Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 1962 of 2073 (889226)
11-11-2021 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1961 by EWolf
11-10-2021 9:23 PM


quote:
This issue may be better addressed by a discussion on whether religion should be encouraged in education or not
More importantly the question is whether sectarian dogma should be presented as fact in schools - when the evidence is greatly against it,
quote:
Yes, the student should be made aware of and familiarized with the widespread presence of the evolutionary mindset. But if evolutionary teaching is to be seen as that of pure science, then why do scientists that support Biblical creation tend to be looked down upon? Please?
How should we react to people who reject science while claiming to be “scientists”? .And the dishonesty noted among creationists hardly helps.
quote:
Why do many teachers tend to prefer to teach evolution in the absence of Biblical truth?
Because they prefer to teach the truth over false sectarian dogma.
quote:
Honest science does not support evolution.
That’s an example of creationist dishonesty - perhaps not on your part, you may well have been deceived yourself. Nevertheless it is a fact that honest science overwhelmingly supports evolution,
quote:
Biblical Christian religion is the usual target of long standing controversy. With such as the basis of self government and good behavior, why the big fuss toward throwing it out of public life? Is it not it that keeps you and me from wanting to harm each other?
There’s whole issue of religious freedom - which rules out the theocratic tyranny wanted by “Biblical Christian religion” (which is not Biblical nor very Christian). And then there’s the very bad behaviour of those promoting it which rather contradicts the idea that their religion is the “basis of good behaviour”. If it were its followers should be notably better behaved than most, rather than notably worse.
quote:
Was it not the gradual, ongoing removal of the Biblical religious standard from our culture that accelerated the increasing rise and overflow of the chaos we see around us today?
No.
quote:
Freedom to live this standard that America's founding fathers gave us at great cost should never have been under attack as it now is.
The Founding Fathers of America gave the freedom you want to take away. In part because of the abuses of the Puritans. Look up the Boston Martyrs. Look up the history of Maryland. The Founders ruled out religious tests for office. The Founders gave America the First Amendment - and the religious freedom there is the basis for keeping sectarian dogma out of schools. And how are you forbidden from “living the standard”? Think about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1961 by EWolf, posted 11-10-2021 9:23 PM EWolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1977 by EWolf, posted 11-12-2021 10:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 1980 of 2073 (889262)
11-13-2021 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1977 by EWolf
11-12-2021 10:16 PM


quote:
I'm speaking of truth in its purity, not sectarian dogma.
So you absolutely do not want creationism taught in science classes. Which is odd, given all the references to creationism in your post.
Creationism is a sectarian dogma - one that is rejected by many Christians. Indeed you seem to be referring to Young Earth Creationism which is rejected by even more Christians.
quote:
Does one have to force his religion in order to act it?
I don’t think so but I certainly got the impression that you did. How else would a ban on teaching creationism in science classes prevent you from following your religion?
quote:
Have I not previously said that all decisions and actions are based on ones religion whatsoever it may be, thus making it impossible to act apart from it? Even the person that claims to have no religion lives by his religion of "no religion."
I’ll note that “no religion” is obviously not a religion.
More importantly you never connected the original assertion to any point.
quote:
Does the attainment and support of scientific knowledge that supports Biblical truth disqualify the scientist that acquired it to the point that he should be counted as a quack? Should the knowledge gained be counted as sectarian dogma?
I’m not aware of any significant scientific knowledge that supports creationism. I am aware of a vast collection of apologetics for sectarian dogma - apologetics that are often less than honest. (But then religious apologetics are often less than fully honest).
quote:
Does truth fear falsehood or is it the other way around? Truth has no problem when presented beside the falsehood that it exposes
Regardless of the question of “fear” there is the point that it is much quicker and easier to make a false assertion than it is to refute it. Classroom time is limited. Using it to promote the views of a sect - and then taking time to refute those claims - would seem a poor use of it. The more so since all sects would claim the right to have their views presented - imagine having to discuss the Book of Mormon when dealing with pre-Colombian history!
quote:
Would you please inform me of a scientific or a mathematical law that supports evolution? It only takes one law to disprove it.
You really don’t know much about science, do you? Though I put to you the Law of Faunal Succession as relevant.
quote:
As for which is the truthful and which is the deceiving side, whether that which promotes evolution as science or that which supports the Bible, are we not more than sufficiently equipped to discern? We travel life's journey only once.
I certainly am. Indeed Creationism is not “supporting the Bible” - at best they are supporting a dubious view of the Bible which often results in distorting and misrepresenting Scripture.
quote:
Although true that mishandling of Biblical truth abounds, does that excuse us to despise that which is genuine?
I would count Creationism as mishandling whatever truth there is in the Bible. Indeed the idea that the truth is to be found by taking myths literally seems a quite clear example.
quote:
Shouldn't we beware of the possibility that scientific knowledge and its authority may also be corrupted to be used as a weapon to promote Godless tyranny?
The mere existence of a possibility is hardly a counter-balance to a known threat. The people who want theocratic tyranny are here and they are active. Indeed the whole movement to restore prayer in schools is a part of it.
quote:
OK. Don't we both agree that sin is the cause of the chaos I stated above? But what other than Biblical truth should we depend on for controlling sin? Please?
I hardly think that forcing your religion on children is a means of ‘controlling sin”. And as for chaos wouldn’t the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 be a clear example? Did prayer in school stop that?
quote:
The first amendment protects the free exercise of good religion based on good conscience against governmentally imposed dogma that would compromise it. Please note the terms, "free exercise." Should the free exercise of good action based on good conscience be prohibited?
That is a very selective reading of the First Amendment. You omit the fact that it forbids government support for religion. Teachers - as government employees - therefore cannot use their position to advance their religion. Eg by wasting time in science class teaching sectarian dogmas like creationism instead of science. If that is the “free exercise” you have in mind then it is quite obvious that it is forbidden - and rightly so.
I also note that free exercise is not a carte blanche. Religious justification only goes so far when it comes to actions,
quote:
But why do we have unbiblical humanistic dogma forced on us especially in our schools by our government that violates the first amendment right to abide by the Biblical mandate?
First science belongs in science classes. Your sectarian dogma does not. Second, the First Amendment does not grant the right to use government positions to promote your religion - and I very much doubt you would be happy if a teacher used their position to promote Islam or Hinduism. Or even if a teacher made Christian arguments against creationism in a science class.
quote:
Should we be led to believe that the Biblical mandate is bad so that unbiblical behavior may appear and thus promoted as good
I would not count creationism as good religion. If the “right” claimed would only be granted to Creationists and not to the followers of other religions (as I am sure is intended) the claim is not made in good conscience. “Unbiblical behaviour” - if that means teaching the curriculum honestly and professionally - seems obviously good in comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1977 by EWolf, posted 11-12-2021 10:16 PM EWolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1986 by EWolf, posted 11-13-2021 10:40 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1989 of 2073 (889274)
11-14-2021 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1986 by EWolf
11-13-2021 10:40 PM


quote:
As for your mention of the Law of Faunal Succession, how does that support amoeba to man evolution?
Nobody claims that men are descended from actual amoebas. In addition the whole question is largely an irrelevance. The whole idea that scientific conclusions must be supported by “laws” creates a vicious circularity since the “laws” themselves are scientific conclusions.
However, The Law of Faunal Succession describes the order of the fossil record. Not only is this something that Young Earth Creationists have failed to explain evolution does explain features of the order which would be puzzling if it were not true. E.g. the earliest life we can find is relatively simple, then we only find marine life. Eventually we find animals increasingly adapted to land - while marine life continues,
quote:
What does the term, "creationist" describe other than a person that trusts and believes the Biblically revealed fact that God, the Supreme of all beings created the universe including you and me?
A creationist is someone who insists that the variety of life is largely due to individual creation rather than evolution. Though most Young Earth creationists have backtracked quite significantly on that. In large part they insist that the Biblical creation stories must be taken literally (although Old Earth Creationists allow more latitude to interpretation to harmonise more with scientific conclusions).
I will note that no creationist I have heard of insists that any of us were created outside of the usual reproductive processes. It is creation outside of those processes that is the issue - please don’t conflate them.
quote:
By whose standard that one should judge it wrong to believe this Biblical account?
It is creationist interpretations of the Bible that are the main issue. Surely it is valid - even in your view - to make challenges to that interpretation based on the Biblical text. And certainly there are good grounds to do so - the disagreements between the two creation stories and the construction of the Flood story from two differing traditions being examples - as is the rather obvious fact that the stories are myths.
Then again why should an interpretation be immune from criticism on scientific grounds? Creationists do not adhere to the cosmology of Genesis 1 - preferring the facts shown by science. Why should other aspects of the story be treated differently?
quote:
What truth is the DOI paragraph below based on?
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness---That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"
Who are our rights thus based on? Who gave us the purpose of government?
It is based on belief - which is not necessarily true. Indeed, since some of the Founders were Deists it certainly was not based on creationist belief.
quote:
Is the bad judgment against believers in creation truth based on a standard of a rival group called "evolutionists" that are at war against the Biblical creation account and believe that the Supreme Being that created and is holding us accountable is non-existent and unneeded? Who or what is this war over?
It is clearly about an idolatrous cult called creationism trying to set up men as false gods. The group you call “evolutionists” includes many Christians. Now there is a real example of “bad judgement”.
quote:
Although true we have several choices of brands of automobiles we may depend on for reliable transportation, only ONE choice is available for reliably transporting us through this present life and to the life beyond. If we don't believe this we will not relieve ourselves of the fact that we were told.
Again you tell us to uncritically accept the word of men. Why should we do that?
quote:
With education the process of imparting necessary knowledge, much of which is vital to our children that are our future leaders, what's the need to deprive them of the background support of the vital knowledge that we were created by Sovereignty that's holding us all responsible? Please?
Who decides that this knowledge is “essential”? Why is teaching creationism important to it? Why should we reject the findings of science that conflict with the sectarian teachings you accept? Why should we hold that any teachings of men are beyond challenge?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1986 by EWolf, posted 11-13-2021 10:40 PM EWolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1995 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 10:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1997 of 2073 (889311)
11-16-2021 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1995 by EWolf
11-15-2021 10:23 PM


quote:
What knowledge do you count as essential?
I would say that the knowledge of how to learn and how to reason is essential.
quote:
Biblical truth is settled and as unmovable from debate as pi is unmovable from the value of 3.14.
Men can’t ”settle” the truth by decree. The Bible does contain myth and legend - and there are disagreements between the books of the Bible. You can’t simply dismiss that truth because your sect teaches otherwise or because you don’t like it.
quote:
If the Biblical truth revealed to us cannot be trusted as reality then what hope do you and I have for redemption from our fallen nature and the consequent corruption around us
Many Christians hold that the central message is what counts - not trying to pretend that myths are literal facts.
quote:
Do we even realize that we are fallen?
Do you even realise that that doctrine doesn’t fit with a simple literal reading of the original story? Don’t you think that’s a sign that a simple, literal reading is not the correct way to read it?
quote:
The evolution mindset hides this vital fact. What other hope is there?
Many Christians would disagree.
quote:
Biblical truth is not from man and my speech is not based on mere belief of man's rhetoric, but based on personal testimonies as a witness to the power of Biblical truth. It
Oh, it is from men. It is certainly men who told you that the myths must be taken literally - and those personal testimonies were all from humans, too.
quote:
If you own a good business how would you like for someone to smear it to make you appear as if evil?
There are plenty of business owners who take steps to suppress criticism. Simply claiming that the business is good and calling the criticisms smears is not an answer.
quote:
As for God seen as evil, I hope you read my post to Vimesey.
I have not argued that God is evil. I leave that to people like you.
quote:
As I said earlier, scientific truth is also victimized by faulty interpretation and corrupt dogma that's meant to deceive and draw us away from Biblical truth
Indeed - creationism is exactly that. The Bible never puts a great emphasis on taking myths as fact. It’s not required for salvation. Nor is putting on an appearance of piety.
quote:
We witness today the same scenario as that at the time when Adam and Eve in the Bible were deceived into doubting God's word not to eat the forbidden fruit. The fall thus resulted. Interpretation and observations of the fossil record and the cosmos that supports evolution is the consequences of an anti-Biblical worldview
And there is a fine example of an attempt to “victimise” science through “faulty interpretation and corrupt dogma that's meant to deceive”.
quote:
A forgiven, redeemed life with God is far beyond sectarian dogma that I am also tired of. Such dogma is what makes the power of the cross non-effective as Paul warned in I Corinthians 1:11-17.
Then I guess you’d better get beyond promoting sectarian dogma and misrepresenting the Bible,
quote:
The truth of God enriches all knowledge and bring out the meaning of our lives and thus should never be removed from education.
Which is why you were bragging about finding a clever loophole in the First Amendment. No, preaching the doctrine of one religion - let alone a sect of that religion is not something that belongs in schools.
The notoriously dishonest behaviour of creationists is another count against your claim. Why would people with lives “enriched” by their belief be full of falsehood and hate and hypocrisy? If they believe that the Bible is the Word of God why do they show it so little respect? They seem to worship a Bible of their own imagining and reject the actual book - which they seem reluctant to even read.
It doesn’t make sense if things are as you say, does it?
Edited by PaulK, : Fix typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1995 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 10:23 PM EWolf has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2005 of 2073 (889327)
11-17-2021 7:43 AM


Why not Astronomy?
According to Genesis 1 the sky is a solid dome with water above it (verses 6-8) and the sun, moon and stars (including the planets) are just lights in the dome (verses 14-18)
But creationists never seem to argue for that. When they do try to take on astronomy they usually accept that the stars are hugely distant - and they also never condemn the moon landings or NASA’s planetary missions as frauds. Which they must surely be if the Biblical picture of the universe is correct.
It’s as if they know the Biblical cosmology isn’t “settled truth” at all.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2008 of 2073 (889370)
11-20-2021 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2006 by EWolf
11-20-2021 12:24 PM


quote:
If I assume all of you correct as for why religion should be kept from education except for comparison of religions, may I ask if there's any concern for the bad side effects shown on the following links?
There’s no real concern that these figures - to the extent that they are true (David Barton is notorious) - are due to the removal of school prayer. Nor do any of your sources make any attempt to show otherwise.
quote:
The free exercise and expression of Biblical religion is not a forced, inappropriate teaching of its doctrine, but freedom to exercise its good fruit.
School prayer IS forcing your religion on others. That was why it was banned.
quote:
Unbelief toward God is not like refusal to believe there's a such thing as a horse-like creature with a single horn called a unicorn, but is like ones denial of the presence of an elephant staring at him in his face.
That is rather obviously untrue.
quote:
As for you that demand proof that God of the Bible is not a figment of imagination and that the Biblical truth I shared is not the lofty words of fallen man, I need help! Please?
What “Biblical Truth”? - perhaps a start would be to do more to avoid telling unbiblical untruths. Or indeed to engage in discussion of the issues rather than simply stating opinions.
quote:
To show me how I shall carry out the proof you want, please show me how to prove that your house, car, and computer have builders and that the builders are real. Please?
For a start it is possible to see humans actually engaging in the processes of building houses or manufacturing cars. Surely you know that? Do you have anything equivalent?
quote:
The proof is all around us if we care to observe
I’m afraid it isn’t. That’s why philosophers have struggled to find arguments for the existence of god for many centuries - and still haven’t succeeded.
quote:
But when a person asking for the proof is asked will he believe God if proof is given to his satisfaction, his answer is generally "no." Is it really scientific proof that he wants?
I don’t think that anyone would reject the idea that a God existed if given proof.
quote:
Why do we find the many commands in the Bible to believe?
Because the writers didn’t have good evidence either?
quote:
There's no such thing as "faith versus science."
There certainly is.
quote:
One may have faith either way: faith in God and His word or faith in the words of those that promote evolution as science
Not really, since it is only by faith that you attribute the words to God and it is only by trust in men that you interpret them in the way you do. If asked to choose between men promoting falsehoods and science - which is a collective effort aimed at discovering the truth - then I will choose science. And that is - for instance - the case when discussing Noah’s Flood (which even Old Earth Creationists usually interpret as a local event)
quote:
The scientist shares the results of his experiments that he witnessed. Has anyone ever witnessed millions of years evolution?
As I have said, you really don’t know much about science. Science is mainly about finding explanations for why things are the way that they are. Evolution is such an explanation, resting on a huge amount of evidence and research. Ask yourself why Young Earth creationists still don’t have a valid explanation of the Law of Faunal Succession. And that’s a small part of the evidence (though one that’s been known since the early 19th Century).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2006 by EWolf, posted 11-20-2021 12:24 PM EWolf has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2020 of 2073 (889405)
11-25-2021 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2016 by EWolf
11-25-2021 12:24 AM


quote:
I speak religion as long as we are talking about religion and education. I think I said a plenty to you guys to the point that I may now taper off unless any of you may have any more unanswered questions
There are quite a few questions you haven’t answered. But it seems you’d rather talk at us rather than discuss - even though this is a discussion group.
quote:
Atheism may only be professed based on denial. Is it possible for anyone to vehemently deny what he was never informed of?
Thanks for the implicit admission that God is not at all obvious - that we need to be told about him. Although it would be rather better if you actually used this assertion to make a relevant point.
quote:
Scriptures tell us there’s none good--no not one (Romans 3:12)! We are all lil bad-bads! Our consciences bear witness of this whether we believe it or not. Don’t we all have that sense of guilt that tend to make us want to run from the “Police?” The possibility of damnation because of our fallen nature bears the weight of thousands of locomotive trios that pull long trains on our shoulders.
No, we don’t. I don’t claim to be perfect or even more than averagely good, but that’s enough for me.
quote:
Is this what leads some to the temptation to conclude that God is the cruelest of all beings and to deny His existence for apparent relief from this crushing weight?
The real reasons are the Bible and Christian theology. The former paints God quite badly in a number of places while the latter often implies it.
quote:
But this requires forgetting the good news that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish. . . (John 3:16).” When it’s necessary to turn someone into hell, God is in the position of a judge that puts his own son away for life for a crime that the son committed. What would we think of the judge if he spared the son only because it is his son? The judge would weep at the end of the workday. As written, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
And if God is all Christians say he is then he knowingly created that situation. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense (not to mention that Calvinists have a quite different take).
quote:
Because of the cross, (only what Paul said that he preached), the “banker” of whom we owe impossible billions forgave us of our crushing debt only under the condition that we honestly face up to the reality of and confess the impossible amount we owe. Who wouldn't take up on a bankers offer of such great forgiveness?
Somebody who is not aware of the alleged debt, does not trust that the person making the offer has any authority to do so and who finds the additional conditions - which you left out a rather high price. (Not to mention the disagreements over that price among Christians).
quote:
I remember the day when I came to that point the spirit of the Lord touched me and brought me peace that I never before knew.
And you also said - or at least implied - that you’d abandon your faith in God if the Noah’s Ark myth turned out not to be literally true. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
quote:
But I'm encouraged that Mr. Reality will take you by your hands and bring what I shared to your memories.
Why? You’re hardly the first person to preach untruths at us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2016 by EWolf, posted 11-25-2021 12:24 AM EWolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2025 by EWolf, posted 12-09-2021 9:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2028 of 2073 (889639)
12-10-2021 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 2025 by EWolf
12-09-2021 9:32 PM


So the reason you won’t engage in discussion is:
quote:
But Don't discussions give the opportunity to share information to help solve the issue discussed?
Presumably, then, you aren’t interested in the information - or even identifying the real problems. An interesting admission, but hardly a good reason.
quote:
Our wayward nature tends to blind us to God's noon day presence, thus making it necessary that we be informed of Him.
Let us note that that rather implausible assertion still contradicts the Biblical claim. (If it was really true that our nature prevented us from seeing the supposedly obvious it would still be a reasonable excuse).
quote:
Thanks for your admitting that you are not perfect as none of us are. But isn't there a need for us to do something about it? May we go from here?
Well, I don’t want to be worse, and creationists do tend to be worse than average. So I wouldn’t think that joining your religion would be a good thing at all. Maybe you should convert to something better.
quote:
Or is it only according to limited understanding that God is painted badly? Do you think that your views of the Bible and Christian theology are perfectly true even though you admitted that you are imperfect?
I don’t think that my limits are in question here. We don’t need perfection - and it doesn’t seem as if anyone has any better answers.
quote:
But we are concerned more of what the Bible says than what people say
The Bible was written by people - with a number of different viewpoints. So it is an example of “what people say”.
quote:
Are you sure you correctly understood all you were told about God? Are you sure you are not without a full unbiased understanding of what the Bible says about Him?
I’m pretty sure that my understanding is adequate. These aren’t highly complicated things and there doesn’t seem much nuance.
quote:
Should we blame God for man's fallen, corrupting nature?
Yes, we should - if we believe what Christianity says. That’s one of the problems. Why should man have a “fallen corrupting nature”? God supposedly created man so any weaknesses in man would be his responsibility, for a start.
quote:
Where is your heart when reading or hearing what’s said in the Bible? To see God the way we see imperfect man is fatally erroneous.
Well obviously, we can’t excuse God on the grounds that he couldn’t reasonably foresee the consequences of his actions. So you’re right in that respect. But I don’t see how there is anything there that helps you.
quote:
Ones ignorance of his debt does not negate the fact that he owes it.
However we are talking of responses to the claim that there is a debt. Surely you don’t expect me to believe that I owe a debt just because you say so.
quote:
It's unfortunate that many failed to trust the Lord's precious offer of forgiveness and consequently brought unto themselves very great loss.
You say that, but it still looks like an attempted fraud. I’m not going to pay a high price for a supposed “debt” that can’t be reasonably established. Nobody should.
quote:
There are Christians that you may trust.
There are plenty of “Christians” that can’t be trusted. And even the honest ones might be in error or deceived.
quote:
When and where did I say that?
In Message 1995 you stated:
If the Biblical truth revealed to us cannot be trusted as reality then what hope do you and I have for redemption from our fallen nature and the consequent corruption around us?
And in context it certainly appears that you meant that the Biblical myths should be taken as fact. So yes, it does appear that you can’t have faith in God to save you unless the myths are literally true.
quote:
Although admitting yourself imperfect, you yet unquestionably trust your judgment that shared knowledge based on Biblical truth is untruth?
So if I’m imperfect I have to worship men as false Gods? Perhaps you would like to explain that. Your claims to knowledge, like every other human claim, can be and should be examined.
quote:
If that's so then all I shared based on it appears only as foolishness.
This is where discussion comes in. Instead of relying on assertions you could provide support for your claims. Or perhaps you can’t because you haven’t bothered to inform yourself. If that’s so, then you are engaged in foolishness.
quote:
If you really think in your heart that knowledge based on the word of God is untruth, then why aren't you consistent with it in all points of your life even to the point that the commandments not to steal and kill appear as mythical so that you would violate them with no thought? Would you do unto others exactly what you wouldn't want done to you? I’m sure you would not!
Well thank you for that irrational rant. What you say makes no sense at all. Not accepting the Bible as a reliable source of truth hardly means rejecting ideas or claims just because they are in the Bible. There is a huge gap between being 100% right and 100% wrong. Just as there is a difference between your preferred interpretation of the Bible and what the Bible actually says. Probably quite a large difference in places.
quote:
I therefore cannot buy any of your or any of the other guy’s claims that knowledge based on God and His word with all of its wisdom is untrue
So you’ll just accept the word of men without considering even the Bible. That’s what you really mean. It’s fascinating really how little creationists understand the Bible - and how hostile they are to understanding it.
quote:
Neither can I buy any of your other claims against God.
I don’t believe that I made any “claims against God”.
quote:
Do you daily show that as the way you really think? I doubt it
I think I do. Rationally examining claims to determine the truth seems pretty important to me. If your sect doesn’t like that isn’t that an indication that they have a problem?
quote:
For one to think in any way that God and His word are undesirable and to be trashed is to fulfill the prime prerequisite to begin walking in and fulfilling the vision of Karl Marx. Is it not he that said "Religion is the opium of the people?" I’m sure none of you have any intention to go that path
I doubt that you understand the point Marx was making. But there is, of course, a huge difference between rejecting religion and endorsing Marxist views on other matters (indeed aspects of Marxism are quite compatible with Christianity - consider Acts 4:32). Indeed, much of what I have said is simply rejecting your sectarian views rather than Christianity itself,
quote:
I think too highly of you guys to think you are truly against God! Your and the others speeches appear only to be from grudges.
Maybe you should learn to distinguish better between God and men. Learn more of the variety of beliefs in Christianity. And certainly learn more about the Bible. In fact I think you should learn more to understand rather than simply “believe” - after all you can’t really believe something if you don’t understand it.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2025 by EWolf, posted 12-09-2021 9:32 PM EWolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2036 by EWolf, posted 12-26-2021 12:18 AM PaulK 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