Do christians get offended by the "darwin/evolution" fish-shaped car stickers?

[allgonebellyup]

Hope not, my sis got me one thats now stuck to my car! (i am always going on about how i dont believe god or anyone made the world, it has been scientifically proven that the evolution theory is the one that holds the most weight)

echo that from weegiemum

I'm a Christian and believe in evolution - I would be a bit of a twonk if I didn't

Perfectly possible to believe in both

that's the point WeegieMum - evolution and christianity are totally compatible. Whoever invented the stickers assumes they are not. Which belies rather a lot of ignorance about Christianity [i'm a wavering agnostic anyway!]

It's creationism and evolution which are mutually incompatible, isn't it? Not all Christians are creationists.

I thought of getting one to let people know I'm a Christian who is not a Creationist (I'm not entirely sure Evolution is the entire answer, paradigm shifts for instance...)

Perhaps I'd better not in case people think I'm an atheist

I think they're more relevant in the US where far more of (at least the vocal) Christian population ARE anti-evolution. Bear in mind that link is to an american site

For some reason the creation/darwinism is MUCH more of a hot topic in the US... hasn't really hit us here which is why us brits end up feeling a bit bemused by the furore.

Yes UD but the ICHTHUS symbol is an ancient Christian symbol - it doesn't represent Creationism in the slightest.

I've seen a fish logo which had the words HOMO inside

made me laugh

ruty - I know, that's why I agree the Darwin fish isn't the opposite of the Christian fish.

I don't understand the HOMO one. Am I just being thick . Is it for homosexual or homophobic or neither. Does it mean homo (man) or homos (same) or am I way off. You can get them with pride colours inside.

Even back in the seventies I was NEVER taught Creationism in my RC convent.

Same here Bridie3.
Those stickers are not offensive to most religious people because they CANNOT be!
It's like having a sticker expressing your joy at the velocity-addition formula, or showing a snippet of Java code or one that says "I am proud that PI=3.1416". Great, glad you feel that way and feel the need to tell the world, but that is nothing to do with religion.
It's good to see that most people in the thread KNOW that religion is not incompatible with science. I was beginning to worry.

its completely talking the piss out of a long establised christian symbol as cake said.

but more disturbing it mkes people thnk as in this thread - thatif you are a christian then you think evolution is crap.

surely thats just thick american christians?

I like the 'No God' sticker in the link. I should get one and stick it on the front door. JW's might leave us alone then.

I'd like one saying "GODLESS". I want to reclaim the word from Ann [spit] Coulter.

I got rid of some persistent JW visitors by telling them I belonged to Opus Dei (untrue) and inviting them in to discuss the fascinating mystery of the Trinity of God. I was studing Theology (a compulsory subject at my college) at the moment, so the matter was fresh in my mind, and I was ready for an argument of jesuitic proportions. They never came back.

Ha, InLoveWith...!

They're probably still talking about you.

You can get these are lots of secular items at UK based site www.darwinUK.com

..makes people think as in this thread - that if you are a christian then you think evolution is crap.
surely thats just thick american christians?>>

Well.. no. The bible which christians claim is their proof of god's existence in the first place says that god created Adam from the dust of the earth. At one time denying the truth of the bible was an offence punishable by death.

Not to mention all the smugness that went with waving a book around and claiming it was god's word.

It's become fashionable lately to say "oh yes well that part is just metaphor, but that won't wash because you could just as easily say that the commandments were metaphor and so was heaven etc.

There is no evidence for god creating the earth but I'm afraid christanity is stuck with having said it was true for thousands of years. Trying to change it now just when science points out the holes in it just looks silly.

Greyriverside, if you actually do some research on the several flavours of Christianism, you will see that the Bible gets different interpretations and levels of "weight" so to speak.
For isntance, some christians accuse RC of emphasing Tradition over the sccriptures. For catholics, the interpretation of the bible is subject to the judgement of the Catholic Church (Tradition).
So, it is not a black and white issue. I recommend some basic research on the Bible and its place in each of the religion that take it as sacred book, since you are obviously interested in the topic.
You very obviously have not been educated in an RC school. But you must trust those who have when we say creationism is not what the church teaches. And this is perfectly compatible with acknowledging that the Bible is the "word of God", meaning that it was inspired by Him. I think what most religions mean with this is: "careful with interpreting it literally, because although it contains the revelation of God to men, it was also written by men, with their own flaws etc etc)"
The fact remains that christianism does not imply creationism for most christians (although I believe some flavours of it do interpret the scriptures literally)
So the sticker in question is ignorant of that fact, and hence, a bit silly.

Well the research I have done over the years has included reading all of the bible. Something that many christians feel isn't necessary (and you only have to read it to see why)

I am well aware that many religions do pick and choose what bits to believe. I just think that that removes any justification for believing any of it. If religion is just a social club with a committee that changes the rules that is fine by me, but let's call it that.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

So we can tick that one off as a lie then?

Then there's verse 11 which has been put forward as proof that evolution is wrong because clearly god said "yielding fruit after his kind" therefore ruling out change.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

What is the first book, page or verse in the bible that is considered to be actually true nowadays?

I think they key word here is "interpretation".

OK, can I point out that evolution is still just a theory? Can anyone remember the last time a new species evolved? How does the theory of evolution explain paradigm shifts? I'm not saying its not true, just that its very likely not the whole truth, and it IS still a theory NOT scientific fact!

You've being unreasonable, or provocative, or ... take your pick

What's wrong with believing that the Creation provides an explanation by a non-scientific society, who would not have the know-how to even comprehend something like evolution?

Why does it have to be "believe everything" or "believe nothing"? Do you apply that to every area of your life? Eg if your child lies to you once, do you never believe anything they say ever again?

This is just being silly...

The reading of the Bible will have different meanings to people depending on whether they are being taught to read it as a history book a scientific book etc.
The bible, always according to RC, which is the doctrine I know, should be read taking into consideration its literal sense and its spiritual sense.
But I think the "literal sense" of the Bible doesn't mean reading it literally.
I think it was St Tomás de Aquino who said that when the bible talks about the "hand of God" the literal sense would not be to think of God as having a hand with five fingers waving to us but thinkinf of what it is signified by it, ie its operating power. I think that literal meaning of a text, includes the metaphorical and the parabolical. We use it all the time, in the press, in informal and formal conversations, so why not the Bible?

MaryBS: you're using the word "theory" in the wrong way.

Yes, it's a theory - a well-established and well-substantiated explanation of the data. It has moved well beyond hypothesis (which is what you're trying to equate it to) and gone into the scientific definition of "theory" which is much stronger than you give credence to.

It is also classed as a "fact" in that the evidence that organisms have changed or evolved during the history of life on Earth.

In terms of a new species - well yes actually we can remember: lizards genetically evolved radically in just 37 years - last I heard, scientists were still trying to work out if it can be classed as a new species or not. That depends on whether the new lizards can breed with the original lizards - and that hasn't been tested yet. The amount of change in such a short period of time is quite remarkable though.