Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the forum for this thread is religion and spirituality.
the topic of this thread is knowledge and religion.
the knowledge you have of religion is lacking.
that case is made and amply supported by your posts.
the path of this thread is to stay on topic.
How do we know you're qualified to make a conclusive judgement about that?
You have an opinion that is as valid here as anyone else's opinion.
i would call it students lacking judgment in the instructorsthey choose.
it gets back to the instructor walking the talk.
if they are a criminal, if they are engaged in destructive and harmful acts towards others, then what values are they embodying and outpicturing? it's like telling a child "do as i say not as i do." if the actions don't match the words then how "fit" are they to set themself up as an "instructor."
same thing on this forum where people want to talk about the "information" and discard as unimportant the behavior of the person delivering the "information." when it comes to paths and teachings of "religion and spirituality" how the instructor outpictures the teachings, how the instructor behaves, how and whether they walk the talk is everything.
it is what advertises whether they know what they are even talking about
It is this method of evaluating truth based on the demeanor and actions of the presenter that enables con artists to be successful, Tzaph. They are skilled at presenting a facade of trustworthiness and truth. Learn the only tried and true method of discerning as much truth as we are capable of - the scientific method. Your predispositions are correct about the existence of God and the continuation of our Spirit beyond death, but you have allowed yourself to be "bamboozled" (to use Arq's favorite word).
One day I went in to do a formal observation of teacher for her evaluation. She was a good teacher. But on this particular day she was teaching something regarding earth science, which was what I taught before becoming an administrator. I've forgotten what the exact topic was now, but what she taught that day was outright wrong. It was difficult for me not to interrupt at the time, but doing so would have been inappripriate. We met immediately after school and I told her she was teaching a wrong concept. She didn't believe me (although she admitted she was trained as a biology teacher, not an earth science teacher), but I had prepared several sources for her to look over then and there, and in the end she admitted she was wrong. The hard part was that I required her to go back and reteach the concept the following day. "But I can't let students know I was wrong!" We worked out a way for her to approach it that made her look like the good scientist, and things went well the following day.
Another time when I was dating a reading teacher, we were having dinner with a married couple, and all of us taught in the same school. The husband and I were earth science teachers, his wife was an English teacher. Suddenly the wife said, "I taught something about science today when a student asked a question". Her husband, "Oh no. What did you teach them?" "We were reading a poem about the wind, and a student asked what causes wind". Her husband asked, "I hate to ask. What did you tell them?" "That the wind blows when the leaves on trees flutter". The husband groaned loudly and I burst out laughing.
My point here -- teachers don't know everything, even when they think they do. And the worst teacher of all is the teacher who does not know that what they are teaching is their belief, rather than firm societal knowledge (which even that may be shaky).
Point not lost on me, and I doubt any of us who have been through any length of education don't well recognize the wide spectrum of talent teachers may or may not have to teach. I've had some great teachers and I've had some that couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag...
if a person views paths of religion and spirituality as "banging your head against the wall" then that is an example of not-receptive. Also illustrates "personal bias and error."
yeah, I understand why you feel that way. The wording is is slightly inflammatory. But lets try and look past that and how we feel.
but would you tell anybody to do it? am I a bad teacher if I "tell" others "Yo, thats not a good idea."
It is this method of evaluating truth based on the demeanor and actions of the presenter that enables con artists to be successful, Tzaph. They are skilled at presenting a facade of trustworthiness and truth.
It is just as dangerous to insist there is a deity as to say conclusively that there is no deity.
its depends on the deity.
I think the biosphere matches alive more than not alive. Some here think that is a deity claim, or at least a sort-a-deity claim.
There is no danger in saying no deity or anybody died and rose from the dead. to pretend that we need to allow those on equal footing as things like a living universe isn't best we can do,
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
