Australian Schools To Teach There Is No God

The first copies of the NT weren't handed from the authors directly, were they? dsmccracken

what do you mean by "handed from"? they probably sent some messengers to deliver them to the various churches they wanted these to be heard in.

And here I thought that they were originally anonymous, dsmccracken

Internally they are anonymous. but as Professor Richard Bauckham notes, there is absolutely no way that the original recipients were not very aware of the identities of their authors. They probably would have been affixed to the outside of the scroll or (more likely) put on the outside of whatever codex they were sent in.

only to be (magically) attributed to MML&John around 180dsmccracken

I'm not entirely sure about Matthew, John and Luke, but Papias in 90 or 100 AD attested the Gospel of Mark to Mark the evangelist. But the conviction of hte later christians is nearly unanimous, this indicates that they had to have been attributed to their authors VERY EARLY.

... And what of the OT?dsmccracken

I will FedEx you a box of cookies if you can give me a good reason why we should discuss the Old Testament when talking about the historicity of the resurrection.

Of course! dsmccracken

it is.

Evidence? Such as?dsmccracken

for all the Gospels: The unanimous conviction of the later church fathers and that all codices which bear titles have the traditional titles on them
Mark: Papias' testimony and the frequent mention of Peter indicates that Mark was
Matthew: Mention of money and Aramaisms
Luke: Clearly a companion of Paul ("we" passages in Acts) and mention of medical terms
John: Self-identification as eyewitness in JOhn 21 and 1 John 1

No?dsmccracken

nope

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]

it is.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]Evidence? Such as?danwallacefan

for all the Gospels: The unanimous conviction of the later church fathers and that all codices which bear titles have the traditional titles on them
Mark: Papias' testimony and the frequent mention of Peter indicates that Mark was
Matthew: Mention of money and Aramaisms
Luke: Clearly a companion of Paul ("we" passages in Acts) and mention of medical terms
John: Self-identification as eyewitness in JOhn 21 and 1 John 1

No?dsmccracken

nope

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]

so is bringing up red herring fallacies. Such as?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]and is made worse by the fact that I'm not exactly butchering the language every second sentence. What, should I point out your punctuation now? You've missed a couple of periods...

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]No?danwallacefan

nope

No?dsmccracken

nope

Well, if they're devoting time to religious instruction, it makes sense to cover all the bases. Good for them. Just so long as it isn't mandatory, there is no reason for anyone to object to this.pianist

I think God should be kept out of schools period. Regaurdless of if one believes in him or not.euphzilla03

I don't think religion or atheism should be taught in schools.DrSponge

Sauce

I think this is an interesting move. For centuries we've been told from the day we're born that there's a God but finally Humanism is been given some time and consideration.

Edit: And before theists start ranting and flaming, this is an elective subject and parents can choose not to have their children in the clas s

Red-XIII

awesome. good thing we have humanists out there that care about people other than themselves.

/sarcasm

I think this is an interesting move. For centuries we've been told from the day we're born that there's a God but finally Humanism is been given some time and consideration.

Yes, finally, schools are no longer forced to teach religion as fact. 2008 will forever be remembered as the year humankind cast off the cruel yoke of theism

How can you teach there is no God? You either believe it or not, you dont need to be taught not to believe in something.Montaya

Oh, so teaching about religion is a ****ing crime, but pushing the atheist (sorry; "secular humanist") belief (sorry; "lack of belief," hence why there are school programs for teaching a belief that doesn't exist) is perfectly a-****ing-okay?

Hypocrisy much?

Oh, so teaching about religion is a ****ing crime, but pushing the atheist (sorry; "secular humanist") belief (sorry; "lack of belief," hence why there are school programs for teaching a belief that doesn't exist) is perfectly a-****ing-okay?

Hypocrisy much?

Theokhoth

It sounds like they offer both as options in Australia.

[QUOTE="euphzilla03"]I think God should be kept out of schools period. Regaurdless of if one believes in him or not.Funky_Llama

Keeping God out of schools can avoid a lot of arguments and strife. If you teach God exists you could alienate atheists. Teaching he doesn't exist you alienate people who believe. Just avoid the whole mess..but thats just the way I view it.

*claps* Bravo Australia, I didn't think you had it in you. It was one of the countries I thought that would never do something like that, but they did. Good for them.ElectronicMagic

lol fair enough, where in tassie are you from ?sAndroid17

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="euphzilla03"]I think God should be kept out of schools period. Regaurdless of if one believes in him or not.euphzilla03

Keeping God out of schools can avoid a lot of arguments and strife. If you teach God exists you could alienate atheists. Teaching he doesn't exist you alienate people who believe. Just avoid the whole mess..but thats just the way I view it.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="euphzilla03"]I think God should be kept out of schools period. Regaurdless of if one believes in him or not.euphzilla03

Keeping God out of schools can avoid a lot of arguments and strife. If you teach God exists you could alienate atheists. Teaching he doesn't exist you alienate people who believe. Just avoid the whole mess..but thats just the way I view it.

Religion has played an enormously important role in human history, and I think it's silly to avoid studying it simply because the ideas are controversial. Teachers obviously shouldn't be teaching students that a particular philosophy is true or false, but I think it's important to study religions for what they are. There's no harm in teaching what a religious group believes and how these beliefs are practiced so long as a position of neutrality is assumed when it comes to answering whether or not any supernatural claims are true or false.

Oh, so teaching about religion is a ****ing crime, but pushing the atheist (sorry; "secular humanist") belief (sorry; "lack of belief," hence why there are school programs for teaching a belief that doesn't exist) is perfectly a-****ing-okay?

Hypocrisy much?

Theokhoth

Oh, so teaching about religion is a ****ing crime, but pushing the atheist (sorry; "secular humanist") belief (sorry; "lack of belief," hence why there are school programs for teaching a belief that doesn't exist) is perfectly a-****ing-okay?

Hypocrisy much?

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Oh, so teaching about religion is a ****ing crime, but pushing the atheist (sorry; "secular humanist") belief (sorry; "lack of belief," hence why there are school programs for teaching a belief that doesn't exist) is perfectly a-****ing-okay?

Hypocrisy much?

kruesader

[QUOTE="kruesader"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Oh, come on. Secular humanism isn't a simple lack of belief and you know it.Funky_Llama

Oh, so teaching about religion is a ****ing crime, but pushing the atheist (sorry; "secular humanist") belief (sorry; "lack of belief," hence why there are school programs for teaching a belief that doesn't exist) is perfectly a-****ing-okay?

Hypocrisy much?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

nope

danwallacefan

Oh, so teaching about religion is a ****ing crime, but pushing the atheist (sorry; "secular humanist") belief (sorry; "lack of belief," hence why there are school programs for teaching a belief that doesn't exist) is perfectly a-****ing-okay?

Hypocrisy much?

That's ****'d up. Teaching that there's no God? Isn't that pretty counter intuitive to science. I don't believe in God, but I'm aware that that's also a faith. Sounds as absurd introducing bible studies in schoolsDivergeUnify

This.

It's only gonna be happening in the state public schools, not in my ****** catholic school. Oh well, thats why I took ethics and philosophy, to get away from it.

Good to see we are making progress here. I dont even know why we pretend to be a somewhat religious nation, we are one of the most non practicing countries in the world. Not going to deny the fact that within 3 minutes drive I can find 3 churches that are somewhat filled every Sunday, but I'm sure the majority couldn't really care about religion.

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]Damn, why can't I be an Australian?Whicker89

Its a voluntary class.

I don't give a crap. Besides, who cares what Australia does anyway?

It's God dang Australia.

-TheSecondSign-

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

Its a voluntary class.

I don't give a crap. Besides, who cares what Australia does anyway?

It's God dang Australia.

kruesader

It was a joke.

Seriously though, what do you guys do for fun? Ride kangaroos to the nearest croc wrestling match?

It's only gonna be happening in the state public schools, not in my ****** catholic school. Oh well, thats why I took ethics and philosophy, to get away from it.

Good to see we are making progress here. I dont even know why we pretend to be a somewhat religious nation, we are one of the most non practicing countries in the world. Not going to deny the fact that within 3 minutes drive I can find 3 churches that are somewhat filled every Sunday, but I'm sure the majority couldn't really care about religion.

freek666

Anyway, it said it was an elective. That means it's not being forced upon anyone, that means whoever wants to learn it can, and whoever doesn't.

Where is the problem?

[QUOTE="kruesader"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

Its a voluntary class.

I don't give a crap. Besides, who cares what Australia does anyway?

It's God dang Australia.

-TheSecondSign-

It was a joke.

Seriously though, what do you guys do for fun? Ride kangaroos to the nearest croc wrestling match?

I just realized that you guys could be completely reliant on solar power for your whole country.

Isn't around 70% of your land just a giant landscape of rocky nothingness? It gets to be like 18 billion degrees celsius out there, you guys could just use solar power and you wouldn't even have to use any of your better land.

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="kruesader"] Umm don't be mean.kruesader

It was a joke.

Seriously though, what do you guys do for fun? Ride kangaroos to the nearest croc wrestling match?

[QUOTE="kruesader"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Hmmm...guess that means there is no separation of church and state in Australia then.

LJS9502_basic

-TheSecondSign-

I just realized that you guys could be completely reliant on solar power for your whole country.

Isn't around 70% of your land just a giant landscape of rocky nothingness? It gets to be like 18 billion degrees celsius out there, you guys could just use solar power and you wouldn't even have to use any of your better land.