Comments on: Alabama brings the Bible back

By: rdean

rdean — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:52:42 +0000

This is a horrible idea. They already have classes that teach the Bible. They are held in places called “churches” and are strictly on a volenteer basis. Teaching this to a captive audience is unAmerican.
What’s next, teaching the “Quran” and “Hindu” stuff to keep it fair?
What about those that don’t want their children exposed to the occult and mysticism?

Report comment to moderator

By: Mr_Meaner

Mr_Meaner — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:24:21 +0000

There is historical value in Bible texts. Many of them are backed up by other various ancient historical data. For this reason alone, The Bible should be permitted in a school setting, so long as it makes no attempt to indoctrinate students into accepting it as anything but history.
Most ancient historians composed their works with a religious bias, and using religious themes, yet we accept these accounts, as most history comes from these very few ancient sources. And it is important to note that most of what is accepted as main stream history is largely based on later compilations of these ancient sources.
So, in reality, the vast majority of history is wriiten by people who had their own biases.
It seems like the best way to get it all out in the open, and let us decide for ourselves. Not only does this lead to diversity in thought, but tolerance for others. that would satisfy everyone.
We have Assyrian records from 800BC that closely mirror the Bible account of OT kings and dealings with the paying of tribute and later battles with Assyria. We even have the same Bible names from the OT preserved on the Assyrian monuments and records.
( and this is just one of many, many examples where ancient written evidence is consistant with Biblical accounts. True there are copyist errors that probably changed the meanings of a few numbers, and possibly a few poorly translated words. But if you look at the reality of the situation, the Bible is the most detailed history of that time period in that region.
To dismiss the Bible’s historical value basically rejects the open discussion of ideas.
When we re-examine history using more of the lesser known historical perspectives, along with the opinions we are all aware of, but are sketchy, we can get a better picture of what happened to us as humans. You get a better picture of who and where some ancient peoples were, and are. You can actually develop fairly educated guesses as to what happened along the way,and why some peoples have natural difficulties with other peoples.

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:39:38 +0000

I should hope so.

I am against prejudice against people for their skin color. Blue and green people are just as good as you are.

I am against prejudice against people for their sexual disorientation.

I am against prejudice against people for where they came from. When I was a kid, my second best friend Scott’s mother was from Texas. She often said uncomplimentary things about Texas. I asked, “I thought Texas was supposed to be the biggest, greatest state. I thought it was supposed to be wonderful?”

She replied, “Texas is a wonderful place to be FROM.”

Report comment to moderator

By: trr

trr — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:14:21 +0000

I went to Huntsville, Alabama once for a job interview. I’m glad I didn’t get the job, for multiple reasons, but I think the people there were decent.

Report comment to moderator

By: Bianca

Bianca — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:52:42 +0000

#1 – Amen, brother!

Report comment to moderator

By: Kim

Kim — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:45:39 +0000

I posted my comments about this thread on today’s Whirled Views.

Report comment to moderator

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:06:02 +0000

Because I needed more reasons not to go to Alabama!

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:47:25 +0000

Actually, qwerty, as a former public school teacher, I assure you you’re missing the boat.

The Bible should be required reading day and night, with many quizzes.

Speaking of missing the boat, in shop class students would be required to build an ark, full size, using only tools available in Biblical times. Then they would drag it to a lake or ocean and float it, and fill it with every animal they could catch.

In Home Ec, girls would dress in long granny dresses and cook food from Biblical times in stone ovens. The boys would get to sacrifice animals.

Science books and evolution books should have racy covers showing women with their mammary glands hanging out, and then should be put under lock and key and all the students should be told in the sternest way not to read these very bad books.

You would have a lot of “Darwinists” in a hurry.

Report comment to moderator

By: qwerty

qwerty — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:31:54 +0000

God’s anger at sin

Why invent a God and then pretend this invention gets angry about
some sin, whatever that is. I don’t get the point of making all this stuff up and then believing in it.

Report comment to moderator

By: Pauline

Pauline — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:01:50 +0000

#15
SteveG,
I would have no objection to those passages being taught at an appropriate age. I don’t teach 6-year-olds about Lot and his daughters, but I told my older son about it a year or two ago (he’s 15 now). I was reading this blog, and Scott and I were discussing the subject, and my son wondered what we were talking about so I explained.

I don’t want people to believe in some imaginary Bible that reads like a kindergartener’s Sunday School lesson. The Bible tells about some pretty horrific things, and it tells them for a reason. Knowing the Bible means knowing those things.

After all, if people never did horrible things to each other, it would be harder to understand God’s anger at sin, and the Crucifixion. While it is true that any sin angers God, knowing just what evil humans are capable of – and what bad things even “good” people do (like King David) makes the judgment of God more comprehensible to us.

Report comment to moderator