Lentern
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,980
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
No, theoretically God would be the primary source, Ezekial the secondary source and the bible itself would be a secondary secondary.bible is a primary source
No, theoretically God would be the primary source, Ezekial the secondary source and the bible itself would be a secondary secondary.bible is a primary source
lolNo, theoretically God would be the primary source, Ezekial the secondary source and the bible itself would be a secondary secondary.
he never said anything about australian culture, abbott was talking about civilisation.because they aren't core texts in our culture. i don't have a problem with mandatory bible classes if they're given in a non-religious, critical approach as if it were an HSC English text. In fact, I think that'd be a fantastic idea. I think that's what he was try to say - I'll give him the benefit of doubt.
you know let's give it up from the left and make it compulsory for every child to read Catcher and the Rye!!!!!!! aHAHAHAHAHAHAWe are a Western country. You cannot deny that the most important and influential book of Western civilization has been the Holy Bible. It makes sense to have it seriously on the curriculum, if only to instill its historical significance in the development of this land and the predominant culture behind it. By all means teach it critically and without bias, but teach it none the less.
and thin on paper typeWe are also a people who insist that our children are taught from reliable materials and sadly the bible is very thin on referencing.
Lol wot. God is the primary source. Did you not gather this?We are also a people who insist that our children are taught from reliable materials and sadly the bible is very thin on referencing.
Did you not notice ten minutes ago my saying that God is the primary source? God just has a certain ambiguity about him thats all.Lol wot. God is the primary source. Did you not gather this?
Oh well its just a bit like the cat saying "this roof is red" and then the dog saying "what? no, the roof is red"
There are no advantages with forcible reading of the bible! People deserve the right to choose for themselves whether or not they'll learn a religion. For those wishing to learn about religion, scripture classes and Studies of Religion hsc course are available.there are pros and cons
cons
it is shoving religion down peoples throats, which is not helpful for spreading the gospel.
pros
they would have the chance to read the bible.
What are the benefits then? Proper ones too.I don't think it should be forced. But to pretend there are not benifits of reading the bible is silly
Lols! The answers were "the Leader!"Also it will conflict with science. How would you like it if Science departments had to accept answers based on religion in Junior science classes? Just like in that Simpsons episode where all the answers were God and Lisa was getting pissed off.
just because you're not given a chance tor ead the bible doesn't mean the choice doesn't existthere are pros and cons
cons
it is shoving religion down peoples throats, which is not helpful for spreading the gospel.
pros
they would have the chance to read the bible.
misconceptions abolishedWhat are the benefits then? Proper ones too.
What are the benefits then? Proper ones too.