Posted on 09/30/2009 11:46:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust deniers?...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
“Please define what you term, “Christianity.””
The faith practiced by Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, etc., as well as by certain non-denominational adherents.
“Please define what you mean by the term, “evolution.””
The changes in form, function, and complexity undergone by generations of living organisms over periods of time, largely due to natural selection.
You say “Christianity” informs your perspective regarding “evolution”? If so, how so?
It doesn’t “inform”, nor does it contradict, limit, or preclude.
“If I recall correctly, you have said you are at least nominally Catholic, is that correct?”
I do belong to a mainstream Christian denomination. I frequently speak up for Catholics, though, as there is quite a bit of anti-Catholic bigotry on this site.
I didn't say that. They have their quite bloody episodes, too. We all know that, so that is not in contention. What is in contention is the actions of the Christians.
You have yet to explain how Christians slaughtering not only Muslims and Jews, but other Christians, is morally correct.
Uhhhh, I don’t have to explain how it was “morally correct” because it’s a complete strawman on several levels.
First of all I wasn’t there, and neither were you, so the only thing you have to go on is your lazy scholarship.
This is the same kind of liberal nonsense we see when modern day Christians are having to explain exterminating native Americans. Or modern white people are having to apologize for slavery.
Second of all, none if this is even found in NT scripture to begin with, which begs the question, were Christians behaving as Christians were directed to behave, or just as any other person in any other religion behaved at the time? Or was it in response to behaviour? IN FACT were the muslims actually worse?
Third, Christians aren’t perfect, which is the entire reason for being Christian in the first place.
And you asserted that muslims weren’t the ones trying to explain away their actions, Christians were.
Again, on what basis? Liberal scholarship? Islamic scholarship?
That’s a pretty broad brush there, I’ve seen modern muslims bringing up the exact same argument you are right now, (also in the article), swinging the entire crusades argument to the opposite extreme, with pretension that the crusades weren’t a defensive war but rather blood-thirsty European Christians as the entire root cause.
As I said, earned bias working in reverse.
BTW...the bloody episodes on both sides were spelled out in the article as well, had you bothered to read that, you’d know that also.
You don't have to apologize. Simply admitting those of your religion committed immoral acts in the furtherance of your religion is enough.
swinging the entire crusades argument to the opposite extreme, with pretension that the crusades weren’t a defensive war but rather blood-thirsty European Christians as the entire root cause.
I never claimed that either. I claim the Crusades were a combination of rightful defensive campaigns and indefensible outright slaughters of innocents. Unless you are reading from "Christians can do no wrong" apologists, you will find that to be true.
As a matter of "faith" shared by all the above denominations, you agree that Christianity among other things requires that:
1. Jesus Christ is recognized as God
2. Jesus Christ is the Creator of the Universe
3. Jesus Christ cannot lie.
4. Jesus Christ is the Author and finisher of the Christian faith (Hebrews 12:2)
5. The Holy Scriptures are Authoritative and the primary rule of faith and Christian practice.
Is this correct?
Q: “Please define what you mean by the term, “evolution.” A: The changes in form, function, and complexity undergone by generations of living organisms over periods of time, largely due to natural selection.
I notice you were careful to say change in "form" not change in "kind." You were careful not to imply that change in function assumes improvement. You were careful not to imply that complexity increases over time.
You do affirm that changes occur to organisms over generations. You also affirm that a belief that all of the changes described here happen as result of something you choose to term, "natural selection."
Let's see where we agree:
1. Natural selection is observed routinely. Natural selection does not drive or direct changes in form, in function, or complexity, however. For instance you may be physically attracted to amputees. Their form is changed (not for the better), the function is changed (in fact is diminished), and the complexity is less (utility of missing limb is diminished and ability of amputated appendage to receive information is eliminated). I am sure you will agree that your preference or selection in this case did not make that object of your affection an amputee, however.
2, Organisms are often observed to undergo change in form over time. Genetic expression allows for changes within the gene pool of a successfully reproducing kind. Some call this "micro-evolution." Perhaps you do too. It is a latter-day term of art that confuses the discussion, however, and I personally believe that is the intent. I do not use the term, "micro-evolution" because it confuses the better descriptive and more standard term, "adaptation" that an organism is genetically programmed to accomplish in response to environmental forces.
Q: You say “Christianity” informs your perspective regarding “evolution”? If so, how so? A: It doesn’t “inform”, nor does it contradict, limit, or preclude.
You said: "From my Christian perspective, evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible." That is to say you believe evolution and Christianity are compatible, based upon your Christian perspective. Christian perpective is shaped by Christian Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures are Authoritative and the primary rule of faith and Christian practice. One would be safe to say that your Christian perspective has informed your Christian practice, and it is what defines your Christian practice. Is this correct?
I agree that Christianity and organismal adaptation are perfectly compatible. Successful reproduction of organisms after their own kind is Scriptural and as such affirms Christian belief and doctrine.
Christianity and what you might call, "micro-evolution" are likewise perfectly compatible, if what you mean by that is "adaptation." The term "micro-evolution" is both a poor an confusing term, however.
"Evolution" as you have described it is not how most adherents describe the concept "evolution."
Your description of "evolution" as you have stated it at this point could as reflexively describe "devolution."
Matthew 7:15 sums up the Buck W's of the world quite nicely.
If you wanted a dissertation with footnotes, you should have made that clear.
Christianity is perfectly compatible with both macro and microevolution.
And you simply can’t wrap your your head around that, you fraudulent pied piper cultist.
That makes me happy.
I say that as a Christian.
“5. The Holy Scriptures are Authoritative and the primary rule of faith and Christian practice.”
Is it your position that scripture is literally true?
You are not a Christian, Buck W. That much I know. When you die you will go straight to Hell unless you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. It’s your choice. As much as I don’t like you, I still wouldn’t wish for you to suffer in Hell for all eternity. Repent and accept Jesus Christ’s free gift of eternal salvation while there is still time.
http://www.ccci.org/wij/index.aspx
Michael Moore says that one is judged for what he does for the least among us.
I derive great pleasure from having my Christianity challenged by a side-show huckster like you. I can almost hear the words of your post emanating from my computer speakers in the voice of Robert Tilton. If you’re really concerned about the salvation of others, why don’t you crawl around on a pile of “prayer cloths”, a la RT?
I have asked metmom many times if she would declare her faith in God as the Intelligent Designer and every single time metmom has refused to answer that question.
“I have asked metmom many times if she would declare her faith in God as the Intelligent Designer and every single time metmom has refused to answer that question.”
Just as GGG and the rest of the cabal refuse to acknowledge the Christianity of Catholics. Could it be that they’re hiding something?
Yes. It boggles the mind that GGGs and a few others here find more in common with a group that believes in evolution and says God may be dead than they find in common with those that believe in God and evolution.
I picture Jimmy Swaggart saying that mother Teresa was not going to heaven because she was not a Christian.
He actually did say that.
But that wouldn’t be honest...because it wasn’t in “furthereance” of Christianity.
Driving native Americans off their land was due to just about everything BUT furtherance of Christianity.
It may have been a mistaken belief that it was “furtherance” of Christianty, but no such direction can be found scripturally speaking.
Keep with the liberal lazy scholarship if you must, but know you will be challenged, particularly on FR.
But that wouldn’t be honest...because it wasn’t in “furthereance” of Christianity.
Driving native Americans off their land was due to just about everything BUT furtherance of Christianity.
It may have been a mistaken belief that it was “furtherance” of Christianty, but no such direction can be found scripturally speaking.
Keep with the liberal lazy scholarship if you must, but know you will be challenged, particularly on FR.
I was talking about the Crusades. The Albigensian Crusade was to wipe out heresy (at least initially, until some found a way to profit), and the Northern Crusades were all about subjugating others to Christianity by the sword and maintaining authority of the Church over independent Christians.
“I picture Jimmy Swaggart saying that mother Teresa was not going to heaven because she was not a Christian.
He actually did say that.”
Yes—I remember. The anti-Catholic YEC cult here has so much more in common with Jimmy Swaggart than they do with Jesus Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.