NationStates Jolt Archive

As you people know, and as my family and friends know, I am a devout Roman Catholic. However, I'm not one of those crazy Christian who think that what is written in the Bible is always cold hard facts. I mean if you read some of the stories in the Bible, it does go to extreme. I think the problem that most people have with the Bible, is that they don't know when the literaral part ends, and the symbolic parts begin. Hell even I have that problem. We are all familiar with the Creation story. God, Garden of Eden, animals poofing etc. I believe, that the Creation story is a story that is used to explain how we all got here. I mean we do have to remember when this book was written, no one has ever heard of Evolution yet, so they had to write something. Do I believe in Evolution, sure, I mean species do evolve over time, and they do get better. After a series of evolution, we get a whole new species. So, the question then becomes where is God in all of this. Who's to say that God didn't start the chain of evolution. I mean everything had to come from something, and every once in awhile, we get a freak mutation, so who's to say God didn't cause that freak mutation. Well that's my thought on the whole Evolution Vs. Creationism debate, Thank you and have a good day.

Yup. Any naturalistic creation theory cannot eliminate God from the picture anyway. It simply isn't discussed because it contains no useful information. Those wackos, all in a tizzy over nothing. :p

Yup. Any naturalistic creation theory cannot eliminate God from the picture anyway. It simply isn't discussed because it contains no useful information. Those wackos, all in a tizzy over nothing. :p

Beside, wouldn't Creationism violate the whole "Free will" thing?

As you people know, and as my family and friends know, I am a devout Roman Catholic. However, I'm not one of those crazy Christian who think that what is written in the Bible is always cold hard facts. I mean if you read some of the stories in the Bible, it does go to extreme. I think the problem that most people have with the Bible, is that they don't know when the literaral part ends, and the symbolic parts begin. Hell even I have that problem. We are all familiar with the Creation story. God, Garden of Eden, animals poofing etc. I believe, that the Creation story is a story that is used to explain how we all got here. I mean we do have to remember when this book was written, no one has ever heard of Evolution yet, so they had to write something. Do I believe in Evolution, sure, I mean species do evolve over time, and they do get better. After a series of evolution, we get a whole new species. So, the question then becomes where is God in all of this. Who's to say that God didn't start the chain of evolution. I mean everything had to come from something, and every once in awhile, we get a freak mutation, so who's to say God didn't cause that freak mutation. Well that's my thought on the whole Evolution Vs. Creationism debate, Thank you and have a good day.

While I applaud the sentiment of your post, I hope you won't mind if I nit-pick on one little point - species do not exactly "get better" over time, at least not by any objective standard. The idea that evolution as a process has some sort of direction or goal is a fairly common misconception, so I just wanted to clear that one up in advance.

But otherwise, good post. :)

Beside, wouldn't Creationism violate the whole "Free will" thing?

I'm not so sure about that, but a few properties of God do call that into question, namely omnipotence and omniscience. That is quite another discussion, however - look up The Problem of Evil on google if you want to see more.

It's not about if God is or isn't in the equation. It's the fact that the God "factor" cannot be disproven one way or another, and thus is not science. Evolution is Science, and ID is belief. ID should not be taught as science, as it is most assuredly not. That is the real debate, not on whether intelligent design is right or wrong, but instead if it is science or not.

It's not about if God is or isn't in the equation. It's the fact that the God "factor" cannot be disproven one way or another, and thus is not science. Evolution is Science, and ID is belief. ID should not be taught as science, as it is most assuredly not. That is the real debate, not on whether intelligent design is right or wrong, but instead if it is science or not.

True, but has Science solved everything?

While I applaud the sentiment of your post, I hope you won't mind if I nit-pick on one little point - species do not exactly "get better" over time, at least not by any objective standard. The idea that evolution as a process has some sort of direction or goal is a fairly common misconception, so I just wanted to clear that one up in advance.

But otherwise, good post. :)

I was going to point that out as well, but decided against it for revelance reasons. Species adapt due to environmental changes, and there really is no rhyme or reason, so to speak, to evolution. There is no path it will definately follow. Under evolution, there is no such thing as a "most highly evolved" creature. Just "most well adapted to the current environment". But that's another debate for another time.

It's not about if God is or isn't in the equation. It's the fact that the God "factor" cannot be disproven one way or another, and thus is not science. Evolution is Science, and ID is belief. ID should not be taught as science, as it is most assuredly not. That is the real debate, not on whether intelligent design is right or wrong, but instead if it is science or not.Actually, I'd consider ID as a legitimate rule of thumb if used with people as the apparent designer. I'd not apply it to anything unquantifiable though; it wouldn't mean anything then.

True, but has Science solved everything?Science is not required to explain everything now; it is simply the summation of our current level of demonstrable understanding. Use science for what it is applicable to and use your religion/beliefs to explain what it cannot.

True, but has Science solved everything?

Nope. It almost certainly will never do that either. So if you want to preach that your religious view explains something that science doesn't, feel free.

However... (yes, you expected that, didn't you ;)) - be certain to include why your religious theory is better than other non-scientific theories, including those of other religions. And be honest when discussing the science. Too many fans of creationism still are convinced that if they attack a twisted version of the theory of evolution it will magically prove that their own view is right. Which of course is nonsense.

Nope. It almost certainly will never do that either. So if you want to preach that your religious view explains something that science doesn't, feel free.

However... (yes, you expected that, didn't you ;)) - be certain to include why your religious theory is better than other non-scientific theories, including those of other religions. And be honest when discussing the science. Too many fans of creationism still are convinced that if they attack a twisted version of the theory of evolution it will magically prove that their own view is right. Which of course is nonsense.

True, and I believe that science and religion can co-exist together, it's just that we just have to work out how. lol.

True, but has Science solved everything?

Of course not. It is impossible for Science to solve everything. However, I was just pointing out there is a difference between science and belief. ID falls under belief, Evolution science. It is perfectly fine to believe in ID, however it is not science, and should not be taught as such.

I was going to point that out as well, but decided against it for revelance reasons.

Yeah...I almost skipped it as well, but the "evolution from lesser to greater" idea is one I see so very, very often that I figured I might as well correct it while I had the chance. :)

The bible is absolute truth. It's story is a factual representation of the events 6000 years ago, near the beginning of time. Intelligent Design, and "Evolution" are varying levels of falsehood. Intelligent design fills our children's heads with the possibility of other gods besides The Lord, and as you know, that is against the Ten Commandments, a very powerful sin. It is a sign of our desperate times that schools have stopped teaching the truth to our children. Evolutionists, and those who would compromise with them with this intelligent design, are both speaking with the voice of Satan, and should be silenced.

Of course not. It is impossible for Science to solve everything. However, I was just pointing out there is a difference between science and belief. ID falls under belief, Evolution science. It is perfectly fine to believe in ID, however it is not science, and should not be taught as such.

That is true, it should be taught that it's a story to explain how we all got here since Evolution haven't come around yet.

The bible is absolute truth. It's story is a factual representation of the events 6000 years ago, near the beginning of time. Intelligent Design, and "Evolution" are varying levels of falsehood. Intelligent design fills our children's heads with the possibility of other gods besides The Lord, and as you know, that is against the Ten Commandments, a very powerful sin. It is a sign of our desperate times that schools have stopped teaching the truth to our children. Evolutionists, and those who would compromise with them with this intelligent design, are both speaking with the voice of Satan, and should be silenced.

Ahh the irony is killing me. :rolleyes:

The bible is absolute truth. It's story is a factual representation of the events 6000 years ago, near the beginning of time. Intelligent Design, and "Evolution" are varying levels of falsehood. Intelligent design fills our children's heads with the possibility of other gods besides The Lord, and as you know, that is against the Ten Commandments, a very powerful sin. It is a sign of our desperate times that schools have stopped teaching the truth to our children. Evolutionists, and those who would compromise with them with this intelligent design, are both speaking with the voice of Satan, and should be silenced.Thank you for that explanation, puppet! I now tremble in fear! :D

True, and I believe that science and religion can co-exist together, it's just that we just have to work out how. lol.

And really, it can. The Catholic Church, as I'm sure you know, endorses neither Creationism nor Evolution, leaving the individual to come to his/her own conclusion. Problem comes in when you strict fundamentalists and literalists, whom twist the facts so that their own point of view seems the better. They often use half-truths to support claims against evolution, and often ommit key information in thier mission to disprove evolution.

That is true, it should be taught that it's a story to explain how we all got here since Evolution haven't come around yet.

And really, evolution doesn't even care about how life began, it cares moreso about how life changed after it began. Often times people confuse the problems comprised with ambiogenesis(which is faulted, I will admit, and is based greatly on assumption) with evolution.

And really, evolution doesn't even care about how life began, it cares moreso about how life changed after it began. Often times people confuse the problems comprised with ambiogenesis(which is faulted, I will admit, and is based greatly on assumption) with evolution.

True. :D

True. :D

Indeed. Although I personally believe that ambiogenesis is what happened, I am willing to except any number of explanations as equally plausible, even "God" or any other higher being. I may not be religious(Lost my faith long ago), but that does not mean I exclude the possibility. Really, how life began is very much open to debate, and it really comes down to what one personally believes more than anything, as even if we can find a way to demonstrate how life may have begun, there are infinite other possibilities that must be considered. I don't have a problem with ID at all. I don't subscribe to it, I don't believe in it, but I can see why others do, and really their opinions are no better than my own on the issue. I just have a serious problem with it being considered science.

And really, it can. The Catholic Church, as I'm sure you know, endorses neither Creationism nor Evolution, leaving the individual to come to his/her own conclusion. Problem comes in when you strict fundamentalists and literalists, whom twist the facts so that their own point of view seems the better. They often use half-truths to support claims against evolution, and often ommit key information in thier mission to disprove evolution.
The catholics have lost the way, they have started compromising the word of God. There are no half truths to Creationism. It is the whole truth. "Evolution" Is a religion dreamed up by Atheist scientists in order to convert the masses to their godless cause.

The catholics have lost the way, they have started compromising the word of God. There are no half truths to Creationism. It is the whole truth. "Evolution" Is a religion dreamed up by Atheist scientists in order to convert the masses to their godless cause.
Dude, you DO know that Darwin was in training to become a priest, right? And you do know that over 70% of US scientists are relgious, right?

If you're gonna troll, at LEAST try to do it intelligently/interestingly.

The catholics have lost the way, they have started compromising the word of God. There are no half truths to Creationism. It is the whole truth. "Evolution" Is a religion dreamed up by Atheist scientists in order to convert the masses to their godless cause.

Huh, as I remember correctly, Darwin wasn't Atheist. Infact, if I remember my Intro to Anthro class correctly, he used his theory to try and make sense out of God and Christianity, as if Creationism were true, it would mean God would have been completely mad(insane) for making so many different species, with so many different functions, and sometimes several species performing the same function. So, he used his theory to try and explain the method to the madness...

At least that's what I remember from the class, it's been a while.

The catholics have lost the way, they have started compromising the word of God. There are no half truths to Creationism. It is the whole truth. "Evolution" Is a religion dreamed up by Atheist scientists in order to convert the masses to their godless cause.

LOL! You do realize that your church was a spin off of the Roman Catholic church right? This guy should be fun. :D

Dude, you DO know that Darwin was in training to become a priest, right?

Huh, I never knew that.

(While I have studied evolution, I know very little of the man himself.)

Huh, I never knew that.

(While I have studied evolution, I know very little of the man himself.)
Yup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views

Yup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views

Thanks. :)

You learn something new everyday, eh? ;)

The catholics have lost the way, they have started compromising the word of God. There are no half truths to Creationism. It is the whole truth. "Evolution" Is a religion dreamed up by Atheist scientists in order to convert the masses to their godless cause.

Why do you say this? Are you blind enough to not question or know more about your own beliefs?

The only reason why Catholics have "lost the way" to you is because they question their beliefs.

perhaps you should go to your bible group leader and ask why you attend weekly studies about interpreting the word of God.

Why do you say this? Are you blind enough to not question or know more about your own beliefs?

The only reason why Catholics have "lost the way" to you is because they question their beliefs.

perhaps you should go to your bible group leader and ask why you attend weekly studies about interpreting the word of God.

Questioning their beliefs leads to doubt, which is a sure path to Atheism. By their change, they are attempting to admit that they were wrong before, when they were not. A virtuous man can change into a murderer, and perhaps might do so because he questioned his virtuous beliefs.

Questioning their beliefs leads to doubt, which is a sure path to Atheism.
http://www.orlyowl.com/ohnoes.jpg

To the OP: I'm an atheist, but that's what I've always thought about a Christian viewpoint on evolution. There's no reason why God could not have started the process of evolution. Anyway, if you take the creationism thing literally, you also have to stone your children and such.

Questioning their beliefs leads to doubt, which is a sure path to Atheism. By their change, they are attempting to admit that they were wrong before, when they were not. A virtuous man can change into a murderer, and perhaps might do so because he questioned his virtuous beliefs.

So, according to you God wants his Believers to follow him out of ignorance, and not because they are well informed, truly understand why some people have different ideas and yet choose to Believe ?

If so, you can take your God and stuff Him.

Questioning their beliefs leads to doubt, which is a sure path to Atheism. By their change, they are attempting to admit that they were wrong before, when they were not. A virtuous man can change into a murderer, and perhaps might do so because he questioned his virtuous beliefs.

Or maybe the Catholic Church is wise to change because they realize that the teachings of old was wrong and not the correct way to bring people into the faith. I'm sorry (not really) that we stopped the "fire and brimstone" sermons and started talking about how to be a good neighbor, and following what Jesus actually said and did for us.

A virtuous man can change into a murderer, and perhaps might do so because he questioned his virtuous beliefs.God forbid he realize that killing someone in the name of his deity was actually murder...:p

Questioning their beliefs leads to doubt, which is a sure path to Atheism. By their change, they are attempting to admit that they were wrong before, when they were not. A virtuous man can change into a murderer, and perhaps might do so because he questioned his virtuous beliefs.

You know, I would rather have my church filled with intelligent people who knows what Jesus said, and the context in which he said it. I also want people to search through the Bible and to try to do anything to understand it better. I would rather have a Church that understands the Bible and the teaching of Jesus Christ better because they understand what is being said, and that they dared to question it.

Remember: Test everything, hold fast to things that are good and true.

This is coming from a Roman Catholic BTW. :D

As you people know, and as my family and friends know, I am a devout Roman Catholic. However, I'm not one of those crazy Christian who think that what is written in the Bible is always cold hard facts. I mean if you read some of the stories in the Bible, it does go to extreme. I think the problem that most people have with the Bible, is that they don't know when the literaral part ends, and the symbolic parts begin. Hell even I have that problem. We are all familiar with the Creation story. God, Garden of Eden, animals poofing etc. I believe, that the Creation story is a story that is used to explain how we all got here. I mean we do have to remember when this book was written, no one has ever heard of Evolution yet, so they had to write something. Do I believe in Evolution, sure, I mean species do evolve over time, and they do get better. After a series of evolution, we get a whole new species. So, the question then becomes where is God in all of this. Who's to say that God didn't start the chain of evolution. I mean everything had to come from something, and every once in awhile, we get a freak mutation, so who's to say God didn't cause that freak mutation. Well that's my thought on the whole Evolution Vs. Creationism debate, Thank you and have a good day.

And it is your right to believe such things ... my only problem is when people try to shoehorn this into a science class

Sure it may or may not be reasonable depending on who you are , and faith is just fine to have. That does not make it scientific

Science is not required to explain everything now; it is simply the summation of our current level of demonstrable understanding. Use science for what it is applicable to and use your religion/beliefs to explain what it cannot.

i think i would disagree with you. one should use science inorder to try and prove/disprove "the big" question. but of course our science isnt that great yet. so we build on the small things we have, until we have almost all the information in the universe. yes i know that'll take alot of time.

i think i would disagree with you. one should use science inorder to try and prove/disprove "the big" question. but of course our science isnt that great yet. so we build on the small things we have, until we have almost all the information in the universe. yes i know that'll take alot of time.

What "the big" question? The question of the existence/non-existence of God? Science cannot, by definition, be used to try and disprove God's existence, nor can it prove God's existence. Science is, by its own methods and definition, confined to the natural - to that within the universe and its bounds. Anything outside of that (ie. supernatural) is outside the bounds of scientific investigation.

What "the big" question? The question of the existence/non-existence of God? Science cannot, by definition, be used to try and disprove God's existence, nor can it prove God's existence. Science is, by its own methods and definition, confined to the natural - to that within the universe and its bounds. Anything outside of that (ie. supernatural) is outside the bounds of scientific investigation.

i now some mad physics nuts(the type that go outside) that use maths to disprove god. imy self dont believe in god on the basis of the lack of proof. if he appeared infront of i would be all like "whoa thats convieniant". i have an idea of a posible existance of god. but a little bit hard to explain.

i now some mad physics nuts(the type that go outside) that use maths to disprove god. imy self dont believe in god on the basis of the lack of proof. if he appeared infront of i would be all like "whoa thats convieniant". i have an idea of a posible existance of god. but a little bit hard to explain.

Then they are wrong ... the very definition of god disallows falsifiability (at least the Christian version)

i now some mad physics nuts(the type that go outside) that use maths to disprove god.

First of all, math is not science. Math is a tool sometimes used by science, along with empirical evidence, but math alone can be used to show all sorts of silly things, as long as you start with axioms that point in that direction.

I'd like to see how math disproves the existence of the supernatural. I really would.

imy self dont believe in god on the basis of the lack of proof.

And that is fine - your choice. You have no evidence that leads you to believe in a deity, so you do not believe in a deity. This provides nothing to suggest that science can disprove the existence of such a being, however.

How can you pick and choose what parts to believe and what parts not to believe? What gives some parts more authority then others?

As you people know, and as my family and friends know, I am a devout Roman Catholic. However, I'm not one of those crazy Christian who think that what is written in the Bible is always cold hard facts. I mean if you read some of the stories in the Bible, it does go to extreme. I think the problem that most people have with the Bible, is that they don't know when the literaral part ends, and the symbolic parts begin. Hell even I have that problem. We are all familiar with the Creation story. God, Garden of Eden, animals poofing etc. I believe, that the Creation story is a story that is used to explain how we all got here. I mean we do have to remember when this book was written, no one has ever heard of Evolution yet, so they had to write something. Do I believe in Evolution, sure, I mean species do evolve over time, and they do get better. After a series of evolution, we get a whole new species. So, the question then becomes where is God in all of this. Who's to say that God didn't start the chain of evolution. I mean everything had to come from something, and every once in awhile, we get a freak mutation, so who's to say God didn't cause that freak mutation. Well that's my thought on the whole Evolution Vs. Creationism debate, Thank you and have a good day.

i don't think anyone has a problem if you or whomever wishes to believe that god started evolution.
The problem arises when you or whomever tries to say its science

How can you pick and choose what parts to believe and what parts not to believe. What gives some parts more authority then others.

Parts of what? The Bible? If that is your question, I would say the answer is: God.

Parts of what? The Bible? If that is your question, I would say the answer is: God.

So you feel that God is telling you which parts are true?

How can you pick and choose what parts to believe and what parts not to believe? What gives some parts more authority then others?

Enough understanding of literary techniques to know what is metaphorical and what is not. Genesis, for example, is written as a Just-So story.

So you feel that God is telling you which parts are true?

In a way, yes. I believe, if you ask for it, God will guide you. You may not get the message entirely correct, but the guidance is there. I believe God guided the authors of Scripture as well, but I don't think they were any less fallible than I.

In a way, yes. I believe, if you ask for it, God will guide you. You may not get the message entirely correct, but the guidance is there. I believe God guided the authors of Scripture as well, but I don't think they were any less fallible than I.

Ok, but how is that any more or less "crazy" then believing everything that the Bible says. I don't doubt the existence of God, but if you believe in anything that has unlimitted power, that made the universe, then anything that seems strange in the Bible seems obsolete.

Ok, but how is that any more or less "crazy" then believing everything that the Bible says. I don't doubt the existence of God, but if you believe in anything that has unlimitted power, that made the universe, then anything that seems strange in the Bible seems obsolete.

True. Therefor I have chosen to not trust on the Bible to determine what is right and what is wrong and instead use reasoning and philosophy. It is not perfect, but it works.
And happily it turns out that I agree with quite a few things the Bible states. Just not all of them.

Enough understanding of literary techniques to know what is metaphorical and what is not. Genesis, for example, is written as a Just-So story.

But the fact that a not so small number of Christians consider Genesis to be literal confuses the issue.

Why dismiss the religion of intelligent design in favor of the science of evoluion?

No evidence for the former, no reasonable or compelling argument to believe that its religious addition to the theory of evolution comports at all with reality.

Ok, but how is that any more or less "crazy" then believing everything that the Bible says.

It really isn't a matter of "crazy", although believing that everything in the Bible is a literal truth would require a lot of rather contradictory beliefs and might just drive someone crazy. However, one who has unquestioning faith in the Bible has just that. It is not faith in God, but in those who wrote, compiled, copied, and translated the Bible.

I don't doubt the existence of God, but if you believe in anything that has unlimitted power, that made the universe, then anything that seems strange in the Bible seems obsolete.

Not necessarily obsolete (although some of it very well be). It is more that it must be seen in the light in which it was written. People agonize over Christ's statement that one who is struck should "turn the other cheek" as they see it as weakly allowing yourself to be abused. What they fail to realize is that, in Christ's time, turning the other cheek, in most cases, would keep you from getting struck again (while not requiring you to become violent yourself). The lesson that can be drawn from it is one that Martin Luther King, Jr. followed quite well - that passive resistance is often more effective, and a more moral course, than armed resistance.

Much of what seems "obsolete" may hold lessons, if we examine it in context.


But the fact that a not so small number of Christians consider Genesis to be literal confuses the issue.

Of course, to consider all of Genesis to be literal truth, one must believe that Creation occurred more than once, in rather different orders. People who take one (or even both, despite the contradictions) of the main Genesis Creation stories to be literal truth generally haven't examined them very closely. They are simply taking for granted that they are true, unquestioningly, and yes, unreasonably.

The bible is absolute truth. It's story is a factual representation of the events 6000 years ago, near the beginning of time. Intelligent Design, and "Evolution" are varying levels of falsehood. Intelligent design fills our children's heads with the possibility of other gods besides The Lord, and as you know, that is against the Ten Commandments, a very powerful sin. It is a sign of our desperate times that schools have stopped teaching the truth to our children. Evolutionists, and those who would compromise with them with this intelligent design, are both speaking with the voice of Satan, and should be silenced.

*waits for the punchline*

*waits for the punchline*

Just the jerkoff troll du jour, i'm afraid.

The bible is absolute truth. It's story is a factual representation of the events 6000 years ago, near the beginning of time. Intelligent Design, and "Evolution" are varying levels of falsehood. Intelligent design fills our children's heads with the possibility of other gods besides The Lord, and as you know, that is against the Ten Commandments, a very powerful sin. It is a sign of our desperate times that schools have stopped teaching the truth to our children. Evolutionists, and those who would compromise with them with this intelligent design, are both speaking with the voice of Satan, and should be silenced.
Thou who wouldst make us devils
Thou shalt not poison me
The world hath been persuaded
To believe thy heresy

I spit in the eye of Satan
And I will spit in thine
The devils that surround thee
Liveth only in thine eye

Bad religion, bad religion
I need no gods or devils, I need no pagan rights
Bad religion, bad religion
I need no burning crosses to illuminate my nights

Hey! Hey!
You hear me now? You hear me now?
Hey! Hey!
For thou art Judas, the mark of Cain be on thy brow

Evangelistic Nazis,
You cannot frighten me
The name you take in vain
Shall judge you for eternity

I spit in the eye of Satan
Spit right in your eye too
You are the spooks you're chasing
You know not what you do

Bad religion, bad religion
I know you lie, I know you lie
Bad religion, bad religion
Thieves and liars, cross my heart I hope you die

Hey! Hey!
Remember me? Remember me?
Hey! Hey!
If there be justice burning hell awaits for thee

Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar...

If there be such a being
Then thou art Antichrist
Turn men against their children
Turn beauty into vice

I say thy God shall smite thee
He will perceive thy lust
His wrath shall fall upon thee
Thou that betray His thrust

Bad religion, bad religion
I say that thou art liars, thy souls shall not be saved
Bad religion, bad religion
Here are the days of thunder, the days that thou hast made

Hey! Hey!
Base seducers, I see thy greed
Hey! Hey!
I am more fit for glory than any ten of thee.

Bad religion!

Brought to you by Reverend Lemmy Kilmister of the Holy Church of Motörhead!

Thou who wouldst make us devils
Thou shalt not poison me
The world hath been persuaded
To believe thy heresy

I spit in the eye of Satan
And I will spit in thine
The devils that surround thee
Liveth only in thine eye

Bad Religion, Bad Religion
I need no gods or devils, I need no pagan rights
Bad religion, Bad religion
I need no burning crosses to illuminate my nights

Hey! Hey!
You hear me now? You hear me now?
Hey! Hey!
For thou art Judas, the mark of Cain be on thy brow

Evangelistic Nazis,
You cannot frighten me
The name you take in vain
Shall judge you for eternity

I spit in the eye of Satan
Spit right in your eye too
You are the spooks you're chasing
You know not what you do

Bad religion, Bad religion
I know you lie, I know you lie
Bad religion, Bad religion
Thieves and liars, cross my heart I hope you die

Hey! Hey!
Remember me? Remember me?
Hey! Hey!
If there be justice burning hell awaits for thee

Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar...

If there be such a being
Then thou art Antichrist
Turn men against their children
Turn beauty into vice

I say thy God shall smite thee
He will perceive thy lust
His wrath shall fall upon thee
Thou that betray His thrust

Bad religion, Bad religion
I say that thou art liars, thy souls shall not be saved
Bad religion, Bad religion
Here are the days of thunder, the days that thou hast made

Hey! Hey!
Base seducers, I see thy greed
Hey! Hey!
I am more fit for glory than any ten of thee.

Bad Religion!

Brought to you by Reverend Lemmy Kilmister of the Holy Church of Motörhead!

bada bing!

oh, wait... wasnt that the punchline?

The bible is absolute truth. It's story is a factual representation of the events 6000 years ago, near the beginning of time. Intelligent Design, and "Evolution" are varying levels of falsehood. Intelligent design fills our children's heads with the possibility of other gods besides The Lord, and as you know, that is against the Ten Commandments, a very powerful sin. It is a sign of our desperate times that schools have stopped teaching the truth to our children. Evolutionists, and those who would compromise with them with this intelligent design, are both speaking with the voice of Satan, and should be silenced.

I hope you understand that the stuff in the Bible was given to a bunch of nomads thousands of years ago. It would be understandable, if God had left out some of the heavy science stuff in order to be more easily believed.

God: "I'm about to reveal the origins of the Universe. Ready?"
Moses: "OK, shoot."
God: "At first, I disrupted some virtual particles in the middle of their annihilation processes, which in turn resulted to massive amounts of matter and anti-matter coming to existence. Most of them neutralized each other, but the rest kept expanding from the centre point nearly at the speed of light in plasma form. When the plasma started to cool down, it's particles started to form hydrogen atoms, which in turn started to-- are you getting all this?"
Moses: "I was just thinking... You know, the guys down there aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed. You sure you want to talk about particles and stuff?"
God: "Good point. OK, how about this: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

Not to mention the fact that the Bible was passed on orally for hundreds of years before anyone bothered to write it down. I'd be very surprised if the original stuff hadn't become more or less distorted somewhere along the way, and that's not even taking into account all of the possible errors in copying and translation.

Oh, and BTW, the Bible clearly implies that there are other gods than The Lord, but since He is the only one that had anything to do with the creation of the universe, He is the only one that should be worshipped.

Who's to say that God didn't start the chain of evolution. I mean everything had to come from something, and every once in awhile, we get a freak mutation, so who's to say God didn't cause that freak mutation. Well that's my thought on the whole Evolution Vs. Creationism debate, Thank you and have a good day.

The problem with ID arises from how badly designed those mutations often are: one would assume a perfect God's output would be rather less horrifically flawed, and that he might think to do something about eyeballs wired backwards or all land vertibrates eating and breathing through the same tube.

In any case, which clockmaker is more impressive to you: the one who made a clock that keeps good time without him ever laying a finger on it after closing the case, or the one that creates a clock which requires constant tinkering and adjustment to even function? ID's God is the second one.

The problem with ID arises from how badly designed those mutations often are: one would assume a perfect God's output would be rather less horrifically flawed, and that he might think to do something about eyeballs wired backwards or all land vertibrates eating and breathing through the same tube.

In any case, which clockmaker is more impressive to you: the one who made a clock that keeps good time without him ever laying a finger on it after closing the case, or the one that creates a clock which requires constant tinkering and adjustment to even function? ID's God is the second one.

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

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

:confused:

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/zap360.jpg