And that "something else" should not be taught in science class. It should be taught in the "something else" class.
Fair enough. Then science classes should always teach that science may not hold every answer to every thing.
Besides, no-one can ever get us all the answers. The Universe does not exist for the convenience of people. It's extremely likely that we'll never understand many things about the Universe
We agree.
falling back on silly fantasies is an infantile response to the great mysteries of the Universe.
Correct, iff the preferred "fantasy" isn't the ticket to an "afterlife". Some bet one way; some bet the other.
I appreciate that you feel that way. However, I said "be banned from" (read: banned from discussion outside of theology class) and not "not be taught in".
Other modern translations: Ephesians: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... Timothy: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...
The passage in Timothy is telling Christians to not complain, and to act in humility, even when they're being oppressed. The passage in Ephesians is saying the same thing.
Here's the thing: Read 1 Peter 2:13: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... which tells Christians to obey the law. In the old days, the law allowed for slaves; in the present day, it doesn't. The point is to always obey the law.
As for Revelation: Many down-to-earth Christians believe it cannot be interpreted correctly in the present day. Some believe it is talking about the past; some believe it is a prophesy of things to take place in the future. No one who's emotionally healthy believes it's a literal book. Additionally, all that passage is implying is that (1) there is a creator, (2) he doesn't like those personality traits, (3) people with those traits are not going to be saved from [either the Earth's eventual destruction or "hell", I'm not quite clear on that].
It's not a scientific theory at all, and it's not saying you can't ask questions. Who says science even has the ability to have all the answers? Because, if science can't ever get us all the answers, then there's something else...
I agree that science can be (and sometimes is) elevated to the position of religion. But... If there's a maker, and he's vastly superior to mankind, he would likely possess the ability to keep himself from being observed, ever. (Also, how can a religious fantasy be insulted by itself? I got confused by that.)
Many evangelicals have mental health issues, sadly. It's one of the bigger problems with that group. I don't have enough information, after reading Genesis, to assert that it's a literal account of creation; therefore, I don't.
The Bible we have now is certainly a human work. The most-reasonable Christians, in my opinion, say that the original manuscripts are inerrant and there may be some (plenty of?) mistranslations and misunderstandings in the versions we read today.
And the new testament isn't pro-slavery, at all. I've never got that impression from reading it; however, I do feel that it emphasizes humility, whether or not you're being oppressed. I enjoyed this read: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.or...
I do study QM and natural selection in my spare time. And Christianity. And I don't doubt QM, natural selection, or Christianity. Occam's Razor... it's the simplest solution that the universe was created.
Christians actually follow the teachings of the Bible's new testament, and consider the old testament laws to be a fulfilled chapter of their predecessors, the Jews.
With respect, my suggestion is that you read the entirety of Christ's teachings before commenting on them.
I actually think it's pretty reasonable to question the emotional health of a person who (1) willingly insults people, and (2) "needs" to have half a million dollars per year just to be happy. Because I did just look up housing in San Francisco, and there are 2BR houses, with a patio, *in SF* that are as low as $350k. Are they common? Maybe not. Could you also rent? Yes. But really, this is an internet argument, so we could argue back-and-forth for days... I question you, you insult me, I question you back. You know how it goes. So let's stop. Because I (from your last reply) can already tell what you're like to work with, in general. So, you answered my question. Thank you.
Why should we trust someone who claims to "need" the amount of (250000 x 2) dollars just to stay happy? And I guess I'm really asking: What are you like to work with?
Well, since we (as humans) tend not to converse in math, why don't you explain it in English? I agree that explaining it in math would probably be wasting your time.
Sure, weight x distance is generally fairer than just direct gas usage. But if we're going to go there, why not do it properly?
Damage to infrastructure is proportional to the 4th power of weight; thus, we should probably tax something like
([miles travelled]/1000miles)*([vehicle weight]/1500lbs)^4
for vehicle registration. That would take into account the proper damage.
The average american drives 13476 miles and the average fleet curb weight (in 2004, latest i could quickly find) was 3239 lbs; this would give a result of $293 for registration. If you drove the same amount in a vehicle half that, you'd pay like $17, and if you drove a vehicle twice that weight you'd pay $4466.
That would take into account proper damage incurred on infrastructure.
From the article: "Our research found that the fourth power is often inaccurate, " continuing: "More importantly, pavement serviceability is often not the most relevant measure used by highway agencies
to trigger maintenance activities."
One potential problem with that argument is that the societal masses can be too-easily manipulated, either from within or by external influences.
Another is that you'd assert, then, that "society can say that it, itself is correct or incorrect," since society grants moral authority; thereby making all societies a form of collective leadership (see the Wikipedia series on Communism for more info). You can't guarantee that one sect within a global society wouldn't rise to dominance, and further that the one sect wouldn't be "wrong" (Perhaps they, themselves, believe they are right?).
Moral relativism doesn't scale, even if you wish it so. Collective leadership never works, even if you wish it so. And, yes, the United States of America does grant rights based on a formal document (never challenged by any American party, president, or congress, ever) which assigns the right-granting power to a Creator. Just because you don't see it that way (where do you live, by the way?) doesn't mean it isn't the case for us. It's something we struggled with, in the past, and something that means a lot to us-- perhaps because of the value of our own struggles, and our eventual success. Show me who does it better.
Slashdot Mirror
And that "something else" should not be taught in science class. It should be taught in the "something else" class.
Fair enough. Then science classes should always teach that science may not hold every answer to every thing.
Besides, no-one can ever get us all the answers. The Universe does not exist for the convenience of people. It's extremely likely that we'll never understand many things about the Universe
We agree.
falling back on silly fantasies is an infantile response to the great mysteries of the Universe.
Correct, iff the preferred "fantasy" isn't the ticket to an "afterlife". Some bet one way; some bet the other.
I appreciate that you feel that way. However, I said "be banned from" (read: banned from discussion outside of theology class) and not "not be taught in".
Other modern translations: Ephesians: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... Timothy: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... The passage in Timothy is telling Christians to not complain, and to act in humility, even when they're being oppressed. The passage in Ephesians is saying the same thing. Here's the thing: Read 1 Peter 2:13: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... which tells Christians to obey the law. In the old days, the law allowed for slaves; in the present day, it doesn't. The point is to always obey the law. As for Revelation: Many down-to-earth Christians believe it cannot be interpreted correctly in the present day. Some believe it is talking about the past; some believe it is a prophesy of things to take place in the future. No one who's emotionally healthy believes it's a literal book. Additionally, all that passage is implying is that (1) there is a creator, (2) he doesn't like those personality traits, (3) people with those traits are not going to be saved from [either the Earth's eventual destruction or "hell", I'm not quite clear on that].
Show me where those things are in the new testament.
It's not a scientific theory at all, and it's not saying you can't ask questions. Who says science even has the ability to have all the answers? Because, if science can't ever get us all the answers, then there's something else...
I agree that science can be (and sometimes is) elevated to the position of religion. But... If there's a maker, and he's vastly superior to mankind, he would likely possess the ability to keep himself from being observed, ever. (Also, how can a religious fantasy be insulted by itself? I got confused by that.)
Are you saying that anything not agreeing with your own personal philosophy should be banned from public schools? I say let them all be read.
...Is this girlintraining?
Good one. :)
Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Many evangelicals have mental health issues, sadly. It's one of the bigger problems with that group. I don't have enough information, after reading Genesis, to assert that it's a literal account of creation; therefore, I don't. The Bible we have now is certainly a human work. The most-reasonable Christians, in my opinion, say that the original manuscripts are inerrant and there may be some (plenty of?) mistranslations and misunderstandings in the versions we read today. And the new testament isn't pro-slavery, at all. I've never got that impression from reading it; however, I do feel that it emphasizes humility, whether or not you're being oppressed. I enjoyed this read: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.or...
And since that day, everyone spoke every word literally.
If you go back and read the thread, I was referring to his misunderstanding of Christ's teachings. I didn't make a reference to Genesis.
I do study QM and natural selection in my spare time. And Christianity. And I don't doubt QM, natural selection, or Christianity. Occam's Razor... it's the simplest solution that the universe was created.
Fair enough. Then science teachers should probably stop telling students that the Bible is fiction: http://www.opposingviews.com/i... and that they can't talk about it: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com...
Interestingly, the Christian story and the simulation story are the only ones that solve every one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Christians actually follow the teachings of the Bible's new testament, and consider the old testament laws to be a fulfilled chapter of their predecessors, the Jews. With respect, my suggestion is that you read the entirety of Christ's teachings before commenting on them.
Why, you must be referring to the "North American Blizzard of 1999"! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_blizzard_of_1999
Forrest, in what ways did your mother and father contribute, indirectly or directly, to your eventual success in science and technology?
I actually think it's pretty reasonable to question the emotional health of a person who (1) willingly insults people, and (2) "needs" to have half a million dollars per year just to be happy. Because I did just look up housing in San Francisco, and there are 2BR houses, with a patio, *in SF* that are as low as $350k. Are they common? Maybe not. Could you also rent? Yes. But really, this is an internet argument, so we could argue back-and-forth for days... I question you, you insult me, I question you back. You know how it goes. So let's stop. Because I (from your last reply) can already tell what you're like to work with, in general. So, you answered my question. Thank you.
Why should we trust someone who claims to "need" the amount of (250000 x 2) dollars just to stay happy? And I guess I'm really asking: What are you like to work with?
Well, since we (as humans) tend not to converse in math, why don't you explain it in English? I agree that explaining it in math would probably be wasting your time.
Sure, weight x distance is generally fairer than just direct gas usage. But if we're going to go there, why not do it properly? Damage to infrastructure is proportional to the 4th power of weight; thus, we should probably tax something like ([miles travelled]/1000miles)*([vehicle weight]/1500lbs)^4 for vehicle registration. That would take into account the proper damage. The average american drives 13476 miles and the average fleet curb weight (in 2004, latest i could quickly find) was 3239 lbs; this would give a result of $293 for registration. If you drove the same amount in a vehicle half that, you'd pay like $17, and if you drove a vehicle twice that weight you'd pay $4466. That would take into account proper damage incurred on infrastructure.
From the article: "Our research found that the fourth power is often inaccurate, " continuing: "More importantly, pavement serviceability is often not the most relevant measure used by highway agencies to trigger maintenance activities."
Just kidding.
One potential problem with that argument is that the societal masses can be too-easily manipulated, either from within or by external influences. Another is that you'd assert, then, that "society can say that it, itself is correct or incorrect," since society grants moral authority; thereby making all societies a form of collective leadership (see the Wikipedia series on Communism for more info). You can't guarantee that one sect within a global society wouldn't rise to dominance, and further that the one sect wouldn't be "wrong" (Perhaps they, themselves, believe they are right?). Moral relativism doesn't scale, even if you wish it so. Collective leadership never works, even if you wish it so. And, yes, the United States of America does grant rights based on a formal document (never challenged by any American party, president, or congress, ever) which assigns the right-granting power to a Creator. Just because you don't see it that way (where do you live, by the way?) doesn't mean it isn't the case for us. It's something we struggled with, in the past, and something that means a lot to us-- perhaps because of the value of our own struggles, and our eventual success. Show me who does it better.