Original Sin

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Argy Lacedom	Original Sin		Lead	[-]
Posts: 2161 04/13/08 04:41:55	Tags : original, sin I've been having a discussion on a Christian board about original sin. I need to get a few things off my chest and this seems like the forum for it. Apologies for the rant. Original Sin is the strange idea that humans have been cast into a state where we are sinful because we inherit it from Adam and Eve. The Catholic church has this to say about it in its Catechism... 402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."²⁸⁹ The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."²⁹⁰ 403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". There are a few revolting ideas that spring from this concept. First, it says that we are implicit in a crime (sin) solely because we have been born. Second, humans have no power to choose not to be tainted by this sin. We are predisposed to sin because we are born. Thirdly, the Christian God must want us to sin - he controls the transmission of original sin and could eliminate its effects if he wanted to. In fact, in Catholic dogma he has already done this - the virgin Mary was born free of the taint of original sin. How nice of God. He wanted to be born free of original sin so he changed the rules for his mortal mother!! What a flaming hypocrite. He was supposed to be "fully man" so his sacrifice would have meaning in the "remission of sin". How could he be fully man if he didn't inherit original sin? Fourthly, the only way this original sin could be overcome was by the blood sacrifice of a human being. How can any person accept that this is reasonable for a God, especially the so called omni-benevolent thing the Christians worship? Christians seem to have this innate victim mentality that makes them accept the most hideous images of themselves. Why do they see a need for this I don't know. Why are they into self hate so much?? WHy do they hate themselves but love their cruel and ruthless God? The people I've been debating with are obviously uncomfortable with the concepts of inherited sin, but they twist and turn themselves inside out with contorted logic in an effort to reconcile it with their faith. I guess it's a defence mechanism; if they don't do it the very foundation of their religion crumbles and they're left looking at empty superstition. "Faith is believing what you know isn't true" - Arthur C Clarke, 1997
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#41	[url]	[-]
Posts: 467 05/07/08 05:59:39	Badsidhe wrote: In your opinion, why do animals (and humans) crave eating animal flesh? In my opinion, humans were able to perfectly obtain all the nutrients they needed from vegetation before the Flood. After the Fall in Eden they had children no more ''perfect'' than themselves....and getting further from perfection with each generation. By the time Noah and his extended family left the ark humans would need animal protein for their own health as a result of the first harsh seasons on the planet. God evened the playing field by putting some ''fear of man'' into most animals. I have a younger brother who is a nurse and nutritionist. He pointed out to me, years ago, how easily beans and rice can be converted into all the proteins we need by the addition of lemon/lime juice and heat. Some people (like Hispanics) already figured that out. Did early humans figure that out, too? Maybe, but probably not universally or - in some cases - for centuries. I think that most here are only Bible skeptics, not really God skeptics. (It is so easy to criticize the Bible, not so worry-free to criticize, say, the koran).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Food spoilage or picky eaters?	#42	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3182 05/07/08 08:25:42	In my opinion, humans were able to perfectly obtain all the nutrients they needed from vegetation before the Flood Were plants no longer able to produce these nutrients that humans needed? What was the rate of decline in these plant-born nutrients from the "Fall" to the "Flood"? Or, perhaps it was a change in humans, no longer able to extract the extant nutrients? Is this what you mean by "getting further from perfection with each generation"? The plants weren't changing, just the humans. humans would need animal protein for their own health as a result of the first harsh seasons on the planet. Or was it the plants again? Or maybe both? The "first harsh seasons" didn't occur until after the "Flood"? What about after the "Fall"? You have some theories that can be explored here. Do you have any physical evidence and observations that 6-10 thousand years ago, humans (and carnivores/omnivores) suddenly stopped being able to derive nutrients (for one reason or another) from vegetation? Do you have any evidence from the real, observable world? Or are you basing your theory entirely on a few lines found in a book? God evened the playing field by putting some ''fear of man'' into most animals. Were men not fearful enough as it was? Are animals incapable of learning without God directly altering them? Which animals did you observe this change in, in order to formulate this theory of yours? beans and rice can be converted into all the proteins we need by the addition of lemon/lime juice and heat. Are all of God's mandates so easily defied? I think that most here are only Bible skeptics, not really God skeptics. (It is so easy to criticize the Bible, not so worry-free to criticize, say, the koran). I'm not sure what this has to do with eating vegetables, but I will address your concerns about it: Believers never produce a "God" to back up their claims. Instead, they produce a "Bible". The first time a believer actually shows me a "God", then I will at that point in time decide whether or not to be skeptical about it. Until that time, I will continue to be skeptical about the "Bible", since that is where believers lie all of their claims. Does this sound reasonable to you? Using "X is true because the Koran says so" is just as feeble as "X is true because the Bible says so". Strangely, Christians can agree with the first part, but even though they use the exact same reasoning as Muslims, fail to see the same fault with their own reasoning. I criticize each equally based on merit, but precedence given to the one that most directly affects me at any given time. Does this sound reasonable to you? Have you ever noticed, when debating a Muslim, how they simply rest all of their arguments on "the Koran says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter"? Isn't it strange that Christians do the same thing? "The Bible says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter." Why do you think this happens? What kind of reasoning is the Muslim using? The Christian? Which do you think is a more effective method to discover the nature of things: a) study the nature of things b) study an old book about talking animals that claims to be about the nature of things Naturally, people are fully capable of drawing incorrect conclusions about the object they study. But which of these two study materials is in closer contact with the object being studied? The actual object itself, or a book claiming to be about the object? What is your opinion on this matter? Are people being foolish for studying the objects themselves to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Should they instead just believe what a book about talking animals says to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Which of these two options is more likely to produce useful conclusions?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#43	[url]	[-]
Posts: 469 05/07/08 11:52:28	Badsidhe wrote: In my opinion, humans were able to perfectly obtain all the nutrients they needed from vegetation before the Flood Were plants no longer able to produce these nutrients that humans needed? What was the rate of decline in these plant-born nutrients from the "Fall" to the "Flood"? Or, perhaps it was a change in humans, no longer able to extract the extant nutrients? Is this what you mean by "getting further from perfection with each generation"? The plants weren't changing, just the humans. If you'd ever read the Bible you wouldn't need me to tell you. The GROUND was cursed after the Fall. So, yes, the plants could not deliver as high a quality food as when the ground was blessed. (I'm insisting that you find this in your own Bible, online or whatever. It is there. humans would need animal protein for their own health as a result of the first harsh seasons on the planet. Or was it the plants again? Or maybe both? The "first harsh seasons" didn't occur until after the "Flood"? What about after the "Fall"? See above....look up the account to find your answer. You have some theories that can be explored here. Do you have any physical evidence and observations that 6-10 thousand years ago, humans (and carnivores/omnivores) suddenly stopped being able to derive nutrients (for one reason or another) from vegetation? Do you have any evidence from the real, observable world? Or are you basing your theory entirely on a few lines found in a book? God evened the playing field by putting some ''fear of man'' into most animals. Were men not fearful enough as it was? Are animals incapable of learning without God directly altering them? Which animals did you observe this change in, in order to formulate this theory of yours? Besides years of evidence which made the DoDoBird a notable exception, I've hunted all my life. It is easy to see that, if you're not really sneaky, your prey escapes you. beans and rice can be converted into all the proteins we need by the addition of lemon/lime juice and heat. Are all of God's mandates so easily defied? There's nothing defiant in making a complete set of aminos out of a combination of vegetation. Most American vegans have to learn the hard way after a bout with some horrid deficiency. I think that most here are only Bible skeptics, not really God skeptics. (It is so easy to criticize the Bible, not so worry-free to criticize, say, the koran). I'm not sure what this has to do with eating vegetables, but I will address your concerns about it: Believers never produce a "God" to back up their claims. Instead, they produce a "Bible". The first time a believer actually shows me a "God", then I will at that point in time decide whether or not to be skeptical about it. Until that time, I will continue to be skeptical about the "Bible", since that is where believers lie all of their claims. Does this sound reasonable to you? Sure. God produced the Bible so humans, you included, could learn about Him and, if you chose to do so, draw close to Him and gain everlasting life. He gives us all a choice and all the info we'd need to make it. Yours is yours, mine, mine. Using "X is true because the Koran says so" is just as feeble as "X is true because the Bible says so". Strangely, Christians can agree with the first part, but even though they use the exact same reasoning as Muslims, fail to see the same fault with their own reasoning. I criticize each equally based on merit, but precedence given to the one that most directly affects me at any given time. Does this sound reasonable to you? You are making a hasty generalization based on less knowledge of the Bible and the Koran, like many people. The Bible actually tells readers to use their power of reason to make sure of things. The koran, in contrast, penalizes the person who presumes to think for himself/herself. That is a death offense. Criticizing the Bible gets you a nice conversation. Do the same with a Muslim and you might be hunted down and killed. Have you ever noticed, when debating a Muslim, how they simply rest all of their arguments on "the Koran says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter"? Isn't it strange that Christians do the same thing? "The Bible says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter." Why do you think this happens? What kind of reasoning is the Muslim using? The Christian? What you think you are noticing is not true. Muslims won't even tell you that. They will (even here a few have) try to direct you to an imam. They are not even secure in their beliefs to presume to teach. Look at threads here to see this. Christians are expected to use their own reasoning to help others and have many examples from the Bible of both Jesus and early Christians doing the same. They follow their master in this. Which do you think is a more effective method to discover the nature of things: a) study the nature of things b) study an old book about talking animals that claims to be about the nature of things This is a false dilemma. A combination of the two works for me. Naturally, people are fully capable of drawing incorrect conclusions about the object they study. But which of these two study materials is in closer contact with the object being studied? The actual object itself, or a book claiming to be about the object? What is your opinion on this matter? Are people being foolish for studying the objects themselves to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Should they instead just believe what a book about talking animals says to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Which of these two options is more likely to produce useful conclusions? It isn't an ''either/or.'' I have said here many times that God did not put the Bible here to teach humans about His Creations. He put it here to teach us about Him so we can draw closer to Him and gain life through His arrangements. So, to learn about ''objects'' one must study the objects. I have no problem with that.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Veggie combo	#44	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3183 05/07/08 13:10:33	(NannyG123): If you'd ever read the Bible you wouldn't need me to tell you. I am not interested in what the Bible says, I am interested in what you say. People throughout history have read the Bible, and people throughout history have come to different conclusions about what the Bible says. I do not want to make too many assumptions about your specific beliefs, so I must ask you what your beliefs are, not ask the Bible what your beliefs are. Is this reasonable? (NannyG123): The GROUND was cursed after the Fall. What does "cursed" mean? Did God remove naturally occurring elements from the ground? Do you have any measurements from pre-6/10 thousand year ago soil to compare with post-6/10 thousand year ago soil? What was removed? What was added? What is the difference between the two samples? (NannyG123): See above....look up the account to find your answer. Looking up "the account" will give me my own interpretation, or another person's interpretation, of an event described in the Bible. What it will not do is give me your interpretation, which is the one I am after. Personal experience has shown me that whenever I read the Bible for myself, I will always get it "wrong" compared to the person I am debating with. Can we just save a step in the process and let me know what is "right" from the start? (NannyG123): I've hunted all my life. It is easy to see that, if you're not really sneaky, your prey escapes you. Humans are very sneaky. Very successful hunters. (NannyG123): There's nothing defiant in making a complete set of aminos out of a combination of vegetation. Excellent! It just seems odd that God would curse the ground only to have humans nullify the results. And again, back to the question, what is "cursing" the ground? Apparently a "combination of vegetation" is all it takes to get all the needed nutrients from the ground. Before the "curse", did humans/animals not need to partake in "combinations of vegetation", but got along fine on one type of herb? What prevented carnivores from eating "combinations of vegetation" to avoid having to kill other animals for these nutrients? (NannyG123): God produced the Bible so humans, you included, could learn about Him That may be what the Bible says. Have you ever observed any Gods giving humans a book? To you, which is more likely to be an important factor in determining if an event has occurred: you directly observe the actual event/events similar to it, or you have read it in a book? (NannyG123): Criticizing the Bible gets you a nice conversation. Do the same with a Muslim and you might be hunted down and killed. I have no doubt that today, I am incredibly much more likely to be killed for criticizing the Koran than the Bible. I recognize and appreciate that. I also have no doubt that if we were having this conversation anywhere from 600 to 6000 years ago, my life would be in peril. The Bible and its instructions haven't changed, only interpretation and acceptance therof. This is another important reason why I am after your interpretations, not somebody else's. (NannyG123): Christians are expected to use their own reasoning to help others Unless that reasoning conflicts with the book, right? (Badsidhe): Which do you think is a more effective method to discover the nature of things: a) study the nature of things b) study an old book about talking animals that claims to be about the nature of things (NannyG123): This is a false dilemma. A combination of the two works for me. When you studied the composition of the earth, what measurements did you make to differentiate between "cursed" earth and non-"cursed" earth? When you studied the dietary habits of 6-10 thousand year old carnivores, what features did you measure to determine that they subsisted on a diet of plants before that barrier, but meat afterwards? What "combination" of natural observation/old book would you say formed your final conclusion? 50% nature observations/50% old book? 25% nature observations/75% old book? How did it work for you?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#45	[url]	[-]
Posts: 470 05/07/08 16:47:04	Badsidhe, if you are not even willing to pick up the book to check things for yourself you will remain in ignorance. All you get is one person or another's opinion. You can then do your ''moral equivalence'' thing with them. Your ''facts'' and timeline are based on ignorance. You misunderstand the simplest thing because you refuse to make sure of it from the ''horse's mouth'' for yourself......Plato taught thinking people to at least do that. In his world you would be in the cave.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Pick up line?	#46	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3184 05/07/08 19:11:26	(NannyG123): Badsidhe, if you are not even willing to pick up the book to check things for yourself you will remain in ignorance. I have "picked up the book", and as I alluded to in my previous post, my interpretations conflict with yours just as yours conflict with the next Christian. (NannyG123): All you get is one person or another's opinion. Well, I try, at least. But that only works if they answer my questions. Are you willing to do so? (NannyG123): You can then do your ''moral equivalence'' thing with them. I don't understand what you are referring to here. (NannyG123): Your ''facts'' and timeline are based on ignorance. I'm not sure what "facts" and "timeline" you are referring to. (NannyG123): You misunderstand the simplest thing because you refuse to make sure of it What "thing"? What is "it"? (NannyG123): ....Plato taught thinking people to at least do that. In his world you would be in the cave. The allegory of the cave speaks of people only being allowed to see part of reality, and making their judgements based only upon the parts that they are allowed to see. Which fits very nicely into the line of questions from my last post that you did not answer. In your opinion, what percentage of your interpretation of reality do you base on observing reality itself (everything that can possibly be observed), and how much do you base on only the contents of a book (which is obviously a subset within everything that can possibly be observed)? I have addressed all of your comments. Will you address my comments, and questions from my previous posts? Or shall we leave this at "Badsidhe is ignorant"? --------------------------------------------------------------- Throughout all my time debating with believers, I've only gotten two different reactions at the close of our relationship. Both reactions, I believe, are based on the same prime motivation (which will go undiscussed as a huge tangent unless you really want to hear it). The two reactions are this: a) Believer starts making personal attacks in lieu of answering questions. b) Believer dusts off sandals/stops casting me pearls. In lieu of answering questions. Please don't tell me you've reached this point with me already. Two extra notes: a) Since your complaint is "Badsidhe not willing to pick up the book" and I addressed your complaint with "Badsidhe has picked up the book", are you willing to concede that your complaint is without merit and continue from where we left? b) You have not convinced me that I should even pick up the book to begin with. Why should I believe this book has any merit, when you won't answer questions that pertain to ascertaining its merit?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#47	[url]	[-]
Posts: 472 05/07/08 23:36:52	Badsidhe wrote: (NannyG123): Badsidhe, if you are not even willing to pick up the book to check things for yourself you will remain in ignorance. I have "picked up the book", and as I alluded to in my previous post, my interpretations conflict with yours just as yours conflict with the next Christian. (NannyG123): All you get is one person or another's opinion. Well, I try, at least. But that only works if they answer my questions. Are you willing to do so? (NannyG123): You can then do your ''moral equivalence'' thing with them. I don't understand what you are referring to here. (NannyG123): Your ''facts'' and timeline are based on ignorance. I'm not sure what "facts" and "timeline" you are referring to. (NannyG123): You misunderstand the simplest thing because you refuse to make sure of it What "thing"? What is "it"? (NannyG123): ....Plato taught thinking people to at least do that. In his world you would be in the cave. The allegory of the cave speaks of people only being allowed to see part of reality, and making their judgements based only upon the parts that they are allowed to see. Which fits very nicely into the line of questions from my last post that you did not answer. In your opinion, what percentage of your interpretation of reality do you base on observing reality itself (everything that can possibly be observed), and how much do you base on only the contents of a book (which is obviously a subset within everything that can possibly be observed)? I have addressed all of your comments. Will you address my comments, and questions from my previous posts? Or shall we leave this at "Badsidhe is ignorant"? --------------------------------------------------------------- Throughout all my time debating with believers, I've only gotten two different reactions at the close of our relationship. Both reactions, I believe, are based on the same prime motivation (which will go undiscussed as a huge tangent unless you really want to hear it). The two reactions are this: a) Believer starts making personal attacks in lieu of answering questions. b) Believer dusts off sandals/stops casting me pearls. In lieu of answering questions. Please don't tell me you've reached this point with me already. Two extra notes: a) Since your complaint is "Badsidhe not willing to pick up the book" and I addressed your complaint with "Badsidhe has picked up the book", are you willing to concede that your complaint is without merit and continue from where we left? b) You have not convinced me that I should even pick up the book to begin with. Why should I believe this book has any merit, when you won't answer questions that pertain to ascertaining its merit? If you are a person worthy of merit you will pick it up again for this purpose: Read about the ground being cursed. (Gen. 3) Let me know. Different translations use different terms for ''thorns and thistles,'' but trust me, even the animals are stuck with having to eat them. In fact I made almost $300,000 once because I explained to non-hunting researchers into chronic wasting disease that deer in the wild more often than not have cuts and sores on their tongues as a result of eating thorny forage. All their experiments in the controlled environment with commercial deer feed were in vain. Deer don't get CWD orally unless their tongue is cut because it takes so long to incubate they die of old age first. But when their tongue is cut it only takes 43 days. I invested in their research and it worked out well for all concerned.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Cursed = Thorns and Thistles?	#48	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3186 05/08/08 06:28:55	(NannyG123): Read about the ground being cursed. (Gen. 3) Let me know. OK, I re-read it: KJV Gen 3:17 cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; KJV Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; What do you want me to let you know? Are you trying to tell me that "cursed ground" is ground that is able to grow thorns and thistles? Did thorns and thistles not grow before the "Fall"? Have you measured a change in thorn/thistle rate occurring around 6-10 thousand years ago? Does the fact that the earth has large tracts of land with non-thistle/thorn plants that provide an abundance of food indicate that this "curse" was local to the Garden of Eden? Comparing how much information you have gathered from making measurements of "cursed ground" of the real, actual earth, to how much information you have gathered from reading two lines in this book, can you give me a rough estimate, percentage-wise, of how much each factor formed your conclusion of what/where/how/when "cursed ground" is? I have been more than willing to address your argumentation. Will you please reciprocate and address mine?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#49	[url]	[-]
Posts: 473 05/08/08 09:10:07	Thanks for reading it. (Twice?) ''the ground'' is not the Garden of Eden.....they were ousted from it. (You read that, just now again, right?) The ground is all of the ground and ''thorns and thistles'' means less than optimal food. Both animals and humans would have to fight to get what they needed from the foilage from the ground. Humans might be more likely to eat only nutritious food, animals might indiscriminantly eat whatever was there, and thus need more because of less nutrients. (Personally, I like one thistle, the artichoke, I have no idea about it's nutritional value.)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Your turn?	#50	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3187 05/08/08 09:40:44	I have done as you have asked, but there are still zounds of unanswered questions that you can attend to. Will you? Artichokes are tasty.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#51	[url]	[-]
Posts: 477 05/08/08 15:48:16	Badsidhe wrote: I have done as you have asked, but there are still zounds of unanswered questions that you can attend to. Will you? Artichokes are tasty. Wait a few days, thanks.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
1skybluepink	: )) Groupies! Diversion Alert!!!	#52	[url]	[-]
Posts: 836 06/04/08 05:33:54	I think Nanny's just jealous because Badsidhe has groupies here : )) Silly, silly Nanny! (((((((((Yark))))))))) has even more groupies : ))
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Hawker Hurricane		#53	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1706 06/04/08 10:43:52	1skybluepink wrote: I think Nanny's just jealous because Badsidhe has groupies here : )) Silly, silly Nanny! (((((((((Yark))))))))) has even more groupies : )) I am very depressed, as I lack even a single groupie. Group. Grouper? What is the singular form of "groupies"? ------------------------- God Created the Universe. God Just Exists. can be shortened to The Universe Just Exists. Via Occam's Razor.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Rambo123UK	Gropey?	#54	[url]	[-]
Posts: 507 06/04/08 11:04:06	I've been accused of being a groper before... The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning. -- Voltaire BIBLE BABBLE
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Matthew Ellard.pedg	What is state college?	#55	[url]	[-]
Posts: 134 06/05/08 17:00:04	Badsidhe wrote: I've just finished my first year of school at the state college. I get confused with what an Amercian college is. In Australia ( and I assume UK, India, New Zealand and possiblt Canada) we go 1) Pre school (finish at 4 to 5 years old) 2) Primary School (finish at 10 to 11 years old) 3) High School ( graduate at 16 to 17 years old) 4) Maybe go to University or Tech College or join workforce. Do American's break our "high school" into "high school" and "college" before going to Uni? Is college something else? Are they government schools or private? Do you have to pay?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Hawker Hurricane		#56	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1707 06/05/08 18:08:58	American Schools... Pre-School/Head Start - finishes at 4-5 years. Elementary School - finishes at 11-12 Jr. High School/Middle School - finishes at 14-15 High School - finishes at 18 College: two year school, leads to a Associates Degree University: 4 year school, leads to both Associates ,Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate Degree. HOWEVER, the terms 'college' and 'university' are semi-interchangable. Many of the same courses are offered. Many schools founded as colleges have expanded to universities, most (if not all) universities offer college level courses. There are both public (state controlled) and private ones. For example, here in San Diego CA, we have... Southwestern College, owned by the city of San Diego University of San Diego, owned by the Catholic Church San Diego State University, privately owned University of California at San Diego, owned by the state of California. All colleges and universities have fees, colleges are generally less expensive, all have programs to assist students financially to one degree or another... ------------------------- God Created the Universe. God Just Exists. can be shortened to The Universe Just Exists. Via Occam's Razor.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe		#57	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3190 06/06/08 07:38:58	Sorry for international confusions.... I was referring to a 4-year degree from a "college" or "university", taking place after completion of mandatory public schooling normally finished by 17-18 years of age (although I'm a late starter at 36 years old now). Technically, I have to pay for college, but so far with grants and scholarships, I am actually being paid to go to school.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Matthew Ellard.pedg		#58	[url]	[-]
Posts: 137 06/09/08 16:08:32	Badsidhe wrote: Sorry for international confusions.... I was referring to a 4-year degree from a "college" or "university", taking place after completion of mandatory public schooling normally finished by 17-18 years of age (although I'm a late starter at 36 years old now). Technically, I have to pay for college, but so far with grants and scholarships, I am actually being paid to go to school. Now I understand. Amercian college is like our TAFEs. We have to pay back interest-free government loans for these courses so I guess it is similar to the States scholarship system. Thank you
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards