Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8964 total)
37 online now:
caffeine, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 872,990 Year: 4,738/23,288 Month: 1,643/1,286 Week: 310/615 Day: 2/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 226 of 331 (588685)
10-27-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Bikerman
08-12-2010 3:55 AM


Dear Bikerman,

If their reasons were “…completely secular in nature, being mostly concerned with legislation, taxation and supporting hostile powers/peoples…”; Then why did they appeal to “Nature's God” for their justification for writing up this ‘Declaration of Independence’?

Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (First Paragraph)

Second, the Term “Nature's God” is a direct reference to the Biblical God:

Revelation 3: 14

14 And to the angel (messenger) of the assembly (church) in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the trusty and faithful and true Witness, the Origin and Beginning and Author of God's creation

Ecclesiastes 12: 13

13All has been heard; the end of the matter is: Fear God [revere and worship Him, knowing that He is] and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man [the full, original purpose of His creation, the object of God's providence, the root of character, the foundation of all happiness, the adjustment to all inharmonious circumstances and conditions under the sun] and the whole [duty] for every man.

Genesis 14: 22

22But Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand and sworn to the Lord, God Most High, the Possessor and Maker of heaven and earth

As to the ‘Biblical Violation’?

Declaration of Independence

“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.”

“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”

Leviticus 19: 15

15 You shall do no injustice in judging a case; you shall not be partial to the poor or show a preference for the mighty, but in righteousness and according to the merits of the case judge your neighbor.

Declaration of Independence

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Ephesians 6: 9

9You masters, act on the same [principle] toward them and give up threatening and using violent and abusive words, knowing that He Who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no respect of persons (no partiality) with Him.

You may want to do some research before commenting next time.

But, hay, great hearing from you anyway,
JRTjr

(Emphasis added; all Biblical references are from the Amplified Bible)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Bikerman, posted 08-12-2010 3:55 AM Bikerman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2010 1:55 PM JRTjr has responded
 Message 228 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-29-2010 12:29 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 331 (588688)
10-27-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by JRTjr
10-27-2010 1:36 PM


Wow, I don't find that convincing at all.

I mean, even granting that some wording in the DoI looking like similiar wording in the Bible meant that it took inspiration from it, the quotes you provided don't really even look to be similiar at all.

And everybody know's that "Nature's God" is not a reference to the Christian God but instead to a Deistic god. Sheesh.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by JRTjr, posted 10-27-2010 1:36 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 9:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 228 of 331 (588913)
10-29-2010 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by JRTjr
10-27-2010 1:36 PM


JRTjr writes:

(Emphasis added; all Biblical references are from the Amplified Bible)

Just curious... when was the "Amplified Bible" published? Did the authors of the DoI have at at hand in 1776?

Face it: your clips from Leviticus and Ephesians really have no relevance at all to the DoI. As for what the term "Nature's God" actually refers to, the most likely conclusion is that it was intentionally ambiguous.

The signers of the DoI were not of one mind when it came to religious beliefs -- far from it -- and this was simply a phrasal expression that would best lend itself to multiple interpretations, suiting the multiple (and incompatible) opinions about the supernatural held by the various members of the group.

The fact that the expression "Nature's God" never appeared as such in any English translation of the Bible (or any other religious text) was, I think, a key enabling factor in getting everyone there to agree that it was okay to use any kind of phrase referring to anything supernatural.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by JRTjr, posted 10-27-2010 1:36 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 229 of 331 (589479)
11-02-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jar
08-22-2010 6:14 PM


Topic of this thread
Dear Jar,

Jar writes:

”I've looked for your evidence but have not been able to find any so far.”

Man, whom looks with eyes closed, sees nothing.

You may as well tell me you don’t see the evidence for the 9/11 World Trade Center tragedy, the holocaust, etc.

If you actually look at the historical documents and the people that founded the United States of America you almost can’t help tripping over the evidence.

Jar writes:

”Even more important though is the topic of this thread”

Agreed, unfortunately, I find myself bombarded with retorts to secondary topics. I am simply trying not to ignore people whom respond to my posts; even if they are ‘off topic’.

Jar writes:

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

O.K.?

Do “Christian Creation” Stories/Myths not exist: or do the ones that do exist contradict each other?

It is hard to respond to your statements when you say two mutually exclusive things.

Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 6:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 11-02-2010 8:09 PM JRTjr has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32341
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 230 of 331 (589482)
11-02-2010 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by JRTjr
11-02-2010 7:49 PM


Re: Topic of this thread
JRTjr writes:

Jar writes:

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

O.K.?

Do “Christian Creation” Stories/Myths not exist: or do the ones that do exist contradict each other?

It is hard to respond to your statements when you say two mutually exclusive things.

If you read carefully you will see that I do not "say two mutually exclusive things."

I say that there is no Christian Creation story. Note, that is singular. That is also a fact. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have several creation myths, the newer myth found in Genesis 1 and the much earlier primitive story found in Genesis 2&3. Two Creation myths. And they are mutually exclusive, if one is true then the other is false. Of course we know that neither one is factually correct, and both are refuted by the evidence of the universe itself.

So the question is "Should we teach both of the Christian creation myths, and if so, is there any reason that we should not include a broad selection of other myths as well as the verifiable evidence that refutes all of them?"


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by JRTjr, posted 11-02-2010 7:49 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 10:26 PM jar has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 231 of 331 (589492)
11-02-2010 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by bluescat48
08-22-2010 8:31 PM


Which ‘god’?
Dear Bluescat48,

Great to hear from you.

Bluescat48 writes:

“Nowhere does it mention the Christian God, simply God. That God can be a Deist God.”

I responded to this claim in two different postings {This one; and This one}; so I hope you will go to those postings and read them.

Also, if you will note that the term “God” is referring to one specific being; I.E. The Declaration of Independence does not say ‘Nature’s god; gods; goddess; goddesses, or no god at all’

Therefore, if it is not the ‘Christian God’ that they were referring to which ‘god’ were they referring to?

Before you answer that question, though, remember that 75% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence identified themselves as being Christian.

Thank you for your interest,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by bluescat48, posted 08-22-2010 8:31 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 232 of 331 (589493)
11-02-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by jar
09-04-2010 9:32 AM


Re: On Founding Father's intents
Dear Jar,

You asked:

Jar writes:

“What does any of that have to do with: Which religion's creation story should be taught?”

Whether or not a particular ‘Creation Account’ should be taught in public schools depends on many things; one of which is whether or not it is permissible for ‘religious material’ to be presented to students.

The argument that presenting ‘religious material’ is a violation of the ‘Separation of Church and state’ is one of those things.

I believe this is the reason that our benevolent Administrators have allowed this line of thought to continue.

Thank you again for your comments,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 09-04-2010 9:32 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by jar, posted 11-02-2010 9:53 PM JRTjr has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 233 of 331 (589496)
11-02-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by crashfrog
09-12-2010 6:33 PM


Federal Government document!?!?!?!?
Dear Crashfrog,

Great to hear from you once again.

Crashfrog writes:

“It can't be a "Federal Government" document since it predates the existence of the US Federal Government by a decade.”

So? What you’re saying is that the ‘Declaration of Independence’ has no bearing on this Nations founding? That it’s signers, whom risked life and limb to free us from the oppression of England, had no comportment on the formation of our government?

A “Federal Government document” simply means that it has bearing on the government; not, necessarily, that the Government produced it.

Thanks again,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2010 6:33 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Larni, posted 11-03-2010 8:12 AM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 244 by Larni, posted 11-03-2010 8:12 AM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32341
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 234 of 331 (589497)
11-02-2010 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by JRTjr
11-02-2010 9:22 PM


Re: On Founding Father's intents
The thread begins with an assumption that religious creation myths can be taught.

quote:
If we are to teach creation in public schools, which creation story should we teach? Do we teach Genesis? If so which version of Genesis? Do we teach the story of the Norse gods carving the world from the bones of giants? Or the Hindu belief that the world is God's dream? Heck, even Christians don't agree on a literal six-day creation less than 10'000 years ago or Genesis as metaphor for divinely inspired evolution...

I say evolution belongs in the science classroom and creation belongs in comparative religion...


So the question is "Which religions creation myths should be taught?"

The intent of the Founding Fathers is of course, irrelevant since we are talking about what should be taught today. For example we understand that the intent of the Founding Fathers was that a slave would be considered three fifths of a freeman. Even if the intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Christian Creation myths should be taught, we are dealing with today.

The OP also specifies that creation myths should be in a comparative religion class, and so the issue of separation of Church and State is not an issue.

So the question is, which Creation Myths should be taught? Should we include both of the Christian Creation myths and which other myths should be included to fill the coursework?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by JRTjr, posted 11-02-2010 9:22 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 10:45 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 235 of 331 (589499)
11-02-2010 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by jar
09-12-2010 6:51 PM


Re: Possible Christian Curriculum
Dear Jar,

Yes, they could teach it that way if they were completely incompetent, and had done no research; or simply chose to lie outright about the Biblical account of creation.

Which, by the way, many have done.

Or, they could teach:

Genesis 1: 1 States: “IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.”

The ‘Big Bang’ shows that the universe had a beginning.

Genesis 1: 2 States: “The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.”

Archeological evidence supports the fact that, before life appeared on Earth, the Earth was both clothed in darkness, and that water covered the whole face of the planet.

And then the next 22 verses place things in this order:
1) The atmosphere became translucent.
2) Light became visible on the surface of the Earth.
3) Land emerged.
4) God created vegetation on the land and it grew.
5) The atmosphere became transparent.
6) Birds and sea creatures were created.
7) God created land animals.
8) God created Mankind.

As far as the Fossil record goes there seams to be only one thing out of order here. That would be the ‘Birds’ coming before the ‘land animals’. However, that is not proof that the account is inaccurate; just evidence that (A) the writer is wrong about that one thing {May I add that, this is one possible error out of 12 named events} or (B) the Fossil record is incomplete.

Then, any studious teacher, would point out that chapter two of Genesis is a continuation of a single topic {God’s preparation for; and dealings with mankind}, not a rehashing of the creation account.

Please check out this chart of the Creation days

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 09-12-2010 6:51 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by jar, posted 11-02-2010 11:08 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32341
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 236 of 331 (589502)
11-02-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by JRTjr
11-02-2010 10:54 PM


Re: Possible Christian Curriculum
I'm sorry but does ANYTHING in your post have to do with what teh Genesis 1 account actually says, or with the mutually exclusive account in Genesis 2&3?

and again, what does that have to do with the topic or the issues raised in Message 234

quote:
The thread begins with an assumption that religious creation myths can be taught.

quote:
If we are to teach creation in public schools, which creation story should we teach? Do we teach Genesis? If so which version of Genesis? Do we teach the story of the Norse gods carving the world from the bones of giants? Or the Hindu belief that the world is God's dream? Heck, even Christians don't agree on a literal six-day creation less than 10'000 years ago or Genesis as metaphor for divinely inspired evolution...

I say evolution belongs in the science classroom and creation belongs in comparative religion...


So the question is "Which religions creation myths should be taught?"

The intent of the Founding Fathers is of course, irrelevant since we are talking about what should be taught today. For example we understand that the intent of the Founding Fathers was that a slave would be considered three fifths of a freeman. Even if the intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Christian Creation myths should be taught, we are dealing with today.

The OP also specifies that creation myths should be in a comparative religion class, and so the issue of separation of Church and State is not an issue.

So the question is, which Creation Myths should be taught? Should we include both of the Christian Creation myths and which other myths should be included to fill the coursework?


JRTjr writes:

Yes, they could teach it that way if they were completely incompetent, and had done no research; or simply chose to lie outright about the Biblical account of creation.

Actually, looking at what YOU propose as compared to what is actually in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 I would let the audience decide which version is more likely a lie.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by JRTjr, posted 11-02-2010 10:54 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 237 of 331 (589503)
11-03-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2010 11:50 PM


What Madison, who wrote the First Amendment, had to say
Dear Dr Adequate,

Dr Adequate writes:

“As has been pointed out, that was Washington.”

I do apologize for this oversight. You are correct it was President Gorge Washington and not President Thomas Jefferson. I have made the correction on post #180.

Dr Adequate writes:

“But while we're on the subject, let's hear what Madison, who wrote the First Amendment, had to say”

You may also want to read my post #149.

Thank you again for your participation,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2010 11:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 238 of 331 (589505)
11-03-2010 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by hooah212002
09-30-2010 5:10 PM


Myths, Legends, Science??
Dear Hooah212002,

Hooah212002 writes:

“Mythical stories do not belong in science class. End of discussion. They are not scientific.”

So, the Komodo Dragon should be kept out of science classes; It has been a mythical creature longer then it has been known to science?

How about, the Mountain Gorilla long thought by scientists to be nothing more then a myth.

Or, Giant Squid, the Giant Panda, etc.

All of these creatures have been, at one time or another, considered pure myths until someone found one.

So, just because something is a myth, does that automatically disqualify it for scientific investigation?

And, how about the Creation account that has evidence to support it. Do we just ignore the evidence simply because it supports what some call a ‘mythical’ Creation account?

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by hooah212002, posted 09-30-2010 5:10 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-03-2010 4:31 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 239 of 331 (589506)
11-03-2010 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by hooah212002
09-30-2010 5:34 PM


Re: Banning religious symbols is freedom of religion?
Dear Hooah212002,

Hooah212002 writes:

“Take a better look at the rest of the definitions there smart guy.”

The rest of the definitions do not apply; that in no way changes the fact that, by definition, 'Atheism' is a religion. What more is there to say?

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by hooah212002, posted 09-30-2010 5:34 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 240 of 331 (589509)
11-03-2010 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
10-01-2010 12:58 PM


Re: Atheism!?!?
Dear Jar,

Jar writes:

“No, no version of creationism should be taught in any science class.”

So, no evidence that may even allude to creation should be allowed in public school; Right?

Should we yank the ‘Big Bang’ theory? If the universe had a beginning it had a beginner. That sounds an awful lot like creationism to me.

Or maybe we should not teach about DNA. DNA is passed on from parent to child and insures that the child will be of the same species as the parents. (Unless altered by mankind) DNA is also an information rich system; Information transmission is the hallmark of intelligence; sounds an awful lot like a Creator to me.

I believe ‘Science’ should only be restrained by Facts, and Evidence. Not by what someone believes or wants to accept.

If there is good and strong evidence to support a hypothesis, why should it be held back from our students?

Thank you for your comments,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 10-01-2010 12:58 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Rrhain, posted 11-03-2010 3:22 AM JRTjr has responded
 Message 246 by jar, posted 11-03-2010 10:32 AM JRTjr 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