Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

Renew America ^ | Sept. 19, 2013 | Linda Kimball

[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

[tacticalogic]

You do me a service I do not require... I m not after the term “scientific method” I’m after the very term “SCIENCE”..

It’s has become a “juju bag” term.. a term for “witch doctors” and “Guru’s”...
A bag full of bones and rattlers shaken to amaze the dumb and naive..
“Scientists” have feathers(coup) in their bonnets and letters beside their name..
With reputations to live up too like any RAP Artist.. (Street Cred)..

I am not amused or impressed with any of it...
and YES a bit militant.. but entertained...
I’m living my dream and having fun..

677 posted on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:06:45 PM by hosepipe

I took that at face value. I'm not seeing the kind of "wiggle room" that's being claimed in any of that.

[hosepipe]

not just going after the people who abuse it, but going after science itself, in any context and any application, by anyone.
Is that not an accurate assesment?

---

(answer to both recent posts).

No.. what “science” is, is nebulous.. nebulous to different people at different times..
You have your definition.. others define it differently..

It’s like LOVE... many definitions.. or “GOD” or even “social justice”..
“Science” is a perceived “thing”... I talk to several people and get different answers..
Some think there is one God others think there are many of them..
YOU; think science is one thing... others see it differently.. LIKE ME...

To wit; Science can be what it IS, or it can be what it Ain’t..
Depending on your value judgements.. you know.. QUALIA..

Scientists are PEOPLE.. not things.. people with value judgements..
Some may be evil bastards, others can be morons, yet others can be highly tuned manipulators of people.. i.e. witch doctors..

I see scientists as monkeys(primates) inspecting a Rolex watch(nature) the smart ones wondering why it don’t “tick”.. but are drawn to it because it’s shiney.. like the others..

[tacticalogic]

I understand that. But the people that said they agree with you then made statements that imply they’re using a very different definition than yours. Agreements based on different premises aren’t really agreement.

[hosepipe]

Well Duuugh. I though I just answered that...
Jeese grasshopper, pay attention...

I’m not up here on the mountain in this cave for nothin’..

[tacticalogic]

I just answered that...

No, you didn't. I don't agree that science is like God. They are two fundamentally different things. One exists outside of us and not entirely within our grasp and comprehension. The other is a construct entirely of our own invention, and there's no reason that it needs to be "fuzzy".

[hosepipe]

No, you didn’t. I don’t agree that science is like God.

---

Nobody asked you to agree..
You have your ideas... thats cogent and logical to you...
As a retard has his ideas that are logical to him...

Which is what I said...
The only question IS..... WHO is the retard.?..
And the answer is NOT very scientific.. but fun to contemplate..

[tacticalogic]

And the answer is NOT very scientific..

It shouldn't be. The question wasn't.

[Alamo-Girl]

I’m not up here on the mountain in this cave for nothin’..

LOLOL!

[BroJoeK]

Alamo-Girl to spirited irish: "So unless the words were addressed to me by a brother or sister in Christ, they would be empty.
And if a brother or sister in Christ used such words towards me they would no doubt discover there is more poison in the handle than in the point."

Oh, I like it -- fighting irish versus spirited Texan!

[BroJoeK]

spirited irish to betty boop: "Thus to me the real danger resides in the unseen realm of ideas, conceptions, presuppositions, etc.
Though entirely unseen, ideas like evolution are like slippery slopes that can cause one to unwittingly fall away from God rather than find Him.
Ideas do indeed have consequences."

FRiend, there are a thousand ways (or a thousand times a thousand ways) to "fall away from God", of which scientific theories like evolution are only one.
Indeed, the act of "finding God" is first and foremost an act of will and knowledge: you need both how and where to look.
The closest analogies I've ever seen are these -- how long does it take you to see the large angels in this picture?

So science is just one more picture through which we must look to find what we seek.

[BroJoeK]

Alamo-Girl to BJK: " the two knowledge types are a false dichotomy as betty boop explains so well in her post just following yours...
...the false dichotomy you claim only recognizes indirect theological knowledge."

Normally so perceptive, you've missed the target this time.
Your debate is not with me, but with St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom you should address your concerns about "false dichotomies".
I have merely pointed out that Aquinas was first to spell out the different forms of thinking relating to theology and "natural philosophy" -- aka "science".

So I'll say it again: Aquinas did not consider the two forms as in conflict, but he did define a method of thinking (based on inputs from senses) which we today call "science".

So, FRiend, don't accuse me of "false dichotomies".
See the Man about it.

[hosepipe]

FRiend, there are a thousand ways (or a thousand times a thousand ways) to “fall away from God”

---

When God seems far away.............. WHO MOVED?..

[BroJoeK]

tnlibertarian: "Wouldn’t calling someone an ass hat fall under ‘attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer...’ and therefore not be its own category, but rather a subset of the one above it?
And, is this a Contridiction or a Counterargument?"

Spoken like a true theologian! ;-)

[BroJoeK]

YHAOS quoting: "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor.
The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.
In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings." . . . . . Thomas Jefferson,

Thanks FRiend, I'd say that any time we can include both Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Aquinas in the same Free Republic thread, that thread is golden.

[tacticalogic]

Spoken like a true theologian! ;-)

Seems a little short on hyperbole and perjoratives.

[spirited irish]

BroJoeK: Your debate is not with me, but with St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom you should address your concerns about “false dichotomies”.
I have merely pointed out that Aquinas was first to spell out the different forms of thinking relating to theology and “natural philosophy” — aka “science”.

Spirited: A sophist (magical thinker) is one who will emphatically deny that a tree that falls in a forest makes no sound when no one is around to hear it on the basis of his imperial say so. If the sophist says it makes sound then it does. If he says the reverse, then it makes no sound.

With respect to Aquinas it is on your say-so that he exactly agrees with what you want everyone to believe. Aquinas is a puppet who dances to your tune and says just what you want him to say.

[BroJoeK]

spirited irish: "unless we peer through the worldview lens of dialectical materialism it is impossible for us to understand it.
Nor is it possible to understand its’ devastating effects, such as the cognitive dissonance of BroJoeK."

Sorry FRiend, but your accusation of "cognitive dissonance" is both false and malicious -- like your thread-article above -- and doubtless only projects and transfers some disquiet in your own soul onto some convenient scape goat, in this case, yours truly.

spirited irish: "What we must understand is that dialectical materialism is a syncretic mixture of ancient pagan systems updated, revamped and made palatable for modern Westerners and Americans.
It’s major ingredients are..."

Utter and complete hogwash!
And the reason is so obvious, if it were standing close enough it would punch you in the face: "dialectical materialism" is 100% -- let me say it: 1,000% -- atheistic, and no ancient culture or philosophy ever was.
Of course, with stunning exceptions, ancients were philosophically wrong about nearly everything, but "dialectical materialism" has nothing to do with any of their speculations.
Instead, it is simply one practical (i.e., political) application of atheistic "philosophical naturalism".

spirited irish: "All pagan systems have in common some form of evolution plus transmigration or evolution plus reincarnation."

Only if by "some form" you mean virtually anything you dislike.
Otherwise, that's utterly false, and further discrediting of your opinions generally.

spirited irish: "For about 80 years now, unsuspecting Americans have been undergoing a stealthy transformation of consciousness to supplant our identity as individual image-bearers of Jehovah God with the Collective Communal Consciousness of dialectical materialism."

The term "dialectical materialism" was coined in 1887 by Marxist Joseph Dietzgen, but its ideas originated through Marx from Hegel, circa 1820.
The key fact about all these thinkers is that they were thorough-going atheists, and so any efforts to ascribe to them ancient pagan religious ideas are simply misdirected.

Which is not to deny that other people hybridized "dialectical materialism" with their own pantheistic beliefs -- indeed, are there not also Christian versions, i.e., "liberation theology"?
I'm only saying: don't blame atheists for what pagans did to their ideas.
I'm also saying: don't blame "pagans" for what communist-atheists like Joseph Stalin & Mao Tse-tung did to tens of millions of their countrymen & women.

spirited irish: "This is why Darwinism has been forced on us in the name of ‘science’ and why creation ex nihilo is forbidden.
And this is why evolutionary theism is an abomination."

Pure rubbish, for which you should be ashamed, FRiend.

• "Darwinism" is a creature of Creationists' fantasies.
  
• Evolution is a scientific theory taught in schools along with every other science.
  
• Creation ex nihilo is a religious belief taught (appropriately) in places of worship.
  
• "Evolutionary theism" simply acknowledges what scientific facts suggest: God created the Universe and life on earth using methods we describe generally as "evolutionary".

Of course, it is hard to describe the "Big Bang" or stellar super-novae as "evolutionary"...

No person of any serious thinking would ever wish to separate the teaching of Creation from its proper religious context and put it into the hands of paid government employees!

The government cannot, should not and must not preach a religion.

spirited irish: "Vishal Mangalwadi, India’s highly respected Christian intellectual, concludes that Marxist dialectical materialism, or scientific socialism, is Eastern pantheist nihilism dressed in ‘scientific’ clothing."

I think its wonderful that Mangalwadi can find in Marxism echoes of his own culture's historical beliefs.
But to equate "pantheist" and "nihilism" is ludicrous, regardless of how "highly respected" that intellectual might be.

spirited irish: "After seizing control of Russia, Marxist ‘mind-conditioners’ utilized propaganda of the lie..."

I don't blame science itself for atrocities committed by some politicians, any more than I blame Christianity itself for horrors committed by some Christians in the name of fighting "heretics" and "infidels".

spirited irish: "By these means they set Western and American civilization adrift in infinite nothingness."

Anyone who seeks can find, as easily (or with as much difficulty) as ever.
In the US today there are around 300,000 churches attended by, typically, 60 million parishioners.
Every one of those churches has empty pews, and eagerly accepts new people, of any age or condition.

By contrast, there are roughly 100,000 schools, nearly all of them highly restricted by age and other categories.
So, people who wish to learn the Truth, will more easily find it in a church than a public school.

[BroJoeK]

HiTech RedNeck to tacticalogic: " If you want to call it heresy when you pollute Christianity (at least when you have a good reason to know you are polluting it)... then if the shoe fits wear it...."

The only ones "polluting Christianity" on this thread are posters such as yourself, FRiend, who insist that facts determined by science are in contradiction to Truth revealed in the Bible.

St. Thomas Aquinas was very clear in insisting this could not be.

[BroJoeK]

HiTech RedNeck to R7 rocket: "I don’t find it surprising at all that you distort.
Sad yes, surprising no."

There is indeed a lot of distorting going on, on this thread, but I haven't seen it coming from R7.

[BroJoeK]

HiTech RedNeck to R7 Rocket: "Knowledge also puffs up while love edifies (I didn’t make that up, that’s from the bible)"

So, do you advocate teaching "love" in schools, instead of knowledge?