Thread: How many believe in the "great flood"?

Teaching kids about religion is fine, it plays a large part in society and so it's probably a good idea to raise their awareness of it, so long as a good spread of different religions is displayed. It has to be done properly though. As soon as you start teaching kids these things as 'facts' then it becomes a bad thing.

Originally Posted by saxonharp

I see. And as a "kid", are you offended if I say that I believe Man was created by God? Am I indoctrinating you if I say that it's possible to have a very real and personal connection to God? Am I forcing compliance in you if I ask for a moment to pray? Is this so threatening to you and your firmly held beliefs that I should not express them?

Are these things so antithetical to learning, that we abolish them from the one place in our children's lives that are supposed to be dedicated to offering insight and opportunity for growth?

No. Of course not.

First, you have to get that I draw a very clear distinction between "religion" and "spirituality". Spirituality is the experience of connecting to God. Religion is the formula one follows to do that.

You are talking about religion. I am talking about Spirituality. Specifically, the sharing of spiritual beliefs in a setting designed to expand children's minds and broaden their experience.

As for science and religion being incompatible, perhaps you're right. However, science and spirituality are not.

If I showed you a desk and asked you how it was made, you could say, "The raw wood was cut by a saw and shaped by chisels and rasps. Then, the pieces were joined together using glue, nails and dovetailed and mortise and tenon joints. Lastly, the whole thing was sanded smooth, stained and varnished."

But what if I asked you "who" made it? You'd have a different answer right?

Science tells how. Spirituality tells us who and why. Niether of these things are antithetical to learning or disruptive to a growth process.

We may not agree on the "who" and the "why"; that's fine. But we should at least be able to explore the possibility that there IS a who and a why and what better place to explore these concepts than in school? And what better age to do it than when the mind is open to possibilities that get beat out of us by the time we're teenagers ( ...as you demonstrate yourself, my young friend.)

When you say you connected with God, you are expressing a religious belief. God is a religious character. If you are a teacher at a public school, you are a government representative performing government work, and teaching your religious beliefs as your own in the course of your government work would qualify as a mixing of church and state. Religious preaching should never be a government function under any circumstances, ever.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Religious preaching should never be a government function under any circumstances, ever.

I don't think he means for teachers to "preach" thier religion universal, i think he means to just "inform" on religious beliefs so that the kids can make thier own decisions based on many things, instead of the gov't forcing facts into peoples throats in public schools, much of which we don't know is scewed and biased information.

and why are you so against it as if it will make the kids of the future blood thirsty religeous hors?

Originally Posted by Dewitback

I don't think he means for teachers to "preach" thier religion universal, i think he means to just "inform" on religious beliefs so that the kids can make thier own decisions based on many things, instead of the gov't forcing facts into peoples throats in public schools, much of which we don't know is scewed and biased information.

and why are you so against it as if it will make the kids of the future blood thirsty religeous hors?

I think it is dangerous to ever mix religion into a government performed activity. Religion and government have such potential of forming such a dangerous combination (Iran, Crusades, PLO, Rome, Spanish Inquisition) that we should never even allow the first step. Also, things turn into a real mess when religions the masses don't like start getting spewed out into the public schools.

So how do you feel about teachers who are Satan worshippers giving lectures to "inform" kids about their religious beliefs in the public schools? Would that be an okay place for it? How about the conducting of prayers to Satan? What about Hindu teachers acting to "inform" students about how to pray to the Hindu gods? Would you object to public school kids' being informed of Wicca beliefs by Wicca teachers? If we allow one religion to enter government function, we have to allow all of them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think it is dangerous to ever mix religion into a government performed activity. Religion and government have such potential of forming such a dangerous combination (Iran, Crusades, PLO, Rome, Spanish Inquisition) that we should never even allow the first step. Also, things turn into a real mess when religions the masses don't like start getting spewed out into the public schools.

So how do you feel about teachers who are Satan worshippers giving lectures to "inform" kids about their religious beliefs in the public schools? Would that be an okay place for it? How about the conducting of prayers to Satan? What about Hindu teachers acting to "inform" students about how to pray to the Hindu gods? Would you object to public school kids' being informed of Wicca beliefs by Wicca teachers? If we allow one religion to enter government function, we have to allow all of them.

I think that religion should not be "informed" or "preached" to the kids by the teachers themselves on personal levels, not do i think that teachers can begin a classtime with a prayer with the kids, but i think it should be implimented into the educational system a bit more than it already is. Like explaining different theories of how the world was created, from the belief that the world was created on a turtles back to the evolutionary belief. ofcourse, no school would get by teaching evolution as a theory, but it would be better in my oppinion to just let kids be informed of other things so that they are not niave.

I also think it would be a good idea to have a "religions" elective class in the highschool curriculum, to learn more about religions so that again people will not be so niave and ready to discriminate against what not might even be true

[QUOTE=Universal Mind;739319]When you say you connected with God, you are expressing a religious belief.
No, I am expressing a spiritual belief. You missed the point of the whole "Religion and spirituality are not the same" thing.

God is a religious character.
Only if you attach a formula for connecting to Him. Otherwise, the concept of "God" is amorphous and non-dependant on any particular belief system.

If you are a teacher at a public school, you are a government representative performing government work, and teaching your religious beliefs as your own in the course of your government work would qualify as a mixing of church and state. Religious preaching should never be a government function under any circumstances, ever.
First of all, sharing "a" belief is not necessarily "teaching MY belief" it is simply that: sharing a view. However, as I mentioned, this is not about instructing people how to connect in any way, much less in any one specific way. Nor is it about even fostering the belief that one SHOULD connect. It is about opening up the concept that some find this to be beneficial in thier lives and is one of the most fundamental of human experiences.[/QUOTE]

To ignore the fact that all peoples all over the world throughout the course of identifiable human history have sought out a connection to a higher source is the same as pretending the color blue doesn't exist. To exclude any mention of these practices and experiences in a school setting is to woefully deprive our children of a connection to their ancestors, their past and the present.

Oh, BTW, just to keep the thread on topic: It is highly unlikely that there was ever a world-wide flood as described in the Sumerian Eridu Genesis, or the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, or the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, or the story in the apocryphial First Book of Enoch, or the related Chinese myths Shujing, Shanhaijing, and the many folk tales of Nuwa, or the Indian myth of Matsya, or the Australian Aboriginal myth of the Frog, or the two separate Greek myths of the Ogygian Deluge or the Flood of Deucalion - the list of amazingly similar myths from nearly every culture on earth goes on and on. So while current "scientific" thought seems to make such a flood "highly unlikely" or even "impossible", it is enough to make one go "Hmmmmm".

Younger Dryas and its sudden end swallowed many societies but that was 13,000 years ago.

Originally Posted by saxonharp

Oh, BTW, just to keep the thread on topic: It is highly unlikely that there was ever a world-wide flood as described in the Sumerian Eridu Genesis, or the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, or the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, or the story in the apocryphial First Book of Enoch, or the related Chinese myths Shujing, Shanhaijing, and the many folk tales of Nuwa, or the Indian myth of Matsya, or the Australian Aboriginal myth of the Frog, or the two separate Greek myths of the Ogygian Deluge or the Flood of Deucalion - the list of amazingly similar myths from nearly every culture on earth goes on and on. So while current "scientific" thought seems to make such a flood "highly unlikely" or even "impossible", it is enough to make one go "Hmmmmm". [/COLOR]

truly

Although I do not believe the bible provides actual proof, I do believe that this great flood could have happened. Check out some sources on what could be findings of Noah's Ark. Whether or not this is THE ark is still yet to be confirmed.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._noahsark.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=2133311&page=1

Originally Posted by Dewitback

I think that religion should not be "informed" or "preached" to the kids by the teachers themselves on personal levels, not do i think that teachers can begin a classtime with a prayer with the kids, but i think it should be implimented into the educational system a bit more than it already is. Like explaining different theories of how the world was created, from the belief that the world was created on a turtles back to the evolutionary belief. ofcourse, no school would get by teaching evolution as a theory, but it would be better in my oppinion to just let kids be informed of other things so that they are not niave.

I also think it would be a good idea to have a "religions" elective class in the highschool curriculum, to learn more about religions so that again people will not be so niave and ready to discriminate against what not might even be true

I am all for teaching religion as a class. Knowledge about religions is fine, but once a religion is endorsed by a government worker during government work, the line has been crossed.

It takes a lot for something to qualify as a "theory". It is not just any wild belief anybody comes up with.

Originally Posted by saxonharp

No, I am expressing a spiritual belief. You missed the point of the whole "Religion and spirituality are not the same" thing.

No, I did not miss it. I was expressing disagreement with it. If you teach God, you teach religion, even if you refuse to call it that.

Originally Posted by saxonharp

Only if you attach a formula for connecting to Him. Otherwise, the concept of "God" is amorphous and non-dependant on any particular belief system.

The teaching does not have to be about any specific belief system other than the existence of God. The definition of "God" involves religious principles. The fact that he is a character in many religions does not change that. He is a character of religion, just like Heaven, Hell, blessing, prayer, and Judgment Day.

Originally Posted by saxonharp

First of all, sharing "a" belief is not necessarily "teaching MY belief" it is simply that: sharing a view. However, as I mentioned, this is not about instructing people how to connect in any way, much less in any one specific way. Nor is it about even fostering the belief that one SHOULD connect. It is about opening up the concept that some find this to be beneficial in thier lives and is one of the most fundamental of human experiences.[/QUOTE]

When you "share" your religious belief as your own, you "teach" your listeners what your belief is, and it qualifies as an endorsement of it. When you teach it as "one of the most fundamental of human experiences", you endorse it on a major level.

Originally Posted by saxonharp

[To ignore the fact that all peoples all over the world throughout the course of identifiable human history have sought out a connection to a higher source is the same as pretending the color blue doesn't exist. To exclude any mention of these practices and experiences in a school setting is to woefully deprive our children of a connection to their ancestors, their past and the present.

School is not the place for religious endorsement. There are plenty of places for it. I am fine with religion classes, but they should be purely academic, and there should be no academic bias toward any religion in public schools. Private religious schools can be as biased as they want to be.

Do you think schools should teach sexual positions? Is pretending that wheelbarrow style does not exist like pretending the color blue does not exist?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

...If you teach God, you teach religion...

I'm going to say that for this particular statement i'd have to disagree. The existence of any 'god' is not dependant on religion.

Look at it this way. Imagine that you got to be the creator of your own universe, and the denizens of your world never made any kind of religion to worship you. Does that effect your existence? Do you need your people to believe in you in order for you to exist? Of course not, because you would have existed before religion came into being.

Religion itself can also exist without the belief in any gods or higher powers. So, to teach religion would not mean teaching about God, and to teach about the concept of God would not be teaching religion. The concept of God in an of itself is more a philosophical issue.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

I'm going to say that for this particular statement i'd have to disagree. The existence of any 'god' is not dependant on religion.

Look at it this way. Imagine that you got to be the creator of your own universe, and the denizens of your world never made any kind of religion to worship you. Does that effect your existence? Do you need your people to believe in you in order for you to exist? Of course not, because you would have existed before religion came into being.

That is not what is happening here. We are humans talking about God. Since we are talking about him as a supreme being of the universe, we are talking about him as a religious concept. If nothing existed but God, he would still have a concept of himself, and his role in existence would be that of a religious entity since he would be the supreme being and creator.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

God /gɒd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[god] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, god·ded, god·ding, interjection
–noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Religion itself can also exist without the belief in any gods or higher powers. So, to teach religion would not mean teaching about God, and to teach about the concept of God would not be teaching religion. The concept of God in an of itself is more a philosophical issue.

You can teach about religion without teaching about God, but you cannot teach about God without teaching about religion.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

Ah, then it is just a matter of misunderstanding between us. On dictionary.com, for the word 'religion', definitions 2 and 6 are what I was keeping in mind, since the first definition restricts itself only to the 'cause/purpose of the universe' and 'regarding superhuman agencies' about creation. Since religion can involve material that has nothing to do with the purpose of the universe, or higher powers, I found it odd that there was a deffinition that firmly states that those are some of the absolute principles a religion must have in order to be called a religion. From your point of view, I understand where your coming from. I hope you can say the same for me.

In any event, I do recall having teachers who actively stayed away from discussing their beliefs in the classroom, which I think was for the better. It's one of those things that people aren't ready for yet without killing eachother over. If they WERE ready for it, these little forum debates regarding religion wouldn't be going on all the time

P.S. This thread has gone off topic.

Actually, there is a great deal of evidence to support that there was a great flood about 5000 years ago. It's not just in the middle east, there is evidence all over the world, both physical and circumstantial (stories)[1]. A theory is that solar activity cause a temporary global warming and the ice caps melted. I forget where I read that, to me it doesn't make sense to me, melting ice should cause an ice age in Europe. If the current ice caps melted the sea levels would rise by 40 feet[2], which would cover many ancient cities in the middle east where the bible was written.

Another theory is that there was an unusual amount of tectonic activity and underwater volcanos caused a number of tsunamis.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
[2] An inconvenient truth


UM, where id you get that definition of god? It seems extremely ethnocentric, there are many religions that have more than one god.

There is no geological evidence for a huge flood. The geological evidence is completely at odds with such a claim.

Anyway, doesn't the Bible talk about when Noah first encounters a piece of land via the dove? I thought that piece of land was at the top of a mountain? If so, then arguments about whether the flood was global or not are redundant, because there was never a flood that size.

It also said that a single man made a boat that rivaled the size of the titanic. The bible exaggerates. It's probable that a flood of only a few feet would wash him out to sea as it receded so it would appear to him as if the entire world was underwater. Tsunamis also have enormous pullback and could have done the same.

And actually, there is a great deal of evidence that supports the claim at Giza.

Written "evidence" in the Bible doesn't constitute as proof. There would so totally be geological signs and there isn't even enough water on the earth to flood like that, and raining for 40 days and nights wouldn't be enough to flood the way described in the Bible. Besides the fact that obviously you wouldn't e able to get 2 of every animal that's not a fish or bird on the boat. It's preposterous, what if one of the two died? Then that animalwould become extinct. It's probably an exaggerated story of a large flood in Mesopotamia that they decided to add to the Bible as a cautionary tale. You can't take everything so literally.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Ah, then it is just a matter of misunderstanding between us. On dictionary.com, for the word 'religion', definitions 2 and 6 are what I was keeping in mind, since the first definition restricts itself only to the 'cause/purpose of the universe' and 'regarding superhuman agencies' about creation. Since religion can involve material that has nothing to do with the purpose of the universe, or higher powers, I found it odd that there was a deffinition that firmly states that those are some of the absolute principles a religion must have in order to be called a religion. From your point of view, I understand where your coming from. I hope you can say the same for me.

I think the definition includes the issue of the universe as a whole, but I don't think it negates a meaning involving specific parts of the universe. If you worship trees and focus on their effect on the immediate environment, you are still part of a religion because the nature of that environment is part of the nature of the universe and the purpose of the holy trees is part of the purpose of the universe.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

In any event, I do recall having teachers who actively stayed away from discussing their beliefs in the classroom, which I think was for the better. It's one of those things that people aren't ready for yet without killing eachother over. If they WERE ready for it, these little forum debates regarding religion wouldn't be going on all the time

I used to be a teacher, and I always refused to discuss my religious beliefs while working. That is partly because I am an atheist and it would have stirred up a hornets' nest of controversy. It is also because I don't think school is an appropriate place for teachers to talk about their religious beliefs any way. Parents get pretty freaked out when the people who are teaching their kids about the world have religious views they majorly disagree with, and if I had been a public school teacher, I would have considered sharing my religious views an unconstitutional endorsement of them. So, yeah, I guess it is like saying the wrong things in a war zone. Public school is a place for temporary truce from that war.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

A theory is that solar activity cause a temporary global warming and the ice caps melted.

It wasn't solar activity. It was the Bush Administration.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

UM, where id you get that definition of god? It seems extremely ethnocentric, there are many religions that have more than one god.

I got it from Dictionary.com, and it does not say there are not religions with more than one god (lower case). It just says what "God" (upper case) is. "God" is the name of a particular god. Vishnu, Siva, Zeus, and Poseidon are not God. They are gods.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think the definition includes the issue of the universe as a whole, but I don't think it negates a meaning involving specific parts of the universe. If you worship trees and focus on their effect on the immediate environment, you are still part of a religion because the nature of that environment is part of the nature of the universe and the purpose of the holy trees is part of the purpose of the universe.

Yes, true, but couldn't science fall into that trap as well? Does science not acknowledge that there is a purpose to the way we behave? We bahave the way we do, on the most basic level, to survive. Some branches of science, like biology, focus on how this happens. They believe that there is a purpose to our behavior (and therefor the universe, correct?), but they do not worship it. "Preaching" biology it is not preaching religion. We can agree on this.

If one however BELIEVES in a God but does not worship it (in which case we would have the same situation as we did with biology) that person who decides to 'preach' about this being would not be preaching religion. The 'preaching' of God in this case (assuming the person does not worship god or discusses the worship of said god) would be no different than 'preaching' of biology.

Our biological purpose in the eyes of science would be a part of the universal purpose as well, since, as you stated, "the nature of that environment is part of the nature of the universe".

Humans having a purpose is not equivalent to the universe having a purpose.

For something to have a 'purpose' as such it must be conscious. Humans are conscious and so can have a purpose in their lives, something to strive towards. But only if there is a God can you say that the universe is aiming towards something. So not all scientists would agree that the universe has a purpose, at least the non-religious ones.

I think people should be free to make a logical conclusion about whether that's true or not. Perhaps school should present some of the most common answers (atheism, science, Christianity, etcetera), but anything beyond that is too much. I don't believe people should be made to follow a religion because somebody wants them to. The only fair way to do it is to let them choose without any help.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Yes, true, but couldn't science fall into that trap as well? Does science not acknowledge that there is a purpose to the way we behave? We bahave the way we do, on the most basic level, to survive. Some branches of science, like biology, focus on how this happens. They believe that there is a purpose to our behavior (and therefor the universe, correct?), but they do not worship it. "Preaching" biology it is not preaching religion. We can agree on this.

If one however BELIEVES in a God but does not worship it (in which case we would have the same situation as we did with biology) that person who decides to 'preach' about this being would not be preaching religion. The 'preaching' of God in this case (assuming the person does not worship god or discusses the worship of said god) would be no different than 'preaching' of biology.

Our biological purpose in the eyes of science would be a part of the universal purpose as well, since, as you stated, "the nature of that environment is part of the nature of the universe".

I am just saying that God exists nowhere except in religions. A person who believes in God might not worship him, but he will believe in his mind and his power, which is enough to put him on a pedestal as a character and thing he is watching things. That sort of awe over a supernatural personality qualifies as religious, I think. It is worship on some level, though perhaps subconscious and indirect. It is definitely unscientific material that will offend people who believe in other Gods/gods and needs to stay out of public schools.