Randman's call for nonSecular education...

i actually agree. sort of: what i mean is that the bible is legitimate ancient literature. i think it should be taught -- alongside gilgamesh, beowulf, the vedas, etc. how is it "bad" literature? it's pretty consistent with such books and sets of books. so what if it's inconsistent?and so what if it's poetry? the iliad and the odyssey are poetry. so is beowulf. why is that a bad thing? it's simply how a lot of ancient literature was written.not reading it wouldn't lessen literacy, no. but it is part of a basic education in literature, at least at the college level. removing it would be just as bad pretending greek mythology didn't exist. it really is part of cultural history, and should be learned about in that regard.

---

אָרַח

but not all. it's usually evidence it was not originated as written word, and sometimes that the society was not literated. but think about shakespeare.there's also some evidence that the greeks who "wrote" the odyssey that homer recorded were post-literate. actually, my greek/philosphy prof a few years ago has this theory about poetry cycles, post-literate societies, and rap music...

---

אָרַח

the don't object becuase no one wants to teach it as fact in a science classroom. i agree. the western world has been shaped by christianity for the last 1700 years or so, since it was adopted by constantine for the holy roman empire. understanding of the source of this influence is integral to the study of western history. that's just not true. i've taken a whole college class on just one part of the bible, the old testament. next semester, there's even a class on the book of amos alone. and amos is not a very big book. class in the bible -- as literature -- are pretty common at the college level. we even covered parts of genesis in my intellectual traditions (philosophy) class.i think i've heard a few cases of the bible going on the english reading lists in high school, too. i think it should be taught on equal ground with other, similar books. although high school covers a lot of ground, and doesn't really go in depth. a whole class dedicated to the bible might not appropriate -- but it's fine for college.

---

אָרַח

you walk kind of a fine line here between being right, and very seriously wrong.high school is really not the place for bible study, however: high schoolers should understand what the protestant reformation was about, and what caused it. they should also understand the calvinist impact in england, the anglican split, the great schism, etc.however, high schoolers don't really leave high school with a whole lot of knowledge. you're not gonna be able to actually have a comparitive religions class, let alone the in-depth study of one religion or text. it might be covered somewhat breifly in literature class, though. but how familiar? don't forget, the bible is a BIG book. i wouldn't even go as far as to say that you or i was familiar with the bible, as a whole. i know of few people who are.when people talk about "familiarity with the bible" they usually mean a few key parts, and how you're "supposed" to read them. the basic underlying concepts key to a particular group of beliefs. as i continue to study, i find these broad-strokes simply inadequate in truly understand what the bible IS, even on a surface level.and aside from that, how many ancient epics would a student have time to read? we were scrambling to read the bible in college in one semester; i fell behind very fast. should we lump the other books onto that too? the iliad and the odyssey? beowulf and gilgamesh? the rig vedas and upanishads? some of these are pretty hefty books.

---

אָרַח

alot of those have other purposes. like teaching kids how to handle alotted time. i must admit, i NEVER learned that lesson. honestly, i don't think studying the bible is THAT important for general education. important, yes. but no more important than other ancient literature, and more important than other subjects. i think it should be PART of the cirriculum, in part, but the cirriculum. i do think it's dangerous to devote so much time to one particular set of beliefs. no argument there. music, too.

---

אָרַח

that's a lot to devote to bible study, rand.why 4-5 years about the bible, and then cram tao te ching, the vedas and upanishads, the koran, confucious, buddha, and native american narratives into the last year? i think they put mroe stress on it than you might think. greek mythology is particularly influential on not only western civilization, but christianity as well. gilgamesh is influential on jewish biblical traditions. if the bible's important -- those are just as important.

---

אָרַח

well, with that i disagree. i think it is important as literature -- just like any other ancient book or set of books. there was a course at one of the colleges i went to that covered the bible. they used an academic translation, published by a normal secular publishing company. it was complete with apocrypha. because reading other ancient literature is damaging to belief in the bible. no, really. one of my friends in college came in as a clean-cut jesus-boy type. i checked in on him recently. he's got dreadlocks and a beard now, listens to secular music, and doesn't really know what he believes. i found out why, too. he said that he always thought there was something special about the bible that set it apart from other books. when he took a course in ancient literature, he realized that it ALL really sounded like that. i agree that they shouldn't spend a lot of time on it. but reading some bits might be a good thing -- just like reading bits of the iliad or beowulf might be good too. yes. how does that make it NOT literature?

quote:

---

Main Entry: lit·er·a·ture
Pronunciation: 'li-t&-r&-"chur, 'li-tr&-"chur, 'li-t&(r)-"chur, -ch&r, -"tyur, -"tur
Function: noun

​

3 a (1) : writings in prose or verse; especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest (2) : an example of such writings b : the body of written works produced in a particular language, country, or age c : the body of writings on a particular subject d : printed matter (as leaflets or circulars)

---

it's not so much "a collection" as it is a library. not a big one, but a library nonetheless. put all those books on a shelf as separate scrolls, and see how much room it takes up. it is the collection of all the important literature from one culture, all of their traditions, for the better part of a 1000 years. tack on the end are the traditions of the early christian church.being a collection doesn't make it not literature -- it makes it a collection of literature. prose and verse together doesn't make it not literature. think macbeth or hamlet -- some characters speak in prose. having genealogies doesn't make it not literature, it just makes it BORING literature. ever read the king james bible? it was quite influential on the shape of modern english. it's studied in english for the same reason shakespeare is. shakespeare and the kjv are the first two key works written in modern english. yes, that's fine. i think we need better science education too. so many people here seem to be mixed up about what science is and what it does. it's good to understand things like calvinism, the anglican church, and how those lead to the ideas for separation of church and state. right. like i said, school is not the place for bible study. hahah. that's ok, i don't have a problem with it.

---

אָרַח

the philosophy of not owning property sure played a strong role.

---

אָרַח

oh yes, i almost forgot about the first confederation.

---

אָרַח

with the bit about reading it from the aspect as a believer. but that's different than theology -- one can teach what various theologies ARE without teaching to believe the theology. it's the difference betweem comparitive religions and seminary. not as history, per se. as part of history, maybe. but it's neither a history textbook nor a science textbook. exactly. lots of people think they know what the bible is about. they probably don't. a good honest class on it might be a good thing. i did read parts of beowulf. it's actually a really good starting place since it's one of the earliest english stories. ok, lets talk about another law, as opposed to "the law." what about the code of hammurabi? why should we study that? it's not literature, it's the code of a society. i think we had some of the kjv psalms in one of my english books. no, but it's good to know what the theology of those groups WERE. usually, it has very little to do with the bible. now, lutheranism... i did appreciate the irony myself.

---

אָרַח

actually, i've read some of it in literature class, as well as history. and we did learn some of the things it said, because some of the things it said are the foundation of modern law.the bible has a similar role in history, and is (and should be) taught accordingly. yes, i'm trying to explain to him why one is ok, but the other isn't.

---

אָרַח

FLAT EARTH? YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID. BOW BEFORE THE SUPERIORITY OF NATURE'S HARMONIC TIME CUBE

---

אָרַח

did you know that when the christians won the first crusade, they slaughtered every muslim in jerusalem? that's pretty violent.did you know that when the christians lost the second crusade, saladin let the christians leave in peace? originally, he wanted to kill them all with the same bloodlust they had dealt out. but he didn't.once we stop talking about the crusades, we can go on to the spanish inquisition.

---

אָרַח

i'm sorry, do a little more research on the crusades. it was QUITE the slaughter. ok, so. joshua leads the israelites into the holy land, and kills 7 entire nations. rome conquers and controlls much of europe under the christian standards and shields. hitler does the same. the crusaders slaughter millions of arabs and jews. the spanish inquisition exterminates tons of its own followers deemed heretics. i dunno how much moro violent we can get here.what do you propose as the most violent force in the world? yes, i agree. it's a damned shame.

---

אָרַח

yes, in sheer numbers alone.stalin slaughtered about 12 millions russians. hitler slaughtered 11 million europeans -- they're pretty close to comparable. now lump the countless millions of the crusades and the inquisition.i would say, with a second thought, that the genocides of the christian tradition not only outweigh all other genocides, but that if you added all others up, christianity would still win.

---

אָרַח