Posted on 09/30/2009 11:46:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust deniers?...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
It’s more like two billion, but who’s counting. And, I don’t have to make my “case” to any of them. Most of them, I’m sure, understand the “Biblical Truth that the final judge is Christ,” without being told by me. And, although their different denominations may equip them with varying doctrines, I’m sure they are of one accord in the understanding, as an article of faith, that the Judeo-Christian God is the Creator of Mankind and the Universe (the heaven and the earth). Most of them would not even risk enduring your poisonous tongue to debate the idea. You seem to have trouble with the idea of God the Creator for some reason.
”Would you like me to provide you a few names and phone numbers to start?”
Let them come on this forum and make their case before the assembly. Let us see how many of their fellow Christians they are willing to denigrate for the sake of their own denominational doctrines (you can hold their coats).
”Why would you assume that I am uncertain as to the meaning of a phrase posted earlier?”
Oh, I don’t know. You seemed to have trouble understanding “the Biblical Truth that the final judge is Christ.” You’ve left me with little choice but to credit you with either ignorance or malicious design.
”I seem to recall making a very convincing case for your liberalism some time ago, although it’s possible that I’m confusing you with another cookie cutter tpanther clone.”
Well then, check your posting history and mine (if you’re of a mind), and make your case.
My goodness, the fascinating insights one misses, when relying upon the "Articles" tab instead of the "Comments" tab.
So, how do we go about determining the level of criminality, here? Was Hitler merely guilty of skimming, an historic example of the horrors of Cliff Notes writ large, or was he criminally Darwiniac?
And, what would be the proper venue for trying such an offense ... the Hague?
The mind boggles. Who are some of the living examples of this criminal use of Darwin? Peter Singer? He hasn't actually killed anybody though, not to my knowledge, not yet.
You've provided much food for thought, here. Thank you.
“And, I don’t have to make my “case” to any of them.”
Then why did you make it to me? Pressure from the cult, perhaps? Are you pledging?
Ah, your post was a hazing ritual for cult membership! Now I understand.
Sorry, but Christianity is an inclusive faith; that’s how I practice it. It’s not the “who’s in, who’s out” bastardization into which the cult has morphed it.
“Sorry, but Christianity is an inclusive faith; that’s how I practice it. It’s not the “who’s in, who’s out” bastardization into which the cult has morphed it.”
Getting in on the discussion late, but is this a political or religious discussion? If religious, what do you base your Christianity upon? The Bible? If you do, it is, of necessity, a “who’s in, who’s out” discussion. The founder of the religion you hold to put it this way:
“I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the father but by me.” John 14:6
The Apostle Peter said this:
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
It’s not about how you practice it. That’s egocentric. It is about how God wants you to practice it.
So, tell me. Upon what do you base your Christianity?
That line of argument certainly isn't original to Dawkins.
This places Jews among the portion of believing Americans who would have to be characterized as unintelligent. Miller calls Dawkins on this. He then says of Jews: "Well, sure enough. They'd say, 'OK, we've moved on since that time.' Thank goodness they have."
In other words, you can be an intelligent Christian who takes his Bible at least somewhat seriously, but not an intelligent Jew who does the same. And this is a statement, from a very prominent public intellectual, a popular and respected scientist and author, that neither the ADL nor any other Jewish anti-defamation group I'm aware of sees fit to protest? I find this bewildering.
Most American Jews (i.e. people of Jewish ancestry who identify themselves as Jews) would probably agree with Dawkins on this. And they are the ADL's constituency, not the orthodox.
But based on what's quoted here, Dawkins doesn't endorse the idea that Christians are right in the belief he attributes to them about the Old and the New Testament.
In fact, it's unlikely that they actually do view things in the way he says they do. Would evangelicals really oppose a good Jesus to a bad Old Testament deity in the way that Dawkins says they do?
Now that’s an idea not often heard. More often today it’s
not, “Your will be done”, but, “Take it or leave it”.
“So, tell me. Upon what do you base your Christianity?”
Since you’re late to the discussion, please start by answering this question: Is a Catholic who has faithfully followed the Catholic faith and its doctrines for his entire life a Christian?
Two billion Christians, unlike you, don’t need to be told the obvious. Otherwise, it’s discussion in the forum, old boy. Failing that, the forum would be an empty wasteland. Are you genuinely that dense? Or, is an empty wasteland of a forum your design?
"Pressure from the cult, perhaps?”
Now you’re projecting.
”Ah, your post was a hazing ritual for cult membership!”
More projection. The Goebbels principle. But, I imagine you’re more of an Alinsky disciple. Same thing – borrowed from Goebbels.
”Sorry, but Christianity is an inclusive faith . . .”
As long as everyone agrees with you. That’s how you practice it. You’re reminiscent of the fellow who trumpets ‘diversity’ all the while demanding absolute conformity to his vision of diversity.
”It’s not the “who’s in, who’s out” bastardization into which the cult has morphed it.”
Yet, you seem to have definite ideas as to “who’s in, who’s out” which you mean to enforce on others. Look to the beam in your own eye, pilgrim. Clearly, you do understand “the Biblical Truth that the final judge is Christ.” But, it causes you to gag. It doesn’t allow you to promote an argument or to indulge in scandal mongering personal attacks. Nor does it allow you to play your little schismatic games. So you must pretend it’s not out there.
“Two billion Christians, unlike you, don’t need to be told the obvious.”
Ah, so you do acknowledge that Catholics, Episcopalians, etc., are Christian. That’s good, but the cult may demand your membership card back.
Oh, and don’t confuse “projection” with having a good time at your expense. Surely you can tell the difference.
Or are you that dense?
IIRC, Hitler got his eugenics idea from us. We’d been talking about it since the late 1800s and actually practicing it since Woodrow Wilson.
Knowledge can be a dangerous thing without the wisdom to use it properly.
Luckily, much of the research of the eugenics movement, such as Goddard, has since been discredited even on strict evolution grounds.
Arguing “Crusades” is far too vague. For example, the First Crusade was a rightful counter-offensive against the Turks, which had been attacking the Byzantines.
But then you had the Siege of Jerusalem, Jews and Muslims fighting together to defend their city, and being mercilessly slaughtered when the Crusaders won. And then there’s the Albigensian Crusade, where Crusaders slaughtered tens of thousands of “heretical” Cathars — and any Catholics still among them too. That was the origin of the phrase, “Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.”
Especially in Jerusalem the Christians were far worse than the Muslims, who acted relatively civilized when they took over Jerusalem.
Into demanding loyalty oaths now? Still playing “who’s in, who’s out,” apparently. You don’t get to be Master Inquisitor. You haven’t the authority or the gravitas. Besides it’s been tried. Led to a lot of hard feelings. Not recommended. It seems you understand “The Biblical truth that the final judge is Christ,” but you can’t accept that truth. Not left with enough room to start a fight if you do?
“. . . the cult may demand your membership card back.”
Still projecting.
“don’t confuse “projection” with having a good time at your expense.”
A professed Christian baiting a Christian? How, uh . . . unchristian. Pardon, your slip is showing. Ooops.
No, he is a Catholic. It is a habit of Catholics to equate Christianity with Catholicism. Do you base your claim to Christianity upon the Word of God or upon the Traditions of Man or both? Catholics follow the teachings of the church, therefore they are called Catholics. Christians follow the teachings of Christ as revealed in the Word of God. What is your final authority? The Church or the Book? That will answer the question you asked of me.
One can be a Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc. and not even be remotely Christian. It boils down to do we follow Christ. Are we Christ-like? I seem to remember participating in a never-ending thread (I assume it eventually ended) here on FreeRepublic many years ago that was Bible-Believers versus Catholics. I’m not too interested in starting that back up again.
With regards to final authority, The Lord can say it so much better himself anyway:
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:13
It is the Word in which we find info pertaining to eternal life, not in a man-made institution such as the Catholic Church, Inc.
That’s what all demands for loyalty oaths ultimately come down to.
“Into demanding loyalty oaths now?”
Hardly, as I have never denied the Christianity of Catholics. Others here do, though. I was simply inferring your position from your post. Is my conclusion incorrect? For loyalty oaths, though, you need look no further than the cult whose presence is only a ping away.
“A professed Christian baiting a Christian? How, uh . . . unchristian.”
There’s absolutely nothing unchristian about humor. Simply being on the receiving end doesn’t make it “baiting”.
I respect your position and I understand your logic, but your conclusion is wrong. Catholics are Christians, as are Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc.
Further, I respect the fact that you actually stated your position without equivication, unlike the mealy-mouthed Catholic-denying cabal that posts here. They know who they are.
“If not a loyalty oath at least total abject surrender and a groveling plea for mercy.”
Really, Forrest? I don’t understand your conclusion.
You’re in a bit of a pickle now, because you know that I will refer to your “#91” (or whatever) response to my post as “a groveling plea for mercy”.
But go ahead—entertain me.
equivication=equivocation
#91. enjoy.
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.