And yet, there are religious folks (and even denominations) which have abandoned literalism. Of course, they are all going to hell.
Of course, everyone goes to hell except the literal ones, except for people who are bastards (Or sons, grandsons, great grandsons, great-great grandsons, etc of a bastard), divorcees, dwarfs, harlots, non-Israelites or non-virgins as they all go to hell too, but the mind eraser kicks in here doesn't it literal christians? and you ignore this post, but try reading the quotes below from the Bible.
Quote:A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; Leviticus 21:14-21
Quote:A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23
jeezuz, I can't even go back five generations - no less ten! The country of my ancestors didn't keep records that long! We're all f.... d!
c.i. wrote-
Yeah. Don't worry about the Chinese. It's us who are the problem. Who's idea was it to show them how to use computers and mobile phones and chemistry. It wasn't mine and that's for sure. I know my Spengler.
cicerone imposter wrote:Actually, Noah was the first bio-human, super-shipbuilder created from the imagination of humans no different than superman or batman.
You don't know that and considering the Noah story is nearly six thousand years old it will undoubtedly live longer than your skepticism.
real life wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:real wrote:
The Bible seems to indicate the breakup of this land mass after the Flood.
Show us where it says such a thing.
Genesis 10:25
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan
Gee, even answersingenesis says not to use that one.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#tectonics
And what do they say about plate tectonics?
Quote:"Plate tectonics is fallacious."
AiG believes that Dr. John Baumgardner's work on catastrophic plate tectonics provides a good explanation of continental shifts and the Flood. See Q&A: Plate Tectonics. However, AiG recognizes that some reputable creation scientists disagree with plate tectonics.
But there's problems with Baumgardner's work. (there's a surprise)
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/4787_miracles_in_creationism_out__12_30_1899.asp
P
BDV wrote:I also found this article on the net which will help you christians possibly change your literal belief
I have never said that you must believe in a young Earth, or a six day creation or disbelieve in evolution to be a Christian. So what's yer point?
Pauligirl wrote:real life wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:real wrote:
The Bible seems to indicate the breakup of this land mass after the Flood.
Show us where it says such a thing.
Genesis 10:25
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan
Gee, even answersingenesis says not to use that one.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#tectonics
And what do they say about plate tectonics?
Quote:"Plate tectonics is fallacious."
AiG believes that Dr. John Baumgardner's work on catastrophic plate tectonics provides a good explanation of continental shifts and the Flood. See Q&A: Plate Tectonics. However, AiG recognizes that some reputable creation scientists disagree with plate tectonics.
But there's problems with Baumgardner's work. (there's a surprise)
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/4787_miracles_in_creationism_out__12_30_1899.asp
P
hi Pauligirl,
One doesn't have to follow AIG to be a creationist. But it's been funny to read the posts of those that assumed that that's all I do. Now you've blown my cover!
real, Your "cover" and what's inside is already common knowledge to all a2kers; blanks.
Greyfan wrote:And yet, there are religious folks (and even denominations) which have abandoned literalism. Of course, they are all going to hell.
hi Greyfan,
I daresay I could easily find a few statements in the Bible that you would accept literally. More if I tried hard.
So isn't your disagreement with WHICH statements are literal, rather than the idea of literalism itself?
Since you could be described as a literalist on some items, and there is nobody who takes ALL of the Bible literally (oh I know you think there are, but ask them if they believe Jesus taught in parables and if the parables referred to actual events; ask them if they think there is any symbolic language in the the prophetic books such as Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation where 'X' stands for 'Y'. You will find they are not 100% literalists.) , then it is simply the DEGREE of literalism one will accept is it not?
Perhaps you should abandon vague ranting about 'literalism' and address a specific topic in the Bible which you think should be understood non-literally, and tell why you think so.
Quote:Scientists rally to attack creationist schooling
Rebecca Smithers, education editor
Thursday June 22, 2006
The Guardian
The world's leading scientists yesterday urged schools to stop denying the facts of evolution amid controversy over the teaching of creationism.
The national science academies of 67 countries - including the UK's Royal Society - issued a joint statement warning that scientific evidence about the origins of life was being "concealed, denied, or confused". It urged parents and teachers to provide children with the facts about the origins and evolution of life on Earth.
Creationism includes a belief that all forms of life have always existed in their present form and that the world was formed in 4004 BC rather than 4,600 million years ago as scientists believe.
The statement was drafted by members of the Inter Academy Panel on International Issues, a global network consisting of 92 science academies. It points out that "within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science".
It went on: "We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet."
Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, said: "There is controversy in some parts of the world about the teaching of evolution to pupils and students, so this is a timely statement that makes clear the views of the scientific community.
"I hope this statement will help those who are attempting to uphold the rights of young people to have access to accurate scientific knowledge about the origins and evolution of life on Earth."
source: Guardian, Thursday June 22, 2006, page 10/
online version
Walter Hinteler wrote:Quote:Scientists rally to attack creationist schooling
Rebecca Smithers, education editor
Thursday June 22, 2006
The Guardian
The world's leading scientists yesterday urged schools to stop denying the facts of evolution amid controversy over the teaching of creationism.
The national science academies of 67 countries - including the UK's Royal Society - issued a joint statement warning that scientific evidence about the origins of life was being "concealed, denied, or confused". It urged parents and teachers to provide children with the facts about the origins and evolution of life on Earth.
Creationism includes a belief that all forms of life have always existed in their present form and that the world was formed in 4004 BC rather than 4,600 million years ago as scientists believe.
The statement was drafted by members of the Inter Academy Panel on International Issues, a global network consisting of 92 science academies. It points out that "within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science".
It went on: "We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet."
Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, said: "There is controversy in some parts of the world about the teaching of evolution to pupils and students, so this is a timely statement that makes clear the views of the scientific community.
"I hope this statement will help those who are attempting to uphold the rights of young people to have access to accurate scientific knowledge about the origins and evolution of life on Earth."
source: Guardian, Thursday June 22, 2006, page 10/
online version
I'm not sure you can realize how funny this article seems to someone in America.
The government controlled schools are almost entirely evolutionary in their curricula and have been for decades. Many of the church schools are too.
These scientists must be referring to somewhere else where evolution is 'concealed' from students.
Now if they are saying they are frustrated because students are taught evolution but don't believe it when they become adults (many surveys and polls here indicate widespread rejection of evolution among the adult population
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml ), then they have no one to blame but themselves.
They've had the playing field all to themselves, but still lost the game.
Where is the 'creationist schooling' that they are upset about?
are you kidding rl? Here in the US the assault by the knuckle dragging school board members who take it upon themselves to agendaize science by cramming religionist views into the curriculum has taken a concerted effort by many scientific organizations to keep the Creationist camels nose out from under the tent flap. The fact that a bunch of people dont yet understand the linkages of evolution to their medicines, agriculture, and many other areas, is responsible for the silly, ill informed pieces of legislation that keep springing up like a "whack-a-Mole" game.
We adjudicated it in Pa, but meanwhile the Creationists are active in KAnsas, Georgia , Utah and Alaska (with other pieces of idiot legislation are waiting in the wings to be entered into the hopper by the scientifically uneducated legislators).
As the UTAH ACLU stated in regards to the Kitzmiller and the Selman decision in Georgia (where Selman sued the Cobb County School District to remove little Creationist stickers from textbooks)
"...Both the Selman and Kitzmiller courts noted the sectarian motivation behind the school districts' selection of one, and only one, scientific area for particular scrutiny. In both cases, district officials ignored entire areas of science where there is more controversy(among scientists) than evolution/ and , instead , chose the one scientific theory that has long been a target of religiously motivated hostility. SB 96 (UTAHS BILL ON "CRITICAL THINKING" RE: THE ORIGINS OF LIFE) suffers from the same defect... In that SB96 unconstitutionally intereferes with scientific instruction for ideological rather than scientific , reasons.
...Americans have the right to believe, practice, and profess their religious beliefs in the public square, and the ACLU defends those rights. However, the government should not accomodate those religious beliefs by misleading public school students about the scientific basis of evolutionary theory
The introduction of SB96 was the brainchild of one guy, a legislator named Buttars , whose originally worded legislation was for the teaching of "Divine Design". "Divine design doesnt preach religion (he said)...The only people wholl be upset by this , are the atheists". This bold statement by Buttars (hardly one where RL would have us believe that creationists are being cowed by the Evolutionist world), more than anything , was responsible for the strong "coming together" of the scientific academys. The entire project was initiated by 2 Utah SCience professors who teach at Brigham Young. Its a bit ironic that it took the outrage of two teachers of a sectarian University to "get the ball rolling" so that the strongly worded statement presented herein by Wandeljw and WAlter is just one more collective "position statement" that the major organizations that embrace science and the scientific method, have produced in the history of this increasingly comedic controversy. The fact is that a very small, a teeny weeny minority of people are pushing their religious agendas upon the rest of the nation. By doing so , in forums like ours, they try to appear much more broad based and "scientifically motivated" than they really are. Rl is just an example of one person whose attached himself to a pbb and he gives the appearance of being balanced and his questions , while I enjoy them, are transparently motivated by doctrinal standards, not scientific inquiry.
Im gratified that most here just aint buying it.
"Seeing something that only has the appearnace of age" is rather a funny take on evidence, Its a conclusion without any basis in reason or fact. Its the old "vis plastica" theory of Avicenna. HWere "fossils" were really placed there by a God to fool us and test our faiths. As this forum sinks further into A religious "no logic" zone, I think we should come back every so often and dope slap rl and rex for some of their own illogical views while demanding a higher standard of science.
.
farmerman wrote:are you kidding rl? Here in the US the assault by the knuckle dragging school board members who take it upon themselves to agendaize science by cramming religionist views into the curriculum has taken a concerted effort by many scientific organizations to keep the Creationist camels nose out from under the tent flap. The fact that a bunch of people dont yet understand the linkages of evolution to their medicines, agriculture, and many other areas, is responsible for the silly, ill informed pieces of legislation that keep springing up like a "whack-a-Mole" game.
We adjudicated it in Pa, but meanwhile the Creationists are active in KAnsas, Georgia , Utah and Alaska (with other pieces of idiot legislation are waiting in the wings to be entered into the hopper by the scientifically uneducated legislators).
As the UTAH ACLU stated in regards to the Kitzmiller and the Selman decision in Georgia (where Selman sued the Cobb County School District to remove little Creationist stickers from textbooks)
"...Both the Selman and Kitzmiller courts noted the sectarian motivation behind the school districts' selection of one, and only one, scientific area for particular scrutiny. In both cases, district officials ignored entire areas of science where there is more controversy(among scientists) than evolution/ and , instead , chose the one scientific theory that has long been a target of religiously motivated hostility. SB 96 (UTAHS BILL ON "CRITICAL THINKING" RE: THE ORIGINS OF LIFE) suffers from the same defect... In that SB96 unconstitutionally intereferes with scientific instruction for ideological rather than scientific , reasons.
...Americans have the right to believe, practice, and profess their religious beliefs in the public square, and the ACLU defends those rights. However, the government should not accomodate those religious beliefs by misleading public school students about the scientific basis of evolutionary theory
The introduction of SB96 was the brainchild of one guy, a legislator named Buttars , whose originally worded legislation was for the teaching of "Divine Design". "Divine design doesnt preach religion (he said)...The only people wholl be upset by this , are the atheists". This bold statement by Buttars (hardly one where RL would have us believe that creationists are being cowed by the Evolutionist world), more than anything , was responsible for the strong "coming together" of the scientific academys. The entire project was initiated by 2 Utah SCience professors who teach at Brigham Young. Its a bit ironic that it took the outrage of two teachers of a sectarian University to "get the ball rolling" so that the strongly worded statement presented herein by Wandeljw and WAlter is just one more collective "position statement" that the major organizations that embrace science and the scientific method, have produced in the history of this increasingly comedic controversy. The fact is that a very small, a teeny weeny minority of people are pushing their religious agendas upon the rest of the nation. By doing so , in forums like ours, they try to appear much more broad based and "scientifically motivated" than they really are. Rl is just an example of one person whose attached himself to a pbb and he gives the appearance of being balanced and his questions , while I enjoy them, are transparently motivated by doctrinal standards, not scientific inquiry.
Im gratified that most here just aint buying it.
"Seeing something that only has the appearnace of age" is rather a funny take on evidence, Its a conclusion without any basis in reason or fact. Its the old "vis plastica" theory of Avicenna. HWere "fossils" were really placed there by a God to fool us and test our faiths. As this forum sinks further into A religious "no logic" zone, I think we should come back every so often and dope slap rl and rex for some of their own illogical views while demanding a higher standard of science.
.
No, I'm not kidding.
Can you point out a government school district that has actually had creationism or ID consistently taught in all of it's schools for the past 30 years?
How 'bout for the last 20 years?
The last 10?
How 'bout just last year?
Is there even 1 public school district that you can point to that actually had creationism or ID taught in all it's science classrooms last year?
Evolutionists have the playing field to themselves in American public schools, but are still losing the game in influencing American public opinion.
Not that creationists/IDers haven't tried, but are you aware of anywhere that they have succeeded in getting creation or ID taught in a government establishment? I am not aware of any.
So my question to Walter was (as it relates to American schools, and as it relates to the blaring headline of the article):
Where is the 'creationist schooling' that they are upset about?
Where in American public schools is evolution being 'concealed' and 'denied' as the article states ?
real life wrote:The government controlled schools are almost entirely evolutionary in their curricula and have been for decades.
As it should be because they are public schools, and because the constitution is our law.
real life wrote:These scientists must be referring to somewhere else where evolution is 'concealed' from students.
Obviously we're trying to prevent creationism from getting into science classes. We wouldn't want to wait until it's entrenched and has already done massive damage before reacting would we?
real life wrote:So my question to Walter was (as it relates to American schools, and as it relates to the blaring headline of the article):
Where is the 'creationist schooling' that they are upset about?
Where in American public schools is evolution being 'concealed' and 'denied' as the article states ?
I'm no member of the Inter Academy Panel on International Issues nor did I write that Guardian article (or any other about this meeting in any other newspaper worldwide).
So, I neither can say anything about this headline nor about why the members of those science academies think what is reported.
I've now personal knowledge about the American school system besides what is reported here, in the media and what I've learnt from some teachers in New Mexico.
Regarding that (above), I'm quite astonished that "my sources" don't know what you obviously seem to see so clearly.
Thanks for pointing at that.
real life wrote:Where in American public schools is evolution being 'concealed' and 'denied' as the article states ?
Many public school science teachers in the United States have encountered aggressive anti-evolution propaganda in the communities where they teach. As a result some teachers have skipped over the topic of evolution. Other teachers who tried to teach evolution have been interrupted by hostile questions from students indoctrinated in creationist propaganda. You can not deny that this has been actually happening, RL.
Here is the simple text of the joint declaration from the 67 national science academies:
Quote:Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.
Walter Hinteler wrote:real life wrote:So my question to Walter was (as it relates to American schools, and as it relates to the blaring headline of the article):
Where is the 'creationist schooling' that they are upset about?
Where in American public schools is evolution being 'concealed' and 'denied' as the article states ?
I'm no member of the Inter Academy Panel on International Issues nor did I write that Guardian article (or any other about this meeting in any other newspaper worldwide).
So, I neither can say anything about this headline nor about why the members of those science academies think what is reported.
I've now personal knowledge about the American school system besides what is reported here, in the media and what I've learnt from some teachers in New Mexico.
Regarding that (above), I'm quite astonished that "my sources" don't know what you obviously seem to see so clearly.
Thanks for pointing at that.
hi Walter,
Good to hear from you. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, or imply that you were responsible for the article or it's content.
My only point was that the 'creationist schooling' the article railed about must exist somewhere else, because it's not in America.
The article mentioned groups in multiple countries.
Do you know of any public schools in Europe that teach creationism or ID in their science classes? (For all I know, there may be. I know very little about European school systems. So I'm interested in your perspective.)
This quote was from one of RL post I think...
"We should always interpret Scripture with Scripture."
Comment:
This is how the scripture interprets itself...
real life wrote:
Do you know of any public schools in Europe that teach creationism or ID in their science classes? (For all I know, there may be. I know very little about European school systems. So I'm interested in your perspective.)
I've heard that some US-American "missionaries" arrived in the UK and are supposed to be in Germany as well, who try to persuade people pro-Creatism in schools.
It hasn't been here (= Germany) a topic since about 104 years (that's the dates, I've school marks from my granparent's grammar schools, both private, Catholic). It's now only in the news when reports from the USA are published.
