1
   

Church Fires Teacher for Being Female

 
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 12:55 pm
I have to go for a bit, but I'll be back...
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 01:08 pm
sentanta ty for the english lesson lol
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 01:13 pm
Mame the earth being 10,000 yrs old is just one view of conservative christians...other conservative christians believe in what is called the "gap theory" which would justify the earth being way way older...I have to be honest science isnt my forte' but if you are interested in those views go to www.answersingenesis.org..........most of that is written by a creationist scientist Ken Haam..... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 03:52 pm
Thank you, Kate, but I am not so much interested in those views as I am startled by them.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 05:25 pm
Personally, when it comes to having to pick a time when the whole world was magically created, and made to look as though it occured naturally over billions of years, I prefer LastThursdayism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

http://web.archive.org/web/19990420141357/http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 06:07 pm
Setanta wrote-

Quote:
It is a sufficiently flexible basis for belief to admit of no end of nonsense.


The thing is Settie, there is about 50% of the population with IQs between 90 and 109 and there is 82.2% between 80 and 119.

So it is obvious from that that who is talking nonsense is a matter of some dispute in view of the fact that most Americans can be said to have at the least some vestiges of residual beliefs in a diety. You could easily see that portions of the elite of the IQ range are going to believe in no end of nonsense and similarly portions of the dross of the IQ range are going to believe in what you would call sense.

That would make a mockery of IQ tests wouldn't it? If some people with IQs of 119 are talking nonsense and some with IQs of 80 are talking sense it most certainly would, on a matter of such importance, irrespective of how good they were with tests they design to prove how good they are at solving cryptic clues.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 06:53 pm
Around half of all Americans have below average IQ's anyway.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 09:56 pm
spendius wrote:


That would make a mockery of IQ tests wouldn't it? If some people with IQs of 119 are talking nonsense and some with IQs of 80 are talking sense it most certainly would, on a matter of such importance, irrespective of how good they were with tests they design to prove how good they are at solving cryptic clues.

Not really, 119 is unimpressive to say the least. That a retard and captain mediocre can both be fooled by the same scam is nothing remarkable.
Id be interested to know how many of us in the 140-150 range have imaginary friends and such. Much more compelling stuff from a psychological perspective.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 12:12 am
kate4christ03 wrote:
Christians that take this verse in first timothy to mean that women can't teach men in the church misconstrue the meaning of the text. IF we are to beleive that paul was meaning that women can't teach men, then he contradicted himself many times.
Priscilla along with her husband teach Apollos...(Acts 18:26)
Paul lists several women who labored in the church alongside the men (romans 16:1-4)
Paul commends Timothy's mother and grandmother for teaching him
(2tim 1:5)

This verse in first timothy doesn't mean a woman can't teach a sunday school class that has men in it, it means a woman can't have authority over men ie pastor...

If 1 Timothy wasn't clear enough for you, how about 1 Corinthians?
Quote:

Considering "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church", forbidding a woman to speak in the church would seem to be a rather severe restriction for a Sunday school teacher.

Going to The Blue Letter Bible and searching for correlating passages there is obviously no shortage of Paul's verses expressing similar sentiments and his view of the women's place both within and outside the church.

BLB Correlating Passages[/u]
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 12:42 am
Eorl, the way you framed the fact that half of the people in the US have an IQ score that's below average, made me wonder if other countries and cultures are routinely subjected to standardized or IQ testing in public schools as the children in the US are. So, because the average IQ score in the US is between 100-110, I'm wondering if it's just an assumption that that is true around the world, and what percentage of the world's population has actually been tested at any time. Is it only from the developed countries that these scores have been taken? And as IQ tests are culturally sensitive - how can we know the results are accurate relative to a particular culture? Even in a developed country like the US a cultural bias within standardized testing is recognized to the point that it almost nullifies the results for some minority populations.

Doktor S. - 119 is really not that bad of a score. If you take into account standard deviation, which you have to do on a test such as this because an individual's score can change (plus or minus) five points from day to day and up to 10 points over the course of years, - a score of 115 would put the person in the high average range and a score of 124 (above 120) would put the person in the superior range.

But it is interesting how IQ and religious beliefs correlate negatively. There've been quite a few studies that have found that the higher the person's IQ is, the less religious they tend to be. And there's also a negative correlation between religious views and beliefs and performance on the SAT in American highschool students. They're not sure why - but I thought this was funny:
Quote:

http://www.answers.com/topic/religiosity-and-intelligence

Second, it's fair to wonder whether the low IQ/faith correlation - if real - is based on direct causation or something else. According to your comments, here are some of the top contenders for the "something else."

1. Smart people tend to have more resources. Therefore, God's quiet whisper to their soul is drowned out by the sound of their home theaters and BMW engines.

2. College professors are a bunch of atheists who consciously or unconsciously brainwash students to disavow their faith. So the more college you get, the more brainwashing you get.

3. Higher education teaches a rational way of looking at the world that is well suited for worldly decision-making but cripples the student for recognizing the subtlety of the divine.

4. And my favorite: People with high IQs are notoriously stupid when it comes to real world questions.


But that sucks that they fired that Sunday School Teacher who served them faithfully for 54 years. What kind of Christian attitude is that?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 01:34 am
aidan, I was just being silly. To state that roughly half of anything is less or greater than "average" is a given. I have no idea as to the real state of the American IQ.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 02:55 am
The way in which you specified American IQ just got me thinking about the validity of extrapolating that information across cultures and societies-some of which, in fact, probably the majority of which, have never even been measured for IQ. So really, how accurate is that average- and should it be assumed to be an average world-wide?

I wasn't commenting on your post at all except to say it made me think in those terms, which I hadn't before, and I found it interesting.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 02:59 am
Yeah, fair enough.

I imagine the stats are out there.....?

Here we go.... Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 03:19 am
That looks interesting- if not a little depressing and definitely controversial. I just scanned it, but I'd be interested to read it more fully to see what extrinsic variables the authors factored in to arrive at their rankings - factors like availability of natural resources, forms of governments, access to educational facilities, etc.

thanks for the link.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 09:53 am
Doc wrote-

Quote:
Id be interested to know how many of us in the 140-150 range have imaginary friends and such.


I have more imaginary friends than I can manage. Does that make me a genius?

What is or are "such".
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 10:58 am
Tsk...tsk... I should think it obvious, spendi, that "such" means acquaintances, neighbours, work mates, other people one would rub up against whom you might not call a friend.

I don't think he meant animals, do you? Even though dogs are considered man's best friend... does one actually imagine up an animal to keep one company?

I can't believe he meant enemies, because he worded it "and such", implying a relationship to "friends"...

I suppose he could also be referring to spirits/ghosts/angels, or people he knew that died that he imagines are still around, or perhaps people from the bible that he calls upon for help in various situations... you know, like St. Peter, etc.

Maybe he's talking about cartoon people or characters from stories ... those could well be imaginary 'friends'...

Well, that's my take on it.

What is your opinion? Or Best Guess?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 11:02 am
Parts of that post are a bit humorous, Mame. Only because Doc is a Satanist. Surprised
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 11:39 am
Really? Are you just saying that or has he said it? In other words, do you know that for a fact? How interesting.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 11:43 am
I would never say it if he had not said it. I don't make things like that up. Why do you think I would say such a thing if it was not true? Shocked
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 11:44 am
I don't think you'd do that - I was thinking that maybe you'd labelled him as such due to things he'd said; in other words, you were ascribing that to him. THat's all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 09:49:52