Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Community Discussion > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-20-2006, 07:39 PM   #46
buckeyefan78
Happy Land
 
buckeyefan78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,864
buckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen View Post
AMEN!!! :thumbup:
I don't know if the irony was intended or not but good show Heathen. :thumbup:
buckeyefan78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 08:11 PM   #47
Montrovant
Hatecarver
 
Montrovant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 685
Montrovant is on a distinguished road
Default

Just a quick thought (I'd add more but I'm busy doing other stuff atm hehe)...religious beliefs about the creation of the world/man have little or no scientific basis that I've seen. Feel free to correct me if you feel that's wrong. Evolution, other the other hand, is a scientific theory. The difference is evolution is a theory based on scientific evidence. Scientific theory tends to be a different thing than general theory; it's less a guess and more an inference based on facts and accumulated data.

If your religious beliefs clash with evolution, you can teach your children that evolution is wrong. Unless you have some evidence other than whatever holy book you follow to back it up, it shouldn't be taught in schools as anything other than a religious belief.
Montrovant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 08:17 PM   #48
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefsfan27 View Post
Im not saying I want things that are controversial. I'm saying things like evolution are controversial and you don't seem to have a problem with it. I'm simply saying if we're going to educate children on controversial things like evolutiuon, they should have the same chance to learn about Christianity.
That's what Church is for. School is for academic things and theories AKA evolution. Church is the place for to learn about Christianity. That's why we have seperation of church and state, so you can decide if you want to learn about such things. Evolution is something that was decided to be the best theory by SCIENTISTS. If you don't want our children to learn science, then I don't know what to tell you. Once again, there is a place to learn about religion, it's called church. Likewise there is a place to learn about science, history, ect... it's called school.
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 10:35 PM   #49
chiefsfan27
Paul Foeller
 
chiefsfan27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 168
chiefsfan27 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
That's what Church is for. School is for academic things and theories AKA evolution. Church is the place for to learn about Christianity. That's why we have seperation of church and state, so you can decide if you want to learn about such things. Evolution is something that was decided to be the best theory by SCIENTISTS. If you don't want our children to learn science, then I don't know what to tell you. Once again, there is a place to learn about religion, it's called church. Likewise there is a place to learn about science, history, ect... it's called school.
The problem with scientists proving evolution, is that we don't all view science as what seperates truth form fact. As long as Christians must use secular theory (science) to prove Biblical theory, would you please use Biblical theory to prove scientific theory?

We don't have seperation of Church and State. The idea come from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson. In that letter he proposed that the Church be protected from the State, not that the State be protected from the Church.

Again, because you were'nt there to witness the Big Bang or evolution, it takes as much faith for you to believe those as it does for me to believe in God. Does'nt that make them both religion?
chiefsfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 10:38 PM   #50
chiefsfan27
Paul Foeller
 
chiefsfan27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 168
chiefsfan27 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrovant View Post
Just a quick thought (I'd add more but I'm busy doing other stuff atm hehe)...religious beliefs about the creation of the world/man have little or no scientific basis that I've seen. Feel free to correct me if you feel that's wrong. Evolution, other the other hand, is a scientific theory. The difference is evolution is a theory based on scientific evidence. Scientific theory tends to be a different thing than general theory; it's less a guess and more an inference based on facts and accumulated data.

If your religious beliefs clash with evolution, you can teach your children that evolution is wrong. Unless you have some evidence other than whatever holy book you follow to back it up, it shouldn't be taught in schools as anything other than a religious belief.
As I said in my previuos post, if I must use scientific evidence to prove Biblical principles, you must use Biblical evidence to prove scientific principles.
chiefsfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 10:43 PM   #51
PPKA
PuntPass&KickAss
 
PPKA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 66
PPKA is on a distinguished road
Default

wrong.

I'll enjoy my religion and my holidays when and where I see fit.

if I want to dance down mainstreet singing joy to the world, try and stop me.

you don't like it, tough toenails jack!

freedom of religion is not a question.
__________________
don't stick your hand in the ball return or you'll cut off your personality :stupid:
PPKA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 10:55 PM   #52
Montrovant
Hatecarver
 
Montrovant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 685
Montrovant is on a distinguished road
Default

You don't have to prove biblical principles. What I'm asking for is evidence that biblical belief about the creation of man is true. I'm not even saying evolution is true. Simply that evidence, garnered through experimentation and observation of biology, fossils, etc has been provided to show why it may be true. The only evidence I've seen of the bible's version of the creation of the world and life upon it comes from the bible. I assume the same is true of other holy book and religious beliefs, but I'd be happy to see anything to the contrary.

I have no problem teaching the tenets and history of religions in school. Only with teaching that any religion is truth.

As far as using biblical evidence to prove anything, that's a flawed argument. Any good science is not based solely on a single source, but rather an accumulation of data.
Montrovant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 11:01 PM   #53
chiefsfan27
Paul Foeller
 
chiefsfan27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 168
chiefsfan27 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrovant View Post
You don't have to prove biblical principles. What I'm asking for is evidence that biblical belief about the creation of man is true. I'm not even saying evolution is true. Simply that evidence, garnered through experimentation and observation of biology, fossils, etc has been provided to show why it may be true. The only evidence I've seen of the bible's version of the creation of the world and life upon it comes from the bible. I assume the same is true of other holy book and religious beliefs, but I'd be happy to see anything to the contrary.

I have no problem teaching the tenets and history of religions in school. Only with teaching that any religion is truth.

As far as using biblical evidence to prove anything, that's a flawed argument. Any good science is not based solely on a single source, but rather an accumulation of data.
The Biblical account of creation is a Biblical principle.

If the Bible can't be proved by itself, why can science?

As for the accumulation of data, the Bible was written by somewhere between 2 and 3 dozen men over 4000 years and in dozens of different countries. Yet they all told the same account of Jesus. The Bible has more original documents than any other book in history.
chiefsfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 11:36 PM   #54
Montrovant
Hatecarver
 
Montrovant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 685
Montrovant is on a distinguished road
Default

Loving this discussion!

chiefsfan.....the bible and science are completely different things. Science (at least when properly applied) does not 'prove itself', but rather attempts to find proof. Not sure what that statement was supposed to mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefsfan27 View Post
As for the accumulation of data, the Bible was written by somewhere between 2 and 3 dozen men over 4000 years and in dozens of different countries. Yet they all told the same account of Jesus. The Bible has more original documents than any other book in history.
Couple of things. First, it's my understanding that the old testament has nothing to do with Jesus....that would mean you're only talking about the new testament, which wasn't written over 4000 years that I know of. Considering Jesus was supposed to have lived about 2000 years ago, don't see how it could Second, just because more than 1 person writes about something in no way gives that thing credence. This is true in science as well. However many people contributed to the writing of the bible, I've seen no evidence to corroborate it's account of the creation of the world and life. It's not just a matter of multiple scientists being involved in the theory of evolution, it's the research, experimentation, mathematics, the accumulation of various data that gives it believability (at least to me). I understand that not having faith, I'm unlikely to ever believe as you do, and that's fine. I'm not here to insult your faith in any way. But faith is belief with an absence of evidence. It's the basic reason an argument like this never gets anywhere; there's little you can do to provide evidence of your views, because they are based on a lack thereof. You are meant to believe without evidence, that faith is supposed to be part of your strength. (and if I'm misinterpreting the basics of religious belief and Christianity, I apologize. Correct me if so )

Anyway, I'm rambling now, time to cut this short
Montrovant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 11:39 PM   #55
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Here's the thing. School is the place for ACADEMICS. The things that scientists research and study are presented in science class. The things that historians study and research are taught in history class. The the things that mathmaticians study are taught in math class. And finally the things that CLERGYMEN study are taught in CHURCH.

You guys are acting like religion is being stopped or prevented in some way. This is not the case. Who is trying to stop you from praying or learning about christianity at church or at home? Is it really too much to ask that my children aren't taught your religious beliefs? You can say the same about evolution, but there is not church of evolution. Evolution is what THE EXPERTS have decided to teach. If scientists as a community decide that creationism is a valid SCIENTIFICAL theory, then they would teach in school. Until then, why can't you be happy with what you have, church. The church is one of the most powerful influences in this country. Why no embrace that and enjoy it, and leave school to be taught by the non-religious philosophy.

My elemental question remains the same: why do people who don't believe in YOUR religion have to be exposed to it in school? You can't say it is because you want your children to learn about it, because you go to church, and teach your children these things at home.

Please don't answer with a question. Answer the question. Why should my children be FORCED to learn religion?

You say that it is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But they are one in the same. If you are forced into one religion (christianity) you don't have freedom of religion.

Please answer the question.
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 12:06 AM   #56
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PPKA View Post
wrong.

I'll enjoy my religion and my holidays when and where I see fit.

if I want to dance down mainstreet singing joy to the world, try and stop me.

you don't like it, tough toenails jack!

freedom of religion is not a question.
That's fine, just don't force me or anyone else to "enjoy" them with you. Go ahead and look like the village idiot singing in the street, I don't care. Just don't force us to have nativity plays at public schools, or force my child to learn about Jesus in public schools. I don't care what YOU do, all I care about is what you do to me and my children.
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 01:25 AM   #57
chiefsfan27
Paul Foeller
 
chiefsfan27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 168
chiefsfan27 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrovant View Post
Loving this discussion!

chiefsfan.....the bible and science are completely different things. Science (at least when properly applied) does not 'prove itself', but rather attempts to find proof. Not sure what that statement was supposed to mean.



Couple of things. First, it's my understanding that the old testament has nothing to do with Jesus....that would mean you're only talking about the new testament, which wasn't written over 4000 years that I know of. Considering Jesus was supposed to have lived about 2000 years ago, don't see how it could Second, just because more than 1 person writes about something in no way gives that thing credence. This is true in science as well. However many people contributed to the writing of the bible, I've seen no evidence to corroborate it's account of the creation of the world and life. It's not just a matter of multiple scientists being involved in the theory of evolution, it's the research, experimentation, mathematics, the accumulation of various data that gives it believability (at least to me). I understand that not having faith, I'm unlikely to ever believe as you do, and that's fine. I'm not here to insult your faith in any way. But faith is belief with an absence of evidence. It's the basic reason an argument like this never gets anywhere; there's little you can do to provide evidence of your views, because they are based on a lack thereof. You are meant to believe without evidence, that faith is supposed to be part of your strength. (and if I'm misinterpreting the basics of religious belief and Christianity, I apologize. Correct me if so )

Anyway, I'm rambling now, time to cut this short
That statement meant just what it said. That your "proof" of evolution (a scientific principle) is evidence obtained using sciencetific theory.

Your understanding of the Old Testament would be incorrect then. Much of it is prophecy of Jesus' life and the rest is about God, who is the same as Jesus according to Jesus himself.

You're right, more than 1 person writing something doesn't make it true. But what about dozens of people, over thousands of years, in different countries, with most of them never meeting each other.

The very fundamentals of evolution and the Big Bang are flawed because scientific theory states that life cannot come from non-life. The Big-Bang says that a dot exploded and created the universe, which we all know contains living matter. So, either the dot was non-living and created living things (which they claim) or it was living, in which case a living being (God?) would have to have created it. Not to mention the fact that thinking we could be caple of cognative thought and be so unique without a creator is absurd.

Faith is not belief with the absence of evidence. The Bible says nature is evidence of God.

We do walk by faith, but do not walk blindly.
chiefsfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 01:27 AM   #58
chiefsfan27
Paul Foeller
 
chiefsfan27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 168
chiefsfan27 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
Here's the thing. School is the place for ACADEMICS. The things that scientists research and study are presented in science class. The things that historians study and research are taught in history class. The the things that mathmaticians study are taught in math class. And finally the things that CLERGYMEN study are taught in CHURCH.

You guys are acting like religion is being stopped or prevented in some way. This is not the case. Who is trying to stop you from praying or learning about christianity at church or at home? Is it really too much to ask that my children aren't taught your religious beliefs? You can say the same about evolution, but there is not church of evolution. Evolution is what THE EXPERTS have decided to teach. If scientists as a community decide that creationism is a valid SCIENTIFICAL theory, then they would teach in school. Until then, why can't you be happy with what you have, church. The church is one of the most powerful influences in this country. Why no embrace that and enjoy it, and leave school to be taught by the non-religious philosophy.

My elemental question remains the same: why do people who don't believe in YOUR religion have to be exposed to it in school? You can't say it is because you want your children to learn about it, because you go to church, and teach your children these things at home.

Please don't answer with a question. Answer the question. Why should my children be FORCED to learn religion?

You say that it is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But they are one in the same. If you are forced into one religion (christianity) you don't have freedom of religion.

Please answer the question.
Here's your answer, they should'nt.

Here's my question. If I don't subscribe to your set of scientific beliefs why should my children be forced to learn evolution?
chiefsfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 01:40 AM   #59
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Because that is what education is about. I could say I don't believe that George Washington was the first president of the US, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't teach it. Schools are there to put forth the BEST knowledge we have. Evolution is not religion, it is what the EXPERTS and scientists have decided is the best explaination for where people came from. Just because some people don't believe it because of religious misconceptions, doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. There is no organization of evolution, there is no one that stands to gain from people learning evolution. It is simply the most scientifically grounded, well researched theory available. Like I said, we don't KNOW that George Washington was the first president of the US, because we weren't there. We trust the experts to give us the best information available. That's what evolution is. Religion has it's place, church. Scientific research has it's place, school.
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 01:44 AM   #60
Ravana
Revolution w/b improvised
 
Ravana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 200
Ravana is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm almost tempted to just let CKFresh carry this one on alone: doing a fine job of it.

But I won't. (Heh.)

Quote:
The problem with scientists proving evolution, is that we don't all view science as what seperates truth form fact.
"Separates truth from fact"? What??? Try again, please?

Science actually isn't even remotely interested in "the truth." It is interested in what can be proven... from factual evidence, through experimentation, with repeatable results. From these things are derived general principles—called in science "theories," which, unfortunately, makes people think that they aren't "proven," whereas science uses the term differently (and correctly; the weaker definition of "unproven idea" is a corruption of the original meaning).

Science also recognizes that it has limits, and that all of the things that it has demonstrated in the past are open to revision, expansion, clarification, or even, in rare cases, dismissal. All of these can occur when more evidence is collected or when new methods of experimentation and analysis are developed. New evidence is tested against existing theories, and, if it does not corroborate them, the theories are adjusted or new ones are proposed... which are then tested against both new and old evidence, until one is found that fits all the available evidence. New methods are applied to all existing evidence, in order to see if they corroborate existing theories or not, and if they expand or deepen our knowledge—revealing to us new details we were previously unaware of.

Quote:
As long as Christians must use secular theory (science) to prove Biblical theory, would you please use Biblical theory to prove scientific theory?
This is illogical... and impossible, since the Bible doesn't even address most of the issues modern research is concerned with. Besides, there is no "Biblical theory" in the sense that logic or science uses the term—no consistent set of axioms that create a mechanism for testing other axioms, predicates, data, etc. I am not among those who call for Christians to "prove" the Bible, anyway, though I realize there are those who do. I see this as a mistaken approach, and indeed a pointless one, as I will expand upon a little later.

Quote:
We don't have seperation of Church and State. The idea come from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson. In that letter he proposed that the Church be protected from the State, not that the State be protected from the Church.
A private letter... plus the Constitution, plus Jefferson's amendment to the Virginia state constitution, plus numerous other private and public letters throughout his career. Jefferson was, I believe, the person who actually originated the "inviolable wall" between the two (though I believe someone else was responsible for the term itself). The term does appear in a Supreme Court ruling from the middle of the last century, though, so whether Jefferson wanted it or not, the highest court in our land has confirmed it. A two-way separation, specifically: no church in state, no state in church.

Quote:
Again, because you were'nt there to witness the Big Bang or evolution, it takes as much faith for you to believe those as it does for me to believe in God. Does'nt that make them both religion?
Absolutely not. Belief in the Big Bang is based upon knowing that the best scientific research and theorizing has produced this as the best explanation of the facts as we know them today. Same for evolution—which is actually the better established of the two, since we can witness it as an ongoing process... and have. If you want to claim that science itself is somehow a religion... you'll have to come up with a list of ways in which it fits the definition of religion.

Science is ultimately based on one, and only one, "belief": that we can trust the evidence of our senses, if they tell us the same thing in the same situation whenever that situation is repeated. If this is not a rational belief... then we cannot believe anything, for we have nothing reliable to base belief upon.

Quote:
As I said in my previuos post, if I must use scientific evidence to prove Biblical principles, you must use Biblical evidence to prove scientific principles.
Now it's "must"? This argument is pure fallacy.
Underlying structure in symbolic logic: If A then B, therefore if B then A.
Logical equivalents:
• If it is raining then I shall get wet, therefore if I shall get wet then it is raining. [counterexample: I can get wet by diving in a pool.]
• If the Bible was written by God then God exists, therefore if God exists then the Bible was written by God. [counterexample: you said it yourself: the Bible was written by humans.]
• If cheese is purple then the sky is falling, therefore if the sky is falling then cheese is purple. [No one said the argument had to make any sense—the same logical principles still apply. Counterexample 1: Cheese could be painted, dyed, etc. purple without the sky falling. Counterexample 2: The sky could be falling even if cheese wasn't purple.]

Quote:
The Biblical account of creation is a Biblical principle.
If the Bible can't be proved by itself, why can science?
Science is not "proved"; science is a process for obtaining proof. Science is nothing more than the reliance on our own senses, as assessed in a systematic manner... as mentioned before. Using the Bible—or anything else—to "prove itself" is circular. Scientific theories, knowledge obtained from experiment, and new data are all continually tested and evaluated against each other... as well as against basic logic and against external sources—specifically, data obtained through our senses. We do not use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution: we use every other piece of available data and every other scientific theorem to prove—or disprove—the theory of evolution.

And how is the Biblical account of creation a "Biblical principle"? What is a "Biblical principle"? This use of "principle" is unfamiliar to me... and most certainly is not scientific, nor logical, in nature.

Quote:
As for the accumulation of data, the Bible was written by somewhere between 2 and 3 dozen men over 4000 years and in dozens of different countries. Yet they all told the same account of Jesus.
This has already been addressed by others, so I'll just add a few points: (1) They didn't all tell an account of Jesus; only four of them did. (2) They most certainly did not all tell the same account of Jesus. All four books differ from one another. (3) Expanding on (1), not all writers told the same stories... in most cases, any given story was only told once, by a single writer. Such as the stories contained in Genesis. One writer... not "two or three dozen." (4) The Bible has undergone numerous emendations, deletions, redactions, translations and so forth; its contents, and they way they are presented, have changed continuously throughout history. (5) As pointed out, a great many more than "two or three dozen" people have written in support of contemporary scientific theories—any one of them. (6) The writers could very simply have been wrong—any or all of them.

Quote:
The Bible has more original documents than any other book in history.
Even if true, this is only because somebody went to the trouble of collecting them and putting them under a single cover; the claim is meaningless in terms of supporting its veracity. I could do the same by collecting documents from Roman courts, or any other source of original documentation. A great many original documents were used to create the Egyptian Book of the Dead by Budge... and any complete translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls would contain more documents that the Bible, if I remember the number of documents found there. For that matter, any collection of a famous individual's letters would contain more original documents than the Bible.

Now for the other side.

Quote:
What I'm asking for is evidence that biblical belief about the creation of man is true. I'm not even saying evolution is true. Simply that evidence, garnered through experimentation and observation of biology, fossils, etc has been provided to show why it may be true. The only evidence I've seen of the bible's version of the creation of the world and life upon it comes from the bible.
Precisely, Montrovant. All that is being requested is corroboration. We have corroborating evidence for evolution—indeed, it was such evidence that necessitated the theory in the first place; the data came first, not the theory, and so was external to it—not a circular proof. Further evidence has continued to corroborate the theory, expand upon it and refine it... and, most importantly, not contradict it. Where is such evidence for the Biblical account?

Quote:
I have no problem teaching the tenets and history of religions in school. Only with teaching that any religion is truth.
I do:

Quote:
Here's the thing. School is the place for ACADEMICS. The things that scientists research and study are presented in science class. The things that historians study and research are taught in history class. The the things that mathematicians study are taught in math class. And finally the things that CLERGYMEN study are taught in CHURCH.
That's why (and that's why I was tempted to let CKFresh carry this argument... good job, mate). Religion does not belong in schools, unless it is being taught as a subject in its own right... and, if it is, it better include all religions, not just one... and not show favoritism to any of them. Religion absolutely does not belong in science class, as it is unscientific.

Quote:
Is it really too much to ask that my children aren't taught your religious beliefs? You can [try to] say the same about evolution, but there is not church of evolution.
Right. (Words in brackets have been inserted by me.) The important point, though, is that in teaching creationism, or even intelligent design, you are teaching the views of a single religion... and, again, if you are teaching them in a science class, you are teaching something that is not science: it is not subject to scientific investigation or proof.

Quote:
My elemental question remains the same: why do people who don't believe in YOUR religion have to be exposed to it in school?

Please don't answer with a question. Answer the question. Why should my children be FORCED to learn religion?

You say that it is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But they are one [and] the same. If you are forced into one religion (christianity) you don't have freedom of religion.
I can't improve upon that.

Now, as for "proving the Bible":

This is a mistake as well—to call upon people to "prove the Bible." First of all, it exists; that does not require proof, so we can assume that this is not the question. Second: proving—or disproving—any one part of it has no effect on the whole. I can point to numerous contradictions in the Bible (but will not... unless forced to; fortunately, scanmode doesn't seem to be around... :lol: ); these do not in any way mean that anything else in the Bible is incorrect or even called into question. People who do this are generally trying to break the hold of literalists who persist in insisting that the Bible must—for some reason I cannot fathom—be taken literally as a whole. As I said, I cannot grasp this point of view: what is the problem with saying that some parts of the Bible are metaphorical... or just plain wrong? I don't see how this damages the balance of the book.

I also don't see why anybody would even want to retain most of the Old Testament; there's a lot of stuff in there that is just plain hideous, and which nobody would endorse today. And a lot more stuff that people just plain ignore today, like most of the "laws" set down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Do literalists want to go back to the days of removing the hands of thieves, or stoning "witches"? Why not just trash the whole thing and stick with the New Testament?

This is getting long... no surprise for those who know me. For those who don't, get used to it. At least further answers on this thread will not be to a large number of posts, so they ought to be shorter....

As for whether or not you subscribe to someone else's set of scientific beliefs, chiefsfan27 (which you posted after I began this message)... that's what the schools are supposed to teach: the consensus belief of the scientific community. That's what gets taught in science classes. If you don't like it, you should move to eliminate science teaching altogether... not to have it revised to exclude any particular part of it you don't care for. There are certain things in contemporary scientific theory that I don't agree with... and they will be removed, or revised, if evidence ever comes in to support my own views. That's how science works. Come up with evidence that contradicts present views, and I'm sure the curriculum will be revised. But not until then. Nor should it be.

In particular, your children ought to be exposed to contemporary views, whether they are right or wrong... so that they can be fully informed. How are they to decide which is correct—and, perhaps more importantly, from your point of view, how are they to argue against contemporary views if they are not familiar with them? They ought, at the very least, to possess the same informational base as any other citizen, so that they can understand what is under discussion when such things arise. Would you disadvantage your children by denying them such an opportunity?
__________________
I have taken all knowledge to be my province. Tariff schedules and immigration policies will be announced presently.
imnotcbs :tsk:

Last edited by Ravana; 12-21-2006 at 01:53 AM.
Ravana is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Time Change Impacts NFC Playoff Picture Anthony National Football League 4 12-22-2004 11:48 AM
Name that 80's tune Contest "Daily" MaddEnemy The Lounge 10 12-12-2004 01:12 PM
Time Of Possession: A Surprising Trend Anthony College Football 7 09-09-2002 10:17 AM
Blazers at Lakers' game on Christmas Day Spike National Basketball Association 2 12-27-2000 10:35 PM
'Twas the Night Before Christmas (with a twist) lmanchur. Hockey 0 12-24-2000 12:07 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:06 PM.