Texas public schools required to teach Bible this year

shouldnt u be a senior as 18? did u get held back for being too grim and frostbitten?

nimatoad2000

Yeah I got hold back at my old school for flunking and not doing anything, spent two years being a freshmen...

And I was a bit of a troublemaker so... yeah.

[QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]

shouldnt u be a senior as 18? did u get held back for being too grim and frostbitten?

Yeah I got hold back at my old school for flunking and not doing anything, spent two years being a freshmen...

And I was a bit of a troublemaker so... yeah.

Hmm... Well I already started high school and i have yet to see anything about the Bible.

[QUOTE="D-RS"]

in lebanon we are forced to study the bible , we have one period a week , and another period where we go to church .

twilightpanda

I don't like this.

One of the reasons that public school was invented was so that it didn't teach religion. If they are requiring it, then they should require all religions.

RunnersNation

I think you can justify this in theory because of the huge literary and cultural impact the Bible has had. I don't think that unbiased study of its literary importance is going to be the priority of this scheme though.

EDIT: I removed an errant apostrophe. I'm sorry. I really do know better.

in lebanon we are forced to study the bible , we have one period a week , and another period where we go to church .

[QUOTE="D-RS"][QUOTE="twilightpanda"] i don't :)twilightpanda

Just a reply to the poster above regarding the New Testament scriptures.

Mathew 5: 18-19 - This is the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Specifically over-wrote the "old laws" with new laws. He even lists them. Read up on this a little and read the entire chapter. It explains all this.

Luke 16:17 - Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees at this point. Jesus just finished giving the parable of the Steward teaching about service for others before he said this. Read up on this a little more.

Mathew 5:17 - Keep in mind that 'fulfill' also means to bring an end to or complete. Again, this is part of the Sermon on the Mount I explained above.

Timothy 3:16 - I see nothing wrong here. Scriptures used for instruction inrighteousness.

This is all I have time for tonight. I have chess games to play.

Christians believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. These teachings take place in the New Testament. Whoever says Christians must follow the Old Testament does not know the scriptures all that well. Jesus Christ himself came and over-wrote the Law of Moses.

I suppose you can interpret the scriptures however you want. I see no contradictions here. I don't have time now to go in depth on these though. Perhaps some other time.

Just a reply to the poster above regarding the New Testament scriptures.

Mathew 5: 18-19 - This is the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Specifically over-wrote the "old laws" with new laws. He even lists them. Read up on this a little and read the entire chapter. It explains all this.

Luke 16:17 - Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees at this point. Jesus just finished giving the parable of the Steward teaching about service for others before he said this. Read up on this a little more.

Mathew 5:17 - Keep in mind that 'fulfill' also means to bring an end to or complete. Again, this is part of the Sermon on the Mount I explained above.

Timothy 3:16 - I see nothing wrong here. Scriptures used for instruction inrighteousness.

This is all I have time for tonight. I have chess games to play.

Christians believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. These teachings take place in the New Testament. Whoever says Christians must follow the Old Testament does not know the scriptures all that well. Jesus Christ himself came and over-wrote the Law of Moses.

I suppose you can interpret the scriptures however you want. I see no contradictions here. I don't have time now to go in depth on these though. Perhaps some other time.

stepnkev

[QUOTE="stepnkev"]

Just a reply to the poster above regarding the New Testament scriptures.

Mathew 5: 18-19 - This is the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Specifically over-wrote the "old laws" with new laws. He even lists them. Read up on this a little and read the entire chapter. It explains all this.

Luke 16:17 - Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees at this point. Jesus just finished giving the parable of the Steward teaching about service for others before he said this. Read up on this a little more.

Mathew 5:17 - Keep in mind that 'fulfill' also means to bring an end to or complete. Again, this is part of the Sermon on the Mount I explained above.

Timothy 3:16 - I see nothing wrong here. Scriptures used for instruction inrighteousness.

This is all I have time for tonight. I have chess games to play.

Christians believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. These teachings take place in the New Testament. Whoever says Christians must follow the Old Testament does not know the scriptures all that well. Jesus Christ himself came and over-wrote the Law of Moses.

I suppose you can interpret the scriptures however you want. I see no contradictions here. I don't have time now to go in depth on these though. Perhaps some other time.

xaos

I don't like this.

And the reason being given (teaching it because of its literary importance) is mainly an excuse.

Seriously if they were to introduce a text of literary importance and religious-driven, they could use Hesiode's works whose theme is identical with the Bible's Genesis part. Cosmogony in general through tradition and religious beliefs.

Now as for the rest of the Bible (with themes like: morality/examples of ways to live/stories with a moral teaching) I am fairly certain there are many equivalent works to be found which are unpracticed today (meaning that they are only historical texts and not used by anyone nowadays other than their historicity) and thus they could avoid appearing to promote Christianity by introducing the Bible.

[QUOTE="stepnkev"]

Just a reply to the poster above regarding the New Testament scriptures.

Mathew 5: 18-19 - This is the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Specifically over-wrote the "old laws" with new laws. He even lists them. Read up on this a little and read the entire chapter. It explains all this.

Luke 16:17 - Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees at this point. Jesus just finished giving the parable of the Steward teaching about service for others before he said this. Read up on this a little more.

Mathew 5:17 - Keep in mind that 'fulfill' also means to bring an end to or complete. Again, this is part of the Sermon on the Mount I explained above.

Timothy 3:16 - I see nothing wrong here. Scriptures used for instruction inrighteousness.

This is all I have time for tonight. I have chess games to play.

Christians believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. These teachings take place in the New Testament. Whoever says Christians must follow the Old Testament does not know the scriptures all that well. Jesus Christ himself came and over-wrote the Law of Moses.

I suppose you can interpret the scriptures however you want. I see no contradictions here. I don't have time now to go in depth on these though. Perhaps some other time.

xaos

I don't go by the NIV but you really have to read the entire chapter. In other words: Mathew 5:1-48. Jesus mentions the old laws one by one and the proceeds to give a new law in its place. Also keep in mind that fulfill has more than one meaning. To me this is a nice way of saying "I did not come to do away with the prophets of old or their laws but to complete them." Then He goes on and overwrites their laws with new ones.

I don't like this.

And the reason being given (teaching it because of its literary importance) is mainly an excuse.

Seriously if they were to introduce a text of literary importance and religious-driven, they could use Hesiode's works whose theme is identical with the Bible's Genesis part. Cosmogony in general through tradition and religious beliefs.

Now as for the rest of the Bible (with themes like: morality/examples of ways to live/stories with a moral teaching) I am fairly certain there are many equivalent works to be found which are unpracticed today (meaning that they are only historical texts and not used by anyone nowadays other than their historicity) and thus they could avoid appearing to promote Christianity by introducing the Bible.

Teenaged

I don't go by the NIV but you really have to read the entire chapter. In other words: Mathew 5:1-48. Jesus mentions the old laws one by one and the proceeds to give a new law in its place. Also keep in mind that fulfill has more than one meaning. To me this is a nice way of saying "I did not come to do away with the prophets of old or their laws but to complete them." Then He goes on and overwrites their laws with new ones.

stepnkev

Did Job have knowledge of the future then when he said, "I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl"? I say this because it sounds awfully like, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" from Matt. 5.

I'm just entering into this debate but I'm going to have to agree with Xaos. At least in what I have quoted. mindstorm

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I don't like this.

And the reason being given (teaching it because of its literary importance) is mainly an excuse.

Seriously if they were to introduce a text of literary importance and religious-driven, they could use Hesiode's works whose theme is identical with the Bible's Genesis part. Cosmogony in general through tradition and religious beliefs.

Now as for the rest of the Bible (with themes like: morality/examples of ways to live/stories with a moral teaching) I am fairly certain there are many equivalent works to be found which are unpracticed today (meaning that they are only historical texts and not used by anyone nowadays other than their historicity) and thus they could avoid appearing to promote Christianity by introducing the Bible.

LJS9502_basic

For instance the followers of the dodekatheon (I dont know how that "religion" translates to English - anyway its a minority of people who believe in the ancient greek pantheon) are scarce and seriously one wouldnt suggest that reading ancient greek mythology proselitises (sp?) you to this religion. Those texts are clearly being taught as something of the distant past.

On the other hand Christianity, is one of the three or four most active religions.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I don't like this.

And the reason being given (teaching it because of its literary importance) is mainly an excuse.

Seriously if they were to introduce a text of literary importance and religious-driven, they could use Hesiode's works whose theme is identical with the Bible's Genesis part. Cosmogony in general through tradition and religious beliefs.

Now as for the rest of the Bible (with themes like: morality/examples of ways to live/stories with a moral teaching) I am fairly certain there are many equivalent works to be found which are unpracticed today (meaning that they are only historical texts and not used by anyone nowadays other than their historicity) and thus they could avoid appearing to promote Christianity by introducing the Bible.

Teenaged

For instance the followers of the dodekatheon (I dont know how that "religion" translates to English - anyway its a minority of people who believe in the ancient greek pantheon) are scarce and seriously one wouldnt suggest that reading ancient greek mythology proselitises (sp?) you to this religion. Those texts are clearly being taught as something of the distant past.

On the other hand Christianity, is one of the three or four most active religions.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]I'm just entering into this debate but I'm going to have to agree with Xaos. At least in what I have quoted. LJS9502_basic

Edit: Yeah... I'd probably have to see the context.

Double standards then? Teaching the bible from a literay standpoint is not preaching.:|

LJS9502_basic

I pointed out the difference.

Christianity is one of the most active religion today, while dodekatheism (if thats the term) or the worshipping of the Roman gods is a thing of the past, therefore an accusation of proselitisation efforts for the later has little to no ground, as opposed to Christianity.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]I'm just entering into this debate but I'm going to have to agree with Xaos. At least in what I have quoted. mindstorm

You are interpreting the text too literally. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Double standards then? Teaching the bible from a literay standpoint is not preaching.:|

Teenaged

I pointed out the difference.

Christianity is one of the most active religion today, while dodekatheism (if thats the term) or the worshipping of the Roman gods is a thing of the past, therefore an accusation of proselitisation efforts for the later has little to no ground, as opposed to Christianity.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Double standards then? Teaching the bible from a literay standpoint is not preaching.:|

LJS9502_basic

I pointed out the difference.

Christianity is one of the most active religion today, while dodekatheism (if thats the term) or the worshipping of the Roman gods is a thing of the past, therefore an accusation of proselitisation efforts for the later has little to no ground, as opposed to Christianity.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

[QUOTE="stepnkev"]

I don't go by the NIV but you really have to read the entire chapter. In other words: Mathew 5:1-48. Jesus mentions the old laws one by one and the proceeds to give a new law in its place. Also keep in mind that fulfill has more than one meaning. To me this is a nice way of saying "I did not come to do away with the prophets of old or their laws but to complete them." Then He goes on and overwrites their laws with new ones.

mindstorm

Did Job have knowledge of the future then when he said, "I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl"? I say this because it sounds awfully like, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" from Matt. 5.

There are more examples, but I only have time to write one

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also

The Law of Moses: An eye for an eye. Whatever you do to me, I can do to you in other words.

The New Law: Turn the other cheek and forgive.

In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

LJS9502_basic

In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

LJS9502_basic

Yes, you have studied religions that have been more or less dead for many centuries. Come back when you can say that about Christianity.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

xaos

Why read The Bible when you can read Dante? Honestly, the beginning of Genesis (all I got through before I got bored) has nothing on Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

xaos

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

LJS9502_basic

Didnt I just mention the difference between active religions and religions of the distant past?

And so because the extreme point of what I am saying rarely happens, it means it doesnt happen in any level?

Sure... :roll:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

chessmaster1989

Yes, you have studied religions that have been more or less dead for many centuries. Come back when you can say that about Christianity.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]*sigh* I've studied mythology. I didn't convert.

LJS9502_basic

Yes, you have studied religions that have been more or less dead for many centuries. Come back when you can say that about Christianity.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]*sigh* I've studied mythology. I didn't convert.

LJS9502_basic

The Greek/Roman texts people read in high school tend to be ones like The Iliad. These aren't religious texts. :|

http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=10933571

WHITEHOUSE, TX (KLTV) - The school year is almost here, and if literature of the Bible is not already offered in your child's school, it will be this fall.

yay or nay?

weezyfb

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

Teenaged

Didnt I just mention the difference between active religions and religions of the distant past?

And so because the extreme point of what I am saying rarely happens, it means it doesnt happen in any level?

Sure... :roll:

There are more examples, but I only have time to write one

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also

The Law of Moses: An eye for an eye. Whatever you do to me, I can do to you in other words.

The New Law: Turn the other cheek and forgive.

stepnkev

Laws dealing with circumcision, eating laws, etc. are no longer practiced in the same way. The laws were fulfilled in Christ, our very hearts are to be circumsized.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]*sigh* I've studied mythology. I didn't convert.

chessmaster1989

Why read The Bible when you can read Dante? Honestly, the beginning of Genesis (all I got through before I got bored) has nothing on Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] While I have no objection to teaching it as literature, I stand by my first post in the thread where I said I think the intent is pretty clearly evangelical. P.S. Your analogy is pretty spurious LJS, since Greek and roman pantheons are not living religions, though I do recognize that being exposed to the text of the Bible does not magically make people Christians (no matter what Jack chick and the Gideons think)chessmaster1989

The Greek/Roman texts people read in high school tend to be ones like The Iliad. These aren't religious texts. :|

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]*sigh* I've studied mythology. I didn't convert.

LJS9502_basic

Yes, you have studied religions that have been more or less dead for many centuries. Come back when you can say that about Christianity.

Honestly, if I were to join a religion, it'd be either the ancient Greek or Norse religion. At least then I could say I belonged to a very badass religion...

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]In a simplistic equation, no.

What I said stands firmly.

There is ground in seeing this as an effort to add more Christian material for children (and future citizens) to read and take into heart. A religion wouldnt say no, to an opportunity to have more influence.

mindstorm

Clarification: wanting to have influence does not only translate into just abusing religion for my personal gain.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] While I have no objection to teaching it as literature, I stand by my first post in the thread where I said I think the intent is pretty clearly evangelical.xaos

Why read The Bible when you can read Dante? Honestly, the beginning of Genesis (all I got through before I got bored) has nothing on Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso.

My comment was on how interesting the books were, not on influence. :|

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]*sigh* I've studied mythology. I didn't convert.

LJS9502_basic

Didnt I just mention the difference between active religions and religions of the distant past?

And so because the extreme point of what I am saying rarely happens, it means it doesnt happen in any level?

Sure... :roll:

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Why read The Bible when you can read Dante? Honestly, the beginning of Genesis (all I got through before I got bored) has nothing on Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso.

chessmaster1989

My comment was on how interesting the books were, not on influence. :|

hey not to get all religous or anything but think of this,

which is better, the Christian who does good things to get to Heaven, or the atheist who does good things cause it's right?

Just something to think about

hey not to get all religous or anything but think of this,

which is better, the Christian who does good things to get to Heaven, or the atheist who does good things cause it's right?

Just something to think about

dundermuffin666

Paganism though never had an existence before it was re-created. No one promoted it. The influence it had was not directed by anyone. And that is 100% true because we are talking about a dead religion that just respawned. Whatever contributed into its respawning was in the texts themselves, not someone promoting them. ;)

Teenaged

hey not to get all religous or anything but think of this,

which is better, the Christian who does good things to get to Heaven, or the atheist who does good things cause it's right?

Just something to think about

dundermuffin666

Still, i prove my point. SOme of Christianity's beliefs are severly flawed

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] Because the Bible is a more broadly influential work? Again, taught as a cultural artifact and as literature, I can absolutely see the value in teaching it. Hell just recently there was a TV series called Kings that was basically a retelling of the book of Kings, so its influence on various media and culture is ongoing.xaos

My comment was on how interesting the books were, not on influence. :|

Dragonlance wasn't bad... at least, the original trilogy was fine... I didn't really go beyond that...

Considering most of the reading I do (excluding the reading I have to do for a couple core classes at college, I don't plan to take any literary/English/etc. beyond the core) is for personal enjoyment, not for literary merit. This summer, I've read Dante, The Three Musketeers, some of H.G. Wells' books, and some other stuff. I've also read a bunch of graphic novels (V for Vendetta, Watchmen, all seven volumes of Sin City, first three volumes of The Sandman). None of them would probably be accredited the same influence as The Bible, and perhaps only Dante and Dumas would be placed on the same literary level.

I can tell you I honestly couldn't care less. :)