At the risk of further hijacking this thread, then, let me ask you a direct question: which creation theories do you think should be taught alongside science in science class? Should countervailing religious theories be provided for both cosmology and evolution? Do you distinguish between the two? Should alternative scientific theories be given voice, as well? Say, Lamarckianism?
What’s your plan, Commish? I’m genuinely curious.
That’s the thing though, those people still consider themselves sincere Christians, whether you do or not. You said something like, “I bet Christians don’t commit as many ‘serious’ crimes.” You’ve been proven wrong, just admit it.
Yeah, welcome to the Straight Dope. This has a tendency to happen when you say things others don’t agree with and have been shown to be false.
Well you weren’t asking me directly, but I thought I’d chime in. I personally think Kurt Vonnegut takes an interesting view of creation with the religion of Bokonon. If creation is going to be studied, then I want Bokonon’s story taught, too. What? It’s just a made up story by the author that isn’t true? How do you know?
I prefer Co-Co Wheats to chocolate-flavored Malt-o-Meal.
They’re close to the same thing. But they’re not exactly the same.
(Seeing how this entire thread has already been hijacked beyond recognition, anyway.)
Well, if I were the one to make the decision, I’d give it more though. Here’s all I can come up with now:
You keep it vauge: some people think some sort of Surpeme Being/God created our Universe. Some people think the Universe has always been here. Some people think there are many Gods. Which you believe is up to you.
That is, of course, an abridged summary, but if you’re vague enough you can cover most of the things out there.
I’ll tell you this much: it’s a heckuva lot better than teaching ONLY evolution, as if it’s the only viable explanation for things.
You’re not following me at all: the point I’m trying to make is tht those of us who actually practice what we preach for the most part are not making life miserable for others the way a lot of other people are.
You can stick a label (IE: “True-Scotsman”) on something if you want, but it doesn’t discredt it.
BTW: I said I could handle the onslaught, but I don’t see how anything has been proven false - I seel a lot of propoganda, sarcasm, and other such things with some good points buried underneath.
My essential point, in case you’ve missed it (I’m sure some of you have, judging by some of your replies so far), is that a person truly devoted to the Christian faith is an asset to society. I stand by this.
Hey, TWTC, do you or do you not withdraw the statement “most crimes are committed by non-religious people”?
I believe it was most serious crimes - and no, I do not. I do, however, wish I had been more specific.
and then
I just want to make sure of something, Commish. You do know that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with “the world coming into existence on its own,” don’t you?
One more direct question: Do you believe that someone can be truly Christian and yet still accept the theory of evolution?
Yes, I do realize that - but it’s probably a commonly held belief. A small oversight - I’m sure you understand my point.
Is it possible to believe in evolution while still being saved? Depends on what you mean by “evolution” - microevolution seems fine, but macroevolution (is that the correct word for it) may not be.
Personally I am not 100% sure - it is a gray area, and as is the case with many things in The Bible, it is open to interpretation. If I were forced into a decision, I would say no, you cannot. I’d need to search The Bible for some verses to support that to be sure, though.
I think I see your point, and it is a good one: it’s not inplausible to believe in both. I definintely believe in some forms of evolution. Animals can grow stronger, birds can slowly adapt to changes around them…I just don’t think that an ape can become a man, that’s all.
Very good point, though. 
grin Okay, then. So long as we’re all nice and amicable, I’m sure you’ll take no offense if I point out that neither micro- nor macro-evolution ever posit that apes become men. Therefore, I believe your last post is perpetuating a straw-monkey fallacy.
Um, John? Just because they didn’t set out to extinguish them doesn’t mean it wasn’t genocide, in a way. The Native American population was decimated by about 95 percent, IIRC, and the NAs were used as a cheap source of labor. When they started dying off, the Spaniards moved on to Africa for more slaves. The Conquistadors were a pretty nasty bunch. NOT that I agree with TWTC, I’m just saying that the Spanish weren’t just out for land and conversion. More like wealth and plunder.
As for the religious beliefs: there are good people who are religious, and bad people who are. Just like anything, okay? There’s good and bad with everything.
rjung-that’s a VERYb broad statement. Care to explain? I consider myself spiritual and I don’t consider myself ignorant or stupid. Spacey and dense at times, yes. Absent minded? Absolutely.
Ignorant and stupid-no.
(although some here may disagree! :D)
Well, it’s hard to determine what evolution supports seeing as how it’s not like Christianity, where at least we have something written that most seem to be agreed on. I’ve heard people argue that we evolved from apes.
You see my point though, I’m sure.
Anyway, I may have to bow out of this argument very shortly. I thank everyone here for helping to enlighten me, and make sure I watch what I say more closely in the future…however between school and an upcoming job, I can’t guarentee I’ll be able to participate in such debates much more.
Thanks everyone - may be back, we’ll see.
Permit me to disagree with you. Those people either weren’t arguing the commonly accepted theory of evolution, or you misunderstood them. I’ve never heard any scientist express a belief that we evolved from apes; only that humans and apes share a common ancestor. In any case, you gravely underestimate the degree of consensus regarding the generalities of the evolutionary process–as well, I think, as you overestimate the homogeneity of Christian belief in a particular version of creation (other than, simply, that the universe was created).
I do see your point; your point just happens to be misinformed. 
I’m simply referring to people on other online message boards like this one - nothing more. I can only know what I read and hear.
Anyway, thank you for the correction.
It is clear to me, that you have not read the book- “How the Irish Saved Civilization”. Nor, the works of the great Christian philosophers.
Could you not think of an attack on religion that perhaps had a bit more thought & originality behind it, perhaps something about it being a “drug for the masses”? :rolleyes:
Oh, and once you guys are done ganging up on the new guy (welcome, commish!), could we, perhaps, maybe- go back to the thread topic?
The KKK definitely represents itself as a “Christian” organization. The choice of the “fiery cross” isn’t just a coincidence, or some kind of pagan Celtic tradition. (I’m speaking here of the Second KKK, the one founded in 1915, which is basically the root of the current Klan groups. I don’t know if the original 1870’s KKK was as avowedly Christian as the re-formed KKK, although I’m pretty sure the KKK has never burned crosses in any of its incarnations as an anti-Christian gesture.)
That the KKK claims to be acting on behalf of Christianity does not necessarily mean that other Christians accept this claim, of course.
Helllllooooo! It was the part of the ceremony where you say a prayer. It is part of the ceremony, part of the tradition. (And it should also give you some insight how the forefathers felt about the misunderstood “separation of church and state” concept, but I digress.)
If you have a problem with a prayer being part of the inauguration, fine. You may have a point considering recent restrictions on prayer for state-sponsored events. However if you JUST have a problem that Jesus’ name was mentioned in this prayer, I think you should grow up. People have different beliefs than you. And who they choose to worship is none of your damn business. I doubt W. proofread Graham’s prayer anyway. And Graham has a 1st amendment right to free speech. He certainly wasn’t elected to a government job.
If Muhammed Ali were elected President, I would fully expect his invocation to include Mohammed.
BTW, I can’t believe how short some people’s memories are. I can recall lots of speeches where Bill Clinton ended with the words (with a tear in his eye), “…and God bless America!”
You are aware the Muslims don’t pray to Mohammed, right?
Not last time I checked - the DoI perhaps, but not the Constitution.
Citation please. The only thing I’ve ever read - forgive me for not having a cite, should I find one I shall post it - is that the prisons are full of Christians.
Here’s one from the UK: http://www.penlex.org.uk/pages/avebury4.html
And here’s some secondary information, the validity of which I cannot validate - but they provide sources:
http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/crime_and_religion.txt
Not to hijack, but do you do any work on Sunday (e.g. yard work)? Wear mixed fibers? Etc etc Leviticus and more.