Topic awaiting preservation: Here we Go again (Page 1 of 3)

Yet again there are christian groups attacking childrens cartoons. Their most recent target the annoying little yellow sponge that everybody loves: Spongebob Squarepants, along with a second round at that abominable purple dinosaur: Barney. (I AM NOT ATTACKING ALL CHRISTIANS NOR AM I TRUELY TRYING TO ATTACK ANY RELIGION MERELY POINTING SOMETHING OUT).

I got this off of the news on UPN 23 this morning. From what I heard what they are saying is this:
The latest spongebob movie/cartoon has content that can be interpreted as having material suggesting acceptance of a gay life style, therefore spongebob is gay. I guess this is the same thing they're saying about Barney.

THIS IS ABSURD! Anything can be interpreted so that it has content suggesting that. Besides if somebody wants to be gay, let them. Leave them alone. That's what they want, to be left alone to live out their lives in what they decided would make them happy. If they want to have a same-sex partnership fine. As long as they don't try to force anybody else to be gay. And as far as media making kids gay. That is absurd to. Yes the media does influence people of ALL ages. But ultimately the individual has the choice. If a kid plays a James Bond game and can't tell the differance between the game and what is acceptable in real life, it isn't the games fault. It is the fault of the child and of the parent. The child for being so stupid and the parent for not doing it's job of knowing what the child is playing, making sure he or she understands the differance between the game and reality. These kids that commit violent crimes and blame it on video games and movies are more often than not using them as scapegoats because they can't face up to the fact that THEY MADE THE DECISION to do what they did. There wasn't any telepathic brainwave coming through the television that brain controlled Billy an told him to shoot Sally. The gaming console didn't sprout limbs and force a gun into Billy's hand and them make him pull the trigger, nor did Pierce Brosnan jump out of the DVD player and do any of that. There are ratings on those things for a reason. But I digress, do you think Spongebob is gay? Are these extremists out of line?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Extremists are rarely in-line.

Your right about that. I just get tired of people that are constantly doing that sort of thing. Especially the ones that do it just for the publicity.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

These are the same people trying to get Evolution out of the classroom, and sex education as well.

Such people are rarely rational.

This thread could so easily parallel the stickers thread.

I have to admit that I think children's television has gone downhill for years - there is certainly a case to answer regarding the quality of some children's programmes...

...but that's just a little ridiculous, isn't it?

I used to love reading Sherlock Holmes as a kid. I suppose I'm lucky that I turned out 'straight', having been exposed to literature depicting what so easily could be interpreted as a gay relationship between an opium-addicted detective and a doctor.

Frankly, in light of this revelation, I'm surprised I don't wear a deerstalker and smoke unrefined opiates in a clay pipe, while playing the violin badly!

quote:

---

White Hawk said:
I suppose I'm lucky that I turned out 'straight', having been exposed to literature depicting what so easily could be interpreted as a gay relationship between an opium-addicted detective and a doctor.

---

I agree with everything you wrote there, Sangreal. Over here in England we got this, don't know if you heard about it, but some people seem to be blaming a game for this.

quote:

---

If games like this influence kids, they should be taken off the shelves.

---

No, he shouldn't kill someone after playing a video game.
If someone is that mentally unhinged, they shouldn't be playing these games. You can't blame real, brutal murder on a virtual representation of it.

Here's the bonehead himself. http://www.family.org/

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

sex education as well

---

Out, or changed? I agree that it should be changed, like it is being changed now, but it shouldn't be ousted. That's just stupid.

You are right WH. But they did effect you subconciously. They may not have effected you to the point of wanting to do opium, but you now associate opium with Sherlock Holmes. That is sometimes enough for some people, especially little children.

quote:

---

AlterEgo said:

If someone is that mentally unhinged, they shouldn't be playing these games. You
can't blame real, brutal murder on a virtual representation of it.

---

You are right, but you can blame the desensitization of young people's minds on it.

Ehtheist, did you read Dr. Dobsin's refutation article on the page you posted? He states that he does not have anything against Spongebob, but against the company that used him. That company was not just gay-tolerant, but pro-gay. He said in a conference that he had concerns about this video, and probably named a few of the cartoon characters in it. A reporter centered on one, then the news media got a hold of it. It is an interesting article.
[disclaimer]
I want to point out that I do not agree with Dr. Dobsin, and I think that he is too idealistic, and not realistic enough. The point I am trying to make is that this is another good example of the media blowing things out of proportion, again
[/disclaimer]

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

That company was not just gay-tolerant, but pro-gay.

---

Quibbling Gid, pure and simple quibbling. The point is, he is a bigot. It is not that he is pointing his ridiculous finger at a cartoon character, but that he is singling out individuals for hatred and reviling.

This is contrary to all human rights profiles.

Now, I appreciate this is a time-honoured xian practice, but that don't make it right!

BTW I am both gay-tolerant and pro-gay. You write those words as though there were somehting worn with that.

Another interesting spin the xian right has come up with, they have declared words like "tolerance" anathema as they promote acceptance of gays.

Apalling ignorance.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Apalling ignorance

---

On that, I can agree.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

he is singling out individuals for hatred and reviling.

---

Whoah! Now where did that come from? I never heard of hate in the Bible, except towards evil. Men are not evil, but are tempted by it. My stance (and possibly Dr. Dobsin's stance too, though I am just guessing) is to love the homosexual, but hate the homosexuality. I think I have said this before. The act is evil, not the person.

Jesus loved all the world, that is why He died for it. I love this verse, becuase it helped me in an area. It was pointed out to me by Sy Rogers, an ex-homosexual (I guess you could call it). I like it.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

---

(emphasis mine)

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon, Gideon, Gideon! Such faulty logic...but then one must remember religon and logic have nothing in common.

Love the homosexual, hate the hosexuality?

Typical xian excuse for rationale.

It is nothing less than an attempt to try to show tolerance while expressing hatred. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Like inhaling and exhaling they cannot be seperated.

Nor should they be. There is nothing to hate in homosexuality, but a great deal of hate is expressed about it by that particular sect called xianity.

Fortunately, there are relatively few xians, unfortunately they are voluable, who have such narrow and biased views. Views which seem to me to be diametrically opposite to those espoused by their supposed saviour.

But you all manage to convice yourselves your personal interpretation of that book of myths allows you to perpetrate the most heinous expression of vile hatred with complete impunity.

Seems pretty desperate to me to be so insecure in your faith as to have to constantly defend it.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Umm...Ehtheist has some good points here..and some that are not so good...
Good one:
People I have met with hugely intolerant views normally say that they are christians (i am not saying all christians just a vast majority) and say that they follow christian 'doctrine' or teachings whatever you want to call them. Then when you look at non-christian peoples there are a good amount of them that have views that are more 'christlike' than christians.

Not so good one:
Some christians continually defend their faith because they are continually being attacked for it by people who say they have an open mind or say that the christian person should be more open minded. (Which whether you mean to or not it sounds like you are doing this not just in this thread but in others as well...not to say that the other side is innocent of the same 'injustice')

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Well, I see groups of Xians so : There are those, who are willing to follow their belief, etc and keep it to themselves for themselves.

And then there are those, who feel compelled to impose their belief on others be it verbally or through laws, etc.

It is the second group that I feel is necessary to keep an eye on, and fight. The first group normally doesn't bother me, even though I may not agree with what they believe - they are not bothering others, nor are they forcing their beliefs upon others.

The act of trying to force beliefs on another is an attack in and of itself. And forceful conversion is an act of violence, IMHO.

Sang WS pretty much sums it up (are you sure we aren't related WS?).

As I believe I pointed out on one of these threads, I am a live and let-live sort of fella.

But when anyone like Gid raises their head out of the promordial slime (which they don't believe in) and tries to tell me or others their way is the ONLY way. Then it is time to don the figurative gauntlets.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Ehtheist-
So are you saying that loving a person, but despising what that person does is wrong? That is what I am saying. That is what Jesus is saying. He died for people that were doing things He thought were dispicable: rape, murder, prostitution, etc. Sacrificial death for a friend is the highest love that one person can show for another. And even since some don't believe that Jesus' death did anything, He still died for us. That is love. While we were still in our sinful selves, fornicating, robbing, murdering, lying, mastubating, stealing, slandering, all the things Jesus hates, He died for us.

Your analogy is wrong. I am sure that you are gulity of this very act you are condemning too. Do you agree with everything your parents or siblings do? But do you still love them? Same feeling.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Love the homosexual, hate the hosexuality?

---

It is like loving the Communist and hating the Communism. I love the person, but do not like what that person does. Is that so hard to grasp?

Even if you believe there is nothing to hate in homosexuality, that does not mean others share your same belief. You need to remember that before you go making statements like that. I know I am guilty of it, and I am trying to work on it, but that still does not mean that it is right. (Huh, do you know that you just did what you accuse xians of doing? Huh.)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

But you all manage to convice yourselves your personal interpretation
of that
book of myths allows you to perpetrate the most heinous expression of vile
hatred with complete impunity.

---

Well, if hating evil and loving good are heinous expressions, then I am guilty.

[quick comment]You are right Sangreal, 100%[/quick comment]

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The act of trying to force beliefs on another is an attack in and of itself.

---

So would you label teaching only Evolution in the class room a forcing of beliefs on a child WS? You see, the comment goes both ways. For Christians and non-Christians. It would be nice if both could lay off for a while, but the contest for who is right goes on like the contest between two little kids. When will we ever learn?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

*sigh*

quote:

---

So would you label teaching only Evolution in the class room a forcing of beliefs on a child WS?

---

Evolution is a fact you moron! Get that through your thick skull. The process of evolution is what is in the theory stage. So, no, it is not forcing beliefs on anyone, anymore than E=MC^2 is!

Idiot.

Teaching children facts that we know about reality is part of learning. Belief is a totally different subject, altogether. Facts are universal, beliefs are personal.

Evolution is not the same as Belief., just as a fact is not the same as a belief.

But we have already proven that, time and time again, and shown for all to see (well, except yourself - I guess some kinds of blindness have no cure) . It is your belief that prevents you from accepting the fact - well, that is your problem. It won't change the fact, however. Just like the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fact. Not accepting that it is a fact will not change it.

That is why Philosophy is not taught in the same course as Geology, Physics (though some might disagree here with quantum mechanics and Chaos Theory...hehe), Mathematics, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, etc.

I'll give you some concrete examples.

Evolution has not been the basis for launching any wars (nor can it really be - it just states a fact), nor for killing people in masses. In fact, none of the Sciences has been the basis for starting a war, or the slaughter of huge masses of humans.

Belief has been responsible for the deaths of huge amounts of humans, wars, atrocities, etc. This is becasue Beliefs have little to do with fact. Since they cannot be proven, one way or the other, that leaves them open to be attacked by other Beliefs that are contrary. It is in this structure, that one finds the seed of the problem. And thus, since there are those who feel that they must impose their beliefs on others, and there are those who resist this, it often comes to bloodshed.

You will note that those who accept the fact of Evolution are not gathering up arms, are not asking that YECs be somehow banished from the US, or from existence, or have their Beliefs outlawed (and are also not threatening anyone with "you are going to de-evolve into Primordial Soup!" or somesuch nonsense). Some who accept the fact of Evolution have indeed united it with their Belief. In fact, irregardless of what one believes, it doesn't make the fact go away. All that those who accept the fact of Evolution are saying, is that as with all Scientific Disciplines, it is necessary to teach it so that the children have a sound basis in Science, in fact - any conclusions that lead to a belief are purely individual and personal in nature and have nothing to do with the fact of Evolution, nor the teaching of it. That there are some Beliefs that have been soundly disproven through Evolution is not the fault of Evolution, or the fact - it is the fault of the Belief (just like the belief in a flat earth, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary).

Since YEC cannot establish itself as a fact (because it is based on Belief, and lacks evidence, and doesn't stand up under scientific analysis), it has no place in public school. There are enough private schools and religious schools that teach such. If the parents in question wish that their children be educated with such, they have a clear choice.

However, those who don't accept the fact because it conflicts with their Belief, are prepared to wage war and attack the position of Evolution. Note that they can't do this on a factual basis (because they can't - otherwise, the Scientific Community would have already done so) - so they resort to political means to attempt to force their beliefs on others. They ARE NOT CONTENT TO LET A FACT BE A FACT!, but want (and not only want, but feel through their Belief, that they are in the right to do so) to force their beliefs on others, IRREGARDLESS! When that fails, they resort to violence.

We see examples of this all over the world - the Middle East is a prime example of this kind of schooling. We also see where it can lead to. We have a long history of examples, and what they can lead to, both with christian examples, and others.

quote:

---

you see, the comment goes both ways. For Christians and non-Christians. It would be nice if both could lay off for a while, but the contest for who is right goes on like the contest between two little kids. When will we ever learn?

---

There is no contest who is right - a fact is a fact. Evolution is right, because it is a fact. Belief has no factual basis here, so loses to Evolution. This does not mean that the Christian Belief is wrong - it means that the YEC Belief is wrong! There are a many Christians that have no trouble accepting the fact of Evolution and still practicing their Belief. The same goes for many non-Christians. So, it is not all Christians that are causing the problem here - it is a relatively minor group that are radical in the nature of their Belief that is causing the problem - YECs. And it is not just groups of radical Christians that suffer from this, but also radical groups of other religions, as well.

So yes, the comment does go both ways, and it is nice to see you finally agreeing for once. Both radical Christian groups and non-Christian groups who do not accept the fact of Evolution do need to lay off fighting with each other (and against the fact of Evolution) like little kids, and finally accept the fact.

So, when will you ever learn? That is what we (those who accept Evolution as a fact) are waiting for.

Let us remember too it is xians who bomb abortion clinics killing and maiming people. It is xians who shoot doctors who, among their other skills, perform abortions.

It is xians who demand children from rape or incest, who may well be born badly handicapped, be brought to term. It is xians who demand a woman carry through an unwanted pregnancy despite the fact to do so may threaten her health or put a burden upon her which would result in the child either being abused or under-nourished among other dismal possibilities.

It is NOT xians who are there with support, financial and otherwise, for these poor women and their children.

On another note Gid, why is there no historical record of this chap xist? We have detailed records of the life and times of the Romans 2000 years back, yet there is no mention of this fella the bible makes such a fuss about.

I doubt he actually existed, I think the whole thing is a concocted story aimed at getting people to adhere to certain beliefs which somhow benefitted the fellas concocting the yarn.

This make you a sucker.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

I doubt he actually existed, I think the whole thing is a concocted story aimed at getting people to adhere to certain beliefs which somhow benefitted the fellas concocting the yarn.

---

Again I must say that this glosses far too quickly over the deeper issues at hand.

For starters, there is as much evidence for Jesus' existence as can be expected for a jewish prophet of the time.

We have detailed records of important romans of the time. How many detailed accounts do we have of individual jews of the time? Not many.

Why? Because, quite frankly, nobody really cared. The romans provide the majority of our knowledge of the time period, and they didn't record much of the Jews' activities. They certainly wouldn't be overly concerned with documenting the life of yet another jewish prophet declaring the coming of their lord yet again.

It was old hat.

Except that Jesus *did* manage to make a difference, and make an impact.

The stories of his "miracles" and the accounts of the gospels are undoubtedly riddled with myth and legend for the sake of perpetuating the grandeur and establishing the "divinity" of the man, but there is no cause to doubt the existence of Jesus.

It is also important to note that, although his name and legend were used to establish control and further political aims later on, his own professed views at the time were quite radical, and radical in a way far different from those in the jewish community looking for armed rebellion against the romans.

I think that this significant difference in approaches is enough in itself to say that jesus was real. His original teachings are not prone to the abuse that later christian doctrine (primarily those by Paul, and later his catholic heirarchial protoges) were riddled with.

It is most interesting to me how unchristian many of these early christian writings are.

What in the 'revelation' is even the slightest bit gruonded in the teachings of Jesus? What in Paul's writings is based in the actual teachings of Jesus?

Not much, from my what I have read. In both cases, we have someone claiming to have these things revealed to them by Jesus himself....well after Jesus' death. But aside from this meritless claim, what is there to connect the writings to Jesus?

Nothing.

This differentiation is also enough on its own to set aside doubt in the existence of Jesus as a person.

The real doubt lays in the later abuse of his name.

Sometimes simple answers are the right one.

Why try to complicate the issue?

To rely on the bible as the only source of in formation for this so-called messiah is foolish in the extreme as the document is so badly flawed.

One cannot accept one source of highly questionable authenticity for proof.

If he was such a gadfly to the romans, Jew or not, it seems nore probable than not there would have been some mention of the pesky lad.

So, why has not a word been found? The obvious response is because he, like the entire bible, is a myth.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

To rely on the bible as the only source of in formation for this so-called messiah is foolish in the extreme as the document is so badly flawed.

---

But it is not the *only* source.

Granted, there are not many....but they are there.

quote:

---

If he was such a gadfly to the romans,...

---

But he wasn't. He was a bigger problem for the jewish leaders who had made themselves comfortable than he was anyone else.

The romans would have had no real reason to take note of him.

I have to agree with DL on this - though there isn't any concrete evidence of Jesus' existence, it is the sudden and abrubt change in the religous faith of the jews at that time period, and all the different sects that sprung up afterwards, that offer huge amounts of secondary evidence. We know that something happened at that time - something different than before.

Now, I'm not saying that it is proven that Jesus existed - I'm saying that there is a lot of secondary evidence that tends to support that a man named Jesus did live and did have an influence on the jewish faith and religion of the time.

Most of what DL has said so far pretty much sums things up about this.

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-21-2005 16:25)

Well, I am afraid I must respectfully disagree.

Hearsay is not evidence.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Etheist I think it's much more than hearsay, afterall Christianity is the most successful cult of all time. There had to be a cause for such effect to take place. Whatever his name was, there had to be an individual who had an impact on the ideas of that time.
Just like Buddha had a radical view and opposed many teachings of Hinduims way before Jesus....
This things didn't just spontaneously happened.


DL summed it up pretty well and I have to agree with him on that.

^ That has to be the most reasoned response that I have witnessed from you to date, Ruski. Kudos, you've come a long way.

Well then, show me.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

First off, what do you mean a Xian? This word was new to me so I took the time to look it up in: Webster's New World College Dictionary: 4th edition.
Xian 1. city in NC China, on the Wei Rivier; Capital of Shaanxi province: population, 2,185,000. 2. City in Chinese mythology believed to be the city of peace.
I am sorry, but this is the only definition I can find. By saying Xian do you mean any follower of a religion? If so Ehtheist your arguement is significantly flawed as there are many cases were there are followers of religions giving care while people who have no religion deal out destruction, and vice-versa. All of life, and death, si like a two way street, nothing goes only one way.
Also:
WS - Quote:"Well, I see groups of Xians so : There are those, who are willing to follow their belief, etc and keep it to themselves for themselves.

And then there are those, who feel compelled to impose their belief on others be it verbally or through laws, etc.

It is the second group that I feel is necessary to keep an eye on, and fight. The first group normally doesn't bother me, even though I may not agree with what they believe - they are not bothering others, nor are they forcing their beliefs upon others.

The act of trying to force beliefs on another is an attack in and of itself. And forceful conversion is an act of violence, IMHO."

On this point we agree completely beliefs (religious or not) should not be imposed upon others. In fact at least in the case of religion, it can not be done. The same way freedom cannot be truly forced upon somebody who doesn't truly want to be free. (don't ask me who, i don' know but im sure their out there somewhere.) If you try to force your religion or beliefs on someone they are not practicing their beliefs they are practicing YOUR beliefs. This is not right. Nobody should have the right to do so. Nobody should do so.
I am merely saying in my previous post that both sides are being hypocritical. Both sides are being close-minded about the other sides 'open-mindedness'. If either side had a truly open mind than niether would be participating in childish acts like targeting the other side in a verbal fight, but, instead have a formal debate. (which is what this site used to be about.Correct?) Unfortunately, Both sides are 'donning the figurative gauntlets' as soon as they see the slightest movement in the 'primordial ooze' that they may or may not believe in.
Niether side is truly listening to the other. Merely trying to force the other to agree, with the consequence of not agreeing being ridicule. Both religion and science are guilty of this.

While there is an overwhelming amount of war and other violence that can be blamed, war does not solely belong to religion. War is inherantly and completely the fault of humans. There are many battles and other forms of violence that was not started because of religion. In fact, regardless of whether religion had started a war or not science is just as guilty of the outcome for helping create more and more ghastly weapons to kill, maim and harm with.

People need heroes, people need systems to organize themselves by and help with decisions. Whether or not it is a tangible and internationally accepted system of wieghts and measurements or some invisible divine being that demands a strict code of ethics. It doesn't matter. Arguing whether or not science is a better system or religion is a better system is as pointless as arguing whether Batman does more good or Superman does more good. It doesn't matter whether or not you want to believe you were made by some mighty being or had the best genes hand-picked through the ages by a bunch of wide-eyed gorillas, the bottom line is that all things must end. You will die, and from there your body will be eaten by worms and made into dirt. Such is the law of nature. If your going to bash at someone because they want to believe in something other than a book that is over a thousand years old and has been translated from dead languages two or three times or hit them with proverbially gauntlets because they choose to believe that there is something more powerful than them that controls their destiny, you might as well hang a screen door on a submarine for all the good your doing. YOUR NOT GOING TO GET ANYWHERE!!!!!! All you will do is end up making more enemies than allies and shove people off this forum ( we have already lost Ramasax from what I have heard thanks to a member already mentioned in this post).

As far as teaching evolution in school goes verse teaching creationism goes this is what I suggest:
TEACH THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!
They are THEORIES nothing more and nothing less and the only time they will ever be more than a theory is (maybe depending on what you believe) after we die. So give the kids a choice say: "Charles Darwin came up with The THEORY of Natural Selection, (explanation of the THEORY). At the same time there was another THEORY: Creationism, (explanation of the creationist THEORY)." Then let the kid decide for himself or herself.
Ehtheist, you also said that the simple answer is usually the right one. That is correct some of the time. Usually when you have all the information on a situation, if you go with a simple solution without all the facts or correct facts you could land yourself in a very extreme case like Charles Manson's Helter Skelter.

Here would be the simple way to prove which THEORY is correct:
If god (any god or divine being) exists than creationists would most likely be the correct party.

If god (any god or divine being) does NOT exist than evolutionists would be the corret party.

Simple straight forward. Correct? No.
Why?
Because you still have the scenerio that a divine being created some stuff and then that stuff evolved into better stuff. Or devovled into worse stuff, depends on your point of view.
Again please correct me if I am wrong because your posts suggest this to me: You believe that the best way to open a closed mind is through forced entry. From my experiances with this, forced entry generally makes the door to the mind slam shut even harder.

Also 2000 years from now people will most likely being writing the part of history that includes us. You and I will probably not make it into the pages of the history book does this make the whole book wrong? The government now can suppress things are you under the impression that the roman government couldn't suppress someting back then?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

On a hunch I looked further into the dictionary:
You could mean:

Zion: 1. a canaanite fortress in Jerusalem captured by David and called in the Bible "City of David" 2. the jewish people 3.heaven; the heavenly city 4.the theocracy of God 5. the hill in Jerusalem on which the Temple was built: Zion has historically been regarded by the Jews as a symbol of the center of Jewish national life 2. Jerusalem 3. the land of Israel. Also the hebrew poetic name for Palestine.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Sang:

xian is just shorthand for christian. just like xmas = christmas

quote:

---

As far as teaching evolution in school goes verse teaching creationism goes this is what I suggest:
TEACH THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!

---

I agree... and this is the creationism I want taught. Can you tell me why it shouldhn't be?

quote:

---

The Raven is truly a trickster who liberates humankind from a clamshell, then in one story sets the universe in order, only to threaten it with chaos in the next. The Raven is the most greedy, mischievous and lecherous creature imaginable, but almost without meaning to, teaches humans the arts of living a good life.

---

http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/haida/hapmc01e.html

etheist - what type of evidence would mae you happy?

If "hearsay" is not sufficient, at least on some level, then we will need to discount some pretty significant historical figures.

Would you like a birth certificate? Driver's License? Maybe a receipt on his "players" card?

He is mentioned, if only briefly, in both Roman and Jewish histories.

It seems to me that you are willing to simply accept that his entire existence was a myth, as it would fit more neatly into your view of things.

While I find myself in agreement with you on many things, this trend in your outlook is troubling...as it mirrors the outlook that we both (all) seem to be pointing out as a very poor one in people like Gideon.

The act of creating from scratch a myth about a man like Jesus, who preached the views that he did, with the outcome and impact that was acheived by his views and acts, would be a more labor intensive act than performing the alleged miracles would be...

My views on Jesus' "miracles" and divinity are fairly well explained throughout a variety of threads here, and are clearly in the realm of myth. However, the exageration of his acts is not the same as the total creation of his identity...and he impact of his presence is enough to define his existence, seperate from any religious dogma.
Much in the same way that we can identify a black hole by the effect it has on its surroundings...

~shrug~

I'm not out to prove anything - I don't care what your view on his existence is...it just seems you are taking the "easy" out and fitting the results into your view rather than the other way around.

And that is cause for concern whether you are on the side of religion or not.

quote:

---

As far as teaching evolution in school goes verse teaching creationism goes this is what I suggest:
TEACH THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!

---

I agree as well.
Evolution belongs in a science class, where scientific issues are taught.

Creationism bleongs in a mythology class, where ancient texts such as the genesis account, the wide array of greek, egyption, norse, and other mythologies are taught.

quote:

---

They are THEORIES nothing more and nothing less

---

And once again, let me point out that you are blatantly wrong.
Evolution is a fact. The precise method is a matter of theory.

Creationism is a story, It is in no way whatsoever a scientific theory, nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with science.

If you beleive it to be "true", that is your perogative. But it is not a scientific issue.

(until you have a device to measure "faith" and the effect it has on reality...)

quote:

---

and the only time they will ever be more than a theory is (maybe depending on what you believe) after we die.

---

So your theory is that our theories will be revealed...like a blind taste test of two different brands of colas, after our death?
Fascinating...

quote:

---

So give the kids a choice say: "Charles Darwin came up with The THEORY of Natural Selection, (explanation of the THEORY). At the same time there was another THEORY: Creationism, (explanation of the creationist THEORY)." Then let the kid decide for himself or herself.

---

And where do we stop?
As nojive very adequately illustrated, the list of creation myths is very long and varied. Do you propose that we include all creation myths alongside the scientific fact of evolution, as if the two things actually had something to do with each other?

Can we please focus for a moment...again...on the fact that evolution is not a story about the creation of the universe? Can we go back to the understanding that evolution is a scientific explanation of how species came to be the way they are? It does not explain how they started. it does not address the issue of whether or not there is a god. It does not attempt, nor could it ever, the meaning of life, or our purpose here.

It explains the way things happen.

God or no. Jehovah, Ra, Zeus, Loki, it's all irrelevant and has no place in a science class.

FWIW

Thanks DL, saved me some writing.

When you say xist is mentioned in early Roman and Jewish ( I presume non-biblical?) writings, please provide a link to same as I have not yet encountered them.

That is the sort of proof I would like to see. Authoritative please, not some bible study group.

I agree certain zealots need to not only be kept an eye upon, but occasionally slapped down.

The Gideons of the world are not a threat, far too simple minded to be dangerous. Suitable only for a bit of fun now and again.

The guys you have to keep an eye on are the "Focus on the family" sorts, Dobson et al.

Their latest bit of insanity is the conclusion Schreck 2 is another cartoon which promotes the (non-existant) "gay agenda".

It is not surprising they are ready to believe in a non-existant conspiracy since they already believe in a non-existant superior being.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Sangreal, please read DL's posts. Then read them again.

quote:

---

As far as teaching evolution in school goes verse teaching creationism goes this is what I suggest:
TEACH THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!
They are THEORIES nothing more and nothing less and the only time they will ever be more than a theory is (maybe depending on what you believe) after we die. So give the kids a choice say: "Charles Darwin came up with The THEORY of Natural Selection, (explanation of the THEORY). At the same time there was another THEORY: Creationism, (explanation of the creationist THEORY)." Then let the kid decide for himself or herself.
Ehtheist, you also said that the simple answer is usually the right one. That is correct some of the time. Usually when you have all the information on a situation, if you go with a simple solution without all the facts or correct facts you could land yourself in a very extreme case like Charles Manson's Helter Skelter.

---

As DL has already mentioned (and I stated), Evolution is a fact!. It doesn't matter if you accept it as a fact or not - that does not change anything outside of your head. Just like not accepting that the world is round will not cause it to suddenly become flat. What you have posted just shows your lack of knowledge. I suggest that your corrigate this. However, Evolution will not stop if you don't *shrugs* Your choice. But suggesting that it is a Theory is wrong when it is included in the same breath as Creationism.

You need to really learn about these things - and seeing that you and Gideon (and others) are having problems defining exactly what the fact of Evolution is, it needs to be better taught in school apparently. It also looks like some forms of religious belief may be hindering some from accepting it, as well. This is a process of limiting oneself (and blinding oneself to the truth - something that Xians are not supposed to do - one shall not bear false witness). So your argument here is not really correct that Evolutionists are attacking Creationists - on the contrary. It is the other way around. The Evolutionists are responding to attacks, and deficits in the knowledge of Creationists. Tell the Creationists to stop attacking, and to start learning - and the whole thing will stop. Evoltuion is not a belief that is being forced on others. It is a part of Science that needs to be taught and learned.

This is why I am against teaching Creationism. It is, as DL pointed out, a story, a myth, first of all. Second, which Creation story, myth should we then teach? Third, and most important, how should it be taught? Should it be taught according to those who believe deeply in it, or should it be taught as a story, a myth, and really open up a can of worms (if one thinks that such radial groups are pushing their agendas hard now, wait until their deep beleifs are taught in school as stories and myths!) ? And if one teaches it according to those who believe deeply in it, then there goes the seperation of church and state, right out the window.

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-22-2005 09:24)

I have seen this word used twice now and can find no mention of it in several dictionaries. Can someone enlighten me?
"CORRIGATE"

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Man - this thread got a little intense!

I don't have the energy to weigh in on the dogma discussion, DL and WS seem to be doing a fine job of it - we've all had so much practice, right? How many times have we run evolution and creation science through the dabate machine around here?

To hark back to the original post regarding dear ol' Spongebob -

These people really need to get a life. There are so many other, worse things going on in the world today, why on earth do we need to worry about the sexual orientation of a freakin' cartoon? There are so many other places from which kids pull their input...
I have been shaking my head about these things since the Fallwell/Tinky-Winky bulls**t.


I wish more folks would read up on their Christian History before getting into these sorts of arguments...
There's a lot more to it than the Bible and what they teach in your respective church, and the information is freely available to those who search for it.

Must be me, dosn't seem intense at all. just a serious discussion.

We, or someone likle us, will be discussing these issues until the religious side is proved to be myth.

But even then, there will be some desperate folks who will not accept that proof.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Teaching children facts that we know about reality is part of learning. Belief
is a totally different subject, altogether.

---

Aren't facts technicaly beliefs since you can only believe what you percieve? The only things I know as fact are those that I can see, feel, touch, taste, smell. All others I can't be certain of. I also can't be certain that you are real and not a figment of my imagination. An interesting little point. Reality is based on the believer, not the facts.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Reality is based on the believer, not the facts.

---

Uhhh...no.

Just because you don't believe that there are cars, doesn't mean that you will not be run over on the street by one.

quote:

---

Aren't facts technicaly beliefs since you can only believe what you percieve?

---

No. There are lots of facts that one cannot perceive directly, like being able to see Quarks, for example.

Someone who is born blind doesn't know what color is, or that it exists because they cannot see it. But that doesn't change the fact that color (and light, for that matter) exists.

quote:

---

I also can't be certain that you are real and not a figment of my imagination.

---

You may not be certain, but others are.

I think, therefore I am - and others think, therefore, they are. And whether or not this is all real is irrelevant - for us, it is real, for all intents and purposes!

Now, you can start waxing philosophic but that is normally the last retreat of the desperate.

And I am not interested in discussing things with you further. Take this as a last comment.

Bye.

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-23-2005 14:08)

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-23-2005 17:14)