Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

::EDIT:: I must correct the above statement and advise that it indicates exactly nothing as to one's "fundamentalism" or political leanings, since my entire card-carrying Democrat-liberal family considers themselves "born-again".

Your correction is false. As I said, all Christians are born-again in their theology (excepting certain offshoots) but in the rhetorical field the phrase "born-again Christian" is a signifier of fundamentalism and conservatism in the same way that "bible-believing Christian" is.

Rhetoric does not adhere to the internal standards of other subjects.

[Reelya]

Well it's related to understanding politics in this instance so it shouldn't go in the religion thread. Those are the demographics, 67% of Americans who believe in evolution believe God controls the process, so that's normal whereas "atheist evolutionists" are the minority, a quirky niche belief. They can't even break 1 in 3 evolution believers, let alone be considered a major viewpoint.

Theistic evolutionists almost outnumber creationists now, who are declining. Theistic evolutionists numbers haven't budged in 20+ years, so they're on track to be the biggest demographic in the USA. Knowing this allows a more nuanced understanding of the issues here. These are the real battlelines for creationists in the USA.

[smjjames]

In the context of politics, okay.

Also, my question on the difference between creationists and theistic evolutionists hasn't been answered. Creationists are the ones who don't believe in evolution (and thus humans didn't evolve from apes) while theistic evolutionists are the ones who do believe in evolution, just that God's invisible hand guides it (despite whatever science says)?

[Frumple]

Also, marriage is not legally defined as a covenant with God, only as a contract between a man and woman in which they live together (genders involved have been updated/stricken in recent times, of course).

Eh? No, marriage isn't legally defined as a husband and wife (or two partners, or whatever) living together, dun. Pretty sure it hasn't been for quite a long while, even, if ever so far as the US court systems are concerned.

It is a legal contract, but it's one that makes the pair a single entity for many/most legal concerns, including taxation (if not opted out of, which is more expensive). Relatively similar to a joint partnership business, iirc, where all involved are responsible for any/most debts, court concerns, etc. Doesn't really have much to do with where they're living, though. Just how they're filing.

And yeah, strictly speaking it has fuck all to do with the religious conventions. It's a legal contract with primarily financial concerns and a side of property/guardianship/etc. It's honestly kinda' sketchy as hell we do limit it by gender, because that's adhering to a religious tenant more than anything that has to do with the legal arrangements involved. Those arrangements don't really have much of a damn to give about what's banging (or not) what with what sort of dangly (or not) bits, they care whether or not they got your ass in a joint and several agreement so far as paying your taxes and criminal/civil liability are concerned.

[Dunamisdeos]

My experiences agree, most fellow Christians I interact with generally have no problem with the concept of evolution, myself included.

Also no, I do not find that people identifying as "born again Christians" or "bible-believing Christians" are fundamentalists. It frankly doesn't matter how many other people apply that label incorrectly, and it's dangerous to think of it that way. There is a wide gulf between "exactly no change in current understanding of Scripture" and "actively attempting to twist Christianity to match today's culture".

I did not need to compromise anything about my faith in order to fit evolution into my life. This does not mean I do not accept the bible as scripture, it just means that understanding of our scripture evolves in the same way our understanding of secular science does. Defining it as fundamentalist or not creates the kind of rift that invites radicalism.

[Reelya]

In the context of politics, okay.

Also, my question on the difference between creationists and theistic evolutionists hasn't been answered. Creationists are the ones who don't believe in evolution (and thus humans didn't evolve from apes) while theistic evolutionists are the ones who do believe in evolution, just that God's invisible hand guides it (despite whatever science says)?

Creationists believe in literal Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, 6000 BC creation etc. Whereas theistic evolution believe in Jesus etc, but also in a billions of year old planet and evolution from earlier life forms. They believe in God's plan but also e.g. dinosaurs millions of years ago.

The point being, since it's now the most common belief system in the USA it shouldn't continue to be seen as some freakishly unlikely set of beliefs. Both sides (atheist and creationist) like to lump atheism and evolution together for soap box reasons so both sides collude in that. Most atheists believe in evolution but the reverse corollary doesn't hold true. Most evolution believers are not atheists.

[smjjames]

Now that I get it for sure, I see theistic evolution as accepting the science and stuff, just believing that God's hand is behind the moulding. Not too different from the "Blind Watchmaker/Clockmaker" concept.

[Lord Shonus]

Theistic evolution is a superset of beliefs. It can refer to "Fishbowl God", "God scheduled everything to change according to His plan", and "God keeps poking at creatures to change them". In the first of the three, the distinction between Theistic and Atheistic evolution is effictively nil, as both sets believe that random chance was the cause of the changes. In the latter two, there is little practical disagreement between Theistic and Atheistic evolution because Theistic evolutionists simply believe that scientists have attributed to random chance the changes that God made, but agree that it doesn't matter much from a scientific point of view.


There's also Old Earth Creationism (lumped into "creationists" in the statistics above), which rejects evolution without disagreeing on the age of the Earth. As with Theistic Evolutionists, OECs generally believe scientists to be honestly mistaken about what they are finding, rather than being deceptive or agenda-driven.


In essence, the "science vs. religion" argument in this field is "Young Earth Creationists vs. Everybody Else", and YEC is not only an extremely small minority, but is considered heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.

[smjjames]

Or you could say that God wants us to learn how things are done, the knowledge is there for us to find.

Back to politics related stuff....

[Reelya]

Notably it schisms on a party basis, the self-avowed Creationists are far more common on the Republican side. e.g. 68% of Republicans don't believe in Evolution vs 40% of Democrats.

Going back to the Gallup data, note that out of college graduates, 45% are Theistic Evolutionists ("Humans evolved, God guided process" so the Gallup survey would seem to rule out purely observer Gods) with the other two groups in the 20-30% range. So in other words, this worldview represents the ruling class in the USA.

[Dunamisdeos]

It's a frustrating tendency I see to lump various non-Christian/secular groups in with each other for, as you aptly put it, soap-box purposes.

As you can see with theistic evolution, understanding is increasing (hooray)! We Christians tend to be..... slow, shall we say, in accepting new ideas even if they have nothing to do with the faith.

Ok anyway, any news on Trump in regards to the hurricane? I've had trouble finding any real response from him, though the state governors seem pleased with his involvement so far.

[smjjames]

Trump has probably done all he can do that he can do directly. He did say that he would get Congress to do 'awesome funding' for Texas, but Congress isn't back yet.

[Reelya]

More newsworthy, Trump reportedly has called up the senator who's investigating Donald Trump Jr, and offered him a sweetener in the form of government money for his pet projects. Which basically means throwing money at his campaign donors, probably. Effectively it's a backhanded bribe / corrupt deal to get him to lay off Trump's son.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/30/trump-tower-russia-meeting-chuck-grassley

[martinuzz]

Meanwhile, legalisation is really starting to affect marijuana prices in the US. Where in september 2015 growers would still get 4740 dollars on average per kilo of weed, last july prices had dropped to 3587 dollars.

The total value of legally sold weed in the US has reached 6 billion this year.

[smjjames]

Meanwhile, legalisation is really starting to affect marijuana prices in the US. Where in september 2015 growers would still get 4740 dollars on average per kilo of weed, last july prices had dropped to 3587 dollars.

The total value of legally sold weed in the US has reached 6 billion this year.

I wonder how much that has affected prices of illegal drugs in the areas where weed is legal?