1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    13 Jun '14 11:28
    Originally posted by sonship
    If everything Jesus said can be said in any Public Elementary school, why is it not allowed to teach what Jesus said in detail, class by class, in Public School ?
    Not everything Jesus ever said is to be considered plain 'wisdom'. A lot of it was religious teaching. Religious teaching is not allowed in Public Elementary school in your country. I suspect that if non-religious sayings by Jesus were introduced, they would be allowed. But considering the responses so far in this thread, I don't think there would be many such quotes that you could find that are both wise and non-religious.

    So "the wisest words of Jesus" is a disingenuous expression on your part. For if anyone points to some wise words of Jesus which you reject a being wise, you maintain your phony argument.
    I guess this makes your original claim equally disingenuous.
  2. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8835
    13 Jun '14 11:56
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Not everything Jesus ever said is to be considered plain 'wisdom'. A lot of it was religious teaching. Religious teaching is not allowed in Public Elementary school in your country. I suspect that if non-religious sayings by Jesus were introduced, they would be allowed. But considering the responses so far in this thread, I don't think there would be many ...[text shortened]... maintain your phony argument.
    I guess this makes your original claim equally disingenuous.[/b]
    1.) Wolfgang did not say what was wisest AND not religious.

    2.) What is "religious" is greatly in the eye of the beholder. The amount of devotion one persons observes another has causes them to label activity "religious".

    I think some people are so enthusiastic about say, the Theory of Evolution are "religious".

    Religious and non-religious are labels that anyone can use to their own discretion.

    And that is all the comment I have time to write right now.

    What's "religious" is largely in the eye of the beholder.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    13 Jun '14 12:36
    Originally posted by sonship
    1.) Wolfgang did not say what was wisest AND not religious.
    Well then you might be able to make a sound case against him. If Jesus said something that was both wise and religious, then it is unlikely wolfgang heard it in primary school - depending on what country he comes from.

    2.) What is "religious" is greatly in the eye of the beholder. The amount of devotion one persons observes another has causes them to label activity "religious".
    And for this reason, it is probably best to keep the teachings of known religious personalities out of Schools as there will undoubtedly be conflict over which teachings to allow.

    I think some people are so enthusiastic about say, the Theory of Evolution are "religious".
    Nevertheless, evolution is not a religion, and teaching it in school is not promoting a religion.

    Religious and non-religious are labels that anyone can use to their own discretion.
    I was specifically referring to the promotion of a specific religion which I believe is not allowed under your constitution. I do not think the meaning is as flexible as you would like to make out. Even you would have to admit that the teaching of Theory of Evolution in school does not constitute the promotion of a religion.
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    13 Jun '14 13:42
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And for this reason, it is probably best to keep the teachings of known religious personalities out of Schools as there will undoubtedly be conflict over which teachings to allow.
    Since religion has been such an influential part of human history, some teachings of major religions should be allowed. As for "conflict", there's also conflict over teaching evolution in schools, As well as sex education; yet, those are taught anyway.
  5. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8835
    13 Jun '14 14:535 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And for this reason, it is probably best to keep the teachings of known religious personalities out of Schools as there will undoubtedly be conflict over which teachings to allow.


    There again "known religious personalities" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

    I think astronomer Carl Sagan could be called a "religious personality" for stating that the Cosmos is all that is or that ever was or the ever will be.

    That's a pure statement of religious devotion to his ideology. He has a replacement for God, the Cosmos. Many of us would consider that an idol, a replacement for God and a "religious" teaching. Some might regard it as Pantheism.

    I have seen on some TV science programs the announcer preaching that we all came from stars. Technically it is true that the substance of our bodies all came from stars. But he seemed to be seizing upon the matter to suggest that physical products of stars are all that we are and we owe our origin to stars even in a spiritual way.

    Such an science show personality could be described as a religious personality as well. Stars take the place of a Creator God.


    Nevertheless, evolution is not a religion, and teaching it in school is not promoting a religion.


    To many people it is. Forget about refering to Wikapedia or the Dictionary. To some people Evolution is a secular religion.


    I was specifically referring to the promotion of a specific religion which I believe is not allowed under your constitution.


    You are referring to religion and "religious personalities".
    Allah or Vishnu or Jehovah may be termed "religious personalities". But teaching that the universe had a beginning implies to most logical people, I think, that there was a Beginner - anyway Somebody bigger than you and I.

    I doubt the US will encode in the Constitution that a beginning of the universe cannot be good science because it implies God with many people.
    I don't see soon a enforcement that good Science about a cosmological beginning of the universe cannot be taught because it violates the separation of church and state.

    Albania, under the Soviet block, had its official religion stated as Atheism.
    The US is not that far into anti-theism yet at least.

    There is a Supreme Court ruling that says something to the effect that religious implications cannot be grounds to keep good science out of the class room.

    Good science cannot be kept out of the class room merely because some of its findings have "religious" implications.

    Some Americans interpret "Freedom of Religion" to be "Freedom From Religion".


    A state mandated religion is forbidden by our constitution.

    any explanation of the origin of the universe or life that shows scientific integrity and credibility can be taught, regardless of theological implications.

    The US Constitution cannot be forced to keep good science out, nor to force bad science in.

    A free market environment for science education ..."


    Some Christian lost Court cases because they were trying to force bad science in. The US Constitution cannot always be relied upon to keep out good science that may have certain theological implications.

    And in my opinion within the next 20 to 30 years Intelligent Design as Science will probably make inroads in some states. Some people, including myself, think ID has theological implications, specific "religious personalities" not explicitly endorsed. But I agree that it does not necessarily have to imply "religious personalities". The intelligent agents of nature could be something else beside an intelligent deity.

    I would advize you not to gloat prematurely over the state of things in the United States concerning what is taught in Public Schools.

    It may be forbidden to proclaim Yahweh or Allah ("religious personalities" ) as the Creator specifically. But good science with what you like to term as "religious" implications are hard to eradicate from our democracy.


    I do not think the meaning is as flexible as you would like to make out. Even you would have to admit that the teaching of Theory of Evolution in school does not constitute the promotion of a religion.


    Of course you don't.
    And on the second point, as long as there are people like Richard Dawkins selling books as best sellers in the US, no, I would not agree that the teaching of Evolution does not promote a religion. What some people propose as a replacement for God can be thought of as religious in spite of what you say.

    And a "secular" religion of Atheism or a "secular" religious zeal for macro Evolution in spite of scientific evidence for macro evolution, some people will rightly peg as promotion of religion.

    Big Bang cosmology cannot be forced out of the schools because for many it certainly has "religious" implications and conceivably points towards "religious personalities".

    And I would say the same thing goes for other disciplines in the humanities.

    Now if I lost your line of logic somewhere let me just sum up my reaction to your entire general attitude here -

    For me it is more rationale that I love God and serve God as a proper human being than not. To be a proper human being, I think it is far less rationale to be an Atheist or Anti-theist.

    This is my general reply to your entire presence in the Spirituality Forum no matter what the subject matter shifts to be from time to time.

    Proper human reasoning includes God. Improper human reasoning (whatever the subject matter) excludes God's existence from its thought process.


    And as you said you ignore quickly with my preaching, I have a similar feeling towards your posts as well.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    13 Jun '14 15:14
    Originally posted by vivify
    Since religion has been such an influential part of human history, some teachings of major religions should be allowed.
    As long as they are not heavily biased towards one religion, and overtly promoting one religion, then I have no objections. I had to do 'Religious Education' in school, and although I think it should have been optional, and disagreed with some of the material, it wasn't something I would make a massive fuss about.

    As for "conflict", there's also conflict over teaching evolution in schools, As well as sex education; yet, those are taught anyway.
    They are taught because the benefits are judged to outweigh the risk of conflict. But if you are teaching 'wise sayings', there is plenty to choose from without resorting to controversial figures. Now if someone in this thread had been able to show that Jesus was remarkably wise in some area other than promoting his religion, then I would have agreed, let it be taught.
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    invigorated
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    13 Jun '14 20:52
    Originally posted by sonship
    1.If everything Jesus said can be said in any Public Elementary school, ...

    2. Lastly, since you dismiss what you wish from Jesus as not being a wise saying, your point is disingenuous. What you really mean is "any wisdom of Jesus that I wolfgang59 also approve of as being wise."
    Why does it take you so many words to say so little?

    1. I never said that.

    2. I asked for ONE statement from Jesus that could be considered the wisest. And obviously a supporting argument. That has not been given by anyone.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 Jun '14 08:29
    Originally posted by sonship
    There again "known religious personalities" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
    Only if you really want to stretch the definition.

    I think astronomer Carl Sagan could be called a "religious personality" for stating that the Cosmos is all that is or that ever was or the ever will be.
    So which religion was he promoting?

    That's a pure statement of religious devotion to his ideology.
    Well then you could try and argue that that statement should not be made in schools.

    Such an science show personality could be described as a religious personality as well. Stars take the place of a Creator God.
    Well if they are clearly making that claim, then I think you could, correctly ask that such statements not be made in schools.

    To many people it is. Forget about refering to Wikapedia or the Dictionary. To some people Evolution is a secular religion.
    Well I am afraid they loose out to the more rational people amoungst us. In general science trumps religion, and if something is a scientific finding, it has a place in school regardless of whether someone thinks it is religion. Otherwise we could teach nothing in school whatsoever as there may potentially be someone who thinks English is religious or mathematics is religious.
    A little bit of sanity needs to be used in these cases.

    But teaching that the universe had a beginning implies to most logical people, I think, that there was a Beginner - anyway Somebody bigger than you and I.
    Sorry, but I have to ask you to justify such a claim. How do you decide who is a 'logical' person, and when did you do your survey? I believe that it is a well known fact that the most logical people (scientists, mathematicians etc) are far more likely to be atheist than the general population.

    I doubt the US will encode in the Constitution that a beginning of the universe cannot be good science because it implies God with many people.
    I don't see soon a enforcement that good Science about a cosmological beginning of the universe cannot be taught because it violates the separation of church and state.

    Which of course begs the question, why not? If your claim that there is a logical progression from 'beginning' to 'creator' then why did the US high court not judge the Big Bang to be a religious claim?

    Albania, under the Soviet block, had its official religion stated as Atheism.
    Reference please.

    Some Americans interpret "Freedom of Religion" to be "Freedom From Religion".
    To the extent that you don't want a religion forced on you by the government, I think that is probably true of all americans. Would you accept Islam being mandated in school? No, you want freedom from that religion.

    A state mandated religion is forbidden by our constitution.
    Exactly.

    The US Constitution cannot be forced to keep good science out, nor to force bad science in.
    Agreed.

    And in my opinion within the next 20 to 30 years Intelligent Design as Science will probably make inroads in some states.
    It wouldn't surprise me given the poor science education of decision makers in your country. That wouldn't make it 'good science'.

    I would advise you not to gloat prematurely over the state of things in the United States concerning what is taught in Public Schools.
    Actually I think the state of US education is pathetic.


    To be honest I really don't know what you are arguing. Are you able to summarize what you want to say in a clearer way?
  9. Standard memberredbadger
    Suzzie says Badger
    is Racist Bastard
    Joined
    09 Jun '14
    Moves
    10079
    14 Jun '14 14:37
    2 nuns in the bath 1 says wheres the soap the other replies I know it dose
  10. Joined
    03 Sep '13
    Moves
    18093
    14 Jun '14 17:44
    Originally posted by wolfgang59

    2. I asked for ONE statement from Jesus that could be considered the wisest. And obviously a supporting argument. That has not been given by anyone.[/b]
    John 14:6
    English Standard Version (ESV)

    6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    A strong word of wisdom for sure!
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 Jun '14 18:04
    Originally posted by yoctobyte
    John 14:6
    English Standard Version (ESV)

    6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    A strong word of wisdom for sure!
    Please tell us what is wise about it.
    If it is true, then surely its just a statement of fact, not wisdom.
Back to Top