|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Which religion's creation story should be taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Theodoric writes: You have provided nothing to see. Repeatedly you have been asked to provide evidence of Christianity in the Constitution and to date you have not provided one scrap of evidence. I have given ‘Evidence’; however, you seem to be torn between acknowledging it or rebutting it. Even though people use it as such today; ‘Christianity’ is not just a catch phrase that is attached to a religious doctrine; or group of religious doctrines. The evidence for Christianity being in the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is vested in the people who framed the Constitution; what they lived for, what they fought for; what they stood for, and who they were. This is why I bring up the Declaration of Independence. A document is not ‘Christian’ because it mentions ‘God’, ‘Christ’, ‘Heaven’, Etc. It is Christian if it is written by ‘Christians’, for ‘Christians’, to the edification of God All Mighty. I have offered the ‘Decoration of Independence’ as evidence of Americas Christian roots; saying that it has no barring because It is not a US government document. It is a document prior to the formation of the United States. is like saying that the concrete foundation is not part of the house because it was poured before the building went up. Once again, great to hear from you,JRTjr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Dr Adequate,
I would love to address every point you made; however, our posts would only get longer and longer. So I will only address two of your points. Sorry.
Dr Adequate writes:
JRTjr writes: If that is so then the Supreme Court has no grounds to demand the removal of a Bible sitting in a display case No, you're not following this. It's not "free exercise", so it's not protected. It is "establishment", so it's forbidden. Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is establishment Forbidden?
Dr Adequate writes:
JRTjr writes: Also, I guess you have forgotten that, until recently, when a witness was sworn in at any court proceedings, in any court in this land, they placed their right hand on a Bible and swore to tell the Truth, the hole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Not only that, but the end of that oath was So help me God. They still do. One can take the oath on the Bible, or on the Koran, or one can "affirm" --- it's a personal choice. That's free exercise. Where, in an American Court, has any book (other than the Bible) ever been used to affirm the Oath to tell the truth? Great Fun,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Catholic Scientist,
Great to hear from you. I Hope you’re not going to be too disappointed, however, I will only be able to respond to one or two points in each post. Sorry.
Catholic Scientist writes: The law is that religion shall not be established, nor prevented from being exercised. Where is the law that religion shall not be established? Hope to hear from you soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Catholic Scientist,
Great hearing from you again.
Catholic Scientist writes: everybody know's that "Nature's God" is not a reference to the Christian God but instead to a Deistic god. Everybody knows Santa Claus lives at the North Pole to; that does not make it so. ;-} Your Deistic god theory would hold water if most or all of the signers were modern day Deists; However, as I pointed out in post #231 at least 75% of the signers were Christians. So, unless you can provide substantial evidence to the contrary I stand on the evidence that says it is the Christian God being spoken of. Hope to hear from you again,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jar,
Great to hear from you again.
Jar writes: If you read carefully you will see that I do not "say two mutually exclusive things."I say that there is no Christian Creation story. Note, that is singular. That is also a fact. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have several creation myths, the newer myth found in Genesis 1 and the much earlier primitive story found in Genesis 2&3. Two Creation myths. And they are mutually exclusive, if one is true then the other is false. Of course we know that neither one is factually correct, and both are refuted by the evidence of the universe itself. Jar, please, listen to your self; first you say there is no Christian Creation story. Note, that is singular. That is also a fact. So, according to you, there is no Christian Creation story Then you say Christianity, Islam and Judaism have several creation myths (Stories) So which is it: ‘No Creation story/myth’ or ‘several Creation stories/myths’? Lastly, can you give me an example where Geneses Chapter 1 directly contradicts Chapters 2 or 3? Great fun sparring with you,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jar,
In a comparative religion class it would be up to the teachers/school board with religions would be represented in there creation myths. Since the original question did not mention a class of study I simply assume the question was aimed at science since that is where the controversy lays. Hope to hear from you again soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Rrhain,
Great to hear from you. I am sorry, however, I will only be able to respond to one or two of your comments.
Rrhain writes: you don't seem to understand what DNA is. It does not "insure that the child will be of the same species as the parents." In fact, given all our observations of DNA, it never remains stable but rather always mutates from generation to generation, guaranteeing the creation of new species. That's why we have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes both in the lab and in the wild. Really, so you can demonstrate this hu? Some one has actually seen a cow deliver a bat, or a cat bear a dog, or something like that? As far as I know, cats have always delivered cats; cows have always borne cows, etc, etc, etc.
Rrhain writes: DNA is not an "information rich system." Really, so, something like the equivalent of every letter, in every book, in the entire Library of Congress is not information rich? Hope to hear from you soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jar,
Jar writes: You have not provided any evidence to support any other hypothesis; there is no Creation model to teach. Of course not, because any evidence I give is ignored, and then you claim it’s been refuted, even though you haven’t. Classic Evolutionists tactic. JRTjr Edited by JRTjr, : Corrected quotation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear bluescat48,
For the sake of getting back to the topic at hand; I promise to refrain from calling Atheism a ‘religion’. JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Coyote,
I was unaware of this ruling. So after 230 years of using the Bible exclusively they decided they should use other ‘religious’ texts. Did you notice the last paragraph? Before that time, the law was called "Administration of oath upon the Gospels" and stated that someone to be sworn was to lay a hand on "the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God." Legislators took out "the Gospels" in the title and changed the language to simply read "Holy Scriptures" in 1985. Hope to hear from you again soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Razd,
Razd writes: Simply stated the congress cannot pass any laws that favor or disfavor any of all the world's religions. The words respecting and prohibiting do not mean favor or disfavor. Hope to hear from you again,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Theodoric,
Ya, I’ve quoted the First Amendment (repeatedly). I know it by heart. The first Amendment says nothing about forbidding an ‘establishment’ of anything. It is, however, a clear declaration that the Government is not to restrict religious expression. I.e. if we have a cross on our states seal the Federal Government can not force us to take it off. So, I repeat my question — Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is establishment Forbidden? Hope to hear from you soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Arachnophilia,
Arachnophilia writes: yes. Well don’t leave us in suspense, demonstrate away.
Arachnophilia writes: no. in fact, this would be as good a falsification of evolution as anything else a creationist could possible dream up. mutations are slight and incremental, not suddenly reproducing another distantly related species that already exists. You’re absolutely correct. In fact the point I bring out with this is that Dogs have always produced dogs, cat cats, and so on and so forth. The idea that man came from great apes, from lesser apes from some other life forms all the way back to sea creatures, and then to single celled life forms that somehow just popped on the seen is unproven. Give me some evidence that your great, great, X x great ancestor was anything other that a human and I will consider it. Or prove some direct link between fish and amphibians, or amphibians and land animals. Draw me a genealogy showing actual species from one major group to another. Hope to hear from you soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Huntard,
It’s great that you have decided to join our little discussion; I hope you enjoy it. I am only going to respond to one or two of your points because our posts get longer and longer as each new point is made or rebutted. Sorry! Huntard writes: Yes, exactly as evolution predicts. The offspring of something will never be radically different from its parents. So, if I understand what you’re saying here {I have been accused of misrepresenting people} is that evolution predicts that once you have a fish it will always produce fish; never anything other than a fish? Correct?
Huntard writes: No you won't, since this evidence has already been provided to you. Actually, in fact, no one has given me any evidence that mankind has ever been less then mankind. Lets just simplify the question. Can you give me any evidence that you are ancestrally related to any ape? Thank you for your interest,JRTjr P.S. Please, if I have over looked some piece of evidence that has been given to me e-mail me a copy of the post. You can do that through E v Cs own internal mail system. Again, Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Razd,
Razd writes: Ergo the first phrase of the first Amendment to the constitution can be rendered as meaning:
Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law in connection with an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law referring to an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law relating to an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law with reference to an establishment of religion, ... Great; so why, IF Congress {The only branch of the Federal government charged will making law} may not make a law with reference to, relating to, referring to, in connection with, concerning, or regarding an establishment of religion is the Supreme court restricting the established Christian heritage of the United States of America? Let’s not forget the second Half Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof And, again I ask; Where, in the Constitution of the United States of America is establishment Forbidden? What you just correctly quoted states implicitly that the Government is not allowed to restrict an establishment of religion. There are no restrictions placed on an establishment of religion in the U.S. Constitution. This was the whole purpose of the First Amendment. To keep Government from interfering in religion; There is no such restriction on religion interfering in government. Thank you for your time and effort,JRTjr P.S. What you or I believe or like/dislike is irrelevant in this discussion. I.e. Whether or not I like something does not automatically make it true or faults. A statement is it true or faults based on the accuracy of its claims. Whether you like it or not the Moon is not made of cheese. Telling me that ‘Just because I would like the Moon to not be made of cheese, do’ sent make it so. ’; and it does not make it ‘not so’ either.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024