how can you tell the difference? (i hate it when i am too succinct..can't think of how to expend this) chi has value, most think he is preaching,he thinks he is teaching.. i can see both sides,some times he cross's the line between the two. can we discuss the differences between preaching vs teaching, maybe chi can learn also.(me also maybe)
What we had this morning was prayer. Prayers aren't addressed to Sciforums' readers at all, they are addressed by believers to their supposed deities in praise or petition. Preaching simply announces what the speaker thinks are truths, in the oracular manner of a prophet, with an expectation that listeners should accept and believe without any additional justification. Teaching explains, contextualizes, and explores the implications and justifications of the material being taught. With teaching, the emphasis is more on students understanding the material than on their assenting to it.
I think this is a good example of preaching, esp. the statement: "Reaching people means them accepting things they have not yet accepted." It focuses entirely on the other person and what they are supposed to, relieving the preacher of all responsibility and humanity.
The difference is this, If you teach religion it's preaching, if you teach anything else even abstract art apparently it's teaching ^_^ If I stand on a stage and read of the theory of evolution I would be conducting a lecture or maybe in an auditorium. If I stand on a stage and read the Torah, Quran or bible I am preaching or holding a sermon. Peace.
Yazata is bang-on correct. EmptyForceOfChi: Teaching religion is not the same as preaching. Preaching, however, usually describes a religious sermon or recitation. If you stood on a stage and read Darwin's On the origin of species out to an audience, then you probably wouldn't be teaching evolution. Or at least not apart from any teaching that Darwin does in that book. However, it must be said that Darwin's book aims to persuade readers of the truth of what is contained, by a process of rational argument and presentation of supporting evidence. In contrast, your average religious tract expects its readers to accept without question, based on authority rather than argument and evidence. Preaching a sermon usually involves some attempt on the part of the preacher to communicate his own beliefs to the audience, which requires more than simply reciting from a textbook. However, listeners are still sometimes expected to agree to the sermon on the basis of authority. It is possible to teach religion. It is possible to preach science. The important difference between teaching and preaching is skillfully explained by Yazata, above.
I don't think there's a whole load of difference between preaching and teaching. In both cases, you're telling someone else what you believe. Your manner, tone of voice, etc has nothing to do with it, and it's perfectly possible to have an expectation that your listeners should agree with you (taken from your definition of preaching) whilst contextualising, etc (taken from your definition of teaching). And let's face it, when anyone ever says anything to someone else, it is a given that they most likely hope to be agreed with. Also, it's perfectly possible to speak in the oracular manner of a prophet (see most politicians) but also encourage listeners to understand what's being said. Your definitions are very superficial, interchangeable, and don't really explain anything.
i think teaching allows questions, preaching does not.. and i dont know if anyone else thinks this way, but IMO if a teacher can't learn,then he has no business teaching..
