I'd be happy to see comparative religion taught in schools from a young age. It would not be indoctrination, but teaching about many religions and atheism. Let the kids learn that there are beliefs other than their own and how they differ. They may come to realize that their religion looks strange to other people and they may become more tolerant. Good educators could create good lesson plans. Lessons about separation of church and state could be included and what it means to be tolerant of others' beliefs and lack of beliefs. The problem, pf purse, would be intolerant parents. They may protest as they have against sex education and demand their kids be excused from the class. Most would remain however and get a much better education. LoisLois, I agreed with your thinking several years ago. But then as I learned more about religions. I found that there is a lot of sex in the older religions. Older religion is more about sex than any other subject. Probably not the best subject for young classrooms. If you get a chance, read The Lost Gospel. Jesus and Mary’s religion was built on religious sex. That’s why Jesus and Mary’s direct teachings never made Paul's bible. There would be no need to go into every detail of every religion to compare the basic tenets of the various faiths. There are plenty of sex topics throughout history, yet we don't teach sex history to young kids. Why would the sexual aspects of religion have to be taught? All subjects are designed with consideration for the age of the child. To say that young children have to be taught about the sexual aspects of religion or not teach religion at all is as ridiculous as saying children must be taught the sexual aspects of history or not teach it at all.
I don’t get your point. Are you trying to suggest that one set of intelligent humans created the current species through selective breeding? ( hence your analogy to wheat and grass)
There is no evidence for such a thing. Since homo sapiens originated in different part of the world than other hominid species and seem to have existed in their current form before coming in contact with other species this idea appears to be nothing but fanciful thinking.
Its fine to make up arm chair hypothesis but without evidence to support those ideas they really have very little value. I could come up with a dozen equally likely theories that don’t fit the existing evidence.
I'd be happy to see comparative religion taught in schools from a young age. It would not be indoctrination, but teaching about many religions and atheism. Let the kids learn that there are beliefs other than their own and how they differ. They may come to realize that their religion looks strange to other people and they may become more tolerant. Good educators could create good lesson plans. Lessons about separation of church and state could be included and what it means to be tolerant of others' beliefs and lack of beliefs. The problem, pf purse, would be intolerant parents. They may protest as they have against sex education and demand their kids be excused from the class. Most would remain however and get a much better education. LoisLois, I agreed with your thinking several years ago. But then as I learned more about religions. I found that there is a lot of sex in the older religions. Older religion is more about sex than any other subject. Probably not the best subject for young classrooms. If you get a chance, read The Lost Gospel. Jesus and Mary’s religion was built on religious sex. That’s why Jesus and Mary’s direct teachings never made Paul's bible. There would be no need to go into every detail of every religiomn to compare the basic tenets of the various faiths. There are plenty of sex topics throughout history, yet we don't teach history to young kids. Why would the sexual aspects of religion have to be taught? all subjects are designed with consideration for the age of the child. To say that young children have to be taught about the sexual aspects of religion or not teach religion at all is as ridiculous as saying children must be taught the sexual aspects of history or not teach it at all.I agree with you, the sex part can be taken out. And with the amount of history to be covered, one would not have time to get into any details. I should have used a smiley, sorry. Have you heard the term, “sex sells" used in advertising? Well it must have also worked in religion.
I don't get your point. Are you trying to suggest that one set of intelligent humans created the current species through selective breeding? ( hence your analogy to wheat and grass) There is no evidence for such a thing. Since homo sapiens originated in different part of the world than other hominid species and seem to have existed in their current form before coming in contact with other species this idea appears to be nothing but fanciful thinking. Its fine to make up arm chair hypothesis but without evidence to support those ideas they really have very little value. I could come up with a dozen equally likely theories that don't fit the existing evidence.Thanks for giving me the credit of coming up with the theory. But I can’t take credit. Genesis is the historical stories or fairy tales, passed down that talk about creation. Now the story seems to be correct about the animals and food. So why would it not be worth looking into about the creation of man? Now that the accepted scientific theory has been disproven. You know, a few months back the scientists also disproved the accepted theory that many of the breeds of dogs where created in Europe. It turn out that they were all created in Asia. So what we have here is the new DNA and other scientific processes that are making adjustments to our understanding of history. Which is very understandable. Working from a timeline and using the method that creation has to work along with evolution and only makes small minor changes to evolved species. We are not talking of a new species How the Homo sapiens spread to all parts of the world is mostly agreed upon. But where they originated is very much in debate. A few years back, it was not a problem. Out of Africa was pretty much accepted. But with new studies and the use of DNA the out of Africa does not work for all the new data and the experts are having a little trouble making it all fit together. And that is more on the evolution side. Creation changes the little things like size, color, and other features. We have talked about this with the white skin that was accepted as part of evolution due to latitude in Europe. Now that cannot be proved by the latest studies. So the question on the table is, “Was white skin part of creation and not evolution?" Unless you know where white skin came from, this is a question to be answered. And the answer will be proven by genes. What the experts are working on now is when in history did the first white skin people appear. The thinking is near the end of the agricultural revolution. Remember Genesis talked about needing to create man for building cannels use for farming in the same time period. I guess the real task we have been talking about is “defining what creation is". And like the meaning of god, it also has changed with time.
Mike with all due respect I disagree
What exactly are you referring to when you claim that
“the story seems to be correct about the animals and food”
And what do you base this comment on
"why would it not be worth looking into about the creation of man? Now that the accepted scientific theory has been disproven.The out of Africa theory of mans evolution is not in dispute. The fossil evidence quite clearly shows that the oldest hominid fossils are from Africa. The only thing thats relatively new is that it appears humans migrated out of Africa twice. One emigration gave rise to Neandethals and other similar species and then homosapiens migrated out later commingling with neanderthals until the neaderthals went extinct. No doubt this story will undergo some modification as we learn more but to suggest that there is anything here that implies a creator is a claim that is completely without any evidence. You put far too much faith in a bunch of old fairy tales. There is no reason at all to suspect that they are an interpretation of real events. Once again I see nothing about any creation theory that would qualify them as a scientific theory and as such they have no place in a science class.
Mike, I respect your thinking skills, but your unconventional use of the word “creation”, I think, is a source of confusion in expressing your ideas.
Both macgyver & TimB,
Yes, Tim you are right, and that is one of the reasons I use this site, is to try and improve my communication skill. I think I have come a long way from when I first got on board. And I am having trouble right now in getting my thoughts to macgyver. I know it is my lack in language skills.
In reading past stories, especially stories that were told verbally for many generations, one has to use logic to try and come up with the thoughts being passed down. It was a problem in ancient time also. The Rig Vega was able to conquer this problem by making everything rhyme. If it didn’t rhyme then the story was wrong. When they were creating the Koran they tried to change the Vega stories to fit the Quran, but failed because when you break up rhymes you can end up with a mess. Not saying that many stories did not get changed, just that it doesn’t always work.
Looking at the creation story over the broad view. They are saying they created the animals and the plants. Now remember, this is before the Christian deity god. So the gods at this time were mostly animals. And we don’t know how far back in time these old genesis story go. But when the translators end up using words like mid-wife and creation. It most likely means that they were translating stories being told in another language, and were using the closest association of words to interpret. This matching of translation meanings of the past has now almost become a science in itself. For example, they now think that some of the people back then could not see the color blue, because they cannot fine it being used in any of the translations.
Myself I prefer the word “domestic" instead of “create". Today the general public and this forum uses the term GMO for the creation of new plants. And that is where I am having trouble communicating my thoughts with Macgyver. GMO does not really create a new species plants. It makes changes to the plants that have evolved on earth. That said, there is one exception. Wheat was (created or GMO to the point of having its own DNA) but it still came from a branch of wild grass. With animals, use term Animal husbandry instead of creation.
As an atheist, I do not believe in magic or super powers. So creation to an atheist like me must have a different meaning than to a believer in deities. And to me the creation they must have been talking about in the old genesis stories has been continuing though out history and is really getting ramped up today. And in the next decade is going to explode in terms of GMO and Animal husbandry. Really kind of simple to follow stuff.
Now the point and problem, the way I see it. In this post, should we make laws to prevent the teaching of creationism? Is the fact that Atheism allows the discussions on this forum to take place that enforces the “Creationism" belief by allowing Christian beliefs to take over and control and change the meanings of words. So, what did man think genesis was saying before the Christian stories were around? Even in Egypt, RA was not around, there was only Nun. There were no gods with the power to create anything at that time in history.
Point being, we as atheists need to bring these points out and argue the facts. Just as the Catholic Church controlled Europe in the past. We are allowing the Christians to stain certain aspects of education in America today. We are allowing the Christian Creation to change the meaning of the Creation that mankind has pasted down us. I have no problem with the older genesis stories and can get the meaning of the word creation because I know the differences in meaning between Creation and Christian Creation.
What is cool about this topic is it brings up the big question. We know just about everything we eat except maybe fish has been GMO over time, RE: posting “Neil Young and Monsanto" in Politics and Social Issues.
So, we can now categorize plants and animals in two categories with the understanding that everything has been evolved, but not all evolved plants and animals have be domesticated.
Example:
Elk, deer, lion are evolved.
Cow, horse, dog are domesticated (created, Animal husbandry)
Where would you put “Man"? Genesis is putting it in created.
Throughout most of the history of our species, I would say that we have evolved by virtue of the same kind of contingencies as undomesticated animals and other “wild” species of organisms. i.e., the traits of any such organisms being passed on through survival to reproduction within the naturally occurring contingencies of their time.
At some point in our history we attained abilities that allowed us to directly and profoundly and regularly impact the naturally occurring contingencies effect on the evolution of organisms. Hence we have, since, changed the contingencies for the evolution of certain plants and animals and for ourselves.
Throughout most of the history of our species, I would say that we have evolved by virtue of the same kind of contingencies as undomesticated animals and other "wild" species of organisms. i.e., the traits of any such organisms being passed on through survival to reproduction within the naturally occurring contingencies of their time. At some point in our history we attained abilities that allowed us to directly and profoundly and regularly impact the naturally occurring contingencies effect on the evolution of organisms. Hence we have, since, changed the contingencies for the evolution of certain plants and animals and for ourselves.Thank you, you have stated what I have been trying to convey, thank you again. You are a skill word smith. Hey, have you ever seen the belted cow. A pure black cow, with a two foot wide pure white strip around its mid-section. First ones I saw were in Nebraska and it stuck me how we were able not only to change the physical aspects but also the appearance of animals. The rancher I was with told me that he understood the cows were created in the past by some farmer in Scotland to be able to tell his cows from the neighbor’s cows. This said, if today’s man was one of the animals that was altered in past history, and today’s DNA progress is opening an understanding of our past history. We may be only a year or so away from this topic hitting the public awareness. That would surly have a direct influence on what should be taught in schools on the subject of creation. Just one more thought on the subject. I was hunting wild pigs in Northern California. The pigs were once tame pigs that were brought here from Russia, when the norther part of the state was part of Russia. These were very large farm pigs, except for the large tusks that farm pigs usually don’t have. These tusks were very large and used by the pig for rutting. I was told that once the pigs were in the wild, they reverted back to the wild state, and that included the bigger tusks wild pigs have. If that is true then the genes for the tusks were still with the pigs and the switches that controlled those genes were activated when the pigs were in the wild again. If that is true then the belted cow put back into the wild will lose it belt. I understand that wheat cannot go back to the original grass because it has had to much change for too long of a period of time and it now has its own DNA. You get the point I am trying to make. Is the evolution of plants and animals structured to handle the climate cycles and changes on earth by being able to change? And what creation is doing is playing with this part of evolution's structure.
We have evolved to the point that we can thrive, at least for now and in recent history, despite the natural contingencies that tend to contain other organisms. In fact we have thrived so successfully that we are “creating”, as you say, climate change. We are “creating”, as you say, super-microorganisms that we may, eventually, have little defense against. Will these sorts of activities result in our ultimate demise as a species? Maybe. But my guess it is more likely to ultimately just result in some level of setbacks (although potentially very profound setbacks for our species).
More to the point of this thread, I would bring up that 58% of Americans favor Creationism being taught in public schools. That, IMO, is just plain crazy.
I'd be happy to see comparative religion taught in schools from a young age. It would not be indoctrination, but teaching about many religions and atheism. Let the kids learn that there are beliefs other than their own and how they differ. They may come to realize that their religion looks strange to other people and they may become more tolerant. Good educators could create good lesson plans. Lessons about separation of church and state could be included and what it means to be tolerant of others' beliefs and lack of beliefs. The problem, pf purse, would be intolerant parents. They may protest as they have against sex education and demand their kids be excused from the class. Most would remain however and get a much better education. LoisLois, I agreed with your thinking several years ago. But then as I learned more about religions. I found that there is a lot of sex in the older religions. Older religion is more about sex than any other subject. Probably not the best subject for young classrooms. If you get a chance, read The Lost Gospel. Jesus and Mary’s religion was built on religious sex. That’s why Jesus and Mary’s direct teachings never made Paul's bible. There would be no need to go into every detail of every religiomn to compare the basic tenets of the various faiths. There are plenty of sex topics throughout history, yet we don't teach history to young kids. Why would the sexual aspects of religion have to be taught? all subjects are designed with consideration for the age of the child. To say that young children have to be taught about the sexual aspects of religion or not teach religion at all is as ridiculous as saying children must be taught the sexual aspects of history or not teach it at all.I agree with you, the sex part can be taken out. And with the amount of history to be covered, one would not have time to get into any details. I should have used a smiley, sorry. Have you heard the term, “sex sells" used in advertising? Well it must have also worked in religion. Of course. Religion is soaked in sex.they are two sides of the same coin. Lois
Religion and sex are two sides of the same coin? How do you figure that?
Religion and sex are two sides of the same coin? How do you figure that?Sex drives religion. It is true of almost every religion. Most religious moral precepts involve sex and most have blamed women for every sexual evil man has been able to devise. It's the almost universal religious belief belief that women who drive men to sexual immorality. It's been the rationale behind the oppression of women for millennia--in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and several Asian and primitive religions, which accounts for the vast majority of religious believers. Lois
We have evolved to the point that we can thrive, at least for now and in recent history, despite the natural contingencies that tend to contain other organisms. In fact we have thrived so successfully that we are "creating", as you say, climate change. We are "creating", as you say, super-microorganisms that we may, eventually, have little defense against. Will these sorts of activities result in our ultimate demise as a species? Maybe. But my guess it is more likely to ultimately just result in some level of setbacks (although potentially very profound setbacks for our species). More to the point of this thread, I would bring up that 58% of Americans favor Creationism being taught in public schools. That, IMO, is just plain crazy.It is if they believe it should be taught in Science classes. But it may include people like me who think creationism should be discussed in comparative religion classes and it should be compared to evolution. I also think it should be taught in history and social studies classes, which should show how religion has corrupted, damaged societies and murdered individuals for millennia. Obviously I don't think religion should be proselytized. It should be taught dispassionately with all of its warts, violence and irrationality included, even if, and especially if it scares the bejesus out of the students--as it should. Lois
Religion and sex are two sides of the same coin? How do you figure that?Sex drives religion. It is true of almost every religion. Most religious moral precepts involve sex and most have blamed women for every sexual evil man has been able to devise. It's the almost universal religious belief belief that women who drive men to sexual immorality. It's been the rationale behind the oppression of women for millennia--in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and several Asian and primitive religions, which accounts for the vast majority of religious believers. Lois Hmm, so if your point is that sexual discrimination against women is a fundamental aspect of most religions today, I can see that.
I got to agree with Lois, the NT is very anti-woman. That’s because Paul was. Some of Paul’s following cults would castrate themselves or cut their penis off. Stories about the OT state that Adam’s first wife Lilith left Adam because Adam would not let her have sex and be on the top. God backed Adam and kill hundreds of her children for not going back to Adam. And why did gods have be born from virgins? Was sex that unclean? And why is virgins connected to religion anyway? And with Jesus, what the heck is god messing with a married woman for? And in the Christian religion the woman is considered not completely formed. All babies start as woman and then in the third or fifth week, I can’t remember some of the babies become men. When the church got full control in the Dark Ages, they burn an unbelievable number of women at the stake.
In the book The Lost Gospel, they talk about Mary and Jesus setting up the Christian religion. It is interesting that one of the goals for the new religion was women’s rights. When Paul use Mary’s and Jesus’s work for his religion, Paul left out the fact that Mary was the god in another religion and Jesus’s position in the Jewish religion was only that of a high priest. Paul made Jesus the god and discredited Mary.
Now that women today are become CEO’s and doctors, how long will it be until they are smart enough to dump the Christian religion. In the Dark Ages, the women were the healers, they knew the herbs that could help the sick. I guess the church wanted to heal with prayer.
Look how the church treats the nuns. They can work for and under the directions of the church, like the men. But the nuns are then hung out to dry with no retirement or benefits, unlike the men.
One minor correction, when you ask “with Jesus, what the heck is God messing with a married woman for?” If I recall the Christian theology, correctly, God impregnated the virgin Mary, before she was married to Joseph. (Still, with the power differential, in terms of modern sensibilities, it would seem that God was taking undue advantage of a young, innocent virginal woman. But at least he didn’t pull a Bill Cosby and give her Quaaludes, AFAIK.)
Not surprising that you would like a book like “The Lost Gospel”, since I suspect this 1 star review is accurate:
“The Lost Gospel is a classic example of confirmation bias. Simcha and Barrie Wilson have so narrowed their field of analysis by focussing strictly on the Syriac version that they have relegated six and a half years (according to Simcha) of research to an esoteric interpretation of an obscure document from a fringe sect of Christianity. Furthermore, by omitting, ignoring, and refuting the other versions of the Aseneth story they have completely altered the original message to suit their vision of a marriage between Jesus and Mary the Magdalene, a vision that was not intended in the earliest versions. Simcha and Prof. Wilson used only those ancient works that supported their view and discarded those ancient works that refuted their views: confirmation bias.”
and that is exactly what you do; take something obscure, ignore everything else, and twist it to fit your own notions.
You know Lausten what gets me? It’s not the church or the other none church backed researchers saying this stuff like you quoted. It’s mostly people promoting the American faith movement or having their published papers trashed. Mr. Simcha was deeply involved in the bone box. Was called a phony, fraud and a liar. Less than a month ago Israel’s highest court declared the bone box was original and one of the greatest fines in Israel. This is after Israel spent years with an arm long lists of Israel’s top experts in the field, declaring the box was a phony in court. Probably some of the same experts who lied in court on the bone box wrote what you have.
Therefore in my book your nay callers are trying to whistle in the wind. Let me ask you, what was your position on Mr. Simcha and the bone box a few years ago?
And like the Da Vinci Code a few years back, a fictional story. Mr. Simcha is an investigative reporter. Not a scholar in the field. His job is to be bias and get the interest in the subject at hand. The Da Vinci Code was using fact from the Holy Blood, Holy Grail written by three BBC investigative reporters. You all went after the fictional story and not the Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
The point being, good science should always be challenged and tested. And what we have happening is that for years religious experts have gotten jobs and titles in religious studies. And when the battles reach the point of testing their expertise against real science, they fail. So what Mr. Simcha is doing, either way it go has to be a win, win for us.
One minor correction, when you ask "with Jesus, what the heck is God messing with a married woman for?" If I recall the Christian theology, correctly, God impregnated the virgin Mary, before she was married to Joseph. (Still, with the power differential, in terms of modern sensibilities, it would seem that God was taking undue advantage of a young, innocent virginal woman. But at least he didn't pull a Bill Cosby and give her Quaaludes, AFAIK.)You know, I think you are right about Mary. The way they looked at gods in Mary’s time would have put a big question mark on any claims. The emperor of Rome for example was always made a god. Then he was always declared born from a virgin. It was more a status thing. The wives of gods were also considered virgins. Now that did not mean they couldn’t have sex and kids and still be a virgin. It is one of those things like the word “creation". Our farmers and scientist have created more in the last fifty years then they did back then. But we don’t look at them as gods. And don’t call what they are doing “creation". A lot of people just don’t seem to understand history and that we are still in the Age of Deities. And the Christian Faith based people still enforce our language and understanding of history to be tainted. The point being, the people back then understood what was going on and they tried to pass it on to us. The problem is with today’s logic and influences, the understandings we are making of what they passed on to us, is something that would make them shake their heads that we could fixate and be so illogical on such simple things to the point of being psychosis.