Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)

In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,

"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."

John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.

Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.

Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,

“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).

According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:

“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)

Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.

Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:

"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)

In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.

As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.

Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:

“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)

The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,

“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)

The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.

With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)

This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,

“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)

As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)

In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.

Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.

Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.

Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:

“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)

None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:

“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)

Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)

“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)

“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)

“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)

After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,

“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)

The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.

From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,

“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

“All the waves and particles that we can see and measure, literally, as in the Greek, ex-ist or ‘stand out from’ an underlying sea of potential that physicists have named the vacuum….just as waves undulate on the sea.” This ‘sea’ of proto-physicality is an “all pervasive, underlying field of potential…the vacuum.” (ibid, p. 172)

I haven't read Quantum Society by Danah Zohar and Ian Marshall; but it seems to me what they may be trying to do with this book is, as you say, to create "new mystical science of pantheist animism, psychology and sociology" based on "scientific evidence." (If it's "scientific," doncha know, it must be "good.")

Quantum fields are totally unvisualizable, and therefore inaccessible to description in language. To speculate about the activity of bosons and fermions in the production of minds, social systems, etc., seems a bit of an overreach. But I see what they're trying to get at: Everything in nature reduces to the material.

Of one thing I am pretty sure, however: Every physical thing in nature is produced out of the quantum level of nature. Evidently, Zohar and Marshall seem to believe that somehow pure materiality (e.g., bosons, fermions) just pops into existence out of nowhere and then organizes itself spontaneously; and the rest is taken care of by "evolution."

I find in Plato's creation myth (in the Timaeus) an idea that might be something like a quantum vacuum field — Chora.

Chora is an infinite "sea" of undifferentiated and unrealized pure potentiality. But Plato says the elements of this "sea," or "field," are "lazy," and don't want to enter the stream of existence at all. They would just like to sit there and do nothing. Thus, if Chora were left to its own devices, nothing would ever come into existence at all.

Enter the Demiurge. The Demiurge is not God. Yet Plato sees him as a sort of agent of the Unknown God "Beyond" the cosmos. It is his job to "persuade" Chora to accept formation and enter the stream of existence. He wishes to create existent things to the standard of beauty and goodness and justice and truth that characterizes his own nature.

And thus does the physical world constantly emerge, according to divine persuasion (i.e., not by divine fiat).

The point here is we have a sort of "proto-matter" that cannot materialize without the successful action of "persuasive" divine reason. The world is more than matter — it is shot through with divine spirit, divine Nous, which ultimately constitutes the organizational principles of a living cosmos and all the entities within it.

So it's a myth. :^) I happen to like myths — usually anyway. (Except for Darwin's.) They are enormously interesting to me; for as Eric Voegelin wrote, "Myth remains the legitimate language of movements of the soul."

Thus a legitimate myth is always "true" in a certain sense.

If a myth anticipates quantum mechanics from over 2,000 years in the past, I'd say that's pretty extraordinary.

Thank you so much, dear sister in Christ, for your splendid essay/post.

So it’s a myth. :^) I happen to like myths — usually anyway. (Except for Darwin’s.) They are enormously interesting to me; for as Eric Voegelin wrote, “Myth remains the legitimate language of movements of the soul.” Thus a legitimate myth is always “true” in a certain sense. If a myth anticipates quantum mechanics from over 2,000 years in the past, I’d say that’s pretty extraordinary.

WoW,, Eric Voegelin and Joseph Campbell on the same page..
Will wonders ever cease?....

Who’s next Willie Wonka and G. Gordon Liddy?..

Being amazified has an almost spiritual quality to it don’t it?..

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

The unspoken suggestion oftentimes is that the vacuum is nothing. But it is not nothing. It is a continuum of at least space/time dimensionality.

Space/time does not pre-exist. It is created as the universe expands. The universe doesn't expand "into" anything.

Ditto for the singularity of the big bang. It is not nothing either. It is zero dimensions, a mathematical point, but not nothing.

God created all that there is ex nihilo - no dimensions at all. No thing. No mathematical point.

Trying to get the usual crevo posters to define “what is life v. non-life/death in nature” was a huge undertaking. It was easy for them to describe living things but they struggled to define what life “is.”

To me; describing “LIFE” is like trying to place the fragrance of a sound,,, inhale the odors of “light”... caress the ambrosia of beauty... or capture the balmy nectar of love...

Once you’re quantified it, you’ve put to much salt in the stew..
Its not ruined but it is distasteful... no amount of pepper will help

“The unspoken suggestion oftentimes is that the vacuum is nothing. But it is not nothing. It is a continuum...”

Spirited: The great masters such as De Vinci understood this principle. In practice it means that in order to accurately render the physical “thing” it is necessary to study and render just as accurately the “negative space” (continuum) around and giving shape to the “thing.”

With respect to Christian tradition, totality consists of the seen (physical things) and unseen (spiritual; negative space). Additionally, there are 3 heavens. The first or lower heaven consists of the space around and up to the moon. This heaven is the realm of fallen angels and demons. The second heaven is what we call deep space. The 3rd Heaven or Paradise is outside of the first two and is where the immortal souls of God’s children await the day of resurrection when all things are renewed.

I believe that our earth and the first two heavens are the “things” and the continuum or “negative space” around and giving shape to the “thing” is not the 3rd Heaven itself but an inter-dimensional space or corridor between the first two heavens and the third. C.S. Lewis explored this theme in the Magician’s Nephew, the second of his highly acclaimed Chronicles of Narnia. The Magician represents the mystical speculations of New Physics ‘scientists’ btw.

If Lewis is correct, then the inter-dimensional corridor is the Void, the object of mystical speculation, meditation, astral travel, and empowerment (the Western Magic Way or magic science) from the time of Hermes Trismegistus.

As all things are created and sustained by the Triune God, the worship of created stuff (i.e., the Void) constitutes apostasy and idolatry.

Thats how I tend to feel about “comparative mythology,” e.g., of the Campbell school. )

True.. Joe Campbell went out of his way to rename “lies” as myth..
Seems he had distaste for the word lie.... and he didn’t trust the word truth..

Must’ve bought into the “you have your truth, I have mine” bull sperm..
He urinates all over the word truth... pity..
Because he seemed pretty smart otherwise..

Like of lazy as well, anything “religious” or even “spiritual”.. was viewed thru mythical glasses..
Much like many “scientists” do.. maybe from the same root cause..

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..
Truth-phobic is quite a comical state to be in...
Amuses me no end... Jesus had no requirement to be smart..
I respect that... even fools could be accepted..

If not; I would be totally undone.. and unqualified for salvation..
One day many/maybe most religious people may be very glad of that..

spirited irish: [Thomas] "Paine advocated a New Pantheist spirituality grounded in natural science in opposition to the Christian consensus held by the Founders.
As a result they rejected Paine.
He became an outcast...
Over and against America’s Christian foundations Paine proposed pantheism, or collectivism-—statism."

FRiend, you've been hammering & hammering at Thomas Paine this whole thread -- as if Paine were a snake in the Garden, or a Judas amongst apostles.
Paine was not those, indeed is not even listed as a major Founding Father.
But Paine provided valuable service during the entire Revolution period, and when it was over George Washington recommended, and Congress approved $3,000 in compensation -- an amount equivalent to $3,000,000 today.
The states of New York and Pennsylvania also rewarded Paine handsomely.
So Paine was far from "outcast".

Yes, Paine did tangle with some other Founders, notably Pennsylvania's Robert Morris -- who Paine accused of financial shenanigans.
So in 1779 Paine was expelled from his Congressional Foreign Affairs committee post, but continued to serve the Revolution in Europe, by arranging for foreign grants & loans.

In 1792, while in Great Britain, Paine was accused of libel & sedition, to which he responded:

"If, to expose the fraud and imposition of monarchy ... to promote universal peace, civilization, and commerce, and to break the chains of political superstition, and raise degraded man to his proper rank; if these things be libellous ... let the name of libeller be engraved on my tomb."[41]"

Paine had gone to France in support of the French Revolution, but soon got into trouble with various authorities there, coming within a hairs-breadth of losing his own head during the terror of 1794.
During his imprisonment US officials in France were, ahem, slow to come to his rescue, and Paine blamed Washington for that, publically attacking Washington in 1796.

Paine supported France and Napoleon against Britain, until he figured out that Napoleon was not what he hoped.
In 1802 Paine's friend, President Thomas Jefferson invited him to return to the United States, where Paine lived in New York until his death, at age 72, in 1809.

Paine's religious beliefs were a little extreme for his time, but not completely so.
Where most of our Founders can be called Christian-Deists, or deistic-Christians, Paine was a Deist first, holding only the Quakers in very high regard.
He put no stock in creeds & doctrines.

Paine certainly did run afoul of leaders in the Second Great Awakening after 1800, and his views on Indian cultures seem at odds with his other beliefs:

"Paine's utopianism combined civic republicanism, belief in the inevitably of scientific and social progress and commitment to free markets and liberty generally.
The multiple sources of Paine's political theory all pointed to a society based on the common good and individualism."

Those do not equate to socialism or statism.

Among Paine's most notable admirers was a young Abraham Lincoln, a fact which makes me wonder if those who attack Paine so vigorously are also subtly attacking Lincoln himself?

betty boop: "I have not refused to answer any question that BroJoeK has put to me.
I LOVE it when people ask me questions!
I wish more people would do it!!!"

In every post to you I've included at least one question, and often several, none of which you've answered directly.

So, why not go back and look?
Post my questions and your direct answers?

betty boop: "FWIW, I am not anti-science.
I am not anti-evolution. (I do believe in evolution.
I just think that evolution of the Darwinian type is pretty lame.
In fact, I have some doubt that it is science at all.)"

Then of course you are anti-science, by very definition of the term.
You loathe and despise the basic idea of science: natural explanations for natural processes.
Instead, you fervently wish to impose on science something it absolutely is not -- a super-natural dimension.

Nothing wrong with super-natural, it's just as real as natural, but it's outside the realm of science, whether you Ms boop like that or not.

So what exactly is your problem?

betty boop: "Dear BroJoeK, I gather you hold in contempt spirited irish's concerns, that she is a religious wing-nut who has worked to gather about herself a crowd of like-minded 'sycophants.' "

Then, as usual, you misunderstand.
In fact, I have merely returned to sender the contempt spirited irish holds for me and science in general.
I have no problem with spirited irish's (or your) religious beliefs, so long as you-all don't spread lies and false accusations about others who see things differently.

betty boop: "Linda Kimball's "Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution" article has not been removed to the Religion Forum."

According to spirited herself she's been, in effect, shunned from Religion.
And she wants to accuse your humble correspondent of taking part in that.
So as in everything else, it becomes yet another excuse for making false accusations.

betty boop: "it is a real puzzle to me that you seem at the same time to want to undermine the very cultural foundation of American order: Which is that we are a people under God, from whom we have received fundamental, unalienable rights that no State of whatever form may infringe or deny.
The people do not exist for the State; the State exists for the people; and its mandate is very narrow."

And so, Ms boop, like spirited irish, you also use disagreements as excuse enough to make ridiculous false accusations?
Why? Are you likewise addicted to false accusations?
What -- do your hands tremble if you can't make frequent false accusations?
Do you have no concerns about whether your words have any connections to the truth?

So what is it with you?
Why can't or won't you stop yourself?

betty boop: "You allege you have never seen anyone around FR beat up on a Christian.
Jeepers, guy — you've been here about 9 years now, and you can say that with a straight face?"

Without exception, all the aggressors on this topic, all of the false-accusers, all the distorters of fact, all the mockers that I've seen come from your side, lady.
They claim to be Christians, and they claim that anybody disagreeing with them is not a real Christian.

Those of us here defending science do our best to keep discussions at the level of science, facts & reason, without descending into the name-calling arena.
But of course, we're only human, and can sometimes fail...

betty boop: "In any case, I do hope you and yours had a wonderful Thanksgiving!"

Thanks
;-)

BroJoeK post #1,289, words in ' ' quotes from YHAOS: "I've never seen a thread or poster on FR whose purpose was 'to attack and disparage Christianity'."

betty boop: "You allege you have never seen anyone around FR beat up on a Christian."

metmom: "Kind of breath taking, isn't it?
I continue to be amazed what people will say with a straight face."

I'm amazed that:

First, you distorted my words, which themselves were quoted from YHAOS.
And those words specifically refer to Christianity, not to everyone who claims to be a Christian.
Second, that you would pretend with a straight face my words are anything other than totally accurate.

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.