Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools

[wondergirl9847]

Originally Posted by dissention

Nothing is free with those people, it's all about converting the latest game.

They should have just offered the food. If they read the Bible, they'd know that living the life is witnessing in and of itself.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Nope, I don't dislike you because you're christian. But, I do know that your religion considers me an abomination and that I should be put to death, or converted, or whatever other interesting stuff the bible has to say.

So, let's just say that I'm well aware of the religious scriptures and how mercurial and selective they can be.

Come on now--you know that that's pigeon-holing. I know you've been bombarded by fanatical fundies all your life and I have too, but you must know that it's not fair to label every religious person that way. And I imagine you must've anticipated Christy's response. It's hard for me to believe that you didn't know as you were typing that what you were saying doesn't apply to her and her beliefs. I mean, we did all have a nearly identical discussion/debate a couple of months ago at the most.

And I don't you ever offered me a response of any kind when I mentioned gay Christians I knew. That whole concept contradicts what you're saying there.

Hillary

[SuzeQuze]

[QUOTE=dissention]Have you ever been to the Institute for Creation Research website? Want to know what their declaration says?

All things in the universe were created by God in the six days of special creation described in Gen. 1:1-2:3. The creation account is accepted as factual, historical, and perspicuous, and is thus foundational to the understanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created universe. Theories of origins and development which involve "evolution" in any form are thus recognized as false and sterile intellectually.

...QUOTE]

What I take most issue with is the statement that evolution is somehow "false and sterile intellectually". Quite the contrary, it is quite intellectually compelling. The fossil record is fascinating. Techniques like carbon dating allow scientists to calculate how old they are. I know that evolution is a theory but there is a plethora of evidence to support it. To refute it all because it is "false and sterile" is ludicrous.

I recall listening to a religious leader speaking on David Brudnoy's show years ago and he said that evolution and christianity are not mutually exclusive and that religious leaders generally agreed that evolution was likely fact. I wish I could remember who this was because I was surprised and I thought maybe religious leaders had progressed. But it seems that many have not.

This scares the hell out of me. I love biology, I was at one time a bio major (could not handle Physics/Chemistry though, nor those creepy dead things in jars, shudder). Evolution is a really complex theory and you have to stay with it in a disciplined way to understand it. I believe that Darwin saw this phenomenon on the Galapagos islands where birds from one island to another were entirely different based on food sources. He surmised that this was a result of "natural selection" or survival of the fittest. There has been libraries full of research/evidence since to support the theory. But I guess if you strictly believe in creationism then you would think that was all crap. I just want to encourage creationists to at least try to understand the theory of evolution before dismissing it.

[strandinthewind]

I think alot of people confuse evolving with evolution - the theory. In the former - man could always have been distinct from other closely related species - in the latter, it is assumed that essentially all species came from a common link. I think that is important to remember when looking at the fossils depicting the evolution of species. For example, many believe the dinos evolved into birds over millions of years - but that does not mean the dinos were ever the same species as us, etc. Anway, that PBS site I put up really is a good source for info. on this, to me, fascinating, topic.

Also, Judeo-Christianity was not the first to come up with a theory about the origin of man. A google search will reveal far older (via carbon testing) theories from older religions.

Finally, my Catholic high school taught us the story in Genesis was pretty much symbolic as was the use of numbers and age in The Bible. To me, it makes no difference, because the story of Adam and Eve has lessons in it that can be used to live a "better" life, regardless of whether it is 100% factual, etc.

Anyway - food for thought - that is all

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

And, hey, Kathy Bates is nude in it.

Totally OT, but kudos to that woman for doing nude scenes. I love her confidence and personality.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Come on now--you know that that's pigeon-holing. I know you've been bombarded by fanatical fundies all your life and I have too, but you must know that it's not fair to label every religious person that way. And I imagine you must've anticipated Christy's response. It's hard for me to believe that you didn't know as you were typing that what you were saying doesn't apply to her and her beliefs. I mean, we did all have a nearly identical discussion/debate a couple of months ago at the most.

And I don't you ever offered me a response of any kind when I mentioned gay Christians I knew. That whole concept contradicts what you're saying there.

Hillary

Well, let me see if I can clarify a few things.

Christy's beliefs are her own and are none of my business. I agree that I may have included her as a "christian", however, it appears that she is not one (she has claimed to be a "follower of Christ", which I don't connotate to being a "christian" in today's society, as today's "christians" do not follow the teachings of Christ). So, when I say that christianity is evil and vile, that statement is not relevant to her.

Again, she offered the question, so I offered the answer.

I see the term "gay christian" as a much of an oxymoron as "gay republican". Oil and water do not mix no matter how hard you try, or how much you want them to. Either you accept the tenants of the religion or you don't. And why would someone want to call themselves something that they're not? It doesn't make much sense to me. I don't need to be validated within society by being a member of some group that just so happens to consider me a pariah. Why subscribe to self-loathing?? When one identifies themselves as a "christian" or a "republican", they are automatically tying themselves to the core beliefs of those groups. If you want to deny that those core beliefs exist, then you're just deluding yourself.

I'm so tired of hearing the same old whiny story. "Well, my sect of christianity doesn't believe in x, y, and z- so everything's okay." Sorry, it doesn't work and I don't buy it. Human society is not smart enough to be able to differentiate between methodists, catholics, pentacostals, seventh day adventists, mormons, lutherans, protestants, anglicans, unitarians, evangelicals, baptists, southern baptists, episcopalians, jehovah's witnesses, calvinists, quakers, etc., etc., etc. Especially when you consider that the religions of Abraham were the instigators and continue to be the main proponents of the demonization of homosexuality.

I'm not pigeon-holing, I'm just wary. I don't trust people who would allow themselves to adhere to the principles of organized religion. Somehow, someway, some form of judgement seems to rear its ugly head whenever people are involved with religion. It's just the nature of the beast. Otherwise, people would just be nice to one another and the dogma and the judgement and the bull**** would not even exist.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Well, let me see if I can clarify a few things.

Christy's beliefs are her own and are none of my business. I agree that I may have included her as a "christian", however, it appears that she is not one (she has claimed to be a "follower of Christ", which I don't connotate to being a "christian" in today's society, as today's "christians" do not follow the teachings of Christ). So, when I say that christianity is evil and vile, that statement is not relevant to her.

Again, she offered the question, so I offered the answer.

I see the term "gay christian" as a much of an oxymoron as "gay republican". Oil and water do not mix no matter how hard you try, or how much you want them to. Either you accept the tenants of the religion or you don't. And why would someone want to call themselves something that they're not? It doesn't make much sense to me. I don't need to be validated within society by being a member of some group that just so happens to consider me a pariah. Why subscribe to self-loathing?? When one identifies themselves as a "christian" or a "republican", they are automatically tying themselves to the core beliefs of those groups. If you want to deny that those core beliefs exist, then you're just deluding yourself.

I'm so tired of hearing the same old whiny story. "Well, my sect of christianity doesn't believe in x, y, and z- so everything's okay." Sorry, it doesn't work and I don't buy it. Human society is not smart enough to be able to differentiate between methodists, catholics, pentacostals, seventh day adventists, mormons, lutherans, protestants, anglicans, unitarians, evangelicals, baptists, southern baptists, episcopalians, jehovah's witnesses, calvinists, quakers, etc., etc., etc. Especially when you consider that the religions of Abraham were the instigators and continue to be the main proponents of the demonization of homosexuality.

I'm not pigeon-holing, I'm just wary. I don't trust people who would allow themselves to adhere to the principles of organized religion. Somehow, someway, some form of judgement seems to rear its ugly head whenever people are involved with religion. It's just the nature of the beast. Otherwise, people would just be nice to one another and the dogma and the judgement and the bull**** would not even exist.

I tend to agree with you. I find myself trying really hard to understand why two of my best friends who are a gay male couple are devout Catholics, and we're talking old school Catholicism here, not an updated, open-minded, "hipped-up" offshoot version of it. They are able to reconcile this issue in a way that I cannot. I suppose if they're happy then that's all that matters, but it doesn't mean that I understand it. To me, it's a mystery for the ages. Why (and how?) can you devote yourself to something that teaches intolerance much less loathes your very existence?

[amber]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I tend to agree with you. I find myself trying really hard to understand why two of my best friends who are a gay male couple are devout Catholics, and we're talking old school Catholicism here, not an updated, open-minded, "hipped-up" offshoot version of it. They are able to reconcile this issue in a way that I cannot. I suppose if they're happy then that's all that matters, but it doesn't mean that I understand it. To me, it's a mystery for the ages. Why (and how?) can you devote yourself to something that teaches intolerance much less loathes your very existence?

Yes, it's basically supporting an institution that works against you. They must feel a very strong religious pull and need to worship within the confines of the structure. You'd think even with the strong pull, they would choose another way to worship, but...

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by amber

You'd think even with the strong pull, they would choose another way to worship, but...

it's also their upbringing too. Sometimes you can't take the Catholic out of the boy no matter what. I think that's going on to a great extent with those two. But it's like I wanna ask them, what has Catholicism ever done for you? (much less rock and roll but that's a whole other story...)

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by amber

Yes, it's basically supporting an institution that works against you. They must feel a very strong religious pull and need to worship within the confines of the structure. You'd think even with the strong pull, they would choose another way to worship, but...

For me, it's not the religion that sucks, it's the people that "believe" it. Religions were set to bring ppl together, not a part. It is being reversed today....not because of the religion, because of people trying to twist the beliefs around.



just my thought.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Religions were set to bring ppl together, not a part.

Yeah, but people who aren't gay. It's meant to bring heterosexuals together who have breeding potential.

Seriously, I hear what you're saying and I wish it were true. I wish the spiritual side of religion could win out over the organized part of it. Then we really would have peace on earth.

[amber]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

. Sometimes you can't take the Catholic out of the boy no matter what. :

yes, unfortunately that's what i've heard is often the case.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Yeah, but people who aren't gay. It's meant to bring heterosexuals together who have breeding potential.

Seriously though, the denomination I grew up in, doesn't banish homosexuality and doesn't point them out. They treat them like members of the church, not outcasts.


This could happen in every church, but it won't.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by amber

yes, unfortunately that's what i've heard is often the case.

Ooh, ba-dump, (cymbal crash).

Nice.

[wondergirl9847]

I just asked not to be judged...like, I try not to judge anyone.