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: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why I call myself a Conservative, Republican, Christian Creationist Evolutionist
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 61 of 81 (375076)
01-07-2007 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Hyroglyphx
01-07-2007 12:48 AM


Re: Oxymoronic
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
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.
This may be how you see christianity, but the majority do not see it this way at all. On the contrary, I have made a real attempt at being Christ-like, Siddhartha Gautama-like, or any other great moral figure. Though I do not measure up, I do try. I am frequently reminded however that this is NOT the correct path. The correct path to the afterlife (Heaven if you prefer) is to worship Christ. Morality does not play a part in the common understanding of forgiveness by God when judged.
If you dedicate your life to the worshiping of Christ, you are then expected to be moral. Morality is not the saving factor. As I say - perhaps you see it that way, but you are in the minority.
all I need to do is let bacteria grow in a petri dish and apparently I'm on the same level as God
If someone invents a machine that will wash dishes are they on the same level as the biblical God? Your comparison is not a fair one, and neither is mine. The universe can not be summed up in a petri dish.
Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2007 12:48 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2007 11:12 PM Vacate has replied

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


Message 62 of 81 (375080)
01-07-2007 5:56 AM


Stop pounding on each other in defense of the Gospel
Jar writes:
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.
I think that we all should keep in mind that this topic is being read by others and so in that view, we should strive to keep the focus positive.
Lets nail the definitions and semantics (the study of meanings in language) between belief in biological evolution and in the concept of a Creator.
Can these two views co-exist?
Jar apparently argues that they can. It matters not whether Jar is a Trinitarian, a Taoist, or a Texas Two-Stepper.
What matters is that we all strive to arrive at a consensus on the sociological (the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships) implications regarding the clash and/or synthesis of these two definitions articulated by our Forum Director.
  • creationist: a person who places their interpretation of religious revelation above scientific evidence.
  • evolutionist: specifically, a person who accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. More generally, it is often used by creationists as a blanket term to refer to anyone who places scientific evidence and theories above religious revelation.
    I would amend these two a bit for the sake of discussion.
    For example, if I believe that God was the uncaused first cause of all that is, I place my faith and belief above scientific evidence.
    Websters writes:
    creationism \kre-a-she-ni-zem\ n : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing creationist \-nist\ n or adj
  • It has been suggested earlier in so many words that God could indirectly create (populate) the Earth by simply allowing Biological Evolution to run its course.
    Websters writes:
    evolution \e-ve-lu-shen\ n 1 : one of a set of prescribed movements (as in a dance) 2 : a process of change in a particular direction 3 : a theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are descended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that occurred over many generations
    One question, among others, is whether the changes (observed in evolution) require a Creator or not.
    This brings in another belief system:
    Websters writes:
    deism \de-i-zem\ n, often cap : a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human morality and reason rather than divine revelation
    In any case, the religious arguments can and will go on forever.
    The crux of this thread, in my opinion, is not just to allow for conversations with our articulate member, Jar but also to open a discussion on the implications of belief on the mindset of scientists and laymen alike who are interested in the social issues regarding Creation beliefs and Evolutionary facts.

  • Replies to this message:
     Message 64 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-07-2007 9:33 AM Phat has not replied
     Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2007 11:50 PM Phat has not replied

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


    Message 63 of 81 (375081)
    01-07-2007 6:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by jar
    01-05-2007 3:35 PM


    and now...Back to Jar
    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.
  • Is it possible to be a Christian Deist?
  • What advice do you have for a young man or woman who has attended a conservative Bible college and yet wants to become a science teacher?

  • 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 66 by jar, posted 01-07-2007 9:52 AM Phat has not replied

      
    Archer Opteryx
    Member (Idle past 3597 days)
    Posts: 1811
    From: East Asia
    Joined: 08-16-2006


    Message 64 of 81 (375095)
    01-07-2007 9:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 62 by Phat
    01-07-2007 5:56 AM


    Re: back to Jar
    Phat:
    It matters not whether Jar is a Trinitarian, a Taoist, or a Texas Two-Stepper.
    Maybe not, but I will never want to miss a thread entitled
    'Why I call myself a Trinitarian Taoist Texas Two-Stepper.'

    Archer
    All species are transitional.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by Phat, posted 01-07-2007 5:56 AM Phat has not replied

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


    Message 65 of 81 (375096)
    01-07-2007 9:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 56 by Hyroglyphx
    01-07-2007 12:48 AM


    Try actually reading.
    You know, it might be more productive if you try to support your beliefs where you might get them right than to continue trying to tell me what I believe where you always get it wrong.
    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.
    Yet more misrepresentation.
    I said that the concept of the Trinity is hard to support. Well, if you are honest, it is. There is no direct Biblical support, and the concept of three in one is counter intuitive and illogical. That is NOT aversion to the Trinity, it is honesty.
    I did not say there is no sacrifice, and in fact have repeated here many times that I do believe in a sacrifice, just that Jesus dying for the sins of man, the crucifixion as some blood sacrifice is stupid.
    The Sacrifice is GOD becoming Man. GOD, the being that created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen, becoming man.
    GOD becoming Man.
    GOD, the being that created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen, messing himself and having to learn how to control his bowels and go potty.
    GOD becoming Man.
    GOD, the being that created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen, having to learn to walk, tottering on shaky legs, falling down on his butt.
    GOD becoming Man.
    GOD, the being that created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen, having to learn to talk, babbling away as he learns his Alpha Beta Gammas.
    God becoming fully man. Helpless, ignorant, awkward and unsure.
    That is the Sacrifice. And it was for us and our salvation. GOD became one of us as a teacher and example.
    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.
    Ah. Now we move towards what really infringes on your comfort zone.
    Yes. I tell people (actually I told Phat) to Throw God away, to Throw the Bible away.
    People often let objects and their own preconceptions get in the way of understanding. In this case you are once again just pulling a piece of what I said out of context and then assigning your own interpretations.
    What I have said is that if you want to get to know GOD you must first Throw God away. If you want to understand the message of the Bible you must first Throw the Bible away.
    There are few things that drive folk away from GOD more than the Bible and Christians.
    That might seem confusing, so let me explain.
    You said; "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."
    Is that what you do though. If I read Genesis 1 literally then read Genesis 2 literally I immediately see that they are mutually exclusive, contradictory, describe two different Gods, and so the Bible is falsified.
    If I read the Bible literally, God is evil, capricious, untrustworthy and petty.
    I believe that if you ever want to really understand GOD's message, then the first step is to throw out ALL that you think you know about Him and begin as a child.
    Start by reading three or four translations of the Tao Te Ching. Read the Qur'an, study the Talmud, read the works of Mencius and Confucius and Norse and Greek and Roman mythology. Read the Book of the Dead. Read Twain's Mysterious Stranger and Alice through the Looking Glass and the Canticle for Leibowitz and Das Kapital and the speeches of Abraham Lincoln.
    Then, and only then, return to the Bible. Start at the beginning and work your way through.
    You seem to think Jesus was a Christian. He was a Jew. Sorry, but that is a fact.
    You've misrepresented everything people commonly refer to as "Christian" and "Creationist."
    Maybe those Christians you hang out with but as I pointed out with links to the Clergy Project, at least 10,000 US Christian Clergy would agree with me.
    One problem may be that you do not know what Christianity is. Throw Christianity away. Get rid of your little mind picture of what Christianity is. Become as a child and actually learn just how broad and inclusive Christianity is.
    Learn that Christianity is just one Map. It is NOT the Territory. Like all maps, it will be more or less accurate in areas. Stop pretending that it is actually the Territory.
    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.
    Nor do I indict all Christians. I do indict the current crop of Christians that support oppression in the form of the Defense of Marriage Act or the so called "Pro-life" Christians. I do say that we, as Christians must acknowledge the horrific acts we have committed in the past if we are to avoid committing similar acts in the future.
    What exactly is a system of evolution, when routine assertion is that it all happens on its own?
    That is the system. LOL
    Sure, we could reduce GOD to some painter or drummer, but GOD is so much more. Imagine a painter that creates a canvass on the scale of the Universe that is ever changing, ever new, ever evolving and doing it simply through an act of will.
    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.
    You may think that you have shown where my beliefs are "oxymoronic" and if so, that is fine. I have never said that what I present will be easily understood by all. However, it also seems that quite a few folk do "get it." And that is fine. Every time one of you posts it gives me another opportunity to try to support my 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?
    Ah. Back on the "True Christian" nonsense.
    What a totally absurd ridiculous sophomoric question.
    At first my reaction was to simply laugh at it as just more foolish blather, but perhaps it deserves a somewhat joking response even if it does not deserve respect or a serious one.
    If you called your self a scientist and you were accepted as such by one of the professional boards, I would certainly accept you as a scientist.
    If you said you were black but looked white as a lily I would accept that you considered yourself black and no longer wanted to "Pass".
    If you were a man and had a vagina I would likely ask if you had considered a sex change operation.
    Edited by jar, : B&W

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2007 12:48 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-08-2007 1:17 AM jar has replied

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


    Message 66 of 81 (375097)
    01-07-2007 9:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 63 by Phat
    01-07-2007 6:04 AM


    Re: and now...Back to Jar
    Is it possible to be a Christian Deist?
    Can't say.
    Is there a rule against belonging to the Moose Lodge and Shriners?
    Can you belong to Knights of Columbus and Royal Ambassadors?
    Deists and Christians are both Theists, but they are two different Maps.
    What advice do you have for a young man or woman who has attended a conservative Bible college and yet wants to become a science teacher?
    Study Science.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 63 by Phat, posted 01-07-2007 6:04 AM Phat has not replied

      
    fallacycop
    Member (Idle past 5520 days)
    Posts: 692
    From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
    Joined: 02-18-2006


    Message 67 of 81 (375216)
    01-07-2007 10:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 56 by Hyroglyphx
    01-07-2007 12:48 AM


    Re: 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.
    I`ve been following this thread as a lurker since it`s begining. But now I feel compelled to interject. I think that jar`s made his definitions and stated his point quite clearly at the OP. You may not agree with his position. But I think nobody can claim that he did not state his position clearly

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2007 12:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 68 of 81 (375222)
    01-07-2007 11:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 61 by Vacate
    01-07-2007 3:08 AM


    Re: Oxymoronic
    I have made a real attempt at being Christ-like, Siddhartha Gautama-like, or any other great moral figure. Though I do not measure up, I do try. I am frequently reminded however that this is NOT the correct path. The correct path to the afterlife (Heaven if you prefer) is to worship Christ. Morality does not play a part in the common understanding of forgiveness by God when judged.
    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.
    If someone invents a machine that will wash dishes are they on the same level as the biblical God? Your comparison is not a fair one, and neither is mine. The universe can not be summed up in a petri dish.
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by Vacate, posted 01-07-2007 3:08 AM Vacate has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 70 by Vacate, posted 01-08-2007 12:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 69 of 81 (375229)
    01-07-2007 11:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 62 by Phat
    01-07-2007 5:56 AM


    Re: Stop pounding on each other in defense of the Gospel
    # creationist: a person who places their interpretation of religious revelation above scientific evidence.
    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.
    One question, among others, is whether the changes (observed in evolution) require a Creator or not.
    If it required a change, that would bring the word "unguided" to a screeching halt, which would make the belief all the more nonsensical.
    In any case, the religious arguments can and will go on forever.
    Yeah, pretty much.
    The crux of this thread, in my opinion, is not just to allow for conversations with our articulate member, Jar but also to open a discussion on the implications of belief on the mindset of scientists and laymen alike who are interested in the social issues regarding Creation beliefs and Evolutionary facts.
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by Phat, posted 01-07-2007 5:56 AM Phat has not replied

      
    Vacate
    Member (Idle past 4600 days)
    Posts: 565
    Joined: 10-01-2006


    Message 70 of 81 (375236)
    01-08-2007 12:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 68 by Hyroglyphx
    01-07-2007 11:12 PM


    Re: Oxymoronic
    nemesis_juggernaut writes:
    Jar instructs us to throw away the Bible
    Jar explained why he would say such a thing in post #56 above. I won't try to explain further as my mind reading skills suck I just happen to agree with his ideas presented so far.
    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
    Humanity has been around for a mere instant when considering the eternity of things. Participation or lack thereof in this period of time hardly seems criteria for deciding on His glory/greatness. You seem offended that Jar presents "just an Observer", I just think that this idea presents a God that is capable of making it right the first time, therefore having no need for a guiding hand.
    It can be implied that He is just as eager to see what comes about as we are.
    I don't see where this is implied.
    whether or not his definitions are compatible with the majority consensus
    This is where you and I happen to agree. I would hold reservations to calling his views creationist due to the common understanding of what this implies. Creationist and evolutionist certainly are mutually exclusive in common thought, right or wrong.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2007 11:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 71 of 81 (375241)
    01-08-2007 1:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 65 by jar
    01-07-2007 9:45 AM


    Re: Try actually reading.
    You know, it might be more productive if you try to support your beliefs where you might get them right than to continue trying to tell me what I believe where you always get it wrong.
    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).
    I said that the concept of the Trinity is hard to support. Well, if you are honest, it is.
    Humanly speaking, I fully agree.
    There is no direct Biblical support, and the concept of three in one is counter intuitive and illogical. That is NOT aversion to the Trinity, it is honesty.
    For the record, do you support the concept of the Trinity as it is most commonly known?
    I did not say there is no sacrifice, and in fact have repeated here many times that I do believe in a sacrifice, just that Jesus dying for the sins of man, the crucifixion as some blood sacrifice is stupid.
    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.
    What I have said is that if you want to get to know GOD you must first Throw God away. If you want to understand the message of the Bible you must first Throw the Bible away.
    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.
    There are few things that drive folk away from GOD more than the Bible and Christians.
    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.
    If I read Genesis 1 literally then read Genesis 2 literally I immediately see that they are mutually exclusive, contradictory, describe two different Gods, and so the Bible is falsified.
    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.
    I believe that if you ever want to really understand GOD's message, then the first step is to throw out ALL that you think you know about Him and begin as a child.
    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?
    Then, and only then, return to the Bible. Start at the beginning and work your way through.
    Its too late. I've already read through the Bible a few times.
    You seem to think Jesus was a Christian. He was a Jew. Sorry, but that is a fact.
    What is the difference between Jews and Christians? I'll give you a hint. The answer is embedded in the question.
    Maybe those Christians you hang out with but as I pointed out with links to the Clergy Project, at least 10,000 US Christian Clergy would agree with me.
    Being down the Church of Pergamos only means one thing.
    One problem may be that you do not know what Christianity is. Throw Christianity away. Get rid of your little mind picture of what Christianity is. Become as a child and actually learn just how broad and inclusive Christianity is.
    Maybe I know exactly what it means and that you have concocted the God of your choosing.
    Learn that Christianity is just one Map.
    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 do indict the current crop of Christians that support oppression in the form of the Defense of Marriage Act or the so called "Pro-life" Christians. I do say that we, as Christians must acknowledge the horrific acts we have committed in the past if we are to avoid committing similar acts in the future.
    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.
    That is the system. LOL
    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.
    Sure, we could reduce GOD to some painter or drummer, but GOD is so much more. Imagine a painter that creates a canvass on the scale of the Universe that is ever changing, ever new, ever evolving and doing it simply through an act of will.
    I can certainly ascribe to such a thought, but it brings the entire naturalistic theory of evolution into disrepute.
    You may think that you have shown where my beliefs are "oxymoronic" and if so, that is fine. I have never said that what I present will be easily understood by all. However, it also seems that quite a few folk do "get it." And that is fine. Every time one of you posts it gives me another opportunity to try to support my position.
    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?
    Ah. Back on the "True Christian" nonsense.
    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?
    If you called your self a scientist and you were accepted as such by one of the professional boards, I would certainly accept you as a scientist.
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by jar, posted 01-07-2007 9:45 AM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by jar, posted 01-08-2007 9:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
     Message 76 by Jaderis, posted 01-09-2007 3:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

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


    Message 72 of 81 (375288)
    01-08-2007 9:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 71 by Hyroglyphx
    01-08-2007 1:17 AM


    Reading and Comprehending.
    jar said:
    You know, it might be more productive if you try to support your beliefs where you might get them right than to continue trying to tell me what I believe where you always get it wrong.
    to which Nemesis replied:
    quote:
    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).
    Again with the misrepresentations of my position instead of supporting yours and another attempt to change the subject. You simply prove my point.
    Before dealing with the rest of your post, let's get this one item settled.
    Of course there are things that are right and wrong. They can be tested and verified. It is not my opinion that I am drinking a Sidamo coffee right now. I can taste the fruity undertones, the hint of blueberry, the chocolate aftertaste. I could have other folk taste it and see if they agree. I could look at the package it came in or even contact the roaster.
    I happen to know what I believe and when you post something that is NOT what I believe, I can test it against the record.
    So let's start with this one issue.
    Do you agree that your statement "There is no real right or wrong, according to your beliefs Its all opinions. " is false?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-08-2007 1:17 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 74 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-09-2007 12:12 AM jar has replied

      
    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 73 of 81 (375356)
    01-08-2007 12:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
    01-07-2007 2:08 AM


    Personalities of the homo babasapien
    Hi Nembaba.
    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.
    I was thinking about this recently. I saw that show, "big-brother", where you observe people's mundane activity, and have no influence on the outcome of things.
    I also use Jar's definition of Creationist when I refer to my own position.
    It's still possible that God guides the winds, so to speak, even if he doesn't get directly involved with the actual hands on stuff. He might leave that to his servants, such as the earth, "let the earth bring forth" etc..
    I don't know why Jar is controversial and I am not, despite a similar position on this. I am guessing that it might be because Jar apparently never supports any type of traditional theistic argument, and seems to agree with the atheists, and defend them. I think that's because he is convinced that their position is the correct one, and that the believers' position isn't. That might be hard to swallow or understand, to a die-hard Christian, but that's because they associate God with the bible. Some of us aren't strict biblists though. I also used to believe it impossible to agree with anything an atheist says.
    Also, emotive words such as referring to God as "she" or "bling bling pimp daddy", might seem unusual to die-hard Christian folk. Also, atheists use terms such as the invisible pink unicorn, and santa, etc...I'm not against Jar, or atheists, for doing this as such - I'm just trying to explain why his stance might be controversial.
    If you want to show people that there is another way, I believe that you have to show them that you're not just trying to destroy their set of beliefs. As a YEC, that's the only thing I didn't like - that that particular belief caused so many people to come against me. That's not the way though, because everyone has a right to believe what they want.
    But yeah - it is possible to be an evolutionist-creationist, if your definitions aren't contradictory.
    I have no quarms with popular scientific theories or natural explanations. I used to, but it's silly really. It's like denying that thunder is natural. I can't believe the energy I wasted as a YEC.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2007 2:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 74 of 81 (375555)
    01-09-2007 12:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 72 by jar
    01-08-2007 9:38 AM


    Re: Reading and Comprehending.
    Again with the misrepresentations of my position instead of supporting yours and another attempt to change the subject. You simply prove my point.
    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.
    I happen to know what I believe and when you post something that is NOT what I believe, I can test it against the record.
    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?
    Do you agree that your statement "There is no real right or wrong, according to your beliefs Its all opinions. " is false?
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by jar, posted 01-08-2007 9:38 AM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 75 by jar, posted 01-09-2007 12:27 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


    Message 75 of 81 (375559)
    01-09-2007 12:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 74 by Hyroglyphx
    01-09-2007 12:12 AM


    Let's stick with ONE issue.
    Let's try one little issue at a time.
    jar writes:
    Do you agree that your statement "There is no real right or wrong, according to your beliefs Its all opinions. " is false?
    One more time.
    Do you agree that your statement "There is no real right or wrong, according to your beliefs Its all opinions. " is false?
    And bringing in the issue of morality is simply more of your misdirection tactics, palming the pea while you shuffle the shells to con the Rubes.
    Your comment was in response to my post in Message 65 where I said...
    You know, it might be more productive if you try to support your beliefs where you might get them right than to continue trying to tell me what I believe where you always get it wrong.
    Right and wrong in this is referring to your pretending that you can represent my beliefs and the fact that when ever you do, you get it wrong.
    It was a suggestion that perhaps instead of misrepresenting my position so that you can create silly strawmen to attack, you might be more successful if you instead tried to support YOUR position.
    When you then wander off into totally irrelevant and unrelated nonsense like ...
    quote:
    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.
    it only shows that you have no CLUE what I actually wrote.
    So once again:
    Do you agree that your statement "There is no real right or wrong, according to your beliefs Its all opinions. " is false?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 74 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-09-2007 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx 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