Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[hedrick]

Is there a science involved in knowing the extent to which the HS is supposed to "presto chango" a perpetrator into a paragon of virtue?

I'm just wondering because everyone else other than me seems to know the answer, and I'm wondering if I missed the train somewhere along the way.

I doubt anyone expects change to be instant. But you'd expect that on average Christians would behave better than non-Christians. I don't think there's evidence for that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed -- its the readings of it performed by people such as yourself that merit laughter -- as well they should.

Did you laugh too, when you turned your back on Jesus, after He got you all those spiritual benefits?

Fortunately, the reputation of the Bible itself remains intact in spite of the damage you attempt to do to it on a daily basis.

It'll shine on for all eternity.

 

[AV1611VET]

As do I, but I won't keep it to myself.

You're a true crusader for your new faith, aren't you?

The Bible can be and has been the most useful tool for social control in human history -- no tyrant who has ruled with a holy book in his hand and his boot on your neck has ever been unseated easily.

That's because academia precedes these tyrants, creating the mindset that's just right for them. Then God has to show up and put a stop to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Shhhhhh! .... don't tell anyone. We don't want jealousy to break out among the ranks!

"Mums" the word!

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed -- but the interpretations were bad on purpose... they weren't used to excuse tyranny, but to justify it.

Yup -- just as I said.

Going on before them and creating the mindset that's just right for them.

Thanks for the ninja.

Why do you think we have to many laughably bad attempts at literalism now?

Because not knowing a good attempt from a bad one breeds hilarity. Ignorance is bliss.

Nobody will be laughing if these people get into power.

Don't worry. I doubt you'd know it if they did.

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt anyone expects change to be instant. But you'd expect that on average Christians would behave better than non-Christians. I don't think there's evidence for that.

Would you know it if they did?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I doubt anyone expects change to be instant. But you'd expect that on average Christians would behave better than non-Christians. I don't think there's evidence for that.

I get what you're saying, hedrick, but I think we both know that a lack of integrity, a lack of repentance, a lack of reasonableness, not to mention a lack of education, isn't a new phenomenon that has suddenly appeared among those who claim to live in identification with the Christian faith.

That's just people being people and you and I both know enough of the New Testament history, along with all that's transpired socially and politically among Christians these last 2,000 years, to not be overly surprised by what we still see transpiring today.

For my part, I take the Parable of the Sower seriously and expect this to be the case in the everyday world around us. And, interestingly, where human psychology and sociology are concerned, it is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You're a true crusader for your new faith, aren't you?[/wuote]

Ain't nothing new about my faith -- it's been what it has always been.

That's because academia precedes these tyrants, creating the mindset that's just right for them. Then God has to show up and put a stop to it.

Sounds like Amerigod is anti-academia...what a coincidence; so are you!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ignorance is bliss.

According to you, ignorance is the rule. "Born ignit; die ignit..." Did I say it right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agreed -- but the interpretations were bad on purpose... they weren't used to excuse tyranny, but to justify it.

That's kind of what I meant, but being the student of epistemology and rhetoric that I try to be, I tend to want to apply justification to those speech-acts that are authentic attempts to justify some thought or action rather than a mere form of sophistry dressed up as emotively charged pleas of justice. So, I just call them excuses, whether we're assessing another person's interpretations of the Bible ... or looking at the so-called 'reasons' why they think they have to invade another nation.

Why do you think we have to many laughably bad attempts at literalism now? Nobody will be laughing if these people get into power.

I think James Madison had some ideas about that, so maybe I'm less concerned about it than you are. Still, I wouldn't want radicals of any type to head the helm of the U.S.

That would be a disaster.

 

[AV1611VET]

I get what you're saying, hedrick, but I think we both know that a lack of integrity, a lack of repentance, a lack of reasonableness, not to mention a lack of education, isn't a new phenomenon that has suddenly appeared among those who claim to live in identification with the Christian faith.

That's just people being people and you and I both know enough of the New Testament history, along with all that's transpired socially and politically among Christians these last 2,000 years, to not be overly surprised by what we still see transpiring today.

For my part, I take the Parable of the Sower seriously and expect this to be the case in the everyday world around us. And, interestingly, where human psychology and sociology are concerned, it is.

Are you a de-escalator? or have you had de-esclation training? or maybe a negotiator?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to you, ignorance is the rule. "Born ignit; die ignit..." Did I say it right?

Close.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Close.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

Lol. Now... is that meant to be descriptive or prescriptive?

 

[AV1611VET]

Lol. Now... is that meant to be descriptive or prescriptive?

I still have trouble with that d/p stuff.

I'll say "descriptive."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you a de-escalator? or have you had de-esclation training? or maybe a negotiator?

No, not in any substantially formal way. But there were those units on 1) Conflict Resolution, 2) Emotional Intelligence, and 3) Ethics in the Educational Setting that I had to go through in my Master's Degree studies.

Probably, though, the most I've learned about 'peace making' comes from a reliable source whom both you and I know. And of course, despite my penchant for fiery motorcycles, His teaching on the Beatitudes was something I took to heart somewhere along the way on the road out of Hades.

You can chalk all of that up for whatever it's worth, brother AV.

 

[Astrid]

I doubt anyone expects change to be instant. But you'd expect that on average Christians would behave better than non-Christians. I don't think there's evidence for that.

Why would anyone expect that? Atheism gives no
more cause for hatred than disinterest in soccer leads
to brawls over who won.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can chalk all of that up for whatever it's worth, brother AV.

What's your take on Abraham Maslowe's Hierarchy of Needs and Jeremy Bentham's Hedonistic Calculus?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would anyone expect that? Atheism gives no more cause for hatred than disinterest in soccer leads to brawls over who won.

In atheism, isn't hatred a byproduct of the Fight-or-Flight principle?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why would anyone expect that? Atheism gives no
more cause for hatred than disinterest in soccer leads
to brawls over who won.

I think @hedrick's post needs to be understood in the context of Christianity's premises. IF there is a god and IF that god has a "holy Spirit" and IF that HS is given to believers to "transform them by the renewing of their minds", THEN you'd expect on average Christians would behave better than non-Christians.

What believers need to ask themselves is why this transformation is not apparent.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What's your take on Abraham Maslowe's Hierarchy of Needs and Jeremy Bentham's Hedonistic Calculus?

Oh gosh, AV! Each of those theories, and their social and philosophical underpinnings, deserve a long discussion. But I'll just say that Maslowe's social theory, while expressing some ideas that likely do have some explanatory power, are challenged by some of the teachings of our Lord (Jesus). Maslowe's Hierarchy of Needs has some limited relevance to the human condition, but it isn't the end all, ultimate explanation of how people need to "self-actualize" in order to get by in life.

As for Jeremy Bentham's sensibilities of hedonistically calculated Utilitarianism, I think it can be readily critiqued and shown for the fault lines that run through his philosophy. Moreover, I am definitely not in favor of his social engineering strategy of "The Panopticon."

If you want to get into these guys thoughts more deeply on certain points, I'll need to pull some books off my shelves, brush up and then stand and deliver. ... I'm not sure that's necessarily worth either of our time.