Evolution, creation and other silly topics

Dear Americans,

Election time!

This is probably the 20th thread on the elections, but I'm not really interested in who is going to win, I'm interested in why people care about certain views candidates have that do not affect them in anyway.

Like evolution vs creation. Does it make any difference that the President believes one over the other, I'm not American, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't US supposed to be secular anyway? So how does the question of how the world started affect the economy, war, crime, etc?

Some say it's a form of litmus test. Well, shouldn't the candidates history prove his or her political stance?

I'm not taking shots at the country or your democratic system, I really want to know this answer, because I tried understanding it myself, but have so far failed miserably.

- Confused neighbour from the True North, Strong and Free (that's Canada eh)

It's a question of intelligence and education. Understanding and accepting the theory of evolution, or rather, Modern Synthesis, as it is called today is a pretty basic scientific fact. If we've somehow made it through school but still have failed to grasp this pretty fundamental tool in understanding modern science, and in extension our world, then maybe we're just not cut out to axle the roll of running a country, let alone the richest country on earth.

To put it a little bit more succinctly. Being Creationist today, is however incredible a pretty strong evidence that the candidates elevator doesn't go to the top floor, or that he or she doesn't have all the necessary Indians in the canoe for the mission at hand.

Sure, candidates will pick any religion they think will get them the more votes. But if a candidates goes for Creationism. I'd feel insulted that they'd think that that could buy them votes in 2008. And if they can, we're in a really sad situation.

Actually, if they aren't Christian (thereby believing in creationism) its a problem for the candidate. Can they also believe in evolution, sure, but they must be a Christian. As that is what the majority of the country believes in, and will vote for.

There are several hoax emails going around about Obama and how he is actually a Muslim. Personally I wouldn't care if he was, there are plenty of sensible qualified Muslims. I also wouldn't care if they were agnostic or any other belief. However, how I feel about it isn't what gets a person elected.

Why is it such a big deal in the election. Well depending on how strict their belief is can affect many other issues at hand. Right to Choose (Roe v. Wade), funding for scientific agencies, funding for educational programs that teach evolution. Many of these programs have been cut or reduced during the Bush anomaly (stem cell research). It also affects who gets appointed to the supreme court, and that will affect the end decision of major cases that are heard before it.

I know that politicians say they believe in God, but so, I guess, does Satan. I do not think that what politicians do is founded upon any deep religious belief (unless you count wealth and power as a religion) so what does it matter which Church they go to?

I remember watching one of the debates...for the life of me I can't remember which one. But the question regarding evolution came up, and it seemed that a lot of the presidential candidates supported the idea of creation.

The issue of abortion and stem cell research is still there, and from what I've seen on CNN and Fox, there are a huge number of Americans that still debate both topics, and they should, the issues are a slippery slope, and this debate helps them in their position in the whole thing.

Now, I believe in both. My religion states that study and education are important. Scientists have overwhelming evidence to prove evolution, but I do think that somehow, either in reality, or in some sort of way, creation did actually occur. I know that some here will think that I'm silly for believing in both, but if God truely exists, then there is a way that everything ties in together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

There are several hoax emails going around about Obama and how he is actually a Muslim. Personally I wouldn't care if he was, there are plenty of sensible qualified Muslims. I also wouldn't care if they were agnostic or any other belief. However, how I feel about it isn't what gets a person elected.

---

Another issue that I'm quite surprised is even an issue. Now, I can understand why some people are completely against Obama if he were Muslim, but there was a report on Fox once stating that Obama went into a school thought to be a Muslim based school when he was 6 or 7 years old. This piece of info portrayed Obama to somehow still have some Taliban elements in him, that have been hiding for all these years, just willing to spring out when he gets elected. Are people really that stupid for actually reporting this crap? Are people that stupid to pay attention to this, it seems so, otherwise Fox would never have aired it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

Actually, if they aren't Christian (thereby believing in creationism) its a problem for the candidate. Can they also believe in evolution, sure, but they must be a Christian. As that is what the majority of the country believes in, and will vote for.

There are several hoax emails going around about Obama and how he is actually a Muslim. Personally I wouldn't care if he was, there are plenty of sensible qualified Muslims. I also wouldn't care if they were agnostic or any other belief. However, how I feel about it isn't what gets a person elected.

Why is it such a big deal in the election. Well depending on how strict their belief is can affect many other issues at hand. Right to Choose (Roe v. Wade), funding for scientific agencies, funding for educational programs that teach evolution. Many of these programs have been cut or reduced during the Bush anomaly (stem cell research). It also affects who gets appointed to the supreme court, and that will affect the end decision of major cases that are heard before it.

---

There's a huge difference between being Christian and believing in Creationism. Christianity spans from virtual atheism, (Deism) to Pagan mysticism, (Tawahedo) to pure philosphy, (Gnosticism). I think it's pretty safe to call oneself Christian no matter ones actual faith. Just saying that a person is Christian is worthless information. It requires quite an in depth interview. But they'll never give that. Both Obama and Hillary are too smart for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

Another issue that I'm quite surprised is even an issue. Now, I can understand why some people are completely against Obama if he were Muslim, but there was a report on Fox once stating that Obama went into a school thought to be a Muslim based school when he was 6 or 7 years old. This piece of info portrayed Obama to somehow still have some Taliban elements in him, that have been hiding for all these years, just willing to spring out when he gets elected. Are people really that stupid for actually reporting this crap? Are people that stupid to pay attention to this, it seems so, otherwise Fox would never have aired it.

---

Stupid for reporting it? Absolutely not! That's what creates controversy, and controversy sells papers, or commercials.
Stupid to pay attention to it? In most cases I would say yes. It's quite possible that someone MIGHT be associated with the radical Muslims, but I don't see how that person could have gotten this far in politics if he were. But remember, many of those voters seem to think that it's important to know which Hollywood stars might be supporting which candidates, as if that has any bearing on anything real.
I think the state of politics in this country has really gotten out of hand. Rather than study the issues and determine which candidate is most in line with their own beliefs, far too many people will look to celebrities, saying, "So-and-so really likes candidate X, and he was so good in that last movie he made, so he must know what he's talking about, so I'll just vote for X." It's certainly easier than actually making an intelligent decision, but will it insure we are going to get the best President?
Would YOU vote for someone just because they were endorsed by Britney "Train Wreck" Spears?

I think that the big picture, in most elections, is missed by the majority of the populace.

Whether someone is Christian, Jewish or Muslim should not be the main concern. What should be the main concern are their character and their plans for improving the country.

Their plans for improving the country should be sound. That is to say that they should not rely on tax increases or tax cuts to improve things. Instead, they should rely on sound policies that spend our tax dollars responsibly. Unfortunately, so many politicians tell us how they are going to throw money at a problem. They speak of universal health care and the people's rights to it, disregarding the fact that no one has the "right" to health care. They assign "rights" and ignore the US Constitution. Anyone who does that is pandering and has no business in office.

As for character: Character is more important than the claimed policies of any politician. One who has no character will say what it takes to get into office and then do what he has to to maintain that office. I would much rather have someone I knew would follow what they say than one who would say what it took to get in and then do whatever breeze said was popular.

Tom, thanks for the enlightenment. I always thought being Christian meant you had to believe that Jesus Christ (ergo the term Christianity) was your everlasting savior/redeemer/god... something along those lines. I've never claimed to be a theologian, so I can very well be off, and appreciate the lesson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

Tom, thanks for the enlightenment. I always thought being Christian meant you had to believe that Jesus Christ (ergo the term Christianity) was your everlasting savior/redeemer/god... something along those lines. I've never claimed to be a theologian, so I can very well be off, and appreciate the lesson.

---

That's true and Tom wasn't denying that... he was (and I am) refuting the correlation you made between Christianity and Creationism.

Creationism is not a tenet of Christianity per se and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ per se. It's a (relatively) modern invention of "scholars" who think the bible is literal in it's descriptions of how God made heaven and earth... It's the seven days issue. I would venture that most christians are not creationists.

----------------------------------

To put an answer to Lion's question, such things are important if you believe that the person being elected is going to base other decisions and propose legislation based on his beliefs, rather than knowledge.

It's the basic problem that I see with Bush. He acts on what he believes to be true regardless of evidence. So if something isn't a proven given, he seems more than willing to ignore the "preponderance" of evidence and will go with his ill-informed gut.

We end up not supporting the Kyoto accords.
Limited stem cell research.
An ill-advised war.
An ongoing attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade with regard to abortion rights.

Those who espouse to be on the far left or the far right rarely have a lot of compromise in them, in my opinion. And as Tom points out, if the candidate is more willing to be guided by belief than information, that's what we end up with. Right now we're suffering with the conservative side of that. I'd be no happier with the liberal equivalent.

Warning: This is my opinion only. Unsupported by facts.

Most people in this country are irrational and not nearly as intelligent as they think they are (myself included). Rather than think it through, they make big decisions about candidates based on party affiliation or a single issue, such as those stated above. It's simply easier...and then they can go about the far more important business of deciding who should win "American Idol". Yes, that was sarcasm.

I do the same to a certain degree. I will never vote for a candidate who publicly proclaims their intention to overturn Roe v. Wade. I simply can't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

Tom, thanks for the enlightenment. I always thought being Christian meant you had to believe that Jesus Christ (ergo the term Christianity) was your everlasting savior/redeemer/god... something along those lines. I've never claimed to be a theologian, so I can very well be off, and appreciate the lesson.

---

I understand where you're comming from. A year ago I'd be as surprised as you. My discussions with Rhabbi and Cariad made me realise I had more to learn. Christianity is a vast subject on many levels. And since this is such a major part of our western cultural tradition, I thought it was important to study it. The "History of God" by Karen Armstrong I've mentioned before here. It's a truly great book. It's won a massive pile of awards from various religious communities for a reason. She steers clear of myth and makes scientifically supported theories on the origins of the various beliefs that stem from the Jewish/Bablonian tradition. This book cleared a lot of it up for me and is a great way to get a brief crash course into this truly monumental subject.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-God-...4703916&sr=8-1

After this I went back and did some more studying on the origins or Christianity. I even re-read the Bible. But now with my new eyes, I could actually see and understand what was written. Without correct historical context, the two Bibles make very little sense. This was quite an eye opener for me.

There's some great Gnostic quotes rediscovered in the Nag Hammadi library which date back to 2nd century AD. I'll try not to turn this into another religious discussion but they where an early major sect of Christianity, and quite possibly the original source of Christianity. Anyhoo, Gnostics are very candid about Jesus not being real and only being a philosophical invention. They restate it many times. They still think we should follow the example of Jesus, which is the whole point of having Jesus in the Bible at all. For them the Bible is a manual for how to live, and not a historical document. And they very much believe in God.

Anyway. My point isn't to argue for a Gnostic interpretation of the Bible but to exemplify how extremely wide the basic philosophical ideas of the Christian faith are. This I think is Christianities most positive feature. It is a very open religion to interpretation. One cannot simply be Christian and a mindless drone... well actually one can... but that isn't the fault of Christianity.

I personally choose to see modern philosophy and science as a natural continuation of the Christian tradition and teachings. Christianity is probably the first religion where spiritual matters is a personal matter, (ie the holy ghost). Sure, in Paganism one could switch gods depending on needs, but the followers were always dependent on the interpretations of priests and the words of the priests were not to be questioned. Christianity quickly slipped into this Pagan tradition, ie the Pope, (which is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible). So it's not surprising the Gnostics where labelled heretics.

That last bit is purely my own interpretation of my studies of Christianity. I used to be on the Dawkins bandwagon of equating religion with evil. Not any more. I think my eyes have been opened a bit. I'm still very much atheist, but I've stopped looking for a Devil to blame the faults of humanity on.

Sorry about the possible thread derail.

edit: to reconnect somewhat. The only thing we can say of candidates claiming to be Christian, (and Christians in general) have in common is their beliefs in moral absolutes. The idea that finding out which morals to be guided by isn't so much a question of debate as it is of research. The idea that once you find the source it will all be obvious.

This is Plato. He was the one who first came up with this idea. Modern genetics are proving him right. There really does seem to be basic human rights we're all compelled to follow. Instincts is another word.

Christians don't really have to believe in the omnipotent God either. Christianities foundation is Aristotle's' solution to Plato's problem. He imagined the "unmoved mover". But Aristotle's God, doesn't do anything but simply move. And this God only need to do it once. Aristotle didn't believe God had feelings or opinions. All it did was to start it all. Be the originator of everything. Sound familiar? Big Bang, perhaps?

It's quite possible to be Christian and adhere to all the most modern and cutting edge scientific theories. The core of Christianity is this open. I sincerely doubt that any Christian today makes my radical interpretation. I mean, why bother calling oneself Christian? What western atheist today doesn't celebrate Christmas? Stephen Weinberg has a great quote which goes something like this, "if you only choose to follow the selected passages from the Bible, that correspond to your moral values, and of course interpreted to match, then what do you need the Bible for?" I think this is Constantin's major critique against the Gnostics and why he branded them heretics. Gnostic Christianity is free from connotations. The label is empty. There is no box that fits a Gnostic. They are free to think and feel what God is to them, and formulate their faith to fit them, rather than the other way around. Who could possibly not like that?

I'm probably the only person reading this thread, but in case there's somebody out there who does read it, and who doesn't believe me on Christianity, there is one quite critical nugget of information on the Bible. One of Christianities most important saints is S:t Augustine and he held the most important Christian scholarly position in the time when the Christian big wigs where deciding which Biblical books would make it into the final edit of the Versio Vulgata, (the modern Bible) and who undoubtedly had a very large say in it's editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

It gets interesting when we read about his life. According to the legend he converted to Christianity after hearing the voice of God, (in the voice of a young child) saying "Tolle Lege", (take up and read) and he interpreted it as the Bible and found "the truth". Remember that this was in a time when the Bible was just a bunch of lose articles. Nothing of what we would refer to as a book.

The point with the compilation of the New Testament by Jerome, was, (beside Roman political unity) was as far as S:t Augustine was concerned to make it easier to get into it for a Christian. So they didn't have to wade through so much irrelevant texts to find the good stuff.

Now this is where it gets interesting. S:t Augustine is quoted with saying, (this is from memory) "a finite collection of marks and symbols, (ie the letters in the Bible) cannot capture the infinite nature of God". What he means is that the Bible is just the key to Christianity. It's purpose is to help people find God. Once they've found God they don't need the Bible any more. If they keep clinging to it once they've found God, it will only hold them back, because it will obfuscate them from finding the real truth of God which can only be found beyond the Bible.

It's pretty deep stuff. I'd compare it to the enlightenment for Buddhism. Where the Bible is like one of the 8 paths to enlightenment. Once you've reached enlightenment, you don't need the Bible any more. Then you can speak to God directly.

With this interpretation, early Christianity and the early Christian church makes so much more sense. With this interpretation the Christian message is "Think for yourself!" and "Follow your own heart".

It does put a boot in it as far as fundamentalists are concerned, but S:t Augustine should know. He is after all partly responsible for the Bibles modern compilation.

I'm not saying Obama and Clinton are this well read in Biblical studies, (probably not) but Christianity has a very fascinating philosophical background making it hard to count as a brainwashing sect.