At least bring common sense to the table
Opinion of a non believer
Published on November 5, 2011 By BoobzTwo In Religion

Actual History is chockfull of the rise and fall of religions for millennia … many Ages. And they all have the following in common. Whenever they became week enough to lose control of the majority of the sheeple, they are replaced with a new Messiah and a new message just as the Christians have done with the ‘old Jewish’ religion when that too lost its strangle hold on the world of Man due to its barbarism as perceived by man in a new Age. Anyone who lives in a future time views almost everything from previous times to be barbaric (except for those that thrive in barbarism) and in this Christianity is no exception. It is my belief that the purpose of religion has always been nothing but a methodology to control the masses. The Bible (OT and NT) are replete with plagiarisms from the actual real world of the past. The NT is in itself a plagiarism from much of the OT. The stories of the Bible are impossible in the real world in which we all exist. I agree that many names and places were real, but this is just another plagiarism from the actual history of man. If you can place your hand on a Bible and swear that the Earth is what ~12,000 years old, then you are a fool. If you deny the evidence of science and technology, then you are doubly a fool. If you deny the evidence of early man or prehistoric man and can find no logic or truth in evolution you are a damned fool. And if you are so foolish as to allow the leadership of some rascals who lived thousands of years ago during the ‘glorious’ days when all this stuff was concocted … to control virtually every aspect of your life today, you are doomed. But all you have to do is ‘have faith’ and ignore your own perceptions of reality … and all will be yours, just bring your pocket book and come often … because we have castles and churches and armies to build to prove they are right, yea right. The all-powerful all-knowing one God would never vanquish the devil (certainly within reason for the all-powerful mindful of His sheep) because He would be destroying Himself … as there can be no light without the dark? What better ploy could man devise than to make the light and the dark impervious to the perceptions of man, the sheeple? The complete history of the universe and that insignificant little planet Earth with its complete compliment of well ‘everything’ … all described between the covers of a book written thousands of years ago by smart (-ass) people with nothing benign in mind whatsoever who championed a flat Earth for a thousand years for naught than to promote the new religion of the Age of Pisces … the two fish. It took man and a simple invention called a telescope to start the downward spiral of Religion (Christianity this time) and it cannot be stopped.


Comments (Page 11)
12 PagesFirst 9 10 11 12 
on Dec 31, 2012

lulapilgrim
Reply #150lulapilgrim
Lula like anyone incompetent to discuss a subject (must be a religious thing I guess) you and other creationists say a lot of things ... but that is all you do ... you tell everyone else how wrong they always are because you just know. The BS stops here like it or not. If you have any facts and figures to offer, it would help prevent me from thinking you are pulling all this nonsense out of your posterior or that you are reference someone else as is usual. I am happy with science just as it is thank you very much and I am not at all concerned over your opinions (just as I am unconcerned with how you view the bible), creationists aside who could blame me. Truth is you wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and bit you, unless it was wearing a black robe and a funny hat but that goes without saying.

Now what is this nonsense about ‘scientific truth’ … you could start by explaining what that even means? But if it is anything whatsoever like the ‘catholic truth’ please don’t bother because I want none of that nonsense corrupting my science. Do you get off by trying to TELL me how MY science works (?) … well actually all you do is tell me that it doesn’t work because you are so ‘internally’ scientifically knowledgeable, give this a rest because it is that obvious. As I said before … PROVE the world is only 6,000 years old or get off the pot and stop telling me what science cannot do. All your truths are founded in magic … MAGIC … so I think you had better worry more about proving some of that nonsense say in a science lab … after you learn what a science lab Is and does.

PS - Here I will get you going - The young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science.

How old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?  http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

 

on Dec 31, 2012

 

lulapilgrim
TRUTH. Scientific TRUTH. Truth is constant and must exclude error. Truth is universal and if a thing is true, it is to be accepted as true, no matter who discovers or says it.

Try, if you want, but not one of these 480,000 U.S. earth scientists or any other scientists from anywhere in the whole wide world can produce scientific truth (actual empirical data) that Darwin or Stellar Evolution has ever occurred, is occurring or could ever occur. All of their arguments in support of it have been shown to be untenable.

That is because Science itself, specifically the modern fields of Geology, Paleontology and Molecular Genetics, have provided a formidable case against the billions of years required for Stellar and Darwin Evolution to have occurred. No amount of time can save Darwin or natural macroEovlution, as the fossil record shows no evidence whatsoever of evolutionary descent and naturalistic macroevolution cannot occur because DNA is designed to allow only change/variety within kind to occur.

Science has shown all who are willing to KNOW truth that humankind did not ever, nor, in any way, shape or form, could have ever evolved from ape-kind or from a common ancestor.

It is from this standpoint that we can rightly claim that Evolution Theory stands exposed as both the worst mistake and the most enduring myth of modern times.

GirlFriendTess
If you have any facts and figures to offer,

Oh, c'mon? I did offer a fact, a scientific fact...that the modern sciences of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology have empirically shown that the message sequence of DNA is designed to allow only change within kind (species) to occur. 

For Darwin Evolution to be true, evolutionists would have to prove that DNA allows change beyond kind. That, my dear, is a total waste.  

  

GirlFriendTess
Now what is this nonsense about ‘scientific truth’ … you could start by explaining what that even means?

That the message sequencing of DNA is designed to allow only change/variety within kind to occur is a scientific truth. The scientific truth of the message sequencing of DNA makes Darwin Evolution theory collapse.

Scientific truth is consistent. Back in Darwin's day, we didn't know the scientific truths of DNA, but now, with the modern discoveries of Molecular Genetics, etc.  we do...and...they have subsequently proven Darwin Evolution Theory to be nothing but a myth.

 

 

 

on Dec 31, 2012

GirlFriendTess
PROVE the world is only 6,000 years old or get off the pot

I have offered a number of actual scientific facts that give limits for the age of the earth in my 116. One of them is the fact of the existence of radio polonium halos in granite all over the world. They just would not be there if the world was billions of years old.

That's why I like to call them "God's fingerprints".  

 

on Dec 31, 2012

Lula

GirlFriendTess
PROVE the world is only 6,000 years old or get off the pot
Please ... if you can then all this evolution nonsense is nonsense. But when you cannot then you can just figure out what to do with an aged earth. You need to find some modern appeasers that are at least up to date like in this century somewhere. Darwin happened 150 years ago and the only ones still denouncing him and his evil book are the same ones denouncing him and his evil book way back then. What you need to be talking about is biology and maybe if you dig way down into your science bag of knowledge, you might eventually figure out why. Have you ever even had a biology course? I have given you the human and chimp genomes but you were too smart to buy that one. I have supplied the information used in the courts to dump creationism and then ID out on their keesters where they belong, but you were too smart for those excuses too. I even tried to discuss DNA with you but you weren’t having any of that nonsense. I have repeatedly pointed you at sites and clips that explain many of those things you are already an expert at, so it was just for your clarification. But because you are so knowledgeable you didn’t see the need to watch anything because you already know they are just atheistic humanistic secularist claptrap generators. Got to admit I am all out of tricks for now so if you would please age the earth for me (true science mind you) so I know what to talk about. 

PS – True science hahaha, sounds like one of those old magazines that had all true stories in them too.

on Dec 31, 2012

lulapilgrim
That's why I like to call them "God's fingerprints".
Well they like to call them the 'fingerprints of creation' ... so what. Gentry is a flag toting member of the creation institute for insanity, you know the ones that kept trying to bypass the scientific process by slipping right into the school curriculum ... and losing. That organization is an enemy to any actual scientist so pardon me if I think he is just a little less kooky than you are with your 6,000 year old universe earth. Being a Seventh-day Adventist does nothing to endear him to a rational person like myself either. Limiting the age of the earth has nothing to do with your 6k years, just you seem to know and you refuse to explain it at all to us idiots incapable of such simple calculations. Oh but I have a calculator and the knowhow and you have a book pretty devoid of useful numbers and information, sorry about that. Please age the earth for us all! I am getting tired of asking you know.

on Dec 31, 2012

lulapilgrim
Reply #153lulapilgrim
 Lula I don’t try to tell you how you should conduct your religious affairs, what you should believe or not. I don’t invent terms and names for you and then define them all for your convenience. I don’t tell you which creation ‘scientists’ to drool over, what books to read or not. I offer no advice whatsoever having to do with your religious fetishes other than to advise you to rethink things. I do not have any use for a scientist professing to believe in biblical creationism. They may even be competent at times but their priorities are misguided as far as their science commitment is … as compared to the one to their presumed god … and this is just scientific dishonesty for the good cause I suppose.  This unquestioning faith in a god seems to require an awful lot of naiveté, deceit, credulity, misdirection, quote mining and many other unsavory practices and besides I see no use for a paper god. I always try to address you as a christian or a catholic albeit with a few modifiers. We don’t do any of those things because we are public knowledge and anyone can take a look or tag along or rebut … you folks just choose not to because you are so smart already.

On the other hand your approach is unsavory at best. Because of the way in which you get your often ancient hate mail, you just naturally include me in with whatever group your church is after. Because I don’t believe in any deity, specifically yours, and for that reason only, you have taken too much liberty:

If your hate mail centers on a secularist problem then I am a secularist as needed. If it centers on humanism then I am one of those monsters too. If some atheist in bum fucked nowhere crosses the church well that attribute is automatically allotted to you guessed it, me. Some communist, heathen, brigand and well you get the picture. There is an unlimited amount of fun you can have with this shit and it doesn’t have anything at all to do with me … except for your say so.  You just seem incapable of ‘single talk’ … only of group attack talk. If your copy and paste function becomes disabled you would become speechless. People that know what they are talking about do not need to cheapen the discussion this way … because they know what they are talking about, pretty simple huh. You need to grow up again and take a fresh look around you because the world has changed some in the past 2,000 years.

The age of the Earth is 4.45 ± 0.05 billion years (± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. What do you offer to this discussion besides it just cannot be true? I will just assume you agree unless you can age the earth for me using your true science. Don’t they have to date stuff as well … why not the age of the earth then … or are they to stupid too?

on Jan 02, 2013

I'll respond to 151 and on later, but first about who is "cheapening the discussion".

GirlFriendTess
Lula like anyone incompetent to discuss a subject

GirlFriendTess
If your hate mail centers

GirlFriendTess
Because of the way in which you get your often ancient hate mail, you just naturally include me in with whatever group your church is after.

What? Repeating, repeating, repeating  such mistaken notions might make you feel better, but it doesn't make them true.

GirlFriendTess
Lula I don’t try to tell you how you should conduct your religious affairs,

Oh, Yes, you do. You slam the Church, the Christian Faith, it's teachings and practices as well as the Bible every which way, 24/7.

  

GirlFriendTess
I don’t invent terms and names for you and then define them all for your convenience.

Gee, isn't "ancient hate mail" your term?

I didn't invent the term or the meaning of Secularist, Atheist, or Communist, etc.  any more than you invented the term or the meaning of Catholic.

I do take Secularism, Atheism, and Communism seriously, and so I'd like to move on in this discussion like dignified grown-up girls.

We are who we are...two people with quite different basic viewpoints concerning all that exists, including life, space, time and matter.  By faith I believe in the revealed God and that His word in Genesis 1-11 is free from error because God cannot deceive nor be deceived. Therefore, with reasoning and study, I believe the premise of Special Creation offers a coherent basis for understanding the earliest events and how mankind came to be in a state of confusion and distress. I think it's very, very fair to say that now the various fields of Science have discovered empirical data (scientific truth) which support the viewpoint of Special Creation far, far better than the viewpoint of Stellar or Evolution Theory.     

The viewpoints of Special Creation or of Atheistic Stellar and Darwin Evolution....only one of these can be the truth for they are mutually incompatible.  

 

 

on Jan 02, 2013

 

GirlFriendTess
Lula like anyone incompetent to discuss a subject (must be a religious thing I guess) you and other creationists say a lot of things ... but that is all you do ... you tell everyone else how wrong they always are because you just know.

GirlFriendTess
The age of the Earth is 4.45 ± 0.05 billion years (± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. What do you offer to this discussion besides it just cannot be true?

I know the believers in the viewpoint of Stellar Evolution have given the age the earth as 4.5 billion years old. I've seen it in student's science textbooks stated as fact, and yet they have provided no, let me repeat that, NO empirical scientific data.

The radiometric dating methods depend on belief in the assumptions employed and of data that is often conflicting. At best radioacticve dating is an attempt to date the age of rocks. The main problem is there is no way to determine how much radioactive material was present in the rocks when they were first formed. Even rocks with a known age have been tested by radioactive dating and produced ages in the millions of years in error. Another problem is that there is no way to tell whether a rock sample has been polluted by ground water or melting of the rock material and so there is no way to know for certain that radioactive decay has been constant.

 

So,

Knock, knock, ...the Stellar Evolutionist community is wrong in making this claim as fact. Why can't you understand that it's not my opinion or a religious thing,  but rather the fields of Science who have shown this claim to be wrong?

Turns out, the Stellar Evolutionist community have been ignoring other scientists who have presented the scientific truth that the decay and reversals of the earth's magnetic field which points to an earth only thousands of years old!

Turns out, the Stellar Evolutionist community have been ignoring other scientists who have presented the scientific truth that the Helium content in the atmosphere, the low concentration indicates the earth is much, much, much younger than 4.5 plus or minus years old.

Turns out, the Stellar Evolutionist community have been ignoring other scientists who have presented the scientific truth about the existence of radio polonium halos.  

Turns out, the Stellar Evolutionist community have been ignoring other scientists who have presented the scientific truth who havepresented data on the erosion and sedimentation of the earth. If the earth were billions of years old, current geological processes would have completely eroded and filled the oceans with sediment. Yet, the surface of the earth has suffered little erosion and the thickness of the sediment on the ocean floor indicates a much younger earth.   

All these scientific truths and more (such as the saltiness of the ocean) have determined that the age of the earth is much, much, much younger...more in line with the Special Creation viewpoint which would make the earth 6,000-10,000 years old.

So, you may consider thinking outside the box the Stellar Evolutionists have made for you. It turns out there are a large number of scientific truths, such as radiogenic Helium, etc.  that actually give limits for the age of the earth that are  far less than the Stellar Evolutionists would like.

 

    

 

on Jan 02, 2013

GirlFriendTess
Well they like to call them the 'fingerprints of creation' ... so what. Gentry is a flag toting member of the creation institute for insanity, you know the ones that kept trying to bypass the scientific process by slipping right into the school curriculum ... and losing. That organization is an enemy to any actual scientist so pardon me if I think he is just a little less kooky than you are with your 6,000 year old universe earth. Being a Seventh-day Adventist does nothing to endear him to a rational person like myself either. Limiting the age of the earth has nothing to do with your 6k years, just you seem to know and you refuse to explain it at all to us idiots incapable of such simple calculations. Oh but I have a calculator and the knowhow and you have a book pretty devoid of useful numbers and information, sorry about that. Please age the earth for us all! I am getting tired of asking you know.

Gentry is a scientist whose work with radioactive "halos" in rocks has put the very idea that Earth took 4.5 millions of years to form under direct challenge. 

The importance of these halos for the question of the earth's age is quite profound.  The presence of polonium radiohalos constitute evidence of the "book" and the premise of Special Creation and all the calculators and knowhow in the world can't change the fact. Gentry contends and I agree that the radioactivity responsible for these halos had such a fleeting existence that it should have disappeared long before the magma could have had time to cool and form the rocks. Robert V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, and his video, The Age of the Young Earth, 1994.

GirlFriendTess
Got to admit I am all out of tricks for now so if you would please age the earth for me (true science mind you) so I know what to talk about.

So it is true science itself who helps answer your question at least in part for we know now that by the existence of these polonium radiohalos, radiogenic Helium in the atmosphere, and so forth and so on,  that the earth cannot possibly be 4.5 billion years old.

If you persist in disagreeing, then it would be these scientific facts that need examining instead of issuing insults and putdowns against the scientist who discovered them.

    

 

on Jan 02, 2013

GirlFriendTess
(YEC) Requirements for a real scientist and proper expert (hahaha): Robert Gentry was influenced by a televangelist in 1959 and subsequently converted to Seventh-day Adventism and became a strict creationist (for over 50 years now). What is the guy supposed to do, be honest or maybe support god as you think you are doing. Hummm a tough one let's see, what should a real nuclear physicist and real scientist choose, the truth or magic??? Other than that, you have done nothing besides post a statement from someone(s) unknown with ‘errors and misstatements’ and with such authority as to pretend you know what you are talking about. DO YOU want to discuss one of these things or are you content with just reposting this over again and telling me how profound it is? It didn’t come from the bible so how could it be infallibly true anyway; it is after all done ‘scientifically’??? ... yada yada yada ... how old did you prove the universe was here I must have missed it? DO YOU want to discuss anything or are you content just telling me why the world cannot work without your specific brand of totalitarianism?

Do you care to explain what you mean by my "specific brand of totalitarianism"?

 

on Jan 02, 2013

lulapilgrim
Oh, Yes, you do. You slam the Church, the Christian Faith, its teachings and practices as well as the Bible every which way, 24/7.
I have no use for your corrupt church or your work of fiction for sure, but it is not my fault if you claim to be one with it and the bible. I am on the opposite side here Lula, what in the world would you recommend I use for an argument, the bible??? As an orthodox catholic, well there is virtually little that doesn’t tell me about the ways in which you conduct your life. Your bible and your church are right there for all to see and judge. I have less use (is that possible) for your RCC-C as do most actual Christians so I won’t go there. As an atheist well all that is supposed to do is tell you I don’t believe in god … but you have your hate mail which says differently huh … and it is all about me???

Ancient hate mail refers to your often outdated (by decades and centuries) copying and pasting of others ‘work’ … and your attacks presenting no valid arguments besides ridiculous depictions from other creationists about whose work you are personally clueless. That makes you incompetent to discuss the science itself (anyone can paste a statement). If you have proved anything, it is that you copy and paste way too much to be informed about the subject matter (you even seem to have to quote your scriptures as if for my benefit [thanks for stopping this practice]). Just the fact that there are ~700 creation ‘scientists (many who disagree with a short lived earth) as compared to 480,000 health sciences professionals who disagree. And you expect me to argue against the science practices already debunked by the pros of which you don’t believe either??? There is no excuse today for believing in a young earth besides it is supported by nothing besides blind faith and that is a good enough reason alone for me to reject the bible in its entirety as at best, useless medieval gobbledygook. You cannot prove the universe to be 6,000 years old which is why you will NEVER answer the question. Not my problem!

Lula there is not that much different between us (mindset not included) because we live in the same world. Regardless of how you perceive your origin you can look around the world and had better see the same things I do unless you are so divorced from reality that your vision is corrupted too.  We both believe in right and wrong and theology aside we are both capable of making those decisions because we make them all the time. You need some god to do all the work for you to making everything from nothing so you can waste your life on your knees, memorizing the bible and placating every whim of your church masters … who needs an education in your world??? I don’t think anything was made from nothing (that would be magic) and I have enough of a naturalist and astronomical understanding to actually appreciate the real beauty for what it is ... I do not need a heavenly caretaker to make any of it work for me or to make me feel all lovie-dovie inside … as the totalitarian RCC church promotes their (and yours) un-morals of homophobia, bigotry, condemnation, idol worship, superiority, infallibility among other bigotries which are openly practiced but with that kindly christian smile ever present of course as they pass the collection plate around again.

I don’t care what kind of creationism you feel is appropriate now because I don’t accept the premise and I see no need to. By whatever name you call it now, it is still just a barbaric idea that I find childish at best and I will not discuss it because I don’t know how to and I don’t want to, being pointless?

on Jan 02, 2013

lulapilgrim
I know the believers in the viewpoint of Stellar Evolution have given the age the earth as 4.5 billion years old. I've seen it in student's science textbooks stated as fact, and yet they have provided no, let me repeat that, NO empirical scientific data.
Sounds like a conversation stopper to me besides, there is an encyclopedia of knowledge close to hand that says you and your creation ‘scientists’ are permanently out to lunch. The age of the earth has nothing to do with stellar evolution whatever that is or was there something misleading in my description?

lulapilgrim
The radiometric dating methods depend on belief in the assumptions employed and of data that is often conflicting.
I am supposed to vallue your opinion here why, because of you scientific prowess??? The "beliefs and assumptions" listed would carry some weight but you would have to actually read something to do that. Cite something for me to at least reference because I am not going to chase around trying to figure out which appologist I am actually talking to as presented by you.

lulapilgrim
Knock, knock, ...the Stellar Evolutionist community [come on a community hahaha] is wrong in making this claim as fact. Why can't you understand that it's not my opinion or a religious thing, but rather the fields of Science who have shown this claim to be wrong?
You waste a lot of space saying useless things you know.

Oh what’s the point of involving me in one of your one sided conversations? You could have stated opinions here but you chose to tell me in no uncertain terms that science doesn’t work and all I will say to that is you are out of your frigging mind … that is a conversation stopper too. Thinking out of the box is what you think will help me huh, go figure.

lulapilgrim
It is from this standpoint that we can rightly claim that Evolution Theory stands exposed as both the worst mistake and the most enduring myth of modern times.
You are out of your ever-loving mind!!!

Lula, just age the earth for us so we can put this evolution nonsense away for good, hahaha.

PS - Stellar evolution is the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime? Just thought I would point this out.  Like I said Lula, you don’t know what you are trying to discuss?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

on Jan 02, 2013

lulapilgrim
Gentry is
... an idiot who when he graduated the Moon theological seminary for the mentally impaired stated that he was compelled by the moon bat ministry to obtain a PhD for the sole purpose of debunking evolutionary theory (Darwinian evolution for you and he) by corrupting the science he was studying. I'm sure you see nothing wrong with that do you? But I do not care what this individual says, he is a creation zombie first and a scientist only as far as he can corrupt science. This bad (dishonest) science is exactly what we HAVE to keep at bay and to be throw out as we have done, those with unscientific obsessions that clouds their judgment just as it does yours.

Define Darwinian evolution and state where and why it is dysfunctional. Please use a better reason than "IT JUST DOESN'T WORK" or "GENTRY SAID SO". Define stellar evolution so I can play too. I am not at all sure why you are interested in the life and times of a star though??? State the age of the earth in numbers please. Until there is time for evolution, don't you think you are being disingenuous (as usual) by trying to disprove something that cannot be true IYO? Oh yea, define true science too please ... but I think you mean that only creation 'scientists' practice 'true science' but we will see.

 

on Jan 02, 2013

lulapilgrim
Do you care to explain what you mean by my "specific brand of totalitarianism"?
Lula if I need to explain this to you then I am afraid it won't do any good. Just look up the definition and replace the word government with the RCC and you should get the picture (I hope). 

on Jan 02, 2013

 

You cannot prove the universe to be 6,000 years old which is why you will NEVER answer the question. Not my problem!

The scientific truth of the existence of polonium radiohalos, the amount of radiogenic Helium in the atmosphere, the salt and mineral content of the earth's oceans, the earth's magnetic field getting weaker answer your question, although not surprisingly, you don't want to hear it.

My 2 final points are that scientists can demonstrate that there are many more factual processes that give young dates to the earth than with a billion of years age and that no one to date can prove the earth is old enough for Stellar and Darwin Evolution to take place and that my dear, is a problem for you.

...............

Lula there is not that much different between us (mindset not included) because we live in the same world. Regardless of how you perceive your origin you can look around the world and had better see the same things I do unless you are so divorced from reality that your vision is corrupted too. We both believe in right and wrong and theology aside we are both capable of making those decisions because we make them all the time. You need some god to do all the work for you to making everything from nothing so you can waste your life on your knees, memorizing the bible and placating every whim of your church masters … who needs an education in your world??? I don’t think anything was made from nothing (that would be magic) and I have enough of a naturalist and astronomical understanding to actually appreciate the real beauty for what it is ... I do not need a heavenly caretaker to make any of it work for me or to make me feel all lovie-dovie inside

I understand what you are saying and agree with some of it, but only to a certain point. That's because belief in Origins matters whether its the viewpoint of Special Creation or of Atheistic Stellar and Darwin Evolution. That only one of them is true is the crux of the matter.

It's precisely because we have these very different viewpoints and only one of them is true that we cannot/do not see things the same way.  If Stellar and Darwin Evolution is true, then people are just animals and can make up their own rules about right and wrong just as animals do. In your viewpoint there is no absolute right and wrong and moral relativism abounds.  If Special Creation is true, then people were made by God and He gets to make the rules and His standards decide right and wrong.

That's why both viewpoints of our Origins matter and affect how (we) people act and that's why only  Humanists are allowed to impose a Stellar and Darwin Evolution only syllabus in schools claiming that they only qualify as science. 

Before the discoveries of modern Science, teaching Stellar and Darwin Evolution as a kind of scientific hypothesizing was fine..but now with these genuine scientific discoveries either tend to falsify these or simply declares such theorizing is not properly the object of science.

Genuine scientific truth has declared the Stellar and Darwin Evolution gig is over...we know that Stellar and Darwin Evolution is error parading in scientific guise, but some won't hear it.

.................

You need some god to do all the work for you to making everything from nothing so you can waste your life on your knees, memorizing the bible and placating every whim of your church masters......I do not need a heavenly caretaker to make any of it work for me or to make me feel all lovie-dovie inside … as the totalitarian RCC church promotes their (and yours) un-morals of homophobia, bigotry, condemnation, idol worship, superiority, infallibility among other bigotries which are openly practiced but with that kindly christian smile ever present of course as they pass the collection plate around again 

Here you hurl the charge of totalitarianism at the Catholic Church. well, here's what I say to that. There is an exercise of power to which no reasonable objection can be raised, as it only furthers liberty and human dignity and it is the totalitarianism of the one and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords as the Lord God is omnipotent. This totalitarian principle that abides in its fullness in God, may be and has been delegated by God to certain personages, particularly His priests. First the Mosaic Law was in keeping with the priestly sons of Levi and the judges who exercised the authority to show the truth of the judgment that the Jews were compelled to obey or die. Now, the exercise of this delegated power ceased with Christ and the institution of the more perfect priesthood that displaced the Levitical priesthood. But who, save ignorant anti-Catholic or blasphemous persons would question the right of Christ to say, "I am the way, and the truth and the life"? Who can question the right of Christ to set aside and to enlarge the pronouncements of Moses and to declare as He did in His sermon on the Mount, "You have heard it said of old....But I say"? etc.

Who is this "I"? The "I" of the prophets is God. We long ago concluded that if God the Father could delegate His Authority to the Levitical priesthood, then Christ, Who is one with God could delegate His authority to HIs lawfully ordained priesthood in the New Covenant to infallibly teach, judge, and govern in matters of faith and morals and to command us to "hear the Church" or to suffer condemnation for not doing so.  This Christ did when He established His Church that was made up in the beginning of an Apostolic society in which St. Peter, Christ's vicar was the supreme earthly authority. To designate the exercise of Christ delegated authority by the bishops of the CC who are successors to the Apostles and the priests as "totalitarianism" in the derogatory sense of the term is to offend the Giver of that power, Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Anyway, Catholics might feel honored to have their Church singled out as totalitarian were the term not used in the derogatory sense, though the term authoritative is preferable for she is the only Church that speaks authoritatively in the name of Christ.   

But what's most important is that the authority exercised by the CC which is limited to matters of faith and morals, comes from Christ, who is God.It is exercised through moral suasion and not by the use of force. That's why the CC can say with her Founder, "My teachings are not My own, but His who sent Me."

  

12 PagesFirst 9 10 11 12