|
|
|
brownschat.clevelandbrowns.com Forums Main Index General Discussion Teen birth rates highest in most religious states Topic Closed|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
 |
Frankly, parents really shouldn't have any say in what their children learn in school. Our knowledge and understanding of our world is changing and advancing at a pace that makes each previous generation's education virtually irrelevant. What parents think their children should be learning is most often dead wrong or outdated.
People who are for eliminating public schools have only one thing in mind: money. They are selfish people who don't care about the well being of others, or the health of the society around them. They absolutely can't be Christian in faith, because that kind of greed and selfishness is in direct conflict with the teachings of that religion. |
|||
|
 |
They should be taught the 3 Rs and how to take a whoopin'!  Seriously, you're right. Most of what's being taught may very well be irrelevant by the time kids who are in school now become adults. However, they learn how to learn, and how to be part of society. |
|||
|
 |
I think you could make a fairly convincing argument that kids are not taught how to think (i.e. learn) in public school. Mostly they are taught to memorize and regurgitate.
Have you ever read John Gatto? He claims that the purpose of public education was to train children for the military, and that the idea of "public education" was started in Prussia. It's main purpose was governmental control; or to say it another way "how to be part of society"  I'm not saying he's correct or incorrect, but I think what he says is worth considering.----------- The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, the ammo box. Change we can believe in. |
|||
|
It is indeed Trev. In the last 30 years or so I think our public schools have been doing just that; teaching our kids how to be part of society that is, or put another way indoctrinating the kids to their mind set.
|
||||
|
 |
Sounds good. |
|||
|
 |
From the Book: ". The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else." You know its odd that you bring this up trev. I remember way back at the begining of time when I was in the 5th grade. I had a teacher that warned about the education in public schools and how it was starting to resemble what was started in Prussia. He even had a film (projector type) on the subject. I've always remembered that class session...not that I agreed but it was impressive. _______________________ When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826). |
|||
|
 |
Aww, feeling insecure about god? You worry about you, ill worry about me. I don't join any groups or anything else, just so you can sleep at night, no I do not believe in the christian god, or allah, or any other religion that is established....I don't need proof, I have faith in my choice  |
|||
|
|
|
For simplicity, we will go with that part. |
|||
|
|
|
That's not the strict truth any more. Teachers are expected to have their students demonstrate that they can analyze, synthesize, and apply the knowledge as well as memorize. Believe it or not schools respond to pressure from society. Teachers are constantly paying to be re-educated to use the latest instructional techniques. Unfortunately since schools are part of the government they have been attacked politically as well as simply addressed with concerns. |
|||
|
|
|
If you mean not teaching them the Earth is the center of the universe, it's 6,000 years old, and it was all created by a Christian God, then you sir are absolutely correct. Kids are taught to figure things out for themselves, which often means encouraging them not just to believe what the teacher is telling them, but to do their own research. Politically there are people who will spend their time to find examples of bad teaching and use it to paint the whole institution. There are many politicians who fear a society of free thinkers. |
|||
|
|
|
In the United States public schools were used as a way to indoctrinate and assimilate the influx of immigrants into our society. Also, the recently created child labor laws meant a need for something the children could do to keep them busy and safe during the day when their parents were working and back then it was most common that both parents worked.
Most citizens saw a value in having an educated society. Believe it or not schools are different than they were then and even different than they were when we were in the fifth grade all those years ago. I believe there are actually very conservative teachers who do wonderful work with kids. I work with them and we argue about politics often. |
|||
|
However, you can't fight "biology." Until the 20th century, mortality rates were lower, and people getting married in their teenage years were far more common, especially with low mortality rates. Biologically, as soon as teenage girls are ready to conceive, and teenage boys are hitting puberty, they are biologically ready to "reproduce" and in a sense "marry." Yes, I do not want my teenage children marrying, too young for our culture, we live in 21st century america, careers don't even start for people until they are in their mid 20s. However, we must remember that it is biologically natural for teenagers to have sex, and to be blunt, their bodies are ready to reproduce. I would go as far to say that their hormones are naturally telling them too (so to speak.)
Yes, I understand we have laws that you must be 18 to have sex, or people 18 and older should not be having it with a minor, etc. Today, these laws make sense. 1,000 years ago, they did not. Teenagers were in tribal warefare, getting married, having kids, working, etc. I would argue that poor choices, poor parenting, and birth control actually contribute to higher teenage birthrates. I am a former Bible Belt minister turned atheist. I was a pastor at Lake Meredith Baptist Church in Fritch Texas. When I was a minister there, Fritch high school had 24 female seniors, and 22 of the 24 were impregnated their senior year. A town of just over 2,000 people, with 12 churches. Bible was crammed down kids throats in a sense. What I mean by "in a sense" is, most people really don't learn or get much bible in church. They do get christian morality (which often contradicts the Bible) crammed down their throats. Again, I am against teenagers having sex at all- but again, biologically-they are ready, and now as an atheist, my way of thinking is far different when I was a christian. My position is pro good choices, not pro life or pro choice, and it is certainly pro good parenting. Even good parenting is not 100% full proof, to keep teenagers from conceiving/having sex. Part of the problem with kids is they are given rules, but not the reasons why. 'Don't have pre-marital sex, it is a sin." The "it is a sin" part is not a viable reason to any teenager. To them, a rule is meant to be broken. God is irrelevant as well, prayer is harder than texting, and God doesn't talk, much less text. Good parenting involves children and teenagers to understand the consequences of pre-marital sex. Common sense should be used, and religious rules don't scare kids to not have sex, they actually encourage kids to "sin." My children (I have 1 teenager, 2 almost teens, and one kindergartener) do much better when they understand why something is wrong, in addition to the rule. My youngest at 5 knows to look both ways in a parking lot, even though daddy is always there, simply because I tell him how important it is that cars are coming and he can get hurt. He understands, thus, he obeys well (i.e. he looks both ways even when I hold his hand, walking with him). However, just giving teens religious rules, only encourages bad behavior, because it is seen as a rule to be broken, and consequences are taught as "heaven vs. hell" and "sin vs. repentance" and not "common sense with consequences and sensical reasons why a behavior is not in their best interests." As per religion, thank the "gods" that America has freedom of religion, and we have "freedom FROM religion" as well by default. People do not need religion to know it is wrong to murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc. All it takes is a little common sense and some self esteem. that simple. |
||||
|
|
|
Welcome back Robert.
Weiner see what you started? LOL |
|||
|
 |
I won't disagree that there are instances where kids engage in sexual behavior simply out of rebellion for what they've heard in church all their lives. But can we really say it encourages that behavior? There are instances where it probably does, but there are a lot of instances where it does not. There are a lot of kids not influenced by "religious rules" who behave the same why. What is encouraging them? Do "religious rules" encourage kids to be disrepectful to there parents, lie, or steal? (I think we can agree that those would be "religious rules".) What about kids who don't go to church or aren't relgious? Are they less likely to do all those things? Or what about murder? Do kids who are told not to murder at church, actually more likely to go murder someone? Perhaps it comes down to kids being kids. Part of that includes making bad decisions. That is not limited to religious or non-religious kids. It affects everyone. |
|||
|
 |
I believe if you look at it from an unbiased outside view that most Christian denominations worship the bible, believing it is the word of God and unable to be corrupted. Their are many versions of the bible and different denominations follow different versions.
Yes, that was what I was referring to. I grew up Baptist.
I belonged to a Pentecostal church for many years, hence the "tongues" reference. It is deemed the responsibility of most Christians, not all. I did state it in a "barbaric" term, but I was thinking of Charlemagne when I wrote it.
I'm sorry if it read as though I was stating all those examples were from one denomination. My purpose was to state examples from several denominations, showing some of the differences in the idea of being "Christian". |
|||
|
|
|
Your "surname" as it is known today was either a relative's name (usually a father like Jackson), a profession (Fred the Baker, John the Baptist, Joe the Plumber haha), a place of origin (Jesus of Nazareth) or a title/ackomplishment (Bob the Giant Pig Killer). |
|||
|
|
|
I think you fail to see the difference between intelligence and wisdom, of course you usually need both to see it. It is the reason kids always "think they know better" yet usually make the same mistakes. I think that your belief that we are the smartest generation that has ever been is not only insulting, conceded and arrogant but historically proven to be very dangerous.
OORRRR.... I want to replace public schools because I care about our generations to come and want them to have the best possible education and see our public schools not only failing but doing worse with each passing (pun intended) year. But don't let me stop you from telling me what I'm thinking you seem to think you are good at it and it's kinda cute. |
|||
|
|
|
What exactly is that Me4? I know Sarah Palin was critized by the media for making a reference. _______________________ When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826). |
|||
|
|
|
1 Corinthians 12:8-11 Includes the following gifts: words of wisdom (the ability to provide supernatural guidance in decisions), words of knowledge (impartation of factual information from the Spirit), faith, healing, miracle-working, prophecy (the pronouncement of a message from God, not necessarily involving knowledge of the future), discerning of spirits (the ability to tell if evil spirits are at work), tongues, and interpretation of tongues. Usually they roll their eyes back into their head and start talking gibberish. People who can do this are held in high regards with other members. Within Pentecostalism, there is usually a distinction made between two types of tongues. First, many see it as the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit when a believer speaks in tongues for the first time. Most Pentecostal denominations consider this to be the sign of that believer being filled with the Holy Spirit. Secondly, Pentecostals often refer to a gift of tongues. This is when a person is moved by God to speak in tongues "as the Spirit gives him utterance" (Act 2:4). This gift of tongues may be exercised anywhere, but many denominations insist that it must only be exercised when a person who has the gift of interpretation of tongues is present—whether that be another person, or the same one who gives the tongue. The interpreter must translate the tongue into the language of the gathered Christians, so that all can understand the message. These regulations for church order are taken from 1 Corinthians 14:13 and 14:27-28. Another way to hold sway over other people IMO. I talked to God and he said that you owe me dinner! Here listen! "lnw oen enw efnefr" ok I'll translate for you, "yea dude, you like owe him dinner". That was just an example  Oh, and my spell checker doesn't have the "tongues" expansion so to any that speak in tongues please disregard any typos, thanks. |
|||
|
|
|
Thanks Me4.
"lnw oen enw efnefr" I've heard that many times from my 6-13 month old children and didn't realize how talented they were. _______________________ When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826). |
|||
|
It would help to read the Bible before claiming the 500 are not in there... 1 Corinthians 15:5-6 and that he appeared to Peter,and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. You want names of those who have given their lives? How about Peter, Paul and James for starters? How can you say it doesn't make you a lunatic if you think you will rise from the dead and you truly believe it? That's mental illness, my friend. If I tell you I'm God, I either know I am not and am saying it anyway (liar), I truly believe I am, and I'm not (lunatic), or I really am. Those are THE ONLY three options! |
||||
|
|
|
I don't know of any denominations that worship the bible. I would say they worship the God of the bible, but not the book itself. They don't claim that the bible died for everyone's sins. They don't pray to the bible. Just because they believe what the bible says does not mean they worship it. You also touch on the different versions of the bible. While there are some translational differences, the overall message is not changed. The core Christian beliefs are held by all nearly all denominations regardless of what translation of the bible they use. |
|||
|
|
|
Mac, you just /replied to the quote of a quote of a quote of quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote, yep 8!
With a little effort you can cut out the old quotes so that your post doesn't fill one whole page with the previous page.... |
|||
|
|
|
If the bible is corrupted and written by man then they would be worshipping the bible and the ideology it puts forth. If it is written with a divine influence then they would be worshipping the "word of God". I think a neat test would be to change the bible drastically and introduce it to a people and see if they worship it... Oh wait, that would be Mormons...
If that is all that it is then yes, they worship it. If God does not stand behind every word of every version then yes, they worship the bible over God.
These "translational differences" you speak of result in you burning in hell for eternity if you follow the wrong one... |
|||
|
|
|
I have read the Bible many times and I challenge you in that there were 500 people that saw Jesus after his resurrection. The scripture you quoted is taken out of context. This is not in fact a personal recount from all of those who saw Jesus after his resurrection, this was someone who said that these people saw him. So I guess if you want to go with the words of someone who is trying to get people to believe then that is fine and I can't argue with you and won't. However, I don't take second hand information as gospel. I am sure that I have read the Bible as many times as you if not more, so I don't fool easy and I don't take things out of context to make my point. If I truly believe that I will rise from the dead doesn't make me any crazier than you. It just means that I believe in something other than what you believe in. There lies the problem, I don't care how you believe and won't push my beliefs on you, but you on the other hand think I'm a lunatic if I don't believe your way, but believe that I will rise from the dead. If those are the only three choices, then how can you prove that I'm not God. What proof do you have that I am not and no you cannot count the fact that the Browns stink and I haven't given them a Superbowl Championship as proof Unless you come and kill me and watch my dead body for the rest of eternity you cannot know that I am not the true and living God. I'm not mind you, but you cannot prove that. |
|||
|
My youngest son had a pet monkey for many years until it evolved into a Human and asked to be freed. Which of course I promptly did.
|
||||
|
|
|
Why is believing what the bible says, the equivalent of worshiping it? Do you think it's even possible for Christians to worship God?
When I was writing about translational differences, I had in mind certain words or phrases that could possibly be translated in different ways. However, no central beliefs hang on the translation of these words. The translations that are ultimately used don't drastically change the whole theology of Christianity. You mentioned in a previous post that each denomination follows their own version, but that doesn't mean they don't believe other denominations are going to hell for using the "wrong" one. I don't think Methodists or Presbyterians or Wesleyans etcs. think the others are going to hell because they use a NIV bible as opposed to a KJV bible. |
|||
|
|
|
You must have meant to respond to someone else, because you are arguing with someone who said that "we are the smartest generation," which I clearly did not say or even imply in any way. Or, maybe you are arguing with a straw man because you have no real response to what I wrote. What would be conceited, arrogant, and dangerous would be to ignore the advances in science, our new understandings of history, more intuitive mathematical teaching methods, and diverse literary works because they aren't what you believe to be true from your education decades ago. |
|||
|
|
|
Thats CRAZY! Man, all mine did was die and then rise from the grave  p.s. Welcome back Robert, my reference earlier was not a negative. Just that you type a lot and probably would bury them in things they didn't want to hear. |
|||
|
|
|
mac.
1. The new testament is not a first-hand account. It was written long after this Jesus person supposedly lived. At best, it is a 4th or 5th-hand source. Even if it's writers were first-hand observers, the document wouldn't be considered a first-hand source. Only if Jesus sat down and wrote it himself would the book be a first-hand document. AND even if it was a first-hand document, it wouldn't stand to be any kind of proof. Just because something is written doesn't mean it is true. Fiction stories like the bible are written all the time. None of them would hold up in a court of law or a scientific proof. 2. Using the bible to prove that the bible is true is a logical fallacy, and the argument holds no water. It's called a Bare Assertion Fallacy. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "just because." It's different from the Ad Hominem Fallacy that Me4 likes to use, but it is just as bad, if not worse. |
|||
|
AMEN, BROTHERS!
When I was a kid we had prayer in school, abortion was illegal, porn was hidden, people didn't curse in public, men dressed and acted like men and women like women. Drugs were not a big issue, people treated each other with respect, only sailors had tattoo's and maybe a pierced ear. It was before microwave ovens when a girl could still cook and still would. We would walk downtown to the movie theater at night to catch a show or stop at the Pharmacy for a rootbeer float. So, tell me again why, after all these years of including everyone, illiminating God, aborting 40 million Americans and changing society so people no longer look down on inappropriate behavior, tell me again how things are better today. |
||||
|
Not too far off, spoken from the man from the Golden State, where change is always imminent. It was a farmer's calendar, and aimed at having Americans become part of society. But it's all in a state of change and technology is changing the course - rapidly. The lack of thinking would smack right at Bloom's Taxonomy and Howard Gardner (Multiple Intelligences). http://www.thomasarmstrong.com...le_intelligences.htm http://www.odu.edu/educ/roverb.../blooms_taxonomy.htm Now check this: http://www.bigpicture.org/ As far as teen birth rates, that's a sticky one, it keeps the next generation of learners upcoming. |
||||
|
|
|
How are things better today? Well... 1. There is no forced prayer in school. Except, of course, in religious schools, where children are taught to turn off parts of their brain and ignore evidence and logic so that they can grow to be the zelot-automatons that we've grown so fond of in this country. 2. Women have rights over their own bodies. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. 3. Porn is everywhere. There really is nothing evil about sex... unless you are Judeo-Christian, because your god explicitly says it is, along with nudity. Apparently, he created humans in an evil state of nudity. Go figure. Our culture is still super uptight about nudity, unfortunately, while violence is just peachy-keen. 4. People can curse in public (well, except in Browns Chat) because freedom of speech has reached that far. Sadly, it doesn't reach to the radio and television. But blood and violence does. Hip-hip-hooray? 5. People are more free to be themselves without the bulk of society wishing them to fit into antiquated concepts of manhood and womanhood. Unless they are Muslim, Amish, Mormon, and--to a certain extent--Christian; those people still have to fit into silly little molds. 4. Unfortunately, drugs use is about the same as it was 50 years ago. Ask the Beat Generation. Except now we spend way too much tax money trying to stop it. But the states are gradually helping to solve this problem. 5. Men finally treat women and minorites with respect... well, more do than ever, anyway. See #3 for some of the exceptions. You are right about one thing. People can no longer walk downtown to catch a movie or walk to the drug store to buy a sodey pop. Our culture of suburbanism and white flight have made American society virtually unsustainable. People need cars to drive 30 minutes from their cozy little villages in the suburbs to go to work, and 10 minutes to get to the nearest grocer. We stretch out and destroy all of the nature around us to escape the evil city, and we have become addicted to gasoline as our method of accomplishing this. It's sad, really. |
|||
|
|
|
Man you are old. Just kidding. |
|||
|
|
|
How should the validity of historical documents be determined? |
|||
|
|
|
By historical experts. Unbiased ones, preferably. History ultimately amounts to consensus. For example, there are many historiographical schools, and the overwhelming majority of them agree that there is no historical evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed. |
|||
|
I would suggest researching when the NT was written, you may be quite surprised. There are other documents by other authors during that time who didn't even trust in Christ that validate His existence (Josephus, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus being such sources). The historicity of Jesus is air tight. |
||||
|
Source for this minsinformation? I'll point you to Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Flavius Josephus to prove you are wrong. |
||||
|
|
|
What schools are these? For saying history should be interpreted unbiased experts, it certainly seems a bit biased to claim that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. There certainly are historical references to Jesus, even outside of the bible. Does that prove his existence? No. But it is evidence. |
|||
|
|
|
The two passages of Josephus that mention Jesus have been determined to be interpolations. None of the Roman historians that used Josephus as a source ever mentioned these verses, and they appear to use a different tone and style than the surrounding text. Pliny the Younger only mentions that Christians were cursing the name Christ to save their behinds. That only proves that the idea of Christ existed around 112 C.E. (and of course it did, three of the gospels had been circulating by then), not that any person existed by that name. He could have just as easily said they were cursing Zeus. Would that prove that Zeus existed? Tacitus makes a single mention of Christ as a superstition of the Christians. This has been under scrutiny as an interpolation as well, but even if it isn't, he clearly is not basing his writing from a historical source because he mislabels Pontius Pilatus as a procurator when he actually was a prefect. Most likely, he was writing what the Christians were saying. After all, the gospels were already in circulation by then. All of these texts were written more than 60 years after Jesus supposedly existed, and none of them give more than passing mention to the idea of Christ as it related to the Christians of the time. Obviously, some radical rabbi was executed at some point, and a bunch of rabble-rousers made a big stink about it. But his name definitely wasn't Jesus. Jesus isn't even a Jewish name. The closest thing they had was Yeshua, which translates to Joshua. The name Joshua was mishmashed with Horus, the Egyptian god from which the Jews stole the idea of Jesus while they were living there. Horus was the son of a god, born of a virgin, baptized in a river, tempted in the desert, healed the sick, walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead, had twelve disciples, was crucified, and raised from the dead three days later. Obviously, a sect of Judiasm was in a hurry to create a Horus of their own, so they mixed the Joshua of their religion with the Horus of their secondary religion. Joshua+Horus=Jesus |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Topic Closed brownschat.clevelandbrowns.com Forums Main Index General Discussion Teen birth rates highest in most religious states|
Copyright 2001 - 2007 Cleveland Browns | Site powered by DigiKnow Privacy Policy | Employment Opportunities | Terms of Use | RSS/XML Site Help |
|
