Why I call myself a Conservative, Republican, Christian Creationist Evolutionist

Looks like I arrived late at the party again. The Nicene Creed is supposed to be a summary on what it means to be a Christian. It makes quite a few Trinitarian allusions in it, but you've openly expressed an aversion towards this belief in the past. That alone makes the Nicene Creed incompatible with your personal beliefs. (Before you ask, yes, I'm aware that there are two editions of the Nic Creed. But both make allusions to the Trinity). You don't need to come right out and tell others what they should believe when you're so critical of anyone professing any kind of fundamental belief in Christianity. You tell me all the time, in more ways than one, that I'm basically foolish for reading the Bible and taking it to heart, even though interestingly enough, your understanding of Jesus comes directly from the book you routinely tell others to "throw away."Most of your views seem to be oxymoronic in a similar vein. You've stated in another thread that if Jesus were here right now that He'd probably follow Taoism. I happen to think that Christ would follow Christianity, being that He's the progenitor of the faith. Any time someone fails the faith of Christianity, it isn't Christ's fault, its that persons' fault. Any synthesizing of Christianity or any failures attributed to "Christians" should never reflect any failure on His part, but ours.In yet another thread, somebody asked you why you believe in God. Your response was an original picture with your name at the bottom, indicating you were the photographer, of a desert plant. The caption read, in response to the question, "Because God is awesome!" But you've now elucidated for us that God only creates the possibility for something to come to fruition. You assert that She allows for evolution to take place. If evolution is an unguided process, and you subscribe to that unguided belief, what then makes Her so awesome? As far as I can tell, She is a bystander just like you or I.These are just two examples of how your beliefs are replete with self-contradiction. Therefore, I don't think its unfounded for anyone to be thoroughly confused by loose terminologies. In fact, I think you like it that way so it will open the door of discussion for those inquisitive minds who want to know how you've come to your unique beliefs. That's because membership to a church really means nothing. Being apart of "The Church," which has always meant "the entire of Body of true believers, with Christ as the GodHead." In this way, I think your definitions are too wishy-washy. I could be an atheist and be apart of a church simply because I grew up going there. Does that make me a Christian?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

heh.. very true. thanks for the correction.

Or that you've paved for yourself such a slippery slope that who can follow it without finding the inconsistencies. In the Social and Religious Issues forum, Jar in message 4, says,

quote:

---

A couple other things to investigate are the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Look into the findings of the Council of Nicea. But the idea of a Trinity as one person, the Great Three in One is a slippery subject, hard to support.

---

Message 46

quote:

---

Not only is it God paying God with God for something Godd can easily do, but it was obviously a payement that was returned marked "Insufficient funds". If it had been payment for the sins of MAN, then the payment was made, but the Fundies all tell us that it was not enough, and only SOME folk got their tickets punched. God only paid some of the fines.

---

This seems obvious to me. You've said in a number of threads that Jesus cannot be God because there is no sacrifice at all. But see, even this fails, because you also say that you are not a literalist. If that's the case then what the Bible actually says is pointless since without a more literal translation its open to all sorts of abstractions.But that's beside the point. You tell people to throw away the Bible. We could only logically deduce that you think the Bible is not really from God at all. Yes, He did. The only thing He didn't do was put a name on it. That was supplied later. Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. In fact, the name means "to be Christ-like." That means anyone who follows His teachings is aspiring to be like Him. The way you phrase it, we could only assume that Buddha wasn't a Buddhist. So, I should throw the Bible away who has the direct teachings of Christ, but should study the Tao Te Ching which indirectly sounds like something Christ would endorse? That makes no sense. You've misrepresented everything people commonly refer to as "Christian" and "Creationist." I don't really have a beef with your Republican corollaries because it is admittedly very subjective. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want. But if its clarity from your readers that you are after, then the confusion is all on your side of the table, not theirs. No argument there. But you seem to derive much pleasure from singling them out as the sole proprietors of horror. The fact of the matter is that all of mankind is at fault. Most people don't equate hippies with violence. But I've seen some hippies throw down. That doesn't indict all hippies. Nor should it indict all Christians. The picture is immaterial to the point. I thought if I had mentioned that your name was on it that it might ring a bell. What exactly is a system of evolution, when routine assertion is that it all happens on its own? Where is the majesty in it? He's as much as a bystander as you are. In fact, all I need to do is let bacteria grow in a petri dish and apparently I'm on the same level as God by your definition. Where exactly did God step in and when exactly did He step out of the picture? I only ask for clarification because evolution is reputed to have begun with the first prokaryotes. So, He formed, perhaps, a prokaryote, a quark, a cell, an atom, energy, or something along those lines, and then turned it loose? That leaves the glory of the picture of the plant still in question as to why that would invoke praise. A Creator needs to "create" in order to make any sense, just like a painter needs to paint, a drummer needs to drum, a driver needs to drive, etc. If God didn't really create squat, then by definition, you can in no wise be a creationist. All of which makes your unique position all the more oxymoronic. I just did. And apparently I'm not the only one who feels the same. Just about everyone is having a hard time understanding your definitions, which is consequently what prompted you to, again, attempt to elucidate your position. If I called myself a black man, but had virtually no melanin in my skin and a vagina why would you doubt that I'm a black man?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

That still doesn't tell me what makes God anymore special than you viewing some microbes underneath a microscope. If Jar says that God is awesome, and he deduces that from looking at nature, but nature is an unguided process, then where in that is God glorified as the Creator? Sounds to me like Jar's Creator would be more aptly named as the Observer.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

All of which is great and commendable. But this isn't about your beliefs, its about Jar's and whether it is or is not compatible with the teachings of Christ. If Jar instructs us to throw away the Bible, but the Bible is the main source of our understanding Him, then how are we ever to arrive at an understanding of Jesus? We would only have special revelation to rely on. Which is precisely my point. It is an unfair characterization. If Jar thinks that God is awesome when he looks at nature, but at the same time, he posits that God really has no hand in the formation of anything, then He just an Observer as we are. It can be implied that He is just as eager to see what comes about as we are. Where then is God glorified?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

That's the worst definition I've ever heard. Where did you get this rendering? Here's the definition supported by Dictionary.com"the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed."That kind of rules out Jar's definition on all counts. Again, Jar can have his own definitions if he really wants to. But if its clarity that he's after he should be made aware that he confuses people when he starts to make up new meanings for words. If it required a change, that would bring the word "unguided" to a screeching halt, which would make the belief all the more nonsensical. Yeah, pretty much. The thread is about what Jar personally believes and whether or not his definitions are compatible with the majority consensus and whether or not one or more of his beliefs will invariably cancel another out in contradiction.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

There is no real right or wrong, according to your beliefs Its all opinions. (Which, conversely, is another one of your beliefs that doesn't predominantly measure up to prevailing wisdom). Humanly speaking, I fully agree. For the record, do you support the concept of the Trinity as it is most commonly known? But who argues with you on that? You seem to go out of your way to pick a fight with someone who believes in the Trinity. But I think we all agree that God came to us lowly, as a man. I spent the the majority of my life without the Bible and came to know Him just by asking Him to reveal Himself to me. Once He revealed Himself to me, I then took to reading His Word. Its now when I don't read it with regularity that I hear less of Him. If, by chance, you believe that the Bible has somehow become an idolatrous object for some, perhaps it has. For me it is not about the book, its about the message contained in it. Its the information that is special, not the means of delivery. And there is even less thing that bring people to God than Christians and the Bible. People are always prepared for the God that excepts them with open arms. They are seldom prepared to except that same God who expects people to follow Him in full faith in accordance to His righteousness. People would rather hear a watered down gospel that gives them all the frills and no spills, rather than hearing the Truth. If professing the truth makes me unpopular in the eyes of man, so be it, as long as His truth is reaching the ears of those that are willingly to accept His truth for face value. I believe that Scripture must be read as literature. In other words, if we are to interpret the Bible literally, we have to interpret it as literature, while paying close attention to genre and figures of speech. Most scripture is particular to this because the Bible is a historical narrative that is interlaced with symbolism.Contrastly, if we were to reduce the Bible to a mere allegory that conveys only abstract ideas without any correlation to history, then we would couldn't derive any actual meaning from it. It would be so open to interpretation that we could conceivably think that Genesis 1 is actually talking about poker-playing chickens.For me, what is most amazing about scripture is that it speaks about actual events in human history, but there is almost always an underlying message just below the surface. The significance of the story is not always found in the story itself, though it is factual. The real treasure lies within the integrated message system devised by God for the purpose of mankind. In this way, much, if not most of the Bible is homily. God is providing for us a sermon intended to edify the believer or to bring about repentance to the unbeliever. Didn't we do that as children? Doesn't the Bible itself tell us to return as little children-- meaning, that we come to Him in true faith, uncorrupted by the sly and cynical minds in every corner of the globe? Its too late. I've already read through the Bible a few times. What is the difference between Jews and Christians? I'll give you a hint. The answer is embedded in the question. Being down the Church of Pergamos only means one thing. Maybe I know exactly what it means and that you have concocted the God of your choosing. If Jesus says that I am the Way, the Truth, and the Map, the only Map-- then there is a serious dilemma for you. Why do you call yourself a Christian, but don't believe your Christ? I acknowledge the things that I have done. I don't think I need to apologize to anyone for what transpired hundreds or thousands of years before my existence. I have enough of my own sins to keep my apologies flowing. How can evolution have a system if its an unguided process? There is no systemization in evolution. If there is then God is calling all the shots, not nature. We'll see how goes over with the atheistic community. I can certainly ascribe to such a thought, but it brings the entire naturalistic theory of evolution into disrepute. You're certainly entitled to whatever opinion fancies. And if you have quite the following behind you, so be it. At the same time, if anyone is a bit bewildered by your definitions, I think they are well within reasons to perplexed by them. But that's what this thread is for. This is your chance to clarify your own personal opinions for sake of the vexed.

quote:

---

If I called myself a black man, but had virtually no melanin in my skin and a vagina why would you doubt that I'm a black man?

---

You seem to have pretty strong and absolute views on your version of Christianity with all of your recommendations. Can I assume that you think of yourself as having it all figured out while you chuckle at all of us lemmings? Is Michael Behe a scientist?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Either I am misrepresenting you, you are misrepresenting yourself, or I have revealed the contradictions in your own belief. If there is a fourth option I've yet to think of it. Jar, you always claim this whenever a little heat is applied to you. In one instance you could flat out say something and then have someone quote you directly, and if it made you feel uncomfortable, you would try to find some wriggle room and say that you've been misrepresented. Or am I misrepresenting you again right now? You already know the answer. Since you've jousted with me numerous times on morality threads, you should be more than aware that I believe in absolutes, just as I am more than aware that you espouse relativity.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Jar often tells me how I and others basically have it all wrong. And if I don't give him enough information he likes to prod by saying that creationism is dumb or fundies or dumb or whatever other thing to goad someone else into a confrontation. He's not always like that though. It seems to come and go kind of like a mood swing. Maybe we can't, but we all try to do this by picking up clues. Some clues are left intentionally. You don't have to do anything you don't want. If you choose to believe in Norse gods or flying bat-people, you are certainly more than welcome to do so. In fact, I think that most fables have some element of truth to it. Many, if not most, possibly could have derived from an actual event in human history that was slowly synthesized over time where embellishments were allowed to flourish. For instance, when we think of Cyclopes, we think of Greek mythology. And I think it was Herodotus (I'm not certain though) that claimed on his expeditions to Scythia (modern-day Russia) that a colony of large one-eyed men lived in those parts of the Northern regions. To us that sounds fanciful, and perhaps it is. However, there are known cases of a rare deformity that causes the fusion of the two occular cavities where both eyes consolidate into one large eye. This condition is known to us as being fatal in most cases, but we at least know that it is possible.Also, legends coming from Indonesian natives and even Dutch traders from around the 16^th century claimed to have come into contact with these diminutive people, only a few meters tall, whom they named the Ebu Gogo. This is seen by us pure unsubstantiated folklore, but perhaps there is a bit of truth in the legend. One thing that lends credence to the claim is that anthropologists have recently uncovered the skeletal remains of tiny people on the island of Flores, Indonesia. This creature has been named Homo Floresiensis. And as of late, there has been considerable argument amongst themselves on whether Floresiensis is fully human or a subsect of simians who remained alive due to isolation. Okay.

quote:

---

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

---

- Socrates Three places according to the Bible.1. Creation
2. Conscience
3. Special revelation

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis