Player1x3 said:
EdHieron said:
Player1x3 said:
EdHieron said:
Player1x3 said:
EdHieron said:
Player1x3 said:
EdHieron said:
Jumpin said:
Actually, I think mostly all Christians in the western world do accept evolution. The Catholic Church also officially accepts evolution.
The Christians who do not accept evolution, don't accept it for the same reason that any non-Christian who don't believe evolution wouldn't accept it - it is a matter of not being educated about evolution. I would say that nearly 100% of (if not all) liberal Christians accept evolution - I also think that the majority of Christians in the western world are liberal Christians.
I also feel that the atheist perception that all Christians don't accept evolution is a product of neo-atheist prejudice/ignorance.
|
It seems as if that you've not spent much time in the United States (especially the Southern Parts) where 70% of the Christians believe in the Literal Truth of The Bible and reject the notion of Evolution being taught in schools.
|
it seems southeast america = world
|
If you live there it is. But one also has to take into account that the US is the most powerful nation on earth and its policies are shaped to a large extent by the 70% of Fundamantalists that live there. For example, if Obamaisn't re-elected in November, then he's probably going to be replaced by a wannabe Theocrat with a heavy interest in supporting wars in the Middle East stemming from his religion.
|
American involvement in middle east doesn't have the first thing to do with religion at all whatsoever. Especially not in Iraq
|
America's involvement in the Middle East has a tremendous amount to do with religion. Why do you think that America donates so much money to Israel for weapons instead of working to help them compromise with the Palestinians? It's because there is a huge lobby in this country ( the US ) that believes the story in Revelations is a historical event that is going to occur in the immenent future.
|
You are very ignorant on the subject. If America was intersted in Israel only because of religion, they would just annex the land and make Israel a christian controlled country, like crusaders did,instead of just aiding the jews. Also Israel and US showed that they want compromise more than palestinian side
|
Well the current US policy towards Israel grows out of the Jewish Zionist and American based Protestant Christian Dispensationalist views ( look thrm up if you've never heard of them) of the 19th Century rather than out of the Roman Catholic Church's desire from the Middle Ages and have the Pope / Emperor be head of all. If the US simply annexed Israel that would very much be a violation of The Biblical based prophecies concerning Israel.
If you don't believe Religion has anything to do with the US's policies in the Middle East then why do you think masses of followers in the US donate millions of dollars to Zionist Christian religious leaders in the US like Jack Haggee, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck (as he's gone in that direction recently) and almost any ministry that preaches a Zionist flavored Christian end times religious message? Note the followers of these highly popular religious leaders are also to a large extent the 70% of American Christians that voted to elect Zionist leaning Right Wing Senators in the 2010 elections.
Israel has shown no more interest in reaching a real compromise than the Palestinians.
|
So your argument that middle east involvement is because religion is...because americans donate money to christian politicians? You are a dangerously irrational person, you think every christian person has some sort of religious conspiracy agenda that tries to inforce on entire population. That's no different than the ''gay agenda'' religious fundamentalists speak about. The reasons US involved in Middle east is (what they say are the reasons anyway):
War on Terror
Defeating taliban / al-qaida/ see above
securing the existence of a jewish state as a result of 2000 years of their persecution
I never heard any US official saying they sent their troops there to kill infidels or regain holy land. EVER
|
I would say that when 70% of the portion of the electorate votes for people that have a particular agenda, then they are supporting that agenda. 70% of Christian voters that accounted for the largest demographic of voters in the 2010 elections voted for politicians that support Right Wing Christian principles ( http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1791/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-religion-vote ) .
The war against the Taliban has a very strong foundation in religion:
"Jewish, Muslim and Christian groups invoke religious arguments for their uncompromising positions.[3] Contemporary history of the Arab–Israeli conflict is very much affected by Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious beliefs and their interpretations of the idea of the chosen people in their policies with regard to the "Promised Land" and the "Chosen City" of Jerusalem" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict )
Also your post seems to indicate that you think think Israel should simply have the right to conquer someone else's country because they underwent a lengthy period of persecution as they were allowed to conquer the Palestinian's land in 1948. Are you in favor of the American Indians being allowed to do the same thing at some point in time to the ancestors of the white colonists in America?
Just because people don't state all of their motivations for doing things doesn't mean that they don't have unstated motivations for doing them. Neither of the Bushes ever said that going to war with Iraq was because they wanted to increase the amount of money they got from their oil holdings however one of their principle motivations for going to war with Iraq was to increase their oil holdings. It certainly wasn't for the stated reasons of fighting Al Qaeda or stopping Iraq from having weapons of mass destruction as no Al Qaeda operatives or WMDs were ever found in Iraq.
