Prefer, Boaz?

>>I prefer this myself "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, as I have loved you" John 13.34<<

You may well "prefer" it. But actually understanding it is a different matter.

One thing is certain. For you as an individual, that idea of "love one another" doesn't actually stretch much further than your own brethren-in-religion. There is definitely no sign of it when it comes to people who do not share your views.

>>This [secularism] of course means no less than 'the law of the jungle' and we serve the lord Machievelli as we strive for oneupmanship and personal or family or clan supremacy.<<

On the evidence, it is crystal clear that you are actually referring to the "oneupmanship" and "supremacy" of your own religious views, are you not.

Which is fair enough, I guess, in your world. After all, you have chosen to follow one strand (the Brethren?) of one segment (the evangelists?) of one faction (Protestantism?) within one religion (Christianity). It must be very important to you that you attack all the others, simply to convince yourself that you have made the right choice.

But in doing so, you have convinced yourself that everyone else is bent on the same "oneupmanship" and "supremacy". Otherwise, your own struggles will seem quite meaningless.

If you ever do manage to look around you without the distorting lenses of your belief system, you will find that there is a whole bunch of people out there who are able to act ethically, exercise self-control and take responsibility for their own lives, without having to live with the confusion and mixed messages that a religious order imposes.

>>"Nietzsche called the establishment of moral systems based on a dichotomy of good and evil a 'calamitous error'"<<

Admit it, Boaz. You don't actually understand that quote, do you? You have simply picked it because it sounds deep.

Have you actually read any Nietsche, by the way?

His writings, that is, not his Wikipedia entry.

Thought not.

"Due to the bigotry and discrimination of so many academics they will only mention negative aspects of various religions, and not mention any positive aspects."
-vanna

Rather like people only mentioning negative aspects of Marxism & feminism then?

"concentration camps and forced starvation that killed millions under secular systems such as those enforced by Mao Tse-Tung and Stalin."
-vanna

Right, and why did Mao Tse-Tung & Stalin kill millions? 'Coz their regimes were secular? Well, no: for starters, their regimes were atheistic, not secular. And when they did snuff folk on religious grounds, the faith of the victims was merely a justification, not the actual reason. The reason Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin et. al. killed millions was 'coz they were homicidal wackos - precisely the same reason which has led religious leaders to commit atrocities. Homicidal wackos and the venially immoral can be found in both the theistic and atheistic camps, and do not constitute a sound criticism of either viewpoint.

"After 20 years of feminist rule in Australian education there is very little science left in Australian education.... I would think that the attempt to remove religion from education is being carried out, not to increase science in education, but to clear away any obstacles and make it easier to bring even more Marxist and feminism doctrine into the education system."
-vanna

Absolute rubbish. Where is your evidence? All my education has been during the past 20 years. I have experienced many, many hours of scientific education, at primary, secondary and tertiary level. I have experienced zero hours of Marxist indoctrination, and the same of feminist indoctrination. We didn't even look at Marxism & feminism much in our history classes; apparently it being much more important for us to learn the fairy-tales of the indigenous people.

Riz, a very cogent argument. Keep up the good work.

David

Vanna,

That wasn't abuse...It was sort of tongue in cheek. Never mind.

But if one types tripe aren't we ripe for a snipe at the tripe we type? Hey, that was almost poetic....lol

And what does the University name have to do with anything?

Can you defend your "feminism (or the belief in denigration of the male gender)"?

Does your comment make you look a little fragile on the subject of feminism?

Still if I hurt your feelings I apologise

vanna,

What amuses me about your comments on threads that discuss religion, is that you start out as though you’re fairly neutral (albeit a little naive), but then, when challenged, you show yourself to be as misinformed as any fundamentalist.

<<Due to the bigotry and discrimination of so many academics, they will only mention negative aspects of various religions, and not mention any positive aspects.>>

That’s because the negatives far out-weight the positives of religion. Religion has brought some positives, but what’s even more important to remember is the fact that there is nothing religion has brought that could not have possibly come via non-religious means.

<<What is also noticeable, is that they rarely mention the concentration camps and forced starvation that killed millions under secular systems such as those enforced by Mao Tse-Tung and Stalin.>>

Wrong. Those societies were anti-religious societies, not secular.

Despite Meg Wallace, McReal, Pelican explaining what secularism is, you still don’t get it. You are either slow, or you simply want invent your own definition of secularism that suits you.

And what on Earth does this mean...

<<The idea that education should be science is totally dubious.>>

It sounds to me like you’re suggesting that religious mythology be taught as though it played a just-as-important role as science does in understanding reality.

But then you change your tone a little by complaining that not enough science is taught...

<<After 20 years of feminist rule in Australian education, there is very little science left in Australian education.>>

After our little discussion on creationism and evolution a few months back (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10424&page=0) you certainly wouldn’t have a hard time convincing me of this.

But what do you think is missing?

<<Furthermore, [average trainee teacher] didn’t want to know about science.>>

But neither did you a few months back despite the attempts of many to explain it to you. Zeus only knows what branch of science you’re trained in that enables you to be blasé about whether or not the scientific method is applied. Obviously not biology.

Was it Truthology at Bible college?

Continued...

...Continued

<<I would think that the attempt to remove religion from education is being carried out, not to increase science in education, but to clear away any obstacles and make it easier to bring even more Marxist and feminism doctrine into the education system.>>

Firstly, what kind of religious education are you referring to? Comparative studies? indoctrination?

And secondly, how does that religious education prevent Marxist and feminist doctrine working its way into the education system?

This’d wanna be good.