Gregrios wrote:Did you guys know about the "special clock" that's in the whitehouse? I'm guessing not. This clock actually records every lie that the acting president has preformed. For every lie, 1 second passes on the clock. George Washington had his clock move ahead only the 1 second. Abraham Lincoln had his clock move only 3 seconds. When asked about George W. Bush's clock, an inside advisor of the whitehouse replied that Bush uses his clock as a ceiling fan.
Old old old joke that has been used for lots of presidents.
Really? I just heard it from Doyle Brunson a couple months ago. I thought it was hilarious. A matter of fact, I still laugh about it.
I heard it while Clinton was still in office, and I'm sure it's been used on a few presidents before then.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
I'd venture to say that the view that "evolution and creationism" are not incompatible is the majority view among Christians. I know for a fact that it is among Catholics at least.
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
Gregrios wrote:Did you guys know about the "special clock" that's in the whitehouse? I'm guessing not. This clock actually records every lie that the acting president has preformed. For every lie, 1 second passes on the clock. George Washington had his clock move ahead only the 1 second. Abraham Lincoln had his clock move only 3 seconds. When asked about George W. Bush's clock, an inside advisor of the whitehouse replied that Bush uses his clock as a ceiling fan.
Old old old joke that has been used for lots of presidents.
Really? I just heard it from Doyle Brunson a couple months ago. I thought it was hilarious. A matter of fact, I still laugh about it.
I heard it while Clinton was still in office, and I'm sure it's been used on a few presidents before then.
The fact that I heard it from Ol' Doyle Brunson only validates your claim.
Things are now unfolding that only prophecy can explain!
OnlyAmbrose wrote:I'd venture to say that the view that "evolution and creationism" are not incompatible is the majority view among Christians. I know for a fact that it is among Catholics at least.
In addition to the Roman Catholic church, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopaliens, Presbyterians and even a number of moderate Baptists have no problem believing the Bible is true AND that Evolution is, by far, the most likely process God used to create life on Earth.
OnlyAmbrose wrote:I'd venture to say that the view that "evolution and creationism" are not incompatible is the majority view among Christians. I know for a fact that it is among Catholics at least.
In addition to the Roman Catholic church, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopaliens, Presbyterians and even a number of moderate Baptists have no problem believing the Bible is true AND that Evolution is, by far, the most likely process God used to create life on Earth.
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
OnlyAmbrose wrote:I'd venture to say that the view that "evolution and creationism" are not incompatible is the majority view among Christians. I know for a fact that it is among Catholics at least.
In addition to the Roman Catholic church, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopaliens, Presbyterians and even a number of moderate Baptists have no problem believing the Bible is true AND that Evolution is, by far, the most likely process God used to create life on Earth.
So you are suggesting Christians are stupid people who just follow the group?
I saw some of that interview, I actually think Bush did ok. He sounded halfway reasonable. Maybe because he doesn't have to impress religious nuts any more. Evolution and 'creationism' are most definitely compatible in theory. Which doesn't actually mean a bunch of much as creationism is a pile of bunk and evolution is scientific fact.
Evolution and Creationism are only compatable because you make up Creationism as you go along.
In reality they are bitter enemies and to believe in both is to contradict yourself.
"I believe there is a scientific explination for how everything came to be, and that scientific reason is magic."
=
"I believe in God because I want to. Even though I agree that we don't need one to explain anything."
OnlyAmbrose wrote:I'd venture to say that the view that "evolution and creationism" are not incompatible is the majority view among Christians. I know for a fact that it is among Catholics at least.
In addition to the Roman Catholic church, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopaliens, Presbyterians and even a number of moderate Baptists have no problem believing the Bible is true AND that Evolution is, by far, the most likely process God used to create life on Earth.
The simple elegance of doublethink.
EDIT: I decided I should expand this as in and of itself what you said isn't really doublethink at all. Yet if evolution was the process God used to create life, and we accept that once he started the system going its evolved independantly (cause lets face it, it would be a bit pointless to spend 14 billion years over it), God couldn't have possibly made man in his own image and hence the entire premise that we are his "children" or that he cares or listens is entirely flawed as we are as random as frogs. But of course all of this is easily handled by attributing our effectively random evolution to a personal God and sprinkling it with a smattering of doublethink.
OnlyAmbrose wrote:I'd venture to say that the view that "evolution and creationism" are not incompatible is the majority view among Christians. I know for a fact that it is among Catholics at least.
In addition to the Roman Catholic church, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopaliens, Presbyterians and even a number of moderate Baptists have no problem believing the Bible is true AND that Evolution is, by far, the most likely process God used to create life on Earth.
The simple elegance of doublethink.
EDIT: I decided I should expand this as in and of itself what you said isn't really doublethink at all. Yet if evolution was the process God used to create life, and we accept that once he started the system going its evolved independantly (cause lets face it, it would be a bit pointless to spend 14 billion years over it), God couldn't have possibly made man in his own image and hence the entire premise that we are his "children" or that he cares or listens is entirely flawed as we are as random as frogs. But of course all of this is easily handled by attributing our effectively random evolution to a personal God and sprinkling it with a smattering of doublethink.
This may be getting off on a tangent, so if you want more of an answer look at the posts in several of the "why God", etc threads ... or maybe start a new one?
However, the short of it is that the Bible, while factual is not a science textbook and was written for people with a range of understandings about ... everything.
As for the how could we be in God's image. Some people suggest that the "image" is not necessarily a physical one at all. However, that is not my belief/my church's belief. (though we believe it refers to much more than pure physical appearances). Whether God set forth the patterns and then stood back, is acting like a puppetteer manipulating changes/evolution, or some combination (basically standing back, intervening now and then), the key is that God knows and understands all. If God wanted to creat a creature that would be in his image (humans), then he would set things forth so that this would happen.
As for the whole determinist/free will issue -- that is most certainly another few threads.
No, no need for another thread, I've talked all I can on this subject here many moons ago and now just vicariously peruse the boards every few weeks when I've had a few (as I had last night). I guess really I just wanted to make a smart arse remark (with a literary allusion to convey my culture, education and intellect) on the incedible capacity for holding two contradictory viewpoints we humans have evolved. Personally I think its an evolutionary defence mechanism against being too smart, as with intellect so often comes introspection. Anyway I was just being self indulgent expanding it and am verging that way again now without the mitigation of a few glasses of vino, so please accept my apologies for butting in ;o)
hi guys, just wanted to drop in for a comment or two. i have always respected the opinions/posts of backglass and bertros, but i'm afraid there is much more to the issue here than you are allowing. maybe you just don't know about the completely respectable, logically viable theories out there, or maybe you're just having a little vent here and not bringing up said theories. either way, let me insert something. and to juan bottom, you may find something useful here too.
many christians, jews, and theologians of these religions do not take genesis 1-2 literally. however, they may still cherish the belief that their God in some way created everything in the universe, and these positions are not contradictory.
in my opinion, the first chapter of genesis is far from literal. it resembles very closely a babylonian creation story called the enuma elish (sp?), and in fact on closer inspection it looks like a scathing parody of that "myth." in short, genesis 1 takes all the cool things that a babylonian god did in his story and attributes them to the hebrew god. it is theorized that genesis 1 was written during jewish slavery in babylon, and that this story was used to combat assimilation of jews into babylonian religion--"don't listen to their creation story, listen to this story! the LORD actually made the heavens, earth, stars, seas, animals!" that sort of thing.....
another example: when genesis 1 says that god created men and women in his image, the thrust of this statement may be different than is commonly construed. in many ancient cultures, a conquering king might leave behind a statue of himself to mark his new territory as his possession (think shelley and ozymandias). so when god made a new land all his own, he left behind a symbol of himself, human beings, who would actually show forth his dominion over all things by having their own dominion over all other created things.
and this actually plays back into the parody of enuma elish: in that babylonian story, human beings are created to be the slaves of the gods. but in the hebrew creation "myth," human beings are representatives of god's kingship over creation.
and more to the point: whether god created human beings immediately and originally in our current macro-evolved state or not (in his image) is a question completely foreign to biblical/ancient perspectives. to read these concerns into genesis 1-2 is really quite odd! in fact, the bible may be saying something completely different than what we have assumed here. i guess it tends to do that.....in large part b/c many, many people are trying to make it say things that it doesn't.
i encourage all of you to read some good academic theology on this subject. it is highly interesting, you can find plenty of it by both believers and non-believers, and you will definitely learn something.
cheers!
Liberté, egalité, cash moné
Hey, Fox News: Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
My heart beats with unconditional love
But beware of the blackness that it's capable of
Haha, you flatter me Neph and make it impossible to resist another comment. I don't actually think evolution and concept of creation all that incompatible depending on what is meant by creation. (Now there is an opportunity to quote me out of context, anybody?)
In a pantheist, and yes deist, sense I'm agnostic. There is no defintive way of knowing why life came about and whether or not there was external influence so naturally this is the only logical position. But creationism in the biblical sense is clearly at best metaphorical and in comparison to what seems to be the reality of creation/evolution is a pretty stretched metaphor, much more logically the creation of man "designed" to help us comes to terms with the awkward questions of existence than the word of God. Hence possibly an evolved defence mechanism against one side effect of increasing intelligence, the ability to ask why?To accept some parts of the bible as gospel and use that to justify increasingly outdated prejudices whilst allowing that other parts are allegory whiffs a bit of hypocrisy. Or to put it more kindly, doublethink?
Bertros Bertros wrote:Haha, you flatter me Neph and make it impossible to resist another comment. I don't actually think evolution and concept of creation all that incompatible depending on what is meant by creation. (Now there is an opportunity to quote me out of context, anybody?)
In a pantheist, and yes deist, sense I'm agnostic. There is no defintive way of knowing why life came about and whether or not there was external influence so naturally this is the only logical position. But creationism in the biblical sense is clearly at best metaphorical and in comparison to what seems to be the reality of creation/evolution is a pretty stretched metaphor, much more logically the creation of man "designed" to help us comes to terms with the awkward questions of existence than the word of God. Hence possibly an evolved defence mechanism against one side effect of increasing intelligence, the ability to ask why?To accept some parts of the bible as gospel and use that to justify increasingly outdated prejudices whilst allowing that other parts are allegory whiffs a bit of hypocrisy. Or to put it more kindly, doublethink?
nah, not at all. viewing different parts of the bible in different ways is actually the proper way to read and understand it......it is not homogeneous, and is in fact made up of many different genres of literature that should be approached differently. maybe part of the problem here (at least in some comments in this thread) is the assumption that literal reading is true and non-literal reading is a cop out. that's pretty funny, and pretty fundamentalist.
the jewish and christian systems have a strong and pretty much inescapable foundation in the belief in a creator god. how one approaches biblical texts on this issue, however, is very much open for debate. if some folks read genesis 1 in a non-literal way (not many people really do allegory anymore, that went out centuries ago), this does not mean that all "biblical morality" is also in question. damn this is getting off topic and going far afield!
Liberté, egalité, cash moné
Hey, Fox News: Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
My heart beats with unconditional love
But beware of the blackness that it's capable of
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
