Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 44 of 331 (147394)
10-05-2004 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate
06-15-2004 3:30 AM


I'd teach Genesis from the authorized KJV
America is going down the slippery slope because they are not honoring the constitution, in respect to evolution, you have Thomas Jefferson one of the founding fathers defining the separation from the government freedoms to include all sects, including the infidel, this means that the infidels were not suppose to be allowed to preaching TOE's godless doctrine of origin happened by chance, while not allowing the Christian Religions equal time, the Evolutionists are given the same separation freedoms from the government, as the church separation from the government powers, meaning the infidel by the bill of rights was not supposed to be given favored status by the government, it violates the infidels freedoms by giving them more freedom than the Church, it in essense has been sanctioned as the state religion, which violates the Bill of Rights.
P.S. If your going to teach Creationisms, might as well teach the science part that is now called Intelligent Design, that only teaches the sciences, without the state illegally sanctioned religion of the infidel, the solution is to simply replace TOE with ID. If you must teach from Genesis, you would have to teach it more literally than the creationist interprete genesis, you'd have to include 2 peter 3:8 that clarifies that one day to God is as a thousand years, and you have to clarify that the earth can be interpreted to be billions of years old, but the fossils, and the sun are no older than 13,000 years, from this perspective the creation genesis event makes total sense, that on day one the sun became a light, on day 3 algae, plants, started growing, but on day 4 the sun became visible in the day sky(atmospere cleared)GEnesis chapter 2 talks of the mist that went up from the earth, on day 4 this mist cleared so the sun and the stars became visible in the sky, the atmosphere cleared for the animals to beable to see, that God created on day 5 &6, creationist should teach that God always was, but Genesis is talking about when the Earth being made habitable, not the actual age of the rocks, because the rocks of the earth were created in the beginning when he created the other stars, planets, etc..., but in Genesis the creation week, the earth was being molded, the sun became a star started at this point giving light, life was being created this creation week that took 7,000 years, so the fossil record can be taught that it is actually quite young, and the dating methods void, when debating from this perspective, Evolutionistic scientist will cry foul, but the creationists have reasons to believe that the rock dating is not accurate, and dating a rock is not dating the fossil(C14) or fossil imprint, check Andrew Snelling finding a petrified wood sample, that was between two basalt layers, that dated millions of years, while the wood sample dated thousands of years, that argon is rising up from the earth, affecting basalt rock dating, meaning dating the rocks is not all that accurate(likely like trying to be dating a fly on a truck scale), for the petrified wood sample Snelling talked about can not be both young and old. This is a problem with the religion of the state teaching as if its a fact that you can date fossils by the sediments that buried them(its not a fact)(its an belief based off an assumption), and this is violating the peoples constitutional Bill of Rights, to force a state godless religious belief's upon the children as if they are facts cast in concrete, the infidels was never suppose to have this power by the state to teach their beliefs(we now know that its a common creator and not a common ancestor), while the infidel are free to believe whatever they believe, they were never suppose to be empowered above their separation freedoms from the government to believe whatever they wanted to believe, what they did was became the state religion, which violates the constitution saying they were not to be empowered above the other religious beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-15-2004 3:30 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Mammuthus, posted 10-06-2004 7:49 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 46 of 331 (147815)
10-06-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mammuthus
10-06-2004 7:49 AM


Re: I'd teach Genesis from the authorized KJV
You miss the point that the constitution bill of rights give you the right to believe whatever you want to believe, but the state was never suppose to give you the right to force your belief upon the churches as a state supported belief on the origin of life.
The infidel according to Thomas Jefferson gave you the same separation from government protections as the different religions including the Hindu, buddist, etc...
What happened is the athiest religion has become the state sponsored religion. This clearly violates your rights under the Bill of Rights. Your dating methods are all based on assumptions. Not that I disagree that the earth itself was created before the Creation week, because the bible itself agrees with you in this respect. However your theory rest upon the unscientific premise that the fossils are the same age as the rocks. TOE is based on assumptions(cry foul when argon rising, leaching, and other side related topics is brought up), Creationists should be allowed to preach that they disagree with the dating methodologies, and why. Because its the truth, that your atheistic religion was never suppose to be the state religion. Your sunday school, catachesim of athiesm (secular humanisms)should be outside of the public school forum, because it violates the separation freedoms in the constitution according to Thomas Jefferson.
Its time to replace TOE because your violating the Constitution to shove your myths based off assumptions down the church attending public schools. TOE should be taken out of the schools, just teach ID the micro-evolution, biology, and leave out the age of the fossils because its based on assumptions, that the fossils are the age of the earth. The creationists all realize your making this leap of faith, that the fossil is millions of years old, without science thats not based on assumptions. Then the children are being told its a fact, and the bible errored, when all you base this all on is assumptive reasoning. In truth your simply preaching your belief upon the children of the United States, that are being raised Christian, Muslim, Buddist, and violating the bill of rights, to force the infidel beliefs over and above these different religions. The infidel, in this case athiests teaching their religion or a godless origin, making this leap of faith that the fossils are old. The state is violating the other religions bill of rights by empowering your religion over the other religions being held to the separation protections from the government. That your religion's catachism side teaching of TOE was to be bound too, instead you have been given greater freedoms than our founding fathers decreed by the constitution, which means TOE should be taken out of the public school forum, its simply an abomination, to force godless theology upon the religion of Jesus Christ, the Muslim, the Hindu, the buddists, etc....
P.S. For all I know the gay religion will press their agenda of hate crimes through the senate in small print during evening sessions, to give them have power to attack the churches doctrines, in favor of your beliefs. The constitution never mean't for the infidel to have greater powers than the Religion of Jesus Christ. If your going to preach your religious beliefs of evolution then the Religion of Jesus Christ, the Hindu, the Muslim all should beable to preach their version of how they believe life origin came to be, science is simply not be scientific about it, because you were not there, all dating methods are based on various assumptions. There fore TOE should not be taught in the public schools, it should be replaced by ID which is not a religion as is TOE, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Mammuthus, posted 10-06-2004 7:49 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 2:03 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 49 of 331 (147826)
10-06-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
10-06-2004 2:03 PM


Re: I'd teach Genesis from the authorized KJV
jar, Toe doesn't support origin came as stated in Gods Word. Its states that origin came about by macro-evolution, common ancestor, that the fossils are old, when the religion of Jesus Christ(which does support micro-evolution), and other religions believe likely too, believe in a common creator, and not the common ancestor. Teach ID because its not in conflict with the common creator, teaches the sciences, without sponsoring the athiestic religion of TOE.
TOE should be banned based on the separation freedom violations of the government supporting the atheists religion and their dogma of the origin of life, in respect to the Bill of Right. Thomas Jefferson never mean't for the infidel to have greater rights to preach their dogma. To make matters worse the state is sponsoring their religion and not sponsoring the other religious beliefs, which is violating the Bill of Right.
This message has been edited by whatever, 10-06-2004 01:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 2:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-06-2004 2:42 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 51 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 3:00 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 52 of 331 (147837)
10-06-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Adminnemooseus
10-06-2004 2:42 PM


Re: Evolutionary Theory is Religion?
I feel TOE is just a small part of the religion of secular humanism, to increase their following however they are using the state to place their godless religion over and above the other religions of the world, how is this fair to buddhists that too are a godless based religion.
P.S. Is not buddaisms more of a philosophy of self, than a belief in a god, yet this sect according to Thomas Jefferson was to be extended separation protection from the state, truely the athiest too are a godless based religion / sect, its called secular humanisms. If the buddists is not to be empowered by the government, then neither should the atheistic religion and their dogma side shoots dogma's be given government sanction powers to preach for more converts using state moneys, using the federal public school system to the gaining of converts, into their godless based belief in respect to origin, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-06-2004 2:42 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2004 3:19 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 54 of 331 (147840)
10-06-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
10-06-2004 3:00 PM


Re: I'd teach Genesis from the authorized KJV
Jar, All of what your saying is why we should keep secular humanisms, that includes TOE out of the public school system, and why Thomas Jefferson didn't want the government to place one above the other, etc...
P.S. I'm all for taking ToE out of the public school system and replacing it with ID that is not a religion, but based on what all believe, including the evolutionist, that be micro-evolution, biology, etc...Just toss Geology 101, Paleontology 101 out, and leave the respectful sciences in, biology, micro-biology, soil sciences, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 3:00 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 3:29 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 75 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-07-2004 2:04 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 57 of 331 (147901)
10-06-2004 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 3:29 PM


Re: Secular?
NosyNed, ****Show me proof**** to support that the religions of the world support macro-evolution,*** common ancestor**, that they have no problem with this part of TOE, You will find that most of the religions of the world all agree with micro-evolution (breeding)as I have stated over and over, the bible supports micro-evolution, and only a common creator, your suggesting the religions of the world support a common ancestor, which is an outright lie.
P.S. You say its been shown to me, I say it has not, been shown to me that the majority of the churches believe its a common ancestor, and not a common creator, etc...The Catholic church believes in Evolution as do most Christian Churches, but not in your definition of evolution, that all life arose from one common ancestor, this it the problem with teaching this lie as if it is true.
P.S. ID is the more honest in respect to what the majority of the churches teach in respect to micro-evolution, because they don't discount a common creator, the very meaning of Intelligent Design infers a common creator and not a common ancestor, which is the reason you fear this theory, because it threatens your atheistic religion preaching a common ancestor, forcing this belief upon the churches, etc...
This message has been edited by whatever, 10-06-2004 06:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 3:29 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 10-06-2004 8:20 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 59 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 8:37 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 61 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 8:50 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 62 of 331 (147923)
10-06-2004 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coragyps
10-06-2004 8:20 PM


Re: Secular?
Coragyps, Thanks for the link supporting the churches belief in a common creator(God), yet accepting natural selection (this part of evolution) as not conflicting with their church doctrine, and re-affirming were a creature uniquely made by God, which means they tossed the common ancestor out, and determined that cladistic similarities to mean we have a common creator, or they wouldn't of re-affirm their belief man was made by God, etc...
We re-affirm our belief in the uniqueness of man as a creature whom God has made in His own image.
Presbyterian Mission Agency Theology and Worship | Presbyterian Mission Agency

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 10-06-2004 8:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 63 of 331 (147926)
10-06-2004 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
10-06-2004 8:50 PM


Re: Secular?
Jar, Can you prove that the majority of those churches belief is devoid of the common creator being God, or that cladistic similarities is not evidence of a common creator, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 8:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:11 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 66 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 9:16 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 65 of 331 (147929)
10-06-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 8:39 PM


Re: Secular?
Ned, You did lie, now you refuse to back up what you said, always asking others to do what you yourself refuse to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 8:39 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:16 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 68 of 331 (147937)
10-06-2004 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 9:16 PM


Re: Lie?
whatever, several times it has been pointed out to you that the majority of the religions of the world do NOT have **any** problem with the ToE.
P.S. Your task is to prove that the Churches believe that they have no problem with the Common Ancestor, You owe me an apology, because the church does have a problem with this part of TOE, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:16 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:35 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 70 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 9:55 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 72 of 331 (147945)
10-06-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 9:35 PM


Re: Lie?
Ned, Your the one that lied, its not up to me, jar, or others to prove what you said to be the truth, its up to you to back up that the doctrines of the majority of the churches support **all** of TOE, etc...
P.S. This means they believe in the cladistic similarities supports the common ancestor part without God, however, the majority of the churches put the common creator ahead of the common ancestor part, meaning they don't support **all** of TOE**, etc...Its truly frustrating talking to you, when you lie, and then say I have to believe you told the truth, do your homework, you simply owe me an apology, etc... I'm taking a break, do your homework, however, if your not honest with what you said, then you will ban me, suspend me, because of pride, whatever, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:35 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 10:28 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 74 of 331 (147969)
10-07-2004 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 10:28 PM


Re: The first Church -- Presbyterian
Ned, I believe the first church was Adam and Eve, I suggested in the past for you to read the Books of Adam and Eve, where they talked of the Word to come in the flesh(their savior and mine), and the quotes of this prophecy being fullfilled from the prophesy given through Adam, his body placed in the middle of the earth(Egypt), in respect to the Lord being called out of Eygpt, this prophecy fullfillment documented in the New Testament (kjv Matthew 2:15), however, your two quotes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't exclude the possibility nor does it endorse it. I've always agreed the majority of the Church has no problems with micro-evolution, the natural sciences, but they don't endorse **all** of TOE, your quote simply confirms this to be the case, etc...
and
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowhere is the process by which God made, created or formed man set out in scientific terms. A description of this process in its physical aspects is a matter of natural science. The Bible is not a book of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never believed Science and the bible conflict, neither does this quote, just look in a microscope, the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, the bible says invisible made the visible, and its quite interesting that while the bible is not a science text book that they don't conflict, we understand and even today being understood by the things that are made, etc...
kjv Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
kjv Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
The church supports the creation of all things by God. The church also supports what science says about how He did this. "The Bible is not a book of science." The church is not about to discuss genetics or the relationship between phenotypes and genotypes or the details of the evolution of any line.
P.S. Is this an apology, given your quote in essense saying they don't buy **all** of science, but gives it a possiblity as a theory, etc...It did say theory(right), does not mean does not have any problem with accepting all of TOE as a fact, etc... If this is not an apology then please try again, to prove their is a majority of Churches don't have **any** problems with TOE that you asserted not I to be the case, etc...
This message has been edited by whatever, 10-06-2004 11:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 10:28 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 2:12 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024