And this is a big deal because we have to stop catering to people who are too damn sensitive about their ‘beliefs’. I mean, just think about this for a second, and you’d realize how incredibly ludicrous the whole thing is. They’re going to teach evolution, but try to trick the conservative diehards into thinking that they’re not being taught evolution. This is politics at its worst.
Originally posted by Cybercompost
You know, what exactly is the conflict between evolution and creationism? Can’t you say that God created evolution? Does “seven days” really mean seven days or does it mean eons?
Would a God have a concept of time at all? I think someone just wanted a day to rest on, so they made up creationism and said God rested on the 7th day and then said we should rest on the 7th day too.
Evolution and creationism have always been controversial and it will remain so until the end of days. Or until the dreadful day when we ourselves highten ourselves to the status of Godhood. If that day hasn’t come already. I myself don’t see a conflict, all they would have to do is say that God is behind it all: He caused the big bang, he caused evolution, he caused everything. Nothing about science really conflicts with religion, they’re on two different arenas.
Yes Nulani, but as I said, the people who object to evolution and want creationism object to evolution period. They’re not willing to believe that God did the Big Bang than guided evolution etc. They want to teach their kids that God made man period. They want to teach creationism as a science, which it simply is not.
People should be allowed to believe in the twisted things they want. As long as it doesn’t violate any laws and International treaties. Let the believe that God created the world in seven days and made the world dirt. Let them believe that they are a product of dirt, and not a product of a chemical reaction in a pool of goo in cool colours.
We can’t prove beyond all doubt that this world exist. It could just be an illusion in our twisted minds. So I can’t see why we should argue about something as trivial as how it came into being.
But of course, the fact that they want everyone else to think the same way is a problem. Not a very new problem though.
Originally posted by Cybercompost
You know, what exactly is the conflict between evolution and creationism? Can’t you say that God created evolution? Does “seven days” really mean seven days or does it mean eons?
I also read that evolution could be looked at in the way God let the world evolve. To pit creationism and evolution together with one distinct definition is futile; those words could mean lots of things.
Aside from that, I believe the article only made headlines because of how silly the whole situation is, not because the word is being banned.
The word evolution basically means ‘evolutionary changes over time,’ so children would still be taught the same thing. I don’t live in Georgia so I’m not sure how conservative they are about religion, but surely it’s the actual concept that people are opposed to, so what difference does it make if they just repackage what’s already taught in school?
Evolution doesn’t necessarily oppose religious teachings as long as The Bible isn’t read too literally. I have very religious friends who believe that evolution is God’s way of letting life develop.
By the way, are they allowed to teach theories of the creation of the universe like the Big Bang? That’s another theory that on the face of it goes against religion, but when you actually look into it, it can be used to support religious theories. Scientists still don’t know what actually happened at the very moment of creation, and there are some that speculate that a huge amount of energy would be needed to bring this about. I’ve heard some people refer to this entity or energy as God. Obviously, I have no idea whether or not it’s actually true, nobody really does, but this is a topic of conversation that comes up regularly in my physics class, and that is one of the theories that my teacher introduced.
Originally posted by Cybercompost
You know, what exactly is the conflict between evolution and creationism? Can’t you say that God created evolution? Does “seven days” really mean seven days or does it mean eons?
Indeed. The entire bible is figurative, and on top of that, it’s christian/jewish MYTHOLOGY. I doubt whoever wrote Genesis wanted to claim that it took 86400 seconds to create light, to create the planet, to create man. It’s the gist that supposed to be important. People are naive and stupid to treat it scientifically AT ALL.
Originally posted by Tomiko
Indeed. The entire bible is figurative, and on top of that, it’s christian/jewish MYTHOLOGY. I doubt whoever wrote Genesis wanted to claim that it took 86400 seconds to create light, to create the planet, to create man. It’s the gist that supposed to be important. People are naive and stupid to treat it scientifically AT ALL.
I wouldn’t put it as “Mythology”, and no the Bible has more to offer than the “gist” of things. I haven’t read through the Bible myself, but to base everything as figurative is a bit…degrading and disappointing. If people believe that someone up in the clouds is looking out for us, then people have the right to oversee the fact that Jesus walked on water (which seems impossible as well, to us), and all that good stuff.
Plus, you’re right in one of your statements. “Whoever wrote Genesis”. it was written by people, if you want to take things to a religious aspect, no one was around, and so worshippers of God have come to believe that.
And I am quite miffed that people keep using the Creationism theory as if it only pertains to Christians and Jews. There are other religions who believe in God/a God that are not either of the two.
Gensis IS Mythology in every respect. It’s the literary term christians use to describe it, and it also fits the definition perfectly.
And when I said “figurative” I didn’t mean “untrue.” Much of the bible is very accurate. It’s just written in figurative language. Like when you see a number like “7” or “6” or “40,” you realize that those aren’t actual numbers. They’re symbolic numbers.
And I am quite miffed that people keep using the Creationism theory as if it only pertains to Christians and Jews. There are other religions who believe in God/a God that are not either of the two
Genesis creationism is jewish. I was pretty sure that was the creationism we were talking about.
the Bible has more to offer than the “gist” of things
Not really. The bible is about life lessons. It was written to be easily interpreted by any generation. The only thing you’ll find in it that’s specific is bloodlines.
Plus, you’re right in one of your statements
Don’t just presume the other ones are wrong. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but it’s slightly irritating.
If people believe that someone up in the clouds is looking out for us, then people have the right to oversee the fact that Jesus walked on water (which seems impossible as well, to us), and all that good stuff.
Sorry, but that’s an exaggeration/made up as well. Go read the gospel of Luke. Nowhere will you see anything about jesus walking on water.
Wait a minute… so their’ banning merely the word, not the concept, but people are still allowed to use it? WTF? That doesn’t do anything! Things’ll be the same as before!
Originally posted by Tomiko
[b]Gensis IS Mythology in every respect. It’s the literary term christians use to describe it, and it also fits the definition perfectly.And when I said “figurative” I didn’t mean “untrue.” Much of the bible is very accurate. It’s just written in figurative language. Like when you see a number like “7” or “6” or “40,” you realize that those aren’t actual numbers. They’re symbolic numbers.
Genesis creationism is jewish. I was pretty sure that was the creationism we were talking about.
Not really. The bible is about life lessons. It was written to be easily interpreted by any generation. The only thing you’ll find in it that’s specific is bloodlines.
Don’t just presume the other ones are wrong. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but it’s slightly irritating.
Sorry, but that’s an exaggeration/made up as well. Go read the gospel of Luke. Nowhere will you see anything about jesus walking on water. [/b]
True mythology can mean to address one’s origins but most people don’t look at it this way, and believe mythology is merely nothing but folklore, and to teach valuable life lessons.
I never insinuated that you were saying the Bible was untrue, I just think you’re being a bit too vague with the whole “figurative” thing. The Bible is also a recollection of history. it is not solely about “life lessons”. Much of the Bible is contradictory (depending on the version) and quite unfit for the era we live in now. It is also a story. An explanation, not guidelines to live by. A lot of Christians do not live by the Book. If one believes that the Bible or a religious writing like so is only “life’s valuable lessons” than that individual is surely missing the point. if some book (regardless of whether it is the Bible or not) is all someone goes by to live their life, that would make them little more than a sheep, no? And I don’t believe that’s what any true God intends for their followers to be, sorry.
Well where did the whole “walking on water” come from? if it doesn’t appear in the Bible, and is still around, then surely the tale is figurative, yes? The same idea you’re talking about?
I see you have yet to learn that not all religious figures live solely by the Bible. often times it is quite opposite, and the Bible and its theories are not any set guidelines or rules.
There’s a lot of things I have yet to learn, but that’s not one of them.
I think you’re taking what I say to heart a little more than you need to be.
And I’m not trying to slam the bible’s validity, but the truth is, in essence, it’s little more than guidelines. (Don’t mistake the word “Guidlines” for “rules.” They’re not the same.)
And that’s exactly why I can agree with what you said about not strictly following the bible. I never meant to imply that it’s some heavenly book that us mere humans aren’t allowed to breathe on that we should follow word for word like dogs.
Well where did the whole “walking on water” come from? if it doesn’t appear in the Bible, and is still around, then surely the tale is figurative, yes? The same idea you’re talking about?
There are 4 gospels. It’s probably in one of them, but the fact that it’s inconsistant in all 4 probably means it was just some miraculously literate kid getting excited about his new hero and wanting to make him sound awesome.
If one believes that the Bible or a religious writing like so is only “life’s valuable lessons” than that individual is surely missing the point.
Sorry, but I don’t think there even IS a broader purpose to the bible than that. It’s basically 2 things: 1)Proof of the reasons we should be loyal to god, and 2) an example to live by if we want to get into his kingdom. Many people even say it can be summed up in three simple words: Love your neighbor.
Yes IonMage, they’re just banning the word but still teaching the same thing. Politics at its worst.
Anyway Eva, the problem over this whole ‘creationism thing’ isn’t with the people who think like you do, that God created the universe but evolution is also true. The problem is with the people who do take the Bible literally. Your and Cyber’s definition is all well and good, but it doesn’t erase the fact that, evidently, there are groups of people in the South who won’t accept your definition of creationism and won’t accept evolution. Why else would they ban the mere word, for chrissakes?
Originally posted by Tomiko
[b]There’s a lot of things I have yet to learn, but that’s not one of them.I think you’re taking what I say to heart a little more than you need to be.
And I’m not trying to slam the bible’s validity, but the truth is, in essence, it’s little more than guidelines. (Don’t mistake the word “Guidlines” for “rules.” They’re not the same.)
And that’s exactly why I can agree with what you said about not strictly following the bible. I never meant to imply that it’s some heavenly book that us mere humans aren’t allowed to breathe on that we should follow word for word like dogs.
There are 4 gospels. It’s probably in one of them, but the fact that it’s inconsistant in all 4 probably means it was just some miraculously literate kid getting excited about his new hero and wanting to make him sound awesome.
Sorry, but I don’t think there even IS a broader purpose to the bible than that. It’s basically 2 things: 1)Proof of the reasons we should be loyal to god, and 2) an example to live by if we want to get into his kingdom. Many people even say it can be summed up in three simple words: Love your neighbor. [/b]
No no, I am enjoying this 
I consider myself a fairly faithful individual, and I respect religion, any forms of it, greatly. I don’t know your stand on religion, so I wont assume, but I’m just going to say that maybe because I have…broader insight because of my lifestyle, I guess, that I may be looking at things differently than you and this is why we disagree on various things.
I don’t believe the Bible is just restricted to be guidelines ( I apologize for confusing guidelines and rules) I totally disagree with it. A friend of mine took her Bible to school with her to a Global History class to debate some past Middle Eastern conflict of land, and because of the information in the Bible (it was some Palestinian thing), she won. Now that’s just one example, but it’s a perfectly good example as to why the Bible is more than guidelines (like I said, it is history, and also what was right/wrong then, as opposed to now, as I like to see it.)
I also doubt the fact that a someone just made the fact up about Jesus walking on water. Whether it’s in the Bible or not, or true or not, is quite irrelavent, I’m just noting the fact that the (myth) is there.
The Bible is also not proof why people should be loyal to God, nor is it a way to salvation. Yes, I’m going to crack a cheesy line, and I may be a skeptic but I only say it to enlighten your views, for lack of a better sentence. People who believe in God know it in their heart, and they don’t need a book to prove it to themselves, and they don’t need to read a set of morales to actually believe them. Anyone can read the Bible and hope to get accepted into “His kingdom”, but only those who truely believe in a religious life will achieve that. Also, you can be an evil sinner all your life and then totally refocus your life and repeat right before you die to do the same. What im basically doing is trying to back up my arguement, that no, the Bible is not there to teach someone, it’s to help someone, to help them understand aspects about their religious life which may be unclear to them.
Originally posted by Curtis
Anyway Eva, the problem over this whole ‘creationism thing’ isn’t with the people who think like you do, that God created the universe but evolution is also true. The problem is with the people who do take the Bible literally. Your and Cyber’s definition is all well and good, but it doesn’t erase the fact that, evidently, there are groups of people in the South who won’t accept your definition of creationism and won’t accept evolution. Why else would they ban the mere word, for chrissakes?
I actually really tried to avoid coming off as a “Bible thumper” (which i most certainly am not) and all my comments thus far are speaking in a religious context, and reflect maybe only half of my beliefs. When I refer to God or the Bible, I am not saying “my God” or “well in my Bible it says this” because I think that’s a pretty biased arguement, so yeah, I just wanted to mention that to anyone who thinks I’m playing devil’s advocate on behalf of the bashing or religion, cuz I’m not:P
Ok onto what you said. Yes, I believe in creationism, but I also agree in evolution. I’m probably half and half, why? Because both can make sense, and both are not proven 100% correct.
The creation THEORY.
The Big Bang THEORY.
Nobody knows, so it wont hurt to associate both in how I believe the universe was created. I was told by a wonderful person once that A truely great mind is capable of accepting both religious and scientific beliefs. And yeah, unfortunately people do take the Bible too literally, but if they want a narrow view of the world then pfft I couldnt care less.
They didn’t really say that they’d outlaw the teaching of evolution. Just…arg I need to re read the article, taking the topic way off topic is leaving me to draw a blank.
Well if people believe in God in their hearts and dont need the Bible or anything else to prove his existence to them, than they shouldn’t be so damn sensitive that they throw a hissy fit when school prayer is banned, or when a statue of the Ten Commandments are taken off the steps of a courthouse, or when they have to be taught something in school they don’t believe in.
In the immortal words of Gandhi:
“I like your Christ. I don’t like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Originally posted by Curtis
[b]Well if people believe in God in their hearts and dont need the Bible or anything else to prove his existence to them, than they shouldn’t be so damn sensitive that they throw a hissy fit when school prayer is banned, or when a statue of the Ten Commandments are taken off the steps of a courthouse, or when they have to be taught something in school they don’t believe in.In the immortal words of Gandhi:
“I like your Christ. I don’t like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” [/b]
Ah I believe it’s common for people to over reacte or to be upset when something of their everyday life can be restricted =D I know I would be, but I do know that others have a right to avoid those circumstances if they aren’t religious.
I really couldn’t care if I was taught all out evolution as a POSSIBILITY, but I would be mad if the teacher was telling me “THIS is how the world was made, and you had all better accept it because science knows everything and its impossible for a God to exist”. That wouldn’t be fair, and vice versa.
I like that quote by Ghandi, I never knew he said that. Very very true. Kudos for bringing it up.
That entire thing was basically what I was trying to say.
The problem is I’m getting mixed messages from you. On one hand I’m getting the impression that you keep trying to convince me that the Bible is some glowing white book with some huge deep profound meaning behind it when it’s really just basic guidelines and israelite history. And on the other hand you’re telling me the exact opposite 
The only thing I think needs to be said at this point is that I agree with you about the bible not being the key to heaven or whatever. Merely reading the bible wont get you into God’s Kingdom. It’s supposed to be a means to shift your perspective into a lifestyle that WILL.
And also, what your friend did was very dangerous. If she tried to debate, say, the battle of Jericho using the Bible, she would’ve gotten completely owned. Unless said Global History teacher is a complete fool. The Bible’s record of Jericho is the most glorified crap ever
Originally posted by Tomiko
[b]That entire thing was basically what I was trying to say.The problem is I’m getting mixed messages from you. On one hand I’m getting the impression that you keep trying to convince me that the Bible is some glowing white book with some huge deep profound meaning behind it when it’s really just basic guidelines and israelite history. And on the other hand you’re telling me the exact opposite :P[/b]
Really? I’m sorry, I sometimes get mixed up in what I’m trying to communicate. See, in my head it sounds right, but trying to convert it into words is difficult for me I wasn’t insinuating that the Bible was this ever deep meaning and metaphor and whatnot, I am trying to say that I see it more than just guidelines. But you seemed to be trying to disprove what I was saying, I guess we got different interpretations of what we were trying to say.
Originally posted by Tomiko
The only thing I think needs to be said at this point is that I agree with you about the bible not being the key to heaven or whatever. Merely reading the bible wont get you into God’s Kingdom. It’s supposed to be a means to shift your perspective into a lifestyle that WILL.
Yes, you’re right. But in saying that, I seem to be contradicting myself, but I never said the Bible did not consist of guidelines (just more), just to clarify my response. But you also don’t need the Bible do live a “sin free” lifestyle, but strict Christians usually do.
Originally posted by Tomiko
And also, what your friend did was very dangerous. If she tried to debate, say, the battle of Jericho using the Bible, she would’ve gotten completely owned. Unless said Global History teacher is a complete fool. The Bible’s record of Jericho is the most glorified crap ever
Nah she was really intelligent, I don’t think she’d use it to prove certain things because quite obviously the Bible is like I said before, contradictory, and in some parts, flawed, or not acceptable by today’s standards. What you say would be an example of that (if it’s true, I only read certain parts of the Bible, not through it)
Yes, you’re right. But in saying that, I seem to be contradicting myself, but I never said the Bible did not consist of guidelines (just more), just to clarify my response. But you also don’t need the Bible do live a “sin free” lifestyle, but strict Christians usually do
Strict christians also molest children and condemn people who play violent videogames. Let’s not use them as an example of “sin free.”
And yeah, what the bible teaches is morals that are already inherent in most humans. You certainly don’t need it to live a sin free life, but with all the temptations in our society, it’s nice to have a little reminder of what’s right or wrong once in a while.
Originally posted by Tomiko
Strict christians also molest children and condemn people who play violent videogames. Let’s not use them as an example of “sin free.”
I think that’s a pretty unfair and generalized comment. Sure, any type of Christian can molest a kid, but so can anybody, if we apply it to the same standards.
Taking the “molestation” thing aside, it is only fair they have their beliefs. To condemn them for condemning us is hypocritical, so let them believe what they want (yes I know this isn’t what you meant, but I just had to point that out for interest)