Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
368 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (9 members, 359 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,401 Year: 1,149/23,288 Month: 1,149/1,851 Week: 273/320 Day: 45/87 Hour: 0/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 331 (115499)
06-15-2004 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by custard
06-15-2004 4:59 PM


custard writes:

(Did you know that Bill's sweaters contained secret messages? All you needed to decode them was the right amount of mescaline and an old pair of reading glasses. Brilliantly infernal).

That explains everything. What a relief. I spent years trying to decode Mr. Rogers sweaters. And all that time I thought I had a bad batch of Maui Momma.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 4:59 PM custard has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 331 (115532)
06-15-2004 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by custard
06-15-2004 7:15 PM


More likely this one but I could be wrong


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 7:15 PM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 8:08 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 331 (142178)
09-13-2004 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Robert Byers
09-13-2004 6:04 PM


You say evolution belongs in thev clasroom and religion elsewher.{sic}

Correct.

Fine so do creationists. However the origins of things and beings is a subject that now attackes and without rebuttal the Christian religion.

Incorrect on so many levels it's silly.

First, Creationism is both lousy science and worse theology. That is why every major Christian and Jewish Church have come out supporting teaching the TOE and opposing the teaching of creationism. It is a subject that cannot get support even within the Christian community except from small splinter sects that can't afford snakes to dance with. Mainstream Christianity wrote creationism off even before Darwin published his theory.

Toe is saying the Bible is wrong and then rebuttal is prohibited.

The TOE does not say the Bible is wrong. Facts showed that the account in Genesis was wrong long before the TOE was written.

Toe has contrevened the separation of church and state in your country and so must and willed be overruled.

Nonsense. Again, that is why all major Christian and Jewish faiths have come out in support of Evolution and opposing teaching creationism. Creationism is simply nonsense and is rightly, ignored both as science and as theology.

Let the truth be contended over and keep the government and courts out of it except to ensure the truth is not interferred with.

No problem. Since there is NO truth to creationism, it is excluded as the crap it is.

Why should Toe,ers be afraid of competition in the market place of ideas.

They aren't. Should a creationist ever have one, please let us know.

Robert, you need to realize that creationism is a joke. Not a good joke, not even a well done pun, more like a shaggy dog story, you know, the kind where the punchline is obvious from the beginning and it's so silly you know that there has to be a kicker in there somewhere. So you listen all the way through only to realize at the punch line that that's all there was. There really was no meat, no point, nothing original, nothing worth waiting for. Nothing.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 6:04 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 331 (147822)
10-06-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 1:43 PM


Re: I'd teach Genesis from the authorized KJV
whatever

Once again you are simply making incorrect statements.

Its time to replace TOE because your violating the Constitution to shove your myths based off assumptions down the church attending public schools.

First, EVERY major Christian Faith supports teaching Evolution and NOT teaching creationism. That has been shown to you time after time. The Episcopal Church supports teaching Evolution, the Presbyterian Chuch supports teaching Evolution, the Roman Catholic Church supports teaching Evolution, the Lutheran Church supports teaching Evolution, the Methodist Church supports teaching Evolution.

The TOE is not atheistic and it's time you stopped asserting that it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 1:43 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 2:17 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 51 of 331 (147834)
10-06-2004 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 2:17 PM


Re: I'd teach Genesis from the authorized KJV
Well,whatever, let's explore that.

You say, "jar, Toe doesn't support origin came as stated in Gods Word.", yet every major Christian Church seems to disagree with you. They all support teaching the TOE and oppose teaching creationism. It seems that every najor Christian faith thinks you're wrong.

Yet again you say "the athiestic religion of TOE". Since every major Christian religion accepts the TOE, how can it be considered atheistic?

So how about adding, as has been suggested, a Comparitive Religion Course? IMHO, it's something that would lead to far more informed students. There, all of the myths, Genesis, Buddhist, Hindu could be discussed on equal footing. It could be regionalized. In the US the 200 or so American Indian creation stories could be covered. In Australia, Genesis could be taught right alongside the Aboriginal creation tales, in Europe, Norse and Druid creation stories could be added. In Asia, the Shinto and Chinese myths could be added. In the Middle East Genesis could gather with the Sumerian tales, the Greek God's and the Babylonian myths that came before.

At the end of the semester, the students could vote for their favorite creation myth and paint the story on one of the outside walls of the school. Each class could add a mural until all the walls were filled with murals. It would be glorious, Dream Time next to Genesis, next to Egg, next to Turtle, next to Raven, next to Atum rising from Nu and mating with his shadow.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 2:17 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 3:22 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 61 of 331 (147920)
10-06-2004 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 7:05 PM


Re: Secular?
Here is a list of Churches that have come out in support of teaching Evolution and opposing teaching creationism.

Religions Supporting Evolution

These churches and religious organizations have come out in opposition to teaching creationism in school:

* American Jewish Congress
* American Scientific Affiliation
* Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
* Central Conference Of American Rabbis
* Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
* The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
* Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
* The Lutheran World Federation
* Roman Catholic Church
* Unitarian Universalist Association
* United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
* United Methodist Church
* United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 7:05 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:06 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 66 of 331 (147932)
10-06-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:06 PM


Re: Secular?
Frankly, they believe that GOD created the universe. But HOW is a totally different story. They have no problem believing that there is a common ancestor and that we all evolved from slime.

Here is a link to the Pastoral letter from Bishop Sims.

The important part is that every single major Christian Faith supports teaching the TOE and opposes teaching creationism. Not one of them consider the Genesis tale to be accurate or realistic. As Bishop Sims reported...

The 74th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta, in formal action on January 31, 1981, acted without a dissenting vote to oppose by resolution any action by the Georgia Legislature to impose the teaching of Scientific Creationism on the public school system.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:06 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 331 (147942)
10-06-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:23 PM


Add a few more.
here is the resolution pased by the Episcopal General Convention:

THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed so­called "balanced treatment" laws requiring the teaching of "Creation­science" whenever evolutionary models are taught; and

Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such "balanced treatment" laws; and

Whereas, the terms "Creationism" and "Creation­science" as understood in these laws do not refer simply to the affirmation that God created the Earth and Heavens and everything in them, but specify certain methods and timing of the creative acts, and impose limits on these acts which are neither scriptural nor accepted by many Christians; and

Whereas, the dogma of "Creationism" and "Creation­science" as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and

Whereas, "Creationism" and "Creation­science" is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it

Resolved, that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the "Creationist" movement, and be it further

Resolved, that we affirm our support of the sciences and educators and of the Church and theologians in their search for truth in this Creation that God has given and entrusted to us; and be it further

Resolved, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the "Creationists" into legislating any form of "balanced treatment" laws or any law requiring the teaching of "Creation­science."

67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982.

and the American Jewish Congress:

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS

The American Jewish Congress is a national organization committed to the vigorous enforcement of the First Amendment provision requiring separation of church and state. The First Amendment provides "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This provision -- often called the establishment clause -- forbids the government from performing or aiding in the performance of a religious function.

Our appearance at this hearing today arises from our concern that Proclamation 60 (both alone and together with Board Rule 5) abrogates the establishment clause in three fundamental ways. The first constitutional deficiency lies in the Proclamation's glaring omission of any reference to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The second constitutional deficiency lies in the Board Rule's requirement that evolution be singled out for a special negative treatment not required in connection with the teaching of any other scientific theory. The third constitutional deficiency arises from the fact that the proposed textbook standards allow for the teaching of scientific creationism. Despite attempts to describe scientific creationism as scientific theory, it is our position that scientific creationism is a religious theory and that, therefore, the First Amendment's establishment clause prohibits its being taught as science in public school classes.

It seems apparent that, in establishing the proposed textbook standards, the intent of the State Board of Education has been to avoid conflict with a particular religious doctrine and to allow for the inclusion of religious theory in the science curriculum. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the approach employed by Proclamation 60 is unconstitutional. In 1968, in a case titled Epperson vs Arkansas, an Arkansas biology teacher asked the Supreme Court to declare void a state statute which prohibited the teaching of evolution and which prohibited the selection, adoption or use of textbooks teaching that doctrine. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional. In its opinion the Supreme Court stated:

"The First Amendment's prohibition is absolute. It forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of a theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma."

Under the standards so clearly articulated by the Supreme Court, Proclamation 60 and Board Rule 5, as presently written, fail to satisfy the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state. In order to comply with the applicable constitutional provisions, the proclamation and board rule should be revised in three ways. First, evolution should be clearly included in the science curriculum. Second, evolution should be taught as are all scientific theories and should not be singled out for special negative comment. Finally, the proposed textbook standards should make clear that scientific creationism is not to be taught as scientific theory. Rather, because there is no constitutional objection to teaching about religion, public school teachers should simply tell their students, when evolution is taught, that there are certain religious groups whose members do not accept the Darwinian theory and advise them to consult with their parents or religious advisors for further guidance on the subject.

The American Jewish Congress believes that this approach is not only fully consistent with the Constitution but is also an effective means by which to resolve objections to the teaching of evolution.

Should the Board of Education fail to take the steps necessary to make the Proclamation constitutional, then the result could lead to textbooks which do not meet constitutional standards. And that mistake would be a costly one to the taxpayers.

Testimony in behalf of the American Jewish Congress by spokes­ person Nina Cortell before the Texas State Board of Education, responding to Proclamation 60, setting forth specific content rules for biology and science textbooks to be adopted in 1984.

And the Roman Catholic Church:

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (1981)

Pope John Paul II

Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.

Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1981.

and the United Methodist Church:

UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,

Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,

Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,

Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,

Be it resolved that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce "Scientific" creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.

Passed June 1984, Iowa Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church.

and the Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders:

LEXINGTON ALLIANCE OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS

The following ministers and religious leaders are very much concerned with and opposed to the possibility of "Scientific Creationism" being taught in the science curriculum of Fayette County Schools.

As religious leaders we share a deep faith in the God who created heaven and earth and all that is in them, and take with utmost seriousness the Biblical witness to this God who is our Creator. However, we find no incompatibility between the God of creation and a theory of evolution which uses universally verifiable data to explain the probable process by which life developed into its present form.

We understand that you may shortly receive considerable pressure from groups advocating the teaching of "Scientific Creationism" alongside of the theory of evolution. However, we feel strongly that to introduce such teaching into our schools would be both divisive and offensive to many members of the religious community of Fayette County, as well as to those not identified with any religious group.

Please be assured of our continuing interest in this issue, and of our strong desire that the Fayette County Public Schools not permit the teaching of "Scientific Creationism" as an alternative "theory" to evolution in science courses.

1981; signed by 78 Kentucky ministers and religious leaders.

Shall I go on?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:23 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 131 of 331 (567706)
07-02-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by JRTjr
07-01-2010 11:51 PM


Since the United States of America was founded by Christians so that Christians could follow the dictates of their faith (religion) without fear of reprisal from non-Christians (both in government and in the privet sector) our monuments and historical documents are fraught with references to our faith and our God.

That is not quite true. It would be closer to the truth to say that some of the colonies were founded so that certain Christian Sects could follow the dictates of their faith (religion) without fear of reprisal from other Christian sects and exclude the other Christian sects from power and influence.

However that is irrelevant to the founding of the United States. The United States was most definitely NOT founded for religious reasons, certainly not Christian reasons. The United States was founded to resolve economic, political, commercial and territorial disputes.

Religion DID play a part, but it was a negative influence. The fear of one or more of the many different Christian sects (particularly the Puritan and Fundamentalist sects of New England) gaining power and influence was a major stumbling block to be resolved before any of the colonies would consider uniting.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by JRTjr, posted 07-01-2010 11:51 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 10:54 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 170 by JRTjr, posted 08-22-2010 5:37 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 144 of 331 (572211)
08-04-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by JRTjr
08-04-2010 4:07 PM


On Founding Father's intents
JRTjr writes:

At least with the Supreme Court we could elect presidents that would put people on the Supreme Court that would eventually override these rulings and get things back to the way the Founding Fathers intended.

Which of course is utter nonsense.

It is absolutely irrelevant what the Founding Fathers believed and they certainly knew that it would be irrelevant.

The intent of the Founding Fathers was to create a society that met their needs but that would change over time to meet the needs of each generation. That is why they created a system that can change, designed in planned inefficiencies, and put the greatest power in the Supreme Court who also serve the longest terms.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by JRTjr, posted 08-04-2010 4:07 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by JRTjr, posted 09-04-2010 8:23 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 154 of 331 (572921)
08-08-2010 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by JRTjr
08-08-2010 4:26 PM


Re: Banning religious symbols is freedom of religion?
JRTjt writes:

O.K., Please, explain to me in what way does ‘a Bible, sitting in a display case, in front of a court house’ violate the First Amendment? {I.e. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

It is outside a Court House.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by JRTjr, posted 08-08-2010 4:26 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 156 of 331 (572924)
08-08-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by JRTjr
08-08-2010 4:26 PM


Back to teaching Creation myths
This also has nothing to do with whether the Christian Creation myths should be taught.

Personally, I think a course in Comparative religion or Sacred Studies should be part of a basic education. Kids should be taught what different religions have had to say over history and the horrors caused by religion taught to all kids.

I also think teaching kids all the different creation myths, or at least many of the more interesting ones is a great idea. The two mutually exclusive Judaic-Muslim-Christian myths though are a special case.

The Judaic religion is the only religion I'm aware of where mutually exclusive creation myths are included and teaching them will help the kids learn that Bibles are the product of man and not god.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by JRTjr, posted 08-08-2010 4:26 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by JRTjr, posted 09-30-2010 4:47 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 161 of 331 (573282)
08-10-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by JRTjr
08-10-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Banning religious symbols is freedom of religion?
JRTjr writes:

So, the fervently healed belief that this universe is ‘all that there is’ can be defined as a ‘Religion’ and, of course, the name of that ‘Religion’ is ‘Atheism’.

To claim that there is some "fervently held belief that this universe is all that is" or even "a belief that this universe is all that is" are in themselves simply misrepresentations of atheism.

First, they are simply word salad, strawman creations that have no meaning in reality and serve only as an attempt misdirect the audience attention while you try to palm the pea and change the subject.

Second, they have nothing to do with the subject of atheism.

Third, they deal with concepts unrelated to the topic of this thread which is "Which religion's creation story should be taught?".

Fourth, should it be decided that the two mutually exclusive and contradictory Judaic-Muslim-Christian creation myths should be included among the creation stories taught, how much time should be set aside to help the kids understand why the people that decided on the stories to include in the Bible chose to include both folk tales and even place the newer, younger folk tale first?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by JRTjr, posted 08-10-2010 4:15 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 12:38 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 171 of 331 (576080)
08-22-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by JRTjr
08-22-2010 5:37 PM


Re: NOT founded for religious/Christian reasons
I've looked for your evidence but have not been able to find any so far.

Even more important though is the topic of this thread; "Which religion's creation story should be taught?"

There is no "Christian Creation Story", in fact the Creation myths in the Bible are mutually exclusive.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by JRTjr, posted 08-22-2010 5:37 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by frako, posted 09-30-2010 3:19 PM jar has responded
 Message 229 by JRTjr, posted 11-02-2010 7:49 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 177 of 331 (579342)
09-04-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by JRTjr
09-04-2010 8:23 AM


Re: On Founding Father's intents
So changing the ‘Constitution’ was not supposed to be easy, and the ‘Supreme Court’ is not the branch of our government that is charged with making changes to our ‘Constitution’.

Changing the Constitution is not easy and fortunately, the SCOTUS has never changed the Constitution.

BUT...

what does any of that have to do with :Which religion's creation story should be taught?"


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by JRTjr, posted 09-04-2010 8:23 AM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by JRTjr, posted 11-02-2010 9:22 PM jar has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020