|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Dec 11, 2003 23:15:25 GMT -5
Okay people....what do you want to do? Are there any specific topics you would wish to discuss? What about learning something new? Any activities you would like to suggest?
Post ideas here!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Dec 11, 2003 23:47:07 GMT -5
Faith vs. Reason.
Nothing pisses me off more than some fudgenuckles little shitwit saying "Well ya gotta have FAITH!" and acting like it supports their argument or has any redeeming value whatsoever.
Maybe we could have a debate between someone smart and some x-tian Uni prof with a doctorate in theology or something (Shouldn't be hard to find, apparently they give doctorates to just about anyone nowadays).
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Dec 11, 2003 23:56:01 GMT -5
Biblical Contradiction Awareness
You can table with the little bible trivia test that can't be won becuase all the questions have two or more contradicting answers. Yay. You can chalk some biblical nonsense, and make contradiction fliers. I'm sure at least one of you could get a piece in the state news about biblical contradiction as well.
Or you could do awareness for what the bible says about women, especially young ones. That would be good fun to walk around campus and see, "1 Peter 3:1 -Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;"
|
|
|
|
Post by Prothonotary on Dec 16, 2003 18:36:21 GMT -5
The psychology of belief could be interesting.
Having a group discussion about a particular topic during a meeting could work too. I think having a group discussion meeting maybe once a month or so would be a good way for members to get to know eachother better and would give the board members a break from having to prepare for a big meeting topic/event every week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vermin on Dec 27, 2003 2:04:12 GMT -5
Well, I'm thinking of attending at least a few of the spring semester meetings to start with. I was going to this semester, but your time conflicts with Animosity [the anime club] viewings. Turns out I have less in common with those people than I thought.
So, one thing I've always been curious about is the infallibility of the founding fathers. I mean, these guys were brilliant, and we have to give them credit for starting the nation, but I thought our system of government was supposed to be very good because we have a "living" constitution, but when was the last time an amendment was passed that reflects the times we live in? Most media outlets and professors, in my experience, seem to have this idea about the founding fathers being these god-like figures of the past who handed us what is taken to be a set of commandments, which we call the Constitution, that is not to be questioned or changed. But after reading some of the various things said by key figures in America's past, such as James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, and Benjamin Franklin, it's pretty obvious to me that: #1, many of the founding fathers completely disagreed on how the nation should be formed and run, and #2, most Americans have no idea what these people really stood for. I mean, Abraham Lincoln is venerated for the freeing of the slaves, but he was quoted, numerous times, as saying that if he could preserve the union by keeping the slaves in bondage forever he would do it. He sort of "mellowed" on his initial stance towards the end of the war, but most people don't know about the early Lincoln.
That's my biggest beef with any sort of "religion" at the moment. But I'm not a member, and I haven't even attended any of your meetings yet, so think of it what you will.
|
|
|
|
Post by AnonymousUser on Jan 4, 2004 2:57:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Jan 14, 2004 10:49:20 GMT -5
Out of the ideas already mentioned, I'm most interested in Heather's concerning the psych of belief. Getting into the nuts and bolts of how people come to believe in things like miracles and resurrection would be interesting.
Jason's idea of calling out the Bible would be fun. It's been awhile since I went Bible-digging (sadly, I can't find my NIV copy ... must dig through my closet again soon). We definitely need to have more discussion at meetings ... this gets more POVs on the table.
Nathan -- I am COUNTING on universities giving doctorates to just about anyone these days ... it gives me hope.
And Vermin, I think some of the answers to the questions you pose are out there. For one, history is often sanitized, some of what the founding fathers supported wouldn't fly high these days (take slavery as an obvious example), as you have noted. I'll pick on the Constitution here ... the Constitution was a compromise; it could have been easily written with a more federalist or whig slant. The beauty of the Big C is that it is so broad based and doesn't get into the minutiae of law. I believe this is why you don't see many (any?) amendments passed today. There are a fair amount of proposed amendments, mostly put forth by small groups with an agenda, but they never see the support needed to pass Congress and, what is it, 3/4 of the state legislature? As for the veneration of the founding fathers, if people really want to go whole hog over someone, it should be Alexander Hamilton, whom IIRC cowrote a lot of the Federalist Papers (it's been a LONG time since I took a history class or cracked an Am. Hist. book), and met his untimely demise catching lead from Aaron Burr after arguing over a bad referee call during the first Super Bowl, or something like that. History, particularly history as compiled by the Establishment, has a way of whitewashing the truth and only displaying the warm, fuzzy parts ... kind of like a W. press conference. I personally think that the aggregate Founding Fathers did a great thing -- the Big C is one of the best-written governing documents in existence, and the B of R, written to get the Big C passed, establishes fundamental, even philosophical, rights that should not be abrogated in a free society. But as individuals, they all had their issues ... just like me.
Sean "Ben Franklin was a funny old man" Davis
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Jan 14, 2004 12:08:43 GMT -5
Or we could just desecrate some churches...
|
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Jan 14, 2004 15:44:58 GMT -5
Hmm....I thought it was Hamilton who got Burr, not the other way around....I'll have to look that up later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Jan 14, 2004 17:33:42 GMT -5
Hmm....I thought it was Hamilton who got Burr, not the other way around....I'll have to look that up later. Nope, Hamilton bit the dust at the hand of Burr's pistol. Sad, really. Wouldn't it have been easier to give each other noogies and then let bygones be bygones? Sean "or maybe played a round of Mortal Kombat?" Davis |
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Jan 14, 2004 17:46:57 GMT -5
"... the bullet that shot Alexander Hamilton?"
*ring*ring*ring*
"Wamon Buw!"
|
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Jan 14, 2004 17:51:08 GMT -5
Noogies are for minor grievances. Ruining another person's political prospects is rather serious. Wedgies are more appropriate.
But for the video game suggestion...perhaps Bubble Bobble? Not direct combat of course, but still competitive in its own obnoxious way.
|
|
