Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
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.