Posted on 12/01/2005 11:47:39 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Okay, I see. You may be right. That is a good website for reference. All I know is that the Bible states the earth was completely covered, so there must be an valid explaination to what you are seeing. I would think 'Answers in Genesis' might have helped you on that?
What lies are you referring to?
Are you claiming that the Anatolian, Hittite, Hurrite, Thracian, Scythian... beliefs are not what we think they are? Not to mention Chinese, Ainu, Chinook...
While we are at it..the modern stuff: ID, Scientology, Raelianism..
Are you saying that to learn these is to somehow dishonor the Bible?
Does ID get a pass because it is a self-admitted fraud designed soley to get Biblical literalism into the classroom?
Why don't you write 'Answers in Genesis' with your question? I would think they may be able to shed some light on the subject for you.
Wow, where did you come up with that incredulous statement?
Anything that teaches anything different as pertaining to creation, apart from the creation story as recorded in the Bible, is most definitely a lie. Take that for what it is worth and apply it whatever you like. You have to have a standard if you are going to be measuring. The Bible is my standard.
That's because the devil kept that ground dry to fool you, and you are doing the devil's work.
</internet idiot mode>
You have drawn conclusions that go way beyond the evidence provided: the University is/was considering giving a class called something like Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies.
You apparently don't like Creationism being included as a mythology.
The problem is which version of what I prefer to call Biblical literalism is the one you consider to be unassailable truth. There are quite a number, you know.
"Wow, where did you come up with that incredulous statement?"
The Wedge Document.
No, I do not. Because it is not. And all other believers should feel the same way.
The problem is which version of what I prefer to call Biblical literalism is the one you consider to be unassailable truth. There are quite a number, you know.
You know, many, many people seem to be stuck on this, which version is the 'unassailable truth'? And so because they cannot find the answer, they choose to not believe, instead arguing which version is more correct than another. Man, choose one, and allow God to teach you the truth. I prefer the King James Version, but there are many others out there where you can read about the truth, if you would be so inclined.
Why don't you write 'Answers in Genesis' with your question? I would think they may be able to shed some light on the subject for you.
I have not been impressed by the "science" I have seen on that site. For example, they are salivating over the Mount St. Helens blast and the quick local recovery as "evidence" for recovery from the flood. What they do to geology is almost so bad its laughable--but I can't laugh at that kind of willful ignorance.
And they don't address the kinds of things I do at all, other than to make some vague claims about radiocarbon dating being in error.
But other religious groups don't see these problems: This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Well, then, you might want to ask them about your findings and see what they have to say?
Well, then, you might want to ask them about your findings and see what they have to say?
Based on their articles, they seem to agree that my colleagues and I are using the method, and interpreting the results, correctly.
"There's an interesting comparative-religions or comparative-literature course that could be done on this topic"
Personally, I think it should be taught under the "History of Science" category. This is a matter that is not going away and has and will impact science.
What I really find amusing is the straw-man attack on ID that says it is the work of "fundamentalists." By definition, "Fundamentalists" are ultra-conservative (even sectarian) Protestants. Professor Behe is a Roman Catholic. Somehow, the label "fundamentalist" or "fundi" doesn't quite fit.
Whatever, it is easier for someone to stereotype a perceived enemy than to thoughtfully and rationally confront them. I know this, because I am personally quite often guilty of the same mistake as a professing Christian creationist (not an ID proponent I point out) when I corresspond with those who hold to totally naturalistic views on the origin of life and species. I'm guilty, so I understand how my "adversaries" can also be.
That's a possibility, too. I wouldn't include Intelligent Design with religious traditions of whatever nature, thought, because the concept is based on observation, rather than received revelation.
Well, I, for one, am not stuck because I can differentiate an act of faith from an argument.
I do not, and have not ever, challenged a person's faith, and if you say that you use thus and so version of the Bible and accept every word and comma literally as an act of faith, you will get no argument from me.
However I will expect you as a courtesy to accept that others' faith may differ and also, if in a classroom that you voluntarily enter, you do not interfere with learning what that class presents. There is an implicit contract there that the instructor will present materials relevant to the description of the course and that the students will not interfere with the basics of that presentation.
No one says you have to agree, but you may not interfere either.
There is no 'implicit contract' that says a student has to remain silent when his or her professor start presenting lies and demeaning the truth. Maybe that is the way you think it should be? If you say a student cannot raise an objection on what is being presented as to whether it is true or not, as it is presented in a classroom setting, then why not have the students read a book where no objections can be raised. Then there would be no need for the professor. The classroom setting is give and take for both the professor and the students. Professor have a responsibility to present the truth, and if they do decide to present theories and/or lies, then they can and should expect feedback from the students, as long as it given in a courteous and polite manner. If you are implying that when a student raises their hand to make an objection, or to question what was just presented, as 'interference', then I and other students are guilty many times over of interference. But this is not interference. Interefence is where the students or students will not allow the professor to have his or her say in class. To make the statement that a student has no right to raise an objection with what is being taught, especially when you have a professor who publicly claims he will enjoy bringing a 'slap' to the faith of those who not agree with him, is not correct. A student should have a right to speak up and defend the truth and/or their faith, when their professors ridicule and/or question their beliefs. Students are not robots where you just tell them what you want them to hear with, expecting no feedback in return.
So, how would you handle the fact that there are probably 15-20 students each of whom is convinced their particular religion is the truth?
My experience shows that will probably never happen, but if it does, then let each who wants to speak, have their say.
What experience?
Do the math...there would be just a few minutes of instruction time per session.
And you would get maybe three minutes
Say the instructor's first sentence to the class was something about middle eastern mythologies..and you state that your view is the true one and shouldn't be called a mythology. So the person next to you says theirs is the true version, another says there are no true versions it's all hooey, a Moslem student then explains that there is no God but Allah...while two Hindus try to explain that there are many paths..
Un huh.
Sorry, but what you going to do, stifle all discussion completely on the subject? You cannot let one person have their turn, then tell all others they cannot speak. If you inhibit all discussions, then why are you there? Just give them the book or notes to read, or maybe let watch you via video read whatever it is you are presenting. Then you do not have to be concerned about any feedback. A teacher is more than just someone who reads from a set of notes. It is a teacher job to take questions and encourage discussions, via feedback.
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.