the lead opinion piece on du home page

"using the Bible as a science textbook is blasphemy"

huh? I just get so tired having to hear every moderate say that, 'all you democrats are anti-God, anti-belief, mock biblical history, proof and evidence', because of some people's kicks out of saying that believing in God shows such a lack of intellect and the need of a crutch. It takes a rather humble person to acknowledge the belief that we alone are without the knowledge of how and where the existence of life began, and that we are truly in God's hands, whether someone believes it or not.

I appreciate the intelligent person discussing 'religion', but I wish many of the anti-Christian posts I see on DU would instead focus on the comment of something like, "even though we have some very good Christians who are Dems, the right wingers who claim to follow their Savior Jesus, really show much hate"....

otherwise, it leads to ALL Dems as being labeled as anti-Christian, and that's about as accurate as all Republicans being labeled "pro Iraq war"

unless you're getting hit over the head with it. Then it's assault with a deadly weapon.

now see, I like that witty comment! because the republicans are blabbling ON AND ON about God this and God that, and it's sadly hilarious when something like the Gannon/Guckert Affair comes out! :)

thanks again...

some people think otherwise. Believe me, what you think you have to put up with PALES in comparison to having religion constantly shoved in one's face.

I accept that comment and say to you, what you think you deal with pales in comparison to the martyrdom that thousands have faced simply for having their belief that Christ has touched their heart, in a truly profound way, and is their Savior. I don't want Bush and his minions telling me that it's ok to divert billions over the years to religious org's, but in turn, it's ok to murder thousands in the pursuit of "world peace" and acting like their "holy", anymore than you do.

peace...

pales in comparison to the suffering brought on by people with weird "religious" beliefs. I wish people did not feel the need to separate themselves by such beliefs and I wish they would keep them private.

for in the generosity that is the "Christ" he encourages his true followers to take their candle and go light the world for the poor, sick, and needy to let them know that they have hope in Jesus if they wish to see it. I've been through the worst year of my life and couldn't love God more. And, yet, I think we're in agreement that the implication that if one doesn't toot a religious horn exactly as someone else does, that they're inferior, is disgusting. I think a lot of people with differing religious or non-religious beliefs would just be thrilled if this administration was never in Washington.


many blessings to you...

The modern "innerrancy" fundamentalist Christians impute to the Bible every attribute of god-head, and in doing so, have made it into an idol that they worship, instead of the Christ they claim to worship.

I hear much about the "word", are you "following the word", have you "read the word", you "in the word lately", and I sometimes think that people elevate the word above God himself, it's a simple concept (Christian) faith, but one that gets all messed up with human ego. We know what people can do, if they feel "God" led them to it.... war war war... and that is so sad.

peace to you...

... carried in a vessel of logos. :shrug:

is that your quote? cause its a good one, and id love to use it

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

I'm not so sure I'm yet satisfied with the words 'mythos' and 'logos.' (Karen Armstrong readers will recognize them immediately, but they're too esoteric for many others. Indeed, her books helped me form that thought.) The notion, however, seems very clear to me - even if the verbal expression of that notion is difficult for me. (A 'wheat/'chaff' metaphor doesn't quite do it.) Feel free to assimilate. :silly:

I have been guilty of posting anti-Christian articles before now. On reflection, it's unfair to all those people with a quiet faith, regardless of its hue. Falling out amongst ourselves, just because some of us don't believe in god, is playing into the hands of those who would divide and rule; the classic tactic.

Yesterday, someone posted a superb article on the dangers of reductionist thought along the Cartesian model. I was tempted to reply in support of the poster because I agree that reductionism is a blind alley.

We are a broad church (pun not intended) and we should strive to gel together rather than fall out while the r/w laugh. Provided religion isn't used for political ends, it is illiberal to denigrate those people with faith.

I'm not a Christian but I'm not an atheist either. More than that it wouldn't be wise to say for fear of starting a protracted, intellectual tennis match.

this whole evolution debate is just another right wing tactic to get religion taught in our schools . . . a notion which violates both the Constitution and common sense . . . Biblical teachings in public schools discriminate against every student who is not a Christian . . . not a road that an enlightened, multi-cultural society wants to embark on, imo . . .

that means even in science, the teacher is to be a guide more than they are a boss. Those of us who believe in evolution seem to have accepted it more on faith rather than being convinced by the evidence, or knowing enough about the subject to "prove" it. I think that smacks more of religious indoctrination than it does learning, only the "religion" in this case is "evolution" or "science".
Secondly, I think that "values" needs to be the foundation or metaphysics for any education, in fact that values cannot be avoided, much like metaphysics. To quote the mother of Louis Brandeis: "I do not believe that sins can be expiated by going to divine service and observing this or that formula. I believe that only goodness and truth and conduct that is humane and self-sacrificing towards those who need us can bring God nearer to us, and that our errors can only be atoned for by acting in a more kindly spirit. Love, virtue, and truth are the foundations upon which the education of the child must be based. They endure forever...And this is my justification for bringing up my children without any definite religious belief: I wanted to give them something than neither could be argued away nor would have to be given up as untenable, namely, a pure spirit and the highest ideals as to morals and love."

"I like your Christ but not your Christians."

A line from Mr. G. K. Chesterton has always appealed to me: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not been tried."

fact based teaching. I believe in the Socratic method, and guided learning, but if my kid's geometry teacher is guiding him toward the erroneous belief that pi is exactly 3, then I have a serious quibble with that teacher.

What does an "open discussion" of evolution lead to? If one went to the doctor with an unknown illness, which two scenarios would one prefer:

1)"We're going to draw some blood and fluids and run some tests." The doctors then proceed to experiment and test, and they eventually arrive at a conclusion through a process of trial and error. or...

2)"What's wrong with you? Maybe God did it. Drink some holy water."

The above was not me riding down the slippery slope, but rather illustrating it is somewhat dangerous to equate science (and fact based on scientific experimentation) with religion.

As for teaching enlightenment values, I couldn't agree with you more.

Mostly I run into doctors who seem to think an emergency walletectomy is required, if not from me, then from my insurance company. Medicine perhaps is a good analogy, because I would rather be treated by someone who is not an assembly-line pill pusher.
Wendell Barry makes the point in the agricultural world, can we trust the "objectivity" of the "experts"?

"In modern agriculture, then, the machine metaphor is allowed to usurp and wipe from consideration not merely some values, but the very issue of values. Once the experts' interest is focused on the question of 'what will work' within the exclusive confines of his theoretical model, values are no longer any concern whatsoever."

Experts' "objectivity" is merely a frame-work where they refuse to question their own values.

I cannot remember my biology courses from the distant past, nor did I take part in my dad's evolution debates with his brothers (although I think they made an impressive round-table, a geologist, a HS biology teacher, and a fundy preacher) but to a certain extent I think the method of teaching evolution as memorizing a received dogma is more of a religious mindset than if the topic was debated and the evidence was studied. The process is the thing to learn, not the conclusion. Instead isn't the student learning to "memorize the dogma, surrender to the authority"?