Posted on 12/11/2009 5:57:16 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site... or so they say... and they might even be right.
We don't go for any of that godless left-wing big government socialist malarkey. And we do put our faith and trust in God, not government. We are pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Country and pro-Liberty.
We do not believe that government or science knows what's best for us or our children. We will make our own decisions thank you very much.
Every once in a while some group of posters get together and try to bend Free Republic to their will. Now, we tend to be pretty free-wheeling around here and will take a lot of guff and a lot of obnoxious insults from a lot of people, but eventually a breaking point is reached.
For example, when a group of RINO lovers recently banded together to try to force FR to accept an abortionist/gay rights RINO as our presidential candidate, they soon found themselves on the outs.
And a few years ago a group of evolutionists tried to force FR over to their way of thinking and they soon found themselves on the outs.
FR is a pro-God, pro-Creator, pro-Life, pro-Liberty site.
And now we have yet another group of Darwinists trying to have their Darwinist way with us. Well, as I've said before what doesn't kill us will only make us stronger.
Darwin Central has again declared war on FR. They have ping lists and email lists and will try to pull away as many FReepers as they possibly can. So be it. Those who would rather go with Darwin, please go. I sure as hell won't try to stop you.
FR will remain a pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Liberty, pro-Creator conservative site.
We wholeheartedly believe that our unalienable rights are a gift from God our Creator not from man or government. And no man, no government will ever deprive us of same.
Keep your powder dry.
WooHoo! Preach it, Brother Jim!
You give yourself way too much credit. Remember Pride is the first of the seven deadly sins.
I will say that given a choice between the opinion of one who is only a giant in his own mind (yours) representing a theological perspective rejected by the vast majority of Christians that have ever lives and the collective opinions of the true intellectual giants of history (the Catholic Church leaders of the last 2,000 years) the answer is obvious.
I must admit, you amuse me. The idea of NL presuming to lecture anyone about either Christianity or reason is simply hilarious.
If the intellectual giants of the Catholic Church have taught evolution for 2000 years, then why did we need Charles Darwin?
And I hate to remind you again, but I am not a chr*stian.
I went to the darwincentral site and it at the bottom of the main forum page:
http://forum.darwincentral.org/index.php
So then AP should be taken to task for confusing "faith" and "reason".
What about you with your remark questioning ones faith?
I can't comment on his chr*stianity, but his concept of "reason" is fatally flawed.
How do you know the theological perspective of the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived on their position on creation vs evolution? Did you ask them?
The last 2,000 years? The Catholic Church held this position on evolution for 2,000 years, 350 years or so longer than it's been in existence and much longer than the ToE has been proposed?
So, instead you base your decision of what to believe in the opinions of others? As opposed to what? Thinking it through yourself?
I present you with the dogma of the largest Christian organisation in the history of the world and you ridicule me for its content. The Catholic Church and its dogma has withstood far greater challenges than your pitiful attempts at self congradulatory humor. I suppose in the end your quips are like wetting yourself in a dark suit; it may make you feel all warm for a while, but no one else really notices or cares.
It isn't just AP. Most people nowadays seem to confuse "science" with "reason."
What about you with your remark questioning ones faith?
"Any organization that accepts the supernatural events related in the "new testament" has no business sitting in judgment on Genesis".
I stand by that statement. Anyone who subjects the supernatural phenomena of Genesis to scientific critique but who refuses to do likewise with resurrection from the dead, transubstantiation, or multiplication of loaves and fishes is simply a hypocrite and perhaps a bigot as well.
It's a (dare I say it?) reasonable conclusion to come to.
If one accepts the miracles in the NT that one's faith is based on as true, then why is it not reasonable to accept miracles surrounding the creation event?
Of course. There was however additional confusion between the two posters about who was using in error the word "reason" as an antonym for "science".
I thought it was well worth pointing out that it was, AP and not the Catholic Church.
ping... for those of you who may have missed this.
You won't get an answer, at best you will get a lecture that attempts to reinforce his dubious intellectual superiority. ZC and his ilk fancy themselves the theological elite and any belief system that is not lock step with their narrow view is fair game for ridicule. However, make a caustic observation of their beliefs and they will spend the next two days leaning on the abuse button.
You presume to speak for all of them. DO you have authority to do so?
If my post has been considered a personal attack than I apologize, and I'll try and figure out what I said that was offensive and make sure it never happens again. However, this is the concern, that it's possible to be viewed as "mocking or ridiculing" without having intended to do so. A clearer understanding of what's acceptable would be handy here.
Otherwise, why is that a concern? Are you worried?
Imagine my response thus: Why do you want to know? Is this important to you? You keeping records or something? That would sound like an attitude problem, so we'd be better off if we just didn't go there.
Antonym means opposite.
I think what is meant is using *reason* as a synonym for *science*.
Prove it.
Got something to back up that accusation or portrayal?
Fundamentally, the criticism is a poor choice of words by somebody who doesn’t understand Christian fundamentalism.
I posted quotations directly form the Vatican news office who does have the authority to do so. Your condescension and contempt for all things Catholic, spewed over years of posting history is really wearing thin. If you can't engage in a constructive dialog or legitimate exploration of theology don't bother to contact or ping me again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.