Fairy Tales (was: Re: Could God have Evolved)
Seanna Watson 1333884
Noah's flood]
In article <51...@anasaz.UUCP> sc...@anasaz.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>That's interesting. Do you teach the children that this natural disaster
>was caused by God because of the sinful nature of man? If they ask you
>if this is the case, how do you answer?
and in article <17...@goofy.Apple.COM> ks...@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>But we are still back to the original wondering, if Noah was busy trying
>to gather *all* the species to the ark, why the need when the flood was
>only local. Either God told him a lie, because the flood was not universal,
>or then God erred. I guess children with skeptical talents should question
>this sooner or later.
I will try to make myself clear this time:
I believe that the account of Noah's flood is a didactic story. This means
that it does not have to be factual in order to teach true concepts. Quest-
ions about the value of the concepts it teaches are a different issue, which
I don't particularly want to address here. When I teach at Sunday school, I
am teaching Christianity at a Christian church, for which I make no apologies.
I do not claim that the bible is everywhere factually accurate; if I did,
then I would have to be a young earth creationist, which I am definitely not.
I do not believe that there was a global flood. I do not believe that God
told Noah to put all the animals in the ark. I do not believe that God
decided to flood the world (or the local area) and then told Noah about it.
My speculation about local floods was an attempt to answer the question:
Why would the people who compiled the scriptures have thought that this
was a good way to tell a story about God? My answer was that devastating
floods was something that they were probably familiar with.
--
Seanna Watson Bell-Northern Research,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Opinions, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.
I knew I'd left them somewhere.
Kent Sandvik
> I believe that the account of Noah's flood is a didactic story. This means
> that it does not have to be factual in order to teach true concepts. Quest-
> ions about the value of the concepts it teaches are a different issue, which
> I don't particularly want to address here. When I teach at Sunday school, I
> am teaching Christianity at a Christian church, for which I make no apologies.
>
> I do not claim that the bible is everywhere factually accurate; if I did,
> then I would have to be a young earth creationist, which I am definitely not.
> I do not believe that there was a global flood. I do not believe that God
> told Noah to put all the animals in the ark. I do not believe that God
> decided to flood the world (or the local area) and then told Noah about it.
> My speculation about local floods was an attempt to answer the question:
> Why would the people who compiled the scriptures have thought that this
> was a good way to tell a story about God? My answer was that devastating
> floods was something that they were probably familiar with.
I understand and approve your opinions. However I'm afraid that by explaining
to the kids that all this is symbolic, it will open a can of worms from
those who have an aptitude to critical thinking. However I think this is good,
because young minds should learn to do this, and if they are given a chance
to exersize critical thinking, fine.
I remember when I was a kid, and encountered similar stories in the Sunday
school. Mostly I thought these were nice fictive stories; I guess today's
youngsters have the same opinion as well. Nothing beats a good story when
you are 5 years old!
Regards,
Kent
..private opinions...
Jeff Lee
>
> I believe that the account of Noah's flood is a didactic story. This means
> that it does not have to be factual in order to teach true concepts. Quest-
> ions about the value of the concepts it teaches are a different issue, which
> I don't particularly want to address here. When I teach at Sunday school, I
> am teaching Christianity at a Christian church, for which I make no apologies.
>
>
> I do not believe that there was a global flood. I do not believe that God
> told Noah to put all the animals in the ark. I do not believe that God
> decided to flood the world (or the local area) and then told Noah about it.
> My speculation about local floods was an attempt to answer the question:
> Why would the people who compiled the scriptures have thought that this
> was a good way to tell a story about God? My answer was that devastating
> floods was something that they were probably familiar with.
So it comes back to one of the original questions: when you relate this
story to children, do you *tell* them these things, or do you allow them to
believe (based on your authority as a Sunday school teacher [and, indeed, as
an adult]) that it is, in fact, literal truth?
It reminds me of an E-mail conversation I had with one woman about the "fig
tree" incident in the New Testament: if taken literally, the Saviour is
*destroying* the tree rather than causing it to bear fruit (which would be
more in keeping with the "Nature of God" as it is expounded in the New
Testament). If taken symbolically (the woman with whom I had the discussion
claimed that the tree represented life), there is STILL a problem, for
regardless of what it symbolizes (Life, Israel, etc.), the end result is
that the Messiah DESTROYS the thing symbolized rather than saving it (and,
don't forget, he tells his disciples that if THEY have enough faith, they
can kill trees as well). Wouldn't making a barren tree bear fruit be MUCH
more effective (either as a symbolic occurence or as a lesson about faith)
than simply destroying the tree?
Out of curiosity, what (if anything) do you teach children about this
incident? How can Jesus' apparently petulant act be reconciled with the
rest of the teachings in the Gospels?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Lee | UUCP: uhasun!smylex!jlee
| Internet: jlee%smyle...@uhasun.hartford.edu
| Voice: (203) 666-5836 (Newington, CT)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edmund, you've killed Nursie! That's horrid!
Mathemagician
>In article <1991Oct24.1...@bnr.ca>, Seanna Watson writes:
>> I do not believe that there was a global flood. I do not believe that God
>> told Noah to put all the animals in the ark. I do not believe that God
>> decided to flood the world (or the local area) and then told Noah about it.
>> My speculation about local floods was an attempt to answer the question:
>> Why would the people who compiled the scriptures have thought that this
>> was a good way to tell a story about God? My answer was that devastating
>> floods was something that they were probably familiar with.
>So it comes back to one of the original questions: when you relate this
>story to children, do you *tell* them these things, or do you allow them to
>believe (based on your authority as a Sunday school teacher [and, indeed, as
>an adult]) that it is, in fact, literal truth?
Chances are she doesn't. And chances are they children *do* accept it
as literal truth.
That is, after all, how I became a pagan. My mother was Greek and
told me many of the Greek myths when I was about 4 or 5. However, she
never told me that these stories "weren't true" and I believed them to
be so.
I was then sent off to Catholic school where my teacher asked the
class what the tallest mountain in the world was. A little boy raises
his hand eagerly and replies, "Mt. Olympus in Greece!" "No, Brian,
the tallest mountain is Mt. Everest in the Alps." "No, it's not!
It's Mt. Olympus! That's where all the gods live!"
I was quickly given a lesson on how Greek mythology was just stories
while Christian mythology was actual truth.
--
Brian Evans |If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would
bev...@hydra.unm.edu |be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's Scientific Method!
Tom Ng
>[concerning discussion about teaching children the biblical account of
>Noah's flood]
>
>In article <51...@anasaz.UUCP> sc...@anasaz.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>>That's interesting. Do you teach the children that this natural disaster
>>was caused by God because of the sinful nature of man? If they ask you
>>if this is the case, how do you answer?
>I will try to make myself clear this time:
>
>I believe that the account of Noah's flood is a didactic story. This means
>that it does not have to be factual in order to teach true concepts.
>I do not claim that the bible is everywhere factually accurate; if I did,
>then I would have to be a young earth creationist, which I am definitely not.
I quite agree that the story of the flood doesn't have to be true to
be of value but I wonder why you don't treat the rest of the bible the
same way? What if none of the accounts in the bible actually happened?
Does that change any of the lessons?
Shakespeare's plays contain much wisdom but my English teacher never
taught them as factual events. ..just wondering
-----------
G'd day ay! BitNet:eetd...@Ryerson.Ca UseNet:...!tmsoft!ryescs!tng
-Tom Ng "Rain in Spain stains my brain..." - RR
Scott Gibson
>
>I do not claim that the bible is everywhere factually accurate; if I did,
>then I would have to be a young earth creationist, which I am definitely not.
>I do not believe that there was a global flood. I do not believe that God
>told Noah to put all the animals in the ark. I do not believe that God
>decided to flood the world (or the local area) and then told Noah about it.
Why, then, do you believe any of it? How can you tell what to believe, and
what not to believe?
--
******************************************************************************
"Oh no! I said too much; I haven't said enough..." - R.E.M.
Scott Gibson {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer: These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Seanna Watson
>So it comes back to one of the original questions: when you relate this
>story to children, do you *tell* them these things, or do you allow them to
>believe (based on your authority as a Sunday school teacher [and, indeed, as
>an adult]) that it is, in fact, literal truth?
I think perhaps you have an unrealistic perception of the credulity of
children, and the authority of adults, at least in my church. In addition
to bible stories, we use a variety of other stories in Sunday school,
some of which are true, and some invented. I do not think it is useful,
or necessary or relevant to specify in detail to children which of the
stories report facts. In my experience (with my own and other children),
kids move from believing everything (about 2-4 years), to only believing
things which make sense based on their experience and common sense (start-
ing at around 4-5 years), and then move on to using experience, common
sense, plus abstract reasoning (some start this as early as 7-8; some
never get there).
Because of the way kids mature intellectually, children can simultaneously
believe in Santa Claus and believe that it is impossible to go to the
moon. My 5-year-old frequently tells me that I am wrong when something
I say differs from his understanding. (He was recently explaining to me
why, contrary to my beliefs, car radiators were supposed to have holes in
them, and they were filled with oil, not water.)
>Out of curiosity, what (if anything) do you teach children about this
>[Jesus destroying a fig tree] incident?
I have not taught this story to children. I do not understand it myself.
If a child asked me about it, I would tell them that I did not understand it,
and ask what they thought. Some interesting discussion would likely follow.
I do not see my role as a Sunday school teacher (or a parent) to force
children to believe in a certain way. I teach them what it means to
believe in God, and what it means to be a Christian, and they must choose
for themselves what they will believe.
Douglas Graham
>I do not see my role as a Sunday school teacher (or a parent) to force
>children to believe in a certain way. I teach them what it means to
>believe in God, and what it means to be a Christian, and they must choose
>for themselves what they will believe.
Oh, come on. This is ridiculous. If you were truly interested in presenting
kids with all the facts and then letting them make up their own minds, you'd
give equal time to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, etc. Regardless of
whether there's anything wrong with it, your role as a Sunday school teacher
is to make good little Christians out of the kids. I think it's unfortunate
that you feel you need to allow the kids to believe fantastic stories that
you yourself do not even believe, in order to accomplish this goal.
--
Doug Graham dgr...@bnr.ca My opinions are my own.
John A. Johnson
1333884) says:
>
>In article <1991Oct29.2...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> dgr...@bmers30.bnr.ca
>(Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>In article <1991Oct29.1...@bnr.ca> sea...@bcrka409.bnr.ca (Seanna
>>Watson) writes:
>
>>>I do not see my role as a Sunday school teacher (or a parent) to force
>>>children to believe in a certain way. I teach them what it means to
>>>believe in God, and what it means to be a Christian, and they must choose
>>>for themselves what they will believe.
>
>>Oh, come on. This is ridiculous. If you were truly interested in presenting
>>kids with all the facts and then letting them make up their own minds, you'd
>>give equal time to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, etc. Regardless of
>>whether there's anything wrong with it, your role as a Sunday school teacher
>>is to make good little Christians out of the kids.
>
>that I was presenting Christianity. Of course, since I think Christianity is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>true, I think people should be Christians, but I can not *make* anybody a
^^^^
>Christian, any more than you can *make* anybody an atheist.
The underlined section is where Seanna loses me.
Despite my atheism, I agree with Seanna that myths (including bible stories)
_can_ have positive emotional effects on both children and adults. And
Seanna's understanding of the way childrens' minds work seems to be somewhat
more sophisticated than the understanding of her critics (I am speaking
as a psychologist, a father, a dabbler in mythology, and a husband of a
Sunday school teacher).
But--what could Seanna possibly mean by her statement "Christianity is true?"
Since she has already stated that bible stories are allegorical, which parts
of Christianity does she hold as "true" and which parts are "myth?" And how
does she know the difference?
Just wondering.
John
Seanna Watson 1333884
>In article <1991Oct29.1...@bnr.ca> sea...@bcrka409.bnr.ca (Seanna >Watson) writes:
>>I do not see my role as a Sunday school teacher (or a parent) to force
>>children to believe in a certain way. I teach them what it means to
>>believe in God, and what it means to be a Christian, and they must choose
>>for themselves what they will believe.
>Oh, come on. This is ridiculous. If you were truly interested in presenting
>kids with all the facts and then letting them make up their own minds, you'd
>give equal time to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, etc. Regardless of
>whether there's anything wrong with it, your role as a Sunday school teacher
>is to make good little Christians out of the kids.
I *NEVER* claimed that I was presenting the kids with all the different ways
of believing or not believing in God or gods. I said that I was presenting
Christianity. Of course, since I think Christianity is true, I think people
should be Christians, but I can not *make* anybody a Christian, any more than
you can *make* anybody an atheist. Some people take little thought to choosing
what they will believe, and some take a lot, and some choose to believe what
others tell them, but everyone chooses.
(In my church, and in many others, older kids do learn about other religions
but I would not claim that they get equal time. If you want to teach com-
paritive religion or atheism or whatever in your Sunday school, feel free.)
>I think it's unfortunate
>that you feel you need to allow the kids to believe fantastic stories that
>you yourself do not even believe, in order to accomplish this goal.
I think that you have little understanding of how children relate to stories,
and how they develop intellectually and emotionally. I do not want to waste
my time and the child's time explaining in detail which stories (in the bible
or elsewhere) are factually accurate, which are totally made up but plausible,
and which are fantastic. (I attempted to explain in my last post why this
doesn't work anyway.) I prefer to simply tell the stories, while at the
same time encouraging the development of skills so that they learn to discern
among types of stories by themselves. As a matter of fact, I think that if one
always warned children about the accuracy of stories, they would come to depend
on the warnings, and not learn to decide for themselves.
Alex Bunker
>
>In article <1991Oct29.2...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> dgr...@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>In article <1991Oct29.1...@bnr.ca> sea...@bcrka409.bnr.ca (Seanna >Watson) writes:
>
>>>I do not see my role as a Sunday school teacher (or a parent) to force
>>>children to believe in a certain way. I teach them what it means to
>>>believe in God, and what it means to be a Christian, and they must choose
>>>for themselves what they will believe.
>
>>Oh, come on. This is ridiculous. If you were truly interested in presenting
>>kids with all the facts and then letting them make up their own minds, you'd
>>give equal time to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, etc. Regardless of
>>whether there's anything wrong with it, your role as a Sunday school teacher
>>is to make good little Christians out of the kids.
>
>I *NEVER* claimed that I was presenting the kids with all the different ways
>of believing or not believing in God or gods. I said that I was presenting
>Christianity. Of course, since I think Christianity is true, I think people
>should be Christians, but I can not *make* anybody a Christian, any more than
>you can *make* anybody an atheist. Some people take little thought to choosing
>what they will believe, and some take a lot, and some choose to believe what
>others tell them, but everyone chooses.
oh so you admit it! What if one of the kids in your sunday class,exact same
kid, went to a buddist or hindu or moslem equivalent. There someone
who believed in whatever would want the kids to do the same. and thus the
kids would be brainwashed that way instead. What if YOU had been sent to
a different religeon instead you would be brainwashed that way instead
and you would be today brainwashing kids accordingly. So we see the
incestuous chain of religeon. What is wrong with reason and compassion alone
as a way to bring up kids? WHY MUST YOU TIE A BALL AND CHAIN AROUND THEIR
PSYCHE!!!!!!???!?!?!?!?!?
>(In my church, and in many others, older kids do learn about other religions
>but I would not claim that they get equal time. If you want to teach com-
>paritive religion or atheism or whatever in your Sunday school, feel free.)
>
>>I think it's unfortunate
>>that you feel you need to allow the kids to believe fantastic stories that
>>you yourself do not even believe, in order to accomplish this goal.
>
>I think that you have little understanding of how children relate to stories,
>and how they develop intellectually and emotionally. I do not want to waste
>my time and the child's time explaining in detail which stories (in the bible
>or elsewhere) are factually accurate, which are totally made up but plausible,
>and which are fantastic. (I attempted to explain in my last post why this
>doesn't work anyway.) I prefer to simply tell the stories, while at the
>same time encouraging the development of skills so that they learn to discern
>among types of stories by themselves. As a matter of fact, I think that if one
>always warned children about the accuracy of stories, they would come to depend
>on the warnings, and not learn to decide for themselves.
but you admit do DELIBERATELY giving them a bioused perspective from the start
forever stunting their intellectual growth! It makes me cry to think of all
the imagination and creativity the preprogrammed ignorant are killing in
the bud because of their psychotic fear of the unknown. This is the exact
opposite of the education process. You are one of the most destructive groups
in our society.
>--
>Seanna Watson Bell-Northern Research,
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
>Opinions, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.
>No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.
>I knew I'd left them somewhere.
>
>
ALEX BUNKER
Kent Sandvik
> I *NEVER* claimed that I was presenting the kids with all the different ways
> of believing or not believing in God or gods. I said that I was presenting
> Christianity. Of course, since I think Christianity is true, I think people
> should be Christians, but I can not *make* anybody a Christian, any more than
> you can *make* anybody an atheist. Some people take little thought to choosing
> what they will believe, and some take a lot, and some choose to believe what
> others tell them, but everyone chooses.
>
> (In my church, and in many others, older kids do learn about other religions
> but I would not claim that they get equal time. If you want to teach com-
> paritive religion or atheism or whatever in your Sunday school, feel free.)
Yes, I think is is really the responsibility of the parents to both teach
their kids to critical/skeptical thinking, as well as select where they will
place their kids for indoctrination.
If there's one thing I will teach my son, it's the ability to become
an independent person, and critical thinking is one of the things one needs
to learn - or have someone as an example.
Then it does not matter if he attends the Sunday School (Christian), as
an individual with skeptical talents he is able to separate fiction from
facts. And the Sunday school is a good training ground!
I would be proud if my son would ask questions like "and how was Jonah
swallowed by a whale, when the Mediterranean sea don't have that big whales?"
Kent
..private opinions...
Charles Hedrick
>kids with all the facts and then letting them make up their own minds, you'd
>give equal time to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, etc. Regardless of
>whether there's anything wrong with it, your role as a Sunday school teacher
>is to make good little Christians out of the kids.
I think there's an intermediate position between presenting all
possibilities equally, and trying to indoctrinate people. The Sunday
School program I've been involved in try to hit this middle ground.
They teach primarily Christianity, but do present some other major
religions. They also encourage critical thinking, and try to avoid
pushing kids into a commitment that isn't their own. I think it's
reasonable for teachers to emphasize views that they think are right.
But I also think they should teach in a way that will help students
develop the skills to learn things on their own, and where necessary
come to different conclusions than the teacher. To take no position
at all I consider to be a cop-out. We don't really want each
generation to have to start from scratch. But we do have to face
the fact that some of what we teach is no doubt wrong, and we
should prepare our students to improve on our beliefs.
Seanna Watson 1333884
In article <51...@anasaz.UUCP> sc...@anasaz.UUCP (Scott Gibson)writes:
>In article <1991Oct24.1...@bnr.ca> sea...@bcrka409.bnr.ca (Seanna >Watson) writes:
>>
>>I do not claim that the bible is everywhere factually accurate
>Why, then, do you believe any of it? How can you tell what to believe, and
>what not to believe?
Why are people so concerned about what I believe about the bible? There
are nearly as many different ways of deciding which parts of the bible are
accurate as there are Christians, and while I am, for the moment, satisfied
with mine, I see no reason to discuss it, as I am not sufficiently committed
to it to want to defend it. (I have as much right as anyone else to be
agnostic about parts of my religion :). If you really want some information
about biblical criticism, inspiration, and inerrancy, try posting to
soc.religion.christian (and I won't be one of the ones responding).
Seanna Watson 1333884
>(Seanna Watson) writes:
>>I *NEVER* claimed that I was presenting the kids with all the different ways
>>of believing or not believing in God or gods. I said that I was presenting
>>Christianity. Of course, since I think Christianity is true, I think people
>>should be Christians, but I can not *make* anybody a Christian, any more than
>>you can *make* anybody an atheist. Some people take little thought to choosing
>>what they will believe, and some take a lot, and some choose to believe what
>>others tell them, but everyone chooses.
>oh so you admit it! What if one of the kids in your sunday class,exact same
>kid, went to a buddist or hindu or moslem equivalent. There someone
>who believed in whatever would want the kids to do the same. and thus the
>kids would be brainwashed that way instead.
Those who choose to believe whatever others tell them would adopt the religion
they were taught. Those who give thought to choosing what they will believe
may choose the religion they were taught or may choose another. Not all who
give a lot of thought to their beliefs become atheists. There even exist
atheists and agnostics who hold *their* beliefs only because that is what
they were taught.
>What if YOU had been sent to
>a different religeon instead you would be brainwashed that way instead
>and you would be today brainwashing kids accordingly. So we see the
>incestuous chain of religeon.
I was *NOT* raised a Christian. My childhood religious training included
Reform Jewish religious school, as well as influences from my atheist
grandfather. I *decided* to become a Christian (when I was a teenager),
after giving thought to what I would believe.
>but you admit do DELIBERATELY giving them a bioused perspective from the start
>forever stunting their intellectual growth!
You have made the dogmatic assumption that belief in god is necessarily
intellectually inferior to disbelief in God.
>It makes me cry to think of all
>the imagination and creativity the preprogrammed ignorant are killing in
>the bud because of their psychotic fear of the unknown. This is the exact
>opposite of the education process. You are one of the most destructive groups
>in our society.
I don't even understand what you are ranting about. It would seem to me that
fear of the unknown is much more inherent in materialism, with its assumption
that the physical world is all there is (ie there is no unknown), than it is
in Christianity.
I don't see how Christianity is incompatible with imagination/creativity or
education, unless you are confusing <christians do> with <christianity is>.
This is the kind of prejudiced attitude that some atheists have (quite rightly)
accused some Christians of having.
I think I will now bow out of this argument and go back to talk.origins. The
atheists there seem to have more respect for the opinions and integrity of
those with whom they disagree than do the self-styled "free-thinkers" on
alt.atheism. While I greatly enjoy reasoned arguments, I find that the
shouting and insult matches here are a waste of the proverbial bandwidth.
Douglas Graham
>Those who choose to believe whatever others tell them would adopt the religion
>they were taught. Those who give thought to choosing what they will believe
>may choose the religion they were taught or may choose another. Not all who
>give a lot of thought to their beliefs become atheists. There even exist
>atheists and agnostics who hold *their* beliefs only because that is what
>they were taught.
I think you vastly underestimate the influence that you have on these kids.
You seem to believe that all the kid has to do is search deep within himself
and the truth will become apparent. While the mind is a beautiful thing,
it cannot work without data, or with only one side of a multi-faceted picture.
If you continuously feed a kid a diet of Christianity, he may not even realize
that there are other options available. And even if he discovers other
worldviews later, the effects of his childhood experiences have a very
powerful influence on his later thinking. And yes, I agree that the same is
true if the kid is only ever told about atheism. That's why I think the best
approach is to not teach the kid anything at all about these nebulous
"spiritual things".
>>but you admit do DELIBERATELY giving them a bioused perspective from the start
>>forever stunting their intellectual growth!
>
>You have made the dogmatic assumption that belief in god is necessarily
>intellectually inferior to disbelief in God.
That's not what he said.
>I don't even understand what you are ranting about. It would seem to me that
>fear of the unknown is much more inherent in materialism, with its assumption
>that the physical world is all there is (ie there is no unknown), than it is
>in Christianity.
This doesn't make sense. Why would anybody be afraid of an unknown that
they don't believe exists? Being dead doesn't worry me at all, although
I'm a bit concerned about the process of getting there.
>I don't see how Christianity is incompatible with imagination/creativity or
>education, unless you are confusing <christians do> with <christianity is>.
>This is the kind of prejudiced attitude that some atheists have (quite rightly)
>accused some Christians of having.
How else are we supposed to judge Christianity if not by what Christians do?
For example, as a conconcted example, if the Bible says that Christians should
be creative, but I notice that most aren't, what should I believe about
Christianity? Or if the ideals of Christianity are that people should be
nice to one another, but I notice that most Christians aren't, what does that
tell me about Christianity?
>I think I will now bow out of this argument and go back to talk.origins. The
>atheists there seem to have more respect for the opinions and integrity of
>those with whom they disagree than do the self-styled "free-thinkers" on
>alt.atheism. While I greatly enjoy reasoned arguments, I find that the
>shouting and insult matches here are a waste of the proverbial bandwidth.
Feel better now? What shouting and insult matches are you referring to?
And who ever questioned your integrity? I have no doubt that you're doing
what you think best for the kids, but I'm also quite certain that you're
wrong. I suspect that the reason you find talk.origins more agreeable is
that there you're on the side of the good guys, whereas here you're on the
defensive. If you don't wish to participate here, that's fine, but there's
no need to throw a tantrum on your way out.