rambill79,

Not sure what the 'big bang' has to do with evolution, but anyhow,

You wrote:
"... primordial soup? set off by a lightning bolt? ..."

I know what you mean 'Ram'...

'a handful of dirt and the breath of an imaginary god',

... now that makes so much more sense!!!

LOL Thanks anoasis for Jess's thread on philosophies...
But I talking reality... real "dustbunnies"...
A mental break into what lurks in darkness and multiplies at random... a "dust bunny"

Voil;

Yes - evangelical would be much more representative of what I would aline myself with. In my past - I was briefly part of the "Church of Christ" ministries - the "Discipleship" movement out of Boston (Now called the International Church of Christ) - which I would not only consider "Fundamentaslists" - but would instead label as "Cult". And a dangerous one. The "mainline" church of Christ (called so to differentiate themselves from the Boston movement) would also be considered fundamentalist - but not on a cultish level. I found to be separatists, and elitist. More in line with your most serious objections of elitist Christians. I tend not to be so liberal in my classification of "Christians" though, as I do not consider LDS or JW's or Moonies, or Unification, or United Church of Christ, within the ranks of Christians. To me - they are Cults. And having been a Catholic for most of my life - I serious doubt the numbers listed for the Catholic church to be an accurate description of "Christians". Most are closet agnostics who think their infant baptism is a "ticket to heaven". But I tend to find that coming from a State that is close to 90% Catholic, and a city that is vertually all Catholic - that this is the norm here, whereas it may not be so within other larger Catholic communities.

As a side note - I would consider Spider an Evangelical - not a fundamentalist by my understanding of the tone of his posts. He tends to get a little more "emotional" (for lack of a better word) when dealing with those on the threads who see Christianity as a "fairytale", but his interpretations are not in line with what I've known fundamentalists to do in the strictest sense of the word. At least viewing his posts through my personal experience filters.

1. Do you agree with Charles Robert Darwin's theory of evolution? No.

2. Adam and Eve.



Eljay,

I would describe spider as evangelical also.

Once again I say to the masses no way I'm going to believe that I fell from a speck in the atmosphere, fell into the water, turned into a tadpole, climbed out turned into a frog, then turned into a monkey, who then turned into an ape that then turned into a human.....nope no sir re bob......not going to happen. Now if you want to say the big bang......God said and BANG it was.....that I will by.

The heaven and the earth were created, and God saw that it ws good. Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make him a helper suitable for him." and woman was created. And that is what makes more sense to me.

And just to leave no question about where I stand. I do believe that the animal kingdom including man do evolve over time....as proven with early man. But not a man from an animal. Its the same belief I have that people that mess with cross breeding of creatures goes against what the initial creation was. For example when man decided to cross breed a tiger and a lion.....They do not ever breed outside their breed and there are all kinds of problems with the ones they have now...ligras....I know because I rehabilitate and care for many of these animals.

feralcatlady,

A 'faboulistic' allegory of creation to which you do not subscribe:

"... I fell from a speck in the atmosphere,
fell into the water,
turned into a tadpole,
climbed out turned into a frog,
then turned into a monkey, who then turned into an ape that then turned into a human..."

A 'faboulistic' allegory of creation to which you do subscribe:

"... The heaven and the earth were created,
and God saw that it ws good.
Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being.
Then the Lord God said,
"It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make him a helper suitable for him."
"FORM A RIB FRON ADAM, woman was created..."

So you prefer one 'faboulistic', fabricated, invented, made-up
fable over the other. The fable one makes-up, one's personnal interpretations of what one is presented with in life, is all that matters. Not the stories themselves, nor the books they might come from.

It is the one on one personnal interpretations poeple draw-up for themselves, on sometimes similar (culturally homogeneous), and sometimes radically different (culturally ditinct) experiences.

The Bible in and of itself, means nothing, ... until it bumps up against YOUR interpreatation, or the interpretation of someone else.

The interpretation, or the personnal meaning one gives to anything is all that matters in the need.

With respect to the stories, or 'faboulistic interpretations' you propose for creation above, only one's choice of the one interpretation or the other, matters to one.

"... a speck from the atmosphere which falls in water..."

or

"... dust from a ground invented by an imagined God, which turns into 'man', with a breadth of the same imagined god. And from the rib of man, came a woman 'companion' as an afterthought ..."

I don't know why or how you have come to interpret 'categorically' that the second interpretation: "... God's breadth on dust...", is more deserving than the first one, upon which you founded YOUR reality, and it matters less.

It matters less, because the same individual phenomenom that governs everyone else. Their personnal interpretations become the foundation of their reality.

I have no such interpretation as you hold, that an imaginable god's breadth on dust, brought about the birth of 'man' only. But I repsect that people like yourself, could hold such a personnal belief.

If I have a right to my personnal beliefs, others must have a right to theirs just as well, end of subject. Non-negociable!

I just respect YOUR ONW LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO YOUR OWN BELIEFS, never having to agree, or endorse your beliefs.

Imposing our morals, as if the morals of the some were superior to the morals of others, is a major source of tremendous conflictual rapports, leading to breakdowns in relationships, conflicts between segments of society, and ultmately, all out war.

So you believe you came from the rib of a man, and I don't know where we came from, and am not asking either. Good! Now that we have established that, what would you suggest would be worthwhile discussing?!?!?

'Eljay',

You wrote,

"... As a side note - I would consider Spider an Evangelical..."

I would be interested to read what you would base that on!

For my part though, someone whom states clearly that he is a fundamentalist, upholds fundamentalism rules and guidelines of engagement, and clearly behaves according to fundamentalism guidelines, is a fundamentalist. There is little room for interpretation.

While both evangelicals and fundamentalists share the same belief foundation; they come from the same source, evangelicals brought an 'open' and 'compassionnate' angle to fundamentalism which got them 'EVICTED' from fundamentalism kingdom.

Simply put, a fundamentalist may very well be nothing else than an 'evangelical' with a bad attitude. A fighting, malicious, presumptuous, and categorical attitude. A 'US vs THEM' with a distinct and aggressive (uninvited and down your throat) 'IF YOU DON'T AGREE IN THE END, YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU'LL BURN IN HELL' attitude.

A fundamntalist will appear out of nowwhere, having sensed an attack on the bible, jesus, his god, as a personnal call to 'attack' and 'correct' according to his exclusive delusional sense of absolute 'truth' (the 'god is on my side syndrome'), and will come up with the most preposterous pseudo-intellectual sophisms to save the bible, or the word of fundamentaism from being put in doubt.

A delusional attitude, based on having to attack those whom fundamentalists peceive as spreading doubt about the 'inerrancy' of the bible.

A bunch of delusiona make-believe bible mercenaries whom 'fight' with every once of energy, to keep believing that there are no errors in the book they have elected as the infallable and inerrant home of the words from a god whom they have elected as their god.

A straight jacket condemnation to be sure, which inevitably forces the fundamentalist into fights, confrontations and self justified wars with other Christians, and all other non Christians, whom would dare contradict anything, any way shape or form, from the book.

Fundamentalist:
It is this way.
Given that it is this way, it can't be any other way.
Must 'get' those whom don't see it this way, to change their view and come to see it this way.
Those whom refuse to change their ways, represent a theat to the inerrant word of OUR god. They must be confronted, their arguments addressed with fuzzy logic until confusion is such that the threat on bible inerrance is 'eliminated'.

To argue your beliefs, with full respect of others beliefs, free of the 'attack' mode attitude, ELjay is characteristic of the evangelical approach.

Spider's sense of perceived personnal attacks, and self-justified obligation to counter-attack is clearly the mark of the collective psychosis shared amongst delusional fundamentalists.

Evangelicals, fundamentalists, very clearly NOT THE SAME LOT!!!

... Voil....what scientific method did you use to determine there is no God?

heres a hearse for hauling away the dead theory of evolution. lol

he answer is in this thread




http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/49643

voil said:

A 'faboulistic' allegory of creation to which you do not subscribe:

"... I fell from a speck in the atmosphere,
fell into the water,
turned into a tadpole,
climbed out turned into a frog,
then turned into a monkey, who then turned into an ape that then turned into a human..."

A 'faboulistic' allegory of creation to which you do subscribe:

"... The heaven and the earth were created,
and God saw that it ws good.
Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being.
Then the Lord God said,
"It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make him a helper suitable for him."
"FORM A RIB FRON ADAM, woman was created..."

Answer: Yea pretty much sums it up for me.

Voil said:
So you prefer one 'faboulistic', fabricated, invented, made-up
fable over the other. The fable one makes-up, one's personnal interpretations of what one is presented with in life, is all that matters. Not the stories themselves, nor the books they might come from.

It is the one on one personnal interpretations poeple draw-up for themselves, on sometimes similar (culturally homogeneous), and sometimes radically different (culturally ditinct) experiences.

The Bible in and of itself, means nothing, ... until it bumps up against YOUR interpreatation, or the interpretation of someone else.

The interpretation, or the personnal meaning one gives to anything is all that matters in the need.

With respect to the stories, or 'faboulistic interpretations' you propose for creation above, only one's choice of the one interpretation or the other, matters to one.

"... a speck from the atmosphere which falls in water..."

or

"... dust from a ground invented by an imagined God, which turns into 'man', with a breadth of the same imagined god. And from the rib of man, came a woman 'companion' as an afterthought ..."

Answer: The difference for me is the other animal life involved with the creation of said man/woman......It's just not logical t me that I came from an animal or said animals.......And as I work and have for more then 30 years with animals I just don't see that as the case. I do believe that humans and animals have evolved but not into each other.....So yes I would have to say that I believe the Bible's version of Adam and Eve....

See this is the big thing that people just don't get at least about me......I do believe the Bible and I don't think they are stories or myths or folk lore handed down from generation to generation. It is written by man yes....but God inspired And for me God would not let men write a fable, story, or anything that as just no so. It's my belief and Im sticking to it. Anyone else can believe whatever they want....if you want to voil believe you cam from an ape...then so be it....
But for me I will always believe the Big Band Theory was GOD SAID AND BANG IT WAS DONE.

voil said:
It matters less, because the same individual phenomenom that governs everyone else. Their personnal interpretations become the foundation of their reality.

I have no such interpretation as you hold, that an imaginable god's breadth on dust, brought about the birth of 'man' only. But I repsect that people like yourself, could hold such a personnal belief.

If I have a right to my personnal beliefs, others must have a right to theirs just as well, end of subject. Non-negociable!

I just respect YOUR ONW LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO YOUR OWN BELIEFS, never having to agree, or endorse your beliefs.

Imposing our morals, as if the morals of the some were superior to the morals of others, is a major source of tremendous conflictual rapports, leading to breakdowns in relationships, conflicts between segments of society, and ultmately, all out war.

So you believe you came from the rib of a man, and I don't know where we came from, and am not asking either. Good! Now that we have established that, what would you suggest would be worthwhile discussing?!?!?

Answer: Agree 100%.....I would like to know what voil's purpose is.....Why do you think you here? And what to you is the MEANING OF LIFE? giggle How's that giggle giggle.

Oh Where oh where is voil today....oh where oh where could he be...giggle

feralcatlady,

Aren't we starting to show our true colours here!!!

Have you become a hypocritical and malicious 'fundie' overnight, or have you just been 'undercover' agent from the start?!?!?

I wrote clearly that I respect your legitimate right to your beliefs.

I also wrote clearly that my views and beliefs are very different from yours. I think you are just as clear as I about that. I ask you for the same respect for my right to believe differently, as that which I afford you. You keep 'saying' that you respect people's different beliefs, I now respectfully invite you to start acting accordingly.

If you are not willing to accept those civil and straigtforward invitations, we do not have to continue this puerile conversation. I don't wish to convince you of beliefs or concepts that you don't wish to hear about or explore. Again I ask quite clearly that you respect the same from others.

The fact that your religion requires of you to 'evangelize', does not mean doing it in spite, or against people's will or intent.

You wrote:
"... I would like to know what voil's purpose is.....Why do you think you here? And what to you is the MEANING OF LIFE? giggle How's that giggle giggle..."

Sounds more like a good 'ole 'apolegetics-light-artillery-for-the fundie-beginner', then a question asked in good faith!!! I don't know, maybe it's the "...giggle, giggle..." that gives it away.

Anyhow, with all due respect, pick your camp 'feralcatlady': 'fundie' or good faith. I will respect your choice and reply to you accordingly.

You wrote:
"... Oh Where oh where is voil today....oh where oh where could he be...giggle..."

No comment...

Voil wrote:
“The fact that your religion requires of you to 'evangelize', does not mean doing it in spite, or against people's will or intent.”

That’s the “GOSPEL TRUTH” right there!

I know that Jesus taught that if someone doesn’t want to hear it that we should ‘wipe our feet and leave’.

I could look up the exact verse but Bible thumpers should be able to find it on their own.

The point is that when Christian ARGUE with other people about what those other people believe they are actually going directly AGAINST what Jesus had taught to do.

So at that point in time they have abandon Jesus and they are on their own doing their OWN THING!

Jesus never intended his ‘word’ to be spread via denouncing other people’s beliefs.

Moreover, Jesus taught to spread his teachings when he was STILL ALIVE! That is to say that there was nothing in THOSE teachings about any idea that Jesus had died for anyone’s sins!!!! Those proclamations came after Jesus’ death by others who wrote about him.

All Jesus suggested was to teach the PRINCIPLES that he taught.

And I might suggest that those principles can allow be found in the 12 Laws of Karma. So I already live by them. Preaching the morals of Jesus to me would be redundant.

They’re all right here! This is what Jesus taught!

http://thejourneyinward.net/karma/karmalaws.html

Preaching to me is like preaching to the choir.

If you can't SEE that I already 'get it' then perhaps you missed the message?

u guys r still arguing about this?
i left this ages ago but her i go again

without proof of god i gotta go and agree with evolution as there r mass amounts of evidence for it

but i think a defining feature of organized religion is the ability to ignore and or trivialize anything that makes that imaginary father figure in the sky seem less powerful

Actually 'lizardking19',

The exchange is in the midst of declaring or naming the confusion and divisiveness that the 'creationism' virus is.

Far from resolving anything defenitively, naming and agreeing on the nature of any disagreement, is invariably the first step in resuming productive, as opposed to sclerosed discussions, and who knows, might hold the possibiity of enlightment.

Although we haven't made much cleaning up yet, my intent is to demonstrate that the subject of a debate, any debat or exchange of ideas, cannot be addressed or take place, when a hidden agenda is being hypocritically imposed on the side by some, and corrupts all exchanges.

So, we never get to intelligently discuss evolution as such, but rather, we find ourselves caught in this pointless, dogmatic, religious warfare, lead by 'fundies' whom will dishonestly twist and turn almost every topic, so as toturn the debate into a self-serving training playground for their 'apolegetic-bible/inerrence' warfare artillery.

Fundies just don't get it.

Evolution as such, has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, faith, or personal beliefs.

Evolution has unfortunately been taken on as an obsessive-compulsive target by a bunch of delusional fundies, whom are not happy just taking their word for word interpretation of the bible for themselves.

They self-appoint themselves as the 'bible inerrence mercenaries' of a world they conveniently ignore everything about, and like a mortal tape, impose their juvenile and nerdish 'apolegetics', reverse marketing smoke and miror rethoric to all encountered whether they want it or not.

Take out the fundamental 'apolegetic-bible/inerrence' factor, and we could actually have an intelligent conversation about 'evolution'. ... And it would never again find itself in the religious forums.

'Evolution' doesn't deal with religion, faith, beliefs, and thereby has no say in how one choses to believe or not believe.

There is nothing about 'evolution' that even evokes or subliminally implies that one can't believe in a word for word interpretation of the bible, or believe that the universe and humans in it, were created out of an omnintelligent, timeless and spaceless 'green' (why green, beats me) entity named 'RITTIGOUGA' !!!

Believe exactly what you chose, 'evolution' leaves you entirely free.

Fundies on the other, have decided in their endless 'fundie' wisdom, that evolution is somehow blasphemous, by not respecting the word for word account of the bible, and must be 'eliminated' so as to remove the threat to their faith.

Imagine that, human knowledge as a threat to one's faith. Human anything never gets in the way of faith, ... that's if the switch is turned on!!! Human stuff will get in the way of fake, human fabricated make-believe religious 'faith'!

I suggest that the fundies would simply need to tap into their extraordinary and endlessly adaptable and expandable 'ownership' of their particular 'bible truth', and figure a way to integrate 'evolution' in there somewhere, as they have done with every other 'inerrence' challenge they have encountered over the short history of Protestantism.

Of course they would jump on the next wrong fallacy 'du jour', but at least we would move on from 'evolution'!!!

Anyhow, that's where this dead cat is at in my humble opinion.

Actually, if we use Christ as an example, we find in the book that he was far from unconfortational. (sp?) He called the Sanhedrin a den of theives a few times..... and worse. He WAS almost killed by an angry mob and had to leave town another time.... God put the cook down on Soddom&gohmorrah, Flooded the planet, made people wander in the desert...... Not sure where this concept of a happy happy joy joy ever tolerant God comes from.
unconfrontational?

from my chair, voilant, its YOU who keeps wanting to stir the pot with your mis quotes and mis representations of the bible and generalizations about those who would try to draw a map to the truth. Whether you choose to follow that path or not is up to YOU. BASHING THE MESSANGERS is an old worn out trick that dont work anymore.
.... To say that evolution doesent deal with religions, ect..... is like saying water doesent "deal" with fish. It has everything to do with it.
... evolution leaves you entirely free.... to believe anything but in a supreme being.... to believe that we were caused by an explosion???
Human knowledge is a threat to faith? WHERE? NOT SEEING IT. iTS ALL IN PERFECT HARMONY from my chair.
.... Jesus denounced plenty of folks, so Did God....

Rambill wrote:
"Actually, if we use Christ as an example, we find in the book that he was far from unconfortational."

That may be true. But we aren't supposed to try to BE Christ!

We're simply suppose to follow his teachings, and he taught us not to be confrontational.

where?