April 10th, 2009, 01:19 PM
It's obvious the world if well over 10,000 years old but we're afraid to teach this to children in school, this is just one truth we are hiding in our public education. I don't understand why we would prevent the advancement of science because of a cult?
What was it Einstein said? "If the choice is between big bang theory and an all powerful god, the jury could be out for quite some time...
In Europe the kids are taught both, I presume you are in the US
There's nothing to be "taught". Religion has no place in an education system, except maybe in philosophy. Which is largely ignored, and IF taught presented as a history lesson nobody understands. To teach it in a science class is unacceptable.
If european kids are taught both, I pity the kid that has to sit through "Noah's ark" when it's physically impossible to even fit the worlds seeds in one (even if there was one seed per plant!).
No they keep religion out, and when I was learning about evolution the science teacher said "Now we're required to tell you this is just a theory, but, it has enough evidence that I myself and many other important scientific people know it to be fact, it just conflicts with religion so the school is hesitant on teaching it as fact."Originally Posted by Megabrain
hope the rest of the teachers went into this much detail if required to say it was just a theory.
i think we're teaching ignorance by teaching creationism. you can't become smart if every answer is "God did it" (which even applies to physics in some forms of creationism)
Argh. "Just a theory" my ASS. A theory, in science, is as close to 100% fact as science gets. GRAVITY IS A THEORY.
I think Richard Dawkins said it best as "it's like trying to argue the Earth is flat, even with the over abundant evidence that it is not"
Same in my school, sadly. Our science teacher made the mistake of explaining evolution to us, and some snot-nosed kid went home and complained to his church-going parents. Two days later, a substitute teacher is sitting in our teacher's chair, and we find out that our science teacher is on probation. Also at our school, they have a Christian club called First Priority. I think this is hypocritical. First you refuse to acknowledge religion, but when you do, it's only ONE religion? If you have to have religious clubs, there should be on for every group, not just the Christians!No they keep religion out, and when I was learning about evolution the science teacher said "Now we're required to tell you this is just a theory, but, it has enough evidence that I myself and many other important scientific people know it to be fact, it just conflicts with religion so the school is hesitant on teaching it as fact."
*Note: I am not attacking Christians in any way or form in the above paragraph, nor am I making fun of anyone who goes to church. I'm just stating the facts the way they are.
I feel what happened with this teacher is a sacrifice scientist NEED to be willing to make in order to advance science, that teacher should feel proud to be a martyr for science so to speak. If any religion were widely enough excepted we'd be expected to believe in it. It's a brainwashing method to control people, god did not physically write the first bible correct? It was made my man, with no modern methods available to verify it's authenticity, only to discredit it's so called facts.
I can remember being taught both, in one lesson God created the world in six days and on the.." and another Darwin's theory of evolution - being descended from apes. I well remember that science for us was the most convincing, it fitted with our own experiences ie apes/chimps etc did seem to be anatomically similar, fossil impressions in rocks and other things explanations seemed real, and then the experiments in science always worked (well mostly..)
On the other hand religious education consisted of pictures of 'The Holy Land' as it was called then, oh yes and a book, 1 book, no author or year of first publication, just a compilation of ye this and doth that - the first half of the lesson was either a read from the bible or a picture show of somebody's pre war holyland holiday snaps always followed by a discussion.
Sitting there in the freezing cold with a war on outside being told how wonderful the world was (while we were almost always hungry) and how God loved everybody was quite something (especially after losing an uncle).
Well now I'm rambling on so I'll shut up (didn't somebody tell me earlier to do just that??).
man I can't believe they would teach that as possible fact!! fossils alone can show us that the time line in which these creature were created was not seven days (some people say "days in the point of view of God, which is much longer" I say "I don't think so, quit changing the story") and what's this "virgin birth" thing, then the same woman that claims a virgin birth, claims she sees her son 3 days after he dies. these frankly preposterous notions shouldn't have even been considered, and would be thrown out in an instant if newly presented in this day of age. Think about it if a pregnant woman said she was a virgin would you believe her? No artificial insemination, just an immaculate birth. I'd say she was more full of it than a king size cow pie, were people that gullible back then?
I remember our Religous education master must have been 60 or so and therefore he would have been born well before 1900, and probably god-fearing I don't think in my time you would have questioned a master - there word was absolute - no argument, they had the cane and bloody painful it was.
wow, I guess our minds our so curious they have to find an explanation, even if it is just a temporary one such as religion. It's funny b/c so many people use the "his word is absolute" to debate evolution, I can see where that comes from now, I guess part of the base of Christianity was to believe in the absolute god theory or go to hell, lol no pun intended
There have been a series of court rulings that have essentially outlawed the teaching of creationism in US public schools, or official sponsorship of any form of religion including having a copy of the 10 Commandments hanging on the school wall. So, I'm not sure what your complaint is.
yes, that is definitely a reassuring step forward, but from what I understand many places such as London, still teach both. This is under minding science, and slowing down our progress as a species, at some time we need to abandon mythology and acknowledge reality.
I do not think you should teach creationisn is fake just as much as I believe it should not be taught as fact.
Simply you cannot be sure either way to be fair, we simply don't know, whatever
our origin and that of our universe I think it will turn out to be a far more exotic process than either.
Religion has been a part of our society in some form or another for many thousands of years, it has provided the very framework and structure for our laws and civilisation, don't be too quick to cast it out, because even if there is no God, religion is part of our past present and probaly future as well - If we had discovered science before religion I'm quite sure we would never have got this far, somehow the atomic bomb in teh hands of Genghis khan stirs a certain shudder...
I used to feel the same way, and even encourage religion as a sort of comfort in dealing with the fact of death, but when looking at this in a whole and realizing the toll it has on our advancement. I feel it is opening the door for radical creationist attacking men of science for the proof the present because it conflicts with there believe, which is based on nothing (faith), or more so a book made by man that is the voice of God (which doesn't speak to anyone now days conveniently(reminds me of the Mormons)) we've already been able to discredit almost every aspect of the bible with science. There is this is definitely a cause for concern when considering a large portion of our society is limiting there perspective to believe in a creator. Making that portion of society useless to the advancement of science, slowing down the whole species. I feel we need to acknowledge religion for what it is, philosophy and/or mythology.
April 15th, 2009, 10:27 PM
1. evolution is not a truth.
2. it isn't an advancement of science.
3. christianity is not a cult.
christianity has every reason to be taught in education. where do you think morals and ethics come from? it has verifiable history, and it should be in the science classroom as you study the results of creation all the time.There's nothing to be "taught". Religion has no place in an education system, except maybe in philosophy. Which is largely ignored, and IF taught presented as a history lesson nobody understands. To teach it in a science class is unacceptable
no you would not be teaching ignorance, you would be educating. solely teaching evolution is brainwashing and teaching ignorance as you are omitting dissenting thought from the classsroom. students should be allowed to make up their own minds without evolutinists influencing the outcome.i think we're teaching ignorance by teaching creationism. you can't become smart if every answer is "God did it" (which even applies to physics in some forms of creationism
apples and oranges. gravity is real and observed, felt and experienced everyday by billions of people. evolution is not. we know gravity is real but how it works is still a theory not a fact."Just a theory" my ASS. A theory, in science, is as close to 100% fact as science gets. GRAVITY IS A THEORY.
no one has talked about the earth being flat since the middle to dark ages. yo people need to get new arguments. but we know the world was not flat andwith great sailors in the minoans and the pheonicians, not too much the romans (whose wrecks have been discovered off the south american coast), the ancient world knew the earth was round.I think Richard Dawkins said it best as "it's like trying to argue the Earth is flat, even with the over abundant evidence that it is not"
just because some unscrupolous men who ran a false church decided to make it flat does it mean that christians taught the world was flat.
feel free to start some. are you sure the world is ready for muslims to be taught how to be terrorists in a high school club? (stereotyping to make a point). i have no problems with other religions having clubs in schools but mist do not practice their beliefs the same as christians do.If you have to have religious clubs, there should be on for every group, not just the Christians!
God wrote the Bible, even the first one but used man to put it down on 'paper'. evolutinists are brainwashing by limiting what can be taught in the science classroomIt's a brainwashing method to control people, god did not physically write the first bible correct? It was made my man, with no modern methods available to verify it's authenticity, only to discredit it's so called facts.
don't blame God because other people disobey Him and allow hatred to dictate their actions not God.Sitting there in the freezing cold with a war on outside being told how wonderful the world was (while we were almost always hungry) and how God loved everybody was quite something (especially after losing an uncle).
fossils do no such thing. it is all conjecture and an ignoring of the facts.fossils alone can show us that the time line in which these creature were created was not seven days
and those rulings are wrong as they are concluded by being based upon partial evidence and a distortion of what science is.There have been a series of court rulings that have essentially outlawed the teaching of creationism in US public schools, or official sponsorship of any form of religion including having a copy of the 10 Commandments hanging on the school wall
evolution is mythology.at some time we need to abandon mythology and acknowledge reality.
yet men of science attacking creationists or I.D.rs is okay? sorry but secular scientists are wrong andneed to be challenged by the facts of life- creation is true.I feel it is opening the door for radical creationist attacking men of science for the proof the present because it conflicts with there believe
that has never happened. there has been no discovery which shows the Bible as false.we've already been able to discredit almost every aspect of the bible with science.
as are those who limit their perspective to secular science or just evolution.There is this is definitely a cause for concern when considering a large portion of our society is limiting there perspective to believe in a creator
to archaeologist:
"God wrote the bible, but used a man to put it down on paper."
This is brainwashing, not evolutionism.
"apples and oranges. gravity is real and observed, felt and experienced everyday by billions of people. evolution is not. we know gravity is real but how it works is still a theory not a fact."
When you say theory, means it was proven empirically => becomes a fact.
"evolution is mythology. "
I suggest you use other word, cuz as fas as I know, mythology means:
Myths are not the same as fables, legends, folktales, fairy tales, anecdotes or fiction, [6] although the distinction between these categories is not always clear.[7] Within the system used by folklorists, myth is one of the three major categories of traditional stories:[8]
* myths – stories traditionally considered true and sacred, set in the remote past, in another world or an earlier stage of this world, whose main characters are gods or otherwise non-human
* legends – stories traditionally considered true, set in the recent past of this world, whose main characters are human; these can be either sacred or secular
* folktales/fairytales – stories traditionally considered fictional and secular, set at any time and any place, whose main characters can be either human or non-human
=> are you saying fossils in museums all over the world are myths? wait, how did you pick your nickname again? o_O
I'm really confused...
April 16th, 2009, 03:44 AM
. It's empirically proven to be true.
I said that NOT to suggest you can observe evolution, but that evolution is on the same level as gravity as far as science is concerned. That is how much evidence there is to support the theory.
How you disagree depends on how you interpret evolution. I can frankly say that, as you disagree, your interpretation is very likely wrong.
ha ha ha ha read the other forum. evolution has no evidence has not been proven true and is just a house of cards.How you disagree depends on how you interpret evolution. I can frankly say that, as you disagree, your interpretation is very likely wrong
no, it is education. if evolution were true it would have no problem with religion and would not hinder education by forcing a monopoly for itself.This is brainwashing, not evolutionism.
only in your minds and sans real scientific work.When you say theory, means it was proven empirically => becomes a fact.
i would put evolution in the third category.I suggest you use other word, cuz as fas as I know, mythology means
i am saying that the conjecture that evolutionists use with those fossils are myths.=> are you saying fossils in museums all over the world are myths
This is where you are wrong, and everyone knows you are wrong. The basics of evolution happens on the smallest level, with the common cold. To reject evolution is to reject the fact that it changes every season to avoid our immune system. Our bodies need to create specific antibodies just because of it.
To show how species can evolve, or prove that a species can keep adapting to a point where it's no longer recognizable, lets use the following examples.
Human species A moves to mountain, reproduces for so many generations. Lets assume that there is one predator, and it hunts humans. A has to run fast to survive, which is difficult to do with low oxygen. Therefore, those that cannot run well die off leaving those that can with low oxygen.
Then, the predators that cannot run fast enough die off, leaving the fastest ones. A then needs longer legs to outrun the predators, so A's legs grow longer and more muscular. Their bodies slim down, allowing for even faster running. Now A has far better oxygen use AND stronger/longer legs, and so do the predators.
Now lets assume the only way to escape the predator is to climb. Not many of A are good climbers, so many die off again because they cannot climb fast or high enough. The survivors have stronger arms and better grip, allowing them to climb more efficiently. Slowly but surely, the shorter individuals are preferred, as are wider feet for better grip and balance. All traits that A already had, but now they're common due to selection pressure.
Now, lets assume the mountain becomes very cold. Due to having no technology, almost all of A dies off and almost all of the predators do too. Those that survive do poorly until a mutation happens that gives some more hair (this mutation does exist). Now these short and smaller individuals are very hairy, allowing them to survive more comfortably in the cold. Those that don't survive well die off sooner, allowing those with hair to reproduce more.
Now lets assume the predators are having almost no luck at all catching humans anymore. Humans accidentally wander upon a pack at night, are attacked, and give that pack the idea to hunt at night. Unfortunately they have poor eyesight, but those with slightly better eyesight do better. The species diverges into groups that have good night vision versus bad, and those at night thrive because humans have bad vision as well. Because of this, humans are now pressured to have good night vision, and those that AREN'T killed off have very good night vision. As their night vision improves, the light during the day becomes more and more uncomfortable, pressuring them to become noctournal.
And so it goes on and on. What we have now are hairy noctournal humans that are shorter than average and have very strong tree climbing abilities with very wide feet, ALL under the assumption of an ALREADY EXISTANT genetic mutation and mostly adaptations. Eventually this continues until they can no longer be recognized as humans, creating a different species altogether.
So you can see, logically, your disbelief in the theory of evolution is bullshit. If viruses can adapt under selective pressure, everything can do so. We don't even need physical evidence to prove the end result, merely the VERY OBVIOUS evidence of the process.
April 16th, 2009, 10:15 PM
This is underinding creationism, I think religion as a whole is a bit more risky, and may cause some real problems. Undermining creationism is just science education, undermining religion requires something more, something distasteful I think.
I would say leaving out creationism in secular schools is enough, no need to say its wrong.
Don't bother arguing with archaeologist, he won't listen.
now that was a good read. thanks, darius. =)This is where you are wrong, and everyone knows you are wrong. The basics of evolution happens on the smallest level, with the common cold. To reject evolution is to reject the fact that it changes every season to avoid our immune system. Our bodies need to create specific antibodies just because of it.
To show how species can evolve, or prove that a species can keep adapting to a point where it's no longer recognizable, lets use the following examples.
Human species A moves to mountain, reproduces for so many generations. Lets assume that there is one predator, and it hunts humans. A has to run fast to survive, which is difficult to do with low oxygen. Therefore, those that cannot run well die off leaving those that can with low oxygen.
Then, the predators that cannot run fast enough die off, leaving the fastest ones. A then needs longer legs to outrun the predators, so A's legs grow longer and more muscular. Their bodies slim down, allowing for even faster running. Now A has far better oxygen use AND stronger/longer legs, and so do the predators.
Now lets assume the only way to escape the predator is to climb. Not many of A are good climbers, so many die off again because they cannot climb fast or high enough. The survivors have stronger arms and better grip, allowing them to climb more efficiently. Slowly but surely, the shorter individuals are preferred, as are wider feet for better grip and balance. All traits that A already had, but now they're common due to selection pressure.
Now, lets assume the mountain becomes very cold. Due to having no technology, almost all of A dies off and almost all of the predators do too. Those that survive do poorly until a mutation happens that gives some more hair (this mutation does exist). Now these short and smaller individuals are very hairy, allowing them to survive more comfortably in the cold. Those that don't survive well die off sooner, allowing those with hair to reproduce more.
Now lets assume the predators are having almost no luck at all catching humans anymore. Humans accidentally wander upon a pack at night, are attacked, and give that pack the idea to hunt at night. Unfortunately they have poor eyesight, but those with slightly better eyesight do better. The species diverges into groups that have good night vision versus bad, and those at night thrive because humans have bad vision as well. Because of this, humans are now pressured to have good night vision, and those that AREN'T killed off have very good night vision. As their night vision improves, the light during the day becomes more and more uncomfortable, pressuring them to become noctournal.
And so it goes on and on. What we have now are hairy noctournal humans that are shorter than average and have very strong tree climbing abilities with very wide feet, ALL under the assumption of an ALREADY EXISTANT genetic mutation and mostly adaptations. Eventually this continues until they can no longer be recognized as humans, creating a different species altogether.
So you can see, logically, your disbelief in the theory of evolution is bullshit. If viruses can adapt under selective pressure, everything can do so. We don't even need physical evidence to prove the end result, merely the VERY OBVIOUS evidence of the process.
here is your error. they are NOT secular schools BUT public ones and christians are part of the public. they have every right to have creation taught in the science classroom.I would say leaving out creationism in secular schools is enough
if the atheist doesn't like it they can build their own schools, hire their own teachers and teach what ever they want. they do NOT OWN the public school system and cannot usurp them for their private ideaologies.
still not evolution but a manipulation of the fact that those who climb hire may not beget offspring who can climb as high as they can. this is just an assumption of the worst kind. genetics plays a part in the equation not evolution.Then, the predators that cannot run fast enough die off, leaving the fastest ones. A then needs longer legs to outrun the predators, so A's legs grow longer and more muscular. Their bodies slim down, allowing for even faster running. Now A has far better oxygen use AND stronger/longer legs, and so do the predators.
case inpoint Kelly, the former quarterback for the buffalo bills, an excellant athlete, has a child that was very sick and weak and does not get better.
your anaology fails because it assumes something not in evidence.
Those that climb better. If they do not climb quickly enough, and cannot stay high enough, they will fall and the predator will eat them. This is no assumption, this is the reality of how things work.
What is?this is just an assumption of the worst kind.
You're clearly incapable of reading. Selective pressure determines what set of genetics remains, yes, but over time this set changes so much that a species evolves beyond recognition. You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.genetics plays a part in the equation not evolution.
...and? This tells me nothing. It's not even an argument.case inpoint Kelly, the former quarterback for the buffalo bills, an excellant athlete, has a child that was very sick and weak and does not get better.
And what isn't in the evidence? You've not mentioned anything.your anaology fails because it assumes something not in evidence.
try again. creation isn't science. if you want to argue that it should be taught, it should be taught in history. Evolution is a process, and as such it never really ceases. Creation is done. it happened. no more observations of creation can be made and no more examples will come from it. It's, quite literally (you will have a hard time finding some one who feels otherwise), History.
Those that climb better. If they do not climb quickly enough, and cannot stay high enough, they will fall and the predator will eat them. This is no assumption, this is the reality of how things work.top: still doesn't show nor prove evolution at workand? This tells me nothing. It's not even an argument.
bottom: you are willfully deceived if you ignore the example which disproves your theory.
one needs to study the origin of science, which is from God. He created it. science merely can study the results of creation, no more. everything else is outside of its scope and authority.try again. creation isn't science
then you do not need to waste time and money chasing a false idea. it is interesting to note that without science and other technologies, cain was able to build a city.Creation is done. it happened. no more observations of creation can be made and no more examples will come from it
It's not supposed to. It's supposed to provide a basis for explaining how a species could keep evolving until they're no longer recognizable. The theory is that changes, over a long period of time, will create a new species.
So if we get long hair, more muscular tree-climbing builds, likely shorter bodies (to accomodate the tree climbing), various balance enhancements, etc, we're going to look very different from when we started out. That's just one example among many that can be thought up. Use your brain.
I'm stunned by the fact that in 2009, with so many evidences and highly developed technology, there are still creationism believers.
It is people who can't deal with doubt. If some parts of the Bible are wrong, how do you know which parts are right? So they take it as fact that the Bible is 100% accurate, no matter how absurd it is. A Man surviving inside a fish? Godditit. All of the ridiculous impossibilities of the flood and all it is supposed to explain? Goddidit. People being turned into pillars of salt? Goddidit. All the languages of the world created in an instantGoddidit.
They go into a mode of thinking and processing the world that effectively precludes them from being able to look at thing objectively and cripples their ability to think for themselves. When presented with an opposing piece of evidence, anything that could remotely serve as a counter argument, no matter how contrived it is and even if it is only remotely connected to the issue, is enough to debunk it. People that served their own version of God their whole lives and who are the best people you can imagine, will none the less burn for eternity in a lake of burning sulphur and brimstone. Children that aren't baptised and die go there also, even before they can possibly know what is happening around them. These people actually want to be god people. They love their children, pay their taxes and help old ladies accross the street, yet they have no problem believing that their atheist neighbour, who loves his children just as much as he does, will burn for an eternity along with his children. I am just too disgusted to continue listing out the utterly insane world that a creationist lives in.
It's a sad world that we live in, Numii. Run away with me, and we can create our own worlds? Worlds where there would be no religion, no conflicts, just eternal, wholesome peace.I'm stunned by the fact that in 2009, with so many evidences and highly developed technology, there are still creationism believers.
Well, if the ideaologies are private, why the heck are they being presented in PUBLIC schools that are part of the PUBLIC school system? You want your child to believe in a giant whale with burping issues? You want your child to believe in three fireproof men? You want your child to believe in people turning into salt? (as KALSTER so eloquently put, thanks, man). Go ahead. Educate them. But before I believe such nonsense, I'd like to see it happen again. Maybe you, archaeologist, can call down your God and ask him to turn me into a pillar of salt myself? Ask him to throw George Bush in a pit of savage lions and see what happens to him? Ask the people of your city to gather around with all their instruments and try to tear down a city with the cacophony? Go on. I'll be waiting. I can't wait to see your results. After all, how can a God as loving as yours turn down a such a devout defender such as you?here is your error. they are NOT secular schools BUT public ones and christians are part of the public. they have every right to have creation taught in the science classroom.
if the atheist doesn't like it they can build their own schools, hire their own teachers and teach what ever they want. they do NOT OWN the public school system and cannot usurp them for their private ideaologies.
can we teach the doctrines of Islam? How bout Karma and everything else involved in Zen Buddhism? is that okay? If not, then Arch, shut up... You are being a bigot, and it is not in any way scientific, nor educated. you are spouting your love for the bible and your, specifically your (I don't even KNOW, what sect of Christianity you belong to.), branch of Christianity. How bout we teach the mythologies of ancient Egypt, and Rome and Greece, as fact as well. how about we treat ALL religion as fact, instead of myth.
Or, how bout my alternative to creationism (sadly, I found out about Family Guy when I first told someone my viewpoint, in a comedic sense of course);
God, a gassy deity, said "let there be light." and all of a sudden a spark came into existence, igniting his supernatural gaseous waste and creating the universe through the Biggest "Bang" in history...
i really do not care if you do or not. that would be up to you as it is a public school not a private atheist academy.can we teach the doctrines of Islam? How bout Karma and everything else involved in Zen Buddhism? is that okay
do you know where the roots of most of those myths are in? they all have the same source....The Bible.How bout we teach the mythologies of ancient Egypt, and Rome and Greece, as fact as well. how about we treat ALL religion as fact, instead of myth
why? because you have no evidence and technology doesn't do anything for people. you are still going to die.I'm stunned by the fact that in 2009, with so many evidences and highly developed technology, there are still creationism believers
what are you afraid of? or do you just want heaven on earth instead of in heaven?It's a sad world that we live in, Numii. Run away with me, and we can create our own worlds? Worlds where there would be no religion, no conflicts, just eternal, wholesome peace
as for the other part of our post, we do not tempt God and its been done, doing it again will not make a believer out of you.
YES Kalster God did do it, it is your choice to accept it or not. but remember one thing, as one expert said, the restoration of the nation of israel was not supposed to happen because when people get vanguished like that they disappear forever, never to return. well the israelites did return and God did it.
there is your evidence that God exists.
Sorry I'm a bit late for this thread.christianity has every reason to be taught in education. where do you think morals and ethics come from? it has verifiable history, and it should be in the science classroom as you study the results of creation all the time.
Well once again archaeologist lies to us. One of the main findings from Biblical archaeologists is that there are discrepancies between the Bible and the evidence.
1. No evidence that Egypt ever held large number of Hebrew slaves
2. No evidence any large group was living in the desert for 40 years
3. No evidence that the walls of Jericho came tumbling down
4. No evidence there was a global flood
This is a short list archaeologist.
The Bible is a collection of myths that came from other sources:do you know where the roots of most of those myths are in? they all have the same source....The Bible.
1. Babylonian myths, i.e. Epic of Gilgamesh
2. Akkadian and Sumerian myths for the Garden of Eden
This is a short list archaeologist
archeologist said:Archaeologist, just LISTEN to yourself! Here you are lecturing us about how there is no evidence for evolution and blah blah blah, and yet there you sit easily talking about a HEAVEN? Pray tell, archaeologist, do you know anyone who's died and come back to tell you how beautiful the meadows are in heaven, what St. Peter looks like, and how it felt to be embraced by "God"? Where is your evidence, arch? A few old masters' paintings? Words spewing from figureheads poised at an altar? A book that was written by man...the most imaginative creature yet known?what are you afraid of? or do you just want heaven on earth instead of in heaven?
as for the other part of our post, we do not tempt God and its been done, doing it again will not make a believer out of you.
Chritianity began in 1st century AD in Jerusalem. Ancient Egyptian religion encompasses the various religious beliefs and rituals practiced in ancient Egypt over more than 3,000 years, from the predynastic period until the adoption of Christianity in the early centuries AD.Hinduism is often stated to be the "oldest religious tradition" or "oldest living major tradition, older than 5,000 years.do you know where the roots of most of those myths are in? they all have the same source....The Bible.
Buddhists recognize Buddha as an awakened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end their suffering by understanding the true nature of phenomena, thereby escaping the cycle of suffering and rebirth (saṃsāra), that is, achieving Nirvana. Among the methods various schools of Buddhism apply towards this goal are: ethical conduct and altruistic behaviour, devotional practices, ceremonies and the invocation of bodhisattvas, renunciation of worldly matters, meditation, physical exercises, study, and the cultivation of wisdom.
Oh, yes, that sure sounds like what the Bible is teaching. Nirvana, samsara, bodhisattvas....they're all part of Jesus's and God's master plan right? And oh look! Both Egyptians and Hindus seemed to have established their beliefs long before your Jesus was even born! Hmm....I don't think you're in the best position to say that such ancient religions take teachings from Christianity. Christianity wasn't even AROUND then.
Newsflash: so will you. The only difference between you and Numii is, is that when she dies, she's going to die happily, knowing that her life's purpose has been fulfilled, and now she can just close her eyes and go to sleep....why? because you have no evidence and technology doesn't do anything for people. you are still going to die.
You, archaeologist, on the other hand, will be brimming with ecstacy as you lie hallucinating about a tunnel and an angel beckoning, obviously because your brain will have been starved of oxygen.
YES Kalster God did do it, it is your choice to accept it or not. but remember one thing, as one expert said, the restoration of the nation of israel was not supposed to happen because when people get vanguished like that they disappear forever, never to return. well the israelites did return and God did it.
there is your evidence that God exists.
that is not credible evidence, it is open to interpretation
all those mythologies are OLDER than the bible arch, Egypt was around long before Moses wrote genesis, the first book written. Rome, Greece, Babylon, all nations that wrote their historic religions before the inception of Moses into this world, so you can't say THEY plagiarized the bible, sorry. Moving East, none of them had contact with bibles until long, LONG after they were in existence, and this is logical because of the lack of a printing press, lack of a large number of individuals who could read and write. Eastern traditions are older, also, than the ancient western civilizations as well, making your assertion that these (granted, you specified Roman and Greek) cultures were influenced by Judaism baseless and ignorant to the history of the world around you. If the Bible says these cultures were influenced by it, the bible is lying, and that is irrefutable, because the Greeks and Romans took FANTASTIC records, that put their dates before that of Moses in some places.
Who, me? I know, I am an atheist.
no, that was directed at Arch, not you Kalster, you are now Socrates in my mind, so I won't be tagging evidence arguments to you, as after that "define the act of defining" comment, I see you as the man to always ask questions, as Socrates had.
Oh, thought so. :wink: "I think, therefore I am......going nowhere but in the ground when I die" - Me (and Descartes)
yes but i am not basing my belief on 'scientific evidence' i said you had to do it God's way which was to use 'faith'. i also have said that you will not get all the physical evidence you want. plus i am not the one rejecting the biblical evidence just because it doesn't fit what i want to see.Archaeologist, just LISTEN to yourself! Here you are lecturing us about how there is no evidence for evolution and blah blah blah, and yet there you sit easily talking about a HEAVEN
nope.what St. Peter looks like, and how it felt to be embraced by "God"? Where is your evidence, arch? A few old masters' paintings
nope.Words spewing from figureheads poised at an altar
it wasn't written by a man. i have stated allsorts of evidence inother threads and the two most compelling are 1. the changed lives from believing in God, across centuries and international borders & 2. the restoration of Israel.A book that was written by man...the most imaginative creature yet known?
Chritianity began in 1st century AD in Jerusalem. Ancient Egyptian religion encompasses the various religious beliefs and rituals practiced in ancient Egypt over more than 3,000 years, from the predynastic period until the adoption of Christianity in the early centuries AD.Hinduism is often stated to be the "oldest religious tradition" or "oldest living major tradition, older than 5,000 yearsyou forget or ignore the timeline. who was before the egyptians, the hindus, the sumerians? Noah and his family.all those mythologies are OLDER than the bible
the Bible is older than the secular world's myths and legends.
you have it reversed.Newsflash: so will you. The only difference between you and Numii is, is that when she dies, she's going to die happily, knowing that her life's purpose has been fulfilled, and now she can just close her eyes and go to sleep....
You, archaeologist, on the other hand, will be brimming with ecstacy as you lie hallucinating about a tunnel and an angel beckoning, obviously because your brain will have been starved of oxygen
in the book Mesopotamia and The Bible pg. 163 it tells us how great copyists the old babylonians were. their reputation for copying other people's myths legends, stories, histories is legendary.so you can't say THEY plagiarized the bible
they would take the stories and rewrite them to fit theirown beliefs and culture. yet you need to ask yourelf WHY do all the nations of the world have a creation and flood story--their source--Noah and his family.
you are confusing first discovered with being older. iwould re-think that if iwere you.Eastern traditions are older, also, than the ancient western civilizations as well, making your assertion that these (granted, you specified Roman and Greek) cultures were influenced by Judaism baseless and ignorant to the history of the world around you. If the Bible says these cultures were influenced by it, the bible is lying, and that is irrefutable, because the Greeks and Romans took FANTASTIC records, that put their dates before that of Moses in some places.
Sorry, should I have said monster?it wasn't written by a man.
Noah and his family are a myth incorporated from the Gilgamesh. The story of Noah's flood is a myth. Didn't happen. So using a fake person as evidence is really silly.
All? Not true. Show us the proof.WHY do all the nations of the world have a creation and flood story--their source--Noah and his family.
I'll say this, one can believe in a God. That does not mean that one has to believe in the writings of man claiming to be speaking on behalf of God. If God wanted everyone to know something it would just be so, it would not need to be passed along by tribes of people telling stories. It would not be open for interpretation.
I for one believe in a higher power, I do not however believe in the writings of man professing to represent that higher power. This is simply mans desire to control other men.
It's highly unlikely archaeolgist was trained to believe instead of to think from any school, but most likely was a result of childhood indoctrination. Of course, further Christian school upbringing would solidify his beliefs as fact, notwithstanding the main contributor being his inability to think, something he was simply never taught to do as a child, but instead was taught to believe Christian doctrines without question.
So, to the OP's point, religion SHOULD be taught in schools, not just one religion, of course, but all religions. The resulting move will force Christian/Islamic/etc. schools to either consistently teach other religions or remain outside the education system, in other words, their diplomas would not be recognized or acknowledged.
Kind of like the unaccredited Christian Universities, a la Kent Hovind.So, to the OP's point, religion SHOULD be taught in schools, not just one religion, of course, but all religions. The resulting move will force Christian/Islamic/etc. schools to either consistently teach other religions or remain outside the education system, in other words, their diplomas would not be recognized or acknowledged.
you haven't answered my questions yet.Sorry, should I have said monster?
this person is wrong and such would not account for Noah's flood to be passed down and in use for 4000 years while the gilgamesh epic laid buried for the same amount of time.Noah and his family are a myth incorporated from the Gilgamesh. The story of Noah's flood is a myth. Didn't happen. So using a fake person as evidence is really silly.
you are forgetting the criteria: faith, freedom of choice and so on. if people just 'knew it all' how would they learn to touse it or get to know God? you seem to want the benefits without the work.That does not mean that one has to believe in the writings of man claiming to be speaking on behalf of God. If God wanted everyone to know something it would just be so, it would not need to be passed along by tribes of people telling stories.
when you have nothing you always go to the person attack.It's highly unlikely archaeolgist was trained to believe instead of to think from any school
please, the man is well meaning but is very misguided. he belongs to an independent baptist movement that has some strange ideas which i would not put down as christian.Kind of like the unaccredited Christian Universities, a la Kent Hovind
last i heard he was in jail, are there any updates to this?
you didnt ask me a single question, archaeologist. go back and check the last post you made to me.
arch does this often...
Actually, their histories PREDATE Noah... The flood took place in 2331 B.C. The Egyptians began their civilization and empirical history closer to 3100 B.C. nearly a millennium prior to the flood, and yet these myths come FROM that flood... so yeah, keep dreaming Arch... and we have greece starting their history closer to 5000 B.C., before the world was even created by your twisted timeline. And for good measure Ur began approximately 2750 B.C., with their stories that "mirror" Noah and his flood, hundreds of years before it happens, and a culture that, again, predates creation, coming in at approximately 5000 B.C., yet again. and Here we again have a source where, with good book keeping, Sumer has reliable dating back to 2340 B.C., managing to keep his empire THROUGH the flood that wiped clean the planet. Oh, and who can forget the INDIANS (or, as your bigoted self wrote, Hindus), with a history that, again, predates creation by, you guessed it, more than 2500 years, beginning near 6776 B.C.. and the world was created in 3987,4000 B.C. and the universe came six days prior.
click the dates to find my references.
I win, you lose, because I can find the sources that you will ultimately dismiss. and if you like, I'll quote many more than these that I provide.
This person is wrong. The gilgamesh epic is older than the Bible.in use for 4000 years while the gilgamesh epic laid buried for the same amount of time.
Strange comment from the teenager using personal attacks.when you have nothing you always go to the person attack.
The person that said this doesn't grasp that God's words were from the beginning not in the middle somewhere.This person is wrong. The gilgamesh epic is older than the Bible.
those numbers do not work. the flood was global and there were no modern civilizations in existance when it took place. nice of you to include your references but consider the source.Actually, their histories PREDATE Noah... The flood took place in 2331 B.C. The Egyptians began their civilization and empirical history closer to 3100 B.C. nearly a millennium prior to the flood, and yet these myths come FROM that flood... so yeah, keep dreaming Arch... and we have greece starting their history closer to 5000 B.C., before the world was even created by your twisted timeline. And for good measure Ur began approximately 2750 B.C., with their stories that "mirror" Noah and his flood, hundreds of years before it happens, and a culture that, again, predates creation, coming in at approximately 5000 B.C.,
if you are taking them from secular sources why would you blindly believe them? the secular world is not going to support the bible and is in opposition to it.
actually i asked you about 2 or 3, you must have missed them or someone edited them out of my posts.you didnt ask me a single question, archaeologist. go back and check the last post you made to me.
Sorry archaeologist (which you are not) the gilgamesh is older. The bible is more recent.
The writers of the bible created a work that does not match the world we know.
There was no flood - geology contradicts the flood everywhere
There was no mass enslavement of Hebrews in Egypt.
There was no exodus - no record of the encampment in the Sinai
Jericho's walls did not fall down - the archaeology indicates a slow collapse
just because the sources are secular doesn't mean they wish to contradict the bible, they merely go by what they have to go on. And besides even if I presented you with evidence and sources from a christian source, you'd still call them secular for contradicting the bible. You have no openness to new ideas here, all you do is say "the bible is right" "the bible is right" "and if you don't agree you are wrong" You make intelligent debate next to impossible.
But the bible was written in the middle, not at the beginning. Moses was the first to begin writing it, so you can safely say that anything penned pre-moses will be written before the bible was written, and, since the bible is a book, be older than the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_mythyet you need to ask yourelf WHY do all the nations of the world have a creation and flood story--their source--Noah and his family
This certainly does not look like all the religions on the face of the earth.
There was a great flood. The caps melted and it took a long time for it to retract again.
I knew that the Popul Vuh flood story was not a flood of water.
Also, many cultures describe catastrophic events other than floods. The Creationist sites skip over these other stories and relate only the flood stories. They prefer to cherry pick to support their own position.
\Sorry archaeologist (which you are not) the gilgamesh is older. The bible is more recent.
The writers of the bible created a work that does not match the world we know.
There was no flood - geology contradicts the flood everywhere
There was no mass enslavement of Hebrews in Egypt.
There was no exodus - no record of the encampment in the Sinai
Jericho's walls did not fall down - the archaeology indicates a slow collapse
this person is a minimalist and his only defense is the same one that Phillip Davies uses--deny deny deny-- even when faced with the proof.
here is a good link to go to, great articles:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
the truth needs to be taught i schools, not lies and evolution is a lie.
you know very little as secularists struicture their work so they do not have to support the Bible. do some research and see.just because the sources are secular doesn't mean they wish to contradict the bible, they merely go by what they have to go on.
Archaeologist is a close minded individual with poor education that uses the bible as the proof that the bible is correct.
Instead of being a denier I look through the evidence and eliminate the wrong or unlikely answers. This is not possible for close minded individuals like archaeologist that have a single goal in mind and cannot comprehend other possibilities.
The truth does need to be taught in schools. That is why evolution IS taught in school and creationism and ID which are unmistakable lies are not taught.the truth needs to be taught i schools, not lies and evolution is a lie.
BTW, I am not going to waste my time looking up stupid articles at this portal you linked to. If you have anything to say, then give a direct link. It has been clear to educated people in excess of 500 years that the accounts in the bible do not match the world around them.
OK. I broke down I needed a good laugh and looked up an article on Noah's flood at that moronic site posted by the close minded teeny bopper.
Hilarious. This is wackier than Velikovsky.
They claim the bible must be right because people all over the world used rafts, canoes, boats ... whatever.
So this supporting evidence means that Noah was not the only survivor. None of these other tales have a big boat full of animals. Sometimes the rain is not rain at all but resin. Sometimes one person lives, sometimes more.
This is a quote from their article:
In most stories they recount no mountains are mentioned. One story uses a tree. Some stories have the hero escaping without a craft. Animals appear in many of the stories.similar details in them (a mountaintop, a boat, attendant animals)
I got a story for you too. I've been in a boat. Wow that's supporting evidence. I've seen a flood. I've filled sandbags. I've seen floods on TV. Does the evidence ever end? I read a story about a duck.
the previous poster justifies my decision not to talk to him/her.
people really need to stop assuming, foir they are the ones who look very foolish and stupid.Archaeologist is a close minded individual with poor education that uses the bible as the proof that the bible is correct.
I am not assuming. I know who I am talking to: a poorly educated teenager.
no, poorly educated old man. I'm sorry arch, stick to the religion subforum, you bring it in to scientific and educational arguments where it does not belong, as most other forumites will tell you. I'm sorry arch, by popular opinion, you lose.
read the thread title again and rephrase your post.
i have not lost, only the ignorant want to keep God fromthe classroom becuase they want to feel like they are the top dog and they aren't.
atheists do not have the right to bar any form of christianity from a PUBLIC school and if they do not like it, they are free to build their own PRIVATE ones. the public school is NOt the domain of the unbeliever, they are for everyone.
You miss the general idea. The absence of religion in schools is not the presence of godlessness, it is the absence of any opinion on the matter. Children are free to open their own groups if they like, but any education relating to religion would encroach upon anyone that does not share the exact same belief system, so no belief system is taught. The teaching of evolution is not the teaching of atheism, since it does not say anything on the existence of a god. It is merely the result of a quest for knowledge. If you have any personal feeling towards areas of science that might invalidate portions of your personal belief systems, them you will start to have serious problems with a wide variety of issues, including geology etc. If you have any problems with the way the system works, then you can decide to home school your children, but the whole system cannot be expected to change and teach the beliefs of a minority as facts to all. You are being incredibly arrogant regarding this.
You are the Loser. You offer this incredibly ignorant portal for some reason.i have not lost, only the ignorant want to keep God fromthe classroom becuase they want to feel like they are the top dog and they aren't.
Only a dope would fall for the ridiculous lies in it. Only a dope would be unable to see that their logical claims are more ridiculous than the witch's trial in The Holy Grail.
Here again you show a lack of basic knowledge. Religious indoctrination is barred from public schools by the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution were what?atheists do not have the right to bar any form of christianity from a PUBLIC school
So now you know why we keep religions out of schools.
i would disagree with you on this as what one teaches is very important to godliness. you teach that all people come from nothing you just made them like animals.You miss the general idea. The absence of religion in schools is not the presence of godlessness, it is the absence of any opinion on the matter
sorry but if you want to omit God from the schools build your own and teach what you want. public schools have a resp. to teach the truth not a lie.
you would be wrong since evolutionhas no room for God in its framework.The teaching of evolution is not the teaching of atheism, since it does not say anything on the existence of a god.
stop justifying the teaching of lies to children and causing them to lose their faith
there is something mentally wrong with thisposter if he has to post like this. he and his post are ignored and have shown not to be worthy of particpation in a discussion.You are the Loser. You offer this incredibly ignorant portal for some reason.
Only a dope would fall for the ridiculous lies in it. Only a dope would be unable to see that their logical claims are more ridiculous than the witch's trial in The Holy Grail.
That is why your rubbish is and must be kept out of the schools.public schools have a resp. to teach the truth not a lie.
You should take your own advice.stop justifying the teaching of lies to children
You are a disturbed person. Your rants stink of helplessness. Is this your response because you feel your god has forsaken you? Are you despondent because the world is not as your fables claim it is? You clearly need therapy.there is something mentally wrong with thisposter
and most of us stand behind hokie, not you arch.
that is your choice. i stand with God, i win.
oh and if you stand behind someone who just insults and does personal attacks then you need to re-think your position. he isn't proving his point crediblly,honestly with real evidence but through bullying, lies and sin.
I was being quite civil with you until you called me a liar for disagreeing with your position. You continued to insult me. You have also gone on to insult other people.oh and if you stand behind someone who just insults and does personal attacks
What I see in you is a kid that spouts invectives and cries that they are the victim. I see a child who provides no evidence whatsoever and claims that all of the evidence shown them is no evidence.through bullying, lies and sin
Frankly, I doubt you understand the bible. Do you read Aramaic or ancient Greek? My father-in-law can. He spent years learning not a particular interpretation of the bible, but the different interpretations. He went on to be a minister for decades.
You have no credentials whatsoever do you?
Just as you spout a dogmatic viewpoint there is the next self styled biblical scholar that has a different assessment of the bible that wants their thinking to be the true biblical version.
also, for all the links we provide, I have yet to see one from him.
if evolutionists and atheists want to FORCE their ideas upon innocent children, they are free to build their own schools and teach what they want. no one is stopping them.
they do NOT have the right to block others from having their material taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
i ignore holie as he just insults and knows nothing because his hatred for Christ influences his thoughts.
you would be surprised at the credentials i have oh i do not post personal informationonthe internet nor do i verify any either.
Ah, so your god is the deluded, bigoted liar, not you. That explains a lot.
It's called the public school system.
Cult material is not taught in schools.they do NOT have the right to block others from having their material taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Yes, I would be surprised if you had any credentials. Would it stop you from lying so much if you actually did have credentials?you would be surprised at the credentials i have
You aren't schizo, are you?i stand with God, i win.
**
Why do we have to teach kids to be god-fearing? Why can't they just be nurtured with the same principles of ethics as before, except WITHOUT the God factor? Is it really necessary to enrich their lives with stories of boils, locusts, rivers of blood, throwing people into fires, turning people into sand, and great floods, and tumbling walls? Doesn't gradual development and adaptation sound SO much more appealing and plausible? (a.k.a. evolution)
So it's force when evolutionists and atheists teach about evolution, but pure compliance and goodwill when someone else teaches religion? That's ludicrous!if evolutionists and atheists want to FORCE their ideas upon innocent children, they are free to build their own schools and teach what they want. no one is stopping them.
they do NOT have the right to block others from having their material taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Since you began this by calling me a liar I won't disregard you until you repent.i ignore holie as he just insults and knows nothing because his hatred for Christ influences his thoughts.
That's right it's a public school. If you want to preach then build church schools.
I'm dying from laughter. Stop. Oh stop. Haa haa haa haa ... that's the funniest thing yetyou would be surprised at the credentials i have
Would you allow Mao's little red book to be taught as truth?they do NOT have the right to block others from having their material taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Would you allow the final solution to be taught as the way to live?
Would you allow the Pope's views on science to be taught?
Would you allow the Neo-American church to be taught?
right and atheists are NOT the only ones attending it.It's called the public school system.
christianity isn't a cult.Cult material is not taught in schools.
not at all. just tired of atheists forcing their ways on students.You aren't schizo, are you?
becaus they will ask where did these ethics come from and if you lie you just violated your lessons.Why do we have to teach kids to be god-fearing? Why can't they just be nurtured with the same principles of ethics as before, except WITHOUT the God factor?
it does teach them that with disobedience comes discipline, and that God protects his people; so yes it is very important to teach them those things.Is it really necessary to enrich their lives with stories of boils, locusts, rivers of blood, throwing people into fires, turning people into sand, and great floods, and tumbling walls? Doesn't gradual development and adaptation sound SO much more appealing and plausible
it is just the atheist argument turned around on them and see, you do not like it either.So it's force when evolutionists and atheists teach about evolution, but pure compliance and goodwill when someone else teaches religion? That's ludicrous!
calling me a liar just shows that whatever credentials you have are meaningless.
and so are yours, if, that is, you REALLY have any. you are an unfalsifiable anomaly here Archy, nearly a pointless person to listen to. I doubt you've even graduated from a credible highschool
you have lost credibility with me as well.
the key is the word 'PUBLIC' and the atheist crowd does not have a monopoly on these schools and do not have the right to say creation and other religious acts have to be barred from their halls.
The only person yelling liar is you.the key is the word 'PUBLIC' and the atheist crowd does not have a monopoly on these schools
And pubic is the key word. This is about the only sens you have said.
It's not the atheist crowd you bumbling fool, it's the Christian majority that keeps religion from being taught in school because they defend the US Constitution.
You want to create an indoctrination center for your particular wacko ideas then go ahead. The Constitution says you can so. Go do it. Let each church preach what they want to preach and let the schools teach what the constitution allows them to teach.
Round of applause. Standing ovation. Three encores.
Once you've said that, you've said everything on the matter. (Unfortuantely the rest of us will drone on for thirty pages more.)
And, neither are Christians the only ones attending. Schools are not churches.
Yes, it is.
christianity isn't a cult.
Teaching is not forcing. YOU on the other hand have been forced to accept your cults dogma through indoctrination.just tired of atheists forcing their ways on students.
Ethics comes from evolution, not gods.
becaus they will ask where did these ethics come from and if you lie you just violated your lessons.
Fine, as long as they are taught that those stories are myths and superstitions.
it does teach them that with disobedience comes discipline, and that God protects his people; so yes it is very important to teach them those things.
i disagree with your points of view. what are you so afraid of that you oppose teaching the truth in the classroom?
evolution is not truth and you are lying to children if you teach it, doesn't say much about you all.
you forget that christianity has in it safeguards which lets us know what is true or false and we can easily discern the difference.Would you allow Mao's little red book to be taught as truth?
Would you allow the final solution to be taught as the way to live?
Would you allow the Pope's views on science to be taught?
Would you allow the Neo-American church to be taught?
No we should exterminate religion. Unfortunately some of it is genetically determined which means a new holocaust.should we undermind religion in school?
But progress comes at a cost.
(directed to Archy) NO WE CANNOT! IF we could, why would there be SO many different denominations of Christianity? Which View is really correct? Some views of christianity agree with religion, why aren't they right? Why can't the bible just be a book of metaphors with the intent on teaching morals instead of a literal collection of events that definitively happened? Why can't God have the intent of designing the universe to behave as "secularists" have determined it to? Why, exactly, are you right and everyone who disagrees with you wrong? Why is you're version of christianity more right than someone else's?
yes we can, there are rules to helpNO WE CANNOT! IF we could, why would there be SO many different denominations of Christianity?
1. paul said 'if they preach any other gospel...' so the critieria is that they have to have the same message as Jesus and the disciples.
2. the Holy Spirit guides one to the truth, so we have help
3. many denominations have differences on minor points but still bring the same gospel, so one just has to investigate better.
Christ's and the apostles.Which View is really correct?
because you would have no savior, no escape from sin, no salvation, no heaven, no guidance, no God and NO hope and so on.Some views of christianity agree with religion, why aren't they right? Why can't the bible just be a book of metaphors with the intent on teaching morals instead of a literal collection of events that definitively happened?
because 1. a 'process' would get the glory that God should have, 2. it would make the Bible a lie and God a liar (see above for the results), 3. it would NOT display the glory andpower of God, it woul dmake Him look weak and incapable plus set NO examples for his creation to follow.Why can't God have the intent of designing the universe to behave as "secularists" have determined it to?
God and Jesus are right. I have accepted their ways and preach those not my own. people disagree with me because they want their own ways not God's. just take a closer look inyour comparisons and see the difference.Why, exactly, are you right and everyone who disagrees with you wrong?
it is NOT my version, it is God's and as we obey and study we learn more.Why is you're version of christianity more right than someone else's?
God wouldn't be a liar if he had the bible written in metaphors, just like Jesus isn't a liar for teaching in parables. His Parables are often NOT literal, as you have pointed out to me. SO, I present to you, that if Jesus was not being literal, but being metaphorical, then if you feel he is not a liar, it should be fine for God to teach, through metaphor in the bible, without being a liar. Why does making a metaphor make you a liar?
Why must all of this sin, salvation, heaven, guidance and hope be a metaphor for some moral standing in our lives? And also, why does it mean NO god if he taught in metaphors?
Why does God care about "glory"? And if the process was created by Him, the glory is still his, in that we honor him by discovering his methods. Maybe he left it up to us to figure out how he really caused the universe to be, how he really made everything work. He works in mysterious ways after all, doesn't he? Why can't he work in the way I described? It really wouldn't make him seem weak NOR incapable for inciting ALL of the laws of nature into being out of his own desire to make a self-sufficient closed-system universe. The bible sets the examples in metaphors, see above about parables.
I still see little to no explicit definitive evidence about the way you believe in God and Jesus that makes it "more right" than, say, the Mormons or Presbyterians. (yes, I know what Mormons believe is QUITE different from what you believe, but my example has validity in that they believe in God, and Jesus, and there is nothing about them that makes them more "wrong" about how they go about their Faith than you. I'm an atheist, I need to see the reason, and saying that you side with god isn't compelling when my friend (a Mormon) also says he sides with God)
But the way you follow God's word is YOURS. NOT God's. Because it is you that is doing the following, you are the one that has this interpretation of God and Jesus' teachings, and, guided by the Holy Spirit or not, Others have different interpretations on these teachings, and they may very well be guided by the Holy Spirit as well as you are, and come to different conclusions.
i have not said one word to you about parables and Jesus did NOT solely teach with them, there is less than 10 i believe.God wouldn't be a liar if he had the bible written in metaphors, just like Jesus isn't a liar for teaching in parables. His Parables are often NOT literal, as you have pointed out to me.
you are distorting the meanings and usage of metaphors and confusing what being literal means. case in point, if God used a metaphor for GEn. 1 then God would become hypocritical for He actually did not work the 6 days and rested for 1 yet commanded His followers to do so, thus God would be a liar , would have sinned and would not be God and we cwould be free to do what we want without fear f punishment.SO, I present to you, that if Jesus was not being literal, but being metaphorical, then if you feel he is not a liar, it should be fine for God to teach, through metaphor in the bible, without being a liar
you are not looking at the whole picture but just trying to get what you want not what Jesus wants.
ask Him, it is in the Bible.Why does God care about "glory"?
you keep trying to twist things so you can have what you want and heaven too. doesn't work that way.And if the process was created by Him, the glory is still his, in that we honor him by discovering his methods.
because God already described how He did it, several times throughout the Bible. your way was not mentioned nor used.Why can't he work in the way I described
if you are going to make a comparison between the Bible and mormons then you need to realize that the mormons rely on jpseph smith's writings not God's. the bible does not teach that we becopme gods of outr own little planets, does not teach that we need magic underwear, and soon. all those ideas came from smith or his successorsI'm an atheist, I need to see the reason, and saying that you side with god isn't compelling when my friend (a Mormon) also says he sides with God)
there is a big difference between the two. you also have to realize who God is and you will see that smith never had the truth.
you would be wrong.But the way you follow God's word is YOURS
if they come to different conclusions than what the Bible says then they are not lead by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said 'ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.' He did not say 'ye shall know the interpretation and the interpretation shall set you free'.you are the one that has this interpretation of God and Jesus' teachings, and, guided by the Holy Spirit or not, Others have different interpretations on these teachings, and they may very well be guided by the Holy Spirit as well as you are, and come to different conclusions.
stop putting your ideas into my faith.
(Just going to expand on One thought right now) but, perhaps Gen. 1 is a metaphor for how we, as a people, should live our lives? Maybe he is saying, that even an all powerful being needs rest after working for six days. I feel the message is more that rest is important, rather than specifically to remember he Sabbath, and keep it holy; by doing no work on that day. I feel it could have been a metaphor for a more important moral lesson than just to put weight on a specific day.
Perhaps its a metaphor for how we craft the world, and that as the creators of our own world we need a rest after our work too, just like God in Gen.
You did. (different thread, which you ultimately ignored) When I mentioned the Parable of Jesus demanding that those who believe he is not king be brought to him and slaughtered, and you responded saying that it was a parable and was not literal. and even if He doesn't always teach in parables, he sometimes does. which means he's sometimes teaching figuratively, or metaphorically, and is not being literal. If Jesus can do this without being a liar, can't God? Maybe A day to god is a billion years to us.
Haaa haaa haaa ......you forget that christianity has in it safeguards which lets us know what is true or false and we can easily discern the difference.
Thanks for telling us why religion is kept out of schools. There are no such safeguards except in the minds of close minded bigoted individuals.
Since you refuse to listen I will state it again. We do teach the truth in school. We keep religion out of school because the constitution says so. You have the freedom of religion which allows your ideas to be posted here. Go build your own indoctrination camp if you want - the constitution gives you that right.what are you so afraid of that you oppose teaching the truth in the classroom?
Archaeologist this is wrong. It's a lie. You know it's a lie. That makes you a liar.jpseph smith's writings not God's
Evolution is the truth, Christianity is myth and superstition.
It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with reality, something you fear and avoid at all costs.evolution is not truth and you are lying to children if you teach it, doesn't say much about you all.
If it were not for evolution, you wouldn't be here.
So your evidence is that the bible is correct because the bible says so?if they come to different conclusions than what the Bible says then they are not lead by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said 'ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.' He did not say 'ye shall know the interpretation and the interpretation shall set you free'.
One of the great surprises to archaeologists (actual ones, not you) was that they could not find evidence of many stories form the bible. This lack of corroborating evidence is why you have to drop back to the bible and forget about corroborating evidence.
Again, that is why religion is kept out of schools.
That's what this thread is all about right? Should creationism be taught as fake in school? I voted no because I think it should not be taught in schools under any circumstances.
asked and answered. move onbut, perhaps Gen. 1 is a metaphor for how we, as a people, should live our lives?
ha ha ha ha hope you are not being serious with this comment.Maybe he is saying, that even an all powerful being needs rest after working for six days
direct contradiction to all verses which talk about the sabbath day and its establishment.I feel the message is more that rest is important, rather than specifically to remember he Sabbath, and keep it holy;
of course you do, probably it is for the reason you do not want to obey but do things your way.I feel it could have been a metaphor for a more important moral lesson than just to put weight on a specific day.
sorry but i have no recollection of that discussion. you are distorting the use and meanings of parables. you are using a teaching method to justify your unbelief.When I mentioned the Parable of Jesus demanding that those who believe he is not king be brought to him and slaughtered, and you responded saying that it was a parable and was not literal. and even if He doesn't always teach in parables, he sometimes does
no, he is NOT teaching figurtatively, the lessons are all real, literal and applicable to our lives, he uses parables to illustrate the point better, every teacher/preacher does that.which means he's sometimes teaching figuratively, or metaphorically, and is not being literal.
how do you know that the stories weren't true? the parable of the owner and his workers was talking about God sending Jesus to His people. that is a true event. you want Jesus to lie so you do not have to follow His words but make up your own way. not going to happen.If Jesus can do this without being a liar, can't God?
no. they were 24 hour days. though God is not limited to time, He did things within humantime to not only set the example but demonstrate His power.Maybe A day to god is a billion years to us.
What's your evidence?no. they were 24 hour days
What's your evidence?He did things within humantime to not only set the example but demonstrate His power.
| « How to Become a Scientist | What is the best educational system » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
