@shedinator@xanga - "Once you go back to the beginning, Evolution takes equally as much faith as any form of Religion."
Nope.  Sorry.  Not only does evolution make much more sense than any kind of religion, but also, there are religions that claim absolutely unbelievable things.  Having one creator (God) isn't too outlandish, but saying that an invisible pink unicorn gathered his band of green Martians and created life?  Sorry, I can't follow.
And Paige has previously accused me of completely inventing things, completely ignoring logic, reason, and reality, and of outright lying [in case you haven't noticed, logic is the one thing I would never ignore - her accusations were completely unfounded].  She often resorts to personal attacks, and I wouldn't take anything she says seriously.  You can form your own opinions as you read her comments around xanga/revelife.  I just thought I'd give you fair warning.

@Issie - Take a course in evolutionary biology, then get back to me on the evolution-creation debate.  No offense, but you're ignorant on the field and how it has revolutionized all biologically-related scientific thought (and how it has been refined) since the days of Darwin.  You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think it means much until you become educated.  (Of course, this may not be a very important issue, in which case, I can understand your desire to do other things with your time.)

@la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga - I try not to formulate opinions about people- I don't like being surprised when they don't match up.  I'm not aware of Pink Unicornianism, but my point was the beginning is rather hazy.  I've had a chance to talk with some of the greater scientific minds- at least, a professor or two with a fancy pants degree in the field- a luxury I've had because I am not the abrasive shout the other side down type, and generally, their responses line up pretty well with one another.  It is fairly well agreed that 1) Our theories on the beginning of the universe/origin of life are indeed speculation. 2)Odds are the beginning of this universe was not the true beginning, and 3) it is not necessary to know of the true beginning.  In fact, the existence of a true beginning is not even necessary.

The origin of life via soup is predated by the big bang, which is predated by "something else"-I am not mocking, this is one topic that is highly up for debate right now.  The origin of life via Creation is predated by the Creator, who has no beginning or origin.  Both of these ideas require a belief in some force or process that is quite literally undiscernable.  It is very true that Christianity and Atheism/Evolution/Big Bang are on equal footing when it comes to "how it all began," and so long as that's the case, why not toss in a unicorn, a spaghetti monster, or whatever you want to.  To use an argument from one of the most recognized Evolutionists- Richard Dawkins- when it comes to figuring out how it all began, you can't know, so one belief is as valid as the next.

If we then take our separate beliefs and continue on to explain the entire world based on them, everything falls rather neatly in to place for all of us.  Honestly, I don't understand why Atheists try to sway Christians or any other religious individual.  If you're right, and all that we have after this is to go on the cosmic compost heap, then it really doesn't matter if I believe in a non-existent Supreme Being.  On the other hand, If I'm right, and after this is Heaven for me and Hell for you, you have everything to lose and I would be downright selfish if I didn't want to share that with you.

@shedinator@xanga - ok next time, for those who like to read into things, i will write a long list of those things not mentioned and not inferred in any way. Just in case someone's aunt Sally once said much more that I ever did.

Sorry about calling you a girl

my background leans towards contracts. A world were one does not infer into written words things that are not stated. I believe a Hermeneutics class would teach a similar way of interpreting the written world. But then I just did it by calling you a girl, when nowhere could I have been able to know that, by what you wrote.

@trunthepaige@xanga - Actually, a Hermeneutics class teaches you to try and discern what the original author meant, i.e. to draw conclusions based not only on the written text, but the situation it was written in, the culture of the time, etc.  A literalistic approach to reading- one in which every word is taken at face value- does not require a class.  And I think you're missing the fact that it's not just a random Aunt Sally.  Most Non-Christians who read that statement would take it exactly the same way Faerie did, and the simplest thing to do would have been to apologise for how she took it and explain what you meant- something you still have not done.  When the word "you" is placed in the text as it was in your post, it is generally considered to be directed either at a specific person, in which case I would have to wonder who because no previous poster had claimed the views you were discussing, or it is a generalized "you" implying anyone who falls in to the category that is being addressed which, in this case, was those who do not have Christian Standards.

@cpacaide@xanga - I can agree somewhat with that, but I think the main problem people have, or at least the main problem I have, is the manner in which it is presented, not in the content. 

@shedinator@xanga - "discern what the original author meant"

Yep I understand that very well, but you are having issue with it. What you never do is make up intent by what the author did not say, or infer. What you are doing with my words is called deconstructionism. You interpretation of scripture, I am sure leans towards the creative. If you do things in the same manner, as when you read my two clearly worded sentences.

Your pride and stubbornness are duly noted.

@Issie - I'm sorry I have apparently offended you.  You did yourself admit that you have no intimate knowledge of evolutionary theory, and I hope you'll excuse me if I believe that that's kind of a prerequisite to saying it's untrue.

@trunthepaige@xanga - You labeled them by using the word "you." 

there is a simple rewrite of this entire phrase:

"Yes Christians are called hypocrites because we have standards that we fail to meet. It is much easer not to have any standards at all.Or at least not to admit to having standards. People who don't admit their standards can not be called hypocrites."

If I've gathered correctly, that is the thought that you were trying to get across.  But in this case, no one is going to automatically associate the group of people with non-christians, because it is a self-enclosed sentence. 

I presented the initial statement, and my revised one to every active person on my buddy list and asked who the "You" in the first one referred to, and who the "People" in the second one were.

Across the board, they said the first one was non-christians, and the second was people who do not have standards.  @la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga - read the revised statement and tell me whether you still would have been offended.

Have you ever gotten into a debate about Christianity with an
atheist or an agnostic? Did you feel prepared to back your case or did
you think you needed to brush up on your knowledge?

I've gotten into arguments/discussions with atheists and agnostics many a time. One of the first things I learned was that being sure of something, and being able to articulate why I'm sure of it, are very different things.

@john@xanga - I REALLY like what you said here.

As a Christian I would agree with you.

While I actually like debate and find it a lot of fun for the most part, NO BODY can convince anybody of Jesus, it is a personal revelation.  People can be well educated in 'facts' but at the end of the day, there needs to be something happen on a 'Spiritual' level not just a head-heart level.

As a home schooler I will teach creation and evolution.

I definitely agree with your sentiments. I've often gotten into debates about religion, and often found that the same thing holds true --- we're expected to be perfect, but I think when we show a genuine faith and dedication to what we preach, others see it and understand.

Thanks for this. :D

@shedinator@xanga - Yes, simply the "people who don't admit their standards" is much more accurate.  Thank you.