|
|
Post by dharmasatya on Apr 11, 2009 9:19:16 GMT -5
Well our university has a creationist room set up. It's an embarrassment as far as I'm concerned. They ran a course under anthropology that sounded interesting at first. The title was "The evolution of Jesus". Here I thought it was going to be a course on how the idea of Jesus has changed over the years. It was a course proving the existence of Jesus because if he's just a myth, the story wouldn't still be around. This is a provincially funded school, it shouldn't be allowed. WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  |
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Apr 11, 2009 9:40:13 GMT -5
Well our university has a creationist room set up. It's an embarrassment as far as I'm concerned. They ran a course under anthropology that sounded interesting at first. The title was "The evolution of Jesus". Here I thought it was going to be a course on how the idea of Jesus has changed over the years. It was a course proving the existence of Jesus because if he's just a myth, the story wouldn't still be around. This is a provincially funded school, it shouldn't be allowed. I mean no disrespect, but are you saying that a class intended to DISPROVE the existence of Jesus would be perfectly fine, but a class intended to PROVE the existence of Jesus should be disallowed? So a provincially funded school can take a stand against Jesus but not one for Jesus? I make no claims of which is the right or wrong position, but these things seem like opposites of the same position, and both have a religious-political axe to grind. One specifically wants to "prove" Christianity, and the other specifically wants to discredit Christianity. In a public funded school, neither of these classes have a place. |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 11, 2009 10:08:11 GMT -5
No I'm saying a class that looked at the beliefs around Jesus thoughout history (doesn't have to say whether he really existed or not) would of been fine. In fact considering the importance of the Christian Church through Western history, it would of been an interesting course.
I'm saying that a course that is out to prove that Jesus is the one true path doesn't belong.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Apr 12, 2009 12:37:05 GMT -5
Would a course out to disprove Jesus as the "one, true path" have been acceptable?
|
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 12, 2009 12:48:42 GMT -5
One could argue that teaching evolution is tantamount to teaching that a particular religious belief is wrong and therefor shouldn't be allowed. But facts are facts, and it's a fact that the christian religion and its concept(s) of who Jesus was and what his teachings meant have evolved a lot since the first century. It would basically be a comparative religion class, just with a narrower focus.
|
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 12, 2009 14:46:00 GMT -5
Would a course out to disprove Jesus as the "one, true path" have been acceptable? no, especially not for credits. As I said, when I first saw the course, it was worth 3 credit hours. So I thought it would be an examination of Jesus from a historical/cultural viewpoint. When I'm talking about evolving through history, I'm talking about from a biblical viewpoint. When was he seen as the lamb of God, when was he seen as a great philosopher, when was he seen as the warrior in Revelation. Who in history saw him as what. There's no way of proving he existed, but to say that the myth has no bearing on our history would be foolish. Maybe it could start in pre-Constantine Rome. I'm not sure how much we really know about Christianity before then. If that's enough to shake somebodies faith, it wasn't that strong to begin with. My argument against the class was that it was out to prove that Jesus was right, because the myth has stood the test of time. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Apr 12, 2009 22:16:16 GMT -5
Well our university has a creationist room set up. It's an embarrassment as far as I'm concerned. They ran a course under anthropology that sounded interesting at first. The title was "The evolution of Jesus". Here I thought it was going to be a course on how the idea of Jesus has changed over the years. It was a course proving the existence of Jesus because if he's just a myth, the story wouldn't still be around. This is a provincially funded school, it shouldn't be allowed. Are these people fucking stupid? |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Apr 13, 2009 0:09:27 GMT -5
Wouldn't that same logic apply to most other world religions as well? Hell, the natives of Australia have religious traditions that may go back over ten thousand years, wouldn't that make them more right than anyone else by that logic?
|
|
|
|
Post by alwimo on Apr 13, 2009 3:16:15 GMT -5
Wouldn't that same logic apply to most other world religions as well? Hell, the natives of Australia have religious traditions that may go back over ten thousand years, wouldn't hat make them more right than anyone else by that logic? I, for one, welcome our new Rainbow Serpent overlord. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Apr 14, 2009 8:26:35 GMT -5
No I'm saying a class that looked at the beliefs around Jesus thoughout history (doesn't have to say whether he really existed or not) would of been fine. In fact considering the importance of the Christian Church through Western history, it would of been an interesting course. I'm saying that a course that is out to prove that Jesus is the one true path doesn't belong. It bothers me that a student in a tertiary institution misused "of" instead of "have" not once, but twice, in the above. Once would have been forgivable, but twice indicates a pathology of understanding. "would HAVE been fine" "would HAVE been an interesting course." "Would OF been fine" doesn't make sense. Remember, the language is a rapier, not a bludgeon. [/pedantic grammar Nazi crap] |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 14, 2009 11:11:23 GMT -5
Hey I said it was a shit school.  |
|
|
|
Post by atheistcrusader on Apr 26, 2009 5:53:49 GMT -5
I had a very interesting experience the other day, I was lecturing a group of first year biologists, and at the end i wrapped up by asking if you had any questions yadda yadda yadda, and an american exchange student came up to me and asked if id be tackling intelligent design. So jokingly i quipped whats so intelligent about ID, as its not even a science, to which she began shouting at me, claiming that evoultion did not occour ( despite my teaching it for the previous hour) and that it was all part of "gods plan" went into her bag, and threw a bible at me, screaming that i was going to hell for beleiving in this crap, and she was going to report me to the dean for bad teaching....
she's since been removed from the program and sent back to the states.
how can you battle with such awesome logic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 26, 2009 11:35:08 GMT -5
she's since been removed from the program and sent back to the states. Damn, I was hoping we could get rid of some of the crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by atheistcrusader on Apr 26, 2009 17:33:02 GMT -5
she's since been removed from the program and sent back to the states. Damn, I was hoping we could get rid of some of the crazy. sorry but she'd be one fundie too many. i mean we are fairly liberal in the UK but she just dragged the IQ of the entire country down by 20 points on her own!! sorry to re-inflict her upon your fair country once more. I had considered using her for experimentation, but we have this stupid human rights law preventing it (even for fundies) bloody EU getting in the way of science, HOW RUDE  |
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Aug 7, 2009 7:37:14 GMT -5
*RESSURECTS AN OLD DEAD THREAD*
So I wrote this long fucking post about my own experience but decided to delete it. But the gist of it was:
I was a creationist my freshman year of college, because I had been lied to by people that I thought were educated and wouldn't lie to me. (i.e. Kent Hovind videos and A Beka Book authors.) I had some clues that should have tipped me off, but they didn't. I was a research intern at NASA being bored and reading the internet when I found talkorigins (or maybe a similar website) and became "An Evolutionist", even though I had abandoned fundamentalism (and largely theism; I was an agnostic or maybe a deist at the time) long long ago.
Point being, both formal and informal education is really fucking important, but those kids aren't necessarily idiots.
|
|
