US Forces fighting Chrisitian Organisation in Uganda

[Charles Darwin]

[youtube][/youtube]

How dare he!?

Funny how christians are all for killing muslim terrorists but boy when the terrorists are christians..whole nother story!

[East of Eden]

First show me evidence the LRA is even using the Bible to justify their crimes.

“Yes, we are fighting for Ten Commandments,� he replied. “Is it bad? It is not against human rights. And that commandment was not given by Joseph (Kony). It was not given by LRA. No, that commandment was given by God.�
Joseph Kony

"Lord’s Resistance Army is just the name of the movement, because we are fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the [biblical] Ten Commandments of God. That is true – because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to innocently kill, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this."
Vincent Otii, from wiki

Formed in 1987, the group was first called the Uganda People's Democratic Christian Army but changed the name to the Lord's Resistance Army in 1991.
[Christian Science Monitor]

What does the LRA want?

The LRA wants to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and the tradition of the Acholi people, an ethnic group in northern Uganda.
--Washington Post.

Already covered in Post 95. What is your point?

[Autodidact]

First show me evidence the LRA is even using the Bible to justify their crimes.

“Yes, we are fighting for Ten Commandments,� he replied. “Is it bad? It is not against human rights. And that commandment was not given by Joseph (Kony). It was not given by LRA. No, that commandment was given by God.�
Joseph Kony

"Lord’s Resistance Army is just the name of the movement, because we are fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the [biblical] Ten Commandments of God. That is true – because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to innocently kill, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this."
Vincent Otii, from wiki

Formed in 1987, the group was first called the Uganda People's Democratic Christian Army but changed the name to the Lord's Resistance Army in 1991.
[Christian Science Monitor]

What does the LRA want?

The LRA wants to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and the tradition of the Acholi people, an ethnic group in northern Uganda.
--Washington Post.

Already covered in Post 95. What is your point?

Wow, I thought it was pretty obvious. You asked for evidence that the LRA is using the Bible to justify their crimes. I gave it to you.

Your post 95:

I'll also point out that mentioning the 10 Commandments does not equal coming up with a command or example of Jesus to do what they do. They are theologically wrong when they say the 10 Commandments are the constitution God gave to the whole world. He didn't, they were given to the Old Testament Theocracy of Israel. The Jewish moral and ceremonial law was not even applicable to surrounding contemporary gentile nations.

Well, the fact that you disagree with their theology does not mean that they don't use the Bible to justify their crimes. They do.

I'm sure they think your theology is wrong as well.

By what method do we determine whose theology is right?

[East of Eden]

First show me evidence the LRA is even using the Bible to justify their crimes.

“Yes, we are fighting for Ten Commandments,� he replied. “Is it bad? It is not against human rights. And that commandment was not given by Joseph (Kony). It was not given by LRA. No, that commandment was given by God.�
Joseph Kony

"Lord’s Resistance Army is just the name of the movement, because we are fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the [biblical] Ten Commandments of God. That is true – because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to innocently kill, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this."
Vincent Otii, from wiki

Formed in 1987, the group was first called the Uganda People's Democratic Christian Army but changed the name to the Lord's Resistance Army in 1991.
[Christian Science Monitor]

What does the LRA want?

The LRA wants to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and the tradition of the Acholi people, an ethnic group in northern Uganda.
--Washington Post.

Already covered in Post 95. What is your point?

Wow, I thought it was pretty obvious. You asked for evidence that the LRA is using the Bible to justify their crimes. I gave it to you.

Your post 95:

I'll also point out that mentioning the 10 Commandments does not equal coming up with a command or example of Jesus to do what they do. They are theologically wrong when they say the 10 Commandments are the constitution God gave to the whole world. He didn't, they were given to the Old Testament Theocracy of Israel. The Jewish moral and ceremonial law was not even applicable to surrounding contemporary gentile nations.

Well, the fact that you disagree with their theology does not mean that they don't use the Bible to justify their crimes. They do.

I'm sure they think your theology is wrong as well.

By what method do we determine whose theology is right?

By the teachings of Jesus, their crimes clearly violate those. You do think people can be wrong, don't you? Because some scientists believe in evolution and some believe in intelligent design does that mean nobody can be right?

[Autodidact]

I'll also point out that mentioning the 10 Commandments does not equal coming up with a command or example of Jesus to do what they do. They are theologically wrong when they say the 10 Commandments are the constitution God gave to the whole world. He didn't, they were given to the Old Testament Theocracy of Israel. The Jewish moral and ceremonial law was not even applicable to surrounding contemporary gentile nations.

Well, the fact that you disagree with their theology does not mean that they don't use the Bible to justify their crimes. They do.

I'm sure they think your theology is wrong as well.

By what method do we determine whose theology is right?[/quote]

By the teachings of Jesus, their crimes clearly violate those

. Well, those are just awfully confusing. It's hard to know what He meant. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Mathew 10:34. I think they think you're not following the teachings of Jesus.

You do think people can be wrong, don't you?

Yes, but how do you tell which?

Because some scientists believe in evolution and some believe in intelligent design does that mean nobody can be right?

Not only is this a red herring, it's quite wrong. Scientists don't "believe in" things. 99.9% of Biologists accept the Theory of Evolution. A handful advocate an anti-science philosophy called "Intelligent Design." But please take this red herring to a thread on that subject.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Please answer my question:

If it has nothing to do with the OT, why did you cite the OT as justification for going against the teachings of Jesus?

Where does Jesus' teachings address government foreign policy? Did He tell Pilate Rome should not be going into Gaul or Germania? He came to save individuals, not governments. That being said, Christianity is not a pacifist religion, as we see from OT examples of what God considered just wars. There is a difference between an aggressive and a defensive war, and an aggressive and a defensive act of personal self defense. The Bible seems to say the government is put in a position of authority over us to enact justice, whether against foreign or domestic criminal threats.

You still didn't answer my question.

If it has nothing to do with the OT, why did you cite the OT as justification for going against the teachings of Jesus?

Like with the "turn the other cheek" teaching. Does that apply only to individuals? Does that mean that if someone strikes me when I'm alone I turn the other cheek, but if I'm with a couple friends I'm supposed to hit him back? How does this work exactly, and where does Jesus talk about these exceptions to his teachings?

Here is a good explanation of that question:

http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm

Note: "Jesus specifically mentions the right here , even though a blow from a right-handed person would normally fall on the left cheek. This probably means that the blow is delivered with the back of the hand, since then it would indeed fall on the right cheek. We know for certain that such a blow was considered particularly insulting. The injustice that is willingly accepted here is therefore not so much a matter of body injury as of shame. (H.N. Ridderbos. "Matthew": Bible Students Commentary. Zondervan. p. 113)"

I believe turn the other cheek refers to when people insult us (rather than physically attack us) we are to let it go rather than seek revenge. Not an easy thing to do. I believe in personal self-defense from criminals, and have a concealed carry permit. Take the example of the Good Samaritan, do you think if he came upon the robbed and beaten man in the act of the crime, he should have stood by until the attack was over, and then helped him? No, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' means he should have stopped the attack, as we stopped the unjust Axis powers in WWII.

That sounds more like "an eye for an eye" to me. Which, interestingly, Jesus actually referred to in his "turn the other cheek" teaching. "An eye for an eye" does not refer only to insults, so your interpretation seems like quite a reach - I think you're really ignoring the context. More and more it seems to me that your theology is not based on things Jesus said, but on "reading between the lines," guessing at the reasons for him not saying things, and (in this case) seeking out obscure interpretations that find special esoteric meaning (which happen to match up with your personal political philosophy) in the plain words of your prophet.

But this doesn't answer my questions. I wasn't asking what you think "turn the other cheek" means. I want to know whether it applies to you both individually and collectively. To rephrase in order to better match your personal theology: Regarding the "turn the other cheek" teaching: does it apply only to individuals? Does that mean that if someone insults me when I'm alone I turn the other cheek, but if I'm with a couple friends I'm supposed to insult him back? How does this work exactly, and where does Jesus talk about these exceptions to his teachings?

The Bible is meant to answer all things necessary for salvation, not for every question that can be dreamed up.

You would thing knowing in which situations you have to follow his teachings and in which situations you don't would be "necessary for salvation."

How exactly were the Israelites provoked?

From Glenn Miller:

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" (I Sam 15.2f) The situation is thus: "The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence, distant cousins to Israel). They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau's twin Jacob.

They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev--a region south of where Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel--had they believed the promises of God. As soon as Israel escapes Egypt--before they can even 'catch their breath'--the Amalekites make a long journey south(!) and attack Israel. Their first targets were the helpless:

Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).

Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them: Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam 15.5f). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to 'move away' themselves), and the impending attack by Saul--especially with the troop counts reported!--would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled--we KNOW all of them were not killed, since they 'lived to fight/raid again' in David's time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah's time (200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).

Kaiser notes in EBC: Exodus 17.8:

Amalek's assault on Israel drew the anger of God on two counts: (1) they failed to recognize the hand and plan of God in Israel's life and destiny (even the farther-removed Canaanites of Jericho had been given plenty to think about when they heard about the Exodus--Josh 2.10); and (2) the first targets of their warfare were the sick, aged, and tired of Israel who lagged behind the line of march (Deut 25:17-19).

But Amalek continues to repeatedly oppress, terrorize, and vandalize Israel for between 200 and 400 more years! And yet, Amalekites were freely accepted as immigrants to Israel during this period.

Let's note again that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 400 years since Jacob and Land-promise), plus enough information about the miraculous Exodus to know where/when to attack Israel; (2) even their war conduct was cruel by current standards(!); (3) the semi-annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--and specifically gave them the opportunity to move away; (5) children living in the households of stubbornly-hostile parents (who refused to flee or join Israel earlier) died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, disease, and other raiders; or instead of being captured and sold as foreign slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?)--they are victims of their fathers' terrorist and oppressive habits toward Israel; (6) the innocent members of the community (Kenites) and any change-of-heart Amalekites who fled are delivered (along with their children of the household."

Well, that was interesting, thanks. I find it deeply disturbing that Christianity turns some people into genocide apologists.

If God had a right to use the Flood as judgement, He certainly could do it to one tribe that threatened Israel. I find it interesting that some are bothered by this incident but are not by our aborting 40,000,000 infants since 1973 mainly for convenience.

I think this is called a "red herring."

I dispute your pacifist interpretation, but if the 'group' does not consist entirely of Christians, why would His teachings apply?

Because I am not aware of any teaching of Jesus that said "when you come together as individuals to elect leaders, those leaders do not have to follow my teachings if the aforementioned group of individuals does not consist entirely of Christians."

[East of Eden]

Well, those are just awfully confusing. It's hard to know what He meant.

Not really. Some seem to have an interest in making the clear unclear. I suspect what Mark Twain said would apply to many skeptics, 'it isn't what I don't understand about the Bible that bothers me, but the parts I do understand'

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Mathew 10:34. I think they think you're not following the teachings of Jesus.

That is a metaphor. Do you also think Jesus is really a door when He said He was a door? That verse refers to the inevitable result of Christ's coming: conflict, between light and darkness, between Christ's children and the devil's children, and even between family members. John Calvin said something to the effect that it is impossible to preach the Gospel without instantly enraging the world.

Not only is this a red herring, it's quite wrong. Scientists don't "believe in" things. 99.9% of Biologists accept the Theory of Evolution. A handful advocate an anti-science philosophy called "Intelligent Design." But please take this red herring to a thread on that subject.

Argument by majority, and it isn't 99.9%. Science doesn't know how the first non-life became life or what caused the Big Bang, all they have are guesses.

[East of Eden]

You still didn't answer my question.

If it has nothing to do with the OT, why did you cite the OT as justification for going against the teachings of Jesus?

I reject your premise that what the military or police do are against the teachings of Jesus.

That sounds more like "an eye for an eye" to me. Which, interestingly, Jesus actually referred to in his "turn the other cheek" teaching.

Yes, because individuals shouldn't do what only government should, punish crime.

More and more it seems to me that your theology is not based on things Jesus said, but on "reading between the lines," guessing at the reasons for him not saying things, and (in this case) seeking out obscure interpretations that find special esoteric meaning (which happen to match up with your personal political philosophy) in the plain words of your prophet.

Obscure interpretations = proper context, not that I would expect an atheist to be well versed in this. You seem to be eager to match it up with some kind of pacifist agenda.

But this doesn't answer my questions. I wasn't asking what you think "turn the other cheek" means. I want to know whether it applies to you both individually and collectively. To rephrase in order to better match your personal theology: Regarding the "turn the other cheek" teaching: does it apply only to individuals? Does that mean that if someone insults me when I'm alone I turn the other cheek, but if I'm with a couple friends I'm supposed to insult him back?

That would be several individuals, so yes.

How does this work exactly, and where does Jesus talk about these exceptions to his teachings?

First you need to get His teachings straight before you talk about exceptions to it.

You would thing knowing in which situations you have to follow his teachings and in which situations you don't would be "necessary for salvation."

What a strange way to put it. If you are really interested in what is necessary for salvation, here is a good place to start: "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.....Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of Jesus." John 3

Well, that was interesting, thanks. I find it deeply disturbing that Christianity turns some people into genocide apologists.

Was what the US did at Hiroshima and Dresden 'genocide'? I'm pretty sure we killed far more innocents than ancient Israel ever did.

I think this is called a "red herring."

No it isn't, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of obsessing on a relatively small number of deaths millenia ago while treating the killing of 40,000,000 infants mainly for convenience sake as a non-issue.

Because I am not aware of any teaching of Jesus that said "when you come together as individuals to elect leaders, those leaders do not have to follow my teachings if the aforementioned group of individuals does not consist entirely of Christians."

I reject the pacifist notion than a just war violates Jesus' teachings. Again, show me where Jesus ever told any government how to behave and you might have a point. 'My Kingdom is not of this world' alone makes your argument moot. The crowd wanted to make Him an earthly king and He refused.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

You still didn't answer my question.

If it has nothing to do with the OT, why did you cite the OT as justification for going against the teachings of Jesus?

I reject your premise that what the military or police do are against the teachings of Jesus.

Why are you so dedicated to evading my point? Do I really need to ask you a direct question four times to get you to answer it?

You claim that what God (Jesus) told the OT theocracy of Israel has nothing to do with Christians today. At the same time, you use what God (Jesus) told the OT theocracy of Israel as justification for the actions of Christians today. Please make an effort to actually address and explain this apparently hypocritical stance you have taken.

That sounds more like "an eye for an eye" to me. Which, interestingly, Jesus actually referred to in his "turn the other cheek" teaching.

Yes, because individuals shouldn't do what only government should, punish crime.

And Jesus said this where?

Obscure interpretations = proper context, not that I would expect an atheist to be well versed in this. You seem to be eager to match it up with some kind of pacifist agenda.

You're ignoring the context, though. Jesus was addressing "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." He wasn't talking about insults, if he was talking about insults, why did he bring up "an eye for an eye" which has utterly different implications?

You reject mainstream Christian understandings of the passage in favour of an obscure interpretation that agrees with your political views. You're taking a simple teaching of Jesus and turning it into something esoteric and nonsensical.

But this doesn't answer my questions. I wasn't asking what you think "turn the other cheek" means. I want to know whether it applies to you both individually and collectively. To rephrase in order to better match your personal theology: Regarding the "turn the other cheek" teaching: does it apply only to individuals? Does that mean that if someone insults me when I'm alone I turn the other cheek, but if I'm with a couple friends I'm supposed to insult him back?

That would be several individuals, so yes.

How does this work exactly, and where does Jesus talk about these exceptions to his teachings?

First you need to get His teachings straight before you talk about exceptions to it.

Again. Where does Jesus talk about these exceptions to his teachings?

Do you actually believe that you don't have to follow anything Jesus said when you're in a group? Where does Jesus say anything like this?

You would thing knowing in which situations you have to follow his teachings and in which situations you don't would be "necessary for salvation."

What a strange way to put it. If you are really interested in what is necessary for salvation, here is a good place to start: "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.....Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of Jesus." John 3

So knowing when you have to follow Jesus' teachings and when you don't is not necessary for salvation?

Well, that was interesting, thanks. I find it deeply disturbing that Christianity turns some people into genocide apologists.

Was what the US did at Hiroshima and Dresden 'genocide'? I'm pretty sure we killed far more innocents than ancient Israel ever did.

What happened in WWII has nothing to do with whether or not you are an apologist for the genocide commanded by Jesus.

I think this is called a "red herring."

No it isn't, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of obsessing on a relatively small number of deaths millenia ago while treating the killing of 40,000,000 infants mainly for convenience sake as a non-issue.

This thread isn't about abortion. This is indeed a red herring.

Because I am not aware of any teaching of Jesus that said "when you come together as individuals to elect leaders, those leaders do not have to follow my teachings if the aforementioned group of individuals does not consist entirely of Christians."

I reject the pacifist notion than a just war violates Jesus' teachings. Again, show me where Jesus ever told any government how to behave and you might have a point. 'My Kingdom is not of this world' alone makes your argument moot. The crowd wanted to make Him an earthly king and He refused.

So you think that when Jesus refused to become an earthy king, what he was really trying to say was "when you come together as individuals to elect leaders, those leaders do not have to follow my teachings if the aforementioned group of individuals does not consist entirely of Christians."

[East of Eden]

Why are you so dedicated to evading my point? Do I really need to ask you a direct question four times to get you to answer it?

You claim that what God (Jesus) told the OT theocracy of Israel has nothing to do with Christians today.

Nice try, but not quite. The Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws have nothing to do with Christians today. See Galations. The Ten Commandments do.

At the same time, you use what God (Jesus) told the OT theocracy of Israel as justification for the actions of Christians today.

Yes, I am saying a just war is not outside of God's character, notwithstanding the NT passage you try and misinterpret.

Please make an effort to actually address and explain this apparently hypocritical stance you have taken.

Sorry, but I missed the hypocrisy part.

And Jesus said this where?

Jesus didn't, the context did.

From Wikipedia: "Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance."

This idea in relation to those who persecute is seen in Lamentations 3:30, "Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him". This is from the same OT that has no restraints on forcibly stopping evildoers.

I have heard Bible commentators say that 'resist' in Matt. 5:39 probably means in a court of law. The Greek word for 'strike' in that passage means 'slaps you with the back of the hand', so it was more of an insult than an act of violence. The point is that it is better to be insulted twice than to take the matter to court.

If your misinterpretation was correct, why would Jesus say "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." (Luke 11:21 RSV). No "turn the other cheek" for burglars or looters, and by extension, every other sort of common criminal.

You're ignoring the context, though. Jesus was addressing "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." He wasn't talking about insults, if he was talking about insults, why did he bring up "an eye for an eye" which has utterly different implications?

You reject mainstream Christian understandings of the passage in favour of an obscure interpretation that agrees with your political views. You're taking a simple teaching of Jesus and turning it into something esoteric and nonsensical.

So knowing when you have to follow Jesus' teachings and when you don't is not necessary for salvation?

Straw man, I never said don't follow Jesus' teachings. It would be nice if you stop distorting them as if they applied to governments. Jesus had several interactions with people in the military, and never condemned them for their occupation.

What happened in WWII has nothing to do with whether or not you are an apologist for the genocide commanded by Jesus.

Yes it is, I am asking you if the Matt. passage means our actions in WWII were wrong, and genocidal. Either they were, or you have the passage way wrong. Why won't you answer that?

This thread isn't about abortion. This is indeed a red herring.

Yes, it is about Uganda, not the Matt. passage or the OT.

I'll again ask you to answer my question about the Good Samaritan. Do you really think Jesus would have wanted the Good Samaritan to stand by and watch the victim be robbed and beaten? Would you want that to happen if you were the victim? The Golden Rule says the attack should be stopped, and then the victim helped, and the criminals prosecuted by government officials (placed over us by God, according to the Bible) so they don't do it to someone else. Or do you think the police arresting criminals is a violation of Matt. also?

[Autodidact]

Well, those are just awfully confusing. It's hard to know what He meant.

Not really. Some seem to have an interest in making the clear unclear. I suspect what Mark Twain said would apply to many skeptics, 'it isn't what I don't understand about the Bible that bothers me, but the parts I do understand'

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Mathew 10:34. I think they think you're not following the teachings of Jesus.

Well, for a book that's clear, it's odd that there are thousands of different denominations, each with their own interpretation, and each one of which thinks the others are wrong about it. But I'm sure yours is the only one that's right.

That is a metaphor. Do you also think Jesus is really a door when He said He was a door? That verse refers to the inevitable result of Christ's coming: conflict, between light and darkness, between Christ's children and the devil's children, and even between family members. John Calvin said something to the effect that it is impossible to preach the Gospel without instantly enraging the world.

Exactly. Follow Jesus, get war against non-Christians. I think the LRA would agree with you completely.

Not only is this a red herring, it's quite wrong. Scientists don't "believe in" things. 99.9% of Biologists accept the Theory of Evolution. A handful advocate an anti-science philosophy called "Intelligent Design." But please take this red herring to a thread on that subject.

Argument by majority, and it isn't 99.9%. Science doesn't know how the first non-life became life or what caused the Big Bang, all they have are guesses.

And none of which have anything to do with evolution. I suggest that if you want to discuss that subject, which has nothing to do with this one, you (a) learn what it is (b) start a thread or (c) participate in one of the many threads on that subject. But yes, actually it is. 99.9% of Biologists accept ToE. That's why it's the foundational theory of all of modern Biology. See you in another thread, thanks.