Kentucky Gives Blessing to Bible Classes in Public Schools - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;52425880]Who knows, why don't we wait and see the curriculum before deciding? For example, I hope they do a bit on the establishment of the Biblical canon to dispel all the myths pushed by the new atheists. I'm talking purely historical fact here. You don't know how many times I've heard someone say that the canon was made up at the Council of Nicea and that Emperor Constantine played a big role. There's literally zero evidence that the Biblical canon was even spoken about at the Council of Nicea. I wouldn't want them preaching either.[/QUOTE] Because as the 2016 US election has showed, waiting and seeing is a really shit idea

[QUOTE=sgman91;52425880]Who knows, why don't we wait and see the curriculum before deciding? For example, I hope they do a bit on the establishment of the Biblical canon to dispel all the myths pushed by the new atheists. I'm talking purely historical fact here. You don't know how many times I've heard someone say that the canon was made up at the Council of Nicea and that Emperor Constantine played a big role. There's literally zero evidence that the Biblical canon was even spoken about at the Council of Nicea. I wouldn't want them preaching either.[/QUOTE] They did. But it wasn't just one meeting though. If your talking about the Tony Brushby Pseudohistory where Everything was decided in one meeting then no. Jesus Christ Myth-ism is also a thing, for me there is probably a person than was jesus but nobody special at the time.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52425385]Studying the single most influential piece of literature in the world seems like a pretty good idea, whether you're religious or not.[/QUOTE] The bible is not a single piece of literature. There are dozens of books that have been added and removed from it. It has been changed intentionally and mistranslated hundreds of times. There is no definitive version of "The Bible" because a huge chunk of people who follow the first half of it think the second half is bunk. Having a class on the history of the Middle East, even a focused one that narrows it down near 0BCE is perfectly acceptable but there is no objective way to teach a Bible class because there isn't even a "true" version of the Bible.

A class dedicated to exploring the bible from a historical context -- both what the text tells us and how it has influenced Western civilization -- would be a really cool class to have available. However this is just too easy to abuse. Even if the basic curriculum seems OK there's just no way there wouldn't be a ton of teachers bending it to preach. Especially in Kentucky. So I hesitate to say that it shouldn't be an elective, but I also wouldn't recommend it unless there's some real oversight.

[QUOTE=Propane Addict;52425926]The bible is not a single piece of literature. There are dozens of books that have been added and removed from it. It has been changed intentionally and mistranslated hundreds of times. There is no definitive version of "The Bible" because a huge chunk of people who follow the first half of it think the second half is bunk. Having a class on the history of the Middle East, even a focused one that narrows it down near 0BCE is perfectly acceptable but there is no objective way to teach a Bible class because there isn't even a "true" version of the Bible.[/QUOTE] There is huge reasons for that.

Someone should propose a "stuff you will encounter as an adult that you should be ready to handle" class.

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52425935]Someone should propose a "stuff you will encounter as an adult that you should be ready to handle" class.[/QUOTE] I'm sure this is a joke but there are plenty of classes that will prepare you for real life but most people just don't take them because they're boring nerd shit like accounting. My high school had an entire business department that included classes on taxes, financial planning, and other related things.

[QUOTE=Propane Addict;52425926]The bible is not a single piece of literature. There are dozens of books that have been added and removed from it. It has been changed intentionally and mistranslated hundreds of times. There is no definitive version of "The Bible" because a huge chunk of people who follow the first half of it think the second half is bunk. Having a class on the history of the Middle East, even a focused one that narrows it down near 0BCE is perfectly acceptable but there is no objective way to teach a Bible class because there isn't even a "true" version of the Bible.[/QUOTE] It's kind of hard to respond to massively vague statements. The entire OT canon was finalized by 250 AD and the only books that some really disagreed on where Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The 4 gospels that we have today were recognized extremely early. People have an incorrect view that the church chose what books were inspired at the councils. In reality, they brought together the books that were already recognized as inspired, with discussion about a few that people disagreed on.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52425957]It's kind of hard to respond to massively vague statements. The entire OT canon was finalized by 250 AD and the only books that some really disagreed on where Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The 4 gospels that we have today were recognized extremely early. People have an incorrect view that the church chose what books were inspired at the councils. In reality, they brought together the books that were already recognized as inspired, with discussion about a few that people disagreed on.[/QUOTE] Nope, that is still Apologetics They did in fact chose Cannon because we found an entirely Different Set of Books, the Nag Hammandi Library.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52425433]That's just it though. If it's an elective, then the people who select it will do so either because: 1) They already believe in that stuff and want an easy grade, or 2) Don't care either way and are just doing it to fill an elective slot. Or possibly 3) They're edgy kids signing up to troll religious students/teachers.[/QUOTE] The problem is that it shouldn't even be an elective in the first place. A Bible class has no purpose in a public school, period. The fact that there's a pandering exclusivity here is the issue. Kentucky is your stereotypical ruby red state. They're pushing an agenda with this, and it has to do with testing the Establishment Clause. It's no different than court houses that try to put up the Ten Commandments in front of them, or (again) all those creationist groups who have been pushing for ~intelligent design~ as they call it to be taught alongside biology. If we allow this class as an elective, what's next? Will intelligent design in fact be incorporated into a separate "biology" class that will be offered as a mere elective? It's a slippery slope, and there's no need for it. The simplest and most honest solution is to make this an all-or-nothing matter: either you make this into a world religions class that teaches about many different faiths and presents a variety of cultural angles, or you ax the class completely. There should be no pandering to any one faith. This, again, definitely shouldn't be happening in the public school system of all places.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52425957]It's kind of hard to respond to massively vague statements. The entire OT canon was finalized by 250 AD and the only books that some really disagreed on where Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The 4 gospels that we have today were recognized extremely early. People have an incorrect view that the church chose what books were inspired at the councils. In reality, they brought together the books that were already recognized as inspired, with discussion about a few that people disagreed on.[/QUOTE] Which OT canon are you talking about? Are you forgetting about Eastern Orthodox canon? The Church of England canon? Lutheran canon? Which version of the Bible should they purchase for classroom use then?

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52425388] This is an attempt to bring church to school, no doubt about it. Especially since it's in Kentucky. It won't be an objective, unbiased look at the religion, I guaran-fucking-tee you that. [/QUOTE] Well then people should object to that specifically, and not reject the idea of religion and all it bears in it's entirety, sheerly to feel smug about how supposedly advanced we are for doing so. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52424979] religion is superstitious nonsense. it's outrageous that we can't call it for what it is[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=MendozaMan;52424794]Call me ignorant but I think we shouldn't be wasting any more time on fairytales[/QUOTE] Exactly like this, for example. We've already thrown the baby out with the bathwater. And it's equally childish to say "it's superstitious nonsense" as it is to say "Obey god because reasons, everything in here is literally true and to question that is [I]wrong[/I]". Both are equally damaging for basically the same reasons.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52426329]We've already thrown the baby out with the bathwater. And it's equally childish to say "it's superstitious nonsense" as it is to say "Obey god because reasons, everything in here is literally true and to question that is [I]wrong[/I]". Both are equally damaging for basically the same reasons.[/QUOTE] except one is backed by basic logic and observable evidence

[QUOTE=Propane Addict;52425926]The bible is not a single piece of literature. There are dozens of books that have been added and removed from it. It has been changed intentionally and mistranslated hundreds of times. There is no definitive version of "The Bible" because a huge chunk of people who follow the first half of it think the second half is bunk. Having a class on the history of the Middle East, even a focused one that narrows it down near 0BCE is perfectly acceptable but there is no objective way to teach a Bible class because there isn't even a "true" version of the Bible.[/QUOTE] I would love a source on pretty much every single point here because as far as I know, everything you just said is purely, objectively wrong. The only books that have been removed were the deuterocanonical books during the Protestant reformation, all of which are Old Testament books. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament have always had the same 27 books. The books of the New Testament have had copies of them discovered as early as within 40 years of Jesus's death, from several areas around the eastern part of the Roman Empire, from Greece to Egypt, showing that even that early in Christianity, the books were copied over and over, in several languages. The best thing about them being translated into many languages, especially early on? It gives a clear understanding of what the books were saying, which can then be compared to today's copies, which evidently, show that they say the same exact stories. To compound the importance of these books being copied over and over in such an early time is because often Christians found themselves facing execution for their beliefs. Surely if their faith was strong enough to face the death penalty, they would not be lazy in distorting copies they make. And when Christianity was finally legalized in the Roman Empire, the number of times the books were copied were exponential. IIRC there are something like 2,000 different copies of the gospels alone from the first 500 years since Christ, compared to the few hundred copies of the next most well copied ancient text, that being Homer's Iliad.

[QUOTE=Judas;52424602]uh the bible is much more than "one mostly fictional book"[/QUOTE] You're right, it's multiple mostly fictional books in one. /s Yes there are actual truths to it, but the parts people focus on are completely fiction.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52426443]I would love a source on pretty much every single point here because as far as I know, everything you just said is purely, objectively wrong. The only books that have been removed were the deuterocanonical books during the Protestant reformation, all of which are Old Testament books. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament have always had the same 27 books. The books of the New Testament have had copies of them discovered as early as within 40 years of Jesus's death, from several areas around the eastern part of the Roman Empire, from Greece to Egypt, showing that even that early in Christianity, the books were copied over and over, in several languages. The best thing about them being translated into many languages, especially early on? It gives a clear understanding of what the books were saying, which can then be compared to today's copies, which evidently, show that they say the same exact stories. To compound the importance of these books being copied over and over in such an early time is because often Christians found themselves facing execution for their beliefs. Surely if their faith was strong enough to face the death penalty, they would not be lazy in distorting copies they make. And when Christianity was finally legalized in the Roman Empire, the number of times the books were copied were exponential. IIRC there are something like 2,000 different copies of the gospels alone from the first 500 years since Christ, compared to the few hundred copies of the next most well copied ancient text, that being Homer's Iliad.[/QUOTE] :speechless: Gnostic Christiantiy would beg to differ. Basically there was an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NEW TESTAMENT found in Egypt in 1945. Nag Hammardi Library Book Of Revelation was not included unti the fourth Century because it was considered too confusing and had "Heretical" (Gnostic) ideas Also you ignored the Jewish religion, because most of them don't follow NT for good reasons. Sorry Guys but there is an entire industry trying to do damage control on the history of the bible.

My human history class did it right. They taught us about all the major religions and their main points, beliefs, differences and the impact they had during the relevent time periods we was studying at the time. There is literally no reason to have an entire class for christainity. Its completely pointless and a obvious breach of seperation of church and state. If you want your kid to take these classes then go to a fucking private school. Taxes shouldnt be used to promote this shit.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52426480]:speechless: Gnostic Christiantiy would beg to differ. Basically there was an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NEW TESTAMENT found in Egypt in 1945. Nag Hammardi Library Book Of Revelation was not included unti the fourth Century because it was considered too confusing and had "Heretical" (Gnostic) ideas[/quote] The "gnostic texts" were not included in the bible because they A) were not written by Apostles or associates of the Apostles B)Written well after the 1st century. How can any of those 'gospels' claim to be witnessed accounts of Jesus if they were written 200 years after his death C) They were not followed by the mainstream Christian church - an important rule in discussing which books were to be added to the Bible during its official compilation by the Church. The book of Revelation was not included not because it was "confusing" but because some churches were not regarding it as worth reading, despite being written by an apostle. But that does not mean all, or most, of Christianity were not reading it and the church decided to just chuck it in last minute for 'because'. [QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52426480]Also you ignored the Jewish religion, because most of them don't follow NT for good reasons.[/QUOTE] Most of them don't follow the New Testament because they're Jews, not Christians, obviously...?

If Kentucky really wants to go through with this hopefully they choose the old testament. Don't want those kids to be bored with stories about love and compassion in the new testament now do we!

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52426533]The "gnostic texts" were not included in the bible because they A) were not written by Apostles or associates of the Apostles [/quote] There is significatly small evidence that they even existed, and some of gospels are also fraudulent [QUOTE] B)Written well after the 1st century. How can any of those 'gospels' claim to be witnessed accounts of Jesus if they were written 200 years after his death[/Quote] Same WAY as the Other 4 Gospels dating methods actually puts them farther away at the earliest ones. A lot longer that 40 years after death, Except for Book of Revelation. Which was the only book written at the time, Which was written by an Angst Ridden Jew during the Romans reign.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52426329] Exactly like this, for example. We've already thrown the baby out with the bathwater. And it's equally childish to say "it's superstitious nonsense" as it is to say "Obey god because reasons, everything in here is literally true and to question that is [I]wrong[/I]". Both are equally damaging for basically the same reasons.[/QUOTE] Can you name me a single instance where someone assumed that a deity didn't exist and they regretted it because they were wrong

[QUOTE=Kirbunny431;52424847]Ah, there it is. For a second I thought that nobody had made a smug, low effort zinger in a religion thread. I definitely don't agree with instituting Bible classes in public schools (unless it was just a regular religious studies class, in which case that's fine), but these threads are exhausting because you people pop up like clockwork to crap out basically the same post every single time. I guess that's just another reminder for me to stay out of it.[/QUOTE] What were you just waiting to spring on someone insulting your fairytale delusion? People snipe religion threads because religion is how people who can't deal with the real world cope, and they ultimately end up hurting a lot of people in the process.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52426443]I would love a source on pretty much every single point here because as far as I know, everything you just said is purely, objectively wrong. The only books that have been removed were the deuterocanonical books during the Protestant reformation, all of which are Old Testament books. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament have always had the same 27 books. The books of the New Testament have had copies of them discovered as early as within 40 years of Jesus's death, from several areas around the eastern part of the Roman Empire, from Greece to Egypt, showing that even that early in Christianity, the books were copied over and over, in several languages. The best thing about them being translated into many languages, especially early on? It gives a clear understanding of what the books were saying, which can then be compared to today's copies, which evidently, show that they say the same exact stories. To compound the importance of these books being copied over and over in such an early time is because often Christians found themselves facing execution for their beliefs. Surely if their faith was strong enough to face the death penalty, they would not be lazy in distorting copies they make. And when Christianity was finally legalized in the Roman Empire, the number of times the books were copied were exponential. IIRC there are something like 2,000 different copies of the gospels alone from the first 500 years since Christ, compared to the few hundred copies of the next most well copied ancient text, that being Homer's Iliad.[/QUOTE] But friend, they certainly did change the contents of the bible. There were things added and removed to help correct the narrative [URL="http://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries"]even in the 4 gospels. [/URL] The New Testament has not always had the same 27 books, the earliest collection of the current 27 book NT that we know of happened around 250 CE. [QUOTE]Luke 3:22: This passage describes Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. According to Justin Martyr, the original version of this verse has God speaking the words: "You are my son, today have I begotten thee." Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and other ancient Christian authorities also quoted it this way. 1 The implication is that Jesus was first recognized by God as his son at the time of baptism. But a forger altered the words to read: "You are my son, whom I love." The altered passage conformed more to the evolving Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God at his birth, (as described in Luke and Matthew) or before the beginning of creation (as in John), and not at his baptism.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]1 Corinthians 14:34-35: This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. It is obvious to some theologians that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm"]Source[/URL] We have not discovered any copies of the new testament from before 125 CE. Every book is considered to be written before that, but we do not have any from within 40 year's of his death.

[QUOTE=jonu67;52424594]It's weird that you Americans don't have a class dedicated to the various Religions of the world, despite not believing myself I really enjoyed Religious Education classes.[/QUOTE] Many schools do. School curriculum are set at the state and county level, not federal. Religious studies was an elective at my high school

[QUOTE=Propane Addict;52425948]I'm sure this is a joke but there are plenty of classes that will prepare you for real life but most people just don't take them because they're boring nerd shit like accounting. My high school had an entire business department that included classes on taxes, financial planning, and other related things.[/QUOTE] my highschool had this but it was basically a way to toss extra credit hours onto the worst performing kids in school, and consequently they were pathetic joke classes where you do like one "project" the entire semester which only has to be like a 5 page paper. [editline]3rd July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Propane Addict;52427879]But friend, they certainly did change the contents of the bible. There were things added and removed to help correct the narrative [URL="http://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries"]even in the 4 gospels. [/URL] The New Testament has not always had the same 27 books, the earliest collection of the current 27 book NT that we know of happened around 250 CE. [URL="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm"]Source[/URL] We have not discovered any copies of the new testament from before 125 CE. Every book is considered to be written before that, but we do not have any from within 40 year's of his death.[/QUOTE] I'd just like to know where revalations comes from, that whole book seems so fucking weird and out of place like "here's the entire story of jesus 4 times over, letters about him, and FIRE BRIMSTONE, DEATH AND ALL SORTS OF WEIRD PAGAN SHIT!"

[QUOTE=c:;52424597]we do. er, at least my schools did. I don't know about the southern states. There's a reason they're called "the Bible Belt"[/QUOTE] Went to school in middle Tennessee. There was a bible study class. I stayed well away. I was in art class once and during some conversation the girl in front of me told me I was going to hell because I didn't believe in the religion she believes in. I don't believe in ANY religion, mind you. Nothing turns me off of religion more than matter-of-fact religious people There was nothing about any other religions though. Lot of history, Military history, Auto shop, Graphic arts, agriculture with the biggest dickhead in the universe for a teacher, spreadsheet bullshit that was out dated even then, but no theology

[QUOTE=Sableye;52429791]I'd just like to know where revalations comes from, that whole book seems so fucking weird and out of place like "here's the entire story of jesus 4 times over, letters about him, and FIRE BRIMSTONE, DEATH AND ALL SORTS OF WEIRD PAGAN SHIT!"[/QUOTE] First, remember that almost none of it is even supposed to be taken literally. Secondly, it helps a lot to know the Old Testament. There are a lot of references.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52429988]First, remember that almost none of it is even supposed to be taken literally. Secondly, it helps a lot to know the Old Testament. There are a lot of references.[/QUOTE] That is actually correct.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52430043]As an atheist who went to a private religious university, I can potentially see some merit in this. If it's taught like a history class with the intent being an understanding of the historical and geographical situation at the time particular texts were written, then yes - very beneficial. If it's a class that's supplying interpretations for texts and venturing into the "faith" territory or suggesting to students what to believe then it's toxic filth that has no place in a school. The Bible is a really really historically important text because we can learn things like the destruction of cities, reigning kings, plagues, droughts, etc. from the stories within it. Brushing it aside because "religion is bad" is naive and short-sighted. I like the line in the article quote. [B]Make sure the classes don’t cross the constitutional line from teaching to preaching.[/B] If they can do that then I am 100% on board.[/QUOTE] Atheists Actually wan't people to read the bible cover to cover, and not the cherry-picked quotes.