|
Post by meditative on Jun 19, 2005 18:20:32 GMT -5
question; is it law for history classes to teach religioin? also its not the same thing. the question was if there should be someting like a state advocated religion CLASS for only RELIGION such as a bible learning class or a torah/koran class.
|
|
Nadie
Cave Slave
I am not afraid
Posts: 97
|
Post by Nadie on Jun 19, 2005 19:34:20 GMT -5
okay next debate...should religion be taught in schools? if so, should it be EVERY religion and not just christianity, buddhism, satanism, or whatever the hell? NO!, no!, hindi!, non!, E! (this lauguage thing could go on) No in general classes, but yes if learned through history classes. I just came right out of an St. Barnabas Episcopal School. If you're talking about public schools becoming part of a christian conspiracy, It will never happen. Private schools based on a religon shouldn't either! Out of experience, it makes people very biased, narrow-minded, arrogant, ignorant, naive and if you have been there long enough, brainwashed. Being completely surrounded in it IS NOT GOOD. I see nothing wrong with CCD or classes outside the system because it happens weekly. I was very happy to be in Mrs. Banks class (world history) and happened to learn many important things when she was teaching about Islam. For example: In stB, the teachers said the children in the Children's Crusade made it to the holy land. I later on learned they in fact, did NOT, and were actually made into child slaves. stB said things is such ways took make christianity look good compared to the rest of the world. 9|11 made the situation worse, they took us to the holy land THEME PARK. I almost didn't go, but apparently, attendance was your grade for the semester
|
|
|
Post by Colloff on Jun 19, 2005 19:46:11 GMT -5
well i think that religon should be taught in school. not as a course, but as an elective...a full-year elective. and in that course, (or maybe several courses) they should cover EVERY religion that has an impact on life. though chrisitanity judaism and islam are the three base religons of the time, i think that every one should be taught, down to satanism and the differance between baptism and methodist. why? because if you really want to become a missionary, it is a good idea to analyze EVERY religon no matter how small and decide what you believe in. some ppl are like that.
|
|
Nadie
Cave Slave
I am not afraid
Posts: 97
|
Post by Nadie on Jun 19, 2005 19:53:05 GMT -5
baptism is a stage catholism, baptist is what you mean.
btw, good idea, it shoud be submitted. But by the time that comes out (if it gets accepted that it), we'd all be 50...(-_-)
|
|
|
Post by Colloff on Jun 19, 2005 20:06:43 GMT -5
very true. but i know a girl, beka, who albeit is annoying as HELL, she wants to become a missionary...although she's sure of christianity, some ppl may not be...or they just want to know about religon...it's kinda like another world history class, ya know?
|
|
Nadie
Cave Slave
I am not afraid
Posts: 97
|
Post by Nadie on Jun 19, 2005 20:12:34 GMT -5
*n0d* the odd thing is that, since religon plays a major part in history, some whould say it's like taking the same class over again. Maybe in diffrent perspective, but still the same class.
|
|
meditative still cant log on
Guest
|
Post by meditative still cant log on on Jun 19, 2005 20:33:40 GMT -5
ok heres an idea; they teach a single elective called theism. it will discuss the logical viewpoint and stemming beliefs in the theologies of the major religions. it will be in high school. NOT middleschool, and CERTAINLY not in elementry school. it cant be mandatory. it cant be biased. it can never be allowed to grow. this idea is in fact too risky, but it is the safest way. it needs to be controlled. but on the whole, i dislike any idea that could even possibly be tainted in the favor of any religion, becuase every teacher able to teach the course would be biased in that religion's favor and it is an inherently flawed idea. i think that it should not be taught in schools on this premise, but the submitted idea above is as far as i can possibly tolerate.
|
|
|
Post by Colloff on Jun 19, 2005 20:44:03 GMT -5
it should be taught by an atheist then. and athiesm is easy to teach "no religion is my religion, now on to the next religion class" ya know? its easier that way, and i think it should be an elective for high school on up...but the main points are all to gay. if they went deep into them all, it'd be much better. every religion (almost) has the same key points
Be good...achieve happiness be bad...die...and die...and die...and die...or dont even exist
|
|
Nadie
Cave Slave
I am not afraid
Posts: 97
|
Post by Nadie on Jun 19, 2005 21:24:01 GMT -5
Just "being good" is the problem. How it is defined is based in what society/religon you are in and that's where everything clashes (-_-)
|
|
|
Post by Faygo on Jun 19, 2005 21:57:15 GMT -5
Speaking of baptism. Anal sex. Why not?
I mean, what's wrong with sodomy in the first place? A lot of people find it enjoyable, and it doesn't really bother anyone else, so whats the big deal? Some girls just like it in their butt, and thats completely up to them, I mean, come on, whatever they like is whatever they like. But no, as soon as someone brings up the ass, most people get all uptight and crazy, and start flipping out on you. What about the views of you guys?
Does a girl liking anal sex make her a slut? I mean, some people seem to think so, just like if a girl wears a tight miniskirt out to the mall, it makes her a slut. So does the image of her liking it up the butt make her a whore?
Just because a girl likes anal sex, doesn't mean she sleeps around. She could be the most love-believing person in the world right? Or is it a common sterotype that people who like anal sex sleep around?
I mean, in the Bible, it states that sodomy is wrong. The main reason its so terrible for two guys to be gay. Not that I read the long book, (I think I made it to page 4 and got bored. So I watched the movie instead) but what kind of god, actually takes the time to come down, and tell all his people that sex up the ass is wrong? What about the Jewish stance, is it wrong to like it up the butt?
This is the real topic at hand folks! Anal sex! Is it wrong? WHAT SAY YOU!?
|
|
|
Post by DocZeroRX on Jun 19, 2005 22:02:44 GMT -5
LMFAO XD I like it up the butt . j/k >.>
|
|
|
Post by The Archetype on Jun 19, 2005 22:13:28 GMT -5
Religions in general should not be the one's who choose what happens to people if they do certain things and about this anal sex. it's what ever people want. Even if chicks wear very small mini skirts I can't complain at all. They just like the freedom of it. Anal sex is not bad. Any religion who gets in the way of how people run their own lives i dun think is a good religion (Quite why I'm not religish in the slightest bit).
|
|
|
Post by Psychotic Kat on Jun 19, 2005 23:25:33 GMT -5
Ok... So yeah.... Anal sex. In my eyes if a girl likes it in the ass that doesn't make them a slut. In my eyes if a girl wears a tight miniskirt out to the mall that doesn't make her a slut, it just shows that she likes the way she looks and doesn't mind showing off. I don't think that it is wrong I just think that it's a different way of doing things. If someone is open to trying something new then by all means let them.
Religion should not prevent someone from doing something that which they want to do. Although it may be in the bible that sodomy that also means being gay is wrong. Being gay is not wrong, it is just a different perspective on life. All this really is is someones own perspective on life. They want to have anal sex that is their choice, it doesn't change who they are for it so why worry?
No, just because ANYONE likes anal sex doesn't mean they sleep around. They could whole-heartedly believe in love and all that jazz. I do believe it is just a stereotype where if someone dresses like a slut and does stuff that a "slut" would do they are automatically a slut. It's just how people view others. Some aren't open to new ideas, others are. Everyone has their own personal opinion. In mine, it's not wrong it's just different.
|
|
|
Post by Colloff on Jun 20, 2005 7:45:01 GMT -5
yeah...do whatever the hell you want to do...if you like to take it or give it up the ass...do so. but here's my reasoning on how the bible considers it wrong....1, its up your ass, so youre not likely to come out clean or anything...2, back then nobody knew about the E-Coli Virus and the diseases of feces...so yeah...see my point? but back on topic...it doesnt matter...people dress how they want to dress...to a limit. i honestly think that if you are in that skimpy outfit but showing yourself off to guys in such ways as lifting your shirt for them or whatever then yeah....i could see you being a slut...but your sexual preferances doesnt make you anything...it just makes you preferable to certain types of pleasure
|
|
|
Post by Aristotle on Jun 20, 2005 13:33:04 GMT -5
i agree. sexual prefrences should be up to the individual and definitely not the church. however, if a girl wears a 12 inch skirt, that is pretty slutty. if they want to show off the goods, then it should be no suprise if they are hitted on constantly. if they are going to dress like a slut, they are either a slut or an idiot.
|
|