Jump to content

CRT Could Cause Schools To Lose AP


BarryLaverty

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, ctown81 said:

This is too funny. No one outlawed prayer in schools. Students are free to pray in the moment of silence. Jesus says pray in private, but conservative Christians want to have public prayer. Can't make this stuff up.

So you believe the reason folks fought so hard to have mandated prayer outlawed was because Jesus instructed to "pray in private"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ctown81 said:

The effect of systemic racism against blacks in history is common knowledge. It's an elective course. Why does it bother you? Heck there's even a college who has an elective course on batman.

 

It doesn’t bother me.  Does other people not agreeing with you bother you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HearEmaGrowlin said:

I think politicians from the D side always lean on racism as a way to rile people up, try to show how they’re the party of the black folks and try to secure your vote, that’s all they’ve ever done.
Your life is not better by any actions Democrats have taken in D.C. 

This is the crazy thing about CRT. This was all conservatives. They needed a new hot topic to get poor whites riled up and decided to make up CRT. Something that's not even taught in grade schools, only colleges. They turned a course about the history of systemic racism to an "all white people are bad argument". Sad thing is, 90% can't even tell you what CRT is. 

I don't have a party affiliation and i see the bs from both sides. Know one wants to dwell in this but people need to be real with one another and move on from there. This thing is not one sided at all.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

Primary sources

So something has to be a primary source to considered historical? Seems not right, but if that’s the way you want it you do you. The argument of the Bible being an historical document, I thought, was settle at least. I guess it isn’t in your eyes

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Youngcoach123 said:

So something has to be a primary source to considered historical? Seems not right, but if that’s the way you want it you do you. The argument of the Bible being an historical document, I thought, was settle at least. I guess it isn’t in your eyes

Out of the 3000 or so names mentioned in the bible, I think only 52 have been proven to even exists. Hard to call something an historical document when you can even find evidence the people existed. Heck they are still trying to find evidence of the exodus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ctown81 said:

Out of the 3000 or so names mentioned in the bible, I think only 52 have been proven to even exists. Hard to call something an historical document when you can even find evidence the people existed. Heck they are still trying to find evidence of the exodus.

The proof that God exists is all around you .... And the Dead Sea Srolls are proof enough for me .... not to mention the Holy Spirit .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ctown81 said:

Out of the 3000 or so names mentioned in the bible, I think only 52 have been proven to even exists. Hard to call something an historical document when you can even find evidence the people existed. Heck they are still trying to find evidence of the exodus.

Ok I did a little reading and I see where your coming from. I could see you saying some of it is not primary sources. But some of it is. Something with such historical effect on our civilizations over the years would still be considered a historical document in my eyes. But to each his own I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ctown81 said:

Out of the 3000 or so names mentioned in the bible, I think only 52 have been proven to even exists. Hard to call something an historical document when you can even find evidence the people existed. Heck they are still trying to find evidence of the exodus.

The Hittites were only known in the historical account of the Bible and people used that to claim that the Bible was wrong.....then an archeologist FOUND the Hittite cities......every historical account in the Bible is 100% absolute truth.......

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:

The Hittites were only known in the historical account of the Bible and people used that to claim that the Bible was wrong.....then an archeologist FOUND the Hittite cities......every historical account in the Bible is 100% absolute truth.......

I'm not disputing that but the physical evidence isn't there. It doesn't meet the criteria of a historical document which is ok to those with faith 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...