Kosh

Ah yes, the Metacrockan "If you disagree with me, you must be too stupid to understand" argument.

Or shall we say Argumentum ad Dimentia

CJD

Mike, come on. Not all biblical critics are apologists. Some people do actually enjoy the intricacies of textual criticism, linguistics, etc. If you smell an apologist when arguing over biblical data, then it will only take a few exchanges to expose the depth of his/her knowledge of the text. Call them on it, by all means. But if you run into an actual scholar, I suggest giving respect where it is due. Unless, of course, you are just as unwilling (as the apologist is) to admit a deficiency in knowledge . . .

I don't know how any critically thinking individual could miss the fact that latent in American public policy is the adulation of the autonomous self, as well as practical atheism. In other words, it doesn't need to be refuted. It refutes itself. The Founders' were anything but orthodox Christians.

Regards,

CJD

Secular Pinoy

A better way to understand the disagreement is that these two accounts are based on two different traditions that were conflated as a supposed single narrative by a redactor, according to the Documentary Hypothesis.

CJD

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by YHWHtruth
At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19,_20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


. . . and then the final editor (i.e., the Deuteronomist) came along and, knowing of the two accounts, dischronologized the text (chpt. 2) purposefully so as to accentuate the place of God's vice regents in the created order. He/she then organized the earlier creation account (chpt. 1) in a poetic framework used as a literary device to accentuate Sabbatarian theology.

No, I'm being serious.

CJD

The Other Michael

If you want to dispute the "our laws are based on the Bible" start with this thread in the CSS&A forum. If you need more than that, just ask the moderators to point you at other threads discussing it.

cheers,
Michael

Answerer

Ihmhi, aren't you worry that your teacher might give you a bad grade for being an attacking her belief?

unregistered_user_1

OK, about the constitution and all, there is a good site Separation of Church and State with a lot of articles.

Javaman

Ihmhi,
While these two passages contain a contradiction, I think they're more telling when used as a question. The passages:

Mark 11
12 And on the morrow, when they had come from Bethany, He was hungry;
13 and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He might find any thing thereon. But when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time for figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus spoke and said unto it, "Let no man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." And His disciples heard it.

.....snip - above emphasis mine

20 And in the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.


Matthew 21
18 Now in the morning as He returned into the city, He hungered.
19 And when He saw a fig tree by the wayside, He came to it and found nothing thereon, but leaves only. And He said unto it, "Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever." And immediately the fig tree withered away.
20 And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, "How soon has the fig tree withered away!"
21 Jesus answered and said unto them, "Verily I say unto you, if ye have faith and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, `Be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea,' it shall be done.


The contradiction is that Mark has it that it takes a day for the tree to wither but Matthew says it was immediately. Granted, this is really only a problem for literalists who think the Bible is entirely inspired by God and, therefore, contains no mistakes however small.

The question I might ask is, "Why is the son of God so angry at a fig tree for not having fruit when it's not supposed to have fruit that he destroys it?"

mfaber

It looks like you and your teacher were on two topics:

1. Her contention that the "US is a Christian Nation"

2. The evolution vs YEC (young earth creationism)

First, don't try to engage her in both at the same time. Pick a topic and don't let her stray to the other if she starts losing the "evidence" war.

Second, debating evolution with a YECer is hard because it takes a lot of information to debunk their "bumper-sticker" (gasp, gag!) "science".

Let's take each topic in turn....

PART 1: The US is a Christian Nation Myth

The easier to defeat is that Religious Reich (Right) attempt to rewrite history with the "US is a Christian Nation' riff. It's a mistake, IMO, to try to do this, showing that the Bible itself in unreliable (the contradictions argument) because a fundie will bend over backwards to come up with excuses to try and explain them away. It is easier to just challenge the claim directly by doing the following......

Just ask her to name a single principle that is in the Constitution that has a Biblical base. (NOTE: I debunked the pledge/money crapola at the end of my response about the Constitution). It is the Constitution that is the basis of the government, so documents like the Declaration of Independence are irrelevant (no law accrues from this document).

Here is one of my answers that I made to a fundie on this:
How did Christianity contribute to the writing of the Constitution , especially in light of the fact that some Christains are alway trumpeting that this is a "Christian nation founded on Christian principles". But it that really true? Let's look at:

• A = Constitutional principle
• B = What the Bible says on the subject

Adapted/Quoted FROM Christian Bible Foundations of the U.S.A

Sometimes now we hear that the United States is "founded on biblical principles", as a slightly softened version of the "Christian nation" idea. People making that claim don't give specifics on what foundations of the U.S. and what parts of the Bible they mean.

Of the many foundations of our country, I was able to find two which are supported in the Bible, and several which run contradictory to the Bible.

(A)FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I don't find in the Bible any defense of freedom of speech.
(B) On the contrary: "he that doubteth is damned" (Romans 14:23); "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...whose mouths must be stopped.." (Titus, 1:10-11); and "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ......and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19). The last passage could be construed as being against democracy, since anyone who runs for office against an existing administration is sowing discord.

(A)RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE. This is embraced in both the original Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) and in the First Amendment. Yet in the Bible we have:
(B) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3); "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18); "He that sacrifice unto any god save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20); "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23); "he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" (Leviticus 24:16). [Such stoning was actually carried out, in 1 Kings 21:13] Anyone proselytizing for another religion is to be put to death, and if that person is a member of your family, you are to strike the first blow to kill him or her (Deuteronomy 13:5-10). "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). The practice of "shunning" someone who disagrees with you on religious matters is advised in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

(A)A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Our Constitution demands this (Article IV, Section 4). But I find nothing in the Bible to support it.

(B) On the contrary, Romans 13:1-7 tells people to obey authority because it is instituted by God. NOTE: For an interesting view of this go HERE (libertarian)


(A)"CORRUPTION OF THE BLOOD" is forbidden by the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2). In the Bible, though:

(B) "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). [However, the Bible does contradict itself on this: "... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16)]. Also: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut. 5:9); "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). Bastards may not enter the temple, nor their descendants (Deut. 23:2). God even killed a baby because of a sin by its father (2 Samuel 12:14). Ahab escaped punishment for murder by making an elaborate apology, and his descendants were punished instead (I Kings 21:29). The doctrine of original sin is also against this part of the Constitution.


(A)SLAVERY. This was an important social and economic foundation of our country both before and after independence. It was an institution condoned by the founders and recognized and defended by the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise"

(B)Slavery is also condoned in both the Old and New Testaments, but it is never condemned. On the contrary, it is codified, and made an inherited condition:

Exodus 21:4ff gives rules for keeping slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says that heathen may be purchased as slaves, that their children become slaves, and that they are inherited as property by the owner's children for ever. Other places that indicate that slavery is a hereditary condition are: Genesis 9:25, Exodus 21:4, Corinthians 7:20. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says that when you conquer a city, if it surrenders then all people inside it become your slaves; but if it doesn't surrender, then all males are to be killed and all women and children "take unto thyself". Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to honor their masters.

In the book of Philemon, Paul sends a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his former master. But this conflicts with the admonition in Deuteronomy 23:15 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped..." So the Bible is on both sides of the 1857 Dred Scott case!


(A)TREATMENT OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. Here is another place where one of the foundations of our country is justified by the Bible. NOTE: No Constitutional protection for the original inhabitants of this country................

(B)"Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy....And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein.." (Numbers 33:52-53). This biblical injunction was obeyed many times by Americans.

(A) WOMEN'S RIGHTS Not mentioned by the author of the previous website is women's rights which are ignored by the Constitution......

(B)The Bible is very clear on their inferior status as reinterated in these articles:
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, by John Knox (1558)

A 1993 DEFENSE of the Knox Hatred of Women(yes, you see correctly 1993, in the 20th Century and then there's the SBC's (Baptist) notion of "freedom" for women { their "all people are equal (men,women), but some people (men) are more equal than others (women)" Orwellian Newspeak)}

The above is why Why Women Need Freedom From Religion


Looks like the "Christian" contributions of slavery and discrimination against women and minorities did indeed get into the Constitution. NOTE:Of course, Christians are not the only religious group with adherents guilty of promoting the slavery or discrimination. Not all Christians now support the submission of women and /or slavery (views of Randall Terry, a Christian Reconstructionist) And yes IMO the views of such Christains are totally inimical to freedom in any shape, form, or fashion.

The bottom-line here is that the Constitution is a SECULAR document (begins with "We, the people, NOT We, the Christians), containing no mention of God or Christianity. There is even a provision outlawing religious tests for holding office.

The phrase "one nation, under God, was ADDED to the pledge of alligance at the behest of the likes of Joseph McCarthy in 1954 (got to counter those "evil, Godless commies, don't you know!) . The phrase "in God we trust" did not appear on a LIMITED set of coins until the mid 1860s (it didn't appear on the same coins in a consistent fashion, either). It didn't appear on the paper currency til 1957 (again as a counter to all those "evil, godless commies! Better dead than atheist-Red!)

1. Beware of fundies "quoting" the Founding Fathers. There are a lot of misquotes out there that they don't hesitate to use to further the cause (lying for God is apparently OK). ALWAYS ask for the source of the quote.

2. Beware of fundies siting court cases to support a position because they also don't hesitate to take these out of context or are just plain wrong about some of the things the court (Supreme Court) said or meant (again "lying for God"). Favorites for abuse are:

1. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). A good discussion is HERE in Post #74. This one shows how this wannabe historical revisionists work such cases.
   
2. Everson v. the Board of Education,Ewing Township

mfaber

PART 2-TIPS FOR DEBATING WITH CREATIONISTS

WHEN DEBATING CREATIONISTS, A CAUTIONARY TALE.... Debating creationists in a class room is often a waste of class time. Creationists won't hesitate to turn it into a shouting match over God and morality. This lot are very thin-skinned and on over half the occassions I have seen my professors sucked into these debates, the creationist proponent will get his or her feeling hurt and actually start crying (this is very disconcerting).. If the prof isn't "sympathetic" enough, these cry-babies don't hesitate to complain to department heads that they have been abused by those "mean old EVILutionists!"

ADVICE ON DEBATING CREATIONISTS! (don't even think about it until you have read this first!)

Debating Creationists: Some Pointers
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/deba...ationists.html

Perhaps you might make a copy for everyone in your class:
Printer freindly version of 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. This would give everyone a chance to read about the favorite YEC arguments against evolution and see why they're bunk.

Other useful sources:

1) TALK ORIGINS--this site has answers to virtually every stupid argument that creationists have. The replies to the feedback alone are real gems
http://www.talkorigins.org

• a)TALK ORIGINS NEWSGROUP-lively debates, not for the faint of heart!
  http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...p=talk.origins

2) THE EVOLUTION OF ALTRUISM--creationists often claim that without God there is no morality. This site argues that morality is just part and parcel of the evolution of the brain and society.............
http://www.theunityofknowledge.org/t...title_page.htm

3) THE WORLD OF RICHARD DAWKINS--Evolutionist and ace ID debunker
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/


4) BECOMING HUMAN--Here's a site to peruse if you don't know much about human evolution. Try the interactive documentary(if you have broadband)
http://www.becominghuman.org/

5) It is humbling to know just how close we are to other species, genetically that is... creationists hate this. Since chimps are have only ~1 % difference, this means that ~500 or so genes separate us.

COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE ORGANISM GENE #S

• Fruitfly Genes (Drosophila melanogaster) 25,728
• Human Genes (Homo sapiens) 53,210
• Mouse Genes (Mus musculus) 36,433
• Mosquito Genes (Anopheles gambiae) 11,781
• Weed Genes (Arabidopsis thaliana) 26,819
• Worm Genes (Caenorhabditis elegans) 22,705
• Yeast Genes (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) 7,222
• Zebrafish Genes (Danio rerio) 1,583

THIS CHART FOUND HERE:


6)The Science Behind the Human Genome Project
Basic Genetics, Genome Draft Sequence, and Post-Genome Science-- If you don't know anything about the human genome project
http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/project/info.html

7) TIGR GENOME NEWS NETWORK--about genomes of many organisms
http://gnn.tigr.org/main.shtml

8) BIOLOGY ON-LINE--help on biology questions
http://gened.emc.maricopa.edu/bio/bi...ioBookTOC.html


ON ABIOGENESIS (The origin of life is NOT part of evolutionary theory!)

1) NASA’s Origins of Life site
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

2) Origins of Life (University of Glasgow)
http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/origin.../2001/menu.htm

3) RNA and the Origins of Life
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/S...gins_life.html

4) Formation of the RNA World
http://www.origins.rpi.edu/chem.html#rna

5) My discussion of the subject to a YEC on CF:

• Part 1 (Post #33)-Overview of Abiogenesis
• Part 2-Good Theories Make Predictions

DEBUNKING ID (Intelligent Design, the most sophisticated "Trojan Horse" of creationists/religionists for sneaking Christianity into the public school science curriculum. You may get into a discussion of what is called Intelligent Design (some creationists are also IDists, but not all IDists are creationists)

1)KEN MILLER--PALEY IN A TEST TUBE (Real Player lecture and transcript takes about why ID is bunk--great if you know nothing about this subject)
For those with RealPlayer, here is a 23 min. talk by Ken Miller that tells what ID is and why it's bunk (easy to understand language!)
Ken Miller: Paley in a Test Tube, Biological Argument from Design
http://www.meta-library.net/perspevo/preskm-sm.ram

Ken Miller Paley in a Test Tube (html transcripts)
http://www.meta-library.net/perspevo/preskm-body.html

2) Intelligent Design?A special report reprinted from Natural
History Magazine
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
Features Debates with IDers and Evolutionists:
A. Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro, ed. (introduction)
DEBATING PAIRS

• Michael Behe, Ph.D. (ID) v. Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. (EVO)
• William Dembski, Ph.D. (ID) v. Robert Pennock, Ph.D. (EVO)
• Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (ID) v. Eugenie Scott, Ph.D. (EVO)

B. Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. (overview)

These debates are great and each participant gives many links so virtually everything you might want to know about this topic is covered here.

3) Is God in the Details? (ID argues that the "fine tuning" of natural laws is "too perfect" to have happened without an Intelligent Designer

• a)An article against fine tuning from Talk Origins
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
• b)Essays Against ID/Fine Tuning from Internet Infidels Library
  http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...sm/design.html