Hi all.
We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
No. Debates and the Bile should not be mixed. It is easy to just plan ignore something or justify yourself on a decision becuase "God agrees." (Homosexuality being wrong for instance.) Whats really sad though is to see people go with the idea.
Lets step back a moment, the Bibles not BAD, but then again it was written when people thought Witches, Werewolves, Vampires, yada yada existed. They were not the most intellegent people. I believe that like they did with other things, that God was a way to explain what could not be explained in their day and age. There is also no facts to support the stories stored within the book. Now, the Bible does teach some people how to behave themselves. (Through fear however I must add. "Sin and you shall be sent to hell!" (Wow. Gods not very forgiving.)) -Coughs- Then again, some people take religion and the Bible way to far. (I hope I did not offend anyone, was only trying to express my thoughts.):
I do not find that the bible, written in the day and age of which it was, has any relevence to a modern debate. Go and pray to it in your free time, but dont bring it into something thats not related. Not everyone shares the same relgion, and its like saying: "Here's how it goes, becuase our god and our rules are right. You are wrong." Humans in general have evolved and has become of course, more civilized. Looking to a really old book for defense or reasoning just does not fit anymore.
No. Debates and the Bile should not be mixed. It is easy to just plan ignore something or justify yourself on a decision becuase "God agrees." (Homosexuality being wrong for instance.) Whats really sad though is to see people go with the idea.
Lets step back a moment, the Bibles not BAD, but then again it was written when people thought Witches, Werewolves, Vampires, yada yada existed. They were not the most intellegent people. I believe that like they did with other things, that God was a way to explain what could not be explained in their day and age. There is also no facts to support the stories stored within the book. Now, the Bible does teach some people how to behave themselves. (Through fear however I must add. "Sin and you shall be sent to hell!" (Wow. Gods not very forgiving.)) -Coughs- Then again, some people take religion and the Bible way to far. (I hope I did not offend anyone, was only trying to express my thoughts.):
I do not find that the bible, written in the day and age of which it was, has any relevence to a modern debate. Go and pray to it in your free time, but dont bring it into something thats not related. Not everyone shares the same relgion, and its like saying: "Here's how it goes, becuase our god and our rules are right. You are wrong." Humans in general have evolved and has become of course, more civilized. Looking to a really old book for defense or reasoning just does not fit anymore.
Ok just to start. The bible pre dates vampires werewolves and witches. Those are more recent concepts for ways of trying to understand things in the mid-evil era. Although the vampire was actually a made up thing based off a weird Superstition about the dead coming back to life.(although ironically many different cutlers believe in a similar dead rising to eat people thing.) Also almost every place in the bible has been linked to a place in real life plus they have dated records proven even Jesus lived and records of people named in the bible many of the roman leaders of the age were named and there cities as well.(Though the Romans though Jesus was a Rebel trying to take over all of the roman empire not the son of god or even a profit.)
Also if you read the new testament jesus basically said "Ask for forgiveness and you will be forgiven" So uh ya sin and go to hell if you don't want to ask for help.
Fear of what? Certainly not something they don't even believe in.
And the people i was talking about were deemed dead by the doctors completely gone for like 20 minutes and then brought back by our amazing doctors these days.(More then likely a bit of Gods help as well but hey that's my belief not everyone elses.)
Your right I should not have generalized all people who believe in science have a grudge but a lot of people do I am not sure why. Maybe its fear? And the people i was talking about were deemed dead by the doctors completely gone for like 20 minutes and then brought back by our amazing doctors these days.(More then likely a bit of Gods help as well but hey that's my belief not everyone elses.)
The reason they have a 'grudge' in my opinion is not fear of not believing anything like you or envy of your beliefs (a bit of a conceited conclusion to come to) but the same as any other war of opinions. They think you have a grudge against them. As long as there is this ongoing argument between Christians and athiests, people on both sides will think everyone on the other side is out to get them, so they'll argue against them first, and so the cycle of war goes on.
I'm sure you 'believe' in science. It's not really an either/or thing, Christianity or science. Here's how the idea of science makes more sense - it isn't necessarily about finding facts, but finding methods of doing things the best way that help us in some way. Regardless of whether evolution is a fact, for example, farmers can still breed fish for certain traits and evolve them on their own so they can sell better fish. It's less about declaring 'the truth' and more about making things functional, which is why science changes so much to acknowledge a better way to do something or a better way to define something. So science doesn't interrupt Christianity at all. They have distinctly different roles.
It is the state of mind people get in nowadays when they want everything to be scientific, everything to be neatly functional and prove itself to them that makes people say science disproves religion. There's no way for science to prove or disprove God...it's not even what science is for.
I know what you mean about surviving God's divine grace and not necessarily what the doctors do. According to one doctor, I don't breathe enough for a living person to function, ever. Yet here I am. Medicine tries its best to find the most effective ways of examining and treating people, but sometimes real life doesn't fit into their neat little perceptions of what life is like.
Lul so am I suppose to have a bible debate score board or something? I don't see you having one that clocks your wins vs it and how is it dubious have you even tried to read the new testament? Now that you mention it though it would be funny to have a website dedicated to bible winning debates XD.
I cannot take anyone who says "lul" seriously. You misunderstood my post. I said that having a Bible debate score board would not mean a thing. Why do you double post so often?
What makes the Bible anymore credible that other religious texts? How can we know for certain that the Bible is the word of God?
His statment came out like 'Mattj takes a book where people are stoned as literal doctrine / he must support stoning children.' When mattj explained that he does not support stoning children, he reverted to just saying that God is inconsistant and shouldn't be trusted anyway, both attacking mattj, somewhat ignoring his details, and then moving the goalpost.
Moving the goalposts in the same way that pointing to a non-specific to child abuse book in the contradictory New Testament somehow absolves God from his previous support of child abuse? Ok.
Also worth pointing out that as a creationist mattj supports the teaching of this flawed theory in science classes, which is also child abuse.
Not only do I believe that the stoning of children was justified at one point, I believe that The Great Flood was justified, as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Children were undoubtedly involved in both of those instances as well. Do I take pleasure in the thought that children died? Obviously not. I also do not believe that Old Testament punishments are justified post Old Testament, as I explained in that post that you so conveniently decided not to read.
All that mystical magical verse does is help to show that the bible was at least in part a sociological construct designed to control people which changed as society did (and, if I have my bible right and the verse used is from the new covenant described by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount, then there is an evident attempt at a literary parallel between this event and those at Sinai). Even so, the idea that events can simply be absolved by claiming (non-specifically) that certain parts of the Old Testament can just be essentially ignored is farcical. God supported child abuse then decided he didn't.
Considering that we're talking about a Biblical event, to even entertain the thought that these events actually occurred and that some kind of moral error actually occurred would require that the the Bible is accurate.
No, if the bible is accurate, then the god of the Bible is a murderous, homophobic, duplicitous and bloodthirsty savage.
Citing links that equate executing a 35yo with child abuse does make for a good laugh though, so I'd appreciate it if you kept posts like that coming please and thankyou.
What you mean is "citing a link which contained 35+ quotes in which every one isn't watertight (but the majority are) because I couldn't be bothered to vet them because you're not worth it". The fact is only one of those quotes needs to be worthwhile in order to strip the bible of any moral authority.
Nice opinion. Glad to hear. If you'd like to know where you can put that opinion I'd be glad to inform you.
You are full of amazing quotes. Was teaching that light is the fastest particle in the universe child abuse? What about teaching that acoelomorphs were the intermediate group that linked jellyfish and the other complicated animals?
All that mystical magical verse does is help to show that the bible was at least in part a sociological construct designed to control people which changed as society did (and, if I have my bible right and the verse used is from the new covenant described by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount, then there is an evident attempt at a literary parallel between this event and those at Sinai).
God loosened the requirements for Heaven. Obviously the Bible is a sociological construct designed to control people which changed as society did. No other explanation possible.
Even so, the idea that events can simply be absolved by claiming (non-specifically) that certain parts of the Old Testament can just be essentially ignored is farcical. God supported child abuse then decided he didn't.
Would you like to show us all where I said that God is no longer responsible for the (probably) millions of children that died during the Great Flood, Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Canaanite Wars, and countless other places? No? Thank you. I have absolutely no problem putting the responsibility solely on His shoulders. If any of these events occured, then He is who He says He is, and He did the right thing. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a fairy tale (and what are you doing going on about a fairy tale), or He is who He says He is.
Specifically, it would require only the parts that you personally pick and choose to be accurate, while all parts that lean toward the positive are ignored. No collusion or intent do slander there. How convenient for you. I on the other hand have no problem with any part of it. You have to edit and pick and chose to make it fit your pre-concieved construct.
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.
Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
Have you ever opened a Bible? Or do you enjoy looking like a fool? You consistently misquote and misinterpret a simple book that millions upon millions of people have experience with. Do you not expect your ignorance to be displayed?
What you mean is "citing a link which contained 35+ quotes in which every one isn't watertight (but the majority are) because I couldn't be bothered to vet them because you're not worth it". The fact is only one of those quotes needs to be worthwhile in order to strip the bible of any moral authority.
If I'm not worth it, then do us all a favor and leave. Personally, I don't mind showing how ignorant of the subject you are, but if I'm really not worth it I don't see the point of you wasting your time. Unless you enjoy playing the group jester.
Out of those quotes, the majority surely were not watertight. Not a single one of them was. I could have went through every single one, but I couldn't stop laughing after point #2 and jigglychu did a fine enough job of handling most of the rest, oh and you weren't worth it so. Beyond that, throwing out a bunch of random quotes and just hoping one or two of them make sense shows your complete ignorance of the subject at hand. Why are you here again?
Really, SC, teaching creationism is child abuse? *facepalm*
Okay, I'll say that you support child abuse since you supported the recent military actions in Iraq and Libya. And I'm going to keep accusing you of child abuse for pages and pages, no matter how much you don't, even if the connection between war and child abuse is sketchy, all because I can't fathom how someone with pro-war beliefs can't or shouldn't be a child abuser. And as I argue with you on and an and on, I'll tell you (paradoxically) how much you're not worth arguing with the whole time.
You are full of amazing quotes. Was teaching that light is the fastest particle in the universe child abuse? What about teaching that acoelomorphs were the intermediate group that linked jellyfish and the other complicated animals?
Facetious and irrelevant examples. In science classes we were taught about the physics and biology of things such as light and evolution. We also discussed the possibilities and other theories available to us.
For example, we would have been taught that light is the fastest particle in the universe that was currently known to man. Then someone would ask a question about going faster, and our teacher would explain the conflicting theories on travelling faster than light speed.
Believing that creationism should be taught as science is science abuse because it is without any scientific credit. Therefore, by telling children that is even a potentially worthwhile avenue of legitimacy is intellectual abuse. They are lying to children, and in a public (or even private) school environment, that is intellectual abuse. In the same way that if in history class I was taught Henry VII lost the War of the Roses. My teacher would be lying to me, and as such, intellectual abusing me.
Because either the requirements were unfeasible or because humans were created without the ability, or god let society get to such a point that to reach the standards expected of them was night on impossible.
Obviously the Bible is a sociological construct designed to control people which changed as society did. No other explanation possible.
Which obviously shows that it has a very large potential to contain populist and political machinations.
Would you like to show us all where I said that God is no longer responsible for the (probably) millions of children that died during the Great Flood, Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Canaanite Wars, and countless other places? No? Thank you. I have absolutely no problem putting the responsibility solely on His shoulders. If any of these events occured, then He is who He says He is, and He did the right thing. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a fairy tale (and what are you doing going on about a fairy tale), or He is who He says He is.
Not if any. The only way in which the Bible can ring true as a piece of history is if they all ring true (which science has shown us not to be the case). Especially when it contradicts itself on more than one occasion.
I don't really know what more I can say about the fact you consider the stoning of children amongst other things legitimate. You are a CPS case.
Specifically, it would require only the parts that you personally pick and choose to be accurate, while all parts that lean toward the positive are ignored. No collusion or intent do slander there. How convenient for you. I on the other hand have no problem with any part of it. You have to edit and pick and chose to make it fit your pre-concieved construct.
If god is omnipotent and omniscient then any mistake in the bible renders it completely unworkable as a piece of history (which is what you believe it to be).
Out of those quotes, the majority surely were not watertight. Not a single one of them was.
Wait. When did this happen? You were saying the the Muhammed and Pedophilia thread that you thought that having sex with a child at any time period was wrong. How can stoning children be justified in any period? Is it a different God or something?
Really, SC, teaching creationism is child abuse? *facepalm*
Okay, I'll say that you support child abuse since you supported the recent military actions in Iraq and Libya. And I'm going to keep accusing you of child abuse for pages and pages, no matter how much you don't, even if the connection between war and child abuse is sketchy, all because I can't fathom how someone with pro-war beliefs can't or shouldn't be a child abuser. And as I argue with you on and an and on, I'll tell you (paradoxically) how much you're not worth arguing with the whole time.
referring to the teaching of 'creationism' as 'child abuse' is melodramatic yes but it's not so far off a valid point. warping the minds of children at such a young age with entirely unproven theories that can change their perspective on life forever is akin to brainwashing which is definitely a type of a mental abuse.
Wait. When did this happen? You were saying the the Muhammed and Pedophilia thread that you thought that having sex with a child at any time period was wrong. How can stoning children be justified in any period? Is it a different God or something?
Firstly, the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran are two different gods. No matter how much you might like them to be the same, each book records a different God who did different acts and behaved differently. The Bible is clear that any religious book written after the close of the New Testament is not of the God of the Bible.
As to when this happened. Are you really so unlearned? ... I... I'm not even going to start.
As for justifying the killing of minors, I cannot provide any justification that would satisfy you or anyone else. I can only provide justification that has satisfied me. If you'd like a brief summary, Rick Wade did a fairly good job explaining it in his paper "Yahweh War and the Conquest of Canaan. I probably couldn't present the case any better than he already has.
The Children
The most disturbing part of the conquest of Canaan for most people is the killing of children. After the defeats of both Heshbon and Bashan, Moses noted that they had “devoted to destruction every city, men, women, and children” (Deut. 2:34; 3:3, 6). Why would God have ordered that?
No matter what explanation of the death of children is given, no one except the most cold hearted will find joy in it. God didn’t. He gets no pleasure in the death of anyone. In Ezekiel 18:23 we read, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (see also Ezek. 33:11). When God told Abraham He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham pleaded for them, and God agreed in his mercy that if but only ten righteous people were found, He wouldn’t do it. Long after the conquest of the land, when God decided He would have to destroy Moab, according to Isaiah God “wept bitterly” over her cities (Isa. 16:9; cf. 15:5).
Here are a few factors to take into consideration.
First, the sins of parents, just like their successes, have an impact on their children.
Second, if the Canaanite children were allowed to live and remain in the land, they could very well act to avenge their parents when they grew up, or at least to pick up again the practices of their parents.
Third, if one holds that there is an age of accountability for children, and that those younger than that are received into heaven with God when they die, although the means of death were frightful and harsh, the Canaanite children’s experience after death would be better than if they’d continued to live among such a sinful people.{40} How persuasive this thought is will depend on how seriously we take biblical teaching about our future after the grave.
These ideas may provide little consolation. But we must keep in mind that God is not subject to our contemporary sensibilities.{41} If we’re going to find peace with much of the Bible, we will have to accept that. There is much to offend in Scripture: the burden of original sin; that the Israelites were permitted to keep slaves; the gospel itself (1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11); the headship of the husband. How about commands about servanthood, suffering for the gospel, and dying to oneself? Such things may still not be as offensive to us as the killing of children, but our sensibilities—especially those of modern individualistic Westerners who haven’t grasped the seriousness of sin and of worshiping other gods—do not raise us to the level of judging God. We cannot evaluate this on the basis of contemporary secular ethical thought.
The only test we can put to God is consistency with His own nature and word. Yahweh is a God of justice as well as mercy. He is also a God who takes no more pleasure in the death of adults than in those of children.
This doesn’t resolve the issue, but I’ll just point out (again) that it’s hard to swallow the revulsion people feel at this who themselves support abortion rights. It’s well known that the unborn feel pain, and that late term abortion methods are abominable practices, ones pro-choicers wouldn’t tolerate if performed on animals. A critic might hastily claim that I am employing a tu quoque argument here, but I’m not (that is the fallacy of defending something on the basis that the other person does it, too). I’m not offering it as a defense of the killing of children in the Old Testament. The purpose of the observation is intended simply to make critics stop and think about the charge they are making. It’s rather like the adage, “One who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones.”
Facetious and irrelevant examples. In science classes we were taught about the physics and biology of things such as light and evolution. We also discussed the possibilities and other theories available to us.
?
Really now? So teaching the idea that the God of the Bible created the universe, which you say has no scientific basis, is child abuse, but teaching that light is the fastest particle in the universe, and that acoelomorphs were the evolutionary link between jellyfish and the other complicated animals was not child abuse, although there were, in fact, no scientific bases for either conclusion? It couldn't be because of your ignorant, blind bias against all things religious! Please do elaborate!
For example, we would have been taught that light is the fastest particle in the universe that was currently known to man. Then someone would ask a question about going faster, and our teacher would explain the conflicting theories on travelling faster than light speed.
How DARE they teach ideas other than the current scientific mainstream!
[img139]http://www.principledpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Shocked.bmp[/img139]
Oh wait... when it suits you its fine... but when it involves religion... its not... so...
Believing that creationism should be taught as science is science abuse because it is without any scientific credit. Therefore, by telling children that is even a potentially worthwhile avenue of legitimacy is intellectual abuse. They are lying to children, and in a public (or even private) school environment, that is intellectual abuse. In the same way that if in history class I was taught Henry VII lost the War of the Roses. My teacher would be lying to me, and as such, intellectual abusing me.
OGOB! SCIENCE ABUSE! INTELLECTUAL ABUSE! CALL THE COPS! WE'VE GOT KIDS DYING IN HUR!
Seriously, you mean to say that teaching anything other than what you personally accept is abuse. Its fine when you're fine with it. Its not when it touches your "i've got a grudge with religion" nerve. Get over yourself.
Oh, I admit that the possibility is there. Do you have any proof? Do you have an ancient text somewhere with a verse crossed out and a footnote saying "This just doesn't make sense anymore"? Otherwise you're making outlandish, baseless claims. You seem to be good at that.
Not if any. The only way in which the Bible can ring true as a piece of history is if they all ring true (which science has shown us not to be the case). Especially when it contradicts itself on more than one occasion.
So you're saying that the Abrahamic story cannot be true.
as i asked before
why are you here arguing that it was child abuse again?
[img139]http://www.gamesprays.com/images/icons/cheshire-cat-3116_preview.png[/img139]
Oooh! Oooh! It's "call your opponent names because you don't have an argument time"!! Lets see... you're ignorant. Um... you're a troll. Ummm... you live in a land of make believe where the rules of debate don't exist. Ummmm...
You did a poor job showing that a single one promoted child abuse. You just linked to them and said "THERE! TAKE THAT!" We've already shown that many of them were completely laughable. Would you like to break a single one of them down?
?
Really now? So teaching the idea that the God of the Bible created the universe, which you say has no scientific basis, is child abuse, but teaching that light is the fastest particle in the universe, and that acoelomorphs were the evolutionary link between jellyfish and the other complicated animals was not child abuse, although there were, in fact, no scientific bases for either conclusion? It couldn't be because of your ignorant, blind bias against all things religious! Please do elaborate!
In science classes, the idea is to teach that "all evidence currently points to this idea", while allowing room for change. Obviously, it's impossible to talk about absolutes in the ENTIRE universe when we've only explored such a small fraction of it.
There IS CURRENTLY scientific basis for these ideas, but that doesn't mean that the scientific community is closed to new evidence. Indeed, the scientific basis of an idea depends on the amount of evidence for and against it. The fact that the scientific community is open-minded enough to say "whoops, we have evidence that we got that wrong" when appropriate (which becomes less and less frequent with time) shows the strengths of the scientific method rather than the weaknesses regarding finding the truth.
I reckon it is a good idea to teach Christianity to children. And Islam. And Judaism. And Buddhism. etc. Comparative religion classes would really aid one's understanding of history. But religion should be kept out of science classes. Giving creationism the status of science in class teaches children to accept unsubstantiated ideas, which is TRULY abusive in the long run.
referring to the teaching of 'creationism' as 'child abuse' is melodramatic yes but it's not so far off a valid point. warping the minds of children at such a young age with entirely unproven theories that can change their perspective on life forever is akin to brainwashing which is definitely a type of a mental abuse.
First question: how can you not give kids material of what to believe? How can their perspective on life not change at least a hundred times through their young lives? Children are taught seven hours a day in grade school - do we only consider it brainwashing by the veracity of what they are being taught? What do you believe? How did you come to believe it? Was that an entirely neutral process?
By implying that creationism warps kids' minds, you imply the insulting idea that all the adults who believe creationism already are mentally damaged. My aunt in a nurse practicioner and she is a strict Christian and her children and my closest friends are growing up on the idea God created the earth. My closest friends have believed the same thing. Give me academic studies proving that creationism hurts children and adults, and then we maybe somewhat approach calling it 'mental abuse'. Until then, you are jumping to conclusions based on your beliefs. My mom was screamed by her Catholic mother for being a lesbian and my other mom was in the military. They suffered mental abuse. To take a lack or alteration of grade school education and call it mental abuse insults what mental abuse actually is and reeks of an extreme attempt to formulate propaganda by framing something entirely normal as a violation of your political beliefs.
Mandatory education is only a little more than a century old in the US; and 'rights' are something that define the parameters of how someone owns their property and their own dignity in the treatment of a representative government. When we start talking about a right to be given something, that isn't a right anymore, that's a demand for a benefit. This perception that child protective services should be used to take away children that aren't being taught something in school even if they NEVER use that principle during their careers shows a lofty sense of self-entitlement on what you decide other people's kids should be taught, and even worse, whether parents get to keep their kids.
Because you know what? Teaching kids how animals evolved is barely %0.000001 of parenting, and it's absolutely ludicrous to say that they are abusing their child if they fail to agree and do that one fact that actually isn't necessary for that child's welfare in a society where they can choose who they want to be.
mattj, the Christian God, Islamic God, and Jewish God are all the same. Just different interpretations of it. It's like me saying Tyr and Mars are different Gods because they're worshiped by 2 different groups of people (Odinist's and Roman pagans), they're still the same God, just different interpretations of the God of war. The same goes for many Gods, Thor and Zeus, Odin and Mercury, Freya and Ceres, I could go on. And you can't use the 'my god is right god' excuse because that's just plain ignorance, and I'm pretty sure your religion teaches against ignorance.
Edit: also Double A's post. Children should be allowed to pick their own religion more, a lot of kids think that Christianity is the only religion they have open to them, if they were taught Judaism, Buddhism, Paganism, Hinduism and Islam as well as Christianity (and any other major religions (/religious groups) I might have missed), then they can see the differences between them, and understand other people's beliefs more than they currently do.
When I asked, "Is it a different God or something?" I meant is God different from the OT different from the God of the NT and from the God of the present day? If God is always the same, then you can still justify stoning children today.
referring to the teaching of 'creationism' as 'child abuse' is melodramatic yes but it's not so far off a valid point. warping the minds of children at such a young age with entirely unproven theories that can change their perspective on life forever is akin to brainwashing which is definitely a type of a mental abuse.
Firstly, the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran are two different gods. No matter how much you might like them to be the same, each book records a different God who did different acts and behaved differently. The Bible is clear that any religious book written after the close of the New Testament is not of the God of the Bible.
As to when this happened. Are you really so unlearned? ... I... I'm not even going to start.
So having sex with nine year olds was always bad, but stoning children was ok? Glad we've cleared that one up.
Really now? So teaching the idea that the God of the Bible created the universe, which you say has no scientific basis, is child abuse, but teaching that light is the fastest particle in the universe, and that acoelomorphs were the evolutionary link between jellyfish and the other complicated animals was not child abuse, although there were, in fact, no scientific bases for either conclusion? It couldn't be because of your ignorant, blind bias against all things religious! Please do elaborate!How DARE they teach ideas other than the current scientific mainstream!
In science classes, the idea is to teach that "all evidence currently points to this idea", while allowing room for change. Obviously, it's impossible to talk about absolutes in the ENTIRE universe when we've only explored such a small fraction of it.
There IS CURRENTLY scientific basis for these ideas, but that doesn't mean that the scientific community is closed to new evidence. Indeed, the scientific basis of an idea depends on the amount of evidence for and against it. The fact that the scientific community is open-minded enough to say "whoops, we have evidence that we got that wrong" when appropriate (which becomes less and less frequent with time) shows the strengths of the scientific method rather than the weaknesses regarding finding the truth.
I reckon it is a good idea to teach Christianity to children. And Islam. And Judaism. And Buddhism. etc. Comparative religion classes would really aid one's understanding of history. But religion should be kept out of science classes. Giving creationism the status of science in class teaches children to accept unsubstantiated ideas, which is TRULY abusive in the long run.
Oh, I admit that the possibility is there. Do you have any proof? Do you have an ancient text somewhere with a verse crossed out and a footnote saying "This just doesn't make sense anymore"? Otherwise you're making outlandish, baseless claims.
Not at all. There is no proof as to who wrote swathes of the bible. As such, we have very little way of knowing their motives. As such, we can safely cast a sceptical eye upon much of what is produced, given its questionable morality and attempts to reinforce patriarchal culture.
You seem to be good at that.So you're saying that the Abrahamic story cannot be true.
No, I'm saying that it isn't definitely true. It may very well be the case that a man thought God told him to sacrifice his son, it may be the case he was willing to do it. There is no proof.
You also miss the larger point I made, but this is unsurprising.
as i asked before
why are you here arguing that it was child abuse again?
Because if it did occur then it was. If it didn't it's simply a fictionalised account of child abuse.
ooh! Oooh! It's "call your opponent names because you don't have an argument time"!! Lets see... you're ignorant. Um... you're a troll. Ummm... you live in a land of make believe where the rules of debate don't exist. Ummmm...
Do you want me to find posts where you've called others and myself morons?
You did a poor job showing that a single one promoted child abuse. You just linked to them and said "THERE! TAKE THAT!" We've already shown that many of them were completely laughable. Would you like to break a single one of them down
Except for Creationism obviously. Anything else is fine. Is light the fastest particle in the universe, or are neutrinos? What are the root species that link other species? How can complexity arise out of nothingness? Watch it mister. That could damage a child's fragile mind. Wouldn't want them getting any ideas.
But religion should be kept out of science classes. Giving creationism the status of science in class teaches children to accept unsubstantiated ideas, which is TRULY abusive in the long run.
Creationism is not "unsubstantiated". It is "unaccepted". You said yourself that science classrooms should be open to new ideas as long as there is some evidence. I guess you're just being a hypocrite like usual though.
When I asked, "Is it a different God or something?" I meant is God different from the OT different from the God of the NT and from the God of the present day? If God is always the same, then you can still justify stoning children today.
I will not gratify your trolling by even linking to the post that I already made explaining why stoning of children/homosexuals/rapists is not required by the contract between God and man known as the New Testament. If you don't get it, try seeing a doctor. Maybe he could give you some medication to help you with your problem.
