zoegirl wrote:YOu completely missed my point about Hitler and pedophiles.
YOU brought up the idea that the entire meaning in life is simply to seek happiness. And yet that philosophy is fraught with problems. I didn't bring up Hitler specifically because he was atheist (another example of you reading between the lines). I brought him up because his idea of an ideal life was the extermination of an entire race, not to mention countless others reasons. Hitler did evil things. However, if you believe that everyong gets to pursue their happiness, then HOW DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CURTAIL THAT HAPPINESS? If indeed you believe that people pursue happiness, then how are you even justified calling anything evil?
i think my comments on how you completely oversimplified (a constant theme that is emerging by the way) what hitler (or rapists or pedophiles) did is more on target here. my thoughts on happiness (or 'katmandu') is something that i think everyone should be able to seek from day one of their life. to say hitler found pleasure in 'trying to wipe out an entire race' is grossely oversimplified (and historically inaccurate) the issue. i would assume that if he was allowed to seek his katmandu from day one, his life would have been radically differant (as i said his love of painting and his mother were important childhood themes), certainly his involvement (and the horrors he witnessed in world war one) affected his mental state for the rest of his life. this 'bludgeoning' towards violence that he (and so many others) received effect who he became. simply put, if he was able to seek his 'katmandu' from day one i doubt he would have ever even thought about murdering one Jewish person. this discussion on hitler should end now, as you refuse to do any ACTUAL investigation into his life/ why he made the decisions he did. the same goes for rapists/pedophiles, people get that why from various factors/SEVERE emotion trauma, for you to make a huge brushstroke and say "they do this to be happy" is both unenlightened and ignorant to social problems/mental issues. again, perhaps if people were able to persue the life they wanted things would be a little better. we can continue this at your wish, but please if you want to keep playing the 'hitler card' read some of the stats on the back.
zoegirl wrote:I could have easily brought up the corrupt leaders in the catholic church previous to the reformation that tortured people and sold absoloutions. POint is, society as a whole is made up of people whose idea of happiness is taking advantage of people, not to mention abusing them and hurting them...
Pedophiles and rapists (and yes it is HORRIBLE that there are rapists and pedophiles in church) pursue their happiness and yet you have no problem (I hope) with the idea of stopping them.
see above comments. again, lets stop the huge brushstrokes. people with emotional problems don't due these things 'to be happy.' it is after a lifetime of neglect and or emotional trauma. life is mostly colored grey when it appears all you see is black and white.
zoegirl wrote:MY POINT BEING: as soon as you admit that the meaning of life cannot simply be finding happiness, or certainly not happiness at the expense of others, then you must then address where you draw that line? Then you find that while "finding ones' happiness" makes for a nice platitude, it really is a useless saying. We are quite fine with trampling on thousandss of poeple's idea of happiness. Taxes, Laws against murder, Laws preventing fraud....countless laws trampling on people who are simply wanting to pursue their happiness.
a 'useless saying' good one. coming from someone whose meaning of life comes down to reading an out-of-date 2000 year old book and repenting every week. yeah i agree 'seeking hapiness' is 'useless' (i'm being sarcastic here for effect).
zoegirl wrote:Not to mention that pesky problem of why our idea of happiness is at the expense of others.
again, see above. people should be able to seek happiness from day one. in my opinion, indoctrinating a child to faith is infringing on this. because ultimately you are altering (in your image) the person they would have naturaly become on there own.
zoegirl wrote:I have already said that to use Vonnegut as a comparitive argument for scripture is stretching things. It's as if you want to compare Green Eggs and Ham with Crime and Punishment.
you state this as if it's fact. who cares if 'crime and punishment' is good anyways, after the understanding you gave of vonnegut in your earlier book review, shows you wouldn't know (or understand) a good book versus a bad book. kinda like the old saying 'all the colors are alike to a blind person', or as another idiom; your understanding to symbolism in literature could be compaired to 'having van goghs ear for music.' as far as compairing the two if the bible was written today it wouldn't even get published (content aside) it's poorly written.
zoegirl wrote:As to the archaeological evidence, I have asked you twice to read through the evidence and tackle what you don't like. YOu completely ignored the fact that you have no basis for criticizing the Bible unless you are willing to back up your criteria . Again, you yourself have established the guidelines. In order to be able to criticize a book, you tell me, I must be, in your example, 20 times more well read in that book. You complained to me on my criticism of Vonnegut. But you turn around and want to be critical of the Bible.
PLUS, you plead with me to read up on those experts FOR Vonnegut. And thus I charge you with reading on those experts FOR the Bible. You can start with Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a Verdict"; Lee Stroebels "The Case for Christ", C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity", and countless others.
are we playing 'dodgeball'? i have never disputed the archeological evidence to that time period. but you haven't answered my question:
"there is rubble in dresden from the bombing in world war two, that slaughterhouse five speaks of. does this evidence to history make billy pilgrim a real person, and all the events that happen to him real?" i'm not sure i can be clearer then that.
as for the books you recommend, i will never read lee stroebels, he's a con-artist that exploits peoples faith to become rich (and a poor writer on top of all that). as far as c.s. lewis i read him as a kid in 'the chronicals of narnia' i would bet the rest of his work is fantasy based as well. hopefully his estate makes a lot on the movies though.
zoegirl wrote:As to teaching....you really must stop this pattern of assuming and judging. This is quite humorous. First of all, you don't know me. Secondly, if you had even read half my posts, you would have garnered enough knowledge to have answered your question. When I read a thread that seems to have some history to it, I sit down and read up and ALL of the posts. Before I spout out some judgement on somebody, I make sure I read up on their previous posts. .
If you had read them, you would know that I teach more about the theory of evolution than most public schools at the introductory biology level (and I know, I student taught as well as went through the public school system....) Public schools merely teach that the fossil record supports evolution, without examining it. Public schools merely say mutations can lead to evolution, without examining it. I teach at a private Christian school I am blessed to have administrators that want students to know about evolution and to be able to critically think about subjects. I teach from a secular textbooks. Therefore not only do I want them to understand fully what the theory states but I want them to know what the problems are. Biased? Well, certainly you are free to think so. Just don't do so out of ignorance.
I want my students to know evolution in its mechanics JUST AS WELL than other high school students . I never want them to be surprised at what college professors are saying. (
and lest you think college professors don't have an agenda, I had a graduate professor BRAG about the fact that he could ruin a freshman's faith by using his lack of understanding in microevolution to make that freshman doubt his faith, BRAG about it, and he SOUGHT OPPORTUNITIES to do so, now that's not biased and manipulative?). I want my students to be able to look at this professor and at the least, shrug their shoulders and say "Eh, already know this, doesn't mean what he thinks it means, doesn't mean my faith is lost" or even be able to respond to his efforts. I simply seek to have my students not argue againts evolution by saying "it's stupid"
Gee, how pathetic I am to want my students to be able to defend what they believe without resorting to emotion.
hey again, 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.' you state you are teaching evolution in a "private Christian school" (yeah, no bias there) it seems to me you are not really teaching, so much as you are teaching them how to argue against it. good job. again, like i said earlier if you input your beliefs on someone you are teaching you are doing a disservice to that person, and his/her growth intellectually. thats the problem i have. if you have a different opinion i don't see how you are being intellectually honest to yourself or your students. i also like how you get the accredited public school education and then go to a private christian school. i don't blame you, i'd want my college degree to mean something as well (unlike an unaccredited bible/seminary school).
zoegirl wrote:If you want a summation of what I believe: I have absolutely no problem with microevolution. I am an Old Earth creationist who is also currently a progressive creationist. Currently I don't think microevolution leads to macroevolution.
"am I advocating that it's false? or am I teaching science" Boy, such a little phrase with such a wealth of meaning behind it. In your mind if I criticize macroevolution then I am not teaching science. In your view I cannot do both? I say I do both, you will disagree, of course.
DO I teach Christianity is true? You betcha, Do we, as a school, defend our faith? You betcha..."Don not be ashamed of the Gospel..."
well if you are teaching that christianity IS TRUE then the world is say 6000-10000 years old and we all came from mud. yet you also teach microevolution, it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. come down of the fence, the waters ok down here.
zoegirl wrote:YOu charge me with being biased....may I respectfully charge every atheist professor who freely teaches this philosophy in his/her classroom with the same.
it's hardly a charge, it's fact. you said above "DO I teach Christianity is true? You betcha" that is exactly my charge you are imposing beliefs onto young impressionable minds. teachers should give students a thirst for knowledge, not give them there watered down version of the truth.
zoegirl wrote:Some of my teachers in public school and many professors in college were biased in what they taught me...In their view, similar to yours, life has no meaning aside from what pleasure and happiness you can find before you die. Death brings nothing but emptiness. Did they ever bring up any other philosophy besides this? What a double standard you hold!! They weren't biased?
According to you, they should have brought up any religion that holds that there is a God and life after death AND they must do so without judging them. Did they do so? Not on your life....I had teachers blatantly talk about their philosophy and at the public college education sector no one blinks at this.
And yet we dare to teach our student what we believe and why we believe it and you call us bias...what a joke
Regards
i don't see this as a good argument. isn't it 'they do it, so i'll do it.' if this is what happened then they were wrong too, but again, two wrongs do not make a right.
and in response to all the bandwagon jumpers who claimed "i wish you were my teacher, ect..." while adding NOTHING to the actual conversation, i am reminded of a passage a wise jedi master once said:
"Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?" -star wars 1977
next time add something, or don't bother posting.
