The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:40 pm 
Just saying. Here, read this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1123/p11s02-legn.html

I know it's kind of old news, but it still bugs me. If they start having to teach "intelligent design" in public school they may as well start teaching that "the little green footballs from planet Viagra created the human race". That's a logical interpretation. :x


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:13 pm 
I agree, this is fustrating because it's christian fundalmentalism at its worst. I do know one science teacher has to include creationism in his lectures, but he's planning on using the Norse creation stories instead of the biblical as his way of fighting back. There is at least hope in some sectors.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:14 pm 
Offline
Energizer Bunny
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 12:24 am
Posts: 1634
Sometimes it surprises me how credible Christian Science Monitor really is.

Vorn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:40 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Ugh. Creationists. If there's anything that really makes me seriously pissed, it's creationists. Such willful disregard for science, logic, and reason.

And to think I used to be one... *sighs*

No, you don't get to hear about that.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:31 pm 
gah!
the thing is, since they believe in creationism, they've got "bulletproof" logic about it, you largely CANNOT debate it with them, because they will not listen
they shut off at the sign of you disagreeing with them
well atleast the ones i've met *shudders*


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:23 pm 
hmm, this one is kind of tough for me. On one hand, I do believe in God and I believe the universe was created by God. I also believe that mankind was specially created by God.

But on the other hand, I beleive that He has not told us how He created the world, and until He does the scientific method is the best way for us to learn about how the world works. And evolution is the best theory science has at this time to explain how advanced life came into existance.

It annoys me when people claim that God created the world and therefore evolution is an evil thing. It also annoys me when people claim that anyone that believes in a creation is stupid, ignorant, or some combination of the two.

But what really annoys me is when either group claims that they have the full and complete answer. There are a lot of holes and/or thin spots in the details of evolution. (When some steps in the chain are missing, or extrapolated from a single specimen, I call that a thin spot) There is not a lot of information available from any authoritative source of the details of a creation. (When God tells someone about how He created the ameobas I'll listen. But there is no 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd hand source saying how God did it, just that He did.)

In other words, I'm not sure who ticks me off the worst. Those that claim evolution to be evil and/or a hoax despite it being the best tool we have right now? Or those that teach that evolution is the only possible way humans could have come into existance?

I was so mad when I had to debate creation vs. evolution in high school biology. First because the teacher was obviously biased against the idea of creation. Second because I see no reason to bring creation into a high school biology class, even if I believe in it.

The only reason this is a problem is becuase people are idiots. The "scientists" want to gloss over the fact that most of what is taught is theory backed by practical experience, not the be all and end all of truth. And the "creationists" are either trying to push their beliefs on others, or are so unsure of thier own beliefs that they want to supress anything that doesn't agree with them perfectly.

So here's my suggestion (at the end of this rant):

"Creationists" - gain a confidence in your beliefs such that hearing a different opinion doesn't offend or scare you. You can continue to believe that the evolutionists are evil, but deal with it and accept that others are allowed thier own beliefs however wrong they may be.
"Evolutionists" - admit that you don't have all the answers, but what you have is the best we have at this time. Then just teach what you've got, don't try to tear down the religious beliefs of others. You can continue to believe that the creationists are deluded idiots, but deal with it and accept that others are allowed thier own beliefs however wrong they may be.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:49 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Kit the Odd wrote:
But what really annoys me is when either group claims that they have the full and complete answer.


Most evolutionists will accept and willingly admit that they are nowhere near the complete answer, and that they will probably never know the whole picture of the history of life. If they did have the full and complete answer, no one would ever get research grants.

Quote:
There are a lot of holes and/or thin spots in the details of evolution. (When some steps in the chain are missing, or extrapolated from a single specimen, I call that a thin spot)


And there's a lot of strong spots. Your point? The theory of evolution doesn't fall apart just because we don't know all the details of how, say, sex evolved.

Quote:
Or those that teach that evolution is the only possible way humans could have come into existance?


Very few people on the evolution side will deny that it is possible evolution is incorrect. They will, however, tell you that this outcome is extremely unlikely based on evidence. No teacher worth their degree would say that evolution is the only possible way, but most will agree it's the best explanation we have..

Quote:
The "scientists" want to gloss over the fact that most of what is taught is theory backed by practical experience, not the be all and end all of truth.


Uh, most scientists will admit that readily. The scientific community knows it is not the "be all and end all of truth". They are aware of their own incompleteness and fallibility and will admit to it. Read more.

Quote:
"Evolutionists" - admit that you don't have all the answers, but what you have is the best we have at this time.


We do admit that. Read more. Creationists are the ones who think they have the ultimate truth: scientists acknowledge that our knowledge of the world is and forever will be incomplete.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:48 am 
Quote:
And there's a lot of strong spots. Your point? The theory of evolution doesn't fall apart just because we don't know all the details of how, say, sex evolved.


Actually, there are some pretty neat theories on that. Mostly it's believed to start with one cell eating another and failing to digest the DNA. From that you eventually get sexual reproduction but with only one sex... The more familiar two-sex system takes longer.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:03 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
Mrs. Keradon wrote:
I agree, this is fustrating because it's christian fundalmentalism at its worst. I do know one science teacher has to include creationism in his lectures, but he's planning on using the Norse creation stories instead of the biblical as his way of fighting back. There is at least hope in some sectors.


I like it!

I'd love to see a lesson plan that goes like this:

Multi-specie Biology, 15 weeks

Weeks 1-14: Introduction to class as THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND GENETICS. Evolution, including Darwinian Theory of Evolution, Mendelian and non-Mendelian genetics, rough overview of the rules used to classify a new finding in a certain genus, overview of the kingdoms of plant and animal life on Earth. Introduction to the ones we can't figure out worth a darn. (duck billed platypus?) (this, by the way, is exactly how my high school biology class looked.)
Week 15
Monday: Introduction to the rest of the week as CREATION MYTHOLOGIES. Suggestion to look for common threads throughout all the mythologies, as something that is universally true should show up in all mythos.
Tuesday: Norse pantheon: Beginning in chaos. Odin the All-Father, Ymir the tree of life, the great flood.
Wednesday: Greco-Roman: Cross reference to Astronomy 101, origin of the names of the other planets in the solar system (Saturn, Jupiter, etc).
Thursday: Chinese creation myth: beginning in chaos. Pan Gu, the titanic separator of earth and sky. Native American: The Great Spirit, creation of man from the dust.
Friday: Christianity. Jehovah the all-creator, created Man from the dust...

Now, that ought to piss them off, what?

I took an entire Religion class based on this concept of comparative religion. A different theological structure a week...
The instructor said of Christianity:
"Then there's the cross. Why the cross, and not a fish? After all, Christ used fish as examples himself--recruiting fishermen as his first apostles, infinitely multiplying fish and loaves, and so forth. Or perhaps a shepherd's staff, for he also used livestock metaphors actively. Or a carpenter's hammer, representing his profession before he began and his building of a faith? But yet they choose as his symbol the cross, which was imposed upon him. Why in the world would Christ's followers want to carry his gallows around their necks?"

I got a C in that class (mostly because my own analysis are so unorthodox, they couldn't follow them), but I didn't care. It was great fun. Almost as great fun as watching people who were firm in one belief system attempt to wrap their heads around the rest of them as anything other than quaint bullcrap...and then run into their own faith presented as an equal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:06 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
<a href="http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/uranus.htm">Ooh...</a>

There's an interesting page, I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:41 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:08 am
Posts: 305
Location: The Great Northern Deciduous Forests
Ishidan wrote:
The instructor said of Christianity:
"Then there's the cross. Why the cross, and not a fish? After all, Christ used fish as examples himself--recruiting fishermen as his first apostles, infinitely multiplying fish and loaves, and so forth. Or perhaps a shepherd's staff, for he also used livestock metaphors actively. Or a carpenter's hammer, representing his profession before he began and his building of a faith? But yet they choose as his symbol the cross, which was imposed upon him. Why in the world would Christ's followers want to carry his gallows around their necks?"

I hope your instructor explained it, since the answer is actually very obvious.

Second, the fish is used as a symbol of Christianity, though it's not as commonly worn as the cross is. See this page, for instance.

Henk G.

_________________
Why are canines called canines when feline canines are bigger than canine canines?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:04 pm 
It's only obvious to those already immersed in the symbology of the particular cult. Lets hear your rationale. I've never understood it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:29 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
htg wrote:
I hope your instructor explained it, since the answer is actually very obvious.

Second, the fish is used as a symbol of Christianity, though it's not as commonly worn as the cross is. See this page, for instance.

Henk G.


If he did, I forgot it. Please, do explain again for Pronto and myself.

I have, indeed, seen the fish used as a symbol--but mostly only as a bumper sticker or other symbol secondary to the crucifix. The point remains: the primary symbol is the crucifix, which may or may not also have a representation of Jesus attached. (which, of course, also lets you have a nice look into how the sculptor thinks Jesus should have looked.)

You know, I never considered the irony of the situation until now.

A carpenter, sentenced to death by being nailed to two large pieces of lumber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:38 pm 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:26 pm
Posts: 1479
Location: R'lyeh
Ishidan wrote:
You know, I never considered the irony of the situation until now.

A carpenter, sentenced to death by being nailed to two large pieces of lumber.


Makes you wonder if his last words were actually "Shoddy craftsmanship!" instead of "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?".

_________________
Living in a state free from the burdens of privacy and democracy since 2008-06-18.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:45 pm 
lol


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:08 am 
Pronto wrote:
It's only obvious to those already immersed in the symbology of the particular cult. Lets hear your rationale. I've never understood it.


Hm...Well, I'm no Christian, but let me try:
As a general rule, Christians believe that, by letting people crucify him, Jesus basically took on himself the punishment humans everywhere were supposed to get for being morally imperfect; they have thus been granted a cosmic amnisty - a get-out-of-hell card, that allows them into heaven. So, basically, the bit with the cross was the whole point of Jesus coming on Earth.
My apologies if I got it wrong.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:57 am 
Aye, the sacrifice-for-humanity's-salvation thing is a lot more meaningful than just some miracle involving fish. All sorts of prophets and such eprformed miracles; only Jesus came back to life, redeemed mankind's sins, etc.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:29 am 
actually, you'd find that traditionally it wasn't believed he actually came back to life - a physical resurrection wasn't necessary for a long, long time.

The belief in a bodily resurrection was thought up many hundred years later.

And it's no use saying that all other miracles were handwaving because only your version of god was true. Look in the mirror and say that.

Another interesting point; from what I understand, the addition of the cross was just that - an addition. One of the first signs was a lamb, and the fish of course. The cross came in much later - originally christians were called (by various languages) 'followers of the god who was hanged' (as in 'by the neck').


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:39 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
greyseal wrote:
And it's no use saying that all other miracles were handwaving because only your version of god was true. Look in the mirror and say that.

The cross came in much later - originally christians were called (by various languages) 'followers of the god who was hanged' (as in 'by the neck').


From the bottom up...
"Wooo--ooo! You shifty *epithet*, they said you was hung!"
"And they was right!"

As for the latter, I hear that all the time. Bring up the miracles chronicled in other religions, and you often get a nice, "But Jesus..."

Try to explain to them that there can be only one truth.
They're with you so far.

Then tell them that Christianity is only one religion out of the thousands that have been on Earth. Even then, there are hundreds of variants, interpretations, and sects. Only one could possibly be correct.
Some of them are still with you.

Ask them if they like their odds, given the above sentence, and the logical fact that the correct one may not even have been found yet.
...and at that point, you lose them. This is because they've already decided that theirs IS the one that beats the odds, the one correct one and all the rest are otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:25 pm 
*rolls her eyes*

Jesus was the only one that came back in the Xian religion (aside from Lazarus, who was brought back by Jesus). Thus considering him unique is perfectly reasonable in context of Xian belief.

Here I was thinking that the question was about the significance/ prominence of the cross as opposed to the fish, but y'all just seem to want to harp on why 'religion suxx0rs'.

The symbology of Xianity has changed over the years, because Xianity has changed over the years. Modern day Xians would no more use the symbology of the Xians of two thousand years ago than you woud speak the language of *insert home country here* from two thousand years ago.

If what you want to do is slam your pet peeve, don't disguise it in a request for knowledge. That happens to be one of my pet peeves. :roll:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:53 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
Kerlyssa wrote:
Jesus was the only one that came back <b>in the Xian religion</b> (aside from Lazarus, who was brought back by Jesus). Thus considering him unique is perfectly reasonable <b>in context</b> of Xian belief.


Highlighted the parts where you missed my--and Greyseal's, if I understand correctly--point.

If you start with the assumption that the history of the world as told by Christianity is correct, of course, that Jesus is unique will follow. Then, of course, you use the uniqueness of Jesus to prove that the history of the world as told by Christianity is correct...and round and round you go on the wheel of circular reasoning.

What if you don't assume that?

What if you note that in Greco-Roman mythology, Hercules, a child of a human woman and the King of Gods (oh...sound familiar? I'll bet Zeus had more fun of it, though, and he even had to watch out for his bitch of a wife. The subsidiary figures in his pantheon even got to call themselves GODS, instead of mere "patron saints", "angels", or other such noise), descended into Hades as part of <a href="http://www.mythweb.com/hercules/herc17.html">a penance</a> (normally a one-way trip, just like going to Heaven or Hell in Christianity) and returned to Earth once his battle was complete.

Or perhaps you note that in Hindi, we're all constantly being resurrected. Okay, in completely different bodies, and we don't recognize each other from former lives, but we're all constantly being resurrected.

Is it so unique any more?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:12 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Kerlyssa wrote:
Jesus was the only one that came back in the Xian religion (aside from Lazarus, who was brought back by Jesus). Thus considering him unique is perfectly reasonable in context of Xian belief.


Except for:

1 Kings 17:20-22, KJV wrote:
He called to the LORD and said, "O LORD my God, have You also brought calamity to the widow with whom I am staying, by causing her son to die?" Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and called to the LORD and said, "O LORD my God, I pray You, let this child's life return to him." The LORD heard the voice of Elijah, and the life of the child returned to him and he revived.


2 Kings 4:32-35, KJV wrote:
And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD. And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.


2 Kings 20-21:20, KJV wrote:
Elisha died, and they buried him. Now the bands of the Moabites would invade the land in the spring of the year. As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.


Matthew 9:18, 23-25, KJV wrote:
While He was saying these things to them, a synagogue official came and bowed down before Him, and said, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live." [...] When Jesus came into the official's house, and saw the flute-players and the crowd in noisy disorder, He said, "Leave; for the girl has not died, but is asleep." And they began laughing at Him. But when the crowd had been sent out, He entered and took her by the hand, and the girl got up.


Luke 7:12-15, KJV wrote:
Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:46 am 
Ishidan wrote:
Kerlyssa wrote:
Jesus was the only one that came back <b>in the Xian religion</b> (aside from Lazarus, who was brought back by Jesus). Thus considering him unique is perfectly reasonable <b>in context</b> of Xian belief.


Highlighted the parts where you missed my--and Greyseal's, if I understand correctly--point.

I think she was trying to answer "why the cross rather than the fish as symbols of christianty?" So other religions, as well as the "correctness" of world history according to the Chritian religion, are pretty irrelevant.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 11:19 am 
So, Elija knew mouth to mouth? Heh.

Thanks for the bible background, Jerry.


On thinking about it more, I think that the emphasis on the cross could track a shift in religious emphasis from miracles(rewards received in this world) to one that emphasized salvation (ie, something you wouldn't see until after you were dead)


Ishi&Co.:
Simply because the reason behind a symbol doesn't jibe with what you consider to be rational, doesn't mean that it's incorrect. Since when is faith rational?

Also, I think y'all might be a bit confused about something here: I'm not a Xian, and therefore attempts to dissuade me from my misguided ways are, well, a bit misguided. :) I only jumped in here because y'all were asking about some fairly basic Xian symbols.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 11:48 pm 
Actually Christ was the first to come back from the dead in an immortal state. Everyone that was brought back to life previously died again later. Christ's ressurection to immortality allows everyone else to be ressurected to immortality at some point.

The cross if often used as a symbol becuase the last part of Christ's Atonement for us took place there. In both the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross Jesus suffered for the sins of the world and then on the cross gave up His life to complete that payment. Three days later He arose from the tomb, ressurected and immortal. In this He over came physical death(separation of spirit and body), and spiritual death(separation of person and God).

I personally don't agree with using the cross as an identification symbol for two reasons. One, it concentrates on one part of His gospel and Atonement, which can obscure or overpower other aspects. Two, the part it concentrates on is not the final victory, but the lowest point. A very important part of the process, but not the one I'd choose to focus on.

But the fact that a cross it a lot easier to draw and other make than most other possibilities may have something to do with its endurance.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:17 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Kit the Odd wrote:
Actually Christ was the first to come back from the dead in an immortal state. Everyone that was brought back to life previously died again later.


Why does this matter? The main point is the resurrection. Triumph over death and sin happened when he came back from the dead. Nobody ever gets chocolate candy or presents on the ascension. The epistles repeatedly talk about the power of Jesus' resurrection, and what it symbolizes, but never his ascension.

Acts 26:22-23, KJV wrote:
Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.


Christ's resurrection is emphasized as making him special, but nothing is said of his later ascension. If the ascension was truly the selling point, the thing that made Jesus more special than the others who returned from the dead, you'd think it'd get a lot more lip service. (The author of Acts was apparently ignorant of the others who returned from the dead, such as those raised by Elijah and Elisha, as well as Lazarus.) Compared to the resurrection, the ascension was trivial. The book of Mark, the book of Luke, and the book of Acts each devote ONE VERSE to it, Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9. The other two gospels have no mention of it. The ascension is a minor point, inflated to ignore the point that Jesus was not the first one to come back from the dead.

Quote:
But the fact that a cross it a lot easier to draw and other make than most other possibilities may have something to do with its endurance.


It's also a lot easier to interpret things as the symbol of your religion when the symbol is two perpendicular lines.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:39 am 
It perhaps ought to be added that in many if not most 'pagan' religions, there is a ressurrection story of some kind; the mystery cults of Osiris, Dionysius and Mithras all had resurrection (and subesquent immortality for the faithful) as part of there doctrines, and even early many sects used the death and ressurrection of the 'Corn King' (and often, the literal death and replacement of an actual youth who was chosen as the 'king') as an allegory for the seasonal cycles. While it was an important part of Christian theology, it was not the part of Christianity that was the key to it's spread throughout the Roman Empire.

Actually, the mostly likely reasons for it's prominence were a) it offered an explanation for why the old religions seemed to many to be failing (with social decay and so on), b) it accepted members of all backgrounds and classes, both men and women, so long as they accepted it as their sole faith, d) it's exclusivity gave a strict 'us versus them' aspect that served as a bond betwen the fellowship, as did the 'underground' nature of the religion in the early days, and e) it focused almost entirely on faith and 'morality', with few devotional rites compared to the ritual-heavy traditional religions. Some of the mystery and devotional sects shared some of these traits, but none AFIAK shared all of them; exclusive religions in particular were rare, and devotees of most sects have no problem also follow the cults of Roma and the emperors as well as their own faiths, even when they contradicted each other.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:48 pm 
Eh. What I don't understand is why hard-core evolution teachers are dead-set against any sort of guidance to evolution at all and use evolution as a "Because there is evolution there is no god" deal.

We really don't know. We will probably never know for sure if there was any guidance in evolution. It's easy to ignore the possibility with Occams razor though. Just because it is a less likely possibility doesn't mean that it is impossible though.

So my opinion comes down to "Evolution is just fine to teach in schools, as long as they don't arrogantly dismiss questions with 'There is no god, stupid' and instead say 'It's possible but scientifically unlikely.'"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:04 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
Eh. What I don't understand is why hard-core evolution teachers are dead-set against any sort of guidance to evolution at all and use evolution as a "Because there is evolution there is no god" deal.


Because it's not science, and it has no place in a science class.

Kazriko wrote:
We really don't know. We will probably never know for sure if there was any guidance in evolution. It's easy to ignore the possibility with Occams razor though. Just because it is a less likely possibility doesn't mean that it is impossible though.


Go back and read that again, and I'll bet you can figure out why it's not science.

Kazriko wrote:
So my opinion comes down to "Evolution is just fine to teach in schools, as long as they don't arrogantly dismiss questions with 'There is no god, stupid' and instead say 'It's possible but scientifically unlikely.'"


Evolutionary biology doesn't say anything about God one way or the other.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:09 pm 
Animal wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
Eh. What I don't understand is why hard-core evolution teachers are dead-set against any sort of guidance to evolution at all and use evolution as a "Because there is evolution there is no god" deal.


Because it's not science, and it has no place in a science class.


And of course, Saying there is no god has a place in a science class then?

Quote:
Kazriko wrote:
We really don't know. We will probably never know for sure if there was any guidance in evolution. It's easy to ignore the possibility with Occams razor though. Just because it is a less likely possibility doesn't mean that it is impossible though.


Go back and read that again, and I'll bet you can figure out why it's not science.

Kazriko wrote:
So my opinion comes down to "Evolution is just fine to teach in schools, as long as they don't arrogantly dismiss questions with 'There is no god, stupid' and instead say 'It's possible but scientifically unlikely.'"


Evolutionary biology doesn't say anything about God one way or the other.


Exactly. Which is why the only problem with teaching evolution in class comes down to pigheaded teachers who think that it does say something about god one way or the other, and imposes that on their students.

Nice how you restated my point exactly while completely missing it.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group