reverend B
Senior Veteran
a true statement is a statement of fact. truth is something far more profound and allusive.david_x said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
a true statement is a statement of fact. truth is something far more profound and allusive.david_x said:Oh sorry, i mean that if there is a counter-example (somthin' that does not follow the true statement) than the statement is not entirely true.
david_x said:Is it not called the PARABLE of the Good sameritian?
Absolutly not!
A question, were is this handiwork of the Word info. coming from.
If it's fictional why didn't God say that!
Of cource the teachings are true but, we were arguing the historical accuracy.
Instead by repeatedly withholding the opposing arguments - which btw would only take at most an hour to present in a year long class - all that will do is cause people to wonder why it is being withheld and eventually have the opposite effect.
Nobody said anything about teaching it, just presenting the arguments. What can be wrong with that, shouldn't all subjects that have a level of controversy at least present the arguments.shernren said:(emphasis added)
See? There isn't that much to teach about IDism after all. So much for scientific.
I'm not even talking about science - although there are those who could strongly argue that - I'm talking about presenting an opposing argument or theory, for an hour, even if it isn't what many people in the field believe to be a legitimate one.shernren said:The central issue is not: should people hear this? but: should people hear this as science? Personally, from reading the judge's statement, I don't think the injunction is against that statement but against the backing of educational authority to that statement.
Why would it be disingenuous for a science teacher to present a theory, however shaky he/she might think it to be, as an alternative to evolution; especially when a significant number of the students already believe the alternative. Wouldn't it be the right thing for a biology teacher to state the truth? "Evolution has a few gaps and some people believe something else."shernren said:It would be one thing for me to go into a class and say "As Uncle Shern RenI'm telling you that evolution has a few gaps and some people believe something else". (I don't think the ruling prohibits that.)
It would be another for me to go into a class and say "As your biology science teacher, I'm telling you that evolution has a few gaps and some people believe something else".
If ID doesn't have scientific legitimacy then obviously it shouldn't get equal time to evolution. The funny thing is we're not talking about equal time, we're just talking about any time.shernren said:The statement "ID is an alternative" is not a statement that deserves scientific educational legitimacy.
gluadys said:Actually it is because of such statements in the bible that it is obvious to me that it is not a scientific text. But you are evading the issue.
This tangent began when Beginning Seasons asserted (in post #56) that "Science should bow to Scripture not the other way around!"
I raised a few items in which most people, including most creationists, have come to the opposite conclusion. And provided references when he asked for them.
So far, he has not responded. You have, but you are trying to pull the conversation off course.
If you wish to contribute to the discussion, answer the question directly. In these cases, should science bow to scripture or not? Give reasons for your answer please.
reverend B said:freedom of expression. there is no foundation for criminalizing this behavior except for using a religious moral code. so we have our reasons for not pursuing behavior like this, as Christians, but we don't have legal standing to impose those reasons on others.
this is the system we have. you may want to change it. that's fine. but know what that means. you have serious work to do. you are talking profound amendments, and getting a huge majority of people to support them in order to pass them. people will not give up their rights very easily, because with group sex can go freedom of assembly. it is the proverbial slippery slope, and it's all downhill from there.
notto said:But not in the way you originally suggested. You can't get around it Critias, you misrepresented the ACLU. You can try to deflect it all you want by trying to suggest that myself or other support sexual immorality or you can continue to suggest that the ACLU does as well, but that doesn't change that your original accusation was just plain wrong.
notto said:I don't think you are fooling anyone here with your continued accusations and strawman beating tactics.
Well, you would have no reason to because I have never said that I support them. You would be doing nothing but making a false accusation, much like your original accusation against the ACLU. It is an accusation that is incorrect, intellectually dishonest, and basically false witness.
Good show. Outstanding work. Keep it up.
I can only assume from your stance that you support the supression of free speech. Why do you hate the first ammendment?
http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html?ht=nambla%20nambla#3_4
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.
this is unresponsive. how are you justifying your position based on law? it has no bearing on the conversation as to what i personally support or don't support, and if you don't understand that then you don't understand our system of government.Critias said:So you support live sex acts in public? Is that what you want your children to see and learn that it is ok to be sexually immoral?
You know this is really sad display we are seeing here. People coming to the support of the sexually immoral and saying it is ok to be sexually immoral.
Critias said:Gluadys, the Bible either is or isn't a scientific textbook. If you believe it isn't, then you cannot take what the Bible says and hold it under current scientific thinking.
An examble would be your comment that the Bible says bats are birds, but in modern scientific understanding bats are mammals. You are then trying to hold the Bible to today's scientific understanding and criticize it.
Crusadar said:The performance of which is illegal, and even the ACLU won't come to their aid for that... however, NAMBLA has the constitutionally-protect right to talk about these things, to express their opinion about these things... and that, and that alone, is the right that the ACLU protects... the right to express an opinion that other people think is sick.
Or are opinions outlawed now?
What was it that Christ said? "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28
One loaded question deserves another... when did you stop beating your wife?
At least ask the question correctly "Have you stopped beating your wife?" My answer would be: Why don't you ask my wife?
Perfect example of the whole double standard here. ID gets rejected because it fits the bible and doesn't fit with the science book. However, since the secular and atheists science WROTE the science book (I mean science in general here of course) they feel they can decide what is and isn't science. And anything that lines up with the bible is dismissed as not science even though nothing in the bible contradicts science (though it contradicts many of their theories). Like the example above, if a woman says her husband beats her, it MUST me true because women would never lie about such things, but if she says he doesn't beat her, well, women who are abused never admit it. It's not unlike the therapist who makes a wrong diagnosis based on their interpretion and when the patient says they are wrong, they simply spit out "You're in denial." In other words, 'We're right, you're wrong, therefore if you say we're wrong, that is incorrect so you might as well agree with us.'The Lady Kate said:Because everybody knows that battered women rarely come forward out of fear. When she denies the abuse, that's all the proof we'll need that you haven't stopped beating her.
gluadys said:Holding it under scientific thinking is how you determine it is not a scientific text. Please note that I am not implying that because the bible is not scientific it should be faulted on that score.
But when someone says that in the case of disagreement between what scripture says about nature and what science has discovered to be true about nature, science should bow to scripture, I think we need to look at the consequences of applying that principle.
I am not criticizing the bible for what it says. I am asking the person who said science should bow to scripture if he really means it in all cases, including this one.
If he doesn't accept that science should bow to scripture and classify bats as birds, then where does he draw the line? When must science bow to scripture and when must scripture give way to science?
Beginning Seasons still has not responded. Feel free to answer these questions yourself if you like.
Many judicial decisions in federal courts are a joke ever since the federal government was taken over by neo-Darwinist and ACLU claimants of common descent from monkey and ape ancestors in Africa.TwinCrier said:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
Evolutionist must be breathing a sign of relief now that their theory will be free from criticism once again. So much for free speech and open minds.
you have two choices, if we apply accurate reading principals to the thread. you either believe freedom of speech is immorality or you can not or will not understand that supporting someones right to say something is different from supporting what they say.Critias said:And we can already see the number of TEs here that support immorality.
TwinCrier said:Perfect example of the whole double standard here. ID gets rejected because it fits the bible and doesn't fit with the science book. However, since the secular and atheists science WROTE the science book (I mean science in general here of course) they feel they can decide what is and isn't science.
And anything that lines up with the bible is dismissed as not science even though nothing in the bible contradicts science (though it contradicts many of their theories).
Like the example above, if a woman says her husband beats her, it MUST me true because women would never lie about such things, but if she says he doesn't beat her, well, women who are abused never admit it.
It's not unlike the therapist who makes a wrong diagnosis based on their interpretion and when the patient says they are wrong, they simply spit out "You're in denial." In other words, 'We're right, you're wrong, therefore if you say we're wrong, that is incorrect so you might as well agree with us.'
Can you say "dictatorial" boys and girls?
Critias said:You still don't seem to get it. It isn't about 'science' bowing to the Bible, it is about man/woman bowing to God and humbling himself/herself to what God says.
That is what TEs don't want to do when it concerns whether God created in six days with a seventh day of rest or over billions of years.
When the Bible says bats are birds, the understanding of the day was birds are anything that flys.
By doing so, you have elevated your knowledge above God's. That is idolatry.
gluadys said:Science "bowing" to scripture was the terminology Beginning Seasons used. It seems you want to have a totally different conversation.
Why should I take scripture over science on this point anymore than you do when scripture speaks of earth's foundations?
gluadys said:Not in this passage, (Leviticus 11: 13-23) for it also goes on to speak of winged insects as being a different category than birds. Interestingly it also speaks of these winged insects as walking on four legs.
gluadys said:But my knowledge, in this case, is of God's work, so I expect it is also God's knowledge. I am sure God is familiar with his own work. I am merely a humble student of what God has done.
Critias said:As we all can see, you justify your idolatry and blame God for it. Your knowledge of putting man before God is not God's work, it's yours. Sadly, you see nothing wrong with elevating your knowledge above God making your knowledge an idol.
Perfect example of the whole double standard here. ID gets rejected because it fits the bible and doesn't fit with the science book. However, since the secular and atheists science WROTE the science book (I mean science in general here of course) they feel they can decide what is and isn't science. And anything that lines up with the bible is dismissed as not science even though nothing in the bible contradicts science (though it contradicts many of their theories).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?