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)

Stephen Jay Gould's excellent essay on why Evolution is both fact and theory and why the word "just" is not required.

RD - I beg to differ, I am not using it incorrectly. Otherwise why would you say "Yes its a theory"

FWIW I was trying to make a point about how not everything in evolution is proven, I personally am NOT a Creationist, and I think evolution goes a long way to explaining the development of life on this planet.

I agree though its not JUST a theory

Just in case that wasn't clear

IN answer to the OP - no.

Assuming for the moment that god exists and has a plan and has set out a path that can lead to salvation for those who follow it.

If the bible points to the path but it's all metaphor that you interpret as you like then how can you know which path to follow?

If I believed in god, but sincerely and honestly interpreted the bible to mean that I should send deserving people on to heaven now (with a sharp knife) would that be acceptable to god and/or the church?

I'm sure you're going to say no it isn't, but that means that not all interpretations are equal. So everyone can interpret it how they like as long as it's the right way.

Who decides and on what basis?

And what is the difference between that and "The pea is under one of these three cups. Pick the right one to win the prize"

Sorry - what I mean by incorrectly is that by even using the word "just" it means you are using the vernacular definition not the scientific definition of the word theory The later link I posted explains it better than me.

The thing is, the message we get from the bible IS based on our interpretation, to a greater or lesser extent, whether we like it or not. Different people will place a different emphasis on what they read and how they use it to influence their life.

The message that is most important for me is love God and love my neighbour. Now I'm absolutely crap at it, but I'm doing my best when I can remember to do it. Actually no, it probably isn't my best, because otherwise I'd probably sell everything and go and do something like Mother Teresa. My family wouldn't be very pleased though!

Someone else would place emphasis on being baptised, and say that is the only way to salvation. I for one, despite what it says in the bible, would not like to make a judgement on someone being condemned for not being baptised. That judgement is for God to make.

The point I am trying to make is, and I'm agreeing with you on this, that none of us REALLY TRULY know anything for sure, except what our faith, our belief in God is telling us and also how we interpret, or have interpreted for us in some cases, what's in the bible.

You might consider that a very poor reason to be a Christian, but so many of us have felt our hearts touched by God, and the presence of God in our lives; it IS generally more of a heart decision rather than a head decision, although you'll probably find some Christians who'll disagree with me on that too!

So translated: use your critical thinking in all situations, except when it comes to religion - then just accept blindly?

I actually find that a very sad state of affairs

Not at all, you're misinterpreting me . Or maybe I'm crap at explaining myself too!

At no point have I said I accept things blindly. Although I was brought up in a faith, I returned to faith after much thought and prayer on the subject in adulthood.

Critical thinking is not incompatible with belief.
And blind acceptance is widely used in all aspects of life. I don't know about you, but not being an aeronautics expert nor remotely interested in it, I do apply blind faith everytime I use a plane to travel.

No, you don't use blind faith every time you use a plane to travel.

You may not know aeronautics, but you've seen evidence that they don't fall out of the sky (by seeing them in the sky).

You've also assessed evidence from hearing about accident reports, etc in the news and weighed up the risks.

You've probably had friends who have been away on trips before and told you about them (admittedly only anecdotal evidence and shouldn't be taken in isolation, but they match up with your other experiences).

Yes, but how do I know that a particular plane i am going to board is been built properly without having seen it myself or knowing what i have to look for to check it is properly built?. I TRUST that all planes are built the same, and that the day this one was built there weren't many hangovers in the factory, etc. So many things I haven't been able to check personally...

Critical thinking is an attribute of people. You find it in religious and non-religious people. Similarly, blind acceptance is also found in both groups.
All the main religions in the world are not monolithical. There are internal debates, they evolve, fringes and subgroups appear within them.

Ok so we can discount the bible for now. It's not relevant (at least to this) since it can say whatever the reader wants. So how does someone qualify for heaven?

There are either conditions or there are not. If there are no conditions then the worst axe murderer gets to go to heaven. If there are conditions then you have to know what they are beforehand.

'Faith' might give someone the motivation to do the right thing, but first they have to know what the right thing is. More to the point they have to know what god sees as the right thing since there is no reason to assume it's what we think is right.

Oh and I agree with rubberduck about faith. I don't apply faith to anything. I apply reason based on some knowledge, past experience and a rough statistical analysis (eg: most planes have not blown up in the past) and I have no faith that this one won't at all.

I think people sometimes forget that some of the foremost thinkers our culture has known were the early Church Fathers. If you read Augustine et al you may not agree with the conclusion of his reason but you won't be able to doubt that there is detailed, forensic reasoning at play.

My Catholic friends have included a philosophy fellow at London University; an English fellow at Oxford University; a City lawyer, a senior partner in a London accountancy firm, etc.

These aren't exactly 'blind faith' types.

So do most church going Christians now believe that God used evolution to create life?

What are your thoughts on the gospel of Luke which traces Jesus' genealogy back to Adam?

And also in Matthew 19:4 where Jesus spoke of the creator having made humans?

I can't speak for all Christians but I believe that God created the universe and created time and the laws of physics. I believe that God exists outside of time and space. I think that evolution creates new species and man and apes descend from the common ancestor etc. I believe that humans are created in Gods image because of their immortal soul, not their physical body. I believe that there was an Adam and Eve inasmuch as they were the first humans as God gave them a human soul but I don't necessairly think that the first humans were the bible Adam and Eve. I think that there may have been animals around for years who looked like humans but weren't, or the first humans may have been tree dwelling monkeys. There is so much that we don't know. I think that all scripture should be read within the context of the time it is written.

In answer to the op I don't find them offensive but I do think they are try to infer superiority. I don't really go in for car stickers. I'm not interested in which scientists people admire or who is a member of the national trust and i don't need to be told to slow down for horses and that a dog is for life.

Or that a baby is on board. My pet hate.

Wakeywoo, good question. I guess he was just having a joke with future readers.

Bridie3, if they have 'blind faith' than it follows that they are 'blind faith' types.

There is no way to arrive at faith in god through reasoning since faith means belief without reason. If it had reason it wouldn't be faith.

So Augustine was without reason? And Boethius? And Thomas Aquinas?

If they had faith than that was a conclusion arrived at without reasoning. That demonstrates that they were individuals capable of doing that.

I can't say that they couldn't turn their reasoning back on for some purposes since I have never understood how or why someone would turn it off in the first place.

greyriverside, st thomas aquinas set out to demonstrate god's existence in a rather famous (or so I thought) work were he talked about "five ways".
They have been debated, and objections have been raised, and objections to the objections, and so forth (it can get very very philosophical and metaphysical as you can imagine) but you have to acknowledge an attempt to "reason".
One of the most famous traits of catholicism is that it maintains that using reason only you can arrive to the conclusion that god exists.
Saying that reason=faithless no reason=religion is inaccuarate, to put it mildly.
I know theologians who have more brains (in use) than a few genetic experts (who may have a lot of scientific knowledge but no common sense at all).