Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christian philosophy in government and school

Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.
Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 9:27:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why are Christian "morals" better? What are Christian "morals?" Are they just things that you pick and chose out of the Bible, or is it everything?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 10:01:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.

Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

The first amendment doesn't merely prohibit the federal government from establishing a religion, it prohibits it from passing any law having anything to do with religion. Any law which respects an establishment of religion (a specific church, doctrine, or religion) is unconstitutional. Read it before you attempt to interpret it.

Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

No, that phrase comes from a letter written by THOMAS JEFFERSON, explaining exactly how the First Amendment works to the Danbury Baptists. I'll go with Thomas Jefferson's understanding of the Constitution over someone who (rather obviously) isn't overly familiar with it any day.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
http://www.loc.gov...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 10:12:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.

Well that's bumpkiss obviously. Teaching Christian philosophy as valid and true (as opposed to historically or anthropologically covering it) shows obvious favor to it above any and all other religious orientations. If I wanted to sneak my religion into the public sphere I wouldn't go that route. I'd jump in from a state's rights perspective, arguing that the Bill of Rights only applies to the treatment of individuals by Congress.

Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

It's actually pretty clear i.e., Establishment Clause.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:56:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.
Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

Well, if you're so right, then you'd be able to reach the same conclusions, consistently, from a different angle of approach. This is kind of how science and universally applicable laws of the universe work.

So, IF you are right, then the education system would already end up doing this anyway (since schools teach known facts and our best possible answers to questions), and your intervention is not needed.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 9:09:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 10:01:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.

Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

The first amendment doesn't merely prohibit the federal government from establishing a religion, it prohibits it from passing any law having anything to do with religion. Any law which respects an establishment of religion (a specific church, doctrine, or religion) is unconstitutional. Read it before you attempt to interpret it.

Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

No, that phrase comes from a letter written by THOMAS JEFFERSON, explaining exactly how the First Amendment works to the Danbury Baptists. I'll go with Thomas Jefferson's understanding of the Constitution over someone who (rather obviously) isn't overly familiar with it any day.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
http://www.loc.gov...

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." This actually supports my point. The plan being referred to would just use the philosophies, and would have nothing to do with making Christianity a national religion. In addition, this forum is in the society column. It simply says that the society should change by the schools and government thinking according to the Bible philosophy.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 9:10:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:27:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Why are Christian "morals" better? What are Christian "morals?" Are they just things that you pick and chose out of the Bible, or is it everything?

Christian morals:
Anywhere it condemns gays
Anywhere it condemns sex before marriage
Anywhere it condemns murder
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 9:13:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:56:36 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.
Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

Well, if you're so right, then you'd be able to reach the same conclusions, consistently, from a different angle of approach. This is kind of how science and universally applicable laws of the universe work.

So, IF you are right, then the education system would already end up doing this anyway (since schools teach known facts and our best possible answers to questions), and your intervention is not needed.

This forum is not about teaching creationism or converting people to Christians. It is simply advocating using Biblical philosophies and principles to educate students on right and wrong, sex before marriage, gays, etc. It also involves using the Bible to defend points in Congress.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 9:18:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 9:09:00 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 4/16/2013 10:01:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.

Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

The first amendment doesn't merely prohibit the federal government from establishing a religion, it prohibits it from passing any law having anything to do with religion. Any law which respects an establishment of religion (a specific church, doctrine, or religion) is unconstitutional. Read it before you attempt to interpret it.

Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

No, that phrase comes from a letter written by THOMAS JEFFERSON, explaining exactly how the First Amendment works to the Danbury Baptists. I'll go with Thomas Jefferson's understanding of the Constitution over someone who (rather obviously) isn't overly familiar with it any day.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
http://www.loc.gov...

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." This actually supports my point. The plan being referred to would just use the philosophies, and would have nothing to do with making Christianity a national religion. In addition, this forum is in the society column. It simply says that the society should change by the schools and government thinking according to the Bible philosophy.

The First Ammendment has nothing to do with making Christianity the national religion. No conclusive legal authority has ever interpreted it to mean that, the founders never interpreted it to mean that. The First Amendment was meant to bar the government from all involvement in religion. Read the Jefferson quote, where he lays out his reasoning. Religion is between a man and his God. You cannot say 'just use the philosophy!', because you are still giving preference to one religion over another. There are many different philosophies within Christianity; this is why the Jehovah's Witnesses actually spearheaded a lot of the removal of prayers and bibles from school: they were bibles and prayers which their sect considered wrong.

By the way, are you a conservative? Would you agree with these premises:

P1. The government tends to do things in a corrupt, inefficient, and altogether bad manner when compared to private institutions.

P2. The religious and philosophical education of any children of mine is an issue which is valuable to me and ought to be done well.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 10:44:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.
Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

Why is the divorce rate too high? It is far less than 50%, as is often cited.

It is closer to 10-15% in my opinion, as the number of marriages that occur in any given year are about twice as many as divorces, but this does not take into account existing marriages before the year in question.

For example:
Year 1 has 1,000 marriages, and 500 divorces = 50% divorce rate.
Year 2 has 1,000 marriages and 500 divorces = 33% divorce rate (as there were 1,000 marriages this year plus the 500 from last year, yet only 500 divorces) (I suppose this could also be a 40% total divorce rate. (total divorces/total marriages).

Either way, it is far less than 50%, and most years, it seems, the stat would be less than 50% anyway.
http://www.census.gov...
My work here is, finally, done.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:18:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 10:44:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.
Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

Why is the divorce rate too high? It is far less than 50%, as is often cited.

It is closer to 10-15% in my opinion, as the number of marriages that occur in any given year are about twice as many as divorces, but this does not take into account existing marriages before the year in question.

For example:
Year 1 has 1,000 marriages, and 500 divorces = 50% divorce rate.
Year 2 has 1,000 marriages and 500 divorces = 33% divorce rate (as there were 1,000 marriages this year plus the 500 from last year, yet only 500 divorces) (I suppose this could also be a 40% total divorce rate. (total divorces/total marriages).

Either way, it is far less than 50%, and most years, it seems, the stat would be less than 50% anyway.
http://www.census.gov...

Regardless of the number, divorce rates are far too high, and people should learn that marriage is lifelong. People are far too quick to scream divorce.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 11:20:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 9:18:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/17/2013 9:09:00 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 4/16/2013 10:01:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.

Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

The first amendment doesn't merely prohibit the federal government from establishing a religion, it prohibits it from passing any law having anything to do with religion. Any law which respects an establishment of religion (a specific church, doctrine, or religion) is unconstitutional. Read it before you attempt to interpret it.

Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

No, that phrase comes from a letter written by THOMAS JEFFERSON, explaining exactly how the First Amendment works to the Danbury Baptists. I'll go with Thomas Jefferson's understanding of the Constitution over someone who (rather obviously) isn't overly familiar with it any day.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
http://www.loc.gov...

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." This actually supports my point. The plan being referred to would just use the philosophies, and would have nothing to do with making Christianity a national religion. In addition, this forum is in the society column. It simply says that the society should change by the schools and government thinking according to the Bible philosophy.

The First Ammendment has nothing to do with making Christianity the national religion. No conclusive legal authority has ever interpreted it to mean that, the founders never interpreted it to mean that. The First Amendment was meant to bar the government from all involvement in religion. Read the Jefferson quote, where he lays out his reasoning. Religion is between a man and his God. You cannot say 'just use the philosophy!', because you are still giving preference to one religion over another. There are many different philosophies within Christianity; this is why the Jehovah's Witnesses actually spearheaded a lot of the removal of prayers and bibles from school: they were bibles and prayers which their sect considered wrong.

By the way, are you a conservative? Would you agree with these premises:

P1. The government tends to do things in a corrupt, inefficient, and altogether bad manner when compared to private institutions.

P2. The religious and philosophical education of any children of mine is an issue which is valuable to me and ought to be done well.

I am conservative. I agree that the government is corrupt and inefficient. And I agree that the education of my children is important and valuable to me and my children(though I have none at this time) and should be done well. This is why I would teach my children according to the bible and would probably teach through homeschooling in the primary education years so that they would learn the morals that I find important that the public schools no longer seem to teach.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 5:58:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 11:20:40 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 9:18:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/17/2013 9:09:00 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 4/16/2013 10:01:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.

Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

The first amendment doesn't merely prohibit the federal government from establishing a religion, it prohibits it from passing any law having anything to do with religion. Any law which respects an establishment of religion (a specific church, doctrine, or religion) is unconstitutional. Read it before you attempt to interpret it.

Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

No, that phrase comes from a letter written by THOMAS JEFFERSON, explaining exactly how the First Amendment works to the Danbury Baptists. I'll go with Thomas Jefferson's understanding of the Constitution over someone who (rather obviously) isn't overly familiar with it any day.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
http://www.loc.gov...

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." This actually supports my point. The plan being referred to would just use the philosophies, and would have nothing to do with making Christianity a national religion. In addition, this forum is in the society column. It simply says that the society should change by the schools and government thinking according to the Bible philosophy.

The First Ammendment has nothing to do with making Christianity the national religion. No conclusive legal authority has ever interpreted it to mean that, the founders never interpreted it to mean that. The First Amendment was meant to bar the government from all involvement in religion. Read the Jefferson quote, where he lays out his reasoning. Religion is between a man and his God. You cannot say 'just use the philosophy!', because you are still giving preference to one religion over another. There are many different philosophies within Christianity; this is why the Jehovah's Witnesses actually spearheaded a lot of the removal of prayers and bibles from school: they were bibles and prayers which their sect considered wrong.

By the way, are you a conservative? Would you agree with these premises:

P1. The government tends to do things in a corrupt, inefficient, and altogether bad manner when compared to private institutions.

P2. The religious and philosophical education of any children of mine is an issue which is valuable to me and ought to be done well.

I am conservative. I agree that the government is corrupt and inefficient. And I agree that the education of my children is important and valuable to me and my children(though I have none at this time) and should be done well. This is why I would teach my children according to the bible and would probably teach through homeschooling in the primary education years so that they would learn the morals that I find important that the public schools no longer seem to teach.

If the government is corrupt and inefficient, and your children's religious and ethical education is important to you, then why do you want the government to provide said education to your children?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sadolite
Posts: 8,841
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:09:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:27:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Why are Christian "morals" better? What are Christian "morals?" Are they just things that you pick and chose out of the Bible, or is it everything?

Lets make it simple, Put the ten commandments back on the walls and let kids read the bible and offer classes that teach the bible and just see what happens. No child has to to anything he or she doesn't want to. But at the same time they have to tolerate the other students who do and vise verse. If there were improvements in personal behavior, higher test scores, less drug use would you accept it? Clearly removing the ten commandments and banning the bible and classes that teach the bible hasn't improved anything, things have only gotten worse.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:37:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:09:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:27:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Why are Christian "morals" better? What are Christian "morals?" Are they just things that you pick and chose out of the Bible, or is it everything?

Lets make it simple, Put the ten commandments back on the walls and let kids read the bible and offer classes that teach the bible and just see what happens. No child has to to anything he or she doesn't want to. But at the same time they have to tolerate the other students who do and vise verse. If there were improvements in personal behavior, higher test scores, less drug use would you accept it? Clearly removing the ten commandments and banning the bible and classes that teach the bible hasn't improved anything, things have only gotten worse.

Kids are allowed to read a bible in school. If someone stopped your kid from doing so, contact the ACLU and they'll sue for you in split second. Which version of the bible will you use? You do realize that some of the earliest proponents who advocated the removal of religion from schools were Jehovah's Witnesses who thought that their children were being taught a version of Christianity which contradicted the beliefs of the parents? Most importantly: why do you think that government generally does a bad job and should mind it's own business, but then advocate for them to take over the religious and moral education of everyone's children? What happened to parental rights? Wouldn't advocating for school vouchers instead allow parents to choose for themselves what type of moral upbringing they wish their children to be subjected to? How can you claim with a straight face to advocate freedom and impose government intrusion, while then advocating that the government inject itself into what should be the most sacred and well-guarded aspect of every parent's private sphere: the rearing of their children?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:38:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:37:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2013 8:09:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:27:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Why are Christian "morals" better? What are Christian "morals?" Are they just things that you pick and chose out of the Bible, or is it everything?

Lets make it simple, Put the ten commandments back on the walls and let kids read the bible and offer classes that teach the bible and just see what happens. No child has to to anything he or she doesn't want to. But at the same time they have to tolerate the other students who do and vise verse. If there were improvements in personal behavior, higher test scores, less drug use would you accept it? Clearly removing the ten commandments and banning the bible and classes that teach the bible hasn't improved anything, things have only gotten worse.

Kids are allowed to read a bible in school. If someone stopped your kid from doing so, contact the ACLU and they'll sue for you in split second. Which version of the bible will you use? You do realize that some of the earliest proponents who advocated the removal of religion from schools were Jehovah's Witnesses who thought that their children were being taught a version of Christianity which contradicted the beliefs of the parents? Most importantly: why do you think that government generally does a bad job and should mind it's own business, but then advocate for them to take over the religious and moral education of everyone's children? What happened to parental rights? Wouldn't advocating for school vouchers instead allow parents to choose for themselves what type of moral upbringing they wish their children to be subjected to? How can you claim with a straight face to advocate freedom and oppose government intrusion, and then advocate that the government inject itself into what should be the most sacred and well-guarded aspect of every parent's private sphere: the rearing of their children?

fix'd
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:48:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 5:58:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:20:40 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 9:18:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/17/2013 9:09:00 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 4/16/2013 10:01:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.

Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

The first amendment doesn't merely prohibit the federal government from establishing a religion, it prohibits it from passing any law having anything to do with religion. Any law which respects an establishment of religion (a specific church, doctrine, or religion) is unconstitutional. Read it before you attempt to interpret it.

Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

No, that phrase comes from a letter written by THOMAS JEFFERSON, explaining exactly how the First Amendment works to the Danbury Baptists. I'll go with Thomas Jefferson's understanding of the Constitution over someone who (rather obviously) isn't overly familiar with it any day.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
http://www.loc.gov...

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." This actually supports my point. The plan being referred to would just use the philosophies, and would have nothing to do with making Christianity a national religion. In addition, this forum is in the society column. It simply says that the society should change by the schools and government thinking according to the Bible philosophy.

The First Ammendment has nothing to do with making Christianity the national religion. No conclusive legal authority has ever interpreted it to mean that, the founders never interpreted it to mean that. The First Amendment was meant to bar the government from all involvement in religion. Read the Jefferson quote, where he lays out his reasoning. Religion is between a man and his God. You cannot say 'just use the philosophy!', because you are still giving preference to one religion over another. There are many different philosophies within Christianity; this is why the Jehovah's Witnesses actually spearheaded a lot of the removal of prayers and bibles from school: they were bibles and prayers which their sect considered wrong.

By the way, are you a conservative? Would you agree with these premises:

P1. The government tends to do things in a corrupt, inefficient, and altogether bad manner when compared to private institutions.

P2. The religious and philosophical education of any children of mine is an issue which is valuable to me and ought to be done well.

I am conservative. I agree that the government is corrupt and inefficient. And I agree that the education of my children is important and valuable to me and my children(though I have none at this time) and should be done well. This is why I would teach my children according to the bible and would probably teach through homeschooling in the primary education years so that they would learn the morals that I find important that the public schools no longer seem to teach.

If the government is corrupt and inefficient, and your children's religious and ethical education is important to you, then why do you want the government to provide said education to your children?

Because it is all part of my plan to raise my children correctly and have them teach their morals at school. I want my children to influence the other students on opinions from gay rights and abortion to taxing and war. What would be the point of teaching my kids the correct way if they cannot pass the knowledge along.
I also do not care who they offend. I would happily go to the counseling office everyday to defend my children and support them.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:53:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:37:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2013 8:09:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:27:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Why are Christian "morals" better? What are Christian "morals?" Are they just things that you pick and chose out of the Bible, or is it everything?

Lets make it simple, Put the ten commandments back on the walls and let kids read the bible and offer classes that teach the bible and just see what happens. No child has to to anything he or she doesn't want to. But at the same time they have to tolerate the other students who do and vise verse. If there were improvements in personal behavior, higher test scores, less drug use would you accept it? Clearly removing the ten commandments and banning the bible and classes that teach the bible hasn't improved anything, things have only gotten worse.

Kids are allowed to read a bible in school. If someone stopped your kid from doing so, contact the ACLU and they'll sue for you in split second. Which version of the bible will you use? You do realize that some of the earliest proponents who advocated the removal of religion from schools were Jehovah's Witnesses who thought that their children were being taught a version of Christianity which contradicted the beliefs of the parents? Most importantly: why do you think that government generally does a bad job and should mind it's own business, but then advocate for them to take over the religious and moral education of everyone's children? What happened to parental rights? Wouldn't advocating for school vouchers instead allow parents to choose for themselves what type of moral upbringing they wish their children to be subjected to? How can you claim with a straight face to advocate freedom and impose government intrusion, while then advocating that the government inject itself into what should be the most sacred and well-guarded aspect of every parent's private sphere: the rearing of their children?

I can agree with the school vouchers, but his plan does not involve intrusion by the government. He simply said offer the classes. People do not have to accept them. Furthermore, six out of ten of the ten commandments talk about how you are supposed to treat others. Only the first four actually ever really talk about adopting a religion.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 2:27:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 10:44:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.
Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

Why is the divorce rate too high? It is far less than 50%, as is often cited.

It is closer to 10-15% in my opinion, as the number of marriages that occur in any given year are about twice as many as divorces, but this does not take into account existing marriages before the year in question.

For example:
Year 1 has 1,000 marriages, and 500 divorces = 50% divorce rate.
Year 2 has 1,000 marriages and 500 divorces = 33% divorce rate (as there were 1,000 marriages this year plus the 500 from last year, yet only 500 divorces) (I suppose this could also be a 40% total divorce rate. (total divorces/total marriages).

Either way, it is far less than 50%, and most years, it seems, the stat would be less than 50% anyway.
http://www.census.gov...

Khaos, recheck your math. You wouldn't get to count each marriage again every year...You have a total of 2,000 marriages, and 1,000 divorces. That, to me, is a 50% divorce rate: 50% of the total number of marriages ceased to exist.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 2:31:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Cowboy:

You're being disingenuous when you pretend that you're just talking about "philosophy".

I find your opinion on the gays repugnant. Who should win? If you think that kids should be taught gays are bad, why? Just because your god says so?

That's pretty much the definition of having your religion established.

sadolite:

Your argument is "Just indoctrinate them in my religion, and let's see if they do better". How about we put the Koran in every classroom and see? Or the Talmud? Or Hitchens' "God is Not Great "plastered on the walls?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 3:07:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 2:27:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:44:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that the government should use the Christian philosophy to help make decisions, particularly moral. For example, the definition of marriage, gays, and abortion.
I also believe that schools should teach what the bible says about abstinence and divorce. Our divorce rate is far too high. This is not what marriage is about and we should teach that divorce should be the last, last option.
I do not see how this could make society any worse.
No, I do not plan to teach creationism in school or teach that Noah built an ark(I believe it), I just believe that we should teach the morals.
Note: This is not going to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion and cannot pass any law that prevents the practice of a religion. This does not establish a national religion or prevent the practice of any religion.
Note 2: No where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state.

Why is the divorce rate too high? It is far less than 50%, as is often cited.

It is closer to 10-15% in my opinion, as the number of marriages that occur in any given year are about twice as many as divorces, but this does not take into account existing marriages before the year in question.

For example:
Year 1 has 1,000 marriages, and 500 divorces = 50% divorce rate.
Year 2 has 1,000 marriages and 500 divorces = 33% divorce rate (as there were 1,000 marriages this year plus the 500 from last year, yet only 500 divorces) (I suppose this could also be a 40% total divorce rate. (total divorces/total marriages).

Either way, it is far less than 50%, and most years, it seems, the stat would be less than 50% anyway.
http://www.census.gov...

Khaos, recheck your math. You wouldn't get to count each marriage again every year...You have a total of 2,000 marriages, and 1,000 divorces. That, to me, is a 50% divorce rate: 50% of the total number of marriages ceased to exist.

Perhaps you're right.
I have thoroughly confused myself here...

I supposed my stat of 33% would be the divorce rate of year 2/existing marriages.
But, if I spend half of what I have every day:
Day 1, earn 2, spend 1
Day 2 earn 2, had 1, so I must spend 1.5
(think of earning as marriage certificates issued that year, had being marriages that weren't divorced in prior years, and spending is the number of divorces)

What am I missing here???
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 9:33:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 10:48:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Because it is all part of my plan to raise my children correctly and have them teach their morals at school. I want my children to influence the other students on opinions from gay rights and abortion to taxing and war. What would be the point of teaching my kids the correct way if they cannot pass the knowledge along.
I also do not care who they offend. I would happily go to the counseling office everyday to defend my children and support them.

So, basically, you want everyone indoctrinated into not being a Christian fundamentalist exactly, but someone who believes the same things that one would. Such as:

Teacher: Homosexuality is BAD AND IMMORAL AND YOU'LL GO TO HELL FOR IT! UFERHIDJNCKDUIESCNJKNUIDWHEICONIOEFRR
Student 1: Homosexuality is bad and immoral? Gays must not deserve rights, then.
Student 2: Yeah, they don't deserve rights!

Why not give them the facts that we know and let them reach their own conclusions? Such as:

Teacher: Nobody is entirely sure what causes homosexuality, but they aren't much different other than their sexual preference.
Student 1: Hmm, if we don't know the cause, then we might as well leave them alone and let them do what they want. After all, it might just be the way they are.
Student 2: It could be a chosen behavior. I would hesitate to give them too much room.

But no, it is clear that you hate free thought and the First Amendment, so you wish to get around it by saying that it is "just the philosophy". No, we'll leave any "philosophy" out and give them known facts, and let them come to their own conclusion.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 11:05:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 9:33:13 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:48:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Because it is all part of my plan to raise my children correctly and have them teach their morals at school. I want my children to influence the other students on opinions from gay rights and abortion to taxing and war. What would be the point of teaching my kids the correct way if they cannot pass the knowledge along.
I also do not care who they offend. I would happily go to the counseling office everyday to defend my children and support them.

So, basically, you want everyone indoctrinated into not being a Christian fundamentalist exactly, but someone who believes the same things that one would. Such as:

Teacher: Homosexuality is BAD AND IMMORAL AND YOU'LL GO TO HELL FOR IT! UFERHIDJNCKDUIESCNJKNUIDWHEICONIOEFRR
Student 1: Homosexuality is bad and immoral? Gays must not deserve rights, then.
Student 2: Yeah, they don't deserve rights!

Why not give them the facts that we know and let them reach their own conclusions? Such as:

Teacher: Nobody is entirely sure what causes homosexuality, but they aren't much different other than their sexual preference.
Student 1: Hmm, if we don't know the cause, then we might as well leave them alone and let them do what they want. After all, it might just be the way they are.
Student 2: It could be a chosen behavior. I would hesitate to give them too much room.

But no, it is clear that you hate free thought and the First Amendment, so you wish to get around it by saying that it is "just the philosophy". No, we'll leave any "philosophy" out and give them known facts, and let them come to their own conclusion.

First, my idea does not go against the first amendment. I do not say that we should teach children that God created the heavens and the Earth. I AM saying that schools and society should look at Biblical philosophy, because even if one is not a Christian the Bible, particularly the old testament, is a book of philosophy. Since I have found that you are not Christian, my argument for being gay as being a choice would not be effective on you, so I will speak about abortion, sex before marriage, and divorce.
Abortion: The Bible does not condone murder, but society apparently does. What did the baby do wrong?
Sex before marriage: Sex is supposed to be something married adults do. It loses all significance if people just sleep around. If schools use the Bible, they can teach abstinence.
Divorce: Marriage was originally supposed to be permanent and lifelong. Just as the Bible says so. Society should stop condoning divorce and make marriage permanent again.

I believe that being gay is a choice
Reasoning:
1. This would not affect an atheist but it would affect Christians.
God created all people.
Leviticus states that homosexuality is an "abomination"
If people are born gay, God made them an "abomination"
God making someone an abomination would be like saying that a parent who could choose their child's trait would choose for them to be a serial killer.
Therefore, God would not choose for his creation to be an abomination. Which means that people are not born gay.
This means that being gay must be a choice.
2. This reasoning goes toward both.
In ancient Greece, being gay was socially acceptable. More people were gay. In nineteenth century America, gays would be written out of the family. Less people were gay. Now, being gay is socially acceptable and more people are gay. I highly doubt that gay people stopped being born gay in nineteenth century America and started again today. People become gay when society accepts it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 11:09:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 11:05:54 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 9:33:13 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:48:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Because it is all part of my plan to raise my children correctly and have them teach their morals at school. I want my children to influence the other students on opinions from gay rights and abortion to taxing and war. What would be the point of teaching my kids the correct way if they cannot pass the knowledge along.
I also do not care who they offend. I would happily go to the counseling office everyday to defend my children and support them.

So, basically, you want everyone indoctrinated into not being a Christian fundamentalist exactly, but someone who believes the same things that one would. Such as:

Teacher: Homosexuality is BAD AND IMMORAL AND YOU'LL GO TO HELL FOR IT! UFERHIDJNCKDUIESCNJKNUIDWHEICONIOEFRR
Student 1: Homosexuality is bad and immoral? Gays must not deserve rights, then.
Student 2: Yeah, they don't deserve rights!

Why not give them the facts that we know and let them reach their own conclusions? Such as:

Teacher: Nobody is entirely sure what causes homosexuality, but they aren't much different other than their sexual preference.
Student 1: Hmm, if we don't know the cause, then we might as well leave them alone and let them do what they want. After all, it might just be the way they are.
Student 2: It could be a chosen behavior. I would hesitate to give them too much room.

But no, it is clear that you hate free thought and the First Amendment, so you wish to get around it by saying that it is "just the philosophy". No, we'll leave any "philosophy" out and give them known facts, and let them come to their own conclusion.

First, my idea does not go against the first amendment. I do not say that we should teach children that God created the heavens and the Earth. I AM saying that schools and society should look at Biblical philosophy, because even if one is not a Christian the Bible, particularly the old testament, is a book of philosophy. Since I have found that you are not Christian, my argument for being gay as being a choice would not be effective on you, so I will speak about abortion, sex before marriage, and divorce.
Abortion: The Bible does not condone murder, but society apparently does. What did the baby do wrong?
Sex before marriage: Sex is supposed to be something married adults do. It loses all significance if people just sleep around. If schools use the Bible, they can teach abstinence.
Divorce: Marriage was originally supposed to be permanent and lifelong. Just as the Bible says so. Society should stop condoning divorce and make marriage permanent again.

I believe that being gay is a choice
Reasoning:
1. This would not affect an atheist but it would affect Christians.
God created all people.
Leviticus states that homosexuality is an "abomination"
If people are born gay, God made them an "abomination"
God making someone an abomination would be like saying that a parent who could choose their child's trait would choose for them to be a serial killer.
Therefore, God would not choose for his creation to be an abomination. Which means that people are not born gay.
This means that being gay must be a choice.
2. This reasoning goes toward both.
In ancient Greece, being gay was socially acceptable. More people were gay. In nineteenth century America, gays would be written out of the family. Less people were gay. Now, being gay is socially acceptable and more people are gay. I highly doubt that gay people stopped being born gay in nineteenth century America and started again today. People become gay when society accepts it.

You are setting the Bible as the standard for morality, then turning around and saying "Wait, the Bible is the only source that teaches this kind of stuff."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 11:27:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 3:07:10 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

What am I missing here???

Long tangental math post!

You're confusing your terminology by recounting a marriage as a new thing every year, instead of a theoretically persistent item.

If someone "spends half their money" (note the difference in phrasing),

Day 1, earn 2, spend 1
Day 2, earn 2, spend 1

They have half the money they would otherwise have: They have earned a total of 4, but they have spent 2: their total money is half of what they would have if they spent no money.

Now, if you spend half of what you have every day, that's something else. You're basically setting a limit on the system of 100% (never quite staying at it.)

Day 1, earn 2, spend 1
Day 2, earn 2 (have 1), spend 1.5
...
Day 15, earn 2 (have 1.999511719), spend 1.999511719, left with 1.999511719
And so on.

Now, we earned $30. No one would think that having $1.999511719 left is "half your money".

If I say "I spent half of my money", and I earned $30, I spent 15 bucks.

The statistic is "Half of all marriages end in divorce", not that "the divorce rate of every year is 50% of total divorces", because if it was, we would have basically no solvent marriages, we'd have a number slightly less than 100% of the yearly average (the 100% being the limit of the system). That's clearly not what people are meaning.

When we are saying the divorce rate is 50% (Which I don't know is true, I'll be honest, I didn't follow your link, we're just talking about your idealized example), we are saying that 50% of the total number of marriages end in divorce. We aren't saying that every year, 50% of all marriages that exist end in divorce, because that would be ridiculous. We're saying that on average, taking the total number of marriages ever (or perhaps over a modern time period) as 100%, 50% have since become divorces.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 11:35:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 11:05:54 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
First, my idea does not go against the first amendment. I do not say that we should teach children that God created the heavens and the Earth. I AM saying that schools and society should look at Biblical philosophy, because even if one is not a Christian the Bible, particularly the old testament, is a book of philosophy.

Only in the sense it's a book that outlines a theory of Divine Command Theory. There is no actual justification for any commandments in the OT, chief, other than that God Commanded It.

Since I have found that you are not Christian, my argument for being gay as being a choice would not be effective on you, so I will speak about abortion, sex before marriage, and divorce.

So gays are no longer something you want to teach?

Abortion: The Bible does not condone murder, but society apparently does. What did the baby do wrong?

It's not a baby. It's a collection of cells that will eventually, left to its own parasitic devices within the mother, become a baby.

Sex before marriage: Sex is supposed to be something married adults do.

Why?

It loses all significance if people just sleep around. If schools use the Bible, they can teach abstinence.

Well, schools already teach abstinence. and it doesn't work. At ALL. That's been pretty well shown. But because idiots don't want their kids to know actual facts (such as there's no basis other than Divine Command to say what sex is SUPPOSED to be, but that there are both emotional and physical risks and aspects that should be taken into account when making ones own choice on the matter), we don't teach them facts, we teach them "Abstinence durr hurr."

Divorce: Marriage was originally supposed to be permanent and lifelong. Just as the Bible says so. Society should stop condoning divorce and make marriage permanent again.

You'are advocating outlawing divorce? Well, at least it's not hypocritical, I suppose. But good fricking luck. Marriage, separated from your god, is simply a social contract. Contracts can be dissolved.

I believe that being gay is a choice
Reasoning:
1. This would not affect an atheist but it would affect Christians.

Okay, so this arugment is meaningless, since you can't assert Christianity. It's also circular. "My book is true, therefore that can't be true, solely because my book is true".

2. This reasoning goes toward both.
In ancient Greece, being gay was socially acceptable. More people were gay. In nineteenth century America, gays would be written out of the family. Less people were gay. Now, being gay is socially acceptable and more people are gay. I highly doubt that gay people stopped being born gay in nineteenth century America and started again today. People become gay when society accepts it.

No. People admit to being gay when they aren't persecuted for it. There's a difference. You really think gays didn't exist in nineteenth century america? Really?!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 2:37:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 11:05:54 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 9:33:13 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/18/2013 10:48:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Because it is all part of my plan to raise my children correctly and have them teach their morals at school. I want my children to influence the other students on opinions from gay rights and abortion to taxing and war. What would be the point of teaching my kids the correct way if they cannot pass the knowledge along.
I also do not care who they offend. I would happily go to the counseling office everyday to defend my children and support them.

So, basically, you want everyone indoctrinated into not being a Christian fundamentalist exactly, but someone who believes the same things that one would. Such as:

Teacher: Homosexuality is BAD AND IMMORAL AND YOU'LL GO TO HELL FOR IT! UFERHIDJNCKDUIESCNJKNUIDWHEICONIOEFRR
Student 1: Homosexuality is bad and immoral? Gays must not deserve rights, then.
Student 2: Yeah, they don't deserve rights!

Why not give them the facts that we know and let them reach their own conclusions? Such as:

Teacher: Nobody is entirely sure what causes homosexuality, but they aren't much different other than their sexual preference.
Student 1: Hmm, if we don't know the cause, then we might as well leave them alone and let them do what they want. After all, it might just be the way they are.
Student 2: It could be a chosen behavior. I would hesitate to give them too much room.

But no, it is clear that you hate free thought and the First Amendment, so you wish to get around it by saying that it is "just the philosophy". No, we'll leave any "philosophy" out and give them known facts, and let them come to their own conclusion.

First, my idea does not go against the first amendment. I do not say that we should teach children that God created the heavens and the Earth. I AM saying that schools and society should look at Biblical philosophy, because even if one is not a Christian the Bible, particularly the old testament, is a book of philosophy. Since I have found that you are not Christian, my argument for being gay as being a choice would not be effective on you, so I will speak about abortion, sex before marriage, and divorce.

Abortion: The Bible does not condone murder, but society apparently does. What did the fetus (fixed) do wrong?

First, you must prove that the fetus's life is more important than that of an animal. Humans possess a special trait that sets us apart from most species - self-awareness. Now, due to the nature of self-awareness as a psychological trait, it is hard to clearly define, so I'll describe it as your ability to perceive the world around you. It isn't your biological processes themselves p, but your ability to PERCEIVE them as YOU. Since you are a Christian, you could probably equate self-awareness with the concepts of a soul and free will. Its occurrence coincides with your first memories being recorded. Look back into your memories. Do you distinctly remember being born? If not, you didn't have self-awareness.

So fetuses do not possess this special trait. It is not gained until about age 2 or 3. So, why, then, is it not OK to kill an infant under this logic? With only the points brought up so fare, neither abortion nor infanticide are justified. The points I have brought up only show that nothing is being taken. It has to be shown that there could be a reason to do it as opposed to doing nothing in order for either to be justified.

It is very common knowledge that pregnancy is a burden on a woman. You'll have to ask a mother about this to ever understand it. Expect a rant lasting at least 1 hour. Though, again, this is not enough to justify abortion. Taking care of a baby is also a burden. The justification lies in the ways to deal with each situation. You can deal with a baby that you can't take care of by putting it up for adoption. However, for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, the only option is abortion, since another woman can't just "adopt" the fetus and give birth to it herself (unless the egg hasn't implanted yet, in which case it would actually be possible).

Where did I get this argument? Secular science.

Sex before marriage: Sex is supposed to be something married adults do. It loses all significance if people just sleep around. If schools use the Bible, they can teach abstinence.

Sex is supposed to be part of the human process known as "pair bonding", and part of reproduction. And might I point out how teaching abstinence was SO successful, that it INCREASED the teen pregnancy rates. You can't argue with that effectiveness!

Divorce: Marriage was originally supposed to be permanent and lifelong. Just as the Bible says so. Society should stop condoning divorce and make marriage permanent again.

Assertion. Different societies have defined marriage differently. Also, making rules based upon the bible like that is the very definition of theocracy.

I believe that being gay is a choice
For you to say that it is okay to indoctrinate people about being gay is bad, you'd have to do more reasoning than "the Bible says so". Saying that is no more valid than me writing "being gay is not a choice" on a piece of paper and saying that that is what we should teach.
Reasoning:
1. This would not affect an atheist but it would affect Christians.
God created all people.
You said you wouldn't teach that. Already broke your conditions.
Leviticus states that homosexuality is an "abomination"
Strike 2!
If people are born gay, God made them an "abomination"
So, if some time in the future, a study came out that definitely concluded one cause of homosexuality and that it is not a choice, it would disprove all of the Bible by defeating the premise that God is perfect.
God making someone an abomination would be like saying that a parent who could choose their child's trait would choose for them to be a serial killer.
Therefore, God would not choose for his creation to be an abomination. Which means that people are not born gay.
This means that being gay must be a choice.
No, it means you've made a bunch of assertions based on the bible, which is also a bunch of assertions.
2. This reasoning goes toward both.
In ancient Greece, being gay was socially acceptable. More people were gay. In nineteenth century America, gays would be written out of the family. Less people were gay. Now, being gay is socially acceptable and more people are gay. I highly doubt that gay people stopped being born gay in nineteenth century America and started again today. People become gay when society accepts it.
Or, maybe in America, gays fear persecution and remain closeted to prevent them from being persecuted for who they are. Or maybe in the 19th century, we killed a significant portion of them off by driving them to suicide. Correlation does not mean causation.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 3:48:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 11:27:31 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 3:07:10 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

What am I missing here???

Long tangental math post!

Thanks for that.
By the way, my link would have shown many years where the rate for the year (since the average of the years would give the same amount) for marriages is quite below twice the number of divorces. So, I haven't crunched the numbers, but I would wager it is probably around 30% or so. But, on the rise, it seems.
My work here is, finally, done.