Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The question is why an organization would withhold permission to use resources from an educational governing body that does not hold its same views.
    They don't withhold permission to use resources. As mentioned before, they just don't want to be quoted in an article which endorses teaching of religious ideas in science classes, because this could create the impression that they agree with the general content of that article.

    That is fair, makes sense and does certainly NOT make them "real fundamentalists", as you put it.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    They don't withhold permission to use resources. As mentioned before, they just don't want to be quoted in an article which endorses teaching of religious ideas in science classes, because this could create the impression that they agree with the general content of that article.

    That is fair, makes sense and does certainly NOT make them "real fundamentalists", as you put it.
    I understand their rationale.
    I support their decision.
    I applaud vigorous defense of the fundamentals. That to me is a "real fundamentalist"

    Yes, in devising the topic I chose a "loaded" word ("fundamentalism"). I was most interested in seeing if this "fundamentalist" approach would be lauded or derided.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I understand their rationale.
    I support their decision.
    I applaud vigorous defense of the fundamentals. That to me is a "real fundamentalist"

    Yes, in devising the topic I chose a "loaded" word ("fundamentalism"). I was most interested in seeing if this "fundamentalist" approach would be lauded or derided.
    The position of the NSTA is in no way fundamentalistic, they have valid and rational reasons for their call not to quote them.

    Fundamentalism (from google, "define:fundamentalism")
    # Movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.
    http://www.com.washington.edu/Progra..._glossary.html

    # A belief in the infallibility, and literal interpretation, of a particular religion’s doctrine or holy books. When applied in Abrahamic sects, it can lead to extreme prejudice and violence due to the nature of the Bible. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch-burning were due to fundamentalist ideals.
    www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

    # Fundamentalism is the belief in absolute religious authority and the demand that this religious authority be legally enforced. Often, fundamentalism involves the willingness to do battle for one's faith. Fundamentalists make up only one part of any religion's followers, who usually fall along a wide spectrum of different interpretations, values and beliefs.
    www.gsanetwork.org/justiceforall/definitions.htm

    # A term originally applied to conservative, Bible-centered Protestant Christians (many of whom now prefer to call themselves "evangelicals"), but more recently extended to apply to the religiously authoritarian of all sorts (including classical Christians, Jews, and Muslims) who interpret their scriptures literally and in general favor a strict adherence to certain traditional doctrines and practices.
    http://www.theisraelproject.org/site...l/content2.asp

    # a movement that sees itself opposed to Modernism, stressing the infallibility of the Bible in both religious matters and historical accuracy
    jmahoney.com/glossary.htm
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The position of the NSTA is in no way fundamentalistic,
    It seems to me that their
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    valid and rational reasons for their call not to quote them
    basically are that the KSES deviates from their priniciples. Or, in other words the KSES fails to maintain
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles,[/B]
    i.e. principles of evolution, and principles of valid scientific discovery.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It seems to me that theirbasically are that the KSES deviates from their priniciples. Or, in other words the KSES fails to maintain i.e. principles of evolution, and principles of valid scientific discovery.
    They didn't want to be quoted because they didn't want to endorse the position of the KSES. No big deal. If that makes them fundamentalistic in your view, so be it.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #26  
    Is this a "real" Christian

    See Here
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So "corner" doesn't actually mean "corner". But "day" means "day" literally in Genesis 1, according to born-again Christians, which lead to their conviction that earth was created in 7x24 hours a few thousand years ago. I am fine with the idea that earth doesn't REALLY have four corners according to the Bible, just as I am comfortable with the idea that earth wasn't REALLY created in 7x24 hours. What I don't get is why some stick to a literal meaning in one place (days), but not in another (earth with corners, pillars of heaven, etc.).
    One reason some people have a difficult time with literal meanings in the bible is because they do not take the time to study the word translation. Our lanquage has changed significantly from biblical times, so the translators have to use words that we understand. Also, the writing style of the period needs to be looked at, a favorite argument is the 2 creation stories claim, there is only one account of creation that is described, first in broad overview and then again in more detail, as was the writing style at the time it was recorded. Then you have to realize the time period the original was written and what laws were in effect then (multiple wives and concubines, or the death penalty for certain offenses for example) and the understanding of science at the time (the example of thunder has been used on this forum frequently). And, people will take one or two verses out of context and try to build an argument on that instead of putting the verse into context.

    The bible does not say that the earth was created in 7 days consisting of 24 hours each, we make that assumption because the bible records day and night as one day, similar words are used to describe a day in other parts of the bible that we understand as a 24 hour period.
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Is this a "real" Christian

    See Here
    If so, it appears the fruit of the Spirit (Galations 5:22-23) have yet to fully ripen.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Is this a "real" Christian

    See Here
    What on earth was that??

    And I thought the wife swap episode with the red necks and gay couple was bad..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #30  
    Saying something then saying "Don't quote me on that" seems to slow down thoughtful discourse. If I publish something you disagree with, but I don't let you quote me in your rebuttal, Are not I a foolish child demanding the last word? Isn't that why we have "Fair use" laws in the US, to allow some use of copyrighted works without the copyright holder giving up all their rights?

    Here's turnabout is fair play for you: Since all modern Bibles are copyrighted, except the ole' King James, then you can never prove the Bible wrong without violating those copyrights. You can only prove the KJV wrong, not the others. If you try, and quote them, we'll sue the pants off you! See how silly it sounds?

    Why publish educational materials for use in schools, and forbid people to perhaps dare disagree with what is in those materials? If you want to publish something secretively, publish a book for use only by the Masons or something, not school materials.

    This is the same reason I think gag orders, non-disclosure agreements, etc. can be abused. If a company settles with a family of someone injured and the settllement is sealed, we the public never know what the company did or didn't do, if their products are safe, or how much it took to pay off those pesky survivors. So we are still at risk, and our only hope is if we get injured they offer us a lot of hush-money as well.

    Back to the original situation... If you are going to publish such things, by their very nature, they are for education and therefore quotable and debatable. Otherwise, don't publish. They want to make money selling this stuff, but can't take the heat of a bit of debate? hmmm...
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  11. #31  
    By the way- As to the screeching lady on TV- such shows love to find the extreames.
    If she was a quiet believer it wouldn't be good television.

    I know a very conservative ladty that was in the running for Wife Swap with a liberal household. She was passed by because she wasn't conservative enough. I'm sure they would rather have people on both ends of the spectrum than have some that could- horror or horrors- get along! That would be blasphemous!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions