Theistic Evolution Fish

[Dracil]

There's the Jesus Fish, there's the Darwin Fish. Where's the fish that combines the two?

It doesnt' really exist, so I'm thinking of maybe making one. But I'm not sure what to actually put in the middle. I saw one that used a cross for the eye, but it doesn't look good in lower resolutions. So poll time!

 

[Dracil]

Hmm, actually I went ahead and spliced two images together to make this.

It has a white background. My signature has a transparent background if you prefer that.

 

[neverforsaken]

actually, that one looks pretty cool. what does that greek word mean? maybe Jesus would fit in the fish and be more clear to those who dont speak greek.

 

[Dracil]

It says Ichthys, which is Greek for "fish." It's also an acrostic for the following:
I - Iesous = Jesus
X - Christos = Christ
O - Theou = God's
Y - Yios = Son
E - Soter = Savior

 

[Didaskomenos]

The best one I saw was the regular Jesus fish and the walking Darwin Fish nose to nose, as if kissing.

 

[Dracil]

Oh, I forgot to mention, you are all free to use it as you like.

I've seen one of a Jesus fish and a Darwin fish mating... I dunno, I see that (and your version) as more of a symbol of interreligious marriage.

 

[Dracil]

Hmm, looking around I saw someone created the Logos Fish for the same reason.
http://oddlots.digitalspace.net/downloads/logosfish.html. Certainly more original, but can still be mistaken for another Darwin fish without the Theistic Evolution around it (like on the larger pics).
The three he has are as follows:

 

[neverforsaken]

those look neat. scratch my earlier post of saying the word "Jesus" should be in the fish, if i was looking at it for the first time, i would be like, "This guy thinks jesus was a walking fish?"

 

[Critias]

Can I ask why you feel the need for a "new style" of fish? It is symbolic of Christ, don't theistic evolutionists still hold to the belief of Christ? If so, why the sudden need to change it?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Can I ask why you feel the need for a "new style" of fish? It is symbolic of Christ, don't theistic evolutionists still hold to the belief of Christ? If so, why the sudden need to change it?

Oh please. As though you didn't smile when you first saw the TRUTH fish swallowing up the DARWIN fish. Those folks like their fish style to say something about creation/evolution debate, and so do we. Not only that, but it opens up awareness that there are Christians who believe that both a Jesus fish and a Darwin fish can belong on the same car.

 

[Critias]

Do you find the Truth fish eating the Darwin fish to be offensive?

 

[Dracil]

Personally? No. I just find it to be misguided.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Yeah, it offends my sensibilities. I don't take it lightly when another Christian makes Christianity look ignorant because they misunderstand it. But that's just me. But my point wasn't whether it offends me, but that making a point about origins with fish is game for all if for any.

 

[Critias]

Christians have always looked like fools to non-Christians. Jesus Christ is the stumbling block to all those who don't believe, not creation.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Christians have always looked like fools to non-Christians. Jesus Christ is the stumbling block to all those who don't believe, not creation.

What a lame excuse to be a stumbling block. I don't care if I act like a hypocrite, or state idiotic things such as, "The sky is orange, and grass is transparent. It's Christ that's the stumbling block." It's just because He's the stumbling block that we should remove every unnecessary obstacle.

 

[Critias]

What a lame excuse to be a stumbling block. I don't care if I act like a hypocrite, or state idiotic things such as, "The sky is orange, and grass is transparent. It's Christ that's the stumbling block." It's just because He's the stumbling block that we should remove every unnecessary obstacle.

Didaskomenos, did I state what you are saying? I said Jesus Christ is the stumbling block.

Is it up to you to decide what is and what is not a stumbling block for people? Is it up to you to decide what should be kept in the Bible and what should not? Is it up to you to decide to tell others that parts of the Bible are not really saying what they are saying?

It is obvious by your words above you hold deep resentment for creationists.

 

[seebs]

It is not up to me to "decide" what is a stumbling block, but I can certainly identify them when I see them.

Creationism is a stumbling block for many people. Do I resent this? Yes. I resent being made to look ignorant of science by association with people who deny it.

Augustine got this dead to rights over a thousand years ago. Nothing has changed since.

 

[Critias]

It is not up to me to "decide" what is a stumbling block, but I can certainly identify them when I see them.

Creationism is a stumbling block for many people. Do I resent this? Yes. I resent being made to look ignorant of science by association with people who deny it.

Augustine got this dead to rights over a thousand years ago. Nothing has changed since.

I bolded and underlined the above to show that this is what I believe is the cause for so many to believe what scientists tell them.

I think you have misunderstood Augustine.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Didaskomenos, did I state what you are saying? I said Jesus Christ is the stumbling block.

Is it up to you to decide what is and what is not a stumbling block for people? Is it up to you to decide what should be kept in the Bible and what should not? Is it up to you to decide to tell others that parts of the Bible are not really saying what they are saying?

If not him, then who? You?

It is obvious by your words above you hold deep resentment for creationists.

One cannot help but be upset at the damage they do to our faith.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I bolded and underlined the above to show that this is what I believe is the cause for so many to believe what scientists tell them.

I think you have misunderstood Augustine.

I don't know, I think he's understood Augustine perfectly.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.