Huh. I've seen pictures like this before. Does it depict man's behavior gradually falling into being animalistic? No, I don't think so. Humans already tend to be much more destructive than any animal.
Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
By WILL SENTELL
wsentell@theadvocate.com
Capitol news bureau
High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board.
If the disclaimer wins final approval, it would apparently make Louisiana just the second state in the nation with such a provision. The other is Alabama, which is the model for the disclaimer backers want in Louisiana.
Alabama approved its policy six or seven years ago after extensive controversy that included questions over the religious overtones of the issue.
The change approved Tuesday requires Louisiana education officials to check on details for getting publishers to add the disclaimer to biology textbooks.
It won approval in the board's Student and School Standards/ Instruction Committee after a sometimes contentious session.
"I don't believe I evolved from some primate," said Jim Stafford, a board member from Monroe. Stafford said evolution should be offered as a theory, not fact.
Whether the proposal will win approval by the full state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on Thursday is unclear.
Paul Pastorek of New Orleans, president of the board, said he will oppose the addition.
"I am not prepared to go back to the Dark Ages," Pastorek said.
"I don't think state boards should dictate editorial content of school textbooks," he said. "We shouldn't be involved with that."
Donna Contois of Metairie, chairwoman of the committee that approved the change, said afterward she could not say whether it will win approval by the full board.
The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.
"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."
Backers say the addition would be inserted in the front of biology textbooks used by students in grades 9-12, possibly next fall.
The issue surfaced when a committee of the board prepared to approve dozens of textbooks used by both public and nonpublic schools. The list was recommended by a separate panel that reviews textbooks every seven years.
A handful of citizens, one armed with a copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," complained that biology textbooks used now are one-sided in promoting evolution uncritically and are riddled with factual errors.
"If we give them all the facts to make up their mind, we have educated them," Darrell White of Baton Rouge said of students. "Otherwise we have indoctrinated them."
Darwin wrote that individuals with certain characteristics enjoy an edge over their peers and life forms developed gradually millions of years ago.
Backers bristled at suggestions that they favor the teaching of creationism, which says that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible's Book of Genesis.
White said he is the father of seven children, including a 10th-grader at a public high school in Baton Rouge.
He said he reviewed 21 science textbooks for use by middle and high school students. White called Darwin's book "racist and sexist" and said students are entitled to know more about controversy that swirls around the theory.
"If nothing else, put a disclaimer in the front of the textbooks," White said.
John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, also criticized the accuracy of science textbooks under review. Oller said he was appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group.
Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed," he said.
Linda Johnson of Plaquemine, a member of the board, said she supports the change. Johnson said the new message of evolution "will encourage students to go after the facts."
Genesis 37:25-36, Genesis 39:1 Judges 6:2 Judges 7:8-12 Judges i:22-26 Numbers 25:1-16.
Are they mentioned anywhere else significantly? I couldn't find it, and neither could any search engines I tried. From Judges, they were aligned against the israelites of the expansion of Saul and David, with the Amelkites. So are you trying to claim that they weren't one of the number of people's erased from the holy land by Saul and David when they killed their "thousands", and their "10s of thousands"? If so, your claim stands on pretty feeble ground from anything I can detect.
In numbers we learned that their grave sin was deceiving Moses in the affair of Peor, (I guess.) Not exactly a world-class crime to this casual observer.
So far, it doesn't seem as if culumny is exactly oozing from their every pore, but, with your track record of biblical miracles of interpretation perhaps you can cite me the specific references to back up your assertion that the Mideanites were a cesspool of evil so grotesque and pervasive as to require the punishment by rape of their virgin girl children.
"My position" is to ask, over and over, without getting a remotely satisfactory answer, why, if God considers slavery an absolute moral crime, as was represented to me, did God order the enslavement of the remaining helpless Midianites? If you represent to me that the Bible is the absolute source of morality, than don't you think I ought to be able to understand from it whether it is, or is not absolutely moral to keep slaves? Doesn't this question strike you as just a tad more important than the question of whether or not you should, say, eat bats?--did God frequently order immoral acts of his chosen people? Was God particularly peckish that day?
Perhaps it is your position that God is the absolute source of absolute morality, but we have no way of knowing what that morality consists of? (Unless we consult you or exmarine, of course.)
Why were the Mideanites enslaved? Why were the Jews? They were God's chosen people. The slavery in Babylon is clearly blamed on the behavior of Hebrews but what about the slavery in Egypt?
Does God have a hard side? Yes, obviously. But if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God -- and you understand His teaching and the seriousness of his sacrifice -- you will conclude that God is something that is far more than just to be feared. You will see that He is good. He is deserving of total, complete worship and adoration.
But not deserving of an effort to determine what, exactly, moral behavior ought to consist of? How do you know this? How do you know that God and Jesus aren't emmessaries of a more spiritually advanced culture from Alpha Centauri, sent here to make us good sheep, full of peaceful brotherhood and all like that agape stuff, so that we will be easy to herd and slaughter when the Alpha Centurians arrive to harvest us?
If you believe in Jesus you will conclude that God wants us to be merciful, kind, loving, turn-the-other-cheek etc.
Indeed. Exactly as the Alpha Centarian explanation calls for.
If you read the Bible you will see that a consistant thread through the narrative is that cruely is bad even in the OT despite the mandated slaughters. As Exmarine noted, the practices of many neighboring tribes were abominable. Love your neighbor is an OT command.
Another constant thread is that God mandated these slaughters, and consequent enslavements you speak of. Do you have a special version of the Bible where God highlights the parts we're supposed to look solemn during, and the parts where we're supposed to go wink, wink, nudge, nudge, and play grabass with our pewmates?
I am ready for your sarcastic response
If you are going to proffer a fountainhead of morality, it would be good if your fountainhead could handle a few simple technical questions concerning morals, by some means other than belittling the questions, don't you imagine?
If you believe in Jesus you will conclude that God wants us to be merciful, kind, loving, turn-the-other-cheek etc.
Indeed. Exactly as the Alpha Centarian explanation calls for.
You know the secret plan! You must be silenced!
...or it could mean the bible is a mishmash of stories and homolies generated from various sources, and not proofread for consistency in any terribly profound way.
Or it could mean that the person who did the deed was honorable and knowledgable and did the deed because he reasoned -- right or wrongly -- worse things would occur if he didn't.
So...in other words, the "absolute" morality of the bible can be overcome by contemporary human exigencies?...or, perhaps, that the bible's instructions in absolute morality are insufficient to cover all moral questions that can arise in the contemporary world--and so must be addressed by assessing human concerns?
Regardless, this doesn't mean that the teachings were wrong or that God doesn't exist.
It doesn't prove the opposite, either.
Are you claiming Jesus's teachings about the Golden Rule and general kindly-hearted agape-ness nullify the OT, so no question arising from the OT need be answered because the OT is not binding? Are you of ex-marines school in this regard? Do you think the 10 Commandments were really the 10 strong suggestions?
I don't think that was my representation. If I left that impression I apologize. The absolute moral crime is hate. Generally, if you enslave your neighbor that is an indication of hate, but that's not necessairly so. Are you aware that even to this day the 13th Amendment allows for slavery?
If you represent to me that the Bible is the absolute source of morality, than don't you think I ought to be able to understand from it whether it is, or is not absolutely moral to keep slaves?
You ought to. I'm baffled as to why you can't.
Perhaps it is your position that God is the absolute source of absolute morality, but we have no way of knowing what that morality consists of? (Unless we consult you or exmarine, of course.)
How about Jesus? You said yourself his teachings are clear.
Huh. I've seen pictures like this before. Does it depict man's behavior gradually falling into being animalistic? No, I don't think so. Humans already tend to be much more destructive than any animal.
So...as long as I slaughter Mideanites__and enslave and ravage their children--without hate in my heart--it's moral? Doesn't seem all that consoling for the Mideanites to me.
All the amendments allow for slavery, to the best of my knowledge, since they mostly don't address the question.
You ought to. I'm baffled as to why you can't.
perhaps you haven't been following the discussion. I pointed out that God both regulates the relationship between masters and slaves in the Bible, and ordered the enslavement of the Midianites. In response, exmarine has informed me, quite stridently, that the Bible prohibits slavery because of a letter from Paul to a slaveowner, suggesting that slaves should love their masters, and vice versa. Exmarine further argues that, plain as day, if a master loved his slaves, he'd free them. THEREFORE, the bible prohibits slavery.
I take it you disagree with some part of this chain of reasoning?
If so, Imagine the comfort it gives me to know that two contemporary interpreters of the will of God can come up with diametrically opposite advice on this subject.
Didn't Jesus say he did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it? I don't personally have an excuse note from Jesus telling me I can now ignore the OT--Do you?
Consider the issue I just brought up. Is it a good test of a moral question to carefully select what you want out of the OT and NT to justify whatever position you'd now like to hold, and ignore any countervailing evidence from the same source on the same subject? Such as exmarine has so amply demonstrated for us?
If we bomb a couple of cities and kill 200,000 people -- most of whom are women and children -- is that moral? Would it be better to kill the women and children or turn them into slaves? How about instead of making them slaves, we let them starve to death?
The answer you have given as to why slavery, murder, genocide etc is wrong is that man is genetically programmed to be good (or follow the code of his tribe which would lead to the question what if the tribe thinks murder, genocide and enslavement is good.) That's foolishness.
You can conclude that man is bad and is meant to do bad things, or that man in fallen which means that he does bad things but is meant to do good. One of the points exmarine has made is that many of God's commands are designed to mitigate the bad.
All the amendments allow for slavery, to the best of my knowledge, since they mostly don't address the question.
After you finally get around to reading the Bible in context, read the Constitution.
My attitude? You are the one who doesn't deny the charge of BIGOT! hahaha. Who has more of an attitude than an incorrigible bigot?
You are a moral midget. We did bomb Hiroshima and it was moral. It saved 1 million lives. And bombing Mecca would save millions more.
Even if I'm a three-toed sloth from Venus, how does that answer the questions I've asked? It doesn't, of course.
I can manage to stomach it, if necessity calls for it, however, unlike some people in this discussion, I am not constrained by the opinion that there is an overriding absolute morality lurking about in the universe.
Would it be better to kill the women and children or turn them into slaves? How about instead of making them slaves, we let them starve to death?
How about if we don't either let the child victims of our attacks on enemy cities starve to death or make slaves of them?
The answer you have given as to why slavery, murder, genocide etc is wrong is that man is genetically programmed to be good
Sigh. No that is not the answer I gave. It isn't even close.
One of the points exmarine has made is that many of God's commands are designed to mitigate the bad.
Right. The bad results for the children of the Mideanites forced into sexual servitude, for example, at God's command.
After you finally get around to reading the Bible in context, read the Constitution.
Could you quote me the list of amendments that forbid slavery, such as to make the 13th amendment something special in that regard?
CONTEXT: apparent definition: a carefully selected arrangement of biblical quotations designed to support one's own contention, carefully ignoring any contradictory evidence from the bible.
If God exists -- and He does -- He sets the rules as to the absolute morality. If He tells us that we must walk on our tongues and whistle Yankee Doodle, we have a big problem.
If you believe that Jesus is the Christ you don't have to worry about that or about sacrificing your first born, or fasting and scourging your body to find Nirvana or about acquiring wealth to take with you to the next world or any of the strange concepts man has cooked up to guarantee a happy time after death. You do have to worry about loving your neighbor and doing unto them as you'd have them do unto you.
How about if we don't either let the child victims of our attacks on enemy cities starve to death or make slaves of them?
How about we avoid having an agrarian economy dependent on manual labor, while being certain there is a surplus of food to take care of all in need?
Well now, what do we have here? An argument that slavery is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, depending on the contemporary state of human agrarian technology?
Which we cannot resolve, because God's moral precepts are absolutely binding, right?
Aren't you pretty much describing the behavior and rhetoric of the hippies exmarine hates so much? If my neighbor wants me to impregnate his wife, does Jesus see any problem with that? Suppose my neighbor is desperate for a child and can't produce one on his own. Does the absolute law of jesus's love trump the absolute Commandment against adultery? Does not jesus's moral precept of agape love require me to impregnate his wife in a reciprocal act? Do you really mean it when you say that "do unto.." is absolute morality, or are you just pulling my chain, as is usually the case when we actually get down to cases? His commitment to "Do unto..." didn't prevent exmarine from gloating over the millions of gook babies we fried in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, just a few posts ago, so you'll forgive me if I regard this, until proven otherwise, as a world class case of murderous hypocracy.
I don't know that I would disagree with that. Do you? Do you believe chain gangs are wrong? How about the less brutal, DUI weekend litter crews?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.