Luke,
I usually define religious thought in a basic sense as the strict adherence to beliefs. Here, I guess it was pointless to get into details. Your list of beliefs above are not all the same if some of them inspire a different more - dramatic? response reaction.
I don't know if you have read my definition of the Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma elsewhere on these boards, I think I touched upon it with you earlier, but basically it means anything which is unseen and yet produces visible results. That could be wind, breath, mental inclination ... cultural, traditional influences that are so subtle you may not even know that they exist.
I don't think that creation should be taught in public schools, period. I don't like the idea of anyone so uninformed screwing it up any more than it already has been.
Religion is only dangerous in the wrong hands, the same as science. It doesn't take a particurally gifted person to see the potential for abuse in sceince or religion. The thing that amazes me is that when someone is in that mode of opperation they don't see it because they are not willing to see the cause and effect.
The Holocaust, for example had more to do with social and cultural if not material causes. I have seen neighbours killing each other over vidio game and sports shoe preferences. People will kill one another for anything - good or bad. Love, money, religion, anything.
The evidence for a global flood is very possiblly mistaken. The expanse that shielded out some harmful radiation would have drastically prolonged the lives of mankind. The cosmic radiation as a result of its removal would not only have been genetically harmful but would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 so as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the flood.
The earth's crust is relatively thin and there would have been a shifting of the crust. New mountains thristed upward and old mountains rising to new heights. Shallow sea basins deepened and new shorelines established with a result that 70% of the surface is now covered with water. Water pressures would have been sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora very quickly.
mammoths and rhinoceroses would be found in different parts of the earth, such as Siberian cliffs or preserved in Alaskan ice with food still unchewed in their teeth. Lions, tigers, bears and elk are found in common strate indicating they were all possibly destroyed simultaneously. The evidence could be seen as a flood or something else. Who knows? No one for sure.
The global Flood legends could have and would have come from one source as indeed language seems to. It is all how you interpret it.
I usually define religious thought in a basic sense as the strict adherence to beliefs. Here, I guess it was pointless to get into details. Your list of beliefs above are not all the same if some of them inspire a different more - dramatic? response reaction.
I don't know if you have read my definition of the Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma elsewhere on these boards, I think I touched upon it with you earlier, but basically it means anything which is unseen and yet produces visible results. That could be wind, breath, mental inclination ... cultural, traditional influences that are so subtle you may not even know that they exist.
I don't think that creation should be taught in public schools, period. I don't like the idea of anyone so uninformed screwing it up any more than it already has been.
Religion is only dangerous in the wrong hands, the same as science. It doesn't take a particurally gifted person to see the potential for abuse in sceince or religion. The thing that amazes me is that when someone is in that mode of opperation they don't see it because they are not willing to see the cause and effect.
The Holocaust, for example had more to do with social and cultural if not material causes. I have seen neighbours killing each other over vidio game and sports shoe preferences. People will kill one another for anything - good or bad. Love, money, religion, anything.
The evidence for a global flood is very possiblly mistaken. The expanse that shielded out some harmful radiation would have drastically prolonged the lives of mankind. The cosmic radiation as a result of its removal would not only have been genetically harmful but would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 so as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the flood.
The earth's crust is relatively thin and there would have been a shifting of the crust. New mountains thristed upward and old mountains rising to new heights. Shallow sea basins deepened and new shorelines established with a result that 70% of the surface is now covered with water. Water pressures would have been sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora very quickly.
mammoths and rhinoceroses would be found in different parts of the earth, such as Siberian cliffs or preserved in Alaskan ice with food still unchewed in their teeth. Lions, tigers, bears and elk are found in common strate indicating they were all possibly destroyed simultaneously. The evidence could be seen as a flood or something else. Who knows? No one for sure.
The global Flood legends could have and would have come from one source as indeed language seems to. It is all how you interpret it.
