what if Christianity was taught as history?

[Sheepdog]

what if public schools taught the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus as history? would not all the skeptics here be crying out to the Almighty ACLU to have Christianity removed from school?

when the deck is stacked, its no wonder we can't win...

[Vorkosigan]

Crying out to the ACLU? You mean like when Jerry Falwell did? (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/007/7.15.html) I guess the ACLU is only bad when it defends the Constitution in ways right-wing religious types don't like.

[Ryokan]

But its not necessarilly history, Sheepdog! What right do you have to force your views on me, or my kids?

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 09:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97313#post97313)
Ryokan:

But its not necessarilly history, Sheepdog! What right do you have to force your views on me, or my kids?

I would ask the same question of you. Do you have the right to force your views on me and my kids that Christianity is "not necessarily history" (which is just a polite way of saying that it is not history at all)?

[Carl Smuda]

Basic Christianity is the very meaning in history. Funky western cvilization is what it is because of Christianity. History written without this supreme philosophy is history written from the losers perspective. :bunny:

[Zakath]

04-17-2003 @ 07:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71237#post71237)
Sheepdog:
what if public schools taught the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus as history?

Two questions for you, Ralph:

1. Who decides which version of the tales get taught?

2. Who decides that the elements of Jesus life you list above are actually historical?

[sandlewood]

How many schools really teach the history of that time anyway? All my history classes were about European or American history after 1400 or so. Although I learned about Plato and Aristotle, I learned about them in philosophy class, not history class. So why isn’t Jesus found in my Introduction to Philosophy textbook? If 80% of Americans are Christians, why do you suppose they didn’t put him in there, especially since our president has stated that Jesus is his favorite philosopher?

[Bob Jenkins]

From Jinx72

........Do you have the right to force your views on me and my kids that Christianity is "not necessarily history" (which is just a polite way of saying that it is not history at all)?

Yes I do!! At least I have the right not to finance something that should be taught only at your church.

But tell you what! I'll agree, if in the same course, you get complete agreement from all the Christian denominations about all facets of your "history"..You can even throw in the OT "history" if you get Jews to agree that Christ was resurrected. And, of course, you get all of Islam to agree too for they have beliefs about Jesus too! Other than that and I won't agree to have you hijack public schools for your biased purposes.

Of course, you'd also have to have state standards set up to insure that "everything" is taught and not allow graduation if the student fails the course (courses). And THAT, my friend, IS unconstitutional.

So, give it up. Tend to your own..

[Carl Smuda]

We don't even need to mention the resurrection. It is wonderful enough to look at it all. Didn't Christianity get credit for bringing Rome down?

[Pilgrim]

No, actually the germanic hordes did.

[Pilgrim]

And there was all that Lead in the water as well. That couldn't have helped.

[Ryokan]

Jinx, the solution is to use talk about Christianity's effects on other parts of macro-history, rather than talk about Jesus life, which isn't historically important the way history is taught, that is about major trends and not individuals.

[Carl Smuda]

Pilgrim! God Bless! yea, that darn lead. ooo! Ryokan's got it! Trends and megatrends. What fun, really! Of all the stuff that was surely in the mix there in the cradle of our faith; how is it that followers-of-that-Way laid the foundation for the ONLY true God's meaning in History? :poke:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Well that's just it. That kind of "truth" will never be proven; it is usually purveyed and manifested in psychological ways.

I believe Christianity should be taught "as truth" in every classroom by qualified believers---and qualified non-believers should teach the same class about Bible Criticism and expose Christianity in all its dynamics.

When discussed in a milieu which ameliorates the coercional effects of group dynamics, the student can then more-informedly and more-freely assess Christianity apart from the rhetoric and "convicting of conscience" techniques deployed by many who preach.

What could be more fair?

[LGM]

I'm all for teaching Christian history...

especially its early origins...

its hijacking and branding by Constatine and the Roman Empire...

its persecution of every non-orthodox brand of Christian and pagan religion.

its responsibility for the dark ages...

its corruption that led to the Protestant reformation..

its role in the crusades and inquisition

its role in punishing and killing the likes of Brunno, Galileo and countless others

its role in conquering other "savage" peoples in North and South America...

its role in anti-semitism

so much history...where do we begin?

[AtheistArchon]

I believe Christianity should be taught "as truth" in every classroom by qualified believers---and qualified non-believers should teach the same class about Bible Criticism and expose Christianity in all its dynamics.

When discussed in a milieu which ameliorates the coercional effects of group dynamics, the student can then more-informedly and more-freely assess Christianity apart from the rhetoric and "convicting of conscience" techniques deployed by many who preach.

What could be more fair?


- Ain't gonna happen I'm afraid. Some folks would call that "anti-Christian"! How dare we argue against someone's comfy beliefs?

- We have the freedom to choose any religion we want, and those beliefs are vigorously protected, but nobody seems to be too keen on questioning any of them in public.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 04:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97388#post97388)
Jinx72:



I would ask the same question of you. Do you have the right to force your views on me and my kids that Christianity is "not necessarily history" (which is just a polite way of saying that it is not history at all)?

But the balance of the evidence points to Jesus having *not* been resurrected (you must believe this to be true, otherwise you wouldn't require faith). So, why should something which, based on the evidence, appears not to have happened as 'history'?

[Sheepdog]

wow, this post just spontaneously came back to life. it was posted quite a few weeks ago, and just sprang to life today :ponder:

i bit of context here is necessary to get my point: originally, this post was a counter point to a thread started by Jimbo (or Jim Eisle, or Steven--- i don't recall which), titled "Why isn't Christianity taught in schools as history?" or something along those lines. my point was simply to show that his reasoning had a catch 22 to it, and not to actually argue this topic.

that said, i am sure heliocentricity was taught in many schools even after Galileo's findings, so i don't think this a good litmus test either way.

[Sheepdog]

ok, now you all did it... you provoked me into a mass response:


Vorkosigan:
Crying out to the ACLU? You mean like when Jerry Falwell did? (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/007/7.15.html) I guess the ACLU is only bad when it defends the Constitution in ways right-wing religious types don't like.

well, a broken clock is right twice a day. i could likewise chastise skeptics for standing by Christians who accept Old Earth / evolutionary theory. either way, it is besides the point


Ryokan:
But its not necessarilly history, Sheepdog! What right do you have to force your views on me, or my kids?

What right do Abraham-Lincolnists have on forcing their views on me? some aspects of Christianity are historical (or, at least, can be verified by historical tests).

but, the historicity of the Gospel (particularly the Res.) was the question being begged by jimbo(?) in his original post.


Two questions for you, Ralph:

1. Who decides which version of the tales get taught?

why do you think loaded questions make good argumentation? :teeth: how many versions are there, and are you implying that the gospel is legendary or mythical by the use of the tern "tales"?


Zakath:
2. Who decides that the elements of Jesus life you list above are actually historical?

who decided Abraham Lincoln's presidency was historical? Ph.Ds. in historical studies, perhaps?


Lazy Agnostic:
I believe Christianity should be taught "as truth" in every classroom by qualified believers---and qualified non-believers should teach the same class about Bible Criticism and expose Christianity in all its dynamics.

not too bad of an idea. i'm not sure how it would get by without being declared unconstitutional, but not bad.

of course, while Christianity cannot be proven, we can examine the evidence, and spare the rhetoric you also alluded to.


LakeGeorgeMan:
<snip>

so much history...where do we begin?

we could also comment on the influences of Atheistic Naturalism on the Nazis, Stalin, and Mao, but i doubt that would be any more fruitful than your cause and effect fallacy.


DivineOb:
But the balance of the evidence points to Jesus having *not* been resurrected...

well, that is a statement that deserves some burden of proof....

but then DivineOB continues on, giving new meaning to Holding's comment, "there is nothing education can do that blatant stupidity cannot overcome" (paraphrased):


... (you must believe this to be true, otherwise you wouldn't require faith).

oops. faith has nothing to do with belief despite evidence. that is a common strawman from nontheists that needs to be put to rest. badly! Christian faith is more synonomous with trust, in the context of a relationship. while faith requires belief in order to exist, the two are not the same thing.

heck, even common usage of the term "faith" should give you a clue: "Have faith in our President, for he knows what he is doing." "My wife is faithful. i know that she will never cheat on me." it seams the only people who define faith as "believe despite evidence" is nontheists. why is that?


So, why should something which, based on the evidence, appears not to have happened as 'history'?

since i haven't seen this evidence that surely overwhelms the evidence i have seen in favor of the Res, this question is moot.

man oh man. some very good points, but also a whole load of stupid in there. i am starting to wonder why some folks howl and throw excrement instead of actually seeking to learn something new.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 07:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98256#post98256)
Sheepdog:

[quote]
well, that is a statement that deserves some burden of proof....


Hardly. The burden of proof is on the theist, and there exists no evidence (that I've seen) that is even remotely sufficient to justify the claims made in christianity. Just look at cadet's evisceration at the hands of Till over in the Boxing Ring... There simply does not exist anywhere close to sufficient evidence to claim that the resurrection is a historical 'fact'. Even if I grant you just about everything you'd ask for (all the gospels were written by 70 CE, all were independent eyewitness accounts etc) the evidence would be woefully inadequate.





but then DivineOB



My nick is DivineOb




oops. faith has nothing to do with belief despite evidence.



Oh, is that a fact? So no christian, when they say that have faith in christianity, means they believe in things they haven't seen?




that is a common strawman from nontheists that needs to be put to rest. badly! Christian faith is more synonomous with trust, in the context of a relationship. while faith requires belief in order to exist, the two are not the same thing.



There is no question that a large number of christians define faith as (or take one facet of it to mean) belief in something for which insufficient evidence exists to convince oneself, so you can't just redefine things how you want (not to mention your definition of faith falls apart if one is actually intellectually convinced of the existence of the christian god.).




heck, even common usage of the term &quot;faith&quot; should give you a clue: &quot;Have faith in our President, for he knows what he is doing.&quot; &quot;My wife is faithful. i know that she will never cheat on me.&quot; it seams the only people who define faith as &quot;believe despite evidence&quot; is nontheists. why is that?



I don't follow. Your examples are examples of times people will believe in something (perhaps with some basis (and I'll remind you that I never used the term "blind faith")) for which they have insufficient evidence to be intellectually convinced. Do you *know* that the president will make a good decision over XX? No. You hope he does, but you can't say he will with 100% certainty. Now, if the president was omniscient, and you knew he was omniscient, then you *wouldn't* need faith that he would make the correct decision, because, by definition of omniscience (well, also assuming he has the country's best intrerests in mind), you'd *know* that he would. Hence, no faith.




since i haven't seen this evidence that surely overwhelms the evidence i have seen in favor of the Res, this question is moot.



What evidence am I to provide? Even if I view the evidence in the best possible light it still is insufficient to convince. Now, if you want to have 'faith' that it is true, then be my guest. But the evidence taken alone is really extremely poor.




man oh man. some very good points, but also a whole load of stupid in there. i am starting to wonder why some folks howl and throw excrement instead of actually seeking to learn something new.

I'm starting to wonder why christians are so apt to insult others (you called me 'stupid'?!) when they're called to be a light unto this world. If you really have so little respect for me then just don't respond. But out-and-out insults are uncalled for.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 03:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98347#post98347)
DivineOb:

Hardly. The burden of proof is on the theist, and there exists no evidence (that I've seen) that is even remotely sufficient to justify the claims made in christianity.

oops. your original statement indicated that the evidence was balanced against Christianity. you said, "But the balance of the evidence points to Jesus having *not* been resurrected..." This implies that you have seen negative evidence. now you say the evidence is merely insufficient. nice job shifting the goal posts. you almost got away with it too.


Just look at cadet's evisceration at the hands of Till over in the Boxing Ring...

Last i read (which was some time back), Till had failed to sufficiently justify his charges of special pleading, and failed to show that "hearsay" is not admissable in a historicity debate. not that it matters: Cadet hasn't even scratched the surface of what all is out there to learn and investigate. if you break out of your wooden box one reasoning day, you might see what i mean.


There simply does not exist anywhere close to sufficient evidence to claim that the resurrection is a historical 'fact'. Even if I grant you just about everything you'd ask for (all the gospels were written by 70 CE, all were independent eyewitness accounts etc) the evidence would be woefully inadequate.

thus saiths the omniscient DivineOb :bow: will you please raise the sun tomorrow so that we puny mortals may have sunlight?

you haven't exhaustively seen all the relavent information personally, have you? if not, then you are in no position to say "there is no evidence." at best, you haven't seen enough evidence, but i suspect you have but dismissed it (either that, or you thought you refuted top-notched scholarship by "refuting" The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel).


My nick is DivineOb

sorry about that dIVINEoB


Oh, is that a fact? So no christian, when they say that have faith in christianity, means they believe in things they haven't seen?

you don't read ahead before you respond, do you?

some probably do, but if so, they are misusing the term "faith."


There is no question that a large number of christians define faith as (or take one facet of it to mean) belief in something for which insufficient evidence exists to convince oneself,...

guess what. now you get to show me credible statistical data that shows that significant amount of Christians understand faith as you suggest. just saying so doesn't make it true (good gravy, i'd expect you skeptics would know that by now)

even though, what is more relavent is how the Bible writers defined faith. Matthew 8:5-10 tells us that Jesus saw great faith in a centurion. how so? because the centurion trust that Jesus would heal his servant. here, the centurion had plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, as he spoke personally to Jesus himself (so we are told).


so you can't just redefine things how you want

i have not redefined anything. see above, and my earlier examples.


(not to mention your definition of faith falls apart if one is actually intellectually convinced of the existence of the christian god.).

how so? faith is based on intellectual conviction. there is nothing in the definition as it stands that requires a Chrsitian to turn off his brain.


I don't follow. Your examples are examples of times people will believe in something (perhaps with some basis (and I'll remind you that I never used the term &quot;blind faith&quot;)) for which they have insufficient evidence to be intellectually convinced. Do you *know* that the president will make a good decision over XX? No. You hope he does, but you can't say he will with 100% certainty.

this is blantent stupidity. first off, we both believe that the President exists-- having "faith" in him makes no sense by your definition, since we know he is real.

second, you don't need to know with 100% certainty to be intellectually convinced. if the President has a long record of good to exceptional decisions, with a negligable few mistakes, there is good reason to trust that his next decision will likely be a good one.

if indeed we needed 100% certainty, nothing would be conclusive: maybe "reality" isn't real, or you are in a dream world (a coma, perhaps), or you are in the Matrix. how can you know with 100% certainty that the sensory information being sent to your brain is authentic?


Now, if the president was omniscient, and you knew he was omniscient, then you *wouldn't* need faith that he would make the correct decision, because, by definition of omniscience (well, also assuming he has the country's best intrerests in mind), you'd *know* that he would. Hence, no faith.

of course, how would we know that he was omniscient? wouldn't that take evidence? some circular reasoning there, DivineOb.


What evidence am I to provide?

compare this to your earier comment, that i was responding to: "So, why should something which, based on the evidence, appears not to have happened as 'history'?" if you have no evidence to provide, why state that based on the evidence it did not happen? lack of positive evidence cannot logically lead to a negative conclusion. at best you should have stated, "So, why should something which, based on the evidence, it is uncertain as to whether it happened as 'history'?" (now i realize, was your question an unfinished thought? i understood what you were trying to say, but its construction doesn't make much sense.)



Even if I view the evidence in the best possible light it still is insufficient to convince. Now, if you want to have 'faith' that it is true, then be my guest. But the evidence taken alone is really extremely poor.

it depends on your biases, presuppositons, and the epistemology you start from. this is why i don't bother debating the evidence itself these days-- i am more concerned about bringing about the presuppositional foundation to interpret evidence the best (both in skeptics, and myself). if someone is dead set against something, they won't believe it, no matter how much evidence you throw at them. don't believe me? there are actual websites devoted to presenting evidence that the holocaust occured, because many hack conspiracy theorists (many of which are neo-nazis) argue that it was all just one big hoax. for instance: www.nizkor.org


(you called me 'stupid'?!)...

i was calling the arguments stupid, not the proponents. if my intentions were to directly insult someone, i wouldn't be so ambiguous-- that isn't the way i am. and i had no idea anyone would have interpreted it that way, since i was contrasting "good points" (some arguments) to "load of stupid" (other arguments). and it applied to other people's arguments as well.

[spl_cadet]

Just look at cadet's evisceration at the hands of Till over in the Boxing Ring...

Explains why Till is running scared and will most likely lose by not responding within the time given (5 days is plenty time). He knows he can't argue against my proof of miracles (a secondary issue that came up in the debate that, through the miracles that used as examples, neatly proves Catholicism as well).

[Capt_Drakes]

Are we talking about the same debate? Till gives you plenty of time to respond (more than a week I believe) and you are going to cry 'forfeit' if he doesn't respond in 5 days? Someone is indeed running scared.

[Bob Jenkins]

From spl_cadet

“
Just look at cadet's evisceration at the hands of Till over in the Boxing Ring... ”



Explains why Till is running scared and will most likely lose by not responding within the time given (5 days is plenty time). He knows he can't argue against my proof of miracles (a secondary issue that came up in the debate that, through the miracles that used as examples, neatly proves Catholicism as well).

I'll only comment that Till is away on personal family business and said he probably would not be back untill June. Don't consider hiding behind "time" as a "win"

[garthoverman]

Sheep-diggity-doggy-dogg:
oops. your original statement indicated that the evidence was balanced against Christianity. you said, "But the balance of the evidence points to Jesus having *not* been resurrected..." This implies that you have seen negative evidence. now you say the evidence is merely insufficient. nice job shifting the goal posts. you almost got away with it too.
Every body that has ever died and stayed dead is a data point against the likelihood that ANY ever came back to life after being dead for three days. I would roughly (and conservatively) estimate that we would have over 2 billion data points supporting the hypothesis that dead bodies always stay dead. Now you propose that there is one data point that falls outside our line. If you wish a reasonable person to believe that this instance isn't a case of measurement error (which is the case nearly 100% of the time when one data point falls outside a line determined by billions of data points) then it will require some extraordinary supporting evidence. Documents written in execess of a millenium past are hardly sufficient to believe that bodily resurrection is a reasonable conclusion.

As always, though, you are free to hold unreasonable beliefs.

Yours,
Garth