Both of you have included most of the words I would have included in my answer except adversely ...
The Bible is a book like any other book and we're exposed to books in school.
Why can't the words I quoted be treated like *"Mary had a Little Lamb"*?

Yes, I have to admit that deliberately preaching belief in our Christian God on a teacher's pay time would be a breach of our 1st Amendment, but exposure to the most wide spread sold book in the world and the words of some of our twelve Apostles in it still seems a more necessary good than exposure to the words of Shakespeare, of Longfellow or of Thoreau.

Why would it be wrong for a teacher to say that it says in this book:
*"Thou shalt not kill"*?
Yes, God is everywhere and He's aware of us, but we can't at least be made aware of His teachings through His Apostles unless we're exposed to His teachings.

Admittedly,
I don't remember where I've seen a more weird looking kid and admittedly it may have happenned anyway, but maybe not if that kid had developed a conscience through exposure to the words of God
And yes, I'm sorry, but I do believe that kid looked at himself in the mirror and hated himself and I do believe it had a lot to do with this horror he committed.

rex

Don't forget...God did not kill those kids/adults.

A man driven by evil made his own evil choice.

"Why can't the words I quoted be treated like *"Mary had a Little Lamb"*? " TaurusRex

Because "Mary had a little lamb" doesnt define your entire existence into a few versus...It also does not judge you, or tell you how to act, or what is right and wrong, it is just a song that is sung to kids.

"Don't forget...God did not kill those kids/adults.

A man driven by evil made his own evil choice." Nebuchadnezer

Of course he did not, "he" also did nothing to stop it nor has "he" ever truly done anything...period.

Evil is a point of view. It is a concept made up by us men. There is no real evil in the world, only differing points of view and what individuals will do to get that point of view across.

He seems more like he had mental issues rather than just being evil or he was emotionally unstable...evil however is a point of view.

If a teacher could say "look what it says in this book" about your religion, what's to stop that same teacher from teaching about any other religion as well? If a teacher wants to actually teach comparative religion it's one thing, but saying "these kids need to be exposed to MY holy book" leaves all other points of view seeming unsanctioned by the state authority. A child will believe what is most accepted and taught to them.

Shouldn't parents teach kids about the family religion, if at all? Personally I'd say to leave kids alone about religion until they can decide for themselves about it. I know that is wishful thinking. However, I'm all for people learning as much about world religions and their teachings as possible as a matter of general knowledge, if nothing else.

Not because I think I'm wrong and not because I think you two (Mog and UB) are right do I not pursue this issue anymore, but because I see that you two are either non-believers or that you need more proof in the existence of God which I can't provide;

However, the fact that the message of God is too powerful doesn't sound to me like acceptable reason not to convey it ...
The Preamble to our Constitution is a powerful message and we convey it So let's stop using the mistaken words:
*"Separation of Church and State"*

And instead use the words of the 1st Amendment as they were written which are:
*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"* because there's a difference and it's not the fault of believers that non-believers can't see that difference.

rex

I didn't use the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere, so that is a straw man argument. By allowing the teachings of just one religion in schools we would have gone against the 1st amendment by tacitly saying this religion is true and all others aren't. What do believers of another faith, or non-believers do in this case? It amounts to religious persecution of minority views. That's why we don't allow those wise words to be spoken as the ultimate truth to all kids in school. They may benefit from hearing them, but it is the parents's job to teach them that, not the state.

"However, the fact that the message of God is too powerful doesn't sound to me like acceptable reason not to convey it ... " TaurusRex

If you want to see it that way you can. I welcome you too. It would not be the first time that a "believer" missed the entire point on my watch. I am not saying those messages are "powerful"(at that stage in life ANYTHING you teach a child can be powerful) but that they are the wrong ones and they deter kids from what actually matters in their life and inhibits their learning by teaching them that a piece of fiction is real when in fact it is not, so that later on in life they waste all their time teaching the same crap and spreading the same lies just to continue a vicious cycle that has no real function, except cause discord and disdain between its believers and everybody else. Its stupid, its fake, and slowly it is rotting humanity away.

"Not because I think I'm wrong and not because I think you two (Mog and UB) are right do I not pursue this issue anymore, but because I see that you two are either non-believers or that you need more proof in the existence of God which I can't provide"

That is stupid, you wouldn't be having this issue with anyone BUT non-believers or people wanting more proof of the existence of god. You really expect someone who believes in the bible and god to actually be having this issue with you? They would just agree with you. Which is of course what you want. Blind belief of that which you cannot in any way prove. That is what religion is based on. That is why its faulty and why any logical argument you wish to have is moot on the spot.

You are stopping not because we are right or wrong but because in the face of a logical argument you have two choices, ramble and pretend you are having an intelligent logical conversation or provide no proof and somewhere in the back of your mind accept the fact that you do not. You proceeded with the latter. In the face of cold hard facts, anything you can throw falls short and thus there is no need to have this conversation, church and state are separate and kids should not be taught anything within the bible in schools. Let parents make that mistake, not the school system.

"The Preamble to our Constitution is a powerful message and we convey it So let's stop using the mistaken words:
*"Separation of Church and State"* " TaurusRex

They are not mistaken, they are today's harsh and TRUE reality. Church and state are separate. The only thing that keeps that preamble the way it is, is that it is a sacred and important document for this country and changing those lines seems like a silly thing in comparison to keeping the document's integrity(concise and tamper free). Do not mistake loyalty to the document with any sort of feeling of understanding or acceptance by the state. The US as a whole is now a lot wiser then it was back when that document was written and humanity has a better understanding of what those words truly mean to us today. We realized that further spreading this fake truth was doing more harm than good. Something the forefathers of this country could not have seen given the time they lived in.

EDIT: harming = harm

Last Edited : Monday, 17 December 2012 - 09:25

You're forcing me to respond ...
that *SoCaS* is a common interpretation and was intended as a general statement not at you
And we just don't view this the same way.

These words by you are the only words of yours that concern me:
*"They may benefit from hearing them"* ...
How many parents won't convey the words?

School is a place of learning and I've tried to explain that there is a way to expose children to these words of wisdom without actually preaching the Christian religion,
but you just persist with words like:
*"That's why we don't allow those wise words to be spoken as the ultimate truth to all kids in school."*

No where would I expect a teacher to express the words in that light ...
just because the words may have that effect is not the fault of the teacher or of the words
and non religious explanations of other words of wisdom from other religions can also be given although the one that goes *" ... and a tooth for a tooth"* may be a problem.

rex

It may not be their fault in the traditional sense but it IS their responsibility to the kids to make sure that these exact words(because of where they come from) are not taught in schools. So if they teach it, whatever the child grows up interpreting it as and making it out to be IS their fault.

You can either believe in "science" and the teaching that the world began because of a "big bang."

Or you can believe that God created the world.

Which one is a bigger leap?

Believing in something you have no sharable evidence for is not the same as scientific thought. Science allows that it has been, can be and will be proven incorrect on certain issues, and then science changes to accommodate these new findings. It is a method, not a rigid set of beliefs.

Religion is a totally different system of thought that follows what has been revealed to some rare individuals by something or another (God? Their own brains?) and then taught as absolute truth. The system even makes certain it can't change by severely punishing those who suggest that the system is flawed or in error.

The "world" (The Earth) did not begin with the big bang, but the universe almost certainly did, since all the available evidence points to that. The world began by coalescing dust clouds around the early Sun. Lots of solid evidence for that, by the way.

I find it a much, much farther leap to believe in a God as described by the major religions than in most scientific findings and that is because of evidence and proof. No one can prove the existence of God. If someone could, they surely would have by now. Also, which version of the thousands of gods are we discussing here? Even within each religion basic questions about the nature of reality are explained in mutually opposing ways by different sects. Who should I believe? Will you please tell me? Oh yeah, then I'd be a convert to your religion, wouldn't I? No thanks, I'll investigate reality on my own, not believing blindly what someone says is God's will. I listen, I hear nothing new, I move on. Show me any shred of proof for the existence of what you call God and I'll be happy to listen. I may not agree, but I'll make the effort to understand what you are saying.

By the way, your holy book doesn't count as evidence of God's existence any more than any other holy book does so you can't use that as a way out of showing proof. It would be circular logic to allow that. "See, this book says God exists and this book is always right about everything since God wrote it."
I myself can write a book and make exactly the same claims. God told me what to write, therefore it is holy writ. Now send me money. If you don't, you'll go to... ooops, gotta buy the book to see what happens in the afterlife!

Now I need to go wipe out some virtual troops to relax.

I don't see why any of you are having this argument. The gentleman who shot his mom, the teachers and the kids obviously just has a different idea of what good and evil are from any of you (hopefully). He has every right to believe that killing kids is good, or that there is no such thing as God or good for that matter. Why are you persecuting his beliefs that are protected by the Constitution? We all just exist here on this ball of spontaneous matter to meet our own needs and desires. There is no point to any of it anyway as one day everything will just ramdomly wink out of existence. You can argue if you want to tell me that you know he is evil and your ideas are good, but that would be really foolish. You have no basis to believe that your ideas are any better/more valid than his (no, popular opinion doesn't count...the minority must not be oppressed for majority beliefs).
NOTE: The above are not my personal beliefs, but the natural result of some of the points of view presented. I believe there is good, there is evil, there is a God who created everything, and we all have immortal souls. The shooter was evil and he will be judged...as will we all.

Merry Christmas, Glory to God in the highest, thanks to Him for the gift of the Savior we all so desperately need, and peace to all of you,
H.

"You can either believe in "science" and the teaching that the world began because of a "big bang."

Or you can believe that God created the world.

Which one is a bigger leap?" Nebuchadnezer

We don't have to "believe", it is FACT and it exists whether you acknowledge it or not. People who say god created the universe and everything we see are the ones who have to convince the rest of the world, not the other way around, yet anyone with any sense of logic already knows the answer so it will never happen.

You talk about leaps and want us to believe that the earth and all we know in it today was created in SEVEN days? Ridiculous.

Oh, Hwatta, we're having this discussion because we want to, obviously. You had to join in too, as we see, to express your opinion about what reality is all about. And, of course, we are wrong and you are right! Who'da thunk it?

Crazy man shoots kids. That's it.

The details escape me now, but it's something to the effect that they're trying to say that when this supposed *big bang* occurred, the known universe came into immediate existence (many Xs faster than the speed of light???) ...

the distances and ages of the farthest galaxies don't allow them to reach that far otherwise (or something like that???)
Anyway it all sounds like a fairy tale and I haven't ever believed in the *big bang*
And they still haven't explained how the ingredients that supposedly caused the *big bang* got here to cause it.

rex

Maybe you all should go and study the subject of fractals for a while and then realise that our universe might be a little twig in comparison to the bigger universe on the former level Also that time is relative and what to us seems like an eternity might be a blink of an eye for someone else. This universe might well be an experimant in a science class in some higher dimension. If so, you are all right, it was created by someone by big bang

"The details escape me now, but it's something to the effect that they're trying to say that when this supposed *big bang* occurred, the known universe came into immediate existence (many Xs faster than the speed of light???) ...

the distances and ages of the farthest galaxies don't allow them to reach that far otherwise (or something like that???)
Anyway it all sounds like a fairy tale and I haven't ever believed in the *big bang*
And they still haven't explained how the ingredients that supposedly caused the *big bang* got here to cause it.

rex"


More than just the details elude you TR. Any sort of reality eludes you and that is something you will never get regardless of what anyone tells you. The universe did not come into "immediate existence" it was at one point the same amount of mass as we have in the universe today, condensed for as of yet unknown reasons into a very small area. The big bang is just a name that stuck with it not a description of what happened. If we wish to be accurate it was more of an expansion. However, regardless of what it was it is the truth and there is no denying it. Ignorance need not worry about what reality is. If believing whatever it is you believe gets you through life then great for you. However the point is clear, a government teaching it is a government condoning it and anyone who actually cares about the well being of the students will not allow that to happen.

That's a pretty insulting post UB because I pride myself in being fairly worldly on most topics ...
do you really think I made up the ideas I presented?

*researching*
and I already found one guy that says if they find anymore galaxies beyond those already found, they'll have to throw out the *big bang theory* basicly for as I've said, that is, for time (age of galaxy) and distance.

PS:
"" www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html "

"The Big Bang Has Many Problems
There are a great many problems with the Big Bang Theory that have not been solved. Many of these are identified in Bill Mitchell's paper, " Big Bang Theory Under Fire". These problems include the idea that there are many objects observed that are older than the time from the big bang, which is variously estimated to be from 10 to 15 billion years ago, with the best estimates being 10 billion years using trigonometry rather than cepheid variable brightness.

Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy are thought to be older than 15 billion years and there seem to be similar stars that are seen in galaxies that are many billions of light years away from us and thus apparently formed closer to the time of the big bang.
Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best direct measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age. Radio galaxy measurement has found carbon in the early universe which shouldn't be there if there was a big bang since it takes too long to form.

Even our earth is thought to be 5 billion years old, and is expected to exist for another 5 billion years before the sun expands and swallows it up. The atoms and molecules of the earth are thought to have been generated in previous stars that went through several cycles of supernovae. Even though supernovae are thought to last only fraction of our sun's lifetime, it is highly improbable that there is sufficient time for these cycles to have occurred since a big bang. VLT observations of a gamma ray burst has found an early galaxy with ingredients much older than the big bang.

Similarly, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape. Many spiral galaxies are seen at a large distance and therefore from a time closer to the big bang which would indicate they would have had time for even fewer rotations. Recent Hubble Photo shows spiral galaxies within 5% of big bang time leaving time for only 2 or 3 rotations at our galaxy's rotation rate. The galaxies in this photo don't seem to be crowded closer together as one would expect if they were really so close to the big bang.

There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.
Hercules A appears to be the largest object observed in the known universe in radio astronomy observations. It would not be such an unusually large intrinsic object if its redshift is intrinsic due to local Compton effect scattering, and it is nearer than its redshift would indicate.

Galactic redshift surveys show a regularity in the spacing of galaxies a quarter of the way to the time of the supposed big bang. This is totally different from a big bang expectation which would have them closer together as they get closer to the time of the big bang.
How do galaxies collide if they are flying away from each other?
Mature galaxies are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.""

" youtu.be/tHVLSMAJmPg "

rex

Last Edited : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 - 06:29

Galaxys would collide if they originated from one point first expanding in an explosion and then begun to contract into anothe point of intense gravity. (like inside a ball with two poles of gravity.)

I would go line through line to explain what the latest findings on those observations are but the problem starts with one observation. That book came out in 1991. We are now in 2013(almost there!) and The big bang model is still holding up as the best explanation for what we see when we look through a telescope today. How can I bother finding what refutes all these points if you just read them, found them and all of a sudden you have no desire to keep finding information that could go against it.

I apologize if that insulted you but to make what i meant clear, something eluding you to me is a simple matter of fact vs non-fact. It will be much harder for me to take one thing that you say seriously if what you previously told me does not line up with evident truth or if your point of view is somehow not in accordance with anything that at least TRIES to fit what we see. There is ZERO evidence for creationism...ZERO. Seeing as that along with the fact that you wholeheartedly believe that this stuff should be taught at schools does not pass my BS detector and thus I have to say reality eludes you.

Now as worldly as you say you are, all I have heard from you(including those articles) are things that are most definitely NOT true. As much as I can respect someone needing faith on whatever it is they need to have faith in I cannot respect anyone who honestly sees this as anything outside of their own personal need to justify their existence and not as a true stab to really figure out where we actually come from. In that respect, yes reality eludes you. Sadly being as humans are, there is no way to convince you of this. So I can only give my point of view and move on but definitely argue when I think something should not be(any teachings from the bible have no place in schools for example).