Posted on 08/02/2008 5:57:18 PM PDT by Kevmo
When did I ever do that?
If you doubt that’s true, then how do you account for Richard Dawkins’ and Sam Harris’ recent best-selling books?
***I agree with what you say, BB. However, it does seem a little bit unfair to ask a question of Coyoteman when he’s been told by the religion mod to leave the thread. My suggestion is that he can post & answer the same question on the parallel open thread.
Sigh. I thought things were going well, and I did not even perceive C-man’s pointed remarks as antagonism, probably because the level of vitriol on crevo threads is so high that such low-level snipes go unnoticed. I hope that C-man continues to log onto any ecumenical threads that deal with crevo, because he is a valuable asset to the discussion, even though I disagree with him. The rules are the rules, and I would much rather see an energetic enforcement of them than a lackadaisical let-them-fight-it-out approach because such an approach leads to endless flamewars. We already have that on crevo threads.
And yet Darwinist evolution theory clearly gives us a metaphysical account of the rise and progress of man. It actually gives us a human ontology that has a profound bearing on the human moral order, and thus social organization; and which poses a direct challenge to the traditional idea of the Good, not to mention it puts the justification of human free will in dire jeopardy.
***Your posts are amazing. I think I said the same thing when I suggested that the implications of evolution were evil. But you break it down much further, like a scientist. Thanks for posting on this thread; I hope you like the ecumenical tag system.
Sounds to me as if your undergraduate studies were a waste of time and money, since they just repeated what you'd already received in high school.( Amelia)
Why waste all those years in high school, taking so many courses that do not have college credit? Two of my kids finished college by the age of 18. This allowed them to go on for graduate school. A child who finishes university at 18 and a masters at 20 is ready to enter the market place, with several more years of **university** training than their contemporaries.
By not wasting 4 years in high school, a child can spend an extra four years in the work force. ( This, too, is a **valuable** "education".) Those four years are worth $200,000 to a half-million more in lifetime earnings. That would surely beef up a 401 K or pay the mortgage on a house.
In fact, why couldn’t you have just gone straight from Jr. High to college?
***Did you get this approach from my CHSPE thread? Just wonderin’.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1315730/posts?page=84#84
You missed the point entirely.
If college courses are merely a repeat of high school courses, they are a waste of time and money. College courses should be more advanced.
Actually, I got the idea from my own children. They started community college at the ages of 13, 12, and 13. They finished all general college education courses and Calculus III by the age of 15.
If a child is ready for college why bother with the baby-level high school courses? Seems to be a waste of a life, to me.
And thank you for all your encouragement and support, my dear A-G. Your insights on Genesis and other philosophical and cosmological issues, either specifically religious or otherwise, are very precious to me. Keep ‘em coming. { 8^)
As though claiming that God does not exist and that scripture is a purely mythological construct, is not, somehow, a religious declaration. And it is this dichotomy that has school patrons so riled up. They do not want the values they teach their children at home to be contradicted at school (a school they are forced to support). Most patrons have no problem with the facts of science, but they have a lot of problems with the ontological conclusions derived from some of those facts.
There is a solution to this apparent dilemma, but most every time I raise the question with the defenders of science, they seem to suddenly discover a need to attend to pressing business elsewhere. This is becoming, I think, a circumstance requiring a closer examination. Particularly since I know that others have had an experience similar to mine.
That is what it's becoming, isn't it. Sordid.
Thanks for the ring-a-ding. I know I don't have much to contribute, but thanks for keeping we clued in anyhow.
Just ignoring God, and teaching from a godless worldview foundation is enough to communicate:
1) God does not exist.
2) It is not important to consider God's laws in evaluating the moral, ethical, and political questions that arise in the classroom.
3) If God is not important in evaluating the topics covered in the classroom then children are taught that God is not important in their lives outside the classroom.
4) If God is ignored and the children forbidden free expression of religious belief, a First Amendment (human) Right, he is taught that his religion is somehow shameful and must be hidden like a bathroom activity.
5) The message communicated is that his parents’ religious beliefs’ are somehow foolish and not fashionable.
None of the above are religiously neutral. A religiously neutral education does not exist....therefore...Government is violating the First Amendment every minute of every school day!
There is a solution to this apparent dilemma,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is only **one** solution: Complete separation of school and state.
When I mention it, the atheistic Darwinists state that they will not respond to my posts.
”aspernatio rationalis” So that’s what it’s called. I’ve read hardly any Cicero, other than some political observations, so that explains that particular gap in my depressing lengthy inventory of ignorance. Now, the “refusal to apperceive” is a term I can dig. I guess I wasn’t too terribly far off on a practical level, if not on a philosophical level, when in the past I’ve used the expression, “blatant denial of the patently obvious.” But “refusal to apperceive” is a bell-ringer. Personally, though they would never admit it, I suspect that those people who deny free will are doing the equivalent of eyes shut, hands over ears, and going “La, La, La, La.”
Thanks betty, you’re a bell-ringer, as usual.
You are changing the subject, and still missing the point.
If the college courses are a repeat of the "baby-level high school courses", they are a waste of time and money.
Yes. But we know they frequently do more.
”There is only **one** solution: Complete separation of school and state.”
There’s only one I can think of, and that’s the one.
”When I mention it, the atheistic Darwinists state that they will not respond to my posts.”
You’re an embarrassment they cannot bear. Keep embarrassing them . . . often.
What an interesting idea!!! An accredited Freeper High!
***Glad you like it. Keep in mind that it would actually be reasonably cheap — basically it’s just a bunch of paper pushing & administration, there’s no real brick&mortar high school involved.
If a child is ready for college why bother with the baby-level high school courses? Seems to be a waste of a life, to me.
***That’s pretty much what I was saying throughout that thread.
”aspernatio rationalis” So that’s what it’s called.
***Here’s another area where I encounter this phenomenon: in dealing with the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. So I opened a thread on that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
The Historicity of Jesus Christ [Open Thread under Religion Moderator’s Guidelines]
History | August 3, 2008 | Kevmo
Posted on Monday, August 04, 2008 1:19:19 PM by Kevmo
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.