quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:
Browndrake - I completely agree with you that the Founding Fathers are not being adequately or correctly taught in our schools. And I am not a fan of much of the politically correct horse dung that is being taught in schools either.

But remember that many of our founding fathers were deists, not theists. As such, they would probably not want religious doctrine taught in our schools. Remember, Thomas Jefferson was the creator of the so called “Jefferson Bible”, where he (Jefferson) went through the Bible and cut out all references to supernatural events involving the life of Jesus, including the resurrection. Jefferson believed that Jesus was a great moral philosopher, but not the son of God.

Yes, I believe you can add Benjamin Franklin to the list of deists as well. They definitely were not all of the same beliefs, Yet, even with those two, one could argue that the framework and foundation for our country largely came from the Bible.

To this day much of our law and legal system is based on English common law, and the history of all that includes non-Christian sources and influences. I’m not suggesting that Judeo-Christian influences didn’t affect our common law and later developments from the establishment of our nation forward, but does anyone really believe that concepts like prohibitions against murder and theft, and countless other rules that have governed human societies in different times and places were invented by the writers of the Old Testament? The legislators of the colonies and then the United States didn’t have to sit down with their Bibles and say, “Okay, now, it says here, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ so I guess we need some laws about homicide.”

Human societies dating far back into prehistory have all had very similar rules about how their members were supposed to behave, including strict religious and quasi-religious rules and taboos. Not all were the same, of course, and there were many exceptions from one to another, but fundamentally they were much the same. In fact, all those rules can best be understood in evolutionary terms. Had many of the fundamental ones not been established by a society, they would have destroyed themselves from within.

As one example, the biblical commandments about “coveting” that are otherwise incomprehensible made perfect sense in primitive isolated tribes whose survival was dependent upon all of their members’ getting along and not stealing each other’s goats, slaves, and wives.

Very good write-up Micropterus.

We will have to disagree in Christian love however in regards to how we interpret John 3:15 - 3:16.
Particularly “whosoever believeth”.

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

From your biblical interpretation, my presumption is that you would consider yourself a Calvinist.

This is actually a good example of why teaching of religion within schools would be improper.
Although we both consider ourselves Christians which I would believe to be true, our interpretation of the Bible differs fairly significantly.

Christianity has many different forms ranging from snake handling to flying the rainbow flag.
Therefore I believe it is proper to not teach religion in public schools.
Carving out an exemption for an elective course (with parental approval), with private funding from the local community.

I believe in freedom of religion, but not necessarily freedom from religion.

The secular world largely wants freedom from religion which is where this post started.
Correct me if I am wrong but we essentially have two theories.
1. Big Bang or cosmic dust coming together.
2. Intelligent Design (which God(s), who’s God can be debated, but it is a single concept)

My opposition to the OP is simply in not allowing presentation of alternative theory for the birth of our earth. Presenting the Big Bang as fact smacks at religious views.

For those interested in two different Christian perspectives here are some links to the Christian Research Institute (CRI), which I believe to be biblically sound.

CRI considers theology differences with Calvinism as an internal debate and not a divisive issue.
CRI, What Does Calvinism Really Teach?

Edit to add a link to Christian Research Institute (CRI) Hank Hanegraaff.
CRI Hank Hanegraaff

The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff I am fully confident in the sounds of his biblical teaching.

Just realized that the following is from Christian Resource Institute.
I have not developed an opinion on Christian Resource Institute, good or bad.
Just wanted to add that caveat to the following links.

I don’t see anything that alarms me, just not familiar with this group and was concerned that they took on the CRI acronym which could easily mislead someone in to thinking they were related to Hank Hanegraaff.

"TULIP" Calvinism Compared to Wesleyan Perspectives

The Triumph of Arminianism (and its dangers)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kimber1911,

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Human societies dating far back into prehistory have all had very similar rules ...

Knowing that with certainty is impossible, because prehistoric societies don't have written records, that's why they're "prehistoric." All we can assume is that some prehistoric traditions carried forward into historic times and were recorded then as "law". If that's the case, some of the laws of the Old Testament, which many were moral and ceremonial, are among the oldest in the world. The Old Testament speaks of times long before it was written. The oldest known written civil laws date from about the 2000s BC, well within the history written of in the Old Testament.

With respect to the Ten Commandments: these are different, these are not civil laws. And they exist in the context of God's revelation of his character to his people. No doubt, society would be better if everyone followed them. But they exist to show what is abominable to God. They don't carry a civil penalty. (Though men at times may have attached a civil penalty to them.) The bible tells us that they do carry a sure penalty of spiritual death. And they exist in large part to demonstrate to man why man needs the Saviour in Christ. Because man can't follow them.

Who here isn't guilty of "You shall not murder?" There's more to it than actually killing someone unjustly. Christ explains it this way, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Thou shalt not kill doesn't just mean that you musn't murder a man. You also can't wish him dead. You can't kill him in your heart. Who isn't guilty of that? And what written law ever carried a civil penalty for secretly wishing someone dead? And what civil code ever made one guilty of breaking all laws for the breaking of just one? John 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

We can be more than reasonably certain about the rules for living in prehistoric societies because they survived long enough to become historic societies. Without their members’ following certain fundamental rules of societal behavior, they would have imploded before we ever heard of them. There are things that we cannot know for certain, but which we are reasonably justified in believing because of what we know about other things, and that’s one of them. We also know things about some preliterate societies because they were contacted and observed by literate individuals who then told us about them.

I often do not lard all of my comments with caveats about their being based on reasonable conclusions rather than something like first-hand experience. If I believe that making the latter clear is important, I will state it. Otherwise most of what I say, like most of what other people say about certain topics, is opinion to at least some degree. Such as the following:

As an observation about merely thinking bad thoughts, for example, wanting someone dead, lusting after someone else’s wife, or coveting another’s possessions, most people who discuss or otherwise consider those admonitions (or “commandments”) don’t understand why they ended up in the early Bibles and Christian teachings. When I became old enough to start thinking about them as simply more than something to obey like not making graven images, they really seemed incomprehensible to me: “Why does it matter what I’m thinking?”

The usual explanation is that God finds them sinful and therefore that’s all the reason we need to not think them. In fact, however, they have a similar purpose to the more obvious commandments about stealing and killing members of one’s own tribe (which is what “Thou shalt not kill” refers to). The purpose of those commandments was to ensure harmony within a small, often-beleaguered group of people living in a harsh and dangerous environment. If I steal Jacob’s goat and he knows about it, that will lead to some very bad conflicts within the group. The traditions of “blood feuds” in certain societies demonstrate how disruptive killing a member of one’s own tribe can be. (Killing strangers was of course all right, as was commanded more than once in the various Bibles that have come down to us.)

The same is true about adultery. When I was being taught, our pastors tried to convince us that “adultery” included sexual fornication, but only actual marital infidelity is really harmful to the group. If a couple of unmarried teenagers do the thing and an unplanned pregnancy results, it’s no big deal: Get married. Because that wasn’t so simple in later times and societies, though, the stricture about adultery was modified to extend to intercourse between unmarried couples. But even in a small, primitive group if married people who are not married to each other create a child, big time trouble of several sorts can result.

But what about just thinking bad things? There’s an old song with the line “You can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking,” and that was my, and many other people’s puzzlement about the biblical commandments about coveting a neighbor’s “servants” and possessions.

The answer is that most bad things are preceded by thinking about doing them. That is especially true of theft, lust, and killing someone. Many times throughout my lifetime things that could have gotten me in very bad trouble started with thinking about them. One of the most vivid, and shameful, memories of such a thought was about the S&W model 29 revolver belonging to an acquaintance that I really, really wanted. That desire never progressed beyond a thought, but if it had, it would have been due to the original coveting and thinking about how much I would have liked to have it.

In later years I came to realize that thinking about doing bad things was the first step to doing them, and that the most effective way to avoid doing those bad things was to not even think about them in the first place. Don’t think about what it would be like to be in bed with someone else’s wife, and we’re much less likely to commit any actual acts to get in bed with her.

But although many people don’t think things through to the point of understanding how bad things begin with merely thinking about them, the authors of what became the commandments in the Old Testament did understand that. That’s why we have the “Thou shalt not covet …” rules. If I don’t even think about having Joseph’s plow, then I won’t do anything to steal it from him. Thinking about bad things may offend God, but it can also have undesirable consequences in the here and now, and that’s what the Commandments were really all about.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
Why care for an elderly person who can no longer really contribute anything?

Where do you think the knowledge came from and the instant answer to solve a problem the younglings were unfamiliar with came from?

Before the written word, the elders had the wisdom to keep the group alive as there was no internet.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:...

How many days did it take to create Sigforum? Is our existence a complete lie?

How do we know that SIGforum is not just some programming code on a server somewhere?

I can't believe this shit show is still going on. This gem made it all worth it to poke my head back in here again.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

The usual explanation is that God finds them sinful and therefore that’s all the reason we need to not think them. In fact, however, they have a similar purpose to the more obvious commandments about stealing and killing members of one’s own tribe (which is what “Thou shalt not kill” refers to). The purpose of those commandments was to ensure harmony within a small, often-beleaguered group of people living in a harsh and dangerous environment. If I steal Jacob’s goat and he knows about it, that will lead to some very bad conflicts within the group. The traditions of “blood feuds” in certain societies demonstrate how disruptive killing a member of one’s own tribe can be. (Killing strangers was of course all right, as was commanded more than once in the various Bibles that have come down to us.)

Again, a fundamental misunderstanding of the bible.

Throughout the OT, there are various laws regarding the treatment of "stranger." In fact, there are many laws documented in the bible about the treatment strangers, not the least among them, "When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him." There are many others.

With respect to you comment about being "alright" to kill strangers: it was never "alright" to simply kill anyone, even strangers. Murder was always wrong. But killing as a form of justice was not - as it isn't today.

According the bible, the first man ever born murdered the second man ever born. That murder met with harsh punishment. In fact, most murders in the bible were dealt with accordingly. But some killings aren't murder. Just killings are not murder. For instance, when the Israelites entered Canaan and were commanded to kill its inhabitants. God gave the Canaanites 400 years to repent of their evil before he dealt with them through the Israelites. Study the bible and you'll come to realize that the Canaanites practiced some pretty horrific things. They practiced the worship of Molech that involved making a giant bronze statue of a bull headed man with holes in it. Fires were lit inside and babies were placed in the holes to be sacrificed to that god. Drums were played to drown out the screams of the victims. It was called "passing your child through the fire to Molech." That's not just a bible tale, that if verified in secular history. Throughout that land, child and forced prostitution in the temples were commonplace. Human sacrifice. All manner so sexuals crimes.

Even so, I appreciate your thoughtful observations.

Tossing me out of the church for believing in evolution and old earth is pretty tame then.

Great, a debate about religion on the internet. I'm sure we will resolve this in short order and all be in complete agreement.

There are at least two obvious reasons why human beings care for members of their groups who can no longer contribute much of anything to the rest.

First, as Mars_Attacks points out, what people contribute isn’t always in the number of tubers they dig up or the number of ducks they bring in for supper. There is more and more recognition these days of how older members of societies contribute a lot from being storehouses of knowledge to looking after the young children while their parents do the heavy work.

Second, and more important though, is the fact that human beings are as successful as we are because we are a highly cooperative species. Doing things together has allowed us to literally conquer the planet. But cooperation isn’t just limited to getting together to move big rocks that are too heavy for one person.

There is a view that people help other people because they’re related to a somewhat close degree and because we therefore share genes: Help him succeed, help the genes we share succeed. In fact, though, cooperative behavior does more than help shared genes. It helps me directly, and most people with normal brains recognize that. That’s very important for the concept of helping those who can’t survive on their own.

If Bill goes out with Joe and Fred to hunt a mammoth and is injured and crippled in the process, what happens if Joe and Fred say, “Aww: Tough luck, but you can’t help us with future hunts, so it’s not in our interest to take care of you”? What will John who wasn’t involved in the original hunt think if Joe and Fred ask him to come along on their next hunt? If John looks around and sees that Dave and George are taking care of Tom who was injured in a previous hunt, whom is he more likely to hunt with? Joe and Fred or Dave and George?

That is another of those universal things that people have always recognized and acted on accordingly. Even some of the “lower” animals will sometimes do what they can for injured members of their groups. All that was long before anyone wrote down the ideas in any of our ethics texts; there is evidence of its being practiced among the Neanderthals.

quote:

Who here isn't guilty of "You shall not murder?" There's more to it than actually killing someone unjustly. Christ explains it this way, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Thou shalt not kill doesn't just mean that you musn't murder a man. You also can't wish him dead. You can't kill him in your heart. Who isn't guilty of that? And what written law ever carried a civil penalty for secretly wishing someone dead? And what civil code ever made one guilty of breaking all laws for the breaking of just one? John 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

This is where it goes off the rails for me. If someone rapes my wife or kills my child, am I really not supposed to be angry about it? Am I supposed to love the rapist or murderer? I don’t think so. At least, not me. Can you honestly say that you wouldn’t be angry if something like that happened to someone you loved?

Okay, for the sake of argument, suppose I am trying to forgive them. Every time I think about forgiving them I have to think about what they did in the first place. How can you think about not thinking about it without thinking about it?

I think that this whole “thought police” thing is just wrong. I can think about jumping out of an airplane without a parachute without actually doing it. I can think about driving 100 mph through a school zone without doing it. Isn’t one of the things that makes us human the ability to think through abstract problems and come to conclusions that are in our best interests? Why should anyone be punished for all eternity for THINKING through a problem and coming to a conclusion that doesn’t harm anyone (such as NOT jumping out of the plane or NOT spending through the school zone)?

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
Tossing me out of the church for believing in evolution and old earth is pretty tame then.

It's better than getting tossed out for dating all their wimmins.............not that I would know.

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:

This is where it goes off the rails for me. If someone rapes my wife or kills my child, am I really not supposed to be angry about it? Am I supposed to love the rapist or murderer? I don’t think so. At least, not me. Can you honestly say that you wouldn’t be angry if something like that happened to someone you loved?

And it does for a lot of people.

There is a difference between murder and justice. There is a difference between murder in the heart and righteous anger. Wanting justice, even to the point of death, for murder or rape is not the same has hating someone because they believe differently. One is just, the other unjust.

The bible is filled with instances of righteous anger. Gosh, God was angered by his own chosen people many, many times.

Romans 12:17-21: "Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

What this verse tells is is that revenge is forbidden. But vengeance is not. One cannot avenge himself, he can only commit revenge. Most of the time, revenge far outweighs the crime, and its committed out of anger, not a sense of justice. But vengeance is meted out appropriately. God metes out vengeance. And he does it through men on behalf of the victim. It's performed through our courts and with judges. Revenge is a crime, and itself deserves punishment.

Romans 13:3-4: "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

As far as loving the rapist or murder? Well, yes, you're supposed to do that, too. Is it easy? I've never had to stand in that place but the obvious answer is hell no, it's not easy. But, for instance, praying for a man serving a prison sentence for raping your wife, that his heart may turn and he repent, that's love. Love doesn't mean you have to invite him into your home.

And as far as forgiveness, well, that's something we're supposed to do, too. And it's equally hard. As Christ forgives us, we too must forgive. But forgiveness in no way means that a person is spared from justice. Don't conflate forgiveness and mercy. You can forgive someone for their sin against you, and still have unmerciful justice fulfilled. I am sure history is replete with people that carried out the worst of sins that truly repented in their last days, accepted Christ as they should, and still swung from the gallows.

Man , this thread got derailed quick . The op just wanted advice on terminating an employee and what kind of issues might arise .

quote:

Originally posted by selogic:
Man , this thread got derailed quick . The op just wanted advice on terminating an employee and what kind of issues might arise .

I like to think that this thread evolved into something else.

quote:

Originally posted by selogic:
Man , this thread got derailed quick . The op just wanted advice on terminating an employee and what kind of issues might arise .

Terminate an employee based on teaching material the op felt was inappropriate. Just what was that inappropriate material?? What are the school's documented rules as to what is appropriate vs inappropriate. How do the two correlate?

(And as some have suggested, there's a good chance the op will be in more trouble than the teacher).

1. I feel if he was hired to teach a specific curriculum and that was made clear to him up front , then he has an obligation to work to the standard given him.

2. I totally agree (as a Christian myself) that he is correct. Science evolves from a theory that you then set out to prove or disprove. No one can actually prove where the earth came from or how long it has been here. You can not prove Evolution. People use Adaptation to support it but that is totally different. If you claim to stand on the Science then you have to solidly stand against Climate Change as being man made. Otherwise you have no explanation of the Ice age and previous changes.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

None here know factually the age of the earth.
We all have theories.
We all have been taught theories.
Most of the theories have been taught to us as factual which is a disservice to “science”.

This is a weak argument, which plays on a misunderstanding about what a theory is. It is true that these are all theories, but a billions of year old universe theory is well-supported by evidence and observation of the natural world.

In the words of Animal Farm, some theories are more equal than others.

I believe that we should let micropterus and kimber1911 get on with this thread without the rest of us. They have already proven that two well-educated Christians can't agree about a fundamental tenet of Christianity and have, between them, totally realigned this thread into one not unlike that story written about by Dean Jonathan Swift many years ago, where two countries were ready to go to war about the facts that one preferred to eat their boiled eggs pointy end up, and the other one didn't.