Go to THE ECCLESIASTE
- Add a comment
- Go to DO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS EQUATE TO ILLOGICAL THINKING?
Typographical errors do get in the way of clear presentation of an argument.
Children are just like adults - some question whatever they are taught. Some children with carnivore parents choose vegetarianism. Some are taught about God but find it a challenge to make sense of it in relation to everyday life. This is what I have noticed when I have spoken to children.
posted by
Azur
on February 15, 2005 at 4:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Empty Handed Painter
I am sorry sir, but the Catholic Church and it's teachings is not "The Church".
posted by
Justi
on February 15, 2005 at 4:01 AM
| link to this | reply
empty_handed_painter -- yeah, they like to keep a good 100 - 200 years
behind the times if they can. I remember the catachism used at my school in the early 60's. It had the page on exorcism ripped out of it but we were still being taught the 7 holy sacrements. Even though we were only allowed to recite 6 of them. This went on until the big meeting of the bishops in 1965 passed down a ruling that exorcism would not be taught any more in schools. That was 1965 not 1765.
posted by
gomedome
on February 14, 2005 at 12:30 PM
| link to this | reply
regarding catechism
it wasn't too long ago (within the past 5 years) that "The Church" determined that no changes need to be made to the catechism.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 14, 2005 at 11:47 AM
| link to this | reply
empty_handed_painter -- I have always contended exactly as you say
in this posting. The choice comes in whether or not the individual questions further or beyond what they are taught. I found the analogies you used particularly amusing. I remember vividly the first time I had doubts about Santa Claus. We had a pot bellied stove with a 10" stove pipe yet my parents still insisted he was coming down the chimney. Yeah right, sure he is.....as you have read in the past in some of my postings I can relate the same types of experiences while being instructed by the nuns as a child concerning religion.
posted by
gomedome
on February 14, 2005 at 9:44 AM
| link to this | reply
"The King James English translation, when it was first presented, was filled with hundreds of errors. And yet Christians accept it as "gospel", even now, when one can check Hebrew and Greek lexicons and discover numerous errors still." I absolutely agree with this, as I pointed out here and here. Scripture should NEVER be the sole source for teaching of any brand of faith, as translations dilute meaning whether intended to or not.
"At issue should be the main subject of Kooka's post, which is whether or not people have a choice." Kooka's post was actually about how faith is an action of being true to oneself, which is not a choice, comparing his action of writing as being true to himself. If one is a writer, then one takes the craft more seriously than posting error-laden blurbs then declaring he writes in an error-free manner. If one claims something, but acts contrary to his claim, he is either deliberately being deceptive or does not know that his claim is untrue. As he's mistakenly applied the concept of being true to himself in his writing, I hold his later claim suspect, and therefore reject his argument.
"Although the choice is there, they do not know it; therefore they do not choose, they do not make a choice; they simply accept." This argument has only situational value, as it fails the second the child is made aware of their choice. If the child never realizes his/her choice, they cannot be held accountable for their beliefs. If the child REJECTS his right to choose, he's exercized his choice and CAN be held accountable for his/her beliefs. (held accountable by whom? now that's a separate argument) When one rationalizes (or "to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct" from www.m-w.com), one refuses accountability. Rationalizing is a deliberate action, and therefore a choice.
Regarding teaching of any kind: your example can be found in schools, organizations, clubs, and other gatherings across the globe. Societies are so often devices for assimilating people into duplicates of each other rather than celebrating and nurturing the individual. Religion, while I believe has merit when applied with the individual in mind, can be applied foolishly by people that do not understand.
I wonder if RachelAnna's school is teaching from a Baltimore Catechism? I think I remember reading that fallacy you pointed out in your post there. That would be pretty dumb of her school, as it's not considered an acceptable source of Catholic thought, and hasn't been for quite some time. Catholics have chosen to reject it's over-simplified theology and seperatist tone for other, more accurate teaching aids.
Additionally, there is a huge movement in the Catholic Church toward ecuminism and understanding. You may want to check out "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" by Pope John Paul II. In it he celebrates the variety among world faith, including his admiration of Islam and the depth of eastern thought. He points out the differences, but does not judge. I found it thought provoking, as it opened my thinking about religion from being centered around the building and the bylaws to being a vast resource, no matter the denomination, in the quest for truth.
(p.s. when you quote something, you type the actual words from the source you are using in the body of your work with these " " little things around it, and cite it. Troyka's Handbook for Writers will tell you how to do that.)
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 14, 2005 at 9:32 AM
| link to this | reply
The same argument could be made for teaching the theory of evolution ONLY
in school...no other options are given. Teaching Intelligent Design is not a violation of the constitution, but the gov. doesn't see it that way.That's very sad.
posted by
Ariala
on February 14, 2005 at 7:27 AM
| link to this | reply