I think the University of Winnipeg has a pretty good comparative
religions program. You might want to check that out.
larry
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:31:44 -0500, Eric Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you related to the late Joseph Campbell, perhaps?
>
> There is so much teaching in religion. And it is tough to get an unbiased
> single viewpoint. From my eyes - you need to distill comparative religions
> to capture the truth in any one. And there are many recurring themes.
>
>
> >> help a kid broaden his or her worldview is a great thing.
>
> Never mind the kids, I think its essential learning for me.
>
> Eric
>
> _____
>
> From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: September 28, 2004 5:03 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Here we go again....
>
>
> I absolutely think comparitive religion should be taught in public
> schools. It's highly relevant to current events, and anything that can
> help a kid broaden his or her worldview is a great thing. Being able to
> learn about the history of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. as well as
> Atheism in a non-slanted, non-judgmental way.
>
> Education begets understanding, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> - Jim
>
> Eric Dawson wrote:
>
> >my favourite quote of late
> >
> >"..the scientific method is anecdotal"
> >
> >
> >
> >? Should religion be taught in schools?
> >
> >* maybe comparative religion should be?
> >
> >
> >
> >Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: September 28, 2004 10:20 AM
> >To: CF-Community
> >Subject: Re: Here we go again....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Okay, that didn't make sense. Calculus is calculus is calculus. It
> >>gets a little bit more advanced every day, but the basics haven't
> >>changed since Newton and Liebnitz laid them down. Newton's Limit Method
> >>for determining the slope of a curve at a given point is still perfectly
> >>accurate, if tedious and extremely difficult to use under certain
> >>circumstances. What does Eienstein have to do with this?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >1) I shouldn't have put those two sentences together. I didn't mean that
> >there is a relationship between them. I actually never should have
> >included it in the first place. I was just trying to make a point that
> >everything they teach in class isn't 100% correct either. That doesn't
> >mean that we shouldn't teach it in class though. Because what we are
> >really teaching is a way to think and try to inspire new ideas and possible
>
> >new answers. The best part is that new answers create new problems. Which
>
> >is great. Again this is just my opinion. But if one's argument is, let's
> >not teach creation in school because it's wrong then it would be
> >irresponsible to teach anything that isn't 100% proven to be correct.
> >
> >2)
> >
> >http://www.math.wichita.edu/history/men/newton.html
> >
> >Some of Newton's discoveries were later refuted by Albert Einstein in
> >reference to his theories of gravitational pull. However, Einstein and
> >others still contend that Newton was indeed a very important force in man's
>
> >quest for knowledge and is highly regarded for his contributions in many
> >different areas of science.
> >
> >I shouldn't have taken it at face value but my calc prof did say that
> >Einstein refuted Newton's physics by proving some of this integral calculus
>
> >to be incorrect or incomplete.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _____
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
