Yup.
I agree - you should think about your beliefs, and re-examine them to make sure they are consistent and logical based on the evidence at hand.
Of course, such a response does nothing to explain why the Bible would be so confusing - if it has contradictions, then thinking about it will do nothing to explain what was really meant - hence, the word “contradictions”. If you ask me what color shirt I wear and I give you two written answers “brown” and “purple” - think about it all you like, and you still won’t know what color shirt I have on.
That pat reply that was given in Sunday class strikes me as yet another off-the-cuff answer meant to allow people to rationalize their beliefs anyway they like without really having to face up to them.
But, YMMV.
I don’t think it was a pat answer. As I mentioned it was during a discussion of how contradictions do exist within the Bible.
If you take the license to think about your belief system, you may come to reject some or all of what you’ve believed before. Trust me, what I believe now is radically different from what I was taught and believed in the Pentecostal holy-roller church of my childhood.
Growing up in a Pentecostal church, I heard a lot of pat answers. One of my favorite was “I guess you’ll have to ask God when you get to heaven” Thinking about the incongruent “facts” of the Bible was discouraged and dismissed as Satan trying to tempt you away from the truth.
Thinking about the Bible should lead a person to not take the book literally and look for the message within the text. It may not be easy, but without the effort, its not worth believing.
Using thought, to get back to the OP, is how people of faith can also accept the truth of science, including evolution. Faith and Science are not mutually exclusive.
Satan wrote the Bible? That explains everything. 
**
**
But that’s not what you (previously), or I (above) said.
Creationist = “belief in God” does not mean “belief in God” = Creationist. I hope you can see the difference.
This is what capacitor took exception to, saying:
I agree with this. There is no reason that a belief in God cannot be reconciled with evolution, and efforts to set the two against each other are misguided (at best).
As far as the UFO thing goes; I can see your point.
Oh ok - yes, there’s a clear difference. Perhaps the problem is that having been a victim of the Bible Belt for 25+ years, when I hear/read the word “creationism” the first thing that comes to mind is the old bearded Christian god whipping up the universe in his mix-o-master.
Fair enough. I think perhaps if I’d been brought up in that kind of environment I’d react pretty similarly.
Personally, when I see how beautiful the earth and universe are, with simple changes bringing out the most elegant complexity, it seem a bit insulting to God to suggest he knocked it together over a weekend saying:
“Yeah, looks a bit shaky at the moment, and I couldn’t tidy up all the loose ends, but it’ll last till Armageddon a planet like this! 'Sides, can’t expect too much on a rush job…”
God did not use a mix-o-master. It was LaMachinesub[/sub]! 
Sheesh…!
hardcore, the reason that evolution is singled out because some are theorizing that there is no Deity factoring in evolution, not even “setting the table”, so to speak.
But capacitor, there is no deity theorized in gravity, or atomic theory, or astronomy, or geology, etc. So it is no different than any other branch of science.
I ask you again… why single out evolution?
Actually, the logic was even more convoluted than that. As it was explained to me back then: The Bible is infallible. Anything that appears to be contradictory or a mistake is simply a result of our limited understanding. Satan points out and labels these mysteries as errors to create doubts and tempt you. But, if you have faith, you can dismiss the apparent errors and accept the FACT that the Bible is truth. Maybe God will explain it in the next life.
Needless to say, I don’t subscribe to that theory.
if the son of god drops in and this results in the start of a new religion, wouldn’t the logical thing for satan to do be to take over THAT RELIGION?
with the merger of SOME of the christians with the Roman empire and the corruption of the then dominant version of christianity by roman paganism, is that what happened?
who is that WHORE OF BABYLON broad anyway?
the paranoid, Dal Timgar
Interesting take dal. How about this one: if you were Satan and wanted to corrupt Christ’s message with fear and ignorance, wouldn’t you <b> want </b> a book like Revelations in the Bible? That’s the chapter that gets the most mileage from the Fundies anyway.
hardcore, perhaps the main reason of evolution being singled out is that it theorizes that man was not a special entity developed separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, as theorized by many religions, but instead a continuum/culmination of the development of species influenced by the environment. This intimate interconnection with the rest of the animals, making man in effect just another animal, is a big blow to many a psyche who believes that man is a being that was divinely inspired. No other scientific theory has impunged on what man really is as much as the theory of evolution.
Of course, another way of phrasing this might be “No other scientific theory has granted more insight on what man really is than the theory of evolution.”
I agree that much of the intellectual disconnect is caused by this blow to the psyche you mentioned. However, this doesn’t have to be the case. No one is asking for you to give up the idea that man was divinely inspired. Many prominent scientists believe in God. For all I know, a supreme being may have caused the Big Bang, with the planning and foreknowledge that you and I would be the ultimate result. Science cannot refute this position, and doesn’t even try. Just don’t close your eyes to the beauty of every being’s primordial history and pretend the evidence doesn’t exist, instead insisting that everything “poofed” into existence some few thousand years ago.
Throughout history, scientific discoveries have arguably diminished our perceived status in the universe. We no longer consider our planet to be fixed, with the universe revolving around us, nor is it the only one of its kind. Countless other planets similar to ours exist, blissfully unaffected by us, and we are as grains of sand compared to the vastness of the universe. Yet I contend none of this lessens who we are, it simply gives us a greater understanding of the place we inhabit in it. Evolution is just another part of our comprehension of who we are.
Okay I appreciate that insight.
So now the debate should turn to: how big a factor is random occurence, or ‘happenstance’, in making anything, be it a table or the planet Earth? And to what extent randomness can or has to be manipulated in order for design, or a desired design, to happen?
capacitor:
I need more clarification of what you are attempting to debate. Planet formation theories? Carpenter techniques? Intelligent design? What exactly are you saying?
I’m not quite sure where you are going here, but I’ll guess that you are trying to make room for God in the apparently random events that shape the universe. Well, of course there’s room in there. Science can describe the universe, what it’s made of, and how its laws operate. It cannot, in doing so, determine that a guiding hand behind the fabric of reality is impossible. The best science can do is say “We’ve done a lot of looking, and we still can’t find him.” The universe runs along just fine without any indication that there is any divine manipualtion going on, but given the things that God is supposedly capable of, how are we ever supposed to detect him if he does not want his presence known? This question is only answerable if we somehow were given proof that he does in fact exist. Without said proof, there’s always the possibility of an all-powerful being determined to elude detection.
The other thing you may be arguing for is the Anthropic Principle and/or Intelligent Design, but I’ll pass on that as a possible hijack unless you come back and ask for that debate.