Christian Schools Bring Suit Against UC

[Faid1]

Originally posted by Fozzie_DeBear+Aug 31 2005, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fozzie_DeBear @ Aug 31 2005, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@Aug 31 2005, 10:02 PM
Oh I forgot, way back God told us in the Old Testament to hate Gays. Screw Jesus, the Old Testament is the real word!

Yeah and in Leviticus where all the Gay bashing justification comes from I believe (but could be mistaken) that equal sins include eating pork and wearing red dresses.

I could be mistaken about the details, my Bible is at the dry cleaners, but essentially the section of the bible that says homosexuality is a sin is filled with other items that are inane and 'conveniently' overlooked. [/b][/quote]
http://godhatesshrimp.com/

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Faid1+Aug 31 2005, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faid1 @ Aug 31 2005, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yeah and in Leviticus where all the Gay bashing justification comes from I believe (but could be mistaken) that equal sins include eating pork and wearing red dresses.

I could be mistaken about the details, my Bible is at the dry cleaners, but essentially the section of the bible that says homosexuality is a sin is filled with other items that are inane and 'conveniently' overlooked.

http://godhatesshrimp.com/ [/b][/quote]
ROFLMAO...so much to read...so little time!

[Flashpoint]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer@Aug 31 2005, 04:57 PM
EDIT- as for your general public statement, you do realize that there are roughly 2 billion christians right? that accounts for 33% percent of the worlds population, then add in the 1 billion muslims and such, Atheists and others form a small percentage of the general public, I guess most just have a high affection for hockey teams?

I just have a hard time getting over the hypocricy of someone saying that science is right and religion is wrong when it is a scientific fact that matter cannot be created from nothing.

Is that a fact? I don't know that. Nor have I ever heard anyone of scientific repute say it. Suppose for a moment what you say is a widely believed scientific principle. "Matter cannot be created from an absence of matter."

Guess what? The principle can CHANGE! That is the beauty of science - it isn't dogma. It isn't to be believed in with faith. All good scientists QUESTION these things. If you can show something to have a preponderance of evidence against it, you can SHIFT the belief system.

Where is the hypocracy in that?

Who created the first atom? How did the first atom come into being is a better question. One that doesn't presuppose anything. I don't know. Nor do I feel the need to make up an answer - like "The invisible flying spagetti monster".

As for your EDIT: Your numbers are off. The fact you think the earth only has 6 billion on it is sort of a bad place to start. I won't go further than that other than to recommend a google search on the subject.

[Bobblehead]

Hmmm.

As of June 2005, world population is estimated to be 6.45 billion link
There are estimated to be 2.1 billion Christians link

I think they are referring to the Law of Conservation of Mass, which, while generally true in chemical reactions, fails in Nuclear reactions and Relativistic situations. link

[Faid1]

Originally posted by Flashpoint+Aug 31 2005, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flashpoint @ Aug 31 2005, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flaming Homer@Aug 31 2005, 04:57 PM
EDIT- as for your general public statement, you do realize that there are roughly 2 billion christians right? that accounts for 33% percent of the worlds population, then add in the 1 billion muslims and such, Atheists and others form a small percentage of the general public, I guess most just have a high affection for hockey teams?

I just have a hard time getting over the hypocricy of someone saying that science is right and religion is wrong when it is a scientific fact that matter cannot be created from nothing.

As for your EDIT: Your numbers are off. The fact you think the earth only has 6 billion on it is sort of a bad place to start. I won't go further than that other than to recommend a google search on the subject. [/b][/quote]
The earth does have slightly more than 6 Billion people

Regardless, 1/3 of the world being "Christians" isn't so great when you consider 1/3 of the world was also Communist.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by Faid1@Aug 31 2005, 03:20 PM

http://godhatesshrimp.com/

Many Christians believe that the New Testament and the New Covenant makes the rules in Leviticus obsolete.

However, those religions that do not believe in the New Testament, such as Judaism, still have a lot of rules about what they can and cannot eat.

So this protest is more making a mockery of Jews and some Muslims. I say some because the Quran says "lawful to you is food of the sea" and that seems to over-ride anything else written.

But all in all... no matter what... I'm not quite so sure why the heck what you eat on earth would matter to an omnipotent being? How is it determining as to whether you are deserving of heaven or hell?

[Flashpoint]

Originally posted by Bobblehead@Aug 31 2005, 06:06 PM
Hmmm.

As of June 2005, world population is estimated to be 6.45 billion link
There are estimated to be 2.1 billion Christians link

I think they are referring to the Law of Conservation of Mass, which, while generally true in chemical reactions, fails in Nuclear reactions and Relativistic situations. link

My mistake. 450 million isn't hugely off when looking at the overall picture. It appears I need to do some remedial reading as goes populations of major religons. I figured there were more Muslims than that. Sigh, make mistakes and learn from them...

Thanks also for pointing out the "Law of Conservation of Mass".

[Bobblehead]

No problem, I always thought Christianity was 3rd or 4th on the list too.

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Flashpoint+Aug 31 2005, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flashpoint @ Aug 31 2005, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flaming Homer@Aug 31 2005, 04:57 PM
EDIT- as for your general public statement, you do realize that there are roughly 2 billion christians right? that accounts for 33% percent of the worlds population, then add in the 1 billion muslims and such, Atheists and others form a small percentage of the general public, I guess most just have a high affection for hockey teams?

I just have a hard time getting over the hypocricy of someone saying that science is right and religion is wrong when it is a scientific fact that matter cannot be created from nothing.

Is that a fact? I don't know that. Nor have I ever heard anyone of scientific repute say it. Suppose for a moment what you say is a widely believed scientific principle. "Matter cannot be created from an absence of matter."

Guess what? The principle can CHANGE! That is the beauty of science - it isn't dogma. It isn't to be believed in with faith. All good scientists QUESTION these things. If you can show something to have a preponderance of evidence against it, you can SHIFT the belief system.

Where is the hypocracy in that?

Who created the first atom? How did the first atom come into being is a better question. One that doesn't presuppose anything. I don't know. Nor do I feel the need to make up an answer - like "The invisible flying spagetti monster".

As for your EDIT: Your numbers are off. The fact you think the earth only has 6 billion on it is sort of a bad place to start. I won't go further than that other than to recommend a google search on the subject. [/b][/quote]
Exactly, things in science change, which means it's entirely possible that all this evidence for the Big Bang could mean diddily squat in 50 years. Thats why in science facts are harldy facts because tons of things are proven wrong , discovered and altered every year, until science goes as far as it possibly can all these scientific facts mean nothing.


I was off by 500 million but I was also off by 200 million christians so it still equals the same percentage, as for the communist remark, they aren't even comparable, thats taking into account the population of those countries, I have a hard time believing that even half of those 2 billion people acutally believed in communism, Religion isn't always a forced thing, for kids it is but when they turn 18 they can make whatever choices they want, the majority of christians are christians because they want to be.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Bobblehead@Aug 31 2005, 07:34 PM
No problem, I always thought Christianity was 3rd or 4th on the list too.

I wonder who did the head counts?
Are the bushmen in Africa counted when missionaries tell em they should thank Jesus for the food/medicine brought from the west?
Out of all of the Chinese I highly doubt the majority of that population is Christian...I would have thought Budhist...but maybe someone who is in China could correct me there.
There are still large numbers in Eastern Europe who were part of the old Soviet regime that are non theists..
Are the fence sitters...those that only go to Xmas Mass or Easter Sunday counted as full Christians?
Are the numbers based on those who get confused and put an "x" in the box next to Christian when pollsters come out prior to Elections?
The numbers that are represented in Wikepedia seem to account for almost the entire worlds population....I doubt that they are accurate.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer+Aug 31 2005, 07:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flaming Homer @ Aug 31 2005, 07:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Is that a fact? I don't know that. Nor have I ever heard anyone of scientific repute say it. Suppose for a moment what you say is a widely believed scientific principle. "Matter cannot be created from an absence of matter."

Guess what? The principle can CHANGE! That is the beauty of science - it isn't dogma. It isn't to be believed in with faith. All good scientists QUESTION these things. If you can show something to have a preponderance of evidence against it, you can SHIFT the belief system.

Where is the hypocracy in that?

Who created the first atom? How did the first atom come into being is a better question. One that doesn't presuppose anything. I don't know. Nor do I feel the need to make up an answer - like "The invisible flying spagetti monster".

As for your EDIT: Your numbers are off. The fact you think the earth only has 6 billion on it is sort of a bad place to start. I won't go further than that other than to recommend a google search on the subject.

Exactly, things in science change, which means it's entirely possible that all this evidence for the Big Bang could mean diddily squat in 50 years. Thats why in science facts are harldy facts because tons of things are proven wrong , discovered and altered every year, until science goes as far as it possibly can all these scientific facts mean nothing.


I was off by 500 million but I was also off by 200 million christians so it still equals the same percentage, as for the communist remark, they aren't even comparable, thats taking into account the population of those countries, I have a hard time believing that even half of those 2 billion people acutally believed in communism, Religion isn't always a forced thing, for kids it is but when they turn 18 they can make whatever choices they want, the majority of christians are christians because they want to be. [/b][/quote]
yes you are right homer...in 50 years Science can be different...the PROBLEM is we will still be having this same stupid discussion with those who believe God did it...with no explanation whatsoever...other then its because someone said so.

[Patek23]

Well Cheese it's human nature throughout history that if we don't understand it, it is something super natural and I don't expect that to change. But what would you say if there was a God when you die and you had been wrong. If I'm wrong I won't know it because I'll just be nothing. I'd rather live happy thinking that they'res something better and If I'm wrong just ceasing to exist, than living mad (not saying you do) because I will cease to exist and than dying and finding out that I'm going to miss out on a after life because of my belief (that is assuming there is heaven)


One of my other ideas which is pretty spacey is that whatever you believe during your life time comes true when you die, I you think you'll cease to exist you will, If you think you will reincarnate you will, If you think you'll go to heaven you will etc. But God would have to be extremely powerul for that one.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 31 2005, 03:17 PM
Leave it to Fozzie de Bear to tell us "the Flintstones is not a documentary."

I spewed diet coke all over the screen Fozzie!!!

Firefly, eloquently stated . . . . however, I still have a problem with organized religion constantly evolving to fit the facts unveiled by science, kicking and screaming all the way, then coming out and trying to fit evolution into "intelligent design" while simultaneously telling us the world began only a few ticks ago.

There's a lot of squirming and non-sensical stuff going on with your side and frankly, I don't know how you wouldn't wonder what the heck is going on sometimes.

It boils down to a bunch of control freaks jockeying for position.

That's why its easy for me to separate God (or Gods) from organized religion. I just wonder if God (or Gods) isn't waiting for organized religion to sort out all their factions and theories and agree on what he/she truly is before stepping out of the closet for the big party.

Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, the concept of the Big Bang is taught as a theory in schools, not a fact, as it probably should be at this point. Its a different topic from Evolution which has been amply demonstrated.

I would also agree that religion and creationism could be taught in schools as part of philosophy and mythology. But its not science.

Cowperson

Totally missed this, Cow!

I do wonder sometimes what the heck is going on, which is why I have my own view of what really happened. No, it's not in the Bible, but it fits with both sides, and I like it. It allows for the world to only have been created 14000 years ago, and accounts for all the landmasses appearing as they are today, without the billions of years to get them there. It doesn't really account for scientific dating methods, but we all can't be perfect... and who knows, maybe it does, and I'm just not scientific enough to know it?! (How would an atomic bomb affect carbon dating? Anyone know?)

As I said, you can't teach people who are so far behind in education things that will be learned 2000 years later, so I assume the story of creation is a bit dumbed down. I guess I'll only really know what happened when I get to meet the big guy, and I can ask him myself.

As for the big party, that's what Revelations is all about...


Frankly, to me it doesn't really matter what happened, and I doubt either science or religion will ever fully explain what happened to form the Earth. As a Christian, I have better things to worry about. Those who sue schools over their curriculum have way too much time on their hands.

[MarchHare]

I just discovered this thread and haven't yet read through all five pages, so my apologies in advance if I'm repeating someone.

Good on the University of California. No, evolution is not fact, but anyone who dismisses it as "just a theory" doesn't understand what the word 'theory' means within the scientific community. The difference betweeen evolution and creationism (or it's disguised cousin, "intelligent design") is that theories of evolution have been published in well-regarded scientific journals, are subjected to peer review, and follow the scientific method; creationism doesn't meet any of those criteria. Until creationsim is subjected to the same rigurous scrutiny as any other scientific theory and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists as the best explanation for the origins of life, it has no business being taught in a science classroom and any student who was subjected to that curriculum should rightly be considered not to have a proper understanding of elementary biology principles.

[Hack&Lube]

As a Christian in flux that is highly critical of his own religion and very supportive of evolution... I've always liked this editorial from Scientific America to point to the absurdity of arguments posed to prove commonly accepted creationism or intelligent design.

Okay, We Give Up
We feel so ashamed
By The Editors

There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

[Bobblehead]

I love it!

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Me too
________
Los angeles dispensary

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Aug 31 2005, 08:41 PM
As a Christian in flux that is highly critical of his own religion and very supportive of evolution... I've always liked this editorial from Scientific America to point to the absurdity of arguments posed to prove commonly accepted creationism or intelligent design.

Okay, We Give Up
We feel so ashamed
By The Editors

There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

:tup:
And if something like that doesnt influence fence sitters to jump off on the Science/Atheistic view what will?

Its the "FEAR" that has been programmed into our heads from Day 1...we dont want there to be a chance at going to Hell or get chastized by the older religous members of our families.

As a point in case...a friend of a friend recently passed away. This person was seriously ill...in dire pain all the time. She took her own life at age 71 because she could no longer deal with it.

This person had given all of her life, donated time and money to various charities. She was a kind and happy person who ALWAYS had time for everyone.

The priest who conducted her funeral spent 1/2 the time condemning this wonderful person...because the bible condemns people who take their own lives...regardless of the scenario.

Churches ares flooded today with amateur pseudo-psychologists and pseudo-psychiatrists who use a little Bible to make their worldly, humanistic analysis to sound spiritual.

And yet the people buy into it....what a sad story.

[Flame On]

Boil it down, there are Christian schools and colleges, would they let you into them if you were a card carrying atheist or something? Probably not. Probably say no and don't let the door hit you on the way to "the pit".

[Cheese]

so based on the writings of most Christians here it appears that you dont take the bible literally?
You pick and choose which verses to read literally and slough the rest off as allegory or metaphoric?
The problem is....how do you know which ones to read literally? Are the verses you take seriously the same verses that others do as well? If there is any doubt about which verses apply does it bother you when you wake up? Is the idea of "I know them when I see them" practical when it comes to a Christian standpoint, and is that what the Christian churches teach you?
If any of the Bible is non-literal, why can't it all be?
and finally....
IF the reason stands that you are able to pick and choose which versions you take literally, is THAT the reason there is conflict amongst religions?
Old-earth creationists claim young-earth creationists cling to an untenable position in the face of the evidence. Young-earth creationists denounce old-earth creationists as hypocritical liberals who have given in to atheist influences. As a result, creationism, unlike evolution, is not a unified position, but merely a group of inconsistent, conflicting arguments.