Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

I was addressing both of you, if you meant to be sarcastic then I suggest you rewrite your post.
Dont blame anyone but yourself if someone calls you out when you in plain text declare an entire profession to be made up of child molestors.

*sigh* I'm not going to edit it because I felt that the sarcasm was pretty much dripping out of every orifice.

Not only was it dripping, it was rainbow colored and screaming. The sarcasm couldn't have been more obvious. I think Orlanth needs to lay off the coffee and take up yoga or something.

~Tim?

I'm pretty sure you were the only one so far to think he was serious Orlanth, or at least the only one to post as such in a rude and abrasive manner.

Edited

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Just like we cannot keep his believers out of children

Yes, because every Christian minister is a child molester...

That is not acceptable at all, and I have to call you out on that.

Yes there is child abusers in the churches and we regret this and the damage they do. However two points must be made clear.

1. Under no circumstances whatsoever is there ANY excuse to accuse all Christian ministers of child molesting, or even to imply it is more than a minority. That is just bigotry, and is not acceptable even as a joke.

2. The Roman Catholic church, which bears the brunt of these accusations is one of the largest organisations in human history, and is almost certainly the largest today, dwarfing even the Chinese armed forces in terms of numbers of employees, paid and voluntary. The Roman Catholic church has more employees than many established and sovereign nations have people.
With that in mind is it not inevitable that a portion will be bad? It would be like realising there are paedophiles in Danish prisons so Danes are therefore child molestors. No one would be allowed to get away with that conclusion and there are more Catholic employees than there are Danes.

The context I got out of Senden's quip was referencing the forcing religion on children by their elders, which I can understand.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
There you go again, making mountains out of molehills.

Took the words out of my finger tips.

While I can empathize with the Teacher... I think all parties here are over reacting here.

Yeah, all parties are being silly, excepting the school board.

The student was an idiot because she doesn't understand what an idol is.

The teacher is an idiot because its fourth grade homework, and she should have just given it a pass and moved on, maybe with a note attached explaining that an idol needs to be a person.

The parent is an idiot because she tried to make a constitutional issue over the fact that her child doesn't understand what an idol is.

The school board aren't idiots, because they did whatever they had to to resolve an issue about a fourth grader's homework as quickly as possible.

Dakka are idiots because we're debating this. Honest to God spending enough of our time to produce three pages debating a fourth graders homework assignment that from the look of it was done in the commercial breaks during Spongebob.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Sorry, that is wrong theology sebster. Prior to the incarnation of Jesus it was difficult to know God, though some claimed to do so they were very few; so you would be correct that Jesus was sent to open the way. In the New Testament era however one can know God because of the Holy Spirit, it fact it is best to say that one can know God, the Holy Spirit and only know of God, the Son.

Why are you talking about 'knowing' God? Look at my example. Applesause. We 'know' applesauce. The reason applesauce makes no sense as an idol isn't because as much as we may like it and think its awesome, it makes no sense to aspire to be applesause.

You have this really boring habit of just inserting in to other people's posts all kinds of other stuff so you can wedge them in to whatever theological issue you feel like talking about at that point in time. It's boring. Stop it.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

I was addressing both of you, if you meant to be sarcastic then I suggest you rewrite your post.
Dont blame anyone but yourself if someone calls you out when you in plain text declare an entire profession to be made up of child molestors.

*sigh* I'm not going to edit it because I felt that the sarcasm was pretty much dripping out of every orifice.

Not only was it dripping, it was rainbow colored and screaming. The sarcasm couldn't have been more obvious. I think Orlanth needs to lay off the coffee and take up yoga or something.

~Tim?

Here's another one for "obvious sarcasm".

 Orlanth wrote:

Bullockist wrote:


I'm currently praying god gifts you with a sense of humour.

If anyone were to say that 'all blacks/whites/gays/gamers/French/doctors/Americans/priests are child molestors', whether in jest or not I would hope Dakka would see fit to chastise them for doing so rather than attack anyone who critiques such a vile comment as lacking a sense of humour.

Bigotry is not a laughing matter.

It seems Bullockist's prayers were unattended to.

 sebster wrote:
The student was an idiot because she doesn't understand what an idol is.

I'm starting to wonder if you do.

Why are you talking about 'knowing' God? Look at my example. Applesause. We 'know' applesauce. The reason applesauce makes no sense as an idol isn't because as much as we may like it and think its awesome, it makes no sense to aspire to be applesause.

i·dol [ahyd-l]
noun
1. an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed.
2. Bible.
a. an image of a deity other than God.
b. the deity itself.
3. any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion.
4. a mere image or semblance of something, visible but without substance, as a phantom.
5. a figment of the mind; fantasy.

I even went to the trouble of checking a couple different dictionaries and couldn't find any definition for idol that included aspiration to becoming or emulation. I think you're thinking of a different word.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if you do.

In English, and most other languages, exactly which meaning of a word is intended by the speaker is generally figured out by context. This is a skill mastered simultaneously with very early language. A classic example is the sentence "I saw a dog in a pet store window and decided to buy it". Per the technical rules of English the 'it' that has been purchased would be the window, but by our understanding of the context of pet stores we know that it is the dog that is for sale.

Similarly, when asked to complete an assignment on an idol, context should play an important role in informing the student's that they are not being asked to write about an image of a deity other than God, or a figment of the mind.

Now from there it gets a little trickier. Because we have to use context to not only figure which meaning is being picked, but also add in extra details that might not relate to the that definition of the word in every situation, but most certainly apply in this situation. It is this understanding of context that allows us to interpret the phrase 'no talking during the exam' to also include whispering, shouting, sign language and all other kinds of communication that aren't 'talking', but clearly not allowed during the exam. This is stuff that kids often don't develop until they're about 5, and some particularly dim 10 year olds might struggle with.

And in this case, given the assignment for young children to write about an idol, it's reasonable to assume that it involves an idol that they want to be like, and not an otherworldly creator God.

 sebster wrote:
Similarly, when asked to complete an assignment on an idol, context should play an important role in informing the student's that they are not being asked to write about an image of a deity other than God, or a figment of the mind.

Indeed not. They could, for example, be asked to write about any person or thing regarded with admiration, adoration, or devotion.

Now from there it gets a little trickier. Because we have to use context to not only figure which meaning is being picked, but also add in extra details that might not relate to the that definition of the word in every situation, but most certainly apply in this situation. It is this understanding of context that allows us to interpret the phrase 'no talking during the exam' to also include whispering, shouting, sign language and all other kinds of communication that aren't 'talking', but clearly not allowed during the exam. This is stuff that kids often don't develop until they're about 5, and some particularly dim 10 year olds might struggle with.

And in this case, given the assignment for young children to write about an idol, it's reasonable to assume that it involves an idol that they want to be like, and not an otherworldly creator God.

Perhaps. I haven't seen the assignment, however, so making claims about its context is beyond my ken.

Regardless, claiming the student's an idiot for not knowing the definition of 'idol' seems rather ironic given that her initial choice is acceptable under at least two of the definitions of the word, and the definition you prefer does not appear to be listed in any known dictionary, dependent entirely on context. Sort of like "ratchet."

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Russell's Teapot is poison to religion

So he thought. The mistake lies in assuming faith is a collection of fact claims in the same sense that physics is. I'm not saying atheists are the only ones to make that mistake.

Skipping the theology debate as much as I can, I'm going to try to keep this in the context of my hypothetical problem: that the students were asked ot select a nonfiction person they idolize.

The kid cannot thus pick god, because god is not real, nor can be considered real until such a time as can be demonstrated otherwise. The question is not of faith; the question is very simple: is god real. And the answer is no, just as it is with vampires and wizards. Because while a person might have faith that god exists, s/he cannot demonstrate this belief in any way other than a pure reliance on the pre-existing belief in such. Thus, if the assignment asked for a nonfiction person to be selected, the god is an invalid choice, just as would be Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker.


However, as an aside, I would love for you to explain to me what you mean by "fact claims" in any sense other than the sense that includes physics; because it sounds to me like you're trying to redefine what "fact" pertains to.

 Orlanth wrote:

Besides there are one or two people on Dakka who have a serious hate issue regarding religious people, and I would not put it past them to come up with gak like that for real.

As opposed to those who want to wave away the serious criminal institutional wrongdoings the church engaged in for years?

People should be in jail for the coverups that went on, not just having el-pope's people say 'oh yes, we dealt with that internally by having a quiet chat with the priest who raped and sexually abused tens of children in his care'.

I don't care how rare or otherwise the actual abuses were, when you had people covering things up at the very highest levels of the church and no one going to jail over it, something is going wrong.

'Having a bit of a spring clean' is not fething good enough. The church needs to hand over everything and everyone they have to the police. Maybe then people might respect them...

 Seaward wrote:
Indeed not. They could, for example, be asked to write about any person or thing regarded with admiration, adoration, or devotion.

Just like American Idol constantly has dogs and antique furniture apply to be on the show. If any idol will do, because there's no such thing as context, then...

Perhaps. I haven't seen the assignment, however, so making claims about its context is beyond my ken.

Regardless, claiming the student's an idiot for not knowing the definition of 'idol' seems rather ironic given that her initial choice is acceptable under at least two of the definitions of the word, and the definition you prefer does not appear to be listed in any known dictionary, dependent entirely on context. Sort of like "ratchet."

I just explained this. People use context to gather the intent of another person's statement. It's actually a lot more important than the literal definition of what was stated. To repeat the example I already gave, 'no talking during the exam' literally means that people are not allowed to talk, but that other forms of communication like shouting or whispering would be just fine... but of course we all understand context and use that to determine what is intended.

As such, it may well have met the literal request of the homework assignment to do your assignment on God, or applesauce, but it's pretty clear the intent was to write about someone you admire and want to be like, because that's the kind of stuff that schools do all the time.

 Orlanth wrote:
That is just bigotry, and is not acceptable even as a joke.

Well, I was baptized Catholic, so it isn't bigotry. Just like you can only criticize an ethnic group if you are a member of it.


And if you God bothering types can't handle that you should be more careful about the political allegiances of the babies you spill water on.














Also I was talking about child molestation

 sebster wrote:
Just like American Idol constantly has dogs and antique furniture apply to be on the show. If any idol will do, because there's no such thing as context, then...

That's an interesting example, because if someone were to say, "Provide an example of a music idol," my answer would not include anyone I wished to emulate.

I just explained this. People use context to gather the intent of another person's statement. It's actually a lot more important than the literal definition of what was stated. To repeat the example I already gave, 'no talking during the exam' literally means that people are not allowed to talk, but that other forms of communication like shouting or whispering would be just fine... but of course we all understand context and use that to determine what is intended.

As such, it may well have met the literal request of the homework assignment to do your assignment on God, or applesauce, but it's pretty clear the intent was to write about someone you admire and want to be like, because that's the kind of stuff that schools do all the time.

Aside from the gaffe on the actual definition of the word, what I find so perplexing about your point is the assumption that the majority - or even all, perhaps - of fourth graders have an intricate, nuanced theologically-informed view of God, rather than seeing him as some guy who sits in heaven. What if she said her reasoning for naming God as her idol was that he is kind, loving, and wise? Plenty of children view God as a "person". I doubt the same could be said for applesauce.

So is there any chance of this thread getting back on topic, you know.... about a 10 year old girl and her report? Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BASHING RELIGIONS AND FONDLING CHILDREN!


Just curious is all.

No no chance whatsoever.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

I was addressing both of you, if you meant to be sarcastic then I suggest you rewrite your post.
Dont blame anyone but yourself if someone calls you out when you in plain text declare an entire profession to be made up of child molestors.

*sigh* I'm not going to edit it because I felt that the sarcasm was pretty much dripping out of every orifice.

Not only was it dripping, it was rainbow colored and screaming. The sarcasm couldn't have been more obvious. I think Orlanth needs to lay off the coffee and take up yoga or something.

~Tim?

Fair enough. If you think I owe Alfndrate an apology I will man up and say do so

Apology offered to Alfndrate for assuming that his comments about all priests being child molestors being literal rather than sarcastic.

I hope you all understand the offence it would cause if it was.

No need to apologize Orlanth, but it is appreciated .

As a former Roman Catholic (I was even confirmed!) I know that not all priests are child molesters and that the church handled it badly. Let's get back on topic to this young girl, though there doesn't seem to be much in the way of updates. The story about her not being able to write about God is a month old.

The girl should be able to write about people that she looks up to. If she only has experience with the love your neighbor God of the New Testament then so be it, he's not a terrible dude to look up to. If she looks up to fire and brimstone God of the Old, well I think we've found our future world leader

 azazel the cat wrote:
because god is not real

Begging the question, just like Russell.

 azazel the cat wrote:
it sounds to me like you're trying to redefine what "fact" pertains to

A fact (in the modern sense) is indisputable; the existence of God is disputable; hence the existence of God cannot be considered a fact.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Sorry, that is wrong theology sebster. Prior to the incarnation of Jesus it was difficult to know God, though some claimed to do so they were very few; so you would be correct that Jesus was sent to open the way. In the New Testament era however one can know God because of the Holy Spirit, it fact it is best to say that one can know God, the Holy Spirit and only know of God, the Son.

Why are you talking about 'knowing' God? Look at my example. Applesause. We 'know' applesauce. The reason applesauce makes no sense as an idol isn't because as much as we may like it and think its awesome, it makes no sense to aspire to be applesause.

You have this really boring habit of just inserting in to other people's posts all kinds of other stuff so you can wedge them in to whatever theological issue you feel like talking about at that point in time. It's boring. Stop it.

If you don't want me to respond to you, stop talking bollocks on religion threads. People can choose their idol for several reasons, as someone to directly emulate, as a source of inspiration or as a provider, God can be all three.

1. God is a valid functional role model from a Christian perspective.
You are only correct in that one cannot become as applesauce, but we can become as God. Not only is it confirmed as a possibility scripture requires that we should attempt to do so

Christians for example are asked to become Christlike. Here are some scriptural examples:

Phillipians 2:5 - In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

2 Corinthians 3:18 - And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

1Corinthians 11:1 - Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

There are many, many more examples, but that is enough for now. Its not deep tgheology unlike the stuff on intercessory prayer, its face up stuff that can be read in plain text. All the above comments read very clearly in context that one is expected to see God as a functional role model.


2. God is an inspirational role model.
Even if God were not considered a functional role model that is not the only reason to do so. Someone could for instance choose Neil Armstrong as an idol, it would be a solid secular choice and I doubt anyone either you or the school would have any problem with the choice. However what if the kids who chose Neil Armstrong was disabled and had no hope of ever successfully applying ofr the space program. Can he or still not still choose Neil Armstrong as a role model? A role model can also inspire ones dreams, in fact its what they best do, and that also applies to God.

I wonder how far you take your dogma of only permitting functional role models sebster.

Teacher sebster : Now class I want you all to think of an idol for your homework and do a full page on your personal idol for next class.
Littlie Timmy: Sir!. Can I choose Michael Phelps the Olympic swimmer?
Teacher sebster: Sorry Timmy you have a congenital disorder and will never make the Olympic team, why not choose someone from the Paraplympic team instead.

3. God is someone to look to for comfort
God can be envisioned as a personal friend and someone to look to for comfort and protection according to many of His followers including myself. From the images I saw of the homework that is also the opinion of Erin Shead. Now it is plain as days from other threads that you don't like that theology sebster, but there is still value in this and thus it is an acceptable choice.
Here are some quotes from this child's work:

"God is my idol I will never hate him he will always be the 1 person I look up to."
"I look up to him because he put me on this earth. He is the reason I am on this earth."

10 year old Erin Shead believes that God is someone a person can look up to.

Why are you talking about 'knowing' God? Look at my example. Applesause. We 'know' applesauce. The reason applesauce makes no sense as an idol isn't because as much as we may like it and think its awesome, it makes no sense to aspire to be applesause.

That ten year old has a better grasp of theology than you do, should I be surprised.

 sebster wrote:

You have this really boring habit of just inserting in to other people's posts all kinds of other stuff so you can wedge them in to whatever theological issue you feel like talking about at that point in time. It's boring. Stop it.

You made my presence necessary. Time and again you want to redefine Biblical issues according to your non-belief and apply the twisted thinking that results as the opinions of others. I would not dare take a Buddhist quote say what it means from a non-Buddhist perspective ignoring all Buddhist teaching and insist that the garbled remains are what Buddhists actually believe. So why do you insist on doing same, and continue to do so even after the correct theology is presented because it doesn't match your opinions.
It doesnt help that in almost every case, this being the only exception, you want to propose that the comments spoken are something far less morally palatable than what was actually spoken

Ultimately if you demand sole right of translation you could in time make even Mohammandas Ghandi appear like a raving hate fuelled fanatic.

So I am staying right here.

The comparison of God to applesauce is inane and disappointing.

@OP: Who cares?
It's not like the kid was being kicked out for it, she just did a different one...

 purplefood wrote:
@OP: Who cares?
It's not like the kid was being kicked out for it, she just did a different one...

Your use of logic and reasonableness have no place here (plus I didn't know that).

Yeah she did Michael Jackson after he God one was rejected.

But I thought this was a First Amendment issue?

It is, now more than ever. Forced to turn from God to Jackson-oh the humanity!

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
because god is not real

Begging the question, just like Russell.

 azazel the cat wrote:
it sounds to me like you're trying to redefine what "fact" pertains to

A fact (in the modern sense) is indisputable; the existence of God is disputable; hence the existence of God cannot be considered a fact.

Well, we seem to agree on the definition of what is a fact. But Russel's Teapot is not about begging the question; it is about where lies the burden of proof. That being said, why don't you explain to me that god is not a fictional character. Be prepared to answer the following questions:

Where does s/he live?
Do you have any facts to prove that?
How can I get there?
Do you have any facts to prove that?
Can I meet god?
Do you have any facts to prove that?
Has anyone ever met god?
Do you have any facts to prove that?

I think you see the pattern forming. Because the question of facts can never be answered in the affirmative, then and positive answers to each preceding question can never be considered valid, thus there is neither evidence nor even implication that god is anything other than a character in a fictional story.

Now, I don't mean to tear into your belief system, so I'm trying to limit this issue simply to the hypothetical problem of the student being asked to select a nonfiction character. By selecting a character like god, who can only be considered to be real based in faith and belief rather than fact, the student forced her religious views to be challenged. This would be absolutely no different than if I erroneously completed a math problem, did not show my work, and claimed my answer was nonetheless correct.

All I'm saying is that if someone must select an idol, I've got no problem with choosing fictional characters (see my examples of Odysseus and Achilles); however, if the assignment specifically said a "real" person, then god is not a valid choice, not because god is not real (although that is my hypothesis) but because god cannot be proven to be or have been real.

Has anyone ever met god?

Since you asked, TBone the Yoda of wiener dogs remembers when sweet baby Jebus was sweet BABY Jebus. He's always missed in the manger scenes because he was hunting a nacho under the manger that someone had dropped when the photo was snapped.



TBone remembers when oil was still dinosaurs...

 azazel the cat wrote:
That being said, why don't you explain to me that god is not a fictional character.

The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character? I think not. Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

 Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That being said, why don't you explain to me that god is not a fictional character.

The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character? I think not. Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

Manchu... are you a psychiatrist?

I know a few... and they argue like you do... o.O