darthtang aw
Active Member
this is an example of how debate can be done respectfully for the most part. well done.
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
- Thread starter snakeblitz33
- Start date
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491686
this is an example of how debate can be done respectfully for the most part. well done.
+1
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491686
this is an example of how debate can be done respectfully for the most part. well done.
+1
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiefers http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/320#post_3491682
I believe we all agree to disagree.
This has been a great thread. I followed up with most of Darth and Flowers statements. It is interesting.
It's nice break from fish tanks and build threads. I can't tell you the last time I couldn't wait to log on and read SWF.
LOL...very true, I have found it interesting as well. And no big fights...YAY!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/320#post_3491681
Flower, I am no deeply religious person. So an explanation directly from myself can not compare with your knowledge and ability to quote. I admit I am lacking in this area.But I still try. Since my upbringing has lit the candle...it just has never grown into a vast Flame yet. LOL..after looking at the shear size of your post, you got a whole bon fire going...and you did just fine on the quotes...that was allot of work.
This is the best way I can explain what I am stating.
How Jesus Christ fulfills the Old Testament
An Analysis of Matthew 5:17-20
James M. Arlandson
Why don’t Christians sacrifice animals to atone for their sins? For the same reasons the Jews don't, there is noTemple, Apostel Paul proformed the required sacrifices, and it was AFTER Jesus was resurrected and left promising to return. If it were done away with he would not have done so. All sacrifices stopped after the Temple was destroyed.
Why aren’t Christians required to keep a kosher diet (unless they want to do so out of free choice)? First show me anything that says the kosher diet is taken away? Lots of Jews don't keep kosher either, the vision of Peter and the sheet filled with unclean animals...and being told to rise and eat, was a vision about Gentiles being allowed, it wasn't about eating unclean animals at all. Keeping kosher is always a choice. Paul gave permission to eat COMMON food... 1 COR 10-25. That means that the animals were not killed in the kosher manner but the animals eaten were still the proper ones meant for food. Pork, and shellfood, cats dogs, monkeys, horses and voltures are still unclean, and are not food for you.
Why aren’t Christians required to build a central temple in which to perform carefully prescribed rituals in a land specially chosen for them? The place of the Temple for sacrifice is only in Jerusalem, even for Jews, and there is a Mosque in that place now. Places of central worship is found in every neighborhood it is called a Synagogue. The Modern Christians have churches....by the way the word "church" spoken of by Jesus... is a Synagogue,it simply means a house of meeting.
The three-year ministry of Jesus Christ, culminating in his death and resurrection and his establishment of his church, makes all the difference in the transition from the Old Testament or Covenant to the New Testament or Covenant. In those three short years he ushered in a new era of salvation, although the old era contained the seeds of the new. The way of salvation that Jesus taught, was and is still to follow the commandments. The young man who asked the HOW do I enter was told..OBEY the law AND come follow him (Jesus). It was taught much later by modern Chritianity to just follow. It is writen in Acts 15: 20-21 the last part of what is expected of the people to do if they want to learn, can go to the synagogue, for Moses is taught every week. The Gentiles were not commanded to not follow Moses, and only do the nesessary things, but rather do the necessary things AND learn of the way of Moses (the law)
Personal staement:
Nobody, not even Jews, rely on the law for salvation. Grace and acceptance from God is not a Christian concept...if you were not in good standing with God, a sacrifice wouldn't do you any good. You have to repent first, and ask for his grace and forgivness. The law or obeying it, never promised eternal life. The Gentiles thought and still do today, that Jews do the law to enter into heaven. And it is assumed and taught by modern Christianity that to do the law means you are fallen from Grace. Actually what is being said is if you think doing the law is salvation, you have fallen from the teaching of grace. The law makes promises...long life, safe from and victory over the enemy, and to not be removed from their land.
The only things writen about entering eternal life, the new heavens and new earth are concernng the Messiah, a promised one. Paul wrote about this, and it was hard to understand, not knowing the Torah...so people twisted as they do the other scriptures to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16 Re-read your letters, ONLY the writings of Paul seem to teach to let go and not proform the law. Peter, John and Jude all teach to do the law, even Timothy and Titus...no place in the letters does it say to get rid of the law or change it. There is a passage about not following the covenant (traditions), teaching the people to not do so.......Mat 5:19 and 2 Thes 2:15 says to follow the TRADITIONS that word is used to discribe the law and the covenant of Moses.
The most salient and sometimes difficult statement on the relationship between Jesus and his disciples and the Old Covenant is found in Matthew 5:17-20, in the context of the famous Sermon on the Mount. The four verses read as follows in the New International Version:
5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is a complex passage because, among other reasons, at first glance it seems that the Law and Prophets (a New Testament way of saying the entire Scriptures; cf. Matt. 22:40; Luke 16:16) is still in full force until heaven and earth pass away. But as we just noted, the Old Covenant prescribes animal sacrifices, whereas Christians no longer perform them in order to pay for their sins. What is happening? What is happening is a good effort to twist what is written, when it is already nice and plain to understand...if, and as I already showed you, that your thought on Christianity not proforming sacrifices is misunderstood, so now you can't mangle this saying to match that thought. What Jesus said is very clear, the sacrifices were intact until the temple was destroyed. The law stands until the end of all things and a new heaven and earth are established.
The Old Covenant is to the New Covenant what promise is to fulfillment. How did, does, and shall Jesus Christ fulfill the promises of the Old Covenant?
That story is complex. Christians are commanded to read the Old Testament and are allowed to benefit from it, but they do not take everything in it as final. Christians honor the Old Testament as the Word of God, just as Jesus did. But they read it, ultimately, through the vision of Jesus and the Spirit-inspired authors of the New Testament books and epistles. I know that is your belief...and I understand why you think so.
Not everything as final? What parts still apply to them today, if any? I will expalin my opinion and why at the end of my post I will mark it with an ( *) at the bottom.
I had to delete the rest beause it was WAY tooo long...sorry
LOL...You wrote a bunch of stuff. I will try to keep this simple for you. The last portion of what you wrote is kind of rambling and way too long. You are proclaiming your faith as you understand it, and our Bible study can't really go there because it's just too much. I can't relate to the Muslim stand at this point...too deep, LOL, I could write a longer aticle.
There are 613 mitzvot, most pertain to the temple, then some are for woman only (child birth and the monthly period) and some are for the men. The original 10 are all you need to concern yourself with as Peter explained (Acts 15:28, and eat the Common meat (what is sold in the neighborhood stores) as Paul gave permission 1 COR 10:25. That is not a freebee to eat pork, shellfish, monkey or cats by permission. That's all, it's not hard. The Sabbath is still the Sabbath, and you should keep it Holy (the "traditions" tell you how to do that by the way)
Doing what I wrote above are the necessary things expected of all followers of the Apostles, whom Jesus set in charge when he left.
* this is an attempt to try and explain the Messiah as spoken of in the origianl writings (old testament)
The promised one will unite Ephriam and Judah.
The promised one will restore the Covenant.
The promised one will draw the heart of the people back to God.
Please, please, please don't make me look all that up unless you really don't believe the books say the above. The information is found thrughout the books.
1. Modern Christianity has a Messiah that does away with the covenant...the Jesus in the book doesn't, but the churches do, and your comments back that fact up...
2. Do you even know who Ephriam is? There are books on it...one really good read is Who is Isreal? written by: Botya Wootten ...she has a ton of scripture as ref, new and old testament. She is a "return to the Jewish roots" people. She is a Christian, but not a modern Christian.
3. The last point is an easy one, and one we all agree that Jesus actually did guide people to love God.
In Jewish thought a prophecy is either fullfilled or not fullfilled yet. If a part of a prophecy is fullfilled, it is not accepted until the whole thing is. So the Messiah must proform the above to be called the Messiah, the one promised.
This is the part where Christians draw the bullseye around the arrow. The Bible Jesus was a teacher, and called Rabbi. His followers believed he was the promised one. When he died their hopes were crushed. Then joy of joys... he arrose from the dead, but he left.... promising to return and fullfill the prophecy spoken of him.
Now this is a personal choice...you can believe he was the promised one, and wait for his return, and at that time he will fullfill everything writen...or...not being sick and in need of a physician (As Jesus put it) can continue to follow the traditions and hope on the Messiah to come. IMO Both are correct, because you expect him to do what is written. It is not a sin to say you want to wait and be sure it is him before you proclaim him Messiah. The "new" testament fellows say you get extra credit (LOL, for lack of a better way to put it) for believing without seeing
This is what I believe....Those who don't follow the covenant, and teach others to toss it away...are disobediant to both Jesus and God...and an insult to the Spirit of Grace. So Constantines little stunt did a great deal of spiritual damage. Then there are the conseqences of declaring the "old" testament to be nul and void....such thinking IMO sets a person up for the second death (that hell fire we talked so much about), and is againt what Jesus taught.
This has been an awesome debate. It is a debate that has been ongoing for a very, very very long time. I hope to at least have sparked some renewed interest in getting folks to re-read their books, and maybe examine them a little closer thru enlightened eyes. I doubt any of us like Kiefers said, will change our point of view, and we are all still friends.
I really thought this thread would go more towards the evolution debates when it began. I was a little bit concerned about getting into a religious debate, but that's where it led, so it is what it is. I do feel a little bad about cutting off Darths article but I just couldn't stretch it out to answer all of that....I would bore myself to death, not to mention everyone else. So while I did cut that portion off, I don't minimize what you believe, or what you had to say Darth.
Originally Posted by Kiefers http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/320#post_3491682
I believe we all agree to disagree.
This has been a great thread. I followed up with most of Darth and Flowers statements. It is interesting.
It's nice break from fish tanks and build threads. I can't tell you the last time I couldn't wait to log on and read SWF.
LOL...very true, I have found it interesting as well. And no big fights...YAY!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/320#post_3491681
Flower, I am no deeply religious person. So an explanation directly from myself can not compare with your knowledge and ability to quote. I admit I am lacking in this area.But I still try. Since my upbringing has lit the candle...it just has never grown into a vast Flame yet. LOL..after looking at the shear size of your post, you got a whole bon fire going...and you did just fine on the quotes...that was allot of work.
This is the best way I can explain what I am stating.
How Jesus Christ fulfills the Old Testament
An Analysis of Matthew 5:17-20
James M. Arlandson
Why don’t Christians sacrifice animals to atone for their sins? For the same reasons the Jews don't, there is noTemple, Apostel Paul proformed the required sacrifices, and it was AFTER Jesus was resurrected and left promising to return. If it were done away with he would not have done so. All sacrifices stopped after the Temple was destroyed.
Why aren’t Christians required to keep a kosher diet (unless they want to do so out of free choice)? First show me anything that says the kosher diet is taken away? Lots of Jews don't keep kosher either, the vision of Peter and the sheet filled with unclean animals...and being told to rise and eat, was a vision about Gentiles being allowed, it wasn't about eating unclean animals at all. Keeping kosher is always a choice. Paul gave permission to eat COMMON food... 1 COR 10-25. That means that the animals were not killed in the kosher manner but the animals eaten were still the proper ones meant for food. Pork, and shellfood, cats dogs, monkeys, horses and voltures are still unclean, and are not food for you.
Why aren’t Christians required to build a central temple in which to perform carefully prescribed rituals in a land specially chosen for them? The place of the Temple for sacrifice is only in Jerusalem, even for Jews, and there is a Mosque in that place now. Places of central worship is found in every neighborhood it is called a Synagogue. The Modern Christians have churches....by the way the word "church" spoken of by Jesus... is a Synagogue,it simply means a house of meeting.
The three-year ministry of Jesus Christ, culminating in his death and resurrection and his establishment of his church, makes all the difference in the transition from the Old Testament or Covenant to the New Testament or Covenant. In those three short years he ushered in a new era of salvation, although the old era contained the seeds of the new. The way of salvation that Jesus taught, was and is still to follow the commandments. The young man who asked the HOW do I enter was told..OBEY the law AND come follow him (Jesus). It was taught much later by modern Chritianity to just follow. It is writen in Acts 15: 20-21 the last part of what is expected of the people to do if they want to learn, can go to the synagogue, for Moses is taught every week. The Gentiles were not commanded to not follow Moses, and only do the nesessary things, but rather do the necessary things AND learn of the way of Moses (the law)
Personal staement:
Nobody, not even Jews, rely on the law for salvation. Grace and acceptance from God is not a Christian concept...if you were not in good standing with God, a sacrifice wouldn't do you any good. You have to repent first, and ask for his grace and forgivness. The law or obeying it, never promised eternal life. The Gentiles thought and still do today, that Jews do the law to enter into heaven. And it is assumed and taught by modern Christianity that to do the law means you are fallen from Grace. Actually what is being said is if you think doing the law is salvation, you have fallen from the teaching of grace. The law makes promises...long life, safe from and victory over the enemy, and to not be removed from their land.
The only things writen about entering eternal life, the new heavens and new earth are concernng the Messiah, a promised one. Paul wrote about this, and it was hard to understand, not knowing the Torah...so people twisted as they do the other scriptures to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16 Re-read your letters, ONLY the writings of Paul seem to teach to let go and not proform the law. Peter, John and Jude all teach to do the law, even Timothy and Titus...no place in the letters does it say to get rid of the law or change it. There is a passage about not following the covenant (traditions), teaching the people to not do so.......Mat 5:19 and 2 Thes 2:15 says to follow the TRADITIONS that word is used to discribe the law and the covenant of Moses.
The most salient and sometimes difficult statement on the relationship between Jesus and his disciples and the Old Covenant is found in Matthew 5:17-20, in the context of the famous Sermon on the Mount. The four verses read as follows in the New International Version:
5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is a complex passage because, among other reasons, at first glance it seems that the Law and Prophets (a New Testament way of saying the entire Scriptures; cf. Matt. 22:40; Luke 16:16) is still in full force until heaven and earth pass away. But as we just noted, the Old Covenant prescribes animal sacrifices, whereas Christians no longer perform them in order to pay for their sins. What is happening? What is happening is a good effort to twist what is written, when it is already nice and plain to understand...if, and as I already showed you, that your thought on Christianity not proforming sacrifices is misunderstood, so now you can't mangle this saying to match that thought. What Jesus said is very clear, the sacrifices were intact until the temple was destroyed. The law stands until the end of all things and a new heaven and earth are established.
The Old Covenant is to the New Covenant what promise is to fulfillment. How did, does, and shall Jesus Christ fulfill the promises of the Old Covenant?
That story is complex. Christians are commanded to read the Old Testament and are allowed to benefit from it, but they do not take everything in it as final. Christians honor the Old Testament as the Word of God, just as Jesus did. But they read it, ultimately, through the vision of Jesus and the Spirit-inspired authors of the New Testament books and epistles. I know that is your belief...and I understand why you think so.
Not everything as final? What parts still apply to them today, if any? I will expalin my opinion and why at the end of my post I will mark it with an ( *) at the bottom.
I had to delete the rest beause it was WAY tooo long...sorry
LOL...You wrote a bunch of stuff. I will try to keep this simple for you. The last portion of what you wrote is kind of rambling and way too long. You are proclaiming your faith as you understand it, and our Bible study can't really go there because it's just too much. I can't relate to the Muslim stand at this point...too deep, LOL, I could write a longer aticle.
There are 613 mitzvot, most pertain to the temple, then some are for woman only (child birth and the monthly period) and some are for the men. The original 10 are all you need to concern yourself with as Peter explained (Acts 15:28, and eat the Common meat (what is sold in the neighborhood stores) as Paul gave permission 1 COR 10:25. That is not a freebee to eat pork, shellfish, monkey or cats by permission. That's all, it's not hard. The Sabbath is still the Sabbath, and you should keep it Holy (the "traditions" tell you how to do that by the way)
Doing what I wrote above are the necessary things expected of all followers of the Apostles, whom Jesus set in charge when he left.
* this is an attempt to try and explain the Messiah as spoken of in the origianl writings (old testament)
The promised one will unite Ephriam and Judah.
The promised one will restore the Covenant.
The promised one will draw the heart of the people back to God.
Please, please, please don't make me look all that up unless you really don't believe the books say the above. The information is found thrughout the books.
1. Modern Christianity has a Messiah that does away with the covenant...the Jesus in the book doesn't, but the churches do, and your comments back that fact up...
2. Do you even know who Ephriam is? There are books on it...one really good read is Who is Isreal? written by: Botya Wootten ...she has a ton of scripture as ref, new and old testament. She is a "return to the Jewish roots" people. She is a Christian, but not a modern Christian.
3. The last point is an easy one, and one we all agree that Jesus actually did guide people to love God.
In Jewish thought a prophecy is either fullfilled or not fullfilled yet. If a part of a prophecy is fullfilled, it is not accepted until the whole thing is. So the Messiah must proform the above to be called the Messiah, the one promised.
This is the part where Christians draw the bullseye around the arrow. The Bible Jesus was a teacher, and called Rabbi. His followers believed he was the promised one. When he died their hopes were crushed. Then joy of joys... he arrose from the dead, but he left.... promising to return and fullfill the prophecy spoken of him.
Now this is a personal choice...you can believe he was the promised one, and wait for his return, and at that time he will fullfill everything writen...or...not being sick and in need of a physician (As Jesus put it) can continue to follow the traditions and hope on the Messiah to come. IMO Both are correct, because you expect him to do what is written. It is not a sin to say you want to wait and be sure it is him before you proclaim him Messiah. The "new" testament fellows say you get extra credit (LOL, for lack of a better way to put it) for believing without seeing
This is what I believe....Those who don't follow the covenant, and teach others to toss it away...are disobediant to both Jesus and God...and an insult to the Spirit of Grace. So Constantines little stunt did a great deal of spiritual damage. Then there are the conseqences of declaring the "old" testament to be nul and void....such thinking IMO sets a person up for the second death (that hell fire we talked so much about), and is againt what Jesus taught.
This has been an awesome debate. It is a debate that has been ongoing for a very, very very long time. I hope to at least have sparked some renewed interest in getting folks to re-read their books, and maybe examine them a little closer thru enlightened eyes. I doubt any of us like Kiefers said, will change our point of view, and we are all still friends.
I really thought this thread would go more towards the evolution debates when it began. I was a little bit concerned about getting into a religious debate, but that's where it led, so it is what it is. I do feel a little bad about cutting off Darths article but I just couldn't stretch it out to answer all of that....I would bore myself to death, not to mention everyone else. So while I did cut that portion off, I don't minimize what you believe, or what you had to say Darth.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Holy crap this is getting long. I will have to read this later this evening I think when I have time.
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491704
Holy crap this is getting long. I will have to read this later this evening I think when I have time.
LOL...I have been driving myself crazy to just fix my spelling mistakes. So please forgive any you find. I think we each wrote a mini book. It's been great, I haven't had all my books out for a very long time doing a study.
So for getting that going...a big hug and a thank you! It's a great Month for a study too, the month of Elul is a time of repentence and returning to God before the High Holidays begin.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491704
Holy crap this is getting long. I will have to read this later this evening I think when I have time.
LOL...I have been driving myself crazy to just fix my spelling mistakes. So please forgive any you find. I think we each wrote a mini book. It's been great, I haven't had all my books out for a very long time doing a study.
So for getting that going...a big hug and a thank you! It's a great Month for a study too, the month of Elul is a time of repentence and returning to God before the High Holidays begin.
sweatervest13
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491704
Holy crap this is getting long. I will have to read this later this evening I think when I have time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiefers
I believe we all agree to disagree.
This has been a great thread. I followed up with most of Darth and Flowers statements. It is interesting.
It's nice break from fish tanks and build threads. I can't tell you the last time I couldn't wait to log on and read SWF.
This thread is a MONSTER!!
I found it to be a very good read. For the most part everyone was respectful. A very nice change to all the political speak in the Aquarium.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491704
Holy crap this is getting long. I will have to read this later this evening I think when I have time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiefers
I believe we all agree to disagree.
This has been a great thread. I followed up with most of Darth and Flowers statements. It is interesting.
It's nice break from fish tanks and build threads. I can't tell you the last time I couldn't wait to log on and read SWF.
This thread is a MONSTER!!
I found it to be a very good read. For the most part everyone was respectful. A very nice change to all the political speak in the Aquarium.
reefraff
Active Member
I don't generally delve into religion on line. Speaking for myself my religious beliefs are sort of like my politics. I honestly don't fit into a category. I am basically an Evangelical Christian. I believe the scriptures are accurate. The Bible might have been changed over time but when you go back and study the ancient text they back up most of what is contained in the bible whether you believe it or not.
Being a follower of Jesus I think Christians should attempt to follow his example. Who did he hang with? Short answer, the dirtbags. Homosexuality is a pretty contentious issue. Do church goers really think they are going to change the heart of a gay person by shunning them? I mean even if you aren't a believer there is a historical record of a cat named Jesus who said we should turn the other cheek and be cool to our neighbors. Not a bad guy to follow even if you are a souless reprobate
I also have a problem with this whole "If you don't believe what I do you are going to hell" thingy. I once herd a very wise man say(or a man say a very wise thing), "When we get to heaven the only thing that will surprise us more than who IS there is who ISN'T there. I have a hard time believing an all knowing all loving creator would fill the lake of fire with people in say Africa who were never exposed to Christianity. My own thought on the subject is God is revealed to people in different ways and it is up to that person to accept God in the way he was revealed to them, or spend eternity listening to early 80's techno pop and watching Price is Right reruns.
Being a follower of Jesus I think Christians should attempt to follow his example. Who did he hang with? Short answer, the dirtbags. Homosexuality is a pretty contentious issue. Do church goers really think they are going to change the heart of a gay person by shunning them? I mean even if you aren't a believer there is a historical record of a cat named Jesus who said we should turn the other cheek and be cool to our neighbors. Not a bad guy to follow even if you are a souless reprobate
I also have a problem with this whole "If you don't believe what I do you are going to hell" thingy. I once herd a very wise man say(or a man say a very wise thing), "When we get to heaven the only thing that will surprise us more than who IS there is who ISN'T there. I have a hard time believing an all knowing all loving creator would fill the lake of fire with people in say Africa who were never exposed to Christianity. My own thought on the subject is God is revealed to people in different ways and it is up to that person to accept God in the way he was revealed to them, or spend eternity listening to early 80's techno pop and watching Price is Right reruns.
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491718
I don't generally delve into religion on line. Speaking for myself my religious beliefs are sort of like my politics. I honestly don't fit into a category. I am basically an Evangelical Christian. I believe the scriptures are accurate. The Bible might have been changed over time but when you go back and study the ancient text they back up most of what is contained in the bible whether you believe it or not.
Being a follower of Jesus I think Christians should attempt to follow his example. Who did he hang with? Short answer, the dirtbags. Homosexuality is a pretty contentious issue. Do church goers really think they are going to change the heart of a gay person by shunning them? I mean even if you aren't a believer there is a historical record of a cat named Jesus who said we should turn the other cheek and be cool to our neighbors. Not a bad guy to follow even if you are a souless reprobate
I also have a problem with this whole "If you don't believe what I do you are going to hell" thingy. I once herd a very wise man say(or a man say a very wise thing), "When we get to heaven the only thing that will surprise us more than who IS there is who ISN'T there. I have a hard time believing an all knowing all loving creator would fill the lake of fire with people in say Africa who were never exposed to Christianity. My own thought on the subject is God is revealed to people in different ways and it is up to that person to accept God in the way he was revealed to them, or spend eternity listening to early 80's techno pop and watching Price is Right reruns.
I do believe one of Jesus teachings is that how you treat others, and strangers is as though you have done it to him, good or evil.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491718
I don't generally delve into religion on line. Speaking for myself my religious beliefs are sort of like my politics. I honestly don't fit into a category. I am basically an Evangelical Christian. I believe the scriptures are accurate. The Bible might have been changed over time but when you go back and study the ancient text they back up most of what is contained in the bible whether you believe it or not.
Being a follower of Jesus I think Christians should attempt to follow his example. Who did he hang with? Short answer, the dirtbags. Homosexuality is a pretty contentious issue. Do church goers really think they are going to change the heart of a gay person by shunning them? I mean even if you aren't a believer there is a historical record of a cat named Jesus who said we should turn the other cheek and be cool to our neighbors. Not a bad guy to follow even if you are a souless reprobate
I also have a problem with this whole "If you don't believe what I do you are going to hell" thingy. I once herd a very wise man say(or a man say a very wise thing), "When we get to heaven the only thing that will surprise us more than who IS there is who ISN'T there. I have a hard time believing an all knowing all loving creator would fill the lake of fire with people in say Africa who were never exposed to Christianity. My own thought on the subject is God is revealed to people in different ways and it is up to that person to accept God in the way he was revealed to them, or spend eternity listening to early 80's techno pop and watching Price is Right reruns.
I do believe one of Jesus teachings is that how you treat others, and strangers is as though you have done it to him, good or evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491718
My own thought on the subject is God is revealed to people in different ways and it is up to that person to accept God in the way he was revealed to them,
Agree. The only thing that makes any sense to me. No one religious dogma can say what god thinks or who is going where. (Even though most seem to think they and they alone have it right
)
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491718
My own thought on the subject is God is revealed to people in different ways and it is up to that person to accept God in the way he was revealed to them,
Agree. The only thing that makes any sense to me. No one religious dogma can say what god thinks or who is going where. (Even though most seem to think they and they alone have it right
darthtang aw
Active Member
I have recently learned none of this makes any sense what so ever.
Darth (nothing makes sense after drinking a 10yr Mcallum) Tang
Darth (nothing makes sense after drinking a 10yr Mcallum) Tang
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491756
I have recently learned none of this makes any sense what so ever.
Darth (nothing makes sense after drinking a 10yr Mcallum) Tang
Hence the word "Faith".
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491756
I have recently learned none of this makes any sense what so ever.
Darth (nothing makes sense after drinking a 10yr Mcallum) Tang
Hence the word "Faith".
snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
Hence the word "Faith".
I think its ironic that this is the last thing that was said in this thread.
Do you think it is fair to fire biology teachers who express their own creationist beliefs in the classroom, teaching evolution and then if asked what they believe they tell them? Currently, i think its looked down upon and some have even been fired.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491877
I think its ironic that this is the last thing that was said in this thread.
Do you think it is fair to fire biology teachers who express their own creationist beliefs in the classroom, teaching evolution and then if asked what they believe they tell them? Currently, i think its looked down upon and some have even been fired.
I don't think teachers should ever be allowed to tout their personal beliefs in the classroom. It just opens too many doors that should remain shut.
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491877
I think its ironic that this is the last thing that was said in this thread.
Do you think it is fair to fire biology teachers who express their own creationist beliefs in the classroom, teaching evolution and then if asked what they believe they tell them? Currently, i think its looked down upon and some have even been fired.
I don't think teachers should ever be allowed to tout their personal beliefs in the classroom. It just opens too many doors that should remain shut.
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491878
I don't think teachers should ever be allowed to tout their personal beliefs in the classroom. It just opens too many doors that should remain shut.
+1
They are paid to teach children the curriculum approved by the school board (who are elected by the community).
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491878
I don't think teachers should ever be allowed to tout their personal beliefs in the classroom. It just opens too many doors that should remain shut.
+1
They are paid to teach children the curriculum approved by the school board (who are elected by the community).
pezenfuego
Active Member
+2, if they are paid to teach science, then they should teach science. Otherwise, they are wasting time and not doing their job. Now, if the teacher wants to lead a detailed and thought-provoking socratic where the students have these sorts of debates, so be it. But for a teacher to express that they do not believe the material they are teaching, that teaches students that these ideas should not be taken seriously.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491884
+2, if they are paid to teach science, then they should teach science. Otherwise, they are wasting time and not doing their job. Now, if the teacher wants to lead a detailed and thought-provoking socratic where the students have these sorts of debates, so be it. But for a teacher to express that they do not believe the material they are teaching, that teaches students that these ideas should not be taken seriously.
But, I have no issue with science classing offering an alternative view, such as creationism as long as it's offered up as a quick side topic. I figure if they are teaching CO2 is causing the climate to warm as fact with no proof then they should be OK saying "Some religions believe__________" and leave it at that but it should be based on what the board approves, not what the teacher believes. I believe it makes learning more interesting.
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491884
+2, if they are paid to teach science, then they should teach science. Otherwise, they are wasting time and not doing their job. Now, if the teacher wants to lead a detailed and thought-provoking socratic where the students have these sorts of debates, so be it. But for a teacher to express that they do not believe the material they are teaching, that teaches students that these ideas should not be taken seriously.
But, I have no issue with science classing offering an alternative view, such as creationism as long as it's offered up as a quick side topic. I figure if they are teaching CO2 is causing the climate to warm as fact with no proof then they should be OK saying "Some religions believe__________" and leave it at that but it should be based on what the board approves, not what the teacher believes. I believe it makes learning more interesting.
pezenfuego
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491905
But, I have no issue with science classing offering an alternative view, such as creationism as long as it's offered up as a quick side topic. I figure if they are teaching CO2 is causing the climate to warm as fact with no proof then they should be OK saying "Some religions believe__________" and leave it at that but it should be based on what the board approves, not what the teacher believes. I believe it makes learning more interesting.
I can get behind that, teaching it as an alternative view is completely different than teaching it as an alternative scientific explanation. To teach creationism as an alternative to evolution is to teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry, astrology as an alternative to astronomy, esp as an alternative to psychology, or magic as an alternative to physics. There is nothing wrong with learning about these things, but presenting them as equals in the light of science is unacceptable.
Also, in science class we learned about how an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase temperatures. However, the topic of global warming was reserved for research projects in english classes. This is similar to how we did not learn about the holocaust in history class, but studied it extensively in english classes. Some may not agree with this, but I think it makes sense. We need to learn about these things, but teachers get lip from parents for teaching them. So the assignment is to educate ourselves on the matter.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491905
But, I have no issue with science classing offering an alternative view, such as creationism as long as it's offered up as a quick side topic. I figure if they are teaching CO2 is causing the climate to warm as fact with no proof then they should be OK saying "Some religions believe__________" and leave it at that but it should be based on what the board approves, not what the teacher believes. I believe it makes learning more interesting.
I can get behind that, teaching it as an alternative view is completely different than teaching it as an alternative scientific explanation. To teach creationism as an alternative to evolution is to teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry, astrology as an alternative to astronomy, esp as an alternative to psychology, or magic as an alternative to physics. There is nothing wrong with learning about these things, but presenting them as equals in the light of science is unacceptable.
Also, in science class we learned about how an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase temperatures. However, the topic of global warming was reserved for research projects in english classes. This is similar to how we did not learn about the holocaust in history class, but studied it extensively in english classes. Some may not agree with this, but I think it makes sense. We need to learn about these things, but teachers get lip from parents for teaching them. So the assignment is to educate ourselves on the matter.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491908
I can get behind that, teaching it as an alternative view is completely different than teaching it as an alternative scientific explanation. To teach creationism as an alternative to evolution is to teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry, astrology as an alternative to astronomy, esp as an alternative to psychology, or magic as an alternative to physics. There is nothing wrong with learning about these things, but presenting them as equals in the light of science is unacceptable.
Also, in science class we learned about how an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase temperatures. However, the topic of global warming was reserved for research projects in english classes. This is similar to how we did not learn about the holocaust in history class, but studied it extensively in english classes. Some may not agree with this, but I think it makes sense. We need to learn about these things, but teachers get lip from parents for teaching them. So the assignment is to educate ourselves on the matter.
You aren't teaching alternative views. You are offering the mention of a view a whole lot of students in the class will have been raised with. It actually will keep kids from bringing up creation if the teacher touches on it that way then moves on.
They teach you an increase in carbon dioxide causes warming but there are a lot of people way smarter than you and I who dispute that. But that's a topic for another thread.
I gotta ask, what kind of peckerwood school do you go to that they don't teach about the holocaust in History class? Where did you learn about Hitler and the Gestapo, Math class?
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491908
I can get behind that, teaching it as an alternative view is completely different than teaching it as an alternative scientific explanation. To teach creationism as an alternative to evolution is to teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry, astrology as an alternative to astronomy, esp as an alternative to psychology, or magic as an alternative to physics. There is nothing wrong with learning about these things, but presenting them as equals in the light of science is unacceptable.
Also, in science class we learned about how an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase temperatures. However, the topic of global warming was reserved for research projects in english classes. This is similar to how we did not learn about the holocaust in history class, but studied it extensively in english classes. Some may not agree with this, but I think it makes sense. We need to learn about these things, but teachers get lip from parents for teaching them. So the assignment is to educate ourselves on the matter.
You aren't teaching alternative views. You are offering the mention of a view a whole lot of students in the class will have been raised with. It actually will keep kids from bringing up creation if the teacher touches on it that way then moves on.
They teach you an increase in carbon dioxide causes warming but there are a lot of people way smarter than you and I who dispute that. But that's a topic for another thread.
I gotta ask, what kind of peckerwood school do you go to that they don't teach about the holocaust in History class? Where did you learn about Hitler and the Gestapo, Math class?
pezenfuego
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491916
You aren't teaching alternative views. You are offering the mention of a view a whole lot of students in the class will have been raised with. It actually will keep kids from bringing up creation if the teacher touches on it that way then moves on.
They teach you an increase in carbon dioxide causes warming but there are a lot of people way smarter than you and I who dispute that. But that's a topic for another thread.
I gotta ask, what kind of peckerwood school do you go to that they don't teach about the holocaust in History class? Where did you learn about Hitler and the Gestapo, Math class?
A. Who disputes that? Hundreds of experiments have been done to prove that. I've never heard that the skepticism for global warming lied in this fact.
B. I am not in high school, but the idea was that the history class could spend more time teaching other aspects of WWII AND we would still have enough time to learn about the holocaust in incredible depth as we improved reading and writing skills over a period of years. The sheer amount of time our school spent on the holocaust was amazing, but little of it happened in history classes. It was one of those school board decisions and I rather liked the idea because so much information about the holocaust lies outside of textbooks and inside other forms of literature.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491916
You aren't teaching alternative views. You are offering the mention of a view a whole lot of students in the class will have been raised with. It actually will keep kids from bringing up creation if the teacher touches on it that way then moves on.
They teach you an increase in carbon dioxide causes warming but there are a lot of people way smarter than you and I who dispute that. But that's a topic for another thread.
I gotta ask, what kind of peckerwood school do you go to that they don't teach about the holocaust in History class? Where did you learn about Hitler and the Gestapo, Math class?
A. Who disputes that? Hundreds of experiments have been done to prove that. I've never heard that the skepticism for global warming lied in this fact.
B. I am not in high school, but the idea was that the history class could spend more time teaching other aspects of WWII AND we would still have enough time to learn about the holocaust in incredible depth as we improved reading and writing skills over a period of years. The sheer amount of time our school spent on the holocaust was amazing, but little of it happened in history classes. It was one of those school board decisions and I rather liked the idea because so much information about the holocaust lies outside of textbooks and inside other forms of literature.