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

A side note you introduced
***No, I did not. You introduced the side note that “history is not science”.

to support your historical claims regarding Jesus claiming a scientific basis for the historical claims on his life.
***Umm, that’s such poor writing that I dare not unlock it. Please, take a writing class.

A non-factual claim, side note or not.
***Yet more piss poor writing. A writing class would really help you to express yourself better. And you wouldn’t have to backtrack like you just did on this thread.

I don’t know what “belief” you’re referring to.
***For the sake of clarity, I will point out such beliefs. However, I will no longer feed trolls on this thread.

The reasons given for political acts are [TL believes] often just rationalizations,

and the real reasons not admitted [TL believes].

Historical accounts are [TL believes] subject to selective omission or

[TL believes] outright revisionism.

Ultimately, no one knows for sure [TL believes].
***Historians know for sure that Julius Caesar was a Roman General, that Columbus sailed the ocean in 1492, and that Jesus was condemned for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.

Kevmo: "Both sides admit that Jesus was condemned by the sanhedrin for blasphemy."

A fact not in dispute, but your original claim, Kevmo, was:

"Do you accept that Jesus was put to death for blasphemy, claiming equality with God?"

The Sanhedrin did not put Jesus to death, their Roman masters did, and Romans cared nothing about "blasphemy".
Romans cared a lot about revolution, and therefore condemned Jesus not for any blasphemous claims, but rather for, in their eyes, pretending to be a "King of the Jews".

Again, we are not disputing facts of history, but their interpretation.

Kevmo: "My focus is on the death of christ as a historical fact, that He died for claiming equality with God."

Jesus was crucified by Romans, not Jews, that is historical fact, FRiend.
Romans cared nothing about "blasphemy", also historical fact.
Romans crucified Jesus as the appropriate punishment in their eyes, for the rebellion of claiming to be "King of the Jews", historical fact.

Of course the Sanhedrin played a role, but their opinions were not determinative of Jesus' fate.
Only Roman judgments in capital cases were lawful.

By the way, the appropriate Jewish punishment for blasphemy was stoning, a sentence which your same Sanhedrin didn't hesitate to use against another "blasphemer", Stephen (Acts 7:54-60).

So, I conclude: crucifixion of Jesus by Romans for rebellion is one thing.
Stoning of Stephen by your Sanhedrin for blasphemy is something different.

Do you not agree?

“Romans cared a lot about revolution, and therefore condemned Jesus not for any blasphemous claims, but rather for, in their eyes, pretending to be a “King of the Jews”.

Spirited: Perhaps the first part of your claim has merit, but certainly not the last. Pilate knew that Jewish leaders were enormously proud, covetous and on fire with murderous envy, that it was for this reason that they desired the “murder” of Jesus Christ.

Jesus had earlier said to them, “you are of your father the devil.” Why? Because the devil is the spirit of pride, covetousness and envy.

Cain was of his father as well. Like Jewish leaders, Cain was on fire with envy of his brother Abel (a type of Jesus, thus a foreshadowing of His coming murder), thus giving
into its’ gnawing, biting teeth, he bludgeoned his brother to death.

Returning to Pilate, when he called Jesus “King of the Jews,” he was really tormenting the envy-bitten, murder-minded Jewish leaders, not just with his insight into their black-hearts but with his power to dominate and humiliate them by declaring as their King the Messiah they envied, thus wanted dead.

Kevmo: "they say that Pilate allowed the crucifixion because he was afraid of the crowd rioting."

What is your problem, FRiend, do you think I'm making this up?
Did you ever read it all yourself?

"saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?
The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."

I'll say it again: Romans cared nothing about "blasphemy".
They cared a lot about rebellion.
The Roman punishment for rebellion was crucifixion.

The Jewish Sanhedrin delivered the "appropriate" punishment for blasphemy -- stoning -- to Jesus' follower, Stephen.

So please tell us, FRiend Kevmo, why you continue to deny the facts of history?

Kevmo: "They just found some other reason to crucify the man."

Right, you said it: "some other reason".

That reason was rebellion, Jesus claiming to be "King of the Jews" -- trumped-up or not, true or falsely-accused, that was the reason for Christ's crucifixion, not "blasphemy".

Kevmo: "reliable accounts... say that Pilate allowed the crucifixion because he was afraid of the crowd rioting."

Once again, you wish us to forget who was the master and who were his subjects.
Pilate was the master, so he didn't "allow" the crucifixion, he ordered it, and for the only reason which would make sense in Roman law: rebellion.

And, as I understand it, such a charge was not entirely false -- do not the Gospel writers tell us that Jesus was King of the Jews?

Do we not all sing, at Christmastime:

"Noel, noel, born is the King of Israel!"

By the way, for anybody who is truly interested -- and I mean seriously interested -- in the historicity of the New Testament, I could not more highly recommend another very spirited Irishman, former Catholic priest, John Dominic Crossan.

If I may use the term, Crossan is religiously historical, reducing the New Testament to what can be justified based on critical textual analyses.

No, no, don't go there if you're looking for religious inspiration, you won't necessarily find it.
What you will find is serious history from a historian's perspective.
Of course, you may not agree with Crossan, you may conclude that Crossan has excluded too much of this, or allowed to much of that.

But my point is, Crossan is writing history -- what we can believe from a historian's perspective.
If your own religious faith includes much more than Crossan allows, you will at least come to understand where history leaves off, and your religious faith begins.

Good luck!

Crossan and Robert Funk founded the Jesus Seminar, a group of academics studying the historical Jesus, and Crossan served as co-chair for its first decade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan)

Spirited: The Jesus Seminar consists of Gnostics and it exists to paganize Christianity:

Excerpts: The Paganization of New Testament Studies by Dr. Peter Jones http://truthxchange.com/about/staff/dr-peter-jones/

The Gnostic Jesus [113] comes in a number of forms, many directly from the Jesus Seminar: peasant cynic, Jewish teacher, social revolution, apocalyptic prophet, the first feminist, mystical guru. Robert Funk, founder of the Jesus Seminar gives us his take on Jesus. His goal is to liberate Jesus “from the scriptural and creedal and experiential prisons in which we have incarcerated him.” This new Jesus is a teacher rather than a divine being, emphasizing forgiveness and freedom over punishment and piety, endorsing “protected recreational sex among consenting adults.” [114]

The approach of Marcus Borg, another fellow of the Seminar is an interesting case study in the nature of this new Gnosticizing quest. In his writings, Borg begins by noting a “major shift,” what he calls “the lessening interest in eschatology and apocalyptic.” This, you remember, was what Schweitzer noted about the liberal 19th century Jesuses. Borg is a man with a mission. He believes his “charismatic” Jesus “radically challenges the flattened sense of reality pervading the modern world view, and much of the mainline church,” in other words, a purely this worldly, social reformer, the result of previous NT critical work!

Borg hails the emergence of new questions-the questions are less specifically Christian, and more global, comparing Jesus to other religious figures; as well as new methods-since past methods were narrowly historical-the new are based on insights from the history of religions, cultural anthropology and the social sciences. [115]

Here is scholarship preparing the bed it intends to lie in, perhaps without even realizing that this is what is going on. For Borg then goes on to underline a new consensus. It is a consensus merely reflecting the limited number of groups that employ them.

Thank you boop, for your fulsome and thoughtful remarks.

Like you, what I know of Freemasonry comes from my forebears. In my case a Grandfather, who was a 32nd Degree Mason and founder more than a century ago of the Masonic Chapter in a small mid-state town in Nebraska, and a Worthy Past Patron of the Eastern Star and a Grandmother, who was a Worthy Past Matron of that same Eastern Star Chapter. They were both devout Presbyterians, remaining so all their lives. From what I observed, the most salient characteristic of Masons was their firm adherence to Protestantism and to the Founders’ principles as best expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

I appreciate your remarks on Jefferson, and yes, I do rely on original sources (and established definitions) to the fullest extent possible. Beware of anyone who does not.

I’m sure you are aware that we do not always agree on every jot and tittle in all matters Judeo-Christian, just as we do not agree about every detail of Jefferson’s ideas. In the same vein we are both aware that the same is true of most of our friends, and that they are, likewise, equally aware of their differences with us. None of this upsets us at all for we know that our thoughts and beliefs are held sincerely, that we will not be reduced to jumping out in front, pretending to lead the parade, to infantile mockery, to hapless mischaracterization, or to pathetic misconstruction.
Reduced to a popnjay, or babbaġā, in other words.

spirited irish: "The Gnostic Jesus [113] comes in a number of forms, many directly from the Jesus Seminar: peasant cynic, Jewish teacher, "

I can't answer for the "Jesus Seminar", don't know enough about it.
I have read some of Crossan's work, and I do recommend it -- as I said before -- not for religious inspiration, but rather to see exactly where historians draw the line between what qualifies as "history" and what goes beyond that into religious faith.

This is a major issue with Kevmo, who seems pretty confused on the subject.
I was only hoping to be helpful...

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.