Should All Schools Be Mandated To Teach Creationism?

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

Since these discussions are always aimed at Christianity and the Bible, either explicitly or otherwise, that is what I will consider.
If you go and check, you will find that in every instance where faith is "learned" it is always via some type of "proof".
look into the travels of Abraham, every instance of a promise is delivered in this general fashion; "god says this or that will occur" not requiring any type of faith as of yet.
AFTER said event occurs, that is when God brings up the notion of faith concerning the NEXT promise.
Same general format throughout. Same general format as you building faith in your brakes based on prior experience.
All times God required a person to act in faith, it was juxtaposed against acts and occurrences that build the faith that the next occurrence will take place as claimed.
Same as you gaining greater confidence in your new brakes as they stop your car more and more.

same in the NT when Thomas, and all the other disciples for that fact, doubted the resurrection. There was no condemnation given nor any admonishment for lacking faith, Jesus merely showed the wounds.

Again, Faith as ACTUALLY taught about in the Bible through EXPERIENCE and METAPHOR is NEVER "just do it because I say so" It's always "remember what I have done and know that I am God" kinda faith.

God never asked or asks for "blind faith", that is just an asinine concept kept alive by those who don't actually know what's in the book, as are most things of this negative nature directed towards Christianity.

Faith as taught in the Bible is action based on conviction, and should be considered a verb because without action, there is no "practicing" of faith, regardless what that faith is in, whether it be brakes or God.

 

"The travels of Abraham"... Pfft. there you go, referencing a work of fiction in a feeble attempt prove your point

 

Ya know, I knew that would be the response or something similar!

I explained WHY I was referencing the Bible.
It don't matter if it's the Bible or Tom Sawyers Adventures, you and others claim the book teaches and states things that it simply doesn't.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of any type of belief system at all here, never have, never will, all I ever really do is point out whenever people make ludicrous claims about WHAT the Bible teaches whenever I know it ain't in the book!

It means nothing if you "believe" the Bible or not, the question was about religious faith, and the definition of same.
I am telling you your understanding of faith as taught in the Bible is incorrect and not supported by the actual text.

 

Well, I do not have faith in much.....sometimes.

 

It's actually a substantive work considering the terms he said he was considering. It's like having a discussion about spiderman. Spiderman comes from a comic book and his attributes and adventures are written there. So we can in fact have a meaningful discussion about a work of fiction as long as our terms have a common source... complaint doesn't hold water.

 

Here is an idea, since religion and religious premises are such a significant portion of the the fabric of the worlds social interaction it would be ignorant for it not to be considered. It needs to be understood not excised.

 

Immaculate conception, resurrection....I suppose y'all believe thats just a metaphor. The bible is full of obvious leaps of faith.

In my book, anyone who puts any stock in the bible at the very least, lacks objectivity.

 

The bible is full of symbols. That must be your metaphor for them.

 

poorly defined symbols that depend on cultural references, and sometimes ambiguous ones at that.

 

Called words. They have definitions and more importantly everyone of them stems from an experiential conjugation. That is the reason we can understand each other. Don't be confused that yardstick is a ruler. We are the only measure.

 

well, feet and yards are defined based on the meter. and the meter is well defined in an unambiguous way as the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in some tiny fraction of a second.

 

Well i'm yo huckleberry. How is understanding what is written lacking in objectivity?

 

Well feet I have to run around the yard with meteorically, (informal,) if you dig my funky vibes.

 

They should be mandated to teach critical thinking, which should negate faith based determinations being used as proof in unprovable/ineffable
situations.

 

Boy talk about mixing definitions albeit for the supposed purpose of clarifying something.
Religious faith,
The confident belief in the truth value, or trustworthiness of a person idea or thing including but not excluded to a belief not based on logical proof or material evidence.

Again let's not confuse a yardstick with a ruler. Scientists are self referential relying on a biofeedback loop.

There is a real effort here to present knowledge in terms hostile to learning. To throw out evidence or sound consideration for a prejudicial stance.

It is perfectly reasonable that we gain substantial real world understanding through the use of parable or example or comic book series if that is it's purpose, to teach a lesson.

What could your purpose be but to restrict the free flow of information because you have determined it doesn't qualify as legitimately educational. Well any information can be misconstrued when taken out of context.

 

Got to bridge the gap between whatever ideas are cloistered at home with the world at large.
I don't think schools should be mandated to teach anything. I think people teach what they know and learn what they are interested in. I am for unrestricted access..

 

Maybe not for you, but for millions of Christians, the events of the bible are taken as historical fact.

What is your take on immaculate conception and resurrection, as put forth by said literary reference?

 

I guess you missed the part in which I explained the general format encountered in the Bible, if you did you would clearly understand (I hope) that it first meets definition # 1 which then gives the basis for definition #2.

If you think that is lame, then consider scientific theory, operates on the same premise;
making predictions about future events and/or statements past/current conditions based on prior experience and extrapolation of the probabilities involved without necessarily having the concrete physical evidence to fully support said theory.
Happens every day in science.

What is missing from #8 is "based on prior experience." because that is the methodology employed for teaching faith in the Bible.

Just because there are definitions for faith relating to Christianity does NOT mean they are accurate or reflect the teaching of and concept of faith as presented in the Bible.


quite frankly, if a lot of you would drop the ridiculous and vehement negativity you harbor towards Christianity long enough to actually think and consider some of these different things, you may learn something.
It's as if you are so primed to fire back a volley, that you get so busy constructing your response to ever seriously consider the other position.

and finally, the idea you guys are affixing to biblical faith is not correct, plain and simple.
Don't know how else to say it.

MeAgain and The Produ, I of course assume you both know the Bible intimately enough to confidently say I'm wrong, correct?
otherwise your talking from a lack of knowledge and not an abundance of it.

 

any discussion of either would just be a miserable cluster-fuck of bullshit and you nor most others would even give it serious consideration nor would such a serious discussion of said accounts even be tolerated here, so why do you even ask the question?