On May 25, 2007, NotAroundMYchildren wrote:

Evolution is a form of pantheism, which believes the world's creatures
are under nature as their own god, without a higher power above them
(nature is the higher power).

However, if ALL of the world is God, Christians believers are part of
that nature.

You don't really believe that ANYONE who, regularly, reads your crap
thinks that you are a Christian, do you?

How about, say 15, examples of your Christ-like writings/behavior in
the past year.

Or - if not - that you will be reminded every couple of days - for
the next few years - that you are a liar, a desecrator of Christ and
a proponent of Satan?

From what I can see, you're not THE anti-Christ, just AN anti-Christ.

In years of reading your illiterate babble, I've never read one
Christian word.

Are you one of those Falwell/Bush/Robertson "religionists"?

There ain't no air conditioning down there, boy.

"Eternity" is more than $4.00 a gallon, pudgy-poo.

Get right with God or continue sucking Bush.

Your choice, *****.

Gray Shockley

Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote :

Evolution is a form of pantheism, which believes the world's creatures
are under nature as their own god, without a higher power above them
(nature is the higher power).

I had to take you back out of the killfile, Ken, because I saw this
rubbish quoted and I had to join the chorus.

Evolution is NOT a form of pantheism, because despite the whinging of the
Creationists desperate to throw criticism made of them back at those who
make it, evolution is not, has never been, and will never be, a religion.
Evolution is not a god. The evolutionary process does not depend on the
conscious will of any entity, and those subject to evolution are not made
gods because (from an atheistic point of view, which is quite aside from
whether one acknowledges the fact of evolution) there is no higher power
over them. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

Evolution does not CONFLICT with pantheism - I can assure you of that
because I am a pantheist of sorts myself - but then, sensible Christians
know that it doesn't conflict with Christianity, either. It's only in
the minds of blinkered zealots that God is bound within the covers of an
ancient book; and these people face a constant, daily struggle to explain
away all the wonders of God's universe while they preach as truth stories
that were conceived and written as myth by people who didn't yet have the
means to look and see what God has really done.

However, if ALL of the world is God, Christians believers are part of
that nature. Therefore, pantheism (the world) reveals the sufferings
that result from sin (conviction) and nature provided a means of
redemption in the human (creature) body of Jesus.

You're actually not that far off beam - right up to the point where you
bring Jesus into it. Which - unfortunately - is the very point of your
post. But Jesus promises to save only one group of people: those who
believe that Jesus offers salvation (I can't in good conscience say he
actually saves them, because if I believed THAT, I'd be Christian). It's
also true to say that only those who believe in the need for salvation
need salvation.

There might well be pantheists who believe in Christ - but the one
certainly doesn't lead to the other.

nature confirms both the penalty of continued sin (disease, jail, etc),

Firstly, disease isn't any natural judgement of 'sin', because 'sin' is a
human religious concept. Disease would occur whether we believed in sin
or not - as indeed it occurs for those who do and those who do not. When
nature inflicts a disease on someone, it doesn't do it in judgement. You
mistake the threats of your God to judge us in the afterlife for the
tenets of religions such as Wicca which has a natural justice repay our
deeds - good or bad - in this life. Even then, disease doesn't represent
such repayment, which is a spiritual, not a physical, thing.

As for jail, it's difficult to see how you can present that in the same
breath as a 'natural' penalty akin to disease.

showing the reward of Christianity (more children, none aborted and no
homosexuality to get in the way; less stress by way of forgiveness;

Pfft. Fatuous and bigoted as always, you 'superhero', you. A Christian
without children is still Christian, and still a worthy person despite
your ignorance.

A Christian might well disagree with your stance on abortion: and it's
still not your place to pontificate about it because it's their business,
and that of their God.

There are homosexual Christians who believe that God loves them - and
they're no less entitled to believe that than you're entitled to imagine
He loves you. Homosexuality might be subject of vigorous debate amongst
those studying scripture - but scripture is absolutely clear on the
sinfulness of pride, arrogance, conceit and contempt.

Finally, there are Christians who wouldn't know how to forgive if they
had a step-by-step illustrated manual. There's more to it than nursing a
grudge silently, Ken.

So, the ultimate conclusion for Pantheism is that nature is
telling us the same thing Christianity does, accept forgiveness of
sins in Christ and live righteous for a more successful life.

The ultimate conclusion for Pantheism is that it doesn't render evolution
a god, but a single internal process of the overall divinity; that it
doesn't have concepts of sin or salvation; that it therefore doesn't need
a 'saviour'; and, finally and most importantly, that you obviously know
absolutely nothing about it.