Only humans show their teeth in friendship

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
W Churchill was not a Christian he was a Freemason.

I said he was an anti-communist. Lots of us are Christians, but some aren't.

I once read a Freemason book...

Sounds interesting. Why not start a thread about it?

We get hammered by filthy deranged homosexuals on TV all the time with some man boy, who comes across with the mentality of spoilt 9yo brat, regardless on everything you can think of and there it is a man boy talking at you.

Sounds like another thread.

We get all this Rapture clap trap with Jew worship

You do realize that Jesus is only Jewish on his mother's side, right?
 

Lady Crosstalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
2,069
1,114
113
49
Ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
W Churchill was not a Christian he was a Freemason.
Yes, I agree--Churchill was not a Christian. Franklin Roosevelt was not a Christian either, as he was also a Freemason and responsible for placing the Masonic symbol of the pyramid with the "all-seeing eye" on the back of the one dollar bill. In fact, Karl Marx was a Freemason and some say that Hitler was as well. Lenin and Stalin were also reported to be Freemasons. Most of the British upper class were/are Freemasons and eugenicists (and not Christians). Darwin's whole family were heavily into Freemasonry.

Freemasonry has a much stronger hold in Europe than it does in N. America. There are many degrees beyond the 32nd degree (which is the highest degree that ordinary individuals can attain). The upper levels are said to be "illuminated" (by "secret knowledge") and one must be "recruited" to those levels by those higher up in the hierarchy. Freemasons are often Gnostic (represented by the white blocks in the flooring of many lodge halls) in their beliefs but it is said that those in the upper reaches are Satanists (represented by the black squares in the flooring). Some "whistle blower" priests (such as Fr. Malachi Martin) have said that there are many Freemasons in the Vatican and that some practice frank Satanism.

True Christian faith is based on the Truth found in Scripture alone. It defies the ungodly schemes of humans. Since The Fall, men and women have always had their Satanically-inspired will to God-like power over other humans. It can be seen in the Tower of Babel incident as well as every bit of rebellion toward God both before and since. But there is a new world coming. Not the strict New World hierarchy as envisioned by the wicked ones--but one in which we are all equals as brothers and sisters in Christ. (see Matthew 23:8)

But Jesus never showed his teeth, he showed us the only path is through him.
He emphasized the eye. Ever notice the dead eyes (or even "crazy" eyes) of the wicked? Down through the ages, eyes have been drawn with whirlpools in them--depicting Satanic destruction of the soul. Spirals in the night sky are particularly potent symbols for Satanists bent on destroying God's rule over the earth. That they are under a great delusion never occurs to them because their eyes are blind to Truth. They are like their father, the devil, who lies as his native language.
 
Last edited:

4Jesus

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2019
698
459
63
Philly
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You do realize that Jesus is only Jewish on his mother's side, right?

What makes you say that?

If you mean His Father, God-the-Father, His people are/were Jews.
If you mean his earthly dad, Joseph, he was of the lineage from Abraham. Additionally, Joseph observed Jewish traditions and teachings, plus obeyed his God, the only true God, God-the-Father, in staying with Mary and raising Jesus.

Matthew 1:1-17 is the lineage from Abraham to King David to Jacob, Joseph's dad, and obviously then Joseph.Matthew 1:16-17 "16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lady Crosstalk

4Jesus

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2019
698
459
63
Philly
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, I agree--Churchill was not a Christian. Roosevelt was not a Christian either, as he was also a Freemason and responsible for placing the Masonic symbol of the pyramid with the "all-seeing eye" on the back of the one dollar bill. In fact, Karl Marx was a Freemason and some say that Hitler was as well. Lenin and Stalin were also reported to be Freemasons. Most of the British upper class were/are Freemasons and eugenicists (and not Christians). Darwin's whole family were heavily into Freemasonry.

Freemasonry has a much stronger hold in Europe than it does in N. America. There are many degrees beyond the 32nd degree (which is the highest degree that ordinary individuals can attain). The upper levels are said to be "illuminated" (by "secret knowledge") and one must be "recruited" to those levels by those higher up in the hierarchy. Freemasons are often Gnostic (represented by the white blocks in the flooring of many lodge halls) in their beliefs but it is said that those in the upper reaches are Satanists (represented by the black squares in the flooring). Some "whistle blower" priests (such as Fr. Malachi Martin) have said that there are many Freemasons in the Vatican and that some practice frank Satanism.

True Christian faith is based on the Truth found in Scripture alone. It defies the ungodly schemes of humans. Since The Fall, men and women have always had their Satanically-inspired will to God-like power over other humans. It can be seen in the Tower of Babel incident as well as every bit of rebellion toward God both before and since. But there is a new world coming. Not the strict New World hierarchy as envisioned by the wicked ones--but one in which we are all equals as brothers and sisters in Christ. (see Matthew 23:8)

He emphasized the eye. Ever notice the dead eyes (or even "crazy" eyes) of the wicked? Down through the ages, eyes have been drawn with whirlpools in them--depicting Satanic destruction of the soul. Spirals in the night sky are particularly potent symbols for Satanists bent on destroying God's rule over the earth. That they are under a great delusion never occurs to them because their eyes are blind to Truth. They are like their father, the devil, who lies as his native language.

Regarding the Gnosticism (secret knowledge), isn't that inherently satanic as well though? At the very least it's anti-christ, which is satanic.

Thanks for the info btw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lady Crosstalk

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yehren says:
You do realize that Jesus is only Jewish on his mother's side, right?

What makes you say that?

The Father is not Jewish.

True Christian faith is based on the Truth found in Scripture alone. It defies the ungodly schemes of humans.

"Sola Scriptura" is a human scheme. It's not scriptural. In fact, the Bible explicitly says that it is not the only source of knowledge about God.

Not the strict New World hierarchy as envisioned by the wicked ones--but one in which we are all equals as brothers and sisters in Christ. (see Matthew 23:8)

Matthew 5:19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4Jesus

Lady Crosstalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
2,069
1,114
113
49
Ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
...And as you learned, he declared eugenic ideas to be an "overwhelming evil."

Nothing you have presented suggests that Darwin viewed eugenic ideas to be that. He clearly held them himself. Just because he did not advocate for the death of "defective" individuals as Hitler did, does not mean that Darwin did not see a "pecking order" in humanity. That notion contributed to the evil of the "Final Solution" as instituted by Hitler. Hitler was a great admirer of Darwin and evolutionary theory.



I’ve provided this not because I think the creationists are in any way as guilty as Darwinists in eugenics (or abortion), but to suggest caution if one is going to play the genocide and eugenics cards. Playing what you think are good cards may not be as easy as one supposes. I know that from experience on many levels.


There are many who hold creationist views (such as Satan himself and it makes him wildly envious of God) who are definitely NOT Christians. The Jewish religious hierarchy of ancient Israel undoubtedly held creationist views--yet, they crucified the Lord of Glory. To those who raise the point that "God Himself is genocidal" I would say that since He is the only One who can give life, only He is entitled to take it and He establishes strict rules by which man has been invested with His authority to take human life.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4Jesus

4Jesus

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2019
698
459
63
Philly
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm sorry, I know I'm jumping into a longer conversation here, which I admit I didn't read all the way through. Your statement that "Jesus is only Jewish on his mother's side" jumped out at me though - either I'm missing some information or I don't know what you mean by that at all. So I'm just looking for information that you might have.

Yehren says:
You do realize that Jesus is only Jewish on his mother's side, right?



The Father is not Jewish.

I think I see what you mean though, that Jesus' actual Father, The Father, is not Jewish, therefore Jesus is only half-Jewish ;)

I believe the reason the lineage of Josheph, Jesus' adoptive dad, is important, is that Jesus is the rightful heir to the (humanly/earthly) throne of David, through both his mother's side and his adopted dad's side, legally speaking of course. It is by this throne, that Jesus will reign on earth in the millenium kingdom from Jerusalem, again legally (and divinely) speaking. Spiritually speaking, He is the rightful heir as well, being the Son of God and all ;)

Therefore, Jesus is Jewish on his adoptive dad's side as well (from Abraham to Joseph then to Jesus. God thouht enough of Joseph and his Jewish lineage to include the tracing of the line.), so that He is, legally speaking, a Jewish heir to the Jewish throne. So from a human perspective, He's full Jewish. If you include His actual Father, maybe He's 3/4 Jewish... :)

"Sola Scriptura" is a human scheme. It's not scriptural. In fact, the Bible explicitly says that it is not the only source of knowledge about God.



Matthew 5:19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I wasn't focused on this part of the larger discussion, so I don't want to comment too much until I've read through it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lady Crosstalk

Lady Crosstalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
2,069
1,114
113
49
Ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Regarding the Gnosticism (secret knowledge), isn't that inherently satanic as well though? At the very least it's anti-christ, which is satanic.

Yes, Gnosticism is evil in all of its manifestations (and there are many kinds of Gnosticism) but in the topsy-turvy world of Freemasonry thought, it is seen as "righteous" (even though they are deceived into thinking that).
 

4Jesus

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2019
698
459
63
Philly
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, Gnosticism is evil in all of its manifestations (and there are many kinds of Gnosticism) but in the topsy-turvy world of Freemasonry thought, it is seen as "righteous" (even though they are deceived into thinking that).

Gotcha, thanks.

It's been awhile btw, I hope you're doing well.
 

Lady Crosstalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
2,069
1,114
113
49
Ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Father is not Jewish.
Yet, Scripture tells us that Israel is the "apple [pupil] of God's eye".



"Sola Scriptura" is a human scheme. It's not scriptural. In fact, the Bible explicitly says that it is not the only source of knowledge about God.
Yes, "the heavens reveal the glory of God". God is revealed in His Creation--so that "men are without excuse"(Romans 1:20). The revelation of God found in His Creation is often called the "general" revelation of God. But, what I was referring to is the particular revelation of God (often called the "special" revelation). It is found in Scripture. Jesus Himself testified as to the Truth found in Scripture in John 10:35 when He said "the Scripture cannot be broken". We are also told: "...Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17) Note that, as is obvious, Jesus was referring to the Tanakh in John 10:35--what we call the Old Testament--as the New Testament had not yet been written down. The New Testament is His love letter to us--written in His Blood.
 
Last edited:

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yehren says:
...And as you learned, he declared eugenic ideas to be an "overwhelming evil."

Nothing you have presented suggests that Darwin viewed eugenic ideas to be that.

Yes, that's what he said. To even let weaker humans die off, he called an "overwhelming evil." But it's stronger than that. As you saw, later Darwinians showed that eugenics didn't even work the way creationists like Tinkle thought. Tinkle (co-founder of the Institute for Creation Research) advocated sterilizing "inferior" people, but Punnett clearly demonstrated that Tinkle's euginic notions were scientifically flawed.

Just because he did not advocate for the death of "defective" individuals as Hitler did, does not mean that Darwin did not see a "pecking order" in humanity.

Like most Europeans of his time, he thought that Europeans were the finest of humanity. Where he differed with creationists like Tinkle and Henry Morris, was that he believed all men deserved freedom and dignity, and scandalized racists by arguing that if you took Africans to England and left them for a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen.

Tinkle's creationist notion of "inferior humans"contributed to the evil of the "Final Solution" as instituted by Hitler.

Hitler was a great admirer of Darwin and evolutionary theory.

Not after Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's and Morris' ideas of racial superiority were hooey. Nazis rejected Darwinian theory, accepting Martin Luther's ideas on what to do with Jewish people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4Jesus

Lady Crosstalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
2,069
1,114
113
49
Ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Yehren says: ----------. ---------------------.

Why are you saying the same things over and over? Do you not think that I read them the first time? And why do you insist that I "learned" something you said? Do you really think you have a handle on what I have learned (or not)? You said yourself that there are far more Darwinists who line up with eugenics than Bible-believing Christians. Why pick out a couple of nobodies? Does anyone pay any attention to Tinkle or even old man Morris, anymore? But there are many neo-Darwinists who practically consider Darwin a god (that is, if they believed in such things). When Darwinism died because there was no evidence of gradualism, P.E. was invented. When P.E. failed, neo-Darwinism was brought forward and it too is a dead end. The eminent Francis Crick understood that the T.O.E. is in trouble and that is apparently why he came up with his "space man hypothesis" where the space men who "seeded" life here evolved on another planet "far, far, away". All that does is remove the problem to another place without explaining anything. Show how one species becomes another, please.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4Jesus

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why are you saying the same things over and over? Do you not think that I read them the first time?

You seem to not realize what I actually wrote. So I repeat it to clear up the misunderstanding.

And why do you insist that I "learned" something you said? Do you really think you have a handle on what I have learned (or not)?

Maybe not. You just did it again...

You said yourself that there are far more Darwinists who line up with eugenics than Bible-believing Christians.

(Yehren checks) No, actually, I didn't. You missed it again.

Why pick out a couple of nobodies?

Tinkle and Morris were founders of the largest YE creationist organization. They were apostles of the Adventist preacher George McCready Price, who introduced YE creationism to Evangelicals. So very prominent in the YE movement.

Does anyone pay any attention to Tinkle or even old man, Morris anymore?

Apparently so. These men pretty much founded YE creationism among evangelicals. Their ideas remain strong in that group.

But there are many neo-Darwinists who practically consider Darwin a god

Sounds unlikely. What have you got to support that idea from the scientific literature?

When Darwinism died because there was no evidence of gradualism, P.E. was invented.

Actually, Stephen Gould, who with Eldridge founded PE, cited examples of gradual evolution, including horses and forams. Their theory was not that gradualism did not occur, but that it was the exception. Saltationism among Darwinists was common even in Darwin's time. Darwin's friend and supporter, Thomas Huxley, for example, was a saltationist. And Gould referred to himself as a Darwinian. Maybe it would be good to read up and learn what Gould had to say.

When P.E. failed, neo-Darwinism was brought forward

Turns out, most lines of descent show punctuated equilibrium. Would you like to see some examples? And neo-Darwinism is much older than P.E. Again it would be good to learn about these things, if you want to talk about them.

The eminent Francis Crick understood that the T.O.E. is in trouble and that is apparently why he came up with his "space man hypothesis" where the space men who "seeded" life here evolved on another planet "far, far, away".

That's wrong, too. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life, and it's compatible with just about any way it might have begun. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. Would you like me to show you that?

Show how one species becomes another, please.

Reproductive isolation. Typically, this happens by a small population of a species becoming separated from the rest. Over time, mutations in each population can make it so that they can no longer interbreed. Even organizations like the ICR and Answers in Genesis now admit the fact of speciation. They even admit that new genera and often new families of organisms can evolve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4Jesus

Reggie Belafonte

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2018
5,805
2,896
113
63
Brisbane
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I said he was an anti-communist. Lots of us are Christians, but some aren't.



Sounds interesting. Why not start a thread about it?



Sounds like another thread.



You do realize that Jesus is only Jewish on his mother's side, right?
This is about showing their teeth ? and all above mentioned do, If you can truly read them, it all fits in that they are of Satan.
Maybe one would have to be born again to have a handle on such things.

Jesus Christ is the King of Israel and that means he is the King of they who only serve him alone.
Ones race has gone with the coming of Christ Jesus and all who are outside of Christ Jesus are not worthy of him at all regardless and if anyone try's to claim otherwise they are of Satan.
Anyone who uses the race card under Christ is truly kidding themselves.
 

Lady Crosstalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
2,069
1,114
113
49
Ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Actually, Stephen Gould, who with Eldridge founded PE, cited examples of gradual evolution, including horses and forams. Their theory was not that gradualism did not occur, but that it was the exception.
And thus, Gould and Eldridge denied an essential element in Darwinism. I really don't care how evolutionists spin it, that is the case.
And Gould referred to himself as a Darwinian.
What else was he going to say? That he had suddenly become a creationist? Intelligent design is much more difficult to dismiss.



Turns out, most lines of descent show punctuated equilibrium. Would you like to see some examples?
I probably wouldn't accept them as such but sure--bring them on.



That's wrong, too. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life, and it's compatible with just about any way it might have begun.
A favorite dodge for evolutionists. Origins MUST be a part of evolutionary dogma if it is to be believed.


Reproductive isolation. Typically, this happens by a small population of a species becoming separated from the rest. Over time, mutations in each population can make it so that they can no longer interbreed. Even organizations like the ICR and Answers in Genesis now admit the fact of speciation.
No one with any knowledge of the field of biology denies that organisms can and do change over time. But one could easily see that an organism can devolve and go extinct under that rubric. If interested, perhaps you could speak to the issue of genetic entropy in another thread?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4Jesus

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And thus, Gould and Eldridge denied an essential element in Darwinism.

No, that's wrong. There are four essential elements in classic Darwinian theory. Gradualism is not one of them. My experience is that most people who think they hate Darwinian theory, don't know what it is. Why don't you list the four essential elements of Darwinian theory, so we know you know what they are?

Even in Darwin's time, there were saltationists who did not think gradualism was always the case. And example was Darwin's friend and follower, Thomas Huxley. As you learned, Gould remained a Darwinian, and said so.

I really don't care how evolutionists spin it, that is the case. What else was he going to say?

That's all he could say; he had just demonstrated the four points of Darwinian theory.

Intelligent design is much more difficult to dismiss.

Gould dismissed it quite easily. Paley's use of a watch to make the case, merely shows a difference between designed objects made by humans and natural objects which are not designed.

(Yehren offers to show some cases of PE)

I probably wouldn't accept them as such but sure--bring them on.

Sure. Some forams were very constant in their phenotypes for millions of years, with small, gradual changes. Then as the Earth cooled at the end of the Miocene, there was a short (less than a few million years) period of rapid change, accommodating the new conditions, and then further stasis.
foram_graph.gif

Because foraminiferans are so plentiful in the fossil record, we can follow even the very rapid evolution of them during the punctuated phase. If that were not the case, it would look like the new forams just popped up out of nowhere.

(Yehren shows that the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory)

A favorite dodge for evolutionists.

Sorry, you're wrong about that, too. Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On The Origin of Species, 1872

Origins MUST be a part of evolutionary dogma if it is to be believed.

Nope. As you now realize, just about any orgin will do. The earth bringing forth life, God merely poofing them into existence, or microbes planted here by aliens all work the same way for evolution.

It's a common dodge by creationists, but it always fails.

Yehren notes that even most creationists now admit evolution of new taxa:
Reproductive isolation. Typically, this happens by a small population of a species becoming separated from the rest. Over time, mutations in each population can make it so that they can no longer interbreed. Even organizations like the ICR and Answers in Genesis now admit the fact of speciation.
No one with any knowledge of the field of biology denies that organisms can and do change over time.

Yes, your creationist leaders now admit evolution, (remember what "evolution" means) but they don't want their followers to realize it.

But one could easily see that an organism can devolve and go extinct under that rubric.

There is no "devolution", but almost every species that has lived on this Earth is now extinct. Occasionally a new species appears, and so it goes.

If interested, perhaps you could speak to the issue of genetic entropy in another thread?

You have to walk before you can run. What do you think "entropy" means in context of genetics?