Collins: Im a scientist; I believe in God

[DC Tom]

So now you're stereotyping all evangelical people?

 

Yeah, I'm stereotyping all evangelicals. As evangelicals. I thought that was okay, considering they are evangelicals.

[Chilly]

I posted a link to an article. Many people have done it in the past with far less scrutiny than I have received.

 

I remember lots of threads where people just post articles on PPP and then get called out on it if the relevance isn't explained.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I guess you're referring to the only thing I have 'crusaded' on and that was Nate Clements. I didn't do it against a particular poster.

 

You didn't?

[daquix]

Yep, it's because you're a Christian. The victimization continues.

 

You did say "Here's the thing, duh. You have "history" here. History of posting about your "faith" and all the cool "homosexuality is a choice", etc. stuff. From that, the lucid can "infer"."

 

Yeah, I'm stereotyping all evangelicals. As evangelicals. I thought that was okay, considering they are evangelicals.

 

Not all evangelicals "crusade" their faith.

[Sketch Soland]

Not all evangelicals "crusade" their faith.

 

You're going to have a hard time with that argument, I think. Part of the literal definition of evangelical is "marked by militant or crusading zeal". Of course, this is only one dictionary listing but I think the point still stands about the connotations of the word "evangelical". It is part and parcel of defining one's self as an "evangelical". Of course, how one "crusades" is open for debate and some evangelicals seem to be more ostentatious about it than others, but it is part of the term as it is used and understand in the english language, for what its worth... So if you say that all "evangelicals" don't "crusade" their faith, those that don't "crusade" would essentially not be evangelicals but some other form of Christian.

 

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/evangelical

 

evangelical

2 entries found for evangelical.

To select an entry, click on it.

 

Main Entry: 1evan·gel·i·cal

Pronunciation: "E-"van-'je-li-k&l, "e-v&n-

Variant(s): also evan·gel·ic /-ik/

Function: adjective

1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels

2 : PROTESTANT

3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual

4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH

5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders -- Amos Vogel>

- Evan·gel·i·cal·ism /-li-k&-"li-z&m/ noun

- evan·gel·i·cal·ly /-li-k(&-)lE/ adverb

[daquix]

You're going to have a hard time with that argument, I think. Part of the literal definition of evangelical is "marked by militant or crusading zeal". Of course, this is only one dictionary listing but I think the point still stands about the connotations of the word "evangelical". It is part and parcel of defining one's self as an "evangelical". Of course, how one "crusades" is open for debate and some evangelicals seem to be more ostentatious about it than others, but it is part of the term as it is used and understand in the english language, for what its worth... So if you say that all "evangelicals" don't "crusade" their faith, those that don't "crusade" would essentially not be evangelicals but some other form of Christian.

 

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/evangelical

 

evangelical

2 entries found for evangelical.

To select an entry, click on it.

 

Main Entry: 1evan·gel·i·cal

Pronunciation: "E-"van-'je-li-k&l, "e-v&n-

Variant(s): also evan·gel·ic /-ik/

Function: adjective

1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels

2 : PROTESTANT

3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual

4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH

5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders -- Amos Vogel>

- Evan·gel·i·cal·ism /-li-k&-"li-z&m/ noun

- evan·gel·i·cal·ly /-li-k(&-)lE/ adverb

 

Part of the reason that it is the 5th definiton of being evangelistic person is because it is not common for all evangelical persons to be like what they are describing. The #1 definiton describes me best: "of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels"

[Sketch Soland]

Part of the reason that it is the 5th definiton of being evangelistic person is because it is not common for all evangelical persons to be like what they are describing. The #1 definiton describes me best: "of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels"

 

What percentage of evangelicals, then, would you say consider spreading their faith to be an integral part of how they define themselves as an evangelical?

[daquix]

What percentage of evangelicals, then, would you say consider spreading their faith to be an integral part of how they define themselves as an evangelical?

 

The word "crusader" is not defined as simply spreading your faith. Its basically spreading your faith/opinion with force. I would say most of evangelicals do not use force.

[finknottle]

From the article:

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

 

_____________________

 

So how does Religion or God or whatever answer any of these questions? He speaks of God's plan. What the hell plan is that?

 

It isn't supposed to. Faith allows one to say 'I don't understand this, so understanding must be impossible. It must be the doing of the Flying Spagetti Monster, who with a touch of his noodley appendages brought about all things ineffable.'

 

See gaps in the fossil record, the functioning of certain biological mechanisms, and the Big Bang.

[Steely Dan]

In my experience the evangelicals talk a lot about Jesus but put most of their attention on the old testament. I.E. using "an eye for an eye" as an excuse for supporting the death penalty.

 

The death penalty is direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus; Luke 6: Love for Enemies

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

 

This also means, IMO, that those who are "True" followers of Jesus cannot support war in any way shape or form. Obviously that would be foolish but it is what Jesus wanted. So I won't begrudge them supporting some war but they should be outraged by the Iraq war and the way the prisoners on Guantanamo are being treated.

 

It technically also means they should never report a theft to the police or try to stop a thief at all.

 

They also seem to ignore this passage; Mark 10: 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

 

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 

They should be appalled by anyone who is wealthy professing to be a Christian. They should also have no aspirations to be rich themselves. If that doesn't drive the point home how about this;

 

Proverbs 22

1 A good name is more desirable than great riches;

to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.

 

7 The rich rule over the poor,

and the borrower is servant to the lender.

 

16 He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth

and he who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty.

 

So all of you rich Republicans and Democrats claiming to be Christian explain that away.

 

Evangelicals support the Republicans and agree with the tax cuts for the rich and deify the rich.

 

These are just some of the they are full of. I don't know anyone who isn't a cafeteria Christian.

 

IMO, live your life by your own religious code and if they dictate YOUR morals then live by them don't try to stuff them down other peoples throats. If you ever attain the level of "Perfect Christian" then maybe start suggesting things to other people. However, due to the numerous contradictions in the Bible nobody will ever attain that.

 

Anyway, back to the article. You can't post an article without giving a reason for posting it unless you are trying subterfuge and are scared to make your point.

 

I believe in God. I also believe the Old Testament is a parable and not an accurate accounting of the past. That is what this guy is saying. Evangelicals will try to use people like this to further their own agenda while not mentioning the guy thinks the Old Testament is BS. I believe this post was put in here for just such a reason.

[Steely Dan]

It isn't supposed to. Faith allows one to say 'I don't understand this, so understanding must be impossible. It must be the doing of the Flying Spagetti Monster, who with a touch of his noodley appendages brought about all things ineffable.'

 

See gaps in the fossil record, the functioning of certain biological mechanisms, and the Big Bang.

 

Please tell me you aren't trying to say that the Bible has fewer problems than science in it's explanation of things.

 

Science has attained it's knowledge from testing and building small facts into a chain that makes a big fact.

 

A book of mythology is far more suspect than science. Should I believe in Zeus because ancient mythology says so?

 

Yes, Jesus existed and was a very wise man. Follow his teachings not the mythological part of the book.

 

If you ask where the big bang came from you can also ask where did God come from and both of those are very difficult questions to answer.

[daquix]

Anyway, back to the article. You can't post an article without giving a reason for posting it unless you are trying subterfuge and are scared to make your point.

 

Or (and by that I mean the truth) I simply wanted to post an article, but not start an argument.

[finknottle]

Please tell me you aren't trying to say that the Bible has fewer problems than science in it's explanation of things.

 

Science has attained it's knowledge from testing and building small facts into a chain that makes a big fact.

 

A book of mythology is far more suspect than science. Should I believe in Zeus because ancient mythology says so?

 

Yes, Jesus existed and was a very wise man. Follow his teachings not the mythological part of the book.

 

If you ask where the big bang came from you can also ask where did God come from and both of those are very difficult questions to answer.

 

Correct, except the part about Jesus teachings. I think if you examine the gospel of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with an open mind, you will find their teachings more enlightening and their history more plausible. Read it, and find grace with the enlightening caress of His noodlely appendages.

 

(But I'd advise you to stay away from the teachings of the Reformed Church, as they reject the doctrine of Pirate Regalia, whose consistency with the findings of modern science is IMO the cornerstone of the proof of the FSG's existence.)

[Steely Dan]

Or (and by that I mean the truth) I simply wanted to post an article, but not start an argument.

 

Horse Hockey!!

 

What was the "point" of your posting this? You didn't just go on the internet and pick a story at random and post it did you? There must have been some thought behind posting this article. What was it?

 

Would you have randomly picked an article about Santanism and posted it and then said; I just wanted to post an article.

 

You're so full of it your eyes and hair are probably brown.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Horse Hockey!!

 

What was the "point" of your posting this? You didn't just go on the internet and pick a story at random and post it did you? There must have been some thought behind posting this article. What was it?

 

Would you have randomly picked an article about Santanism and posted it and then said; I just wanted to post an article.

 

You're so full of it your eyes and hair are probably brown.

 

 

Is there room at the bottom?

[UConn James]

Or (and by that I mean the truth) I simply wanted to post an article, but not start an argument.

 

Memo: When thou startest a new topic, be-est thou prepared to discuss, since thou seemeth so interested in it to beginneth.

 

If you're not going to bother to say anything about something you post, why should anyone else here bother to say anything about it? You started the topic, which implies that you want to discuss it. That was part of the reason behind people asking, "What's your point?" (besides the obvious that a LOT of scientists believe in God despite your apparent belief that these things are mutually exclusive).

[Sketch Soland]

The word "crusader" is not defined as simply spreading your faith. Its basically spreading your faith/opinion with force. I would say most of evangelicals do not use force.

 

There is certainly a difference between spreading your faith via preaching and spreading your faith via violent force. I would certainly not say that the average Christian Evangelical condones violence as a method of spreading their faith. However, one can "crusade" without that kind of force via a proselytizing zeal that is forced upon others (i.e. not invited or sought out) and attempts to save others into the one, true way of knowing God via Jesus Christ. I find it a rather flimsy argument to say that most evangelicals do not consider it a central tenet of their self-definition as "evangelical" to proselytize to others by attempting to convert them to their particular brand of faith. Of course, just like anything else, some evangelicals are more active in attempting to bring others into their faith, but the fact remains that evangelicals as that term is conceived and as they generally practice their faith are not just content to hold their own beliefs in their own church. They actively seek to convert others, often through the use of fear (i.e. "you are going to hell if you don't accept Christ" etc.) I certainly respect anyone's right to hold any beliefs they so choose and I would defend that to the end. I have a problem with those who attempt to foist their beliefs on others through scare tactics and at the behest of their own self-righteousness and overinflated sense of rightness and truth. There are obviously exceptions in every group and maybe you are one of them but then it would be hard for me to see how you could define yourself as "evangelical", imho.

[daquix]

Horse Hockey!!

 

What was the "point" of your posting this? You didn't just go on the internet and pick a story at random and post it did you? There must have been some thought behind posting this article. What was it?

 

Would you have randomly picked an article about Santanism and posted it and then said; I just wanted to post an article.

 

You're so full of it your eyes and hair are probably brown.

 

I explained in page one why I posted it. I posted it due to a reference from a previous posts months ago, that I can not remember the title of and would be extremely hard to find. If I could find the post, I would have simply replied to that one with the article.

 

Memo: When thou startest a new topic, be-est thou prepared to discuss, since thou seemeth so interested in it to beginneth.

 

If you're not going to bother to say anything about something you post, why should anyone else here bother to say anything about it? You started the topic, which implies that you want to discuss it. That was part of the reason behind people asking, "What's your point?" (besides the obvious that a LOT of scientists believe in God despite your apparent belief that these things are mutually exclusive).

 

Looking back, I should have put a disclaimer saying something along the lines of "This is an article that has to do with a previous thread, that I can not seem to find. The thread had a debate in it about whether science and religion can co-exist or whether they are completely seperate and can not be intertwined."

 

The reason (at the time) I didn't start posting random stuff about the article is that I didn't want to get in the same debate that we had already had months ago. I simply wanted to post the article and hopefully whoever I was debating with (I cant remember who it was) would see it. That was all. I didn't forsee a bunch of mob posters going nuts over not have a point to the thread.

 

You guys seem to have a problem with everything. If you don't like the thread, dont reply. How simple is that?

[DC Tom]

I explained in page one why I posted it. I posted it due to a reference from a previous posts months ago, that I can not remember the title of and would be extremely hard to find. If I could find the post, I would have simply replied to that one with the article.

Looking back, I should have put a disclaimer saying something along the lines of "This is an article that has to do with a previous thread, that I can not seem to find. The thread had a debate in it about whether science and religion can co-exist or whether they are completely seperate and can not be intertwined."

 

The reason (at the time) I didn't start posting random stuff about the article is that I didn't want to get in the same debate that we had already had months ago. I simply wanted to post the article and hopefully whoever I was debating with (I cant remember who it was) would see it. That was all. I didn't forsee a bunch of mob posters going nuts over not have a point to the thread.

 

You guys seem to have a problem with everything. If you don't like the thread, dont reply. How simple is that?

 

So now you DID have a point, which was to further a discussion from months ago, even though you didn't want to have the discussion again.

[daquix]

So now you DID have a point, which was to further a discussion from months ago, even though you didn't want to have the discussion again.

 

I said I had a point in page one. I guess you skipped over that. I didnt want to get into another discussion. I simply wanted the person I was debating with to see the article. Leave it up to the members of TBD to make every thread as ridiculous as possible. If you dont like a thread > dont reply to it.