Christians: Do you think it's appropiate to teach...

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 25, 2004, 10:59 am

...Evolution instead of Creationism in public schools, or, like me, do you beleive that evolution may be the way that we were created? Reference that in the Bible, when God says 'let there be light', we're not treated to a blow by blow description of how the light is created; it just is.

I realize this is going to turn into a flame fest, but I'm going to ask that you try and keep it on topic for as long as possible.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 25, 2004, 11:04 am

you of the religious types want to teach creationism? fine, but that means every single other religious approach must be taught as well, have fun with that fuckers

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 25, 2004, 11:05 am

Hi Sion.
Grats on not reading the post.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 25, 2004, 11:21 am

Public schools are not a Christian institution

Evolution instead of Creationism in public schools

Public schools teach creationism?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 25, 2004, 11:25 am

Not anymore. Used to be there'd be a flap about it every few months a couple years ago. The boards were more or less dead this morning so I thought I'd try to peek into the minds of some of the more zealous religious people on the boards this morning.

Fat · Post by **Fat** » October 25, 2004, 11:26 am

I don't understand the argument for why creationism would be taught along side of evolution. Evolution is a theory and creationism is a story. To claim that creationism is a theory is just ridiculous. It has absolutely no scientific merit whatsover because it is explained purely in supernatural terms. On this basis alone creationism should never be taught in the classroom.

-Alfan

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 25, 2004, 11:42 am

I think that philosophy classes should be offered at the high school level, including theology. I'd like to see a vareity of this kind of stuff offered before college so that more kids get exposed to it. Nothing is more frustrating than an otherwise smart person who has never read anything other than Playboy/Cosmo.

Given the sad state of school funding, I don't think that this is very realistic, so to be fair, we must stick to just the facts.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 25, 2004, 11:44 am

No. If your kids haven't been taught about creation at Sunday school by the time they start teaching evolution in school, then you're not a practicing christian anyway and should shut the fuck up about religion.

Your religious beliefs have no place in a real school anyway; if you really do feel that you're incapable of instilling morals in your kids yourself because you're a neglectful workaholic, then send them to a catholic school.

I think more girls should attend catholic girls schools, makes them into randy hornbags, and there's not nearly enough of those.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 25, 2004, 11:47 am

not all Christians believe in Creationism. in fact most do not.

In fact the majority of major mainstream established Christian denominations recognize that evolution is a fact. Catholicism, Episcopalianism, etc.

The Baptists are probably more creationists - if they have an "official" position at all, but beyond that, i'm not sure if any of the other more conservative denominations have an official creationist position.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 25, 2004, 12:07 pm

I have noticed that the dumber a person is, the more likely they are to believe in Creationism. I dated a girl who was both very religious and very stupid, who used to try to argue with me about how the story in the Bible was TRUE, and the scientists and educators who teach evolution are WRONG WRONG WRONG not matter how much evidence there is.

Ironically, this girl was also one of the biggest tramps I've ever known. It was a rare Saturday night that we'd go out and not end up bringing another girl home, but sure as fuck, come Sunday, she'd be up early and going to church.

And no, she could not spell hypocrite.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 25, 2004, 12:16 pm

Somewhere I have a folder with all the documentation used to defeat teaching Creationsim in the Arkansas public schools back in 1981. It's brought up here every so often and some Christian schools actually teach it instead of evolution... man I feel sorry for those kids when they go to college.

In my opinion, as a Christian, Creationism has NO place in the public schools. I see the Genisis story as a metaphor for evolution, they are not mutally exclusive. The Christian Creation story is more of a 50,000 ft view of what happend and teachs us that God played a role in our development. It's the way you would explain where we came from to a child or someone lacking formal education. I believe the story of Creation, it's just not detailed. If you want the detailed view that corresponds with our understanding of time, study evolution.

Marb

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 25, 2004, 12:18 pm

masteen wrote:I have noticed that the dumber a person is, the more likely they are to believe in Creationism. I dated a girl who was both very religious and very stupid, who used to try to argue with me about how the story in the Bible was TRUE, and the scientists and educators who teach evolution are WRONG WRONG WRONG not matter how much evidence there is.

Ironically, this girl was also one of the biggest tramps I've ever known. It was a rare Saturday night that we'd go out and not end up bringing another girl home, but sure as fuck, come Sunday, she'd be up early and going to church.

And no, she could not spell hypocrite.

By girl masteen means guy and by she Masteen means He.
Silly Masteen, we know!
Creationism is laughable at best, teaching it in public schools should get that school board fired for even thinking about letting it be taught.

Fat · Post by **Fat** » October 25, 2004, 12:45 pm

Actually, Philosophy is being taught at highschools that offer the International Baccalaureate (IB) program. I'm not sure exactly what it covers because my school put in after I left. Still, it is a start. Unfortunatly, all of about 1000 schools have the IB program in the US I believe.

-Alfan

Post by **Sylvus** » October 25, 2004, 12:57 pm

It's funny that there are schools that want to teach Creationism. I went to Catholic school and we did learn the creation story in theology class, but in our science classes it was never mentioned.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 25, 2004, 1:16 pm

I believe in the seperation of church and state. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to the teaching of theory of our creation so long as it did cover the highlights of the major religions along with evolution.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 1:35 pm

I was taught both ways of creation, (Jersey), everyone thought the divine creation was ridiculous, students and teachers, but they were required by law to... and this is jersey, not even texas!

Fat · Post by **Fat** » October 25, 2004, 1:55 pm

I wouldn't be opposed to the teaching of theory of our creation

I'm not trying to pick on anyone or anything, so please don't get me wrong, but this is what i see as a major problem. Creation is not a theory. It can't be a theory based purely on the scientific requirements for what constitutes a theory. Therefore it has absolutely no place in a science classroom.

If they want to teach it in a theology course, fine. However, seeing as how it has absolutely no natural basis it is not a scientific theory and should not be taught alongside evolution.

-Alfan

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » October 25, 2004, 2:21 pm

I was also taught both Creationism and Evolution in High School. And like Sylvus said, Evolution was taught as science, and Creationism was taught as Theology.

I really cant find a plausible reason for teaching Creationism as an opposing scientific theory of the origins of our universe. If the religious nuts want god in the public schools then their going about it the wrong way. They should be pushing for a class like Comparative Religions. A class which teaches the basics of the Major religions throughout the world. That way little Johnny gets to hear the teacher talk about The Lord Our God Creator of the Universe for at least a couple weeks during the school year.

If thats not good enough for them, then fork over a little cash and send your kids to a Catholic School. If you cant afford that, then teach YOUR kids YOUR beliefs at HOME.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 25, 2004, 2:34 pm

Yeah. Religion has no place in a classroom unless it's a class called 'Study of Religion' or something like that. I think that the pledge could do without 'Under God.' too. If we're forcing our kids to hear something, it shouldn't endorse any particular religion. You could make the argument that it doesn't but the thing is it endorses monotheistic religions. Those aren't the only ones...

-=Lohrno

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 25, 2004, 2:38 pm

Most people see Creationism as the guiding hand behind evolution. The story of Creationism may be over 7 "days," but what is a "day" to God? The two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive. If anything I think the evidence behind evolution strengthens my beliefs rather than opposing them.

And remember to ask the question - how did it start, and what from? If nothing is either created or destroyed, and everything has a beginning and an end, then...what was the creation? In that context, believing that something created the grand experiment known as our universe is as plausible as anything else.

It just has to be kept in context.

Lacking the ability to define something with our current means doesn't make it impossible.

And this is not a godless society Lhrno, if you want one, go make your own.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2004, 2:52 pm

I think a local town should have the ability to choose what they want their school to teach.

Personally I want my kid to know about evolution.

It's a popular interpretation of the facts at hand.

I see the idea of creationism not particularly linked to christianity but rather it asks the question: "Given the body of evidence, could our world or universe be the creation of a higher power?"

Again take the same evidence and look at it through a different interpretation.

Look at the facts though both interpretations. I'd like my kid to do both.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 25, 2004, 3:09 pm

I was thinking more inline with a compare and contrast. Science is the way it is, however the Christians believe this....and the Musslims believe this...and so on. I just think there should be more options on the way to look at things instead of just hammering one school of thought down their throats, even if it is right. It is kind of like history in the fact that the victor's write the history the way they want it.

There is still a Flat Earth Society out there that would have problems that their kids are being taught different than what they believe.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2004, 3:18 pm

Creationism as I see it is removed from any particular religion.

Is the universe a construct?

Does any of the evidence that we've discovered about our reality support this question?

Facts are fruitless without application. How do we frame large bundles of evidence to provide meaning?

Do we pigeon hole our perspective into one interpretation? Or do we look at what we know from a variety of perspectives?

There is little harm in thinking outside of the institutional box.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 25, 2004, 3:31 pm

Studying what how many different religions believe the world to be created would be a religion class. I would be cool with that, I had similar classes in College.

I think Rekaar is on track with how many Christians view the Genesis story, including myself (thus our posts should correspond.)

However I think we should note that "Creationism" is not studying multiple religions. Creationism is a literalist interpertation of the Bible that states the world was truly created in 7 24 hours periods and that the world is only abotu 4K years old... kind of frightning. Here are some links for more info...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

http://www.creationism.org/

Marb

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 25, 2004, 3:33 pm

I think for the purpose of the topic you need to keep the definition of "Creationism" to be the one that means a 'literal interpretation of the accounts of Genesis explains the origins of the universe'. Moreover, teaching it in a manner that suggests that a substantial segment of the scientific community views this as a legitimate view based on the data.

that is what the real political issue in many areas is.
Not that it is possible to believe in god as the originator of the Big Bang, etc. I'm not dismissing the idea that you or others float Adex, and i think they are infinitely more reasonable than the idea I posted in Paragraph 1.

My only point is that, the political debate is - in my view - about that narrow definition, and as such it would be useful to focus the discussion there.

We can all come up with our own variation of how we think the universe came to be - which is all the more reason to keep religious views independent of science classes.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 25, 2004, 3:36 pm

Exactly what Marbus said. "Teaching creationism" does not mean "considering whether the universe is infinite or whether it has a beginning." If you want to consider that question, that's fine, but it's not teaching creationism.

Creationism is a specific religious doctrine that lays out a specific myth of the creation of life, time, and space. The myth is unsupported by any empirical evidence.

At this stage in human knowledge, the question of the infinite-ness of the universe is a question better suited for classes of philosophy than classes of science.

Creationists unite:

http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

The Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair 2001!

Creation Science Fair wrote:2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.

Creation Science Fair wrote:1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"
Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 25, 2004, 3:36 pm

I thought the approach my biology teacher went with was a good one. He stated that we were going to be learning evolution, and comparing/contrasting it to Creationism, as well as debating the two. The nice thing about doing it this way was that you got an appreciation for both sides, as well as exposure to the scientific evidence Christians like to throw around when arguing Creationism.

The bottom line however was that Creationism doesn't hold up to scientific investigation.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 25, 2004, 3:39 pm

Rekaar. wrote: And this is not a godless society Lhrno, if you want one, go make your own.

...

I don't want a godless society, I want real separation of Church and State. I don't want the government to ovetly endorse any particular religion, but to allow people the freedom to practice whatever religion they want without feeling like the government is imposing on them. There's a difference between separation of church and state, and banning religion. Or do you not see it that way?

-=Lohrno

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 25, 2004, 3:46 pm

Noel: I disagree with that style of teaching as well. Comparing and contrasting evolution and creationism creates a number of implications:

1. Evolution and Creation are comparable. They're not. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creation is a religious myth.

2. That they answer the same questions. They don't. Evolution explains why organisms change over time. Creation describes the origin of time, space, and life.

3. That they are the two commonly accepted theories explaining the natural world. They're not. Evolution is commonly accepted as a natural process by the general public. Creation is strongly supported by those that believe in it and generally ignored by those that don't. It is also no less accepted (or sensible) than the Creation myths of any other religion.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 25, 2004, 3:52 pm

Sueven,

Those are all good points, but they pretty much came out in the class. I believe at the time I took the class, teachers were required in California to give some time to both. A lot of the students in the class thought that giving any time to Creationism was fucking stupid, but the teacher just gave a knowing smile and tried to stay as impartial as possible.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 3:56 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Most people see Creationism as the guiding hand behind evolution. The story of Creationism may be over 7 "days," but what is a "day" to God? The two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive. If anything I think the evidence behind evolution strengthens my beliefs rather than opposing them.

And remember to ask the question - how did it start, and what from? If nothing is either created or destroyed, and everything has a beginning and an end, then...what was the creation? In that context, believing that something created the grand experiment known as our universe is as plausible as anything else.

It just has to be kept in context.

Lacking the ability to define something with our current means doesn't make it impossible.

And this is not a godless society Lhrno, if you want one, go make your own.

There is the contrasting view that life meerly was a miraculous coincidence where all the conditions just happen to be right in the vast universe for the right chemical changes to begin the first sea life about a billion years ago. You could say god did that, but I don't. Religious is meerly the largest manufacturer and distributer of bullshit. It's the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute, of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place of burning and fire, smoke, torture, and anguish, for you to live forever to burn and suffer until the end of time..... but he loves you. He loves you, and he needs money. He always needs money. He's all powerful, all knowing, all wise, just can't handle money apparently. HOLY SHIT! THats a good bullshit story!

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 25, 2004, 3:56 pm

Did you guys notice that in the link Sueven gave there is a part dedicated to closing down Landover Baptist? They seem to be under the impression that people, other than themselves of course, actually think it's a real chuch... <sigh>

Marb

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 25, 2004, 4:00 pm

Rivera Bladestrike wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:Most people see Creationism as the guiding hand behind evolution. The story of Creationism may be over 7 "days," but what is a "day" to God? The two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive. If anything I think the evidence behind evolution strengthens my beliefs rather than opposing them.

And remember to ask the question - how did it start, and what from? If nothing is either created or destroyed, and everything has a beginning and an end, then...what was the creation? In that context, believing that something created the grand experiment known as our universe is as plausible as anything else.

It just has to be kept in context.

Lacking the ability to define something with our current means doesn't make it impossible.

And this is not a godless society Lhrno, if you want one, go make your own.
There is the contrasting view that life meerly was a miraculous coincidence where all the conditions just happen to be right in the vast universe for the right chemical changes to begin the first sea life about a billion years ago. You could say god did that, but I don't. Religious is meerly the largest manufacturer and distributer of bullshit. It's the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute, of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place of burning and fire, smoke, torture, and anguish, for you to live forever to burn and suffer until the end of time..... but he loves you. He loves you, and he needs money. He always needs money. He's all powerful, all knowing, all wise, just can't handle money apparently. HOLY SHIT! THats a good bullshit story!

I don't usually do this, but I'm just going to label you an idiot and call it good.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 4:16 pm

Maybe its cause I don't give a shit about 2000 year old stories that were meant to teach morals but exploited by the greed of man and turned into a money making politcal empire with billions of loyal subjects.

You can call me an idiot, but when your man in the sky comes and strikes me down and makes you king, then your opinion is worthless.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 25, 2004, 4:29 pm

I have always liked the argument my father gave me and a (deeply religious) friend in early junior high school.

(If)When God delivered the story of creation to mankind more than two thousand years ago, it would stand to reason that it would need to be communicated in terms that the Hebrew people of that time would have understood.

Early man would not have understood the explosion of a singularity into an energy ball growing in size at the speed of light that gradually coalesced into galaxies, stars, and after several generations of stars into planets with iron cores.

They would not have understood that on a quiet outer ring of a spiral galaxy, where the planets were not prone to disruption by passing stars, that life would begin on Earth with single-celled organisms. They would not have understood the conquest of the land by plant life and then animals that led to the evolution of mammals and eventually mankind.

The people of that world would have had a language with no more than 50,000. They wouldn't have even had the right words to communicate something so complicated. In addition to the scientific progress on an exponential scale over five millenia, it has taken the evolution of modern languages to contain the right words to even describe these concepts. By examining cutting edge science, we can see that there are concepts now pondered by physicists and engineers that we barely have the words to adequate describe now.

Thus God may have just given the Hebrew people the short version.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 25, 2004, 4:48 pm

Well said Arch!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 25, 2004, 5:01 pm

Its funny how many times the bible has blended ancient phonetian, Mesopotamian and Carthaginian mythology into its own stories. As with Baal or Beelzebub (sp) which was a respelling of Baal-Zebub a popular northern African "lord of gods" responsible for fertility and lighting I believe. In the old testament he is shown as one of satans lieutenants or one of the major evil demons of hell, obviously in an attempt to draw "pagans" to Christianity. Mentions such as this alone are enough to discredit a LITERAL interpretation of The old Testament. Unless of course you also believe in ancient northern african mythology.

The bible was written to create various perspectives and interpretations as back then the authors were obviously not as scientifically educated as we are today. If god created man, it states that life exist because of gods good grace, not that a big white hand tore threw the sky and sapped life into a twig.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2004, 5:09 pm

I haven't read in the bible where Satan's underlings are named.

If you have specfic scriptures that you're drawing from please let me know, I'd like to see if I missed them.

The names you do mention were from common religions at the time in the areas around Israel. The fact that those names are mentioned adds credence to the historical placement of the old testement stories.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 25, 2004, 5:12 pm

Rekaar. wrote:I don't usually do this, but I'm just going to label you an idiot and call it good.

Rek, most of Rivera's post was a George Carlin monologue.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 5:12 pm

I think by saying that it was easy for men to understand, well basically its easy for us to understand because it was made up BY man. Why? To form a social bond and to explain previously unexplained things. The human brain being an creative thing could easily fathom such thoughts as walking across water, creating a woman from a rib bone. Today of course the skeptism is overflowing and we don't hear these stories from any place other than the Weekly World News. For instance, when the greek society wondered why the sun came up each and every day. Why, it was because Apollo drove his chariot across the sky. Lightning! Zeus! God of the skies, king of the gods.

Due to the evolution of the brain and our understanding of the world, with physics, etc. Religion has since moved from concepts that have been discovered, like lightning, an attraction between positive and negative particals attracting to form an electric bolt, thunder occuring afterwards, the air refilling the space where the electric bolt passed. And the sun, where, the earth actually rotates around the sun.

Now, religion is here to do a few things, comfort us when death is near, for us or for those we love. Something that is not yet discovered yet by science, other than what is most obvious, what happens to your body. The belief in a spirit, an inanimate object that exists only in our minds, where does this go. My belief is, the obvious, that it doesn't exist, and our spirit is only our personality, which develops from life experience and hereditary traits. Religions have the happy ending, which everyone loves to see, you have the eternity of happiness in the greatest place of all, heaven.

Something that is mostly past the religion's control, being medicine. Sometimes we don't have the medicine and science to properly explain and treat illnesses. So, rather than feel at complete loss, humans invent their own form of healing. Praying, whispering words, or thinking things inside your head, hoping something will happen. And if by some miraculous occation, it occurs, its a miracle and of course its proof that faith healing works. If you think about it, no one ever prays to god about a cold, a headache, or a pulled muscle. Its only when all hope is lost. When modern medicine is unable to help that faith healing comes back into play. Then, its on a ton of documentaries on nightline and the discovery channel, making people interested, and more apt to believe in its legitmacy, due to it being on TV.

Now, in the subject of medicine, if suddenly over the next hundred years, all sickness is reduced to a minimum, would anyone be praying? No, because its been solved. Religion would then change focus again to another unexplained thing. People often say that science is the enemy of religion. In truth, it really is, when science explains something, people move on and have to find something new to place their faith in.

Religion is all about answers.

And then of course the reason society embraced religion so much is of course, the natural human necessity to be apart of the group. What's that? A meeting at 10? Everyone is going? I'm in! Give a few generations of this and everyone will be devout, especially in the time of such squalor as the early years A.D. Throughout the span of the church and the gathering people looked to the church as a bonding effect (think of the crusades, all christians vs the middle eastern cultures, only thing that bonded them was a belief). People would do everything out of the church, find wives, meet people, arrange business meetings. Its what brought together people where in a time people lived so far apart.

I think the main purpose religion should stick with, is bringing up generations with morals. The obvious things, no I will not take advantage of this girl, its rape. No I will not steal the old woman's money, its wrong. I was brought up to be christian, however, I never believed any of it, but I do credit myself to have high morals. I don't lie (unless its in a joking manner), I don't cause physical fights, I don't intentionally hurt people, I always think to myself whether or not it is good to do whatever I'm doing. Religion teaches the most basic morals which all should have, the voice in the back of your head that questions anything that may not be for a greater good. That voice has saved me from a ton of trouble. Some people just aren't brought up with correct morals due to bad parenting or just some friends which influence badly. An upbringing that may have religion involved, will help people make better decisions in life.

Morals are great, but all the crap from the church is simply bullshit, especially stuff like creationism, wake up and smell the evolution.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 5:13 pm

Sueven wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:I don't usually do this, but I'm just going to label you an idiot and call it good.
Rek, most of Rivera's post was a George Carlin monologue.

Word for word.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 25, 2004, 5:18 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I haven't read in the bible where Satan's underlings are named.

If you have specfic scriptures that you're drawing from please let me know, I'd like to see if I missed them.

The names you do mention were from common religions at the time in the areas around Israel. The fact that those names are mentioned adds credence to the historical placement of the old testement stories.

2 Kings includes references to Baal-zebub, God of Ekrons.

Matthew 12 includes a reference to Beelzebub, Prince of Demons.

Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost are both works that would have needed to be accurate according to the church at the time of their writing to avoid being censored. Those works would have drawn upon church texts to fill in the details of individual demons and angels. These would both be respectable sources for such information, as they have had the approval of the church for centuries.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 25, 2004, 5:29 pm

Incidentally, the Bible is not a comprehensive, descriptive work. It does not describe many of the names and external references contained within its body. There is no clear description of Lucifer, Belial, Abbadon, Apollyon, etc.

Literal interpretation of the Old Testament is an interesting notion when Isaish contains references to unicorns and satyrs, Numbers includes firey serpents, Jeremiah contains cockatrices, and Malachi contains a red dragon. I suppose we just have to believe in all of those things since they are in the Bible!

Post by **Sylvus** » October 25, 2004, 5:33 pm

archeiron wrote:I suppose we just have to believe in all of those things since they are in the Bible!

No, silly, those things should not be taken literally, nor should the notion that God created the earth in 7 days. Everything else though is absolutely true! Wait...

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » October 25, 2004, 5:34 pm

Personally im an atheist, but i am interested in religion, and when i went to school we had a class called religion, that taught something about not only christianity, but all the major religions (no voodoo

)

.
And the way i see it, kids should be taught religion, as in a class on ther various religions in the world, NOT only christianity.

But if were talking REPLACING evolution with creationism, its a horrible idea. Its a good story, but hey, it IS a story, with no scientific fact, a story that actually tend to go straigth agains a LOT of scientific facts. Considering how Christianity all through history have done its best to punish and ridicule science, and that it has taken hundreds of years to beat the Christian church to be able to practise science, i dont think it would be a very good idea to put the Christian belief system up for teaching instead of science.

And if anyone should do it, the LEAST you can demand is that all religions are covered. Personally im looking forward to hear a teacher teach me about Jedi .)
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget ... &Rank=1000

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 5:35 pm

The inclusion of such mythical beasts makes the bible as credible (in the case of the subject of genesis, and pretty much everything else) as the Greek/Roman mytholgy, hell, even Everquest Mythology is as credible. All written by men, include interesting elements to capture readers, sometimes teach them, If taught long enough and with enough intensity could be religion for someone.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 25, 2004, 5:36 pm

Sylvus wrote:
archeiron wrote:I suppose we just have to believe in all of those things since they are in the Bible!
No, silly, those things should not be taken literally, nor should the notion that God created the earth in 7 days. Everything else though is absolutely true! Wait...

To be fair, pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible for sport is like playing ice hockey against a retirement home team: it isn't a contest and it isn't very nice.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » October 25, 2004, 5:37 pm

archeiron wrote:
Sylvus wrote:
archeiron wrote:I suppose we just have to believe in all of those things since they are in the Bible!
No, silly, those things should not be taken literally, nor should the notion that God created the earth in 7 days. Everything else though is absolutely true! Wait...
To be fair, pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible for sport is like playing ice hockey against a retirement home team: it isn't a contest and it isn't very nice.

But quite funny if the targets are senile and/or stubborn enough

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 5:41 pm

Well, people never like when everything they've been taught during the lives and their parents lives and their parents parents lives and so on, was just a story to teach you to be nice and faithful to your parents and not hurt others. Its like when your child learns there is no Santa Claus and in reality it was just your parent's effort to make sure you're good during the holidays. Religion is just a method of controlling behavior. And naturally there is a negitive response when people are told it is...

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 25, 2004, 5:42 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I haven't read in the bible where Satan's underlings are named.

If you have specfic scriptures that you're drawing from please let me know, I'd like to see if I missed them.

The names you do mention were from common religions at the time in the areas around Israel. The fact that those names are mentioned adds credence to the historical placement of the old testement stories.

Beezelbub? (sp)
isnt he in there a few times...
il admit im not that educated on the bible, these "facts" came from sources of mythology that stated certain deitys were mentioned in the bible several times.