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
Is that the best you can do? In response to a 17 paragraph comeback?
Not everyone takes 17 paragraphs to answer a simple question.
Desperate times demand desperate measures . . . and it strikes me that the Darwinian Mullahs are coming unto increasingly desperate times.
Indeed, and their father knows his time is now very short.
Guess that is, indeed, the best you can do.
My 17 paragraphs are a demonstration that your supposedly “simple” question is not so simple as you would like to represent it to be. So, you are left with nothing but to try to change the subject from the Kimball article to my alleged inability to answer a “simple” question in less than 17 paragraphs. Your attempt to change the subject is an admission of intellectual poverty.
But, if that’s the best you can do . . .
I'm not sure about the rest you've listed, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins is an atheist.
CS Lewis placed Evolution within the context of magic. Magic is power, and in this sense Evolution is Tolkien’s Ring of Power, a ring so overwhelming in its seductive power that most men cannot look upon it without craving it, nor can they part with their Precious once they’ve taken it for themselves.
Among its’ magical properties is the ability to become what the ring-wearer most wants. So for some it becomes Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest. For Free Masonic initiates it is the seething energies of Lucifer while for New Age initiates it is Lucifer-—the Angel of Evolution and for Kundalini Yoga initiates Evolution is the serpent power coiled at the base of the spine.
I’m as anti-evolution as they come, but why is this in “news” instead of “religion?”
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
“...why is this in “news” instead of “religion?””
Spirited: In response to your question:
It is a well-researched, verified fact that anti-God statist conspirators (i.e., Frankfurt School, socialists, communists, etc) followed Saul Alinsky’s advice in overhauling Western and American civilization. With respect to the West’s traditional foundation in God, the Bible, sin, moral law, traditional family otherwise known as “religion,” he advised an incremental eclipse of Biblical religion with politics. Only politics would be allowed in the public arena.
Only politics are “politically correct.” Political correctness is the peculiarly inverted pseudo-morality of America’s left-right ‘elite class.’
Today anything remotely connected with the West’s traditional foundations-—Biblical theism, the Genesis account, morality, etc. is strictly forbidden in public discourse and relegated to “religious forums” while evolution, abortion, ‘gay’ marriage, the implementation of Sharia in American courts, open borders, rock music, the hatred of Ted Cruz by the GOP and Left, white-straight homophobia, white racism, climate change, etc. are “politics” therefore allowed in the public arena.
Americans have been deceived; their thoughts, words, and actions restrained in a psychological strait-jacket. So successfully have Americans been conditioned to “think” within the straitjacket that they try to force it upon all who refuse its’ constraints.
So you think the people who run Free Republic are slaves to political correctness because the have separate forums for discussions of religion and political activism?
Please tell me what political activism you think would be appropriate to eliminate heretics from the Christian churches.
"§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter, as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue."
Now you propose that, on a web site dedicated to the defense of that document and it's principles, we engage as a matter of political activism a discussion on what to do about heretics in the Christian religion.
This is not lining up right.
Rock music! Right up there with abortion and Sharia law as threats to the West’s traditional foundations! Further proof I’ve been giving this rant exactly the amount of attention it deserves.
The “church” . . . really? Since “church” is not capitalized, just any old church? No particular denomination? Since you do not specify, is “heresy” strictly confined to being purely a Christian application? There’s no Jewish heresy? Moslem heresy? Buddhist heresy? Hindu? Shinto? Sikh? Taoist? Gozerian? Atheist? Socialist? Darwinian? Scientism? Eugenicism?
Or, being Christo-Centric, do you wish only to consider Christian heresy? If so, which denomination? Catholic? Lutheran? Calvinist? Orthodox (by whatever qualifier; Eastern, Greek, Byzantium, etc) LDS? Protestant? Likewise, in pursuing your point, what is your intention in examining such a confined segment of an obviously large context?
Indeed, apparently you do wish only to discuss heresy within the narrow confines of Christianity (not even considering the greater accurateness of acknowledging the wider context of Judeo-Christian Tradition), and to restrict yourself further to the Euro-centric margins of Thirteenth Century RC doctrine.
In post #19, this thread, I delivered a definition of heresy from my MAC OSX dictionary:
heresy • belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine
and a second definition:
heresy • opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted
further noting the definition’s peculiar emphasis on a Christian orientation to heresy (id est, “esp. Christian”) when the subject has now existed in a much wider context for centuries (a fact that the MAC’s definition likewise acknowledges, but what you apparently do not wish to do). The definition exists in a primarily Western culture, so perhaps it is not especially notable that the definition is framed within a Christian context (although my above objection stands).
My 1953 edition of Merriam-Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, obtained for college in the summer of 1954, likewise has a very similar definition to my MAC’s, but without the emphasis on Christian doctrine, and likewise including a very similar 2nd definition.
The 1937 edition of Webster’s Universal Unabridged Dictionary list the following definitions:
heresy •
1. A doctrine, opinion, or set of opinions or principles at variance with established or generally received principles; an opinion or doctrine tending to create division; an unsound or untenable doctrine of any kind, as in politics, morality, philosophy, etc.
2. In theology, a doctrine or opinion that is contrary to the fundamental doctrine or creed of any particular church; an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion.
3. In law, an offense against Christianity, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed, and obstinately maintained.
Although providing a much expanded definition (it’s an unabridged edition) of the word, this edition demonstrates that the meaning of the word has changed not a whit over my lifetime, and that it is essentially a confirmation of the more compact dictionaries commonly found today.
Going back further, an examination of the 1828 dictionary, facsimile First Edition American Dictionary Of The English Language, by Noah Webster, shows a most remarkable similarity to all of the cites above.
So it appears that there is plenty of heresy to go around. Catholic heresy (an older variety) which would think any Protestant doctrine to be heresy; Protestant heresy (the “protest” being against the tyranny of “priests and kings”) which drove the forebears of our founding fathers to America’s shores (including Catholics looking to escape the tyranny of Protestant England); Moslem heresy, which saws off the heads of “infidels” or any Moslem heretic who strays from prescribed Moslem practice; Hindu heresy (witness the great upheaval tearing India apart after WWII, which erupted between Hindu and Moslem); the sporadic outbreaks of violence perpetrated by Buddhists and Sikhs; or witness the Science heresy perpetrated when Dawkins declares that Science proves that no Gods exist (would you, or anyone, care to suggest that much of what is proposed above is not politically driven?).
Speaking of politics, consider both the Democrat heresy hysteria or, equally the Repubic heresy hysteria that erupts whenever a Conservative acclaims the virtues of the First or Second Amendments, or offers most any remark about Liberty or Justice; or the heresy spastic reaction of 0bamatrons at the suggestion of any issue concerning welfare reform, immigration reform, education, or budgetary control at any local, state, or federal level.
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.
Thanks for your continuing support and encouragement.
Certainly, we must think 0bama regards himself a ring-wearer, and that his community agitation and his “defense” of Evolution (Darwinism) as Science, will prove a “magic” propelling his Socialist schemes and wet dreams into a unassailable dominance of America.
So far, his schemes and dreams have proved largely successful.
Sadly true, dear YHAOS!
“...witness the Science heresy perpetrated when Dawkins declares that Science proves that no Gods exist (would you, or anyone, care to suggest that much of what is proposed above is not politically driven?).”
Spirited: With respect to “Science heresy,” let us not forget that Marxist Communists called their “religion” of evolutionary naturalism, Scientific Socialism. Furthermore, history shows that there has been no “religion” more intolerant of “heretics” and more willing to exterminate “heretics” (60,000,000 + men, women, and children) than the Mullahs of Scientific Socialism.
Nor has their ferocious intolerance subsided.
Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!
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.