NationStates Jolt Archive

This was just sent to me by a good friend.

Its the coolest video Ive seen in a long time.

http://www.atomfilms.com/landing/landingIndex.jsp?id=jesus_off&mature=accept

*WARNING*

The video contains a bit of offensive language, and is CLEARLY intended for mature audiences only.

If you have any doubts as to its content, the name is "Keep your Jesus off My Penis."
That should tell you what your are in store for, should you decide to view it.

Enjoy.

Feh. The song was mildly catchy.

The song itself was lacking, compared to other Internet sensations such as "Cows with Guns" or Numa Numa or... you get my drift. But in the meantime, it was some hella good editorializing!

The song itself was lacking, compared to other Internet sensations such as "Cows with Guns" or Numa Numa or... you get my drift. But in the meantime, it was some hella good editorializing!

Well its the song thats the good part, really.

Its all about the message.

Cows with Guns, was much funnier.

Well its the song thats the good part, really.

Its all about the message.

Cows with Guns, was much funnier.
I have to say, the costumes for "Keep your Jesus off my Penis" were quite good.

While on that site, look at the Real Hussein rap parodies. ;) Comedy gold! :D

Its the coolest video Ive seen in a long time.

Enjoy.
I completely agree. I laughed the whole time... Really good!!!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Pergament.jpg

I enjoyed that very much. Thank you!

Oh look, another anti-Christian, wishy-washy video that goes on and on about free speech but then screams blue murder when someone says something they disagree with.

Hilarious.

What's the betting that their next installment will be "Don't be rude to Muslims, they're the nicest guys in town"?

Oh look, another anti-Christian, wishy-washy video that goes on and on about free speech but then screams blue murder when someone says something they disagree with.

Hilarious.

What's the betting that their next installment will be "Don't be rude to Muslims, they're the nicest guys in town"?
At least Eric Schwartz raises a valid point. What's yours? Failed listening comphrehension?

That is, besides from being wrong?

"I am not anti-Christian
Before you grab a rope
There is beauty in religion
And joy and love and hope
We're all looking for an answer
Some colossal cosmic cause
But who the fuck are you
To turn your views into my laws?"

At least Eric Schwartz raises a valid point. What's yours? Failed listening comphrehension?

That is, besides from being wrong?

"I am not anti-Christian
And Saddam Hussein never killed anyone, because he said so.

Putting it in a song doesn't make it any more true.
But who the fuck are you
To turn your views into my laws?"
It's called democracy.

Let me spell that for you.

D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y

Defined: 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
That's 'who the f***' they are. Again, it's more of the 'we want free speech and democracy, but only as long as you do what we, as the minority, want'.

It's really quite pathetic.

And Saddam Hussein never killed anyone, because he said so.

Putting it in a song doesn't make it any more true.

It's called democracy.

Let me spell that for you.

D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y

Defined:
That's 'who the f***' they are. Again, it's more of the 'we want free speech and democracy, but only as long as you do what we, as the minority, want'.

It's really quite pathetic.


I think you are missing the point... the song doesn't denigrate the right to free speech for Christians... just whether or not Christians should have the ability to ENFORCE their religious beliefs on others.

I very much doubt that Christians would be willing to jump through hoops if the US ever manages to become a Muslim majority...

Jesus! You're taking this waaay too seriously!
And Saddam Hussein never killed anyone, because he said so.
What does that have to do with the song, eh?
Putting it in a song doesn't make it any more true.
Or any less true, for that matter. It's just funny phrased criticism, that's all.

Let me spell that for you.

T-H-E-O-C-R-A-C-Y
There. Fixed :D
And now climb down from your high horse before you hurt yourself.
That's 'who the f***' they are. Again, it's more of the 'we want free speech and democracy, but only as long as you do what we, as the minority, want'.
There's also this little thing called freedom of religion, IIRC - no matter what the majority has voted for.
Besides, securing the rights of a minority is what truely makes a democracy great.
It's really quite pathetic.
Just like you going through the roof with your rant.
If it struck a nerve and you don't like it, you have every right to simply ignore it. Take it with a pinch of salt and calm down.

I think you are missing the point... the song doesn't denigrate the right to free speech for Christians... just whether or not Christians should have the ability to ENFORCE their religious beliefs on others.

I very much doubt that Christians would be willing to jump through hoops if the US ever manages to become a Muslim majority...
And you're missing MY point - I'm not saying that it's right that said Christians interfere with other people's sex life, I'm complaining about the inherent hypocracy of the song, and of those who think that way. It's generally the same sort of thing:

Free speech is the biggest right of all, but your free speech is less important;
Democracy is the best form of government we have, unless it's not me in the majority;
And, not particually relevant to this song but generally applicable to this 'group'; Christians are evil, but Muslims are big, cuddly friends.

Jesus! You're taking this waaay too seriously!
Not really... I'm just another one of those 'evil, interfering' Christians who gets pretty fed up with hypocracy like this. How often must I hear how wrong I am for believing things I don't believe, how evil I am for doing things I don't do, or how perfect non-Christians are when they don't do the things they preach themselves?

Twasn't a rant directed at you. And that was me slightly irritated, not enraged. Trust me, you'd know if I were enranged. :cool: :p

Not really... I'm just another one of those 'evil, interfering' Christians who gets pretty fed up with hypocracy like this. How often must I hear how wrong I am for believing things I don't believe, how evil I am for doing things I don't do, or how perfect non-Christians are when they don't do the things they preach themselves?

Twasn't a rant directed at you. And that was me slightly irritated, not enraged. Trust me, you'd know if I were enranged. :cool: :p
Then take it from this Christian here (me, that is!) that I considered the song highly amusing.

Cool. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/JesusShades.gif Glad to hear it. ;)

How often must I hear how wrong I am for believing things I don’t believe, how evil I am for doing things I don’t do, or how perfect non-Christians are when they don’t do the things they preach themselves?
To be fair, I don’t think that the song was suggesting that your views are neccessarily wrong, just that they are your views and shouldn’t be automatically enforced to the entire population.

This leads on to your remarks about democracy. They’d be valid if you lived in 5th century BC Athens, but not in a liberal democracy such as the UK or the US. We don’t live in a direct, majority ruled democracy, but one that gives the ideals of liberalism as much credence as those of democracy; most importantly the worry of tyranny of the majority. Neither an enraged majority or a vocal minority should be able to hold complete control over a liberal democracy.

And you're missing MY point - I'm not saying that it's right that said Christians interfere with other people's sex life, I'm complaining about the inherent hypocracy of the song, and of those who think that way. It's generally the same sort of thing:

Free speech is the biggest right of all, but your free speech is less important;
Democracy is the best form of government we have, unless it's not me in the majority;
And, not particually relevant to this song but generally applicable to this 'group'; Christians are evil, but Muslims are big, cuddly friends.



But we aren't talking about free speech. The song doesn't say anything about the right of Christians to believe what they want, or even say what they want. Only to LEGISLATE it.

Democracy is the best form of government? 'Best' in what way? Certainly not the most efficient. In those terms it is hard to beat a 'benign dictatorship'. I don't see what democracy has to do with it anyway - since I, at least, don't live in a democracy... but in a Federal Republic.

Regarding your platform about Islam.. I'm not sure how it is on topic, so I'm going to ignore it.

But we aren't talking about free speech. The song doesn't say anything about the right of Christians to believe what they want, or even say what they want. Only to LEGISLATE it.
Hence the comment on democracy. If the wishes of the majority are to legislate, then that is the will of the people. Making a song saying it's wrong doesn't change this basic democratic principle.

If, however, it is not the wish of the majority, then they will not be able to legislate about it anyway, and so the whole song becomes something of a moot point. Why complain about something that isn't going to happen?

Democracy is the best form of government? 'Best' in what way? Certainly not the most efficient. In those terms it is hard to beat a 'benign dictatorship'. I don't see what democracy has to do with it anyway - since I, at least, don't live in a democracy... but in a Federal Republic.
I made no comment on efficiency. In fact, I made no comment on my own position regarding democracy. I would, however, tend to support the view that when it comes to systems of governments it's the pick of a bad bunch.

Regarding your platform about Islam.. I'm not sure how it is on topic, so I'm going to ignore it.
It's not on topic. It was a slightly connected rant lumped in.

:eek:

That was creepy! Woah! Scary dude... http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/shocked005.gif

Hence the comment on democracy. If the wishes of the majority are to legislate, then that is the will of the people. Making a song saying it's wrong doesn't change this basic democratic principle.

If, however, it is not the wish of the majority, then they will not be able to legislate about it anyway, and so the whole song becomes something of a moot point. Why complain about something that isn't going to happen?

So if the majority wanted to legislate christianity according to the bible, I guess 'Thou shall have no other gods before me' would be on the list of laws, then, too: right?

and the penalty for that is a stoning?

congrats, man: you just found a way to legalize the mass murder of anyone who follows a different religion!

Why are we killing all the hindus and muslims? Because the majority says it's OK!

'tyranny by majority'

it's when 51% of the people take the rights away from the other 49%. Or: two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.


Good thing we don't live in a system where the will of the majority is absolute law: there is a system of checks and balances, where a certain bill of rights (like the right for me and, more importantly, the government, to be free of religious influence and vice versa) is in place, and any laws that contradict said bill of rights (such as laws that ban abortions and homosexual marriges for religious reasons) are tossed out as the garbage they are.

Hence the comment on democracy. If the wishes of the majority are to legislate, then that is the will of the people. Making a song saying it's wrong doesn't change this basic democratic principle.


That isn't the way it works. The Constitution protects minority interests from the tyranny of the majority.

At least, when it works, it is supposed to. When rightwing extremists rape the intent, it becomes a weapon of the oppressor.


If, however, it is not the wish of the majority, then they will not be able to legislate about it anyway, and so the whole song becomes something of a moot point. Why complain about something that isn't going to happen?


You may not have been paying much attention to politics of recent years. There has been a recent, fairly concerted push to legislate restrictive and discriminatory 'civil rights' issues... amending the constitution, no less.


I made no comment on efficiency. In fact, I made no comment on my own position regarding democracy. I would, however, tend to support the view that when it comes to systems of governments it's the pick of a bad bunch.


You said 'best'. I asked what you mean by 'best'. You still haven't defined in what way it IS 'best'.


It's not on topic. It was a slightly connected rant lumped in.

No - it's an entirely disconnected rant lumped in, which is why I ignored it. Take your Christofascism elsewhere.

So if the majority wanted to legislate christianity according to the bible, I guess 'Thou shall have no other gods before me' would be on the list of laws, then, too: right?

and the penalty for that is a stoning?

congrats, man: you just found a way to legalize the mass murder of anyone who follows a different religion!

Why are we killing all the hindus and muslims? Because the majority says it's OK!

'tyranny by majority'

it's when 51% of the people take the rights away from the other 49%. Or: two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.


Good thing we don't live in a system where the will of the majority is absolute law: there is a system of checks and balances, where a certain bill of rights (like the right for me and, more importantly, the government, to be free of religious influence and vice versa) is in place, and any laws that contradict said bill of rights (such as laws that ban abortions and homosexual marriges for religious reasons) are tossed out as the garbage they are.

And, as I say, you can bet the same rightwing extremists would be the ones whining loudest if the 51% were NOT Christians.

THis (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1211068494) is a better video. How I love dancing midgets!

In fact, this one deserves its own thread :D

And, as I say, you can bet the same rightwing extremists would be the ones whining loudest if the 51% were NOT Christians.

They already are … you hear it as often as I do bitching about being “oppressed” whenever people don’t feel like spending money putting the 10 commandments up at a courthouse

They already are … you hear it as often as I do bitching about being “oppressed” whenever people don’t feel like spending money putting the 10 commandments up at a courthouse

This is true... they HAVE the majority, and they are bitching about being oppressed.

But, god forbid that someone else might not like it if they genuinely ARE being discriminated against...

Not really... I'm just another one of those 'evil, interfering' Christians who gets pretty fed up with hypocracy like this. How often must I hear how wrong I am for believing things I don't believe, how evil I am for doing things I don't do, or how perfect non-Christians are when they don't do the things they preach themselves?

Twasn't a rant directed at you. And that was me slightly irritated, not enraged. Trust me, you'd know if I were enranged. :cool: :p

The problem is that - in this case, and MANY others - Christians call *criticism* a limitation on their freedom of speech. This song isn't limiting Christians right to express themselves in any way, it's a funny way of expressing frustration at the idea that christianity is becoming a factor is US Law.

Just because some people think you are wrong, and say so vocally, and maybe even tell you to shut up does NOT mean they are limiting your free speech.

---

Also, majority rule is not the basis for most democracies. There are things the majority are not allowed, by design, to legislate on. So yes, if you are not in the majority, it is VALID to make the arguement that the majority doesn't have the right to make certain decisions.

They already are … you hear it as often as I do bitching about being “oppressed” whenever people don’t feel like spending money putting the 10 commandments up at a courthouse

It's not the money they object to, it's the image. You are belittling both sides of the arguement by saying that money is the issue, because on iumportant issues, money can always be found.

I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, as I think that for those courts where the head judge (or whoever is in charge) wants a statue of the 10 statements, he/she should be allowed. At the same time, I also agree that it brings the honesty of separation of church and state into question. It's a hard arguement. I like what Penn Jillette suggested... statues of the Bill of Rights in every courthouse. Except maybe it should just be giant copies of the Bill of Rights, in BIG print, so (almost) everyone could read 'em.

It's not the money they object to, it's the image. You are belittling both sides of the arguement by saying that money is the issue, because on iumportant issues, money can always be found.

I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, as I think that for those courts where the head judge (or whoever is in charge) wants a statue of the 10 statements, he/she should be allowed. At the same time, I also agree that it brings the honesty of separation of church and state into question. It's a hard arguement. I like what Penn Jillette suggested... statues of the Bill of Rights in every courthouse. Except maybe it should just be giant copies of the Bill of Rights, in BIG print, so (almost) everyone could read 'em.

How can I, as an Atheist, have any suspicion I will be treated equally under law... if the first thing I am greeted by in the courtroom, is a passage from someone's religious text?

Should the Judges be allowed to decide if their courthouse should appear to endorse religion? Or should the position of 'Judge' be one that is executed according to the law of the land, and should be held above and beyond personal faith?

How can I, as an Atheist, have any suspicion I will be treated equally under law... if the first thing I am greeted by in the courtroom, is a passage from someone's religious text?

Should the Judges be allowed to decide if their courthouse should appear to endorse religion? Or should the position of 'Judge' be one that is executed according to the law of the land, and should be held above and beyond personal faith?

If you read my whole post there, I addressed that, saying that EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID is a valid arguement. At the same time, however, a courthouse is a work environment, and one is allowed - to a certain extent - to express oneself in one's work environment. To legislate that it is *not* allowed *is* a limitation on freedom of speech in a public place. I also think that under that arguement, one could produce any of a myriad of other religious or anti-religious objects, within the real of respect and taste, that one chose.

By respect and taste, I don't mean that one should limit what is put forth, just the manner in which it is. A nude statue, or even an erotic statue is one thing, but running a porno video is another. Where to draw that line is hard, and even if the line should be drawn... I don't think it can be by legislation.

My point is that I would sooner accept a judge running a porno on the back wall of his courtroom, then have the government say he couldn't put up the 10 commandments.

If you read my whole post there, I addressed that, saying that EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID is a valid arguement. At the same time, however, a courthouse is a work environment, and one is allowed - to a certain extent - to express oneself in one's work environment. To legislate that it is *not* allowed *is* a limitation on freedom of speech in a public place. I also think that under that arguement, one could produce any of a myriad of other religious or anti-religious objects, within the real of respect and taste, that one chose.

By respect and taste, I don't mean that one should limit what is put forth, just the manner in which it is. A nude statue, or even an erotic statue is one thing, but running a porno video is another. Where to draw that line is hard, and even if the line should be drawn... I don't think it can be by legislation.

My point is that I would sooner accept a judge running a porno on the back wall of his courtroom, then have the government say he couldn't put up the 10 commandments.

I did read your whole post.

I have no objection about a judge having the Ten Commandments in his/own chambers... although, I'd still question their degree of impartiality.

But, for religious material to appear in the courtroom itself, or on public display within the building or on the obvious facings of the property... comes dangerously close to 'endorsement' of a specific religious view.

It is not hard to draw the line, at all. The judge has the right to have their own religious belief... they do not have the right to endorse their faith, or associate it with the impartial adjudication of law.

The coolest video ever.

The Screech sex tape?

Ya heard me.

He's telling Christians to keep their morality out of the laws. But he doesn't have a problem with putting his morality into the laws.

Also, he makes some very stupid speculations. If my daughter became pregnant outside of marriage, she would not have my permission to abort the child. And the whole speculation about who Jesus is going to refuse entrence into heaven to is silly, because he admits that he doesn't know much about the Word of God.

1 thing has to be said, ALL religions suck

He's telling Christians to keep their morality out of the laws. But he doesn't have a problem with putting his morality into the laws.

he has a problem with religions turning religious law into state law.

See, thats why Canada's Constitution has that first section...

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits perscribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Basically that means that if some Judge decides that he wants to invoke god in his judgements, the upper courts have every right to limit his freedoms to maintain anothers. Essentially. Thats a pretty shallow explanation, oh well.


And yes, I do have a copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms plaqued and hanging on my wall beside my bed.

he has a problem with religions turning religious law into state law.

And secularism (the religious belief that a society and it's parts including national law can get along well without considering God) is becoming law. What's your point?

And secularism (the religious belief that a society and it's parts including national law can get along well without considering God) is becoming law. What's your point?

It's not becoming anything... this nation was founded on the express principle of being as 'fair' as possible... as impartial as possible.

The antion was FOUNDED secular. Anyone who tries to make the nation LESS secular, is destroying America.

And secularism (the religious belief that a society and it's parts including national law can get along well without considering God) is becoming law. What's your point?How is non-religion religion, exactly?

And secularism (the religious belief that a society and it's parts including national law can get along well without considering God) is becoming law. What's your point?

secularism isn't a religion, it's the absence of a religion.

let me put it this way:

the government's laws are the template: the basic background to which you live your life. You, however, have the right to add to them an your own life that you deem to be right.

the government gives me the right to smoke. I choose not to. It's almost as if I had passed a personal little law that says "don't smoke". It's a law that I passed by myself, and it only applies to me.

Analogy time: the government is like a bowl of ice cream. let's call vanilla a democracy, chocolate a republic, and mint a dictatorship.

everybody in the nation is given an ice cream cone that is vanilla and chocolate swirl (a democratic republic), and here's the best part: everyone gets to add the toppings that they want, because they decide how to live their own lives within the framework of the system. if you don't like the democratic republic, you can always move to a dictatorship.

some people like to mix and match their own toppings: I like chocolate chips and caramel. those are my morals, and my guidlines for my own life.

some people don't have their own morals, and instead choose to use the ones that a religion gives them. instead of mixing and matching, they take a prepackaged box of rainbow sprinkles that the religions sell them. those are the rules that they want to live by, and they are perfectly free to add them to the template that the government sets forth.


What the religions are trying to do by imposing religious law on top of state law is the equivalent of adding sprinkles to the ice cream mix. I like the vanilla/chocolate template that I am given. what gives them the right to dictate what my morals, what my toppings, should be? I don't like sprinkles, and I don't like religious restrictions on my freedoms. If you want to add personal guidlines to the basic government laws, go right ahead. you're as free to add sprinkles to your own ice cream as I am to add caramel to my own

but let me be free to choose what is right and wrong as it applies to my own life, and I won't start shitting in your ice cream, either.



Ice Cream for everybody! :p :D

secularism isn't a religion, it's the absence of a religion.

let me put it this way:

the government's laws are the template: the basic background to which you live your life. You, however, have the right to add to them an your own life that you deem to be right.

the government gives me the right to smoke. I choose not to. It's almost as if I had passed a personal little law that says "don't smoke". It's a law that I passed by myself, and it only applies to me.

Analogy time: the government is like a bowl of ice cream. let's call vanilla a democracy, chocolate a republic, and mint a dictatorship.

everybody in the nation is given an ice cream cone that is vanilla and chocolate swirl (a democratic republic), and here's the best part: everyone gets to add the toppings that they want, because they decide how to live their own lives within the framework of the system. if you don't like the democratic republic, you can always move to a dictatorship.

some people like to mix and match their own toppings: I like chocolate chips and caramel. those are my morals, and my guidlines for my own life.

some people don't have their own morals, and instead choose to use the ones that a religion gives them. instead of mixing and matching, they take a prepackaged box of rainbow sprinkles that the religions sell them. those are the rules that they want to live by, and they are perfectly free to add them to the template that the government sets forth.


What the religions are trying to do by imposing religious law on top of state law is the equivalent of adding sprinkles to the ice cream mix. I like the vanilla/chocolate template that I am given. what gives them the right to dictate what my morals, what my toppings, should be? I don't like sprinkles, and I don't like religious restrictions on my freedoms. If you want to add personal guidlines to the basic government laws, go right ahead. you're as free to add sprinkles to your own ice cream as I am to add caramel to my own

but let me be free to choose what is right and wrong as it applies to my own life, and I won't start shitting in your ice cream, either.



Ice Cream for everybody! :p :D

This is a fantastic analogy. Well done.

And you're missing MY point - I'm not saying that it's right that said Christians interfere with other people's sex life, I'm complaining about the inherent hypocracy of the song, and of those who think that way. It's generally the same sort of thing:

Free speech is the biggest right of all, but your free speech is less important;
Democracy is the best form of government we have, unless it's not me in the majority;
And, not particually relevant to this song but generally applicable to this 'group'; Christians are evil, but Muslims are big, cuddly friends.


Well then you didn't get it. You got so wrapped up in identifying with the people that the song criticizes that you made up wrong things that you could disagree with because the song wasn't saying them.

Your first bullet:

Christians have the right to preach their views. They don't have the right to take other people's rights away. Even Christ did not want the government to put his views into law. He taught people to live under a government that they disagreed with. Enduring that burden is part of what it means to be a Christian. If you want to get people to follow your Christian views then you're not supposed to do it by getting the government to force them. You're supposed to convert them.

You're the hypocrite here by saying that the desire to preserve one's rights is theoretically equal to the Christian's right to take those rights away, but in practice the one trying to protect myriad rights in the face of the Christian authoritarian must have his rights subordinated to the Christian who wants to take those rights away, otherwise you're taking away the Christian's rights.

Your second bullet:
This is a more elaborate version of the fallacy you're engaging in in the previos paragraph. The views of the agnostic (I'm using that as short hand for all groups that disagree with authoritarian right-wing christians, including liberal church groups) are not what you posit, nor are they equivalent sin to those the song accuses the Xians of engaging in. The Xians are trying to take away rights and you are using the notion that they have the power to to argue that it is right for them to do it.

If the agnostic had the power he would not force Xians to have abortions. He would not force them to engage in gay sex or gay marriages. It is not about having the power to take rights away. It is about having the virtue to leave those rights undisturbed even when one has that power.

Your third bullet:
You're just way off here. Even the song, which addresses this topic, though you seem to have missed it, says that it is wrong for the Muslims to be so authoritarian and oppressive. It's just pointing out that he is just as bad, as far as his power enables him to be.

Perhaps if you take your strawmen to go see the wizard he can give your argument a brain.

He's telling Christians to keep their morality out of the laws. But he doesn't have a problem with putting his morality into the laws.


Retarded flawed analogy.

He is not trying to put his morality into the law. He is not arguing for compulsory gay sex or forced abortions. He's saying that the goverment has no right to make laws based on religious teaching.

If you're so comfortable with the idea of that happening then why don't you consider how comfortable you'd be with it if a bunch of Muslim politicians swindled a bunch of bills based on Sharia law through Congress.

If your answer is "muslims don't have the power to do that," congratulations! You're going to hell.

If you have the capacity to consider the burdens being placed on others, well then there's still hope for you. Now how would you feel if you had to live in accordance with a religion to which you do not suscribe?

Now, why would you want to do that to your countrymen? Because your religion is right? Not as far as your countrymen are concerned. Even if they are Christians, they have every right to doubt your analysis. In fact it would be damnably (literally) arrogant of you claim that you alone are the correct arbiter of Biblical truth. The range of choice must be left open so that people can come to Jesus on their own. If you don't leave that path open, but force people down it, you will foment rejection of Christ, as well as potentially damning them to hell if your interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. If you're so quick to doubt evolution, which is very well supported, then how can you be so sure that you've got the Bible pegged when it's still so controversial?