Quote:
So where would such a discussion be relevant?
Discussing themes in literature, historical context, government philosophies, etc. Not so much in stuff like math and science, but even in science you get into the ID vs. Evolution stuff. There has been important Christian literature, yet we read very little of it. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was mentioned, but we didn't read it or discuss it beyond bing repressive and puritanical. Had we read "Paradise Lost" or "Crime And Punishment" there would have been definite call for looking into the Christian beliefs of the authors, but I suppose those are a bit advanced for High School studies.


Quote:
Wasn't salvation by grace St Paul's idea? According to Wikipedia, the notion of even pious adherents still being full of sin isn't really the same in Judaism and doesn't exist in Islam. Buddhists' and Hindus' samsara isn't really the same thing either. Fallenness is AFAICT a pretty Christianity-specific concept, and not shared by all Christians at that.
Well, you are correct in that Christianity has a pretty discinct view of humanity. There ARE similarities in other faiths, however, and many do not agree with the exaltation of natural man.

Quote:
I don't really see omitting any discussion of humanity's state of grace or otherwise, as being "opposite" to confirming our fallenness and sinfulness.
Ok, here's an example. We studied "A Wizard of Earthsea". Don't know how many of you have read it. The main theme of the story is that we can't divorce ourselves from our evil side, so we must join our evil and good to become whole. So here we have this philosophy that we discussed quite a bit, had to underline in the book and whatnot. Fine, it's important to learn to read for themes and understand what an author is saying. I'm all for that, and the tale wasn't that bad. But certainly we can explore some themes that disagree and say it is our responsibility to excise our dark sides and that only then can we be whole. Yet that idea was not discussed. So you emphasize a non-Christian theme (that we must learn to embrace the darkness within us) and leave out the Christian theme (that only by ridding ourselves of darkness can we be made whole). So now we have by default emphasized a non-Christian theme in literature.

I'm not saying there must be a counterbalance to every literary theme or governmental philosophy- only that it always felt to me like Christian (and other religion's) themes were avoided. Of course, those were my impressions years ago and my memory may be faulty.

My central idea is, though, that if you explore non-Christian themes and expressly leave out Christian ones, you are tacetly teaching non-Christian philosophy, however unintentionally.

But if you want real proof, how about this: When I say things like "Christianity teaches the people are inherintly wicked", I almost always get shocked looks and responses (like above in this thread). Yet that has been a core tenet of Christiantiy since the first centry (and arguably even before that). So why are people shocked to hear it now when most of the U.S. professes Christianity? Because we have competing notions of the goodness of man that are taught in our school and fed to us on television. We here it so much without counterpoint that who can blame us for believing it? Now, if you decide personally that you think man is inherintly good, then that's totally cool. But if you believe it because that's what is emphasized in our education, then education is doing exactly what everyone is accusing Christians of whanting to do- it is predisposing children a certain philosophy and not giving them the chance to decide for themselves. Now granted, I've already admitted that this theme is not from education alone, but also hollywood and TV. However, the media has not responsibility for giving a balanced presentation- our schools, OTOH, should.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.