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
Thank you for your spam.
So, it now appears that spirited irish has resolved in her own mind the question of whether this thread should be Religion or News/Activism, and no longer regrets being "banished" from Religion.
That's fine.
But I wonder if, from the larger perspective of Free Republic itself, having threads like this are necessarily a "good thing"?
After all, if there is such a thing, Free Republic is the absolute core of genuine conservative America.
Let's put it this way: if we're not, then nobody is.
And if we're at each other's throats (metaphorically, of course) trying to strangle the life out of opponents who disagree religiously, then what does that tell the world about conservatives in general?
Not so good.
On the other hand, I personally think that battles royale like this one can have good effects in the longer term.
For one thing, we get to know who we are, as individuals & groups -- politically, religiously, philosophically, etc.
What we hammer out here could make a difference in the larger world, at least I sure like to think so.
It's a reason why I've supported Free Republic all these years now.
And why I'm not going anywhere else...
;-)
I “get” that our FRiend Kevmo wants to resume the debate on his own home territory, where odds are stacked a gazillion to one against rational thought.
***It’s interesting that someone supposedly so interested in “historicity” and “rational thought” would stay away from those kinds of threads. It is because your behavior is not only disallowed, it gets you kicked off the thread.
As an experiment, I went through some of this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3104329/posts?q=1&;page=251
and identified where posters were “making it personal” the way that you have been doing throughout this thread. The religion moderator removed ALL of those posts. Even the ones that seemed borderline. Your hogwash would NOT be allowed on that thread, and that is why you do not go over there. I’m over there, a prime juicy target for you. But you prefer to stay over here where your trolling tactics and heresy are allowed. So if such tactics are allowed, for you, they’re allowed for me. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And you’ve spent the better part of 20 posts complaining about how your arguments have been turned into goose sauce, you despicable heretic.
How did Dana Carvey used to say that? “Not goin’ to do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.”
***I agree. It would not be prudent for a heretic like you to operate in the fashion you have operated on this thread.
As an experiment, I went through some of this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3104329/posts?q=1&;page=251
and identified where posters were “making it personal” the way that Brojoke has been doing throughout this thread. The religion moderator removed ALL of those posts. Even the ones that seemed borderline. His hogwash would NOT be allowed on that thread, and that is why he do not go over there. I’m over there, a prime juicy target for him. But he prefers to stay over here where his trolling tactics and heresy are allowed. So if such tactics are allowed, for him, they’re allowed for me. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And he has spent the better part of 20 posts complaining about how his arguments have been turned into goose sauce. He is simply a despicable heretic.
FRiend, Kevmo, I understand your argument, and sincerely encourage you to believe what you've been taught about this.
Please don't think I'm hoping to "talk you out of" your faith, I'm not.
I'm only suggesting there's another way to look at it, and historically many people have, including our Founding Fathers.
So I turn to my Harper's Bible Dictionary, copyright 1985, and look up the word "worship".
The concept of worship is expressed by the term "serve".
In general, the worship given to God was modeled after the service given to human sovereigns..."
In other words, in the Old Testament, the term "worship" can refer to the service and reverence people give to their political rulers.
And since Daniel is Old Testament, I take this to mean that a "son of man" (a human being) will be appointed by God to rule over and be "worshiped" by people everywhere.
Of course, Kevmo, you are free to believe as you wish, but my "thing" is history, and Old Testament history tells me that when people bowed down to their king, that was called "worshiping".
Thanks for weighing in, Hogwash Dupe... As usual, you add no substance to the debate.
Only if, like you Kevmo, she begins howling insanely about "heresy".
But so far, I've seen no clues that that's where she's headed.
Instead, she seems to me highly reasonable, and capable when disagreement is absolutely necessary, of disagreeing most civilly.
Utterly unlike Kevmo.
I missed that, but can't say I'd be surprised if it was for a total absence of civility.
If you’re so afraid of dirtying yourself from my “sulfurous stench and howling insanity” then why is it you don’t operate on the open thread where the divinity of Christ is being discussed in the Religion Forum? That’s because your trolling tactics, mind reading, obfuscations and obvious bowlsheet are not tolerated. Garbage like yours gets deleted. And now that you get a taste of your own medicine you go crying like a butt hurt baby and ask someone to reign in your opponent. What a ridiculous piece of sheeite troll heretic garbage you are.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3104329/posts?q=1&;page=251
I never knowingly go into Religion threads: why would I ever want to go on a thread where everybody is howling like Kevmo?
***You’re none too bright for a heretic.
Is Jesus Christ God?
Christian Answers ^ | 2012 | Various
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3104329/posts?q=1&;page=251
Posted on Sun 22 Dec 2013 07:28:20 AM PST by DouglasKC
As an experiment, I went through some of this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3104329/posts?q=1&;page=251
and identified where posters were “making it personal” the way that you have been doing throughout this thread. The religion moderator removed ALL of those posts. Even the ones that seemed borderline. Your hogwash would NOT be allowed on that thread, and that is why you do not go over there. I’m over there, a prime juicy target for you. But you prefer to stay over here where your trolling tactics and heresy are allowed. So if such tactics are allowed, for you, they’re allowed for me. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And you’ve spent the better part of 20 posts complaining about how your arguments have been turned into goose sauce, you despicable heretic.
Educate yourself. Go over to the religion moderator’s page and see the rules... heretic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
So, bottom line, here is the question on the table: in view of their overheated enthusiasm for rooting out “heretics”
***Jesus was vehement as well in his treatment of false teachers, calling them ‘sons of the devil’. No doubt you would say He had “overheated enthusiasm” for the task.
Or should it be “let loose” into the larger News/Activism world, where they will run into people as blunt-spoken, stubborn-minded, historically knowledgeable and unorthodox as, oh, say, for instance... yours truly, BroJoeK?
***You do not qualify as “historically knowledgeable”. But other than that, your self-description is valid. On this thread alone, you’ve mistaken historical observation for faith. Not only are you a heretic, you’re an ignorant heretic.
yo, arse-clown who is completely afraid (or just plain too stupid) to respond to Joe - Dupa is actually worse than Dupe - once again you fail in trying to be clever. Shocking. Over 14,700 times.
So, it now appears that spirited irish ...no longer regrets being “banished” from Religion.
***Once again you post an outright lie.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=2232#2232
And naturally, Tackylogic jumps right in and does a troll dance on top of your lie.
You’re a despicable, lying, trolling heretic.
I’m only suggesting there’s another way to look at it,
***Scripture twisting, heretic style. Your view of ‘worship’ is “horsesheeit”.
FRiend, we've been over this already, and now you're asking me to repeat what I already posted.
Then doubtless you'll complain about me saying the same thing twice! {sigh}
In John 10:34 Jesus himself specifically refers to Psalms 82:6 which calls some human beings "gods".
He is trying to say that as Son of God, he also is such a "god".
Psalms 45:6 is another example of a highly respected human being addressed as "O God".
This is what Jesus (Son of God) expected to be called too, and in John 20:28, it's what Thomas does call him.
There's more to be said on this, but let me jump to the conclusion, which you've already rejected, but I'll repeat John 20:30-31:
31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
These are John's final words on this subject, and I take him at those words: Messiah, Son of God -- that's it.
If you wish to believe more, I say fine.
But I don't think we have to.
Instead, she seems to me highly reasonable, and capable when disagreement is absolutely necessary, of disagreeing most civilly.
***I was like that early in this thread and you kept up with your trolling and hostile behavior. I only started in with some heated invective once I realized you are a heretic. Jesus dealt severely with false teachers in His day, and no doubt you would accuse Jesus of not being Christlike when He did so. Even God Himself rejects this ridiculous standard of behavior you want to heretically push onto freepers.
But you have yet to provide a single quote justifying your ridiculous accusation.
It's false, and so are you, FRiend.
Dupa is actually worse than Dupe
***Most americans won’t know that, so I’m sticking with Hogwash Dupe. Where do you get this 14,700 figure? Oh, it’s from Cold Fusion threads, where you started stalking me after I preached the gospel to you. As a jew you were astonished that JimRob even allowed such things on Free Republic, trying to get the thread shut down. And now you’re stalking me from thread to thread.
You’re the ass clown, operating as a troll & stalker.
FRiend, we’ve been over this already,
***You can repeat over and over your own heretical opinions in troll like fashion, it does not make them right.
Yet again the heretic troll wants to play fetch.
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.