Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


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 394 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 81 (374904)
01-06-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
01-06-2007 1:36 AM


Re: Faith in what?
Faith in what? What is the origin of our Faith? If we are to be taken seriously and not to merely parrot the belief of others, what can we say that the object of our faith is?
A the vagaries of the English language.
I was using the term Faith, capitalized, as a synonym for Religion as in Christianity.
Your question seems to be closer to asking if the Christian God is the one someone should have faith in?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 01-06-2007 1:36 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 01-06-2007 12:24 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 81 (374915)
01-06-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Admin
01-06-2007 12:24 PM


Re: The Administrative Position
The administrative concern is that threads could be diverted from their topics into arguments over definitions, so for threads where words definitions are not the topic the following definitions will hold unless it is made clear that some other definition is intended:
* creationist: a person who places their interpretation of religious revelation above scientific evidence.
Well I think I have followed your edict.
I am a Creationist who does not fall under your arbitrary EvC limited definition of Creationist.
I am a Creationist.
I have explained why I consider myself a Creationist and why I consider it important to so identify myself as a Creationist.
If you wish, I will add a link to message one of this thread whenever I identify myself as a Christian.
But ...
I am a Creationist who does NOT place religious revelation abouve scientific evidence.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Admin, posted 01-06-2007 12:24 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 01-06-2007 12:39 PM jar has replied
 Message 32 by Admin, posted 01-06-2007 1:23 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 81 (374919)
01-06-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
01-06-2007 12:24 PM


Re: Questions
Well, we may be starting to wander somewhat but since this thread is an attempt to explain my personal feelings on such subjects I will try to outline my beliefs related to your questions.
Please remember that I will offer no Answers except ones that will lead to other Questions.
This was, to me, an entirely new social issue which suggested that even though I may have been Born Again I certainly was and am capable of being no different than any other human and that if anything, I am even more responsible for my behavior since I know better.
I have said that since as Christians we believe we were given the Manual for proper behavior, the Capability to know right from wrong and the Charge to try to do right, to try not to do wrong, to honestly evaluate our behavior and when we fail, to acknowledge that, try to make amends and try to do better in the future.
But this is not limited to Christianity. The Jews have a manual, the Muslims have a manual, the Taoists and Buddhists have manuals.
Atheists and Agnostics and Wiccan and Satanists have moral codes as well.
And all of the moral codes come down in the end to the same directions.
Try to do what is right, try not to do what is wrong, honestly evaluate your behavior and when you fail, try to make amends and to do better in the future.
I was always taught that it was all Jesus problem since He took my sins upon Himself. Maybe thats why so many Christians get in as bad or worse trouble than unbelievers.
Possibly. It could also be a matter of exposure or shock news. But it is easy to just dump the responsibility off on someone else instead of saying that it is my own responsibility for my actions in the past, present and future.
One question that remains unanswered for me, however, is why so many people who call themselves Christians seem to feel that it is imperative that they teach everyone Biblical Creationism.
Surely that would stifle any social and communal progress in our society, wouldn't it?
Well, why do YOU think they do so?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 01-06-2007 12:24 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 01-06-2007 1:02 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 81 (374922)
01-06-2007 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
01-06-2007 12:39 PM


Re: The Administrative Position
Although you have to admit, Jar, that both of us believe that God created the Universe. Scientific evidence has yet to confirm this belief.
Scientific evidence can never confirm or refute that position. GOD is not subject to scientific investigation.
Science can help us understand the mechanisms. It cannot though study the supernatural.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 01-06-2007 12:39 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 81 (374942)
01-06-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Admin
01-06-2007 1:23 PM


Re: The Administrative Position
It certainly is a complicated issue. As you point out, there is no real definition of Creationist that seems to accurately portray peoples personal position.
The debate usually reduces to an "Us vs Them" position.
My only goal Percy is not to disrupt or mislead folk. It is to say though, that "Yes, you can believe in GOD the creator and not reject science."
Too often the positions expressed here (see recent posts by Origen, JesusFighter and others) is that support for Evolution is a Godless, Atheistic, Marxist attack on Christianity.
My only hope is that I can point out to the readers at EvC that it is possible to be a Christian, to believe in GOD the Creator, to support positions other than Marxism (or Communism or Anarchism) and still accept Evolution.
If you say to someone here at EvC Forum, "I am a creationist," then they will conclude that you reject the theory of evolution and quite possibly believe in a young earth and a recent global flood. If you disagree that that is the case then I won't argue the point, but I will insist that you make clear which definition you're using when you choose one that no one at a board that debates creation/evolution would expect.
I believe that it is pretty damn clear to folk that visit EvC that I do not "reject the theory of evolution and quite possibly believe in a young earth and a recent global flood."
If someone here is still under such an impressions, then I simply suggest that they read a smattering of my posts.
However the last sentence does get to what I consider to be the heart of the issue.
When I say that I am a Creationist, it is jarring, discordant. Hopefully it causes folk to step back. Hopefully it penetrates their personal comfort zone and causes them to stop and think.
Hopefully, it causes people to stop and actually think about, to consider what THEY think the term Creationist means?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Admin, posted 01-06-2007 1:23 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Admin, posted 01-06-2007 2:33 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 81 (374945)
01-06-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
01-06-2007 1:02 PM


Re: Questions
Its not easy to be a creationist moderator.
I know. I was a creationist moderator.
Edited by jar, : helps if you actually put words in the quote

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 01-06-2007 1:02 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 81 (374950)
01-06-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by subbie
01-06-2007 1:30 PM


Re: Questions--for Mister Ringo
If I might intrude.
Perhaps way too far afield for this thread, but do you think the Creator cares whether we believe any of the bible is factually accurate? Would the Creator be satisfied if we conclude that every word of the bible is a fairy tale that teaches us important lessons of life and live those lessons?
I believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen.
Well, when we look around, we find that GOD created dogs and cats and lions and tigers and bears and ohmys. He also created Buddhists and Wiccans and Muslims and Jews and Taoist and Atheists and Agnostics, with just a smattering of Christians sprinkled around.
She created far more other stuff than Christians.
The one thing that we do know is that all GOD's creations gotta live together.
GOD, if GOD does exist and if GOD is the creator, is so far beyond the power and majesty of any human as to be incomprehensible.
To think that GOD would be concerned if we believe some book factually correct or even whether or not we believe She exists, is more ludicrous then a human becoming upset because an amoeba does not worship man.
A GOD who could create the Universe, who understand all the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, intuitively and who can bring all into existence solely through an act of will is not some bling bling pimp daddy that gets pissed if dissed.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 01-06-2007 1:30 PM subbie has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 81 (374962)
01-06-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Admin
01-06-2007 2:33 PM


Re: The Administrative Position
Then there are new members, old members who haven't had much interaction with you yet (hard to believe, I know), lurkers with widely varying degrees of familiarity with the participants here, a rather large number of one-time and few-times visitors who are led here as a result of Google searches and such, and sometime down the road when you're no longer participating and so are no longer familiar to everyone your old threads might be very confusing.
That is always a risk.
It is also a risk using the Socratic method as a way to further discussion.
When I try to break some of the complex issues we try to address down into smaller more manageable sequence of thoughts, I run the risk of one single post being taken out of the context of the thread as a whole.
But I think it is also necessary and effective. When we try to address massive sweeping subjects in one post we also run several risk. It becomes easier in mammoth comprehensive posts for things to wander off topic where sometimes important points get lost in the clutter.
If you will look just as an example to those posts where I do call myself a Creationist, I believe you will also find that I try to distinguish between my being a Creationist and the Biblical Creationist.
Frankly sir, I now have something like 12,000 posts here at EvC. Even years in the future I imagine that will remain a comprehensive body of messages.
I have also tried to present specific threads where I have outlined my beliefs, probably in as great detail as any member here at EvC. When combined with the threads where folk specifically call me out to challenge parts of my beliefs or challenge positions I hold, I think my positions are pretty well documented.
If, someday in the future, someone comes to the board and reads one of my posts where I call myself a Creationist, will it be any different than those who are here now, who have read my posts, and still misrepresent my position?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Admin, posted 01-06-2007 2:33 PM Admin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 81 (375005)
01-06-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by AnswersInGenitals
01-06-2007 6:43 PM


Re: Why you should not call yourself that...
Let me suggest another criterion for defining these terms. If you were to read a news report about a Gallup poll that stated that 60% of those polled identified themselves as creationists, what would you conclude about the relative support for evolutionary theory? How would you respond to such a poll knowing how the vast majority of people would interpret the results?
Actually I was contacted on just such a poll, although it was not Gallup but a different polling group. And I refused to answer because it is to simplistic.
Please remember that when I identify myself as a Creationist, I am speaking not to those who accept evolution, but to those Christians who do not accept Evolution.
In addition, it very seldom is in a post where the only content is that I am a Creationist.
For example, the post that began this discussion can be read in Message 114 where I said:
Please Paul, try to remember to point out that it is the Biblical Creationists that are constantly slandering folk and not Creationists. I consider myself a Creationist, yet fully support both Evolution and the TOE.
It is not Creationists, but rather the subset of those who worship the Bible as opposed to GOD and the message found in the Bible that you are addressing.
I do not see how that can leave any doubt that I support both the FACT of Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 01-06-2007 6:43 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 81 (375010)
01-06-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by AnswersInGenitals
01-06-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Evolution and Christian dogma compatible?
I have several times seen religious leaders make the unqualified statement:
"You cannot believe in evolution and still be a christian." or, more specifically: "You cannot believe in evolution and still be a (true/good/real) christian."
Yes. They do make such truly stupid statements and they do preach a dogma of ignorance and exclusion.
That really is, as I pointed out in Message 1, a major reason I stopped lurking, registered and began posting here.
While they are certainly within their rights to express their beliefs, I am also IMHO within my rights to just laugh at them and consider them fools.
I am also not alone in finding such small, picayune minds of little import, worthy of no real consideration but certainly worth a chuckle.
The Clergy Letter is an open letter on the subject of Christianity, Evolution and Biblical Creationism and has been signed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy.
In the letter they say:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.
Biblical Creationism, Young Earth Creationism, ID, Special Creation or which ever moniker they try to hide behind, is simply Willful Ignorance and Hubris, and abrogation of the use of the brain GOD gave us.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 01-06-2007 7:03 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 81 (375040)
01-06-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
01-06-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Oxymoronic
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).
Actually there are quite a few versions of the Nicene Creed.
But I think you are also misrepresenting my position as seems to be normal here at EvC. Please link to the posts where I have expressed an aversion to the concept of 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."
I have never said you are foolish. What I do do is point out where folk misrepresent what the Bible actually says and in those cases I try to include the exact text in question as well as links to the full text so that folk can actually read what is really in the Bible.
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.
More vague and disjointed thinking.
Jesus did not found Christianity. Jesus was never a Christian. If you will study Taoism, and look at Jesus life, you will find that what Jesus actually lived is very similar to the teachings found in the Tao Te Ching.
Then you wander off into absolute nonsense unrelated to anything I have even said and another total misrepresentation of my position.
I have never laid the blame for mens actions on Christ. I DO and will continue to say that Christians have committed horrific acts in the past and continue to do so even today. That is not Christ doing it, it is Christians.
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.
Actually, it is likely that if the picture had my name on it, it was one that I stored on fototime. They added a default copyright logo on pics and it was a while before I noticed it and turned it off. Since I have no idea which picture it was I may or may not have taken it.
I will try yet again to explain why I see GOD as awesome. GOD created the system of evolution. This system is so amazing that it can produce things such as a flower without some little tinker god having to step in all the time and diddle with things.
So far you have not show a single example where the word "oxymoronic" would be appropriate and simply misrepresentations of my positions.
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?
If you call yourself a Christian, and some Christian Church accepts you as a member, why would I doubt you are a Christian?
Edited by jar, : stil can't spell

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-06-2007 10:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Vacate, posted 01-06-2007 11:07 PM jar has replied
 Message 53 by subbie, posted 01-06-2007 11:19 PM jar has replied
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2007 12:48 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 81 (375045)
01-06-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Vacate
01-06-2007 11:07 PM


Re: Oxymoronic
Personally I think that if there is a God, it would be beyond incredible that He/She let loose the universe and already knew the end result (mankind). I am not sure what I believe, but this kind of idea does not reject the science of our times.
Well I an not sure that mankind is the desired result. We of course tend to think that but considering all the lifeforms that proceeded us and all that may follow us, it does seem somewhat presumptuous to me.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Vacate, posted 01-06-2007 11:07 PM Vacate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024