Separation of Church and State

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]AllieD wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.

The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.

EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]

It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!

[/quote]

Win.[/quote]

Lose.[/quote]

Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.

And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]

You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.

The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.

The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]

But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?

Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]

I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]

Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.

I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]

It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[/quote]

What do you mean by the human soul isn’t divine?[/quote]

My stance on the subject or in regards the church’s stance?

162

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.

And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]If I thought you actually cared I might take the time to straighten out this deplorable misrepresentation of orthodox hermeneutics. Dixie dude is actually incorrect here. Nothing you’ve said even approximates at least any of my views for sure.
[/quote]

Are you a fundamentalist? If so, then you are a different breed then the self proclaimed fundamentalists I usually talk to.

No insult meant by my descriptions of fundamentalists, was just describing the ones I knew.

LOL at Dixie dude.

163

I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.

I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.

I also realized I never stated a question…

164

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]AllieD wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.

The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.

EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]

It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!

[/quote]

Win.[/quote]

Lose.[/quote]

Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.

And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]

You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.

The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.

The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]

But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?

Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]

I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]

Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.

I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]

It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[/quote]

What do you mean by the human soul isn’t divine?[/quote]

My stance on the subject or in regards the church’s stance?

[/quote]

What you mean in your statement, “insinuates the human soul isn’t divine.”

165

[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.

I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.

I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]

I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.

As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.

166

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
<<< Are you a fundamentalist? If so, then you are a different breed then the self proclaimed fundamentalists I usually talk to.

No insult meant by my descriptions of fundamentalists, was just describing the ones I knew.

LOL at Dixie dude.[/quote]Define fundamentalist for me if you would.

167

[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.

I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.

I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]Any view that denies a literal first man directly created in the image of God renders the Gospel message according to the rest of the bible fraudulent along with Christ Himself who clearly stated that God in the beginning created them male and female quoting practically verbatim the 3rd of Genesis in response to an attempted trap by the pharisees. I’m embarrassed to admit that I have never thought of the idea of death entering the world before sin in a macro-evolutionary scheme. That’s rather brilliant if you thought of that yourself man.

168

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
<<< Are you a fundamentalist? If so, then you are a different breed then the self proclaimed fundamentalists I usually talk to.

No insult meant by my descriptions of fundamentalists, was just describing the ones I knew.

LOL at Dixie dude.[/quote]Define fundamentalist for me if you would.
[/quote]

The people who I know who claim the title fundamentalist are, while varied on some details, united by: a hatred for the Catholic Church, an unwavering belief in a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and are PreMillenialists.

169

Just wanted to give you a statement that has been dear to my heart since I was set on my journey to find the truth.

“But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand. I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. he is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob. It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated and out to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad. Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.”

  • G.K. Chesterton
170

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.

I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.

I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]

I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.

As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.

[/quote]

You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.

Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.

Anyways, this thread is not about such a topic that has no doubt been argued numerous times to no avail.

I say lets separate church and state. Then the government cannot corrupt or pervert the Word of God and still call it God’s will.

171

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.

I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.

I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]

I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.

As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.

[/quote]

You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.

Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.

Anyways, this thread is not about such a topic that has no doubt been argued numerous times to no avail.

I say lets separate church and state. Then the government cannot corrupt or pervert the Word of God and still call it God’s will.[/quote]

You should really read up on what the Church says about evolution. I’m not really hearing an objection to the Catholic Church. Like I said, I’ll try to find that book about evolution.

172

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.

I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.

I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]

I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.

As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.

[/quote]

You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.

Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.

Anyways, this thread is not about such a topic that has no doubt been argued numerous times to no avail.

I say lets separate church and state. Then the government cannot corrupt or pervert the Word of God and still call it God’s will.[/quote]

You should really read up on what the Church says about evolution. I’m not really hearing an objection to the Catholic Church. Like I said, I’ll try to find that book about evolution.[/quote]

Please do it would be an interesting read :slight_smile:

173

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Education>Abortion[/quote]

Agreed. Proper sex education, easy access to contraceptives, and the ability to provide for children > abortion.

However, the answer of the right is to not tell young people about sex at all, preach only abstinence, denounce condoms and allow only those who can afford it birth control, and, when (as a result of these practices) unwanted pregnancies happen, tell the woman “tough shit, deal with it”.[/quote]

Contraceptives like the pill are abortifacient.
[/quote]

No they are not-

They fake a pregnancy just enough so that no new fertile ova are produced. just as they would not be produced in the case of a real pregnancy.[/quote]

Okay, the Pill doesn’t prevent conception, it prevents implantation (most of the time, 4 out of a 100 still report pregnancy on the Pill). That’s called abortifacient
[/quote]

This is flat out wrong.

An abortifacient induces an abortion in mammals.

The pill prevents any ova to be produced that could be aborted.

No ova → nothing to fertilize → nothing to abort.

Now in those cases where this does not happen it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, but to call this an abortion is a bit fishy because a pregnancy starts when it does exactly that, and for very good reasons, because most ferilized eggs do not.

So to call a drug that does suppress ovulation and then prevents any fertilized ova to nest in the uterus which in all likelyhood they would not have done anyway an abortion is a stretch.

[/quote]

Actually, it’s the medical definition. At contraception a woman will show she is pregnant, it takes 7-8 days to implant.

http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html
[/quote]

So you link a pro-life website. No, not biased at all.

174

[quote]forbes wrote:

You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.

Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.
[/quote]

^ This is just plain ignorance of the subject matter.

175

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.

Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.
[/quote]

^ This is just plain ignorance of the subject matter.
[/quote]

No…no it isn’t. Its ignorant if I choose to close my ears and yell “la la la la la, I can’t hear you, la la la la la.” I have looked at the evidence. I just interpret it differently than you, which is not ignorance.

This is the wrong thread to be discussing this. Want to talk about this in the atheism-o-phobia thread?

176

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.

Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.
[/quote]

^ This is just plain ignorance of the subject matter.
[/quote]

No…no it isn’t. Its ignorant if I choose to close my ears and yell “la la la la la, I can’t hear you, la la la la la.” I have looked at the evidence. I just interpret it differently than you, which is not ignorance.

This is the wrong thread to be discussing this. Want to talk about this in the atheism-o-phobia thread?[/quote]

You mean to tell me that you’ve looked at the entire fossil record, the human genome and DNA markers within the fossil record and in the animal kingdom, the identical bone structure of all vertebrates, consistency in cultural anthropology, etc… and, you determined that it’s more likely that “primate-like fossils” were deformed humans or non-related species??

You also think that “secular science” denies any possibility of a divine being??

Knock yourself out… this should be fun. Start a new thread, and in it post a thorough defense of your position. I’ll be happy to respond to… probably not until tomorrow, since I have a long day at work ahead of me, but I’ll get to it.

177

Incidentally, Ignorance = lack of knowledge. It does not imply ant willful action.

178

[quote]forbes wrote:
Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man.
[/quote]

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.

179

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man.
[/quote]

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.[/quote]

Go ahead. prove the contrary.

I have looked at a substantial amount of evidence. I had to several times, for my classes. It would be one thing to deny the fossil’s we have. But to insinuate that they are our evolutionary ancestors is not a more viable option than them being a tribe of deformed humans or just simply another species not on their way to becoming a man.

Thing is science has made postulations of the unobservable (macroevolution). A theory must be testable, which macroevolution cannot be.

180

Not going to bother debating it with you, it would be a waste of my time. The fact that you can criticise macroevolution for being unscientific while claiming that God created everything is utterly farcical and pathetic.