Jump to content
  • Sign Up
zaji

The New Religion

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Cynique said:

@DelContrary to what you say, you're doing a very thorough job of arguing  points here.   

 

If facts dispute a person's opinion, then "i don't agree" that people are wrong in disputing a person's opinion.  They are doing him a favor by educating him.  

 

i don't deny anybody an opinion. What i do find off-putting is the self-glorification that accompanies the expression of an opinion or a fact.  Your boy, pioneer, is good at one thing.  And that's gloating and patting himself on the back when he "thinks" he's gotten over on somebody. 

 

In your effort to make yourself over and become super-tolerant, you have lost all of your flavor. Under the cloak of blandness, you now use  the intolerant pioneer as an instrument through which you play out your repressed resentments against others - IMO.  LOL  Feel perfectly free to correct this opinion.  ;)

How is it possible that I can be both super tolerant and doing a thorough job of arguing points? 

 

What would be the source of my repressed anger. If you could detail it for me you would be doing me and my associates a great service.

 

If you facts don't sway your target either your facts aren't compelling, they aren't facts or one or both of your are mistaken about the facts. Opinons are a function of belief and life experience and to assume your opinions are  more valid is arrogant. Is Pioneer the only one gloating over being right?

 

 

2 hours ago, Cynique said:

@Del IMO.  LOL  Feel perfectly free to correct this opinion.  ;)

An opinion is not a factual statement so it is not possible  to correct someone's opinion. Unless they think their opinion is an expression of fact. Which was the point that I was attempting to make. 

If i say chocolate is better than vanilla you can't say that is wrong.

If I say it is a fact that chocolate is better than vanilla. I am still not wrong but it is not a true statement. Since it can't be validated.

So I am hesistant to say someone is wrong I will most likely say we have a misunderstanding or I was not clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. i don't find it necesssary to elucidate on what are my opinions because we do agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions, providing they don't try to pass them off as facts.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Cynique said:

OK. i don't find it necesssary to elucidate on what are my opinions because we do agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions, providing they don't try to pass them off as facts.  

Is anyone not using "facts" to bolster their argument? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF

:unsure: Ok...how did I end up being the one supposedly "wrong"????????????


Perhaps some patient person might be willing to take time to slowly and carefully EXPLAIN to me how I ended up "losing" the argument......lol.

Basically Cynique said that science NEVER espouses religion.

I thought that statement was incorrect so I pointed out that scientists use the term "B.C." when giving historic dates.
B.C. stands for BEFORE CHRIST and "Christ" is a Christian term, thus establishing the FACT that science indeed DOES incorporate religion from time to time.

Instead of Cynique defending her erroneous statement, Mel jumps in and says that B.C. "probably" stands for something else, and then goes on to interject African history and names of the month in the argument without once proving me wrong.

Ok.......

I check the thread today and all of a sudden Mel is calling me a fool, Cynique is praising my supposed "epic take down", and Del is being attacked.

Seriously.....is this some sort of joke?

 


I admit I'm not the smartest person in the world but I'm pretty sure I wasn't wrong nor was I taken down.

I'm pretty sure B.C. meant what I said it did.

I'm pretty sure it proved Cynique's statment wrong.

But perhaps I'm wrong and just not smart enough to realize  my error.
If so, can someone CAREFULLY and PATIENTLY explain to me how I was "wrong" and how I supposedly  got "took down"???????

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1Yada, yada, yada.  Go think up some more non sequitur metaphors until Mel can put you in your place. Again. :blink: 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But whichever way one pitches it, the origin of Year One is , unchanged, coinciding wIth the assigned birth year of Jesus. 

 

So Pioneer is correct  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the OED definition

AD3  

 
 

abbreviation

  • Anno Domini (used to indicate that a date comes the specified number of years after the traditional date of Christ's birth).

     

    Before the Common Era (used of dates before the Christian era, especially by non-Christians).

6 hours ago, Troy said:

That last post was both profound and insightful @Cynique

 

(I'm using the "admin" account because I'm using a different PC and I don't know my "Troy" password, which my laptop has saved -- in case anyone was wondering)

If you want to assist someone in having a more informed opinion that is possible/ And you can dispute whther an opinion represents the known facts but you can't say an opinion is wrong. An opinion represent preferneces an as such can not be validated nor invalidated.

 

 

http://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction

“Facts are statements that can be shown to be true or can be proved, or something that really happened. You can look up facts in an encyclopedia or other reference, or see them for yourself. For example, it is a fact that broccoli is good for you (you can look this up in books about healthy diets).

“Opinions express how a person feels about something – opinions do not have to be based upon logical reasoning. For example, it is an opinion that broccoli tastes good (or bad).”

Both of these connect fact with provability. But in common parlance, “provability” seems audience-relative as well: While one person might find Anselm’s ontological argument to be a sufficient proof for God’s existence (thus rendering “God exists” a fact for that person); others may not.

The Education Oasis site announces that “An opinion expresses someone’s belief ... about something.” So if I believe that there’s beer in my refrigerator, is that just an opinion? The Enchanted Learning site muddies the waters even further by claiming that you can look up facts in an encyclopaedia (always? but then were there no facts before books?), and by including an evaluative notion (“good for you”) among examples of facts.

 

I therefore propose that we abandon the ambiguous fact/opinion distinction, and especially the dismissive retort “That’s just your opinion.” We should focus instead on whether people can offer good reasons for the claims they make – reasons that might compel us to share their views. That’s my opinion, anyway. If you think yours is better, don’t merely say so: Say why.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

B.C. stands for BEFORE CHRIST and "Christ" is a Christian term, thus establishing the FACT that science indeed DOES incorporate religion from time to time.

Did you catch that pun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Delano said:

But whichever way one pitches it, the origin of Year One is , unchanged, coinciding wIth the assigned birth year of Jesus. 

 

So Pioneer is correct  


THANK YOU!


 

 


Cynique

Go think up some more nonsequitor metaphors until Mel can put you in your place. Again


What the hell are you talking about?

I was right about B.C. meaning before Christ, which means I  was correct about everything else that followed.

YOU were the one wrong about the relationship of science and religion.

And MEL was wrong for challenging me on this issue.

Seriously, what kind of DREAM WORLD are you two living in??????


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1Mel put you in your place.  Let you know that your obnoxiousness undermines everything else.  Get it, Dummy?  LMAO

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mayans, The Muslims and the Christians and the Jews all have calendars with different years. Their calendars are astronomical for religious holydays.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delano @Mel Hopkins

I have to agree with Mel. That your example using priest is flawed. You could have argued that by invoking their religious background they are represent a religious view and hence a representative of the church. However by definition they are not religion they are a facet of religion. And the part is not a proxy of the whole. The only instance that is true is for holograms. 

Mel it's your turn.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While years on the Standard Gregorian calendar are measured in relation to the presumed birth of Jesus, non-Christian communities often benchmark theirs against the birth, death or particularly significant episode in the life of their religious leaders:

Iran; Afganistan; Saudi Arabia ; India and Ethiopia. 

This is a reference from the book It's About Time pp 58 - 62 by Liz Evers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Delano said:

I have to agree with Mel. That your example using priest is flawed. You could have argued that by invoking their religious background they are represent a religious view and hence a representative of the church. However by definition they are not religion they are a facet of religion. And the part is not a proxy of the whole. The only instance that is true is for holograms. 

 

@Delano

 

I must agree with Del – science could be the new religion – especially if we’re to view religion as a sum of its parts and not necessarily its tenets.   

A little before I began working in broadcast journalism, I was reading scriptures. I remember saying I want to tell YOUR story like the disciples did in the bible. 

Long story short – a few weeks later I found myself sitting at the anchor desk of our local television station. The current weekend anchor and the news director set me up to do a demo reel. I got the news reporter job.  I was already employed so it was part-time, one day a week – Sunday.   I had NEVER even studied broadcast journalism. I was a writer who was curious and that’s it.

My second news story (a package) was a Catholic church closing.  The Roman Catholic Diocese of Wheeling–Charleston diocese was consolidating churches in a cost saving measure.  I laughed out loud thinking THE ALL has a wonderful sense of humor.   It was a story I didn’t want to do for two reasons – I despised Catholicism and I despised Catholicism. 

Still, it was my job that I asked for and I didn’t want to add to the parishioners’ pain.  To this day – I believe it was my best story ever…and I really sucked at broadcast news reporting in the beginning. 

But in interviewing the congregants, learning the history of the church and what it meant to those people -allowed me to lose the hate – and look at this religion through their eyes.

 I learned the people, their love for each other and the Supernatural was the religion …Some men made up some shit and told folks to worship their ideas but, in the end, religion is its believers -   So yes, science could be the new religion because all it needs are strong believers that the answers they seek will come if they exercise faith.

19 hours ago, Del said:

AD3  

 

@Delano

"The AD first meant “Anni Diocletiani” which related to the beginning of his reign at 284 AD. Diocletian’s laws, persecutions and punishments against the Christian community were severe. "

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

And MEL was wrong for challenging me on this issue.

@Pioneer1

:D  the only thing Mel was wrong about was dignifying  your half-witted response.   

I happened to be writing when I saw your bc/ad as  being part of science.  My head was about to explode because that was the furthest thing from truth. 

Saying AD/BC is used in science is about as bright as saying  English is a scientific language because the universal language is for  scientific studies is English.    None of it has anything to do with Christianity - it's a damn standard!  The only way scientists can keep tract of their discoveries is by using  standards.  


Is the demarcation of the Gregorian calendar determined by the birth of jesus - KINDA -but only the ignorant would stop there.  Is science governed by christianity -I guess if you're one of four people  who believes the sun revolves around the earth.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:
18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

And MEL was wrong for challenging me on this issue.

@Pioneer1

:D  the only thing Mel was wrong about was dignifying  your half-witted response.   

I happened to be writing when I saw your bc/ad as  being part of science.  My head was about to explode because that was the furthest thing from truth. 

Saying AD/BC is used in science is about as bright as saying  English is a scientific language because the universal language is for  scientific studies is English.    None of it has anything to do with Christianity - it's a damn standard!  The only way scientists can keep tract of their discoveries is by using  standards.  


Is the demarcation of the Gregorian calendar determined by the birth of jesus - KINDA -but only the ignorant would stop there.  Is science governed by christianity -I guess if you're one of four people  who believes the sun revolves around the earth.    

Right. i just noticed that myself while skimming over the thread.  Pioneer's "pretty sure" statement of "fact" was a prime example of having "knowledge" but not "comprehension".  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cynique said:

Right. i just noticed that myself while skimming over the thread.  Pioneer's "pretty sure" statement of "fact" was a prime example of having "knowledge" but not "comprehension".  

"He who knows not, and known not that he knows not, is a fool!"  :lol:

 

OMG!!! That's it!  That's why I reached for the duct tape!  Pioneer's statement lacks context! 

"I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts... unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."

Thank you, @Cynique you've cleared up the mystery!   "knowledge is the basis of understanding" but you have to do the work.  You can't just slap a fact up in this forum and think you're going to get a sticker! 

Nope , not gonna happen LOL...
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is Astrology a religion?  Aren't the Summer Solstice, the Vernal Equinox, etc,  Paganistic in origin, preceding Christianity?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

OMG!!! That's it!  That's why I reached for the duct tape!  Pioneer's statement lacks context! 

"I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts... unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."

Thank you, @Cynique you've cleared up the mystery!   "knowledge is the basis of understanding" but you have to do the work.  You can't just slap a fact up in this forum and think you're going to get a sticker! 

Nope , not gonna happen LOL...
 

Well done @Mel Hopkins @Cynique 

Note this well @Pioneer1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Delano said:

Are you disputing that the numeric value of most calendar years is based on religion  .

 

@Delano, I'm not sure what you mean by "numeric value of most calendars"  -

if you're referring to dating conventions ,however, I will say "kind of".   This is based on the fact western civilization is only at 2018 years...whereas civilization has been here far longer  AND the calendar year is made up of 12 MOON-THS.   The 12 months are based on roman politics - since they had to determine when taxes were to be paid.   It was initially 10 months - i.e. DEC-ember (dec being the numeral prefix for10) also the months and days of of the week are named for roman /greek god/esses .   

 

@Cynique also raises a great point of note that we still recognize the seasons as did the monk who came up with current calendar era.   - The christian monk couldn't ignore the very Pagan belief of the science of nature. 

In any event, the assumption  that using the current dating conventions means christianity is wedded to science is absurd.   Even NASA  steers clear of  BC/AD  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Delano said:

While years on the Standard Gregorian calendar are measured in relation to the presumed birth of Jesus, non-Christian communities often benchmark theirs against the birth, death or particularly significant episode in the life of their religious leaders:

Iran; Afganistan; Saudi Arabia ; India and Ethiopia. 

This is a reference from the book It's About Time pp 58 - 62 by Liz Evers. 

The numerical value of the year. I am familiar with the calculation of the month the naming and order of days of the week, the adjustment of the calendar, civilizations  that used a non 7 day week. Since this is mostly astronomical. As are Easter Passover Chinese New Year, the Kumbh Mela and other holydays.

@Mel Hopkins @Pioneer1

Edited by Delano
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

OMG!!! That's it!  That's why I reached for the duct tape!  Pioneer's statement lacks context! 

"I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts... unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."

Thank you, @Cynique you've cleared up the mystery!   "knowledge is the basis of understanding" but you have to do the work.  You can't just slap a fact up in this forum and think you're going to get a sticker! 

Nope , not gonna happen LOL...
 

 

I couldn't have said it better. @Mel Hopkins @Cynique @Troy @zaji @Pioneer1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I couldn't have said it better

 


Lol, I bet I can not only SAY it better but SHOW AND PROVE them both to be frauds.
 


*First Cynique makes an ERRONEOUS statement by saying religion is NEVER espoused to science.
And I proved her WRONG by pointing out that "B.C" is a religious concept used by scientists.


*Then Mel tries to defend her by claiming B.C. DOES NOT or MAY NOT stand for "Before Christ".
When asked what DOES it stands for....she started stuttering and trying to change the conversation like a child trying to hide their mischief....lol.




Del, you say note this well?

Ofcourse I've noted what Mel said....BECAUSE SHE'S QUOTING MY VERY OWN STATEMENT!


She's quoting ME where I said:

"
I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts.
But found out that unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."


https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4876-comprehension-is-intimately-intertwined-with-knowledge/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-24562

 

I've made it crystal clear that one needs FACTS PLUS UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE FACTS in order to be knowledgable.

Now contrast that....with what CYNIQUE SAID in the very same thread:


"
A person can be knowledgeable about a subject because he has been supplied with the facts and the information.......Comprehension doesn't figure into this equation. "


" because when you give them facts you are making them knowledgeable about the subject which the facts refer to; whether they comprehend what the facts indicate is not a given. "


"Knowledge is synonymous with information and facts, but it is not synonymous with comprehension. "

 

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4876-comprehension-is-intimately-intertwined-with-knowledge/

 


CYNIQUE IS THE ONE WHO SAYS MERE FACTS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING OR COMPREHENSION IS THE SAME AS KNOWLEDGE!

Now I wonder what Mel has to say about Cynique's belief that facts without comprehension is the same as knowledge.
Or will she just pretend to overlook it and try to change the subject again.....lol.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 


Lol, I bet I can not only SAY it better but SHOW AND PROVE them both to be frauds.
 


*First Cynique makes an ERRONEOUS statement by saying religion is NEVER espoused to science.
And I proved her WRONG by pointing out that "B.C" is a religious concept used by scientists.


*Then Mel tries to defend her by claiming B.C. DOES NOT or MAY NOT stand for "Before Christ".
When asked what DOES it stands for....she started stuttering and trying to change the conversation like a child trying to hide their mischief....lol.




Del, you say note this well?

Ofcourse I've noted what Mel said....BECAUSE SHE'S QUOTING MY VERY OWN STATEMENT!


She's quoting ME where I said:

"
I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts.
But found out that unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."


https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4876-comprehension-is-intimately-intertwined-with-knowledge/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-24562

 

I've made it crystal clear that one needs FACTS PLUS UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE FACTS in order to be knowledgable.

Now contrast that....with what CYNIQUE SAID in the very same thread:


"
A person can be knowledgeable about a subject because he has been supplied with the facts and the information.......Comprehension doesn't figure into this equation. "


" because when you give them facts you are making them knowledgeable about the subject which the facts refer to; whether they comprehend what the facts indicate is not a given. "


"Knowledge is synonymous with information and facts, but it is not synonymous with comprehension. "

 

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4876-comprehension-is-intimately-intertwined-with-knowledge/

 


CYNIQUE IS THE ONE WHO SAYS MERE FACTS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING OR COMPREHENSION IS THE SAME AS KNOWLEDGE!

Now I wonder what Mel has to say about Cynique's belief that facts without comprehension is the same as knowledge.
Or will she just pretend to overlook it and try to change the subject again.....lol.


 

So you have noted it well. Show and prove. @Pioneer1

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 Your patchwork quilt rant, reeking with your ego-maniacal bull shit, drenched with the foul piss of your irrelevant rebuttals and the putrid pus oozing from the festering wound of your being a sore loser, was yet another indication of your inability to even  consider the idea that you are anything but right about everything.  Doing this would so deflate your overblown self-esteem that your sanity would be threatened.  Have you ever in your life done any soul searching to try and figure out why you are so possessed by a need to aggrandize yourself?  Is it a substitute for Viagra?    You make it so easy for me to disagree with all of the half-truths and drivel you just drooled in the process of putting your spin on things,  especially you giving your interpretation to  my conclusion about knowledge, saying it contradicted Mel's, when it didn't!  SMH.  

 

2 hours ago, Delano said:

Pioneer, you have noted it well. Show and prove.

@Delyou are perfectly  right in pointing out that all Pioneer did was unload a barrage of subterfuge, saying everybody but him was wrong.  In his skewed mind, saying it, makes it so. He's incorrigible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cynique said:

@Pioneer1 Your patchwork quilt rant, reeking with your ego-maniacal bull shit, drenched with the foul piss of your irrelevant rebuttals and the putrid pus oozing from the festering wound of your being a sore loser, was yet another indication of your inability to even  consider the idea that you are anything but right about everything.  Doing this would so deflate your overblown self-esteem that your sanity would be threatened.  Have you ever in your life done any soul searching to try and figure out why you are so possessed by a need to aggrandize yourself?  Is it a substitute for Viagra?    You make it so easy for me to disagree with all of the half-truths and drivel you just drooled in the process of putting your spin on things,  especially you giving your interpretation to  my conclusion about knowledge, saying it contradicted Mel's, when it didn't!  SMH.  

 

@Delyou are perfectly  right in pointing out that all Pioneer did was unload a barrage of subterfuge, saying everybody but him was wrong.  In his skewed mind, saying it, makes it so. He's incorrigible.  

 

Like Del said, no need to have an emotional reaction.
 

If you think I'm wrong about something.....cut out all the insults and just prove it.

Show us EXACTLY what I said that was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i concede that my statement about science never espousing religion was an opinion.  Conventional wisdom in regard to this question indicates that the lines are blurred; a moot situation.  It just depends. Nuclear science doesn't espouse religion.  The science of aerodynamics doesn't espouse religion. Mechanical physics doesn't espouse religion. Psychiatry doesn't espouse religion.  And nowhere, as Mel explained, is the delineation between BC and AD cited as an example of science espousing religion.  Except according to that well-known authority on nothing.  And that would be you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DelI find what Mel said more on point. 

 

On 2/23/2018 at 8:05 PM, Mel Hopkins said:

Saying AD/BC is used in science is about as bright as saying  English is a scientific language because the universal language is for  scientific studies is English.    None of it has anything to do with Christianity - it's a damn standard!  The only way scientists can keep tract of their discoveries is by using  standards.  


Is the demarcation of the Gregorian calendar determined by the birth of jesus - KINDA -but only the ignorant would stop there.  Is science governed by christianity -I guess if you're one of four people  who believes the sun revolves around the earth.    

 

There's a difference between acknowledging the existence of religion and incorporating it into the scientific field of study.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cynique said:

 

There's a difference between acknowledging the existence of religion and incorporating it into your field of study.

 

Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”

In the United Kingdom, the earliest university-type establishment was probably the College, established by the Celtic preacher St. Illtyd in about AD 500. Oxford University was established by various religious orders. Likewise, Cambridge University was established in 1209 by Christian leaders. Saint Andrews, Scotland’s oldest university, was founded principally for the teaching and study of theology. The commitment of these religious founders might be suspect, but many of the later colleges were founded by Bible-believing Christians. The University of Edinburgh had a thoroughly evangelical beginning, being founded under Presbyterian auspices.

Even my alma mater, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC), had Christian roots when it was founded in 1869. Our school motto was Deo Volente, which is Latin for “God willing.” By the time I attended SIUC in the 1990s, there was almost no vestige of that Christian heritage left. In fact, the university emphatically teaches evolution over millions of years and blatantly rejects the possibility of biblical authority (that the Bible is true—authoritative—and that we need to adjust our beliefs and actions to its teaching).

So what happened to cause so many schools to abandon their Christian roots?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

School abandoning Christian Roots?!  When did they ever have them? All of them were racist, classist, sexists institutions.  One could easily argue that they still are.  

 

Is this an example of incorporating Christian values.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The foundling fathers of this country did not intend for  it to be a theocracy,  and kept "God" out of the constitution.  All references such  as  "Under God" and "In God We Trust" were adopted later.  God, put in context as a  personification of the Big Bang, can be separated from religion, which was created by Man.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are numbers discovered or created?

No one will get this one right.

9 hours ago, Troy said:

School abandoning Christian Roots?!  When did they ever have them? All of them were racist, classist, sexists institutions.  One could easily argue that they still are.  

 

Is this an example of incorporating Christian values.

 

@Troy you may want to read the first sentence. Or you could look it up. Christian roots and principles are not synonymous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw come on Del, Christian roots, principles, or whatever you wanna call it -- it had nothing to do with Christianity.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troy said:

Aw come on Del, Christian roots, principles, or whatever you wanna call it -- it had nothing to do with Christianity.

 

Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×