curious about human origins, but don't have a personal need for a perfect explanation. I am content with just letting the process of discovery go on and if there are mistakes and dead ends along the way, that's just part of finding the true story about who and what we are.

Well said. When not accompanied by political power I have no problem with people basing their lives on a story backed by nothing more than their desire to believe it. However, I have no patience for those that cite their faith as justification for hate or denial of evidence and back it with their own cocktail of cherry picked passages from a book they know to be deeply flawed. A book only propped up by their own desire to believe it. An unquestioning belief simply rooted in a story told or forced by others who want to believe.

[Canuckistani]

Well said. When not accompanied by political power I have no problem with people basing their lives on a story backed by nothing more than their desire to believe it. However, I have no patience for those that cite their faith as justification for hate or denial of evidence and back it with their own cocktail of cherry picked passages from a book they know to be deeply flawed. A book only propped up by their own desire to believe it. An unquestioning belief simply rooted in a story told or forced by others who want to believe.

The OP is about teaching this stuff in public schools. That should never be allowed to happen, and I'm surprised it's deemed constitutional in Texas. Bible class belongs in church.

[Mighty AC]

I completely agree...though I'm not surprised it's going on in Texas. I was commenting more on the last couple of pages of the thread discussing how evidence is not required for the faithful.

[Canuckistani]

I completely agree...though I'm not surprised it's going on in Texas. I was commenting more on the last couple of pages of the thread discussing how evidence is not required for the faithful.

Not unless they want to play Betsy's game of "science proves the bible is true". If they want to accept the scientific evidence for a particular bit in the bible being true, they also have to accept the scientific evidence that contradicts most of the bible. Well, they don't have to, as we've seen Betsy's game here, but that hypocrisy is what set me off.

[Sleipnir]

So conclusion is, what these folks in Texas are teaching is not consistent with the bible.

The book is so.....complex and rather vague in a lot of ways. That saying, I don't think anyone can correctly say who has the appropriate teaching of the bible and who doesn't.

The bible simply listed stories that was added to it, I don't see it saying what part of it you need to follow or anything. This got me thinking, is the bible even meant to be followed or rather a collection of stories that people didn't want to get lost?

It was probably difficult and costly back in the era to make copies of multiple books with limited technology, and it may have been easier to copy them by lumping them all in one collective book.

[Mighty AC]

Not unless they want to play Betsy's game of "science proves the bible is true". If they want to accept the scientific evidence for a particular bit in the bible being true, they also have to accept the scientific evidence that contradicts most of the bible. Well, they don't have to, as we've seen Betsy's game here, but that hypocrisy is what set me off.

Not surprising they pick and choose the nuggets of evidence they accept because they do the same with the Bible itself. They cherry pick, redefine and reinterpret the bits of the "book" that support their desired outcome.

[Sleipnir]

Not surprising they pick and choose the nuggets of evidence they accept because they do the same with the Bible itself. They cherry pick, redefine and reinterpret the bits of the "book" that support their desired outcome.

Translation: they commit logical fallacy all the time.

[Guest Manny]

Not surprising they pick and choose the nuggets of evidence they accept because they do the same with the Bible itself. They cherry pick, redefine and reinterpret the bits of the "book" that support their desired outcome.

Sorry Ive lost track of who you mean now. You mean scientists.

[Mighty AC]

What in particular do you disagree with?

[Sleipnir]

Sorry Ive lost track of who you mean now. You mean scientists.

Ah a sarcastic antagonizing comment, why am I not surprise.

[WIP]

Well said. When not accompanied by political power I have no problem with people basing their lives on a story backed by nothing more than their desire to believe it. However, I have no patience for those that cite their faith as justification for hate or denial of evidence and back it with their own cocktail of cherry picked passages from a book they know to be deeply flawed. A book only propped up by their own desire to believe it. An unquestioning belief simply rooted in a story told or forced by others who want to believe.

Thanks, and I can agree with you for the most part, since I have the same reservations about how religious narratives can be molded and shaped to suit some very destructive political goals - like being used to justifiy national and racial supremacy, sanctioning restrictive roles and opportunities for women, justifying persecution of minority groups that are outside the group....whether it's gays, different religions, atheists, other races etc.. There's always some passage in the Bible that can be pulled out by either a political demagogue or his clergy sidekick, who wears the robes of religious authority.

On the other hand, there can be religious authorities who stand up to the despots and dictators, who stand for justice and equality, and encouraging their followers to be better people rather than judging those who are different and live in foreign countries.

I doubt that most religious adherents are actually cherry-picking the Bible themselves. It's more likely that they have latched on to one or two trusted religious authorities and just repeat whatever they say. It's also very likely that they chose this religious authority already because it fit the political and economic ideology they already adhere to. My biggest bone of contention with today's rightwing christians is that they have tried to ignore or bury the entire social gospel of the old and new testaments.

Instead they have turned the social gospel on its head and declared that unguided market forces of capitalism is divinely sanctioned by God and the results fall in to a meritocracy where those who get rich are blessed by God, while those who live in grinding poverty are either cursed by God or failed to receive the blessings. This sort of popular prosperity gospel is not only found among the Evangelicals; it pervades just about every form of Protestantism and the Catholic Church today as well. As a quick Catholic example, I would cite how the hierarchy has dealt with Catholic libertarians like Paul Ryan. The Church still makes noises about concern for the poor, but they are today persecuting the only Catholics who actually practice it - such as the nuns who are scorned for not rigidly enforcing the Church abstinence policies where it would be rejected. While they have said nothing about Ryan, his budget proposals gutting social spending and fawning adulation of the atheist crackpot and wannabee political philosopher - Ayn Rand. On the other hand, there are Christian and other religious traditions that have been trying to make the world a better place....which is getting more difficult as the years go by.

The problem for us who have left and started charting our own course in the moral universe is that we have to either make our own maps as we go along or latch on to some secular system as the atheist version of religion.....I'm thinking primarily of humanist philosophies here. But, even if you are a moral person who is concerned for others, making moral decisions by using reasoning and evidence is a lot more difficult than it appears. It may work for the big decisions, but every day we have to make quick decisions on an intuitive level.....should we open a door for someone else rather than entering first....should we leave a tip for the counter clerk at the coffee shop....and all of the little examples of how we live in daily life that we do without having time to weigh evidence for or against, but just have to respond naturally. But, even if we do have a moral theory like using utilitarianism to decide moral and ethical issues, we are still going to arrive at different conclusions on various subjects....whether it's whether or not to eat meat, euthanasia, abortion, even infanticide, you'd be surprised how much variation there can be in the final decisions between different theorists. The religious adherents may be stuck having to support rules they do not get a vote on, but the challenge for secularists from atheist to vague pantheistic theists, but can we have a society with a shared moral order if we don't have some binding authority like religion to enforce it?