US textbook omits evolution

[CharacterFirst]

But isn't Jewishness a religion? THat is a person who follows the TOrah or Old Testament?

On this basis being a Jew is a personal religious conviction like being Christian or a muslim

Not sure what point you are tying to make?

 

[CharacterFirst]

Sauce?

Tomato?

 

[Mani]

Not sure what point you are tying to make?

Well if being Jewish is a religion like Christianity or Bhudism etc, then how can anyone call themselves Jewish if they reject Judaism? An atheist Jew, or as you referred to "not all Jews reject Christianity" would be like calling someone an atheist Christian - just wouldn't make sense.

Unless of course the definition has changed?

 

[CharacterFirst]

Well if being Jewish is a religion like Christianity or Bhudism etc, then how can anyone call themselves Jewish if they reject Judaism? An atheist Jew, or as you referred to "not all Jews reject Christianity" would be like calling someone an atheist Christian - just wouldn't make sense.

Unless of course the definition has changed?

Well I am still not sure what point you are trying make. There are people who consider themselves nationally and culturally Jewish, but may not really hold to the tenets of the faith.

But if someone asks me why do Jews reject Xianity, I would say not all do. Jesus was a Jew, the first Xians were Jewish. There are messianic Jews today - http://www.jewsforjesus.org/messianic-judaism

What point are you trying to get at?

 

[Mani]

Well I am still not sure what point you are trying make. There are people who consider themselves nationally and culturally Jewish, but may not really hold to the tenets of the faith.

Nationally? You mean Jewishness is now a nationality? I would have thought that was referred to as being Israeli - not Jewish

Now I am even more confused

forget I mentioned it

 

[CharacterFirst]

The Government hands out millions of dollars and gifts hundreds of millions in land to religions of all kinds.
They allow designated religious classes in all government schools for those who want it.

I didn't mention the Government. Straw man. You guys are not reading the thread. You are missing context etc.

What you are actually whining about is that you want Religion taught as science or an alternative to science, which religion is not

I am not anti science, I think its great. It's the best subject fr two of my kids.
Science is just a tool we use to examine and learn about God's creation. You need to read some of the thread you lazy bugger, not just assume you know what people think.

You must not have read much Dawkins and co. Or looked at what the Humanistic and atheists foundations of Vic and Aust think should be way we go.

"Most atheists are vehemently opposed to all religions."
"Instead, education about all religions, the harm they create and their unevidenced status, is the only ethically correct course of action."
"Theistic induction is a form of mental child abuse."

All taken from -

 

[CharacterFirst]

That site raises more questions than answers. If God used evolution, then the fall of man wasn't what brought death into the world. Furthermore, when do we reach man? Is it Homo Sapien? Erectus?

Why do you think the fall brought death in to the world? The bible only says it brought death to mankind - and it teaches a spiritual death, not bodily death.

We were not designed for eternal life in our current bodily state. That is why the tree of life was guarded - Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

This was done as an act of mercy by God. So that humans would not be forever living in a state of spiritual separation from him.

As much as I think creationism is a load of rubbish, it's at least consistent. Otherwise, when does the bible become fact?

Well it depends what you mean by fact.

The bible is made of a whole lot of different types of literature. None of it is modern scientific - which is why the whole debate is so stupid from both sides. Genesis isn't a 21st C science book. Its a 1 st C theological book.

Some of it is poetry, some letters, some biography, some songs, some history, some apocalyptic etc.

How are his teachings prohibited? In Australia and NZ, RE is widespread, with no other religion allowed into our schools.

Not true. Any sanctioned religious group can teach their faith. I have just moved, but the school my kids went to in Melb for the last 10 years, has just started offering Muslim studies along side CRE.

True to an extent, but Christmas is a part of western culture, regardless of people's religiosity. I don't see why Christianity should have advantages over other religions, save for the natural advantages of it been part of our culture. Besides, it's no longer a Christian country, if it ever was.

What advantages do you think Xianity has over other faiths/world views that are separate from its cultural advantages (which you seem happy for it to keep)?

Xmas is part of western culture b/c our culture is built on Judeo-Xian foundations. You can't have CHRISTmas without CHRIST!

You are right - Aust has never been a Xian country. Not sure there ever has been.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Nationally? You mean Jewishness is now a nationality? I would have thought that was referred to as being Israeli - not Jewish

Now I am even more confused

forget I mentioned it

This not revolutionary stuff I'm talking about. It is completely accepted by all - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

 

[bombermick]

Why do you think the fall brought death in to the world? The bible only says it brought death to mankind - and it teaches a spiritual death, not bodily death.

We were not designed for eternal life in our current bodily state. That is why the tree of life was guarded - Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the treeoflife and eat, and live forever.”

This was done as an act of mercy by God. So that humans would not be forever living in a state of spiritual separation from him.

God says twice in the first chapter of Genesis that his creation is "good." Does a perfect god say something is good if what he's created is a dog-eat-dog world, and has been for billions of years?

Well it depends what you mean by fact.

The bible is made of a whole lot of different types of literature. None of it is modern scientific - which is why the whole debate is so stupid from both sides. Genesis isn't a 21st C science book. Its a 1 st C theological book.

Some of it is poetry, some letters, some biography, some songs, some history, some apocalyptic etc.

I agree it's not scientifically accurate, but when is it truth? If Adam and Eve weren't real, does it follow Cain wasn't either? What about Abraham, Moses and Job?

Not true. Any sanctioned religious group can teach their faith. I have just moved, but the school my kids went to in Melb for the last 10 years, has just started offering Muslim studies along side CRE.



What advantages do you think Xianity has over other faiths/world views that are separate from its cultural advantages (which you seem happy for it to keep)?

Xmas is part of western culture b/c our culture is built on Judeo-Xian foundations. You can't have CHRISTmas without CHRIST!

You are right - Aust has never been a Xian country. Not sure there ever has been.

Looking into it, you're right. I know they can't in NZ, but within Australia it still holds a privileged position. The country was in some ways built on Judo-Christian foundations, but we've moved past that. There's no logical reason why it should enjoy special status - especially when there's no widespread community demand for it.

 

[CharacterFirst]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151195531403915&set=vb.513518914&type=2&theater

 

[CharacterFirst]

God says twice in the first chapter of Genesis that his creation is "good." Does a perfect god say something is good if what he's created is a dog-eat-dog world, and has been for billions of years?

Well briefly, "good" means that it achieved everything, every purpose for which God had created it. It was "good" in his eyes - he was happy with it if you like.

There are 1000s of studies, books, PHDs etc written about this, but in a nutshell, ^^^^^.

I agree it's not scientifically accurate, but when is it truth? If Adam and Eve weren't real, does it follow Cain wasn't either? What about Abraham, Moses and Job?

Different answers will be given to this Qu. But the skill is to look at the original languages it was written in, and you get a sense of its "factualness." Like if I wrtoe a poem about a great Gary Ablett mark, I might use all sorts of images, or metaphors, etc. He still took a great mark, but he may not have been 200 feet in the air. But the context and genre of writing tell you that. Sometimes this is lost in translation. That is why people/academics, pastors etc study the bible in the original languages (I have a as well).

Looking into it, you're right. I know they can't in NZ, but within Australia it still holds a privileged position. The country was in some ways built on Judo-Christian foundations, but we've moved past that. There's no logical reason why it should enjoy special status - especially when there's no widespread community demand for it.

Here is societies mistake- don't turn your back on God. It will not end well, and the journey won't be great either!

 

[Niximus]

Here is societies mistake- don't turn your back on God. It will not end well, and the journey won't be great either!

Find a list of the happiest nations in the world.

Find a list of the least religious nations in the world.

Compare.

 

[Niximus]

Tomato?

It was a funny way of asking you for a source to back up your claim that children are not able to pray in American schools, or are forbidden from reading their own bibles.

 

[Roylion]

I agree it's not scientifically accurate, but when is it truth? If Adam and Eve weren't real, does it follow Cain wasn't either? What about Abraham, Moses and Job?

The early accounts of Genesis at least are clearly myth and indeed the consensus of Biblical scholars is that the first part of Genesis is a combination of two older quite differing accounts..with perhaps both recalling an oral tradition of a move from hunter-gather society to an agricultural one. The myth of Cain and Abel recalls the clashes between the two lifestyles.

It's fairly clear that there is no geological, historical, archaeological or any other scientific evidence for the story of Adam and Eve or that a global flood engulfed the world. There's no evidence that Abraham ever existed. The story of Noah's Ark in Genesis is considered by modern scholars to be directly dependent upon an older Sumerian/Babylonian version dated to 2100–2000 BC and altered to serve monotheistic purposes somewhere between 1000 BC-500 BC. The story of Moses was at least partly mythical, the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua is almost certain not to have happened as there is almost no evidence to support it. Indeed archaeology suggests that instead of the Israelites conquering Canaan after the Exodus (as suggested by the Book of Joshua), most of them had in fact always been there; the Israelites were simply Canaanites who developed into a distinct culture.Recent surveys of long-term settlement patterns in the Israelite heartlands show no sign of violent invasion or even peaceful infiltration, but rather a sudden demographic transformation about 1200 BC in which villages appear in the previously unpopulated highlandsthese settlements have a similar appearance to modern Bedouin camps, suggesting that the inhabitants were once pastoral nomads, driven to take up farming by the collapse of Canaanite city-culture.

The Exodus itself is doubtful. Despite modern archaeological investigations and the meticulous ancient Egyptian records from the period of Ramesses II there is an obvious lack of any archaeological evidence for the migration of a band of semitic people across the Sinai Peninsula, except for the Hyksos. Even that throws up other problems, as the Hyksos became not slaves but rulers, and they were chased away rather than chased to bring them back.It has been suggested that the Exodus narrative perhaps evolved from vague memories of the Hyksos expulsion, spun to encourage resistance to the 7th century domination of Judah by Egypt.

If people want to doubt the evidence provided by archaeology, what about trying genetics instead, which is far more difficult to argue against. In terms of human genetics, the Biblical story of Adam and Eve cannot be historically correct. The concept that all humans descended from just two historical persons is impossible. Genetic evidence indicates all modern humans descended from a group of at least 10,000 people, about 200,000 years ago due to the amount of human genetic variation. If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, as Young Earth creationism supposes for example, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation. That those 10,000 people worshipped Yahweh can never be proven. The Bible account of Adam and Eve being the ancestor of humanity is fantasy. Not surprisingly. There doesn't appear to be any indication that the Israelites of circa 500 BC - 1,000 BC understood genetics at all. Hence their story of Adam and Eve (which in turn was based on older Babylonian and Sumerian myth).

All the myth of Adam and Eve seems to be explaining is the human shift from hunter gathering to farming between 10,000 BC and 6,000 BC and passed down as part of an oral tradition. While this is far more speculative than the genetic record of humanity, a plausible theory has been suggested that the myth of the first humans was derived to explain this shift. The myth seems to be suggesting that harmony with nature was lost with the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and that the nature of mankind started to same. Some of what happened is reflected in aspects of the myth.

For example, the work "Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture", edited by Drs. Mark Nathan Cohen and George J. Armelagos suggested that childbirth become more painful and dangerous with the transition to sedentism, urbanism and domestication, because the pelvic canal narrowed further with the changes to people’s sedentary diet. This was mentioned in the Adam and Eve story at the expulsion from the Garden of Eden in Genesis. “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” Genesis 11.16. It also has been suggested that with the movement to agriculture, people also discovered the link between sexual intercourse and birth (He knew his wife”) at this time and this produced further changes in relation to ancestry, the male role, monogamy, children and property. It was a momentous change for humans, just as the expulsion from the Garden of Eden was in the story of the Fall in Genesis.

Far fetched?

Certainly no more far-fetched that the literal interpretation of Genesis that Adam and Eve were the first persons on earth as suggested in the Old Testament. That was most definitely NOT the case. And at least there is some palaentological and archaeological evidence to support the above, whereas there is none to support that Adam and Eve were the first persons on earth.

In other words most, if not all, of Genesis and probably most of the books of the Bible up to about Kings and Chronicles is myth.

 

[Partridge]

Find a list of the happiest nations in the world.

Find a list of the least religious nations in the world.

Compare.

I'll take a guess and say Northern Europe......slightly north of Germany and Belgium?

 

[Partridge]

It's not state sanctioned in Aust. That is the whole point! So that it isn't state sanctioned OR STATE BANNED, religious faiths have access to teach their beliefs.

What humanistic atheists want, is to totally ban any "faiths" beliefs being expressed in any way - accept of course their beliefs of humanism!

Or they may be happy with removing the heart and soul of a faith, and presenting it as a dry, boring, irrelevant, choice among many or none. Just like Maths - lol.

Wrong. What atheists like me want is religion to be taught (if it is taught) as religion, or comparative mythology, or whatever. I've already said this, learning about ancient beliefs from different cultures is not a bad idea at all.

The only stipulation we make is that it isn't taught as science. Which it in no way resembles. Science has torn down and comprehensively destroyed every claim religion has ever tried to make about the natural world. It was wrong about cosmology, it was wrong about astronomy, it was staggeringly wrong about geology and it's just as wrong about biology.

I feel far more pity for religious people than hatred. Although I do despise evangelicals because of their dishonesty and corruption. You miss out on so much genuine knowledge, amazing information, and just incredibly cool things to know by being so close-minded.

 

[bombermick]

Roylion, I agree, but that leaves Christianity in a bind. Jesus, according to the NT, accepted the old as true. If the vast majority is myth, it follows he's not God. No sign that he regarded them as myth.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Roylion, I agree, but that leaves Christianity in a bind. Jesus, according to the NT, accepted the old as true. If the vast majority is myth, it follows he's not God. No sign that he regarded them as myth.

The old what?

Did they have bound and covered contemporary old testaments in his time?

 

[Roylion]

Roylion, I agree, but that leaves Christianity in a bind. Jesus, according to the NT, accepted the old as true. If the vast majority is myth, it follows he's not God.

Well there you go.

 

[blackcat]

is not omitting Evolution, a little like question begging.

they omit evolution because they have fulfilled a regression in anticipation of the rapture.

 

[CharacterFirst]

The early accounts of Genesis at least are clearly myth and indeed the consensus of Biblical scholars is that the first part of Genesis is a combination of two older quite differing accounts..
In other words most, if not all, of Genesis and probably most of the books of the Bible up to about Kings and Chronicles is myth.

I think Roylion you know which books to quote from, but may not understand the power and truth behind the words.

Listen to what the "real" biblical scholars say about it -

 

[CharacterFirst]

Roylion, I agree, but that leaves Christianity in a bind. Jesus, according to the NT, accepted the old as true. If the vast majority is myth, it follows he's not God. No sign that he regarded them as myth.

 

[CharacterFirst]

The old what?

Did they have bound and covered contemporary old testaments in his time?

They had their scriptures which were put together into he OT.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Wrong. What atheists like me want is religion to be taught (if it is taught) as religion.... I've already said this, learning about ancient beliefs from different cultures is not a bad idea at all.

Me too. We are agreed. Xianity should be taught by Xians as Xanity. Science by science teachers as science.

Being a follower of Jesus is not a scientific issue, and can't be measured by science.

And science is a human tool used to look at "natural" things, not supernatural ones like God.

But if read the post, you will see that other formal atheist groups don't agree. And I am sure you know the New Atheist position on "religion" - Get rid of it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=BT2hsweIuro&NR=1

I feel far more pity for religious people than hatred. Although I do despise evangelicals because of their dishonesty and corruption. You miss out on so much genuine knowledge, amazing information, and just incredibly cool things to know by being so close-minded.

God does not feel pity for you Partridge, he feels love.

I am an evangelical, which means someone who believes the good news. I am sorry you think I am dishonest nd corrupt. I am not sure why you feel that way. It seems such a trivial thing to "despise"someone over, esp. when you claim you don't even believe any of it.

I bet there is no knowledge you have that I don't have due to my faith in Christ. See if you can list some?

 

[raskolnikov]

My favourite one is how Scottish people are part Neanderthal.

No, that's Collingwood supporters.