Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 1:31 AM
17 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Why I call myself a Conservative, Republican, Christian Creationist Evolutionist
jar
Member
Posts: 30979
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


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 yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 47 of 81 (375035)
01-06-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-05-2007 3:35 PM


Oxymoronic
Looks like I arrived late at the party again.

I believe those things outlined in the "I believes" (AKA Nicene Creed).

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).

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.

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.

The Episcopal Church recognizes me as a member so I am a Protestant, Episcopal Christian.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 01-06-2007 10:26 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 50 by jar, posted 01-06-2007 10:39 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16613
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 48 of 81 (375038)
01-06-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
01-06-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Oxymoronic
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

Being apart of "The Church"....

I'm going to be nit-picky here because you're criticizing somebody else for using "loose terminology".

Are you aware that "apart of the Church" and "a part of the Church" are opposites?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-06-2007 10:12 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-06-2007 10:32 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 49 of 81 (375039)
01-06-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ringo
01-06-2007 10:26 PM


grammer
I'm going to be nit-picky here because you're criticizing somebody else for using "loose terminology".

Are you aware that "apart of the Church" and "a part of the Church" are opposites?

heh.. very true. thanks for the correction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 01-06-2007 10:26 PM ringo has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30979
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


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 responded

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

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2763 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 51 of 81 (375043)
01-06-2007 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
01-06-2007 10:39 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.

I don't see this as an Oxymoron, it does imply a greater intelligence however.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 01-06-2007 10:39 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 01-06-2007 11:14 PM Vacate has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-06-2007 11:53 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30979
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


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 yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 53 of 81 (375046)
01-06-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
01-06-2007 10:39 PM


Re: Oxymoronic
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.

Seems to me you might be entitled to claim the mantel of Intelligent Design as well. After all, who's more intelligent, a guy who can craft a human being from 100 pounds of clay, or someone who can design a system that will, all by itself, evolve a human being from amorphous gasses over the course of a few billion years?

Edited by subbie, : No reason given.


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

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 01-06-2007 10:39 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 01-06-2007 11:36 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30979
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 54 of 81 (375048)
01-06-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by subbie
01-06-2007 11:19 PM


Re: Oxymoronic
Seems to me you might be entitled to claim the mantel of Intelligent Design as well. After all, who's more intelligent, a guy who can craft a human being from 100 pounds of clay, or someone who can design a system that will, all by itself, evolve a human being from amorphous gasses over the course of a few billion years?

Well, over the years here at EvC I have said many times that if there is any support for the concept of Intelligent Design it is at the most basic level, at the basic rules, laws and systems that seem to control what exists.

One thing I find absolutely awesome is the system we call evolution. It seems near perfect for assuring that life continues. Over the history of the earth there have been many, many cataclysmic events, events that wiped out large percentages of the life here. There was the Deccan Traps, Yellowstone, the little meteor that landed a few hundred miles from where I live about 65,000,000 years ago.

The system though, assures that life will continue. That new forms will evolve that are good enough to live long enough to reproduce. This system has chunked along quite well for what looks like at least 3,500,000,000 years so far and every day we find that it has been working even longer than we thought.

We also have only one sample. We honestly have no idea if there is life on other worlds. We may well be even less significant than we think.

The idea that mankind is the goal, that we are what GOD was looking for, what GOD wanted, to me seems pretty silly. After all, modern man is such a late comer, and in numbers is so insignificant, that I believe that if we were the desired product, and GOD created billions and billions and billions of critters only to walk in at the end of the last act and create what She wanted all along, She would be a fool.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by subbie, posted 01-06-2007 11:19 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12404
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 55 of 81 (375051)
01-06-2007 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Vacate
01-06-2007 11:07 PM


Musings
vacate writes:

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).

This seems like fodder for a new topic! I could call it: Is Humanity significant or insignificant in the grand scheme of things?

A question that I always think about evolution is this: What will we evolve into next? ;)


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

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 56 of 81 (375058)
01-07-2007 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
01-06-2007 10:39 PM


Re: Oxymoronic
I think you are also misrepresenting my position as seems to be normal here at EvC.

Or that you've paved for yourself such a slippery slope that who can follow it without finding the inconsistencies.

Please link to the posts where I have expressed an aversion to the concept of the Trinity.

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.

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.

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.

Jesus did not found Christianity.

Yes, He did. The only thing He didn't do was put a name on it. That was supplied later.

Jesus was never a Christian.

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.

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.

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.

Then you wander off into absolute nonsense unrelated to anything I have even said and another total misrepresentation of my position.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So far you have not show a single example where the word "oxymoronic" would be appropriate and simply misrepresentations of my positions.

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 you call yourself a Christian, and some Christian Church accepts you as a member, why would I doubt you are a Christian?

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 01-06-2007 10:39 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by subbie, posted 01-07-2007 1:07 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 61 by Vacate, posted 01-07-2007 3:08 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 65 by jar, posted 01-07-2007 9:45 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 67 by fallacycop, posted 01-07-2007 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 57 of 81 (375060)
01-07-2007 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Hyroglyphx
01-07-2007 12:48 AM


Re: Oxymoronic
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'm not going to propose to speak for jar, he can do a fine job himself. But there's a rather simply answer to the non-issue you raise, my blinkered friend.

Science says the process is unguided. However, there's nothing inconsistent in a person of faith believing that God did direct the process so that the random mutations and other quirks along the evolutionary path in fact resulted in the end product he was trying to reach, man.


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

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2007 2:08 AM subbie has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 58 of 81 (375065)
01-07-2007 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by subbie
01-07-2007 1:07 AM


Re: Oxymoronic
Science says the process is unguided. However, there's nothing inconsistent in a person of faith believing that God did direct the process so that the random mutations and other quirks along the evolutionary path in fact resulted in the end product he was trying to reach, man.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by subbie, posted 01-07-2007 1:07 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by iceage, posted 01-07-2007 2:26 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 01-07-2007 2:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 73 by mike the wiz, posted 01-08-2007 12:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 59 of 81 (375069)
01-07-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
01-07-2007 2:08 AM


Re: Oxymoronic
nj writes:

Sounds to me like Jar's Creator would be more aptly named as the Observer.

Seeing how roughly 40% of life is parasitic I sure hope God is a distant observer and not a caring active creator/designer. Note some of these finely tuned parasites are just downright ingenious and wicked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis

Otherwise what does that say about the designer?


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

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 60 of 81 (375073)
01-07-2007 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
01-07-2007 2:08 AM


Re: Oxymoronic
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.

Well, considering that I don't believe in God to begin with, that jar is more than capable of speaking for himself, that you apparently refuse to understand what I've already said about the matter, and that you have your own reasons for thinking that your God is "special," I see little point in continuing in this vain vein.

Carry on. I'm sure you will anyway.


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

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


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

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019