Posted on 10/22/2009 8:31:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The British Broadcasting Corporation in England has deemed it necessary to try and absolve Darwinism from any responsibility for the Holocaust and the many other atrocities committed in the name of evolutionary progress ever since Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. To achieve this, BBC2 produced a TV “documentary” entitled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,[1] written and presented by their journalist and political commentator Andrew Marr. This 3-part series...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
This thread sure unraveled.
Reminds of the older threads.
He’d better be in shape—there’s a lot of competition for that!
popcorn got stale fast, but the “running to mommy” part always gives me a chuckle....
I was thinking the same thing yesterday. I miss a lot of the guys and gals from back then (on both sides of the issue).
I was thinking the same thing yesterday. I miss a lot of the guys and gals from back then (on both sides of the issue).
Interesting. As far as I know I only hit post once. Hmm.
I blame global warming. ;)
That’s what happens when FReepers who only come here to disrupt and insult are allowed to dominate the threads. Of course, if you stop responding to their taunts, you are suddenly “afraid” to debate them. One thing is clear, they really do act like they believe they came from pond scum.
Hmm. Now you have me thinking...Since the planet hasn’t warmed in what, 10 years, is there a worm hole involved as well?
You words are directed to BOTH parties right? I mean you’re not engaging in some selective indignation are you? No, I didn’t think so, so can I pass on your wondering?
Tee hee
LOL!
Ouch.
If you didn’t act like a spoiled child with unlimited “get out of jail free” cards on FR, and just for once post an article without the editorialization, or even tried, just once, to see both sides, you just might get a little respect.
Otherwise you’re just another kook on jihad.
Well, you can make God be anything you want if that's your argument. In fact, you can throw out the entire Scriptures using that logic and you have no basis for believing anything. If you justify that right for yourself, you have no right to deny it to anyone else. And once you do that, you end up with the very genocide that you think you oppose because without the firm foundation of the Scriptures, you have no right to judge anyone else's choice. It ends up being your opinion against theirs.
"There is no practicing Christian, or civilized human being, who would believe that there is any condition or validity to the murder of a Child because it was commanded by God. If anything the messenger should be condemned."
Again we see that you don't understand the Scriptures.
The gospel was announced beforehand to Abraham and his 'seed', singular meaning Christ (Gal 3:16) but obviously understood by Abraham to refer to Isaac. The command to sacrifice Isaac was the test to see if Abraham believed the gospel enough to walk in it.
In Gen 22, notice that Abraham said that he and the boy would leave and that 'we' will return. Abraham was fully convinced that God could raise the dead, according to Hebrews 11:19. When Isaac asks where the sacrifice is, Abraham himself says, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." and God did exactly that. Both in this case and for the entirety of creation.
This incident w/ Abraham occurred on Mount Moriah, the very place where the temple was built in Jerusalem and where God's son was sacrificed at the proper time. This is also where the name of God, Jehovah Jireh (God the Provider), was first invoked. You see, God did not ask anything of Abraham that he was not willing to do himself and did not require Abraham to do what God himself would.
Because you do not understand the Scriptures and lean on your own fallen understanding, you have a confused and corrupted understanding of both God and the Scriptures.
"If you would accept such a command I feel sorry for you and will keep you in my prayers."
Here we see again, that you confuse the historical record of the Scriptures with a potential, contemporary act. The fact that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and then provided his own replacement sacrifice does not justify child-sacrifice today anywhere except in your confused thinking. What was done with Abraham was done to demonstrate Abraham's faith and pointed to Christ. What was done in Christ is finished and no further sacrifice is required according to the Scriptures. No child was ever sacrificed according to the command of God except his own Perfect Son. Ever. Understanding God's command to Abraham does not invalidate the Scriptures nor does in require thinking people to accept child-sacrifice. Apparently that is a difficult concept for you to wrap your mind around.
It is your lack of understanding of the Scriptures that causes you to fail to understand the command to Abraham and to judge God when you have no understanding to do so. That you think you need to imply that I would not recognize the error of such a command today and need your sympathy and prayers only demonstrates your own confusion wrt the Scriptures that you then project onto me.
You don't even respond to the ideas presented in my posts and have been reduced to misrepresenting single-sentences out of those posts. And this in order to defend a position you are determined to keep, no matter how thoroughly the error of your position is explained to you.
Amen. The Bible is clear that we are not to become unequally yoked with worldly people. But I was hoping that well-meaning conservatives who disagree with each other over the origins issue could live and let live, while at the same time pursuing the common goal of pursuing a limited government. But it is clear that, for the most part, materialists cannot tolerate Creationists or IDers in their midst unless they agree to keep their mouths completely shut with respect to science and, to a lesser extent, morals. I am coming to the firm conviction that these intolerant materialists need to be purged from the conservative movement. Let the independents and the libs have them. Of the remaining materialists that are willing to live and let live with respect to these issues, then I see no reason why we can’t work together to rebuild the conservative movement. In bygone days, this movement used to be referred to as the Reagan Coalition.
PS Every time I try to ping you in any other way besides a direct reply, it doesn’t work. Did you design your screenname that way or what?
I miss a lot of the guys and gals from back then (on both sides of the issue).
______
Patrick Henry and coyoteman from the evo side ... and I can’t remember the woman’s handle from the creo side. But her biggest hot button issue was public breastfeeding.
No, as I remind him every couple of years, he just picked the hardest screen name to type. Sheesh, what was he thinking? ;-)
When more ignore such as this, “xcamel to count-your-change
You jonesing for title of “ultimate kiss-@$$” ??” the whole atmosphere will be improved.
I'll do just that.
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.