It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Fat chance, your religion is not a protected set of statements that science can't address, in fact science is called to address statements that are completely unsupported by the data and then to call them out on it.


Christianity is not true because it is not supported by scientific evidence, therefore do not pass go and do not collect 200!

edit on 21-10-2010 by quantum_flux because:




posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
You are not a true Christian.


Are you? If you are then you are qualified to debate what a "true Christian" is or is not. If you are not one, then you have no basis to stand on.


My God. Do I have to be a "war criminal" before I possess the qualifications to debate what a "war criminal" is?



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by snusfanatic
 


In America--and only in America, let it be noted--the Christian faith has been hijacked by a group of refugees from real life who have not even read the book they insist on taking so literally. This is obvious because no-one who has actually read much of the Bible can possibly take it literally. Not in this day and age, at any rate.


This "group of refugees from real life" is larger than we would find comforting. The demagogues fly in private jets while the destitute masses mail them their welfare checks in the hopes of divine favor and a speedy Armageddon. Its awful.

You are, however, woefully mistaken when you say that they "have not even read the book they insist on taking so literally". As I repeatedly assert, the Fundamentalists *do* read the Bible - painstakingly. They commit all of its infantile contents to memory. This is, in fact, why they *must* take it so literally - it is specifically prescribed by the Bible. To them, the Bible represents one of the few remaining sources of comfort left to them. The vast majority of liberal Christians have been less careful in their studies and are thus more amenable to discarding faith in favor of modern knowledge.
edit on 21-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by imnotbncre8ive
 

I know. And they're spreading their greenbacked tentacles through Africa and Asia, too. I don't think that's going to last very long, though. American Christian fundamentalism is already being torn apart by its own internal contradictions. Watch for some surprises in the upcoming US mid-term elections. We'll see how the wind is blowing then.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by snusfanatic
 


I say if they teach any kind of religion in public school it shouldn't be until around the 9th or 10th grade, by that time the children should be smart enough to figure out which side they want to go with....Instead they teach them while they're impressionable and it's already ingrained as truth to them, at least with this reasoning it could give them the ability to make logical choices.....



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by imnotbncre8ive
 


First, it implies that a perfected law would accord with modern ideas of individual liberty. This is anachronistic; you're taking the moral standards of your own society (or standards of your own making) to be universal. In fact, there are no universally accepted moral standards.

The notion that there exist no moral truths is false. A moral system, presumably, is instituted for the purpose of increasing the well-being of its society. The question of how to maximize the well-being of humans is ultimately a scientific question with objective answers. Thus far, we can be fairly confident that prescriptions against murder, slavery, and adultery reliably increase our collective well-being. Human sacrifice and slavery have not been abolished by accident - it remains for us to discover what additional moral universals exist for humans. The social scientists think that we are more nurture than nature and this is simply not so (in more matters than just morals).



Originally posted by Astyanax
Second, it suggests that Jesus's silence on the subject of slavery implies that he supported it. That's assuming too much--does a slave's silence imply support for slavery? Perhaps you're getting Jesus confused with St. Paul, whose epistles suggest he thought slavery was perfectly okay.

You cannot compare Jesus's silence with a common slave's silence. Jesus was allegedly the son of God who, as the OP stated, came to "perfect the laws" - if he took issue with slavery, he should have said something about it given his lofty credentials. A slave's silence is the result of necessity - what unsavory fate awaits an unruly slave back in the day?

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. ... Luke 12:47-48

St. Paul thought slavery was perfectly okay? Another red mark against the Bible.


Originally posted by Astyanax
But why believe anything in the Bible at all? The New Testament is just as full of errors and lies as the Old. Although one or two of its canonical texts date back to the first century AD, many are much newer; and the canon itself attained its final form only in and after the third century. Some texts as old as the canonical ones were rejected, mostly because they didn't fit with later Christian doctrine or contradicted events described in books of the canon. We may rest assured that very little of what the historical Jesus (if there was one) actually said, taught and did has been transmitted accurately.

Exactly - I wholeheartedly agree.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by snusfanatic
 



reply to post by imnotbncre8ive
 



The Bible explicitly states that every part of it is true in its literal interpretation.


The Bible says no such thing. While there are several verses that make the claim that the Bible is inspired by God the Bible never makes the claim that it should be taken literally. Not only does it not make this claim explicitly it doesn't make this claim implicitly either. And, in fact, there are parts to the Bible that cannot or obviously should not be taken literally (the poetic language of some of the Psalms, the parables of Christ, etc)

With regards to literal interpretation: I believe you are right and I was mistaken. I cannot find the quote I had in mind, and I suspect the quote was probably something from the Koran instead of the Bible. Here I stand corrected. I should therefore amend my statement to "The Bible explicitly states that it should not be cherry-picked". Jesus states this in Matthew 5:18-19 and John 10:35. If that's a mistake, then I trust you'll keep me honest - I gather you're a former fundamentalist from your forum signature.

A question, if I may: why do the fundamentalists believe that the universe was created in 7 days and that Noah really built the boat? Do they take these parts literally and others not literally?


Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

You are not a true Christian.


This statement is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. You cannot decide who is and isn't a Christian.

A Christian, presumably, is one who accepts the teachings of Jesus Christ. I hope we agree on that at least. As I pointed out earlier, Jesus states that one must follow the entirety of Scripture. I concede the point that one need not interpret all of it literally, but this is still problematic because some sections can *only* be interpreted literally. My contention is that the OP is not a true Christian in this sense - he is a cherry-picker.


PS. L4D2 is full of lulz. Esp Dark Carnival
edit on 21-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I see that you joined the board two days ago.

I've been on many Internet forums over the years, and most of them are all about aggressive assertions and being bold in how one depicts others in exchanges. It might be a good idea for you to allow the general atmosphere of each specific forum to reveal itself to you before you commit yourself to a participation temperment.

I'll be nice and say that perhaps I was overly aggressive in my first post to the OP.



Originally posted by NorEaster
The subject of Origins and Creationism might be considered controversial, but it's not as immediately influential as Politics, and needn't be as personally vitriolic. This person may very well be a faithful Christian, and hold beliefs that the Catholic Church has recently adopted. After all, if not for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't even know who Jesus was or have any idea what the term Christian means. As painful as that is for an American Evangelical to accept, this is the truth. The Catholic Church is responsible for the Bible, and for the Christian faith as we know it today.

This is great and all, but you must have me confused with someone who actually believes the Bible. I would sooner pinch a loaf on the Bible than lose sleep worrying about going to Hell.


Originally posted by NorEaster
And the Catholic Church sees no issue with the concept of Evolution.

Not anymore. It can no longer justify beliefs in opposition to heliocentrism or evolution by natural selection. It is, however, interesting that the Catholic church still condemns the use of contraception in regions of Africa where AIDS is epidemic.


Originally posted by NorEaster
That said, there are less offensive ways to present your point. It'd be nice to not see that kind of behavior in forums that deal with more sophisticated levels of debate.

Do you manage a playground in real life? Because I was never very good at the playground.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by imnotbncre8ive
 




A question, if I may: why do the fundamentalists believe that the universe was created in 7 days and that Noah really built the boat? Do they take these parts literally and others not literally?


You're right, I was raised a fundamentalist. To this day I'm still not sure why there is such an emphasis on taking Genesis and the story of the Ark literally. Even with the indoctrination I went through I never really believed Genesis literally so its just as much a mystery to me as it is to you. Probably the biggest thing that got on my nerves, even when I was a Christian, was that they wanted to take the beginning of Genesis literally but still claimed the serpent was Lucifer/Satan even though Genesis says no such thing. In truth most of them are cherry pickers like you said, selecting what they want to take literally while throwing other parts out.

Matthew 5:18-19 seems to suggest that Jesus endorses the Old Testament Laws although he might have merely been referencing the Sermon on the Mount which he just delivered. There are numerous verses which say scripture is inspired by God but none that tell us whether or not God wants us to take it literally... its particularly confusing considering the fact that many books of scripture were thrown out of the Bible, even some that had been considered part of it for centuries. In the end its no wonder people pick and choose what to take literally because the Bible doesn't appear to have a clear cut stance and isn't really a coherent unit anyway... more like a Frankenstein Monster of myths, poems, fables, etc.

And yes, L4D2 is epic... I just need to find a burger tank and I'll be a one man cheeseburger apocalypse



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
The Bible is not a literal text, and most books should not be viewed as "happening" in chronological order. Hence, the reason why the Rapturites are so wrong in their assertations.

I agree with the OP.
I do not want lukewarm Creationism taught in schools,
where teachers themselves may not subscribe to any of it
and therefore, will not teach it correctly (I mean in an unbiased
theory based way, not an absolute).

As far as "letting one's children" decide their own religion by not having them
practice anything growing up...
I beg to differ. And that is why we have so many unhappy and
disenfranchised youth in our land. (at least one reason, anyway)

If one is an atheist, parents will
teach their children that doctrine of thought as their right.
Parents of all God based or "higher power" faiths should provide an example of their
religious faith to their children.
And also answer honestly questions about other religions that are bound to come up
(yes, they have in our family).
After all, parents are to guide their children in all things,
not just leave them twisting in the wind to make their own assumptions.

If one provides a solid example of true faith in a religious doctrine, and
the child decides not to follow that religion, then at least you have provided
an example of what solid faith in a belief is, for them to decide for themselves
as adults what to do or not to do. They will have choices as adults, regardless.
A foundation of true faith will teach them, at the very least, how to commit to something.
Plus, it fosters family togetherness.

If one follows a faith devoutly, but does not allow their children to follow their faith, because
"I want them to figure out for themselves what to do", then that isolates the child from the
parents, and confuses them as well. If anything, it would make a child feel as though
they weren't good enough to go to church/synagogue/ temple with their parents, or that
their parents didn't care enough about them to share an integral part of their lives.

I find that most people who further this school of thought usually do not practice any kind of religious
life, other than believing in a "higher power". That is your right and fine for your family.
Don't put mine down because we have solid beliefs that include everyone in the family. It isn't
brainwashing, it is simply showing your children that you believe in "X", and as long as they are at home in the family unit, they are to participate too. If they come to a different conclusion than yours, or
want to explore other options, then fine.

A solid belief system (whether Christian, non-Christian, or atheist) being fostered in family life
is a protection, actually, and keeps children from feeling lost, thus going out into the world and joining
bizarre cults or strange religious sects, or even a church like Westboro Baptist Church, simply because
they feel the need to belong to something that feels positive, nurturing, and/ or spiritual, with people who care. Those kinds of practices look specifically for people who are uneducated about religion, but looking for "something." Some of the most moral people I know are atheists, and they have happy children who also are strong in the beliefs of the parents. It is about family solidarity and strength, not brainwashing.

That would be the same as not teaching children anything about the
different government models in the world, then stating it is their "choice"
if they decide to become members of the KKK, communist party, Taliban, et al., and
not trying to guide them down a better path. Would you feel as free thinking
and hands off if that happened in your family?

Or would you lament, stating, "I don't know why he/she joined them. That certainly
wasn't the way they were brought up."

Just my opinion.










edit on 21-10-2010 by thegoodearth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive

Originally posted by Astyanax
In fact, there are no universally accepted moral standards.

The notion that there exist no moral truths is false.

That is not what I said.


The question of how to maximize the well-being of humans is ultimately a scientific question with objective answers.

Answers that science does not, as yet, have, so your statement is one based on faith. I thought you didn't do faith.


Thus far, we can be fairly confident that prescriptions against murder, slavery, and adultery reliably increase our collective well-being.

Adultery? Really?


The social scientists think that we are more nurture than nature and this is simply not so (in more matters than just morals).

I am not a social scientist. Why don't you stop flailing at false assumptions and argue with me instead?--if, that is, you really think we have anything to argue about.


Jesus was allegedly the son of God who, as the OP stated, came to "perfect the laws"--if he took issue with slavery, he should have said something about it given his lofty credentials.

Maybe God doesn't think slavery is wrong. He seems to care little about human suffering, on the whole.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by snusfanatic
 

You've put your case beautifully, and I agree completely.

Spirituality is an important part of my life, and I've taught my children my beliefs. They don't completely accept them, and I'm happy to see them working out their own beliefs and paths in life. A belief should be something solid in your heart, gradually put together from your own experience. Despite being brought up as a Christian, I don't understand the concept of telling people what to believe. God has made himself known to me, and I believe he can make himself known to anyone who needs him without the need for a religion full of dogma.

At high school in Australia I had to sit through 60 minutes of Religious Instruction from the local minister each week. There were various religions taught at the same time, in different rooms, by the various preachers, and a room for "the hellbound" as we jokingly referred to it. Even in that class, devoted to religion, we were put of religion rather than drawn to it. I was passionately Christian, and had begun a Sunday School in my home town, running it on my own, at 14. But even I could not swallow the nonsense the preacher tried to teach, and ended up banished to the back of the class with the "unteachables," for asking too many questions.

One memorable day the minister announced he had proof God created us. He had some number (C) which supposedly scientists had arrived at to show what a minute chance there was of human life occurring on a planet. This was supposed to prove life could not occur by mere chance. Later in the same lesson, he was extolling the glories of the universe, and told us there were approximately 1,000,000 x C planets in the heavens. He got really angry when I pointed out that what he was saying meant that, going on the law of probability, there was most likely a million planets out there with human life on, and thus he'd not proven God's creation of us at all.

And at the same time as ministers were ineptly trying to prove the existence of God, they were denying the possibility that one might experience God for oneself, leaving me wondering if they really believed anything they were teaching.

If we want our children taught religion, we need to be pretty careful who we choose to do it, because, as you point out getting non-believers to do it is counterproductive, and many people who profess fervent beliefs are hypocrites or idiots. And kids often see through these types faster than adults do.


I have my suspicions that TPTB want to degrade education until they have a class of completely uneducated poor, people left with no way to move up in society or to give their children hope, who they can use as slave labour. I expect they have infiltrated the fundamental religions and are behind the Tea Party's desire to stop government funding of education.

Slavery brought great wealth to certain families. When they could no longer have slaves they resorted to the drug trade to fill the gap. Now they'd like to have the best of both worlds, using drugs to kill off the hopes of communities, and having "slaves" who they don't have to fence in, because there will be nowhere to escape to for people with no hope and no education, whose brains are full of dope or fundamentalist religion.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Astyanax:

You said "In fact, there are no universally accepted moral standards." to excuse Jesus's tacit support of slavery in the New Testament (I have already addressed your second point regarding why his silence *does* indicate tacit support). Now I wish to address your first point regarding moral standards.

Even if I accept your assertion that there are no "universally accepted moral standards", it is still possible that there exist moral universals or ideals that we, as a species, should strive to discover and implement. This means that if we compare the moral standards of modern American society (though it has its faults) with that of the ancient Incas, for example, we can objectively state that one moral system is superior to the other.

As it happens, I don't even accept that there are no universally accepted moral standards. There are no modern societies, to my knowledge, that still accept the institution of slavery or allow murder to go unpunished. We, as a species, have made some progress in this regard. From our more "enlightened" perspective, we can condemn the slavery of Jesus's time as surely as we can disregard the notion that the Earth is flat.


Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive

Originally posted by Astyanax
In fact, there are no universally accepted moral standards.

The notion that there exist no moral truths is false.

That is not what I said.


No, but it is relevant nonetheless. Your implicit premise is that no moral universals exist. They do - we don't have all the answers yet, but we can surely agree that slavery is not one of the ideals. How is it that Jesus, in all his perfection, missed this? Or perhaps he simply put it on his "To Do" list - the one for when he returns to Earth.


Originally posted by Astyanax

The question of how to maximize the well-being of humans is ultimately a scientific question with objective answers.

Answers that science does not, as yet, have, so your statement is one based on faith. I thought you didn't do faith.

By "science", I do not here refer to only peer-reviewed science practiced by academic institutions. We, as a species, have empirically seen that allowing slavery and murder is not the best way to enhance our well-being.


Originally posted by Astyanax

Thus far, we can be fairly confident that prescriptions against murder, slavery, and adultery reliably increase our collective well-being.

Adultery? Really?

We could debate all day long about adultery - I'm not advocating that we directly punish adulterers. I can assure you that the vast majority of men would not be pleased if they discovered their adulterous wives. This is not a matter of culture.


Originally posted by Astyanax

The social scientists think that we are more nurture than nature and this is simply not so (in more matters than just morals).

I am not a social scientist. Why don't you stop flailing at false assumptions and argue with me instead?--if, that is, you really think we have anything to argue about.

Where did I ever say you were a social scientist? Your implicit premise that there are no moral universals is much like the thinking of many cultural anthropologists - humans are not infinitely malleable.
Which of my assumptions are false?


Originally posted by Astyanax

Jesus was allegedly the son of God who, as the OP stated, came to "perfect the laws"--if he took issue with slavery, he should have said something about it given his lofty credentials.

Maybe God doesn't think slavery is wrong. He seems to care little about human suffering, on the whole.

And that is why I have never been on good terms with Gawd.
edit on 21-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I actually agree with the idea simply based on the fact that I don't think schools should teach anything about any religion.

Teaching anything in schools persuades students to think it is 100% fact.

Just because it's what some people choose to believe does not make it fact because there are many others who don't believe the same way.

Without any concrete proof no one can say any religion is 100% fact.

Since there will never be any concrete proof behind the validity of any religion, it does not belong in a school curriculum.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
This means that if we compare the moral standards of modern American society (though it has its faults) with that of the ancient Incas, for example, we can objectively state that one moral system is superior to the other.

By whose standards?


There are no modern societies, to my knowledge, that still accept the institution of slavery

Saudi Arabia
Sudan
The United Arab Emirates
The Sultanate of Oman
Want more?


...or allow murder to go unpunished.

Would you like to come and spend a few weeks as my guest here in my native country? Or in any modern kleptocracy or petty despotism? Want a list of countries where extrajudicial murder is a weapon of statecraft?


Your implicit premise is that no moral universals exist.

No.

I suggest you view my exchange with the OP on this thread: Absolute Morality: Does it Exist? I think you'll find the whole thread interesting, actually, and may well be moved to participate in it.


We could debate all day long about adultery - I'm not advocating that we directly punish adulterers.

Adultery is often both a source of happiness and a palliative for misery. It is also something that is genetically hardwired into both human sexes. I'm not interesting in debating its 'moral' aspects either.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Which of my assumptions are false?

All the premises on which your contention with me is based. You have read me completely wrong.

edit on 22/10/10 by Astyanax because: of an ill-placed slash.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
This means that if we compare the moral standards of modern American society (though it has its faults) with that of the ancient Incas, for example, we can objectively state that one moral system is superior to the other.

By whose standards?

It is interesting that exceedingly few non-Muslim women choose to convert to Islam and submit to Sharia law. On the other hand, a great many Muslim women flee the abuses sanctioned by Islam.


Originally posted by Astyanax

There are no modern societies, to my knowledge, that still accept the institution of slavery

Saudi Arabia
Sudan
The United Arab Emirates
The Sultanate of Oman
Want more?

Is slavery specifically sanctioned in the laws of these countries? Or are you merely pointing out that slavery still exists "off the radar"? The fact that slavery still exists is no surprise.


Originally posted by Astyanax

...or allow murder to go unpunished.

Would you like to come and spend a few weeks as my guest here in my native country? Or in any modern kleptocracy or petty despotism? Want a list of countries where extrajudicial murder is a weapon of statecraft?

"Extrajudicial" is the key word.


Originally posted by Astyanax

Your implicit premise is that no moral universals exist.

No.

You're right - my bad. I had tunnel vision and was focusing too much on the statement "there are no universally accepted moral standards". See my response at the very bottom.


Originally posted by Astyanax
I suggest you view my exchange with the OP on this thread: Absolute Morality: Does it Exist? I think you'll find the whole thread interesting, actually, and may well be moved to participate in it.

I'll check it out.


Originally posted by Astyanax

We could debate all day long about adultery - I'm not advocating that we directly punish adulterers.

Adultery is often both a source of happiness and a palliative for misery. It is also something that is genetically hardwired into both human sexes. I'm not interesting in debating its 'moral' aspects either.

Adultery can also be a source of misery for the other partner, depending on the circumstances. Murder is also genetically hardwired into humans.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Which of my assumptions are false?

All the premises on which your contention with me is based. You have read me completely wrong.

Let me try again - you believe that abolishment of slavery is not necessarily a moral universal. If this is the case, then Jesus's lack of action on the matter is perfectly acceptable. If, however, abolishment of slavery *is* a moral universal, then Jesus is at fault for not denouncing it.

EDIT: I read your first post (the big one) in the thread you linked. It was pretty epic. My misinterpretation of you many posts back was a phenomenal waste of time.
edit on 22-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by imnotbncre8ive
 

We're getting into details now.


Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
It is interesting that exceedingly few non-Muslim women choose to convert to Islam and submit to Sharia law. On the other hand, a great many Muslim women flee the abuses sanctioned by Islam.

Do you have any statistics for this? A brief cruise around web sites where Muslim women gather will show you that the decision to adopt the hijab, for example, is often personal and voluntary. You may find the attitudes of many of the women posting on these sites quite surprising.

In my own personal experience I have known two women who chose to adopt the hijab of their own free will. Neither is married. One is a wealthy Shia Muslim from the Dawoodi Bora community (in which such matters are left to personal choice--there is no religious sanction). Her reason for covering up was that in her flowing robes she was no longer bothered by the casual sexual harrassment most women have to suffer on the streets of any South Asian country. As for the other woman, she is a former Christian who converted to Islam for reasons concerning which I have thought it politic not to inquire.

Another female convert to Islam in my (rather backward, I'm afraid) country was recently jailed for publishing a book in which she compared Islam with Buddhism (her former religion), to the detriment of the latter. Buddhism is more or less the state religion here, and we have some ferocious, bloodthirsty Buddhists.

As recently as fifteen years ago, you rarely saw a woman covered from head to foot on the streets of my city. Nowadays, they're a common sight. Muslims in my country are a small minority and are not, in general, Islamic fanatics; on the contrary, they are fairly liberal and westernized compared with the Buddhists and Hindus who outnumber them. They are also subject to the common law of the land, except that they are allowed to take wives up to the number of four and inheritance law for Muslims is amended accordingly.

The matters we're discussing are more complicated than they appear from the coverage they get in the Western media. Occidental attitudes towards such things seem frighteningly naive to me at times.


Is slavery specifically sanctioned in the laws of these countries?

I don't know, but it is irrelevant. These countries are not democracies. Their laws are made, not by popularly elected legislators, but by ruling elites, usually hereditary. Legal codes in such places reflect the interests of the elite far more than they do popular ideas about morality. In any case, the laws only apply to the ruled. It is the rich and powerful who hold slaves--but then, it was ever so--and nobody can touch them.


"Extrajudicial" is the key word.

No, it isn't.

I envy you. You live in a nation that is (despite the protestations of your radicals and conspiracy theorists) governed by laws above which no man is held to be, laws drawn up by popular consensus and respected by all. This causes you to regard a statute in a book as somehow having more absolute authority than the ruler who enforces it. Lucky you. The truth, in most of the world, is quite the contrary.


Adultery can also be a source of misery for the other partner, depending on the circumstances. Murder is also genetically hardwired into humans.

And both are considered acceptable, as you would expect, in certain societies under certain circumstances. In many places today, adultery is always punishable by death--of the woman--but murderers can evade punishment simply by paying blood money to the victim's family.


You believe that abolishment of slavery is not necessarily a moral universal. If this is the case, then Jesus's lack of action on the matter is perfectly acceptable. If, however, abolishment of slavery *is* a moral universal, then Jesus is at fault for not denouncing it.

Look, imnotbncre8ive: you're making this into more than it is. Essentially, you and I look at things from a very similar perspective--the only specific difference I can see (apart from the effect of our differing life experiences) is that I tend to seek the reasons why human beings do what they do in evolutionary biology. I'm not sure where you choose to look for them. About Jesus--well, I'm not sure if the man even existed, but if he did he certainly wasn't God, and his words are not (to me) representative of any divine order. The Sermon on the Mount alone suffices to show this: if Jesus's words on that occasion are correctly reported, then God wants us to abandon all our natural instincts towards comfort and physical security--instincts He must, if He exists, have given us in the first place--and live like tramps. As for the whole 'mystery' of Jesus's supposed divinity, it is fraught with logical absurdities.*

Now Jesus (or whoever invented him) was clearly a moral innovator, and his innovation was precisely this: he humanized the laws of the patriarchs, the putative laws of God. He did this by encouraging his followers to treat all human beings as their genetic kin. An interesting insight for him to have, two thousand years before E.O. Wilson. But he wasn't God, he was a man of his time. Among his people, in his time, slavery was common, but not as cruel as it was in other cultures, for Jews had, by Mosaic law, to set free all their slaves every seven years. Doubtless Jesus had a blind spot about slavery--or equally likely, he was realistic enough to understand that his message would make no headway if he went against the economic order of his time, which was partly based on slavery. The famous 'render unto Casear' line suggests he was aware that you can mess with all kinds of things and get away with it, but mess with people's money and you're toast.

Either way, it makes no matter, except when arguing with people who think Jesus's behaviour and statements set some kind of absolute moral standard. I'm not one of those people.
 

*Though adjensen is going to be along any second now to tell me how wrong I am.




edit on 22/10/10 by Astyanax because: long posts raise devils.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!



I am a Christian. I believe that God spoke the universe, and all life in it, into existence - in whatever manner it is that God speaks. I believe that natural world, its four dimensions of space and time, was a designed one - planned out in the mind's-eyes of an all powerful being. This is why I plea to my fellow Christians, legislators, and religious leaders: Keep my religion out of the Science Classroom!

I believe that the attempt to teach the theology of creationism as science is nothing less then a conspiracy. Organized groups, which I'm ashamed to say, share my same faith are working today to pass off my holy-scripture as a science textbook. They seek to influence leaders and school boards to teach (usually only the Christian version of) creationism as an alternative to evolution. This is not only a possible violation, a subversion, of the Establishment Clause of our constitution but, I believe a detriment to my faith.

That's right, I argue this, not for the sake and benefit of science but for the sake and benefit of religion.

Here are my 2 reasons, presented as questions to my fellow Christians.

1. Who do you trust to teach your child theology?

Do you trust a minister, yourself, or a government employed science teacher? If you feel that our religion is important enough to be taught, then surely you feel that it is important enough to be taught correctly. In a theology classroom, a teacher who has devoted a large part of their education to serious thought and study about our faith speaks to students who have come to learn. What do you imagine it is like in a science classroom? I received a short lesson on creationism in my ninth-grade biology class and, let me tell you, it's not pretty....

The teacher was disinterested and flippant. He taught the basics of Genesis all wrong and turned every question by students into a joke. I kept my mouth shut. How could I be angry at this teacher? How could I expect him to understand a faith that's not his own, or even if he did understand, to teach it fairly? The truth is, you can't expect such things. Which leads me to my greater questions.

2. Do you want your belief in an all powerful creator to hinge, in the eyes of every public school student, on the validity or invalidity or Evolution?

Christianity has changed over time, it has accepted new scientific and social insights and incorporated them into its world-view. I ask you, did Galileo have to be a black eye on the history of Christianity when his findings were eventually accepted and incorporated into our religion anyways? Of course not.

When Creationism is taught in school, it is taught as the "alternative" to evolution. Disgusting. Christianity is not the "alternative" to any science. Many Christians claim to believe in both creation and evolution (as I do), yet (unlike me) say that is all the more reason to give the two ideas "equal time" in the science classroom...

Equal Time? As if the two ideas are political candidates vying for your one, binary, vote? If you believe in both evolution and creationism then the question is not binary at all, and therefore there is no reason to call for 'equal time.' When you call for equal time and the teaching of our theology as an alternative to science, you hinge the validity of our theology on the invalidity of science. If you choose to go down this path, first remember Galileo, and then be prepared for 1,000 more black eyes to our faith!

You will have an entire generation of children thinking that the answer to existence is either one, or the other. That if they choose to accept the evidence science presents, then there is no room for God left in their life. You are driving God out of lives! Is that not the opposite of what you are commanded to do by your own scripture? So, I conclude by synthesizing point one and two...


IMAGINE, for a moment, a world where each child is to be receive daily education from a secular, government employee, disinterested in your faith. This employee's job is to teach your child what measure of science he knows, with the full weight of text books and his college education behind him. He is then to present a warped and demeaning version of your religion to the children. He resent this and takes every opportunity to deride it while he does so. Finally, at the end of each lecture he tells the children that these are "alternatives" that they must pick one or the other; the silly-superstition or science. For many students this is their first view of Christianity, as ugly, simple and the exact-opposite of enlightenment.

This is the world you ask for when you try to put our theology in schools.

Be Careful What You Pray For,
Snusfanatic










posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Why did your God call himself a Jealous God, if their is nothing to be jealous about? IE He's suppossed to be omniscient/omnipresent etc! That's if He even is a He?



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
That you christians cannot even agree on what the bible says is proof enough that creation theology has no place in the science class. In order to achieve some semblance of a consensus, consider honestly subjecting your religions to the scientific method. After all if the bible is truth then the scientific method honestly applied ought to bear that out right? Spend a couple more millennia on this and get back to us.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join