• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists Pressure MI School District to Stop Treating the Birth of Jesus as Fact

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes, but none of those are specifically the Christian holiday celebrating the Nativity of Christ. Falling around the same day doesn't make them the same holiday.
It does however make the Christian holiday a variation on a theme of mid-winter celebrations. There is zero evidence Jesus was born on December 25th. That they Christianized these festivals is no different than renaming the local deities into the names of saints. Not a big deal. It is a Christian celebration now, regardless of how it became one. All religion has its origins in pagan beliefs, including Christian ones.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Do you really understand what you just wrote?

Of course I do. If evidence is presented in two sides of a case there is a good possibility that one of them are wrong. Though, really, both could be. Both sides of evidence provided can be verified, which only means that one side has determined that their peer's evidence is correct. For example, you can find on the internet a corroboration for any position you take on any subject. Is that verification? How much more so if it isn't the competition but your peers - those who agree with you - that verify it? It means nothing.

If someone presented evolution to me in a manner which demonstrated that my beliefs in the Bible were wrong, it would be up to me to decide which I believe, but if it were true I would renounce my beliefs and believe in evolution. I don't want to believe in a false God.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The point was being made to me that most Christians believe in evolution. I doubt this
This is what the research shows. You doubt the research? Do you have other research that contradicts it you can cite? Not wanting to accept the facts, is not a matter of opinion. It's a statement of willful ignorance.

, but I countered the argument with the idea that more Christians believe in the Bible than evolution.
Do you have any statistical data to support this assertion, or is it "just your opinion" that has no basis in fact?

All my friends are doing it! If all your friends were jumping off a cliff would you do it?
Of course not. That's why I'm not an evolution-denier.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If someone presented evolution to me in a manner which demonstrated that my beliefs in the Bible were wrong, it would be up to me to decide which I believe, but if it were true I would renounce my beliefs and believe in evolution. I don't want to believe in a false God.
Why in the hell would accepting evolution means you don't believe in God? It sounds to me like maybe you already don't believe in God, since you make it "evidence based" rather than faith based.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
And the bands at our local public schools will continue to play "We are the Champions" a song written and performed by a bunch of homosexuals, which you are free not to go to.

Historical Note:
We Are The Champions by Queen - Songfacts
In 1992, a New Jersey high school helped revive this song in America. Students in Clifton, New Jersey asked to sing it at their graduation, but the principal refused because he associated it with Freddie Mercury, who had died of AIDS the year before.​

I've never complained. :)
 

Earthling

David Henson
Like nonsensical failed predictions about Jesus return? If people making such predictions are wrong on multiple occasions, how ignorant must the followers be to continue believing?

A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: What The Bible Says About The End Of The World

The SAB indicates that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. I will demonstrate why this is not the case by explaining the verses they use to conclude this. They mistake the transfiguration, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus being at the right hand of power, and John's Revelation at Patmos.

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Also see Mark 9:1 / Luke 9:27)
The Interpreter's Bible says: "The prediction was not fulfilled, and later Christians found it necessary to explain that it was metaphorical."

What believers and skeptics alike seem to have glossed over is the fact that in the very next verse Matthew reveals that just 6 days later this prophecy was fulfilled. Peter, James and John witnessed the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2 / Luke 9:27-36 / 2 Peter 1:16-18)

Matthew 23:36 - Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Also see Matthew 24:34 / Mark 13:30 / Luke 21:32)

All of the above verses differ from the verses given in consideration of Matthew 16:28. British scholar G. R. Beasley-Murray: "The phrase 'this generation' should cause no difficulty for interpreters. While admittedly genea in earlier Greek meant birth, progeny, and so race, . . . in the [Greek Septuagint] it most frequently translated the Hebrew term dor, meaning age, age of humankind, or generation in the sense of contemporaries. . . . In sayings attributed to Jesus the term appears to have a twofold connotation: on the one hand it always signifies his contemporaries, and on the other hand it always carries an implicit criticism."

So Jesus could have been directing that statement to the Jewish opposition there around him at that time, who, within a generation would see the destruction of Jerusalem in 66 - 70 C.E. by Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian where 1,100,000 Jews died and 97,000 were taken captive, most of whom died horrible deaths and the Christians who knew it would come were saved. (Matthew 24:16, 22)
And Jesus may have been applying the same to those in opposition in the future as well.

Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 are parallel accounts to one another and you won't have to wait or look far to see them fulfilled. Acts 7:55-56: "But he, being full of holy spirit gazed into heaven and caught sight of God's glory and of Jesus standing at God's right hand, and he said: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand." Also see Psalm 110:1 / Luke 22:69 / Ephesians 1:20 / Colossians 3:1.

John 21:20-23 is somewhat interesting. Jesus may have been telling Peter that John would live longer than him, and in fact John would live 70 years, but also he might have been referring to the prophetic vision that John was given at the end of his life while in exile on the island of Patmos. As recorded in the book of Revelation John was transported to "the Lords day." (Revelation 1:1, 10; Revelation 22:20)

[SAB] - The end will come within the lifetime of the New Testament authors.

Response: Jesus taught his followers that no one, not even Jesus himself, knew the time of the end of the world. (Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32 / Acts 1:7)
Also at this point some clarification should be made as to what exactly is the "end of the world." The Bible says that Earth was given to man for him to fill and subdue it, that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it, and that it will last forever. (Genesis 1:28 / Psalm 37:29; 115:16 / Ecclesiastes 1:4) The end of the world is the end of the present system of things and all that involves. Of Satan's influence and sin, which, when concluding brings much destruction, but when ended, allows peace.

1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 7:29 / Philippians 1:10 all convey the importance of the missionary work in the early stages of Christianity. They all had important work to do before the end of their lives. Nowhere in any of these passages is it conveyed that they expected the end of the system of things to occur during that time.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 is often used to support the rapture, but actually it is referring to some who were mourning the death of their fellow Christians. Paul was reminding them as well as faithful Christians in the future of the resurrection hope, some to heaven immediately upon death and some to paradise earth upon resurrection.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."

The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39 / 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17 / 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10 / Philippians 1:26; 2:12 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23 / 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9 / James 5:7, 8 / 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12 / 1 John 2:28.
Pareimi is a related verb with the similar meaning of being present. It also occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 26:50 / Luke 13:1 / John 7:6; 11:28 / Acts 10:21, 33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19 / Acts 12:20 / 1 Corinthians 5:3, 3 / 2 Corinthians 10:2, 11; 2 Corinthians 11:9; 13:2, 10 / Galatians 4:18, 20 / Colossians 1:6 / Hebrews 12:11; 13:5 / 2 Peter 1:9, 12 / Revelation 17:8.
The Greek word, eleusis (Latin adventu), which conveys the physical act of coming is different and only occurs once in the Christian Greek scripture, at Acts 7:52. Paul was encouraging those with a heavenly hope to remain blameless until their death, or the conclusion of the system of things and the presence, not the physical presence, of Jesus Christ.

In discussing Hebrews 1:2; 9:26 / 1 Peter 1:20; 4:7 it is somewhat difficult to stay on topic of the so called end of the world because the last days that Paul was referring to were not the last days of the present system of things, but rather the last days of the Jewish system of things. Jehovah had given the prophecy of those days 850 years earlier. (Joel 2:28-32 / Acts 2:16-21 / Hebrews 1:1-2) It was the end of God's favor upon the Jewish congregation and the beginning of his favor for the new Christian congregation.

1 John 2:18 refers to the end of the apostolic period. The work mentioned as important in the scriptures at the beginning of this article were near completion and would conclude upon the death of John shortly after he completed the writing of Revelation.

[SAB] - The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so)

Response: It is interesting that, as with the case of Philippians 4:5, the Lord that is being referred to isn't Jesus Christ but rather, Jehovah. Codex Sinaiticus, Greek, fourth century C.E., Codex Alexandrinus, Greek, fifth century C.E., Vatican ms 1209, Greek, fourth century C.E., Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599, Christian Greek Scriptures, Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661, and the Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem) all read Jehovah.

James 5:7-8 is talking about the presence (parousia) mentioned earlier in this article.

At Hebrews 10:37 Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:2-3 from the Greek Septuagint, which reads "And the Lord answered [me] and said: Write a vision; write it distinctly in a book that the reader may trace these things [may run]; for the vision is for a time yet to come. But it will spring up at last and will not be vain. Though he may tarry, wait for him; for he will assuredly come and will not fail [and will not tarry]."

Revelation 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20 may undoubtedly amuse the skeptic, who, of course, is familiar with the Biblical fact that a thousand years are as a watch in the night to God (Psalm 90:4), but to the writers of the Bible, especially John when writing Revelation and who would die shortly afterward, the resurrection hope would follow sleep in death which would seem, upon that resurrection, as the same day as they died, though it actually had been thousands of years.
 

Earthling

David Henson

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes it could. From God's perspective. Just because someone interprets the scripture different than I do doesn't mean that they don't believe in the Bible.

The point was being made to me that most Christians believe in evolution. I doubt this, but I countered the argument with the idea that more Christians believe in the Bible than evolution. It's a general statement that switches the position to demonstrate the moot point of the original argument.

All my friends are doing it! If all your friends were jumping off a cliff would you do it? The argument itself is weak because the poor idiot probably would jump off a cliff if all his friends were doing it.
Why would you believe that most Christians are either dishonest or rather ignorant?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: What The Bible Says About The End Of The World

The SAB indicates that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. I will demonstrate why this is not the case by explaining the verses they use to conclude this. They mistake the transfiguration, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus being at the right hand of power, and John's Revelation at Patmos.

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Also see Mark 9:1 / Luke 9:27)
The Interpreter's Bible says: "The prediction was not fulfilled, and later Christians found it necessary to explain that it was metaphorical."

What believers and skeptics alike seem to have glossed over is the fact that in the very next verse Matthew reveals that just 6 days later this prophecy was fulfilled. Peter, James and John witnessed the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2 / Luke 9:27-36 / 2 Peter 1:16-18)

Matthew 23:36 - Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Also see Matthew 24:34 / Mark 13:30 / Luke 21:32)

All of the above verses differ from the verses given in consideration of Matthew 16:28. British scholar G. R. Beasley-Murray: "The phrase 'this generation' should cause no difficulty for interpreters. While admittedly genea in earlier Greek meant birth, progeny, and so race, . . . in the [Greek Septuagint] it most frequently translated the Hebrew term dor, meaning age, age of humankind, or generation in the sense of contemporaries. . . . In sayings attributed to Jesus the term appears to have a twofold connotation: on the one hand it always signifies his contemporaries, and on the other hand it always carries an implicit criticism."

So Jesus could have been directing that statement to the Jewish opposition there around him at that time, who, within a generation would see the destruction of Jerusalem in 66 - 70 C.E. by Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian where 1,100,000 Jews died and 97,000 were taken captive, most of whom died horrible deaths and the Christians who knew it would come were saved. (Matthew 24:16, 22)
And Jesus may have been applying the same to those in opposition in the future as well.

Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 are parallel accounts to one another and you won't have to wait or look far to see them fulfilled. Acts 7:55-56: "But he, being full of holy spirit gazed into heaven and caught sight of God's glory and of Jesus standing at God's right hand, and he said: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand." Also see Psalm 110:1 / Luke 22:69 / Ephesians 1:20 / Colossians 3:1.

John 21:20-23 is somewhat interesting. Jesus may have been telling Peter that John would live longer than him, and in fact John would live 70 years, but also he might have been referring to the prophetic vision that John was given at the end of his life while in exile on the island of Patmos. As recorded in the book of Revelation John was transported to "the Lords day." (Revelation 1:1, 10; Revelation 22:20)

[SAB] - The end will come within the lifetime of the New Testament authors.

Response: Jesus taught his followers that no one, not even Jesus himself, knew the time of the end of the world. (Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32 / Acts 1:7)
Also at this point some clarification should be made as to what exactly is the "end of the world." The Bible says that Earth was given to man for him to fill and subdue it, that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it, and that it will last forever. (Genesis 1:28 / Psalm 37:29; 115:16 / Ecclesiastes 1:4) The end of the world is the end of the present system of things and all that involves. Of Satan's influence and sin, which, when concluding brings much destruction, but when ended, allows peace.

1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 7:29 / Philippians 1:10 all convey the importance of the missionary work in the early stages of Christianity. They all had important work to do before the end of their lives. Nowhere in any of these passages is it conveyed that they expected the end of the system of things to occur during that time.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 is often used to support the rapture, but actually it is referring to some who were mourning the death of their fellow Christians. Paul was reminding them as well as faithful Christians in the future of the resurrection hope, some to heaven immediately upon death and some to paradise earth upon resurrection.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."

The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39 / 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17 / 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10 / Philippians 1:26; 2:12 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23 / 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9 / James 5:7, 8 / 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12 / 1 John 2:28.
Pareimi is a related verb with the similar meaning of being present. It also occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 26:50 / Luke 13:1 / John 7:6; 11:28 / Acts 10:21, 33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19 / Acts 12:20 / 1 Corinthians 5:3, 3 / 2 Corinthians 10:2, 11; 2 Corinthians 11:9; 13:2, 10 / Galatians 4:18, 20 / Colossians 1:6 / Hebrews 12:11; 13:5 / 2 Peter 1:9, 12 / Revelation 17:8.
The Greek word, eleusis (Latin adventu), which conveys the physical act of coming is different and only occurs once in the Christian Greek scripture, at Acts 7:52. Paul was encouraging those with a heavenly hope to remain blameless until their death, or the conclusion of the system of things and the presence, not the physical presence, of Jesus Christ.

In discussing Hebrews 1:2; 9:26 / 1 Peter 1:20; 4:7 it is somewhat difficult to stay on topic of the so called end of the world because the last days that Paul was referring to were not the last days of the present system of things, but rather the last days of the Jewish system of things. Jehovah had given the prophecy of those days 850 years earlier. (Joel 2:28-32 / Acts 2:16-21 / Hebrews 1:1-2) It was the end of God's favor upon the Jewish congregation and the beginning of his favor for the new Christian congregation.

1 John 2:18 refers to the end of the apostolic period. The work mentioned as important in the scriptures at the beginning of this article were near completion and would conclude upon the death of John shortly after he completed the writing of Revelation.

[SAB] - The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so)

Response: It is interesting that, as with the case of Philippians 4:5, the Lord that is being referred to isn't Jesus Christ but rather, Jehovah. Codex Sinaiticus, Greek, fourth century C.E., Codex Alexandrinus, Greek, fifth century C.E., Vatican ms 1209, Greek, fourth century C.E., Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599, Christian Greek Scriptures, Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661, and the Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem) all read Jehovah.

James 5:7-8 is talking about the presence (parousia) mentioned earlier in this article.

At Hebrews 10:37 Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:2-3 from the Greek Septuagint, which reads "And the Lord answered [me] and said: Write a vision; write it distinctly in a book that the reader may trace these things [may run]; for the vision is for a time yet to come. But it will spring up at last and will not be vain. Though he may tarry, wait for him; for he will assuredly come and will not fail [and will not tarry]."

Revelation 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20 may undoubtedly amuse the skeptic, who, of course, is familiar with the Biblical fact that a thousand years are as a watch in the night to God (Psalm 90:4), but to the writers of the Bible, especially John when writing Revelation and who would die shortly afterward, the resurrection hope would follow sleep in death which would seem, upon that resurrection, as the same day as they died, though it actually had been thousands of years.
People that understand the Bible do not make this dishonest reinterpretation.
 

Earthling

David Henson
This is what the research shows. You doubt the research?

Of course I do. I doubt everything.

Do you have other research that contradicts it you can cite? Not wanting to accept the facts, is not a matter of opinion. It's a statement of willful ignorance.

On the news, in schools and collages, in the media and the public what is a person thought of as if they don't "believe in" evolution? If a Christian, that is not bothering to establish exactly what it means to even be Christian, is asked if they "believe in" evolution in a public setting what do you think their response is? Accurate, thoughtful, truthful, educated on the subject?

Then you have to cope with the term "believe in" when applied to the subject.

Under the circumstances you question my uncertainty?

Do you have any statistical data to support this assertion, or is it "just your opinion" that has no basis in fact?

I can show you a video of some fundamentalist wandering around a college campus interviewing atheists on the subject and converting them to Christianity. Obviously scripted but what makes you think that the mainstream media carrying a clipboard is any more impressive?

Of course not. That's why I'm not an evolution-denier.

Sorry. I, uh, I don't care?
 

Earthling

David Henson
Why would you believe that most Christians are either dishonest or rather ignorant?

Personal observation. Of course, unlike you I don't use ignorant in a general sense, I use it in application to specific boundaries. Christianity and Evolution in this particular discussion.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Why in the hell would accepting evolution means you don't believe in God? It sounds to me like maybe you already don't believe in God, since you make it "evidence based" rather than faith based.

That's because you are not conversant on the subject of the personal God in question, which raises the point that addresses your question. The Bible, which concerns the specific God of my choice, Jehovah, and that I base my beliefs upon says God created man. It's basic meaning, from Genesis 3:15 to the conclusion of the book of Revelation is simply this: The vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

Put simply if Adam wasn't created and then sinned, thus requiring the sacrifice of Jesus Christ then it's all pointless and false. Evolution is contradictory to this, is it not? I don't mean there is a relatively minor disagreement, as with the global deluge of Noah's day, I mean a contradiction. Either one or the other is accurate and true.

Evidence based and faith based are the same thing.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Polls I've seen in the past have it that most Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it's viewed that God was behind it all. In today's day and age, based on what we now know in regards to the evolution of our universe and Earth, plus our greater understanding of theology, there's simply no reason to believe in the creation accounts as being literal history.

However, I believe some denominations hang on to their literalism because they cannot admit to their flock that they were wrong, plus some I believe use it to create a we/they dichotomy, whereas the "we" are the good guys with the white hats and the "they" are the bad guys with the black hats.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Personal observation. Of course, unlike you I don't use ignorant in a general sense, I use it in application to specific boundaries. Christianity and Evolution in this particular discussion.
I too am limiting the discussion on ignorance and dishonesty to this subject. Your own "personal observation" is rather worthless as regarding beliefs of Christians is worthless since you are dealing with a highly biased and limited sample. This is a subject that can properly be answered with a survey. My claim on the other hand is easily refutable, if wrong. All that someone has to do is to find an honest Christian that understands evolution and denies it.

By the way, you claimed to doubt everything. That does not appear to be correct. You sent that which you do not want to believe and refuse to learn why you might be and probably are wrong. That is denialism and not skepticism.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Polls I've seen in the past have it that most Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it's viewed that God was behind it all. In today's day and age, based on what we now know in regards to the evolution of our universe and Earth, plus our greater understanding of theology, there's simply no reason to believe in the creation accounts as being literal history.

However, I believe some denominations hang on to their literalism because they cannot admit to their flock that they were wrong, plus some I believe use it to create a we/they dichotomy, whereas the "we" are the good guys with the white hats and the "they" are the bad guys with the black hats.
Well of course you are. You are Catholic after all:rolleyes:

Of course I could say that for almost any denomination. If you are not in my particular sect or cult of Christianity you are the bad guy and not a "real Christian" .
 

Earthling

David Henson
People that understand the Bible do not make this dishonest reinterpretation.

Dishonest? Look, I don't call your interpretation of the Bible dishonest just because it is obstanately persisting in it's absence, let alone that I don't agree with it.

Don't do that again.
 

Earthling

David Henson
I too am limiting the discussion on ignorance and dishonesty to this subject.

I'm going to ignore that because you posted it prior to my warning in another post where you did the same. Don't use the word dishonest when you are trying, especially so painfully wrong, to determine what I believe.

Don't do it again or our conversations are over for good. Got it?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Of course I do. I doubt everything.
Do you doubt what you're told the Bible says? Do you doubt what you assume it says? Do you doubt your faith? Do you doubt yourself?

You see, I think you don't doubt everything. I think you believe what you believe is right, and doubt everything that challenges that belief. That's what I see as true.

On the news, in schools and collages, in the media and the public what is a person thought of as if they don't "believe in" evolution? If a Christian, that is not bothering to establish exactly what it means to even be Christian, is asked if they "believe in" evolution in a public setting what do you think their response is? Accurate, thoughtful, truthful, educated on the subject?
Yes. It's a very simple question. They aren't asking them for the science behind it. They ask, "Do you accept what sciences say about evolution". It's a simple yes or no question, which one would expect to be truthful. You just choose the "no" response, just because you don't seem to consider science to be credible, for whatever unfounded reason that may be.

Then you have to cope with the term "believe in" when applied to the subject.
I don't think "believe in" applies to the question of evolution. Do you accept the science supporting the theory of evolution, is the actual question. It's a matter of accept, or deny. Not "believe". You simply are a science-denier. Most other Christians are not. Only special ones are. :)

Under the circumstances you question my uncertainty?
If you have doubts about the question of the Pew research poll, then you should cite them. Do you have the actual question they asked, to see if it may not have been exactly "clear" to the people they asked? So is your defense, "They probably don't really believe in it, because we can't really know what they thought the question was." Is that your actual position now?

I can show you a video of some fundamentalist wandering around a college campus interviewing atheists on the subject and converting them to Christianity. Obviously scripted but what makes you think that the mainstream media carrying a clipboard is any more impressive?
Since when is the Pew Research Center considered, "the mainstream media"?????

Pew Research Center

Sorry. I, uh, I don't care?
So then, you don't care that there are others who believe in God, who consider Christianity a valid religious spiritual path, who have no problem with accepting evolution as valid science? You just dismiss that in your claim that real Christians don't believe that, or would say they did if they understood the Pew Research questionnaire properly?

How many times must you paint yourself into this corner before you give up the fight and accept facts?
 
Top