Teaching Creationism.

[EverPhoenix]

psychokind wrote:

and it's pretty insulting to use us as an excuse.

what did you mean there? i dont quite get it

[psychokind]

EverPhoenix wrote:

psychokind wrote: and it's pretty insulting to use us as an excuse. what did you mean there? i dont quite get it

it's not ok for creationists using us christians as a base of their own religion. we have nothing to do with that, and there's no sane religious dignitary here who would side with creationism. this is an american phenomenom.

as we've seen in recent times, our pope is more willing to side with hardliners who deny the holocaust than to side with creationists

[SoulBlazerFan]

::Sigh:: Jesus, people.

People of no faith turn to other forms (IE: science) to disprove faith because they don't have it.

People of faith refuse to let science disprove their beliefs- and completely ignore it.

To simplify this, I'm going to the literal definition of creationism;

"Creationism refers to the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity. "

There is NO LITERAL DEFINITION TYING IT TO CHRISTIANITY ON A WHOLE. Creationism is a very loose term, because, let's see- the Jewish believe their deity created the universe. Any belief systemed based on God or Gods (Even the Greeks and Romans!) believe their God or Gods created the universe. The Native Americans have a whole belief system of Gods, and they use these Gods in a way to explain the Creation of the world around them. Sounds like a form of Creationism to me...

So, now that that's setteled, there's something everyone here seems to have forgotten or completely overlooked. There are sects of science, even Christian/Religious scientists, who believe in something called "Biblical Evolution," which is following paragraph will attempt to explain;

"From a theistic viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God for a purpose, and are so self-sufficient that the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as stellar evolution, life forms developed in biological evolution, and in the same way the origin of life by natural causes has resulted from these laws."

In layman's terms, this means evolution is entirely possible of the human body, and Creationism is still entirely possible. This theory states that while God created man, who also created the ability to adapt and change, to allow the body to necessary abilities to survive in any enviornment.

The thing we seems to be fighting over is the idea of evolution and religion and no longer creationism in schools vs evolution. God and Science will never mix well, I'm afraid, because people can't see past their own beliefs in either place. And I do use the word belief- we simple, religious folk believe God exists, for whatever need we have for our own faith. People choose to believe science over religion because, universally, everyone still wants to answer the same questions; where do we come from? How did we get here? What's our goals in life?

Religion states that we're here to serve God and believe in him, and our worldly bodies are a test against sin to see if we deserve passage into His kingdom. Science instead insists we evolved from a lower creature- a one in a googleplex chance of mutation that caused the eventuality that would be humanity. Science also says we're here to reproduce, die, and become part of the Earth once more- energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only merely transferred, afterall. :p

This idea that we're "accidents" and that we're only here to reproduce is kind of cold, don't you think? An empty sort of existence, with no real reason for our existence. You need merely to watch predatorial animals in the wild to see- they fight for dominance, they kill to protect themselves, to eat, to survive.

We as a race have killed to gain, because we have free thought. That's part of my belief in my sect of Christianity, because we're not animals, despite what science may otherwise try to say. I'm not going to debate that evolution is impossible, because as has been stated, virus' change and adapt to become stronger, is good evidence- the only issue I have is everyone who is "Pro" science in this debate claims there is an insurmountable amount of evidence to back up that scientific theory, and no one has really cared to share any of this proof. We have virus' changing to adapt, but I ask, what else is there? Can anyone point me in the right direction? I'm really interested in reading up on this stuff myself.

Now, I will try to get back onto the subject at hand...

While science tries to produce "Fact," religion relies most heavily on the human spirit and mind- and what they believe, which stems as to why so many people here seemed to be so passionate about it. The idea that we have purpose here, that there is no true death, is comforting.

I concluded with this, because this debate shall never end, despite whatever I try. It will get heated, and, I'm unfortunately biased myself due to my beliefs in Christianity. I only say this- Christians will deny Evolution because it in some ways denies God, and without God, there is no Heaven. Without Heaven, no afterlife. That means by science standards, once we die, that is it. Game over. No continues left. No reset.

I'll ask this, not to try and divert the main topic, but; how many people that do not have religious beliefs feel that there is more after death? Reincarnation? Earth-Bound spirits (Ghosts?). Have you ever even considered the finality of death itself? That for some people would turn them over completely to religion, IMHO.

PS. Christianity covers an entire range of different religions, even Catholicism. However, no two religions are in total agreement, and, while I cannot remember who said it, the Pope's word is not final just because he is in charge of one sect of Christianity. One sect. His word is law in that religion, and while God stated "whatever you hold true on Earth I will hold true in Heaven," I ask why would the one of the Popes' decide meat couldn't be eaten on a Friday, but Fish could be, and his own brother just so happened to be a fish marketer? I smell hypocrisy....

But I'm not going to try and deny all religions are faulty- hell, Scientology was created because someone once famously told L. Ron Hubbard if he ever wanted to become truly rich he should start a religion. Too many people have ripped off the blind faithers of the world for me not to feel jaded toward religion, any religion, but that doesn't stop my faith in God.

A quick list off the top of my head of religions that fall under the umbrella of Christianity;

Catholics
Protestants
Evangelicals
Lutheran
Mormons?
Baptists
Methodists

That's about all I can think of at the moment...

And I also would like to apologize to anyone who may feel personally attacked. It wasn't my intention- but some people couldn't seem to grasp certain basic principles, and I felt the need to explain them as is best to my ability.

[psychokind]

SoulBlazerFan wrote:

The thing we seems to be fighting over is the idea of evolution and religion and no longer creationism in schools vs evolution. God and Science will never mix well, I'm afraid, because people can't see past their own beliefs in either place.

I am still fighting over creationism and evolution. and as you can see in my examples belief AND science mix well, at least for us christians.

Quote:

We have virus' changing to adapt, but I ask, what else is there? Can anyone point me in the right direction? I'm really interested in reading up on this stuff myself.

- fossils (the most important and most indestructible argument)
- anatomic developments showing how life forms adapted themselves to climatic and environment changes over the millions of years, the
- bird-example: birds of one kind of which some flew to india and some to russia. they adapted to the environment, and changed so much they can't reproduce together anymore
- experiments with fast-evolving species (in your "macro"realm). in 2009 a german scientist took fruit flies and two sorts of marmelade. only the ones who ate from one kind of marmelade were allowed to reproduce. after about 2 dozen generations, they only ate the one which allowed them to reproduce.

this would be so awesome much, and I only know sources in german...

Quote:

I concluded with this, because this debate shall never end, despite whatever I try. It will get heated, and, I'm unfortunately biased myself due to my beliefs in Christianity. I only say this- Christians will deny Evolution because it in some ways denies God, and without God, there is no Heaven. Without Heaven, no afterlife. That means by science standards, once we die, that is it. Game over. No continues left. No reset.

no serious scientist would deny something like the afterlife. because he can't disprove it. that's the difference between creationists and scientists btw. and seriously, does anybody read what I'm writing the whole time? christians do not deny evolution. they accept darwin as compatible with the bible!

Quote:

PS. Christianity covers an entire range of different religions, even Catholicism. However, no two religions are in total agreement, and, while I cannot remember who said it, the Pope's word is not final just because he is in charge of one sect of Christianity. One sect. His word is law in that religion, and while God stated "whatever you hold true on Earth I will hold true in Heaven," I ask why would the one of the Popes' decide meat couldn't be eaten on a Friday, but Fish could be, and his own brother just so happened to be a fish marketer? I smell hypocrisy....

if you argue that way, we are all jews. christianity as well as islam would be subgenres of judaism. it's not jesus who founded christianity, it's the catholic church. if they hadn't made it, it wouldn't exist today. as said, jews the other way.

[inferiare]

EverPhoenix wrote:

i was under the impression that catholicism was a sub-genre, if you will, of christianity. christianity being the broad range of religious groups who's base belief is that of christ and the new testament.

Nope. There's MAYBE a three year difference in when the religions started, but they're two totally different religions. The Christian church doesn't follow the Pope. He's the head of the Catholic church, the Christians don't have an overseer of their church (not in that sense. Jesus is the overseer, not a human man). We believe in the same God, but we're not the same church at all. Christianity and Catholicism were, historically, two different belief systems in a sense, in the way of traditions. If, as a Christian (not a Catholic), I wanted to confess my sins, I don't have to go to a priest to confession. I can just confess it all to God (one difference.) I mean, sure, a Catholic probably wouldn't have to either if they weren't big on following the church.

...the rest of this I will answer later when I'm more awake and not so frustrated over everything in this thread. Debating when I'm angry and incredibly tired = not a good thing.

[Miss Prime Blue]

I'm not religious, so i'm sorry if I offend anyone who is, that isn't my intention.

But to be painfully honest, teaching creation is really kind of like teaching people that there are pink monkeys on the moon. It really doesn't seem worthwhile. But if you enjoy, I guess there is nothing wrong with that.

Then again, I try to avoid many religious debates, anyway.

[tay120n64]

I took a gander at this thread because it seemed popular...

Now I remember why I usually avoid "Debate" topics.

Anyway, I agree with Jason's initial point that if one religion is taught in a History/Geography/World Studies then all major religions should be touched on at the very least. Yes, Christianity does often get singled out in these situations, but there are a lot of historical reasons for that. Though the biggest one seems to be the immense levels of conflict that arise whenever Christianity is mentioned (like this thread, for instance). Hell, even Christians are divided among one another.

I didn't read every post, but I glanced over a few. (I'm lazy, get over it ) I did like SoulBlazerFan's points, for the most part, but psychokind, while Christianity does not actually deny everything regarding evolutionary theory, there are a great number of Christians that do. (That closed-minded attitude I keep running into is why I quit going to Church, although I do know quite a few Christians who are much more open-minded and/or understanding)

@Raini: Actually, Everphoenix isn't entirely wrong. Christianity is a very broad term which encompasses a large number of denominations:

Roman Catholic
Anglican
Independent Catholic
Old Catholic
Lutheran
Reformed
Anabaptist
Baptist
Methodist
Adventist
Evangelical
Holiness
Pentecostal
Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite)
Assyrian
Jehovah's Witness
Latter Day Saint
Unitarian
Christadelphian
Oneness Pentecostal

While some of these (actually, most of these) denominations believe vastly different things they are all, fundamentally, the same. While there are many people who label themselves purely as "Christians" (I being one, and I'm assuming that includes you as well Raini?) the denominations exist to bring together people who believe in similar interpretations of history and biblical texts.

To the point that sometimes they feel like completely different religions.

[Jason Tandro]

@SBF: Yes, Mormons are Christians and their actual name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or as tay has pointed out Latter Day Saints).

[inferiare]

@tay: Not entirely wrong, but not entirely right either. Yes, a lot of the beliefs are the same, and that's what makes it fall under the umbrella of "Christianity". However, the differences that the different denominations have is what makes them not entirely Christian. In a sense. I mean more of "Catholics are still Catholics but they still believe in the Christian God" and all that. (and when I'm not so tired, I'll look this up to make sure I'm not messing up my history, but I do believe the Catholic church really hated/disliked/persecuted the Christian church waaaaaay back in the day because they didn't go with Purgatory and weren't following the Pope, but I'm not sure and I'm lazy right now.)

If that made no sense, I'm half asleep at the moment. I'll fix it when I'm not stupidly tired.

[SoulBlazerFan]

psychokind wrote:

Quote: We have virus' changing to adapt, but I ask, what else is there? Can anyone point me in the right direction? I'm really interested in reading up on this stuff myself. - fossils (the most important and most indestructible argument) - anatomic developments showing how life forms adapted themselves to climatic and environment changes over the millions of years, the - bird-example: birds of one kind of which some flew to india and some to russia. they adapted to the environment, and changed so much they can't reproduce together anymore - experiments with fast-evolving species (in your "macro"realm). in 2009 a german scientist took fruit flies and two sorts of marmelade. only the ones who ate from one kind of marmelade were allowed to reproduce. after about 2 dozen generations, they only ate the one which allowed them to reproduce.

One of the problems with this evidence is it shows evolution not in man but animals. And it's funny- my brother and I were actually discussing this very topic last night, and he brought up a rather funny point.

A few years back, a new fossil appeared. It hadn't been seen before, and scientists were baffled. Their finders immediately dubbed it the "Missing Link," as so many other creatures before had been. Only these scientists were allowed to study it. It wasn't until last year other scientists had the chance to study it. They actually said it was closer to the cat family than any mammals.

EDIT: My brother had mentioned it was named after Darwin, and I'm far too fired to look it up at the moment.

psychokind wrote:

Quote: I concluded with this, because this debate shall never end, despite whatever I try. It will get heated, and, I'm unfortunately biased myself due to my beliefs in Christianity. I only say this- Christians will deny Evolution because it in some ways denies God, and without God, there is no Heaven. Without Heaven, no afterlife. That means by science standards, once we die, that is it. Game over. No continues left. No reset. no serious scientist would deny something like the afterlife. because he can't disprove it. that's the difference between creationists and scientists btw. and seriously, does anybody read what I'm writing the whole time? christians do not deny evolution. they accept darwin as compatible with the bible!

However, scientists do deny God and Christianity because it interferes with their own system- as I said, God and science have never mixed well, and, when one interferes with another, it's all Hellfire and Brimstone, pun intended of course. And they can't disprove God, the Bible, and the belief systems- dare say, they simply ignore it because it sometimes goes against their own "proof."

And scientists will ignore the afterlife, especially a religious based one. And afterlife is also broad term, like Creationism. Afterlife is the idea of Heaven and Hell, prugatory for the Catholics, and even reincarnation, which some outside-of-the-box scientists cling to- because, like I also previously stated, sciences' cold and clinical "End all be all" way of explaining things is too much to bare and think about, wouldn't you say?

psychokind wrote:

Quote: PS. Christianity covers an entire range of different religions, even Catholicism. However, no two religions are in total agreement, and, while I cannot remember who said it, the Pope's word is not final just because he is in charge of one sect of Christianity. One sect. His word is law in that religion, and while God stated "whatever you hold true on Earth I will hold true in Heaven," I ask why would the one of the Popes' decide meat couldn't be eaten on a Friday, but Fish could be, and his own brother just so happened to be a fish marketer? I smell hypocrisy.... if you argue that way, we are all jews. christianity as well as islam would be subgenres of judaism. it's not jesus who founded christianity, it's the catholic church. if they hadn't made it, it wouldn't exist today. as said, jews the other way.

This confusing issue I've always ran into when discussing this is that the Bible states that the Jewish are God's people, despite the fact they deny the Christian God and follow their own. But here is the issue; there is a Jewish religion but also a race of people that are Jewish. The definition is confusing- are the Jewish people God's people or are the Jewish faithers God's people? Which is where your point is sort of skewered- did you mean were all Jewish by faith or by race?

MissPrimeBlue wrote:

I'm not religious, so i'm sorry if I offend anyone who is, that isn't my intention. But to be painfully honest, teaching creation is really kind of like teaching people that there are pink monkeys on the moon. It really doesn't seem worthwhile. But if you enjoy, I guess there is nothing wrong with that. Then again, I try to avoid many religious debates, anyway.

They did teach Creationism in school, but barred it because of the law of Seperation of Chruch and state. However, while I said it should be the parents responsibility to teach it- I don't believe it's right when their teaching days on end about various other religions in Social Studies but opt not to discuss Christianity. I remember learning of Islam and Catholicism, but never any other sect. There were mentions of Martin Luther, but that's as far as they ever took it. That's the problem I personally have with it.

Also, you have teachers who focus their beliefs onto their students. I had an issue like this- I was "forced" into discussing a topic I wasn't really comfortable with. The teacher had me discuss the "Pro" side of abortion, and, while not trying to erupt another debate, I'm anti-abortion myself, because I've seen the effects it has on people, and I do feel it is killing. But my teacher, who had said if you didn't feel comfortable discussing the topic, you didn't have to. As soon as I told her I didn't want to discuss it she told me I should explore other options, and I remember I could see it in her eye that she herself was a Pro-Choicer.

Is it right that a teacher holds the power over a child like that, forcing them do something like that? Yeah, I know, you can use the excuse it was a learning experience- but it didn't feel that way.

BTW, I was an A-student in that class. That was the only thing I ever failed, because I didn't end up doing the work. Because even as a young and naive 15 year old I knew there was something wrong with that.

[psychokind]

SoulBlazerFan wrote:

One of the problems with this evidence is it shows evolution not in man but animals. And it's funny- my brother and I were actually discussing this very topic last night, and he brought up a rather funny point. A few years back, a new fossil appeared. It hadn't been seen before, and scientists were baffled. Their finders immediately dubbed it the "Missing Link," as so many other creatures before had been. Only these scientists were allowed to study it. It wasn't until last year other scientists had the chance to study it. They actually said it was closer to the cat family than any mammals. EDIT: My brother had mentioned it was named after Darwin, and I'm far too fired to look it up at the moment.

fossils and anatomic developments as well as genetical accordances show even more proof in the evolution of men than dinsoaurs for example, because our evolution is only some million years old and the evidence is much newer.
in our evolution, we can also count in similar habits from newborns and apes and the reconstruction of footpaths from the homo sapiens and homo neandertalensis.

the fossil is the 47 million year old primal "cat" found in the state of hessen in germany, already 28 years before by a private collector. in 2009 he sold it, and it made its way to science .

Quote:

However, scientists do deny God and Christianity because it interferes with their own system- as I said, God and science have never mixed well, and, when one interferes with another, it's all Hellfire and Brimstone, pun intended of course. And they can't disprove God, the Bible, and the belief systems- dare say, they simply ignore it because it sometimes goes against their own "proof." And scientists will ignore the afterlife, especially a religious based one. And afterlife is also broad term, like Creationism. Afterlife is the idea of Heaven and Hell, prugatory for the Catholics, and even reincarnation, which some outside-of-the-box scientists cling to- because, like I also previously stated, sciences' cold and clinical "End all be all" way of explaining things is too much to bare and think about, wouldn't you say?

no, scientists deny neither afterlife nor god. especially modern physics almost includes god (because of the big bang), and (at least in germany) philosophy takes its part in physic studies. afterlife has nothing to do with heaven and hell, it could take any form imaginable. that's science, you can deny only things you can't disprove. and creationism denies evolution without disprove and against prove from science.

Quote:

This confusing issue I've always ran into when discussing this is that the Bible states that the Jewish are God's people, despite the fact they deny the Christian God and follow their own. But here is the issue; there is a Jewish religion but also a race of people that are Jewish. The definition is confusing- are the Jewish people God's people or are the Jewish faithers God's people? Which is where your point is sort of skewered- did you mean were all Jewish by faith or by race?

by faith. jews were first, then christians and then muslims.

@tay: this list isn't right. if I say "I believe in the bible, but add an extra paragraph which says I'm on the same level with god". you'd say "ok, but then you're not christian."
the same goes for all those half-beliefs and sects. hitting children and polygamie with underaged girls is not christian, for example (jehowas + mormons).

[tay120n64]

rainichan wrote:

and when I'm not so tired, I'll look this up to make sure I'm not messing up my history, but I do believe the Catholic church really hated/disliked/persecuted the Christian church waaaaaay back in the day because they didn't go with Purgatory and weren't following the Pope, but I'm not sure and I'm lazy right now

Well, the Catholic Church that was set up by the Vatican was the primary source of Christianity for some time until it was eventually opposed by Martin Luther and Henry VIII, creating the denominations of Lutheranism and Church of Engalnd, respectively. These denominations and other denominations like them are known as Protestantism, which is basically a fancy word for "Christian but not Catholic", although there are sects of Christianity now that are neither Catholic nor Protestant.

The Vatican attempted to persecute those that opposed, and in Martin Luther's case were quite vicious. However, there was not much they could do regarding Henry VIII, as he signed a declaration separating England from the Vatican and making the Church of England a church of the state. Incidentally, the only reason he did this was so he could divorce his wife when she was unable to bear him a son. (and as we all know, he did this many times)

There was never a separation between "Christian" and "Catholic". Up until the colonization of America, there was only Catholicism, Protestantism, and I believe Eastern Orthodox, as Russia never unified with the Vatican. So again, it was pretty much "Christian but not Catholic".

EDIT: I think I went off topic a bit. What the Vatican did was persecute anyone within their jurisdiction (and sometimes beyond it) that did not obey the laws they had set forth. Because at the time, Catholicism was a church of the state for all (well, most) of Europe. So it wasn't that they persecuted Christians. They persecuted anyone who opposed their laws. It was more a political thing than a religious thing.

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

the same goes for all those half-beliefs and sects. hitting children and polygamie with underaged girls is not christian, for example (jehowas + mormons).

My first instinct is to tell you to fuck right off, but then I remembered my place.

You are more than entitled to believe that Mormons are not Christian, but allow me to break down your argument into its finer points:

1. We no longer practice polygamy.
- that practice was banned MANY years ago. You are thinking of the offshoot FLDS church which are a group of sick people. They are not the official LDS Church.

2. There are literally 1000s of Christian sects which have different biblical translations and interpretations of the bible.
- So you're believe that faulty interpretation makes you not Christian is also wrong.

3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
- We're one of the few christian sects that actually have Christ in the name. So you're wrong.

4. We worship Jesus Christ.
- So we're christian. And you're wrong.

5. You're wrong.
- Okay, that's not a good argument, but it was fun to say it.

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

1. We no longer practice polygamy. - that practice was banned MANY years ago. You are thinking of the offshoot FLDS church which are a group of sick people. They are not the official LDS Church. 2. There are literally 1000s of Christian sects which have different biblical translations and interpretations of the bible. - So you're believe that faulty interpretation makes you not Christian is also wrong. 3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. - We're one of the few christian sects that actually have Christ in the name. So you're wrong. 4. We worship Jesus Christ. - So we're christian. And you're wrong. 5. You're wrong. - Okay, that's not a good argument, but it was fun to say it.

1. ok then, mormons no longer have underaged polygamie, then all other rules they have exclude christianity (disregarding modern achievements = disregarding men's free will)

2. 1000 faulty interpretation of the bible make 1000 non-christians.

3. if I name myself "the church of jesus christ and myself as the porno-saint" I'm not christian, even though theres "jesus christ" in the name

4. that doesn't make you christian. tell a muslim you worship mohammed but you think he liked alcohol and pig meat very much in your interpretation of koran. now ask him if you're muslim.

5. the pope is right.

[SoulBlazerFan]

psychokind wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: 1. We no longer practice polygamy. - that practice was banned MANY years ago. You are thinking of the offshoot FLDS church which are a group of sick people. They are not the official LDS Church. 2. There are literally 1000s of Christian sects which have different biblical translations and interpretations of the bible. - So you're believe that faulty interpretation makes you not Christian is also wrong. 3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. - We're one of the few christian sects that actually have Christ in the name. So you're wrong. 4. We worship Jesus Christ. - So we're christian. And you're wrong. 5. You're wrong. - Okay, that's not a good argument, but it was fun to say it. 1. ok then, mormons no longer have underaged polygamie, then all other rules they have exclude christianity (disregarding modern achievements = disregarding men's free will) 2. 1000 faulty interpretation of the bible make 1000 non-christians. 3. if I name myself "the church of jesus christ and myself as the porno-saint" I'm not christian, even though theres "jesus christ" in the name 4. that doesn't make you christian. tell a muslim you worship mohammed but you think he liked alcohol and pig meat very much in your interpretation of koran. now ask him if you're muslim. 5. the pope is right.

2. Are you a Catholic? If so, how are you so sure that the Catholic church's interpretation isn't among your so called "1000" non-Christians? I only ask, because I refer to 5.

5. The Pope is right in the Catholic Church, but only in the Catholic Church. And you're gonna use the excuse of calling Mormons (Which I'm not- but I won't disregard anyone elses faith over my own) polygamists and child abusers- normal people of faith, but don't try and glaze over the bullshit in the Catholic church. Of all the cases of sexual abuse on children from the priests, you can't tell me something isn't wrong there.

And that's not even thinking about all the cases that have gone unreported, or completely ignored- it's like that old saying goes;

Michael Jackson was in the wrong profession. He should've been a priest. Then, he would've merely been transferred. :/

And don't take it as an attack- I know there are probably plenty of priests that have never even had the thought to touch little boys or girls- but all those issues are too hard not to ignore. Every religion is faulty because it's based on a book, and the religion is created by man. By design, man is faulty- and makes mistakes. That's why I've felt the need to read the Bible outside of the context of the church, and have my faith in God instead of someone elses skewered definition of God.

They have so many odd things, like purgatory, Lent, the not eating fish on Fridays, and many other things I can't seem to come up with at the moment, but none of it I was ever able to find any sort of mention in the Bible. Is there some special, different Bible for Catholics that I don't know about?

Let's not forget history- history shows how bad the Catholic church was. How many priests, clergy-men, lied to the common folk who couldn't read, just to rip them off? If I was thought anything about religion in school, it was how awful the members of the Catholic church could be to their ignorant blind faithers. They made them believe you could buy your way out of Hell, as long as you had the right amount.

That's been my issue with Catholicism- not the religion itself- but how it's portrayed by the people that practice it, especially the egotists who say all other religion is "shit" compared to theirs. That personally drives me apeshit, over anything else, why can't people just accept other peoples religions and let it go, and stop playing the "I'm right you're wrong so you should bow to my God" game.