Without a literal fall, there is no need for redemption and thus no need for Jesus or Christianity.Acceptance of evolution compromises the purpose of Christ's redemption. In accepting evolution and attempting to fit the Bible around it, a theistic evolutionist ends up believing that God used suffering and death to advance animals to men. In other words, death is no longer the penalty for sin, but merely a part of creation. However, according to the Bible sin and death are the opposite of good. Thus, the Bible and evolution contradict one another.

evolution theory is what i call nonsense as it doesn't even have a working formula, maybe you my friend came from apes but i did not.

sleek29:

evolution theory is what i call nonsense as it doesn't even have a working formula, maybe you my friend came from apes but i did not.

Can u provide proof that the planet was created in 6 days? And that its not more than 6'000 years old?

Atheists:

Without a literal fall, there is no need for redemption and thus no need for Jesus or Christianity.Acceptance of evolution compromises the purpose of Christ's redemption. In accepting evolution and attempting to fit the Bible around it, a theistic evolutionist ends up believing that God used suffering and death to advance animals to men. In other words, death is no longer the penalty for sin, but merely a part of creation. However, according to the Bible sin and death are the opposite of good. Thus, the Bible and evolution contradict one another.

I more or less agree with this unfortunate fact. Christians who have compromised their faith in the Bible so as to accommodate man's faulty theory of evolution have lost their saltiness. It is either the Bible is right and the theory of evolution is wrong or vice versa, both cannot be mutually exclusive.

sleek29:

evolution theory is what i call nonsense as it doesn't even have a working formula, maybe you my friend came from apes but i did not.

This is also very much true and the reason it has failed to become a scientific law.  Hypothesis, theories that have gone on to become scientific laws all have working formulas but TOE has no working formula and thus remains a myth that is believed by atheists and Christian compromisers.

manmustwac:

Can u provide proof that the planet was created in 6 days? And that its not more than 6'000 years old?

The onus is on you to disprove the stated facts highlighted above.

manmustwac:
Can u provide proof that the planet was created in 6 days? And that its not more than 6'000 years old?

Yes, I agree partly with modupe01 that the onus is on you to adduce a basis that verifies your claim about the highlighted in your statement.

As a Christian, I don't read or interpret the creation narratives in that way. For one, I contend that your assertion is a strawman; for second, I contend that the Bible does not teach that God "created" the planet in 6 days.

I notice you have repeatedly posted that same question to issues like this; but you should notice that evolution does not tell you anything about the CREATION of the planet. Since it does not, you may need to get your ideas together before assuming a position that is misconstructed.

viaro:

Yes, I agree partly with modupe01 that the onus is on you to adduce a basis that verifies your claim about the highlighted in your statement.

As a Christian, I don't read or interpret the creation narratives in that way. For one, I contend that your assertion is a strawman; for second, I contend that the Bible does not teach that God "created" the planet in 6 days.

I notice you have repeatedly posted that same question to issues like this; but you should notice that evolution does not tell you anything about the CREATION of the planet. Since it does not, you may need to get your ideas together before assuming a position that is misconstructed.

As a Christian, do you read the decalogue as an allegory or literally?

modupe01:

As a Christian, do you read the decalogue as an allegory or literally?

Yes and no.

Yes - because they apply in a literal sense to those who were under that covenant, Judaism.

No - because as a Christian without a Jewish background, I am not bound by the Judaistic covenant even though the Decalogue applies to me in principle.

viaro:

Yes and no.

Yes - because they apply in a literal sense to those who were under that covenant, Judaism.

No - because as a Christian without a Jewish background, I am not bound by the Judaistic covenant even though the Decalogue applies to me in principle.

Agreed.  Did you know that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger?

@viaro. Do you believe someone can be 30 years old, grow out of a society, and be completely uninfluenced by it?

If Jesus was born and raised a Jew, is it possible to understand Jesus without understanding Judaism?

If Jesus' work is understood outside the context of 1st century Jewish life in Palestine, can we really understand HIS message?

Do you think the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are historical or are theysymbolic?

Should I create a separate thread for this, because I really really reaaallly want to discuss this stuff with you. Every other time i tried i've been insulted and pretty much called a devil.  

modupe01:

Agreed.  Did you know that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger?

No, I do not know that. Rather, I believe He did so in light of what the Scripture teaches.

Krayola:

@viaro. Do you believe someone can be 30 years old, grow out of a society, and be completely uninfluenced by it?

I believe that is possible.

If Jesus was born and raised a Jew, is it possible to understand Jesus without understanding Judaism?

I don't know if it is possible to do so. However, I would rather say that a good understanding of Jesus according to the Biblical texts is impossible without a basic understanding of Judaism.

If Jesus' work is understood outside the context of 1st century Jewish life in Palestine, can we really understand HIS message?

I believe so, as long as we do not deliberately decontextualize His message.

Do you think the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are historical or are theysymbolic?

I believe they are both historical and symbolic.

Should I create a separate thread for this, because I really really reaaallly want to discuss this stuff with you. Every other time i tried i've been insulted and pretty much called a devil.  

Lol, Krayo my man! You know we all have our devils (even viaro's has gone on a short holiday)  .  No, I won't cut you anyhow; but I believe we could enjoy some discussions on this when I can have good time to hand. .  say around December and January?

@Krayola,
In hindsight, I think another (or separate) thread would be suitable, so we don't run the risk of derailing this one about the ignorance of evolution. When I'm ready, will gee you a shout.

viaro:

No, I do not know that. Rather, I believe He did so in light of what the Scripture teaches.

I guess that you are still in the realm of belief rather than knowledge (my guess is as good as yours). I accept the fact that you believe that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger, according to Scriptures. Let's see what He wrote in Exodus 20:11 and see how we can understand what He meant:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Can you now see the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty Himself? He did not leave it open to human interpretation, no?.

viaro:

Yes and no.

Yes - because they apply in a literal sense to those who were under that covenant, Judaism.

No - because as a Christian without a Jewish background, I am not bound by the Judaistic covenant even though the Decalogue applies to me in principle.

Which decalogue do you accept? That given in Exodus 20 or that given in Exodus 34? Remember that God himself said in Exodus 34 that re was replacing the commandments in Exodus 20 with those in Exodus 34.

viaro:

I believe that is possible.

Do you think it is likely that someone grows out of a society, and at 30 is completely uninfluenced by it?  (when i say influenced I don't mean it in a bad way)

viaro:

I don't know if it is possible to do so. However, I would rather say that a good understanding of Jesus according to the Biblical texts is impossible without a basic understanding of Judaism.

Cool.
The Gospels, in your opinion, are the narratives factual, or are they attempts by their authors to tell us the significance of the life of Jesus, based on  their understanding of the stories about his life.

viaro:

I believe so, as long as we do not deliberately decontextualize His message.

Isn't that almost impossible, though. The realities of 1st century palestine are different from just about anything we have today. The expectations of Jesus' immediate audience was different (When is God coming to fukc these Romans up and restore his reign?) . IMO  Jesus was speaking DIRECTLY to the needs of his audience. Today I think we are so caught up in the moral and spiritual dimensions of Jesus' teachings that we sometimes overlook the social or socio-political dimension of it (Which is why we probably have no idea what exactly really got him killed and instead just blame the Jews). But i'll leave that for later

viaro:

I believe they are both historical and symbolic.

how so?

viaro:

Lol, Krayo my man! You know we all have our devils (even viaro's has gone on a short holiday)  .  No, I won't cut you anyhow; but I believe we could enjoy some discussions on this when I can have good time to hand. .  say around December and January?

haha. No problem. Because the conversation will wear both of us out. I will be patient, but I'm looking forward to it.  

viaro:

@Krayola,
In hindsight, I think another (or separate) thread would be suitable, so we don't run the risk of derailing this one about the ignorance of evolution. When I'm ready, will gee you a shout.

aight. . .just let me know when u have time. i should be trying to avoid nairaland sef cause my grades are going to shit. I spend way too much time here

huxley:

Which decalogue do you accept?  That given in Exodus 20 or that given in Exodus 34?  Remember that God himself said in Exodus 34 that re was replacing the commandments in Exodus 20 with those in Exodus 34.

Hello huxley. I accept both and I'm not given to unnecessary and inconsequential arguments. So, could I simply get on with addressing modupe01's enquiries? Cheers.

Krayola:

aight. . .just let me know when u have time. i should be trying to avoid nairaland sef cause my grades are going to shit. I spend way too much time here

I guess we're both in the same boat on that! I planned to spend just a short time on NL, but. . .

modupe01:

I guess that you are still in the realm of belief rather than knowledge (my guess is as good as yours). I accept the fact that you believe that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger, according to Scriptures. Let's see what He wrote in Exodus 20:11 and see how we can understand what He meant:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Can you now see the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty Himself? He did not leave it open to human interpretation, no?.

Where did you get this from? Its very funny how people write stuff ascribe it to their god and then some other people from no where come along and say that it is the god whom the writtings were ascribe to that wrote the stuff himself. . . . I laugh in greek. . . .

atheists are the most confused people on earth, no working formula of the famous theory

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; But he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsel.

Can't you guys understand that the colonial masters who handed you the myths/half-truths/fantasies in your holy books have moved on.

Those myths/half-truths/fantasies were probably written to address the needs of people who lived donkey centuries ago and can not help us now(we are in the 21st century in case you have forgotten).

How can you still be imagining that the earth is just about 6,000 years old?
How can you imagine that the contradicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are both correct.

Really,you don't need more than your common fukcing sense to see the main plans behind it. But I can't blame anybody who is too enslaved by religion. Ignorance is good sometimes.

modupe01:

I guess that you are still in the realm of belief rather than knowledge (my guess is as good as yours).  I accept the fact that you believe that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger, according to Scriptures.  Let's see what He wrote in Exodus 20:11 and see how we can understand what He meant:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Can you now see the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty Himself?  He did not leave it open to human interpretation, no?.

Lol, modupe01. .  maybe He did not leave it open to human interpretation; but I would rather that He Himself would have us both interpret and understand what He meant by what He gave us. If that were not so, then other scribes and prophets would not have tried to explain anything from the law to others in order to make them understand anything - Ezra and Nehemiah come to mind as an example:

[list]Nehemiah 8:8 -
They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly,
and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.[/list]

Surely, "gave the sense" would remind us of the fact that those who read were trying to interpret the reading, not so?

Now, back to your inquiry proper:

Let's see what He wrote in Exodus 20:11 and see how we can understand what He meant:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Can you now see the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty Himself?

Yes, I can see that; and I don't think that contradicts with what I hinted at earlier. This was what I stated:

       "I contend that the Bible does not teach that God "created" the planet in 6 days."

But does Exodus 20:11 teach the opposite to my assertion and lead us to think that God created the planet in 6 days? No. here's how.

(a) In Genesis 1:1, God had already created the heavens and the earth.

(b) Then in Gen. 1:2, there was an epoch that is not defined, where the earth became void.

(c)  but according to Isaiah 45:18, God did not create the earth in the state of being "void" - something had occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 to make the earth "become" void.

(d) so, between both verses, there are distinctly two periods that can be understood there:
      * the period where the heavens and the earth were already created
      * the period after the initial creation, where all things were made.

(e) the Bible uses both these words and several others (eg., create, make, form, renew) to show that they are not referring to the same things in the same periods; these words are also different in the Hebrew language.

(f) the differences in the words are these:

                *  create    -     בּרא   (bara')

                *  make      -    עשׂה   (‛aśah)

                *  form       -     יצר    (yatsar)

                *  renew    -    חדשׁ   (chadash)


(g)  in some verses, we see how they are used differently, like in -

          *  God himself that formed the earth and made it  - Isaiah 45:18

          *   thou renewest the face of the earth  - Psalm 104:30

(h) so, while in Genesis 1:1, we read that God created the heavens and the earth, we also see that there are other verses where He speaks about having made, formed and renewed the earth.


What about Exodus 20:11?

Please read that verse well, even as you quoted it:

        'in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth'

Here, Exodus was speaking of events that occured from Genesis 1:2 onwards, not from the initial epoch of creation in Genesis 1:1.  We don't know how long ago creation occured; but the Bible speaks about several epochs of what God did after the initial creation - that is why we read of His making and renewing the earth.

It is for this reason that even the orthodox Jews believe in 974 generations before Adam.

VALIDATOR:

How can you still be imagining that the earth is just about 6,000 years old?
How can you imagine that the contradicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are both correct.

Not all Christians hold that interpetation to make the earth 6,000 years old. So, it is not rational to begin to broadly generalize things in that manner. Ignorance is not bliss, especially where some people trail off in arguments by jingoism like in your case.

viaro:

Not all Christians hold that interpetation to make the earth 6,000 years old. So, it is not rational to begin to broadly generalize things in that manner. Ignorance is not bliss, especially where some people trail off in arguments by jingoism like in your case.

You all believe that the bible is the word of your god but you all hold very very different beliefs and interpret it very differently. . . we have young earth creationist, old earth creationist, those that believe that noah's flood was a global event and those that believe it was a local flood. . . those that believe jesus is god and those that believe he is not the same person as god, those that believe that hell is an eternal place of torture and those that do not, you guys do not even agree on the basic nature of the god you profess you believe in. . . .There are over 33,000 sects of the christian religion all with very different doctorines and most are on each others necks, castigating each other and condeming each other as the "lost" sect. . . . if the bible is the word of god as you guys love to pretend it is then why all the confusion? Why didnt your god give you a single message that every body can understand and really know what was written. . . why reveal a message that will end up confusing people as they read it? example those that believe that the earth is 6000 years old believe that the holy spirit is what inspires them to believe, those also that believe that the world is billions of years old also claim that their belief is based on what the holy spirit tells them. . .why all the confusion and what does the confusion tell you?

Is your god so weak that he depends ONLY on debates about copies of ancient texts that even people that subscibe to the hypothesis are yet to fully agree on to reasonably prove his existence and will to the people he created and whom he claims he loves as the theory goes? There is a similar situation regarding science. Many Christians try to use science to prove their very different interpretation of the bible, and they spend decades studying science in order to try to prove the bible and how they interprete it. If a loving god exists as the christian meme teaches, surely there would be simple and easy ways to find good evidence that he exists not some endless debates about old stories that were written by mostly unknown authours that have no basis in reality.

viaro:

Not all Christians hold that interpetation to make the earth 6,000 years old. So, it is not rational to begin to broadly generalize things in that manner. Ignorance is not bliss, especially where some people trail off in arguments by jingoism like in your case.

If ignorance is not bliss then why would any rational person accept two contradicting genealogies of the same Jesus and smilingly stake his life for it

If ignorance is not bliss then why would any rational person blow himself up to go and claim 72 virgins in paradise when the person that gave him the bomb he use is still here on earth and doesn't seem to be in a hurry to go claim his own 72 virgins.

Jingoism? NOT near it pally.

Please lets not derail the thread.Let's get back to  Why Christians Ignorantly Oppose The Theory Of Evolution

@mazaje,

I notice on Nairaland that you have a penchant to deride the beliefs of other people. I dare say that is not my style, and where you try to engage me, I would welcome a discourse and not your pitiful remarks. Where you canot endure engaging in discussions, it were better that you don't engage me, but rather pick of those you can litter your harrumph on and get away with it. Not so with viaro, and I hope I would not have to remind you about such.

However, let me pick out just one thing to bring you round what you may have never in your small life considered about the fact of people getting along peacefully where they have different views:

mazaje:

You all believe that the bible is the word of your God but you all hold very very different beliefs and interpret it very differently

Yes, I do. And let me show you that I really do not have an iota of a problem with that at all.

Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?

If you imagine for one instance that there is an area of endeavour or worldview where every player is exactly in the same cloned mind and interpretation, it is most probably because you have never taken the time to ever in your life read broadly and are just a bitter little peacock!

I can contain the fact that people have varying degrees of agreement; and also that people can indeed read the same data or text and interpret things differently. What I cannot condone is the stupidity of grandiloquent fools yapping about other people's beliefs where they have never imagined that their own coteries are as divided on opinions and interpretations. Within Christianity, different interpretations have continued to this day to see people choose and make new denominations. Sad as it is, that is not my worry as to make me abandon my faith and go where. . atheism? Daft! In atheism, idiots continue to be at each other's throats - you never notice because you simply are too misfooted to find out.

But what about evolution? Great people - let them argue, and keep the trade of words. I'm not a fan of evolution or the various "isms" of that worldview. Yet, I do not go about haranguing anyone about why they "believe" any form of evolution - let it please them as they see fit. Nor do I even go about trying to hoot at every evolving idiot about the differences between evolutionists! It's their world, so let's shrug our shoulders on that and leave it there.

That said, what I detest is the notion of simpletons who don't know a dot about themselves trying to use evolution to denigrate the faith of other people. And if that's what you're about, please pass so the room can sigh without your cacophony.

However, mazaje, if you see the world differently and can contain people who have different opinions (even different opinions within the religion of evolutionism), that is all well and good - then we can talk as gentlemen, respect each other and see the world as larger than our arguments as we trod on as passengers in its orbits. I, for one, can make friends with other people without trying to ask them to hold out a religious badge of identification as the prerequisite for amicable exchanges.

Cheers.

@VALIDATOR,

I think what I addressed to mazaje should go for you as well. Following on, my comments to your observations:

VALIDATOR:

If ignorance is not bliss then why would any rational person accept two contradicting genealogies of the same Jesus and smilingly stake his life for it

You may see them as contradictory - I do not. If I do, my ignorance is sweeter to me than yours. That tongue-in-cheek remark is to make you understand that people should not just declare others to be ignorant without seeking to understand them. If at the end of the day, we all see things differently, it still does not mean that the first course of action and reaction is to deride them.

If ignorance is not bliss then why would any rational person blow himself up to go and claim 72 virgins in paradise when the person that gave him the bomb he use is still here on earth and doesn't seem to be in a hurry to go claim his own 72 virgins.

I do not see where Christianity asks me to go and blow myself up with hopes of bleeping 72 virgins. I meet damsels everyday where I work and holiday, so how does the 72 virgins saga come into this? Besides, I do not know if the idea of 72 virgins is in the Quran - I can't defend that, because I was never a Muslim and do not know half of their religion to make any informed statement thereto. I have asked several Muslims politely to defend that claim, and every single one I met without exception said that it is not in the Quran. Now, VALIDATOR, do you care to "validate" that 72 virgins as prize for terrorism is in the Quran? Somebdoy is lying here - either you, or all the muslims I asked who categorically stated that such is not the case.

However, even if that is what they believe, does that make my own belief system "better" than the next man? Does that make your own ignorance better than those you deride as if that is your career since the fall of the Chinese wall?

The thing about the way you guys come off is that you cannot grow beyond your small carpings. I may be mistaken, dude, but pardon me if I say that it makes me wonder if that attitude is peculiar to Nigerians.

Jingoism? NOT near it pally.

Okay. I only mentioned it because you sounded that way, especially because your arguments and remarks are not novel to me - I've heard it too many times and they have long ceased to sound intelligent by those often recycling them.

Please lets not derail the thread.Let's get back to  Why Christians Ignorantly Oppose The Theory Of Evolution

I agree. So, could we say three cheers for our criss-crossings? No ill-feelings, pal.

viaro:

@mazaje,

I notice on Nairaland that you have a penchant to deride the beliefs of other people.

Actually my style is to say it as it is and leave it. . .I know you have been wired to believe that any body that questions your belief is deriding or mocking it. . . .This applies to all religions actually. . . take a look at the moslem section when christians point to some things to them that are written in the koran they say christians are mocking islam. . . . .I had a christians tell me that I am the son of satan he just because I said that the bible god accepts human sacrifice. . . .I just say it as it is and if you feel so sad that I come across the way i do then so be it. . . I don't have time pandering to people's delusions. . . .I just state it as it is. . . .

Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?

You see where the problem lies? You guys claim that you have this trancendantal being that is perfect and whom is above all human knowledge and conception. . .You believe a part of these perfect, all good and trancendental being lives in you guides you all in all you do. . . you believe that this being does not behave like humans (some of you even claim that you are not of this world because a part of this trancendental being resides in you and guides you in all you do) but when we look around we see you are just as confused as every body else. . . .All the various sects of christians that disagree with each other all point to the bible when making their case against each other and all of them claim that the same holy spirit whom they claim is perfect and trancends all human ways of doing things is what inspires them. . .so is that possible?. . .So I  maintain that since there is no god all you guys have to do is to self project yourselves as god and tell each other what you want others to believe about the bible based on your own personal interpretations. . . .Hard facts to justify faith in god is not forthcoming from any area of the world all you guys have to hold unto are only stories and cultural mythologies. . . . .What you propose is the existence of a god who wants people to hear the gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it?

If you imagine for one instance that there is an area of endeavour or worldview where every player is exactly in the same cloned mind and interpretation, it is most probably because you have never taken the time to ever in your life read broadly and are just a bitter little peacock

Politicians, sports analyst, musicians, atheist do not claims to be guided or recieve inspiration or information from an all perfect and trancendental being that knows everything and has a perfect plan for humanity. . .you guys on the other hand do and when we look around we see that you guys behave like every body else. . .despite your claims of being guided by this being you are yet to agree on his basic nature and who he is. . . .

I can contain the fact that people have varying degrees of agreement; and also that people can indeed read the same data or text and interpret things differently. What I cannot condone is the stupidity of grandiloquent fools yapping about other people's beliefs where they have never imagined that their own coteries are as divided on opinions and interpretations. Within Christianity, different interpretations have continued to this day to see people choose and make new denominations. Sad as it is, that is not my worry as to make me abandon my faith and go where. . atheism? Daft! In atheism, idiots continue to be at each other's throats - you never notice because you simply are too misfooted to find out.

Just like the idiots that continue to be at each others throats in the myths you subscribe to but still ridiculosly claim that their opinion does not come from this world but from an imaginary sky daddy that lives out side of space time. . .You guys just invent things and ascribe to you imaginary father figure. . .Some people say, for example, that "God is love".  Well, if god is identical to love, then I do think that god exists.  Yet, the same people will start to apply extra bits to the "God is love" -- showing that they don't think that god is identical to love but is some kind of aware force that has many attributes that aren't love.  In that case, why use a loaded word like God when there is a perfectly valid word like love already available?  god isn't love, love is love.

Other people assert more generally that "God exists", yet they can't describe either part of that phrase.  What's god?  How does it exist?  I'm greeted with either babbling dogmatic quotes or smug silence. . . . . .  

That said, what I detest is the notion of simpletons who don't know a dot about themselves trying to use evolution to denigrate the faith of other people. And if that's what you're about, please pass so the room can sigh without your cacophony.quote]

The problem is that you only see things through one lens. . .are your fellow christians brothers and sisters not also denigrating others(moslems, athiest, evolutionist) just because they do not subscribe to their own ridiculous myths? What do you know about yourself? Do you think you know anything because you subscibe to the myths of ancient jews?

However, mazaje, if you see the world differently and can contain people who have different opinions (even different opinions within the religion of evolutionism), that is all well and good - then we can talk as gentlemen, respect each other and see the world as larger than our arguments as we trod on as passengers in its orbits. I, for one, can make friends with other people without trying to ask them to hold out a religious badge of identification as the prerequisite for amicable exchanges.

Cheers.

I have frends from all faiths in life so i do not even understand what you are saying here. . .

This is also very much true and the reason it has failed to become a scientific law.  Hypothesis, theories that have gone on to become scientific laws all have working formulas but TOE has no working formula and thus remains a myth that is believed by atheists and Christian compromisers.

The germ theory of disease is not a scientific law but that does not make is any less true. In fact the germ theory of disease is a cornerstone of modern science. The definition of theory in science means that your hypothesis is backed by empirical data about observable phenomen.