Do you believe in evolution?

[12th Doctor]

And BTW... your point about Protestant Nobel winners is pointless, as the "majority of the Protestant community" I was talking about doesn't relate to the more mainline denominations... I was speaking about the anti-science crowd that you represent.

[Mechaman]

Yes of course.

Honestly, I don't see why religious people are so hung up about evolution.  Hell, if you think about it some of the religious text's description of the creation of the world matches up with the evolutionary chain.

[Derek]

I'll add that I can not believe in any thought system which holds that the nature of the universe or of life is by nature anthrocentric. Anthropomorphizing the world around us is pretty much an inevitable part of being human but tells us nothing about the world only ourselves.

It's an ancient view but they were coming to terms the same as we are today. Think of horses, they may think the universe is horsecentric. The same with ants.

Yes but then would not the horses and ants have different Gods? And how are we to Judge whether the "Horse God" or the "Human God" is more true (especially when considering how many Gods humans have... Ants may have millions given how much of them there are)?

I have no way of knowing if horses have gods, but if horses could draw the gods what would they draw? Perhaps it's natural to take the view that one's species is revolved around. This is a good discussion.

You are not making sense.

If horses could draw their gods, what would they draw?

[Derek]

And I believe in Noah’s Ark and a global flood too.  

How did they get two of EVERY animal on Earth onto his ark?

This explains it.

If you read Noah's ark carefully you'll find 2 versions intertwined. I am posting that under Religion and Philosophy later today. The J version says that 7 pairs of each animal came on board.

[Derek]

Yes of course.

Honestly, I don't see why religious people are so hung up about evolution.  Hell, if you think about it some of the religious text's description of the creation of the world matches up with the evolutionary chain.

Yes but only Genesis 1. The word day in Hebrew refers to era or time period. For example, back in the day. If you believe that all is from God and of God then yes evolution can be argued. Both texts and evolution have holes though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And BTW... your point about Protestant Nobel winners is pointless, as the "majority of the Protestant community" I was talking about doesn't relate to the more mainline denominations... I was speaking about the anti-science crowd that you represent.

so, "the majority of the Protestant community" doesn't mean "the majority of the Protestant community"....got it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not sure which is more incredible... how scientifically backwards the majority of the Protestant community is, compared to Catholicism, or the fact that no one seems to take note of it.

maybe no one has taken note of it because the headlines of the last 100 years have been filled with the advances of the industrial revolution brought about by the inspiration of the protestant work ethic.  In fact, from 1901 to 1990, Protestants won 64% of the Nobel Prizes in Science, with Jews winning another 22%...and the Catholics winning less than 10%.

and maybe if you lived in Texas, which is being overrun by the stream of penniless refugees from predominately Catholic countries, you'd have a different opinion

but most of all, you really need to get over your inferiority complex

P.S. If Genesis is to be believed - as we "fundamentalists" do - work was a godly endeavor from the beginning, even before sin came into the world.

You know... I typed out a really long, angry response to this... but it's not needed.  Thank you for finally admitting what a bigoted piece of trash you really are.

If you excuse me, I'm going to go steal some money out of your kids college fund, which you earned solely thanks to your "Protestant Work Ethic" and under-contribute to society... as sure Catholic canon demands I do.

Let see:  YOU begin segregating Christians by saying, “I'm not sure which is more incredible... how scientifically backwards the majority of the Protestant community is, compared to Catholicism, or the fact that no one seems to take note of it.”….

….and I respond by pointing out that the scientific achievements of Protestant far outweigh the achievements of Catholics (even though Catholics outnumber Protestants), and I also responded by pointing out how the majority of predominantly Catholic countries are totally corrupt and members of the third world

….and I am the bigot

…got it

Obviously, the protestant reformation gave rise to the industrial revolution. 

[patrick1]

I would think that the majority of the Catholic population being  "backward" would have more to do with the after effects of imperialism than their popish creed.  

There have been advances in science by Jews, Muslims and Christians of all sort- and each had their own golden ages.

As to evolution, sure I believe in it generally.  It is just a question of inception and mechanism really.

[afleitch]

Chris, you've made your point. I don't think anyone here is agreeing with jmfcst on 'work ethic.'  Probably best not to go overboard.

Contributions to science/politics/the arts etc depends on who has access to these fields at particular times. Therefore it can be argued that while Catholics were not as prominent in those fields in 18th Century England as they were both a minority and kept at arms length from positions of power and education, they certainly were at the forefront in 15th Century Florence or Venice for example.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did I say that Protestants are lazy?  No.  Did I say that I say that there was something wrong with being a Protestant that makes one lazy and too addled to understand science?  No... pretty sure I didn't say that either.

What I said was that the Catholic Church is sadly lumped together with what fashionable society now deems a "religious" ie "backwards" view of science, which in reality has very little to relationship to reality, as not only do we not reject science, as many of the Protestant majority (which now is comprised largely evangelicals, who do reject science) now do, but other than a few notable stretches of history, the Catholic Church has been a supporter of science.

So, based off this, you decided to chime in and say "Catholics lack the Protestant work ethic, and that's why the Third World is such a terrible place."  Okay, well, there is no logical connection there, other than your a bigoted moron.  There is also no logical connection between this notion that the "Protestant Work Ethic" led to the rise of industry... a notion that is laughably outdated, and was only ever a prominent historical view in Protestant dominated historical circles.  Never mind everything else that is wrong with that idea... if that view were true, then why is it that England (which changed very little of its religious practices after the break) the first to industrialize, while Germany was one of the last?  We have a series of vast historical factors and influences here, but no, we are going to cite the "Protestant Work Ethic" as the reason for industrialization, and lack there of as the reason the immigrants (who are apparently taking your jobs, because they don't know how to work... another interesting paradox... not to mention the Chinese, because they clearly lack the Protestant work ethic as well) come from such bad places.

Okay, well, you keep on thinking that, you piece of trash.  I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing your fellow church members that that is sound logical reasoning.

Actually, my reference to the penniless refugees had to do with corruption being the reason for their poverty, not work ethic.  (Kinda like how Buffalo NY, a catholic town, has a bookie on every corner.  I’ve been there 6 times and its like being in a different culture) Though, there is a HUGE difference in work ethic between Mexico and the U.S.: we can rarely do teleconferences with the offices in Mexico because almost all the Mexicans are 45 minutes late to one hour meetings, and you can forget about having meetings after lunch.  Anyone who has worked for a multinational corporation with offices in Mexico knows this.   I have worked for 4 differences companies with offices in Mexico and have even been the project manager of projects in Mexico City.  Their work ethic sucks, but it’s a different culture.

Maybe you shouldn’t bring up differences between Catholics and Protestants, it doesn’t suit you well.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chris, you've made your point. I don't think anyone here is agreeing with jmfcst on 'work ethic.'  Probably best not to go overboard.

Contributions to science/politics/the arts etc depends on who has access to these fields at particular times. Therefore it can be argued that while Catholics were not as prominent in those fields in 18th Century England as they were both a minority and kept at arms length from positions of power and education, they certainly were at the forefront in 15th Century Florence or Venice for example.

ummm, that doesn't explain the stats I mentioned of Nobel science winners which were between 1901-1990...the point is, don't attempt to start a fight by saying the majority of Protestants are anti-science because they have contributed more to science than any other group.  It's just a simple fact.

[patrick1]

Obviously all of those Slovak, Croats, Irish Polish and Italian Catholics that worked the mines or railroads and died in them were lazy papists They had a mind fit only for manual toil.  They did not have the higher level intelligence to run a business. Except where they did. And it is no mistake that the Lebanese-Mexicans are some of the finest businessman because they aren't saddled with popery.

[Derek]

BTW... just to show that I am not one-sided, and never had any intention of being so... there is actually one demonstrable link between the rise of capitalism and the rise of Protestantism, which is this:

The Catholic Church had a traditional ban on usury.  No Catholic was allowed to lend money, or goods, at any type of interest.  While Jews were occasionally placed under this ban, for the most part, Jews were the only people allowed to partake in money lending.  Not that Catholics couldn't lend money, but without interest, they couldn't make it profitable.  It's easy to see how, when Protestants lifted this ban, that helped capitalism move forward.

I'm pretty sure jmf probably didn't even know about that, though, let alone was it anything like what he was talking about.

Before the Baroque era the Catholic church weighed everyone down.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

BTW... just to show that I am not one-sided, and never had any intention of being so... there is actually one demonstrable link between the rise of capitalism and the rise of Protestantism, which is this:

The Catholic Church had a traditional ban on usury.  No Catholic was allowed to lend money, or goods, at any type of interest.  While Jews were occasionally placed under this ban, for the most part, Jews were the only people allowed to partake in money lending.  Not that Catholics couldn't lend money, but without interest, they couldn't make it profitable.  It's easy to see how, when Protestants lifted this ban, that helped capitalism move forward.

I'm pretty sure jmf probably didn't even know about that, though, let alone was it anything like what he was talking about.

True, though I wouldn't say the widespread legalization of usury had an entirely positive effect on society...

[12th Doctor]

BTW... just to show that I am not one-sided, and never had any intention of being so... there is actually one demonstrable link between the rise of capitalism and the rise of Protestantism, which is this:

The Catholic Church had a traditional ban on usury.  No Catholic was allowed to lend money, or goods, at any type of interest.  While Jews were occasionally placed under this ban, for the most part, Jews were the only people allowed to partake in money lending.  Not that Catholics couldn't lend money, but without interest, they couldn't make it profitable.  It's easy to see how, when Protestants lifted this ban, that helped capitalism move forward.

I'm pretty sure jmf probably didn't even know about that, though, let alone was it anything like what he was talking about.

Before the Baroque era the Catholic church weighed everyone down.

Care to add any substance to that insight?

[Ebowed]

All I see here is a few Christians going at each other for having minor theological deviations from each other which apparently are incredibly important and grounds to make weirdly bigoted statements.

Poor jmf, being overrun by penniless papists in his great homeland.  What a travesty it must be to have to deal with all of those Catholics walking around, believing, much as you also believe, that the world was created by a supernatural power who cares about every human being on the planet on a unique and individual level.  Frankly it looks to me like you agree on the basics, so what is the point of all this?

I can sort of see Supersoulty's perspective, in a sense, though, which is a desire to not be associated with these people who go out of their way to reject science in lieu of their own interpretation of the Bible.  It brings down the overall cause and all that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The Catholic Church had a traditional ban on usury.  No Catholic was allowed to lend money, or goods, at any type of interest.  While Jews were occasionally placed under this ban, for the most part, Jews were the only people allowed to partake in money lending.  Not that Catholics couldn't lend money, but without interest, they couldn't make it profitable.  It's easy to see how, when Protestants lifted this ban, that helped capitalism move forward.

The Catholics considered lending money and charging interest a sin, so they let the Jews do it?!  That doesn’t seem very moral to let someone else fall on their sword -  I don’t know why you would allow someone to do the dirty work for you.  But, one thing I do know is the difference between old and new testament regulations:

Deuteronomy 23:19-20 “Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.”

This had everything to do with individual Jews not losing their inheritance, and NOTHING to do with the morals of commerce, which is why they could charge Gentiles interest.

And as we move forward into the New Testament, Jesus’ own parables spoke about the wisdom of receiving interest from money you loan to banks, and this analogy was used to teach believers that, at the very least, they should take the spiritual gifts God has invested in them and loan those gifts to the church so that they could be multiplied:
Matthew 25:27 “Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.”

Luke 19:23“Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?”

So, obviously, charging interest is NOT a new testament sin and never should have been considered a sin.

---

Oh, so to dance around looking like a total bigot, you have tried to change your argument to "Catholics are more corrupt".  Well played.

Buffalo, BTW, once being one of the most important manufacturing cities in the United States, the industrial revolution in the U.S. being largey made possible by immigrants from Catholic countries... just to sink your original point that you have now so cleaverly disowned for once and for all time...

because your reference to the Protestant Work Ethic obviously had to do with corruption and not laziness... obviously.  And that makes it better... obviously.

I didn’t try to dance around or change anything, rather I was bringing forward TWO charges:  blaming their penniless situation on wide spread corruption of their society which stagnates their economy…AND…lack of a good work ethic.  Mexico is a hopeless case, it will remain a third world country until the return of Christ.  Corruption is too engrained into that society for them to turn it around.

And whatever Buffalo once was, it is now overrun with corruption AND laziness.  There is a bookie on nearly every corner.  

---

And you act as if the rejection of evolution is the rejection of all science.  Which is absurd, for I can testify that my college courses in EE had NOTHING to do with evolution, for there is no Darwinism factor within Maxwell’s equations.  So, don’t deceive yourself into thinking that those who reject evolution are scientifically backward, for evolution is NOT the basis of modern technology.

Evolution states that humans are the result of a string of only natural processes – a notion which contradicts every corner of the bible, because the bible states humans were created in the image of God and God gave mankind life by breathing his Spirit into Adam and that in the beginning God made them male and female (which Jesus Christ himself explicitly reiterated).

I wasn’t there to witness creation, nor was Darwin.  But I do know this:  the bible does not teach that man formed as the result of a string of natural processes; instead, God stepped into the picture and supernaturally created mankind in his image.  And every single human on earth is the offspring of Adam and Eve.  Both Old and New Testament state this EXPLICITLY, you can either accept it or reject it.

So I am sorry if your church has moved away from biblical teaching.  You need to get used to it because it is going to be happening more and more, both in protestant churches and in Catholic churches.  But that is neither my fault nor my problem.  Nor is it something I want anything to do with - regardless if it is a protestant church moving away from the bible or the Catholic church moving away from the bible – I want none of it.  Rather I want to interpret scripture the way Jesus did and I am going to cling to His teachings, because Jesus Christ did witness creation.  In fact, not only was Jesus there to witness creation, Jesus was the Creator:

Col 1:15-16 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”

So, I put my trust and hope in the eyewitness account of the Creator,
“Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.’" (Rom 3:4)

Lastly, it is not bigoted for me to reply to your ignorant claims by pointing out to you the state of world involving which sect has more scientific achievements. It is no different than if a black person claimed the majority of white people were scientifically backward compared to black people, and I responded by showing him the same Nobel prize list that I showed you.  It doesn’t make me a bigot to respond with facts when confronted with idiotic claims.

If you don’t like others making comparisons between protestants and Catholics, then don’t bring it up.  Simple.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The mere idea of lending money and charging interest was not considered a sin. Usury then referred to the fact that a usurer would lend money and charge interest without contributing any good or service to society to justify that demand for interest.

Since the money was just being consumed, there was no possible way for a poor peasant to ever be able to repay more than what he received.

The world is different today, as money is a vehicle for investment, not just consumption. By giving up the use of his money temporarily, a lender is providing a service by which the borrower could improve himself in the long-term. The interest charged on such a loan would not be usury per the Catholic definition.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Poor jmf, being overrun by penniless papists in his great homeland.  What a travesty it must be to have to deal with all of those Catholics walking around

stop being stupid, my feeling towards them have nothing to do with them being penniless or Catholic:

Their willingness to undergo such humiliation is evidence of how desperately they want a new life.  I have an extremely hard time deporting someone back to a life of hopelessness simply because they were born on the wrong side of the boarder.

and...

But that is extremely unfair. People who want to get in legally have to go on a lottery to get a chance to get in and go through a huge amount of bureaucratic hassle because of the quota system. Illegals can get in as much as they want and, as per your view, would be given a free ticket once they got in. Can't you see how disgusting that is?

that's not near as disgusting as deporting someone back to a life of hopelessness.  You're using the law as an excuse to discard humans.

Now that we have that straight...I was just responding to the claim that Catholics are more scientific than protestants by pointing out that there are MANY third world countries that are >75% Roman Catholic.  And a lot of these counties are totally corrupt and penniless.

I am simply responding to an erroneous claim by pointing out the fact that a lot of my tax dollars at home, and a lot of my charitable contributions abroad, go to support people from these “scientifically superior” Catholic communities.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The mere idea of lending money and charging interest was not considered a sin. Usury then referred to the fact that a usurer would lend money and charge interest without contributing any good or service to society to justify that demand for interest.

Since the money was just being consumed, there was no possible way for a poor peasant to ever be able to repay more than what he received.

The world is different today, as money is a vehicle for investment, not just consumption. By giving up the use of his money temporarily, a lender is providing a service by which the borrower could improve himself in the long-term. The interest charged on such a loan would not be usury per the Catholic definition.

go argue with this guy:

The Catholic Church had a traditional ban on usury.  No Catholic was allowed to lend money, or goods, at any type of interest.  While Jews were occasionally placed under this ban, for the most part, Jews were the only people allowed to partake in money lending.  Not that Catholics couldn't lend money, but without interest, they couldn't make it profitable.

I'm just pointing out that interest is not a sin in the new testament.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Never mind my curiously as to why jmf had that information on the religions of Nobel Prize winners so handy... apparently, this is a point he has felt the need to make before.

LOL!  Need I remind you that *YOU* were the one who started this off by claiming the majority of Protestants are scientifically backward compared to Catholics?

But to answer your curiosity: the comparison had never crossed my mind (I'm not used to being around people making the kind of comment you made) but once I read your obviously ignorant claim (hint: it’s not hard to correctly conclude your claim is rubbish when the United States, a predominately Protestant country, is the most technologically advanced country the world has even known), I knew I could find the breakdown of the religion of Nobel science prize winners on any of several Jewish sites – and, for your information, the Jews like to keep track of their achievements compared to the rest of humanity, both on a ethic and religious breakdown.  So, next time, before you make claims about the superiority of Catholic scientific prowess, you better check with the Jewish websites, for they do keep such information handy.  

[Derek]

The Catholic Church had a traditional ban on usury.  No Catholic was allowed to lend money, or goods, at any type of interest.  While Jews were occasionally placed under this ban, for the most part, Jews were the only people allowed to partake in money lending.  Not that Catholics couldn't lend money, but without interest, they couldn't make it profitable.  It's easy to see how, when Protestants lifted this ban, that helped capitalism move forward.

The Catholics considered lending money and charging interest a sin, so they let the Jews do it?!  That doesn’t seem very moral to let someone else fall on their sword -  I don’t know why you would allow someone to do the dirty work for you.  But, one thing I do know is the difference between old and new testament regulations:

Deuteronomy 23:19-20 “Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.”

This had everything to do with individual Jews not losing their inheritance, and NOTHING to do with the morals of commerce, which is why they could charge Gentiles interest.

And as we move forward into the New Testament, Jesus’ own parables spoke about the wisdom of receiving interest from money you loan to banks, and this analogy was used to teach believers that, at the very least, they should take the spiritual gifts God has invested in them and loan those gifts to the church so that they could be multiplied:
Matthew 25:27 “Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.”

Luke 19:23“Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?”

So, obviously, charging interest is NOT a new testament sin and never should have been considered a sin.

---

Oh, so to dance around looking like a total bigot, you have tried to change your argument to "Catholics are more corrupt".  Well played.

Buffalo, BTW, once being one of the most important manufacturing cities in the United States, the industrial revolution in the U.S. being largey made possible by immigrants from Catholic countries... just to sink your original point that you have now so cleaverly disowned for once and for all time...

because your reference to the Protestant Work Ethic obviously had to do with corruption and not laziness... obviously.  And that makes it better... obviously.

I didn’t try to dance around or change anything, rather I was bringing forward TWO charges:  blaming their penniless situation on wide spread corruption of their society which stagnates their economy…AND…lack of a good work ethic.  Mexico is a hopeless case, it will remain a third world country until the return of Christ.  Corruption is too engrained into that society for them to turn it around.

And whatever Buffalo once was, it is now overrun with corruption AND laziness.  There is a bookie on nearly every corner.  

---

And you act as if the rejection of evolution is the rejection of all science.  Which is absurd, for I can testify that my college courses in EE had NOTHING to do with evolution, for there is no Darwinism factor within Maxwell’s equations.  So, don’t deceive yourself into thinking that those who reject evolution are scientifically backward, for evolution is NOT the basis of modern technology.

Evolution states that humans are the result of a string of only natural processes – a notion which contradicts every corner of the bible, because the bible states humans were created in the image of God and God gave mankind life by breathing his Spirit into Adam and that in the beginning God made them male and female (which Jesus Christ himself explicitly reiterated).

I wasn’t there to witness creation, nor was Darwin.  But I do know this:  the bible does not teach that man formed as the result of a string of natural processes; instead, God stepped into the picture and supernaturally created mankind in his image.  And every single human on earth is the offspring of Adam and Eve.  Both Old and New Testament state this EXPLICITLY, you can either accept it or reject it.

So I am sorry if your church has moved away from biblical teaching.  You need to get used to it because it is going to be happening more and more, both in protestant churches and in Catholic churches.  But that is neither my fault nor my problem.  Nor is it something I want anything to do with - regardless if it is a protestant church moving away from the bible or the Catholic church moving away from the bible – I want none of it.  Rather I want to interpret scripture the way Jesus did and I am going to cling to His teachings, because Jesus Christ did witness creation.  In fact, not only was Jesus there to witness creation, Jesus was the Creator:

Col 1:15-16 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”

So, I put my trust and hope in the eyewitness account of the Creator,
“Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.’" (Rom 3:4)

Lastly, it is not bigoted for me to reply to your ignorant claims by pointing out to you the state of world involving which sect has more scientific achievements. It is no different than if a black person claimed the majority of white people were scientifically backward compared to black people, and I responded by showing him the same Nobel prize list that I showed you.  It doesn’t make me a bigot to respond with facts when confronted with idiotic claims.

If you don’t like others making comparisons between protestants and Catholics, then don’t bring it up.  Simple.

I agree that it's not a sin. However, Deuteronomy was written to promote Josiah's policies which benefited southern Israel. This is perhaps the most political document in the history of mankind. This can be proven when looking at how Josiah is praised as if he was predicted. All he did was benefit the Shiloh Priests. Furthermore, anyone with investigation experience can see that the author of this book was Baruch, who was Jeremiah's scribe. Hilkiah who "found" and "presented" the document according to the Bible was Jeremiah's father. Yes, oh yes his father indeed. When comparing the start of Deuteronomy to the start of Baruch it is obvious that it is the same author almost word for word.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Yes. (sane, not a creationist idiot).

[Meclazine for Israel]

If you took all humans from the Earth and let the mammals run free, then the next intelligent animal to rise up and take over the world would go through their

(i) Dumb phase - make rocks into big shapes and tell stories about where things came from with absolutely no clue about anything.

(ii) Aggressive and scientific phase - have multiple wars leading to advanced scientific developments.

(iii) Technological phase - build a search engine that shows you female body parts.

Now, the animals who enjoy this development path through science and technology will discover the theory of Evolution, and all of the laws of physics, mathematics etc will be the same.

But they wont write a page of the Bible because it is an independent story during the semi-dumb phase of human history.

Science can now explain matters of worldly fact.

For example, if science did not predict lights behaviour thanks to quantum mechanics, you would not be reading this right now.

[HillGoose]

No. I don't believe anything that happened in the past. It's all a story to me.

I also don't believe Jesus Christ existed.