For the love of God don’t call it Religious Education
Just returned from an open day at my son’s prospective new secondary school in which we had an informative guided tour from one of the students – an amiable and intelligent young chap.
It is a fantastic school by all accounts, great atmosphere, high performing, and deemed by Ofsted as “Outstanding” and on their “Honours List”.
We were taken to all of the classrooms and the many IT suites and to the Social, Cultural and Moral studies room.
It was at this stage our knowledgeable guide duly informed us that this used to be the Religious Education room, however they changed the name because:
Some were worried the name Religious Education gave the impression of pupils being indoctrinated to become Christians.
This is the closest approximation to his actual words I can manage and I have double-checked with my wife.
I only regret not pursuing further and finding out who primarily may have been liable to fall under this misapprehension. Our guide went on to say:
It’s exactly the same course and lesson as it’s always been.
Isn’t it astonishing that this highly respected non-faith foundation school and technology college felt the necessity and compulsion to make this change in order to avoid this particular misconception.
Tags: Education, Religion Society
September 30th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I suppose that now that the names of religions are used instead of the old names for races or nationalities (people say Muslim instead of Pakistani these days) there has to come a point where the names of religions become as taboo as the old words for races.
Religious education is mainly cultural education these days as the religions being educated about are religions of birth rather than choice.
September 30th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Wow. That’s a mouthfull! How long before it’s abbreviated to “SCMS” or some equally uninspiring name?
Personally I’d like to see all this put under the simple umbrella of “Philosophy”, which encapsulates all this and more. It intrigues me that philosphy is only covered in passing during most students’ early education, but it is an increasingly popular subject at degree level. One of my daughters who is studying it says it’s a real eye opener, and she thinks it’s crazy that they don’t even get taught some of the really basic stuff at school.
Sadly I suspect no Government has the courage to make this change, even with Atheists heading two of the three main parties. There are precious few votes in making the change, and ample opportunity to offend people.
September 30th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Presumably there are 3 teachers for each subject – social, cultural and moral as a single teacher maybe misconstrued as a religious education teacher.
October 1st, 2010 at 1:03 am
The Social, Cultural and Moral studies room does sounds much more impressive than the Religion Education room, but as Jim said, Philosophy would indeed work.
I don’t know how things really work on your side of the pond, but on this side, not much along moral lines is taught anymore.
October 1st, 2010 at 9:01 am
I think it has mroe to do with how the word “Religion” has been given a negative meaning. Honestly people have this odd sence of fear. We have a pavlovian reaction to words, and giving them a positive or negative connotation seems ot be the Trick.
Democracy is good. It means we have Freedom. It gives us a wamr feeling. We therefore respond positively to it.
Religion is bad. its sinister and invovled brainwashing and making sure we dont think for ourselves.
No one really thinks about it any longer, we just go by sloagans. The reason Atheists are even able to get by these days is because no oen can challenfe them. I mean, we have a Religion, so convincign others of that is proslytising an invovled indocternaion and is wrong. But Atheists have no religion, so when they tell you how your suppose to feel, what your suppose ot think, and hat is is your suppose to beelive, its compleltey different from a Religious oerson douign it. They do it out of reason and logic you see, not pretetermined Philosophical tenets…
Its all just a sort of sham, but the same sort of sham used in advertising.
October 1st, 2010 at 10:12 am
But Atheists have no religion, UK atheists are big on islam, halal meat becomes political equality when force fed to christians.
October 1st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
It is not what goes into a mans mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes out of it.
October 1st, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Precisely Gordon particularly when they regurgitate the Sharia in your face.
October 1st, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Britain, although a really multiracial country now is still supposed to be basicaly a christian one. Are they so ashamed of thier own religion being
taught in this school?
October 1st, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Dennis. Who decrees that Britian is “supposed to be basically a Christian country”? And in what way is being a multiracial country anything to do with the “basic” religion?
October 1st, 2010 at 9:09 pm
@Jim,
Who decrees that Britian is “supposed to be basically a Christian country”?
For your own sake Jim, you better hope it is not the Almighty.
“This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars … This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England”.
October 1st, 2010 at 9:14 pm
@Jim, the constitution of the United Kingdom says that the Anglican Church is the state religion. It may have been emptied of meaning, but that is what the British state is supposed to be, on paper at least.
But the form is nothing. What it really means — as I think we all know — is that the establishment long ago proposed to control what the religion of the state is, and use this fake “Anglican church”, where they control the appointments, as their tool to do so. It’s not about the “church” controlling the state, but the state controlling religion.
No version of the establishment since has seen any reason to abandon this tool, surprisingly enough. It’s a little like the way the KGB appointed its staff as bishops in the Russian Orthodox church, I suppose.
But to return to the post, of course we should not shout at the school. What this shows is the way in which the term “religion” and “christian” are so demonized in our society that an ordinary person believes they have only negative associations. That demonization did not just happen (unless you believe that what appears on your TV just happens), and hardly reflects the basic vague religiosity of the English. So … we need to ask just where it comes from. Do we like the answers?
October 1st, 2010 at 10:04 pm
I know were the Demonising came form, and it snot from the Chruhces themselves. The common myth is that Religion gave itself a bad name by the cruelties perpetuatedin its name. If thi was so, why do so many int he UK love Democracy? Do you know how many wars were fought to make the world Safe for Democracy in the 20th and 21st Century alone? We kill over it. Why is that better?
Christianity and Religion got negative connotations after the ENliughtenment because the Philisophs wrote about it scathingly and their later generation thinkers of the same line generlaly depicted Religion as a Primitive sort of way Humans understood their world before Science. It was seen as backwards. The Images of the Christian Chruch committing endless attrocities, convetign Europe by killing Pagans hwo reused ot g laong, and then destroying Civilisation to give us the Dark Ages in which there were no basic Human Rights, No Sience, and no Freedom has become the domenant narrative people have in mind, and the way CHristians were depicted by Propaganda has been as closed minded, arrogant fools who reject Science and Learnign in Favur of ogmatism.
This popula rimage capured the Academic Imaginaiton and, whiel Proper Hisotyr has been learned, still remains out of emotional appeal.
It gradually seeped into everyday Society Via the media, and the lower level intellectuals, andhtose hwo graduated College and learen form them but simly went on to smaller jobs. Or became Primary School Teachers.
Over time it became the most common beleif about what CHristiasn were base dupon the same type of Cultural Develpment that leads us to any other Cultural idea. We value Dmeocracy less becuase its a self evident good but ecause we are bombarded with appeals to it as if its a proven fact that tis a self evident good and its given Positive connotatiosn at all times.
The word “Democracy” has nearly no meaning. Politicians evoke it to make sur epoeple feel good abot hatever policy they want, and often accuse their rivals of beign undemocratic to villinise them.
The Right Wing took on negati e connotatiosn the sme way CHistianity did, out of a repeated narrative of the Right beign Racists who wan to control everyhtign just like the NAZI’S (whi were Ironiclaly Socialsts)
Soviet Porpaganda had convenced everyoen that a Capitalist was a heartless monster who only cae dbau enrichign himself by exploitign others, and viewed his EMployees as Slaves.
This idea was hammere dinto them, and eventually just ebcame the acepted Narrative.
October 2nd, 2010 at 10:34 am
God bless all
I got saved and became a Christian in 2005 aged 21
I went to a c of e secondry school and had R E classes and i can honestly say that i learned NOTHING about God in school.I let school and went through my teens as a lying thiev and a con man.
Learning R E and going to a so called “faith school” did nothing for me in regards to learning about God.
In a so called “state faith church/school etc” they dont preach the Gospel of Christ.
Its the Gospel that saves and in a dead religous system it doesnt get preached
The only thing Godly about my “faith school” was its name nothing else!
So i dont believe that R E “indoctrinates” anybody
As for people saying athiests dont have a religion or faith.Yes thay do!
It takes more faith to believe in molucles to man than it does to believe in the Lord.
Also i have yet to recieve an answer from an athiests in regards with providing me with SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how we got here!
October 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
@ Bill Boswell: I do wish you wouldn’t mix up science and faith. Try using prayer as a substitute for petrol… Does your car start? How about lightbulbs? Prayer or a switch?
And if you’re so sure evolution is a lie, then vow never to take modern antibiotics. Cancer drugs, and other life-savers too. Have you any idea how much modern medicine (and agriculture) is based on evolution?
Most Christians have no problem with science. Do you realise that the RCC accepts evolution?
I find it very odd that you seem to see ignorance as something to boast about. You say going to a faith school didn’t help you learn about God. It doesn’t appear to have been effective as any sort of education.
October 2nd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Bill
Your question has been already been answered many times in the only ways in which it is possible. If you are expecting an answer which categorically proves how we came to be in a few short sentences then you will not get a sensible answer and you might as well stop now.
If we put the boot on the other foot, I could just as easily ask you to prove the existence of God. You cannnot. It is logically impossible.
That’s not to say that you’re wrong, or that I’m wrong – but what we have is opinions. I base mine on my undersdtanding of the material world. You base yours on faith in God. I try to treat believers with respect, provided I am equally treated with respect. Taunting non-believers with ridiculous statements is a sure fire recipe to have insults thrown back at you – mainly out of exasperation.
It’s fine for us to hold different views on our existence, but there comes a point when the boundary between us is unbrideable unless we both try harder to understand the other side of the divide. I’m trying to do this. Could I ask you to try too? Find ut about Atheism – Not just the tabloid newspaper drivel, but articles or books written by ahteists. You don’t have to agree with them, but at least you will then have a better understanding of what they beleve, and equally importantly, what they don’t! Then you’ll be ina better position to understand the sorts of arguments we make.
Some points which I find useful:
1. It is not possible using logic to either prove or disprove the existence of God. We just have to accept that as a given on both sides.
2. Just becasue we don’t understad something, and may never do so, does not automatically mean that it must be the work of God. It does not even prove that there is a God. It just means that we don’t understand.
3. As time passes we learn more and more about our environment and the why and the how of existence. Consequently we challenge previously held beliefs, and religion adapts to new knowledge. Few if any things are immutable. Religion evolves like everything else.
4. Ignorance is probably not a sound basis on which to base one’s ideology or beliefs.
October 2nd, 2010 at 3:47 pm
@ sophie if the rcc or anybody else for that matter chooses to believe in evolution then its up to them.The rcc also has peado priests does that mean i can be a peado ?NO
I go on what Gods Word says not mans opinion.
Also Sophie you are jumping way way ahead.I asked how did we get here not how do you think we evolved.I want proof that the universe and everything in it just came into being by chance/by accident not by intelligent design.Also wher did the matter came from beings there is no God.
Thats my question Sophie God bless
@Jim i do respect you and all people for that matter but i also believe that if one holds a belief or opinion then he or she should be able to give answers when questioned.I think its only fair
Also my faith isnt blind Jim.Once i put my faith in Christ my life changed in an instant
and now i know God personaly and i am willing and able to answer any questions regarding my faith (without getting shirty or upset i might add)
Atheists and evolutionists keep teeling me that they have TONS of proof to back uo there beliefs but as of yet not one person has shown it to me
Regards Bill
October 2nd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
AlsoJim i have looked up atheism and have spoken to atheists i tried to speak on freethinker website but barrieduke got scared and banned me.Its a shame as i only wanted to talk and have a two way debate/conversation
October 2nd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
@ Bill: You say “I asked how did we get here not how do you think we evolved.I want proof that the universe and everything in it just came into being by chance/by accident not by intelligent design.Also wher did the matter came from beings there is no God.”
Science doesn’t claim that “the universe and everything in it just came into being by chance/by accident.” If you think this is what scientists think you are wrong.
Science doesn’t claim there is no God. Lots of scientists are religious – the mainstream churches have no problem with science. Most Christians (like me) don’t have a problem with it either.
Science measures the material world. Questions like “is there a God?” are not issues that can be decided by scientific means. “Intelligent design” isn’t science, it’s a religious idea.
October 2nd, 2010 at 4:47 pm
@ Sophie how can you say you are a Christian if you reject what the Bible teaches
The Bible teaches that God created the Heavens and the Earth and made man in His own image.
The Bible teaches against evolution so how can you claim to be a Christian?
To be a Christian you must accept Gods Word
October 2nd, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Also Sophie intelligent design isnt an idea it is a clear fact that can be seen so that is why i use it in a debate/conversation
God bless
October 2nd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
@ Bill: I didn’t say God didn’t create either the Heavens or the Earth. All I said was that science can’t prove this either way. Science is not able to prove or disprove supernatural beings or events. On the other hand when people make claims about facts – that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, for example – science can test these claims.
Surely you know that none of the main churches in the UK believe that the Biblical account of creation is literally true? This has been the position for donkeys years – Christians have known for over a century that human beings, like all living things, are a product of evolution.
Most Christians see the Creation myths of the Bible as a poetic description, not a factual account. Literal creationism is a serious abuse and misinterpretation of scripture
The Vatican astronomer commented recently that believing “God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism”, which puts it rather well.
October 2nd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
@ Sophie im not being rude but i couldnt carealess who chooses to accept Gods Word or not.The fact is that i do.
The Bible even says that in the last days many would turn away from the truth and turn to the teaching and thinkings of men.
But the fact remains the same.If you are a Christian you must accept Gods Word
And once again Sopie science doesnt prove evolution because it cant!!
What have we turned into recently?
October 2nd, 2010 at 6:50 pm
@ Bill
“The Bible teaches that God created the Heavens and the Earth and made man in His own image. The Bible teaches against evolution so how can you claim to be a Christian?”
That isn’t teaching against evolution. Just because the account is metaphorical or can be explained using natural processes doesn’t mean God wasn’t involved.
October 2nd, 2010 at 6:54 pm
@ Bill: You say “intelligent design isnt an idea it is a clear fact that can be seen”. How did you decide this? What is the fact that you find clear?
October 2nd, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Fact that we are here is proof of intelligent design
Also Sophie please please please show me the scientific proof that disproves Gods Word
October 2nd, 2010 at 7:39 pm
@ Bill: “What have we turned into recently?”
Well, you’ve claimed that being “saved” transformed your life. But if your current personality is a huge improvement I can’t help but wonder exactly how bad you were before.
Were you this rude and pig ignorant before, or is it a recent thing? How would you say being “saved” affected you for the good? Would anyone else agree?
October 2nd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
@Sophie lol
Why does everyone who cant answer my questions result to insults?
Its very sad that you have to result to being stupid.
Im not rude or ignorant im just asking you a question which you cant/wont answer?
October 2nd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Athiests have claimed science as there own and this has been taken as given, but people of faith have probably committed more to the advancement of science therefore athiests can not claim science as their property alone in any debate.
Athiests in the UK are down in the dirt pitting science against faith as politcal leverage in what is a very dirty war the stuff of the basest of men not men of faith and science.
October 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Bill
As I have already noted, we have answered your question. If you can’t accept our responses then perhaps we need to think of another way to explain.
I don’t think anyone has said your faith is blind – at least not in a derogatory way. I’m genuinely happy for you that you have found this faith. Faith is not something that can be proved, (nor is there any need to try). But I think it is appropriate to treat it in a different way to concepts and ideas for which we can provide conventionally accepted proof.
You say that no one has shown you proof of evolution. It is all around you if you know what to look for. A theory is only useful whilst it holds true. Thus far there have been absolutely no discoveries which remain issues for continuing to accept evolution as a valid Theory.
Looking up a definition of atheism and finding one of the many “Freethinker” websites is not sufficient to provide you with the tools you need to make a full evaluation of these topics. I have studied both for years, and have read widely around these subjects, and I’m still finding new things. I’m reminded of the old adage “the more I learn, the more I realize I still have to learn”. Perhaps you could confirm the URL for the website you visited. Quality control is not one the Web’s great strengths.
It is not inconsistent to believe that God created Heaven and Earth and also to accept evolution – as many (most?) Christians will testify. If one accepts that there are things about God which we cannot understand, how can we categorically say that we understand the intention in the first books of the Bible – a huge and occasionally very testing work, which often uses parable, and similar devices in order to teach and to explain.
So called “Intelligent Design” is not mainstream science. You have to ask yourself why those who promote it tie themselves in knots in order to make the “facts” fit the evidence that we see. “Intelligent Design” is religion dressed up as pseudoscience, and the sooner we can be done with it, the better for all those taken in by this well meaning but very misguided position.
October 2nd, 2010 at 9:39 pm
I agree with GOY. Atheists tend to frame his as a difference between Religion and Science. To believe in Science, you must reject Religion and become an Atheist. Even Sophie seems to have accepted this partially, because she describes some Scientists as Religious, meaning they belief in God. But, folks, Religion is not about Theism. You can be Religious and not believe in any god. Religion is really something everyone has, its just a Set of beliefs about the Fundamental Nature of our existence, and it doesn’t matter if facts back it or not, as nothing in Religion requires it to be belief without evidence. Just as nothing requires it to be supernatural in content, either.
That said, Faith is not believing in something without evidence either.
Oh, and the saying that Science can only measure the material and natural world, and so questions of Gods existence are outside of Science, are absurd. In one of the few things I agree with Richard Dawkins on, God is a Scientific Hypothesis. Science is not really all about the natural and material world, an powerless outside of it. Science is about the observable world. If the Supernatural made itself Manifest, we could then use Science on it. Why would the Scientific Method be limited only to the Natural World? Why would it fail in the face of a Supernatural realm? If an Angel showed up in a Laboratory, we’d still be able to apply the Scientific Method to him.
Lets try to put this in proper context shall we?
October 2nd, 2010 at 11:33 pm
You say that “proof of evolution is all around us” i look around and all i see is Gods creation
October 3rd, 2010 at 1:18 am
@ Bill: You insult me and then have the cheek to complain when I insult you… Or perhaps you just don’t notice when it’s you who’s being rude? Does seem to be your default position.
It’s ridiculous to keep insisting people prove things they never claimed in the first place. “Sophie please please please show me the scientific proof that disproves Gods Word”
I said science can’t measure the supernatural. I never claimed to have scientific proof that disproves God (why would I?) and it’s dishonest to say that I did.
As for “intelligent design”, do you think the sun really rises and sets? It’s a serious question because the answer is a simple demonstration of the truth that what we see with our own eyes can be entirely wrong.
October 3rd, 2010 at 7:28 am
@ Sophie yes you do have beliefs that are contrary to the Word of God.The Bible teaches against evolution
You say that a lot of the Bible isnt literal, how did you determine what is iiteral and what isnt?
When God said “lets make man in our image” that is just as clear and literal as when He said “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not steal”
So are the 10 commandments literal?
What give you the right and who gave you the authourity to determine the Word of God?
What it says it means!!!!!
Anyway Sophie you are just being stupid nowo. All i am doing is asking you questions regarding your beliefs ( ie how can you claim to be a Christian and not believe the Bible?) and you are getting upset.
In case you havnt realized Sophie this is a website for debating and that sometimes involves asking and answering a question.If that is too difficult for you then that is just too bad.I ont care if you insult me and too be honest i dont care if my questions insult you because i am only asking fair questions.And as i have come to learn,that people with big opiinions usually have such tiny and insecure minds
October 3rd, 2010 at 8:07 am
ZAROVE
In my opinion, you could not be more wrong:
1. It is incorrect to assume that to “believe in Science” – and incidentally, the word “believe” in this context should not be taken to mean the same thing as to “believe” in God – Atheists feel they must reject Religion.
Science gives us answers to questions that also concern religion, but the two are not incompatible. Rejection of religion is a far more fundamental decision than acceptence of scientific theories.
2. Actually Religion does require the belief in the supernatural, if one accepts the common dictionary definition.
3. Your statement that “faith is not believing in something without evidence either” pushes us into the absurd. I don’t believe that there s a giant teapot orbiting the World. Is that a statement of faith, or a rational conclusion based on what I can perceive around me in the natural World? I can’t prove that there is no celestial teapot, but I base my conclusion that tere is no such thing on rational deduction. I can’t prove that God does not exist, but I have no scientific evidence to positively confirm His existence, and a lot of evidence that tends to support a Godless Universe.
4. Actually science does concern itself only with the natural World. The supernatural, is by definition, outside the scope of science. The point at which the supernatural becomes perceivable within the natural World, provided it is measurable and replicable, it becomes part of the natural World and comes within the realms of Science. I think you misunderstand Dawkins position on this.
I’m all for putting things in context. I don’t think your post does this.
October 3rd, 2010 at 8:09 am
Why can’t Science measure the Supernatural?
October 3rd, 2010 at 8:13 am
Bill,
Do you therefore believe that we should still kill people if they are guilty of adultery?
October 3rd, 2010 at 8:20 am
ZAROVE
Well let’s start with a definition of science:
“The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment and measurement. ”
And then a definition of supernatural:
“of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws”
So the supernatural is outside our expereince of the natrual or physical unverse. Now do you see the problem?
October 3rd, 2010 at 9:51 am
@ Jim
Jesus was asked the same question and this is His reply “if anyone among you is without sin let him cast the first stone”
You see as Paul told us the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ
if you want to live under the law you would have to be sinless and sadly all have sinned.Jesus came to fullfill the law and give us a new covenant under grace
But yes Jim all of the laws of the Bible are literal but there is a context taught througout the Bible and you must accept the whole thing or it wont/cant make sence.
Jesus said love your enemy.A new covenant under grace
God bless
October 3rd, 2010 at 11:12 am
But Bill. This leads us into all sorts of problems. Take for instance Deureronomy Chapter 22, and the draconian punishments decreed for various actions deemed unacceptable, including death for adultery or if a man cannot find positive proof that his wife is a virgin on marriage the men of the village must stone her to death.
I can completely concur with the statement made by Jesus. It makes great sense and is what justice is all about. But is Jesus saying the Old Testament was wrong? Or is he saying that the context of the instruction and the environment in which it was made has been overtaken by his coming into the World? Or something else?
Somehow you have to resolve these kinds of contradictions, of which the Bible has so many.
And this surely leads you to accept that some of the Bible has to be read strictly in context and that whilst the principles are clear, the literal execution of these principles is not required. The principle is what is important, not the literal interpretation – which is both problematic and unnecessary.
October 3rd, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Some Christians believe that when Jesus returns for his millennial reign he will reintroduce Old Testament law and animal sacrificing (in a rebuilt temple). I know that this idea has been put to me more than once by people gloating over my fate following the rapture (which is imminent). There was also someone over on the uk.religion.christian newsgroup in favour of stoning for adultery recently because it would force people to behave in a more moral fashion.
My point is that not all Christians see any contradiction between the old and new testament, because the loving, Christ like behaviour is only for other Christians. Non CHristians can be treated differently. There was a court case a few years ago where a Christian business person stated that her Christian beliefs only extended to other Christians and she did not have to treat non Christians well. SO perhaps this sort of thinking is not that uncommon even if people are not aware they are applying it.
October 3rd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
@Bill
“When God said “lets make man in our image” that is just as clear and literal as when He said “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not steal”
Sure – making man in God’s image however does not rule out evolution, if it was a process God instituted and controls as maker of all things.
“You say that a lot of the Bible isnt literal, how did you determine what is iiteral and what isnt?”
Gee, context perhaps?
October 3rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
@Cabal
” “lets make man in our image” that is just as clear and literal ”
Is it?
I don’t think this is clear and literal at all.
What does “made in our image” actually mean?
Its clearly not a physical comparison (unless you believe God was a human with arms legs etc like the Mormons do).
October 3rd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
@Gordon
I was quoting Bill.
I agree with you.
October 3rd, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Sorry! Need to read thread in context.
October 3rd, 2010 at 2:18 pm
@ Jim
no Jesus didnt say that the OT was wrong.How could He beings He is the God of the OT?
Rather He came to fulfill the OT prophecies regarding Him coming to earth and to fulfill the law.
@ Cabal
If you read Genesis you will see that God made man out of the dust and breathed life into him and then took a rib and formed Eve.It doesnt say that God made a monkeyh and then 1000s of years later the monkey turned into Adam and also by chance another turned into Eve and by chance they met.You see it is crazy.It completly makes a mockery of the WHOLE Bible.
Come on people lets stop talking crazy and lets start taking Gods Word for what it is.
October 3rd, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Bill. Do you believe that the bread and wine in communion is actually the body and blood of Christ? Jesus clearly said that it was.
Matthew 26:26:
“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.”
That’s what the bible says so it must be true.
The Bible also mentions Unicorns any times so presumably you believe they existed:
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=KJV
That’s what the bible says so it must be true.
If you deny either of these truths then you clearly do not believe in the literal truth of the whole bible.
October 3rd, 2010 at 2:39 pm
@Bill:
“If you read Genesis you will see that God made man out of the dust and breathed life into him and then took a rib and formed Eve.”
Right, so you think a story about a man whose name translates to “Man” is literal, do you?
Metaphor =/= false.
“It doesnt say that God made a monkeyh and then 1000s of years later the monkey turned into Adam and also by chance another turned into Eve and by chance they met.You see it is crazy.It completly makes a mockery of the WHOLE Bible.”
That would make a mockery of evolution certainly, as that’s not how evolution works. Why don’t you learn something about it before attempting to criticise it?
“Come on people lets stop talking crazy and lets start taking Gods Word for what it is.”
So you think evolution is crazy, but you think a dust-man having his rib taken to form a woman and then they eat an apple which curses all their descendants and the entire planet (which was recommended to them by a talking snake) reasonable?
Disagree with evolution as much as you want, but don’t make out that a literal reading of Genesis 1 is any less outlandish.
October 3rd, 2010 at 2:45 pm
There is, of course, an obvious point here. If evolution is not true then it does not automatically mean that young earth creationism is true. It is not the only game in town when it comes to explaining human origins.
October 3rd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
@ Cabal
where in the Bible does it say they ate an apple?
Maybe it is you who should study more
@Gordon
The Word of God teaches that we should not add nor take away from it.So i dont.If you want to play God and determine what is and isnt literal then all i can say is rather you than me.
I believe ALL of Gods Word and apply it to my life and guess what??? It works!!!!!
October 3rd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
@Bill so you believe that the bread and wine is actually the body and blood of Jesus?
October 3rd, 2010 at 3:01 pm
@Bill:
“where in the Bible does it say they ate an apple?
Maybe it is you who should study more”
Oh, wow, it was vague on that too?
Now I’m TOTALLY convinced *facepalm*
Try responding to the point instead of nitpicking – pointing out how vague the account is is not helping you.
“The Word of God teaches that we should not add nor take away from it.So i dont.If you want to play God and determine what is and isnt literal then all i can say is rather you than me.
I believe ALL of Gods Word and apply it to my life and guess what??? It works!!!!!”
Bill, you ALREADY make a judgement on what is literal and non-literal in the Bible.
Does God have wings?
Is the Earth not moving? (That one was once taken literally and corrected by science.)
At least be honest about the fact that you take certain portions of the Bible literally, just like those who manage to reconcile their faith with science.
October 3rd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
@Bill so you believe that the bread and wine is actually the body and blood of Jesus?
Hi Gordon,
Unfortunately it does seem that whilst fundamentalism happily accepts a literalistic view of magic apples, talking
snakes, and God taking an evening stroll around the tea-roses.
When it comes to where Christ actually teaches a literalistic understanding (regardless of whether one is cons or trans) we hear shouts of, “no- no, that’s just symbolism!”
I have come to the conclusion that anything goes, just as long as it is the complete opposite to 2000 years of Christian heritage and theological understanding.
Interfaith dialogue is always difficult.
October 3rd, 2010 at 3:50 pm
@ Gordon
If you read 1 Corinthians 11v23 you will see that Jesus was talking symbolicaly regarding the bread and wine.He said “do this in REMEMBERANCE OF ME”
as i said before you have to take the WHOLE context of scripture.
You will see in 11v23 that some people were getting drunk around the Lords table.Can you get drunk on blood? Aslo the Bible teaches against canibleism.So that subject is self explanitary if you reasd the whole Bible.
@Cabal
i have already told you that if its in the Bible then i believe it.
As for the earth.In Isaiah it says ” the Lord sits abouve the circle of the earth and hangs it upon nothing”
The Bible taught this fact when science believed different!!!!
@Phoebs
It is getting so boring you callinig me a fundementalist.I am a Christian and to be a Christian you must accept Gods Word.You are a compromiser like the many others.Just as the Bible prophecied what would happen in regard to people turning from the truth of Gods Word and turning to the ways and teachings of men in the last days.
Not for me luv
October 3rd, 2010 at 3:56 pm
also Cabal
im not against science because science testifies to the truth of Gods Word
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
@Bill:
“i have already told you that if its in the Bible then i believe it.”
I’m sure you do – that’s not a justification for taking particular passages as literal though, now is it?
“As for the earth.In Isaiah it says ” the Lord sits abouve the circle of the earth and hangs it upon nothing”
The Bible taught this fact when science believed different!!!!”
What, science confirmed that God is LITERALLY sitting about the “circle” (and a circle is LITERALLY a flat object, unlike a sphere) of the Earth?
Again, you are dodging the issue. The church used to teach geocentrism, based on its view of the Bible at the time (a somewhat more literal one than modern literalists take, seeing as they accept heliocentrism), and kicked up an awful stink when shown to be wrong. I see this furore over evolution as essentially the same manner of problem. The Church will come round, eventually.
“im not against science because science testifies to the truth of Gods Word”
I didn’t say you were against science – but you should still learn what evolution actually is before criticising it; and science does not support a young earth, nor a global flood.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:18 pm
@Bill Reading Genesis 1 its clear that its written using symbolic language.
October 3rd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
@Bill, I didn’t call you a fundamentalist, my post was actually to Gordon regarding fundamentalism, hence why it was addressed to him.
I am a Christian and to be a Christian you must accept Gods Word.
No one is suggesting that you are not a Christian. Not sure how someone accepts God’s Word, unless you are referring to Christ as God’s Word.
However, if you are meaning the bible and your interpretation of it, I would say that this NOT part of the matrix of salvation.
“the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” St Irenaeus
October 4th, 2010 at 12:54 am
Jim, I do see the prblem. The prolem is, the definition of Science you use is erong.
Science is a proccess, or a Method of Inquerry.
It begins wiht observing a Phoenomenon, then builds by stating a Hypothesis to explain said Phoenomenon, and ionvovles tests to see if those Hypoheical models really work.
This brigns me back to the Supernatural. If the Supernatural exists, and makes itself Manifest to us, why would it be impossibel to apply the Scientific Method to such events?
Are you seriously telign me that if an Angel showed up, assuming Angels are Supernatural, and willigly remained in a Lab somewhere, the Scientific Method woudl be impossibel to apply because the Angel is Supernatural?
Why can’t the Scientific Method be used in cases of Observed Supernatural events?
October 4th, 2010 at 6:59 am
Zarove
Mine are dictionary definitions. You can define the terms however you want.
I suppose if you could imagine a supernatural entity that becomes natural and then reverts to being supernatural again. If an “angel”was measurable (i.e. it had physical dimensions and mass, and was therefore bounded by physcal constraints, then it would no longer be supernatural.
Perhaps you could say that Jesus was such a case. But then what you are measuring at that point is a natural phenomenon, even if it is only temporarily so. Thus far I’m not aware of this kind of scientific investigation being verifiably carrried out on any such phenomenon, so this is purely hypothetical.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Jim-
Mine are dictionary definitions. You can define the terms however you want.
I define Science by the Scientific Method. Should I post that? I do hope this doens’t become another poitn were I’m accuse dof inventing my own definitions.
I suppose if you could imagine a supernatural entity that becomes natural and then reverts to being supernatural again. If an “angel”was measurable (i.e. it had physical dimensions and mass, and was therefore bounded by physcal constraints, then it would no longer be supernatural.
But doens’t this happen often in Scripture? Cntemporary acocunts of Miracles or such appearances also exist. Am I to beelive that Jesus turnign Water into Wine, or Israle wrestlign with an Angel, or Moses’s staff turnign into a Snake were all Natural?
I actually do as I reject SUpernaturlaism, but mosyt have calle dme dadt for this. However, when Angels speak direclty to Abraham, Gideon, and Peter, and with God persoally spekaign direclty to Abraham and Moses, it seems a big foolish for hose who insist God and Angels are Supernatural to turn round and say that if they appear in a Measurable form they are Natural and not SUpernatural.
Perhaps you could say that Jesus was such a case.
You;d have to.
But then what you are measuring at that point is a natural phenomenon, even if it is only temporarily so. Thus far I’m not aware of this kind of scientific investigation being verifiably carrried out on any such phenomenon, so this is purely hypothetical.
So what your sayign is that, therre is no such thing as the SUpernatural. God, Angels, and Jeus’s Miralces were all Natural Pheoenomenon.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:49 am
“But doens’t this happen often in Scripture? Cntemporary acocunts of Miracles or such appearances also exist. Am I to beelive that Jesus turnign Water into Wine, or Israle wrestlign with an Angel, or Moses’s staff turnign into a Snake were all Natural?”
An eyewitness account is not necessarily a scientific test – these operate on the presumption that what happened actually happened miraculously, and little to no attempt is made to rule out alternate explanations.
That said, those alive at the time at least COULD have tested it. Those alive now cannot. So it is not a belief with scientific backing now.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
@ Cabal, Gordon, Jim, Phoebs: (in alphabetical order
) How many of you share my concern that science teaching in the UK is wholly inadequate? The most striking thing about this thread is the complete absence of scientific understanding displayed by Bill and Zarove. This wouldn’t matter if they knew they were ignorant. But no, they consider themselves equipped to hold forth on subjects they clearly don’t even vaguely understand. It’s as absurd as me claiming to have an opinion on string theory.
Early in this thread Bill wrote “i have looked up atheism and have spoken to atheists i tried to speak on freethinker website but barrieduke got scared and banned me.Its a shame as i only wanted to talk and have a two way debate/conversation”
It might have saved time had we explored this unlikely claim. At the time it occurred to me it’d take a lot to get thrown off the Freethinker site. When I checked it out I discovered that Bill’s posts have all been deleted because the blog’s owner, Barrie Duke, finally decided “Boswell, you are an ignorant troll.”
Freethinker participants are very much more Anglo-Saxon than we are here, so I’ve not provided a direct link. Anyone who’s interested can find the thread (minus Bill’s posts) by looking for the topic “Pope repeats lie that Nazis were atheists” on the freethinker.co.uk site. I was tickled by the comment “Billy is back spouting boswellox”.
Seems Bill took exactly the role he’s taking here, but met with a far less courteous and charitable response. I, for one, will no longer be wasting my time. Bill Boswell = Troll from now on.
@ Zarove: Your proposals are wrong on so many different levels I’m not even going to try to engage in dialogue. Your replies to those who have tried make it abundantly clear how pointless it would be.
October 4th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
@Sophie:
I don’t think it has so much to with quality of science education so much as a lack of basic intellectual integrity. All those who go on and on with the “I just believe what it says, it’s not up to me to play God and decide what is and isn’t literal” are deluding themselves, because as I pointed out already, they already HAVE made a judgement on what is and is not literal in the Bible – the same way as a theistic evolutionist like myself does, just that a different conclusion is reached. The difference being, I at least acknowledge it.
Presumably Bill does not think that God has wings, that God is not literally sitting above Earth’s literal circle (the example he provided me, much irony there!), and rejects geocentrism. I’m at a loss to why not taking certain portions of the Bible non-literally arbitrarily makes you “stupid” and a “compromiser” – strikes me that deciding that certain portions of the Bible ARE literal is just as presumptuous.
But yes, given that a few rounds of basic questions produced that kind of response, I can’t say I’m surprised the freethinker crowd told him to fornicate off.
October 4th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Oh dear goodness, by inference from the responses on that blog post I suspect Bill may have presented Chuck Missler’s peanut butter argument with a straight face. arf
October 4th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
@ Cabal Sophie and whoever else wants to mock and scorn.
The reason i went on freethinker is because they posted an article about an event that i was a part of.It was in Swavesey in Cambridge and they like many others posted lies and rubbish about us.And i posted comments ever since.
I also asked fair and simple questions which NONE were answered !
And when i challenged Barrie he got sccared and resulted to swearing and insulting me lol.
It is supposed to be a website to debate and if you look at the Swavesey thread he moled me saying that i dont have the guts to have a debate and when i started one he banned me lol
As for you so called cleaver people you still cant/wont answer me and yes i did use the peanut butter illustration and i have used it with atheists face to face since and guess what? They cant answer or prove me wrong
Also Cabal Jesus DID turn water into wine
Yes Moses staff turned into a serpant
Yes Jjonah was swallowd by a large fish
And Yes Jesus died on a cross was placed in a tomb a rose on the third day.
If the Bible says it i believe it but of course you MUST follow the whole context to understand what is literal and spiritual.
Call me a troll call me and idiot i dont really care.Im not out to please you i am out to stand up for Gods Word and to serve the One who dies for me on a cross sheding His blood for my sins and who is now at the right hand of The Father in Glory and i will continue to serve Him and try my upmost to serve Him nomatter what man may think
October 4th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
@Bill said:
“but of course you MUST follow the whole context to understand what is literal and spiritual.”
Which is exactly what I have been saying all along and and you have admitted that you agree with me. Maybe having a think about the description of communion helped. Clearly not everything is meant to be taken literally e.g. “its raining cats and dogs”.
October 4th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
@ Gordon yes you are right but if you do not believe Genesis is literal then there is a knock on effect that will alter the whole Bible and thatg how we get all these unbiblical teachings and beliefs.I am not against you Gordon or anyone else for that matter but i believe Genesis is literal.As i said you must follow context not take one scripture and run with it
October 4th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
@Bill:
“whoever else wants to mock and scorn.”
Coming from the person who calls people “stupid” and “compromiser” for having the sheer gall to disagree with him
“The reason i went on freethinker is because they posted an article about an event that i was a part of.It was in Swavesey in Cambridge and they like many others posted lies and rubbish about us.And i posted comments ever since.”
And the pope told lies about atheists – so?
“I also asked fair and simple questions which NONE were answered !
And when i challenged Barrie he got sccared and resulted to swearing and insulting me lol.
It is supposed to be a website to debate and if you look at the Swavesey thread he moled me saying that i dont have the guts to have a debate and when i started one he banned me lol”
Perhaps so – that said, it didn’t take much to set you off on this thread, so I’m not exactly inclined to believe you were sweetness and light on the other one.
“As for you so called cleaver people you still cant/wont answer me and yes i did use the peanut butter illustration and i have used it with atheists face to face since and guess what? They cant answer or prove me wrong”
Uh, yes, it can be proven wrong, it is an utterly asinine argument that betrays little to no knowledge of what evolution claims.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peanut_butter_argument
Really, creationists repeat their lame duck arguments a lot, but there are some that are scraping the bottom of the barrel – I can’t say I’m surprised people gave up attempting to answer you if you think the peanut butter argument is in any way sensible.
“Also Cabal Jesus DID turn water into wine
Yes Moses staff turned into a serpant
Yes Jjonah was swallowd by a large fish
And Yes Jesus died on a cross was placed in a tomb a rose on the third day.”
I never claimed otherwise. I merely pointed out that there is a difference between those miracles and creation/the flood, as they were not planetwide and there is not a vast body of empirical evidence that shows the literal claim to be false. If there was empirical evidence that we could observe NOW, then one could address the plausibility of the literal account of the events you listed, but there is not.
“If the Bible says it i believe it but of course you MUST follow the whole context to understand what is literal and spiritual.”
Or metaphorical, like Genesis 1.
“Call me a troll call me and idiot i dont really care.Im not out to please you i am out to stand up for Gods Word and to serve the One who dies for me on a cross sheding His blood for my sins and who is now at the right hand of The Father in Glory and i will continue to serve Him and try my upmost to serve Him nomatter what man may think”
What do you think he thinks of you calling people stupid compromisers for the heinous crime of disagreeing with your tired-out arguments?
The forest in your eye could solve the energy crisis.
October 4th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Calling you a compromiser is not an insult Cabal it is a fact.
Also my posts on freethinker merly questions that inever got answers but i did post answers to he question that they askedme and they banned me in due course
Also for calling people stupid.I am not calling you personaly stupid just your unbiblical views are. ie not believing the literal account of Genesis when it is written so clearly the God formed man out of dust and after said “that it is not good for man to be alone” so He formed Eve from Adams rib.
Far fetched you may say but it all depends ho big your God is.As Paul wrote “with God ALL things are possible”
October 4th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
“Calling you a compromiser is not an insult Cabal it is a fact.”
So is calling you a troll, then?
“Also my posts on freethinker merly questions that inever got answers but i did post answers to he question that they askedme and they banned me in due course”
Like I said – it didn’t take much for you to bring out the insults under the guise of stating the facts, so forgive me if I don’t take your word on what went down over there.
“Also for calling people stupid.I am not calling you personaly stupid just your unbiblical views are. ”
Not me, no, but you called Sophie stupid, personally, twice.
“ie not believing the literal account of Genesis when it is written so clearly the God formed man out of dust and after said “that it is not good for man to be alone” so He formed Eve from Adams rib.”
And again, why would God do this while making it look like it took longer? Do you forget that God created the Earth as well as the Bible?
“Far fetched you may say but it all depends ho big your God is.”
So you’ve stopped claiming evolution is more far-fetched than the creation account, have you?
“As Paul wrote “with God ALL things are possible””
He also wrote that God is not a liar – and that’s what he’d have to be to have a 6000 year-old universe that appears much older than that.
October 4th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Sophie, I’m gettign a degree in Psycology. I dare say that I’d best not admit I’m deeply Ignorant of Sicence else they may remove me from the degree programme!
That said, it snot Ignroance. I just challenged the basic assumption that Sicnece can only ever address the Material world and cannot address the Supernatural. The reason I challenged this was because, in order for this to be True, the Scentific Method woudl hae to be utterly inaplicable to SUpernatural Pheonemenon.
However, if the Supernatural Phoenomenon were to be observed for a prolonged period of time, why woudl we be unable to use the Sicnetific Method upon it? And if we can use the Scientific Method on a Supernatural Object, then obvuosuly Science itself can’t be Limited ot only the Natural world. Science is limited to the observable world, not just the Natural.
I do’t see why this makes me ignroant of Sicnece. Thoguh You wont reply because i’m ever so arrogant.
October 4th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
@ Zarove: I’m getting old. In my day only literate people got psychology degrees. I’m guessing you’re dyslexic, but that
doesn’t get you off the hook on syntax or meaning.
If you are an undergraduate which, judging from your posts, seems implausible, you seem ill-equipped to deal with the strict rules which apply to evidence in the “hard” sciences.
However, seeing you’re so sure the rest of us don’t understand scientific method, why don’t you design an experiment suitable for angels? Bearing in mind ethical considerations, of course, and providing all the details as to how it might be conducted.
If nothing else, it might prove a great screenplay – you could make a fortune! It might be funny, too.
October 4th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
@ Cabal no i am not calling the literal Genesis account far fetched,you are.
That is wht people compromise because theyh dont believe Gods Word and beings “most people” believe in evolution people then compromise with the Word of God and try to have both.
And whether you like it or not mate it doesnt/cant work.
And as for the insults ,as i said you can call me what ever you like.After all i only get called these names because i wont compromise on Gods Word or give in to unbiblical rubbish that will send me to hell.
Anyway i am getting bored of argueing with you all and beings you cant answer my questions i am not bothered about bitching with you.
But if you do decide to be a man and give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF TO BACK UP YOUR “”"THEORY”"”"” i am all ears
October 4th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
“Anyway i am getting bored of argueing with you all and beings you cant answer my questions i am not bothered about bitching with you.”
Translation “Oh, b**ger, they’ve realised I’m a troll.”
Notice how Bill’s language has suddenly slipped. Arf arf
October 4th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
@ Cabal
“no i am not calling the literal Genesis account far fetched,you are.”
It’s not that it’s an issue of doubt for me – I simply don’t believe it’s correct because I believe the Bible when it also says that God is not a liar, which he would have to be for creationism to be true given the reams of contradictory evidence, so I treat Genesis 1 non-literally.
I just find it somewhat amusing that creationists would make out that a gradualistic theory like evolution is outlandish when believing the literal Genesis account, with its talking snake, magic death-fruit and the cast list comprising “Man” and “Mother” made of dust and a rib respectively. Its outlandish nature does not (necessarily) mean it’s implausible – but refusing to acknowledge that it is rather an unusual chain of claimed events (to say the least) is just another example of your lack of integrity here.
“That is wht people compromise because theyh dont believe Gods Word and beings “most people” believe in evolution people then compromise with the Word of God and try to have both.”
And you can’t have a literal account and have God not be a liar.
“And whether you like it or not mate it doesnt/cant work.”
Not my lookout if you are incapable of reconciling contemporary science with your personal interpretations of the Bible.
“And as for the insults ,as i said you can call me what ever you like.After all i only get called these names because i wont compromise on Gods Word or give in to unbiblical rubbish that will send me to hell.”
Uh, yet again, you called one of the other contributors to this comments page stupid, personally, twice.
You seem to be remarkably adept at avoiding this point while bleating about how much other people are insulting you.
“Anyway i am getting bored of argueing with you all and beings you cant answer my questions i am not bothered about bitching with you.”
Not true at all – I pwned your peanut butter lols into the ground with the link I provided.
“But if you do decide to be a man and give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF TO BACK UP YOUR “””THEORY””””” i am all ears”
Are you going to discuss it if it starts making your case untenable, or are you going to ignore it, like you did with the peanut butter stand up routine?
Because I either am boundlessly optimistic or masochistic enough to keep banging my head off this particular wall, here you go Bill:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Read away!
October 4th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
I will read it Cabal but i still hold to the Biblical account of Genesis
@ Sophie shut up talking junk and answer my questions.Troll lol
REMEMBER PEOPLE UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN THEN HE CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Or do you think that is unliteral?
October 4th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Sophie, your not paying attention to what it is I’m saying, and the cheap inslts are rathe rinnappropriate. By thrw way I am Duslexic.
All I’m sayign is that the Scientific Method can easily be used on SUpernatural Objects if they are ibservable. Nothign in the Scientific Method would prevent this.
So if we xaw an Angel, we could apply the Scientific Method.
WHy is that so Irrational to you?
October 4th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
@Bill:
“I will read it Cabal but i still hold to the Biblical account of Genesis”
So why are you berating people for not providing evidence when you’re holding to a preconception that will make you reject it anyway? Seems like the freethinker crowd did have you sussed.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:00 am
@ Cabal i woujld realy appreciate it if you would stop the childish insults also you have no right to comment on something that you have no knowledge about (regarding my posts on freethinker)
Lets see if you are capable of answering a simple question that i believe will help show my line of reasoning.I will read your link but i also read the Bible and i believe in a literal Genesis.
Ok heres the simple question
How many people do you believe “evolved” ?
Romans says that sin entered the world through one man and it also teaches that the worls was started through Adam and Eve.
Also regarding your statement that God isnt i liar i completly agree with you,ut would you also agree that the Bible says that all man are liars and let God be true?
You see man gets things wrong but not God,as it says in Proverbs “there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end leads to death”
God bless and i look forward to hearing your reply to my question
October 5th, 2010 at 9:55 am
@ Zarove: I was serious about the experiments. I’m sure we’d all find it instructive if you could design one or a sequence of angel experiments and share the methods with us. How, for example, would you demonstrate that your subject was an angel?
As I said, a plot built round angel experiments could form the basis of a hit movie. It would at least be very interesting. The implicit challenge, obviously, is that I don’t think you can design valid scientific experiments to identify or evaluate angels. Obtaining the angels – and their consent – would in itself be a bit of stretch. However you insist you know what you’re talking about. So prove it.
October 5th, 2010 at 10:44 am
@Bill:
“Cabal i woujld realy appreciate it if you would stop the childish insults also you have no right to comment on something that you have no knowledge about (regarding my posts on freethinker)”
I was partly being serious, actually – I’m not going to waste my time if you’re still going to believe your view even in the face of opposing evidence.
“Lets see if you are capable of answering a simple question that i believe will help show my line of reasoning.I will read your link but i also read the Bible and i believe in a literal Genesis.”
Alright, but I do expect some discussion on the evidence I provided.
“Ok heres the simple question
How many people do you believe “evolved” ?”
All of them. We are still evolving. Genetic change hasn’t stopped. If you mean how many people speciated, then I would say a number large enough to be reproductively viable, like several thousand.
“Romans says that sin entered the world through one man and it also teaches that the worls was started through Adam and Eve.”
I would say that the sacrifice of Jesus is not actually dependent on sin entering through one man and one man only, it merely required that sin existed, which it patently obviously does and did. One could look at this as an inevitable consequence of the evolution of sentience and morals.
“Also regarding your statement that God isnt i liar i completly agree with you,ut would you also agree that the Bible says that all man are liars and let God be true?”
Right – so why should I listen to the men who are claiming that a literal interpretation is correct? I base my stance on God’s word and God’s creation.
October 5th, 2010 at 11:04 am
All
As an outsider (I’m an Atheist) I’ve stepped back form this discussion, but I’m intrigued by the battle going on here. On the one side I see Sophie and Cabal trying to explain how science and religion need not be incompatible, though clearly struggling to keep thier patience, and on the other, Zarove redefining science and Bill sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting louder by using capital letters.
It’s not a pretty sight. I wonder if this is not a case of casting pearls before swine, pouring new wine into old bottles, or one of many other biblical metaphors?
October 5th, 2010 at 11:42 am
@ Jim: Hmm. I’d agree it seems discussing anything with Bill is – and has been – a waste of time. Annoying and futile. Mind you, I should know better. Anyone who takes Kent Govind seriously can’t be playing with a full deck.
However I’m fascinated by Zarove’s rather unwise claims, and am genuinely interested to hear how he thinks he can use the scientific method on angels.
Medieval scholars spent ages debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, as I recall. I’m hoping Zarove can come up with something a bit more interesting. Let’s hope he can live up to his claims.
October 5th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
@Jim:
“It’s not a pretty sight. I wonder if this is not a case of casting pearls before swine, pouring new wine into old bottles, or one of many other biblical metaphors?”
Well, I may not convince Bill, but this blog has a large readership, so as ever, FOR THE LURKERS *salutes*
But that aside, I’m an optimasochist
October 5th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
@ Cabal by saying you believe severaal thousand people “evolved” goes completly against Gods Word that you claim to believe.Romams teaches that sin entered the world throught ONE man Adam and that Jesus became the second Adam to pay for sin.
@Jim the reason i sometimes use capital letters is because i somettimes wish to highlight certain words ITS
NOT BECAUSE IM SHOUTING LOL
@Sophie you wish to continue talking to or about me i suggest you grow up and try to answer my question.At least Cabal,Jim and the others have the decency to give an answer.You just result to insults just like freethinker lol
October 5th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
@Bill:
And you didn’t notice/include in your response the fact that I stated the sacrifice of Jesus is not DEPENDENT on there being one sinner to begin with. TE does not deny that sin exists, nor that the necessity for salvation exists.
Paul is not claiming that there was one man to begin with, he is merely pointing out that one man made the choice to sin – and even with a population of several, sin can only be committed by an individual – so there could still be scope for sin occurring via an individual.
(and anyway, didn’t sin technically enter the human race through Eve? Looks like the elegant symmetry of Paul’s point gets a bit mucked up even before you try and factor in things like evolution – not sure how one literally squares that with the Genesis account, but there you go)
October 5th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Jim, I haven’t really redefined Science, what Sophie seems to not notice ( and this will be my reply to her as well) is that qall I’m saying is that Science is limited to the observable world, not the Natural World. I never said I could produice, at present, Scientific tests for Angels, my point is Philosophical, and rests on a Hypothetical scenario.
The idea that Science can only ever deal int he Natural world, and must never be invovled int he Supernatural may be popular to banty about, but its not really what Science is. Science is simply a Method of Inquerry. Shoudl we in the future be confronted with a Manifestation of a Supernatural Power, we could just as easily use the same Scientific Method to examien it as we would be able to examien anythign else.
If we can’t, itf we must limit Scienc eonly tot he Natural world, then my quesrion becoems, why is it we can’t use Science to study the Manifest Supernatural Occurances?
My Hypothetical Scenario involving an Angel in a Laboritory was less to argue that I can right now perform Scientific Tests on Angels but was simply saying that if they exist and make themselves presnt, and are indeed Supernatural beings, they can, indeed, be subject to Scientific Tests.
I don’t see why peopel have such a problem with hwat I’ve said or claim that I’, redefining Science.
If you engage wat I’ve said logically, rather than dismissively, and treat it as a Philosophical argument, and as a Hypothetical Scenario, it becomes less abotu me sayign I can do tests on Angels now. It also woul show that I’m not really redefinign Science at all.
October 5th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
@ Zarove: Can’t do it, can you? My point (and that of a couple of other people) is made. You either come up with the goods or stand down.
October 5th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Sophie, what goods can I come up with? My only point was that Science is not really sley about the Natural World but rather the Observable World. The Scientific Method begins with Observance of a Phoenomenon. But your right, Sicnece is limited to the Natural world and cnanlt be used on SUpernatual Objects and I ont knwo anythign abotu Science. Syill, perhaps you can answer me this.
If we coudl Observe Angels, Why coudln’t we could eaisly subject them to step one of the Sicnetific Method? If they came to our Labs, we’d be able to do the rest I’d Imagine, but I’m wrong. Why am I wrong? If we follow my Scenario, we woudl be able to use the actual S ientific Method on Angels should they appear, Yet somehow this woudln’t be Science. We’d be usign the Sceintific Method, but because the subject is not Natural we’d hve to call it somethign else. Is that what I am to understand?
October 5th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Zarove. Scientists would use the term Natural World rather than Observable World, which is itself very limiting, and I have never come across a reputable modern day scientist who understood science to incude the supernatural. So maybe we’ve reached an impasse.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Jim, if those Scientists were confronted by a Supernatural being such as an Angel, assuming Angels aren’t just part of our Natural Wolrd we’ve yet to fully explain, would they not want to use the Scientific Method on said Angel?
If they would, wouldn any modern dsay Scientist telthem they can’t as they must Limit themselves tot he Natural World and, as the Angel that stands befoere them is Supernatural, he therefore exists outwside of Scientific Inquerry?
As I said, this is a Thought Experiment, designed more to show that we shouldn’t limit our understanding by preconcieved Notions, than naythign else. However, I don’t see why peple are so adamant about me beign wrong and n ot knowinfg what Science is or redefining the term when we all know, if you follow logicallythe Scenario I just set, that Scientists wuld be all over an Angel in their Labs.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Zarove
That’s a truly awe-inspringly huge “if” which so far has not occurred.
I have no objection whatsoever participating in a thought experiment. But if we’re going to do that then we need to be absolutely sure that we have a common understanding of the words that we use.
If for the sake of this experiment we change the normally acccepted definition of science then we still run into the problem of “supernatural” – which means that which cannot be explained according to natural laws. In other words, for it to be measurable, the supernatural has to become natural (i.e something repeatable that we can express in scientific terms.) But then its not supernatural, so the exercise is pointless
We are left with an unbridgeable gulf…
Another not insignificant challenge: What does an angel look like? If no-one has ever seen one, how would we know that what we were witnessing was an angel? How would we know that this was not something other than an angel with impressive powers?
October 5th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
@Jim:
“Another not insignificant challenge: What does an angel look like? If no-one has ever seen one, how would we know that what we were witnessing was an angel? How would we know that this was not something other than an angel with impressive powers?”
I can’t help feeling there’s something inherently tautologous about Z’s argument with no actual angel or testing of angel taking place, i.e:
Angels exist and can be seen.
Science would be able to verify that angels exist and can be seen because they would see them.
Why? Because they exist and can be seen, etc.
October 5th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Some peopel saythey have seen them, and Jim, you just hot on somethign I’ve alsoi said. I tell people I beelive in God, but then tell them I do not beleive int he Supernatural. They think I’m quiet insane. Still, I see God as the basis of Nature, not Supernatural, and I see Angels as Natural beings and part of Gods creation, not inhabitants of a seperate Supernatural Realm.
So the terms really are not useful to me anyway.
But my poitn is, if the Supernatural exists, and if Angels exist as Supernatural beings, but make themselves known to us, we’d be able to do basicaly the same withthem as any Natural object.
Cabal, I think you missed my point. I was really on abut Science andhow it can be applied to any observable ohoenomenon, even those we now are calling Spernatural. I wasnt using this to prove Angels actually existed, and they need not for my point ot stand. One coudl use Alien Abductions and its the same point, though htose aren’t typically seen as Supernatural unless you buy the Aleins as Demons Theory.
October 5th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
@Zarove:
“Cabal, I think you missed my point. I was really on abut Science andhow it can be applied to any observable ohoenomenon, even those we now are calling Spernatural. I wasnt using this to prove Angels actually existed, and they need not for my point ot stand. One coudl use Alien Abductions and its the same point, though htose aren’t typically seen as Supernatural unless you buy the Aleins as Demons Theory.”
Sure, I guess it all boils down to what you treat as natural or supernatural, but regarding the point of a scientific test, as someone has already pointed out, the key elements are reproducibility and consistency. “Testing” God is a good example of this, the Bible states several times that God will not be tested, so I don’t see why God would be a lab rat every single time any scientist tries to run a viable “God-testing” experiment. The problem is you are dealing with a singularly unique being with a volition and a stated desire to not be tested – it may be that he is testABLE, but because of the above cannot be tested and thus not addressed by science.
Additionally, while they may operate under unknown laws, they would have to be consistent laws, not divine suspension of the laws in order to achieve a miraculous action.
If there is neither testability nor consistency, then it is not a scientific test.
October 5th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
I used Angels as opposed to God for a reason. While Angels may be powerful, their power may be explainabke via natural laws we simply do not as yet understand.
Which is again, only used here as simply a point of interest.
October 5th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
@ Sophie even tho your last comment was not posted to me i fell i must comment.You are asking someone to come up with the goods or stand down and that is what i have been saying to you for ages lol.Perhaps you should provide me with the scientific evidence i have been asking for or stand down instead of resulting to insults.
@Cabal thank you for your reply but i still fail to see how you dont believe that God created Adam from the dust and then formed Eve from Adam when it is so clearly wri,tten.
Also if you have more people other than Adam and Eve in the beginning you technicaly could have a group of people who are sinless which goes completly against Romans 3v23″for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
you see it can cause all sorts of problems that must be addressed.And the basis of truth and authority must be the Word of God and the Word of God does teach against evolution whether you agree or not.I am not against you Cabal nor am i against anyone else but i fail to see how people compromise with Gods Word when things are so clearly laid out
October 5th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
At which point I give up and withdraw. I tried…
October 5th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
@Zarove:
“I used Angels as opposed to God for a reason. While Angels may be powerful, their power may be explainabke via natural laws we simply do not as yet understand.”
Ok – but even so, there may still be the same issues with consistency and reproducibility in any proposed “angel test” as there would be with the “God test”.
I think at the moment one can only talk hypothetically about testability, and neither of us is really going to get anywhere claiming they are or they aren’t. Both are presumptive and not based on objective fact.
October 5th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
@Bill:
“Cabal thank you for your reply”
Likewise
“but i still fail to see how you dont believe that God created Adam from the dust and then formed Eve from Adam when it is so clearly wri,tten.”
I’ve already addressed this – I don’t just go for what other men call “clearly written”.
“Also if you have more people other than Adam and Eve in the beginning you technicaly could have a group of people who are sinless which goes completly against Romans 3v23?for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
you see it can cause all sorts of problems that must be addressed.”
Not at all – one act of sin by Adam was enough to infect the entire human race, according to the Romans verse you quoted. All that would be needed for one to sin. So you still have sin entering the human race through one individual.
Even then, there is nothing stopping them from all sinning individually. I don’t accept original sin as something inherent, but rather as a general description of the tendency for humans to inevitably make the wrong choice.
“And the basis of truth and authority must be the Word of God and the Word of God does teach against evolution whether you agree or not. I am not against you Cabal nor am i against anyone else but i fail to see how people compromise with Gods Word when things are so clearly laid out”
No, Bill, I don’t agree. I am not rejecting the Word of God, I am rejecting your interpretation of the Word of God. And while I’m glad the thread has calmed down somewhat (my apologies for the personal jibes I made at you beforehand), I don’t feel like you’re addressing all of the points I have raised.
For example, how does one square a literalistic reading of the Bible with the fact that Genesis describes Eve as the first human sinner, but Paul claims that sin entered the human race through Adam?
October 5th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
But my only point was, if a Supernatural realm existed, and we coudl observe it for a protracted period, we could so those sorts of tests.
October 5th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
@Cabal regarding your last question with Adam and Eve.
If you read Corinthians you will see that in a marriage it is Gods will that man is the head of the home/marriage.And that man is the head of his wife meaning that the man is to look after his wife boyh physicaly and spiritualy.It was Adams job to look after his wife and make sure that she was in no harm but he wasnt there for her when she was tempted by satan so therefore God held Adam accountable.It is a teaching that im sure you know is found throughout the Bible.
Regarding the other points you have raised i will go over them and reply/give opinion in due course
God bless
@Sophie im still waiting lol
October 5th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
@Bill:
“If you read Corinthians you will see that in a marriage it is Gods will that man is the head of the home/marriage.And that man is the head of his wife meaning that the man is to look after his wife boyh physicaly and spiritualy.It was Adams job to look after his wife and make sure that she was in no harm but he wasnt there for her when she was tempted by satan so therefore God held Adam accountable.It is a teaching that im sure you know is found throughout the Bible.”
Then why didn’t Paul literally say that in Romans? Saying that sin entered through Adam when it did not, given a literal reading of both books, presents a contradiction.
Even saying “Adam’s house” would have clarified the matter.
October 5th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
@Zarove:
“But my only point was, if a Supernatural realm existed, and we coudl observe it for a protracted period, we could so those sorts of tests.”
And all I’m saying is, I don’t think you can definitely claim that. It could go either way, especially given that one category of spiritual being that we know of refuses to be tested.
October 6th, 2010 at 7:19 am
@ Cabal it is like i said if you folliow the whole tontext taught in scripture then there is no conradition.I sure you will agree that sometimes you cant just take two scriptures and then then make a judgement as to what they mean espiecialy when there are many others that we can go to that will make matters clear.I will post more scriptures regarding this when i get a real good hour in front of my Bible.
God bless and i look forward to talking further
@Sophie whats happening it seems you cant answer me.Shame really because you seem convinced you are right lol
October 6th, 2010 at 8:15 am
AH, but Cabal, there are others. And again, my point was only hat, Science is limied by Observable Phonomenon, whether or not athat i classified as Natural or Supernatural. Science is a Method of Inquerry, not an inherant Philosophy.
October 6th, 2010 at 8:35 am
“AH, but Cabal, there are others. And again, my point was only hat, Science is limied by Observable Phonomenon”
Either way, there is no reason to presume that any of them can or cannot be observed given the lack of evidence there is.
“whether or not athat i classified as Natural or Supernatural. Science is a Method of Inquerry, not an inherant Philosophy.”
Well, not sure what you mean by “inherent”, but it is philosophical too.
October 6th, 2010 at 8:45 am
@ Bill
“it is like i said if you folliow the whole tontext taught in scripture then there is no conradition.I sure you will agree that sometimes you cant just take two scriptures and then then make a judgement as to what they mean espiecialy when there are many others that we can go to that will make matters clear.”
Right, so just as you follow the context here instead of obviously accepting the literal/plain reading of the text as it would lead to contradiction, I do the same with Genesis 1 and the verse that says God cannot be a liar, so I reject creationism on that basis.
Just as you reject the literal reading of the passages that inspired geocentrism (as do I) in the context of God’s creation, so do I reject the literal reading of Genesis 1 in the context of God’s creation.
October 6th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Bill,
You keep asking for this proof, from Sophie or whoever. Have you yet read the article highlghted by Cabal?
I think you’ll find that if you take the time to read the whole thing with diligence your answer will be there. It’s only one of countless analyses of the case for Evolution and related matters; so if this does not do it for you there are others written in a less esoteric way to which we can direct you.
Cabal
I salute your patience!
October 6th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
@ Zarove: Science doesn’t measure “the observable world”. What science measures is the natural world. The supernatural, by definition, is not natural.
You raised the idea of angel experiments and I challenged you to design one. I did this because I knew that the obstacles immediately become clear if you simply try to design a valid experiment.
However rather than rise to the challenge you’ve been backtracking ever since, using words like “thought experiment” , “philosophical” and “theoretical” hoping, I assume, that we wouldn’t notice you can’t support your proposition. I don’t think you fully understand the parameters of science. Sure, science deals with mind-bogglingly complex stuff, but the ideas and principles behind are relatively simple. I wonder if you are a bit confused by the various uses of the word “materialism”?
I suggest you watch this admirable, short video – it’s only 6.43 minutes. Eugenie Scott, director of the American National Center for Science Education, explains with her customary elegance and clarity why science excludes the supernatural.
October 6th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I will go over all posts to make sure i have not overlooked anything.
Also a major point God is bigger than science!!!!
October 10th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I really think so too=] I have been searching around the internet for a while today, and its really hard to find anything entertaining to read on blogs=) Maybe its because there are too many of those around =) But this site actually keeps catching my attention=] Great posts, and kawai design ^__^. Ill be sure to give it more time from now on =P