tolerance

[Colin]

<br>"Someone who firmly believes that God created man in the image of Himself can't possibly accept that chimpanzees and humans once interbred"<br><br>Mabye God didn't just create men in the image of himself directly. Mabye we're still heading towards godliness though evolution? Mabye God wanted to get us here through evolution. Mabye he just started it.<br><br>it's not impossible to accept this and still firmly believe in God. <br><br><br>"and someone who believes that unaided evolution is the only source of life in the universe can't possibly accept"<br><br>Again, mabye God started it. Perhaps we evolved from some primordial molecules that formed protiens and such... mabye God started this process. <br><br><br>You can believe in God, you can be of most faiths and still accept evolution.<br><br>Do we have to take the Bible word-for-word to be considered faithful? It's not as if God actually WROTE the Bible. Is it not at all possible that some of it may involve metaphors and a bit of human error as a result of being written by humans, revise and passed down for hundreds of years?<br><br><br>Sure, if you're going to be closed minded, then no... there's no room for compromise. But if you look through humanity, we've made the most progress through tolerance and open-mindedness. It's made us more peaceful.... is that not what God wants?<br><br><br>It's possible to follow a religion but still miss the point. It should be religion + human reason... not JUST what other people tell you. In my opinion, at least.<br><br><br>

[Steven Rai]

Replying to Colin:<br><br>That's an interesting analysis. Maybe my writing was not clear. Of course you're right in saying it's possible to believe in both evolution and God--obviously you and many other people hold this view. But I was talking about the people who CAN'T reconcile God and evolution, the people who have strong convictions of either "unaided" evolution (by that I meant without God altogether--sorry if it was unclear) or man created in God's image (by that I meant directly created by God at some exact moment, already in His exact image--again, sorry if it was unclear). These may seem like two needlessly extreme positions to you. But many people believe in them as firmly as you believe in your position, with justifications that appear completely sound to them. The extremity of a position does not automatically make it false. Extremists are not necessarily closed-minded. Many have considered things carefully and determined that literal scripture or scientific naturalism is the proper bedrock for belief, while you instead build your beliefs on religion plus human reason (so long as one doesn't contradict the other).<br><br>If there are young-earth creationists and scientific naturalists who've reached their beliefs through careful consideration of what they feel they can trust (and that's how you reached your beliefs), they're bound to have some very different opinions about important practical issues that confront their beliefs (abortion, religion in schools, growing atheism, sex on television, terrorism, and women's rights, for example). Isn't it arrogant to suggest that the solution to their deep disagreements and serious problems lies in simply accepting that God and evolution are in it together? Why not teach true tolerance, which just dictates that people with opposing viewpoints try to non-violently coexist?

[Steven Rai]

"Anonymous" here has asked for tolerance between creationists and evolutionists.<br><br>I think Anonymous's treatment of people's beliefs, though perhaps kind, is unfortunately naive. There isn't really room for all of us if what s/he means is we should accept that God and evolution are in this universe together. Many people, including many scientists, undoubtedly hold this view, but "Simon james" can't accept the compromise any better than "Jennifer" can. And they shouldn't, because too many crucial aspects of life are based on it. Is there a God who looks on abortion as murder? Do husbands have the divine right to lead their households? Should we elect a president who doesn't believe in God? These things are too important for Jennifer and Simon james to compromise. Someone who firmly believes that God created man in the image of Himself can't possibly accept that chimpanzees and humans once interbred, and someone who believes that unaided evolution is the only source of life in the universe can't possibly accept that any particular religious values are inherently "good" or mandatory.<br><br>By the way, I find it funny that Jennifer railed at Jesus-fish creationists even though Simon james never said he was a Christian, and then tolerant Anonymous railed at scientists even though Jennifer never even hinted she was a scientist. Why the crappy polemics?<br><br>And P.S.: Sadly, it does look like Simon james quoted out of context.