"One State, Under God"

[FieryGoose]

Sorry if i come off as mocking you but, really in all seriousness does it not take faith to believe in something that you didn't personally experience? Some argue that God caused the big bang, either way it's my personal belief that due to the complexity of everything and how everything works together in perfect harmony, or at least theoretically it should, instead greed, selfishness, etc... cause a lot of chaos, basically that we're no accident. But thats a different place different time.

Also I wasn't referring to time as in the unit of measurement, but rather time as a concept. Definitely something very difficult to describe...

Isn't it only logical to start with the biggest chunk of people, sure minorities are going to be *wingdinging* a lot about it, but when don't they make a *wingding*? It's going to make the majority of people happy isn't that what it's all about?
Don't you think it's a little overkill to teach all the 1000's or religions and all their pieces of literature? I can understand teaching Buddhist literature, Islamic, Hindu but not ones that are going to be ignored by the vast majority of Texans. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Sui]

Fuss. Yeah. That word is deep.

 

[Jintor]

Sorry if i come off as mocking you but, really in all seriousness does it not take faith to believe in something that you didn't personally experience? Some argue that God caused the big bang, either way it's my personal belief that due to the complexity of everything and how everything works together in perfect harmony, or at least theoretically it should, instead greed, selfishness, etc... cause a lot of chaos, basically that we're no accident. But thats a different place different time.

Also I wasn't referring to time as in the unit of measurement, but rather time as a concept. Definitely something very difficult to describe...

Isn't it only logical to start with the biggest chunk of people, sure minorities are going to make a lot of fuss about it, but when don't they make a fuss? It's going to make the majority of people happy isn't that what it's all about?
Don't you think it's a little overkill to teach all the 1000's or religions and all their pieces of literature? I can understand teaching Buddhist literature, Islamic, Hindu but not ones that are going to be ignored by the vast majority of Texans. Just my 2 cents.

Well I can't understand teaching Bible studies at all, but you're free to go about teaching it; but to be truly fair, you need to teach every single other one. By the way, am I typing this right now? You're not witnessing this event, or experiencing me typing this. But this message I leave to you, is evidence. Do you need to have faith to me typing this message in order for it to... to be? Or does the evidence show that it is?

Time? We have a problem there. Simply, it is: Because time is what 'before' measures, 'before' did not exist before time existed, therefore there was no before time existed, therefore time has always existed or it has never existed or we could get lost in a massive loophole here. Time's a bit... problematic.

And by 'start' what do you mean? Start teaching? Are we still in the realm of science or have we wandered off into theology?

 

[FieryGoose]

Sui^^
Let us meditate on that, profound statement. HMMMMM.....
Now lets do the splits. Wait...No.
Replaced Fuss With...Wingdinging...

Oh, and to Jintor, when i said start i did indeed mean start teaching. I'm not going to go any deeper into theology I've already thread-jacked this enough haven't i?

 

[Jintor]

Start teaching religion or religion as science?

 

[Stigmata]

I've not read the last five or so pages, save for the last six replies, so here goes:

There's no sense having "faith" in something which has one piece of evidence toward it and all other pieces of evidence in existence against it. Ergo, there is no sense teaching something which conflicts with everyday events.

 

[FieryGoose]

Start teaching religion or religion as science?

I never said religion as a science, did you think i meant that the whole time? haha I hope that's not what all the argument is about...
I'm just saying teach religion as it's own area of learning not science and it shouldn't count for science credits in my opinion. I never said i supported teaching religion as a science, but simply as theology or art, literature, you get the point.
I was just saying start with the biggest religion and go to the smaller ones from there. Or if the state can fund schooling for all the other large religions that would be great but that would probably turn the program into an expense they are not willing to pay for. I learn briefly about all the major religions in 8th grade i think high school students should be able to go deeper into it without having to pay for private methods. Even though I'm a Christian i think it is only fair that they eventually integrate all the other major religions as time goes on to allow for equal representation, and i believe that will eventually happen. We'll just have to see i guess, huh.

 

[Stigmata]

Okay, that I can sort of agree with, as long as:

a) the class is a limited theology as literature class, which would not allow it to turn into an illegal "Let's teach Christianity to the children!" course.
b) the class is NOT mandatory, EVER.

But we all know that for the most part, it'll turn into a Christianity-pimping session.

 

[Jintor]

I never said religion as a science, did you think i meant that the whole time? haha I hope that's not what all the argument is about...
I'm just saying teach religion as it's own area of learning not science and it shouldn't count for science credits in my opinion. I never said i supported teaching religion as a science, but simply as theology or art, literature, you get the point.
I was just saying start with the biggest religion and go to the smaller ones from there. Or if the state can fund schooling for all the other large religions that would be great but that would probably turn the program into an expense they are not willing to pay for. I learn briefly about all the major religions in 8th grade i think high school students should be able to go deeper into it without having to pay for private methods. Even though I'm a Christian i think it is only fair that they eventually integrate all the other major religions as time goes on to allow for equal representation, and i believe that will eventually happen. We'll just have to see i guess, huh.

I prefer start-with-all, but it's all good.

Make sure religion stays out of the science classroom, though. Philosophy too. Them mixes baaaaaaaaad.

 

[Absinthe]

Ok whatever, If God exists Your beliefs are debunked, If he doesn't Christianity is debunked...However I can testify experiencing to power of God and what did you experience the Big Bang? I mean come on it takes just as much faith to believe in one as it does the other. I think the questions that no one wants to even think out are: What's eternity like after death, and what started time? Eh, probably just another explosion right?

Your testament is worth very little. There is no equivalence of faith here. The Big Bang is a scientific theory and it grapples daily with the conundrum that is the birth of space and time. It also recognizes its own limitations.

Faith in God is cheap. It doesn't make any attempt to square itself with reality. You ask a Big Bang proponent how the universe began and he'll have to go into a long, detailed, and as of yet incomplete explanation. If such a question were posed to you, your response would be "MAGIC!".

But on topic, I think Bible class should be taught, of course don't make the kids become Christians, but at least give them the option to think for themselves. Isn't that only right, Evolution to a certain extent only contributes to the validity of the Bible, but saying that we are without a doubt a direct result of the big bang certainly conflicts with the students ability to affiliate themselves with religion.

NO.

NO.

GOD DAMN IT.

There is absolutely no reason for the education system, of all things, to be propping up shields for irrational faith. You know what it means when somebody's religious tenet doesn't match up with what's taught in a science class? It means your religion is wrong.

I could be part of a religion that worships rocks as sentient beings. Should the person teaching Biology respect that belief and present it as a valid "alternative" view? If you have any common sense, and in this case including moral fabric, then the answer should be a resounding "No". The teacher - if he's doing his job correctly - needs to tell me that I am wrong. He needs to tell me that rocks are not living entities. And if I persist with such delusions, then a trip to the school counselor should be in order. If we're talking at the university level, I should be flunked right the hell out.

This is what sickens me. It has become so ridiculously taboo to tread on religious toes that even schools are having to dodge around the issue of god, or in some cases treat it as valid based on nothing but ancient scripture. These are the institutions that have been designed to teach the world's children how to think, and people are ****ing it all up by throwing religion into its mechanics.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Arguabley though, science functions as a religion and belief system. And as a justification of the status quo.

 

[Absinthe]

Science functions as a religion?

Come on... =P

 

[Jintor]

Arguabley though, science functions as a religion and belief system. And as a justification of the status quo.

A religion and belief system consistent with perceived evidence, yes.

Not infalliable by any means.

 

[Absinthe]

Science is not a religion. Science has no deities, has no moral claims, is not dogmatic, and makes no use of rituals or anything similar.

You could call it a belief system if you really wanted to, but then we're just getting needlessly pedantic. Science is just as much a belief system as facts are beliefs. It's the belief that through careful, corroborative methodology we can understand our world.

To compare it to the belief systems of, say, Christianity or Islam is pretty dumb. Religion has no methodology. It rests entirely on unproven dogma. It is not driven by a sincere intent of exploring or understanding the world, but instead wallowing in ignorance.

 

[ComradeBadger]

A religion and belief system consistent with perceived evidence, yes.

Not infalliable by any means.

Indeed.

Science is not a religion. Science has no deities, has no moral claims, is not dogmatic, and makes no use of rituals or anything similar.

You could call it a belief system if you really wanted to, but then we're just getting needlessly pedantic. Science is just as much a belief system as facts are beliefs. It's the belief that through careful, corroborative methodology we can understand our world.

To compare it to the belief systems of, say, Christianity or Islam is pretty dumb. Religion has no methodology. It rests entirely on unproven dogma. It is not driven by a sincere intent of exploring or understanding the world, but instead wallowing in ignorance.

Deities aren't a nessesary part of a religion.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Taking the first 3 definitions, science fits them

Science is NOT amoral, no matter what, ethics come into a lot of scientific work.

Early religion WAS driven by a desire to understand and explain the around them, it's just there was far too much they couldn't explain.
The very nature of science means that nothing is ever PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt - it's existence relies on people reviewing other's theories.

I just think the parallels are interesting - I personally think religion has no place in schools, and certainly not in government..

 

[Asknoone]

I personally think religion has no place in schools, and certainly not in government..

Agreed.

 

[PvtRyan]

Science is NOT amoral, no matter what, ethics come into a lot of scientific work.

Yes, as an object of study. But science does not provide a moral framework to live by like religion does. Science also does not really concern itself with "purpose" (whatever that means). It's merely the best description of reality we can give as humans, but it doesn't try to provide any meaning or morality.

 

[Absinthe]

Deities aren't a nessesary part of a religion.

Quite right, yet that is the norm. Replace deities with mystical thinking, if you wish.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Taking the first 3 definitions, science fits them

Not really. I can't remember any time in which science tried to ascribe any kind of purpose to the universe. The first definition also entails the universe being a creation by a superhuman agency and "devotional or ritual observances". Science does not engage in any such practices, unless you consider peer-review to be a religious exercise. In which case, you've pretty much rendered the term "religion" meaningless.
Fundamental set of beliefs in science? I'm not aware of any. Quite to the contrary, belief based on science is subject to change and revision. There is no fundamental underpinning other than an adherence to the scientific method. When even causality can be a subject of debate, it's quite evident that there is nothing dogmatic about science.
Third one is erroneous for pretty much the same reasons as the second one. There is no universal adherence to beliefs and practices other than the scientific method. To classify mere group practice or consensus as religion just devalues the term. School faculties are religions. The military is a religion. Star Trek conventions are actually churches.

You're mixing up ethical limitations and moral statements. Ethics are for the protection of both the scientists and the participants, human or otherwise. It is to ensure that individual human rights aren't violated and that there is clear consent.
That is nowhere near the same as "Science has proven that homosexuality is evil". That is a moral statement, and it's preposterous. That has nothing to do with ethics. Science produces the findings and then people are allowed to ascribe whatever moral connotations they wish to them.

Platitudes and vagueness don't amount to much for understanding the world. Coming across something you can't explain and pointing to a man in the sky does not exemplify intellectual curiosity.

I have never said that scientific facts are 100% concrete. Facts are things that are proven beyond any reasonable doubt. They are things that, after withstanding serious scrutiny, we hold to be true in practice. You know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. There's an immensely small chance that we will be thrown out of our orbit and careen into the blackness of space and never see the sun again, but you don't consider that. You take for granted that you will see daylight again. And again. And again.

But... I do agree with your last statement.

 

[Stigmata]

Yes, as an object of study. But science does not provide a moral framework to live by like religion does. Science also does not really concern itself with "purpose" (whatever that means). It's merely the best description of reality we can give as humans, but it doesn't try to provide any meaning or morality.

Religion doesn't give us a moral framework either - the fact that Christians are willing to pick and choose which passages to follow and which to ignore is proof that humanity is the source of its own morality.

 

[kirovman]

Because killing rape victims would be the moral thing to do.

 

[CptStern]

dont forget those crusteceous crawlers ..they be devil food

"10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 they shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Leviticus 11-10-12


oh and what about this one:

"At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates" - Leviticus 14:28

I've been here for almost 3 years now, why is there no thine tithe in front of my gate?

 

[<RJMC>]

crabs are considered evil by christianism?

 

[FieryGoose]

In the bible tons of things are symbolic, you can try interpreting it yourself to the best of your knowledge or, if you would notice when your reading a bible there's side notes...
In the side note concerning this particular passage it says that some think that certain animal life was considered unclean for health considerations, although it is hard to substantiate this. It goes on a lot more but the rest wouldn't mean much to you...
Basically all those chapters in the vicinity are regarding things such as, "cleansing from mildew", "Discharges causing uncleanliness", and "regulations about infectious skin disease" basically a medical journal at the time. Remember the people who wrote these passages were humans like you and me, if they were wrong blame it on society...haha.

By the way if anyone wants to know of an interesting read, start off by reading revelations. You will be amazed at how accurate the foretelling of modern times are. Maybe you don't think that. Either way one of the most profound books in the bible, at least in my opinion it is. check it out people.

 

[Jintor]

In the bible tons of things are symbolic, you can try interpreting it yourself to the best of your knowledge or, if you would notice when your reading a bible there's side notes...
In the side note concerning this particular passage it says that some think that certain animal life was considered unclean for health considerations, although it is hard to substantiate this. It goes on a lot more but the rest wouldn't mean much to you...
Basically all those chapters in the vicinity are regarding things such as, "cleansing from mildew", "Discharges causing uncleanliness", and "regulations about infectious skin disease" basically a medical journal at the time. Remember the people who wrote these passages were humans like you and me, if they were wrong blame it on society...haha.

By the way if anyone wants to know of an interesting read, start off by reading revelations. You will be amazed at how accurate the foretelling of modern times are. Maybe you don't think that. Either way one of the most profound books in the bible, at least in my opinion it is. check it out people.

I'mma thinking accuracy depends on how you interpret the Bible, yes...?

Don't you see anything wrong with that?

 

[Stigmata]

I still fail to see how the Bible is relevant to anything, when you're simply allowed to "interpret" it as you see fit, and then apply said interpretations (which could be almost anything) to everyday life and events.

 

[Absinthe]

In the bible tons of things are symbolic, you can try interpreting it yourself to the best of your knowledge or, if you would notice when your reading a bible there's side notes...
In the side note concerning this particular passage it says that some think that certain animal life was considered unclean for health considerations, although it is hard to substantiate this. It goes on a lot more but the rest wouldn't mean much to you...
Basically all those chapters in the vicinity are regarding things such as, "cleansing from mildew", "Discharges causing uncleanliness", and "regulations about infectious skin disease" basically a medical journal at the time. Remember the people who wrote these passages were humans like you and me, if they were wrong blame it on society...haha.

Nuts to that. A book of divine laws is open to interpretation? You don't have a clear framework in which you can decide which parts are symbolic are allegorical and which ones aren't. You're making it up as you go along. But granting for the moment that the Bible is an interpretive document, what are the glowing moral messages we can gleam from them? As far as I can tell, they exist in short supply.

By the way if anyone wants to know of an interesting read, start off by reading revelations. You will be amazed at how accurate the foretelling of modern times are. Maybe you don't think that. Either way one of the most profound books in the bible, at least in my opinion it is. check it out people.

No, it is not. Anybody can make a prophecy if they're vague enough about it.

"Halley's Comet will return without fail in the year 2062. Biblical or Delphic prophecies don't begin to aspire to such accuracy; astrologers and Nostradamians dare not commit themselves to factual prognostications but, rather, disguise their charlatanry in a smokescreen of vagueness." - Richard Dawkins

If you can show me divine literature giving accurate, specific foretellings of the future, I'm willing to revise my stance. But symbols and twisted language doesn't cut it. Let's say that I were to pronounce that "blackness shall cover the world". What am I saying there? Thousands of years from now, the sun may die out. Or maybe pollution has covered the Earth's surface in a thick fog. Perhaps a monochromatic global civilization erects itself with a drab color palette. Or maybe we take it less literally and construe my statement as "evil shall cover the world".

All of those scenarios are viable options because of the total lack of specificity in my prophecy. Given my loose language, the number of different things that can take place, and the vastness of time, any bullshit from the past can be (falsely) retroactively validated. If Revelations were to give some clear falsifiable statement like "Cancer will be cured in 2032", you'd have a case. But it never comes close to such a thing.

 

[Walter]

I've seen some articles made by those that study the apocalypse. The text does look like "blackness shall cover the world" at first, but then they compare to what does God mean through the word "blackness" or "world" (all example) it becomes more clearer. The apocalypse doesn't say what exactly will happen and in what date, but it explains the events.

 

[Solaris]

I've seen some articles made by those that study the apocalypse. The text does look like "blackness shall cover the world" at first, but then they compare to what does God mean through the word "blackness" or "world" (all example) it becomes more clearer. The apocalypse doesn't say what exactly will happen and in what date, but it explains the events.

You'll have to do better than that.

 

[Walter]

You'll have to do better than that.

meh, i ain't gonna do anything. If you want to study the apocalypse, then do it. I'm tired of explaining, pinpointing, correcting. You guys remind me of a parent that spanks his child before asking if he really did something wrong.

 

[Absinthe]

correcting

Stop lying.

 

[Geogaddi]

meh, i ain't gonna do anything. If you want to study the apocalypse, then do it. I'm tired of explaining, pinpointing, correcting. You guys remind me of a parent that spanks his child before asking if he really did something wrong.

And you remind me of a child.

 

[kirovman]

A child dropped on the head from 3 feet?

 

[Qonfused]

5.

 

[Jintor]

I've seen some articles made by those that study the apocalypse. The text does look like "blackness shall cover the world" at first, but then they compare to what does God mean through the word "blackness" or "world" (all example) it becomes more clearer. The apocalypse doesn't say what exactly will happen and in what date, but it explains the events.

Read previous responses. If you 'interpret' towards a goal you're going to get there.

 

[FieryGoose]

Tell me, how would someone be able to say anything about cancer since it was unheard of at the time, being you obviously don't believe in the divinity of God? They didn't write the text in english, therefore the vocabulary is slightly off from the words we use now because of translation. However, I'm not going to find the passage myself, but i do remember there being something in the bible about flaming birds and how they will rule the skys of modern time, and guess what, they do. Also it says the you will all be fooled by someone who claims to be able to bring the world into harmony, your freedoms will be taken for more order, but, after 7 years of rule all hell will break loose, aka Armageddon. Sir Issac Newton also calculated the end of the world using the bible in case you didn't know. Please don't play it down just because you heard some Christian bashing atheist,(Richard Dawkins) who uses his intelligence to make his arguments seem valid, brainwash you into not even trying to read a piece of literature. You never know you may actually like it, what horror that would be right.

 

[kirovman]

Tell me, how would someone be able to say anything about cancer since it was unheard of at the time, being you obviously don't believe in the divinity of God? They didn't write the text in english, therefore the vocabulary is slightly off from the words we use now because of translation. However, I'm not going to find the passage myself, but i do remember there being something in the bible about flaming birds and how they will rule the skys of modern time, and guess what, they do. Also it says the you will all be fooled by someone who claims to be able to bring the world into harmony, your freedoms will be taken for more order, but, after 7 years of rule all hell will break loose, aka Armageddon. Sir Issac Newton also calculated the end of the world using the bible in case you didn't know. Please don't play it down just because you heard some Christian bashing atheist,(Richard Dawkins) who uses his intelligence to make his arguments seem valid, brainwash you into not even trying to read a piece of literature. You never know you may actually like it, what horror that would be right.

I'd like to see sources for all of your assertions about flaming birds, Isaac Newton and Armageddons?

 

[FieryGoose]

Ok...

• Flaming birds: I was actually mistaken it is not in the book of revelations, instead it is referenced in one of Enoch's visions... I'll post a link when i can find it. haha

• Isaac Newton: The information was at various websites and was given to this website by bbc. He figured it out using a scientific approach to the Bible, Link: Newton's Apocalypse

• And the 7 year thing: I guess i was wrong again, The 7 years thing occurs in Daniel. However all throughout the book of revelations the number 7 comes up. You shouldn't have a hard time believing that's what the number of years is at least(it is historically the number of completion)... But look at Daniel 2,4,7, and 9. It has all the info about the end times. In case you didn't know the Bible does give pretty exact information. It says that a time of peace and prosperity will reign all throughout the world for 3.5yrs, and that after those 3.5yrs a time of retribution will occur for another 3.5 yrs and many Christians will be killed, few will survive. The anti-Christ will be shot in the head and die, he will rise from the dead 3 days after he dies. Everyone will believe this is the return of God and gladly give their sell their souls to him. I mean there's a ton of info...

I think this generation will see the end of the world: "as to the time, or season of His return, in the book of Matthew. He refers to Israel as the fig tree and tells us when Israel once again becomes a nation, as they did on May 14,1948 after nearly 1900 years of scattered exile, this generation shall not pass without witnessing His return. We are living in that era now (Matthew 24:32-51)." I'm not going to post the source to that being you can read that on your own if you please, it may be a bias source but it's true to the Bible.
So I think that's enough hardcore information for it to be important for kids to read in school, of course the subjective to personal opinion. Of course not mandatory but why not give them the opportunity?

Oh and btw even though both pieces of info weren't in revelations it's still a pretty freaking cool book, It's one of my personal favorites. Read it, haha.:thumbs:

 

[Jintor]

Ok...

• Flaming birds: I was actually mistaken it is not in the book of revelations, instead it is referenced in one of Enoch's visions... I'll post a link when i can find it. haha

• Isaac Newton: The information was at various websites and was given to this website by bbc. He figured it out using a scientific approach to the Bible, Link: Newton's Apocalypse

• And the 7 year thing: I guess i was wrong again, The 7 years thing occurs in Daniel. However all throughout the book of revelations the number 7 comes up. You shouldn't have a hard time believing that's what the number of years is at least(it is historically the number of completion)... But look at Daniel 2,4,7, and 9. It has all the info about the end times. In case you didn't know the Bible does give pretty exact information. It says that a time of peace and prosperity will reign all throughout the world for 3.5yrs, and that after those 3.5yrs a time of retribution will occur for another 3.5 yrs and many Christians will be killed, few will survive. The anti-Christ will be shot in the head and die, he will rise from the dead 3 days after he dies. Everyone will believe this is the return of God and gladly give their sell their souls to him. I mean there's a ton of info...

You'll have to provide links for the first 2 (the second one says 'Oh, Scholars said this!) and the 3rd one hasn't happened yet, so it's not exactly accurate. -__-

I think this generation will see the end of the world: "as to the time, or season of His return, in the book of Matthew. He refers to Israel as the fig tree and tells us when Israel once again becomes a nation, as they did on May 14,1948 after nearly 1900 years of scattered exile, this generation shall not pass without witnessing His return. We are living in that era now (Matthew 24:32-51)." I'm not going to post the source to that being you can read that on your own if you please, it may be a bias source but it's true to the Bible.
So I think that's enough hardcore information for it to be important for kids to read in school, of course the subjective to personal opinion. Of course not mandatory but why not give them the opportunity?

I'm not seeing any hardcore, important information here. By these standards I could write down on a piece of paper 'the world will end because of a giant cheese meteorite in 2045' and it should be read in schools.

Oh and btw even though both pieces of info weren't in revelations it's still a pretty freaking cool book, It's one of my personal favorites. Read it, haha.:thumbs:

You should read the Necrotelicomnicom, it's my favourite book.

 

[FieryGoose]

Sorry bro, BBC is doing a documentary on isaac newton and it will be including that info. the reason i know about his prediction of the end of the world is because of the documentary, It's pretty much known fact anyways, I don't see what kind of evidence you need. Do you need Isaac newton resurrected and tell you he really wrote that on a piece of paper?
Also the 3rd one will be accurate, just some fun stuff to look forward to, If I'm not frequenting these forums often you'll know i was killed by my government. haha
Even if you did say that your prediction is going to happen, you wouldn't feel right about making kids read it right(just because you know for a fact that it's not true), I don't feel good about making kids read the Bible, I just feel good about allowing kids to have a chance to read the Bible because they may never get around to reading it outside of school, like I said, there's nothing wrong with bible class being an elective.(I believe in what the bible contains therefore i have nothing inside of me saying it's a bad idea, seem like the right thing to do to me.)
I've read that book it sucks. lol

 

[Absinthe]

THIS IS ALL BASED OFF OF THE BIBLE.

The Bible is not a valid source of information.

You cannot make scientific predictions based off of the Bible.

Isaac Newton was obviously not perfect.

Children may not get around to reading the good book outside of school? I highly doubt that, seeing how pervasive Christianity is in Western society. But even if that is true, great. Your religious preference is something you tend to in your own time. To make a Bible class an elective is still unacceptable unless you're going to delve into the texts of every other religion (no matter how small or large). Otherwise, you're just being preferential in what faiths you want children to learn about.

I'm still having trouble finding the educational merit in such a course. Classes like English, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology, Geography, and many others have applications in the real world. Pray tell, what does learning about Armageddon teach anybody? School is supposed to teach children how to think. It is meant to equip them with the skills to function later in life. At no point does the Bible ever come close to such a purpose.