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

I do not have sufficient background information, and lack the desire to acquire it, to determine if the word "creationist" had some prior meaning that has been since replaced by co-option, so take no stance on this statement. I'm quite confused by the first part of this statement. In my mind, it is beyond question that YECs, IDers and the like are in fact attempting to insert their religious beliefs into schools under the guise of something that they think is (or appears to be) scientific. Moreover, there is no question that their agenda is based on their spirituality.Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. If you mean to say that there is nothing inconsistent with evolution and Christianity as practiced by the vast majority of Christians, with this I am in complete agreement. In that sense, the anti-evolution movement is not spiritually based, in that it gets no support from mainstream Christianity. However, that does not mean that anti-evolutionists are not acting to promote their spirituality.I fully agree that anti-evolutionists do not represent "most people today." I never said or implied anything of the sort. My use of the phrase "most people today" was in reference to what most people think the term "creationist" means, not whether or not they ascribe to what anti-evolutionists say. As I said above, we can certainly argue about what the word should mean. But that is a vastly different discussion from what the word does mean to most people.I'm not sure we really disagree here. You didn't provide anything to suggest that "creationist" doesn't mean to most people what I described above. Instead, it seems that your point of contention is that the term ought not be used in that fashion. And if you're advocating that the definition be changed to deprive creos with the ammunition of apparent support from Christianity, I'd go along with that. However, the term is widely used by people on both sides of the debate, as well as those aware of but completely outside the debate. It appears to have become entrenched in its current meaning to the point that I suspect any such attempt would be an exercise in futility.

---

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

Plenty of question. There are many motivations behind the YEC movement. The word "creationist" is calculated to fool the gullible followers into thinking that the leaders' motivations are the same as their own. I would suggest that a lot of people don't associate "creationist" with "anti-evolutionist" at all. Outside the U.S., where people aren't so steeped in fundyism, "creationist" often just means a quaint belief in "God" - somewhat akin to a belief in fairies. The meaning of words is not a popularity contest. Words can have a variety of acceptable usages. "Creationist" happens to have at least two common usages and it is not your place to count noses and decide which one somebody "should" use in reference to himself. I'm advocating that you shouldn't swallow their "definition" of the word any more than you should swallow their "definition" of science or kind or transitional. Here's my chance to quote Tal's signature:

quote:

---

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

---

"Futility" is my middle name.

---

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

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?

---

Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
* * * * * * * * * *
"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

​

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."- --Sir Isaac Newton

IMHO jar's position is the best argument for Christianity I have ever encountered.Edited by anglagard, : position not interpretation

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

To me, God is not some internalized concept of my mind or imagination. God has always been with me, and I believe that I "met" Him when I got born again.Now...I realize that "born again" is a Charismatic catchphrase, but I actually had an epiphany and underwent some massive changes in my character when this event was formally undertaken on January 9th, 1993.Thats another thing that I have been thinking about.Have I "evolved" as a Christian or was I reborn (recreated) as one through a spiritual impartation? It seems to me to be a bit of both.One issue that you forced me to think about was the issue of exclusivity. You pointed out how throughout history, Christians have acted as if they were different from everyone else.Regarding how certain Christians committed horrific actions which were explained away by declaring them to be uninspired pretenders, you said:

quote:

---

I believe we must honestly acknowledge what we (Christians) have done in the past, that “but by the grace of GOD” those people could be us and that we too are capable of committing such horrific acts. If we try to claim that they were somehow different than us, that they were not real Christians, then I fear we are bound to continue down that path.

---

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 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.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?

Most words in the English language have multiple meanings, but when composing a message any choice of meanings for words is fine as long as they promote rather than hinder understanding within the context.The administrative concern is that threads could be diverted from their topics into arguments over definitions, so for threads where word 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.
  ​
• 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.
  ​
• Christian: Christianity is a fairly big tent, so no attempt is made to define Christianity.
  ​
• Republican: I make no attempt at a formal definition, but in case it is helpful I'll mention that in the northeast we have a term, Massachusetts Republican, that refers to someone who is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If everyone thought alike, would Jesus approve? Does the Creator really care if His creation believes in Adam and Eve and a Snake and a Flood?Does He not want us to use our minds that He created (directly or indirectly) within us? Are we expected to turn our backs on the hallowed halls of education that brought society out of the ignorance of the past?Perhaps we really are hopeless victims of Original Sin and that we really shouldn't try and deify our own human wisdom as the best answer for a universe full of problems. (problems for us, at any rate.)Can a man be a critical thinker and also believe that Jesus lives within him?

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

Thanks for some clarification, Percy. You have opened yet another can of worms in my mind, however.

creationist: a person who places their interpretation of religious revelation above scientific evidence.

​

So what do I do when I believe that I am growing through revelation despite the fact that I am becoming a bigger nut case according to the observation of others? Do I choose whether to get mental help or do I retreat behind the walls of the Castle Church and join my fellow cultists in a battle for the souls of humanity?

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills.

​

(just a scenario...you know i'm not in need of medication yet! )

Although you have to admit, Jar, that both of us believe that God created the Universe. Scientific evidence has yet to confirm this belief.

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. 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. 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. Well, why do YOU think they do so?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

quote:

---

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.

---

There are several possible answers.

Having found acceptance in a christian identity and having been taught that there is a war of sorts between Biblical Creationism and ToE, these naive idealists feel that they are doing a good thing by fighting the status quo. The problem is that they have been told what to think.

​

Having found acceptance from others who are of like minded thought, proponents of Biblical Creationism never get to know anyone who actually studies science and evolutionary theory. Perhaps if they knew some people, they may actually see the other side of the coin.

​

Percy had some choice words on this matter as well in PAF. I think they apply here as well:

Percy writes:

​

What we're looking for at EvC Forum is rational discussion. To assist us in this pursuit we have the Forum Guidelines, which I believe that when fairly enforced go a long way toward helping us achieve this goal. I think that if nothing else, recent events have shown that I can be as hard on evolutionists as creationists, which is as it should be.

​

But why is it that when someone joins who just hasn't a clue about science and is unable to follow simple rules that it's almost always a creationist? This is a rhetorical question, actually. The reasons are obvious. Evolutionists come to the debate out of a love for science, and so they're informed about science, which is what the science forums at this board are here to discuss. Creationists come to the debate out of a love for God and Bible, so they're informed about religion and not about science, which leaves them at a severe disadvantage in the science forums.

​

So okay, a new creationist member comes here and gets the heck beat out of him in his first couple discussions, and so you'd think he'd do something rational like start studying up or sit back a lurk for a while or ask more questions. But you almost never see this. From the day they come till the day they leave they never seem to learn a thing.

​

And this is one of the reasons why I think it is so important to recruit creationist moderators. The hope is that a creationist could be persuaded by another creationist to change his behavior, whatever that might mean for each specific case.

Its not easy to be a creationist moderator. Not only do you have to challenge the beliefs that have been taught to the creationist, which he resents (as opposed to an evolutionist who is used to having his ideas challenged in context) but you have to put up with the dogged determination that many have to convert everybody (including the poor marxist moderator)

​

Edited by Phat, : add by edit

While I generally appreciate efforts to restrict arguments to the topic rather than let them degenerate into squabbles over semantics, I think at least part of the point of this thread is semantics. Jar is taking great pains to define his use of these terms as he applies them to himself. IMHO, Admin stepping in and dictating what the terms must mean is 180 degrees counter to what Jar is trying to do.Respectfully submitted.

---

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