Should All Schools Be Mandated To Teach Creationism?

It's weird to be overjoyed to see a normal type of topic brought up by a normal type of poster with normal reasoning and discussion abilities and goals.

 

You are describing an ideal education. In practice school systems are politically organized. There is no physical school that I know of that is purely devoted to gnosticism, (informal,) other than a shared being, they all want to get paid. Therefor there is no free flow of information. Knowledge is material and flows freely into an open mind.
Not true in every degree that religious teachings are based on traditional lines of authority, absolutism, and conformity. For example the religious teaching that the measure you give is the measure you receive. Not absolutest being ongoing, not conformist as it is demonstrably subjective measurement. It is authoritative by virtue of examination of our shared experience and not exactly traditional in that time or ours.

 

and that includes Buddhism. right?

 

A chat among those equally yoked, the bond of recognition is a delightful bond.

 

I think it's weird that you consider GreatestIAm to be a "normal" poster.
he certainly has tossed considerable troll chum into the waters here and his methodologies are not that different from Richards, but at least he actually does have a handle on what he is talking about.

I'm just waiting for the barrage of youtube videos.

 

This is a heartache for anyone who thinks the search for truth is righteous. Materially right and wrong is so or not so. We are all materially relative and biologically that means temperate or warm blooded so everything we are able to apprehend is within our range. This range is a spectral vector, hot to cold by degree for example. Within the spectrum of religious thought there are good lessons, not too hot, not too cold, equanimity is sound proportion, and bad lessons, too hot, zealous and too cold, dehumanizing or vitally irrelevant.

Sorry for the bad lessons regardless good ones are there and you are right comparative religious study is needed to comprehend the spectrum, equanimity is the exhibition of sound proportion as we ponder our equations. If the eye be sound the whole body will be full of light or both sides of the equation are seen to be equal.

 

If all schools were mandated to teach about Christianity, then they would also have to teach about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Wicca, etc., and they would also have to teach about logic and atheism. To ONLY teach about Christian beliefs would be unconstitutional. Not to mention, there's already too much indoctrination/brainwashing in the world, as is. Children should be encouraged by their parents, teachers, etc. to learn about ALL religion and allow them to find the religion that is best for them, as individuals. I was a christian for 20-25 years, then I opened my proverbial eyes and now I realize how ridiculous christianity and other religions are, but if a particular religion makes your life better, even if it's just because of the "community" aspect of it, then I have no problem with your beliefs, as long as you're not hurting anyone.

But back to the OP.............no religious/creationist teaching should be allowed in school, unless all modern religions, as well as logic and atheism(though they're not religions), are also included.

 

I don't anticipate a visit. He doesn't seem to hang too long with me and think he is at a disadvantage if he can't push for disorienting emotional responses and because he is so moralistically determined, the conversation quickly progresses beyond his comfort zone.

 

Buddhism not a religion...learned that in world religions class :book:
To be a religion requires three things; deity, ritual and congregation.
Buddhism has no deity.

Creationism, re-incarnation, demonic possession, etc does not belong in public education, IMO

 

I remember having to silently say prayer before starting class in grammar school. It always made me feel uncomfortable.....now do i be a rebel and just stare into space, or look down at the floor and pretend....I usually chose to pretend, but on my rebelious days, NOT.

 

yes but the OP didn't posit that, he proposed comparative religious studies, completely different animal.

 

You know what I mean.

I generally do not agree with him, but even if I think he does mental gymnastics, at least he can think.

If you pack richard a sandwich at a, he'll never make it to b. This is refreshing by comparison.

If nothing else, richard did not start it - and even better, that means that he's highly unlikely to even come in here.

 

I don't know about that.
sure, technically speaking, but there are an awful lot who view Buddha as a deity.

They may not say it as such, but in practice, yes, definitely.
In my mind making offerings, bowing and kissing a statue of some guy IS deifying them in a very real fashion.

 

Well that is as viable a possibility as any other.

But please answer me why when confronted with logic that you can't just dismiss, you, like sooooo many others, resort to lame and juvenile remarks that for some reason you think discredits what I have said?

That bullshit tactic is no better than some shit Jerry Falwell would pull.

and am I the only one here honest enough to say
"I don't know" because I don't and neither does anyone else on these forums or elsewhere.

We all have our beliefs and ideas concerning these type of topics, but in all honesty, when it comes to the existence of a creator and how it all came to be, NOBODY KNOWS FOR CERTAIN.

 

I've heard that, but none of the buddhists I know do that.

Kinda funny, when I was a kid in sunday school, the example always give of worshiping graven images of a false god was Buddhism.

 

No one does.....that is right.......there are infinite number of possiblities, imo......

 

Well expectation and arrival are two different things so I think the first based on abstract associations and the second on real time tactile feedback it is not surprising to me that our abstractions can appear very different than the fact of rubber meeting road. Travel abroad and being in the public eye substituted as classroom for me, a broad minded education resulted. If not I probably would have ended up a republican governor of kansas. Not much interaction going on with the rest of the world before modern communications in the american midwest far from any port of entry. Communications fortunately I think are beginning to dispel myopic ideas of the appropriate or possible.

 

There are different religious classes, your religions class being one. Traditionally buddhism operates like a religion with shrines and meeting places and collecting alms and studying scriptures and on. A synonym for deity could be an authority and buddhism does not lack an abstract authority. So taxonomical classifications can change over time as we discover hidden associations. Currently buddhism appears in all it's forms as a non-theistic religion. Look it up, modern classification lists buddhism one of the worlds major religions.

The things you say should not be taught are taught so seems to me it behooves us to teach them in way that mitigates harmful lessons.