main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

JCC Bible universities

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ender Sai, Jan 14, 2014.

  1. I Are The Internets

    I Are The Internets Shelf of Shame Host star 9 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Nov 20, 2012
    NO PETER CAPALDI:_|
     
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  2. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Condition2SQ : Also, why reveal himself only to people in Israel? The only way that makes sense is to acknowledge that this god is part of Hebrew mythology.
     
  3. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Well I would argue we're not making it; I would argue people were being a bit unfair on MasterSanders by going after his one point which is that Catholicism isn't really fairly representative of all Christianity. It's an appeal to nuanced discussions over pitchforked frenzy; whether we agree or not (I'd argue if not the Catholics, someone else would've filled that vacuum) is immaterial.
     
  4. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    I don't think it's pitchforking to say -- as Even and I have -- that all Western denominations carry the legacy of Nicene Christianity. Like I said, Protestants disagree doctrinally but they did not reject the Church's (that is the one, universal church: catholic in the literal sense, prior to the schism and all that) behavior in late antiquity and the early middle ages. Perhaps if we were talking to a non-Chalcedonian or something (and I mean a non-Chalcedonian Church, not a modern evangelic who rejects it) it'd be different.

    Here's the actual quote, Ender: "Please don't ever say anything the Roman Catholic Church did as it was Christianity that did it.... Please see my rant about Catholicism in Understanding Christianity if you want to know why... In a few words Catholicism is not Christianity, however there are christians in Catholicism... If that makes sense to you..."

    Reread the first sentence: he's not merely arguing that Catholicism doesn't represent all of Christianity, he's imploring us not to attribute anything the Catholic Church did to Christianity. This is after posts talking about whether or not to lay the Dark Ages at Christianity's feet.

    It is absolutely relevant to say that Catholicism in that time period was pretty much all of Christianity. You, Ender, are isolating one aspect of what he said without putting it in the context of the argument, and that is wrong.

    What Sanders is doing is akin to an American saying "well Americans aren't racist anymore and don't believe in slavery so please don't blame slavery on the United States anymore." You don't just get to erase history just because you no longer embrace those backwards views: you did once, and you have to acknowledge it.
     
  5. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I guess I don't see why you find those points challenging. In particular, you are putting huge emphasis on when things were codified and formalized. Why? The available evidence reveals a pretty thorough lack of formalized structure within the early church. That would seem indicative to me that the much more important element is their belief and practice, not the ability to function as a cohesive, well-ordered organization. Looking to the Old Testament, we see a similar example. There extended periods where the entire nation of Israel left any earnest or meaningful practice of Judaism, and God doesn't seem to have intervened to make this impossible. Rather, his concern (as stated to Elijah, among others), is that he always kept for himself a sometimes vanishingly small--some 600 in the whole country, once--group that was still whole-heartedly committed to the religion and practicing it in a way that God intended. If this was the case, even before Christianity, when religious worship was collective and centralized, how much more would this tendency prevail in the radically more individualized Christian faith?

    Why should the dominance of Catholicism for a period have bothered us anymore than the dominance of Baal worship bothered Elijah?
     
  6. timmoishere

    timmoishere Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 2, 2007
    MasterSanders, what did you think of the video I posted on the previous page?
     
  7. Mortimer Snerd

    Mortimer Snerd Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 27, 2012
  8. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    That's ****ing awesome.

    Pun intended.
     
  9. I Are The Internets

    I Are The Internets Shelf of Shame Host star 9 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Nov 20, 2012
    That's grammatically incorrect!

    It's supposed to read "Satan's Typewriter" otherwise there's some poor fellow named Satans who's in for a world of hurt right about now.
     
  10. Obi-Zahn Kenobi

    Obi-Zahn Kenobi Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 23, 1999
    Step a level back. Telling a child to form his own opinions is indoctrination in itself. You've indoctrinated him that he's not to accept the opinions of others. Raising a child without a religion indoctrinates them that religion is not important.

    You're going to indoctrinate your children one way or another. Saying that you don't want to force your beliefs upon them is just another belief of yours which you are forcing upon them.
     
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    By that standard, OZK, then it's always going to be indoctrination, in which case you take the lesser of all evils. Which is, not to give them any beliefs.
     
  12. timmoishere

    timmoishere Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Children should be taught how to think, not what to think.
     
  13. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    There are plenty of things that I was raised without having discussions on that I then found my own way to. If religion is important, people finding their own paths to find something that feels true to them would end up there, because the lack of it would be meaningful.

    If you think raising a child without religion means they won't realize that religion is important, then I think that's quite the indicator that it isn't.
     
    Dark Lady Mara likes this.
  14. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    Indoctrination implies instructing someone on beliefs without critical analysis. Think this and don't question it. Teaching a kid to form their own views implies critical analysis. Lowie is correct in saying that is the direct opposite of indoctrination.
     
  15. Saintheart

    Saintheart Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2000
    I vote for teaching how to think pre-modern, not this modernist thinking stuff. Pre-modern thinking is cool. :D
     
  16. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    This is some Orwellian level doublespeak you have here, OZK.
     
  17. I Are The Internets

    I Are The Internets Shelf of Shame Host star 9 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Nov 20, 2012
    I prefer Neanderthal thinking, so you can look intelligent in comparison.

    "Hurr durr I make fan trailer of jesus fight batman look look"
     
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  18. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    OZK takes it a bit far, but his point is essentially correct. If we accept your premise, how do we teach them to think? Do we follow Malcolm Gladwell's arguments in Blink, that modern society has under-valued the power and utility of intuition? Do we teach kids to rely on the instincts in decision-making, and primarily teach skills that are supposed to hone this sort of unconscious form of information processing? Do we go the other direction, and make everything about very deliberate, quantifiable, conscious cost-benefit analysis?

    Both of these are entirely secular ways of thinking. Both of them have notable proponents, and have some solid scientific support for their underlying claims. Both have a mixed track record when it comes to real world application. But they are polar opposites?

    As much as we'd like to design some sort of judgment-free, unfiltered information download about the world for children, it's not really possible. They are always simultaneously picking up all sorts of other clues that come from nowhere other than our own culture and biases. It's much better to acknowledge this issue and try to work through how we can deal with it than simply pretending it's possible to eliminate the problem entirely.
     
  19. Rogue_Ten

    Rogue_Ten Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 18, 2002
    looping back around to BYU again but are mormons creationist or are they more like catholics and moderate protestants where they accept evolution but either dont think too closely about genesis or have elaborate "allegory" or "6 days = ???? years" explanations for how it meshes?
     
  20. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    This. It's impossible not to shape your children's viewpoint; I agree that letting them make an informed decision about religion at an age when they might be able to think about it a bit more clearly (say, 12) sounds fine but that's an atheist viewpoint. Christians would no doubt differ. The point being that parenting is a wonderful journey of trying not to break a small human being too much so they can function as an adult in the world.
     
    GrandAdmiralJello likes this.
  21. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Yeah, I think that of course children are going to be raised in their family's tradition. It's no different than the sort of indoctrination that goes on with education: first you teach postulates or certainties, then you teach them how to reason and analyze based on those, and then finally you teach them (or they learn) how to teach for themselves. That was the traditional model for the liberal education, and I don't see how religion is any different.
     
  22. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    It is hard to be comfortable with the notion that you're allowing kids to be taught provably false information, Jello.
     
  23. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    In the first place, though, are you? Not every religious community is literalist in its teachings. Can the idea of a deity be "provably" falsified?

    Further, you implicitly teach children lots of provably false information. Anyone who is an omnivore is by their example teaching children that your diet is not such a big deal that everyone should be vegetarian. This is in spite of the fact that multiple epidemiological studies have demonstrated that vegetarians have improved life span and fewer health issues during that life. It is also in spite of the fact that ecologically, the current patterns of meat consumption are clearly not sustainable in even the medium term, let alone the long-run. Et cetera
     
    Dark Lady Mara likes this.
  24. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Wocky, statistical trends =/= objectively true.
     
  25. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    [​IMG]

    Wocky, the thing with educating children is that you have to understand that kids are very literal in their interpretations, so nuances and layering are simply going to fall on deaf ears. As kids get older and can understand more, they see things in a less black and white approach. Religious instruction, and your reaction to this will depend on which side of the table you sit, deals in the literal concepts first. Religious types will view this as a crucial foundation in the relationship with God; cynics will see it as an ideal time to plant some very deep seeds in a young and impressionable mind.

    Regardless, I know at my stepdaughter's school religious class teaches God made everything; the earth in seven days, man, woman from man, etc. Now, she's six, nearly seven, and that's probably the appropriate level of sophistication in the narrative for her. As she gets older they'll introduce concepts of biblical parabels etc. One side would say by then the main damage has been done, and indoctrination has occurred; another says the introduction of nuance may or will lead to questioning the whole structure.

    Regardless, I stand by my point.