I sincerely apologize for using the term 'fairy tale'. It's an artifact of my arguments with the radical Christian element here. Yes, I recognize that I come off as a little arrogant and judgemental in this argument. It's the result of constantly being told by the faithful that I need to disprove their assertions, and that if I don't, then their assertions are to be taken as fact and that furthermore, we should make public policy (teaching of ID alongside science, denial of a woman's right to choose her own destiny) out of personal faith. That really bugs me... a lot. In their world, the argument goes like this - 'Can you prove that ID is not operant? Can you prove that God did not create man? No? Then Creation is a scientific fact and we should legislate your actions based on it'. It doesn't help to see the documents which show that those who codified 'ID' are Christian marketing types whose aim is to recreate Western society 'in a manner more consistent with theistic [read: Christian] ideals'. (jb3, was it you who posted up those docs?). I mean no disrespect to you personally, but I will aggressively challenge any suggestion that personal faith-based beliefs are anything other than just that - faith-based beliefs with no basis in science or, at this point, fact.
I agree with everything you said except I would differ in how you said this part. Well, actually, I agree with it depending on what you mean. I think that we all have to look at the facts surrounding evolution/ID, the original of life, the Big Bang, etc. and come to our own conclusions. The truth is that our positions all have strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, the atheist position, for example, has certain advantages in certain areas over my position, although I'd never admit details publicly of course. On the other hand, I think what I'll call a Deistic position actually does a better position of explaining some things that we see in nature and I see a lot of prominent non-theists who agree with me, so I don't just think it's my personal bias completely. But I would certainly never argue that I could prove anything and have always stated that. Personally, I like hearing opposing viewpoints on almost any subject (unless there's a lot of smack). We can all sit around with our clones and pat each other on the back any time...
You are right. Faith-based belief has no basis in science. Might we teach non-science in school? If we can talk about fair tales and Harry Porter in school, why can't wee talk about bible stories in school? I came from a place that we can teach Bible at school and that place has fewer percentage of christians than US here.
Nothing unusual going on here except an actual resurrection sequence. Consider this phase one of four...what some here might call the "boring" phase. There hasn't been any turning of water into wine yet...but stay tuned! This phase parallels the boy Jesus arguing in the temple with the scribes and pharisees. There's nothing going on except an attraction to the truth, and a certain amount of joy in sharing what is being found. There is also a certain amount of weariness with the confused state of the status quo, and an unwillingness to continue on that path. The fact is, I am not the teacher here. I am the student. I am sitting in the front row, observing. Sometimes, my brothers listen in and get something from what is shared. That's great. It's not my main concern. The only identity I take seriously is that I am the Son of God. My path to that awareness is similar to Jesus', and partly fueled by his learning accomplishments. So he is credited for the extraordinary nature of my "outlandish claims". What does it matter except that it works as a learning tool. Does anyone question why Samuel Clemens writes as Mark Twain? Does it matter why an English aristocrat had to use a fake personage, "Shakespeare", in order to publish the wisdom of his playwrites? Does anyone care that Shakespeare was actually an actor who acted as if he was the playwright? The identity "Son of God" does not make me special. In fact, it makes me the same as everyone. All other names are for special status, which I am in the process of renouncing as meaningless. And this is because special status is what gives rise to this world...something I no longer want. The name of Jesus is the symbol of the process of awakening, and a demonstration of what will become a "typical" resurrection/waking process, though not the same for everyone. And what faced him is the same as faces everyone. At what point do you simply withdraw faith in a fake identity, and put it in something real? What does that look like? How do people respond to that? Does it matter how they respond? Not really. There will always be someone who sees Jesus as just the stonemason's son from Galilee. Or just a boy debating with scribes and pharisees in the temple. At what point does a "Jesus" go from seeing himself as a mamas boy [read: mother nature] to the Son of God? It's always a matter of identity. What matters is what you think of yourself. I am one not content to see the learning accomplishments of Jesus wasted on an ungrateful crowd. I can't change the crowd, but I can change myself, that is, my thinking about myself. That's the only way I can give Light to the crowd. The teacher-grasshopper status is temporary. The "crowd" are my brothers as equals. All differentials exist in time only, and equality is only a few decisions away at any moment. "Jesus"
I can't honestly say I know what you mean. After all, the Deistic position is that at some point in the future, the heavens are going to open up and Rams with 17 eyes are going to come raining down and the earth is going to open up and Christians will ascend to heaven and non-believers like me will sink into the fire and brimstone. Have I got that right? Is that only a sect of Christianity? I think that's from Revelations, isn't it? Pretty mainstream Christianity. My point is, if your Deistic position admits the possibility of that happening, what on earth (no pun intended ) could not be explained? For a non-believer, religious faith is akin to belief in magic. If you believed in magic, then of course you could explain some of the weirder things we see in nature. I hope I'm making myself clear here. If you accept that there is a sentient Creator who 'made' all life, the door is wide open, isn't it? If that were the case, what wouldn't be possible? Only secular thought limits what is possible to what is scientifically possible at the present time. I will never be able to take a running leap and jump up to the moon and land in the Sea of Tranquility. That just isn't going to happen, ever. However, if I believed in a Creator God, that would not be outside the realm of miracle.
Allow me to offer some perspective here. Everything in "nature" is a product of faith. It is magic. The faith that made the world could be described as religiously dogmatic, and fanatically intent upon making a world exactly as it's believers wanted to see it. Think of everything you see as a magical experiment, a "spell" long since wished for, long since abandoned. Think of it as what's left after an explosion in a Harry Potter's lab. It remains in your experience because you were part of the mind that cast the spell that wrought the universe. You have long since forgotten the spell, for part of the spell called for amnesia, and for evidence that you could not have possibly been part of the spellcast. So what appears to be quite wrong, is actually the effect desired. If you no longer wish for this spell to bind your mind, you can "dispel" it by casting a reverse spell. A reverse spell calls for faith in what is true, rather than what is false. It is the same faith that makes the world, only it is used for "white" magic instead. That's when you see the miracles. This is the type of magic that unmakes the world. Jesus
Funny how you mention that. The Bible has many copies of the original writings and they date back to very close to the "event date". We also learn about Alexander the Great, Socrates & Plato and some of the writings and or events have few or perhaps even one copy maybe dated hundreds of years after the event date. My Point: We can teach about Alexander the great and everything he did as fact but none of the Bible?
Most kids don't know fairy stories are fiction at their ages. Should we enforce teachers at preschools or kindergardens to tell the kids that those are fiction whenever they begin to tell a story?