Silly, Aimless Religious Discussion

Indeed! Apples and Oranges my good friend. However, I would think that Christ's fees were a bit more modest. Conversely, I have worked with several doctors over a long career who thought they were deity. Why don't ya just come on and join us????:biggrin:

 

Further - on Shakespeare's school. King's New School (King Edward VI) was already three centuries old when Shakespeare attended it, in the 1570s. Now, it is approximately 936 years since it was established -- and it is still graduating students. A highly-respected private school, these days.

So - I think Elmer's point just flew out the window -- oh, looky, there it goes! :smile:

Johann

 

Slight correction (very slight) A school is known to have been in existence on the site since at least 1295. It was re-founded as King Edward VI school, days before the King's death in 1553. Just a name change - like Andrew Jackson/New Charter. :smile:

Johann

 

My Dear Friend, as mentioned a fore, the site does exist and needs no healing. You are just not looking at the right animal. In terms of Shakespeare and his education, you must have a great deal of faith. There are no extant records he ever attended there. You might recall, because of his apparent lack of formal education, many thought Donne, Greene, or Kidd wrote his works. Perhaps if you could find me a school year book he signed, I may be persuaded. Until such time as we can, through research ascertain this as fact, mere extrapolation will have to do. In terms of my point, in while we must not discredit academia, I fear far too much emphasis is being placed upon pedantic speculation and mindless sophistry when it comes to the things of God. The world does not need our logic nor our great brilliance, it needs our savior. I never claimed formal education was of little importance,yet Education is not my god! The blessed Holy Spirit is and shall forever remain the Great Teacher regardless of the school. Cogita, mi amice!

 

BTW, once you do produce that signed yearbook that proves the Bard attended there, do you honesty believe that a young man with only five years of elementary education could write Titus Andronicus? Recall, there are also no records of him attending a school worthy of producing such a genius. Perhaps that's why he was Shakespeare. I love you, brother!!

 

Oops - can't find the yearbook - probably tucked away somewhere.... Of course there isn't one - the school freely admits there are no attendance records, but there's this, from the Wiki:

"It is likely that the playwright and poet William Shakespeare attended the school between the ages of seven to fourteen. His father, John Shakespeare, a glover and wool dealer in the town, held the office of bailiff of the borough in 1568. As a child, William would have been entitled to a free place at the school, and it was the only school for miles around, however there is no conclusive evidence that he was schooled there..."

Good enough for me. And the good folks who show visitors around the school tell you pretty much the same thing. :smile:

As far as Titus Andronicus goes (or any of his other works) ...yes, I'd believe it in an instant. Shakespeare likely had seven, not five years of formal education -- and that meant far more in his day than it would now... And he is, after all, correctly regarded as a genius. Contrary to your suggestion about schools producing/not producing geniuses - a genius is not produced by formal education, although a genius can often make superior use of whatever formal education is available, compared to someone of lesser intellect.

My point. The "genius" made excellent use of his formal education - which, in this case, wasn't quite as sparse as you'd like to think. Especially for the 1570s.

And even if I was completely wrong -and I'm not - that still doesn't explain your active pursuit of formal education, while simultaneously minimizing its value. Just because others have done great things without much (or sometimes any) formal education doesn't mean it's not important - even vital. We're not all geniuses - our results may vary.
A grade 5 education may have sufficed - or not - to be a preacher in your grandfather's time -- and no disrespect to him, whatsoever.

But it won't work today. Go ahead. Get some education. It's all good. But don't say it's unimportant because "someone did something back when" without very much. Might not work for you...

Johann

 

OK - I have readily admitted I can't prove Shakespeare attended King's New School - and neither can anyone else. Still, I believe he likely did, based on the historical evidence - especially since

(1) it would have been free - no charge to his parents, due to his father's position in the community
(2) there was no other school at all within a very long distance of his home.

Likewise - I can't prove anything about ABC - unless the website is miraculously resurrected. I'll accept Elmer's word ABC exists - but until we at least see course descriptions etc. - zip, bupkis, nada ...

Elmer - we're waiting for the miracle. Meanwhile, since you're familiar with the school, can you tell us something about ABC's Biblical Languages curriculum?

Koiné (Greek) Hebrew, Aramaic...

Johann

 

BTW - I very much enjoyed my youthful travels around Stratford, when I was 13. A couple of times I cycled to a very pretty village called Bidford. It's sometimes referred to as "Drunken Bidford" as young Will Shakespeare was reputed to have gone there not infrequently, and gotten hammered, sometimes, with his buddies.

However - in 1956, when I was there, no one connected with the Pub could prove conclusively that he'd ever drunk there. :smile:
I believed he had, though -- and I still do. I had a very enjoyable lemonade next door. After all, I was only 13.

(Yawn....) We're waiting, Elmer.

Johann

 

So glad to see you don't imbibe! By God's grace, neither do I. Won't get us to heaven, I'm afraid. Guess we are relegated to faith alone old chum. Would it not be ironic if the Bard attended ABC? That might put an end to all this back and forth. ( Must say, however, I do enjoy a little badinage now and then!) In terms of the list of course offerings, contact the college and request a catalog. One will be sent post haste. Once again, I never stated that formal education was not important. It's just not the MOST important thing. Example, I know seminary students who would be hard pressed to explain the Gospel in any useful form. What good has all that Greek and Latin done in their case? That is really the crux of my point. BTW, you had really better get to bed with all that yawning you are doing! P.S. Brush up on your Shakespeare!!!

 

We're a bit different on that score. You see, I DID drink for about 40 years. I decided to quit one day about 9 years ago, as I'd seen bad things happen to several fellas about my age, 60+ at the time, who were quite heavy drinkers. Death, crippling strokes, heart attacks etc. I was pretty sure smoking had compounded the damage in most cases - and I'd left that behind in 1977 - but I quit drinking anyway. It seemed like a wise precaution. I'm darn sure I'm not going to any common notion of heaven -- but whether there is a next world or not, I don't want to leave this one sooner than my Maker has in mind.

Anyway, no booze worked well for me. Healthy then, healthy now. And I've managed to put aside considerable money as a direct consequence. Giving up my habitual two large German beers a day alone has saved me over $16,000 by now. ($5 a day - Alcohol is expensive in Canada.) And there was the occasional nip of bourbon. No matter, saved all that, too in the bank - and then some!

I only wish I could have put the savings aside when I quit smoking 36 years ago. That would have been another $75,000 by now. Glad I quit anyway.

I have said many times before - I was an atheist for 40+ years and I still do not consider myself religious. But I do thank my Maker daily for my good health.

Peace and goodnight...

Johann

 

Glad to hear you turned that corner years ago. Thankfully, I have been spared the struggle. Yet, I too have been a witness to the horrors of the effects of both drugs and drink in my own family. In addition, I have spent a career arriving upon the scene of nasty trauma as well as death as a result of drunken driving. Likewise, I do not consider myself religious. Religion is man's attempt to reach a god. However, Christ is God's attempt to reach a man. I will pray that you come to know Him in a personal way. I also wish you peace, my friend!!

 

Please pray in tongues.

Two questions for you:
1. Are you for or against "religion"?
2. What does the bible say about "religion"?

 

Tongues have ceased. Thus, I can't pray for you in them. Against religion? I am against any system that detracts from Christ. Thou hast said correctly in terms of the Bibles' definition. However, you must concede, religion in its purest form still does not grant one entrance into heaven. I am afraid that RELIGION has sent many a person to hell. "There is none righteous, no not one". Only Christ saves, not a religion. Hope this helps.

 

Every time I ask you a question about American Bible School (or anything else) you dance around. I asked you about Biblical Language classes at ABC and you reply "what good are they, anyway?" As I see it, you're a poor spokesperson for the school.

Anyway - no website and not even an archived copy on the Wayback machine. Looks like basically a one-man school, papering the world with "degrees" up to the doctoral level. Legal, I'm sure - but absurd. :shock:

Does that mean all non-Christians go to Hell? Nice one. I'm outa this thread. I've seen enough.

Johann

 

Which of the following applies to your belief:
It is just your opinion.
You have scriptural proof.
You have academic references.
You have a denominational teaching to support that position.

 

Modern review (by Mike Gene Wallace) of Titus Andronicus:

"This is a great play. We're talking fourteen dead bodies, kung-fu, sword-fu, spear-fu, dagger-fu, arrow-fu, pie-fu, animal screams on the soundtrack, heads roll, hands roll, tongues roll, nine and a half quarts of blood, and a record-breaking 94 on the vomit meter."

All that - including a rape and mutilation! Play hotly vilified by some, staunchly defended by others. Some say Shakespeare wrote it, some say George Peele. Some say both. Thank goodness there are plenty from W.S. that are much more to my liking. Now I know why they skipped this one in High School!

According to the wiki - "(it) is often seen as his attempt to emulate the violent and bloody revenge plays of his contemporaries, which were extremely popular with audiences throughout the sixteenth century."

Johann

 

Sure. Or maybe a foretaste of CSI or Criminal Minds, 400+ years in the future. OK - done, now...

Johann

 

You forgot Ugaritic and Akkadian.

 

I am afraid, good friend, that all you really wish to do is wrangle.
Q: You have scriptural proof: Yes, read where they shall cease.
Q: You have academic references: The web is full. Knock yourself out!
Q:You have a denominational teaching to support that position: Clearly, any research of Baptist history or knowledge of Baptist doctrine will clear this up.
Finally, I do not wish to wrangle back. I strongly suggest allowing Christ into your heart. He will make all things new! BTW: I like you! You have spunk and wit!

 

A poor attempt at humour here! Just checking your knowledge of the Bard. Indeed, a horrible play. Dr. Earl John Clarke, my Shakespeare prof., was always hoping that evidence would surface that the Bard DID NOT write the play. Perhaps I should have referenced Macbeth. P.S. Read it anyway!!!!