Why Evolution Utterly Destroys Christianity

[lilpixieofterror]

Less name-calling. You know this. You've heard these arguments before.

And found them as not only inconsistent, but given by simply ignoring said behavior within the scriptures and instead making excuses like, "Jesus was God!" as though that means anything (funny, that excuse isn't found in the Bible either, but hey... adding in things when we disagree with it works pretty well, doesn't it?). Anyway, why do you want every Christian to be like you? I am not so arrogant to believe such a thing, so why are you?

You can ask for a more detailed response if you're interested in more discussion on the topic. I'm certainly interested in the topic. I don't intend to converse with him at any point, though.

Too bad I have already debated this topic and found that your side couldn't come up with anything but ad hoc excuses, eh? Of course, I am also not so arrogant as I believe my way is the only way or even the best way. Why are you?

If I've misunderstood your intent, I apologize. You often seem to behave similarly to other posters, but claim different motives. I see the behavior and (mistakenly) assume the same motives.

I have already determined, though the years, that those that think they way is the 'Christian way' are not interested in hearing anything else, so why pretend they are? See, I know posters who are often nice and respectful to others, no matter what, but don't condemn those willing to engage those in other styles. The reason for this is that they understand this is they know that there is no cookie cutter response for everybody. Why is it that others do not understand that?

[lilpixieofterror]

Hello, I would like to get back on topic, sort of. I have a question for theistic evolutionists among us.
If adam was not real, then how come luke traced Jesus' ancestry all the way back to adam?

Depends on what person you are asking, but if you assume that Adam 'didn't really exist'. Luke may of simply wanted to link Jesus to all of humanity, so what better way to do that then mention the first human, within the Bible?

[lilpixieofterror]

Your the one that has the reputation of hostility, denigration of others and unwarranted accusations.

Of course Shuny, even when you can't back your assertions with fact, everybody else is 'trolling', but you, eh? Oh well... when you can explain why you are nicer to the atheist and mean to the Christians, you'll have an argument. For now, few take you seriously and most simply think you are a troll.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's good to know that others besides myself have noticed ... I rest my case, Terror!

There you got Shuny, you are now agreeing with Jorge. Looks like few take your accusations seriously then.

[lilpixieofterror]

Jorge, I don't like the treatment you get on this forum. Even in the areas I disagree with you, I don't think anyone deserves to be treated like you have been. I've even spoken up for how you've been treated in the past. And I believe you should speak out against that treatment as well. But let me tell you as a fellow brother in Christ, this is a good opportunity to show that you're not like those who you feel have wronged you. Its a good opportunity to show you can be above the hostility you find in others, and live the love mentioned in the 1 Corinthians passage cited above.

You may also want to keep in mind Proverbs 24:17 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles...

Just some friendly advice from one believer to another.

Jorge is not here because he is interested in actually taking with others and getting along with people he disagrees with. Nice try Adrift, but others have tried and it is a wasted effort and thus you'll soon seen why Jorge earns everything he gets.

[Jorge]

Jorge, I don't like the treatment you get on this forum. Even in the areas I disagree with you, I don't think anyone deserves to be treated like you have been. I've even spoken up for how you've been treated in the past. And I believe you should speak out against that treatment as well. But let me tell you as a fellow brother in Christ, this is a good opportunity to show that you're not like those who you feel have wronged you. Its a good opportunity to show you can be above the hostility you find in others, and live the love mentioned in the 1 Corinthians passage cited above.

You may also want to keep in mind Proverbs 24:17 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles...

Just some friendly advice from one believer to another.

************************************************************

I sincerely appreciate very much your kind, encouraging words.

You should know that I've never 'struck-out' in anger against anyone here.
What I have been guilty of time and again is mocking the stupidity of my
"enemies" -- they make such easy targets that I just cannot resist.
This practice, I know, gives multiple un-Christian-like impressions.
Amongst these are arrogance, anger and a judgmental attitude. I haven't
worried too much about these impressions because I know that God knows
the truth, namely, that I am not practicing any of these. I learned long
ago not to worry too much about any impressions that I may give and
instead focus on the reality. The truth is that I do it mostly for fun.

Thanks again for your brotherly concerns - point well taken.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge is not here because he is interested in actually taking with others and getting along with people he disagrees with. Nice try Adrift, but others have tried and it is a wasted effort and thus you'll soon seen why Jorge earns everything he gets.

Hey, Terror, how was your meeting with Witch Scott last week?
I'm referring to the meeting where you guys mount your broomsticks
and meet at some secret place to discuss the "nasty ol' Fundies" like me.

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

Hey, Terror, how was your meeting with Witch Scott last week?

Really have no life, do you Jorge? Gosh, it must suck so bad for you to be that obsessed with painting your opponents in the worst possible light.

I'm referring to the meeting where you guys mount your broomsticks
and meet at some secret place to discuss the "nasty ol' Fundies" like me.

You are thinking that I really care what you say or think. I find you an amusing distraction, but just like the rest of your work, I don't find you anything to 'discuss' in real life. I do find though fundies of your breed (rather they be atheist or Christian) are not worth worrying about nor are you going to make that big of a splash in the rest of the world. Outside of T web and true origins, you know how many times I have heard you name? Not once. Sorry Jorge, you're not as important as you think you are.

[Carrikature]

Lpot, you clearly know me not at all. The majority of your post consists of character assassinations that fall so far wide of the mark it's truly amusing. Anyone who's spent a fair bit of time discussing things with me could tell you that.

And found them as not only inconsistent, but given by simply ignoring said behavior within the scriptures

That's fine. I know full well that you disagree with the arguments. Your question, however, was what a 'more Christian place' would look like. That is what I answered.

and instead making excuses like, "Jesus was God!" as though that means anything (funny, that excuse isn't found in the Bible either, but hey... adding in things when we disagree with it works pretty well, doesn't it?).

Funny, I never made the excuse "Jesus was God!", now did I? Oh, what a pile of straw.

Anyway, why do you want every Christian to be like you?

This is baseless assertion that you made up wholesale. The world would be a very boring place if every Christian was just like me. Not to mention it would have misconceptions with no opportunity for correction.

I am not so arrogant to believe such a thing, so why are you?

Um, because I don't...

Too bad I have already debated this topic and found that your side couldn't come up with anything but ad hoc excuses, eh?

Yes, that is just too bad.

Never mind that this quote is taken out of context, wasn't addressed to you, and that I don' really care what you found. In just our little interaction thus far, you've yet to demonstrate the ability to do more than create strawmen and character assassinations (not to mention a couple false appeals to fallacy).

Of course, I am also not so arrogant as I believe my way is the only way or even the best way. Why are you?

Um, because I don't...

I have already determined, though the years, that those that think they way is the 'Christian way' are not interested in hearing anything else, so why pretend they are?

Um, because I don't...

See, I know posters who are often nice and respectful to others, no matter what, but don't condemn those willing to engage those in other styles. The reason for this is that they understand this is they know that there is no cookie cutter response for everybody. Why is it that others do not understand that?

There is no accounting for what people do not 'understand'. I, however, have never made the claim that there is a cookie cutter response. That would be silly. I DO claim, that your favorite "little boy" accomplishes nothing. Other people don't suddenly take a lower view of a person you've so insulted (except for with people who already agree with you, in which case you've still accomplished nothing). It paints yourself as the person uninterested in civil discussion, however little the other person may be. "He who throws the first punch loses." Riposte is all well and good. Name-calling is the first punch.

[lilpixieofterror]

Lpot, you clearly know me not at all. The majority of your post consists of character assassinations that fall so far wide of the mark it's truly amusing. Anyone who's spent a fair bit of time discussing things with me could tell you that.

You attack those you don't know and accuse them of things you do not know about, so why can't I do the same in return? I've been through this debate, found the other side as inconsistent (and even contradictory) and passed it off as nonsense years ago. For you see, there is no cookie cutter response to everybody and sometimes you NEED those that are willing to get rough and tumble with others and other times, you need those that will not. That is why Paul calls it 'the body of Christ' and attacks those that think their way is the only way.

That's fine. I know full well that you disagree with the arguments. Your question, however, was what a 'more Christian place' would look like. That is what I answered.

And I do not believe that you were on the mark at all, but were actually well off the mark. What is 'Christ-like' supposed to look like? Are we suppose to be always 'nice' no matter what or are we not afraid of getting rough with others? Can you please explain why we must always be nice to others and why we can never call others out and point out their errors in a not so nice manner?

Funny, I never made the excuse "Jesus was God!", now did I? Oh, what a pile of straw.

That is the classic argument I have heard from the other side for some time. Perhaps then, you'll explain why Jesus overturned money tables and called people sons of Satan and white washed tombs? Were those not very nice things? I don't think they are so does that mean that we have to always be nice ourselves?

This is baseless assertion that you made up wholesale. The world would be a very boring place if every Christian was just like me. Not to mention it would have misconceptions with no opportunity for correction.

Then please explain why you think others are not being 'Christ like' for not agreeing with your way of going about things. It is a very simple question I have not seen the other side explain to any degree without inventing excuses.

Um, because I don't...

Then explain to me why you condemn behavior you dislike, without giving a valid reason why? Was Jesus always nice to people?

Yes, that is just too bad.

Yep, it is because I have not seen anybody answer the arguments brought forth and deal with the fact that Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles were not very nice to others, all the time. Was Elijah nice to the prophets of Baal by killing them with the sword? Was Jesus very nice to the money exchanges in the temple by flipping over their money tables? Was Peter very nice to the couple caught lying to the church about the money they claimed they were going to give the church? So why should I always be nice? Can you give a reason why?

Never mind that this quote is taken out of context, wasn't addressed to you, and that I don' really care what you found. In just our little interaction thus far, you've yet to demonstrate the ability to do more than create strawmen and character assassinations (not to mention a couple false appeals to fallacy).

Why? You did the same thing, what is the problem? Do you not like it when somebody returns the favor to you and treats you the same way you wanted to treat others? Here is what you said:

Less name-calling. You know this. You've heard these arguments before.

You can ask for a more detailed response if you're interested in more discussion on the topic. I'm certainly interested in the topic. I don't intend to converse with him at any point, though.

If I've misunderstood your intent, I apologize. You often seem to behave similarly to other posters, but claim different motives. I see the behavior and (mistakenly) assume the same motives.

Which is little more than a character assassination, back handed slap to those you personally disagree with, so don't cry to me that you get the same treatment you give others. Don't like it, then I suggest you show your assertions are true instead of what you believe is happening. Perception is not reality (despite whatever people want to sell us these days).

And you also agree to this comment:

Ugh. Maybe it's just me but I've always thought the Screwballs threads to be the least Christian places on TWeb.

Which ironically, is little more than a character assassination insult, which shows me the side that claims to that the insults are wrong cannot be consistent within itself and thus, should be rejected as nonsense garbage it really is.

Um, because I don't...

Sure you do, you gave others a back handed slap that wasn't backed up with any facts and why can't I return the favor? Don't like it?

Um, because I don't...

Sure you do, nobody has been able to explain why a 'more Christian place' is to look like, so tell me... what should it look like? More like your version or something else?

There is no accounting for what people do not 'understand'. I, however, have never made the claim that there is a cookie cutter response.

You seem to agree that JPH is 'not being Christ-like' but you seem unable to explain how beyond 'less insults' but yet... what is the standard of insults we should follow? If there, let's say 4 insults instead of 5, is that more acceptable? What is the standard in which you judge others as 'not being Christ like'?

That would be silly. I DO claim, that your favorite "little boy" accomplishes nothing.

Then that must be why I have seen him referenced by people like Lee Strobel in his books and why the book "Why I am a Christian" included a link to tektonics in the 'further reading' section, eh? Sorry, but it seems that yet again... reality doesn't seem to be speaking well for your side at all. You made yet another false accusation, now show you can admit you are wrong please. Thanks!

Other people don't suddenly take a lower view of a person you've so insulted (except for with people who already agree with you, in which case you've still accomplished nothing).

So you have facts to back your personal opinion up with or is this just your opinion, without any facts? I personally found JPH to be quite funny and he showed me one doesn't have to 'always be nice' to those who show they clearly are not interested in a discussion, but are here to toot their own horn. Again, not everybody thinks like you do, so stop pretending they do. See, this is what I mean by what I said about you wanting others to be like you. Others are not, so get over it already.

It paints yourself as the person uninterested in civil discussion, however little the other person may be. "He who throws the first punch loses." Riposte is all well and good. Name-calling is the first punch.

In other words, your personal opinion is fact. Go read the first post this poster posted and see who 'threw the first punch'. Facts just keep piling against you, eh? Who needs them, they just get in the way. Remember, you deserved this by making unbacked accusations so I am just returning the favor. Do you like it?

[Carrikature]

You attack those you don't know and accuse them of things you do not know about, so why can't I do the same in return?

Where have I attacked those I don't know? The specific people I've called out are posters I've read often enough.

I've been through this debate, found the other side as inconsistent (and even contradictory) and passed it off as nonsense years ago. For you see, there is no cookie cutter response to everybody and sometimes you NEED those that are willing to get rough and tumble with others and other times, you need those that will not. That is why Paul calls it 'the body of Christ' and attacks those that think their way is the only way.

Yes, you said this already and I agreed.

And I do not believe that you were on the mark at all, but were actually well off the mark. What is 'Christ-like' supposed to look like? Are we suppose to be always 'nice' no matter what or are we not afraid of getting rough with others? Can you please explain why we must always be nice to others and why we can never call others out and point out their errors in a not so nice manner?

Do you not read my posts? Is riposte always nice? Of course not. Have I ever claimed a problem with riposte? No.

That is the classic argument I have heard from the other side for some time. Perhaps then, you'll explain why Jesus overturned money tables and called people sons of Satan and white washed tombs? Were those not very nice things? I don't think they are so does that mean that we have to always be nice ourselves?

Which still isn't the argument I'm making. Go figure.

Yep, it is because I have not seen anybody answer the arguments brought forth and deal with the fact that Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles were not very nice to others, all the time. Was Elijah nice to the prophets of Baal by killing them with the sword? Was Jesus very nice to the money exchanges in the temple by flipping over their money tables? Was Peter very nice to the couple caught lying to the church about the money they claimed they were going to give the church? So why should I always be nice? Can you give a reason why?

Once again, I have never made this claim.

Sure you do, nobody has been able to explain why a 'more Christian place' is to look like, so tell me... what should it look like? More like your version or something else?

More like you ignore the answer.

You seem to agree that JPH is 'not being Christ-like' but you seem unable to explain how beyond 'less insults' but yet... what is the standard of insults we should follow? If there, let's say 4 insults instead of 5, is that more acceptable? What is the standard in which you judge others as 'not being Christ like'?

There are insults and there is name-calling. Name-calling falls into the category of insults. It is not the entire category. If you want to call someone out, go for it. If you want to sound intelligent while you do it, or if you want to have a coherent discussion, leave out the name-calling.

Then that must be why I have seen him referenced by people like Lee Strobel in his books and why the book "Why I am a Christian" included a link to tektonics in the 'further reading' section, eh? Sorry, but it seems that yet again... reality doesn't seem to be speaking well for your side at all. You made yet another false accusation, now show you can admit you are wrong please. Thanks!

Tektonics has a lot of good information. Lee Strobel's reference to it is a good thing in many ways. This is all irrelevant to the portion you've quoted. Lee Strobel speaks not to your 'little boy' appellations.



The rest of your post I'm not going to address. You have a hard time with reading comprehension.






(See? I can be mean without name-calling.)

[technomage]

A lot depends on what you consider "harm", and a lot also depends on what you mean by "use religion".

Red herring. The definition of "harm" that I use is the definition applied by mainstream psychology.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. The anti-science school boards being elected, the anti-health-care Federal administrations, strike me as being the symptom. The religious faith of their voters strikes me as the underlying problem.

Your view might be accurate--if all individuals who held to a religious faith supported these things. Even among Christians, some support science and health care.

Put the broad brush away, Phank.

[technomage]

Nah, you just condemn it in some areas and engage in it when it becomes convenient to engage in the said behavior.

More accurate to say that I engage in it when I fall short of my own desired standards of behavior. Like anyone else, Pix, I am human ... and I fail at what I strive to do from time to time.

[lilpixieofterror]

Where have I attacked those I don't know? The specific people I've called out are posters I've read often enough.

You know them based upon what? Some post online? That is 'getting to know them'? I know quite a number of people here Carrikature and guess what, not all of those that regularly take part in tektonics are 'un-Christ like' believe it or not. The interactions here are only about 10% of my daily interactions and I'm sure the same can be said about others. So you are basing your reaction, upon a very limited poll of information that is based primarily upon what you personally think or feel about X or Y action.

Yes, you said this already and I agreed.

Very good, now can you please explain what is so 'un-Christian like' about tektonics or people who take part there?

Do you not read my posts? Is riposte always nice? Of course not. Have I ever claimed a problem with riposte? No.

And yet you sure agree that some people are being 'un-Christian like' but I haven't seen you explain how you can figure that out.

Which still isn't the argument I'm making. Go figure.

You're argument is about how some people are being 'unchristian like', but how are they being that way? Can you explain how or why?

Once again, I have never made this claim.

So what are you using to determine that some people are being unchristian like?

More like you ignore the answer.

No, I just don't see you logically showing your belief is correct. What you think and/or believe is two different things.

There are insults and there is name-calling. Name-calling falls into the category of insults. It is not the entire category. If you want to call someone out, go for it. If you want to sound intelligent while you do it, or if you want to have a coherent discussion, leave out the name-calling.

Please explain the difference between 'name calling' and 'insults' and what standard you have used to determine the difference. I will await your answer because calling somebody a ‘son of Satan’ sure looks like name calling, based upon what you seem to be wanting to claim here.

Tektonics has a lot of good information. Lee Strobel's reference to it is a good thing in many ways. This is all irrelevant to the portion you've quoted. Lee Strobel speaks not to your 'little boy' appellations.

So? You have not explained why this is wrong, you have asserted it, without evidence, and demand that I am to meet your burden when you can't explain why. Perhaps it is because the people I use that mocker to ARE acting liking children and thus, I talk to them like children? Nah, that is too difficult to understand, so just throw up a made up label of 'insults' and 'name calling' and determine (though your personal, subjective, standard) that those you disagree with are 'name calling' without explaining what the differences are. Do you think calling somebody a 'son of Satan' or 'whitewashed tombs' is an insult or name calling? They can be considered both, depending on the eye of the beholder so I guess Jesus wasn't very nice, was he?

The rest of your post I'm not going to address. You have a hard time with reading comprehension.

Nah, I am just doing what you do. Assume the worst about others and then go off those assumptions. What's the problem, don't like it when I treat you like you want to treat me and others? You earned this attitude and it seems you really do not like having your thought process reversed on you. Don't like it, I would suggest you be a little bit more careful who you call 'non-Christ like' or not next time or show your objective standard you used to figure it all out.

(See? I can be mean without name-calling.)

Name calling is in the eye of the beholder, dear. That is a made up standard, you have called forth, so you can avoid admitting you are wrong. Please explain why calling somebody 'son of Satan' isn't name calling, but calling somebody a 'little boy' is. Amazing how subjective your nonsense really is, huh?

[lilpixieofterror]

More accurate to say that I engage in it when I fall short of my own desired standards of behavior. Like anyone else, Pix, I am human ... and I fail at what I strive to do from time to time.

Then you really have no grounds to attack others for it then and when they don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with it, which makes it any worse. See, I do not condemn insults and then use them myself, you do though, so that is a huge difference right there.