Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site

12/11/2009 | Jim Robinson

[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.

[DGray]

I’m an “evo advocate” too. A person can be a Christian and a proponent of the science of evolution. Many Catholics are. Our Church does not forbid it. The theory of the Big Bang was originally proposed by a Catholic priest. The Catholic Church does not shy away from science.

[wendy1946]

I, for one, am arguing for an understanding of how science and faith can work together, not for a rejection of faith (or of science, for that matter).

There is no conflict between faith and (REAL) science; the conflict is between faith and (JUNK) science i.e. evolution. Aside from that, there is a larger conflict bertween evolution and other (REAL) branches of science, particularly mathematics and probability theory.

[RoadGumby]

You advocating evo can be distasteful in the extreme. But it is not I that ties it to the Catholic church, it is those I ‘debate’ with. I care not what the religious affiliation maybe. If someone in my southern baptist church were to espouse it, they too would receive my opinion.

Catholics are not special in that regard.

[1000 silverlings]

What Catholic priest? The bible says that God spoke the universe into existence and sustains it to this day.

[wendy1946]

A person can be a Christian and a proponent of the science of evolution.

That is wrong as well. Again...

Newt Gingrich once stated the problem of evolutionism and morality about as succinctly as is possible in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes simply has to affect human relationships.

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.

Evolution was the basic philosophical cornerstone of communism, naziism, the various eugenics programs, the out of control arms races which led to WW-I and WW-II, and all of the grief of the last 150 years. Starting from 1913, Europe had gone for a hundred years without a major war. They didn't even have to think. All they needed to do was act cool, go to church, have parades, formal balls, attend board meetings, and they'd still be running the world today; they'd be so fat and happy they'd not know what to do with themselves. Instead, they all got to reading about Darwinism, fang and claw, survival of the fittest and all the rest of that nonsense, and the rest as they say is history.

The most interesting analysis of that sad tale is probably Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics"

Keith apparently viewed belief in evolution as some sort of duty of the English educated classes, nonetheless he had a very clear vision of the problems inherent in it and laid it out in no uncertain terms:

From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:

Chapter 3

The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942

....It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people....

... "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.

...I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.

12.

....No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany.... ...Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions....

It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.

Chapter 4

Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End

IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).

14.

It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:

If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose i

s finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."

...If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this:

the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.

All of that, of course, deals only with the question of ethics and the logical consequences of evolutionism. The fact that evolution is junk science argues against it as well.

[Natural Law]

"Untrue. NL was/is an evo advocate."

To quote Col. Sherman Potter; "Horse Hockey"! I am and have been a believer in Theistic Evolution as any search of my posting history will easily support. But do notice a pattern here. When anyone enters a thread that involves the question of creation or evolution they are attacked if not part of the echo chamber. As you have already experienced no distortion of fact, science, history, theology, scripture or posting history is too great as long as it echos their preconceived notions. Some overreact and have been rightly banned. I am not going to try to judge the fairness of any of it because I don't have all of the facts or history. I try (to the limits of my human imperfection) to stick to the high ground.

We represent a theology every bit as conservative as any Young Earth Creationist's and I will continue to comment as long as Jim Robinson will have me.

[wagglebee]

Solid conservative voters who consistently support conservative candidates and causes, but who happen to be atheists, agnostics, or Darwinists?

As a rule, atheists, agnostics and Darwinists tend to be pro-death (they say they are pro-choice, pro-dignity or whatever, but they are actually pro-death) and it is IMPOSSIBLE to be pro-death and conservative.

[YHAOS]

"Your condescension and contempt for all things Catholic, spewed over years of posting history is really wearing thin."

Holding coats again. Looking to drive a wedge between the faithful will get you in trouble upstairs.

[Natural Law]

"A person can be a Christian and a proponent of the science of evolution. That is wrong as well."

Ergo the Pope and the entire Catholic Church are now not Christian? And you wonder why some take this so personally.....

Note: Newt does NOT speak for the Church.

[Jewbacca]

So George Bush is not a Christian?

Interesting.

[restornu]

The heck with all this debate..

I have resolved that issue as of for now that the earth is form from planets something borrowed (old plantes )something new, and even discarded planets...

Everything that man needed to learn sense he could not yet travel to far from this planet!

So is this earth 6000 or 10000 years old I don’t know but I can understand finding such places show that billions of years old.

[Natural Law]

"Holding coats again.Looking to drive a wedge between the faithful will get you in trouble upstairs."

How disingenuous of you to posit that it is more reprehensible for me to state the practice of Catholic bashing than for others to do it.

[WVKayaker]

Your posts are filled with invective, vitriol and insults, but little else.

Your posts are filled with bovine excrement, presumption, and more of the same as from your buddy. Your joint way of doing business is tossing logs on the fire, as you've continuously added to the pire. Someone calls us YAKS and y'all get huffy when the RC abbreviation is used. As far as getting a punch for RC,Ii'd like to see the face when I pull out my little buddy.

Your holier-than-thou screed sounds real pious. Tell the priest and maybe you'll get a gold star on your report card. I'd give you an F for not studying the assignment...

The Roman Catholic church pretty much personifies the Pharisaical judgment crew. Jesus ran the money changers out of the temple, if my memory is correct. What a loving thing to do. (/sarc) It seems there's still a lot of money changing going one. But, much of it is spent to hide lawsuits and sin.

********************

Mark 7: 1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2 saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'

Hurry and get your candles for just a small donation... it'll surely get Gods attention better! Follow the money!

[YHAOS]

"Creationists, of necessity, have pretty think skins, as do Christians, but there is a limit to what is appropriate."

I don't know how thick a skin I have, but for what someone says about me to have an effect, I first have to have respect for that person's opinion.

[metmom]

Are you taking lessons from Buck?

[DGray]

Jeffrey Dahmer? Sorry, I don’t consider him any kind of exemplar of Christianity. Nor Newt Gingrich, to be frank; his endorsement of Dede Scozzafava made him dead to me.

[Notary Sojac]

I believe that Roe V. Wade should be repealed. It's bad legally and worse ethically.

I also would vote to make abortion illegal if it were ever on the ballot in my state.

And I've never felt the least bit of conflict between those positions and being an agnostic who also holds that the earth is upward of four billion years old.

[Cvengr]

But when you ask me to believe wild, crazy things like different races can come from two original people, that’s when you lose me

The presumed evidence for evolution as the origin of human life asks one to believe far less statistically valid assumptions. It also ignores the spiritual domain.

[metmom]

Still waiting for a response to post 1398.

I haven’t seen any links to comments I allegedly made along those lines....

crickets, crickets.....
**********************************************************

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2405876/posts?page=1398#1398

NL: “Your condescension and contempt for all things Catholic, spewed over years of posting history is really wearing thin.”

mm: Prove it.

Got something to back up that accusation or portrayal?

[restornu]

alright ye have return looking forward to your reply!:)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2405876/posts?page=2192#2192