Reading that board makes me wonder though; do we appear that insular and closeminded? Are we? I do think that we have a broader mix, since we a fair number of atheists and theists. I haven’t seen anyone yet I could peg as an atheist ('cept for David, but I have inside info).
As a side note, the sheer volume of times I have read “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” boggles my mind. You would think they were there when God dictated the Bible word-for-word. And impling that theistic evolutionists “lack faith”? Sheesh.
Soulfrost is right, and so is Gaudere. It is an interesting mix, there. Well, not so much a mix as, hmm, I can’t think of a good word for it. It’s like they have Christians and they have Christians and they have Christians.
I did find the prayer in school thread interesting, as I think I mentioned earlier, because so many are against it. They actually realize that this means their religious beliefs may not be taught the way they want them! We need to get these folks elected to the board of the Christian Coalition.
No. Nope. Didn’t mention it. Nope. Not at all. If you had, it would be on the evil 2nd page of this thread. So you didn’t. Move along, nothing to see here.
I entered discussions about abortion and something about earthquakes (oh, and the big conspiracy to hide what really happened to the Hubble – it got hit by a meteor but NASA lied and said one of its gyroscopes went out). I’m also trying to figure out just what these folks think “creationism” means. Jeez, it’s like trying to get Phaedrus to define terms!
Oh, and there’s a thread on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity there. I almost thought to post a link to the Straight Dope column on that (and related discussion), but then I thought somebody might pop over here and, whoops!
I don’t get the “Cruelism” thing. The idea, as I understand it, is that if evolution is true, species would have died out, and since death is cruel it implies that Ghod is cruel.
Am I understanding this right? I guess I just don’t understand the difference between a dinosaur dying and a vole dying. Why do long-dead critters mean Ghod’s a jerk?
It’s called “Separation of Church and State vs. Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion” and is currently on the second page of the list of topics (no wonder they do so much bumping there).
I’m trying to figure out that whole cruelism thing also. I think they are saying that if God created and killed off these other animals that had no other purpose but to evolve into a later form, that would be cruel. I think. You could try asking for more clarification. Good luck.
Their theory is weird. The fact that a species has been around for millions of years rather than 6,000, well, naturally you’re going to have more dead animals. So? If the world is only 6,000 years old all the trillions of critters that would have existed if the world is millions of years would never have existed at all. So which is worse? To never be or to live and die? (And perhaps you could draw a parallel to abortion/birth control. Do they think a severly handicapped child should be born, to suffer terribly and die too soon, or should the child be aborted early? If the child should be born, even if his/her life is hard, then why isn’t it better for trillions of animals to have a chance at life? Maybe God is cruel to not give animals millions of years to live and die.)
What about? I was trying to look it from thier viewpoint: animals living and dying for millions of years is needless suffering. But most fundies I know also believe any life, even painful, crippled, vegetable-brained life should be preserved at all costs. So if even a miserable life is a good thing, why isn’t a good thing for there to have been trillions of animals who got a chance at life, rather than never existing at all?
But, my children, there are some things that are a mystery, and God’s providence towards his uncreated creatures is one of these things. Be comforted that He knows and does what is best for all his creation.
