D's Daily Drama (fablespinner) wrote,
D's Daily Drama

Oh Lord, The Religious NUT CASE replied!!!

Oh Lord... The Religious NUT CASE replied!!!!


Thank you, and no offense taken.

I agree that the evidence is as you say within the Biblical context. But perhaps you can enlighten me from your understanding, how Yeshua of Nazareth could make a statement very similar in word and content to one taught by Confucius 500 years before He was born. Perhaps he learned it in the school he never attended? But surely you know from your scholarship that to deny a problem because of a lack of evidence is not scholarship at all in the true sense. And if you are as you say, then are you saying that Revelation is now today non-existent?

For you to withdraw from the class for these reasons seems symptomatic of something else.

Nevertheless, Blessings and good luck!


Now I am NOT replying to him, but I am forwarding his e-mail to the review council I reported him to earlier today and this is what I had to say to them:


To Whom it May Concern:

I have not and will not respond to this absolute gibberish (NAME REMOVED) sent me in response to my notice I e-mailed him and forwarded to you earlier today. I don't know where this man earned his degrees but the sheer lack of anything resembling reasonable deduction and basic critical thinking skills in favor of supernatural causes to answer for any social construct similarity is not in anyway scholarly outside of a theological discussion/classroom. He has missed and misunderstood my points entirely and has devolved this discussion to a matter of faith over scientific method. For instance How could Confucius understand human nature pre-Jesus without divine intervention? (Paraphrased):

(NAME REMOVED)'s answer/reason: Supernatural methods are the only way for information to be known or rather "God Did it". End of discussion and rational critical thinking skills are atrophied with religious rhetoric, personal ideology and indoctrination.

My response(s) (That I will not send to him in reply.):

1.) Common Sense

2.) Social Construct Tradition

3.) Migratory Bands of People who brought their religion, tenants, and social values with them

4.) Ability for Empathy

5.) Ability to Reason

6.) Coincidence

And I could go on. Very real world answers to common human dilemmas that do not require a belief in any supernatural divine influence to deduce reasons why someone could make up a law that tells others to not kill each other pre-Bible. And since the Bible is heavily plagiarized from Hammurabi's Code of Laws, it seems more that common rules established in early civilization would be repeated in future ones. But in (NAME REMOVED)'s mind, apparently God has to whisper in random men's ears for them to form a common law of decency as society evolves. I'm flabbergasted with his response frankly and that a man with letters has such severe basic deductive reasoning, logic and critical thinking blinders on his eyes. This is a very dramatic representation of a failure to understand the principle's of Occam's Razor in a theological context. Never use a supernatural explanation when a natural one will suffice. Because Occam's Razor is very simple to understand and states that in a hypothesis/hypothetical situation, "How Confucius knew things without the Christian God?" The answer will most likely be the one that makes the fewest assumptions (i.e.: supernatural intercedence) should be selected.

I really question this instructor's motivation. Is he here to teach History or proselytize? As I come from a family of Christian's too, My Great-Grandfather was an Old Regular Baptist preacher, I find the classroom is not the place to stand in the pulpit. Neither did My Great-Grandfather. He taught us all to think first and learn when to preach, when to teach and when to listen and learn. All I see in (NAME REMOVED)'s class is a man in need of a pulpit and not a teacher's online podium.

If that is the case and (NAME REMOVED) is here to spread "his brand" of gospel, then he needs to be contained within a theological or philosophical classroom and not one that deals in hard evidence and facts that can and need to have sources cited and statements (supernatural and natural) corroborated with supporting documentation.

Just because the Bible is old, and it has a history of its own, does not make it a referable historical document. Age does not always equate fact. Or else, by this logic, the older it is the more truthful/factual it is? If that is the case then The Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria (2150-2000 BCE), the Rigveda of Hinduism (1700-1100 BCE), and the Pentateuch/Torah (Old Testament, Hebrew) (450 BCE) just for a few examples should all negate the Bible since they all predate the modern Bible that was derived from numerous Christian sects at the council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was the "Great Bible editing session" of its time. Several lost sects of Christianity never made the final edit and ended up on the cutting room floor at that council (such as the book of Enoch). I could go on in this matter but I think I made myself clear. He can't separate his personal ideology from the classroom and that to me is unethical and diminishes the potential for an unbiased educational environment to the detriment of the students. Whatever brand of religion they subscribe to. Christians, Baptists, Mormons, Unitarian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Wiccan, Pagan, etc... He is insensitive to the diversity of his students who may or may not believe the same things he does and he states his personal beliefs as historical facts.

Thank you for you time and consideration in this matter.

Dana Armstrong


Let's freaking hope this bag full of cats is removed from a classroom. He has no business teaching.


  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded