|
|
|
brownschat.clevelandbrowns.com Forums Main Index General Discussion Teen birth rates highest in most religious states Topic Closed|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
 |
You said...
So you are claiming that all previous generation's education is irrelevant next to ours, but that does not imply we are smarter? I guess I got to ask then, in your opinion, what is the point of an education? Or just... what is your point?
I agree.
I would say, ever-changing understanding of history, but yep agree here too.
Agree, agree.
Nope, don't believe that at all. I just believe that every kid is different, an individual, and their parents are best suited, unless proving otherwise, to determine where, how, when and by whom they receive their education. I believe having many different private schools will produce many different types of intelligence from many different views and create a "smarter" generation for less cost. |
|||
|
|
|
Because it is your intermediate with God. Catholics must "believe" in the Pope and use a priest/cardinal/pope/ect. to reach god. Therefore they worship them, as they take what they say as the word of god. Many protestant Christians use the bible in this manner. They use the bible as the word of God and follow it above all else. If the bible, as I believe, is corrupted by man both intentionally and accidentally and you in turn follow the bible instead of God then you are worshipping the bible...
Then you and I have run in different religious circles. The Baptist churches I belonged to did believe that you were going to hell if you did not believe in "once saved always saved" and were saved. In the Pentecostal denomination if you do not believe that demons are physically with us and responsible for many of man's misgivings then you are doomed. If you do not believe the Pope is "god on earth" then, to Catholics, you are going to hell. If you do not believe that the bible is the, incorruptible, word of god then, to some, you are going to burn. There are many examples of this. It is usually said by the average church attendee that they do not feel so harshly, but the denomination of their choice still dictates these differences and there are rewards/consequences for not believing them. |
|||
|
 |
It was really great if you were a straight, white, protestant, male! Except for the porn thing of course.  |
|||
|
|
|
At least it was good for somebody, seems like every group is complaining these days lol. Reminds me of when I was a kid and complained that my brother got a bigger piece of taffy. I made such a ruckus that my mother took away all the taffy  We were then equally unhappy. And no, I do not fall into the straight, white, protestant, male category though I will tell you I am not a gay, black, Muslim, female either. |
|||
|
 |
We'll just have to agree to disagree. But thanks for the discussion nonetheless. I can understand why you see it that way. Naturally if you think the bible is not God's word, then following the bible can't be following God. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're view of God would be more mysterious and largely unknown.
Maybe it's more prevelant than I'm aware. It saddens me to hear that. From my experiences that hadn't been the case. But of course, my "sample size" is relatively small when compared to the number of people in all denominations. Sometimes denominations get caught up in "minor" details and get distracted from what's really important. |
|||
|
|
|
Sounds good and thank you. I sometimes come across like I am attempting to change someone's opinion and that is really not my goal, at least in religious matters lol. I feel that if what you believe enables you to be a better person and treat your fellow humans with kindness and respect than you will be rewarded for it, regardless of your take on history.
Yes and no. I feel God's gift to humanity was our conscience/soul/ect. It, in a healthy human, guides us to what is the right/good decision in all matters. I feel that this conscience/soul/ect. grows with us and will be either strengthen or weaken depending on our choice to follow it. Or you could look at it like, we can get used to ignoring it. I feel that this is our connection to God and therefore is closer and more known to me than any book could ever be, it is also very personal and individualistic therefore requires no intermediate. I believe our education is to teach us rules and how to's, but we are born with the understanding of right and wrong and therefore do not require the bible, not that it hurts, but should not be used to replace our conscience. Burning "witches" at the stake would be an example of religion ok'ing something our conscience would otherwise refute. Or look at the differences between Muslims and Jihadists.
The devil is in the details... lol My belief is the general "Christian" view prior to it being merged with Judaism. |
|||
|
 |
You are contradicting yourself. 
1. You are wrong about parents. With the exception of a very small percentage, parents do NOT know how to best meet their child's educational needs. 2. Private schools do not provide more variety than public schools. They provide less variety. Public schools have specialists to train children at different learning levels. They are more diverse and increase awareness of cultural diversity. The variety of teaching methods among public schools matches that of private schools. I'm not saying that public schools are superior to private schools, but they are essential. The "educational welfare" you are talking about amounts to "public education." Without public education, we would finally collapse into full-fledged corporate feudalism. |
|||
|
|
|
No such thing. Christianity began as a subset of Judiasm. Unless you are talking about worship of Horus. |
|||
|
|
|
Where are you getting this "smarter" garbage? Human beings have not become smarter; in general, they are just as stupid as they have always been. The overwhelming religious belief of magical beings in the sky still persists, doesn't it? What humans have improved drastically in the past 50 years is their understanding of how the world around them works: science, society, and humankind itself. Anyone who claims this isn't true has their eyes closed. |
|||
|
|
|
No contradiction. You presume things about others to strengthen your arguement.
They know best how those needs are met and by whom. By your logic, can I assume you think we should take children at birth and government raise them? Or are you not to that step yet? If not, at what point do you feel parent's say in their child's life should start/end?
They do and they can provide even more.
Their are private schools of every major religious affiliation, military-like, liberal, conservative, ect. ect. I really do not understand how you can even pretend to assume such a patently wrong conclusion.
Some do, some don't. I do not know of a private school without this. Might be one out there, but I would simply not send my child there as opposed to move out of the public school district that does not offer this.
Some are, some are not. Like I said earlier though, at the moment only the wealthy can benefit from private schools as our public school system, in all it's debt, removes middle to lower income families from the private schools consumer pool. Why do the majority of our great Senators, Congresspersons, Judges, Wealthy, Governors, ect. send their children to private schools?
I can not find any statistics on this, but I'll give you this one. The U.S. public school system is so big it would be insane to assume your statement is incorrect. The difference of course is that, as a parent, I have a clear view of the differences. In the public school system you just send your child to whatever school is nearest you and hope they get a good teacher. Some places have multiple schools in a given area and guess what happens, all the good teachers, good athletes and wealthy kids end up in the same school. Is it any wonder that the same schools produce the successful high school athletic programs every year? Must be something in the water, eh?
Not exactly. My "educational welfare" idea is along the same lines of our current public school system as it enables everyone to get an education. The difference is you get a choice in the style of teaching and you are not forced to attend. Without our public being educated we would fall into disarray, but not without our current system. I feel our current system is failing us and that we are falling behind other nations in this department. If you disagree and feel our system is working good enough, only needing tweaks and such, then I guess we can stop debating and just agree to disagree. If you feel the system needs major innovations/improvement or an overhaul then I would love to hear any suggestions you have as to righting the ship. (I do not mean this in any type of sarcastic way, I would genuinely like to hear suggestions.) |
|||
|
|
|
Catholicism did and protestant is a subset off of it. Anything other than Catholic's view on Christianity was labeled heretical and abolished, see: Albigensian Crusade or History of Bogomils as a couple examples. The vast majority of those classified today as "Christian" (be they Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) generally agree with the tenets of the Nicene Creed. There are some self-proclaimed Christians, however, who largely reject the Nicene Creed. This group would include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gnostics and others. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are new examples of this but Gnosticism, in many forms, has been around since before Christ. Gnostics and Jews both professed about the coming of "Christ" Gnostics just believe he was Jesus and Jews do not believe he has come yet. |
|||
|
|
|
I'll substitute the word "SMART" for "KNOWLEDABLE" if it makes you feel better. I did not realize this debate was above such trivial slang.
Who claimed that? We have also relearned many things and more to come I would wager. |
|||
|
|
|
Very expensive private schools can out perform most public schools in offering subjects that fall outside of the realm of the content standards and benchmarks to which the government holds public schools and their teachers accountable. Many private schools are created to provide a niche not offered by public schools, such as religion, safety, single sex, etc. Schools, public or private are incredibly expensive to run and many private schools still use public funds to stay in business. The charter schools have taken tax dollars to create alternative sites for education. They have failed to demonstrate through proficiency assessment tests to provide a level of successful instruction better than or often equal to the public schools from which they have taken funds. I fail to understand how public schools remove lower or middle class students from the private school's consumer pool. Senators, Congresspersons, Judges, Wealthy, Governors, ect. send their children to private schools for many reasons; status, security, the ability to increase the possibility of gaining access to exclusive secondary schools. There's a reason why some private schools are called "Exclusive". They don't want their children attending with other children who are not in their social class. This is the point at which you have hit the problem with public schools. For all the "Constitution" hounds out there I have yet to hear them rant about the fact that the courts have long ago judged that public school funding is unconstitutional. Funding is based on district levies. Inner cities get no funding, while higher income areas such as some suburbs get adequate funding. Funding for public schools is controversial because of this fact. Many people have stated they refuse to provide funding for kids who are not part of their community and they've even stopped passing levies when the population of their communities have changed in a way they don't accept. I agree with the "failing" assessment, but must add that it's not from a lack of trying. Education should be the single most important aspect of any society's chance of succeeding. At this point our schools are fighting uphill against funding issues and politics. For all of our "gifted students" China and India have about 10 times that who are unemployed. It could be argued that there can never be "good enough" most educators believe that education and educating is an on going ever changing process. It's always in need of innovations and improvement. Teachers spend much of their so called "free time" being re-educated on the new innovations and improvements. No Child Left Behind has not and probably will not go away. This means that not only our children are being assessed but our schools and teachers are being assessed as well. Most teachers and smart parents will tell you that "real education" happens in the home. The best students could learn from a monkey. They come to school for one purpose, to learn, and they are very educable. Unfortunately there are priorities in life and if a student has other concerns on their mind such as eating, wearing clean clothes, not being neglected by those they rely on, or even being bullied by others, then they are not in the mind-set for learning. I must add that our nation has taken on the task of educating "all" of our children, regardless of social class, sex or race, and "all" of our assessments take into account all of our student's scores. |
|||
|
|
|
I agree with just about everything you said. I feel the problem is my lack of ability to properly explain my idea. Think of it this way. Instead of tax dollars going to the schools they go to the people (through not taxing, tax credits, vouchers, grants, ect.) and then the people pay the schools. I have been calling them "private schools" for lack of a better term, but they would really be a hybrid. Some more private some more public, but the end result, would be more options and money saved or better spent. The traditional "Public School" would be gone as these new "Public Schools" would be paid by the parents of their attendees instead of the government. I believe this would add more accountability and also give parents more of a choice since they would not be automatically paying for whatever school is closest regardless of their opinion. |
|||
|
|
|
That's going on right now. The voucher system has taken needed dollars from struggling school districts and has yet to prove they are a valid alternative. If you mean "private" so the options would be they don't have to be audited by the government then that won't fly. If you mean take tax dollars to promote religious or other ideologies then that won't fly. Most of our society wants our government and our special interests to be autonomous of each other during schooling. Some keep saying that God is being forced out of the public schools. That's political hyperbole and is often the driving force behind the criticism of public schools. I understand that "you" are not stating a need for religious education in public schools, but much of the political criticism is directed in that area. As far as hybrid; it "kinda" seems that you "might" be suggesting that schools should be "categorized" rather than "homogenized". For instance; This is a school for gifted learners. This is a school for kids with significant social issues that require extra support. This is a school for girls who perform better when not distracted by concerns of gender equality in our educational system. The same for boys. Each school receives appropriate funding. Each is assessed equally to determine its effectiveness. Our schools are paid for by parents. They're also paid for by people who are not parents. As you know this is where the government's money comes from. As a society we have a need for accountability and we need to be careful that our public funding goes for ideas that are socially acceptable. The task for the government and the schools has been to decide which skills help to meet all of our society's needs and wants without alienating any citizens. This is the essence of the public school controversy. Some parents want tolerance for all special interests taught, some parents want prayer and creationism taught, I imagine there are some who want communism taught, some want that the steelers suck taught. |
|||
|
|
|
Not exactly the same, but the voucher system would be a part of it.
There would be a "licensing" involved that would mandate some general "rules/regulations" and possibly a generic "proficiency test" similar to the test required to become a U.S. Citizen that would have to be passed prior to the government acknowledging your diploma. Not terribly different from Home schooling.
It would mostly be a lack of paying tax and/or tax credit. For the poor "welfare" it would be a voucher, grant, ect. for you to spend on an education at any school that is "licensed". People spend their EBT (welfare) card at Christian grocery stores currently, but it does not appear to be a problem. I understand the difference between "education" and "food" and the desire for tax dollars to not go toward any religious institute. The fact is that they already do. Whether you want to count "tax exempt" as "government funded" or not could drastically increase that amount. This "licensing" would be to education/schools like FDA is to food/grocery stores The government does not have to run all the grocery stores, just make sure the food is edible.
You are correct, I would not send my children to a "religious" school. I feel that the choice should be there though and not just for the wealthy.
I think that might end up being part of the byproduct, but the "funding" comes from the parents.
Instead of the schools being paid for by people who are not parents those people's taxes would go to poor kids, for their education. The money would go toward a licensed educator of your choosing.
Ya, that was my goal when thinking about this. That is why I went the "different ways of getting to the same level of proficiency" plan. |
|||
|
|
|
Sorry to derail from the original topic, once schools were brought in I exploded with my ideas for a better educational system lol.
I know that these ideas will never take effect, but rest assured I will submit them to the consideration of Victor Von Doom for his "Island Nation"! |
|||
|
 |
I put a short model on page 1 for you Me4, you could be the next business empire. I worry the doombots will run the "Island Nation" like a police state, you know how he is when people question him! |
|||
|
 |
You just invalidated any credibility that you possibly had by making this obviously stupid statement.  |
|||
|
|
|
The only question I have about education is how is it that countries like Japan have such quality education for all their citizens?
Japan has a much higher education quality then we do and it isn't just for the rich it is for everyone. If they can do it why can't we? |
|||
|
|
|
Sorry Tony I completely missed this, thanks for directing me back to it.
I think a big thing would be to stop mandating an education. It should be available to any who seek it, but not a requirement. People you force to go usually don't finish or it doesn't benefit them, from my experience. And we all know that kids will, a lot of the time, buck the system and go against "requirements". I think we waste a lot of money on kids that don't want to be there and the money could be better spent on the ones that do.
I think that home schooling should be an option that any parent is allowed to choose, that said... The vast majority of home schooled people I have been in contact with throughout my life have been seriously lacking in the social interaction department. To the point where they are often considered "weird" by their peers. Not that there is anything wrong with that... Just look how we, as Browns fans, are considered by our sporting peers lol. I would not advise home schooling your children or becoming a Browns fan 
There is nothing stopping someone, but as Weiner said, it is very expensive to operate an adequate school. The problem with attempting this with public schools the way they are is that you are asking the parents to pay for 2 educations as they already pay for the public school. Under my system you would have many kids from families that not only don't pay a "school tax" but also get a tax credit, voucher, grant, ect. As the operator of the school you are still getting paid the normal fee per student. You would not gain those students under the current system as they are forced to go to public school. |
|||
|
|
|
Japan, as well as other countries, has a much more homogenized population. They also value success as a culture. Even with all their distractions educational success is valued. Here public education is valued by some, distrusted by others, and absolutely feared and hated by others. |
|||
|
|
|
Japan also enjoys rich family values. Also to many of our children just do not value education as much as material objects/fame/nookie/ect. |
|||
|
You have completely twisted the information to use for your gain. The NT was written mainly in the '60's, Horus was created by the Egyptians, not the Jews (who enslaved the Israeilites) after reading OT prophecies regarding the Messiah, the alleged interpolation is in regards to Josephus' claim Jesus is the Christ, not his existence and the historicity of Jesus is air tight. I know why you don't want him to have existed, and that's fine, but to claim he never did is intellectual dishonesty. Something historic occurred roughly 2000 years ago and if you don't believe me, just look at your calendar. |
||||
|
YOU GOTTA HAVE FAITH,FAITH FAITH!
|
||||
|
|
|
Yes contradiction. You are saying that you agree that it would be dangerous to ignore advances in knowledge, but that you don't think we are more knowledgeable than we were decades ago.
And by this logic, you think that parents should be the ones to prescribe medicine for their children or grant their children pilot licenses. Parents aren't experts in the educational field (except the select few that actually are) any more than they are experts in medicine or aviation. With the exception of religion, all of these things and more apply to public schools as well. The United States have been a Plutocracy for a long, long time now. Where have you been? It takes a lot of money and power to win a major election. I wonder who has the advantage there? I'll give you a clue: the same demographic that can afford fancy private schools.
LOL! And where would all of this magical grant, voucher, and credit money come from? Oh, right, taxes. Hm. I wonder if there would be any difference in quality between the "welfare" schools and the full-pay schools? This is nothing more than a plan to create a concrete caste system, a complete oligarchy, and de facto class slavery. |
|||
|
|
|
Sorry, kiddo. It's not. Only one of those sources used the name Jesus, and that was the one that is clearly an interpolation. The others referred to a "Christ" upon which the Christians based their religion, which is the equivalent of mentioning a "Buddha" upon which the Buddhists based their religion. Hearsay. Yes, some sort of socio-political revolution obviously spurred a radical sect of Jews into religious zeal, but there is really no proof whatsoever of a Jesus. Frankly, I could care less whether a Jesus existed, but there is no compelling evidence, let alone "air-tight" evidence. Also, of course Horus wasn't a Jewish god, but the Jews were supposedly in Egypt all those years, so they would have known about him. And the early "Christians" stole all of the stories about him to created their christ. Something historic happened on many years. Our calendar is the way it is because Christians created it. What point does that prove? |
|||
|
|
|
When is the Wham reunion tour |
|||
|
You have no idea what you are talking about, my friend. You obviously are blinded to the truth and making up fanciful arguments. I gave you merely three examples... If you don't want to see it, it won't be there. Even Secular scholars point to the authentic historicity of the NT documents which are chalk full of references to Jesus. Nice backpedal...the Browns could use you in coverage  A couple posts above you claimed Horus was a "sect of judaism", and when I point out your fallacy you do a complete 180 and now claim judaism "stole" Horus from the Egyptians without no proof of such an outlandish claim. The early Christians used OT prophecy that was older than the Egyptians, they "stole" nothing. So...a very small faction (that were being persecuted and murdered) had that much impact on history, to the point every generation and year thereafter is watermarked from that event? Yeah...right. |
||||
|
|
|
I think you can find information that would support both sides of the did Jesus ever exist question. Here is one side that supports that he did not.
Link Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (ca. 1922) by Marshall J. Gauvin Scientific inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins to-day with the question: "Did Jesus Christ really live?" Was there a man named Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, of whose life and teachings we have a correct account in the New Testament? The orthodox idea that Christ was the son of God--God himself in human form--that he was the creator of the countless millions of glowing suns and wheeling worlds that strew the infinite expanse of the universe; that the forces of nature were the servants of his will and changed their courses at his command--such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world--by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith--by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales. Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth. The question is one of tremendous importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of the weightiest significance. The Christian religion has been and is a mighty fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has absorbed for many centuries the best energies of mankind. It has stayed the march of civilization, and made martyrs of some of the noblest men and women of the race: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" goes to the very root of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world. Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is--what does history say? And that question must be settled in the court of historical criticism. If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; if history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world. What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke. But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself. There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D. There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels--the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ--were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon. Not necessarily my opinion in the matter, but just an argument in the fact that he did not really exist. |
|||
|
|
|
LOL. I'm just calling it as it is. You are the one blinded by "faith." Those "examples" aren't proof of anything. Are you going to prove that Harry Potter lived by pointing to J.K. Rowling books? You should try reading real historical studies, not Christian reinterpretations. When you START with an assumption and try to prove that very assumption, you are not being logical or scientific.
According to the Christian apologist sites you go to. But not in reality.
Nope. Try again. I said that the sect of Judaism that invented the idea of Christ stole the idea from the Egyptian god Horace. You have to invent imaginary statements to defend your beliefs...much like early Christians did.
What? The Anno Domini system was put into place long after Rome became a Christian Empire. History is written by the victors, as they say. The Christians killed everyone else, so they got to write the history. |
|||
|
One must slaughter the heathen at every opportunity or he will mislead your children and subjugate your women.
PEACE  |
||||
|
|
|
I believe we are advancing in intelligence, but that wisdom is gained only through living and experiencing. Children, no matter how intelligent or knowledgeable, do not have the wisdom their parents have. The fact that children are learning better mathematical skills or finding out more about our solar system than their parents does not mean they can determine right from wrong or see possible pitfalls ahead in life as well as their parents.
No, parents should not "prescribe medicine for their children", but they should be able to choose the doctor that does. They should not be able to "grant their children pilot licenses", but the should be able to choose the instructor.
Holy crap I feel like I'm chasing my tail talking to you. Yes some of these things are available, but ONLY TO WEALTHY KIDS and if you choose to send your kids you still pay for the public school your not using.... that's the whole point, make it available to ALL.
EXACTLY! so why not make them available to all, obviously they work better if the people with a choice CHOOSE THEM!
The "magical grant, voucher, and credit money" would come from the BILLIONS spent on public schools now... You know that we spend more on education than any other nation right? You know that we are a ways down the list on test scores right? There would not be "welfare" schools, only some students in each school that have their tuition paid for by "welfare" money. Would there be some areas where only rich kids live and you don't see any of these "welfare" paid students because of the local of the school? Yep. but... WE HAVE THAT NOW! |
|||
|
|
|
On the whole, "Did Jesus exist" thing...
I love history, but unless you were there you can not say for sure. Did Caesar really exist or was it all fabricated? How on earth could we say either way with 100% conviction. I recently read an article about a discovery in the UK of Saxon armor and swords and such. They were all adorned with Christian symbols and even quotes from the bible. That night I watched a history channel show about barbarians (Saxons on this episode) all they talked about was their "pagan" rituals and reenacted sacrificing goats and what not. Who's right? Were the Saxon Hordes actually crusaders? How, why, when did they convert to Christianity? Did Robert read this, cause he is all into the Saxon/pagan thing? |
|||
|
That has to be the worst example of a "proof text" I have ever seen. Bravo! I see the Davinci Code is alive and well! |
||||
|
There is much more to evidence than just witnessing it. |
||||
|
Nice non sequitur, red herring and strawman all rolled into one. I would point you to your own advice. Are you referring to the same scientists that say we came from apes? Real credible... Atheists contribute to Christian apologist sites? Which ones? You can say whatever you like, but it doesn't make it any truer. Judaism started with Abraham, and if you actually knew your history, would know that happened quite a few years before they were enslaved by the Egyptians. The messianic prophecies happened much earlier than your "imaginary" beliefs. I really have nothing to say about this...you have just cornered yourself with your ignorance of history. Maybe you get your history from Harry Potter books? |
||||
|
|
|
Not to be 100% correct. Even witnessing it isn't always enough... My point being, you can not force someone to believe Jesus exsisted or that he did not. People are going to believe what they want. |
|||
|
the biggest thing I come away with when I see your reply is that there should be a intelligence test people have to pass in order to vote. hell, you can’t even navigate a simple thread. I NEVER DENIED TALKING ABOUT BABIES. YOU DID. i even pointed out how the topic of babies started and put what you said in my response AND YOU STILL MISSED IT. go back and read the thread again. then read it again. if you still can’t figure it out get a 3rd grader to draw a picture of it for you.
i never said life is meaningless. i said exactly the opposite. my question was a question of morals and how does a person establish those morals. i spelled that out before, but you’d rather try to dodge the question and try to lie about what i said. trying to have a discussion about the basis of morality with a liar is a waste.
obviously not true since YOURE THE ONE WHO CANT REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID EVEN WHEN ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
i know i said it i never denied it. where your WRONG is ASSuming i meant something other than exactly what i asked. that’s on you, not on me. a intelligent person would of gotten a clue when i asked what’s a innocent, but that would be a intelligent person.
way wrong. humanism is a religion even if they don’t want to admit to it. atheism is a religion even if they don’t want to admit to it. those isms are religions without a god. that’s the religion forced on children in public schools. a religion without god. a religion without fixed morals a religion with relative and arbitrary morals.
now you’re talking about LEGALITY not MORALS. slavery was LEGAL was it MORAL? now your’e talking about the federal and state POWER not RIGHT vs WRONG. now youre talking about using POWER to enforce your MORALS. you’re imposing your morals on him by use of FORCE to punish him. be absolutely clear on this. you’re saying when his morals say he should kill you and then he does kill you, then he’s accomplished something GOOD by killing you. right? and even though he’s accomplished something GOOD, the law should punish him for it. right?
another internet tough guy. aint i surprised.
wrong. completely wrong. God is the only one who has the authority to establish right from wrong. it is then up to each person to stick with that or not. its called free will, but it ain’t the same thing as making their own morality. morality has no meaning in the absence of God. that is the whole point i been making all along. in the absence of God there is only power. might makes right because there is no fixed unchanging right. without God right is merely whatever the strongest person says it is and i already gave plenty of historical examples to prove it.
with your own words you refute your own argument. you deny the existence of God to define right from wrong, which means there is no absolute morality, and then you try to impose your morality on me as if your morality is superior to mine.
it is people like you who murder millions of jews and say its ok because you were just following orders.
of course. the eternal almighty God is the only one who has the authority to establish what is right and what is wrong. we have free will to accept it or not. so let me ask what if you were a guard at auschwitz and the fuhrer told you to kill the evil jews, would it make it morally right? if it wouldn’t be morally right, why wouldn’t it be? what right do you have to impose your morals on the fuhrer? what makes your morals superior to hitlers if everyones morals are equally valid?
more proof of the old saying that once a liberal always a idiot.
i have to give you credit for at least knowing to run away from a argument that you aint smart enough to participate in.
since you said you was an atheist, on what basis do you proclaim murder, rape, theft etc to be wrong? same old thing. without God there’s no such thing as right and wrong. each persons morals are just as right and just as valid as anyone elses because morality is just an illusion. man becomes just another animal and morality is just a artifact of a animal mind. the lion don’t think about right and wrong, neither does the mosquito. there’s only POWER and survival of the fittest. This message has been edited. Last edited by: soddawg, |
||||
|
|
|
Well, by your admission I am way smarter than you, Then I am not smart enough to debate....So by your logic, that leaves you in a bad place. Tell the tech guy I said, "Hi" when he comes to disconnect your internet for your own safety. The funny thing is, you get all uppity about hypothetical arguements I posted, saying you didn't even say that, then you do on this post...amd its just like I said. I must have ESP or something. You like to phrase things like Darwin, you sure your not a follower? So would god be an animal with no morality by your logic? Or does he have a god that rules him too? Please don't tell me were gonna start making excpetions to the rule! Edit: soddy deleted his post....Instead of edit it....So was making refrences to that...it may show back up....OR he may go shop at Kmart...Definitely Kmart. |
|||
|
| 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 |
|