"Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse"

[dust1n]

Its at least as guilty as the Gun, or the Bible.They don't have egos either.More people have been killed in wars from the advancement of science than from any other means. Evil comes from the heart of man.

That's okay, science replaced them all with those giant population booms, ya know, the ones that resulted from refrigeration, medicine, etc. etc.

 

[Walkntune]

Mankind is so evil and self righteous that he doesn't want to take the responsibility for the hatred and destruction he causes.He would rather blame God or blame the gun.

 

[Quintessence]

And what is being debated over is exactly whether teaching creationism counts as child abuse. So if it is child abuse, it is their ( our ) business.

Yup, and I pretty much made it clear a while back that I completely disagree with classifying raising children in your religious tradition to be "child abuse."

Not simply bringing up a child on a religious tradition. That's a misrepresentation of the situation.

I disagree. Sans making value judgements, that's exactly what's going on here. The parents raising their children in this fashion aren't going "oh, I want to raise my child to be a backwards degenerate and permanently sabotage their lives and intelligence." No, the assessment that belief in literalistic creationism is backwards degeneracy and unintelligent is a projection made by outsiders.

I agree that won't fly, but for a different reason. Simply because it would be impractical.

Well, yeah, it's impractical because you'd have to shred the Constitution to bits before you could do it, among other reasons. The only place you can really standardize how children are raised is in public schools. No wonder that arena becomes such a battleground sometimes, yes? Of course there are the more insidious methods: the mass media has done a very good job of conditioning people, altering perception, and manufacturing controversy. There is no controversy over the science of evolution nor the science of climate change, yet listening to the media, you'd think things were really uncertain. I'm far more concerned about abuses of the mass media than I am about parents teaching their kids literalistic creationism, honestly. But that is probably neither here nor there.

 

[Father Heathen]

Mankind is so evil and self righteous that he doesn't want to take the responsibility for the hatred and destruction he causes.He would rather blame God or blame the gun.

Who exactly is skirting responsibility, and who is "blaming god"? Really, who?

 

[Falvlun]

Who exactly is skirting responsibility, and who is "blaming god"? Really, who?

I also find it strange that a shared responsibility is an unfathomable option. Yes, people are responsible for their actions. Yes, (imo) God is a jerk for allowing all this unspeakable evil to happen. Yes, people are responsible for shooting other people. Yes, its an issue that guns are so prevalent and easily obtained. It's not an either/or.

 

[Walkntune]

Science is an objective tool for gathering and examining data, wheres the bible conveys the dark hearts of those who pinned it, negatively influencing the susceptible.

The bible is a mirror of the soul of the one who reads it.It is a two edged sword and reflects love to those full of love and hate to those full of hate.It is truly meant for man to see himself from the perspective of God and not for man to see God from the perspective of man.

 

[Father Heathen]

The bible is a mirror of the soul of the one who reads it.It is a two edged sword and reflects love to those full of love and hate to those full of hate.

Then what it reflects in me is goodness as I reject the homophobia, misogyny, subjugation, slavery, and brutality that it promotes.

 

[Walkntune]

Then what it reflects in me is goodness as I reject the homophobia, misogyny, subjugation, slavery, and brutality that it promotes.

The bible does not promote this. It only claims that this is true in man yet Christ gave his life for all, even the ones who nailed him to the cross.Your goodness will only bring about hate yet the goodness of Christ was even towards that of the haters.

 

[dust1n]

Mankind is so evil and self righteous that he doesn't want to take the responsibility for the hatred and destruction he causes.He would rather blame God or blame the gun.

I've yet to find a use for either one so far.

 

[Father Heathen]

The bible does not promote this. It only claims that this is true in man yet Christ gave his life for all, even the ones who nailed him to the cross.Your goodness will only bring about hate yet the goodness of Christ was even towards that of the haters.

Doesn't the fact that he came back to life negate his "sacrifice", since sacrifice implies loss? Besides, everyone dies eventually, so it's not that great of a feat.
Anyway, the notion that god had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease himself so that god could save something he created from something he created is wacky nonsense.

 

[4consideration]

I have been following this thread and have not noticed anyone yet making a distinction between creationism (as in the belief in a creator) and Young Earth Creationism, which includes a literal interpretation of Genesis -- along with a belief that the earth is about 10,000 years old, or less. (If that distinction has been made, then I am sorry that I must have missed it.)

Since Mr. Rubio was the subject of both the article presented and the video, I am wondering why neither has made reference to the fact Mr. Rubio's church (the Catholic Church) does not hold a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, and it also -- as far as I understand it -- does not exclude evolution from it's position on the matter. The article shifts from its focus from Mr. Rubio to a discussion about and survey of Protestant pastors -- including a portion of them which hold a YEC view.

It is my understanding that there are other religions that would qualify as creationist in their perspective that are not only not YEC, but are not even Christian. I believe that it is accurate for Judaism that there is a belief in a Creator but no literal interpretation of Genesis, no discounting of the scientific evidence surrounding the subject of evolution, etc.

Within all of the various types of creationists that do also include the scientific perspective presented by the Theory of Evolution, it seems inaccurate for this dicussion to focus only upon YEC as if it is THE definition of creationism as a whole. What I am hearing, and it may not be what is intended, is that anyone that believes in a creator, who teaches that concept to their children -- may, or may not be guilty of "child abuse."

Perhaps the confusion arises from the article and the video that focused upon Mr. Rubio, who happens to be Catholic. Then it jumps from Mr. Rubio to a survey of Protestent pastors. It includes the fact that there are some Protestant pastors that believe in a YEC version of creationism. I think that Mr. Rubio was discussing tolerance for diversity of thought, including the diversity of religious belief even within the Christian communities.

While he actually seems to have stated that parents have the right to teach their children what their faith says (teaching the subject as religion) and teaching what science says (teaching the subject as science,) it seems that many here are taking the position that those that believe in creationism are advocating teaching religion as science. I think that is incorrect. There may be some Protestant Christians that do think that way, but it does not seem that any large percentage of creationists do.

Does anyone have a list handy of all the religions that believe in a Creator?

 

[Koldo]

Yup, and I pretty much made it clear a while back that I completely disagree with classifying raising children in your religious tradition to be "child abuse."

I disagree. Sans making value judgements, that's exactly what's going on here. The parents raising their children in this fashion aren't going "oh, I want to raise my child to be a backwards degenerate and permanently sabotage their lives and intelligence." No, the assessment that belief in literalistic creationism is backwards degeneracy and unintelligent is a projection made by outsiders.

You are conflating all religion traditions in a single group. And then making it appear as if this single group was being attacked. That is not the case. A particular religious teaching is being singled out for a very specific reason that doesn't apply to many other religious teachings.

Well, yeah, it's impractical because you'd have to shred the Constitution to bits before you could do it, among other reasons. The only place you can really standardize how children are raised is in public schools. No wonder that arena becomes such a battleground sometimes, yes? Of course there are the more insidious methods: the mass media has done a very good job of conditioning people, altering perception, and manufacturing controversy. There is no controversy over the science of evolution nor the science of climate change, yet listening to the media, you'd think things were really uncertain. I'm far more concerned about abuses of the mass media than I am about parents teaching their kids literalistic creationism, honestly. But that is probably neither here nor there.

I disagree. There would be no need to shred the constitution. Or do you mean to say that the constitution protects some kinds of child abuse? You are free to have your own religion, but your religious practices are still limited by the law.

It would be impractical because far many too many children would be left without a family. The remedy would be far worse than the disease.

 

[Walkntune]

Doesn't the fact that he came back to life negate his "sacrifice", since sacrifice implies loss? Besides, everyone dies eventually, so it's not that great of a feat.
Anyway, the notion that god had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease himself so that god could save something he created from something he created is wacky nonsense.

I suppose you will know when you face the feat.

 

[dust1n]

I love the EvC threads. =D

 

[Walkntune]

I've yet to find a use for either one so far.

Its nice to live in our own bouble and put that standard on the world but many who have been suppressed by the tyranny of mans government may not take such a view now.The 2nd ammendment was thought through with much wisdom and knowledge of past mistakes.

 

[dust1n]

Its nice to live in our own bouble and put that standard on the world but many who have been suppressed by the tyranny of mans government may not take such a view now.The 2nd ammendment was thought through with much wisdom and knowledge of past mistakes.

I know why the 2nd amendment is there. I don't necessarily disagree with it. I just find no use for one. I'd imagine Jesus would be one who finds little use in them as well.

 

[Walkntune]

I know why the 2nd amendment is there. I don't necessarily disagree with it. I just find no use for one. I'd imagine Jesus would be one who finds little use in them as well.

Sometimes the tyranny of mans government can start as simply as wanting to do away with the choice of anothers belief.I agree with you to the point I myself do not own a gun and find no need for one in my life.I just will not try and control another with my own personal convictions.Before you go crazy on what the church does and does not do in their self righteousness, know I don't agree with them either.At least not with many in the western culture.

 

[dust1n]

Sometimes the tyranny of mans government can start as simply as wanting to do away with their choice of belief.I agree with you to the point I myself do not own a gun and find no need for one in my life.I just will not try and control another with my own personal convictions.Before you go crazy on what the church does and does not do in their self righteousness, know I don't agree with them either.At least not with many in the western culture.

Generally a tyranny of mass government starts with a tyrant/revolution. I'd ultimately agree with you the people ignore eternal causes for problems, but I don't think Bibles and guns are exactly blameless. If the Anarchist Cookbook is lying around, a seven year old kid starts a fire, we tend to be mad at the book. I don't think there was evil or self-righteousness there with the kid, and certainly if the book wasn't laying around, some kid's ignorance wouldn't have got them in trouble. Takes two to tango, as they say. Same for people doing evil stuff with objects.

 

[fantome profane]

Interesting that a thread about the age of the earth became a thread about the 2nd amendment. I think it just shows how important it is to some people to hang onto their ignorance.

"You can take my ignorance when you can pry it out if my cold dead hands".

 

[Skwim]

Its at least as guilty as the Gun, or the Bible.They don't have egos either.More people have been killed in wars from the advancement of science than from any other means. Evil comes from the heart of man.

The difference is that science and the gun are just tools, whereas the Bible has often been the reason. Huge difference. HUGE!

Mankind is so evil and self righteous that he doesn't want to take the responsibility for the hatred and destruction he causes.

"He"???

He would rather blame God or blame the gun

. Well, after all, god did invent evil.

The bible is a mirror of the soul of the one who reads it.It is a two edged sword and reflects love to those full of love and hate to those full of hate.It is truly meant for man to see himself from the perspective of God and not for man to see God from the perspective of man.

Not to be snide, but platitudes such as this are more amusing than convincing.

The bible does not promote this.

Sure it does. For one example just click HERE