Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[ottawak]

What is the definition of a Traditional Christian? Creationists are not Traditional Christians?

No, they are not. Creationists are almost all fundamentalist Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I like that "hyper-fundamentalist balderdash" and yes, that's roughly what I mean by "Bible God." In fact, you are the first person I have come across who used the term to mean anything else.

Well, if I'm the first person you've come across to use that kind of phrasing, it simply means that I may frequent Ex-Christian and Atheistic websites and blogs more often than you do. And that's ok. I'm not suggesting that you should frequent them.

I just want to be clear as to your nomenclature in this discussion.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, they are not. Creationists are almost all fundamentalist Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Wow

 

[BPPLEE]

Wow

No, they are not. Creationists are almost all fundamentalist Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Like I said on this forum

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, they are not. Creationists are almost all fundamentalist Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

While you're correct on a certain level, keep in mind too that there are some Traditional Christians such as Francis Collins and folks at his BioLogos organization who consider themselves "creationists" of sorts.

BioLogos Article: How is Evolutionary Creation different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism? - Common-questions

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, they are not. Creationists are almost all fundamentalist Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t have an official doctrine on creation and many of them believe in both a young earth and a 6 day creation.

 

[ottawak]

The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t have an official doctrine on creation and many of them believe in both a young earth and a 6 day creation.

True, but the number of Orthodox creationists in this country--and in forums like these--is almost nothing compared to the number of Protestants.

 

[BNR32FAN]

True, but the number of Orthodox creationists in this country--and in forums like these--is almost nothing compared to the number of Protestants.

I absolutely agree, I just wanted to point out that there are many traditional Christians who do believe in the biblical creation account.

 

[ottawak]

While you're correct on a certain level, keep in mind too that there are some Traditional Christians such as Francis Collins and folks at his BioLogos organization who consider themselves "creationists" of sorts.

BioLogos Article: How is Evolutionary Creation different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism? - Common-questions

True, and there is no "one size fits all." But the fact of it is that most of the biblical creationists who visit this forum are fundamentalist Protestants who are hostile to Traditional Christianity, especially Roman Catholics.

 

[ottawak]

I absolutely agree, I just wanted to point out that there are many traditional Christians who do believe in the biblical creation account.

Of course; there are even some Episcopalians who do.

 

[BPPLEE]

True, but the number of Orthodox creationists in this country--and in forums like these--is almost nothing compared to the number of Protestants.

So Episcopalians are not Protestants?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In your imagination. At least be honest

Feel free to link to the post where somebody changed topic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

True, and there is no "one size fits all." But the fact of it is that most of the biblical creationists who visit this forum are fundamentalist Protestants who are hostile to Traditional Christianity, especially Roman Catholics.

Yes, like you, I'm well aware of this fact. But I try to engage with other Christian brethren in a conciliatory and even ecumenical way. I understand they see the world and their relationship with Jesus Christ the way they see it and I don't try too hard to disparage them of it. I only get ruffled if I find out that they want to disparage me as being or qualifying as a fellow Christian... I also tend to get put out if I find out they're racists in fundamentalist guise.

Otherwise, I think this whole evolution verse creationism debate is a bit of a sideshow really. I know some Christians get worked up about the Theory of Evolution, but from my angle, it isn't the anti-christ bogeyman they think it is. If there is a bogeyman, a more compelling candidate would be Transhumanism or some other similar, more direct philosophical competitors to the Christian faith.

For me, I'm pretty general as to what constitutes a 'fellow Christian.'

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No, I didn't "dance away." I asked you to engage and you didn't. Anyone can clearly see you disengaged...and conveniently disappeared after that with no response to that particular post. I don't believe in explaining "my framework." I'm not here to supply you with some replacement for a faulty framework. I'm here to test YOURS!!

You were asked several times to respond, and you kept asking which framework you should use. I then suggested you use any framework you liked. In fact, it was my first post in this conversation. Sorry to say we're still waiting for your response.

Dance, Philo, dance.(Which is a repetition of my second post in this conversation in response to your failure to respond in a mea ingful manner).

And you know why, right? You've been keeping up with my epistemological identity all along and everywhere I've said something on CF, right?

Why would I want to do that?

 

[BPPLEE]

True, but the number of Orthodox creationists in this country--and in forums like these--is almost nothing compared to the number of Protestants.

Still waiting on that definition

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You were asked several times to respond, and you kept asking which framework you should use. I then suggested you use any framework you liked and..... we're still waiting. Dance, Philo, dance.

That's not how this works epistemically. I'm not here to use my 'framework' in an explanation about the 'veracity' of the Christian faith, or the 'correctness' of the Bible's expressions of ethics or history or theology.

And you know why, right? One reason is that I'm an Existentialist. My view is Subjective in the Pascalian and Kiergegaardian sense of the word. Secondly, if YOU'RE asking me to attempt to provide an explanation in terms that YOU may accept, then it is encumbent on you to inform me what your epistemic expectations are, as well as your axiological positioning in the area of Ethics.

If you won't do this, then I have nothing clear to aim for and no focal point to upon which to have a discussion with you, let alone present to you an analysis. If you're going to tell me to "use any framework, willy nilly," then I might as well be blinfolded and play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey for all the good it's going to do either one of us.

Why would I want to do that?

Essentially, you'd do it for the sake of honesty and transparency. That's just part of leaning in the direction of an epistemology that has even the thinnest hints of virtue. Or do you not care about honesty and transparency?

 

[BPPLEE]

Feel free to link to the post where somebody changed topic.

Look at the title of the thread compared to the discussion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That's not how this works epistemically. I'm not here to use my 'framework' in an explanation about the 'veracity' of the Christian faith, or the 'correctness' of the Bible's expressions of ethics or history or theology.

And you know why, right? One reason is that I'm an Existentialist. My view is Subjective in the Pascalian and Kiergegaardian sense of the word. Secondly, if YOU'RE asking me to attempt to provide an explanation in terms that YOU may accept, then it is encumbent on you to inform me what your epistemic expectations are, as well as your axiological positioning in the area of Ethics.

If you won't do this, then I have nothing clear to aim for and no focal point to upon which to have a discussion with you, let alone present to you an analysis. If you're going to tell me to "use any framework, willy nilly," then I might as well be blinfolded and play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey for all the good it's going to do either one of us.

Dance, Philo, dance.

Essentially, you'd do it for the sake of honesty and transparency. That's just part of leaning in the direction of an epistemology that has even the thinnest hints of virtue. Or do you not care about honesty and transparency?

Lol. In order to have an honest conversation I have to read every post you make on CF?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Look at the title of the thread compared to the discussion.

That's not what I asked. I asked you to link to the post where the topic was changed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dance, Philo, dance.

Stonewall, Bungle Bear, stonewall. It's what you're apparently best at.

Lol. In order to have an honest conversation I have to read every post you make on CF?

I don't think I implied that. But continue on with the fallacy of "poisoning the waters" if you feel you must. At least we can all see that you're enjoying yourself in doing so.