Denying science in the classroom

[Moiraine]

For the record I'm the least judgemental Christian I know. I don't try to force my religion on people, I don't care if men have sex with each other. My best friend and brothers are athiests. I can't stand that most evangelicals voted for Trump and I don't feel much or a connection with other Christians in general.

 

The idea that you think JJ and myself pointed out your condescending/patronizing posts was somehow because you're not Christian is just funny to me.

[knapplc]

 

 

knapp, i'm not confused about the Christian faith (I mean, ok I am, but in a very good and healthy way). I'm confused about the seeming lack of logic in your conclusions. It seems you are jumping over a very wide swath of middle ground in your, "If this, then that" maxims.

I know what you're confused by. I didn't say, mean or imply that you were confused about the Christian faith. That's something Moiraine and JJ said, and it was an unfair leap on their part. So it goes.

Okay, what did you mean by "I was there" ?

 

I get that people don't like to think about this

 

Believe me, I've been there, that guy who didn't want to answer that question. I understand why it's not something you want to answer.

 

believe me I know why it makes people uncomfortable to try and answer

 

I understand why you're confused, Landlord. I was there.

And can you see why we came to that conclusion? You used to be Christian, now you're not, and 4 times in this topic you've said (paraphrased) you understand what people are going through with these questions because you went through it.

 

What are you talking about if not the Christian faith?

 

 

I have been there, asking questions about the Bible. What's so hard to understand about what I wrote there?

 

Why are you trying so hard to put something "obnoxious" or "condescending" on that? I've been there, where Landlord is. I've come to some conclusions. In no way did I say he'd come to the same conclusions as I have.

 

This is all a nice segue from the topic of the thread. Do you need to continue to parse words with me, or do you want to get back to the topic?

[Redux]

I think knapps history woth religious beliefs is perhaps leading to his emotional responses. Nothing to be ashamed of at all. It's just you made it a point to say you "could have been offended" all the while responding as if you are offended.

[knapplc]

It's a lot easier to go after me than examine the Bible as a basis for religion.

[Redux]

It's a lot easier to go after me than examine the Bible as a basis for religion.

 

I don't think anyone is going after you at all.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

knapp, i'm not confused about the Christian faith (I mean, ok I am, but in a very good and healthy way). I'm confused about the seeming lack of logic in your conclusions. It seems you are jumping over a very wide swath of middle ground in your, "If this, then that" maxims.

I know what you're confused by. I didn't say, mean or imply that you were confused about the Christian faith. That's something Moiraine and JJ said, and it was an unfair leap on their part. So it goes.

Okay, what did you mean by "I was there" ?

 

I get that people don't like to think about this

 

Believe me, I've been there, that guy who didn't want to answer that question. I understand why it's not something you want to answer.

 

believe me I know why it makes people uncomfortable to try and answer

 

I understand why you're confused, Landlord. I was there.

And can you see why we came to that conclusion? You used to be Christian, now you're not, and 4 times in this topic you've said (paraphrased) you understand what people are going through with these questions because you went through it.

 

What are you talking about if not the Christian faith?

I have been there, asking questions about the Bible. What's so hard to understand about what I wrote there?

 

Why are you trying so hard to put something "obnoxious" or "condescending" on that? I've been there, where Landlord is. I've come to some conclusions. In no way did I say he'd come to the same conclusions as I have.

It wasn't hard to understand what you wrote until you claimed that you weren't talking about LOMS' Christian faith.

 

I'd like to quote you but I'm too lazy to look it up but when multiple people say you were doing something, you were probably doing it, intentionally or otherwise.

 

Also, I'm not sure why segues are so upsetting.

[Moiraine]

It's a lot easier to go after me than examine the Bible as a basis for religion.

Which reminds me of your many posts about this being difficult and uncomfortable for people who seem to be enjoying the conversation.

[knapplc]

Well, I'm glad we all got that off our chest. Feel better now?

[Moiraine]

Well, I'm glad we all got that off our chest. Feel better now?

 

No. I feel about the same.

 

Knowing you I figured you'd make an attempt to understand why you were coming off the way you were in those 4-5 posts.

[knapplc]

I can't explain your perception, Moiraine. I can only explain my intention, which I did. If you took it another way, that's your fault.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

I could have chosen to take offense to half a dozen replies in this thread. You want to think I'm "condescending" and "obnoxious" because I said something in a kindly way to Landlord, that's on you.

 

Well, I guess that's one way to go with it.

 

BTW- I didn't say it wasn't done in a kindly manner. I only was pointing out it was coming off as condescending (by me anyway) so that you would be aware of that. I think you have studied the hell out of this issue and have come to a conclusion and you are convinced everyone else must come to the same conclusion. And, if they don't arrive at the same place you are, they either will eventually or they aren't putting in the same effort and research that you have. Personally, I am perfectly content realizing I may not understand everything or have all the answers. Part of that contentment stems from my belief that I don't think it is humanly possible to fully understand a supernatural being and I don't think it is possible to understand this issue by using scientific methods. So maybe, possibly, some others of us aren't at the same place you were at one time.

 

 

Two thousand years of study of the Christian faith, and you think I'm so arrogant that I think everyone will eventually come to the same conclusions I've come to?

 

Don't make me out to be so stupid. Everyone has a different path in life. If you're Christian and you're happy about it, not pushing your religion on anyone else (including the classroom), then I'm happy for you. That doesn't mean I can't talk about my point of view, nor does it mean that I shouldn't present it as factual from my perspective. Don't expect things of me you wouldn't expect from yourself.

 

 

Knapp, I don't think your stupid or arrogant. You can talk about your point of view all you want, in fact I enjoy reading your thoughts. I'm not offended or mad and I don't view you as the "bad guy". It doesn't matter to me whether you agree with me, are Christian or atheist or whatnot. But, as far as I'm aware, I have never once presented my point of view on this issue as factual in anyway. It would be a completely foreign concept to me to even begin to address this issue in a factual manner.

 

Nothing beats a good off season religion bickerfest

[ZRod]

 

I think the point is; if the bible itself says it is to be taken literally, but it's stories don't jive with the real world it's foundation as an infallible religious text is built on sand. If one subject xan be questioned, then all of them are in question.

 

That would certainly be true if the bible said to take it literally, but to the best of my knowledge, the bible doesn't say that.

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

[Landlord]

It's a lot easier to go after me than examine the Bible as a basis for religion.

 

 

Haven't we all been examining the Bible for several pages in this thread now?

 

 

 

Pretty much everyone (except you) took your comment to be condescending. If it wasn't, I believe you, but you obviously didn't communicate that very well. I said I was confused because, essentially, your arguments didn't really seem to make much logical sense (not that I was confused about questioning the Bible, but about your posts specifically), and then you said you understood why I was confused, you've been there. So, you are admitting to being irrational? Or you understand conversing with people that you don't think make sense? Those are the only two ways of reading that that make sense to me currently.

 

 

"Sorry if it came across that way, what I meant was ______" would have this thread going a lot smoother than, "That's not what happened, now you're attacking the messenger, don't expect me to do this, we've gone off topic, you're going after me".

[Moiraine]

 

 

I think the point is; if the bible itself says it is to be taken literally, but it's stories don't jive with the real world it's foundation as an infallible religious text is built on sand. If one subject xan be questioned, then all of them are in question.

 

That would certainly be true if the bible said to take it literally, but to the best of my knowledge, the bible doesn't say that.

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

 

One of them was in Revelation and spoke of "the prophecies in this book."

 

It's clear as muddy water that the "book" is Revelation. Not The Bible.

[Landlord]

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

 

 

I guess I'm not seeing the though progression from "do not add and do not take away" to "read this literally"?

 

If J.K. Rowling said that she was done writing Harry Potter books forever and would never give anyone the rights to modify or re-release or write more Harry Potter stories, does that mean we're supposed to believe those books are non-fiction and that magic is real? Maybe it's a stupid analogy, but I'm struggling to see the connection to literalism.