Can religion/Bible be taught objectively in public schools?

Great Debates
101

I said that Christianity is a religion that sends the overwhelming people of the world to Hell, not because I treat Christianity as monolithic but because that’s what it says in the Bible.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

There, it is right there. “there is salvation through no one else.” As I have repeatedly demonstrated the Bible is unambiguous about there being no salvation but through Christ. If you want to deny the unambiguous language of your own holy book, fine. But, if you do, don’t expect me to think of you as anything but an idiot.

Saying “there is salvation through no one else.” means “there is salvation through no one else.” means “there is salvation through no one else.” which means (drumrool please) “there is salvation through no one else.”

If you got something that says something else that doesn’t change the meaning of “there is salvation through no one else.” All it proves is that all you have is an incoherent double-talking, double-thinking mosh.

“His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the art of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved using doublethink.”

Monolithically yours,
Braintree

102

But you see, you prove my point.

You treat Christianity as monolithic when you say that a verse in the bible expresses the beliefs of all Christians.

My explicit correction to your claim was to point out that different denominations treat discrepancies in scripture differently. I was the one who pointed out that there were inconsistencies in my very first response to your first post.

When, after all these posts, you come back and act as though “Christianity,” in some monolithic fashion, actually follows only the verses that you choose to quote and never explores the discrepanicies in scripture, arriving at contrasting and, occasionally, contradictory beliefs among the different denominations, it means that you have either failed to grasp or ignored the information provided to you.

Note that I am not making a defense of Christianity, here. I am simply pointing out the error you initially expressed that (all) Christianity both proclaims a loving God and condemns non-believers to hell. It does–actually, they do–not. You are in error.

I am denying nothing. I am pointing out that various passages, including but not limited to Matthew 25:31 – 46 and Romans 2:14 - 16 have been interpreted by different denominations to mean Jesus will work in the hearts of others who may be saved by finding him in their hearts, even when they do not actually follow him as Baptized Christians. Many Christian groups hold those beliefs separately from the passages that require actual Baptism or believe that they result in a “Baptism of desire.” There are, of course, Christians who do give primacy to your passages that require baptism, so we immediately have a situation in which Christianity is not of one single opinion.

Now, you may find that a reason to dismiss Christianity. You may decide that the whole thing (on either side of the discussion) is so much silliness. I have no problem with you considering Christianity in its totality foolish.

What you may not do is unilaterally declare that all Christians believe only one thing (that you have decided for them) and then claim that Christianity is monolithically hypocritical because you have assigned a belief that many Christians do not hold, nor may you then go into a classroom and falsely claim that all Christians believe something that you have made up out of your misunderstanding.

We are not discussing whether Christianity is a good thing or a bad thing. We are not discussing whether it makes sense. In the context of this thread, we are discussing whether there are more than one opinion held by different Christian groups on one (of a great many) contentious topic(s) that permits a classroom presentation to ignore all the other possibly held views.

103

[ Moderating ]

Now, braintree, I would really suggest you chill out. Hurling personal insults in this Forum (such as calling another poster an idiot–even conditionally), is prohibited.

The topic is not sufficiently serious to get yourself a Warning over bad behavior.

[ /Moderating ]

104

Interpretation my ass. The passage means exactly what it says. If another passage says something else (which you have not cited) then all you’ve got is an incoherent mosh.

What is this pasage in the Bible (must be new Testament) which unamibiguously states that you don’t have to beleive in christ to be saved? Please cite. If there is no such passage then you have got diddly squat.

105

As I understand it, the concept of “Hell” isn’t fixed anywhere in the bible, so where are the Christians supposedly sending people to?

106

Why are you getting so worked up over your failure to read what I have posted? I have cited other passages: Mt 25:31 – 46 and Rm 2:14 - 16.

The Catholics and Orthodox read the statements like the ones I have noted and have built a theology that allows for persons to be saved without going through the physical act of baptism. I’m sorry if you cannot accept this, but I can assure you, after studying Catholic theology for lo these 30+ years, that I am not making this up. Other groups have come to similar conclusions following their own theological developments. It may offend your sensibilities that they do not choose to read scripture the way that you want them to, but they did not develop their theologies to make you happy with their consistency.

Regardless what you choose to insist, it is simply not true that a majority of Christians currently believe that only Christians will be saved.

That has been my whole point: different Christian groups can look at scripture and draw different conclusions, so declaring that they must hold some teaching that they really do not accept, even if their alternative offends your sensibilities, simply does not work. I am not discussing the words of scripture. Iam not claiming any doctrine is true. I am noting that different Christians hold different beliefs on a number of topics–notably on who will be saved.

107

I don’t think religion should be taught in public schools, period. If it is, it needs to be balanced by classes teaching about the negative impact on society that religion has had.

108

On the other hand if you in your apparent bias, refuse to see it as others see it, and continue to insist you’re correct even when you’re shown you’re not, then a being misrepresented is legitimate point. FTR I do not consider myself a Christian although I have in the past. I am aware of the problems and contradictions within traditional Christian theology. There’s a lot I don’t accept or agree with myself. However, if you’re going to criticize here on the boards you need to be more accurate and be able to tell the difference between your opinion {which can be anything} and the facts {which cannot be}

The questions was does Catholic Theology condemn non Christians to hell wasn’t it? That was the point you were trying to make when you said **Tom ** was wrong and bragged about how little time it took you to find it wasn’t it? Did you read the entire link or just skim to find something that seemed to support your thesis? In your own link it says if you’re going to be Catholic then you need to be baptized. You can’t claim to be the Catholic variety of Christian and just opt out of baptism. Then it says something completely different about non Christians which was the point. That’s what I bolded and that shows you were wrong. Now be a grown up and just admit it. It only hurts for a second.

109

I’d agree that in a history or sociology class the dark side of religion should be covered.

110

If that were attempted, the protesters would say that any dark side to religion was caused by the misuse of religion. Previous threads on this subject lead me to this belief.

111

I appreciate your support, but let’s not let our emotions color the way we address our fellow posters.
Thanks.

[ /Moderating ]

112

Actually, I’d like to see such discussion integrated into History class. Abolitionists in the U.K. and U.S. were strongly driven by their religious beliefs. In turn, advocates of slavery developed a cottage industry of quote-mining scripture to rationalize the preservation of slavery. I think students should be aware of both sides of that issue.

Islam provided a number of rights for women that were simply not available to women in Christian or nearby pagan societies. Later, as the ethnic makeup of the dominant forces of Muslim society changed, many of those advances were “re-interpreted” away. (There is a school of thought that makes similar claims regarding Christianity, although the documentation is a bit cloudier.)

However, I tend to agree that there would be far too many locations where the curriculum would be prohibited by school boards or "tailored’ by individual teachers to actually accomplish what we would hope.

113

And herein lies the problem. Some Christian fundamentalists would agree with your sentiment about that passage but many others would not.

What is accepting Christ and believing in Christ? Is it a recognition of the man, his life, death and resurrection? Is it seeing him as the only begotten Son of God and the only legitimate one to be called savior? Many Christians do believe that. Many but far from all. Could it be interpreted as accepting and striving to live the principles he taught? As the passage from your own link indicated , some Christians believe that those who seek to truly love and serve and incorporate these principles in their lives, are still saved.

You may be surprised to discover thats in the Bible as well. **Tom ** has pointed out a couple. Let me add

Revelation 20:13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Romans 2:
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
The point being made and you refuse to acknowledge , is that there are a lot of passages in the Bible and those who study it have to decide for themselves how to reconcile passages that seem to conflict. Choosing to insist that select passages must be interpreted literally is one choice that some Christians and evidently you as well insist is the only possible legitimate one. The evidence shows that to be merely opinion * and not fact*. Are you beginning to see the difference now?

BTW, I also dealt with your passages on divorce and I noticed you simply chose not to respond. **Badchad **says thats not a good sign. According to him it indicates your position is weak. Right BC?

114

I thought after posting that I was probably on the edge. I’ll watch it.

115

And that’s a legitimate point. I don’t blame Jesus or teachings for the heinous things done in his name. I think the point would be to be factual about the good and bad done by religion.

In our teaching of our own history we are often inaccurate in order to maintain a more positive image of how great our country is. I think students would be better served by honesty and showing that people, organizations, and countries are a mix of good and bad. religion is no exception.