Big win for Christian Education
After almost 10-months of waiting, a California Judge finally gave a ruling on the University of California (UC) motion to dismiss the suit by the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). The ruling means the religious discrimination suit against the nation's largest state university system will proceed and will likely have national implications.
What is also interesting in this case is that the Judge used the 1981 Indiana Supreme Court ruling in Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana as being most applicable to ACSI's case. The key ruling stated “When the state denies an important benefit—in this case admission to the state university system—because of "conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists."
The Judge felt that the plaintiffs demonstrated that they were forced to choose between taking equally credible courses with one promoting a biblical worldview or complying with the University’s recommendations. The Judge also upheld ACSI’s claim that the UC’s censoring of Christian viewpoints likely violated the First Amendment.
The Judge wrote "Fundamentally, the government is forbidden from engaging in regulation of speech based on its substantive content or its message, and while the Supreme Court has said universities may legitimately judge course content, the court has also ruled that schools may not, in doing so, violate individual constitutional rights."
This case truly is about discrimination against the Christian worldview. The content of the science in the books is very similar and is noted to be even more detailed in the texts that were denied acceptance. But because they openly had a Christian perspective they were banned.
The university's Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools claims that students who take these physics courses based "may not be well prepared for success" at its schools. They expanded this to also include four other disciplines including history, government, literature, and biology when they came from a Christian perspective.
The double standard arises when UC accepts the following courses as adequate for history: "Western Civilization: The Jewish Experience" and "American Popular Culture, "Feminist Issues Throughout U.S. History and Race" and "Class and Gender in Modern America"
When the University went on to claim that students taking rejected courses "may not be well prepared" for state university success they couldn’t give rational explanations for the fact that on the Stanford Achievement Test in spring 2005, students from ACSI-member schools outscored students from public and private schools by 18 to 26 percentile points.
I always thought standardized testing was a method to help elucidate different teaching and make comparisons easier, but I guess UC felt otherwise.
This is a big win for all private schools and we’ll be waiting to see the final outcome.
What is also interesting in this case is that the Judge used the 1981 Indiana Supreme Court ruling in Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana as being most applicable to ACSI's case. The key ruling stated “When the state denies an important benefit—in this case admission to the state university system—because of "conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists."
The Judge felt that the plaintiffs demonstrated that they were forced to choose between taking equally credible courses with one promoting a biblical worldview or complying with the University’s recommendations. The Judge also upheld ACSI’s claim that the UC’s censoring of Christian viewpoints likely violated the First Amendment.
The Judge wrote "Fundamentally, the government is forbidden from engaging in regulation of speech based on its substantive content or its message, and while the Supreme Court has said universities may legitimately judge course content, the court has also ruled that schools may not, in doing so, violate individual constitutional rights."
This case truly is about discrimination against the Christian worldview. The content of the science in the books is very similar and is noted to be even more detailed in the texts that were denied acceptance. But because they openly had a Christian perspective they were banned.
The university's Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools claims that students who take these physics courses based "may not be well prepared for success" at its schools. They expanded this to also include four other disciplines including history, government, literature, and biology when they came from a Christian perspective.
The double standard arises when UC accepts the following courses as adequate for history: "Western Civilization: The Jewish Experience" and "American Popular Culture, "Feminist Issues Throughout U.S. History and Race" and "Class and Gender in Modern America"
When the University went on to claim that students taking rejected courses "may not be well prepared" for state university success they couldn’t give rational explanations for the fact that on the Stanford Achievement Test in spring 2005, students from ACSI-member schools outscored students from public and private schools by 18 to 26 percentile points.
I always thought standardized testing was a method to help elucidate different teaching and make comparisons easier, but I guess UC felt otherwise.
This is a big win for all private schools and we’ll be waiting to see the final outcome.
posted by Anonymous at 5:50 AM
38 Comments:
Now, if those of us who sacrifice to send our kids to private schools could just get a tax break...
Anon 8:20,
Why do you think that you deserve a tax break?
Regardless of the merits of the court case, I see a huge difference between survey courses such as the ones you mentioned ("Western Civilization: The Jewish Experience" and "American Popular Culture, "Feminist Issues Throughout U.S. History and Race" and "Class and Gender in Modern America") which STUDY those issues and a "science" course which incorporates religious doctine as "fact" as a part of the teaching.
I do not believe any university should censor "Christian" points of view (nor any other points of view).
However, there are many "Christian" doctrines that come simply from STORIES, that have been blown out of the water by science, anthropology, archaeology and historical documentation.
So, the universities' scholars' points of view should not be censored, or obscured by stories and superstition either (I give you Galileo).
"Universities" emerged in the 12th century AD, directly from Cathedral Schools, but in the 13th & 14th centuries evolved into places of Aristotelian teaching...in short, the study of everthing.
They should remain so.
Typo "everything"...
Sorry
Would that extend to training future meteorologists that weather patterns are affected by how effectively animals (or, say, virgins) are sacrificed to the god of rain as some groups have, and may still believe?
In my mind, it would be appropriate to study and understand such belief systems, and sociology and philosophy are disciplines that do so. A class designed to understand fundamentalist Christian beliefs would also be valid. However, a biology class teaching that every animal species existing today had two ancestors who cruised on Noah’s Ark, would not.
Anonymous:
I agree with your statement and I think we are saying the same thing.
The "Noah's Ark" story is just that, a STORY that pre-dates Christianity by millenia. So of course it would NOT be appropriate to teach as fact in a biology/zoology course (nor anywhere else, in my opinion).
There are many Mesopotamian flood stories and there is evidence that at least one (or more) huge floods did occur in the region in the late paleolithic/early neoloithic times.
For example, the story of "Gilgamesh" predates the Hebrew culture by at least 1000 years and the story called "Atrahasis" is so old that no one knows when it was first told.
Great stories,and they should be studied as such.
BTW, are you saying the sacrifice of virgins won't make it rain???!!!
I'm crushed.
LOL!!!!!!
Ok Roz, you knew I would have to reply.
We both absolutely agree on your first statement. Neither universities nor public schools should censor.
Your second sentence is just riddled with illogical assumptions.
No essential Christian Doctrine related to Jesus or the Bible has been “blown out of the water” as you state?
Teachings of certain church bodies over the years have been found to be incorrect, but this is no different than many teachings in science, medicine etc. We once believed smoking was beneficial to health. We once thought Pluto was a planet.
Science operates on the inductive method that entails searching for things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. The bias with this definition of science is one called a naturalistic bias.
Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find and therefore science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.
Science has never disproved what is written in the Bible. It stands up to textual criticism and fits in very neatly with what we currently know from a scientific perspective.
Not being able to prove something exists or that a certain event occurred is not the same thing as disproving it.
Galileo did challenge the current thinking of the time and through his observations did challenge the standing authority (the Church)
The historical educational leadership’s (The Church) censorship of information was not very different from today’s government educational leadership’s censorship of information. Both opposed change because they held and supported ideas of reality that were socially accepted and formally legitimized by governing bodies. Both held bias and performed/perform counterproductively to actual freedom of thought. If we want to follow the U.S. Department of Education’s mission statement, both the theory of chance and design are useful and should be welcomed to public school curriculum, along with the physical evidence that supports both of them. This will enable each individual to choose which truth claims support the complexity of life’s experiences.
Why stop at the Judeo-Christian creation story. Why, apart from the fact that it is your favorite, should it get attention ahead of, say, an American-Indian creation myth...or a Buddhist version or a Hindu version or any of the other competing stories? Just because it is hard to prove that Earth wasn't created by aliens from another galaxy doesn't grant a belief in such an event the right to be taught as fact in school.
P.S. So, the story of Noah's Ark isn't an allegory about displeasing God, but rather a very real fact that two of every bacteria, salamander, insect and elephant species was rounded up and taken on a water adventure for 40 days???
Well HB, I must respectfully disagree. The "Old Testament" is a collection of stories, some from the time of the Hebrews, some from before. Most of the stories have really great morals, or central themes, which can add in a positive way to one's life. Some contain accurate geography and SOME actual history.
They are also full of violence and contradictions, as are the stories in the "Koran," which also come from the Abrahamic/semetic tradition.
So, do these stories have value? Of course they do. As stories, BUT...
Noah's Ark did not repopulate the entire well-soaked planet with animals, and that very notion is ridiculous, especially in the face of scientific evidence of continuity of animal life in existance LONG before the time of Noah (Squirrels! My favorite!) Plus there is no evidence of a single, world-wide flood during that era.
Also, there is plenty of anthropological evidence of man's existance LONG before the time of the Hebrews (i.e. Adam, Eve, Abraham, etc...).
If one wishes to espouse that God set in motion the wheels of evolution and geological, astronominal and climatological changes that got us to where we are, I say: Maybe so...could be.
If one wishes to espouse the "Old Testament," or the "Koran" for that matter, in a literal sense, I say: Don't think so.
Also, isn't it illogical for the "Old Testament" to be used at all, once Christ was born?
The Old Testament:
A vindictive, vengeful God-
Those people are in your land-
Kill 'em!- Eye for an eye!!!-
Sacrifice some lambs-(vestiges of paganism)
I'm omnipotent and omniscient, but I don't know if Abraham is really loyal to me?-
New Testament:
A kind and loving God-
All men are God's children-
Turn the other cheek-
It seems that there is plenty of contradiction within the "Good Book," and it also seems that the Old Testament is used selectively, when it is politically beneficial to the users (i.e. Ten Comandments, eye for an eye, going to war, etc...)
Well, good stories, many good ideas...can't take it/them literally.
Roz,
We could debate this ad infinitum and possibly never convince each other. We both have strong biases. I personally believe that the Bible is accurate, even though you and others may disagree with me.
I also know there are thousands of scientists in every field of science that disagree with the old earth philosophy and there are thousands of scientific studies supporting a young earth philosophy. Having a degree in chemistry, I know that every isotope dating method is wrought with unanswered questions and that each requires certain assumptions to be made which may or may not be correct. For example, Carbon dating has never been able to give adequate explanation of why every piece of coal has Carbon 13 in it. With the decay of carbon and coal being “billions” of years old, there should be absolutely no trace of carbon 13. Every other method also has similar problems.
Based on historical records, did Jesus exist? Based on all methods to validate any text of antiquity, does the New Testament hold up under textual criticism?
The answers to these questions have always been yes by the scholars.
The 4 gospels were written by 4 individuals with first hand knowledge of the events and all are consistent with each other. It is reasonable then to believe not only that the New Testament documents have been passed down in tact, but that they also reflect accurately the larger issues of the life of Christ. The authors of the gospels were taught specifically by Jesus, day after day, on these specifics which they then wrote about. They were trained.
Following the pattern of the day, they memorized large portions of things, and then Jesus sent them out on forays to practice like little short-term missionary trips. They didn't just have to recall a conversation from ten or fifteen years ago when they wrote the texts. They had to recall the kinds of things they had been repeating time and time again.
We all have traumatic events in our lives that we can recall very vividly even years after the event. Take 911 for example. The apostles were the same way. They remembered vividly the feeding of the five thousand, the casting out of demons, the calming of the storm, the healing of the sick, the lame walking, and the blind seeing. Would you forget that or would you say, you know what? I thought that guy was blind and then Jesus put mud in his eye and he could see, but I don't know maybe I'm getting confused. Maybe he didn't see after that. Maybe I'm just imagining this.
There are many outside sources and virtually all other religions acknowledge that Jesus was real and did live during this time. So the New Testament stands up to textual criticism, but because of bias, the events recorded are not accepted.
Science may never be able to prove something happened in the past, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Science cannot prove something doesn’t exist. Prove that unicorns don’t exist. You can infer from everything we currently know and make the assumption they don’t exist, but this is not science. It is a belief system.
You have a belief system and world view of naturalism. I have one of Christianity. I cannot scientifically disprove all aspects of yours and you cannot mine. Both are theoretically possible and the pros and cons of each should be available to all students. There is acceptable science backing each one. Some people just refuse to acknowledge it.
HB,
I'm wondering how you respond to that sect of Christianity that doesn't believe in medical care. If they were allowed to control educational settings, there would be no health care professionals. I'm sure that they believe the Bible justifies their stance just as much you believe it justifies yours.
How far do we take the faith over science argument before it's too far and no longer a victory?
And if absolute certainty and TOTAL commitment to a faith is an indicator of correctness, we should all be Muslims and buy stock in companies manufacturing suicide explosives.
That last remark is an insult, and therefore I have no choice but to call a jihad upon you.
HB,
For every scientist that backs biblical stories there are many more who don't.
I cannot see how a logical, educated person can take those stories literally.
Though I acknowlege that science is flawed, so are all things created by man, including religion.
God is God.
Religions, in ALL their forms, are created by man, based on what men BELIEVE (not what they know) and what they want their world to be like. The stories of each of these religions reflect those morals, values and even political views of said religions. They are, however, just stories.
As for the 4 main "Gospels," they too were written by men, and AFTER the time of Jesus, and though they DO have elements that agree with each other, they DO also have inconsistancies.
As for whether the Gospels "hold up" or not, I would say "Yes, as valuable pieces of literature," though "not as the literal truth in their totality."
As for Jesus himself, I love the guy, really. I do not claim to know if he is the son of God, and I certainly can't discern that from a collection of fantastic stories, but I DO think he was a great "setter of examples," for lack of a better way to put it, and the most kind and just individual I have ever read about.
TO BOTH ANONYMOUSES: You guys crack me right up!!!
May you both have caravans of 100,000 camels!!
Those consistencies among the four gospels shouldn't be a surprise since several early church councils essentially "cut and pasted" the New Testament together from the body of work that had been handed down. "The Da Vinci Code" is fiction, but it is based on the truth that there were competing "gospels" floating around for several centuries. One by one they were declared by some human or humans to be heretical and they fell aside over time. And then, of course, multiple iterations of translations had an impact on the texts as well.
Bluegill asks a good question. The medical question had also crossed my mind but with a slightly different twist.
Judges, on a regular basis, issue court orders overruling family medical/religious decisions. Activist judges? Or prudent judges saving lives?
And then there is that "taking up serpents" thing that the authorities have to deal with in certain areas.
Whoever Roz Tate is....they Rock!
Bluegill,
My first response is that no one should “control” education. There will always be sects of every belief system. I think we have a pretty good set of laws to help guide us so that doesn’t happen. I also believe God has had a hand in creating our country and laws to allow for the freedoms we enjoy. It is our job to use the governing system we have in place to continue making the best choices.
Take the Terry Shiavo case. There were many moral questions involved and the ultimate outcome may not have pleased God, but the legal system that was in place was followed appropriately. The husband did have the legal right to make the decision he made.
As for Roz,
Your response has so many areas we could discuss. I could spend an entire semester going through the very broad and inconsistent far reaching conclusions you assert without facts.
As a history expert, you know there are many, many more original manuscripts verifying the validity of the Bible then there are supporting the actual existence or actions performed by “Caesar”. Yet because some things in the Bible require a person to accept a supernatural realm rather than pure naturalism, we immediately discredit it because it would require us to accept something we cannot yet prove.
For the other readers;
• Roman officials came to see that the suppression of Christianity demanded the destruction of the Scriptures because in the early days of Christ’s death, this movement was escalating dramatically.
• The Greek word for Bible was biblia meaning books. In Christianity the word canon refers to the special place these books occupy and it originally meant “a measuring rod” or “ruler”.
• Apocrypha refers to 12-15 books that the Roman Catholic Church considers canon. Palestine Jews had a canon of 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament. The evidence in history seems to indicate that neither Jesus nor his apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture but beyond Palestine the Greek translation (Septuagint) was especially influential in making certain books of the Apocrypha known. People in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire nearest Palestine agreed with the Palestine Jews but those in the western section received the Apocrypha as canon.
• The books we now consider
Canon became canonical:
o Because they were currently being used routinely by everyone practicing Christianity
o The Scriptures being used needed a self-evidencing quality (people convert after reading and studying)
o Certain books added because they were used in Christian worship (letters of Paul etc)
o The books tie directly to the apostles and it was either written by an apostle or at least by a man who had direct contact with the circle of the apostles. The New Testament Gospels that are accepted as canon were all written within the several years after Christ. The ones in controversy have never met this requirement.
o They are consistent with each other and any reported inconsistency is explained by different authors having differing interests and how Christ impacted him.
I would love to take any single topic on any of these areas and discuss it more thoroughly.
Your perspective only makes sense if you BELIEVE. From a truly scholarly standpoint it is pure "pick and choose" hokum.
I would disagree.
From a pure scholarly standpoint, using the same standards for every critique and keeping an open mind that there may be a supernatural realm, this holds up extremely well.
Naturalistic bias causes the struggle.
Roz says,
(A)Though I acknowledge that science is flawed, so are all things created by man, including religion.(B)..As for the 4 main "Gospels," they too were written by men, and AFTER the time of Jesus, and though they DO have elements that agree with each other, they DO also have inconsistencies.
In regards to (A)
We agree that man, man's science and man’s creations are flawed. But fortunately, more than mere mankind exist. There is a supernatural realm, with a supernatural God, who has acted in History to reveal His plan of salvation. What exactly are the inconsistencies other than the miracle events, in your opinion? What are the geographical problems that you mentioned? I am not aware of any archaeological evidence that disproves or invalidates Scriptural accounts; perhaps you could shed some light on specifically what you are referring to.
You strongly believe that miracles did/do not happen. You reconcile your intellectual tension created by miracles by receiving them as “stories”. Again, this demonstrates an over-reliance for "knowable" truth from empirical science methodology an anti-supernaturalistic bias. Ironically, you have invested your life, your career to the study of man’s history, yet you question and invalidate Scripture that holds historical accounts of miracle events.
Here are a few reasons that support the claim that receiving accounts of miracle events as miracles is reasonable.
1. Conscious mental states support the belief that non-material substances exist.
2. The Jews did not participate in fictional writing. They did not participate in Greek dramas and theatre. They reported historical accounts of events, including miracle events. The accounts were given as witnessed historical events.
3. Miracle events are explained supernaturally. Biblical miracles, specifically, are intended to validate a supernatural message. ( It isn’t in the scope of this discussion to enter into precise theological discourse, but one would benefit from asking about the message the miracle validates, than to focus on whether or not miracles happen.)
4. Historical events are knowable and verifiable. They aren’t repeatable and they aren’t “empirical science”, but I respect those like you who invest their life in the study of history and ancient documents. For example, Sir Frederic Kenyon, the director and principal librarian of the British Museum and expert in ancient documents, wrote, “The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”
Healthblooger says,
"I think we have a pretty good set of laws to help guide us so that doesn’t happen."
Agreed, but, what if we begin to receive these laws as, stories? Will they be able to protect us then?
This pretty much ignores the fact that hundreds of cultures throughout known history have come up with their versions of creation stories, handed down truths and rules for living. I am sure that all of them were as certain of their beliefs as you are of yours.
Do you have any doubt that you would be wrapped in a chador and following of Islamic teachings if you were born and living in Saudi Arabia? Or that you would an animist if you were a native of Borneo, say, 150 years ago?
It may not be possible to disprove metaphysical explanations for our existence, but it is pretty easy to assume that the hundreds and hundreds of different versions can't all be correct. And yet...there are many people in widely different belief systems who are convinced that they, alone, have a monopoly on religious truth.
Anonymous said,
"And if absolute certainty and TOTAL commitment to a faith is an indicator of correctness, we should all be Muslims and buy stock in companies manufacturing suicide explosives."
IF nature is all one accepts as real, this comment is logical. One would determine truth from majority rule and/or reigning power. If you can't beat them, join them would be a sound plan for physical survival. But, there is truth and we can discover it.
Our Western civilization is weakened epistemologically, because of naturalism. If theological claims recorded in Scripture would be respected as supernatural revelation, Scripture would be found to be a powerful light that would illiminate the darkness of Islamic fundamental theology. Sadly, western civilization in general doesn't hold Scripture as reliable and credible. Western civilization denies the ability to hold ideas of reality with strong conviction, because of a false idea of reality that literally nature/matter is ALL.
Socrates chose death because he knew that public opinion does not determine absolute truth, and he did not want to live in the wilderness as a fugitive. He was a truth seeker.
Anonymous said...
"This pretty much ignores the fact that hundreds of cultures throughout known history have come up with their versions of creation stories, handed down truths and rules for living. I am sure that all of them were as certain of their beliefs as you are of yours."
You need to separate the truth claim from the believer(s). All believers are of the species man, so-to-say. I try to look at the claim without the blurr. Agreeably, I join all of mankind in being fallible and adding to the blurr. They say “you either are or aren’t a Christian because you either have or haven’t known one.” We just can’t get totally away from the blurr. So turn your attention to the claims themselves.
Anonymous goes on to say,
"Do you have any doubt that you would be wrapped in a chador and following of Islamic teachings if you were born and living in Saudi Arabia? Or that you would an animist if you were a native of Borneo, say, 150 years ago?"
No, I have no doubt, I would be tribally influenced. Mankind at its core, is evil, we really do need guidance. When the guidance is or isn’t there we still like our will to be done and tend to make executive decisions. But this throws the conversation back to the blurr.
Anonymous goes on to say,
"It may not be possible to disprove metaphysical explanations for our existence, but it is pretty easy to assume that the hundreds and hundreds of different versions can't all be correct."
Amen to that!
Anonymous goes on to say,
"And yet...there are many people in widely different belief systems who are convinced that they, alone, have a monopoly on religious truth."
It is not MY conviction that make them, correct. Separate my conviction from the claims and look at the claims. Here are four broad principles from Christian teachings based on Scripture.
Origin: God created us from nothing. ex nihilo
Our Problem: Sin and sin’s subsequent temporary/?eternal separation from the Creator.
Our Solution: Faith in the work of Christ (John 3:16 God so loved the world, that…)
Our Hope: Eternal life as modeled by Christ’s bodily resurrection miracle event. In the end, in God’s timing, God puts all the brokenness of our lives back together, even better than before.
One died for ALL, so that ALL can live. Those who embrace Scripture are a people of God's Word, not man's sword. The early Christians died for faith in a God that died to pay their sin debt and offer a hope and promise of everlasting life.
In contrast, the Muslims are asked to die for their Allah, who did not die for them. This is a dramatic contrast. Do virgins in heaven stay that way for eternity? How does that logically work? I don’t understand Islam to have any regenerative power.
Both Christians and Muslims CAN HAVE CONVICTION because both hold the idea of reality that indeed a supernatural realm exists and then they hold different sets of truth claims that they explain as being from that realm--Divine.
So, then the conversation moves to which supernaturally explained claims seem to be based or evidenced from more than just public opinion? Which actually fulfills a shared need? Romans 3:23 “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In Scripture when it says all, it means all, that is all it means.
I apologize for the length of this posting, but have you noticed that Muslim miracles are puny when compared to those recorded in Scripture? Especially the healings and the resurrections?
Rah Rah, GO BIG TRUE! :)
I am sorry, but all of your arguments are built on a foundation of FAITH. Take away your personal beliefs and you just have an opinion about the qualitative merits of one belief system versus another.
You say:
"In contrast, the Muslims are asked to die for their Allah, who did not die for them. This is a dramatic contrast." Well, plenty of people who adhere to Islam have died for their version of God just, as you claim, your Jesus did. The only difference is that you BELIEVE that Jesus wasn't just a man. But that is a BELIEF, and if you weren't born into a Christian culture or brought up to believe that, you wouldn't necessarily find it any more appealing than a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or American Indian religious belief system.
I would add one more comment. Saying things like:
"Muslim miracles are puny when compared to those recorded in Scripture?" is the very kind of ego-centric arrogance that divides people of good will instead of finding common ground so that we can all live together without killing each other.
Good Job apolo-ener-getic!
Anony 11; 17AM
God has given us all a choice to believe or not. He has given us that choice because he wants us to have the freedom to love Him and doesn't want to control our love for Him. With that said there is a ton of evidence that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died on the cross for us.
Muslims miracles are puny because they are human actions not from God.
I think it is very important we all live together without killing each other. We as Christians do not kill people who do not agree with us. All we try to do is share our belief the way Jesus would, so that people can make informed decisions on their beliefs.
I would try to go on, but I think
apolo-ener-getic or Healthblogger could explain it better.
Open your heart to God; I think you will be surprised what you find.
RE: "We as Christians do not kill people who do not agree with us."
You have to be kidding, right? Inquistions, forced conversions of Jews and native Americans, witch killings, religious wars...Northern Ireland...it goes on and on. Not any different than any other groups.
Anonymous says,
“Well, plenty of people who adhere to Islam have died for their version of God just, as you claim, your Jesus did. The only difference is that you BELIEVE that Jesus wasn't just a man. But that is a BELIEF, and if you weren't born into a Christian culture or brought up to believe that, you wouldn't necessarily find it any more appealing than a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or American Indian religious belief system…I would add one more comment. Saying things like: "Muslim miracles are puny when compared to those recorded in Scripture?" is the very kind of ego-centric arrogance that divides people of good will instead of finding common ground so that we can all live together without killing each other."
The resurrection miracle event is evidence that supports Christian claims. My point is you say that my faith in Christ is ego-centrically based on the circumstances surrounding my upbringing. There are many brought up in the Christian faiths that don’t believe. I don’t think I love my parents more than they love their parents. There must be other ways or evidences that one uses to determine the validity of truth claims. Tribal/upbringing would be one of them, but not THE determining factor for or against faith in Judeo-Christian truth claims.
I said Jesus died for ALL sinners—mankind—us! I didn’t say that Jesus died FOR my God. One could correctly say that Jesus died in agreement and harmony with God’s will. Jesus wants God’s will to be done. God promised to provide a way and Jesus is that way, through faith. God wants to reclaim his lost creation, those that know they are lost. He doesn’t want ego-centric people.
Yes Jesus is divine and this is supported by the study of Scripture, because no other “patriarch” in the Old or New Testament is described with attributes of creating and ruling. Logically, a man cannot save mankind. If you read the Bible in its entirety, the doctrine of the trinity emerges. Truthfully, few read the Bible. Most criticize it.
The resurrection is the crowning miracle of miracles, God’s confirmation of the works and words of Christ. It is a credible and reliable historical event that gives an answer and hope for the problem of evil during this life, death and decay. There is plenty of evidence for evil, death and decay. They are natural and shared by all—common ground. So we all have a sort of cancer and there is treatment that is “a free gift from God” and intended for all, again common ground. There is soooo much common ground it is hard to deny it as divine in a world with so many limited resources. A high price to pay is surrendering to who you are and letting God be God. A high price to pay is accepting the work of Christ through faith and as a free gift that you (and I) can never deserve or gain glory for accomplishing it.
Naturalism gives the term "common ground" much clarity. Do away with the reality of a supernatural realm and all that you get is...COMMON GROUND. In the common ground is where the blood and bodies of many people are buried. But out of that common ground through placing faith in Christ many are immediately spiritually regenerated and live out the rest of their lives with a comfort of being adopted sons and daughters through faith in Christ. Some Christians who understand God’s desire to reclaim the integrity of his creation are spurred to good works and hope they may be used by God in accomplishing His Will. Many Christians accept salvation but never grow in their faith very much. Christ’s message changes lives from the inside out.
Pretty speech but you give a lot more credence to your tribal legend than I do given that hundreds of such fables have been handed down in hundreds of cultures. That makes them interesting to study but it doesn't make them true. If you want to believe in the Noah's Ark story or the parting of the Red Sea, or the resurrection, have at it, but call it what it is: FAITH. Don't try to pass it off as history.
"any reported inconsistency is explained by different authors having differing interests"
Exactly! Thank you.
"Naturalistic bias causes the struggle"..."Our Western civilization is weakened epistemologically, because of naturalism."
Western civilization is weakened by self righteousness and lack of rational thought, if by anything.
To "Anonymous 9:50 AM":
Very well said. It's exactly right, IMO. I have nothing to add to it.
Anonymous says,
"Pretty speech but you give a lot more credence to your tribal legend than I do given that hundreds of such fables have been handed down in hundreds of cultures."
Think about it. Because there are many of them. This just confirms the need to reconcile where we came from, why we don't feel "whole" sometimes, why we hurt one another while we long to be in intimate relationships. It shows we want to make sense of our conscious mental states and a sense of eternity, and what eternity might be like for us, personally.
It is unreasonable to not consider Scripture as historically sound. There is no evidence but your faith that it is not based in history.
Anony 1:13
You said:
"You have to be kidding, right? Inquistions, forced conversions of Jews and native Americans, witch killings, religious wars...Northern Ireland...it goes on and on. Not any different than any other groups."
My point was that because we have a different view point doesn't mean we are killing people who disagree with us as implied earlier when anonymous said "is the very kind of ego-centric arrogance that divides people of good will instead of finding common ground so that we can all live together without killing each other."
Everyone wants to live together and play nice, but do not speak the truth because you will offend someone, but that person can say and do what they want that may offend me.
What is common ground?
HB,
With all due respect, I don't think you answered my question. Maybe I didn't ask it well.
Let me try to rephrase it: How would you personally explain the value of medical care to those Christians who insist that God views it as sinful or evil based on their interpretation of the bible?
I think Iamhoosier also asked a relevant question about legal intervention in the lives of those people.
As a physician and defender of religious freedom, do you think the courts should intervene, for example, when parents refuse to seek medical attention for a child's potentially fatal but totally treatable illness based on their religious beliefs?
Post a Comment
<< Home