Protect Religious Liberty

May I suggest the work of David Barton. His book, "Original Intent" is an excellent reference for every American including Lawyers, Judges and Politicians. Also, his booklet, "Separation of Church & State- What the Founders Meant" is a short essay regarding this subject. Again, I encourage every American to read it.

Thank you for your time and concideration.

Mike Dillard

Son of Adam,

how does proving how things work prove "god's awesome power?" Besides, there are a lot of people out there who don't know and don't care how certain things work and still don't believe in god, so what's your point? Lastly, why does god have to be big for you to worship? Who says just because something is small that it is easy to understand? look at the atom and how long it took us to realize it's existence and it's properties?

Why do people think that all because they know how things work is a basis for saying that there is no God? All you do is prove God's awesome power. Why do you ask questions about God's motives because if God was small enough for me to understand he wouldn't be big enough for me to worship.

So nothing of import existed until man came along. Wow, I'll have to tell that to the Sun and Moon and stars. supernovas neutron stars, planets comets. Since I've been visiting this blog, post or otherwise discussion, I see how conceited man is for his/her god. The voyager space craft turned its camera back to earth and took a picture of it. This picture you can find by googling "pale blue dot", was protested by many religious groups who didn't want earth people to see just how small we really are.

Carl Sagan said the following quotation on May 11, 1996 about what he felt the photo demonstrated:[3]

We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

I'm sorry garyd, but it still sounds so deceitful and not out of love. It's all so petty and egotistical. Besides, if the universe is so much the puzzle and mystery that God meant it to be,(albeit through intimidation and petty jealousy on his part, not to mention all the smiting) then likewise, in reverse it could be said that the earth is just as old as scientists and archeologists say it is, and through evolution, has gotten us this far.

Personally, i don't think that science and religion preclude each other. I think that people just have a hard time being themselves and they have alot of fear, fear of death, fear of rejection,fear of love and trust, and in our attempt to reconcile ourselves to that fear, we create tensions and differentiations where they don't really exist. This having to concentrate on someone else being responsible for existence or lack thereof draws us away from having to admit our fears, that there may be nothing left after this. What they fail to realize is that death with nothing to follow does not render our lives meaningless, it is just the revolution of a circle.your essence, your energy (re)evolving into the next cycle of energy. Their is most certainly a beginning to all of this chaotic sensible lovely mess we call life, I just don't believe in it in the same form as you do (i.e. the trinity).

The first assumption of science is that our sense are efficient and reliable enough to discern everything. I do not believe this to be the case.

The universe appears to our senses to be 15 billion years old. Does that of necessity mean that it is? Of course not.

Any God powerful enough to have made this universe in the first place could also obviously have started it at any point in its history he chose. Why would he do so? Two reasons.

1.Salvation was to be by grace and grace alone hence any thing that would lead directly to God's proveable existence within the creation would have to be removed. What better way to do that than to populate it with obvious straws for unbelief to fasten upon?

2.In God's eyes until the coming of sentient man upon the scene to whom He might reveal his justice love and mercy nothing else of import existed.

2.

FR.Anderson Have you ever actually read the 1st admendment? Hugo black clearly rewrote it to suit his own notions.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of.

Apprently Hugo Black decided what congress could do the court in its infinite wisdon would and in spades, not to mention hearts diamonds clubs and both jokers one of whom appears to have been Mr. Black.

What the admendment actually means is that Congress can't tell you when where or how to build your house of worship nor dictate to you how you practice your religion.

Hugo Black decided to reinterpret these words to mean than only the atheist perspective on religion could be admitted into the clear light of day.

I've been checking back for his response also and likewise, hope he and his family are alright. If anyone spots him, let me know.

So do I E FAV but I think he gave it up. I would like to get into a discussion of Genesis because it just doesn't seem to follow to logic. Remember if we were made in god's image than it stands to reason our logic should be the same.

I'm glad to see it's still alive too - I check back everday for the post-birthday response that CB said he would make.

Hope he's OK.

Good Morning all,
Glad to see this stream is still active.. Have any of you out there read I CHING, I got into it about 15 years ago and have found it to be very powerful. It answers problems with thought. It makes one think when addressing a problem. The bible on the other hand is interpreted anyway the individual decides it benefits them. There are so many retreats for bible thinkers that nothing really makes any sense. I listen to TV preachers and the way they interpret a bible passage usually has something to do with give until it hurts.

Jacob - it's important to me what you think and say -- and I'm sure it is even more important to people in your "real" life.

I also bet that you try to think of solutions to your problems more than you give yourself credit for. Problem solving is a skill taught in school and by parents. Some problems have to be solved on the spot, without time to consult a bible or any other source but yourself.

Thanks for your explanation of the scripture. I have to admit I still don't get it, but that's OK - no need to explain further - I appreciate the effort.

Well it's not important what I think, what I have to say, beacause I'm a evil person and fall short of perfection. When I have a problem I don't try to think of a solution. It's so much easier to read scripture because in the Bible you can find an answer to just about any life problem.

As to the scripture. I person as me "Why would God create such a universe that need constant tending?" This scripture explains it. God doesn't think like we think. And to try to explain his actions using human motives would be impossible for man.

Hi, Jacob banks -

You're right, I am here to learn - mainly about how others think.

To be honest, when a Christian quotes scripture instead of making a direct response, it seems like a cop out.

If you think that's not a correct analysis, I'd like to hear how you see it - but keep in mind, I'd prefer that you not quote more scripture.

I'd also like to know what you meant by the line for Isaiah that you quoted.

E Favorite

You make me smile. Your desire to learn is what keeps me here. I'm but a fool for trying to answer your question and asking my own. God will reveal the answer to you if he sees fit. So from now on I will no longer give the words from my mouth. I will give you some scripture so you and I can meditate on it.

"You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay." Isaiah 29:16

Yes Lily, I've read that article already. I can't ignore scientific finding like this. Yes they do discover new things and change thier minds in light of new evidence but that is what science is all about. They break it and see if they can put back together again. If it goes back exactly the same way, there is something to it. Simple.

Thx Lily, I have msnbc as one of my pages. I have read a great amount of material on our evolutionary history and have an idea of what went on. We were the hunted at one time and had to gather in force for protection. I'll check it out..

Jwest, i started reading an article from newsweek yesterday about the advances in scientific research on "what or who" encouraged us to "get up off our backsides and start looking for other sources of food."

Perhaps you wanna take a look?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/page/1

So the whole thing is, the story just won't work out unless Adam and Eve defy God. They were suppose to. Otherwise what's the point. People that shun evolution for creation are just simply blind to facts. The old adage don't confuse me with facts comes onto play. Creation according to what CB stated in his explanation, has us going from a superior life form to an inferior life form. Evolution has us going from a inferior life form to a superior life form. If you want to call waging wars and fast food superior life forms. Evolution and creation do seem to have a common denominator, we were once just laying around in the trees until something encouraged us to get up off our backsides and start looking for other sources of food. The argument now is what or who did the encouraging.

Thanks Jwest and Lily, for going through all the contradictions. I couldn't bear it.

Meanwhile, there’s a common theme I hear when some Christians defend their faith, and that is a spiritual experience in which God or Jesus makes a profound life-changing statement to them. Then suddenly, somehow, everything in the Bible makes sense and all church dogma (depending on what church you're in) is true. Amazing.

I’ve had sudden, life-changing insights too. They’ve provided clarity and direction for my life, but did not cause me to discard reason to completely and unconditionally accept an existing religious dogma and belief system.

Laying around naked and ignorant surrounded by tame "wild" animals IS man's idea of heaven I think.

Isn't that the idea?, kinda like the classic "American Dream." Not realistic and a little boring, but that's why it's a dream. Our man made idea of heaven doesn't sound like something God would want for us, but our idea of the American Dream isn't what all immigrants or Americans necessarily want either.

Lily,
I agree with you. I'm sorry if my last post was a bit to harsh, but if Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of knowledge, and never knew they were naked, then today we would all be still laying around the garden, naked and ignorant. What I'm trying to say is it is way too confusing. Why would God want us to be just laying around. If any of you really think about that senerio then how would that be any differnet then how animals in the jungles live today.

OK, so nobody wants to touch the above, that's ok, for my own purposes, I must continue. I had to start at the beginning because the contradictions and unexplainable loose ends started there, so moving forward and getting to CB's explanation of Cain and Abel's wives, (of which there is no mention anywhere that either of them had wive's before Cain slew Abel, let alone Abel having one ever, at all).

CB, you stated above, People "do not understand the clear historical record God has given to us. Also, many people try and argue for the fallibility of the Bible from this very same position. People try to interpret Genesis from our present situation, rather than understand the true biblical history of the world and the changes that have occurred because of sin. Because they are not building their world view on Scripture, but taking a secular way of thinking to the Bible, they are blinded to the simple answers. Genesis is the record of the God who was there as history happened. It is the word of One who knows everything, and who is a reliable witness from the past. Thus, when we use Genesis as a basis for understanding history, we can make sense of questions that would otherwise be a mystery."

CB, your explanation IS vague, as I thought it would be, and doesn't hold water for anyone who has the ability to think about and make sense of what they read. The answers are simple and there is no mystery. I am not interpreting the Bible from my present situation, I am interpreting it from what it clearly states, no matter what version you read.

Genesis 4:10- God curses Cain to wandering the earth for killing his brother.
4:14- Cain expresses his fear that whoever should find him, will kill him.

My brain is screaming out questions. CB, you say we're all descendants of Adam. Ok, it doesn't dismiss incest and it's neccessity to procreate the inhabitants of earth, but I have to assume that there were inhabitants previous to ADam and Eve based on the facts as the Bible relates them. The Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve had two sons, it clearly omits any mention of any daughters, EVER, yet we are to assume that Adam and Eve had all these kids that grew up, moved away and forgot who there siblings were? meaning, why would Cain fear anyone killing him, since those anyones are his brothers and sisters? Then, after he's lived in Nod for awhile, he has a child with his wife and then follows four more generations of Cain's children. AND then... Eve bears Seth!!!!Nah, somethings not right here. Obviously, the Bible's historical account is not so clear. Adam didn't eat from the Tree of Life, only the Tree of Knowledge and yet God let him & hundreds of generations after him, live for humdreds of years?????? There are just too many holes to fill in and I suppose if you really want to believe in something, you will find a way to fill those holes with explanations that support that belief, no matter how far-fetched or weak they sound. I seriously doubt God gave us the ability to use logic, just so we could ignore it. You gotta gimme something else.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful. These types of questions and wonderings have always prompted me to look deeper into what I believe and why. Saying the Bible is so clear and inerrant half the time and then saying certain things are just God's mysteries that we may never understand is just too... well convenient. (and... * said with much sarcasm,*.. not contradictory at all.)

PS- Happy Birthday, hope you don't read this until tomorrow.

Morning All,

It seems to me that Adam and Eve were able to live pretty much how animals live today. Off the fruits of the land, have sex with whoever they wanted to have sex with, lay around when not looking for sex and food. Boy Eve did us a disservice. If you believe in an omnipotent God, then that omnipotent God does everything for you. God create the serpent as Lily stated. God created everything, so God created the first sin. You just can't have it both ways. Believers have come to zig and zag whenever faced with facts they themselves can't explain. Is God omnipotent or not. If he is, we as humans are controlled like puppets by him. Then whats the point. Why would a God so powerful want to control every aspect of human life on this planet. Start vicious wars, disease, starvation, and all the other ills of this world. OH yeah, we have free will. Then we go back to omnipotence. As soon as man and woman take responsibility for their own actions we will be a better planet. More later.

Okay, i have to go off on tangent here. CB, i didn't get a chance to look at anything this morning or even read what's been written since i last wrote, but i've been reading and so many questions come to mind with this thread and so many others like this.

First off, Adam and Eve are created, with Eve being Adam's companion (that's the least condescending term used in any of my Bibles to explain Eve's existence, there is also helper & help meet), right?
Adam is the one that labels/calls her "woman", meaning of the womb of man, right? (kinda of ironic since men don't have a womb and can't give birth..to anything.)

*Side note- it is my belief and understanding based on anthropological studies, that before we were a patriarchal(sp)(i.e. man/father honoring) society, we were a matriarchal society.

Anyway, I diverge.

So, they're naked and not ashamed, (like babies not knowing anything from anything) and then enters the Serpent, AKA the Devil.

The serpent., mind you,.. that God made.(so basically, good created evil to oppose itself and ...?why?). I'll leave that to anyone else to answer.

So Eve takes of the "fore-bidden" fruit of knowledge and also encourages Adam to do so..., and then God knows that they did it because they let on to him that NOW they know they're naked and NOW they're ashamed of it?( they're not much like a babies at this point, but I want to know how this type of sinful conscientiousness is obtained by this knowledge?)
God created them naked, there is no one else to acknowledge any difference in them for being so, but all of a sudden, THEY notice they're naked and automatically,... arbitrarily,... they somehow realize, with no other facts to base their opinion on,.. that being naked is wrong?

If your understanding my line of questioning here, then please understand that I'm not trying to tear asunder what your God created, (but if he's yours then he's mine too, and everyone elses for that matter,) but these are the questions that my discerning mind wants to know.
So, where was I, oh yes, they eat the apple, and God tells Eve for her sin "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing: with pain you will give birth to children."
he also states that she will desire her husband and her husband shall rule over her.

Then he tells Adam, "cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Ok, so i understand that in the Bible, God is punishing Eve (all women) for sinning and influencing her "husband" to follow suit, but then why are we[women] punished with a painful, but bearable, and ultimately, eternal ability to produce (meaning, bring forth, i.e. birth) life and. . men were punished with toiling and harvesting the earth? ( to me, meaning, to exploit, control, dominate and ultimately bring about death, although, I MAY be biased).
But of course, this is only my interpretation of the Bible. (which according to you, CB is wrong because there are "hard and fast rules" to interpretating this particular bit of literature.)

So, they sin, and God casts them out, saying, "Behold, the man is become as one of US, to know good and evil: he must not be able to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
Hey,. wait,... it's OT... At this point, man only thinks of God as the(1) one, the Only, the Omega, the Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent One. He doesn't become the trinity until after Christ comes. At this point, Jesus hasn't even been predicted.... Explain the us?

CB- Happy birthday. thanks going to so much trouble to explain. I still don't understand and don't expect to and don't really need to.

It seems to me that if there was a God who wanted us to understand him and what he wanted from us, he would have made it a lot easier to do so.

RELIGION IS ALREADY IN THE SCHOOLS wrote a number of logical fallacies that represent nothing more than a fundamental misunderstanding of science, in asterisks:

*Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion!*

Science excludes supernatural causes. It's not a matter of excluding your god or anyone else's, it's a matter of considering only cause and effect relationships that can be tested. Because that is the realm of science, you are welcome to think of that constraint as its limitation, if you insist on believing on your particular fairy tale. But it's certainly not a declaration of atheism.

*Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true."--"Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God"(Dawkins, Richard).*

The misunderstanding continues. The goal of science is not to "prove" anything true, much less the existence or non-existence of a god, because ultimately nothing can be proven with absolute certainty. (Certainly the religious among us should agree that only an all-seeing, all-knowing being could prove something with absolute certainty.) The idea is to reject poorer explanations in favor of better ones, with a statistical probability assigned to the decision to favor the new explanation. This probability is based on the scientific method. You have set up a straw man only to knock it down--well done.

*Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.*

I'm not sure what logical planet you live on. Perhaps only one where the nature of science is not understood well.

*The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations" (Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American; vol. 283, July 2000, p. 83).*

The misunderstanding continues. Science cannot deal with supernatural phenomena because it has no way to test such cause and effect relationships. So, in order for science as a method to proceed, it must assume that material effects have material causes. Otherwise there is no way to construct such tests.

*A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" (Todd, Scott C)*

I might agree with you on this one--the statement is non-sensical. It's not possible for scientific data to be collected and point to something supernatural.

*It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists.*

It is also known that many evolutionary biologists and other scientists are not. They understand that science is guided by the goal of understanding the material realm and cannot know about supernatural causes. Unfortunately for your argument, evolution is a material process, and a well-accepted one, so science is an appropriate method to use for learning about the mechanisms responsible for it.

*Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today" (Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post: May 13, 2000, p. B-3).*

Boy, have you found the smoking gun or what? I'm sure he means it in exactly the narrow and perjorative way you do.

Why do anti-rationalists think they sound sensible when trying to strike down our understanding of the modern world in order promote their own particular fairy tale?

Jwest,

This will also be my last post since I do have to go to bed; it's after midnight here. Jwest, and I also say this with respect; you do not have enough Bible knowledge to make the claims you are making above. The world was perfect as God's creation and sin did not enter from day 1. It entered with Adam and Eve AFTER they allowed the serpent to mislead them. The original sin was Adam's, not Cain's!

Your words about God punishing man from day 1 are wrong, and, your words where you say God instilled sin in man are so totally wrong they are out of the stratosphere my friend. God is not the originator of sin, never ever!

I believe in science, I truly do. But, all science points to a creation, not an evolution. In fact, not long ago a number of the most prominent scientists in the world all rejected Darwin's theory of evolution and endorsed "intelligent design and creation." Note: I use the terms interchangeably since they mean the same thing, to my mind at least; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I could even send you that article if you so wish. The winds of change are sweeping over the face of the eath my friend; to say all of this evolved and that we were apes or amoebas and that we EVOLVED to what we are today, is total lunacy!

You also say that none of what I quoted above is backed up with anything in the Bible; do you actually read the Bible? That's an honest question. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; the Bible also needs interpretation. Just as you have scientific equations, all the parts of the equation stand for something (my physics/chemistry knowledge is limited at BEST) just so can some parts of the Bible be interpeted literally, and some interpreted for their deeper meaning. We all know what the "equals", "plus", "minus" and "tims" signs are and mean; not all of us know what Phi stands for until we interpret it and are told that it is 3.1414. (Geez, I REALLY hope I'm correct with that; I just hope you get what I'm trying to say??!!).

I'm sure you're a gifted engineer Jwest, but, in this case, you're just plain wrong!

And, yes, in response to your last posting; everything I did was a choice. My family never put pressure on me to serve the Lord. They led by example. I chose to rebel, even though, as you said, I didn't have to. But, it was a route I needed to go through for myself I suppose. My faith isn't a crux although God helps those who cannot help themsleves too; no, my faith is an open minded choice to serve the Almighty with my whole heart, mind, soul and strength.

Your statement on handling the pressures of life head on, chin up, makes me smile. It is the typical response of someone in/from the armed forces and that is what makes you so resilient. I admire you for that and I take my hat off to you. It is a "black or white" approach to life I find in my family members in the police services; unfortunately, life does have it's hues of grey, although there are specific, clear, unambiguous, albeit often unpopular answers to every one of the hues of grey as well as the balck and white colours on the opposite ends of the spectrum. I acknowledge the hues of grey and I respond with specific answers i.e.: Christ, and the Bible. I'm a broken record, I know!!! :-)

Life can be a @#$&* and you'd know better than most. Trust me though, although we all walk different paths it doesn't make any of us less strong or resilient that the rest, it makes us different, and that is why this forum is so great. It really inspires me to speak to you all, even IF we don't agree!

Wow CB, Where do I start with this one. I too have know preachers kids that "went bad". And some that got further and further into God so much so that this world was a horrible place for them to live. They are some of the most unhappiest people I have ever met. Most born agains will tell you stories of distructive behavior and finaly some sort of break down. And in looking for relief just give it all to the lord. Wow enough of that burden I'll just give it to the lord. Whereas I'm glad you are well and happy, you never really needed to rebel in the first place. You lived such as strict life you probably just wanted to blow off some pent up stream. And did. You could have possibly felt the pressure your family was exerting on you and gave it up. Well I say good for you. I've never been that far down so I don't know. I've handled all the pressures of life head on. Chin up. I haven't had a choice. If I went down, there was nobody to pull me up. I have to run for now but I'll be back..

All,
Nothing in the afore mentioned explanation by our friend CB is backed up by anything in the Bible. I've read so many different explanations and while this one is well thought out it won't hold a candle to proving anything. Ergo blind faith. I believe in my science so do each one of you out there including CB and Jacob. My science is electronics, and not meaning to sound pretentious, I know and trust everything this computer is doing from my typing to you reading this message. I currently work in an engineering department. All this said if I trust and know my science, I must trust all others that know and trust thiers. When scientists say the earth is 4 + billion years old I believe them. CB you say it is only 6 thousand years old. Please don't tell me God's days are different than ours I just say how do you know that. I trust evolution and think what a great planet we live on that can make life. Maybe, just maybe, this planet is God and it's time we start getting our heads out of the sand and start taking care of it. You ask, are millions of people wrong, say could be. Because they are handed a rope when they were very young and told to hold onto it with all their might or they will fall and burn in hell forever. God started punishing man from day one. Cain killed from one day one, sin happened on day one. All sins began on day one. Otherwise the story wouldn't be very compleling. It was so bad God sent Jesus to die for the sins God instilled in people from day one. There was and is now no happy ever after to this whole story. I want to hear what others are saying so I'll shut up for now.

E-Favorite,

Adam and Eve certainly had other children. Cain and Abel were the first, after Abel's death Seth followed, and many others.

The question has been raised over and over again as to who were Cain and Abel's wives and I answered it for those who raised it. I'm sorry you're confused. :-) It is not because I explained the Bible; it is, with respect, because you acknowledged you don't know the Bible. Some "mysteries" of the Bible need a deeper delving to be able to reveal the meanings and history behind them.

Jwest,

I also promised you that I'd tell you about the path I travelled. Have you ever heard the saying "doctor's kids are the sickest?" Well, pastor's kids are the naughtiest. I tried and did just about everything in the book to prove that it was my father who was the pastor and not me. I did just about everything with the exception of two things.

In fact, at a stage I started developing and pursuing a great interest in the occult and all things related. I was really intent on finding an alternative to God and all the things I was taught and things I saw as a child growing up. But, my parents stayed on their knees and continued praying for me and loving me unconditionally, all the while not allowing me to bring alcohol, cigarettes and other "herbs" as well as women into their house. They loved me, with boundaries and even in my worst state I respected that. I was never really suicidal (I've always had this incredible desire for abundant life) although on many occasions I could have lost my life with the things I was doing and the situations I got myself in to. Things such as housebreaking, "lending" cars, running from the police who were actively looking for us (that they never found out who I was is a miracle in itself), running from irate fathers, husbands and boyfriends, trying to not get killed by oncoming traffic while walking and driving under influence, trying not to get killed by rival gang memebers and hangers on and all the rest were par for the course for me. I never really like talking about these days, since, 1) they're in the past and 2) my life is a walk in the park compared to yours and others. You probably have such stories to tell my hair will stand on end; more than 20 years in the armed forces and you'll certainly have stories to tell. I never want to use my life as a base of all experience, since other's experiences are often worse than mine.

But, I know where I was going and know where I could have been now. And, I'm SO THANKFUL God kept me through it all. One night, at the lowest of the low that I was experiencing (note: I was totally sober!!!) a voice said to me "the more you run from me, the more I'll speak to you and the more you'll hear my voice; stop running and come back to me." I don't expect you or anyone to understand this, since once again God's ways are foolish to those who reject Him. It was not quite as strong as Moses' burning bush experience, but it was real enough for me to be positively shocked into action.

That day I decided to stop fighting, and I returned to the Lord. I've never looked back ever since and I thank the Lord for His mercies in my life. I've been married for five years, I have a BEAUTIFUL wife and 7 month daughter, I am successful in that I am living God's purpose for my life and I know that the Lord has a great future for me and my family. Am I perfect? Not by a LOOOONNNGG shot, but, I strive after a life of righteousness and holiness, and constantly submit to the Holy Spirit's leading and guiding in my life. It was also on that day I decided I was going to follow the route I am in equipping myself to "know what I know and know why I know it."

So, Jwest, I most certainly questioned God, the Bible, the Church and all authority, and yes, I certainly allowed for other influences in my life. All I can say is that Jesus Christ is the only way; I've tried others, they don't work. They can't, because they're devoid of any truth or life. Only Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

I'm no bible expert, but I thought Adam and Eve were the first people. They had two sons - no daughters. So I thought the question was about how Cain and Abel could marry if there were no other people around but them and their parents.

I don't recall anything a question being raised about incestuous relationships, which CB spent a lot of time on.

I'll leave the rest to those with more knowledge of the Bible than I have. I'm confused, but that is often the case when people try to explain the Bible.

Hello Jwest, E-favorite, Marco Polo, Lily and all others,

As promised I have provided an answer to you re: Cain’s wife (there’s no record that Abel had a wife) and the land of Nod. This issue is a common issue that skeptics throughout the ages have tried to use to discredit the Bible and more specifically the book of Genesis as being true historically.

The truth be told, a lot of Christians cannot answer these questions, but, that does not mean that there are no answers.

To be fair, and for the sake of proper record keeping, I have cut and pasted the largest majority of this explanation from the following link:

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html

There are massive amounts of resources to get information of this nature from and to save me having to type everything out from scratch out of my own head or from some of my "hard-copy" resources I have chosen to use this website. It is of great help and I think these individuals are really excellent in what they do. I can only hope to be as good as they are one day.

To kick this explanation off the following must be said: This might sound like semantics to you, but, we are all descendants of Adam and therefore we are all married to those who are “of the same blood” as us. There is no way around this fact, and, to become really specific about this, Cain’s wife was a descendant of Adam, as are we all.

But, the question remains; how close a relative of Cain was she? If we work solely and objectively from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-Biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations! We are not told when Cain married or any of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history. The next question will most certainly be: what about God’s laws? Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve's sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage.

Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don't marry your relation, you don't marry a human! I’ve explained this by saying that we are all descendants of Adam. But, more specifically, the law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God's law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other. Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.

Some may say that marriage of siblings today is outlawed, for obvious reasons. Yes, there are genetic deformities that exist and it is patently unwise to marry relations, but, Adam and Eve were created perfect, with no flaws. Remember, the Lord told them to be fruitful and to multiply. Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect -- no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam -- Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God's approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18-20).[12] (Also, there were plenty of people on the earth by then, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)

What about Cain the Land of Nod? Some claim that the passage in Genesis 4:16-17 means that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. Thus, they can conclude there must have been another race of people on the earth, who were not descendants of Adam, who produced Cain's wife.

Genesis 4:16 & 17: And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch: and he built a city, and he called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

From what has been stated previously, it is clear that all humans, Cain's wife included, are descendants of Adam. However, this passage does not say that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. John Calvin, commenting on these verses, states:

From the context we may gather that Cain, before he slew his brother, had married a wife; otherwise Moses would now have related something respecting his marriage.[13]

Cain was married before he went to the land of Nod. He didn't find a wife there, but "knew" (had sexual relations with) his wife.[14]

Others have argued that because Cain built a "city" in the land of Nod, there must have been a lot of people there. However, the Hebrew word translated as "city" need not mean what we might imagine from the connotations of "city" today. The word meant a "walled town" or a protected encampment.[15] Even a hundred people would be plenty for such a "city." Nevertheless, there could have been many descendants of Adam on the earth by the time of Abel's death.

Many Christians cannot answer the question about Cain's wife because they focus on today's world (and the problems associated with close relations marrying), and do not understand the clear historical record God has given to us. Also, many people try and argue for the fallibility of the Bible from this very same position. People try to interpret Genesis from our present situation, rather than understand the true biblical history of the world and the changes that have occurred because of sin. Because they are not building their world view on Scripture, but taking a secular way of thinking to the Bible, they are blinded to the simple answers. Genesis is the record of the God who was there as history happened. It is the word of One who knows everything, and who is a reliable witness from the past. Thus, when we use Genesis as a basis for understanding history, we can make sense of questions that would otherwise be a mystery.

The above explanation is about the best online explanation I can find. As I stated above, I have included the link for you to follow and to perhaps find answers to your other questions you may have. I fully expect alot of replies and arguments to the above, based on what is said above, so, be my guest and fire away. Just to preclude any arguments you may have about me using other resources (someone in last week's argument said I was probably gone looking for the answers to the questions posed); I never use or quote resources I do not agree with 100%. There are other resources that are patently bogus or not 100% true. This website I totally endorse, not that they need my endorsement. So, I unashamedly quote them above.

In conclusion; tomorrow 14th March is my birthday. I'll not be online for the day but if you wouldn't mind posting your arguments, rebuttals, comments and all the rest I'll gladly deal with them 15 March when I return to the website. And please, I do not for one moment think everyone is clamouring to speak to me; me ego is not THAT inflated. I enjoy these arguments and counter arguments with each of the individuals mentioned above in the intro. You all keep me sharp and on my toes; for that, I am TRULY APPRECIATIVE!!! All the best and chat soon!

I absolutely agree with jwest and continue to look forward to CB's explanation of Cain and Abel, although i do have to say, that i already have a vague notion of how it will go and while trying to keep an open mind, will be quite interested to see if that notion is correct or not. ( i hope the vague notion doesn't turn out to be a vague explanation. )

E-Fav,
Maybe I'm using terminologies I've grown up with, and it's not fair for me to say CB is using them too. He did say in "His sovereign way" and I take that as the "Mysteries" Plus I watch a program on the weekends called mysteries of the Bible. The hosts explain these mysteries as mysteries. So I've got mysteries on the brain. I would like to hear CB's explanation of the Cain and Able and Nod and while we are at it the people of Enoch. Maybe I will learn something. I keep an open mind even if it does sound shut. CB I'm enjoying this dicussion with you, I mean you no harm.

Jwest - Interesting -- I did not perceive that CB's discussion of mysteries was meant as an explanation for Cain and Abel's wives and the people of Nod.

CB - I look forward to the explanation you promised for later today.

CB,
I quoted your answer word for word, cut and paste is a wonderful tool.. It boils down to that mystery thing. That is, after all, the standard answer for most unexplained things in the bible by most Christians. No offense intended it is my interpretation of your answer to my question. That is; no answer. Now Jacob is bring in other books that I think were rejected by the council that voted on the books of the bible in the first place. I would be interested in reading those as well. Mystery, it's all surrounded by mystery.

Hello all,

I have to attend to interviews tonight, but, upon my return I'll address the Cain & Abel questions as well as the Nod question. Jwest, my friend, please do not put words in my mouth about Cain & Abel etc. You do have an excellent point about me, my dad and my upbringing and I'll explain to you the path I embarked on, only to arrive back at where I started, serving the Lord Almighty.

I'll then answer E-Favourite's question by doing so... Marco Polo, well observed about not overtly being in the Bible, alhtough we can make inferences. I doubt that the explanations are in the Apocrypha or any other book...I may be wrong though...

E Fav, CB did answer the question. He said it is one of God's mysteries. And we are not to question God's mysteries. He said: "The Bible has passages that are difficult to explain; yes, the Lord acts in His sovereign way and He does not need to explain His actions to us. I can in fact explain where Cain and Abel's wives came from and I can explain the origin of the people of Nod. Can those reading take those explanations and allow them to be argued on the basis of what I bleieve and allow it to get to it's logical conclusion? I'm afraid that from what I've experienced here, very few can. And, will the individuals be able to accept the explanations? Some maybe, not all". You see it is the evasive answers that get to me. If it doesn't make any sense than it's Gods mysteries. The Bible is not infallible and it does counterdict itself on many occasions. My big question is why the big mystery? Why so much confusion. To some like Jacob and CB they blindly accept what they are told and that's that. To others more proof is necessary.

The story of Cain and Abel's wives are not in the Bible. I think they are in one of the books that was left out of the bible. It tells how Adam and Eve had daughters, and basically, incest is what happened. Interesting stuff. Maybe its in the Life of Adam and Eve.or the Book of Jubilees, or even Enoch. One of those I think.

CB - I read through you recent long post and di not see an explanation about Cain and Abel's wives and the people of Nod.

I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know if you are going to answer those questions or not.

Thanks

CB. Good Morning to you,
You say your father is a pastor and you work for him. My question to you is, have you ever been able to think any other way about your faith except what has been instilled in you since birth. That is the problem with religion, christianity et al. it doesn't come naturally. it is a taught subject. If you take a group of people and raise them on an island without any religious indoctrination would they, on their own, find christ. The answer is no. People are raised with the beliefs of their elders, Hindu, Hindi, Arabs, Muslim, Bhuddist, Bhuddism etc.CB, you and all christians say you are the only true way. That means you think billions of people are burning in hell for eternity because they were raised wrong??? Wow, that's too much for my imagination to bare.

CB,

Thanks for your reply. I must admit that I was kinda channeling you from the last time we met, sorry about that. I tried to resist being a little sh*t, but maybe it was a test for you, played through me from the Powers that be. I really appreciate the way you handled it though, and in the future I'll follow suit.
The other bad on my part was in mentioning Adam and Eve. In a previous thread someone else and myself asked you about how God explains away the incestuist(sp) relationship between Adam and Eve. Within this thread, the question was about the origin of Cain and Able's wives. Same thing really. I was gonna look it up this morning before work but I didn't have time.
Again, thank you for your response, I respect a lot of what you said, and I have nothing but faith that you and I will both walk away from these discussions with nothing but love and respect for eachother and our prospective beliefs.

That is just another point made that tells reasonable people that they just can't have a decent discussion with some people. You can have all the level headedness in the world, but when dealing with a person of strong and sometimes convoluded faith, it is generally impossible.

Realist, I would add that it was reprehensible for Jacob to use the term "evil men" for people who disagree with his religious beliefs.

Could it be that the reason why you want religious education kept out of schools is not because of a wish to encourage religious freedoms, but actually because you realise that academic religious studies will impede your own programme of indoctrination.

Religious education, in order to be fully reflective of America's multicultural society, will have to treat all religious positions including non-theistic and atheistic positions equally. I suspect that such lessons might lead to a similar agnostic feeling amongst the population as we currently find in the UK.

Still I could be wrong. The British government thought they could gain the casual European drinking culture by increasing opening hours. As it is, we now have the same binge drinking culture we've always had, only for longer. Perhaps religious education would be appropriated by Christian religious conservatives and become an extension of the existing indoctrination programmes. In which case, perhaps you are right to be concerned after all. Nevertheless, with a proper planned curriculum, too much bias would inevitably lead to a detrimentally lowered performance from pupils in any official religious education examinations.

JWEST,

Yes, RSA is about 7 hours ahead, and that's why I left to go to bed, at 02:00 our time mind you! :-)

Yes, you do make a good point for which I can only say that there are tremendous abuses in the church today that are wrong! They are plain and simply wrong. The so called "prosperity gospel" where preachers take your money and you sit without material provision while they drive nice cars and fly private jets is WRONG!! My blood boils seeing these individuals preach. What they say is so contrary to the true Word of God that it plain and simply STINKS!! And, it makes my job so much harder since people have seen this and often lump everyone into the same boat! I also find it frustrating when thousands of people listen to and believe these individuals without discerning what is being said in the Bible and rejecting their message outright. God blesses us, yes, but there is no hard and fast formula to receive material blessings, and, God's blessings are more than just material. It is spiritual, emotional, physical, peace, joy, with lovely family etc. So yes, it IS WRONG and you are right to point those out. However, what alot of individuals do is focus on what people do and not on what the Word of God says, and that is truly sad. They focus on what man does and not on what Christ did and does. That is sad. And yes, not enough people know their Bible and know "what they know, and why they know it." My prayer for you will be that the Lord becomes real to you, as it is for everyone.

Hiya Lily,

Once again, thank you! You do raise very valid points and allow me to address them. I'm afraid my attitude of last week was wrong. For that I did apologise and my apology was accepted. Do I expect you to immediately forget about it? No, I don't, but, that will not preclude me from softening the content of my message in fear of offending. As I said then, I'll adapt how I say things but not what I say. If what I say gives you the impression that I exclude others for believing what they believe and know to be the truth of their creator then that is unfortunate. Believe it or not, I hear what others say and can accept differences in beliefs even if I do not agree with them. If we all agreed then yes, things would be more harmonious, but, they will never be so. Is it not Christ Himself who says in Matthew 10:34 that He did not come to bring peace; family will rise up against family when some believe in Christ and others not. Christ's message will always bring conflicting views since the thought that there is only one way to God will always offend. The exclusion you might feel I am perpetrating may be as a result of my unwillingness to accept other views as truth, even though I most certainly do acknowledge other views. I can do both.

Lily, the only way to be saved is through Christ, there's no way around it and for me to say otherwise would be wrong. I have never condemned anyone to hell, for it is not me to do so. In fact, at no point did I even say that. These are your assertions from what you know of the Christian faith and the message of Christ. I didn't need to say it, even though I know it to be true. And yes, I say my message in love. Of course I want you and others to be saved. Christ didn't die for nothing! It is every Christian's instruction to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to tell the world of Christ's death and resurrection. The truth is, I do love you with the love of the Lord. I love everyone with the love of the Lord and want all mankind to be saved.

I don't fear life and most certainly don't hide from myself. I deal with my own sinful humanity daily. I am in need of a saviour as are all mankind. Christ is that saviour because through our sinfulness no one will get to God except through Christ. Is that living a life of fear? Not at all. I live a very fulfilled life and have nothing to fear because for me, as the Word of God says..."for me to live is Christ and to die is gain." We don't agree on these things; must we stop talking? Hopefully not? Will we ever agree? Re: Christ probably never; on other things perhaps.

I agree you cannot know about all the universe from studying one country in earth, that would be insane. I also don't agree with your assertion on the Bible. We'll never agree on these things. When I acknowledge being an academic I am always confronted with the fact that I most certainly don't know everything and very definitely know very little, but, yes, about my Lord and Saviour I hope I know more than average, since the Word of God does say ..." study to show thyself approved..." and hopefully I have done so. As I said, I seek the approval of God and not man. Does that seem simple to others? Probably, since the Gospel is very simple and people constantly look for complicated ways to explain God. Am I a simpleton for having the attitude about God's approval that I do? Well, the Word is clear that the ways of God are a mystery to those who don't know Him. You can make your own judgments on that.

My so called "self-righteousness" came from my arguments with the individuals concerned and with the bad attitude that we all had. I'm not going to apologise for it again Lily. The fact is, there was a mutual mud slinging contest going on for which I apologised for my role in it. The content of what I said was correct but the way I said it was in certain instances not. I agreed with some of his views but still made it clear that I do not believe making gay marriage legal is right. How I validated him was that his view held merit, not that I totally agreed with all his views. That is for another thread though, so lets not go down that route again... And the Adam/Eve question and their ability to procreate; I do not recall being asked that question nor do I even recall the contents of that question, and, do not understand your inference to it...sorry...

Lets get something straight about Christians; there are those who feel that since they were born in and grew up in a church setting that they're ok. They're not! Everyone needs a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. So, if they're afraid that if they condemn the Bible and Christianity that they will go to hell they're barking up the wrong tree, since you go to hell for not loving Jesus; simple. And now I've mentioned the word hell; if I did before feel free to crrect me on it. So, you see through Christians? So do I; I see through alot of people, yourself included. I ask respectfully; what is your point? You have certainly made your point; the crux of your argument is well argued and well known. I acknowledge your views even if I don't agree with them.

I've seen plenty of so called evidence proving the Bible wrong. It all ends up being disproved. Is it possible for you to accept that? To accept that the so called evidence is not evidence at all? I get the feeling you cannot and won't. You desire the Bible and Christianity to be proven wrong at all costs. Lily, it will never be, as much as you want it to. God certainly has all His bases covered, and that I say with more respect to the Almighty than what I suspect you did.

I am glad you have no doubts for what you believe; I've seen that over and again. You argue your case well and with passion and with the conviction of someone who truly feels they know the truth. I commend you for that Lily. But, here's the catch; I don't agree with you. You don't care that I don't agree and the feeling is vice versa I assure you. I know I have the truth and yes, I am saddened for you. I do not pity you since you've made your choices and stick to them. In fact, I respect you Lily. I am saddened as I am always when I truly know what will be in the future.

The centre of my message has always been love. The apostle Paul says, to parphrase: if the message I give you in love offends you, then let it be so, I'd rather offend you with the truth than not speak the truth at all.

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

"Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God"(Dawkins, Richard).

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations" (Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American; vol. 283, July 2000, p. 83).

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" (Todd, Scott C)

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today" (Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post: May 13, 2000, p. B-3).

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=455

Watch this video from a US soldier about atrocities he and other US soldiers commit on a daily basis in Iraq against innocent people:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4315

CB,

Where to begin? Ok, from your first question. No, I'm not stating that people from a religious background are less enquiring. If you read it again, you will see that I'm actually in awe of those people that retain their personal childlike curiousity (meaning that they want to know and experience everything because they want to, they need to )of this world without losing their faith in the infallibility of the story of life as it unfolds based on their religion.
I just feel that someone like Jacob doesn't have much of that curiosity left based on the questions he asks and the responses he gives.
I get that you both feel strongly about your faith and that is a blessing, but i feel like you, (you personally i mean) completely exclude others from believing what they believe, what they KNOW to be TRUE of our creator.

You'll always say that man is imperfect and that the Bible is inerrant and the ONLY way to be saved is through Jesus, you'll always state that discoveries that contradict the history given by the bible are a conspiracy, or the devils doing, (straw men, Alexander the Great, Caesar....) You'll always claim to say all of this stuff out love and wanting others to be saved, you and others like, you while condemning those of us who "KNOW" it not to be "TRUE" to hell. (PS the caps are for affect, so you KNOW
what is meant by TRUE)*sorry, couldn't stop myself from being a bit of an ass there.
Seriously though, that's the difference between you and I. I'll never need to win you over to my side, I'll never have to fear like you do or hide from my human self, I'll never have to strive for immortality or eternal life, because I know I already have it. I'll never have to believe someone called Jesus is my savior, or worry that without believing that, that I'll go to hell. I'll never have to worry about science destroying my beliefs or backing them up, because they are eternal. That's not to say that I don't care about the people around me, I care very much, but I need not worry for them anymore than for myself, where the outcome of life is concerned.

Some men got together thousands of years ago and strung together some of the most powerful words (truth, loyalty, life, love, power) to create a supreme being, when all the bible is to me, is double speak. i may have not had as much "study" (ie training) as you have where the bible is concerned, but i've read it through all the way twice, studied it throughout catholic school(involuntarily but eager and entrigued to learn) and my early adulthood (voluntarily, this time with questions and doubts, but still wanting the truth) and always, my unanswered questions led me to seek out the answers, but not just from the bible as you have, but from history, from people, cultures, races, wars, self discovery and rediscovery of so many things that people nowadays take for granted. You cant know all about the universe having studied one country on earth.

Personally, I feel that you get as self-righteous and defensive as you do because you have doubt and because you are unsure whether what you believe in is right or not. Was it that insecurity that caused your failure to answer the question about Adam/Eve and their ability to procreate. Or how about your not wanting to validate someone's opinion on how to solve the problem of gay marriage. . you know the one. . where the guy said that gay marriage should be legal within any state but the church could handle it however it chose to. . as in to marry gays or not to. Did you not like his response because it gave people a way out of having to believe in God or go to church and to not have to deny a part of who they are?
If they have the abiltity to marry whether, it's in a church or not, then they will have no reason to turn from their sinful life. right? Ultimately, you did end up validating him, by the way.

Anyway, you went on to say:
"while it is easy for individuals to claim that the Bible and Christianity is wrong, I've seen no evidence that as yet convinces me of this notion."

I personally don't know any individuals that believe the Bible or christianity is wrong let alone say it (although, maybe if they do think it, they're too afraid to say it. ya know eternal damnation and all, just incase not believing is wrong....(wink, wink). I do, have and continue to see though, many christians like yourself that condemn other religions and beliefs.
As for not seeing any evidence that proves that notion wrong, according to you, you won't and you shouldn't, let alone any evidence that proves your right, because God obviously has all his bases covered, as far as the bible is concerned.

One last thing, you said this to someone else,
"Alot of people on here have a church background and seem to have strayed from the church for their own reasons. This saddens me immensely, since I can only begin to imagine the hurt they have experienced prior and subsequent to their decision."
Don't be sad for me. I haven't hurt since the day I split from the church anymore than you have over the years that you've been in it. I am just as fulfilled if not more and my life just as certain as you believe yours to be. I have no doubts about what I believe. Bless you for yours.

I bow to JWEST. Very good observations my friend. It might lead to even more talking points.

I too have seen some of those same problems with churches. They seem to have forgotten who they are there to serve. it's not themselves and its not god. They are there to serve the people that fill the pews every week. Maybe they do need to be knocked down a bit and taught some humility.

CB, Yes I put 21 years in the US Army. I was stationed in Europe and Asia. While there I learned a great deal about others way of life and the respect they have for one another even though they don't share the same beliefs. In America today it is becoming if you are not the right kind of christian you are the enemy. I can except that you pray for me as long as the prayer isn't to persuade your God to change my mind. I've got a few miles behind me and my decision to leave 'the church" was based on many complicated facts and none because I am mad, depressed, or something hurt me. It is because certain facts came before me that in all good conscious I just can't ignore. One such fact is religious leaders in America today rely on taking money from the poor while they live lavish lifestyles all the while teaching these people hate and intolerence for anybody that disagrees with them. People are followers and have no idea what they are following. They send their checks in and think this will buy God's love. They attend mega-churches that sell everything from the preacher's book to coffe shops and day care. It has very little to do with what Jesus has taught us but everything to do with releiving the flock of their hard earned gelt. I have what I have come to believe through many different realizations including reading ancient chinese phylosophies (sp). You as a pastor probably know about man's deceit more that I. I can't find too many people that understand what it is they profess to understand. They are told what to believe. I hope you understand I mean nobody disrepect. I am sick of the hyprocrisy. As far as Jesus as a personal savior, I've heard so many people say that but when asked what he saved them from they don't know. If you are in RSA, shouldn't you be asleep right now..

Jacob wrote:
"Science is not how things happen. But simply a word evil men use to try to explain to themselves why they don't need God."

Why do you have such a negative view of science? I suspect it's because you feel that it threatens your cherished world view. Science can only be a good thing. If your beliefs are based on truth, then science can only confirm them. If they are not, then you should probably change your beliefs anyway. If your faith prevents your from learning things about the real world, that can't be a good thing. I gave up my religious beliefs after completing a science degree because I realised that what I believed was not consistent with reality.

I don't know any scientists who could be described as evil. That's only in the movies. There are a few dishonest ones, but they always get caught out eventually - that's the whole point of science.

Science is not the be all and end all of everything. It can't answer every question. I think it can potentially answer most questions that are worth asking, but that's just my view. My view is probably not held by the majority of scientists.

Science is a tool for sorting out truth from fiction. I see the main purpose of science as a means of counteracting the biases of individual scientists. Science isn't perfect because scientists are not perfect. But science is the best means we have for learning about ourselves and the world we inhabit.

Like any other tool, you have to decide what you do with it. Science is a means of discovering and describing things about the world in which we live. It is up to us to decide what to learn about and what to do with the knowledge we gain. We may not like all of the things that science discovers, but I'd rather know the truth than to live in an illusion. E.g. I want to know if we are destroying our planet's ecosystem so we can do something about it.

I don't think science can tell us about morality. I think the best it can do is to inform us about what our moral choices are and to provide factual knowledge to base those choices on.

Jwest - Bravo - keep on telling people you're not a Christian -- people need to know that non- and former Christians are good people.

CB - you sound like a good person, too. I'd like to hear your explanation of Cain and Abel's wives and the origin of the people of Nod - but not to be convinced - just to see how you present it.

As for the prayers, speaking for myself, I'd prefer not to receive prayers. I feel you mean well and would rather direct your compassion by praying for someone whom you know would appreciate it , or better yet, replacing your prayers with some benign action, like giving food to a homeless person.

Correction above: it is not Jwest that posted, it is CB. I made a mistake in putting his name there and not mine, although if it was his post it would certainly make things interesting! :-)

Jwest,

You do make a good point. Let me just quickly sketch my background; I am a Pastor from South Africa and have been a Christian my whole life. My father is also a Pastor and in fact I am his assistant in the Church. I am an academic who "defends the faith" so to speak. I have had an interesting time on this forum and have been posting for about a week now. Alot of people on here have a church background and seem to have strayed from the church for their own reasons. This saddens me immensely, since I can only begin to imagine the hurt they have experienced prior and subsequent to their decision.

Matthew 6:5 is a very strict instruction to Christians to not be hypocrites when they pray, but also what they do. In essence, it's what you say that counts and not how you say it. Your prayers and actions need to be based on a sincerity of motive with love being the primary driver or influence.

The Bible has passages that are difficult to explain; yes, the Lord acts in His sovereign way and He does not need to explain His actions to us. I can in fact explain where Cain and Abel's wives came from and I can explain the origin of the people of Nod. Can those reading take those explanations and allow them to be argued on the basis of what I bleieve and allow it to get to it's logical conclusion? I'm afraid that from what I've experienced here, very few can. And, will the individuals be able to accept the explanations? Some maybe, not all.

When you say you're a veteran, does this mean of the armed forces in active duty? If yes, then hats off and all respect to you! You've kept the country free and safe. You've made sacrifices that many can never ever begin to dream about, myself included. A large proportion of our family are/were in the Police Force and we know the sacrifice they had to make to do their job, especially in RSA (my country) where the Policemen and women are targets for the criminals and where there's very little justice for cop killers.

Freedom of religion; I'm all for it. Freedom from religion; I'm all for it. But, you need to also understand the viewpoint of alot of people, myself included, who believe in Jesus Christ as their personal saviour. In a Biblical Worldview God is supreme in all and informs all. Alot of individuals cannot explain this adequately or with the proper restraint. Do I believe that the church should play a role in government? To a limited extent, yes. I believe that democracy and private land ownership is Biblical. Off hand I cannot think of a true Christian Theocratic government. I may be wrong. Alot (as far as I know) countries with democratic governments have Christian foundations. Democracy is Biblical. Freedom of choice; I'd say so. Does freedom of choice stop me from talking about and sharing my faith? No. If someone tells me they're not interested in hearing about my faith, then I don't tell them. It's as simple as that, but, I'll certainly ensure my life is an example as far as I possibly can.

You say you're not a Christian; I accept that. Can you accept that I will pray for you?

CB, I have read it. I can't find very many christians who have read it though. I can't find very many christians who can tell what Matthew 6:5 says let alone adhere to it. Some have even told me they haven't gotten to that part yet. Most don't understand revelations and don't know anything about leviticus. So those people are followers of what they were told to think. No, I can't answer the question of where Cain and Able's wives came from and I would respectfully guess that neither can you. My point is not to put you down for your beliefs. My problem is with all those powerful christian groups who take millions from the poor to sue americans to force their way of thinking on the american public through the courts. They want desperately to force their brand of religion in our public schools, their brand of prayer, their brand of everything. If you don't believe me just look at what types of law suites are going through the federal court systems today. If you want to keep religion free in this country keep religion out of government and government out of religion. I promise you as a veteran I defended your right to believe whatever you want. Will you defend my right not to believe as you do? More and more today religious tests are given before you can run for office, get a job, or even join a club. It is going to far and needs to stop before this country has its version of Europe's religious wars. Everytime I tell someone I'm not a christian they seem to freak. As if it is a personal attack on them. I can go on and on but I'll let it go for now.

I give Jacob Banks a lot of credit for sticking it out in this discussion.

Unless I missed something early on, I don't think he's told anyone they're going to hell (though I've heard that kind of thing a lot in other discussions and share Tonio's view of it).

He seems curious and good natured.

Jacob - please don't go away. I'm interested in what you have to say about my answers to the questions you posed.

Jwest,

The answer is simple. And, you know the answer; why don't you enlighten us? You're planning to do it anyway. :-)

I'm certainly not going to make your point for you to give you what you think is more amunition in your attempt to proclaim the Word is fallible.

If you're genuine about finding this answer then I have the following to say: I could answer your question for you, but, quite frankly I'd rather you'd open/buy a Bible and a Bible commentary and read it for yourself.

CB, At last some one will tell where Cain and Able's wives came from. Where the people of Nod came from. You say the Bible has all the answers, then answer my questions please..

Hiya Lily,

I hope you're well?! Lily, I would like to ask you a straight forward question: do you feel that to have no doubt about what our faith teaches us is in some way inferior or indicative of a un-enquiring mind? Does one have to instinctively doubt or question absolutely everything that gets taught to us, or, can you accept the possibility that while alot of us do question and don't always have answers, that this is in fact ok, since perhaps not all the answers are there to be had?

Another thing; while it is easy for individuals to claim that the Bible and Christianity is wrong, I've seen no evidence that as yet convinces me of this notion. Am I any less enquiring? No, my enquiring mind has made me land into ALOT of trouble in the past, but, sometimes not having an answer to everything is an answer in itself. It does not make the Bible any less fallible since I believe and it has been proven over and again that the Bible has no inaccuracies or contradictions and is totally inerrant. It does not make God any less real; God is about knowing as well as experiencing. The Bible berates those who keep on seeking signs and wonders although this has been canonfodder for those who say it is so that the writers of the Bible can get away without proving it's legitimacy; it really proves nothing other than God expecting us to have faith which is the evidence of things unseen. It does not make the Church wrong; granted, alot of atrocities have been committed in the name of the church, but, history needs to be accurately examined to see the full extent of the motivations behind those in the "church" of that time sanctioning these actions. Not all of us consider all churches to be true Christian churches.

People, it is ok for people to disagree, and I'm sure you've all encountered those who have disagreed with you in a less than loving manner. But, don't be found guilty of the same. Trust me, I've been there. Just because someone does not agree with me does not make Christ any less real, they just have not seen the "life" so to speak.

I love what you say in the following sentence: "For me, just because i discover the source of magic and how it's created doesn't make it any less magical, if anything, it just enhances it's awesomeness." In my life I have discovered the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the author and the finisher of my faith. I have found His Word to be alive and real. I have seen evidence after evidence validating it. I have seen counter-argument after counter-argument dismissed by the Word and by proof and evidence. I have read the Word and not found it wanting. I have accepted Christ and all He means to me. I have accepted the calling not only to preach Christ, but to defend the faith. Will those who disagree with me EVER agree with me? Probably not, but, there is a life hereafter and sooner or later everyone will meet the Almighty God. I've met Him already, and...as He says in Genesis when He reviewed His work on the different days of the creation...it was...and is...good!

So Lily what's your point? I missed it.

Jacob has almost a childish approach in all his questions, and he really doesn't have anything to back them up except blind faith and that awesome full feeling in his heart that tells him he doesn't need another way, he doesn't need to believe another thing. He's gone as far as he wants to go when it comes to exploring and understanding his world and that's fine, i almost envy him for it, but on the other hand, where people like Marco Polo are concerned, it gets exhausting to have a debate when someone is going to throw out preachy bible backed arguments. I think most of us here were probably raised in christian homes and received decent enough educations that we have the ability to think for ourselves. Of course that's not hard and fast, because there are lot of people raised in religious homes, with better educations then mine, and they somehow manage to hold onto the fantastical teachings of their religion, without doubt. Miracle or scientific anomaly?
Most of us have heard the old saying, "taken with a grain of salt." For me, i'll take almost anything at face value, for a split second, but then I have to wrap my brain around it, find out everything I can , from as many sources as i come across. Religion becomes dangerous when not tempered with reality and facts. For me, just because i discover the source of magic and how it's created doesn't make it any less magical, if anything, it just enhances it's awesomeness.

"Some people choose to cross that line and it makes them sound convoluted and ignorant all the while calling the people who don't think as they do morons or damning them to hell. It's just frustrating and it seems that most people are tired of it. Discuss it with an open mind and try not to impress your beliefs on someone else."

Marco, I agree with you for the most part. I would caution against equating calling someone a moron and damning someone to hell. Granted, there have been plenty of attempts on this site to convert people to either Christianity or atheism, hampering the debate. Still, to damn people to hell is offensive on a transcendental level. It's the equivalent of saying that people with the "wrong" beliefs deserve to die. There are many religious people who are kind and decent to others, but who still believe that adherents to other religions will spent eternity roasting in a lake of fire, as if following the "wrong" religion was the moral equivalent of murder. I have been unable to resolve that contradiction.

There is a better way. Don't be so judgmental and listen to what others have to say. Example, I know Jacob has a strong faith and respect him for that, I personally disagree with him. How am I to get my point across if I don't counter his thought. Then I too can state my position and maybe back it up with experiences I have encountered. It's tricky.

I am not saying that there needs to be rules, although there should be some common decency when discussing things. There is a line between discussion and preaching. Some people choose to cross that line and it makes them sound convoluted and ignorant all the while calling the people who don't think as they do morons or damning them to hell. It's just frustrating and it seems that most people are tired of it. Discuss it with an open mind and try not to imprees your beliefs on someone else. It may seem like you are doing good work by so, yet all that is being done is affirming the other persons' opinion that you are an idiot. I just wanna know if there is a better way.

Marco Polo
Would you then give the list of rules we are to follow and exactly what we are to say and how we say it. That would be a big help

How come when these post are put on here, there is always a group of people who feel the need to preach? Why is that? Are they threatened? And if so, by what or whom?

And that's right e-fav, to feel right about being here. To experience the awesomeness of being part of it all for however the brief moment in time we are here. We need to quite worrying about all this supernatural stuff and just for once be us. We are taught that we have no right to our own selves and joys of life without equating it all to a loving God that will hurl us to eternity of damnation without our understanding exactly what this God wants. Man heard thunder, ran out of his cave, saw lightening, ran back in a said "It's mad at us". G.W. Bush, a man of towering faith in God, sentenced thousands to die because as he said he consulted a higher father and that higher father told him to kill. I think not. We are still a primitive species racked by superstition and fear of the unknown.

Jacob - thanks for persevering.

Here's my answer to your question:
"When you see these things (sun rise, a star filled night, a new born baby) what do you say? what do you feel?"

I say, “how beautiful, how lucky I am to be alive and experience these things.”

I may even say “Thank the Lord” out of habit, but not to thank a supernatural being -- I’m not thinking about science or God.

I feel overwhelmed, awed, close to tears, sometimes. I feel like clapping my hands and dancing. Sometimes I do. I feel grateful to have the experience and grateful to share it with others. On a few occasions, I’ve even felt transported, engulfed and at one with the universe.

Jacob Banks
If the bible was to be taught( and in Georgia it is ) how are the teachers going to keep from completely confusing their students. Jacob where did Cain and Ables' wives come from? Who populated Nod, and the rest of the lands after Adam and Eve. Incest?? How do you explain it is all right to own slaves as long as they come from another country. Churches and ministers don't bring it up nor do they bring up any thing else from the Bible if it doesn't make any since or they can't somehow defend it. Are you to teach intolerance is ok as long as it is in the name of your belief. The reason you are tired of this argument is because it so hard to defend on the surface. I suggest to you to live to enjoy today, be kind, help others and quite being so self centered as to how special you are as compared to the rest of us. I have tired of that attitude long ago. When I see a beautiful sunrise and and other acts of nature I say what a wonderful planet we live on and it's too bad we don't take care of it. Again I'm sorry that churches and ministers do a bad job of teaching morality, mostly because of their own behavior, but the bible does not belong in the public school systems to be abused by religious zealots. I do not trust a religious person to be fair. It won't happen.

It makes me sad that such things need to be discussed. I must admit, I'm drained by this conversation because I can not take these slings and arrows that threaten to pierce my innercore. Science is a nice thing but, to say "through science all things are possible" that sounds oh so very wrong.

When I see the sun rise, a star filled night, or even a new born baby child I sigh and say "Man, praise God."

So I pose one last question which could quite possibly be my last post.

When you see these things what do you say? what do you feel? will you say "Oh Praise be to man's all powerful science! Look what man's science has done"?

Science is not how things happen. But simply a word evil men use to try to explain to themselves why they don't need God.

All because you can measure it with a ruler doen't mean God didn't do it.

All because you say "Life is powered by chemical reactions." well God can't be behind those chemical reactions?

Got an answer? if so what causes that?

Science is not the end all be all. God is.

Bruce,

No, my intention is that from the age of 15/16 (where we normally enter the equivalent of grade 10) that religious studies be an elective. And, most parents will not have a problem with their own children receiving a "broad strokes" education of other faiths if their faith is the primary focus.

The problem, however, is that from grade 10 most of the children in RSA study subjects that help them to enter a university course they want to study; they usually choose 6/7 subjects, so, religious studies will have to be an added subject, and yes, ethics and morals as a subject is not a bad idea, but my PERSONAL view is that the teaching of these may have more of an impact when taught within the framework of your own faith. Ethics is a good idea though, but, in most of the courses in ethics I went on it became a "fuzzy set of ideas" with no set foundation at best. If you are an athiest then your choice is obviously non-faith based.

Like I said, I have no idea how the USA does things in their schools, so this is from my personal home grown perspective.

Thank you Bruce and John M for indicating that comparative religion can be taught in the public schools without sectarian violence.

I'm in NY and my kids also learn about comparitive religion - in High School. But teaching about religion is very differnt than teaching religion. And having it taught in a liberal environment like NY is quite different- can you even imaging an unbiased class in comparitive religion in small towns in Texas, Iowa? etc?

I live in a blue state, a VERY blue state, and our public school history curricula include a survey of the world's major religions. My daughter's textbook back in sixth grade very objectively and respectfully offered chapters describing what believers of each faith believe.

If we get rid of this, we will have ignorant children. Don't they have to know a culture's prevalent religion to know more fully the people they are studying?

Now, this has to be done in an unbiased fashion. The teacher should never endorse or criticize any of the religions being studied.

I am surprised that so many people are not aware that comparative religion is already part of elementary and high school curricula.

Jacob
Where is the proof that any religion will give you eternal or everlasting life? Other that the fact that it is written in a book that tells you everything in he book is true, where is the proof - other that faith - which is another way of saying "I sure hope so".

Religious studies as an elective? Now you are asking elementary age children to actively select a course in religion? Or to choose to study other religions? First of all that's not how it works. For the most part, children can't select electives until high school, or perhaps late middle school. And are you really thinking that most parents will allow thier young children to study other religions in school? Get real.

Teach children ethics and morals without teaching them religion. Let them learn about religion at home and if they are intellectually curious, on thier own time, or when they get to College.

I certainly cannot comment on the educational structure of the USA but in my home country (RSA)Biblical Education was most certainly a requirement up and till high school (junior and senior high equivalent). My feeling is that, if possible, religious studies should be an elective of sorts and that the individual can choose to study the faith they follow with a general overview of other faiths. In that way a overall view can be created of other faiths all the while strengthening the faith to which the individual adheres.

But, easier said than done; the logistics behind a task of this nature is of a magnitude greater than ever imagined.

John M asked:
"I would like to see an answer to Jacob's question: Even if you could assemble an organism, how would you breathe life into it?"

No need to. Life is powered by chemical reactions. If you can put an organism together, it will power itself. That's why we eat and breathe. We get energy from our food. The energy ultimately comes from the sun.

"How could the building blocks of a cell randomly come to together and animate themselves?"

This question confirms my view that people in the US really need to learn more science and critical thinking. Teaching comparative religion to high school kids is a luxury the US can't afford while the general population is so ignorant.

Who says the building blocks of a cell come together randomly? I think you should learn about evolution. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. It is one of the best books I've ever read. It explains evolution in such detail and so clearly and simply and that even a fundamentalist could understand it :-)

The building blocks of cells don't come together randomly. The processes by which cells get built has taken many millions of years to develop, via many small incremental changes. Each step is random, but the process of evolution is not random. It is driven by natural selection which is not random.

I would like to see an answer to Jacob's question: Even if you could assemble an organism, how would you breathe life into it? How could the building blocks of a cell randomly come to together and animate themselves?

Jacob Banks, you say, "Please if I have insulted you I am sorry but please, you do not need be so sarcastic toward me."

No, you didn't insult me, and I admit I was being a bit sarcastic, and I also meant what I said. There have been many Christian nations in the past. They were often known for torturing and slaughtering non-Christians. Somehow, it was all right with God. God also seemed in favor of Christians (Crusaders) going into other countries for the express purpose of converting and killing - mainly killing.

So, I think people who put their religion before their country really ought to think of finding their own country where they can't harm others. Granted your proselytizing efforts would be thwarted, but that fits me fine.

Jacob, What I’d most like you to do is to put your country before your religion, at least while you’re still living here on earth. I think, according to your religion, you’ll have an eternity to spend in God’s country.

Jacob Banks

You believe that the Bible is the word of God handed down through man and that for YOU it establishes that God created man and the world. This is your prerogative.

It is the essence of FAITH to accept, without question or challenge to logic or scientific premise, the tenets of whatever is being propagated.

That is why you can believe in Christ and a Muslim can believe in Allah, a Hindu in Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc. (all said to be manifestations of one God).

From an objective point of view, one of you will be wrong, unless one postulates that there are multiple Gods -- but we cannot go there since both Christianity and Islam say there is only one true God -- perhaps this means they acknowledge more than one God but the other is (others are) not true.

Whatever.

While you are free to believe what you believe, it is not appropriate to use your FAITH, rather than your knowledge, to challenge science. Not only are you wrong, but you appear ignorant when you do so -- after all, what would you say to a Muslim who says your God is not the true God? You would, I hope, say, "Hey believe what you wish and I will believe what I wish."

The real problem in all this stuff is that while science -- physics and biology -- provide great evidence for the Big Bang and evolution, there is NOTHING to explain how it was caused or why (in the sense of purpose as I said in another post).

It is to fill this void that religions have made a superbeing or superpower the answer and called it/him/her God. The next step is to try to define God and we have various attempts at that -- Hindus and Jews from thousands of years ago, Christians from about 2000 years ago, Muslims from a shorter time, Christian Scientists, Mormons, etc., etc.

The simple fact is that there is NO PROOF that any of these versions of who or what God may be, is correct. One either accepts a particular version or not.

It is worth reflecting that the choice of which particular version to believe is dictated 98-99% of the time by which "faith" one is born into, rather than by independent inquiry.

This is not to say religion is bad, but rather to say that people's beliefs come mostly by accident of birth and without inquiry as to validity -- as I said earlier, it is the ESSENCE of faith to BELIEVE whatever a book or a group belief says.

There is not much point to debating whether religion trumps the BIG BANG or evolution -- the approaches for each inquiry are totally different.

The best we can do is show tolerance and say it is your right to believe what you will, but not necessarily to force others to believe it.

Realist

The reference in my post to frogs and chimps was a sarcastic reference to the ignorant post by Keltwhistle or whatever his name was.

Robert wrote in response to my post about teaching about religions:
{On the topic of teaching "religion" in public schools, I'd first pose the question, what defines a subject as being "religious?"}

I did not say that "religion" should be taught, but rather that kids should be exposed to the fact that different people believe in different concepts of God (or not) and have different practicies. Describing what these are, for example in a comparative religion course, is not teaching "religion."

{Right now, to teach that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is a violation of the alleged separation of church and state.}

Actually, you don't have this quite right. School systems have attempted to substitute Creationism (either by that name or under the banner of Intelligent Design, as a federal judge noted) to the exclusion of (or sometimes in conjunction with) evolution. What this amounts to, is asking kids to accept the version of the Bible as reflecting how man was created. In other words, it is the acceptance of one religious view of creation. That is, in effect, establishing a religion, which is what is prevented by the First Amendment. See below for your third paragraph which has a related point.

{BUT, if you teach that "in the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded and out came the universe," that's not labeled "religious," but rather "scientific theory."}

Realist has pointed out that this is a simplistic view of the theory of the origin of the Universe. Note that the theory does NOT purport to say WHO caused what are believed to be the very earliest moments (note absence of evidence or ability to prove anything earlier) or WHY (in the sense of what was the purpose?) they happened.

The teaching of scientific theory -- i.e., the application of knowledge to extrapolate from the evidence is quite different from religion.

{Curious.}

That is why there is nothing curious about any of this.

Jacob Banks:
"When all is said and done you die. But your wrong and you stand before the throne of God. what will you do? what will you say?"

It seems foolish to pick one particular fairy tale, in your case Christian, and wager all your hopes on that one for avoiding eternal damnation. It seems especially foolish to choose a particular fairy tale because it threatens more than the others if you don't fall in line. So let me ask you, what if you picked the wrong one, and some other fairy tale was the right one? What if you stand before the hole of the cadre of giant pink Rabbits in the sky and they ask, why did you not obey and put your faith in us? What will you do? What will you say?

"Sure the dots match in all the right places to make it seem like God isn't there but if your wrong will it be worth it?"

Rather than trying to pick among fairy tales, I instead try to use the greatest gifts we have, our brains and our ability to reason, to connect those dots, to ponder, better understand, and marvel at the universe. Surely if a creator did exist he would be more inclined to see his creation used rather than rejected? Surely he wouldn't waste his powers in a game of attempting to fool us by giving only the illusion of dots in patterns? Our ability to live in and fully experience this world, whether it is created or not, is certainly more respectful of creation than your view that it is one long test for the moment we step up to the throne?

"eternal damnation for science?"

Again, you misunderstand--science is merely a method of testing ideas, a way to apply our powers of reason. It has brought you everything that distinguishes how we live from how people lived 2000 years ago, and I bet you aren't renouncing any of those advances. Ask yourself why you become so selective in accepting our scientific understandings of the world, rejecting discoveries only when they conflict with the 2000 year old story you cling to, all because you're afraid of what will happen to you at a mythical throne. Ask yourself why anyone would put faith in the idea that we will be damned for using our brains.

Somebody else,
I liked your post. I like to say that science represents what we know about reality, religion represents our ignorance. God is our explanation for everything we don't know.

As you said, the more we learn, the less there is for God to explain.

This is why there is a negative correlation between education, particularly science education, and religiousity.

I was arguing before for educating people about all of the major religions, but after reading lots of posts on this forum topic, I changed my mind. I think teaching about religion objectively in public schools (at least in the US) is a noble, but hopeless cause at this time. Lets teach more science and critical thinking instead.

Jacob wrote:
"I pose to you the same questions I posed to REALIST"

I get annoyed that religion prevents people from bothering to learn about reality. It has taken thousands of people a couple of hundred years to figure out how life works, and we haven't got it all figured out yet, but you expect us to give you a simple answer.

I suggested you study some biology. I can't explain how life works in five minutes. I studied biology for two semesters and I only learnt the basic stuff. I'm not a biologist. If you are too lazy to learn what the real answers are and you want to believe in ancient stories instead, that's OK. I respect your right to do so.

What I did learn was that biology is just complicated chemistry. That doesn't make life any less special or wonderful, but science has not found any magic. Life is just chemistry. Science now has a pretty good understanding of the basics of how life works. We are pretty complex machines and it might take another hundred years or maybe even several hundred year to figure out everything about human life.

You asked "Why do we live?” I didn't address that question at all because I don't see any reason to believe there is a why. I think we just do. If there is a reason why we live, I don't know what kind of answer you are looking for. One answer is that we live to replicate our genes, but I doubt that's the kind of answer you wanted.

If my answer is unsatisfying, that's understandable. It is natural to ask questions like that. Religion provides convenient, simple and comforting answers, but that doesn't mean the answers correspond to reality. I think reality is much more wonderful and much more complicated than the people who wrote the Bible could have imagined.

I'll ask you a question: Why do you think God exists? The question can be interpreted in several ways and it is deliberately ambiguous. I'm interested in any and all answers.

Regards,
Realist.

churches are for religion, schools are for learning. since most churches are run by homomphobic moneygrabbing mulahs/priest/ministers and are full of hokus pokus scams it would be an awfull idea to polute our schools with all that bs!! lets only teach facts not fiction!!

nope

This is what he'll ask "Will science give you everlasting life?"

If you want to know the weather, do you ask God or Science?

If you want to know why the sun moves in the sky, do you ask God or Science?

If you want to know how children are made, do you ask God or Science?

If you want to talk to your far away Grandmother, do you ask God or Science?

ad infinitium.....

result: in the past, all questions were asked of god by ignorant natives.

in the future, all questions will be asnwered by science.

When Science finally has all the answers, what will you ask God ??

RAFAEL

Once again an honor to speak with you

1. God is constantly substaining life.

2. Say you had unending power and knowledge it would be a small feat to support this universe or tend all factors of the universe every second.

3. The argument you give suggests that God might not even exist, that earth is a planetary anomaly. that a random explotion placed earth in the exact distance from the Sun to support life, and when all is said and done, when you die all you do is stop living. Well sir, you have far more faith then I could ever hope to obtain and
ask you one question you can answer

When all is said and done you die. But your wrong and you stand before the throne of God. what will you do? what will you say?

Sure the dots match in all the right places to make it seem like God isn't there but if your wrong will it be worth it?

eternal damnation for science?

If this is to fire and brimstone for you just say so I don't want to force my beliefs on you

Sayings are nice, though often meaningless. You don't think science can give answers, but you haven't explained why.

Again, you show misunderstanding of science. It doesn't "prove" things in the way you seem to think, although it is a rigorous process that improves our understanding by rejecting poorer explanations in favor of better ones. That's why we understand and can do so much more than we could 2000 years ago. And science doesn't deal in facts in the way you seem to think. Facts are nothing more than our best explanations. Explanations certainly do constitute the answers that we rely on.

I wouldn't be able to attempt an answer to your questions unless I understood better what you were asking. But in anticipation, I'll leave you with a few questions.

Do you believe that living things continue to live without the constant input of a supernatural force, or is God always at every nanosecond and in every living thing playing a supernatural role in keeping it alive? Or do you think just at the start of life, the laws of the natural world are tweaked to give life to individual things, to each bacterium dividing every 20 minutes to each virus infecting living cells to each ant and tree? Why would God design a universe that needed such constant tending? If you accept that supernatural forces are not involved in keeping things alive, why must something supernatural be involved at the start? In fact, science has uncovered the cellular processes that are involved in creating a living organism from the moment a human sperm enters a human egg. Unlike in the middle ages, we can now recognize that supernatural forces aren't necessary. So why continue to invoke them?

REALIST

Last time I checked the Bible is the world's best selling book ever and is also the most commen book stolen. Seems to me lots of people want the book.

ANONYMOUS

well I'm all out of biology textbooks so if you would please enlighten me on how life lives

RAFAEL

I appreciate your education. I honestly do, that someone of such knowledge would choose to spend their time debating with. But, I must say that science, though very intriguing is not the end all be all. Not everything can be proven using science. There is a saying "Science has all the facts and none of the answers, Religion has all the answers and none of the facts" Well the answers can't be measured using worldly methods. I pose to you the same questions I posed to REALIST

Jacob wrote:
"How are beings animated, as what causes them to actually come to life?"

I suggest you study some basic biology.

Regards,
Realist

Jacob wrote:
"What you do not understand is that the Bible was not written by man but through him. Whether you chose to believe it or not is where you and I differ."

Sorry, but I would expect a much better quality book from God.

REALIST

I must hand it to you, you have set forth a most intereting quarrel. What you do not understand is that the Bible was not written by man but through him. Whether you chose to believe it or not is where you and I differ.

I pose two question to you.

How are beings animated, as what causes them to actually come to life?

If you can answer that them answer this.

Why do we live?

"I do not mean to insult you but is your tactic to use words that give you the illusion of knowledge? I'm no scientist but I'm going to throw this out there. The belief that millions of years ago single celled organism mutated due to certain enviromental anomalies causing it to produce millions of years later you and l has nothing to do with electronic, automotive, or medical science. but it's just a hunch"

My tactic is to rely on my education. By saying you see no connection, you are only demonstrating how little you understand of science, how it works, and the role it plays in your life. Science is a method that involves posing, testing, and potentially falsifying hypotheses. This method has been applied to provide answers to many questions that have built our modern understanding of the world. The fundamental approach that has led us to make advances in transportation, technology, and medicine is precisely the same approach that we have applied to understand how evolutionary change happens and how all living things are related. To dismiss as a "hunch" the volume of information and understanding that we have gained from science and our powers of observation and reason puts you firmly in a position of ignorance and, to many religious thinkers, constitutes a rejection of the discovery of God's creation.

Jacob wrote:
"I do not choose to believe what man say is fact."

Yes you do. You choose to believe what men 2000 years ago said was fact, dispite the fact there there is no evidence of any kind to confirm what they wrote. You do this because you have been indoctrinated into believing it without any evidence.

Why do you disbelieve what other men and women say today based on an overwhelming amount of evidence.

You wrote:
"I will follow the Truth rather than the evidence found by man."

You talk about Truth, but how do you know what Truth is? I base my truth on reason and evidence, not on stories in old books.

RAFAEL

I do not mean to insult you but is your tactic to use words that give you the illusion of knowledge? I'm no scientist but I'm going to throw this out there. The belief that millions of years ago single celled organism mutated due to certain enviromental anomalies causing it to produce millions of years later you and l has nothing to do with electronic, automotive, or medical science. but it's just a hunch

Bill T--your rant is uprooted from reason. Atheism is no more a religion than is the failure to believe in key gnomes as the source of misplaced keys. Evolution is not only at the core of all biology, but rejecting the overwhelming evidence for it amounts to a rejection of fundamental tenets of all the major sciences--essentially our entire modern understanding of how the world works. I bet you rely on the fruits of that understanding every day when you drive your car, communicate by phone, and benefit from medical care. I'd love to hear what you think all those microbiologists and paleontologists will say to convince me that your 2000 year old world view is where I should develop my understanding.

Jacob Banks: see my first point to Bill T., above. It's a shame that your world views refuse to join your 21st century practices.

Quote from REALIST
"The Christian one is no more believable than many others."

Like the the big bang theory

REALIST
I choose to believe in a high calling. I do not choose to believe what man say is fact. I will follow the Truth rather than the evidence found by man. But we are just men and it doesn't matter what we THINK because either way the Truth will be the Truth.

E FAVORITE but what's the point of all Christians living togather without those who arn't? "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on it's stand, and it gives light to everyone in thehouse. In the way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Matthew 4:14-16

If all the Christians live away from those who are not who will bring you the good news?

Please if I have insulted you I am sorry but please, you do not need be so sarcastic toward me

Jacob,
I suppose you heard God's testimony?

All credible witnesses that I know of have dates of birth and their existence can be independently corroborated. This can't be said for God.

I'm pretty sure, you read it in an old book. All books that I know of were written by people. There are many stories about gods in many different cultures and many different versions of creation myths. The Christian one is no more believable than many others. There are many people throughout history that have claimed to know things about God, but they are mutually contradictory. There are people today who claim to have chats with God. If they are telling the truth, then God is a very unreliable witness because what God has said has proven to be wrong over and over again. I prefer to base my ideas about reality on evidence.

I didn't say that God didn't create the universe, I wasn't around then, but none of the authors of religious books were around then either. I can only go on the evidence available today. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the universe has existed for many billions of years and that we are the result of evolution.

Jacob Banks - I think you and God and others (Jesus, for example) who feel they are Christian before they are American should go somewhere and start a Christian nation where you could live together in glory and not be bothered by all our secular laws.

Maybe if you listen hard, you will hear God's voice leading you to the new promised land.

Okay REALIST

Were those scientist there when it happened? Did they witness this major historical event that didn't even happen. God was there in the begining and He says that he created the man and animal seperate from each other with his spoken word

I got to say no matter how much evidence you want to say they have but a credible eye-witness will always rules out any so-called evidence

And I must say God is a pretty creditble witness

Bill T wrote:
"feel free to find out what thousands of scientists including microbiologists and paleontologists have to say on this subject."

I have ... and your point is? Almost all biologists and most scientists in general accept the theory of evolution as fact because it is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. What century are you living in?

You know what's nice? Man thinking he's smarter than God. Man will always but himself before God. The opinions of his fellow man rather then the Truth of God. "But whoever disowns me before man, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." Matthew 10:33. Don't want to hear you say seperation between chruch and state because I'm a CHRISTIAN before I'm and american. Because nations will rise and nations will fall but the kingdom of God lasts forever.

We already have a state sponsored religion.....it's called Athesim, and evolution (a psuedo-science with no facts) is its springboard. Just in case you think I'm being foolish, feel free to find out what thousands of scientists including microbiologists and paleontologists have to say on this subject. You might find out that you were the one being indoctrinated.

Robert wrote,
BUT, if you teach that "in the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded and out came the universe," that's not labeled "religious," but rather "scientific theory."

BTW, science is currently still learning a lot about the beginning of the universe. The idea that the universe simply exploded out of nothing is a pretty naive view of current physics.

If a theory says that the laws of physics simply stop applying at some point in space/time such as the big bang, then their math is almost certainly wrong. There are now plenty of theories that don't involve creation of matter/energy out of nothing. Unfortunately the math is very complicated, so the matter of the beginning of the universe is by no means settled by science.

Regards,
Realist

Robert,
You just got the point the Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have both been making that religion and science do overlap. Those who claim that they address separate questions are simply wrong. These is considerable overlap.

But whenever science and religion have disagreed, science has always been right and religion has been wrong. It has never been the other way around.

If you understand how religion and science work it should be obvious why this is the case. The most important thing about science is that it changes as more facts are discovered. Religion, on the other hand is about preserving ancient myths. It resists change even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is wrong. Science gets closer and closer to understanding reality (all of the modern technology that we take for granted including much that is based on evolutionary theory is proof of that) but religion is stuck at the level of ignorance that existed thousands of years ago.

Robert, you just explained why I became an atheist. I realised that most religions are just not consistent with logic or known facts.

Keltwolf and Anonymous,
What's all this nonsense about people being descended from frogs or chimps?

This just illustrates that the US education system is in a mess. Humans are not descended from frogs or chimps. All life seems to be descended from a common ancestor. We are relatives of both frogs and chimps, but we are much more closely related to chimps than frogs.

I have changed my opinion on this topic. The education system can't sucessfully teach evolution (which is well understood and not controversial amongst scientists) because of religious meddling and bias. I don't see that teaching religion (about which most people disagree) is going to work any better. I think it’s a lost cause.

I doubt it is possible to teach even the historical facts about religion without religious bias and meddling.

Willem - you say:

"churches are for religion, schools are for learning...lets only teach facts not fiction!!

I agree - in school, let's teach FACTS ABOUT religion only, otherwise, all people will ever know is the religious INDOCTRINATION they get in church.

It seems like the first thing people need to understand is the differece between academic knowledge and indoctrination.

I don't understand how we think that we can leave the subject of religion out of any course of study. But teacher's will have to be taught about religions, all the religions of the world. And then pass courses on how to teach children about religions. Is this possible? Of course it is! Aren't our kids exposed to everything else? If we seek diplomacy to replace violent wars, and truly want peace rather than conflict, knowledge of those to whom we are different will bring us to better undertanding. They hear about religions only in the context of wars being fought and having been fought. What kind of message does this give when we top these topics with the threats of terrorism that they have to live with everyday! We teach that the most violently powerful will win. It'sa shame that as the world gets smaller the barriers have to get thicker. Ignorance leads to our downfall, segregation, darkness and deaths. The subject of religion has been more easily banned in our world than the acquisition of assault weapons. Children want to learn;it's not fear of what they learn but our inability to teach them. We need to prepare ourselves for this. As adults, most of us know what our lives would be like without faith in something. Don't our children deserve to stand safe and secure in confidence that they can be fully informed, or do we send them outside to play all the time asking, "Is that all there is?"

On the topic of teaching "religion" in public schools, I'd first pose the question, what defines a subject as being "religious?"

Right now, to teach that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is a violation of the alleged separation of church and state.

BUT, if you teach that "in the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded and out came the universe," that's not labeled "religious," but rather "scientific theory."

Curious.

churches are for religion, schools are for learning. since most churches are run by homomphobic moneygrabbing mulahs/priest/ministers and are full of hokus pokus scams it would be aa awfull idea to polute our schools with all that bs!! lets only teach facts not fiction!!

I REALLY wish those who use the terms freedom OF religion vs freedom FROM religion would realize that freedom OF religion IS freedom FROM religions other than our own.

SEEMORE,

Thanks for your post above, which I just came across. I've checked your post at the end of the JD Crossan thread. I appreciate your continuing our conversation.

I could argue with your points in favor of the existence of a divine being - I'm familiar with arguments against the anthropic universe and the other points you bring up (humor aids evolutionary survival in several ways) but I don't feel like doing that today.

Despite my internet persona, I'm not that argumentative in person. Also, as I think I mentioned, I'm agnostic about the existence of a God. Whatever is, is, and my thoughts about what is won't change reality.

If there is a God who demands that I believe in It, it's certainly not a benevolent God, and whether humans believe in It or not, It'll surely find ways to keep tormenting people, just as the narcissistic Yahweh did.

You have my best wishes. Perhaps our paths and posts will cross again in this cyberworld.

Bruce wrote:

"A poster talked about tolerance and teaching that yours is not the truel religion. How can you possibly hope to deliver that message when everyone thinks thier is the only religion that matters?"

What I wrote was:
"Kids are "taught" or, actually "learn" that they belong to a particular religion. Somewhere along the way, they are "taught" that theirs is the true religion. This is generally not likely to be a self-discovered "truth" but rather one of indoctrination.

If there is any value to teaching religion -- actually ABOUT religion as many have mentioned it is the hope that exposing young kids to the notion that theirs is not necessarily the true religion and reasonable people believe in different forms of religion -- as well as that reasonable people choose NOT to believe -- will lead to an understanding that someone else's choice of another religion or no religion should not be a cause of hate."

Bruce, I think yours is a valid observation and it is PRECISELY that which I was addressing. The ONLY way to overcome the inward-facing attitude about their religion being the ONLY true one -- a belief that leads to thinking of other religions as less worthy and believers in them must therefore, be misguided or ignorant or fanatical, or worse -- is to teach kids that it is the NATURE of religious faith to believe that yours is the only true religion.

However, reasoned people will come to at least acknowledge, if not accept, that different people have different beliefs about which religion is the TRUE one. If kids learn at an early age, that much of what you believe is a function of your family, perhaps they will not attribute to their peers, ignorance or misdirection or evil motive because of what they believe.

What is the likelihood that we can do this? Not even close to 1% -- if one looks at the non-religious divides, Republican vs Democratic, Conservative vs Liberal, one can see how those have been elevated to levels of religious ferocity.

Perhaps if the question had been framed differently: Should children be taught the principles of tolerance and freedom to believe or not believe expressed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution? - we might have had a different debate.

Religion is and has been the problem from the dawn of man. Keep it free for it thrives in persecution. Giving the children a good look at religion is probably the best thing that can happen to relieve the problem, religion itself.

I noticet the media is now harping, "faith in God" separate from "faith in religion." I wonder why?

A poster talked about tolerance and teaching that yours is not the truel religion. How can you possibly hope to deliver that message when everyone thinks thier is the only religion that matters? the Jews think they are the chosen ones and "thier" god is the only god? The Muslims believe that everyone who is not Muslim must be either converted to Islam ir killed - there are numerous references in the Koran that espouse this philosophy. And the Christians think the Jews killed Jesus? Look at all of the RECENT conflicts - they are all based on religious intolerance - Nazi Germany - systematic anti-semitism that dated back to early Christians - as well as the Vatican which espoused blood libe as late as 1914 (, Palestine (Jews vs Muslims), Balkans (orthodox Serbians vs Catholic Croations), Kashmir (Hindus vs Muslims), Sudan and Migeria (Muslims vs Christians),Iraq (Sunni Muslims vs Shiite Muslims) and similar situations in Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, the Causasus. So I agree with many of ou that we must teach about the dangers and results of religious intolerance in schools but to try to teach about the principles of these religions- in a fair and unbiased manner? _ forget it!

Ann O:

Partial vouchers? Absolutely not. In many religious schools, there is no course, action or thought that is free of religious content. Moreover, we the people, as it were, never agreed to provide tax support to private schools of any kind. Public schools only or no tax money. Parents do not have any right to take my tax money out of the public schools and reallocate it based on their religious or philosophical choices.

If you really want fairness, then everyone that pays school taxes may assign those taxes to any school system, public or private. That way, parents get to make choices, but I am not forced to subsidize private education where I have no input as a citizen regarding what is taught.

Norrie Hoyt,

Hi, Norrie. I didn't forget you, but I think I probably took too long to get back to you. If interested, you can see my post to you at the bottom of the J.D. Crossan thread. Take care.

Keltwolf, the best evidence that you are a descendant of frogs and chimps is the relative lack of intelligence in your posts. There is a certain arrogance about you -- to think that somehow God would have thought a creature like worthy of creating. And your "proof" is that it is miraculous. Indeed.

Kids are "taught" or, actually "learn" that they belong to a particular religion. Somewhere along the way, they are "taught" that theirs is the true religion. This is generally not likely to be a self-discovered "truth" but rather one of indoctrination.

If there is any value to teaching religion -- actually ABOUT religion as many have mentioned it is the hope that exposing young kids to the notion that theirs is not necessarily the true religion and reasonable people believe in different forms of religion -- as well as that reasonable people choose NOT to believe -- will lead to an understanding that someone else's choice of another religion or no religion should not be a cause of hate.

Can this be accomplished? It is hard to see how the logic of calling one's religion the true religion to the exclusion of all others, can be viewed as other than a proclamation that the others are WRONG.

When humans believe that others are wrong, the response is to try to "rectify" the situation. Shunning, ignoring, persuading, exiling, beating, killing, maiming, are in the spectrum of responses as are accepting and understanding.

This is a tough call.

Perhaps the time has come to consider whether the notion that the First Amendment is license to practice hatred is consistent with the idea that one should not be prevented from choosing a faith, i.e. what one believes vs. what one practices.

I have no problem with what anyone wants to believe or not believe. I do have a problem with the idea that people should be free to act out their beliefs in public with practices that infringe on other people. Whether it is a Jihadist hijacking a plane in the name of religion, or a Christian fundamentalist killing an abortion clinic worker in the name of religion, there is not much difference.

Side note 1: Atheism is not a religion. Someone said, if atheism is a religion, then not saving stamps is a hobby. I have struggled long to figure out why religious people want to say non-religious people are religious.

Side note 2: "Faith based initiatives" are not alternatives to big government when they take money from the government. In post-Bush America, faith based initiatives are a branch of big government. Constitutionally, an illegal branch at that.

Now then, where were we? Oh yes. Teaching comparitive religion in grade school. Great big old can of worms. I would be for it if it could be done rationally, but in the US there is absolutely no chance of that.

JUSTICE BLACK wrote: No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."

ANN O.: Does the mere saying what a religion teaches constitute a religious activity? Not necessarily. All teachers of college religion courses -- some of whom are non-believers -- teach what various religions say is true and ought to be done. Were religion taught in grammar and high schools the same thing would be true.

The issue is not whether or not a child is taught *that* Religions X teaches A, but whether the child is taught that he or she must *believe* what a religion claims and *do* what a religion proposes. The latter, it seems to me, would constitute establishing a religion, which is what the Constitution forbids.

Whether or not it is practical to have religion classes in public grammar and high schools is another question.

I do think that religious instruction is of value to society for many reasons. But it must not be taught *as indoctrination*, as something that ought to be believed and the practices ought to be done.

What is the solution? I lean towards *partial* vouchers. The religious schools cannot and should not be given state money for religious indoctrination, but they could be legally reimbursed for the courses without any religious content. Teaching the Pythagorean theorem does not establish any religion.

But there is another related issue that needs to be considered, I think -- ethical instruction. Should public grammar and high schools teach ethics? I certainly think this is needed, at least on a high school level. Kids need to be taught the virtues necessary for a democratic society -- truthfulness, honesty, acceptance of responsibility for one own actions, keeping one's word, etc. Of course, some people think that because these virtues are also taught in religion classes that they are thereby "religion". Well, it all depends on what you include under the term
"religion". I say religion and ethics overlap -- they share some subjects.

But, again, this issue poses some humongous practical problems.

Ann O.

HOT OFF THE WIRE:

"Georgia public schools move towards teaching Bible

"By DOUG GROSS
Associated Press
Thursday, March 8, 2007; 9:16 PM"

ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WAPO TODAY

Notice that no other religion's scriptures are being taught.

Want to bet on whether the classes will have an Episcopal or a Fundamentalist cast to them?

This Georgia law shows exactly why religion should not be taught in the public schools!

re·li·gion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

I appreciate what TEACHER had to say above. I feel that perspective is extremely valid.

I'm curious how this would work out. Would an average teacher have to teach a belief that was not one of their own? If so, when they refused would there be ramifications?

Come on now..look at the war we are involved in.
There are 2 major groups with different beliefs trying to wipe each other out in Iraq. That is how INTENSE religion can be. Do you really want that kind of passionate pressure applied to children? Teachers?

Someone with a firm Jewish faith would teach Christianity? Or a Christian teaching Islam? Or an Islamic teaching Wicca? I don't see it and I can't see that it would work without bias. Let's see how those living in the south feel about spreading the word of any other faith without bad mouthing it.

CHRIS above made a great point in what he wrote.
Right off the bat he shows that certain religions don't even fall under those which are taken seriously. Paganism is a form of practice in religion whether one likes the idea or not. Read the definition above. Greek mythology is considered religion. I just hope no one takes it literal any more. That would be weird if some people still believed in those stories...but so is believing in an old man building a boat to save all the animals on the planet. Drives me nuts.

As I understand, pastors, priests, spiritual leaders of any sect spend many years learning about the origin, structure, system, morals and practices of their specified faith. How is it feasible to place this burden on our school teachers? What system will be used to cover all religions? Well you can't just teach a child your favorite religion of choice..wouldn't that be neglectful..not allowing a child to compare and contrast? Let them decide?

I think over all people have a good vibe with in themselves. It is a shame that religion gets in the way of the positive messages. Religion could be useful if there wasn't a mob mentality behind it.

I get a kick out of those you say "society today is falling apart due to the lack of faith...".
Society world wide has always had it's flaws, it's atrocities, it's misguided momentum. It just seems worse now because there are so many more people to contend with and an overload of information thrown at us everyday.

Nothing has changed, we just hear about more people more often. So please save the idea that if more people were "good Christians" the world would be better. That goes for Catholics, Jews and Muslims also...Buddhists are peaceful so let's leave them out. How many wars have they started lately?

I don't know. I respect the Constitution of this country and I am tired of seeing lobbyist or groups with agendas making attempts to rip it to shreds. We live in such an awesome country, why are we always trying to screw it up?

Dave, all promoters of Bible in PS, be sure to include all onterpretations and especially the ones that make the most sense.

Now take interpretation 1,501 of Exodus, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Do you want that taught to the children? Why not? Show some evidence, Bible OK that Moses did not sell his soul.

That there was a being in the ball of fire must be taken on FAITH. Faithing that, there was a being in the ball of fire, faith required to say it was God and not Devil. The proof above that God exists also proves God's "opposite" Devil also exists, by the method of proof employed.

Which one answers your prayers, God or Devil? Which one does Pat Robertson speak with to get his info, God or Devil? Are you, Pat, actually saved or are you demanding to be let into hell?

I always have one question when discussing the Bible. Actually several concerning genesis. Where did Cain and Able's wives come from. Where did the people of Nod come from?? I have been told that that is one of God's great mysteries. Now I can just imagine saying that to an eight grade boy like say little Jerry. The next time he took a math test and didn't answer the questions all little Jerry would have to say is that's one of the great mysteries.

I mentioned Bible study since it is the religious instruction that does have precedent in the US school system. I would have no more trouble with my kids being taught about the Koran than I do with them being taught from a secular basis.

Happy to illustrate the problem for y'all :)

BTW - my kids aren't in the government schools for several reasons, not least of which is the problem I see with trying to teach anything worth knowing apart from a valid moral base. And in my view an agnostic or atheistic starting point is just a dead end.

When I decended unto earth, I made it clear that I wished my father's message to be spread to all corners of the earth. Yet...you insolent fools have decided to disobey me!

Teacher, amen, and you won't have to many intelligent kids either.

When I decended unto earth, I made it clear that I wished my father's message to be spread to all corners of the earth. Yet...you insolent fools have decided to disobey me!

All religions would need to be taught in schools to be fair. The parents will get to choose which ones they want their children to attend. If any parents are atheists or agnostics, then their children will need to attend an ethics class; to start this in college is too late. Whether a person believes in Christ or any faith, the spirit of good conduct that most all religions teach is still an important part of growth. Waiting until the college level is too late. The culture of family continues to suffer based on too much freedom of today's youth, and thusly, religion, ethics, faith, etc, are needed. Remember, the conscience of the state is the church, as Martin Luther King Jr. had said. It's hard to argue against the need for faith in school, conscience, based on the track record of poor family life in the USA and the consequences it unleashes on the youth, posted all over the news everyday.

Folks:

I teach elementary school, and trust me, there is no time in the school day to cram in yet one more subject, especially a highly controversial one such as religion. With all the state and district tests kids now have to undergo and all the preparation necessary to teach an 8 year old how to correctly fill in the damn bubbles, we don't have enough time to do a decent job of reading, writing and math, much less science, social studies, pe, music and art which have all been seriously curtailed to keep test scores up as it is.

Please get real. The public educational system is not designed to be everything to everybody, nor do they pay teachers enough to take on yet one more of society's moral issues. We have enough headaches being accountable to teach kids how to read when they have parents who don't even bother to converse or read aloud to their kids at home, nor can be bothered to get them to school on time, or at all. And this is from a school district in an upper class, university town, not an urban poverty one with worse lack of funds.

I have enough on my plate advising modern working parents how to be the adults and set boundaries in their own households so their kids will be ready to learn at school and do their homework, much less implementing the curriculum and getting kids ready to test well. I simply do not have the time or energy to get into philosophical debates about how/when/where/what religious curriculum should/should not be taught when we don't have the time to even teach math thoroughly.

If you're so concerned about what's being taught in our public elementary schools, get yourself down to your local school and volunteer to help kids read and write and see what life is really about during a school day, rather than spending all this time on a website hashing it out with rather bizarre logic whether god/evil exists and thus should be mentioned at school or not.

I have worked many jobs in the private sector and taught for years in public schools, and being a teacher is by far one of the most stressful, political, criticized, underappreciated, over-dictated jobs out there. We are expected to be everything to everybody at all times with responsibilities over things we often have little or no control over. The general public basically has no clue what it takes to do a decent job at this profession, yet is very eager to jump in and decide how to run things from their own political/religious point of view without regard to the entire school population.

Everyone keeps complaining that there's not enough highly educated people going into and staying in a teaching career. Wonder why? Turning our schools into even more political & religious contentious zones is not exactly going to be the solution. Perhaps it's because those of us who do have advanced degrees have options to go back out and double our paychecks for a lot less effort/stress. Keep making this profession a battlefield for ideology, and you're not going to have many intelligent teachers left.

Ralph,

Since when is paganism a "splinter group". Paganism is a conglomeration of some of the oldest belief systems in the world.
Or are we only supposed to teach the cultural & political histories of monotheistic religions.

Native Americans were pagans, and that might help explain why some tribes were passive in their resistance to white settlers and others were agressive. Or does that not have anything to do with American history?
Many traditions that christians hold as their own, were borrowed from paganism, there was a whole political campaign to destroy pagans brought down by the Romans. Paganism is still alive and has continued to live throughout history, before and after all these "monotheistic" religions tried to devour it. All they did was drive it underground.

People like you are the reason religion should stay out school, because you'll always have an agenda for it, and that agenda will always include active exclusion of those that threaten and/or offend you.

Ralph: "The religious beliefs of splinter groups like...Pagans or Wiccans aren't important to understanding world politics, world history, and world cultures". - Actually, I'd submit that statement is incorrect. Three of the worlds' most recognized civilizations in early times (Greek, Egyptian, Roman) were all Pagan. Pagan is an umbrella term that covers all religions that are not monotheistic (worshipping one supreme god), and those three civilizations certainly were not monotheistic in any sense of the term. Paganism as a whole, especially from its roots, has quite a bit to do with understanding world history and world cultures because so much was contributed from those cultures long before Christianity came on the scene. If nothing else, look at the rest of the planets and moons in our solar system. Every one of them is named after a figure in one of these Pagan systems; primarily, they're Roman.

Patrick: "Removing God out of our schools has been one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th Century and has accelerated the decay of values we have seen in our society over the last 50 years. I believe that by all means religion should be permitted as an elective course in all learning institutions. It should not however be a requirement. Let each school decide what is best for them.". - So where do we start? Who decides what is "best for them"? Regardless of the landscape of what could be be termed as a type of geo-religious area, there is never going to be one area that is nothing but Pro-(Fill in the blank). As far as the stressor that removing Christianity from schools is the sole reason for moral and social decline over the last 50 years...can you back that up? Is that a provable, universally accepted theory? Can you point studies to me in this fact that prove unequivocably towards this? Call me silly, but I'm in my final year of my Criminial Justice bachelor's program and I'm all about references. Otherwise, we're just talking "fact" in the name of personal perspective and opinion. And opinion, in and of itself, bears out no fact at all.

Personally, all this continuing assault on trying to insert-reinsert religion into public schools can't be anything more than a ploy...what's the reason for getting it into the schools, and why is so continually pushed? Discussion ABOUT religions and their contributions would be fine, I would think...I remember seeing references to all of this in my 9th grade World History textbook, and they certainly didn't write it to be bending towards one or another. But once you start saying one is better than another, it becomes taxpayer (i.e., Government)-sponsored endorsement, and this is where the line must be permanently drawn and never crossed. This is what churches and their tuition-charged schools are for. Otherwise, don't expect me to be happy for charging me for someone else's religious education, which happens on Sundays.

I don't want to read in the newspaper that a child of a religion who ends up in a class about a religion different from theirs is harrassed and hazed because of that religion. (Don't tell me that it would never happen. People who have polarized religion in their veins are the pit bulls of humanity, and children can be vicious enough in their own right). This is a Pandora's Box that has no business being opened in a public classroom.

Otherwise, if we're going to introduce ANY God into the public school system, let's make the tax burden for these courses fair. If this happens, let's make the churches fair game and tax them, for they should support the message that's being spread just as much (if not more so) as the rest of us, plus it's their message that's being spread in the first place. In that instance, they should be charged more.

To paraphrase George Carlin, if any organization that is covered under the IRS' 401(c) tax-free protections (which would include the Wiccan religion along with every other organized church sect in this country) are so interested in politics and social morality, let them pay their admission price like everyone else. They want "The Word" spread in public schools? Then they ought to pony up huge. Otherwise, keep their pulpits in their own buildings where that kind of religious message belongs.

How about we put the responsibility for religious education and morality solely on the parents? Now there's a novel idea...

that's do not make it my business. a gremlin changed my words..

Go to church if you want to learn about religion.

Why do adults feel the need to decide what children should believe in? I have yet to see any one religion fulfill it's purpose over any other religion. If one actually has studied religion, he/she would see that comparatively most religions speak the same stories and offer the exact same morals. So why spend budgeted money on something that is only necessary for "some"? (I would say for "the fearful", but that might insult those who might be religious)

Religion is a double edged sword.

For some it heals, for others it is used to hurt.
Society should keep the religious belief systems it values to itself or with in a place of worship.

I am very tired of being assumed Christian because I believe in God and I am American. Even as a child, I realized that there was something very wrong with being forced to believe or study in something intangible and barbaric. Why should anyone even consider implementing religious studies in our schools?

The information is available at anyone's fingertips (ex. internet, library, church).
Every religion has the belief that it is the one true belief in spiritual guidance. Most religion is based on fables and ridiculous stories that could easily be challenged. There is very little fact to be taught from religion. Rules, habits and lessons are available from religion to help society function. However as one can see on the daily news, any side of any religion uses it as a soap box to preach against the wrong doings of others. I rarely see it practiced as it was intended.

Why do we need to spoil the minds of children any longer? Knowing God comes from with in. Please keep your beliefs out of my child's mind. It appears to be the same as passing on prejudices.
I'd rather my child learn for himself what he needs to believe in order to not fear this world.

If all else, it is illegal to fund religion.

Oh, and all those Christians who are screaming about "In God We Trust" not being on the coin.....
Do you really think God cares about money? I think it is better if God was removed from government altogether. That would free him up to do what he does best.

Thanks Dave, you illustrate the problem perfectly. The debate is on teaching religion and you take that to mean Bible study. Would you welcome your child coming home saying that they are required to read and understand the Koran to pass the class?

Sorry I am passionately against vouchers. Law says I have to fund public education and I will. We have property taxes that pay for public education and my taxes are way to high as it is. With vouchers property taxes will sky rocket out of control. Public school will be left to deal with the disabled, the problem children and the flat out poor. Churches today are all about how much money they can get and very little to do with saving souls. Religious schools will be the best buildings my money can buy. Hell no! Plus they, religious schools, are not accountable, I have no representation, remember taxation without representation, it hasn't been proven they can do a better job of education our youth then public schools. If families and churches can indoctrinate their children to fear what they want them to fear do make it my business to do it.

To 1in7billions ...

You make some interesting points but you certainly have NOT persuaded me that I want Christianity taught to my children!

"Culture, litteracy and even scienc owe a lot to christianity when you take a little time to look at it ..."

Really? I disagree. Christianity has had a long history of being OPPOSED to scientific advancement. How about when the church's inquisition convicted Galileo of heresy? (BTW That was for the mere suggestion that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around!) This has not changed. The catholic (and other churches) STILL oppose many areas of scientific advancement.

On the other hand, do you know what religion was a leader in mathametic and scientific research while Europe was in the Dark Ages? Islam. (But I wouldn't want that taught to my children either).

In answer to your question ... is there a place for Christians? Sure, as long as they think there needs to be.

Is there a place for Christians to force their beliefs on others? Never ... especially in our schools!

oops, the link I included above has the letter he answered. Here's a link for the letter he wrote.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

he closes with!

"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man"

Bill,

It seems as if your last post is saying that there is no absolute evil - is that what I heard? That evil or "bad things" are simply a result of our culturalization? Don't you thing murder - one human killing another human in rage, jealousy, whatever - is wrong in any society? If so, where does that universal understanding of evil come from?

There was a time when you were not considered educated if you did not know what the Bible said. It think we are worse off now that so few know what the Bible says. I would welcome a well taught Bible class in the public schools, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it. I also see the pitfalls of drawing a line between indoctrinating and educating in Bible teaching. Unfortunately many who read this and strongly agree with that issue seem to see NO problem with the public schools indoctrinating kids with pure secular humanism.

btw - that wall of separation thing...
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/baptist.htm

Note how he signs it!! and, contrary to a posting here, he WAS a sitting president at the time. just google if you can't remember these things.

Sorry Keltwolf not Kentwolf

focused on arguement not name.

Kentwolf,

1. Odds suggest yes.
2. Odds suggest there is something akin to life as we know it on another planet.
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Again based on odds, not unreasonable that this could happen by mere chance. The person that wins the lottery sees it as a miracle, those who lose see it as luck.
6/7/8. Humans created the construct of good and evil. Using those, it is easy to call what the mentioned peoples do as evil. I admit that I would not like to be subject to the activities stated. But that is because I have been socialized to dislike them.

Opposites are the result of human perspective. That we perceive them proves nothing about "one true source"

Any other questions?

Funny that "vouchers" are not mentioned.

I am a Christain, I would prefer that Christain children be taught religion by a Christain not by a public school teacher that may or may not know the finer details of the doctrines which I believe. I'm sure the members of other religions would want their children taught by the leaders of their faith.

Move the voucher system along so parents can choose which type of education they want their children to receive. Spending money in court trying to push religion on goverment schools would be better spent assisting parents in sending their children to schools of their choice.

Just remember, that voucher ALSO allows your neighbor to send his kids to the school of his choice ... and you may not like what that school / religion is preaching.

I'm amazed at the amount of discussion - some of it civil and some not so civil - on this topic. I do believe that a reasonable adult understands that the major world religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) have had and are having some impact on world events. But understanding what is behind that impact is not so easy without a basic grounding in what each of those religions stands for, and what the differences are between them.

As a born again Christian who has made a strong effort to educate myself on the differences, especially with Islam, I think it is a critical teaching that we all would be better off understanding. Teaching about beliefs, practices, beginnings, etc. of the major religions does not come close to evangelizing or proslytizing. And I agree with the earlier writer who asked how you could possibly teach about events like the Crusades or 9-11 without having some basic understanding of the religious beliefs that led to those events.

As a Lutheran Pastor, I couldn't be more against the teaching of religion in the public schools. To teach about religion in the sphere of history and social studies, however, is a necessity. These subjects could not be taught otherwise.
To teach religion, well that's my job so to speak. This is a choice that people make for themselves and for their children. To place the teaching of religion in the public school as a required course takes this choice away.
Mr. Weber, you say that parents are ill equipped to teach religion and the the church has other interests than teaching religion. Make no mistake, you are talking about a minority of clergy and churches. If humanity is creative enough to establish a just society, then as parents I would think they are creative enough to choose a house of worship for themselves and their children, and bear responsiblity for obtaining an adequate religious education.
We certainly ought to expect teachers to be professional and teach in a non-biased manor. Of course we expected the F.B.I. to be professional and respect the law and the boundries of their authority, but we know that doesn't always happen.
Peace Y'all

It has always amazed me that religious people are not at the forefront of championing the separation of church and state. Actually atheists have little or nothing to loose, while those with strongly held beliefs have a great deal to loose! Consider the reason many came to the New World: the freedom to practice their respective religions without interference from government and to pass on those beliefs to their children as a heritage of belief. This is the foundation of the separation policy, not rampant atheism and immorality. I suspect that this issue has been coopted like so many others to convince people to vote and act against their own best interests, to the benefit of one political power base or another. Whenever this old saw starts up you can bet that any kind of deep thinking will go sailing out the window on a gale of platitudes and "talking points." Religious belief by it's very nature involves a great deal of transfered knowledge... ie. establishment of Faith... which is not independently discoverable (not science.) I wonder why it is that people who support prayer and so forth in public schools think that their brand of faith will be The One that is taught? Ask yourself, honestly, if fundamentalists would be comfortable with deep examinations in their child's classroom of the Wiccan faith. Consider the compelling argument that Christianity is a cult of medieval Middle Eastern mysticism, and that people with Celtic heritage come from Druidic backgrounds, converting only under threat. And so on. Personally, I think broadening young people's faith options an interesting prospect. Maybe we would see more of them filling the ranks of alternative religions, moving away from the violent legacy of the tribes of Abraham. Perhaps as they explore other ideas and religious practices they will necessarily realize that whatever faith they grew up in is not the Only Way.

It does not in any way belong in school.

I agree, we should teach about religion in public schools.
We should teach that religion is the most destructive force known to humanity.
We should also teach our kids independent thought and that the mind numbing effects of organized religion will lead to their enslavement or demise.
We should teach them that they have the right to mount an insurrection against anyone who tries to ram their arcane beliefs up our asses with public funding, violent insurrection if need be.
We should teach them that the neo-cons who are pushing this subject are the same ideologues that we left Europe to escape and subsequently fought at home during the Revolutionary war.
We should teach them that the only encroachment we should allow on the separation of church and state is the abolition of their tax exempt status. After all, why should everyone have to pay taxes on the income they generate through their own hard work, unless of course you generate your income by lying about the nature of the universe, spreading myths about our destiny, and claim a closer connection to divinity than the rest of us enjoy. Yes folks, they are ALL snake oil salesmen selling an arcane fable.

Just reading this post confirms the fact that no one person or small groups will be able to properly decide on how religion will or should be taught in public schools. I'm sorry churches are failing people so badly, but their failings cannot be made up in public schools. The first thing that will happen is abuse. Religious people will not be able to control themselves and be objective. Just look at past Kansas school boards. The old nose of a camel comes into play here. Once fanatics feel empowered all hell will break loose. Keep religion out of public schools.

As a side bar I have watched two young people the same age grow up. One was forced, yes forced because he didn't want to go, to attend weekly confirmation for the last two years. The other was given a choice and decided to wait until she understood what it was all about before attending. The young man didn't seem to get much out of it as he is, lets just say, not doing so well in society. The young lady is doing very well in school and getting ready for college, doesn't drink, smoke use drugs or anything else that we would not expect from a person her age. Bottom line is all those people that say religious indoctrination makes a person better should really think twice about that statement. It is a proven fact that young adults that grew up in a religiously strict home are leaving their churches in droves.

Why not try teaching the children basic humanitarianism without shoving the man in the clouds down their throats. Children can learn to be moral (this term is used very loosy here since moral values can mean many things) without having religion, especially many religious ideas shoved at them, at a place where they should be learning basic fundametal teachings. And it is the parents job to raise their children, not the public school system.

Ann - The problem with your solution is that children get their moral grounding from the time they are born. Without moral education and a values based foundation in life, what kind of society are we raising?

OMIKRON - It's a shame that there aren't more people like you. The majority of all the wars in the world are/were caused by religion. I think peace would be possible if everyone stopped trying to ram their religion down everyone elses throats. Let the children learn religion at home or later in life in college or whatever.

Patrick - That was very well said.

The letter which is referred to that holds the mention of "Separation of Chruch and State" was written by T. Jefferson. While a Founding Father, he was not President - or any other official at the time.

I believe teaching about Religion is a no brainer - those who post here that you cannot teach about History without talking about Religion and it's place in the history of the world are correct.

Since the dawn of time man has been looking for an answer to the question "Where do I come from?" Yet, today, in our society, the ONLY acceptable answer is Darwin.

To my knowledge, there has been NO archaelogical find of the "missing link". And, while I acknowledge that I share DNA with chimps and frogs, I have seen no proof that I descend directly from either. My assumption about the DNA similarities is this - I have written MANY documents in my career - Meeting notes etc - and I have started with an existing document (modifying is easier than starting from scratch) So, I think God is pretty smart - and He probably used the materials at hand and modified until He got what he was after - mankind.

Seriously - if we do not move back towards a society grounded in moral values, we are doomed.

Hi!

Maybe, we can look at it another way...

Should kid go to "school", i mean "school" as we know it?

School was always a place for indoctrination, dissemination of ideology and ideologies. Religion is no exception to that. So why accepting some ideologies and rejecting others.

Your answer may well come with a "science must be taught not religion"!

Well, fine!

...if you go over the curriculum in many sciences, particularly social science, you will fin a lot, I mean a lot of ideology inserted amoung what we can conceive as facts and analysis (...hopefully objective for a minimum). The line parting science from religion is blurred and was for a long time.

On the other hand, as many stated before us, "ideas have consequences". The IIIrd reich, Red Kmers, Military dictatures, communism, existensialism, hippies, beatnick, ...name it have proved it again and again. So we have to decide and the choice is simple: Do we want christanity to be taught to our children or not?

We have 2000 years of christianity behind us. You can talk about the Crusades, the Inquisition but also about a lot of good, altruism, liberty and happiness also. Culture, litteracy and even scienc owe a lot to christianity when you take a little time to look at it : looking for physic laws and coherence in an absurd and chaotic world is impossible. Christianity starts with belief system that welcome meaning and order in the world an believe in the capacity of the human mind to grab it!

And when you think about the Crusades and the Inquisition, ...it reflects more "old politics and struggle for power" than the teachings of a guy who let people crucify him ...

So there it is... Will there be a place to be a christian in our society. Always the same question and was for the last 2000 years. All others generation since then answered YES and gave their life for it.

What will you do??!

Yes there is no "wall" in the constitution.
As, I recall it was described in a letter by
either Washingston or Jefferson to a church that
was extrememly fearful of government influence
on them. That said.....

In my view, we need to teach "Tolerance and Understanding" as a course and use that name.
If cutural and religious differences could
be "described" without proletyzing/preaching
then future generations might understand that
these differences aren't anything to get worked up over thus saving the future of mankind.

A major part of the curriculum of such a course must be Gulliver's Travels, particulary the story of the Lilliputians who went to war over
which end of the egg was opened first

Swift's point in this parable is that people argue about the stupidest things and
faith and what people believe or don't
tops the list of stupid things to argue about,
because eveyone knows,.. There's no winners in
a religious argument.

Conclusion: Schools are for teaching eveything
relevant in our world. Clearly, judging from
the gut-wrenching posts that are all over the
web about this topic, religion is very relevant
and needs to be discussed openly. The 70 million
Department of Education Budget should be completely given over to teaching teachers how to
teach this subject. (God) knows,;-_),
the department of education could be easily done without.

To all those who profess there is no God, I have a couple of basic questions for you.

#1 - Do you believe there are planets out in space that are inhabitable?
#2 - If the answer to the above is yes, then do you believe there is life on those planets?
#3 - Do you believe that life - as we know it - truly came out of the mothingness soup of the universe? That there was no "intelligent design"?
#4 - Have you ever seen the birth of a child? A puppy? A horse?
#5 - If the answer to the above is "yes", can you truly say there is not ANYTHING miraculous about that?
#6 - Do you believe that child abusers, rapists, murderers, serial killers, Hitler - are/were evil?
#7 - Do you believe that those who mutilate, maim and torture are evil?
#8 Do you believe in the existence of evil?

There is nothing that exists without it's true opposite. If evil exists - and it does, then the power of good - from one true source exists. Thus, God exists.

Look at where we are with "religious" teachings not allowed opposed to when religious acts were permitted. Now it is anything goes but God, if there ever was a time we need to learn of Jesus it is now some moral fabric needs to be "sown" into the nation again. Can't seperate Church from state because people are the Church and people are the state. Let's pray like we did after 9/11.

This religious intiative that George W Bush wants to intitiate is against the establishment clause

Patrick --

Freedom means: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

Your line: It is "Freedom OF Religion", not "Freedom FROM Relogion" (sic).

Being free in choice or action does mean freedom "from" religion too. The folks that wrote it just wanted to be clear that other folks can choose their religion and not have one or the other forced upon them. If you don't believe folks are free from religion in the US your're mistaken.

I don't like to put folks into catagories, but most understand the definitions of the words so I appoligize if they are offended...so for other folks who beleive they are atheists are more than likely agnostic because no can really know for sure one way or the other.

Maybe someday we will find out, but I doubt it. So, lets just make the world a better place to live everyday, smile and take care of the kids and the elders and I bet everyone will be much happiers...heck, go have a BBQ and invite some folks over for dinner and talk about supporting the troops fighting in the desert and how YOU can help them.

Practicing religion and teaching about religion are as different as studying the Rodney King riots and inciting a crowd to riot. Here are some answers to the authors hilarious questions.

"Will every variation of religion practiced in the United States be taught?"

No. The idea is to teach about religions as historical factors and present-day cultural phenomena. I'd like my employer to pay me to sit through a lecture on the difference between Shia, Sunni, and Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq, but I doubt that that will happen. So at least children in public school will have a chance to learn about what's causing the peers of their older siblings to come home dead and wounded.

"If not, why not?"

Because they're not important. The religious beliefs of splinter groups like the Branch Davidians and Pagans or Wiccans aren't important to understanding world politics, world history, and world cultures -- or American politics, history and culture.

"Who decides what is taught and monitors what is taught?"

The school boards will decide what is taught and monitor it through the school administration and the textbook selection committee. Then the ACLU will file suit to have it stopped and federal judges will be able to administer the program if they choose.

The Bible is a proved hoax. The students of history have something to "shoot at," identifying the facts surrounding it's origin to say nothing of the real hoistory from which it springs. Give the young minds the opportunity and they will find the truth.

http://www.hoax-buster.org has the best "real history" of the Bible so far. Open minds can and will fill in the details that are there in the written historical record. I predict a sudden interest in reading hieroglyphics. Already happened!!!!

Those who's fortunes rely on Bible truth - I feel your pain.

My son graduated from High School in 2005 and said "Dad, as soon as the teachers said the King created his own religion because he did not like his current religions rules that's when I decided it was all made up and I didn't and don't want anything to do with it!"

My son was raised a Catholic, he is now agnostic. He keeps an open mind but certainly believes religion belongs in the church, not in schools. I support this position as well and I think everyone else in the US does also. Now we all know there are radicals out there and they think they know better than we do...those are the ones who scare me. I also have no problem with people donating their own money to support the church and other charities, but the taxes should not.

We've come a long way since the common era and know a lot more about how things work in the real world. Let the belief in the supernatual remain a personal choice and everyone will be better for it in the long run.

Please stop refering to the United States as America. Dont forget that America includes South,Central and North America. The United States does not equal America.

It seems most Americans don't understand what an established religion in.

In Britain, the country America had rebelled against, the Church of English, headed by the King (and Arch Bishop on a spiritual side) was supported from the company purse, and other religions were routinely not permitted, practices banned, etc.

In MODERN Europe, many countries levy a special tax on Jews, which NOW goes to support the state approved Rabbinic counsel and its institutions. The non-Orthodox hate this, because in all countries the established and recognized Jewish government is Orthodox.

Before the formation of Israel and the expulsion of Jews in Muslim countries, Jews were permitted to live there as Dhimmis, paying a Dhimmi tax that would support the Muslim established government.

All European history requires understand the growth of the Church and the Protestant Reformation/Rebellion, because those events governed most European actions after the fall of Rome.

Steve:
You say "god gave us brains", but god didn't give us brains because there is no god. See where this leads? Really use your brain, regardless of where it came from.

James:
You wrote: "Atheism is a religion. It takes far more faith to believe there is no God than to believe there is".

I respectfully say that is YOUR belief. It is not mine. Belive in it if you like, regardless of how untrue it is.

How can you not teach religion at all? What possible explanation could you have for 9/11 without explaining to kids religion's role? How do you explain the difficulty we are having in Irag right now with out an explanation of the different sects of Islam? If someone sat down and talked to you about 9/11 by stating the political differences between nations, difference in wealth and past policies of America and never mentioned religion you would think they were crazy.

Steve - There is a huge difference between teaching religion and teaching about religion. You are correct of course, you cannot teach history withou a discussion of religion and numerous conflicts and events that were and still are caused by religious conflict. In fact I agree strongly that it is important for children to understand the religious roots of cconflicts and events that you mentioned in your previous post. But when you ask teachers to teach about principles of religion without introducing thier bias (even if they are athiests)you are not being realistic.

Jeff,

Atheism is a religion. It takes far more faith to believe there is no God than to believe there is.

What incredible, arrogant nonsense. How do you teach World History without mentioning religion? Do you leave out discussion of Roman and Greek mythology? You certainly cannot talk about Roman History in the 1st Century. The Crusades? Nope. The Inquisition? Nope. The Holocaust? God forbid. How do we even begin to understand the development of human culture, the rise and fall of civilizations, without discussing the religious and spiritual influences of and on those civilizations? What foolishness. God gave us brains or we developed brains through evolution for a reason. Are you arrogant enough to tell the rest of us that the use of human thought does not apply to religion in the public arena until at least age 18? How much more anti-intellectual can you be?

"While Anderson makes excellent points about the wall between church and state, I still believe that comparative religions courses would not breach that wall."

This article is about *mandatory* instruction in public schools, not optional courses. Optional courses to educate students about the differences in religion (and also what makes ideals from different religions similar) might serve to breach the gap between people of different religions. Personally, I couldn't care less what religion someone is as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me. But you really can't have "optional" courses that objectively teach the religions with no bias. So it's best to keep it out of schools and leave it to the parents (leaving responsibility to the parents, imagine that!) to make their kids tolerant of people of other faiths. Anyone disagree with me? Fine. Teach math, law and geography in Sunday school and I'll shut up. Until then, lets keep religion out of schools, since my science classes aren't allowed in your church.

Garth...respectfully, there is no such thing as the "religion of atheism". That is a concept and "belief" made up by people who need religious beliefs to describe those who do not believe in superstition/religion. The statement is a sign of ignorance and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding and intellectual rigor.

Removing God out of our schools has been one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th Century and has accelerated the decay of values we have seen in our society over the last 50 years.

I believe that by all means religion should be permitted as an elective course in all learning institutions. It should not however be a requirement. Let each school decide what is best for them.

It is "Freedom OF Religion", not "Freedom FROM Relogion"...

KEL, judging from your post I conclude that when history including religion is taken as an abstraction, facts and nothing more, then the Bible makes a very poor showing, historically speaking. "Some parents accussed me of saying the Bible is not fact" says it all.

Is the Bible fact? Why can't obvious things that would never be discarded like the tablet(s) containing the 10 commandments not be found? Can the "son of God" really come to earth, live for 33 years, preach and teach, throw the money changers out or the temple, get Himself crucified, rise from the dead, and float off to the sky, yet not appear in any "ordinary" writing of the time?

From the above litnany of what Jesus suppossedly did one stands out, throwing the money changers out of the temple of God. Pharaoh's, like all ancient rulers, were considered to be "sons of God."

Amenophis IV is a "son of God" that threw the money changers out of the temple of God. SHE also preached and taught ISRAELITES, died "on the cross" in 3 hours and her body has not been found. Did she come back to life and float off into the sky? Some say she did.

The only difference between Jesus and Amenophis IV is what can be found, in writing, of what they did. They did the same things and little or nothing more or less. Are they the same person?

Of the two, "Amen" and Jesus one is a historical figure with a written record while the other only appears in the Bible. Knowledge of Amenophis IV only goes back to the Napaleon ear for us. Constantine the great, actual "founder" of the Bible dispatched a Roman legion to "destroy churches" in Egypt. The tabernacle built by Amenophis IV, in the winderness, using ISRAELITES to do the building is the obvious victim of conscious destruction.

Tell those parents, "the Bible is a proved hoax." It's not the word of any God, real or imaginary but so much literary trash.

Get the whole story at http://www.hoax-buster.org It's history that can and must be taught to all the children.

Religion absolutely should not be taught in public schools. Putting aside my personal opinion that we would be better off as a civilization if there was no religion - since more people have been killed, and continue to be killed in the name of religion than for all other causes combined - how can you teach religion without introducing bias? Teachers are human and can't help introducing bias into thier lesson plans. And in fact will more than likely use the classroom as thierr own bully pulpit to espouse the virtues of thier own religion and the limiations and flaws with other religions. This in turn will lead to even more prejuduce against the "minority" religions. Leave it out of he classroom altogether and intoduce earlier classed on ethics instead.

I was tought as a child that there was only one "correct" religion. I was forced to go to a christian church for 13 years. Once I did some research and found out that there are many different types of religions and beliefs I refused to go to church anymore. I just could'nt understand how the different religions believe that their paticular beliefs are correct and every other religious beliefs are wrong. Everyone is entitled to thier own beliefs but by no means do they know for sure that thier beliefs are correct. I think that we should teach students that their are many different beliefs and religions out there and that there is no proof that any of them are more right/correct than the others.

Mr. Anderson begins by quoting Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, saying that the court believed that the constitution supported the idea that the congress "neither can pass laws whch aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another...."

I would remind those reading this that courts make decisions, not in isolation, but that express in various ways the current belief of its membership and the society in which they live. We, at a later date, then use these decisions in support of our arguments as if they are in fact a legal 'gospel.' Mr. Andersion, by quoting Black, wants his readers to think that obviously we shouldn't change the status quo because a well known jurist, writing for the Supreme Court, warns us against such change.

As a further deterrent, Mr. Anderson mentions a founding father, James Madison, and his belief that religion was superstitious, the cause of bigotry and prejudice, as an additional warning against changing the status quo. While, it is true that religion can, and often-times is superstitious, bigoted and prejudice, it is also the greatest force in society for uniting people from diverse backgrounds into a cohesive group that brings about social advance and innovation.

Mr. Anderson, also fails to mention that James Madison, although not a lone voice offering this opinion of religion, was not in the majority among his contemporaries, and that most of the founding fathers were religious men who profoundly disagreed with Madison.

I must agree with Mr. Anderson when he states, "Religious liberty is a precious freedom," and I like him, don't want to "put this right at risk by entangling government," but I must vehemently disagree with him when he says that public school is "a place where it (religious instruction) does not belong."

Over the last one hundred years or so, social scientists have catalogued a host of negative social behaviors which are destructive to the individual committing the behavior, those who are caught in interacting with such as person and destructive to society in general. Yet, given this scientific documented information, the vocal minority has yelled NO to Social Engineering in the name of "liberty" and "freedom." At the same time, this minority has used the same argument for keeping religion out of the schools, saying that the place for religious instruction is the home and the house of worship.

Unfortuneately, most parents are ill equipped to adequately teach moral values, religious doctrine or religious history to their children, and the house of worship in the United States is more and more concerned with falling membership, fund raising, the relatively new doctrine that wealth equates to God's blessings, and its own moral dilemma, characterized best by the Roman Catholic clergy's addiction to sexual abuse, but not limited to that denomination or that moral issue.

Given the current state of affairs, what better place is there than school to begin moral instruction early and on a universal scale?

Where I do agree with Mr. Andersion is that determining what is taught, and creating a system in which all, or at least the vast majority, of religious belief traditions are honored equally, or as equally as possible, will be the narrow sword's edge to walk.

But, we should keep at least three points in mind.

The first is that human beings are a creative lot and it is within our capacity to create a just system, even if the vast majority of our history reflects injustice.

The second point is that there are some, maybe many, religious traditions that we needn't feel obligated to honor, the traditions that James Madison undoubtedly had in mind when he made his statements against religion.

The last point, is our children deserve our best effects to create a society that honors them, that treats them morally and ethically and inspires and rewards them for acting that way towards themselves and others. If we don't interrupt the status quo, what kind of world are we leaving them?

Mr. Anderson, let's take a chance. Let's take a calculated risk. Let's make the effort to change the course of society through a determined effort rather than continuing to react to the unplanned changes society throws at us.

What do you say Mr. Anderson, do you have enough "faith" to make an effort and "believe" in its positive outcome?

First of all, let's be clear on differentiating between teaching religion and teaching ABOUT religion. This isn't about teaching kids what to believe - that would never be tolerated, nor should it. This is about teaching on a subject that is an essential and inate part of any society or culture.
It's just silly to think that teaching ABOUT religion is an assault on the 1st Ammendment. But there are those who follow the religion of athiesm who demand that only their religion belongs in the public square and who wish to eradicate all other religions. These are the new Secular Fundementalists and have no doubt, they will impose their religion on everyone at any opportunity.
"Gwen" is living on another planet. The recent case of yet another teacher having sex (do you notice that priests "molest", but teachers "have sex" with young teens - but this isn't about the biased media) with a student and is now on "administrative paid leave" demonstrates that the only way a teacher WILL be fired is to mention God in the classroom. Even students cannot bring the subject up yet somehow this isn't seen as a restriction to religious liberty.
With all due respect to the Mr. Anderson, the only (and very real) threat to religious liberty in America is from the Secular Progressives on the Left.

For those who believe religion, in any form, should be taught in school, I ask: Should a *formal* course on atheism be taught as well?

As a former social studies teacher and catholic school graduate, religion and education have been near and dear to my heart. I grew up attending religious instruction each day, based on the teachings of the Catholic Church - a much kinder and more gentler institution than the one I experience today. As an adult, I taught World History in a public high school for 8 years and the curriculum included the development, basic beliefs, evolution and impact of major world religions. These were always delicate topics, and I found that as long as I did my best to be objective and present the facts, continusously reminding my students of the difference between fact and faith, this seemed to go smoothly. We had great discussions about culture and how religion and culture are intertwined and the impact they might have on world events. These lessons not only provided basic information but thought provoking dialoge. As in my government classes and political parties, I did not take sides or "push" one belief over another. All that said, I certainly found myself on the hot seat a few times. Some students had objections based on religious beliefs to certain types of assignments. I listened carefully and searched for solutions. Some parents accussed me of saying that the bible is not fact and we should not regard it as such. I always found that Christian parents were more opposed to these sections of the curriculum than any other parent. I was often accused of being too secular or anti-christian - funny being called that after my catholic upbrining. These were the most difficult situations to resolve, sometimes it worked out and sometimes it did not.

I believe that religion, from a historical/cultural perspective must be taught in public schools. Religion or the rejection of it, plays a profound role in human interaction. It seems that we need to have a cooler head and try to understand each other more rather than reject without thought. Engaging discussions can help bring us closer together rather than drive us apart. We just have to keep an open mind and an open heart. To me, eliminating this conversation from our public arenas further inhibits our citizens from interacting. I think it reinvigorates stereotypes and barriers that divide us now and can be used against us in political or cutlural debates. A little knowledge and patience can perhaps help rather than hurt.

First, I was just wondering if anyone can tell me where the Constitution actually meantions "separation of church and state"?

Secondly, I would be very much against the actual teaching of religion in a public school. I do not believe that many teachers would be qualified, and I would really not want my son to be taught about religion by a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.

I do believe however that the subject of religion should not be as taboo as it is today. And make no mistake, religion is being taught, it is the religion that God does not exist!

Mr. Anderson,

I would like to debate just one of your statements. It appears that you take offense to "faith based initiatives". When will people learn that its going to take more than Big Government to address all of our social problems.
Such as addiction/alcoholism, homeless people and children, poverty, etc... I watched in disbelief through the 1980's and 90's as religious programs and government programs worked against each other. While people suffered. I for one was and am extremely happy that some religious programs are now able to work with government programs. But we have the radical far left here in local and state government that are screaming at the top of their voices that this practice has to be stopped. I believe in no political party, nor no religion. But I do believe in people working together to help other less fortunate people. I don't care where the money comes from. I write grants and programs for religious, private, and government programs as a private contractor. In our small town we have Faith based initiatives working with private and governmental agencies. Its working sir! Hungry children are being fed, they are recieving clothes and a place to stay. The same for adults. Our churches used to address these problems until the problems became to big. Like they have everywhere else. Now it takes a concerted effort on everyones part. People need to drop their insane political and religious views that keep people from being helped. I have never seen an adult, nor a child ask if the food, shelter, or clothes came from a church in over 20 years. They were just grateful to recieve help. the Treatment Center for addiction/alcoholism is 50 miles away. This center takes money from churches, government, and private now. Back in the late 90's it was on the verge of closing. Like so many other non-profit treatment centers that closed before it. We have people who are clean and sober now in this community as a result of "Faith based initiatives". We as a society have to quit "biting off our noses to spite our face". Just because we disagree with something does not mean it does not work.

The tax laws clearly violate every aspect of what justice Black had to say about the first amendment.

We are all being tithed in the name of God. Tax free income for churches, ordinary businesses. Tax exemption for the cost of ticket to hell ( http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul ) and property tax exemption for church real estate that measure in the mega acres. All that tax relief increases the tax burden on all except those that pay none, religion being the overwhelming biggie.

Only religions actually own real estate. The rest of us only rent, (RE taxes) from the government.

This is already a theocracy.

How are public schools teaching about the different political parties (assuming and hoping they are). Hopefully, there's a lesson in that.

I recall learning about the political process in Junior high, without feeling proselytized to. Since my parents were of different political parties, I'm sure I would have noticed the teacher's proclivity if he had hinted at it.

Gwen, I was addressing mostly the principle of teaching comparative religions, not necessarily the problems that may arise.

My first reaction is to say, "Well, if some teachers can't be objective about what they're teaching, then they shouldn't be teaching at all." That is obviously too simplistic. Still, I believe we should demand a certain level of professionalism from our teachers.

"Do you really think that teachers given the chance to talk about their religion of choice will all, as a group, be objective?"

The teachers who care about professionalism will respect the principle of objectivity. I doubt that many teachers are chomping at the bit to proselytize to their students. As you suggested, the ones who don't care about objectivity are already preaching in school (which is a failing of the principals and school systems as well as the individual teachers) so a comparative religions curriculum wouldn't change their behavior.

Tonio:
"if designed and taught properly."

There's the rub, isn't it? Too many public school teachers already try to indoctrinate students in a particular religion. (Believe in Christ or go to hell. This message brought to you by your public school teacher...)
Do you really think that teachers given the chance to talk about their religion of choice will all, as a group, be objective? As non-sectarian as "under God" and Ten of the thirty Commandments posted in the classroom.
Better by far to leave it out of schools entirely. If there's interest in comparative religions, an interfaith club will start up.

I believe it makes more sense to incorporate the subject of religious beliefs and practices within social studies courses, such as world history, and sociology, instead of being taught as a separate subject. Religion courses belong in a college curriculum where the subject matter would not run afoul of the "establishment of religion" clause.

While Anderson makes excellent points about the wall between church and state, I still believe that comparative religions courses would not breach that wall. In my view, those courses would not qualify as "religious instruction" if designed and taught properly." "Religious instruction" would be indoctrinating students to believe a particular religion's doctrines, which I agree is absolutely out of place in public schools.

Very well said, Fr. Anderson.

Actually, I have already imagined a few complications on other threads. You are right, it belongs at the university, and I am glad somebody can see this. By the way, I am an atheist but I do not object on the constitutional grounds you mention. To the contrary, the subject is fascinating and important and I would not regard such instruction as necessarily establishing anything. I am concerned instead for the nightmares that await any teacher that tries to tackle this subject in a balanced way at a public institution, especially in areas where there are not many different religious points of view. Bear in mind that this is a country where teaching evolution can be controversial. And as you say, who decides the content and tone?

All in all it is likely to get ugly in a hurry.