Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“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)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
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)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“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)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“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)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“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
You're speaking of yourself, of course?
You have, it appears, only one major function here, and that is to mock & insult those who disagree, even when they agree!
You're on a mission, it seems -- a "search and destroy" -- and so there's no room in your Rules of Engagement for even attempting to understand -- you take no prisoners, do you?
And so now we can easily guess where your vast library of "mockings" listed in your post #134 comes from -- you mock, insult and provoke until you get a response-in-kind, and then you deposit another "victory" in your troll-library, right?
And you get paid for doing this, or is mocking just your idea of "fun"?
YHAOS: "I don’t know who you think you’re kidding, but it is not anyone on this thread with whom you are currently corresponding."
What, are you speaking of yourself again?
Your powers of "projection" are truly amazing, FRiend.
YHAOS: "You are seizing the ideas expressed by others, claiming them as your own, and then, in turn, presuming to instruct them on their own ideas as though their thoughts are your property."
I'm sorry, FRiend, if you thoroughly misunderstand what Free Republic is all about -- it's the internet equivalent of normal people sitting around in their family room, watching TV news and discussing topics they feel passionately about.
Every one of us knows some facts and everyone has opinions, which we attempt to express in the most coherent ways possible.
None of us claim that our opinions are "original", indeed most take a certain pride in loyally expressing views first developed by others, sometimes even thousands of years ago.
If you have a big problem with that, then just maybe Free Republic is not your real home?
YHAOS: "Typical of a two-bit politician, you also seem to think getting out in front of the parade deceives everyone into believing you are leading it."
And this refers to what, exactly?
YHAOS: "how do “other similar words,” such as “effective hunter-gatherers” equate with “vicious predatory animal”? "
see my posts #228 & 257.
If you wish to learn more, then you'll first need to answer my question (#257): "what, exactly, you mean by the phrase: 'vicious predatory animal.' "
YHAOS: "In post #200m this thread, you allege no new quotes since February of 2009, How Much Longer Dan They Sell Darwinism? FR, and you set the standard for “new quotes” to be four year’s (or less).
Prove what you allege."
As is typical of YHAOS, you again misrepresent the facts, which are:
"And in the FOUR YEARS since, you can produce no new quotes?
And you have no quotes from this thread?"
Please note, FRiend, in item #8 above, the question marks on the two sentences which you describe as "allegations".
They are not "allegations", they are questions to you, which, like most of my questions, you utterly refuse to answer.
Because that's who YHAOS is, it's what you do, right?
You're here to mock & insult, not reasonably discuss, right?
On that subject of mockery, let me refer you to many scripture verses, especially Proverbs 9: 7-12.
Sorry, just trying to be brief.
But you certainly do insist that there are "questions" about evolution, "questions" which involve the idea of an Intelligent Designer (G*d), "questions" which boil down to: "does G*d control and guide the processes of evolution?"
Which, if you'll just give it a moment's thought, you'll realize boils down to: "Does G*d exist?"
Any hypothetical “theistic evolution” would have to be well soaked with miracles to get it to go anywhere, by the lights of the physics and chemistry we know today. One would have to call it something like 999,999,999 parts miracle to 1 part nature. And it isn’t just in retrospect we see providence here, we also see it ongoing, which proves that it’s providence and not some stupendous dumb luck. Because dumb luck does not plan!
For the Record...... it’s ok to type “God”
Man, what an ego fight all around this has turned into.
I suggest glorifying God as best we can, and settling differences or at least agreeing that we have come as close as we can, in a gracious manner. The exact manner of creation is one of those riddles that we can speculate about, but can’t pin down with the knowledge at hand. Many YEC advocates have attempted to pin it down anyhow, and while they produce an interesting theory, we lack the evidential wherewithal to put total trust in it. The best we can do is give it an emphatic maybe, and that’s only if they have managed to avoid obvious errors.
Of course that's true, but your allegations against me are utter rubbish, and you should stop doing it.
It's bad for your soul to make false accusations against others.
The fact remains, as I posted before, that Aquinas recognized:
Thanks for your advice.
I do my best not to offend people unnecessarily, and some do insist on G_d or G*d, as a sign of respect for our Deity.
And since it's just as easy to type _ or * as o, why not?
I do not think it is respect but selfrighteousness that is responsible
It’s bad for your soul to make false accusations against others.
Spirited: No BroJoeK, it’s very, very bad for your soul to posit a limited God, a miserable deity who is the cause of death and suffering due to the fact that evolution posits millions of prior creatures who lived and died long before the appearance of man.
All conceptions of a limited God in process of becoming (evolving) are Satanic.
You are in process of selling your soul on behalf of natural science and evolution.
Sorry, but I do my best to deal reasonably with mockers and false-accusers like YHAOS, and even, sadly spirited irish.
In doing so, I have two hopes: first to provide effective answers for readers who may be tempted to take mockers seriously, and second, to maybe shame the mockers, even a little?
HiTech RedNeck: "The exact manner of creation is one of those riddles that we can speculate about, but can’t pin down with the knowledge at hand.
Many YEC advocates have attempted to pin it down anyhow, and while they produce an interesting theory, we lack the evidential wherewithal to put total trust in it."
Let me reasonably suggest to you that in Biblical terms, it is utterly, completely irrelevant precisely how G*d created the Universe or Life on Earth.
Those "hows" have nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with the Bible's major themes and message.
Nor can any specific "how" have any serious effect on people's ability to achieve and maintain their faith in G*d.
So let me put it to you this way: such faith is a gift, which is almost always granted despite our personal resistance to it.
And, if you sat down to make a listing of the Top Ten, or hundred, reasons for people's resistance to faith in G*d, then Creation and Evolution would not even make your list, FRiend.
Of course, you can, as many do, claim that if every word of the Bible is not understood precisely "literally", then nobody will believe any of it.
But I'd reject that on at least three counts:
That's why it has always been understood, especially by the great Doctors of the Church, that deep and humble faith, along with educated guidance are needed to understand, both what the Bible originally intended and how those words can apply today.
No, I'm not saying that ordinary people can't understand the Bible, far from it.
I am saying we should be humble enough to recognize that what we get out of it may not be precisely the same as what some others do.
After all, we might just benefit from their learning.
hmmmmm...
Would you call it "self-righteousness" if I refrain from using profanity, even in a form which may be allowed here?
Would you call it "self-righteousness" if I address you as "bert" instead of, oh say, "bertoff" or "burp"?
So why not ask straight out: do you take offense at the form, "G*d", and if so, could you explain why?
It is unnecessary and serves no real purpose
Is that your real problem?
Are you so deathly afraid, that if you frankly acknowledge what the fossil record clearly shows, your faith in G*d and Christ's salvation will crumble to dust?
Is your faith so weak and fragile?
Is it based on nothing besides the ages of various geological strata?
Let's look directly at this:
1 Corinthians 15: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
So this is it: as near as I can tell, the only place in the entire Bible which says there was "no death" before Adam -- no book or prophet of the Old Testament says it, no Gospel writer (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) says it, Peter doesn't say it, nor do James or Jude, even Jesus Himself never says it.
Only Paul, so what are we to think of this fellow?
A man of great depth of thinking, and frequent metaphors, he advises us:
So what do you think?
Would you forgive Paul an occasional metaphor, to teach us what it's most important for us to know?
spirited irish: "All conceptions of a limited God in process of becoming (evolving) are Satanic.
You are in process of selling your soul on behalf of natural science and evolution."
Nobody says "God evolves", but His Universe obviously does, and why should it not?
So why, even though I've warned you before, do you continue to falsely accuse me?
Which religion allows you to do that?
Surely not Christianity, FRiend?
Thanks for your advice, FRiend.
I will at least keep it in mind, an may decide to heed it.
If so, thanks in advance. :-)
But I think you've hit upon the essence of why this is often a heated discussion, this conflating of the theory of evolution and the existence of a Creator of it all!
You and I seem to agree on something fundamental to the discussions, that there is nothing about the process of evolution which precludes God having set it in motion. And nothing in the running of the process precludes the potter, er, I mean the Creator from intervening on special occasions, to perhaps cause a phase shift here and there, or add some aspect tot he Creation which The Creator had in the original design to be added when a crucial stage is reached int he unfolding evolutionary process.
A young earth creationist will argue against this notion because to sustain the YEC position requires excluding probably as many points of evidence which corrode the theory as a strict 'non-God impelled' evolution believer must ignore to continue a rigid hold on origin of the species. Neither of those positions is sensible, given that we do not near enough data points to prove either and therefore the position is held on faith or guess, or obstinance (Professor Dawkins as case in point).
Other than entertaining, these 'discussion' tend to expose internally for the readers points around which reality has yet to edit. I just return to the Biblical promise that 'God is, and He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.' It would be nice if we could have these discussions without becoming quite so personally agitated. And my friend bert is fond of pointing that out at our occasional lunches.
To each his own, but I still insist that we can elevate matters if we apply more grace and less damnation.
“They are not “allegations”, they are questions to you, which, like most of my questions, you utterly refuse to answer.”
I’ve answered your questions. But not in the manner you anticipated, and therefore, not to your pleasure. I’m not here to please you.
Allegations in the form of questions are a common technique. William Buckley Jr. dealt with this obvious Liberal tactic fifty years ago when he exposed the dishonest and personal attacks of Hubert “The Hump” Humphrey. Everyone could see what “The Hump” was doing. Buckley named it for what it was.
In post #200 this thread, you allege no new quotes since February of 2009, How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism? FR, and you set the standard for “new quotes” to be four year’s (or less). Prove what you allege. (third request)
Aside from your exception, how do “other similar words,” such as “effective hunter-gatherers” equate with “vicious predatory animal”? (third request)
COOL IT, you are making humanity look like fools.
Sorry, but despite your cynical appeal to Buckley, the fact remains that a question is a question, is a still question, and you won't answer it, refuse to answer even a simple "yes" or "no" -- all the while repeating your own "questions" that have already been answered, in great detail.
YHAOS: "I’m not here to please you."
Well, then, that sort of explains everything, doesn't it?
And you were demanding answers from me?
Explain yourself.
”Humanity” does not require my aid (by the way).
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.