My brother and sister went into a bible store on a lark and saw a t-shirt that said, "Hot girls don't come from monkeys."

t random

---

I just booked my plane ticket for Thanksgiving

It's AUGUST. And just the start. Now I feel tired.

My brother and sister went into a bible store on a lark and saw a t-shirt that said, "Hot girls don't come from monkeys."

Oh, that? Anti-bestiality.

---

Heh.

---

My brother and sister went into a bible store on a lark and saw a t-shirt that said, "Hot girls don't come from monkeys."

But normal chicks get off from them?

---

Very unfortunate, especially in the last days before the election. But really - a non-issue, IME. It's not like it was a Lamont staffer, or anyone particularly affiliated with him. When people like Michelle Malkin are leading the charge to make it a big deal, I call bullshit.

Oh, it certainly doesn't make me feel any different on who I want to win the CT seat, but jeez people, think before you post inflammtory stuff, especially when the mainstream media has been parroting the meme that "bloggers are on a jihad for Leiberman".

---

But normal chicks get off from them?

Heh.

Besides, isn't it wrong for good conservative Crhistians to promote hot-chick-ness? Celebrating hot chicks could lead to almost certain temptation....

---

I have actually had someone say to me, "Well, I know I wasn't descended from some ape!"

It would be hard to resist saying, "I'm not so sure."

---

Those stats are also a little strange in that Creationism and ID are essentially the same thing.

Search-and-replace scandals coming to light in the courtroom aside, they are and they aren't. This is not to put forth that ID is peer reviewed science, but some of ID is about first cause, more than the mechanics of life forms coming into those forms which we now see, and ID itself doesn't rule out macro-evolution (although some IDers do). And there are plenty of young-earth creationists who reject ID and old-earth creationism, wholesale, as pandering.

I feel free to believe that God created life and in evolution.

Me, too. The Bible may say He spoke it into being, but doesn't then try to lay out a recipe as to how it came together. There are plenty of faithful readings of Genesis that allow for it in one way or another (and allow for the age of the earth that science points to, and that don't involve God "testing" people by planting fake evidence--a view that makes me want to heave).

Also, Strega (and P-C), I had to go, yesterday, but wanted you to know I read your responses, and I get what you're saying about those polls. I still think using 'literal' will elicit responses that are more sensational than they are useful. There's much biblical belief held even by fundamentalists, which, if you were to dig deeper than their surface answers, could never be accurately summed up as a word-for-word interpretation of the Bible.

Similarly, you'd think a doctrine of inerrancy would be simple, but there are enough takes on inerrancy to fill volumes. Among people who do believe, and who have a generally high theological view of scripture, there are still tons of different interpretations of overly-broad concepts like literalism and inerrancy. The use of 'literalism' and 'inerrancy' by other Christians is actually a long buzzing bee in my bonnet though, and neither of you, nor the Natter conversation, put there, so that's probably enough about that.

Back Strega's response to me, earlier (which I'm too lazy to open another browser window to quote back) I too believe there was a Noah, and a flood. I don't know how to interpret the "over the whole earth" and suspect that was as much of the earth as the writers (and the oral historians before them) knew about, at the time. My answer on a given poll would depend on the wording of the question, the answer options presented to me, and honestly--my mood at the time.

I could even end up choosing a literalist answer, not because it was perfect for me, but if it were better for me, than the other options, even though I'm anti-literalist on so much of scripture. The same goes true if I had to answer a poll on the Exodus account (although I'd look for an option with "Reed Sea", first). On things like the virgin birth, the crucifixion (to the death, not to the swoon), and the resurrection, I am a literalist.

Still, if I were being exact, I couldn't select any of the following three choices in the poll P-C quoted:

Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process 38%

Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process 13%

God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so 45%

Different or no opinion 4%

What I actually think possible is more complicated than either the first or third option: God created the world and everything in it, but I don't know when or how [and then complicated stuff I'm not going to get into here], and don't think I have to eschew science as evil. As I mentioned in response to Jesse, above, I see so many openings in Genesis that allow current scientific knowledge to be correct and the Bible to be true.

On the other hand, I doubt I would ever select "Different or no opinion," because my actual answer is at least semi-represented by the God-inclusive options, and "different" could describe (continued...)

---

It's AUGUST. And just the start. Now I feel tired.

I know. I was booking my flight for a business trip (!! I haven't had a business trip in years and years!), and figured I might as well look. It is bananas though.

---

( continues...) beliefs quite different from my own.

And for the following, none of the options as stated work for me.

The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word 34%

The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally 48%

The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man 15%

No Opinion 3%

The second option would be closest for me, if it didn't have the "but" and words that follow. I could also choose the first, if it stopped after the word "God." On the other hand, I can see where, throughout what I know of history (and throughout my own life to date) how God gives work to humans, and gives them latitude in how they perform it, so I don't actually have big arguments with option #3 either, provided I can use the first definition of legend, here: [link] (and with the understanding that, to me, parable=fable), but I'd never select that third option on a poll. My actual perfect answer would probably not be an option a poll.

---