...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

I have been watching some YouTube videos lately where they try to explain to Flat Earthers how they are wrong. The flerfers always end up going through some massive cognitive dissonance and end up denying reality. I have noticed the same behavior from creationists.

Would any creationists care to try to explain how your beliefs are any different from theirs?

John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word was with God and God Himself is the Word? How does that work? Every man also has his own word and he himself is his own word. With your word you can swear, bless, curse and honour God. Your word is powerful, because through your word you can destruct yourself, but you can also save yourself through your word. Your word reflects your personality, your word is you. It is the same with God,...

Incredible information.

Over the past 30 years or so, I studied religions, and was always, even last week, confronted with textual Criticism proving the manuscripts of the NT as unreliable.

The so called “Facts” is that we do not have the original manuscripts, and what we have, only date from 300 years after Christ. Actually, we do have partial manuscripts that dates from 100 year upward after Christ’s ascension, but there is no way one can convince the Bible criticizer that these copies...

Please help me understand your reasoning: Why is the dogma that sex must be for procreation (in either whole or part) an intelligent and/or wise view of the purpose, meaning, legitimacy, and/or wisdom, etc of sex?

[To be sure, claiming sex ought to be for procreation simply on the grounds that it functions as a means to procreation is to indulge oneself in the inexcusably sloppy naturalistic fallacy of logic, among other grievous and damning sins against reason and good sense.]

‘Norwegian police said Sunday that a shooting at a mosque near Oslo is being treated as an "attempted act of terror" and that the suspected gunman harbours far-right, anti-immigrant views.

The suspect entered the mosque in the affluent Oslo suburb of Baerum on Saturday armed with multiple weapons and opened fire before being overpowered by a 65-year-old man who suffered minor injuries.

Hours after the attack, the body of a young woman was found in a home in Baerum and police on Sunday...

There have been Christian rock groups. In the 1950's and 1960's, rock music was the "devil's choir".

Many churches, especially Negro, have long accepted the "gospel" form of popular music but nor hard rock. Reverend Martin Luther King, though progressive in the civil rights movement, still did not approve of rock for Christian worship. Elvis Presley, a christian, would only perform and record devotional music in gospel form. This was far from his wild pelvis-swinging rock and roll numbers....

.
In another thread the responsibility of Jesus's death was brought up, and the question of whether anyone be blamed for it. As I and others pointed out, if it wasn't for those involved in bringing the crucifixion to fruition, from Mary who gave birth to Jesus to the Roman soldiers who nailed him to the cross, there would be no "salvation" for humanity. And in as much as many of the participants, such as Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, and the Roman soldiers, have been vilified throughout...

BS"D
The idolatry of Christianity is much worse than the idolatry in India!
Many times I hear people saying that the elements of idolatry in Christianity are disappearing. That “they are no longer worshipping wood and stone” and that idol worship of this kind can only be found in India.

In my opinion, this is a tragic error of our generation.

The Christians of our time are worse idol worshippers than the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt.

The reason why?

The Pharaohs didn’t claim that they were...

In the Nicene Creed it says "we believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ" But then a few lines later it says "we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, etc." Does this mean that both Jesus and Holy Spirit are Lord? If so, why say one Lord, Jesus Christ if there are two Lords? Can anyone offer an explanation?