Bible Discussion: The Consequences Of Theistic Evolution 1

The Consequences Of Theistic Evolution 1
Posts: 31

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

IknowHimDoYou
2003-07-20 12:26:50 EST
The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1

(this is not for the atheistic evolutionist)

No. 1 Denial of the Central Biblical Teachings

The Bible is the authoritative source of informationand bears witness that
we are dealing with the truth authored by God. The Lord Jesus Christ says
His words will never pass away(Matt 24:35). He guarantees that everything
that is written, will be fulfilled(Luke 18:17). He authorized all the
meaningful elements of the text of the Bible(Luke 16:17) and confirmed
that all Biblical accounts described real historical events including the
creation of the first human couple(Matt 19:4-5), the universality of a
global flood and the destruction of all air-breathing creatures(Matt
24:39-39), and the history of Jonah(Matt 12:40-41). It seems reasonable
to listen to what the Lord Jesus Christ himself said if one says he is a
believer does it not?

The Bible gives a factual report of:
a. Biological, astronomical and anthropolgical facts given in a didactical form.
b. As is customary for present-day measuring, techniques, and appropriate
methods for measuring the physical time units "day" and "year" are
given(Gen 1:14.
c. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six wourking days and one day of
rest on the same time span(Hebrew-yom- singular, not yomim-plural) as is
done in Genesis creation account.
d. In the NT Jesus frequently refers to facts of creation(Matt 19:4-5).
e. Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation
account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.
There are no references to magic or myths such as the Summarian and other
pagan accounts.

The doctrine of theistic evolution tries to undermine this basic way of
reading the Bible as vouched for by the Lord Jesus Christ, the prophets
and the apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical
imagery, and understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in
word and meaning is scorned and regarded as superstitions.

I Sam 15:23b:
"Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you..."

Acts 13:46b:
"Since you reject it(the word of God) and do not consider yourselves
worthy of eternal life..."

Elmer Bataitis
2003-07-20 13:12:33 EST
IknowHimDoYou wrote:

> The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1
> No. 1 Denial of the Central Biblical Teachings
> The Bible is the authoritative source of informationand bears witness that
> we are dealing with the truth authored by God.

And yet you wish us to believe a work of men (the bible) and ignore the
handiwork of God: the material universe.

Dave Oldridge
2003-07-20 14:25:49 EST
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2007030926500001@pm6-30.kalama.com:

> The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1
>
> (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist)
>
> No. 1 Denial of the Central Biblical Teachings
>
> The Bible is the authoritative source of informationand bears witness
> that we are dealing with the truth authored by God. The Lord Jesus

And you know this how? Because some jerk in a three-piece suit told it
to you, I'll bet.

> Christ says His words will never pass away(Matt 24:35). He guarantees
> that everything that is written, will be fulfilled(Luke 18:17). He

He DID fulfill everything that was written about Him. Moreover, I
haven't noticed any dearth of copies of the gospels. But what has any of
this to do with your silly claim that Genesis 1-11 is a literal history?

> authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible(Luke
> 16:17) and confirmed that all Biblical accounts described real
> historical events including the creation of the first human
> couple(Matt 19:4-5), the universality of a global flood and the

And from this, you get an endorsement of Genesis as literal history? How
about you and your spiritual mentors just take a collective course in
remedial English with emphasis on reading for meaning?

> destruction of all air-breathing creatures(Matt 24:39-39), and the
> history of Jonah(Matt 12:40-41). It seems reasonable to listen to
> what the Lord Jesus Christ himself said if one says he is a believer
> does it not?

It does, to a certain point. It does not make sense to expect Jesus to
have known any more about quantum electrodynamics or origins than His
contemporaries did, though. That would be denying Him his kenosis. I
realize that heretics like you have dropped key doctrines like this and
turned Jesus into some kind of plastic demigod who you then use as a
rubber stamp for your idolatry, but I do not consider myself bound by the
illogic of heretics.

> The Bible gives a factual report of:
> a. Biological, astronomical and anthropolgical facts given in a
> didactical form.

And your scientific evidence for this is where?

> b. As is customary for present-day measuring,
> techniques, and appropriate methods for measuring the physical time
> units "day" and "year" are given(Gen 1:14.

Which means nothing in a piece that is entirely metaphoric and
allegorical.

> c. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six wourking days and one day
> of rest on the same time span(Hebrew-yom- singular, not yomim-plural)
> as is done in Genesis creation account.

That's nice. This is now talking about an observance.

> d. In the NT Jesus frequently refers to facts of creation(Matt
> 19:4-5).

He refers to the Torah, that's true. And He came to teach moral lessons
from it, not argue about its science.

> e. Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the
> creation account should be understood in any other way than as a
> factual report. There are no references to magic or myths such as the
> Summarian and other pagan accounts.

No, but the flood myth is just about a sanitized carbon copy of a
Babylonian myth that doesn't even pretend to be anything else.

> The doctrine of theistic evolution tries to undermine this basic way
> of reading the Bible as vouched for by the Lord Jesus Christ, the
> prophets and the apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced
> to mythical imagery, and understanding of the message of the Bible as
> being true in word and meaning is scorned and regarded as
> superstitions.

No, it reverts to much more traditional ways of reading the Bible, some
of them almost lost since the first centuries of Christianity, though
better-preserved in Judaism.

> I Sam 15:23b:
> "Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected
> you..."

> Acts 13:46b:
> "Since you reject it(the word of God) and do not consider yourselves
> worthy of eternal life..."

It is creationist "liars for Jesus" who reject the word of God. They are
so intent on defending their private interpretation of scripture that
they will misrepresent the work of scientists, use fallacious logic in
liberal doses and even outright lie. But of course "thou shalt not bear
false witness" is only to be taken literally when someone does it to YOU
to get your ca$h.

Sorry, I don't buy into your heresy and am not going to start just
because you misinterpret scripture and yell a few imprecations. Liars
end up here:

Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.

I WON'T be joining you there....

What IS the devil paying for the souls of YEC's these days? I'm curious.


--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Adam Marczyk
2003-07-20 16:53:58 EST
Adam Marczyk <see@sig.com> wrote in message
news:DeDSa.2741$bi4.2675@news02.roc.ny...

[...]

> You clearly need to catch up on your Bible reading, IKHDY. I recommend
> you start with Acts 16:31. Pay special attention to the fact that it
> does not say "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and reject evolution,
> and thou shalt be saved."

Oh yes, almost forgot - with regard to IKHDY's naive insistence that the
Bible was intended to be a science textbook, I recommend 2 Corinthians 3:6.
The letter of the text kills, but the spirit of the text gives life.

--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Iceberg3k
2003-07-20 17:50:26 EST
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:25:49 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<*T@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:

>*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
>news:IknowHim-2007030926500001@pm6-30.kalama.com:
>
>> The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1
>>
>> (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist)
>>
>> No. 1 Denial of the Central Biblical Teachings
>>
>> The Bible is the authoritative source of informationand bears witness
>> that we are dealing with the truth authored by God. The Lord Jesus
>
>And you know this how? Because some jerk in a three-piece suit told it
>to you, I'll bet.
>
>> Christ says His words will never pass away(Matt 24:35). He guarantees
>> that everything that is written, will be fulfilled(Luke 18:17). He
>
>He DID fulfill everything that was written about Him. Moreover, I
>haven't noticed any dearth of copies of the gospels. But what has any of
>this to do with your silly claim that Genesis 1-11 is a literal history?
>
>> authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible(Luke
>> 16:17) and confirmed that all Biblical accounts described real
>> historical events including the creation of the first human
>> couple(Matt 19:4-5), the universality of a global flood and the
>
>And from this, you get an endorsement of Genesis as literal history? How
>about you and your spiritual mentors just take a collective course in
>remedial English with emphasis on reading for meaning?
>
>> destruction of all air-breathing creatures(Matt 24:39-39), and the
>> history of Jonah(Matt 12:40-41). It seems reasonable to listen to
>> what the Lord Jesus Christ himself said if one says he is a believer
>> does it not?
>
>It does, to a certain point. It does not make sense to expect Jesus to
>have known any more about quantum electrodynamics or origins than His
>contemporaries did, though. That would be denying Him his kenosis. I
>realize that heretics like you have dropped key doctrines like this and
>turned Jesus into some kind of plastic demigod who you then use as a
>rubber stamp for your idolatry, but I do not consider myself bound by the
>illogic of heretics.
>
>> The Bible gives a factual report of:
>> a. Biological, astronomical and anthropolgical facts given in a
>> didactical form.
>
>And your scientific evidence for this is where?
>
>> b. As is customary for present-day measuring,
>> techniques, and appropriate methods for measuring the physical time
>> units "day" and "year" are given(Gen 1:14.
>
>Which means nothing in a piece that is entirely metaphoric and
>allegorical.
>
>> c. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six wourking days and one day
>> of rest on the same time span(Hebrew-yom- singular, not yomim-plural)
>> as is done in Genesis creation account.
>
>That's nice. This is now talking about an observance.
>
>> d. In the NT Jesus frequently refers to facts of creation(Matt
>> 19:4-5).
>
>He refers to the Torah, that's true. And He came to teach moral lessons
>from it, not argue about its science.
>
>> e. Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the
>> creation account should be understood in any other way than as a
>> factual report. There are no references to magic or myths such as the
>> Summarian and other pagan accounts.
>
>No, but the flood myth is just about a sanitized carbon copy of a
>Babylonian myth that doesn't even pretend to be anything else.
>
>> The doctrine of theistic evolution tries to undermine this basic way
>> of reading the Bible as vouched for by the Lord Jesus Christ, the
>> prophets and the apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced
>> to mythical imagery, and understanding of the message of the Bible as
>> being true in word and meaning is scorned and regarded as
>> superstitions.
>
>No, it reverts to much more traditional ways of reading the Bible, some
>of them almost lost since the first centuries of Christianity, though
>better-preserved in Judaism.
>
>> I Sam 15:23b:
>> "Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected
>> you..."
>
>> Acts 13:46b:
>> "Since you reject it(the word of God) and do not consider yourselves
>> worthy of eternal life..."
>
>It is creationist "liars for Jesus" who reject the word of God. They are
>so intent on defending their private interpretation of scripture that
>they will misrepresent the work of scientists, use fallacious logic in
>liberal doses and even outright lie. But of course "thou shalt not bear
>false witness" is only to be taken literally when someone does it to YOU
>to get your ca$h.
>
>Sorry, I don't buy into your heresy and am not going to start just
>because you misinterpret scripture and yell a few imprecations. Liars
>end up here:
>
>Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
>murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
>shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
>which is the second death.
>
>I WON'T be joining you there....
>
>What IS the devil paying for the souls of YEC's these days? I'm curious.

Not very much. Liars are a dime a dozen these days.

-- Ice
Give 'em hell, Howard!
People-powered Howard for President in 2004!
http://www.deanforamerica.com/
"Change in America always comes... from the people."

Thore Schmechtig
2003-07-21 03:13:09 EST
> The Bible gives a factual report of:
> a. Biological, astronomical and anthropolgical facts given in a didactical form.

Like "The earth is flat"? BWAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Matt Silberstein
2003-07-21 08:50:56 EST
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):

>The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1
>
>(this is not for the atheistic evolutionist)
>
>No. 1 Denial of the Central Biblical Teachings
>
>The Bible is the authoritative source of informationand bears witness that
>we are dealing with the truth authored by God. The Lord Jesus Christ says
>His words will never pass away(Matt 24:35). He guarantees that everything
>that is written, will be fulfilled(Luke 18:17). He authorized all the
>meaningful elements of the text of the Bible(Luke 16:17) and confirmed
>that all Biblical accounts described real historical events including the
>creation of the first human couple(Matt 19:4-5), the universality of a
>global flood and the destruction of all air-breathing creatures(Matt
>24:39-39), and the history of Jonah(Matt 12:40-41). It seems reasonable
>to listen to what the Lord Jesus Christ himself said if one says he is a
>believer does it not?
>
>The Bible gives a factual report of:
>a. Biological, astronomical and anthropolgical facts given in a didactical form.
>b. As is customary for present-day measuring, techniques, and appropriate
>methods for measuring the physical time units "day" and "year" are
>given(Gen 1:14.
>c. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six wourking days and one day of
>rest on the same time span(Hebrew-yom- singular, not yomim-plural) as is
>done in Genesis creation account.
>d. In the NT Jesus frequently refers to facts of creation(Matt 19:4-5).
>e. Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation
>account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.
>There are no references to magic or myths such as the Summarian and other
>pagan accounts.
>
>The doctrine of theistic evolution tries to undermine this basic way of
>reading the Bible as vouched for by the Lord Jesus Christ, the prophets
>and the apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical
>imagery, and understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in
>word and meaning is scorned and regarded as superstitions.
>
>I Sam 15:23b:
>"Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you..."
>
>Acts 13:46b:
>"Since you reject it(the word of God) and do not consider yourselves
>worthy of eternal life..."

So your argument is that if evolution occurs, there is no God. We
observe evolution.



Galia
2003-07-21 10:35:41 EST

"Thore Schmechtig" <starspawn@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:bfg468$d6q55$2@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > The Bible gives a factual report of:
> > a. Biological, astronomical and anthropolgical facts given in a
didactical form.
>
> Like "The earth is flat"? BWAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Lachst Du ueber Deine eigenen Witze?
galia



Elmer Bataitis
2003-07-21 10:58:00 EST
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:

(snip)

> >It does not make sense to expect Jesus to
> >have known any more about quantum electrodynamics or origins than His
> >contemporaries did, though. That would be denying Him his kenosis.

> Well, no, it would be denying Him Godhood. That's a pretty basic
> heresy. And heresy is the 'word', in these 'interesting times'. Maybe
> there's some 'nuancing' that would keep you from denying, outright,
> the God-Man. But you'd have to say what that 'nuance' happens to be.

Read Luke then explain this odd concept of God-Man.

Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour
with God and man."

(snip)

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************

Dave Oldridge
2003-07-21 12:18:31 EST
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:b9rnhvooecvo1edd2t023dlkltjgbv64qu@4ax.com:

> Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
>>news:IknowHim-2007030926500001@pm6-30.kalama.com:
>
> kenosis
>
>
> As James Spader once remarked, in a famous film - there's a funny
> word.
>
> What could it mean?
>
> ""Kenosis," then, the corresponding noun, has become a technical term
> for the humiliation of the Son in the incarnation, but in recent years
> has acquired a still more technical sense, i.e. of the Son's emptying
> Himself of certain attributes, especially of omniscience."
>
> [http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/Topic/Ken
> osis]
>
>
> In other words, there's a very clear and categorical synonym for -
> kenosis - as 'popularly' understood. And that synonym is - "trendy".
>
>
> But onto this:
>
>
>
>>> The Bible is the authoritative source of informationand bears
>>> witness that we are dealing with the truth authored by God. The
>>> Lord Jesus
>
>>And you know this how? Because some jerk in a three-piece suit told
>>it to you, I'll bet.
>
> Scriptures is not all of Tradition, of course. Volumes could have been
> written. And Revelation, all of Tradition, is preserved only by The
> Church, not Prot denominations, and frankly, not most of the churchmen
> in the institutional church, today - which, no, is not ironic (it's
> happened many times, before, just not to this degree).
>
>
>>> Christ says His words will never pass away(Matt 24:35). He
>>> guarantees that everything that is written, will be fulfilled(Luke
>>> 18:17). He
>
>>He DID fulfill everything that was written about Him. Moreover, I
>>haven't noticed any dearth of copies of the gospels. But what has any
>>of this to do with your silly claim that Genesis 1-11 is a literal
>>history?
>
> You still question this historicity of Adam and Eve?

As a step in mankind's spiritual history, I do not. As genetic history
it just does not correspond with fact. There is no genetic bottleneck at
6,000 or even at 10,000ya. None--no trace of it. Moreover we see modern
humans, at least anatomically, going back as much as 350kya.

>>> authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible(Luke
>>> 16:17) and confirmed that all Biblical accounts described real
>>> historical events including the creation of the first human
>>> couple(Matt 19:4-5), the universality of a global flood and the
>
>>And from this, you get an endorsement of Genesis as literal history?
>>How about you and your spiritual mentors just take a collective course
>>in remedial English with emphasis on reading for meaning?

> They are described in the genealogies, for example. They are treated
> as historical figures - as you . . well know.

Well then you have to explain the reason the physical evidence shows NO
sign of any genetic bottleneck, modern humans are found MUCH earlier than
any chronology based on the Bible and there is absolutely NO evidence of
a GLOBAL flood in historic times (and much evidence against the idea).

Either Genesis 1-11 is intended to be interpreted figuratively, or we
need to call into question its entire status as inspired scripture. But
young-earth creationists want to have their cake and eat it too. The
trouble is, you can only do so much with real logic before you descend
into rationalizations, sophistry and--eventually--lies about the physical
data.

>>> destruction of all air-breathing creatures(Matt 24:39-39), and the
>>> history of Jonah(Matt 12:40-41). It seems reasonable to listen to
>>> what the Lord Jesus Christ himself said if one says he is a believer
>>> does it not?

>>It does, to a certain point. It does not make sense to expect Jesus
>>to have known any more about quantum electrodynamics or origins than
>>His contemporaries did, though. That would be denying Him his
>>kenosis.

> Well, no, it would be denying Him Godhood. That's a pretty basic
> heresy. And heresy is the 'word', in these 'interesting times'. Maybe
> there's some 'nuancing' that would keep you from denying, outright,
> the God-Man. But you'd have to say what that 'nuance' happens to be.

Jesus was not some demi-god. We are taught that He was, in all things,
human as we are. This is not to say that He could not have prayed to the
Father for such information and received it, had He so desired. But He
did not possess all knowledge automatically, while in the flesh as Jesus.

>>> c. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six wourking days and one
>>> day of rest on the same time span(Hebrew-yom- singular, not
>>> yomim-plural) as is done in Genesis creation account.
>
>>That's nice. This is now talking about an observance.
>
> Note the reference made to His Work, His Creation.

Again, why does this mean we should take it literally and treat the days
as anything more than a poetic device that came to have traditional
significance?

>>> d. In the NT Jesus frequently refers to facts of creation(Matt
>>> 19:4-5).

>>He refers to the Torah, that's true. And He came to teach moral
>>lessons from it, not argue about its science.
>
> Did Jesus say none of it ever happened? You want to be careful about
> not just adding to, but . . . taking away . . from what God has said.
> You really do.

Jesus didn't. It is nature itself that shows us that some of it never
happened--at least not the way modern bibliolaters think it did.

>>No, but the flood myth is just about a sanitized carbon copy of a
>>Babylonian myth that doesn't even pretend to be anything else.
>
> Or refers to a great Flood, recorded over the entire region by various
> peoples. There's always that possibility. The Hebrew Bible explains
> why . . the Flood. It gives a reason for The Flood - your 'moral
> lesson', which perhaps you would prefer not to stick with, in this
> case?

Yep...there is some fairly good reason for interpreting "ha aretz" in
this case to mean "the land" as in "the nation." It's also interesting
that the Septuagint's chronology places Noah and his ark in just about
the time frame of the Black Sea inundation. But that means the modern
bibliolaters with their global flood in 2250BC are wrong on two counts.

>>> The doctrine of theistic evolution tries to undermine this basic way
>>> of reading the Bible as vouched for by the Lord Jesus Christ, the
>>> prophets and the apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced
>>> to mythical imagery, and understanding of the message of the Bible
>>> as being true in word and meaning is scorned and regarded as
>>> superstitions.
>
>>No, it reverts to much more traditional ways of reading the Bible,
>>some of them almost lost since the first centuries of Christianity,
>>though better-preserved in Judaism.
>
> Of course. Only reestablished and reformed Judaism is the true
> guardian of God's Word and Revelation. Sure.

I didn' say that.

> Maybe you should be a little more clear about what Catholics forgot -
> or 'almost' lost - since the "first centuries", that the ever-trusty
> trendy 'scholarship' of the PC present day has managed to un-earth, as
> it were.
>
> I'd love to hear it.

I'm simply pointing to the fact that neither the earliest Christians, nor
the Jews were in the habit of numbering verses and memorizing out-of-
context "proof texts" for their contentions. Rather, they memorized the
whole Bible (no verse numbers were yet available) and knew it all. And
Jews had the Talmud, where Christians had the homily between the
scripture readings of the mass to explain the meaning.

Protestants lack this coherence, having no liturgical calendar, no solid
body of traditional interpretation and often taking texts wrested from
their context, frequently reified to mean things the original authors of
scripture did not intend. For example, there is the undue emphasis on
the "born again" metaphor (which appears 3 times in the New Testament
only) while, apparently, the negative references to "false witness" are
underplayed (8 in the NT alone).

>>> I Sam 15:23b:
>>> "Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected
>>> you..."

>>> Acts 13:46b:
>>> "Since you reject it(the word of God) and do not consider yourselves
>>> worthy of eternal life..."

>>It is creationist "liars for Jesus" who reject the word of God. They
>>are so intent on defending their private interpretation of scripture
>>that they will misrepresent the work of scientists

> But we're talking evolutionism, here, remember - not science?

Evolution is science. "Evolutionism" is a straw man false religion
invented by creationists for the purpose of appearing to bash the science
of evolution.

>>use fallacious logic in liberal doses and even outright lie.
>
> Ironic, considering the libral orthodoxy that underpins evolutionism -
> of course.

Your straw man.

>>But of course "thou shalt not bear
>>false witness" is only to be taken literally when someone does it to
>>YOU to get your ca$h.

> Or when the Jews brought in false witnesses against Our Lord. Perjury

Exactly.

> went unpunished. Though in a lesser way, we've seen that the general
> principle of that still held, in the last years of the 20th century.
> The libral thing, again, and so in the same context, the same irony.

>
>>Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
>>murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all
>>liars
>
> Who say not only is salvation not found exclusively in The Catholic
> Church - for Outside The Church there is no salvation - and not that
> all, or even most, Catholics, are saved, but who also do things such
> as lie about Republicans, or 'conservatives', or 'those people', and
> so on. I don't believe it's a lie to say but that there are the many
> Dem.

You seem to think God is a Republican capitalist. Maybe George W. Bush
is your REAL deity?!? Personally, I think Gerry Ford was a MUCH better
president.

>>shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
>>brimstone: which is the second death.
>
>>I WON'T be joining you there....
>
> That's not the boast of a Saint. The Saints feared for their souls

I'm no candidate for the calendar of saints. But I'm also not about to
join in a campaign of lies and slander against scientists just because
some jerk in a three-piece says that his false god wants me to.

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron