Mmh, I'll point out that the Waco cult was davidian... A branch of christianity. KKK claims to be religious as well, though I have my doubts. Speaking of christianity as a whole, there are violent fundamentalists present. I must therefor conclude that the possibility exists within this form of religion.
Quite true. One could even argue that this liberalism itself is becoming a form of worship... As such no longer truly liberalism (which advocates personal freedom. The kind not gained at gunpoint).
Again, quite true. But religion makes this too easy, considering those leaders can proclaim "the words of god". Dumb mass won't question the dogma's out of fear of higher power's wrath. With concepts as liberalism it's not that easy. See how many people are questioning the way Bush is doing business in Iraq... 30% opposes them last I heared?
How many christians oppose the ban on euthanasia for instance? Or the abortion issue?

With political institutions you must account for the fact that "nothing is sacred" to them. With religious institutions one it tried to be taken away the ability to take that into account. (Small reference: Pedophilia priest cases and the way they were covered up. The way they are hushed to a silent death now...)
This kind of hypocracy... I detest the possibility of it's existance alone. But is exists...

Wether or not christianity by that definition is monotheistic I'm not really certain of, spawned a new thread to try and figure that out. Considering both God and Christ are raised to deity status...

Living like Christ... Mmh, interesting concept. Unfortunately, few of them do so. I agree that if one would live like the christ-character as depicted in the bible one would probably end up a pacifist aid worker of some kind... Noble by christian standards. Stupid by current-time morals and values however. But yes, one would have to keep an open mind to other ideals... Accept people for who and what they are. I find that often... lacking.
Only accepting. Those who reject the concept of one god do not fall under monotheism... Unless you follow the binary reasoning of "is person monotheistic: yes/no".
*Adds another truckload*

I have to disagree with that, as I said earlier, religion changes all the time according to the political tradition of the age. Although just not nessicarily for the better. It is the slowest to change of all 'organizations' ( if that is the correct term) but it will change. An example bieng the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) who excluded Blacks from thier priesthood until the late 70's after wich thier Prophet had 'a revelation' that they could then enter.

I think the most important thing is to seperate a 'church' and God, whatever it is thats out there probably has nothing to do with the institutions on Earth the idea of 'it'. Do not refuse to embrace the idea of god just because some religious 'doctrine' says that he created the Earth in seven days and you don't by that. Despite what the idea of Lutheranisim has become ( not that I'm endorseing Lutheranisim) was that Martin Luther naile those 99 thesis to the door of the church in a bold statement that we should all have a personal relationship with God and not have it interperted for us through any particularly.

god I love religious threads!-hee-hee, I made a funny

Just to clarify, yes, I was following the binary, monotheism is decided simply by the belief in one God and if you don't, you aren't.

That's it though, no excess statements, much like atheism is only the disbelief in any God, atheists can have blind faith in the exsistence of fairies and still be atheist. (Although it would be trite of me to not admit that almost all atheists I've met hold that they wouldn't even consider believing in something with no proof of anything like it).

I would just like to say that the belief in evolution and the Big Bang theory and other such "evils of science" does not necessarily mean that one can not believe in the Creation theory as well. I feel that if used correctly one can actually support the other.

Always have been. Kudos to Peter *tips her hat*

I agree. The only way that science and the Bible are completely incompatible is if a person takes the Bible as a literal interpretation.

But I do believe in a literal translation, but as I said earlier

Proves my point, that example of yours. The attitude towards racism made the blocking of negroids from priesthood unacceptable by society and put that particular spinoff in a bad daylight (associations with the KKK were probably easy to make). This forced the change, it was not made willingly. Would racism be still acceptable in the US they'd not have had their "revelation"...
I wholly agree with that. But that is general spirituality, not (christian) religion in particular.

Then you're earlier statement was false. It is not accepting or rejecting such a God, it is accepting or rejecting the concept. Believing or not believing. To reject something one must believe in it's existance. Which atheists do not.

And I would be one of those persons who needs proof.

Actually no you don't.

Macro-evolution is the theory, really. It says that different species evolved from one another.

Micro-evolution on the other hand is a proven fact. It has been recorded in labratories, not to mention that all it takes is an astute observer to note that it does indeed exist.

An example of micro-evolution is would be that in the past two hunred years along the average hight of caucasian men and women has become taller. Breeding programs used for pure blood animals, like cats, dogs, horses, or rats, is another example of micro-evolution. You can see the effects of this form of evolution within a few generations and it stands to reason that given more time even more drastic changes could occur among a species, does it not?

At this point if I put effort into it I could trace the diference between hot blood and warm blood horses and go back only a few hundred years in most cases to give you a detailed story on the emergence of most breeds and examples of the traits bred into and inhanced in them. And mypoint? The process used to bring these traits out is evolution in it's most basic sense.

A: Not everyone who does this is telling others what to think. I enjoy having to justify my own opinions for any reason. It makes my beliefs more valid to myself as I have to actually challenge what I am saying to make sure that it stands up against any arguement. I am constatly surprised when people don't get into discussions, heated or not, for the same reason.

B: Why are you bothering posting then? Are you really egotisitcal enough to believe that people are so worried about what you think that they're going to either stop making these threads if you stop posting or that people are going to honestly care that your opinion is no longer being voiced? I'm sorry if I seem rude about that, but seriously, don't keepsaying that you're not going to post.

I believed this once so I do not wish to single you out, but evolution and the Bible are completely incompatible. For one, the Bible says that birds were created on the 5th day of Creation while land animals and humans were created on the 6th. Acoording to evolution, birds were the last major group of animals to evolve. Also, before the days of creation are explained Moses gives us the definition of day and night in reference day's light and night's darkness. Jesus said while he was on Earth that all the Old Testament was 100% accurate. Because of the Dead Sea Scrolls we now that the Old Testament we have now is identical to the one Jesus had. So in conclusion, you can't be a Believer and a believer of evolution. They contradict each other.

You're right. Taking the Bible literally doesn't leave room for macro-evolution. (Evolution in some forms, as I have already said, is a proven fact)

However, I find it silly to believe that God could not have used some for of evolution to create the universe and feel that if He does exist he at least used what we call the Big Bang theory to do so if nothing else.

But as I know that in some ways even humans have evolved I feel it stands to reason that God (if he exists) used evolution to create this world. It fits with our our world and makes sense so logically he could have put it motion, almost like the breeder of pure-blood animals or something.

On top of that, I have heard from several sources that the literal translation of the creation story says that the universe took seven indefinite periods of time to create. The only reason I have not confirmed this is because I don't know ancient Hebrew.

You really need to make up your mind.

Either everything that is written in the Old Testament can be used as support for an argument or none of it. If you can disregard part of it, you can disregard another part.

Once again you suggest that just because you think it so it empirically is. There are physical laws inherent within reality. Though one can easily live under an illusion that one can fly when that one jumps from a ten story building the physical scientific fact "reality" of gravity will plummit them to thier doom. Even if in thier mind they are flying once they hit that pavement reality hits home.

Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact.

These things do not become myths at your pleasure nor do they suspend themselves at your whim and belief. You can beleive you are floating on a cloud all day long yet the simple fact will remain that you cannot do so becaue it goes against physical law.
You can argue that Amperes Law does not exist all you want and still the reality remains that the line integral of the magnetic flux around a closed curve is proportional to the algebraic sum of electric currents flowing through that closed curve.

What you propose is beauty criterion--- with the ideal of creation. Just because something is aesthetically pleasing to your faith does not make it so.

There are hundreds of Physical Laws which are inherent facts in science including Evolution. If you wish to thrash and deny Evolution you may as well begin disbelieving them as well.

The story of genesis is not even original. It is a hybridization(((IE Bastardization))) of the Enuma Elish--- the Babylonian Creation Mythos. It is well known that Abraham left Babylon with the heretofore unknown text he called Genesis. Abraham was a Babylonian "citizen" for many years before he led many Hebrews back to Israel. The Enuma Elish was a well known tale to the Babylonians and the texts hold a great deal of similarities.