[spirited irish]

ping

[spirited irish]

ping

[Moonman62]

An otherwise fine article devolves into a screed about Darwin. What a disappointment.

[ReformedBeckite]

Looks like a good article but I’m too brain dead right now and in denial of major truths to grasp anything of major importance so I’m pinging my self to read later.zzzzzzzzz

[allmendream]

At the time Chambers was a Communist, the Communists were absolutely rejectors of “Darwinism” because it smacked too much of capitalism with unequal division of resources and individual efforts and such. They were “Lysenkoists” or “Lamarkian”, not “Darwinists”.

But again it is demonstrated that creationists are among the least educated segment of society, and apparently that extends to science AND history.

[antisocial]

BTTT

[bioqubit]

The article is fundamentally correct. But I am wondering if the Original Lie does not actually trace further back to Aristotle’s empiricism, rather than Occam’s nominalism. Occam framed it, but Aristotle spawned it, I think.

Aristotle postulated the law of the excluded middle which set the basis for clear logical thinking, which is the way this article is written. The Left is not totally devoid of spirituality. The New Age “philosophy” is a mish mosh of ideas about life after death, the paranormal, ancient spiritual traditions - anything but Christianity and the West. World Religion is a whole other subject with it’s conservative and liberal adherents.

My criticism is that conservatives reject what they should study and know - as in Know Thy Enemy. Instead, we prefer to be ignorant of the enemy. Fatal mistake.

But I will argue that there is a basis for a New Age Christianity, but that’s another story for later.

I agree with the thrust of the article, but the left does have traces of religion and spirituality that should not be ignored.

The parting thought is that our forebears did worry about “perfectability of the human soul”. That’s why they read the Bible. In an effort to follow Christ more closely, they addressed their failings directly. This conflicts with the conservative notion that you cannot change human nature. Instead, individuals can change. But forcing wholesale social change by government intervention is destructive.

[Wuli]

ping

[little jeremiah]

Thank you, will read and ping out today.

[little jeremiah]

I didn’t get to this today - got a lot of things added to my “plate” unexpectedly.

Will read and ping tomorrow.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

O listees! Even if you are too busy to read any other pinged out articles, please read Linda Kimball's newest one. There's already an interesting discussion going on. All I can say is - I agree with her 100%, and as usual, her article is sourced with quotes and references, and written with articulate passion.

[xzins]

outstanding article!

The original lie.

[redgolum]

Great article.

Fellow GOP members, look at this and beware. The same sickness that has destroyed the liberals is growing in the “conservative” camp.

Remember that you are not God, and that He will be the judge.

[Kolokotronis]

Here’s an article that all posters here on FR should take very seriously.

[r9etb]

Its deterioration was traced by Weaver to the late 14th century when, Weaver argued, Western man had made an "evil decision."

Well, OK, then.

I suppose it would be churlish of me to point out that what happened next included some of mankind's greatest achievements.

[wintertime]

ping for later

[saleman]

bump

[KC Burke]

Weaver’s book, which is the central part of this fine article is a great read. I remember a decade ago reading it in bed and finding it so profound I had to get up and pace the floor it left me so energized with its bold truth.

[wintertime]

In summarizing the conservative case, Frank Meyer commented:

"...Liberalism is in agreement with Communism (it sees) the necessity and desirability of socialism...it regards all inherited value — theological, philosophical, political — as without intrinsic value or authority....therefore (there are no) irreconcilable differences...between it and Communism (thus) Liberals are unfit for the leadership of a free society, and intrinsically incapable of offering serious opposition to the Communist offensive."

Of course liberalism is in agreement with communism! Liberalism **is** communism. They are both ride the same train. Each new socialist program is merely a station stop. The finally destination for both is and always has been: COMMUNIST TOTALITARIANISM!

Surely no liberal will be a serious opposition to communism. How could he? All liberals are communists. They are one and the same.

[EternalVigilance]

Bump.