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

YHAOS: "Accordingly then, “Darwinism,” indeed all of what me might call Science, can’t possibly be involved in heresy because, not being involved in spiritual matters or anything having to do with value judgments, it has nothing to say to the Judeo-Christian Tradition, or to any religion.
"But, then along comes a fellow like Richard Dawkins, proclaiming opinions which seem profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted, claiming there are visible implications for moral judgments and proclaiming the existence of value criteria in the Theory of Evolution, even if what he and some of his colleagues have to say is a human horror."

This appears to be the core of your argument, and the very site of your Big Switcheroo.

The truth of the matter is that natural-science itself is a very limited, restricted enterprise requiring: natural explanations for natural processes.
So, whenever some scientist, be it Dawkins or anybody else expresses their philosophical, metaphysical, ontological or religious opinions, those are not, by definition, "scientific".

So Dawkins can say whatever he wishes philosophically -- it's just him talking, not science itself.
If Dawkins says:

"The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer.
I think that it is a scientific question.
My answer is no.”

Those are opinions to which Dawkins is certainly entitled, but which, by definition, are not scientific.

YHAOS: "Dawkins is not alone.
There are many noted Scientists of renown who agree."

But many other scientists are not atheists, including some of the best known, from Albert Einstein to Max Plank to even (perhaps) Stephen Hawking.
And many scientists throughout history have been self-acknowledged Christians, including this list.

So, your practice of equating science in general, and "Darwinism" in specific with atheism is simply false, and you should stop doing it, FRiend.

Finally, I recently stumbled on a very nice chart, which could apply to most any thread here.
I think we'd all do well to examine it and decide at which levels our own arguments should fall:

American politics has become an issue purely about control of the People, and virtually everything said or done becomes someone’s heresy, whether they chose to frame it in that expression, or not. It’s too late for you to attempt to regain your propagandist talking points by confining the word “heresy” to the narrow meaning your purposes require.

A finding of "heresey" requires a standard doctrine that is being deviated from. The standard being used in the article is belief in a literal interpreation of the account of Creation from the Book of Genesis.

What you want is to make that belief a political litmus test, essentially establishing a standard of "political correctness" that says only people who hold that religious belief are to be considered politically acceptable.

Disagreements over Biblical interpretation have been going on for centuries - this is not news. Neither is wanting to make it a political litmus test. The Founders saw the effects of doing it and wanted none of it. I agree with them.

Love your pyramid chart. Really cool. Whom do I credit for its use?
You would, indeed, do well to examine the chart for your use of its categories.

It’s been my experience that the arguments of 0bamatrons do not rise above the pyramid’s 4th level (contradiction), and generally sputters and stalls out at attempts to rise above the second (Ad Hominem) level.

By the way, it must be thought that Liberals, 0bamatrons, RINOs, and other Repubics in general, would have some difficulty in discerning the subtle distinction to be found in the bottom two levels (Ad Hominem and Name-calling) of the pyramid (clearly, another reason for referring to all Liberals as “bottom feeders”). They all seem to mix the two levels apparently without regard for their subtleties.

The simple matter is this whole “struggle” is all about seizing the control of power and wealth: power over Conservatives and the confiscation of Conservative wealth (Liberals will surrender their very souls with nothing more than a whimper - if even so much as that). Put simply, a fight over money and control of our backsides. Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives. Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides. Why don’t you address your objections to them?

“The truth of the matter is that natural-science itself is a very limited, restricted enterprise requiring: natural explanations for natural processes.”

Something about which I’ve been trying to convince my antagonists for years now . . . without success. I’ve had little trouble with my Judeo-Christian friends; they understand the point, that Science is science. It is not the Judeo-Christian Tradition that mistakenly thinks Science is an ethical and moral system designed to guide us in the value-judgments with which we must deal. The truth is both Liberals and Scientists know better, but dare not admit it.

“Dawkins can say whatever he wishes philosophically -- it's just him talking, not science itself.”

Don’t be insulting and disingenuous. Dawkins certainly can say whatever he wishes. It is, indeed, just him talking. That is not, however, how he represents himself to the public (which you should well know and understand). Dawkins presents himself (deservedly) as an eminent evolutionary biologist and presents (undeservedly) his “opinions” as authoritative and definitive (verily canonical), therefore requiring unquestioning acceptance. Has anyone on his side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientifically valid? Have you? Not under any circumstances, I’ll wager, lest you experience the modern version of the public stoning.

Public stonings no longer remain the sole province of the religious. While Moslems still indulge in the real thing as well as the virtual (and perhaps other religions . . . I am not a fanatical follower of the practice and therefore cannot say), Judeo-Christians have abandoned both the literal tradition (let him without sin cast the first stone) and the less violent but no less brutal scandal-mongering version. But the virtual, if not the literal, practice has been taken up with enthusiasm by 0bamatrons (and by Liberals generally) and by Scientists panicked at the thought of the loss of federal grant money, or the loss of the control of other public money.

“But many other scientists are not atheists . . . ”

So I’ve heard many times, and that’s fine. Let them, then, call their fellow scientists on their many violations of the cardinal principles of Science. Instead they remain silent and attack rather the critics of these violations. Dawkins counts on his eminence to let him skate free from any consequences for his scientific heresies, as do many another like him. And skate free they do.

“your practice of equating science in general, and "Darwinism" in specific with atheism is simply false, and you should stop doing it, FRiend.”

You mischaracterize my criticisms, and rather clumsily at that, so your invitation to shut up will have to remain unsatisfied.

You propose to have me take ownership of the tactics in which you so enthusiastically indulge. Not likely, Pilgrim.

“What you want is to make that belief a political litmus test,”

So you assert. The assertion does not prove the fact. Prove it.

“The Founders saw the effects of doing it (Establishing a religious doctrine that held any deviation to be heresy) and wanted none of it.”

The Founders were Christian men who were convinced that no viable government could long endure without a sound moral foundation, and they thought its best foundation was to be found (as Adams put it) in the more general Christian principles. They were virtually unanimous in their opposition to Establishment Religion, which meant to them the elevation of one specific religious doctrine to a place of dominance over all other doctrines thereby rendering any deviation from that doctrine a “heresy.”

I thought that in my post #35 I made clear my opposition to the imposition of any form of heresy, but apparently you were so focused on your objective of confining heresy to a single target that you could not accept any deviation from your objective as being anything but objectionable to you.

I find no compelling reason why I must tailor my words and thoughts to your objectives.

YHAOS: "Love your pyramid chart. Really cool.
Whom do I credit for its use?"

A lot of big words get thrown around on these threads, and one is "ad hominem", so I thought I should look it up to see just exactly what it refers to.
Well, it didn't take long.
This site defines "ad hominem", and credits the chart to Paul Graham.

YHAOS: "It’s been my experience that the arguments of 0bamatrons do not rise above the pyramid’s 4th level (contradiction), and generally sputters and stalls out at attempts to rise above the second (Ad Hominem) level."

Fortunately, that never happens on Free Republic, right? ;-)

YHAOS: "Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives.
Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides.
Why don’t you address your objections to them?"

First, just so we're clear: today's word "science" refers to the classical term, "natural-science", which is a sub-branch of "natural-philosophy" which ranks beside "theology", the "queen of sciences".
This understanding dates back to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas.

So I thought I might help you out by noting that liberals expressing their opinions on religion are not speaking "scientifically".
Don't blame "science" or "Darwinism" for liberal political agendas.

YHAOS: "Has anyone on his side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientifically valid?
Have you? Not under any circumstances, I’ll wager,"

You got me there -- I confess that in all these years I've never read, posted on or sent money to any site other than Free Republic, and why should I?
So I address problems I see here, and one of them is that many posters (including YHAOS?) get confused when they hear of a scientist giving his/her personal opinions on matters religious or philosophical, etc.
They suppose that because a scientist said it, then it must be scientific.
Well, the fact is that religious opinions are not scientific, regardless of who gives them.

YHAOS: "So I’ve heard many times, and that’s fine. Let them, then, call their fellow scientists on their many violations of the cardinal principles of Science.
Instead they remain silent and attack rather the critics of these violations."

Every scientist is entitled to hold and express his/her personal philosophical or religious opinions.
And, so long as they don't claim those opinions are science itself, there's nothing dishonest about it.
In the Dawkin's quote above, he says:

"I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

I think Dawkins is expressing his non-scientific opinion, which is obviously wrong and should be dismissed as inappropriate and out of line.

Of course the media loves to lionize such people, but believers need a raincoat to go out in the media-storm anyway.
Dawkins' idea is just one more wind-blown water drop to roll off our backs.

YHAOS: "You mischaracterize my criticisms, and rather clumsily at that, so your invitation to shut up will have to remain unsatisfied."

I'll take that as a sincere denial and rejection of the false impression your words leave, and thank you for it, FRiend.

BroJoeK: But many other scientists are not atheists, including some of the best known, from Albert Einstein to Max Plank to even (perhaps) Stephen Hawking.

Spirited: These men are atheists only with respect to their unbelief in a living, personal Creator who by Divine Providence upholds the souls of men and all things within the space-time dimension yet nevertheless exists outside of the cosmos/nature (space-time dimension).

Of course none of these men were atheists with respect to their religiously held belief in the ‘nature’ philosophies and/or nature religions (i.e., Epicurean Materialism, Neo-Platonic or Eastern Pantheism) they embraced.

All nature religions/philosophical systems are monist by nature. Monism expresses the very ancient idea that all that exists is either spiritualized matter or physical matter and the evolutionary, emergent, or emmanationist energies working in and through the One Substance over vast ages of time.

No nature religion or philosophical system is able to account for the origin of life and conscious life in particular. This is why Francis Crick among others (including Richard Dawkins), has moved away from abiogenesis (life emerged out of spontaneously generated matter) and toward pan spermia conceptions, the idea that perhaps life hitched a ride on an asteroid to our planet or maybe extraterrestrials brought life here. But as Crick has honestly admitted, pan spermia merely moves the problem of life out into deep space.

“Unfortunately, even conservatives are still thinking in a strait jacket. And I don’t anticipate that changing anytime soon”

Spirited: This is not surprising given that evolutionary thinking has been transforming the minds of Westerners and Americans for many long years. From cave-man movies to the GEICO cave-man commercials, to the teaching of Darwinism in universities and grade-schools, to evolution-themed science fiction, the constant implication is that life began at the bottom and has been riding an upward moving escalator from primordial matter to dinosaurs, to cave-man to man to deep space extraterrestrials.

Modern Westerners cannot think straight because evolution inverts creation, and where a god is mentioned it is an evolving nature deity such as Teilhard’s invention.

Teilhard’s deity finally emerges out of but remains completely immanent within matter, which by virtue of this deity is now spiritual rather than physical, and divine.

“A finding of “heresey” requires a standard doctrine that is being deviated from. “

Spirited: To ancient nature-worshippers as represented by the Epicureans (physical materialists) and Stoics (spiritual materialists) the Christian teaching that a living, personal Creator upholds the souls of men and all of creation yet exists outside of nature (space time dimension) was not only offensive but blasphemous and heretical, as they believed that the substance and actions of God were fully dispersed within nature. Worse was the teaching that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, which if true meant that God had incarnated within the evil matter in which the divine sparks of men were entombed and from which they sought escape.

Philosophically, Darwinism is physical materialism, an updated version of Epicureanism, while Teilhardism is spiritual materialism, an updated version of Stoicism and Westernized pantheist Hinduism. To religious believers of either or both, supernatural Christian theism is as offensive, heretical and blasphemous as it was to ancient Greeks. If this was not so then nature religion Mullahs would not be persecuting, hounding and censoring all public talk about Christian theism and demanding it be strictly forced out of the public arena. Nor would they be prohibiting prayer and demanding the removal of cemetery crosses, crèches, and even the public mention of Jesus Christ.

“Unfortunately, even conservatives are still thinking in a strait jacket. And I don’t anticipate that changing anytime soon”

That's all true, spirited, but the evolution business is not at all what I was referring to. I was referring to the entire pagan/secular "western" ideology, including that of the American Founding. I was referring to "freedom of religion" itself (which didn't exist in Biblical Israel). I was referring to the modern schizophrenic western mentality that pays lip service to G-d in private but worships "democracy" or "western tolerance" in public. I'm talking about a world in which people have to stop taking their religious beliefs seriously the moment they step outside their front doors.

The entire "enlightenment" project has been a disaster. There are no "rights" that don't come from G-d, including "freedom of religion." How long has it been since you read the Book of Joshua? No "bill of rights" there!

Most conservatives are simply not capable of discovering the blinders they wear because they are devoted to a false religion in which G-d makes an "offer of salvation" which the individual is free to accept or reject. In fact there is no "offer of salvation." There is only G-d A-mighty, the King of the Kings of the Kings, and His Laws which are mandatory. This worldview is so alien to the modern world that I don't think most people are capable of understanding it. Ironically, the moslems seem to come the closest, and for this reason are hated by "conservatives" who believe in "freedom of religion." In fact the only problem with the moslems is they have the wrong religion.

To religious believers of either or both, supernatural Christian theism is as offensive, heretical and blasphemous as it was to ancient Greeks. If this was not so then nature religion Mullahs would not be persecuting, hounding and censoring all public talk about Christian theism and demanding it be strictly forced out of the public arena. Nor would they be prohibiting prayer and demanding the removal of cemetery crosses, crèches, and even the public mention of Jesus Christ.

Why limit that argument to just the physical and spiritual materialists? According to the article, any belief other than a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is equally heretical.

Many people (including many Freepers) belive in theological evolution. The author rejects that belief out of hand as being no different that philosophical naturalism - if you aren't a YEC Creationist then you don't have any business claiming to believe in God at all, because you aren't doing it right.

Is that an idea you think we need to adopt as a matter of political activism?

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.