The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > School children have a right to discuss their religious beliefs > Comments

School children have a right to discuss their religious beliefs : Comments

By Bill O'Chee, published 3/8/2017

In one document, the Department banned discussing Nelson Mandela's belief in forgiveness because using the words 'blacks' and 'whites' might 'draw unwanted attention to students within the class'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. 19
  13. 20
  14. 21
  15. All
Let me try another approach before moving to other points you've given. In Christianity there are many theories, philosophies, theologies, and such. So when going through any of that it's good to have a solid foundation to start from to discern the rest and value what is true and what is muck. In science, innovation, or engineering you need the same thing. A solid foundation so science isn't garbled by errors or the want for more grant funding. A foundation so that an invention is real and not a con like snakeskin oil. Or a foundation so that when building something to last an engineer is not swayed by costs and theories made to cut corners for their profit, or just junk ideas, they can measure it by what they already know, the foundation that is tested and true. In evolution theories this is a much needed element that I see is slack in it's theories. Don't be taken by any of the muck until you have a solid foundation to stand on and consider the merits of everything else.

As for the aspects of the evolutionary theories that I've seen hold merrit. And the exciting new discoveries that are claimed under evolutionary paradigms. I've not found any that would cause me to question my faith. So I highly recommend you not get lost in the muck of any subject matter. Seek a solid foundation to start from then go from there.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 28 August 2017 5:10:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That’s correct, Not_Now.Soon.

<<You've said you've had all the simular experiences that I've had, and evolution cornered it out of you?>>

That was what got the ball rolling, at least. As I said before, what kind of a god would be deceitful like that? And, again, the experiences all have very simple and rational explanations.

<<This sounds like an argument for creating credibility where it's not really there.>>

How do you mean?

<<Your unwilling to hear [the experiences].>>

No, I’m happy to hear them. I’m just not going to jump to the conclusion that a god is behind them all when they can all be explained in more rational ways.

<<Then let me assure you, your experiences were not like mine.>>

Going by what you told me, they were VERY much like yours.

<<What part of evolution had you lose faith?>>

I already explained that in my last post.

Further to what I had said, I tried to reconcile it with my faith at first, but this would have meant believing that for around 198,000 years, God sat back with total indifference and watched humans being born (many dying in the process, including the mother), then only living to about 25 years old, which they then died in horrendous and painful ways as the result of war, famine, their teeth, or microorganisms which they didn’t know existed; only for us to then make some small progress towards the end of it all with immense suffering and labour. Then, after 198,000 years, God finally decides that it’s time to intervene, and the only way he can think of to do this, is to come down in human form and offer himself in a filthy sacrifice in a remote and illiterate part of Palestine; the news of which has still not completely penetrated the rest of the world.

Why kind of a god works in such a negligent and half-arsed way?

<<Was it micro evolution … Was it macro evolution ...>>

Both. The only meaningful distinction here is time. These terms are only used by creationists.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 28 August 2017 7:54:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<I give you this swath of a discription so you can order stand how deceptive it has become.>>

I don’t see how you’ve done that, sorry. All you seem to be saying is that ‘evolution’ is a word which can apply to many things, therefore, the concept is now too vague to be something to lose one's faith over. But this would be a silly thing to say, because we’re only talking about it in reference to biology, and in this context, the idea is very distinct.

<<In evolution theories this is a much needed element that I see is slack in it's theories.>>

What do you mean by its “theories”? Evolution is one theory. You don’t seem to understand what 'theory' means in the scientific sense. It seems to me like you’re confusing 'theory' with 'hypothesis'.

Evolution is not lacking in any “solid foundation” either. It is a well-established fact. It is one of the most comprehensive, cohesive, and proven theories in science.

<<Don't be taken by any of the muck until you have a solid foundation to stand on and consider the merits of everything else.>>

What is this “muck” you speak of? And I hope you’re not referring to the merits of creationism. Creationism is a thoroughly-debunked load of nonsense. As a Christian, I was a creationist, so I understand how little merit is has.

<<As for the aspects of the evolutionary theories … I've not found any that would cause me to question my faith.>>

Then how would you reconcile the apparent deceit and neglect of a god who is supposed to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent?
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 28 August 2017 7:54:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Phillips,

<<Yes, it does need to be reconciled. An omniscient god would know what was going to happen in the future, therefore, He could not stray from what He already knew was going to happen without creating a paradox.>>

You've mentioned paradoxes more then once. Listen to what I say.

If God is all knowing but not all powerful then he could not as easily answer prayers. Nor could He If He was all powerful but not all knowing. This paradox does not rely on God being all powerful or all knowing but rests on the unsaid assumption that God winded up the universe like a toy and then let it go undisturbed since. That assumption is in great error.

If God is all knowing and all powerful, then He would know when we will pray and when we would turn away. He would know our choices before we chose them, and He would know those choices in relation to the world around us too. If He was all knowing he can see and interact with all of this as He sees fit. Answering prayers, or letting a person's life fall apart a little. Allowing success to their choices or holding that success back. The answer to your paradox is that God is not just all knowing and all powerful, but He is also sovereign and active in the world as well. This addresses the prayer paradox as well as the free will paradoxes.
__________
But these are my figurings, what difference do they make? Being too concerned with philosophical arguments and reconciling paradoxes is the kind of stuff I mean when I speak of cutting through the muck. Find a solid ground, a stable foundation. Because people can argue philosophical pondering against other philosophical pondering and have no end. Philosophical reasoning does not have authority over other philosophical reasoning. There needs to be more trusted sources then being a deep thinker or an good debater for discerning the truth. Experience is one such source. Age having more experience is often rightly seen as having greater wisdom as well.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 2:43:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Then how would you reconcile the apparent deceit and neglect of a god who is supposed to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent?>>

I figure there are two factors to consider. One is rebellion against God in general. If I understand it correctly then Saran is an enemy. One in rebellion against God, or who had been in rebellion and lost. Our tragic tales of history might be a witness for both ourselves and everyone else as well. A Testiment of what happens when people turn away from God. After all if angels are watching over us they might also be given this lesson. This is what the world would look like if you rebel. There is no paridise, no reward, no great power under the rebellion. There is war, greed, corruption, injustice, and evils that those who are evil can not excape from. The only longstanding positive witness is that those who seek God, He will look after. Even in the mist of their sufferings or in the mix of their joys. I figure our history is a witness to the powers above.

Even with this witness though God shows His love. Reaches out to humanity to reconcile it back to Him. And He will keep as a treasured possession all that do go back to Him and follow His teaching to conquor evil by doing good.
________________________

Philosophy can help a person live and reason. But it can't change how things actually are in the world. Only how they are look at. A philosopher's paradox about God has as much impact as a comedian's paradox of how men and women are attracted to one another. The attraction exists, and so does God. The problem is that the comedian knows the attraction exists. It helps with the joke. Philosophers don't acknowledge that their reasoning as anything less then the authority of how the world works. Don't get caught up in that muck.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 2:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not_Now.Soon,

I’m not sure you’re understanding the paradoxical issues surrounding prayer.

<<The answer to your paradox is that God is not just all knowing and all powerful, but He is also sovereign and active in the world as well.>>

Appealing to God’s alleged sovereignty doesn’t resolve the problem, it merely introduces yet another complication. In fact, it’s a form of Begging the Question and Special Pleading.

If we prayed, and God altered the course of what he knew was going to happen because of that prayer, then this would create a paradox. This means that, if a god does exist, then it cannot be omniscient.

Omnipotence has similar problems. One could ask, for example, “Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?”, but simply asserting that God is sovereign and active in the world does not address the problem.

Again, this is why apologists, like William Lane Craig, have reduced God to ‘maximally powerful’ (which has its own problems).

<<This addresses the prayer paradox as well as the free will paradoxes.>>

No, it doesn’t. The free will paradox is yet another problem for Christianity, and it is the reason why I was saying that everything we do would ultimately be the fault of God. If an omniscient god exists, and it created everything to happen as it is happening, then we have no choice in how anything plays out. Our free will would be useless.

<<Being too concerned with philosophical arguments and reconciling paradoxes is the kind of stuff I mean when I speak of cutting through the muck.>>

It sounds to me, then, that by, “cutting through the muck”, you mean ignore the problems or pretend they don’t exist.

<<Find a solid ground, a stable foundation.>>

But how could we achieve that without resolving the issues?

<<There needs to be more trusted sources then being a deep thinker or an good debater for discerning the truth. Experience is one such source.>>

I disagree. Our experiences still require that we think about them before we can come to a conclusion about what they mean.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 8:34:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. 19
  13. 20
  14. 21
  15. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy