Forum name change

I agree 100 % with you. Religion must not be taught in schools as an alternative to science. I'm a strong proponent of not teaching evolution and creation alongside each other as "science". Both are polar opposites. An adherence to creationism needs to be based solely on faith. And that's a totally different line of thought altogether....and for the same reason must not be proclaimed or taught as science. Yeah, that too, it is indeed, highly polarized. But polarization does not inhibit me. The mere fact that there is no basis for reasonable, scientific comparison between the two is what convinces me. One of the two views does not incorporate anything of the scientific method in its structure, unlike the other. Which excludes it from the realm of science.....etc etc. If people were so broad-minded as to incorporate a separate class for religion in schools, then yeah, creationism could be taught there. But I'm not totally comfortable with this idea, either. Maybe children could be exposed to religion like any other discipline this way, but it need not result in personal decisions. IMO, faith is a personal matter. A person has got make a very intimate connection with faith before he subscribes to it.....which obviously does not result from academic lessons. So....ultimately, its up to family and personal choices when it comes to faith and religion. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : refining...

Granny, IMO, this thread was more of a war of words rather than war of ideas. I may have said some pro-creation and anti-evolution things in this thread, but I won't go back and provide my argument for them for they followed in with the flow of the thread..... If I ever make a serious and specific claim on these forums, I'll substantiate it with reason....Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

There are plenty of problems with a hypothetical class of this nature. It cannot be considered fair if it does not encompass religions other than Christianity with the same degree of importance. Furthermore, there is danger in exposing kids to religion without sufficient explanation behind the claims it makes. (you can cater only so much time, and answer only so many questions in a classroom setting). Religion does not make immediate sense, like science does. And so, we're left with one alternative that is best and fairest IMO, and that is to encourage parents to teach it to their kids at home....To detach academics and religion and place religion in an entirely different domain.

Hey Buzsaw. Thanks. You've been here for while, I noticed. 7000+ posts, that's a lot! I'll agree with you.... Problem is, Buz, they don't even realize they have a soul. They'd want to physically behold it to know for sure..... When people disconnect themselves with their spiritual inner man, they become too acquainted with the material man.... And within such a worldview, life is pre-occupied with accuracy, numbers, and evidence (among other things)....souls and spirits belong in fairly tales....and it becomes ever harder to convince....No matter how logical and authentic an argument is provided, it will be bushed off as inaccurate or irrelevant to their worldview....

You're right. To produce something (let alone a complex something) out of nothing isn't logical. Its the like the story where a little kid asks his dad "what is under the universe, daddy?" and the dad tells him that a big, strong elephant is there holding the universe on its back. Next day he asks him what's under the big, strong elephant, and the dad tells him...well, another elephant...and the dad keeps stacking imaginary elephants in serial order under the universe.......but does that answer the kid's question? Nope. All he's got down to now is the bottommost elephant but he still needs to know whats under THAT elephant.....it goes on and on....If the question has a legitimate answer, it is that there has always been that last elephant and that one need not be supported by another one...he's independent. Logic provides a simple answer to a complicated question. If God does not qualify for the first uncaused causative agent, then we're left to choose from eternal matter, or eternal time, or the illogical get-something-out-of-nothing option. Of course, matter is not eternal....and if we went on and on and on travelling towards eternity we would NEVER know or have a starting point, so that's a logical contradiction right there, and so all we're left with is a illogical rut to own up. Which somehow is more appealing than the possibility of God when the entire universe contains such a high degree of complexity, order, and design... That's good but not good enough, I guess. I don't think that would suffice the evolutionists. They'd accept the Biblical account if it were testable, falsifiable and reproducible. And the Biblical Genesis account does not conform. But this does not destroy its credibility in any way. Like you said, there is logic and some physical evidence to back it up. But ultimately, I think it all goes to back to whether or nor you allow supernatural to exist in your dictionary. If you willingly kick it out, then you end up accepting equally abstract and more inexplicably bizzare theories like big bang and biopoesis... which involve concepts like singularities which defy our current understanding but are our favored resort...etc etc. Unfathomable. The rationale is that there is no basis to prove God. Therefore, a complete acceptance of the Biblical record relies on faith. Granted, it has overwhelming supporting evidence and that really is enough but again a scientific theory needs to be liable to testability, falsifiability, and reproducibility. So when evolution conforms to the scientific method somewhat better than creation, why would they believe in God? After all, isn't accuracy what they're after? And why would they listen if I told them? So the best stance I can take is to question their theory. If they are open, they will see the flaws. If not............Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

like yourself?

Sincere apologies. I plead for my word to be taken as honest, I had none of those three intentions. I guess its a matter trivialization. (I didn't invent it) But that's no excuse, I'm really sorry. There is a similar story in the Bible. That of Jonah's. But if your refer to something else, I'd want to know it. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

I looked them up, Theodoric.Not one compares in uniqueness with the Bible. I could tell that those were made up but the Bible wasn't.Hi Hyroglyphyx; You are a soul as in it's the essence of who you are? That does agree with my theology. According to it, the physical body is just a dwelling place for the real inner man--the soul. It depends on how you take it, hyroglyphyx. You have to ask yourself what defines who you are....for me, the condition of my soul defines who I am. Accuracy, evidence, numbers, theories, and facts are all surely a part of life. Definitly important. But they don't define people's lives....If a statistical study is accurate, both numerically and ideologically, then great. ....But how does that influence how I spend my day? my life? Surely life doesn't revolve around numbers and facts all the time? Hmm, yes. I found that picture funny. Have you ever felt peace? You know, when it all seems good and calm, and pleasing.....how do you explain the emotion of peace? Why do we feel peace? Why don't we? Where is its origin? What are its effects? Why is present in humans and not animals or plants? Or is it? Oh C'mon Hyro, why would you admit this to sound logical.....its okay for me to sound absolutely absurd, be happy its me and not you..... If there's one person who's messed up, its me.....you're good, right?A soul is God-given, eternal, conscious awareness of self.
Unlike the body, the soul is death-defying.
It can communicate with God.
It is the source and seat of abstract emotions
It is originally sinful
It cannot decay or grow
It can be tainted or purified
It is powerful....it dictates the material man's motives, actions, and words