Forums | MacLife

Well, I do know about Methodist schools. Or "A Methodist school." And it was very concerned about right think. Much less concerned about teaching the curriculum. But we don't use that school anymore. We had problems, we don't now.

Catholic schools generally provide a good education, and Presbyterian schools too. I think it has more to do with where the school is.

Tallgeese wrote:

Oh, and about the Catholic/Lutheran schools: try to know what you're talking about before you post, okay?

I lead a very satisfactory and happy life, thank you! But, it's pretty difficult to be carefree about one's spiritual life if one 'believes' in heaven and hell.

I do know what I'm talking about. I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran, which is only one step removed from Catholic. I didn't say anything about the 'schools' but one must pass catechism to be confirmed in the Church whether in a Catholic or Lutheran church. I have taken communion in a Catholic church because of my standing as a Lutheran. But that was many years ago.

As far as science is concerned, it's history that much of the science during the middle ages and since has been the work of Catholic scholars in various orders. But, don't forget that scientists, like Galileo and others who dared imply the Bible was wrong have been persecuted by 'the church.' As Stephen Colbert is fond of saying, "We know the Pope is infallible, but that doesn't mean he can't make a mistake."

I totally agree that ID is not scientific, that it seems to me that IDer's sometimeslack faith, that its bad education to teach ID as science etc.

BUT: since when does whether or not you believe evolution ever amount to anything significant? Like someone is doomed to getting a poor job if they dont believe evolution. These kids futures are ruined if they dont learn evolution, really? Explain how.

Res consistently brings up a point often, that even the most strident IDer's are not against science, just evolution. Of course, evolution is science too, but its not like its all or nothing. A kid who refuses to believe evolution generally has no problem with particle physics or chemistry etc.

I mean, yes, there is pollutant in the educational waters, sure. But this elitist BS is ridiculous and as dogmatic sounding as the religionists worried that Johnny will grow up godless if he hears about Darwin.

StaticAge wrote:

I totally agree that ID is not scientific, that it seems to me that IDer's sometimeslack faith, that its bad education to teach ID as science etc.

BUT: since when does whether or not you believe evolution ever amount to anything significant? Like someone is doomed to getting a poor job if they dont believe evolution. These kids futures are ruined if they dont learn evolution, really? Explain how.

Res consistently brings up a point often, that even the most strident IDer's are not against science, just evolution. Of course, evolution is science too, but its not like its all or nothing. A kid who refuses to believe evolution generally has no problem with particle physics or chemistry etc.

I mean, yes, there is pollutant in the educational waters, sure. But this elitist BS is ridiculous and as dogmatic sounding as the religionists worried that Johnny will grow up godless if he hears about Darwin.

Resedit also rejects particle physics.

Tallgeese wrote:

How is a kid's future ruined if he doesn't learn about the Thirty Years' War?  How about the Ideal Gas Law? Doesn't completeness of education mean anything? Doesn't omitting a huge part of modern biology due to idiots mean anything?
I'm about to start a rant on "job-oriented" education but I'll stop myself.

The idea that Intelligent Design has ANY place in a science class is ridiculous.

Well, like I wrote, I agree with all that. You learned to read, right?

To accept science is to accept the scientific method.

StaticAge wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

How is a kid's future ruined if he doesn't learn about the Thirty Years' War?  How about the Ideal Gas Law? Doesn't completeness of education mean anything? Doesn't omitting a huge part of modern biology due to idiots mean anything?
I'm about to start a rant on "job-oriented" education but I'll stop myself.

The idea that Intelligent Design has ANY place in a science class is ridiculous.

Well, like I wrote, I agree with all that. You learned to read, right?

Selectively, like everyone else around here.

Adults are too good at believing they know the difference between reality and make-believe.

We were not required to pass oral and written boards.

There are plenty of priests/ministers, Catholic and Protestant, who give inter-faith communion out of a sense of ecumenism. They are wrong.

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240

1401 When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.241

And from LCMS:

Question:How can we possibly say that all those Christians from other church bodies are unworthy to receive the Lord’s Supper? Isn’t that what we are saying? Answer: Absolutely not! There are tworeasons why people can be refused admission to the Lord’s Supper. The first has to do with faith and discerning the body. Those who do not have such faith and discernment would commune in an unworthy manner and thereby receive God’s judgment. But the second reason has to do with the need for a fitting confessional unity among those who commune together. Roman Catholic Christians, for example, may be perfectly prepared to receive the Lord’s Supper in their own churches in a worthy manner and so to their own great blessing. But it would be unfitting for them, as confessors of their church body’s error, to receive the Sacrament in our churches.

sturner wrote:

I simply find it difficult to understand why someone would volunteer to place their basic religious precepts on a par with a scientific theory.

Putting Creationism or ID as a scientific theory immediately places the burden of proof upon those who uphold it. First requirement is to show another instance of creationism.
Can it be duplicated? And since a "Creator" or "Greater Intelligence" is required, you also have to show proof of that. Failure to do so results in the proof that God does not exist, since those advocating Creationism or ID are Christians, and Christians are monotheists. I don't really see that they are advocating a Creator or Greater Intelligence other than the Christian Deity.

Dont get me wrong, but is that really the right argument to make? We see virii mutate all the time, we see bacteria evolve, but a lot of ID people accept that sort of thing. The stuff I see mostly argued against is the stuff that cant be duplicated even in a lab.

And failure to prove God's existence does not result in proof God does not exist, it just results in non-scientific limbo. It cant be posited scientifically that God exists, but that fact doesnt mean God cant exist.

The difficulty I have in the idea, is that, in order to account for a belief, one decides it must be transfered to a different proving ground- thats just crazy. I mean, if I felt that I had to rely on science to provide proof of my love for my wife, it could be easilly argued that my love must be pretty shallow or non-existent already: if showing my wife isnt good enough, why would science be any better? Love would be better off proven by acting within that relationship with my wife. In a similar way, faith is better off being proven by acting within a relationship with God.

The science thing I sometimes see in the way some will take the first straws offered by archealogy over some long lost site mentioned in the Bible. When the first reports come back some preachers lord it over everyone who will listen "see? this PROVES we're right!" And then later, its found out that no, they were wrong. But thats what you get for hinging the proof of your faith on conclusions made in the realm of acheaology instead of the spiritual advice of the Bible.

Not to mention, could you imagine Jesus telling his apostles "And this will be how men will know you are my disciples, if you have working scientific theories and mathematical algorithims amongst yourselves" instead of saying the proof was that they'd show love? Some truths, like the beautiful or spiritual lose a lot when measured my reductionistic materialism.

Last edited by StaticAge (2006-04-03 11:09 pm)

Sassy wrote:

...Adults can intellectually tell the difference, but emotionally, they can be as vulnerable as a child in a crisis or a threatening incident. You've heard the 'adage,' "There are no atheists in foxholes."

Ummm...good post, bad example, Sassy.

http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/about.php

People don't suddenly "get religion" because their lives are threatened.

Now I may have derailed my own thread....

Insecurity is the very nature of faith. One is trying to believe without evidence. Rational humans have to work hard at that.