Replies

Further Thoughts For the Lurkers

Let us examine what's been going on here.

[T]here are around 700 million TRUE bible beleiving[sic] born again Christians as compared to the 11,000 ‘Christians’ that signed that petition posted previously …

One of the hallmarks of intelligent discussion is the ability to understand and repeat or rephrase the opponent’s position without distorting it. This doesn’t mean agreement, of course, it means that one has taken the time and trouble to understand the other person’s argument. Only then can an effective counter-argument be formed.

Unfortunately, the above quote is either an evasion or a failure to understand. Let us accept without question the 700 million number. What’s interesting about this is that if we decide to play the numbers game, Catholics outnumber “TRUE bible believing[sic] born again Christians.” (Estimates vary, of course, but there's general agreement that there are over a billion Catholics). Catholics pay some attention to what the Pope has to say, and John Paul II said something on the subject of the Theory of Evolution: he said it doesn’t have to conflict with Catholic teaching.

My point, all along, has been that people who are serious about their religion, people like the Pope or eleven thousand Protestant ministers, can accept the science behind the Theory of Evolution. This point has been studiously ignored. We’re told that the only ones who have it right are those 700 million “TRUE bible believing[sic] born again Christians.” How does one know this? It would appear to be a matter of church doctrine. But whose church has the right doctrine? We’re told here that it’s the various churches of the 700 million. But that can be neither proved nor supported. It’s a matter of belief. And beliefs differ, even among those who take their religion seriously.

It’s somewhat amusing see how doctrinal differences important enough to start a new church have been waved away in the name of assembling a big enough number. Will all Christians be getting back together again in the same denomination any time soon? Doubtful. But notice the sleight-of-hand in comparing 700 million to eleven thousand. In the quote above (from this very thread), eleven thousand Christian ministers morphed into “Christians,” from “Christian ministers.”

They’re Christian ministers. They’ve studied the Bible. They’ve learned the doctrines of their respective churches and the Bible itself so well those churches have ordained them in the name of God. They take their religion seriously. But because they don’t conform to the doctrines of a church they don’t even belong to, they’re sneered at.

So htose[sic] tryign[sic] to tear down the bible[sic] and TRUE Christians by claiming a minority few ‘can’t agree’.

This is begging the question. It assumes that anyone and everyone who accepts the Theory of Evolution is trying (or “tryign”), to tear down the Bible. That this is not the case should be clear to anyone paying attention.

It also displays the unfortunate tendency of some people to confuse their own opinions with God's.

What you and others are decetfully[sic] tryign[sic] to do is intimate that since everyone doesn’t agree 100% on every single issue- regardless of how minor, then the whole book therefore can’t be trusted.

No. Not at all. That’s a grotesque and unwarranted distortion. What isn’t trusted is an individual’s interpretation of his/her religion’s interpretation of the Bible and that person’s zeal in attempting to force those interpretations on others.

I’ve not bothered copying the silly argument about Lincoln. Its premise equates a specious disagreement about Lincoln with Biblical interpretation. But it’s interesting that doctrinal arguments so heated as to cause churches to fracture are now characterized as “Christians dissagre[sic] on minor points.” If the points were that minor, (or, as characterized below, “irrelevant”[sic]), why was a whole new church necessary?

This was directed at another poster, but it has relevance here:

You[sic] quesiton[sic] has NO relevence[sic] to the infallibility and trustworthiness of God’s word- Whether God hovered, moved or brooded over hte waters makes no difference to the reliability of His word when conciderign[sic] His creation- IF you choose NOT to beleive[sic] God created- then fine- whatever- but let’s not pretend that pointing out minor irrelevent[sic] differences means the whole of His book can be interpreted any way we wish-

So God’s word is infallible, but the words themselves make no difference. This is quite the conundrum ... but very convenient for someone who can't be bothered framing an argument based on the actual words. Then we're treated to the assumption that another poster who has obviously studied the Bible, even going so far as to attempt to understand the words in their original language so as to better grasp their exact meaning, has chosen not to believe the Bible at all … because the Bible scholar won’t accept another poster’s interpretation!

It doesn’t matter what some ‘religious people’ who are willing to sell their soul for hte[sic] sake of combability[sic] with God deniers and others who don’t htink[sic] God created life, think-

Begging the question again, this time that those religious individuals who understand the Theory of Evolution have sold their souls. Is there evidence of this – receipts, perhaps?

Citing such unscientific opinions that ignore the serious scientific and natural and biological and mathematical impossibiliets[sic] in no way invalidates the idea that belief in God hte[sic] creator, and macroevolutionary ‘science’ which has no scientific evidence to support unfortunately, and hwich[sic] must therefore rely on fallible man’s OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS, and thus equates with dogmatism and religious beleief[sic] itself- a man made religion at htat[sic], are incompatible-

More question begging here, this time that any research or evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution is either misinterpreted or wrong. “Mathematical impossibiliets”[sic] are cited, too, as if someone somewhere can calculate the possibility of making ones number by using dice with an unknown number of faces in an unknown number of passes. The canard that belief in God is incompatible with the Theory of Evolution is again presented as though it hasn’t been thoroughly discredited right here on FR. Those eleven thousand Ministers and Pope John II have now been transformed from “go along to get along” Christians into atheists.

But let’s sit back and watch those that think the two are compatible try to finagle their way in with nothign[sic] but science ignoring ‘evidnece’[sic] and by citing those who have abandoned God and science and who think, for hte sake of man’s approval and praise, that hte[sic] two are compatible- Should be quite a show[.]

Here we have yet more question-begging and mind-reading. A less convincing piece would be hard to imagine … although I doubt we’ll have to wait long to read one.