alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>> And it doesn't matter. The Bible is just substituting for the
>> "religious teacher" with the added problem of subjective reading
>> comprehension.
>
>Probably the biggest problem ... one has to study and ask questions of
>people who know more

No one knows more. They are all guessing.

>I guess when you
>come down to it, its what the individual believes. They are the basic
>beliefs that all believe.

Not all.

A couple of percent of self-labeled Christians don't believe in God.

Somewhat higher percentages don't believe in any other belief you
might think that "all believe".

>>>... it asks the reader to check the teacher/teaching.
>>
>> The reader isn't capable of doing so.
>
>The reader can have questions, but one can understand the basic tenets of
>being a Christian.

We don't agree as to what those are, so even that is impossible.

>One has to study the Bible though.

The Bible gives no answers. It only raises questions.

>> Why is that relevant? We're talking about human morality.
>
>He is the gold standard of morality.

Not human morality.

He did not face all the gray areas that existed then, and He didn't
face the ones we deal with today. Therefore, the standard is lacking.

the answer to the question WWJD usually should be "We have no idea".

>>>and Rome.
>>
>> Actually not. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".
>
>Against pagan Rome ...

That was the only Rome that there was. Jesus never said anything
against Rome.

>We are suppose to obey civil authority, to the extent it doesn't conflict.

Jesus said nothing to that effect.

>>>> 6) what you call good/evil is simply one form of rationalizing.
>>>
>>>Good and evil are reality.
>>
>> Only to those that believe in it, which means that they are
>> subjective.
>
>I could say that about the sun rise ...

Good example. The sun doesn't rise. That is our subjective impression
that results from the Earth's rotation.

>>>Do you think one rationalizes when they call Hitler evil?
>>
>> Yes. Even though I call him evil too.
>
>I don't understand what the rationalization is/are?

That is obvious.

lojbab