Posted on 01/24/2009 5:28:02 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Ism ping!
Socialism is the religion of atheism and all its tenants and doctrines are anti Christ and therefore doomed to failure. The history of marxism is continued abject failure and the cost has always been blood, sorrow, death, and misery and though socialism always is vain, vain people continue to try and create a utopia out of sinners and without God and His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, a nation is destined to failure as has been proved over and over again and again.
Unless the one true and living God of Israel be in it, the house is built in vain. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord but sin is a reproach to any people.
Come LORD Jesus, rule and reign in the midst of all thine enemies.
Which is the whole goal of this group to begin with.
So true.
It's enough to make you believe that these guys ghosts are posting on FR.
They think that if they can make one part of the Bible out to be a lie, they can make the whole thing out to be a lie.
The same goes for any part of the Bible, whether it's disproving the Flood, that certain people or groups of people never existed which were mentioned in the OT, that there's no *secular* or outside sources that mention Jesus to *verify* the Gospels, that the miracles done by Jesus were not really miracles after all, whatever the argument is to discredit Scripture.
If they can find an excuse to reject one part, no matter how insignificant, if justifies them rejecting it all.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
— Saint Augustine
You follow metmom around the same way Soliton did.
I post on science, tech and topics relating to defense and Texas - I am stalking no one.
Indeed so. For a socialist atheist, there's no question of considering a Christian anthropology: that is, man is made in the image of God. No soul, no sin, no redemption. The two avenues left for an atheist socialist who wishes improve man's lot are these: environment and/or heredity. That's all. And so it is clear why, in history, socialists have been haranguing each other over the relative importance of these two. In every case, socialism must degenerate into control of environment (totalitarianism) or control of heredity (eugenics) or an institution of both.
"I merely see that untrained minds attach themselves to words, and that it may be a waste of effort to try to detach them."
Key to the furious anger against any who question Darwinism... those untrained minds.
And
"As socialists, we realize that a religion arises from and corresponds to certain definite economic conditions. Christianity was originally a religion of consolation for slaves whose material condition was hopeless. Later it became an instrument of the ruling class for perpetuating slavery. But economic conditions are now making the longer continuance of slavery impossible, and the era of collectivism seems close at hand. What will be the religion corresponding to the conditions of freedom? I suspect that in English-speaking countries it will be a modified form of Christianity, stripped of its supernaturalism, its asceticism, its introspective ethics, its insistence on individual immortality, and other irrational ideas..."
Reads just like it was the play book for our most recent election. Thing of it is NOT one of these Social Darwinist will accept the responsibility for our present day economic conditions. It has been their scientific methodology that by law indoctrinates the majority of minds the past 40 years +.
And time and again I read some Darwinist post I am Christian.... yep as noted one cannot serve two masters and these gurus at the top of their fitness chart know this darn well as so stated above.
I can't understand why the Darwinists are NOT jumping up and down cheering along with their fellow travelers, just like Bama told the Republicans 'I won'.
The leaders of the day laughed Jesus to scorn.
The whole problem is that the infidels are working from the perspective that anything outside of Scripture that they have investigated themselves is true. It's the same old argument that when there's a conflict between *science* and Scripture, that science is by default correct and Scripture is wrong. That's presuming, with no basis, that what mankind has discovered outside of Scripture is true and right, when we've all been told often enough, that truth has no place in science.
There's simply no reason to assume that *science* is right and Scripture is wrong by default, except the desire is to make out parts of Scripture to be a lie so as to make all of it out to be a lie.
There are people in every avenue of life who don't know what they're talking about and are an embarrassment to who or what they represent, science included. After all, you guys have Dawkins representing you and the people who have written the articles which ECO has been posting to show what your history is.
But to blame the occasional person who is a bad representative of Christianity for the infidel not believing is just blame shifting and intellectually dishonest. It also does not say much for the intellectual prowess of the infidel if he can't distinguish between the message and the messenger.
Anyone who rejects Christianity because of the behavior of or intellectual ability of a person who calls themselves a Christian, is just looking for an excuse to reject it.
Except that you could have posted that comment in response to post number 1 as a general comment directed to *All*.
By posting it to me in particular, ECO is proved right and it gives lie to your statement that you are not stalking me, as you have been.
Too many people are onto you.
— Saint Augustine
We’ll stick with the author of the Holy Bible, not fallen man.
[Just mythoughts] Key to the furious anger against any who question Darwinism... those untrained minds
That's a very interesting statement by Kerr. If socialists merely stopped using common vocabulary that we are naturally attached to, what would happen? That's not the approach they take, though. They attach new (and nonsensical) meanings to common words. For example, 'human' means 'ape' now. Similarly 'good', 'evil', 'God', 'truth', 'proof', 'species', 'life', 'science', etc, do not mean what we think they mean in any discourse corrupted by socialism, atheism, and Darwinism. Of course all this, if allowed to fester unresisted, makes discourse between humans impossible... and the ultimate reduction of human communication to gibberish is in fact a socialist goal.
“Anyone who rejects Christianity because of the behavior of or intellectual ability of a person who calls themselves a Christian, is just looking for an excuse to reject it. “
Yet you reject modern science because of the behavior of a few - isn’t that something of a double standard?
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
They all practice from the same handbook as part of the scientific methodology...
In any event, Alinsky's rules include:
"Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat."
"Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
"The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."
"In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton "enemies" like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)
"One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract." (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying "nigger" on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)
"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.
read later, and archive for future reference!
No, I don't. You really do need to stop spreading lies about me, as well.
I don't reject modern science and so can't be rejecting it because of the behavior of a few. I see past the behavior of those evos who post nothing but slurs against creationists and realize that they're science's liability.
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.