Should Religion be taught in Public Schools?

Just remember that according to the fairy tale Sodom will be rebuilt to all of its former glory. And its "sin" was that it wasn't charitable.

Ezekiel 16:49 (CEB) = "This is the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were proud, had plenty to eat, and enjoyed peace and prosperity; but she didn’t help the poor and the needy."

 

Why is it wrong to kill Homosexuals?

The question possibly answered by an Atheist, like the one in a biology class who referred to them as mutations:

It is not wrong to kill mutations.

If the topic on this forum is still archived, you could try to follow the “mathematical” argument of this person for the answer:

(See Bishadi, “If existence only operates ONE way; is the 'math' the 'name' to know?”)

A Christian might follow the Old Testament law, not the spirit (whether Holy or their conscience), and substitute the word “mutation” for “abomination,” whereas another Christian might be for not killing them and for Gay marriage, where another might be for not killing them but not for Gay marriage.

One Muslim might kill them, according to the Koran or Hadith, which is 100% clear as the Old Testament, and another (See Iran) might require them to get a sex change, that is, if they have the phenomenon.

When I once brought up the idea of teaching ethics in a public school, the teachers looked at me as if I was an idiot. A set of tools does not necessarily give one the same answers to more complex questions.

 

In the opinion of myself and many, someone who commits homosexual acts (male on male, adult male on male child) is a homosexual or bisexual. So in Genesis 19, the mob of men of the city both young and old came to the house where Lot was and demanded to have homosexual acts with the men in his house. Even after Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the gay men, they refused, being attracted to men over women. The modern gay scene in places like San Francisco is known for homosexual men to go from partner to partner almost always under the influence of narcotics. Any man or boy hanging around this community would likely be drugged and raped.

The act of incest between Lot and his daughters produced Moab--the father of the the heathen Moabities, and the father of the Ammonites. Certainly a curse, not a blessing.

Lot's wife was killed for disobedience.

 

This has to go beyond opinion.

And, your opinion doesn't address the kind of mutual love and commitment consecrated by a good number of religious organizations today.

 

One can either tolerate the opinions or beliefs of others, or not.

Tolerance of one thing means automatically being intolerant of something else.

If one steals, one is a thief. If one murders someone, then one is a murderer. If one willingly commits or participates in a homosexual act, then they are a homosexual. It does not matter if it is also an act of rape.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

 

Sure, but we don't really know much about the nature of her disobedience. When the text says "looking back" I doubt it is intended to be interpreted as turning her head in the wrong direction.

 

Note that your cite differentiates homosexual ACTS from homosexuality.

And, you are NOT proposing tolerance as far as I can tell.

 

It is important to you to believe you know why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed - they were LGBT havens.

As a Christian do you speculate on why Banda Aceh was destroyed in 2004?
As a Christian do you speculate on why Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed in 79?

 

I wasn't there. The Bible says she was ordered not to look back at her destroyed town, and deliberately did it anyway.

 

These were all natural acts, acts of God. All the above cities were not known for their Christian divinity. Anyone today with common horse sense knows not to build on the seacoast or near an active volcano.

However, there are many cities with 10's of thousands of Christians in them that men destroyed (and got medals for doing so)---like Dresden and Hamburg.

 

One can't be tolerant of all things.

As far as homosexuality:

If one is okay with these acts going on behind closed doors between consenting adults in their communities, that is understood as tolerance by most.

If one wants homosexual behavior promoted and rewarded in their local schools, that is not tolerance.

Of one wants their community or nation flooded with Muslims who want to abolish homosexual behavior and even have gays killed, then that is still not tolerance. I think that's called hypocrisy.

When looking at how no American gay activist group NEVER condemned Islam by name after the horrific Orlando Pulse shooting, and have never demanded boycotts of Muslims nations killing gays---know that Muslims are superior to gays in progressive circles.

 

I'm not sure I follow even the principle of the argument.

An Atheist does not use God as a Moral Principle. An atheist would hold a humanistic Moral Principle. Which is the only objective Moral Principle. The fact is that, in order for the human race to survive, the most fundamental need is that they live in a Community. So, morally and ethically, anything that favors and solidifies the human community is good, and anything that weakens it is bad.

So it doesn't matter if the person is gay or not. You don't want to live in a community where human beings are killed. So that would weaken the community. And that is why it's morally and ethically "bad".

 

One can easily go back and develop rewording that would fit the survival of the fittest atheism of the last century:

You don’t want to live in a community where human beings are flawed.

There are a considerable number of issues that weaken and divide a community, among them the human condition itself.

Simple moral principles that do not by design accept flaws can result in terror:

“Praise be to Humanism, which revealed the only objective Moral Principle, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says: ‘anything that favors and solidifies the human community is good, and anything that weakens it is bad’”
One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

You don't want to live in a community where human beings are killed, due to not controlling the clouds, due to factionalism; might as well just say, “Resistance is Futile.”

 

Some simply need to realize they are not the Grand Poobah of anything, and everything simply is not safe inside the walls, fridge, or body; viruses exist in nature and philosophy.

The One's attempt to be tolerant of all things:

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe blacks are Kenites the descendants of Cain and the mark is upon them].” (Obama)

Many religions say, “Do not kill,” but they manage to do it anyway probably because of politically correct mindless drivel like this:

“The President’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not ‘terrorism’ because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not ‘terror’ because terror is a state of mind and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” (Remarks by Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan at CSIS)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ecurity-and-counterterrorism-john-brennan-csi

Translation from the Obamanation:

“Anything that favors and solidifies the human community is good, such as purifying it, and anything that weakens it, such as impurity, is bad; ‘Innocence’ is defined by purity.”

It is one thing to teach morality, quite another to provide the tools and forum to debate morality; as someone who attended several religious schools including Toccoa Falls, and a Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa, I prefer the tools and forum to the inquisitor’s tests of Humanist purity. “Human, the very name is racist.” (Daughter of Chancellor Gorgon)

 

The religious right wont like that part being taught

 

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were populated by a lot of LGBTs. But all other cases of cities being destroyed are due to either natural causes or man's actions. It seems you have a very biased and selective view of history.

 

Odysseus said the abuse of the stranger was the worse crime. Whether a man disguised by a god, or a god traveling as a man, or the two angels at Lot’s house, the ancient law of hospitality was based upon not knowing who was begging; might be Howard Hughes. I distanced myself from an atheist once, when he started kicking homeless people up in Seattle.

 

"Survival of the fittest" is a scientific concept. Atheism is a philosophical (or religious, if you want) concept.

I have not idea what they mean together. Sounds like you're talking about a Square Circle.

Wrong! Not even close to what I said. Some would say that there are many advantages to living in a community where human beings are flawed.

What follows in your response appears to be part of this absolutely absurd misinterpretation of what I wrote. So, if you have something to say about what I did write, please let me know..

Well... that's cute. But not very useful. if there is some other Moral Principle that is also objective, do bring it up. That would be useful.

You would not want to live in a community where there is no individualism. So it would be immoral and unethical to suppress individualism.

Somehow I get the impression that this is as far as you are qualified to go on this matter.

 

Individual viruses exist in nature and philosophy. “Survival of the fittest” can also be philosophical, but then again you could claim philosophy is not a science and change the dictionary definitions to fit. If someone disagrees with you, you must teach it too. Or just provide the tools and forum for debate and not teach religion or your atheism.

 

You're babbling. This has nothing to do with the conversation.

Your statement was "... that would fit the survival of the fittest atheism of the last century:" You again fail to explain what "survival of the fittest atheism of the last century" is.

And then you say something about "tools" and "forum" and "teach religion" instead of replying to the rest of my arguments.

 

It might be helpful if you would quote where you asked. And if there is no "?," shut the hell up.

 

With your background, perhaps you could tell us what moral values you have, and what collective moral values your ideal community should have?

 

God allowed nature or man to do all these bad things. The Bible is quite clear that is was God's direct action to single out and destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Not just for being gay, but for being gay rapists and overall wicked people.

 

Your topic is: “Should Religion be taught in Public Schools?”

The qualifier is as follows: “But only if all religions are taught giving each one equal time.”

I see nothing there that requires me to debate your individual “religious” arguments, the only argument to make is to point out to you the vast number of different beliefs you must give equal time to teaching.

 

Religions are the reflections of distinct races. Europeans are to Christianity as Semitic Israelites are to Judaism as Middle Eastern Arabians are to Islam. As East Indians are to Buddhism. As East Asians are to Taoism.

To claim that they should be granted "equal time" is ridiculous. Why would you teach a foreign ideology, of a foreign race, to your own kind? Europeans should bathe in the wealth of our own ideologies and spirituality.