Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why I call myself a Conservative, Republican, Christian Creationist Evolutionist
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 81 (374749)
01-05-2007 3:35 PM


There has been some discussion lately that I am being dishonest or misleading when I use those terms to describe myself.
I would like to address the reasoning behind each of them.
First, why I call myself a Creationist.
This one is pretty simple. I believe that GOD created the heavens and Earth and all that is, seen and unseen.
What else than Creationist can you call someone who believes that GOD created everything?
Why Evolutionist?
Because I fully support the conclusion that Evolution is a fact and that the TOE is so far the best explanation to date.
Why Christian?
Because again, I am a member of the Christian Faith, a Cradle Creedal Christian. I have been a teacher of both Adult and Child Sunday Schools, helped start a new Church, helped build two of them, have attended Christian Churches as long as I can remember. I believe those things outlined in the "I believes" (AKA Nicene Creed). I am an Episcopalian and recognized as such by the Church itself.
I hold my faith as both important and personal. I respond when asked to explain my beliefs but try very hard not to tell others what they should believe. I believe that one relationship with GOD is personal but that membership in a given Church, Faith or Sect is, like any other membership, a matter of actually being a member and being so recognized by the organization.
The Episcopal Church recognizes me as a member so I am a Protestant, Episcopal Christian.
I am not alone in supporting both the belief in Creation and Evolution. The Clergy Project currently has a list of over 10,000 US Christian Clergy who have endorsed that position.
They too would be considered Christian Creationist Evolutionists.
But why do I make a point of using that designation?
I hung around EvC for quite a while as a lurker before joining. At that time it seemed that EvC was broken into two camps, Evolutionists and Christians and the moderate Christian voice was virtually non existent.
I registered and began posting because I wanted to present an alternative. I felt that it was important to show people that it was possible to be a Christian, to continue believing that GOD created all, and still accept Evolution.
I wanted to show that it is possible to accept the Bible and the teachings found in it without rejecting either what Science has taught us or what our Faith teaches us.
I wanted to show that it is possible to be a Christian and to accept that others may hold differing beliefs.
Why Republican?
That is pretty easy. I am a registered Republican and have been so since 1964 IIRC. Before becoming old enough to register to vote I worked in support of many Republicans and even was the Campaign Manager for Ike in a Mock Political Convention during his run for reelection.
Why Conservative?
Well, because I believe I support basic Conservative positions, like Universal Health Care(Richard Nixon), Equal Rights for Minorities(Barry Gold Water), that the Government should be the servant of the People and that elected officials should try to do the best for the country even when it runs counter to their personal interests(Gerald Ford).
I believe that Government should stay out of peoples personal lives, that a smaller government is better than a large government, in fiscal responsibility, that one role of the Federal Government is to act as a counter to the power of Industry, the Military and Capitalism(see Ike's farewell address), and that the Federal Government should really look to the welfare of the peoples and be the net of last resort.
So, what else do you call someone who believes in Creation, who accepts Evolution, who believes in the same policies as Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford, who is a registered member of the Republican Party and a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church than .
A Conservative Republican Christian Creationist Evolutionist?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Monk, posted 01-05-2007 4:04 PM jar has not replied
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-05-2007 4:07 PM jar has not replied
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 4:15 PM jar has replied
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 01-05-2007 4:28 PM jar has not replied
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 01-06-2007 1:36 AM jar has replied
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 01-06-2007 3:58 AM jar has not replied
 Message 45 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 01-06-2007 7:03 PM jar has replied
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-06-2007 10:12 PM jar has replied
 Message 63 by Phat, posted 01-07-2007 6:04 AM jar has replied
 Message 77 by RickJB, posted 01-09-2007 3:23 PM jar has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 81 (374757)
01-05-2007 3:48 PM


Topic Promoted--Proceed with mutual respect
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
To all: I have promoted this topic by one of our more controversial members whom I have gotten to know over the past several years.
If anyone begins to attack the religion or intelligence of others, I will suspend them in a heartbeat! I think, however, that the controversy that Jar somehow stirs up is deserving of a public airing.
Lets proceed with mutual respect...deserved or not!
By the way, I realize that this topic could easily have fit better in Faith/Belief, but I also think that some of the ideas discussed here are definite social issues--hence my choice as to the topic home.
Edited by AdminPhat, : add
Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 3 of 81 (374759)
01-05-2007 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-05-2007 3:35 PM


Jar,
The world would be a better place if everyone stopped to reflect, as you have done, on why they believe the way they do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 3:35 PM jar has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 81 (374760)
01-05-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-05-2007 3:35 PM


So, what else do you call someone who believes in Creation, who accepts Evolution, who believes in the same policies as Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford, who is a registered member of the Republican Party and a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church than .
A Conservative Republican Christian Creationist Evolutionist?
Just a rat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 3:35 PM jar has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 81 (374764)
01-05-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-05-2007 3:35 PM


Why you should not call yourself that...
Let me begin by saying that I suspect you and I would see eye to eye on 95% of most everything, except for religion. But as far as that goes, I was raised Whiskeypalian and, other than the belief in God stuff, I have very little disagreement with that church and rather admire it for its stance on women clergy and gays.
To call yourself a Creationist, Conservative or Republican is an invitation to others to conclude something about you that is inaccurate. 99.9% + of the people who hear the term "Creationist" will conclude you reject evolution, because that's what the vast majority of people understand that word to mean. Adding "Evolutionist" will do little to clear up the confusion. Many people as familiar with the debate as most users of this forum may understand, but few people are familiar enough with this debate to glean your meaning.
Conservative and Republican are likely to create the same type of confusion and conclusion jumping. Those terms are somewhat more easily modifiable with adjectives to show how your beliefs differ from most to whom those labels are most often applied. Calling yourself a Goldwater Conservative or Republican will go a long way toward making your meaning clearer and give a more accurate description to others.
To the extent that you call yourself those things in a mischievous attempt to deliberately get a rise out of those types of people who are likely to react, I appreciate that kind of mischief, it can be great fun. However, to the extent that you are attempting to clearly describe yourself to others, well, IMHO it could use some work.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 3:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 4:33 PM subbie has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 81 (374765)
01-05-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-05-2007 3:35 PM


The alternative
Jar writes:
I registered and began posting because I wanted to present an alternative. I felt that it was important to show people that it was possible to be a Christian, to continue believing that GOD created all, and still accept Evolution.
I wanted to show that it is possible to accept the Bible and the teachings found in it without rejecting either what Science has taught us or what our Faith teaches us.
I wanted to show that it is possible to be a Christian and to accept that others may hold differing beliefs.
When I first came to EvC, I was a dyed in the wool fundamentalist. Every belief statement of every church that I attended said essentially the same thing:
quote:
The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.
Assemblies Of God Beliefs
Calvary Chapel
I used to think that you were an eclectic gnostic and not a Christian as I understood a Christian to be within the definitions of my Protestant Fundamentalist Charismatic experience.
Then, I read your Belief Statements:
Jar: On Christianity
Jar: Belief Statement
I began to see that much of our arguments centered around our different beliefs regarding human nature. I was always taught that everyone had sinned and that by ourselves we were incapable of being good without Jesus as our representative. (That we needed to trust in Christ and Christ alone)
I was scared to allow myself to look into other religions and beliefs. I was always taught that the educated human mindset of this world was of the devil and that human reasoning was incapable of even arriving at any sort of truth without the Holy Spirit empowering an individual from within.
And yet I allowed myself...hesitantly...to consider some of the things that you had thought about:
Jar: Belief Statement writes:
A GOD that chooses who will be saved doesn’t make sense. A GOD that creates all and then goes through and picks and chooses who will be saved is just plain cruel and arbitrary and not something to be worshiped.
A GOD that wants to be worshiped is just too silly a thought. Maybe some picayune God might worry about what folk thought of Her, like the little girl who worries that her corsage might not be right, too big, or too small, or the guy that worries about his tie not being in style or that people think he looks funny, but GOD cannot be so insecure.
The idea of “Once saved always saved” just made no sense. That’s one of those simplistic ideas that gives folk an out. “Anyone who does something really wrong obviously wasn’t saved in the first place”, or so their argument went. That just felt way to much like a cop out and just another example of mental gymnastics, a way of cheating and making excuses.
It was and still is scary to think for myself. I believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead and is alive right now, just as you also affirm in the creeds.
I looked further and found that I never knew that other groups of Christians had been taught differently than how I had been taught.
One thing that I am allowing myself to do is to ask more questions and think for myself, knowing that God gave me a brain and that I will not be damned to hell for honestly questioning why things are the way they are and why people think the way they do.
I, too am more inclined to believe in biological evolution. It makes sense and the proponents of it have some empirical reasoned answers for why they believe in it.
Creationism is too simplistic and I don't see how it is a necessary component of the Christian faith.
Edited by Phat, : correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 3:35 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 81 (374767)
01-05-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
01-05-2007 4:15 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
To the extent that you call yourself those things in a mischievous attempt to deliberately get a rise out of those types of people who are likely to react, I appreciate that kind of mischief, it can be great fun. However, to the extent that you are attempting to clearly describe yourself to others, well, IMHO it could use some work.
Or could it be an honest attempt to get people to use language with precision?
Have I not suggested that a more accurate distinction would be Creationist, a general term covering all who believe in Creation and Biblical Creationist who believe in Special Creation?
I believe that it is important to show that it is possible to believe in Creation and also to accept Evolution. In particular, I would like to reach those Christians who might think that the choice is between their Faith and accepting Evolution.
I do not believe those are the only choices.
To all those who fear that Evolution and the Theory of Evolution means loss of their Christian Faith and their belief in GOD the Creator I present an alternative.
I say, "No. It is possible to remain a Christian Creationist and still accept Evolution."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 4:15 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 4:52 PM jar has replied
 Message 43 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 01-06-2007 6:43 PM jar has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 8 of 81 (374769)
01-05-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
01-05-2007 4:33 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
I don't think it's so much an effort to get people to use language with more precision as it is to try to change the meaning of the term "Creationist." People are using it now with a fair amount of precision, taking into account that there are YECs, IDers, etc, each with their own differing view of being a "Creationist."
I fully support your efforts to get people to recognize that one can be a "Creationist" as you define the term. I would suggest that simply calling yourself a "Christian Evolutionist" would accomplish that purpose more clearly and quickly.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 4:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 01-05-2007 4:58 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 01-05-2007 5:10 PM subbie has replied
 Message 11 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 5:20 PM subbie has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 81 (374770)
01-05-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
01-05-2007 4:52 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
subbie writes:
I fully support your efforts to get people to recognize that one can be a "Creationist" as you define the term. I would suggest that simply calling yourself a "Christian Evolutionist" would accomplish that purpose more clearly and quickly.
I believe that God created the universe. I don't believe any of the Biblical Creationism stuff,however.
What does that make me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 4:52 PM subbie has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 81 (374772)
01-05-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
01-05-2007 4:52 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
subbie writes:
... try to change the meaning of the term "Creationist." People are using it now with a fair amount of precision....
You do understand the difference between "precision" and "accuracy", don't you?
A "creationist" means precisely "somebody who believes in creation". Tacking on a lot of young-earth, anti-evolution baggage doesn't add to the precision. It detracts from the accuracy.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 4:52 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 5:42 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 81 (374773)
01-05-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
01-05-2007 4:52 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
I fully support your efforts to get people to recognize that one can be a "Creationist" as you define the term. I would suggest that simply calling yourself a "Christian Evolutionist" would accomplish that purpose more clearly and quickly.
You might think that, yet when I simply call myself a "Christian Evolutionist" I have had folk immediately assert that I do not then believe that GOD created everything or even in GOD.
We have a similar assertion going on in the Prophecy thread where someone has taken statements of mine, where I said for example that the Exodus did not happen as described in the Bible or that there has not been a world-wide flood in the last 600,000 years or so as my asserting that GOD and Jesus are liars and frauds.
I have found that it is necessary for me to explicitly outline my position, to make my position as clear as possible, or folk will misunderstand and misrepresent my position.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 4:52 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 5:37 PM jar has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 81 (374774)
01-05-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
01-05-2007 5:20 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
And that does not surprise me, as there will always be people who do wish to foment discord for no other purpose than such fomentation, and people who are so blinkered that it's impossible for them to see shades of gray, much less the vivid panoply of colors that exist in the real world. Of course, for those people, simply using the terms you describe will make no difference. Indeed, for many of them, even your full explication of your beliefs will be a waste of bandwidth.
If the instant thread is nothing more than your attempt to provide a place you can conveniently link when such questions arise to avoid having to repeat yourself, I have no problem with that.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 5:20 PM jar has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 13 of 81 (374775)
01-05-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
01-05-2007 5:10 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
I disagree. As used today, the term "Creationist" has a fairly precise meaning: one who rejects evolution as an explanation for the development of life and believes instead that such an explanation must include at least some intervention from God.
You can certainly disagree that the term should mean that, and if you want to argue about whether we should define words in terms of how people actually use them or some other method, that might make an interesting thread. But you cannot seriously dispute that most people today understand the term "Creationist" to have the meaning I provided above.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 01-05-2007 5:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 01-05-2007 6:50 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 01-05-2007 7:43 PM subbie has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 81 (374785)
01-05-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by subbie
01-05-2007 5:42 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
Diversity exists among the definitions of these terms. I believe that God created the universe. In that sense, I am a creationist.
subbie writes:
As used today, the term "Creationist" has a fairly precise meaning: one who rejects evolution as an explanation for the development of life and believes instead that such an explanation must include at least some intervention from God.
It is true that the term has been identified as anti-evolution based. That does not mean that we must limit the definition, however.
I call myself a cosmological creationist (in that I believe that God was the uncaused first cause) but I certainly cant say that I am necessarily a Theistic Evolutionist---only that I respect such beliefs, for I do not know enough to argue logically either way.
Theistic Evolution: The belief that new species of animals develop from existing species over a very long interval of time, in response to the guidance, supervision, and intervention of a
deity.
In that regard, I am not a Deist. I believe that God interacts with human thoughts, intentions, and logic.
Inspiration: When applied to a sacred text like the Bible, inspiration means that the God affected the thought processes of the writers and prevented them from writing any material that was in error. A logical result of inspiration is that the original text of the Bible was inerrant.
I used to believe that the Bible was inerrant because that is what I was taught. Logically, however, it seems not to be the case, unless I am being deceived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 5:42 PM subbie has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 15 of 81 (374796)
01-05-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by subbie
01-05-2007 5:42 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
subbie writes:
But you cannot seriously dispute that most people today understand the term "Creationist" to have the meaning I provided above.
Of course I can.
The term "creationist" has been co-opted by a small but vocal minority to fool people into thinking that their anti-evolution, anti-education agenda is spiritually based. It is not and they do not represent "most people today".
The word "creationist" as abused by YECs is akin to the word "pro-life" as abused by anti-abortion crusaders. They can fool some of the people some of the time, but that is not the proper meaning of the word.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 5:42 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 01-05-2007 8:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024