|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,575 Year: 2,832/9,624 Month: 677/1,588 Week: 83/229 Day: 55/28 Hour: 1/10 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Which religion's creation story should be taught? | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
almeyda writes:
more antitheism from almeyda? I have yet to see real science support the belief of a religon besides the Bible. the only trouble hindus have is that the scientific age of the universe is not old enough ... see hindu fundamentalist creationismCreationism: The Hindu View buddhism aligns with quantum physics too, and there are several books on the topic. One geared to popular consumption is "The Dancing Wu Li Masters - An Overview of the New Physics," by Gary Zukav. perhaps the lack of perception of alignment is not due to the understanding of other religions as much as it is due to the lack of understanding of science? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I like their version of the flood ... (you know that old canard creationists tout about all religions having a flood myth ...)
of blood from a slain giant. heh. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
almeyda writes:
actually the science of evolution, geology, physics and astronomy have severe "disagreements" with the bible. no science disagrees with the Bible, only evolution which is a theory claiming that evolution "is just a theory" does not make it any less of a science than the others mentioned. this is a back-door self-delusional type argument ... "no science disagrees (but any that do we don't recognize as science so we can tell ourselves this is true) ..." enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the hindu model of the universe would be a lot closer to the Ekpyrotic theory of repeating brane collisions:
"Brane Storm" Challenges Part of Big Pang Theory"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current universe is [a] four-dimensional membrane embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, something like a sheet of paper in ordinary three-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat and leading to the expansion of our universe." Ovrut said that in modeling a collision of branes, his group found that the result would be a universe that fits neatly with predictions of the Big Bang. It produces similar temperatures and causes the resulting universe to expand, for example, and creates matter with the same uniformity predicted by inflation. The difference results in one distinctive observational prediction, though: Inflationary cosmology predicts a spectrum of gravitational waves that may be detectable in the cosmic microwave background. The ekpyrotic model predicts no gravitational wave effects should be observable in the cosmic microwave background. The term ekpyrosis means "conflagration" in Greek, and refers to an ancient Stoic cosmological model. According to the model, the universe is created in a sudden burst of fire, not unlike the collision between three-dimensional worlds in our model. The current universe evolves from the initial fire. However, in the Stoic notion, the process may repeat itself in the future. This, too, is possible in our scenario in principle if there is more than one brane and, consequently, more than one collision. Who knows, it may be closer to the truth than the standard model ... and multiple "creations" would be a severe problem for some, eh? We'll have to wait and see which "tests out" better. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi JRTjr.
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. So, in this case then, as it is written by Deists, so the Constitution is Deist, yes?
quote: Clearly a Deist reference. NOT your Christian "God All Mighty" ... sorry. Or your logic sucks (just one of many possibilities).
Message 290: Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is establishment Forbidden? It's easy to actually read the documents involved you know. America's Founding Documents | National Archives
quote: Bold added. Doesn't get clearer than that. All amendments become part of the constitution by definition. Simply stated the congress cannot pass any laws that favor or disfavor any of all the world's religions. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added amendment #1 by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Theodoric,
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.
I am not sure what this mumbo-jumbo means, but I think you are trying to say that it is what you believe so it is true. Am I right? Amusingly we have this little document of historical import: The Framers of the Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
quote: Curiously, though each member is described, only one has any mention of religious affiliation listed. From this we can easily conclude that the religious affiliations of the members was not a matter of importance among those writing the constitution. Christians keep trying to re-write history, but unfortunately - for them - history is not so kind as to change because they want it to. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi JRTjr
The words respecting and prohibiting do not mean favor or disfavor. That's all you got? Equivocation on the meaning of words? Sadly, for you, this does not mean that you can establish a state religion in any way. I repeat what I said in Message 292:
Message 290: Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is establishment Forbidden? It's easy to actually read the documents involved you know. America's Founding Documents | National Archives
quote: This is of course written in the english of the times. Respecting Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: Thesaurus.com
quote: 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, ... That answers your question, whether you like the answer or not is irrelevant. Just because you would like the American history to be richly guided by Christian beliefs, it just is not so. Even the Christianity that was practiced by some people (in addition to many other religions) is not like the modern Christianity and pretending otherwise will not make it so. Americans at the time the Constitution was written were very well aware of the evils that come from the establishment of state religions, with the persecutions and murders of others, and most particularly when the oppressed moved to the colonies and then became the oppressors. For these reasons they allowed for the free practice of ANY religion or related belief but specifically ruled out the possibility of the establishment of a state religion. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : mrclrty by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi JRTjr,
Great; so why, IF Congress ... may not make a law ... is the Supreme court restricting .... The Supreme Court is the final say on interpreting the constitution, that is how the checks and balances work out. They have consistently ruled that public funded operations cannot be for the benefit of any one religion, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc nor for the benefit of non-religion (atheism). Suits get brought before the courts where states etc have tried to pass a law that contravenes the constitution, and the Supreme Court has consistently struck those inappropriate unconstitutional laws down.
... the established Christian heritage of the United States of America? Sorry, there is no "established Christian heritage" in the USA and there never was. In the USA ALL beliefs are equally represented regardless of faith.
Let’s not forget the second Half Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Which is why you can go to the church of your choice. Which is why you can pray to the god/s of your personal choice. Those rights are curiously not infringed in any way by having laws that prevent people like you trying to establish a federal state religion that would infringe on those rights for people that do not believe as you do, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Deist, etc., agnostic, ignostic or atheist.
There are no restrictions placed on an establishment of religion in the U.S. Constitution. As long as it does not involve public funding or government support (such as public schools etc), all beliefs -- whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Deist, etc., agnostic, ignostic or atheist -- are equally able to set up churches and meeting places for the practice of those faiths ... as long as it does not involve public funding or government support (such as public schools etc).
This was the whole purpose of the First Amendment. To keep Government from interfering in religion; AND vice versa.
There is no such restriction on religion interfering in government. However, once you do that, you then cause government to interfere in religion. That is why there needs to be a "wall of separation" between church and state, as the founding fathers decreed, and why the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled for separation. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024