3 of 4
3
"New laws are needed to prevent creationism ’indoctrination’ in independent schools, says top science educator"
Posted: 27 July 2015 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

Religion and sex are two sides of the same coin?  How do you figure that?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2015 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
TimB - 27 July 2015 12:01 PM

Religion and sex are two sides of the same coin?  How do you figure that?

Sex drives religion. It is true of almost every religion.


Most religious moral precepts involve sex and most have blamed women for every sexual evil man has been able to devise. It’s the almost universal religious belief belief that women who drive men to sexual immorality.  It’s been the rationale behind the oppression of women for millennia—in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and several Asian and primitive religions, which accounts for the vast majority of religious believers.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2015 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
TimB - 26 July 2015 11:34 AM

We have evolved to the point that we can thrive, at least for now and in recent history, despite the natural contingencies that tend to contain other organisms.  In fact we have thrived so successfully that we are “creating”, as you say, climate change.  We are “creating”, as you say, super-microorganisms that we may, eventually, have little defense against.  Will these sorts of activities result in our ultimate demise as a species?  Maybe.  But my guess it is more likely to ultimately just result in some level of setbacks (although potentially very profound setbacks for our species).


More to the point of this thread, I would bring up that 58% of Americans favor Creationism being taught in public schools.  That, IMO, is just plain crazy.

It is if they believe it should be taught in Science classes. But it may include people like me who think creationism should be discussed in comparative religion classes and it should be compared to evolution. I also think it should be taught in history and social studies classes, which should show how religion has corrupted, damaged societies and murdered individuals for millennia.

Obviously I don’t think religion should be proselytized. It should be taught dispassionately with all of its warts, violence and irrationality included, even if,  and especially if it scares the bejesus out of the students—as it should.

Lois

[ Edited: 27 July 2015 03:03 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2015 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
LoisL - 27 July 2015 02:08 PM
TimB - 27 July 2015 12:01 PM

Religion and sex are two sides of the same coin?  How do you figure that?

Sex drives religion. It is true of almost every religion.


Most religious moral precepts involve sex and most have blamed women for every sexual evil man has been able to devise. It’s the almost universal religious belief belief that women who drive men to sexual immorality.  It’s been the rationale behind the oppression of women for millennia—in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and several Asian and primitive religions, which accounts for the vast majority of religious believers.

Lois

Hmm, so if your point is that sexual discrimination against women is a fundamental aspect of most religions today, I can see that.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2015 03:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01

I got to agree with Lois, the NT is very anti-woman. That’s because Paul was. Some of Paul’s following cults would castrate themselves or cut their penis off.  Stories about the OT state that Adam’s first wife Lilith left Adam because Adam would not let her have sex and be on the top. God backed Adam and kill hundreds of her children for not going back to Adam. And why did gods have be born from virgins? Was sex that unclean? And why is virgins connected to religion anyway? And with Jesus, what the heck is god messing with a married woman for?  And in the Christian religion the woman is considered not completely formed. All babies start as woman and then in the third or fifth week, I can’t remember some of the babies become men. When the church got full control in the Dark Ages, they burn an unbelievable number of women at the stake.
 
In the book The Lost Gospel, they talk about Mary and Jesus setting up the Christian religion. It is interesting that one of the goals for the new religion was women’s rights. When Paul use Mary’s and Jesus’s work for his religion, Paul left out the fact that Mary was the god in another religion and Jesus’s position in the Jewish religion was only that of a high priest. Paul made Jesus the god and discredited Mary.
 
Now that women today are become CEO’s and doctors, how long will it be until they are smart enough to dump the Christian religion. In the Dark Ages, the women were the healers, they knew the herbs that could help the sick. I guess the church wanted to heal with prayer.
 
Look how the church treats the nuns. They can work for and under the directions of the church, like the men. But the nuns are then hung out to dry with no retirement or benefits, unlike the men.

[ Edited: 27 July 2015 03:56 PM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2015 06:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

One minor correction, when you ask “with Jesus, what the heck is God messing with a married woman for?”  If I recall the Christian theology, correctly, God impregnated the virgin Mary, before she was married to Joseph.  (Still, with the power differential, in terms of modern sensibilities, it would seem that God was taking undue advantage of a young, innocent virginal woman.  But at least he didn’t pull a Bill Cosby and give her Quaaludes, AFAIK.)

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2015 06:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21

Not surprising that you would like a book like “The Lost Gospel”, since I suspect this 1 star review is accurate:

“The Lost Gospel is a classic example of confirmation bias. Simcha and Barrie Wilson have so narrowed their field of analysis by focussing strictly on the Syriac version that they have relegated six and a half years (according to Simcha) of research to an esoteric interpretation of an obscure document from a fringe sect of Christianity. Furthermore, by omitting, ignoring, and refuting the other versions of the Aseneth story they have completely altered the original message to suit their vision of a marriage between Jesus and Mary the Magdalene, a vision that was not intended in the earliest versions. Simcha and Prof. Wilson used only those ancient works that supported their view and discarded those ancient works that refuted their views: confirmation bias.”

and that is exactly what you do; take something obscure, ignore everything else, and twist it to fit your own notions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2015 10:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01

You know Lausten what gets me? It’s not the church or the other none church backed researchers saying this stuff like you quoted. It’s mostly people promoting the American faith movement or having their published papers trashed. Mr. Simcha was deeply involved in the bone box. Was called a phony, fraud and a liar. Less than a month ago Israel’s highest court declared the bone box was original and one of the greatest fines in Israel. This is after Israel spent years with an arm long lists of Israel’s top experts in the field, declaring the box was a phony in court. Probably some of the same experts who lied in court on the bone box wrote what you have.
 
Therefore in my book your nay callers are trying to whistle in the wind.  Let me ask you, what was your position on Mr. Simcha and the bone box a few years ago?
 
And like the Da Vinci Code a few years back, a fictional story. Mr. Simcha is an investigative reporter. Not a scholar in the field. His job is to be bias and get the interest in the subject at hand. The Da Vinci Code was using fact from the Holy Blood, Holy Grail written by three BBC investigative reporters. You all went after the fictional story and not the Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
 
The point being, good science should always be challenged and tested. And what we have happening is that for years religious experts have gotten jobs and titles in religious studies. And when the battles reach the point of testing their expertise against real science, they fail. So what Mr. Simcha is doing, either way it go has to be a win, win for us.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2015 10:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
TimB - 27 July 2015 06:45 PM

One minor correction, when you ask “with Jesus, what the heck is God messing with a married woman for?”  If I recall the Christian theology, correctly, God impregnated the virgin Mary, before she was married to Joseph.  (Still, with the power differential, in terms of modern sensibilities, it would seem that God was taking undue advantage of a young, innocent virginal woman.  But at least he didn’t pull a Bill Cosby and give her Quaaludes, AFAIK.)

You know, I think you are right about Mary. The way they looked at gods in Mary’s time would have put a big question mark on any claims. The emperor of Rome for example was always made a god. Then he was always declared born from a virgin.  It was more a status thing. The wives of gods were also considered virgins. Now that did not mean they couldn’t have sex and kids and still be a virgin. It is one of those things like the word “creation”. Our farmers and scientist have created more in the last fifty years then they did back then. But we don’t look at them as gods. And don’t call what they are doing “creation”.  A lot of people just don’t seem to understand history and that we are still in the Age of Deities. And the Christian Faith based people still enforce our language and understanding of history to be tainted.
 
The point being, the people back then understood what was going on and they tried to pass it on to us. The problem is with today’s logic and influences, the understandings we are making of what they passed on to us, is something that would make them shake their heads that we could fixate and be so illogical on such simple things to the point of being psychosis.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2015 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 27 July 2015 10:14 PM

  The point being, good science should always be challenged and tested. And what we have happening is that for years religious experts have gotten jobs and titles in religious studies. And when the battles reach the point of testing their expertise against real science, they fail. So what Mr. Simcha is doing, either way it go has to be a win, win for us.

If it’s not being challenged and tested, it’s not science at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2015 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

Let’s make a deal.  Wherever creationism is taught in schools, they must also show this video and test the students on it subsequently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ZLuRYp8gk

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2015 12:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
TimB - 28 July 2015 07:45 PM

Let’s make a deal.  Wherever creationism is taught in schools, they must also show this video and test the students on it subsequently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ZLuRYp8gk

The video is a strong reason to teach kids in school so they don’t end up wasting years figuring out the science and history of religion during what should be their productive years.  Mike Mal came to the conclusion that there is no god and came to the realization that religion was not about god but about life after death. But that took him years and a lot of searching. Still has no idea that early man had religion that was based around heaven. But they had no gods. You don’t really need a god to have religion based upon good and bad and a way to heaven. Mike is still having trouble seeing the big picture. He thinks religion is Christianity. That is the thinking of most of the people who study going from the end to the beginning. Should always start at the beginning and work your way to the end. 
 
Point being. Mike thought he knew what god was. And in the end he found out he had always misunderstood what god was. Had he researched the history and understood the word god and how it changed over time, I think he could have saved years. Mike gave the reason mankind created god. I think he is way off base. He did not go to the beginning of the gods as to get the correct answer because he never gathered all the facts.
 

Subject change. Read a book about Salem. The old genesis stories talked about “the gods” that created man. And Salem was known as a city of “the Gods”. Avaris is still being discovered. Avaris is thought to be the fort and the wintering spot for the Asian rulers of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. The Middle Kingdom is also being discovered today. I bring this up because the Garden of Eden is where a lot of creation took place and the garden is in India. 
 
Salem would most likely have been located in the Middle Kingdom. Salem is known today as Jerusalem. The internet now has Salem/Jerusalem as the city of “god”. And not the city of “the gods”.  How can we teach the kids about the past history when the history is still being destroyed and rewritten by XXXXX?
 
Point being. Meaning of words change for political and religious reasons. And this can be caused by movements that sort of hypnotize the thinking of certain groups of people. I think “Creation” was one of those words. And these acts of changes of understandings are always linked to a movement of some kind. 
 
Example, “Global Warming” was understood by the people, but not getting the results the political movement wanted. The political movement changed the name to “Climate Change”.  Which is having its meaning changed over and over again in very little ways, but they add up. It was the change in climate caused by manmade acts at first, and understood that way by the postings on CFI. But have you read any of the latest science stories in the news about how the extinction of species in the past may have been brought about by “Climate Change”. Go figure, after a year the scientists themselves don’t even understand the meaning.  I tried bring this issue of “Climate Change” being an unscientific title up to the CFI forum and got blasted by the movement.
 
The Creation movement started in the 1800’s. Thomas Jefferson was able to see what Mike Mal saw without having the same trouble as Mike. Jefferson’s idea was to cut all the twisted history out of the bible and only use the bible’s logical based teachings. Jefferson wanted this country’s religion to be based upon logic and past history. Jefferson was older at the time and only worked on the NT.
 
So no. As much as I think we should help the children learn. We cannot allow a religion to teach creation in school. So our best way of helping people right now is to keep the data on the internet correct, true, and understandable without political or religious influences. But I would like to see creation taught in all the schools if it was following the logic of someone like Jefferson.
Sorry for the long post.
And yea, I’ll go along with your idea on the video. I like your idea too.

[ Edited: 29 July 2015 12:39 PM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2015 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
MikeYohe - 29 July 2015 12:27 PM
TimB - 28 July 2015 07:45 PM

Let’s make a deal.  Wherever creationism is taught in schools, they must also show this video and test the students on it subsequently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ZLuRYp8gk

The video is a strong reason to teach kids in school so they don’t end up wasting years figuring out the science and history of religion during what should be their productive years.  Mike Mal came to the conclusion that there is no god and came to the realization that religion was not about god but about life after death. But that took him years and a lot of searching… Mike is still having trouble seeing the big picture. He thinks religion is Christianity. That is the thinking of most of the people who study going from the end to the beginning. Should always start at the beginning and work your way to the end… 
 

The thing is, in our society, most people are eaten up with current interpretations of Christianity.  That IS the starting point for most people in our society. Though you may well be correct that any understanding of religion, should, IDEALLY, begin with trying to understand it’s pre-historical and historical origins, we don’t live in such the ideal culture in which that would commonly occur.  The reality is that what happens for most people is that they are born into a family that, to some degree, holds a certain mythological orientation and that is what the child is predominately exposed to.

I wasn’t being completely serious with my “Let’s make a deal” idea.  Although it is a thought. Another thought: we could teach creationism in school but only as a component of a larger course re: the history of religious mythology.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2015 01:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
MikeYohe - 29 July 2015 12:27 PM
TimB - 28 July 2015 07:45 PM

Let’s make a deal.  Wherever creationism is taught in schools, they must also show this video and test the students on it subsequently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ZLuRYp8gk

...Meaning of words change for political and religious reasons. And this can be caused by movements that sort of hypnotize the thinking of certain groups of people. I think “Creation” was one of those words. And these acts of changes of understandings are always linked to a movement of some kind. 
 
Example, “Global Warming” was understood by the people, but not getting the results the political movement wanted. The political movement changed the name to “Climate Change”.  Which is having its meaning changed over and over again in very little ways, but they add up. It was the change in climate caused by manmade acts at first, and understood that way by the postings on CFI. But have you read any of the latest science stories in the news about how the extinction of species in the past may have been brought about by “Climate Change”. Go figure, after a year the scientists themselves don’t even understand the meaning.  I tried bring this issue of “Climate Change” being an unscientific title up to the CFI forum and got blasted by the movement.
 

My take on the terms “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”  is as follows.  “Climate Change” was not a term that was developed by a “movement” of people who wanted to advance their cause by using it in replacement of the term “Global Warming”. This however, I think is a common misconception that I (and I hope others) will confront each time that it comes up. 

“Global Warming” refers to the general increase in the temperature of Earth.  “Climate Change” refers to what happens when there is a consistent, persisting change in the general temperature of the Earth.  People who know what’s going on, don’t use the term “Climate Change” as a replacement for the term “Global Warming”.  Both “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” exist.  Of course, there IS a “movement” of people who want other people to recognize this reality.  And there IS a “movement” of people who want to obfuscate this reality.  One way, to obfuscate, is to support the myth that “Climate Change” is a term meant to replace the term “Global Warming”.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2015 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
MikeYohe - 29 July 2015 12:27 PM

... 
... Thomas Jefferson was able to see what Mike Mal saw without having the same trouble as Mike. Jefferson’s idea was to cut all the twisted history out of the bible and only use the bible’s logical based teachings. Jefferson wanted this country’s religion to be based upon logic and past history. Jefferson was older at the time and only worked on the NT…
 

Hey, I saw a documentary about how Jefferson’s work on the New Testament, (i.e., his painstakingly clipping out what he thought were rational moralistic teachings, devoid of the supernatural trappings, and pasting them into one book) was rediscovered and was very carefully restored.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3