NationStates Jolt Archive

Not a real science guy are you? I'll allow you to stew in your ignorant belief for your own demise.

Why don't you explain my error (if there be one) instead of just saying that I'm ignorant?

My "kind?" That's what things like Fascism are made of.

I am a young-earth Creationist, yes.

I never said the dinosaurs never existed. This is my problem with the Fundamentalist group. They say things like that without thinking it through. The book of Job describes the behemoth and leviathan, commonly thought to be the elephant and the crocodile. But, they really sound more like dinosaurs. Plus, you have all these reports of dinosaur-like creatures in the African jungles and reports of other animals resembling "prehistoric" animals all over the world. Is Nessie real? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if she were.You are watching too much tv.
.

Why don't you explain my error (if there be one) instead of just saying that I'm ignorant?

Differing species of monkey with slight differentiation of DNA are examples of macro-evolution. Monkeys, Macacs, Gorilllas, Apes, Chimps, etc. all examples of macro-evolution. Creatures who once lived in the sea leaving the water to develop lungs and breathe air such as many prehistoric fossils indicate. When they find the missing link in the evolution of man I will enjoy the mass suicides of the fundies. You are superior to no one yet feel that your religion makes you so. You're a man and nothing more.

You are watching too much tv.
.

young earth creationists. So explain how they find bones hundreds of millions of years old on this "young earth." Yes, your kind which makes me laugh with your "earth is only 8k years old nonsense when scientific exploration has proven you wrong time and time again. "Land of the Lost" Eden? Dinosaurs and man living as one ha ha ha!

You are watching too much tv.
.

I don't watch TV. Except for 15 minutes in the morning for the weather.

Differing species of monkey with slight differentiation of DNA are examples of macro-evolution. Monkeys, Macacs, Gorilllas, Apes, Chimps, etc. all examples of macro-evolution. Creatures who once lived in the sea leaving the water to develop lungs and breathe air such as many prehistoric fossils indicate. When they find the missing link in the evolution of man I will enjoy the mass suicides of the fundies. You are superior to no one yet feel that your religion makes you so. You're a man and nothing more.

All your "examples" of macro-evolution are assumptions based on your observations.

I never said I was superior; I've said the opposite quite a few times. And you are correct: I am nothing more than a man.

I don't watch TV. Except for 15 minutes in the morning for the weather.So then where do get your surreal ideas of the world?
.

All your "examples" of macro-evolution are assumptions based on your observations.



and testing and correlation w/ other observations and testing and numerous other fields of science.

YEC has what to support it?

and testing and correlation w/ other observations and testing and numerous other fields of science.

YEC has what to support it?

God's infallible Word

God's infallible Word

So, nothing.

So, nothing.

No, everything.

God's infallible WordHow do you know what God's infallible Word is?
.

How do you know what God's infallible Word is?
.

Because God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God wrote the Bible
and the Bible says God wrote the Bible
and the Bible says God wrote the Bible
and the Bible says God wrote the Bible

Etc.

How do you know what God's infallible Word is?
.

It is faith. But it's not baseless. I have reasons:

how efficacious the Bible's doctrines are
how it is unrivaled in explaining why
how it has never been proven to contradict itself or secular fact (not secular theory)

But, it's faith. I don't pretend to be able to prove that it is the Word of God, but that doesn't change that I know it to be so.

Because God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God wrote the Bible
and the Bible says God wrote the Bible
and the Bible says God wrote the Bible
and the Bible says God wrote the Bible

Etc.But the Bible was actually written by Alexandrian Jews. So how did they know what God's infallible Word is?
.

It is faith. But it's not baseless. I have reasons:

how efficacious the Bible's doctrines are
how it is unrivaled in explaining why
how it has never been proven to contradict itself or secular fact (not secular theory)

But, it's faith. I don't pretend to be able to prove that it is the Word of God, but that doesn't change that I know it to be so.If it is not baseless, what is the base? And the Bible is unrivaled in explaining what?
.

It is faith. But it's not baseless. I have reasons:

how efficacious the Bible's doctrines are
how it is unrivaled in explaining why
how it has never been proven to contradict itself or secular fact (not secular theory)

But, it's faith. I don't pretend to be able to prove that it is the Word of God, but that doesn't change that I know it to be so.

Pi=3
Rabbits chew cud
Trees older than the flood date
mathematic impossibilities of populations based on YEC

If it is not baseless, what is the base? And the Bible is unrivaled in explaining what?
.

I gave you the base. Well, parts of it. The Bible is just unrivaled. It explains "why" so much better than anything else. It's Law is perfect (even ignoring that it came from God). It has never been contradicted by itself or by secular fact.

It is faith. But it's not baseless. I have reasons:

how efficacious the Bible's doctrines are
how it is unrivaled in explaining why
how it has never been proven to contradict itself or secular fact (not secular theory)

But, it's faith. I don't pretend to be able to prove that it is the Word of God, but that doesn't change that I know it to be so.

So do you believe that snails melt then?

Because nobody really knows for sure, I think its wrong to teach kids about religion in the form of "Now Timmy, God lives in heaven with all the good people and Satan lives in hell with all the bad people, and God made the world and everything in it." etc. I would also disagree with telling a child that all religious people are wrong. The way I would explain it is by saying that some people believe that there is no God because they have no proof there is, and some people believe there is a God, because it says so in the Bible, and explaining that neither was right or wrong because nobody really knows.
Similarly, I'd tell a child that some people believed that God made people, because it said so in the Bible, but others believe we evolved from monkeys, because of fossils in the ground.

Difficult to explain to a kid really, because of their limited vocabulary and tendency to view things as either being definitely right or wrong. Kinda like some people on NS really.:p

I gave you the base. Well, parts of it. The Bible is just unrivaled. It explains "why" so much better than anything else. It's Law is perfect (even ignoring that it came from God). It has never been contradicted by itself or by secular fact.

So you support the stoning to death of a woman who is raped in a city?

Wait, that contradicts "Thou shall not Kill".
Wait, that contradicts other translations..
Wait, there is more than one version of the "perfect word"?

So do you believe that snails melt then?

Haven't heard that one. Where is it?

Pi=3
Rabbits chew cud
Trees older than the flood date
mathematic impossibilities of populations based on YEC

Their measurments were not as accurate as ours. So Scripture is saying that pi is somewhere between 2.8 and 3.2 not that it is 3.

Have to look more into the thing about rabbits.

Really? Which trees are those?

Well since we had a reocrd of all the children that everyone had, we must know what the populations should be. :rolleyes:

Haven't heard that one. Where is it?

Psalms 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

I gave you the base. Well, parts of it. The Bible is just unrivaled. It explains "why" so much better than anything else. It's Law is perfect (even ignoring that it came from God). It has never been contradicted by itself or by secular fact.But it is rivaled. Have you never read ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Levantine literature that often predate the Bible by millennia? Then you would know that the biblical stories are only inept copies of much older traditions. Just a jealous Jewish attempt to rival the real high cultures of the very old days. Maybe that's why their god's name is jealousy.
Which "why" does the Bible explain?
.

Their measurments were not as accurate as ours. So Scripture is saying that pi is somewhere between 2.8 and 3.2 not that it is 3.

False. It was accurate to greater than .2% well before that. I guess it's not infallible.

Have to look more into the thing about rabbits.

Really? Which trees are those?

Look up Methuselah trees.

Well since we had a reocrd of all the children that everyone had, we must know what the populations should be. :rolleyes:

So how many millions of babies did the 4 women from the ark have?

So you support the stoning to death of a woman who is raped in a city?

Wait, that contradicts "Thou shall not Kill".
Wait, that contradicts other translations..
Wait, there is more than one version of the "perfect word"?

The interpretation of "Thou shall not kill" is really more "Thou shall not murder"

Translations may be wrong, but thank God that He allowed so many different translations to be made so that we can see where mistakes in translations have been made, because they never make mistakes in the same place.

So do you believe that snails melt then?

Huh? Is that some obscure bible reference or something, or are you saying that believing snails melt is as silly as believing in God? (Not saying it isn't, just a little confused.)

I do know what it feels like to just know something though, without any proof and no matter what anyone else says. It's like an instinct. People give proof saying one thing and you think to yourself "That makes sense literally, but it still seems kinda stupid, and I still don't believe it" Of course, I may have been wrong about the thing in question, too.

But it is rivaled. Have you never read ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Levantine literature that often predate the Bible by millennia? Then you would know that the biblical stories are only inept copies of much older traditions. Just a jealous Jewish attempt to rival the real high cultures of the very old days. Maybe that's why their god's name is jealousy.
Which "why" does the Bible explain?
.

Every "why"

Or could it be that the Bible is correct and the people perverted the Truth?

The interpretation of "Thou shall not kill" is really more "Thou shall not murder"

Translations may be wrong, but thank God that He allowed so many different translations to be made so that we can see where mistakes in translations have been made, because they never make mistakes in the same place.

Isn't it a bit counterproductive that God allows so many false translations instead of allowing one correct translation?

Every "why"I take that as a "I have no clue and no answer"

Or could it be that the Bible is correct and the people perverted the Truth?Prior to the Bible there was no reason to pervert the truth since all people more or less believed in the same. And since the Bible is much younger than any other ancient traditions it is more likely that the perversion is what the Bible is trying.
Have you never read ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Levantine literature that often predate the Bible by millennia?
.

The interpretation of "Thou shall not kill" is really more "Thou shall not murder"

Translations may be wrong, but thank God that He allowed so many different translations to be made so that we can see where mistakes in translations have been made, because they never make mistakes in the same place.

So incorrectness is now a strength? Changing the meanings of things is a strength?

Why did you not answer my question?

"Thou shall not kill" ? What is that?
.

"Thou shall not kill" ? What is that?
.

Apparently a "mistranslation" of the "infallible" "perfect" law.

Apparently a "mistranslation" of the "infallible" "perfect" law.What do you mean? Is it part of any law?
.

This is not going to end well.

East of Eden and Kecibukia, I doubt you're going to change Edwardis' mind or shake his faith. And Edwardis, I don't think you're going to get much of anywhere with the two of them.

This is not going to end well.

East of Eden and Kecibukia, I doubt you're going to change Edwardis' mind or shake his faith. And Edwardis, I don't think you're going to get much of anywhere with the two of them.

And your point would be? This is NSG after all. :)

Children should be taught ABOUT religion at school. They should know the differences and similarities of all the major religions and belief systems including athiest and agnostic views.

Then they can make informed judgements when they are ready or feel the need. Indoctrination of children either pro religion or anti religion is in my view simply wrong.

Many people take great comfort from their faith. Many others believe that faith is delusion. I do not feel it is right for politicians and educators to coerce anyone into what should be a personal choice based on personal values on a matter where there is no consensus either way.

The chances are if you have christian parents you will be a christian, if you have muslim parents you will be a muslim and if you have agnostic/athiest/lapsed parents you wil probably go that way too. (There are always exceptions to prove the rule)

Hence it is surely for the family to provide the basis of your spiritual values until such time as you can make your own personal choices.

This is not going to end well.

East of Eden and Kecibukia, I doubt you're going to change Edwardis' mind or shake his faith. And Edwardis, I don't think you're going to get much of anywhere with the two of them.Of course not, since Edwardis fails to make clear his position and to explain what that position is based upon.
.

Paxomenia;11882828']Children should be taught ABOUT religion at school. They should know the differences and similarities of all the major religions and belief systems including athiest and agnostic views.And ABOUT the true origins of the religions, including especially those later ones fabricated out of snippets from (much) older ones...
.

And your point would be? This is NSG after all. :)

Damn! I forgot! Silly me. :D

Of course not, since Edwardis fails to make clear his position and to explain what that position is based upon.
.

His position is based on faith. Faith that what he reads in the Bible is true, faith that there is a loving, merciful God, faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to redeem the sins of the world. I'm an atheist and I understand that.

I did not say that. I said that persons from Christian families whose parents taught them Christianity diligently (not ramming vague formulas down their throat and not letting them figure it out) do not "drop out."

And I told you about my family, devout Christians the lot of them, teaching us dilligently. And all of us dropping out. You're wrong.

His position is based on faith. Faith that what he reads in the Bible is true, faith that there is a loving, merciful God, faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to redeem the sins of the world. I'm an atheist and I understand that.

Oh, we would all agree on that.
What makes it so much fun to argue with this arrogant little would-be martyr is that he tries to sell it of as tangible truth, not faith.
Everybody can believe whatever they want in my book, but if you start making presumptious statements about other people, you better have more to back it up with than 3000 year old hearsay.

:)

Oh, we would all agree on that.
What makes it so much fun to argue with this arrogant little would-be martyr is that he tries to sell it of as tangible truth, not faith.
Everybody can believe whatever they want in my book, but if you start making presumptious statements about other people, you better have more to back it up with than 3000 year old hearsay.

:)

Okay, well, it just seemed as if the argument was veering into flamage. I don't really find Edwardis offensive at all, I just remind myself where he's coming from, and then I don't argue with him on the factual basis of Christianity and its Judaic foundation. I'll discuss it but not argue, because arguing is pointless.

Okay, well, it just seemed as if the argument was veering into flamage. I don't really find Edwardis offensive at all, I just remind myself where he's coming from, and then I don't argue with him on the factual basis of Christianity and its Judaic foundation. I'll discuss it but not argue, because arguing is pointless.

I would perceive it as dangerous to let him go unchecked. Must be the German in me... we easily get suspicious of fundamentalists, no matter what flavour, and we tend to take offence when people talk down to us.

His position is based on faith. Faith that what he reads in the Bible is true, faith that there is a loving, merciful God, faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to redeem the sins of the world. I'm an atheist and I understand that.Faith is pointless. And since he does not even try to verify what the Bible claims by comparing it with other sources from more ancient times, he demonstrates that he has no intent to turn his assumptions into knowledge. Well, I suppose he is just afraid that none of the sources he could use will confirm any biblical claims in respect to theology. The Bible is deliberately re-interpreted history streamlined to fit Jewish ideologies from the Persian and Ptolemaic eras, so how could it possibly reflect any truth? To keep faith in something you could and thus should know better about, is empty. But maybe he is just mistaking All Hallows Eve for all hollow eve.
.

I would perceive it as dangerous to let him go unchecked. Must be the German in me... we easily get suspicious of fundamentalists, no matter what flavour, and we tend to take offence when people talk down to us.
Yes, I remember what happened after the Versailles Convention talked down to Germany in 1918 - 1919. :p

Faith is pointless. And since he does not even try to verify what the Bible claims by comparing it with other sources from more ancient times, he demonstrates that he has no intent to turn his assumptions into knowledge. Well, I suppose he is just afraid that none of the sources he could use will confirm any biblical claims in respect to theology. The Bible is deliberately re-interpreted history streamlined to fit Jewish ideologies from the Persian and Ptolemaic eras, so how could it possibly reflect any truth? To keep faith in something you could and thus should know better about, is empty. But maybe he is just mistaking All Hallows Eve for all hollow eve.
.
And me without my Biblical history texts handy, dang! All I was saying is, the historical veracity of the texts isn't important to a person of faith. It's a whole 'nuther world, with different rules. You can't get in there to shine the light of objective scholarship, so why keep ... :headbang:

And me without my Biblical history texts handy, dang! All I was saying is, the historical veracity of the texts isn't important to a person of faith. It's a whole 'nuther world, with different rules. You can't get in there to shine the light of objective scholarship, so why keep ... :headbang:

Mainly cause they keep pretending that their whole 'nuther world would also apply to the world of objective scholarship :D

It's a whole 'nuther world, with different rules....But allegedly it is a part or even the whole of the real world. So just dwelling on a single source that is inconsistent with other sources is rather a sign of some peculiar frowardness.
.

Mainly cause they keep pretending that their whole 'nuther world would also apply to the world of objective scholarship :D
Then as adults who have outgrown the need for imaginary friends in the sky, we should try to educate. There are times, however,when all our efforts will not aval. :)

But allegedly it is a part or even the whole of the real world. So just dwelling on a single source that is inconsistent with other sources is rather a sign of some peculiar frowardness.
.

You win the thread with "froward"! :D But arguing again and again with him, and getting nowhere, smacks of that definition of insanity so often quoted here.

I would perceive it as dangerous to let him go unchecked. Must be the German in me... we easily get suspicious of fundamentalists, no matter what flavour, and we tend to take offence when people talk down to us.

Dangerous is the right word. He comes up with posts like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11757500&postcount=979) after all.

Apparently everything they teach in school is absolutely right...
Someone needs to teach that kid not to trust people.
But I guess that it is best that he comes up with his own reasons for whatever he chooses to believe in.
Sure, if you don't care about his ability to reason.

And me without my Biblical history texts handy, dang! All I was saying is, the historical veracity of the texts isn't important to a person of faith. It's a whole 'nuther world, with different rules. You can't get in there to shine the light of objective scholarship, so why keep ... :headbang:

I don't know about that. Religious scholars often are the people who end up looking into the history of the texts - finding out where and when they have changed, analyzing their origin, etc.

For instance, it was in a religon class that I first looked closely at the texts and realized that Satan as a figure opposed to God doesn't show up in any texts written before the Babylonian exile, suggesting that Satan or the devil as a figure was introduced to Judaism (and thus, Christianity) by exposure to other religions.

Now, obviously one who believes that the texts as he currently interprets them are God's own infallible word isn't going to do much objective scholarship, but that doesn't mean that no person of faith will.

I don't know about that. Religious scholars often are the people who end up looking into the history of the texts - finding out where and when they have changed, analyzing their origin, etc.

For instance, it was in a religon class that I first looked closely at the texts and realized that Satan as a figure opposed to God doesn't show up in any texts written before the Babylonian exile, suggesting that Satan or the devil as a figure was introduced to Judaism (and thus, Christianity) by exposure to other religions.

Now, obviously one who believes that the texts as he currently interprets them are God's own infallible word isn't going to do much objective scholarship, but that doesn't mean that no person of faith will.

Quite right, I did generalize there a bit. I did really mean that to someone devoted to the infallibility of the Bible as God's word, textual criticism is meaningless. I myself enjoy it immensely.

I'm going to tell my children about all religions. I'm going to tell my children that none of them can "know" that they are the right one. If they are interested in any one of them, I'm going to learn more about that religion and tell them all about it and put them into contact with people from that religion. I'm going to tell my children about my thoughts on God and about my Agnosticism. Then I'm going to tell my children that there is, for real, a place called Hell and its reserved for little kids who don't eat all the vegetables on their plate.

For instance, it was in a religon class that I first looked closely at the texts and realized that Satan as a figure opposed to God doesn't show up in any texts written before the Babylonian exile, suggesting that Satan or the devil as a figure was introduced to Judaism by exposure to other religions.You mean the Jewish mimicking of other religions? "was introduced" sounds so passive...
.

I'm going to tell my children about all religions. I'm going to tell my children that none of them can "know" that they are the right one. If they are interested in any one of them, I'm going to learn more about that religion and tell them all about it and put them into contact with people from that religion. ...That could prove dangerous.
.

You mean the Jewish mimicking of other religions?
All religions do that. That's why Christmas looks just like the Norse festival of Jul, and why St. Valentine's Day so closely resembles Lupercalia.

You mean the Jewish mimicking of other religions? "was introduced" sounds so passive...
.

No more or less passive than the changes in any religion. Human beings don't exist in a vacuum. You seem to think that Judaism intentionally picked up pieces of other religions and "stole" them, as it were, but I've seen no evidence of that. It is more that living in societies with people who believed in good and evil gods oopposed to one another affected the way that Jewish people looked at the world. Satan becoming part of the religion was the response to that effect.

Incorporation of new ideas is hardly isolated to any one religion. They all pull from one another and build upon one another when they come into contact. This has a lot to do with the fact that religion is not, and never has been, a static construct. Each individual's religion will be at least slightly different from the next, even if they consider themselves to be a part of the same religion. New experiences will change a person's thinking, no matter who they are. And so on....

That could prove dangerous.
.

Not if it is at my discretion. I have a fairly good bullshit meter. I also would dissuade any picking of one religion at an early age.

That could prove dangerous.
.

Not necessarily. Be sure to pick people like our dear Edwardis here... he'll scare everyone away from his favoured religion. :D

The idea I'd promote is to have an open mind but not take any one religion or one person very seriously. Almost all religions have something moral or good to offer. Just like almost all religions have something negative and sometimes harmful to offer.

All religions do that. That's why Christmas looks just like the Norse festival of Jul, and why St. Valentine's Day so closely resembles Lupercalia.

I especially enjoy the race we have here in February where the men run naked through the town and slap women with whips made from the skins of the sacrificial victims, in order to ensure their fertility. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercalia).

I especially enjoy the race we have here in February where the men run naked through the town and slap women with whips made from the skins of the sacrificial victims, in order to ensure their fertility. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercalia).
See? Just like St. Valentine's Day.

Paxomenia;11882828']Many others believe that faith is delusion.
Faith is delusion - that's not really open for debate. If it weren't it would be knowledge, and thus wouldn't require belief.

I've just had a religious talk with my seven year old brother. This is what he believes:

He mentioned Satan and I told him that the devil doesn't exist. My kid brother then informed me I was wrong. He'd learned about Satan in school and so it must be true.
I then asked him if he believes in God, and he just returned the question so I told him that I don't. He agreed with me, also deciding that there is no God.
When good people die, Jesus comes to collect their spirits and takes them to heaven.
When bad people die, the Grim Reaper comes to collect their spirts and takes them to hell.
When I asked him how he thought the world was created, he just looked puzzled for a moment before shouting 'Aliens.'

I'm sure that as soon as God is mentioned in school he'll become a christian. Apparently everything they teach in school is absolutely right...

Anyway, what I want to know is how people on NS deal with introducing children to religion.
I know a lot of people teach children, particulary their own, mostly about the religion that they follow. Personally, I disagree with that. I think children should make up their own minds as they grow up and learn new things, without being told what to believe in by their family.

As for my brother; I was quite tempted just to tell him that all this shite he was talking about is just...well, shite. I didn't though, I don't like the idea of brainwashing kids into a certain religion and so I didn't want to be a hypocrite and force him into atheism. I did give my opinion at first though, he did catch me by surprise after all. But then I decided that I'll just humor him and let him come to his own decision on what he believes in. I think that is best.


So does anyone else agree that religion shouldn't be taught to young children?
Personally I don't think that it should be taught until they have learned in science class about these alternative ideas to an almighty being who created mankind and the entire universe. Before that I don't think that they have the background knowledge to make informed decisions about what they believe in.

This also goes for atheism. Sure I could convince my kid brother that there are no Gods and I could explain all my reasons for thinking this. But I guess that it is best that he comes up with his own reasons for whatever he chooses to believe in.

Also, it's amusing to hear all these crazy stories that little children come up with on their own. Aliens? Hah! That can't be true...

Right? :eek:



Yes.

I totally believe that children should be taught religion or spiritually. However, I don't believe that the government should have any say whatsoever in that. Let the parents teach their kids.

You seem to think that Judaism intentionally picked up pieces of other religions and "stole" them, as it were, but I've seen no evidence of that. It is more that living in societies with people who believed in good and evil gods oopposed to one another affected the way that Jewish people looked at the world. Well, there is no evidence at all that anything like Judaism existed prior to the return from the Babylonian Exile. It very much seems like someone assembled a new ideology from scratch using whatever pieces they could find. Since the (religious) elite had no political control (since the entire land was under Persian rule) over the repatriates and those who had been settled in Canaan/Palestine in their place, they tried to gain control over people's minds by setting up a new religion fashioned much after Zoroastrism (which they learned from their monotheistic Persian liberators who let them leave their Mesopotamian exile) and mixed with older traditions from Egypt and Mesopotamia (the whole Yah and El stuff and all the rituals and rules) and also from Israelite and Hebrew traditions (the clan system and some of the Psalms as well as the history from the Hebrews in Egypt to the Divided Monarchy era). Judaism popped into existence out of nothing and when Jews finally started writing down their theology in the Ptolemaic era they projected their current beliefs into the past and created an alternative history for "their people". Some suggest that the final streamlining happened in the Hasmonean era (which would indeed fit the Hasmonean style of politics) or even as late as shortly before or even after the appearance of the even newer cult developed by a certain Yeshua.
.
.