Kentucky to allow public schools to teach from the bible

[Victorian Gray]

When I took western civilization we looked at different religions and how they affected the different cultures. Even in Europe, religious philosophy played a major role in different cultures from Romans to Catholics, to Vikings, Greeks, Normans, Celts, etc.

For instance, what exactly did St Patrick do?

Something along these lines apparently:

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I think you're missing my point. I'm not trying to turn this into a statement about 'facts over fiction' in the context of any current controversy (such as global warming). Most religions are a mix of facts and fiction. For example it's generally agreed that Biblical figures like Jesus and Paul (earlier Saul) of Tarsus were real people..

No, there's no evidence to suggest that Jesus ever existed. If he did then he made absolutely zero mark on the world around him. Not a single person who was in those place at that time talked to him, recorded his existence or mentioned him in any way. The first mention of him was more than 50 years later and it was recorded as a dream. And therein lies the problem with some people trying to pass off religions as a "mix of facts and fiction" because that phrase can mean anything between "nearly 100% true with some poetic license tossed in" to "99.99999999% pure bullshit set in real places and mentioning a couple of real people." Every major religion in the world today (and for that matter every major religion in the world ever) is the latter. They are not in any way, shape or form a mix of facts and fiction. They're all 99.99999999% pure bullshit with just enough real places and recognizable names to fool the monumentally stupid into believing that parts will be true because the places exist.

 

[glenn1]

While I generally don't agree with @glenn1 on much of anything, (e.g. Climate change, politics, etc) I actually don't have an issue with this post if I'm understanding it correctly.


He's simply saying religion has factually been a part of history and has a place to be taught in history class but that those who teach it may use incorrectly use that subject as a chance to proselytize.

In my own experience my HS European history class definitely discussed the role of the church as it affected European history. In a couple of college level history classes on the history of western technology, religion was also tangentially touched on. Both times without it being proselytizing.

Thank you for taking the time to understand my point. I'd add art and literature classes to your list where the religious context is relevant and not limited to one religion (Islamic art is a worthy subject which should be taught far more in schools than it is now for example). Unfortunately the risk that folks won't be able to control their urges to proselytize is why we can't have nice things and why we have people in the U.S. who understand what all the panels on the Sistine Chapel ceiling are about much less the more 'exotic' knowledge like this:

 

[glenn1]

No, there's no evidence to suggest that Jesus ever existed. If he did then he made absolutely zero mark on the world around him. Not a single person who was in those place at that time talked to him, recorded his existence or mentioned him in any way. The first mention of him was more than 50 years later and it was recorded as a dream. And therein lies the problem with some people trying to pass off religions as a "mix of facts and fiction" because that phrase can mean anything between "nearly 100% true with some poetic license tossed in" to "99.99999999% pure bullshit set in real places and mentioning a couple of real people." Every major religion in the world today (and for that matter every major religion in the world ever) is the latter. They are not in any way, shape or form a mix of facts and fiction. They're all 99.99999999% pure bullshit with just enough real places and recognizable names to fool the monumentally stupid into believing that parts will be true because the places exist.

Most scholars who have opined feel differently about his existence but it's not completely relevant to the thread. Even if we assumed for sake of argument that he didn't the influence that "Jesus" had is certainly significant enough to warrant mention for contextual purposes at relevant times. It would be hard to teach about the Inquisition or Protestant Reformation for example without understanding some principles of Christianity. Ditto the role of Confucianism in world history, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Most scholars who have opined feel differently about his existence but it's not completely relevant to the thread. Even if we assumed for sake of argument that he didn't the influence that "Jesus" had is certainly significant enough to warrant mention for contextual purposes at relevant times. It would be hard to teach about the Inquisition or Protestant Reformation for example without understanding some principles of Christianity. Ditto the role of Confucianism in world history, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Rather than blindly posting links try reading and understanding them.

...There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus....

Three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[39] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus....

...Josephus' [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews']Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ[/URL]

[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_historiography']Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116),[/URL]



That's where intelligent people dismiss Jesus. ALL writings that mention a person named Jesus come from 50 to hundreds of years later. No living person every claimed to have met Jesus, no living person recorded the existence of Jesus and no person even met or interviewed a person who claimed to have met Jesus. A person that preached to thousands and was put to death for rabble rousing and rose from the dead was not mentioned by anyone who live at that time in that place. And even if you discount the supernatural aspects and try to pass it off as just some guy who wasn't a god it still fails utterly. There are records of other criminals appearing before other tribunals who were crucified for other crimes at those times and in those places. But nothing exists of Jesus. NOTHING. Every single aspect of his supposedly life is folk lore from that region involving other people. They were just changed to use his name rather than Mithras and Zoroaster and Attas of Phrygia and the other pseudo-gods that Christians stole to invent Jesus.

And if it's not relevant to this thread, why did you use it in the first place? Because you thought it helped make a point you wanted to make and instead it's the opposite.

 

[BurnItDwn]

As long as they only teach the old testamen and not any of that stupidnew testament crap! Also, we should also teach HP Lovecraft as nonfiction.

 

[Younigue]

Thought, philosophy, discovery, sociology etc. are the tools with which to formally educate about history. What they were historically and what they are now. Religion bastardized these things to propel an agenda.

Teach humanity not religion.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I would remind everyone that even if you don't agree with a particular teaching, Lord knows I don't, hearing and understanding where a person is coming from facilitates a more dynamic and productive interaction with them. Too many people on these forums and in the world want to immediately resort to abasement and name calling as their go to reaction to someone with whom they do not agree.

 

[glenn1]

Rather than blindly posting links try reading and understanding them.

...There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus....

Three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[39] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus....

...Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ

Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116),



That's where intelligent people dismiss Jesus. ALL writings that mention a person named Jesus come from 50 to hundreds of years later. No living person every claimed to have met Jesus, no living person recorded the existence of Jesus and no person even met or interviewed a person who claimed to have met Jesus. A person that preached to thousands and was put to death for rabble rousing and rose from the dead was not mentioned by anyone who live at that time in that place. And even if you discount the supernatural aspects and try to pass it off as just some guy who wasn't a god it still fails utterly. There are records of other criminals appearing before other tribunals who were crucified for other crimes at those times and in those places. But nothing exists of Jesus. NOTHING. Every single aspect of his supposedly life is folk lore from that region involving other people. They were just changed to use his name rather than Mithras and Zoroaster and Attas of Phrygia and the other pseudo-gods that Christians stole to invent Jesus.

And if it's not relevant to this thread, why did you use it in the first place? Because you thought it helped make a point you wanted to make and instead it's the opposite.

Yeah, I suppose the razing of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD doesn't play into the archeological evidence at all, hell we only know Pontius Pilate existed because of a single artifact and he would have been a 'bigger deal' to have left contemporaneous records in the day than Jesus by far . Again, I have no real dog in the fight about Jesus "real" or not. It's hardly some grand stretch of the imagination to believe that a rabble raising messianic rabbi with a relatively common name like Yeshua (ישוע) actually existed and was killed by the Romans around that time frame. Saying this doesn't mean you're ascribing the resurrection or other bible stories to him or proclaiming his divinity as the Christ.