Hate, Hitler, and Evolution (amongst other stuff)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jimmy, you made an accusation here that was edited out because it was totally a blanket statement and unsubstantiated, but I am calling you out bub. You said Dr. Sarfati's papers were filled with "hate." Now obviously you have a problem with hate right? I mean anyone going to your website could see that you treat opposing points of view with the utmost respect, so here I challenge you to produce these "hate" statements. Since Sarfati's papers are filled with them this should be pretty easy. Please make sure that you are being consistent here my friend, wouldn't want your own standards to come and bite you in the rear now would we? I will be waiting with bated breath.

Tick, tock, tick, tock.....

[blackthorne]

Jimmy, you made an accusation here that was edited out because it was totally a blanket statement and unsubstantiated, but I am calling you out bub. You said Dr. Sarfati's papers were filled with "hate." Now obviously you have a problem with hate right? I mean anyone going to your website could see that you treat opposing points of view with the utmost respect, so here I challenge you to produce these "hate" statements. Since Sarfati's papers are filled with them this should be pretty easy. Please make sure that you are being consistent here my friend, wouldn't want your own standards to come and bite you in the rear now would we? I will be waiting with bated breath.

Tick, tock, tick, tock.....

Though not directed towards me, I'd like to take up that "challenge", if I may...

In the thread linked below you considered certain comments of a poster named Vorkosigan to be overtly "inflammatory" regarding his comments in associating Stalin and Hitler with the Christian right, following it up with the inquiry: "Do you have proof of the utter evil you allege?"

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4941&perpage=16&pagenumber=2

I take it we can deduce that such associations with evil dictators would certainly fall under the rubric of "hate"-filled statements according to you, correct? (if not, my apologies for misinterpreting you, but your intent seems rather straight-forward)) Sooo...without further ado, I'd like to present to the jury exhibit A! (and yes, as should be blatantly obvious, I'm a lurker, who's been following the natural science department for quite some time, well...not really...a couple of weeks to be exact)

http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp

In his critique of John Stear's website, Dr. Sarfati replies (to Stear's claim that Hitler and Stalin were Christians):

"The evolutionary and anti-Christian beliefs of the Nazi regime are documented in The Holocaust and evolution, and Was Hitler a Christian? shows what Hitler really thought of Christianity. That is, when Hitler wasn’t trying to curry favour with the evolutionized liberal clergy (note that it’s no accident that the Holocaust happened in the country where liberal theology was invented)."

There you go: associating Hiter and Stalin with evolutionary teaching. Granted, it was indeed relevent to the topic at hand, however, implying that atheism or anti-Christian beliefs are grounds for causation as opposed to correlation regarding what generated such atrocities, definitely, is not. Nor is it consistent with one of the tenets of the Christian faith (e.g. turning the other cheek). Regardless, hatefilled is hatefilled (what nuggets of insight I'm capable of! Heh.). Even so, I don't think Stear's comments on religion even warranted such a reply (I didn't bother to check Stear's comments in their entirety, so...my apologies for a shoddy work of investigation :teeth: ) Dr. Sarfati confirms this later on in his critique with the following comments:

"We should also remember that atrocities committed by professing Christians were completely contrary to the teachings of Christ, while the atrocities of 20th century Nazi and Communists were totally consistent with evolutionary teaching."

Hate-filled indeed. :shocked:

I mean, geez...just look at some of his "critique's" attacking the qualifications of a few other Australian skeptics featured on Stear's website:

On Colin Groves:
"An anthropologist, so anything he says about radiometric dating should be taken with a large grain of salt. Also, he ardently supports Plimer’s book, which says something about his inability to judge good science or good ethics."

Ron Toll:
"A mailman, not a scientist (and it shows), who has far too much time on his hands."

Barry Williams:
"He was a ‘conversationalist’ on ‘Secular Sex’ at the Australis2000 conference mentioned above—the one with the pedophile advocate—listed directly under the notorious euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke."

As for Exhibit B...meh...while not necessarily hatefilled, here's an email exchange where Dr. Sarfati resorts to some rather childish tactics (calling Babinski, "Blabinski").

http://www.skeptical-christian.net/media/sarfati_one.html

As well as all around rudeness (in response to Babinksi's deserving of a fair reply):
"Actually I would tend to think rather that this time-wasting apostate deserves nothing but obscurity, especially if he has to rely on someone else to relay his article to us with a request for an answer. But by all means suggest that he write, as indicated."


Emails are not to be quoted without prior permission of the author, since they are:
1) Private correspondence.
2) Easily edited with no way of determining what was in, or even if there was, an original.


I am aware of the fact that you asked specifically for hate in his papers (which obviously doesn't apply to my second piece of evidence), but nonetheless, a professional attitude should be maintained regardless of where these contacts take place. Sucks that this had to be my first post, but oh well, you asked for it. :teeth:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 04:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111261#post111261)
Dee Dee Warren:
Jimmy, you made an accusation here that was edited out because it was totally a blanket statement and unsubstantiated, but I am calling you out bub.What Sarafati is referenced by Jack T Chick?

You said Dr. Sarfati's papers were filled with "hate." Oh that, then why was the Chick reference and NWO references removed?

Now obviously you have a problem with hate right?I have no tolerance for intolerance.

I mean anyone going to your website could see that you treat opposing points of view with the utmost respect, so here I challenge you to produce these "hate" statements.Agan with ignoring the photography, of which I'm getting back my photos from my hiking back during Labor Day today, so I'll be tossing some new Bruce Trail photos up. And besides, who do I personally insult on my webpage?

Since Sarfati's papers are filled with them this should be pretty easy. Please make sure that you are being consistent here my friend, wouldn't want your own standards to come and bite you in the rear now would we?Why are you getting so snippy? Because I think the mods should be more involved in improving discussions than merely censoring them?

Tick, tock, tick, tock..... Nice imagery.

Spong was not prepared by the church of his youth to answer the questions thrown at him by modern society. When he went to university, he was challenged to defend a faith he was never taught to defend. Naturally, like the raw recruit ordered to defend a hill against a well-trained and heavily armed enemy with a weapon he was never taught how to use, Spong capitulated. Having done so, he feels cheated by his church and disappointed by his literal faith, and now seeks to challenge and destroy both.What’s Wrong With Bishop Spong? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1119.asp)

Colin Groves
An anthropologist, so anything he says about radiometric dating should be taken with a large grain of salt. Also, he ardently supports Plimer’s book, which says something about his inability to judge good science or good ethics.

Ron Tolle
A mailman, not a scientist (and it shows), who has far too much time on his hands. http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp

As with most bibliosceptics, he loves to feign outrage at parts of the Bible. Never mind that if we are all rearranged pond scum as he and all evolutionists believe, then our sense of outrage is just an epiphenomenon of something that evolved for survival advantage in our hypothetical ape-like ancestors.Ho hum, more unqualified trash from a dead sceptic (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-/A1XLEBP9QSTJCP/cm_aya_av.rev_nxt-21/104-5936660-9987101?start-at=21&)

Why were more trees wasted on yet another book by this man? How boring to find more of the same anti-Christian attacks, self-refuting 'logic', appeals to authority, nauseating political correctness, and dishonest twisting of terms.

If he had any integrity, he would resign from his Bishopric and join the local Humanist Society. Instead, he still drew a salary paid by people who expect their leaders to defend the faith, as they promise in their ordination vows to defend. When a politician breaks all the promises on which he is elected, but still draw on the perks of office, the secular media have a field day (and rightly so). But somehow this is OK when it's a churchian leader doing just this, but instead the anti-Christian media call such people 'enlightened', 'courageous' and other such fawning.Christianity will outlive Spong and all Bibliosceptics! (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-/A1XLEBP9QSTJCP/cm_aya_av.rev_nxt-31/104-5936660-9987101?start-at=31&)

The most common kind of bias, practised in Fascist and Communist countries, and commonly by the humanist-dominated Western media and scientific establishment, is to censor opposing views. Thus an overtly creationist paper will be rejected out of hand in most journals (and then they accuse creationists of being unscientific because they supposedly don't publish!).

But a more insidious form of bias is in a publication that professes to give space for different views, but then selects the representatives deliberately to make sure that the desired straw man is set up.Loaded dice right from the start (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-/A1XLEBP9QSTJCP/cm_aya_av.rev_nxt-41/104-5936660-9987101?start-at=41&)

*

Both are secular humanists (committed to opposing the supernatural): Plimer was Australian Humanist of the Year; Archer quipped about ‘swearing on a stack of Origin of Species’, which is in effect the Humanist’s ‘bible’. (Sydney Morning Herald, 2 January 1999, p. 3s (Spectrum Features)).

Both make village-atheist style attacks on the Bible,

#

While Archer hasn’t gone as far as Plimer, who has actually given indications on at least one occasion that he was a Christian, he has resorted to saying that he’s not against religion, merely against Biblical ‘literalism’ of the creationists, and cites anonymous theologians saying it’s ‘bad theology’ (Creation versus Evolution, Catalyst, ABC, 3 October 2002). Of course, he couldn’t care less about it being bad theology! But it’s a common tactic of many atheistic evolutionists to reassure their churchian allies and not alert them to the way they are really ‘useful idiots’ (Lenin’s phrase), inadvertently undermining their own faith.

This Australian Museum exhibit is yet another example of how taxpayers fund the pushing of extreme ideologies.Skeptics/Australian Museum ‘Feathered Dinosaur’ display: (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1126dinosaur.asp)

Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin’s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations. Problems with a Global Flood? (http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp)

[Sher]

Today @ 08:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111335#post111335)
blackthorne:

"We should also remember that atrocities committed by professing Christians were completely contrary to the teachings of Christ, while the atrocities of 20th century Nazi and Communists were totally consistent with evolutionary teaching."

Hate-filled indeed. :shocked:

Evolutionary teachings such as survival of the fittest? Organisms damaged (or considered damaged, in this case) by mutations or otherwise tend to be culled out. What do you think the Nazi regime was looking to accomplish by exterminating all the Jews and others deemed "less than human" by them? They were trying to make a master race, culling out those "organisms" they deemed to be "mutations", or that weren't in keeping with the goal they were looking to achieve. I think that claim is well supported, to be honest. That blurb you quoted didn't say it was consistant with any specific person, but with evolutionary teachings. Survival of the fittest (or similar terminology for the same thing) is still an evolutionary teaching, isn't it? And the teachings of Christ were not in keeping with how these people acted.


I am aware of the fact that you asked specifically for hate in his papers (which obviously doesn't apply to my second piece of evidence), but nonetheless, a professional attitude should be maintained regardless of where these contacts take place. Sucks that this had to be my first post, but oh well, you asked for it. :teeth:

And as you said about the second part, none of this really shows hate. You may disagree with Dr. Sarfati's opinons on these people, but even you should rightly admit it isn't hate to say that they are underqualified, or that their actions speak louder than their words (which is the summary of those pieces).

I've seen hate-filled statements from both sides of the C/E fence. These don't even come close.

Anyway, welcome to TWeb :angel:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 03:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111762#post111762)
SherBear:
Every Christ worshiping Christian, even if some don't take it personally.What exactly on my site is insulting Christians. Please, explain it all.

You say you have "no tolerance for intolerance" ... and have said this before ... yet that portion of your website is filled with intolerance. Honestly, it is a double standard that disgusts me.There is a difference between intolerance and humor. Intolerance would be me saying that all Christians should die or some really ignorant rant. I'm not really ranting in that direction at all. To say my site is intolerant is exaggerating greatly.

And you wonder outloud why some Christians have a problem with you here.Well, if I'm not mistaking, its only Socrates and Socratism. I was shown great disrespect by Rightidea in the Political Forum when I responded to someone else's thread. He hadn't seen my site yet.

As I told someone else recently, no one lives in a bubble. Actions exhibited elsewhere, when brought to light, affect how we feel about a person here.And this means what? You must really think I'm awful with the post-9/11 editorial I had published in the local newspaper. HEATHEN I AM!

For example, many people come here and complain about Christians and Creationists who publish or speak elsewhere. What they say elsewhere (even on websites) is criticized here, right?Yeah, problem is, the stuff you think is intolerant is merely humor. And perhaps you hate my bible because I'm too close to the original version!

Why are your hiking picutres virtually ignored? Because they are overshadowed by the displays of hatred in other areas.Not really. You don't even have to wander into those sections if you don't want to. But you thought you'd check it out, see how badly you'd be offended. Besides, I have many more photos up than religious things, so I can't see how it is overshadowing.

(And before anyone whines about "hypocrisy" ... I am not calling Jimmy a hypocrite per se ... just showing how the statement he made is not in keeping with his actions elsewhere, ergo hypocrisy is being displayed) Oh no, you are just saying I have a double standard which somehow is not related to hypocrisy. You don't know what intolerance is Sherbear if you think my site is a haven of intolerance. I speak out against no person, no group, no people. I wish no harm or bad will on anyone. Yet you say I'm intolerant, get real!

[Sher]

Today @ 03:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111819#post111819)
Jimmy Higgins:

What exactly on my site is insulting Christians. Please, explain it all.

:shocked: You're joking, right? You really don't see your "Fun with Christianity" section as being intolerant? And that this is hypocritical to your statement as I outlined.


There is a difference between intolerance and humor.

Only from the perspective of the intolerant. Wanna hear a gay joke? (not that I have any) You would view that as intolerance, not humor, wouldn't you? Yet you hold a different standard, a double standard to what is humor and what is intolerance when Christians are involved.


Intolerance would be me saying that all Christians should die or some really ignorant rant. I'm not really ranting in that direction at all. To say my site is intolerant is exaggerating greatly.

But to say that a portion of your site is not ... neither is it incorrect to point out that it overshadows anything good you may place on there.


Well, if I'm not mistaking, its only Socrates and Socratism. I was shown great disrespect by Rightidea in the Political Forum when I responded to someone else's thread. He hadn't seen my site yet.

You'll need to talk to RightIdea about that particular situation. However, I think more people have seen it than you are aware of ... and it has colored how your are viewed here.


And this means what? You must really think I'm awful with the post-9/11 editorial I had published in the local newspaper. HEATHEN I AM!

Oh, pleazzze ... LOL! You know exactly which section I was talking about ... obfuscation tactics aside.


Yeah, problem is, the stuff you think is intolerant is merely humor.

And as I pointed out ... it isn't funny ... it is insulting.


And perhaps you hate my bible because I'm too close to the original version!

And perhaps you should return to that thread first to prove that the version you quoted (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=110866#post110866) is significantly different regarding those verses than the one I quoted. :lol:


Not really. You don't even have to wander into those sections if you don't want to. But you thought you'd check it out, see how badly you'd be offended. Besides, I have many more photos up than religious things, so I can't see how it is overshadowing.

I'm sorry you don't see it ... but others do. To carry the point from above further ... If a section of my website was comprised of gay bashing photos and gay jokes, it would overshadow anything good I have posted in different areas. Likewise, your website, which includes things offensive to most Christians, is overshadowed by that intolerance.


Oh no, you are just saying I have a double standard which somehow is not related to hypocrisy. You don't know what intolerance is Sherbear if you think my site is a haven of intolerance. I speak out against no person, no group, no people. I wish no harm or bad will on anyone. Yet you say I'm intolerant, get real!

I didn't say it was a haven ... I said what was there overshadowed the rest ... and affects how people will view you ... especially Christians. Your intolerance is evidenced by your mocking of that which Christians hold dear ...

[Roy]

Today @ 08:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111734#post111734)
SherBear:



Evolutionary teachings such as survival of the fittest? Organisms damaged (or considered damaged, in this case) by mutations or otherwise tend to be culled out. What do you think the Nazi regime was looking to accomplish by exterminating all the Jews and others deemed "less than human" by them? They were trying to make a master race, culling out those "organisms" they deemed to be "mutations", or that weren't in keeping with the goal they were looking to achieve.

Just because the Nazis considered Jews and gypsies to be less fit than other humans doesn't mean that they actually were. Evolutionary teaching doesn't state anywhere that natural selection has to be helped along; if an organism is unfit it will be less able to fend for itself, and will probably be less successful by default - it doesn't need to be murdered. That's the religious approach.

Roy

[Sher]

Today @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111859#post111859)
rthearle:

Just because the Nazis _considered_ Jews to be less

Roy

... were you going to finish that thought?

And what of the other points?

[Roy]

Today @ 09:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111871#post111871)
SherBear:



... were you going to finish that thought?

And what of the other points?

You caught me mid-edit.

Roy

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jimmy pluhease. You go on about disrespect and you disrespect Christianity with your site, and if you can't see that you do, I am sorry but you have issues. And let's get this straight... you can do what you want with your site, it is not that per se I have an issue with, it is the putting on of different airs elsewhere. Listen I used to be very vocal against Christianity and very disrespectful of it, but I didn't pretend like I wasn't. Oh, "just joking" eh? Well that can excuse a ton of stuff can't it? Again, carry on with your site, it is yours to do with what you wish (as this site is to its owners) but pluhease, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[Sher]

Today @ 04:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111882#post111882)
rthearle:

You caught me mid-edit.

Roy

:idea: Ah ... :lol:


Today @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111859#post111859)
rthearle:

Just because the Nazis considered Jews and gypsies to be less fit than other humans doesn't mean that they actually were. Evolutionary teaching doesn't state anywhere that natural selection has to be helped along; if an organism is unfit it will be less able to fend for itself, and will probably be less successful by default - it doesn't need to be murdered. That's the religious approach.

Roy

Yet, if you believe we are all animals ... then humans fit that same mindset ... and it isn't murder.

Morals ... and laws established from those morals ... define that humans are murdered. If one considers humans as just another animal ... allbeit an advanced one ... then one organism killing off one it considers lesser ... is right in keeping with survival of the fittest.

You have to attach morality ... which is a religious approach, not a science one ... to be able to be outraged at it. Otherwise, it is one animal killing another ... no different than a bear killing a leopard ... or a person squishing a bug.

The Jews, Poles, etc. were defenseless (unable to defend themselves) in that respect ... and an agrument from outrage can only be taken from a nonscientific viewpoint.

[Sher]

Today @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111963#post111963)
Dee Dee Warren:

but pluhease

(to quote ric:) :thumb:

[Joe Meert]

Yet, if you believe we are all animals ... then humans fit that same mindset ... and it isn't murder.

Morals ... and laws established from those morals ... define that humans are murdered. If one considers humans as just another animal ... allbeit an advanced one ... then one organism killing off one it considers lesser ... is right in keeping with survival of the fittest.

JM: Very silly comment. If you want to take this tact, and you are perfectly welcome to do so, then follow it logically. Please note, I am making this argument solely to counter this absurd assertion. One can take a similar argument that evolution, at its most basic is survival of the species. Therefore, it is imperative for the stronger of the species to protect, nurture and make sure that the weaker of the species (say infants) survive to promulgate the gene pool. The absurd caricature of evolution described in your post is aimed for its emotive, rather than scientific effect. I don't blame you since it is an excellent rhetorical tool. The only problem is that it is logically absurd.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[TheFiveSolas]

Joe,

It isn't logically absurd to point out that evolution precludes a transcendent code of ethics, one that is objective and universally binding upon all people. In addition, logic is also precluded if evolution is true, since logic is a non-material thing/entity. In other words, if evolution is true, then there exists no transcendent, objective, and universally binding laws of logic.

[Monkey Boy]

Today @ 09:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112250#post112250)
TheFiveSolas:
It isn't logically absurd to point out that evolution precludes a transcendent code of ethics, one that is objective and universally binding upon all people. In addition, logic is also precluded if evolution is true, since logic is a non-material thing/entity. In other words, if evolution is true, then there exists no transcendent, objective, and universally binding laws of logic.

What is absurd is that whole paragraph. What on earth does a scientific theory for the origin of species have anything to do with any of the above?

[Sher]

Today @ 09:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112235#post112235)
Joe Meert:

JM: Very silly comment. If you want to take this tact, and you are perfectly welcome to do so, then follow it logically. Please note, I am making this argument solely to counter this absurd assertion. One can take a similar argument that evolution, at its most basic is survival of the species. Therefore, it is imperative for the stronger of the species to protect, nurture and make sure that the weaker of the species (say infants) survive to promulgate the gene pool. The absurd caricature of evolution described in your post is aimed for its emotive, rather than scientific effect. I don't blame you since it is an excellent rhetorical tool. The only problem is that it is logically absurd.

Thank you for your kind words.

Perhaps you missed what Roy said prior to my post, the point I was responding to:


Roy

Just because the Nazis considered Jews and gypsies to be less fit than other humans doesn't mean that they actually were. Evolutionary teaching doesn't state anywhere that natural selection has to be helped along; if an organism is unfit it will be less able to fend for itself, and will probably be less successful by default - it doesn't need to be murdered. That's the religious approach.

Now as you can see, Roy points out here that murder is the religious approach.

Carrying this one step further, I show him that he is correct on that point ... we have to look at something as murder from a religious standpoint -- because without religion, there would be no morality to condemn it as murder.

Perhaps you want to talk to Roy about the logic of it?

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112235#post112235)
Joe Meert:

Very silly comment. If you want to take this tact, and you are perfectly welcome to do so, then follow it logically.

Not that Meert is in any position to instruct in logic,and he makes some silly statements of his own.


Please note, I am making this argument solely to counter this absurd assertion. One can take a similar argument that evolution, at its most basic is survival of the species. Therefore, it is imperative for the stronger of the species to protect, nurture and make sure that the weaker of the species (say infants) survive to promulgate the gene pool.

What's "imperative" about this? There is no moral obligation whatever to propagate the gene pool. Darwin himself disagreed (The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133–134, 1887):


With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature … We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.

And Hitler agreed. As the leading British atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith pointed out (Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.):


‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

By Meert's "logic", rape is also a "moral obligation" since it helps propagate the man's genes. And don't blame me for any supposed caricature of evolution. A recent book actually explicitly stated that men rape for evolutionary reasons (Thornhill, R. and Palmer, C.T., A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, The MIT Press, Massachusetts, 2000). And you could watch co-author Palmer squirm in the interview with J. Lofton, "Rape and evolution", Creation 23(4):50–53, 2001. Although Palmer agreed that rape was still morally wrong, he couldn't provide any basis for this under his evolutionary world view, and admitted that Christianity DID provide such a basis.

[Sher]

Today @ 10:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112250#post112250)
TheFiveSolas:

Joe,

It isn't logically absurd to point out that evolution precludes a transcendent code of ethics, one that is objective and universally binding upon all people. In addition, logic is also precluded if evolution is true, since logic is a non-material thing/entity. In other words, if evolution is true, then there exists no transcendent, objective, and universally binding laws of logic.

Very astute point TFS!

See Monkey Boy even questions what logic and ethics have to do with evolution:


Today @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112269#post112269)
Monkey Boy:

What is absurd is that whole paragraph. What on earth does a scientific theory for the origin of species have anything to do with any of the above?

Absolutely nothing ... that is the very point. Funny how you apparently agree, yet call it absurd.

[Joe Meert]

Joe,

It isn't logically absurd to point out that evolution precludes a transcendent code of ethics, one that is objective and universally binding upon all people. In addition, logic is also precluded if evolution is true, since logic is a non-material thing/entity. In other words, if evolution is true, then there exists no transcendent, objective, and universally binding laws of logic.

JM: I love these absurd claims. One can dispose of logic and ethics if you want to. Evolution, at its very heart suggests that a species will attempt to survive. If ethics, however abstract, or logic helps the organism reproduce successfully and dominate its environment, then great. I'm glad to see you coming around.
Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

Not that Meert is in any position to instruct in logic,and he makes some silly statements of his own.

JM: Other than an ad-hom, is there a point contained here?



What's "imperative" about this? There is no moral obligation whatever to propagate the gene pool. Darwin himself disagreed (The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133–134, 1887):

JM: Sure there is, if logic and morality help promulgate the species then all is fair. Apparently, this causes you great discomfort to consider, but it is quite a valid point.



And Hitler agreed. As the leading British atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith pointed out (Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.):

JM: Hitler thought he was carrying out the great commission. Very similar to the stated goals of AIG and people like Sarfati. I'll note that you think Hitler's views are consistent with AIG and ICR.


By Meert's "logic", rape is also a "moral obligation" since it helps propagate the man's genes.

JM: I'll note that Socrates feels that nurturing of the young and protection of the weak includes the tacit approval of rape. If this is the twisted logic of ye-creationism, who am I to argue?



And don't blame me for any supposed caricature of evolution.

JM: Why shouldn't I blame you when it is of your own perverted thought?



A recent book actually explicitly stated that men rape for evolutionary reasons (Thornhill, R. and Palmer, C.T., A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,

JM: An even older book makes the same claim. Have you read the book of Numbers lately? Or is the murder of children and the taking of virgins ok in the morality of fideism?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

I was pretty sure before this that Joe was not a Christian, but this latest outburst seems to make it even clearer.

[Sher]

Today @ 11:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112318#post112318)
Joe Meert:

Hitler thought he was carrying out the great commission. Very similar to the stated goals of AIG and people like Sarfati. I'll note that you think Hitler's views are consistent with AIG and ICR.

:huh: I think you added words there that weren't in the original. You can erroneous "note it" ... but your conclusion escapes me.


I'll note that Socrates feels that nurturing of the young and protection of the weak includes the tacit approval of rape. If this is the twisted logic of ye-creationism, who am I to argue?

Again, I think you accidently added words ... and missed "As the leading British atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith pointed out" ... if it was from an atheistic evolutionist, it is hardlly "twisted logic of ye-creationism.


Why shouldn't I blame you when it is of your own perverted thought?

And once again, it was "leading British atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith" who pointed this out ... so it isn't Soc's thought ... even though I'm sure he would agree with you that it is very perverted.


An even older book makes the same claim. Have you read the book of Numbers lately? Or is the murder of children and the taking of virgins ok in the morality of fideism?

Chapter and verse, please? It is very hard to address vague references ... Numbers is a rather long book to search for your point.

Sher :angel:

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112318#post112318)
Joe Meert in reply to:


Socrates: And Hitler agreed. As the leading British atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith pointed out (Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.):

JM: Hitler thought he was carrying out the great commission. Very similar to the stated goals of AIG and people like Sarfati. I'll note that you think Hitler's views are consistent with AIG and ICR.

<yawn, stretch> TheFiveSolas, GreyPilgrim and I have already obliterated the likes of Higgins who dishonestly claimed "Hitler was a Christian". Maybe Meert wants to add his name to the list of anti-Christians ignominiously defeated on the thread » Main Campus » Political Science Dept. » Was Hitler a Christian? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56147#post56147) :whack:


Socrates: By Meert's "logic", rape is also a "moral obligation" since it helps propagate the man's genes.

JM: I'll note that Socrates feels that nurturing of the young and protection of the weak includes the tacit approval of rape. If this is the twisted logic of ye-creationism, who am I to argue?[/QUOTE]

No, it's a logical deduction from Meert's argument that what propagates genes is good :dufus:



A recent book actually explicitly stated that men rape for evolutionary reasons (Thornhill, R. and Palmer, C.T., A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion

JM: An even older book makes the same claim. Have you read the book of Numbers lately? Or is the murder of children and the taking of virgins ok in the morality of fideism?

:bonk:At last the atheist/agnostic Meert has shown his true Bible-hating colours, despite his pretence not to be anti-Bible or anti-Christian :poke:. But really, instead of boring us all to sleep :zzz: (apart from his throng of infidel hero-worshipers), he should take this to the thread » Theology Wing » Religion 101 » God approves of rape (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=103027#post103027).

[blackthorne]

Evolutionary teachings such as survival of the fittest? Organisms damaged (or considered damaged, in this case) by mutations or otherwise tend to be culled out. What do you think the Nazi regime was looking to accomplish by exterminating all the Jews and others deemed "less than human" by them? They were trying to make a master race, culling out those "organisms" they deemed to be "mutations", or that weren't in keeping with the goal they were looking to achieve. I think that claim is well supported, to be honest. That blurb you quoted didn't say it was consistant with any specific person, but with evolutionary teachings. Survival of the fittest (or similar terminology for the same thing) is still an evolutionary teaching, isn't it? And the teachings of Christ were not in keeping with how these people acted.

I respectfully disagree. How is differential reproductive success, or darwinian fitness (what you term "survivial if the fittest") in any way associated with the one man's belief (operative word there) that his race was superior to others, and that somehow as a result, included grounds for killing millions? Evolutionary teaching makes no mention of justifying the slaughter of innocents. One may interpret its explanations for the evolution of species as a way of rationalizing their own inward inadequecies, but how is this any different from those who kill, rape, and maim in the name of God? Just as individuals of the latter have their Bible verses, do individuals of the former have their science. Looks like another case of dumb people feeling as though they have the ability to border the prerogative of their respective "deities" (though the concept of evolution as a deity is quite ridiculous, but some will disagree).

I'm a bit shocked you'd actually agree with Sarfati's statements. Aside from which, I must remind you that within the context, I specifically considered his sentiments to be hatefilled within the model of Dee Dee Warren's own interpretation of what constituted hatefilled statements. Even so, it is of importance to note the quote which preceded the one you referred to, as it was certainly of relevence. His opinions of liberal theology and evolutionary teachings speak for themselves.


And as you said about the second part, none of this really shows hate. You may disagree with Dr. Sarfati's opinons on these people, but even you should rightly admit it isn't hate to say that they are underqualified, or that their actions speak louder than their words (which is the summary of those pieces).

Absolutely. But, even you should rightly admit that an attitude like his doesn't exactly lend itself to a more objective stance, and that such conduct is more conducive to being hatefilled, rather than say, being really really nice or something. Heh. That's kinda why I tend not to take him seriously. If he had a legitimate argument, then who wouldn't need to resort to such fallacious rhetoric.


I've seen hate-filled statements from both sides of the C/E fence. These don't even come close.

Agreed. But that was not the intent of the topic, nor does it have anything to do with the "challenge" posed earlier.


Anyway, welcome to TWeb

Thanks. :smile: (for the response too)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Another episode of Dee Dee's Hypocrisy Patrol, dontcha love it??

Soc said,


Not that Meert is in any position to instruct in logic,and he makes some silly statements of his own.

And Joe responded:



JM: Other than an ad-hom, is there a point contained here?

Come on!!! But Joe goes on to say....


Hitler thought he was carrying out the great commission. Very similar to the stated goals of AIG and people like Sarfati. I'll note that you think Hitler's views are consistent with AIG and ICR.

and


I'll note that Socrates feels that nurturing of the young and protection of the weak includes the tacit approval of rape. If this is the twisted logic of ye-creationism, who am I to argue?

and


Why shouldn't I blame you when it is of your own perverted thought?


So my dear Joe, I say to you:

Other than an ad-hom, is there a point contained here?

:rofl: :rofl:

This would be comical if not so annoying.

And JOE: I would have edited out your completely unsubstantiated and inflammatory Hitler reference, but it is worth more to prove the point if I let it remain. Refrain from that in the future unless you are going to embarass yourself (as Jimmy did) with the Hitler was a Christian nonsense.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And nothing Jimmy cited was hatefilled. That is completely ridiculous, and contrary to statement above DOES NOT fit within my paradigm of what is hate-filled. I missed his post before with its ridiculous examples.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yesterday @ 08:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111335#post111335)
blackthorne:



Though not directed towards me, I'd like to take up that &quot;challenge&quot;, if I may...

In the thread linked below you considered certain comments of a poster named Vorkosigan to be overtly &quot;inflammatory&quot; regarding his comments in associating Stalin and Hitler with the Christian right, following it up with the inquiry: &quot;Do you have proof of the utter evil you allege?&quot;

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=4941&amp;perpage=16&amp;pagenumber=2

I take it we can deduce that such associations with evil dictators would certainly fall under the rubric of &quot;hate&quot;-filled statements according to you, correct? (if not, my apologies for misinterpreting you, but your intent seems rather straight-forward))

Too bad in your zeal you did misinterpret me. Zork outright stated that certain conservative leaders today if they got into power would shoot their followers. See a bit of a difference there? That is the utter evil that I was asking for proof of. AND if you were diligent, once he explained his "logic" I let it stand because before it was unsubstantiated. Did you miss that part? Also the rules of a debate board during heavy moderation is a tad bit different than papers written wouldn't you think?


In the example you gave, Sarfati alleged that evolutionary philosphoy was consistent with Hitler's philosophy. And I agree. He supported his statements with reasons, and did not say that modern evolutionists will, if allowed to silence creationism, start to kill "inferior" people.



I am aware of the fact that you asked specifically for hate in his papers (which obviously doesn't apply to my second piece of evidence)


Thus irrelevant to my question.....

Now this little here doggie is going to bite you in your own rump. I didn't ask Jimmy for what was "hate" by my alleged definition (which you got wrong) but for what HE considered hate. So if you considered what you quoted to be HATE, I await your rebuke of Vork and Jimmy and Joe for making Hitler comparisons.

I can hold my breath a very long time.....

[Roy]

Yesterday @ 11:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112047#post112047)
SherBear:

Yet, if you believe we are all animals ... then humans fit that same mindset ... and it isn't murder.

Morals ... and laws established from those morals ... define that humans are murdered. If one considers humans as just another animal ... allbeit an advanced one ... then one organism killing off one it considers lesser ... is right in keeping with survival of the fittest.


I don't think it is. Firstly, there's no question of inter-species conflict, since only humans were involved. As for intra-species conflict, this normally takes the form of individuals or tribes competing for the same resources (food, territory, potential mates). You might possibly be able to justify the invasion of Poland in an evolutionary fashion, as some form of territory expanse, but there doesn't seem to be any way to justify the holocaust - unless you agree with the Nazis tyhat the Jews and gypsies were inferior.



The Jews, Poles, etc. were defenseless (unable to defend themselves) in that respect ... and an agrument from outrage can only be taken from a nonscientific viewpoint.

The Jews/gypsies were only defenceless because they were a small proportion of the population, and were out numbered. The same would have applied to any small section of the population - redheads, men under 5'4", the double-jointed.

Picking Jews was a religious choice, fuelled by local anti-semitism that had been around for centuries. It certainly wasn't natural selection - the Nazis were trying to circumvent natural selection and build the race they wanted rather than the one that would have arisen otherwise.

If you really want to consider the holocaust from an evolutionary viewpoint, then there are two points that stand out:
(i) natural selection would have operated in determining which Jews and gypsies survived - those who foresaw what was happening and left Europe, and those with the stamina to survive the camps - but the fact that the holocaust happened at all is more comparable to the asteroid impacts/volcanic eruptions that lead to mass extinctions than to any evolutionary effect;
(ii) the resources the Nazis used to carry out their 'final solution' in many cases detracted from their war efforts and reduced their survival chances*; so even if the holocaust was an evolutionary strategy it wasn't a successful one.

But mainly, the holocaust as a whole shows very little about natural selection since the victims were not generally chosen on a genetic basis, but a political one.

Roy

*e.g. trains carrying Jews were often given priority over troop and ammunition transports

[Roy]

Today @ 03:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112280#post112280)
SherBear:

Now as you can see, Roy points out here that murder is the religious approach.

Carrying this one step further, I show him that he is correct on that point ... we have to look at something as murder from a religious standpoint -- because without religion, there would be no morality to condemn it as murder.


But in most cases of mass-murder/genocide, without religion the events would never have happened and so there would be nothing to condemn.

That was my point; I wasn't referring to morality at all.

Roy

[Dee Dee Warren]

You might possibly be able to justify the invasion of Poland in an evolutionary fashion, as some form of territory expanse, but there doesn't seem to be any way to justify the holocaust - unless you agree with the Nazis tyhat the Jews and gypsies were inferior.


But that is the whole point, it is an examination from the point of view of the perps, not from our point of view.

It seems like this should be split into a different topic.....


(i) natural selection would have operated in determining which Jews and gypsies survived - those who foresaw what was happening and left Europe, and those with the stamina to survive the camps - but the fact that the holocaust happened at all is more comparable to the asteroid impacts/volcanic eruptions that lead to mass extinctions than to any evolutionary effect;


That is a very surface understanding. If certain people believed they came to power because they were superior and were developed enough to see the "inferiority" of another group, then the process of natural selection did place them in that position in which they could use their power to exterminate since nothing exists outside of the materialistic system which produced them.l

[blackthorne]

Too bad in your zeal you did misinterpret me.

And your proof of this "zeal" of mine?


Zork outright stated that certain conservative leaders today if they got into power would shoot their followers. See a bit of a difference there? That is the utter evil that I was asking for proof of. AND if you were diligent, once he explained his "logic" I let it stand because before it was unsubstantiated. Did you miss that part? Also the rules of a debate board during heavy moderation is a tad bit different than papers written wouldn't you think?

I admit it was over the line, but how is such a comment any different from ones like: "it is no accident that the Holocaust happened in a country where liberal theology was invented"? From conservative leaders shooting their followers to liberal theology and evolutionary teaching the cause of genocide...looks hatefilled to me. On both sides. As for your last question, I'm not sure as to what it is you're implying. Surely not that papers of publication should be written with any less mature conduct than than an internet message forum?


In the example you gave, Sarfati alleged that evolutionary philosphoy was consistent with Hitler's philosophy. And I agree. He supported his statements with reasons, and did not say that modern evolutionists will, if allowed to silence creationism, start to kill "inferior" people.

I fail to see (and not for a lack of trying, though I don't see why it would be needed) how Dr. Sarfati supported his statements any more than Vorkosigan supported his original claims. If you agree with Sarfati's statements than perhaps you can provide some excerpts of Darwin's theory which justify the killing of innocents. Apparently I too, am quite adept in the arts of inhalation suppression. :ponder:


Thus irrelevant to my question.....

I take it you consider overall rude behavior to be completely irrelevent to what is often a prerequisite for hatefilled sentiments? Maybe I've learned something new. :ponder:


Now this little here doggie is going to bite you in your own rump. I didn't ask Jimmy for what was "hate" by my alleged definition (which you got wrong) but for what HE considered hate. So if you considered what you quoted to be HATE, I await your rebuke of Vork and Jimmy and Joe for making Hitler comparisons.

Umm...you asked for "hate" in Sarfati's papers. I provided it. Not sure what's supposed to bite me in the rear about that.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Actually you provided no hate whatsover, that was my point. But if you think so, where is your rebuke of Vork, Joe, and Jimmy. I'm waiting......

And here is what is so really silly about this... HATE like RACISM and ANTISEMITISM have been words that are thrown around disgustingly like candy. I never said that Vork's post was hateful. NEVER. I said he was accusing people of evil. When such terms are thrown about in such a loose and silly fashion, it cheapens them. You have provided NO evidence of hate whatsover.

Additionally, I will remind you that Jimmy's accusation was that Sarfatir's body of writing (not one paper on a highly controversial topic) were FILLED with hate. You have nowhere come near to that threshold and Jimmy's examples were downright silly.

[I will respond further to the rest later...]

[blackthorne]

I provided no hate whatsoever? Damn! *snaps fingers* And here I thought claiming that liberal theology and evolutionary teaching as causes for genocide were rather propitious compliments. :duh:

As for my rebuke of Vork, Jimmy, and Joe's statements, I'm not sure why I should be held responsible for criticizing their posts, seeing as how I already stated that I disagreed with Vork's comments, haven't read the other two's, and don't consider this to be on topic with what I addressed in your last post.

[Joe Meert]

Who said the following:

"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Joe, people say a lot of stupid things. So? One must examine if what one said is consistent with the authority they claim. Kind of the way I examined if your offense at alleged ad homs was consistent with the way you went on to do the same and more.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 07:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112522#post112522)
blackthorne:

I provided no hate whatsoever? Damn! *snaps fingers* And here I thought claiming that liberal theology and evolutionary teaching as causes for genocide were rather propitious compliments. :duh:

I will be back to address that further. My time gets very squished at times, so I hope you understand.


As for my rebuke of Vork, Jimmy, and Joe's statements, I'm not sure why I should be held responsible for criticizing their posts......

I am holding you responsible to be consistent.



, seeing as how I already stated that I disagreed with Vork's comments....

Good that is commendable, but so? I disagree with them too, I am asking you if Vork's comments were hateful? And if so, will you say so on II?


...haven't read the other two's.....

Joe's is right in this thread, so scroll up and take a gander, and I look forward to your assessment if it was hateful. And Jimmy's is reproduced at II, so I bet you have seen it. So I await your assessement.


...and don't consider this to be on topic with what I addressed in your last post.

Well that didn't stop you from veering way off topic in your meanderings into "maturity" and "rudeness." And it is quite on topic as I assessing your consistency, and whether your "hate" meter is doctrine-blind.

[Sher]

Gee ... see what happens when I actually sleep for a few hours :frown: (:lol:)


Today @ 05:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112483#post112483)
blackthorne:

I respectfully disagree. How is differential reproductive success, or darwinian fitness (what you term &quot;survivial if the fittest&quot;) in any way associated with the one man's belief (operative word there) that his race was superior to others, and that somehow as a result, included grounds for killing millions?

How is one animal's killing of another associated with survival of the fittest (couched in any terminology)? If, according to evolution, our minds are products of evolution as well as our bodies, instinct, psychopathy, or even false beliefs are only products of said evolution.


Evolutionary teaching makes no mention of justifying the slaughter of innocents.

It doesn't have to. In evolutionary teachings, there are no innocents ... just victims of survival of a fitter group ... even if that includes humans who deam themselves fitter. Take, for example, species now endangered or extinct because of man's interference. We have organizations and laws to try to protect these groups of animals, but that boils back to a positive belief that they are not inferior ... like the negative belief that the Jews/Poles/others were to the Nazis. From the evolutionary teachings, they are all victims, both animal and human, of survival of the group that "conquered" them. It is only by religion that we can, as I said before, have moral outrage in either instance. I do not think there are any other animals who sit back, after killing for protection, food, or sport, that exhibit shame and remorse ... even if it you include others that come along after to see the dead bodies. To the animal, it is a fact of life ... so through evolutionary teachings, those who were not the "fittest" (those unable to protect themselves) were killed. Religion gives us the morality to feel the shame and remorse ... the belief that the other was NOT inferior and NOT deserving to die.


One may interpret its explanations for the evolution of species as a way of rationalizing their own inward inadequecies, but how is this any different from those who kill, rape, and maim in the name of God? Just as individuals of the latter have their Bible verses, do individuals of the former have their science. Looks like another case of dumb people feeling as though they have the ability to border the prerogative of their respective &quot;deities&quot; (though the concept of evolution as a deity is quite ridiculous, but some will disagree).

Ah ... but you are moving from method to mental reasoning. You are correct that there are dumb people everywhere that use various reasons for killing. However, mental reasoning is not the issue here, I think. I am not saying that Hitler (or any murderer) stood up and claimed evolution as the reasoning for murder. I am saying that the murder only fits into the evolutionary teachings of survival of the fittest, which has no moral boundaries. Again, morality stems from religion ... of whatever flavor. I believe it only comes from God ... but feel it is often ignored as coming from Him ... and that there is no allowance in evolutionary teachings ... or even in science ... for the purely emotional mindset of morality (and I think some of your fellow evolutionists concur based on their sig lines and statements). Survial of the human race does not depend on morality ... from an evolutionary standpoint ... because morality is not exhibited anywhere in the animal kingdom except humanity ... yet they survive.


I'm a bit shocked you'd actually agree with Sarfati's statements. Aside from which, I must remind you that within the context, I specifically considered his sentiments to be hatefilled within the model of Dee Dee Warren's own interpretation of what constituted hatefilled statements. Even so, it is of importance to note the quote which preceded the one you referred to, as it was certainly of relevence. His opinions of liberal theology and evolutionary teachings speak for themselves.

Considering that you don't know me at all, I am surprised at your shock (:lol:) I found them to be right on target and easily defensible. And as Dee Dee pointed out already, none of it was hatefilled.

As for the liberal theology opinion, I think that was also right on. Liberal theology is often the precursor for the entrance of evil ... just as liberal politics is often the precursor for lack of proactive movement. I am not speaking about works of the devil ... even if I believe that to be the underlying cause ... but rather the inclination to leniency that marks liberal mindset.
The "live and let live" mentality of both allows evil to take hold ... not merely from a religious standpoint, but also from a political standpoint. If the liberals had their way, I think we would never go to war. Yet war is sometimes a necessity to prevent evil powers from taking over ... keeping the nuts from overtaking the nuthouse, as it were.


Absolutely. But, even you should rightly admit that an attitude like his doesn't exactly lend itself to a more objective stance, and that such conduct is more conducive to being hatefilled, rather than say, being really really nice or something. Heh. That's kinda why I tend not to take him seriously. If he had a legitimate argument, then who wouldn't need to resort to such fallacious rhetoric.

I disagree, as I don't see it as hateful, but as not being liberal in mindset, as I spoke above. I am a straight-shooter, or I try to be when my shyness (IRL) doesn't overpower my mouth. I am not liberal minded in most instances ... and appreciate straight talk not couched in what I view as false kindness. It's not that I am not kind ... I don't abuse humans or animals, and I do as many works as I can in the name of Christ ... but I, too, tell it like it is. I am not being kind by being "kind" ... if that makes any sense. For example, I don't view it kind to not reprimand my son. My correction of his erroneous mindsets (i.e. disobedience) is a far greater kindness. Even if some consider it tough love, so is the voicing of truth to those that would ignore it under the false guise of "tolerance". I'm not advocation abuse of a child, but a correction that resolves. Likewise, I will not ignore truth for the risk of hurting someone's feelings.


Agreed. But that was not the intent of the topic, nor does it have anything to do with the &quot;challenge&quot; posed earlier.

Not the intent of the topic I agree ... but then I agree with what Dee Dee later says about this needing to be separated. It is now far left field of the original point.


Thanks. :smile: (for the response too)

Sure :angel:


Today @ 06:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112500#post112500)
Dee Dee Warren:

In the example you gave, Sarfati alleged that evolutionary philosphoy was consistent with Hitler's philosophy. And I agree. He supported his statements with reasons, and did not say that modern evolutionists will, if allowed to silence creationism, start to kill &quot;inferior&quot; people.

Good point! That can not be compared to the original issue by any stretch of the imagination.


I can hold my breath a very long time.....

And a quick :lol: to this statement

Dee Dee, think we should separate this rabbit trail. The discussion is actually interesting and I'd like to see it continue ... but it does detract from the original question posed.

Thanks, Sher :angel:


Today @ 07:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112507#post112507)
rthearle:

I don't think it is. Firstly, there's no question of inter-species conflict, since only humans were involved. As for intra-species conflict, this normally takes the form of individuals or tribes competing for the same resources (food, territory, potential mates). You might possibly be able to justify the invasion of Poland in an evolutionary fashion, as some form of territory expanse, but there doesn't seem to be any way to justify the holocaust - unless you agree with the Nazis tyhat the Jews and gypsies were inferior.

I disagree. We only have to see that the exterminators felt that they were inferior, not prove that we feel the same. Just like we do not have to claim that the animal killed is inferior from our standpoint ... just show that it was defenseless. You are again mixing reasoning (inferior) with method/reason (defenseless).


The Jews/gypsies were only defenceless because they were a small proportion of the population, and were out numbered. The same would have applied to any small section of the population - redheads, men under 5'4&quot;, the double-jointed.

Of course ... that is the point. And by this, you can see that the evolutionary reason/method ... destruction of the weaker so the stronger can thrive (according to their viewpoint they were stronger) ... is why they were killed. Again, I do not have to prove a like mindset to recognize the method of their madness.


Picking Jews was a religious choice, fuelled by local anti-semitism that had been around for centuries. It certainly wasn't natural selection - the Nazis were trying to circumvent natural selection and build the race they wanted rather than the one that would have arisen otherwise.

I disagree ... because you make it sound as if it were only a religious choice. They "picked" more than just the Jews ... they picked all that they deemed inferior. Yes, it was unnatural selection to our mindset ... but it wasn't to theirs. They viewed those they killed as animals ... not human ... and as such, they pursued whatever means necessary to remove those "animals" from the human population. Look to the reportings of what they did to the Germans that married and procreated with Jews and Poles! That is a perfect example of "survival of the fittest" ... they attempted to abolish all procreation with the people they considered animals, to avoid "polluting" the gene pool ... to allow the "fittest" to "survive".

(And before anyone knocks me for speaking in this manner, thinking for one second I approve of the Nazis ... I would point out that some of my ancestors were in concentration camps ... some survived, some didnt')


[...] so even if the holocaust was an evolutionary strategy it wasn't a successful one. <snipped to summary of this point>

But lack of success doesn't negate the effort, does it?


But mainly, the holocaust as a whole shows very little about natural selection since the victims were not generally chosen on a genetic basis, but a political one.

That's not true. I'd suggest you read more about how the Jews/Poles/homosexuals/etc. were viewed by the Nazi ... like the skinheads of the present that try to mimic them ... the viewpoints of the Holocaust was all about the destruction of "inferior" people ... why do you think they were destroyed even after they were conquered? Or do you hold to the Revisionist viewpoint? I am not insulting you here, just trying to establish the foundations. If you feel as they do, we really have no further groundwork from which to continue a conversation because I do not in the least cater to those people ... again, no insult intended.


*e.g. trains carrying Jews were often given priority over troop and ammunition transports

Heh ... and this is an example of what I was saying above ... proof of the opposite of what you said, "the victims were not generally chosen on a genetic basis, but a political one". If it were political .... the political reasons (military) would have taken priority.

[Roy]

Today @ 12:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112509#post112509)
Dee Dee Warren:

But that is the whole point, it is an examination from the point of view of the perps, not from our point of view.


But the perps (Nazis) didn't think they were performing natural selection either.



It seems like this should be split into a different topic.....


Maybe. Or you could invoke Godwin's law.



That is a very surface understanding. If certain people believed they came to power because they were superior and were developed enough to see the &quot;inferiority&quot; of another group, then the process of natural selection did place them in that position in which they could use their power to exterminate since nothing exists outside of the materialistic system which produced them.l

Can you please rephrase that? It seems to say that if the Nazis believed something it was true, and confuses natural selection with politics.

Incidentally, most of the Nazi leaders didn't survive natural selection - they didn't live to repoduce.*

Roy

*While checking this I discovered that Himmler thought you could make aircraft fuel from geraniums. That, coupled with German navy experiments that assumed that the earth is hollow and we live on the inside, is definitely grounds to question whether the German high command had sufficient grasp of science to understand natural selection, let alone implement it.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

I have skimmed a few of the recent posts, and I am a little confused. Was Hitler someone's least favorite Creationist? Why do so many threads (on other boards as well) get steered toward Hitler? Hitler says he was a Christian, but Christians say he obviously wasn't. The Christians say he was an evo, but the evos say he couldn't have told you the first thing about the Theory of Evolution.

Hitler was a demented person, plain and simple. Please stop trying to stick him in the other side's camp.

FK

[Sher]

/ot Godwin's Law: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

(So no one else has to look it up :wink:)

/me watches everyone run backwards several pages to see who first mentioned the Nazis :lol:

[Sher]

Today @ 09:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112551#post112551)
Fedmahn Kassad:

I have skimmed a few of the recent posts, and I am a little confused. Was Hitler someone's least favorite Creationist? Why do so many threads (on other boards as well) get steered toward Hitler? Hitler says he was a Christian, but Christians say he obviously wasn't. The Christians say he was an evo, but the evos say he couldn't have told you the first thing about the Theory of Evolution.

Hitler was a demented person, plain and simple. Please stop trying to stick him in the other side's camp.

FK

I'd suggest you skim more than the most recent posts for context :smile:

... and please note that I have asked for Dee Dee to split this off, as she has already commented herself that we are getting off-topic.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 09:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112548#post112548)
rthearle:



But the perps (Nazis) didn't think they were performing natural selection either.


Well I will not necessarily agree there. The philosophies of Darwin (as well as others) were quoted approvingly and as justification. The question is it is consistent (for as pointed out, the same people may have claimed Christian authority as well), but which philosphy is it more consistent with. This brings up another niggling consistency bug... where are the allegations of hate for all those who claimed Hitler was a Christian? What is that I hear? Those darned crickets again.



Maybe. Or you could invoke Godwin's law.

I will split it later. I have no idea what you are talking about here.



Can you please rephrase that? It seems to say that if the Nazis believed something it was true, and confuses natural selection with politics.

If all there is is crass materialism, there can be no confusion since it is all a product of brute nature.


Incidentally, most of the Nazi leaders didn't survive natural selection - they didn't live to repoduce.*

Ever see modern skin heads? There are more ways to reproduce than physcially, but that is all beside the point anyways.



Roy

*While checking this I discovered that Himmler thought you could make aircraft fuel from geraniums. That, coupled with German navy experiments that assumed that the earth is hollow and we live on the inside, is definitely grounds to question whether the German high command had sufficient grasp of science to understand natural selection, let alone implement it.

Genetic fallacy, and irrelevant.

[Joe Meert]

”My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.”
-Adolf Hitler, 12 April 1922

Sometimes, you have to be a bit obtuse to make a point. Soc claims that a quote from an evolutionist justifies rape and therefore rape is justified by evolution, talk about poor use of logic! My point, which seemed to elicit too much of an emotional response, was that it’s very easy to find people representing themselves or an idea incorrectly. For example, I would be the first to agree that Hitler does not represent Christian ideals as set forth in the New Testament. The same is true for the rape claim regarding evolution. To argue that “survival of the fittest” justifies murder is akin to supporting rape and murder because God said it was ok to take virgins and kill children in the book of Numbers 31 (17-18):


"Now therefore kill every male among the little
ones, and kill every woman who hath known man by
lying with him. But all the women children, that have
not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
yourselves."
I would agree that it is ludicrous to argue that this verse can be used to justify a similar act. The problem confronting fundamentalist Christians is that using fallacious arguments such as “evolution says rape is ok because it increases the gene pool” or “evolution says murder is ok because it’s survival of the fittest” makes such a strong emotional appeal in an argument that it is difficult for fundamentalists to understand that evolutionary biology justifies neither. Now, we can go back and forth on this if you want and you can trot out more quotes if you want----but the basic point is the same. Just as Hitler’s views are not representative of Christianity neither are the views you presented representative of evolutionary biology. These arguments have been raised in every forum I’ve participated in and they are as fallacious here as anywhere. If you want to argue against the scientific principles of evolution, then do so, but sophomoric arguments such as ‘evolution justifies rape’ will garner no further response from me. Nor will I accept the argument (made tongue-in-cheek) that just because Hitler claimed to be doing the work of God means that his views are representative of Christianity.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Sher]

Now that Joe, is an example of what I find rude ... dismissive handwaving ...

Take your ball and go home ... We have more :juggle:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Joe, I will respond further to your points as well. Thank you....

[Joe Meert]

Now that Joe, is an example of what I find rude ... dismissive handwaving ...

Take your ball and go home ... We have more :juggle:

JM: Yes, but I was referring to my approach as obtuse. The simple fact is that I was unable to get my point across in my previous post so I made it more clearly here. The arguments made by both sides (eg Hitler was a Christian or evolution justifies rape) are both silly and indicate that the debate has taken a turn toward the absurd. If anyone wants to believe that either argument has merit, go right ahead but such statements are not worthy of debate. They are meant to do nothing more than elicit an emotional response. IMO, neither side has a valid reason for arguing these points other than to point out the absurdity of the statements.


Cheers

Joe Meert

[Roy]

Today @ 01:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112540#post112540)
SherBear:


The Jews/gypsies were only defenceless because they were a small proportion of the population, and were out numbered. The same would have applied to any small section of the population - redheads, men under 5'4", the double-jointed.

Of course ... that is the point. And by this, you can see that the evolutionary reason/method ... destruction of the weaker so the stronger can thrive (according to their viewpoint they were stronger) ... is why they were killed. Again, I do not have to prove a like mindset to recognize the method of their madness.


Firstly, evolution does not and never has required that the stronger individuals in a species deliberately set out to exterminate the weaker ones. If you think it does, then you simply don't understand evolution. Stronger individuals may injure and/or kill others while competing for resources,* but mostly the weaker members simply die due to lack of food or fail to acquire a mate.** In nature, examples of animals deliberately killing members of their own species are extremely rare, mainly because raising the stakes of intra-species rivalry to lethal levels creates more risk for the aggressor as well as for the victim.

Secondly, there is no reason to think that the Jews and gypsies were as individuals weaker than other people. The Nazis claimed that the Jews etc were inferior, but then they also claimed that by eliminating the Jews they were doing the Lord's work (and in fact that claim was made first, suggesting that later claims about genetic impurities were nothing more than post-hoc justifications - trying to disguise their true motives under the veneer of science).



I disagree ... because you make it sound as if it were only a religious choice. They &quot;picked&quot; more than just the Jews ... they picked all that they deemed inferior.


Yes, but why did they pick the Jews at all? Why did they claim the Jews were inferior? Remember that it wasn't only Germany that did this - there were anti-semitic laws enacted in Rumania, Italy and Hungary before WWII. If you can come up with any justification other than religious bigotry for including Jews amongst those classed as inferior I'll be very much surprised.



Yes, it was unnatural selection to our mindset ... but it wasn't to theirs.


Of course it was. The Jews and gypsies weren't dying out naturally, so the Nazis decided to kill them all. No natural selection involved at all.



They viewed those they killed as animals ... not human ... and as such, they pursued whatever means necessary to remove those &quot;animals&quot; from the human population. Look to the reportings of what they did to the Germans that married and procreated with Jews and Poles! That is a perfect example of &quot;survival of the fittest&quot; ... they attempted to abolish all procreation with the people they considered animals, to avoid &quot;polluting&quot; the gene pool ... to allow the &quot;fittest&quot; to &quot;survive&quot;.


That has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. You can't decide in advance who the fittest should be and slaughter/neuter everyone else. That's not natural selection, its eugenics.



But mainly, the holocaust as a whole shows very little about natural selection since the victims were not generally chosen on a genetic basis, but a political one.
That's not true. I'd suggest you read more about how the Jews/Poles/homosexuals/etc. were viewed by the Nazi ... like the skinheads of the present that try to mimic them ... the viewpoints of the Holocaust was all about the destruction of &quot;inferior&quot; people ... why do you think they were destroyed even after they were conquered?


Well, for a start, the Poles as a whole weren't - only the Jewish/gypsy/homosexual/political Poles were destroyed. And a reasonable case can be made that the Nazi leadership was taking advantage of existing prejudices - both their own and/or those of the majority of the population - to allow them to set up scapegoats and gain power. How the victims were viewed by the Nazis is not really relevant - from an evolutionary standpoint the relevant question is how their vistims were selected - and if there was little or no genetic basis, then the result of the holocaust is no more natural selection than artillery bombardment, lightning or meteor strikes would be.



Or do you hold to the Revisionist viewpoint? I am not insulting you here,


You may not intend to, but you are. Where have I given the impression that the holocaust didn't happen?



Heh ... and this is an example of what I was saying above ... proof of the opposite of what you said, &quot;the victims were not generally chosen on a genetic basis, but a political one&quot;. If it were political .... the political reasons (military) would have taken priority.


Reducing your own survival chances to attempt to eliminate others is not a viable evolutionary strategy. Whatever the reasons for the prioritising of camp transports over military ones, they weren't based on reproductive success.

From the Jewish point of view, natural selection may have had a hand in determining who survived the Nazi reign and who didn't, but it didn't cause the holocaust in the first place; from the Nazi point of view, the Jews and gypsies were either a convenient minority that were already disliked by the general populace, or an object of religious prejudice that they wanted to destroy, and natural selection wasn't actually relevant at all.

Roy

*Instances where newly enthroned alpha males kill the young of their predecessors usually have nothing to do with slaughtering the weak on principle, but are intended to allow the male to mate more quickly than would be allowed if the females were raising existing young.

**Like me at the moment, unfortunately.

[TheFiveSolas]

Joe Meert:
I love these absurd claims. One can dispose of logic and ethics if you want to. Evolution, at its very heart suggests that a species will attempt to survive. If ethics, however abstract, or logic helps the organism reproduce successfully and dominate its environment, then great. I'm glad to see you coming around.


You've completely missed the point. I wasn't trying to dispose of logic or ethics. I affirm them. I was indirectly challenging you to give a rational account for the existence of "abstract" (thus non-material) things/entities such as logic. How can you, an evolutionist, rationally account for the existence of objective, immaterial, universally binding laws of logic?

Note that if you deny that logic is objective and universally binding then you are left unable to defend your implication that some people (i.e., creationists) are being illogical. In other words, unless logic is a transcendent standard that stands/exists APART from the individual then you are unable to get your accusation of illogicality off the ground.

In addition, abstract things/entities can't be accounted for in a material/physical only view of the universe. Therefore, you first, if you wish to remain rational, need a worldview that can account for such things/entities. Evolution, being a purely physical/natural/material view, cannot provide a rational account for the existence of such things. Things that you take for granted I might add (i.e., fideistically).

According to the Christian worldview it makes rational sense to speak about laws of logic that are abstract (non-material) and are binding upon everyone.

How do you, an evolutionist, rationally defend such a position?

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112591#post112591)
Joe Meert:

[Infidel ploy of a Hitler quote to try to portray him as a Christian]

Of course Meert doesn't want to get the thrashing of his life in the thread » Main Campus » Political Science Dept. » Was Hitler a Christian? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56147#post56147) :whack:


Meert: Sometimes, you have to be a bit obtuse to make a point. Soc claims that a quote from an evolutionist justifies rape and therefore rape is justified by evolution, talk about poor use of logic!

:dunce: Meert was certainly right that he was being obtuse! :poke: Once again, Meert would get splattered in the thread » Theology Wing » Religion 101 » God approves of rape (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=103027#post103027). He should really stick to geology.

Once more, as Keith agreed, Hitler was acting CONSISTENTLY with evolution, while atrocities in the name of Christ are INCONSISTENT with His teachings. And not only did some evolutionary biologists say that men rape for evolutionary reasons, they could not justify, from their own evolutionary perspective, why rape was objectively morally wrong! It's not really that difficult, and I don't think my Christian brothers and sisters will have any trouble with this, even if atheists still don't get it.

Soc,
It seems you missed the fact that Dr. Meert had retracted his comments about Hitler being a Christian, etc.

[Roy]

Today @ 02:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112566#post112566)
Dee Dee Warren:



Well I will not necessarily agree there. The philosophies of Darwin (as well as others) were quoted approvingly and as justification. The question is it is consistent (for as pointed out, the same people may have claimed Christian authority as well), but which philosphy is it more consistent with.


I don't think it's particularly consistent either with evolution or the tenets of Christianity. (Ironically, it seems closer to Old Testament Judaic practices than either).



This brings up another niggling consistency bug... where are the allegations of hate for all those who claimed Hitler was a Christian? What is that I hear? Those darned crickets again.


Chirp? Well, he was definitely raised as a Catholic, and frequently mentioned God in Mein Kampf. But he also had a personal astrologer. He may have claimed to be a Christian, but there's no way to know for certain.



If all there is is crass materialism, there can be no confusion since it is all a product of brute nature.


"Crass"? As in 'gross, thick, dense, stupid, dumb, insensitive'? Aren't you supposed to be against insults?

Just because humans evolved from beasts doesn't mean we can't try to overcome our brutish past and create a worthwhile society. We don't have to live purely selfishly, and in many ways that's a bad idea, since I wouldn't like to live in that kind of society anyway.



Ever see modern skin heads? There are more ways to reproduce than physcially, but that is all beside the point anyways.


Yeah, non-physical reproduction isn't really relevant to evolution.

[Dee Dee Warren]

"Crass"? As in 'gross, thick, dense, stupid, dumb, insensitive'? Aren't you supposed to be against insults?



Where did you get that idea? I am against overly inflammatory and gratuitous insults. But in a debate, especially one involving such subject, someone is bound to get insulted. I am insulted that you believe that both of us are the products of mere nature. But so what? I do not have an unalienable right not to be insulted and neither do you, so let's please stop the "let's look for something to be offended over" game.

[Roy]

Today @ 05:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112742#post112742)
Socrates:
Once more, as Keith agreed, Hitler was acting CONSISTENTLY with evolution,

I know of no part of evolution that requires elimination of people who follow a particular religion, nor do I know of any part of evolutionary theory that advocates genocide at the expense of one's own reproductive success.

If Hitler had really wanted to act consistently with evolution, he'd have given up on Eva Braun and followed Solomon's plan of having 300 wives and 700 concubines, and tried to make sure that the majority of the next few generations of Germans were all descended directly from him.

Instead, he not only died childless, but indirectly caused the death of one of his nieces. A true evolutionary failure.

Roy

[Roy]

Today @ 05:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112752#post112752)
Dee Dee Warren:

"Crass"? As in 'gross, thick, dense, stupid, dumb, insensitive'?
Where did you get that idea?


I looked up 'crass' in my dictionary.



I am against overly inflammatory and gratuitous insults. But in a debate, especially one involving such subject, someone is bound to get insulted. I am insulted that you believe that both of us are the products of mere nature.

Interesting. Why would you be insulted by that? If I'm right, then it can't be an insult since it's true, and if I'm wrong, my opinion probably isn't worth enough to care about?

Now if I was claiming that I was god-born but you were an advanced form of pond-scum,* then I'd understand, but how can it be an insult to believe that we both have the same basic origins? I'd have to be insulting myself too, or at least have no self-esteem.

Roy

*I believe that's the correct technical phrase :smile:

[Joe Meert]

Of course Meert doesn't want to get the thrashing of his life in the thread » Main Campus » Political Science Dept. » Was Hitler a Christian? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56147#post56147) :whack:


JM: Soc, frankly I am not worried about debate with you because you don't really want debate. Statements like the one above worked well for bullies in gym class, but they don't carry much weight in intellectual discussion. It's also painfully obvious that you want to caricature evolution because it's so much easier to defeat a cartoon than the real thing. If you'd like to have a discussion about Hitler and the influence of Martin Luther on Hitler, I'd be glad to do so. However, if you want to continue painting Hitler as an evolutionist when history tells us unequivocally that he CLAIMED to be a Christian, then do so. Anyone with an interest in the facts can check for themselves. Hitler was a wacko plain and simple and if he used Christianity or evolution to promulgate his idiocy, then it is neither the fault of Christ nor Darwin. Is this really the best argument you have? Please tell me that young earth creationism does not rely solely on misrepresentation of history?

Cheers

Joe Meer

[Sher]

Today @ 10:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112645#post112645)
Joe Meert:

JM: Yes, but I was referring to my approach as obtuse. The simple fact is that I was unable to get my point across in my previous post so I made it more clearly here. The arguments made by both sides (eg Hitler was a Christian or evolution justifies rape) are both silly and indicate that the debate has taken a turn toward the absurd. If anyone wants to believe that either argument has merit, go right ahead but such statements are not worthy of debate. They are meant to do nothing more than elicit an emotional response. IMO, neither side has a valid reason for arguing these points other than to point out the absurdity of the statements.

Well to be technical, you referred to a previous post of yours as obtuse, not that particular post ...

... look at your title: "well, an obtuse approach did not work so..."

I was referring to the portion of your response that said
These arguments have been raised in every forum I’ve participated in and they are as fallacious here as anywhere. If you want to argue against the scientific principles of evolution, then do so, but sophomoric arguments such as ‘evolution justifies rape’ will garner no further response from me. which amounts to nothing more than dismissive handwaving ... and is, IMO, rather rude when others are continuing a conversation.

But since you have gone on to reply again to this "argument", you obviously didn't mean it to be rude, as it came across to me ... so carry on :rockon:

[Joe Meert]

I was referring to the portion of your response that said which amounts to nothing more than dismissive handwaving ... and is, IMO, rather rude when others are continuing a conversation.


JM: Not rude at all. I quite acknowledged that if others wanted to discuss what I consider a caricature of evolution, then have at it. I don't have to participate in what I perceive to be an unsupportable assertion meant solely to elicit an emotional response.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Sher]

Greetings Roy,


Today @ 12:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112712#post112712)
rthearle:

Firstly, evolution does not and never has required that the stronger individuals in a species deliberately set out to exterminate the weaker ones. If you think it does, then you simply don't understand evolution.

I would suggest, then, that neither did Darwin. Darwin wrote, Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility. If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct ... as well as this tireless quoted, racist section:At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man -- http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter_07.html; ibid -- /chapter-06.html)

Darwin's writing are shown to have been closely followed by Hitler ... and the reasons behind his atrocities were in keeping with evolutionary teachings ... which again, attach no morality to killings ... it can't be deemed "murder" in the negative sense in the light of evolution.


Secondly, there is no reason to think that the Jews and gypsies were as individuals weaker than other people. The Nazis claimed that the Jews etc were inferior, but then they also claimed that by eliminating the Jews they were doing the Lord's work (and in fact that claim was made first, suggesting that later claims about genetic impurities were nothing more than post-hoc justifications - trying to disguise their true motives under the veneer of science).

I disagree. I think the first claim was to "suck the people in" ... to present a false face to garner support and power ... which later fell when it was no longer needed ... similar to hypocrites who politic as Christian ... until their agenda is satisfied (be it governmental politics geared toward election, or social politics for another purpose) ... and it is shown that they never were.


That has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. You can't decide in advance who the fittest should be and slaughter/neuter everyone else. That's not natural selection, its eugenics.

(Forgive me for moving this up out of order, but I want to direct a reply to this which falls in the midst of other points I want to address collectively.) However, eugenics is only one component of what the Nazis used ... as I said, it is unnatural to us ... but in keeping with the Darwinian quotes from above (and I believe there are others of this racist vein) it was natural to them. The Nazis saw them as animals, as I mentioned, and as such, destroyed them so they did not "pollute" the gene pool and the world for that matter.


Yes, but why did they pick the Jews at all? Why did they claim the Jews were inferior? Remember that it wasn't only Germany that did this - there were anti-semitic laws enacted in Rumania, Italy and Hungary before WWII. If you can come up with any justification other than religious bigotry for including Jews amongst those classed as inferior I'll be very much surprised. Of course it was. The Jews and gypsies weren't dying out naturally, so the Nazis decided to kill them all. No natural selection involved at all. Well, for a start, the Poles as a whole weren't - only the Jewish/gypsy/homosexual/political Poles were destroyed. And a reasonable case can be made that the Nazi leadership was taking advantage of existing prejudices - both their own and/or those of the majority of the population - to allow them to set up scapegoats and gain power. How the victims were viewed by the Nazis is not really relevant - from an evolutionary standpoint the relevant question is how their vistims were selected - and if there was little or no genetic basis, then the result of the holocaust is no more natural selection than artillery bombardment, lightning or meteor strikes would be.

Well of course they were anti-semitic ... I never said that they didn't have warped views of religion ... and that was a portion of the original point. That the views of the Nazis were, and still are in their "mini-me" groups, a blasphemy of the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, as I have shown via Darwin, the racism was rampid in the midst of the writings of the "Father of Evolution". So, whose teachings does this show the Nazis were more in line with? {comment on the Poles below}


You may not intend to, but you are. Where have I given the impression that the holocaust didn't happen?

I never said that you give the impression that it didn't happen ... however, I get from you, and forgive me, I really don't mean to be offensive to you, that you subscribe to Revisionist theories of what actually happened. I am not claiming you are a Revisionist ... I simply asked if you support that mindset to determine if we have common ground for discussion. Your point about the Poles above is one indicator (and something you said earlier sparked that as well, but I can be darned if I remember this next day). You said
Well, for a start, the Poles as a whole weren't - only the Jewish/gypsy/homosexual/political Poles were destroyed.

This is blatently false because of your use of the word only and something I have read revisionism articles to cite. It seems that they want to attempt to lessen the severity of the crime for some reason. Forgive me for asking you, but I was sincere in my question, not any attempt to be obscurely slanderous.

One big reason, aside from historical preservation, I have no desire to speak to someone who is a Revisionist, is off-topic and personal ... but I'll relay a portion here ... with a self-deprecating short to hopeful ease any hurt feelings I may have caused by my question:

(Sorta)
/ot I have family on my father's side who were in concentration camps ... and they were everyday citizens ... nothing political/homosexual/gypsy/Jewish about them. My paternal grandfather was very young and was hidden from the Nazis ... but he lost two brothers and his father .... and one of his sisters barely made it out alive. I have lost contact with that side of my family for complicated reasons having to do with my father, but up until about 10 years ago, when I last saw her, my aunt never spoke about it with the family ... and wore long sleeves even in the summer to hide the numbers on her arm. As an adult, I now wish I knew more ... the personal side of it from a real family member ... not that it isn't very real to me, but often personal experiences told face-to-face are held more closely to one's heart.

/ot Okay the laugh-at-me story I promised ... When I was a child, I was at a dinner party at this aunt's house ... Ever see "My Big, Fat Greek Wedding"? Well, Polish people are just a bad ... tons of family ... tons of guests. I felt very grown up in my new dress, getting to eat with the "big people" ... even though I was still a child. After dinner, while the group was getting rather wasted on brandy and other various drinks (big drinkers that side of the family), I was helping my aunt by rinsing the dishes. As usual, Aunt Helen had long sleeves on, but her dress sleeve pushed up while she was washing and I saw her tattooed numbers. Again, being rather naive ... I had, of course, seen tattoos but not in that fashion ... I asked ... in of course a loud child's voice ... why she had numbers on her arm ??? The whole room, tons of people, got deathly quiet and looked at me with one turn of the head. My mother looked ready to pop a blood vessel and my father was giving me That Look ... you know the one? ... I knew I had done something wrong ... and was ready to fall through the floor in embarrassment. The party picked up in what was probably mere seconds ... but seemed like a lifetime of minutes. Children are often not the brightest pennies in the jar :eek: ... and I was the Queen of that mindset as a child ... :lol:

As to your other points, I think my remarks above have addressed them in toto.

What it really boils down to, is that this was an example used of hatred ... assumedly towards those that support evolution. No one, I am sure, is saying that Joe Shmoe, evolutionist is responsible for/agreeable with Hitler's mindset. That, I agree is fallacious. However, the point was that Hilter's mindset is in keeping with evolutionary teachings ... not with the teachings of Jesus Christ. To answer Joe here as well, it is not the "strong emotional appeal" of argument ... it is a fact-based statement ... proven by Darwin's own words.

[Sher]

Today @ 04:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113017#post113017)
Joe Meert:


JM: Not rude at all. I quite acknowledged that if others wanted to discuss what I consider a caricature of evolution, then have at it. I don't have to participate in what I perceive to be an unsupportable assertion meant solely to elicit an emotional response.

Well, I did say it was in my opinon ... (IMO) ... and I feel that is very rude in the midst of conversation. But your opinon is your own ... and like the saying goes ... :wink:

That's all I had to say about that ... the last word on it is yours ... :rockon:

[SLPx]

Today @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113089#post113089)
SherBear:
However, the point was that Hilter's mindset is in keeping with evolutionary teachings ... not with the teachings of Jesus Christ. To answer Joe here as well, it is not the &quot;strong emotional appeal&quot; of argument ... it is a fact-based statement ... proven by Darwin's own words.

It is also a fact-based statement that Hitler considered himself to be doing God's work. Proven by his own words. What shall we make of that? That he was lying? Deluded? Of course.

If the best you guys can do in your never-ending quest to "disprove" evolution to save your religious faith is pull out the tired old "Hitler was an evolutionist" tripe, then I suggest you folks finally asdmit that creationism is religion, pure and simple.

So what if Hitler "followed" Darwin's "teachings"? If he kept a copy of "Origin of Species" under his pillow? Would that mean that evolution must, therefore, not have occurred?

What is it you folks are really trying to prove?

Or are you just trying to give yourselves some sort of emotional justification for ignoring evidence that runs counter to your interpretation of Scripture?

[Sher]

Today @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113103#post113103)
SLPx:

It is also a fact-based statement that Hitler considered himself to be doing God's work. Proven by his own words. What shall we make of that? That he was lying? Deluded? Of course.

Yet ... nothing you say here shows that it is out of step with Darwin's words ... and the resulting evolutionary teachings.

Darwin himself was racist ... and Hitler was in line with that mindset.

Christ was not ... and Hitler, even claiming Christianity at first ... was not in the Christian mindset that follows Christ.


If the best you guys can do in your never-ending quest to &quot;disprove&quot; evolution to save your religious faith is pull out the tired old &quot;Hitler was an evolutionist&quot; tripe, then I suggest you folks finally asdmit that creationism is religion, pure and simple.

If the best you can do is kick conversation as tripe, you are hardly adding to anything here.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 01:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112772#post112772)
rthearle:



I looked up 'crass' in my dictionary.


Forums can be so ackward. I wasn't asking where you got the idea of the definition from, I was aksing where you got the idea that I think are insults are no-nos.



Interesting. Why would you be insulted by that?

Does it matter?


If I'm right, then it can't be an insult since it's true

Faulty logic, if I am fat and ugly (which I am not) and someone calls me fat and ugly, I may still be insulted even if it were true. The truth can be the most insulting of all sometimes.



, and if I'm wrong, my opinion probably isn't worth enough to care about?

No, I have had the unfortunate experience of being slandered before. It wasn't true, yet it was worth caring about.


Now if I was claiming that I was god-born but you were an advanced form of pond-scum,* then I'd understand....

Bait and switch. I am claiming we are both special and created in God's image as far as this conversation goes. And though you object to the phrase of pond scum, it cuts to the chase,and in a crass (there i used it again - smile - I am a colorful speaker) way it is accurate.


... but how can it be an insult to believe that we both have the same basic origins?

Because it is the worst form of idolatry there is, that is why. But that is irrelevant to my point.




I'd have to be insulting myself too, or at least have no self-esteem.

Irrelevant. I can be insulted by something you said that is equally insulting to yourself.

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112909#post112909)
Joe Meert:

JM: Soc, frankly I am not worried about debate with you because you don't really want debate. Statements like the one above worked well for bullies in gym class, but they don't carry much weight in intellectual discussion.

Laughable coming from Meert, a typical internet anti-creationist bully-boy who wouldn't know intellectual discussion if he tripped over it.


It's also painfully obvious that you want to caricature evolution because it's so much easier to defeat a cartoon than the real thing. If you'd like to have a discussion about Hitler and the influence of Martin Luther on Hitler, I'd be glad to do so.

I would rather rely on the Nuremberg prosecutors who conclusively proved that Nazism was fanatically anti-Christian than an atheistic geologist out to smear Christianity via smearing the Bible.


However, if you want to continue painting Hitler as an evolutionist when history tells us unequivocally that he CLAIMED to be a Christian, then do so.

And the 1995 Australian Humanist of the Year Plimer likewise claimed to be a Christian, and Meert claims not to be anti-Christian. It's a common ploy among enemies of the Gospel to avoid alerting Christians to their true nature. Meert should go and join his ideological soulmate Higgins if he wants to persist in his pathetic arguments.


Anyone with an interest in the facts can check for themselves. Hitler was a wacko plain and simple and if he used Christianity or evolution to promulgate his idiocy, then it is neither the fault of Christ nor Darwin.

And you have let to disprove Keith's contention that Hitler was CONSISTENTLY applying evolution, while Hitler and the Nazis were a proven at Nuremberg to be ANTI-Christians


Is this really the best argument you have? Please tell me that young earth creationism does not rely solely on misrepresentation of history?

It doesn't -- it relies on the true eye-witness record of history found in the Bible.

[TheFiveSolas]

Joe Meert and Socrates,

The tone is coming close to crossing the line during this period of heavy moderation. Please refrain from implying (or actually) calling each other names like "bully", etc.

Thanks.

[Sher]

/ot DANCE BREAK -- Everybody boogie ....

[Sher]

Now back to our regularly scheduled program ...

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112758#post112758)
rthearle:

I know of no part of evolution that requires elimination of people who follow a particular religion, nor do I know of any part of evolutionary theory that advocates genocide at the expense of one's own reproductive success.

Does Thearle even know what "consistent" means? Keith said that Hitler had consciously applied evolutionary teachings to society. Eliminating the "unfit" members of society and allegedly inferior races is a perfectly consistent application of evolutionary teachings. But even on a weaker level, it is "consistent" with evolution since it there is no inconsistency with believing in evolution and being a Nazi. There is a huge inconsistency in being a Nazi and believing in Christ.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112540#post112540)
SherBear, replying to:


Blackthorne: I'm a bit shocked you'd actually agree with Sarfati's statements. Aside from which, I must remind you that within the context, I specifically considered his sentiments to be hatefilled within the model of Dee Dee Warren's own interpretation of what constituted hatefilled statements. Even so, it is of importance to note the quote which preceded the one you referred to, as it was certainly of relevence. His opinions of liberal theology and evolutionary teachings speak for themselves.

Considering that you don't know me at all, I am surprised at your shock () I found them to be right on target and easily defensible. And as Dee Dee pointed out already, none of it was hatefilled.

Especially as the original claim was that Dr Sarfati's PAPERS were hate-filled, yet almost all they can dredge up is a well-deserved critique of a particularly vexatious anti-creationist website and some reviews on Amazon which were presumably written as a private citizen (unless Blackthorne thinks that Sarfati's reviews of CHESS BOOKS also constitute official AiG endorsement :whack:)

And as SherBear and Dee Dee point out, anti-creationists must have very thin skins if they think that telling the truth about liberals or exposing the gutter tactics of some evolutionists is "hate-filled". Fact is, nothing even comes close to the vilification of creationists that's happily published on the Net and even in mainstream media and establishment science journals. This is easily shown by a thought experiment -- try substituting "Creationist" with any liberal-approved victim group in some of the anti-creationist bilge around, and see how far it goes.

E.g. Paul Willis, Palaeontologist and Science Journalist at ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation, although conservative Christians sometimes call it the "Gay BC" or "Anti-Biblical Christianity" :poke:], said on a program, "China’s Fabulous Dinobirds" on The Science Show 9 November 2002:


‘If proof were still needed about the truth of evolution, the treasure trove of feathered dinosaurs found at Laioning [sic—Liaoning] in China would definitely be the clincher. … Laioning was to show us all how much he hates creationists.’

Imagine a simple substitution, "The Holocaust was allowed by God to show us all how much he hates Jews"; "Slave-owners created by God to show us all how much he hates African-Americans". Here, there would be immediate protests against such group vilification, and rightly so. But apparently it's OK to say the most inflammatory things against creationists, and on a taxpayer-funded station at that.

Another example is from American professor Niall Shanks of East Tennessee State University in the USA declared in a letter to The Guardian, UK last year:


‘If the experience in the US is anything to go by, this attempt by assorted Christian fundamentalist Taliban-wannabees to turn the clock of science back to the Middle Ages will not stop with biology.’

Note, Sarfati was criticised for pointing out that Hitler and Stalin were evolutionists in response to a gutter atheist claim that they were Christians. But he NEVER made a blanket claim that evolutionists in general WERE Nazis. Yet a university professor and a leading UK newspaper apparently thinks its OK to compare creationists in general with one of the most brutal regimes in recent years.

And in one of the articles that has Blackthorne whinging, Sarfati pointed out that a leading light in the Australian Skeptics accused a leading creationist of being a pedophile. Yet there is not the slightest apology, and the Skeptics still refuse to repudiate it and think that this vexatious anti-creationists STILL has the light shining out of his nether-regions.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113449#post113449)
Socrates:

[...] said on a program, &quot;China’s Fabulous Dinobirds&quot; on The Science Show 9 November 2002:


If proof were still needed about the truth of evolution, the treasure trove of feathered dinosaurs found at Laioning [sic—Liaoning] in China would definitely be the clincher. … Laioning was to show us all how much he hates creationists.’

2002?? I thought fraud was proven back in '99 or '00 by Dr. Olson @ Smithsonian? Wasn't that published everywhere (USA Today, retraction in Nature, etc.)?

Or am I thinking of something different?

[Joe Meert]

I would rather rely on the Nuremberg prosecutors who conclusively proved that Nazism was fanatically anti-Christian than an atheistic geologist out to smear Christianity via smearing the Bible.

JM: Any first-grader would be able to conclude that Hitler's actions were anti-Christian, anti-Humanist or anti just about any type of normal thinking. However, it is a leap of illogic on your part to conclude that because it is anti-Christian, it must be evolution. This is the same false diatribe you spout in nearly every post. Have you forgotten that many evolutionists, myself included are also Christian? I trust this 'atheist' geologist tripe you've been spouting will now stop.


And the 1995 Australian Humanist of the Year Plimer likewise claimed to be a Christian, and Meert claims not to be anti-Christian. It's a common ploy among enemies of the Gospel to avoid alerting Christians to their true nature. Meert should go and join his ideological soulmate Higgins if he wants to persist in his pathetic arguments.

JM: You define Christian as someone who believes like you. Talk about a pathetic argument!


And you have let to disprove Keith's contention that Hitler was CONSISTENTLY applying evolution, while Hitler and the Nazis were a proven at Nuremberg to be ANTI-Christians

JM: When you can show that evolution teaches that Jews should be summarily exterminated, then the argument is worth considering. Until then, we have Hitler's constant references to 'doing the work of the Lord'. Hitler was a wacko and your twisted hope is that tying Hitler to evolution will somehow win you points. Interesting debate tactic, but the argument is utterly fallacious and depends solely on emotional appeal.



It doesn't -- it relies on the true eye-witness record of history found in the Bible.

JM: It relies on a particularly narrow interpretation of the bible that was falsified by evidence nearly 200 years ago. If you want to hang on to your fideistic dogma, fine. You can offer no solid evidence for your position and rely instead on hoping that no one will call out your silly Hitler arguments.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

Does Thearle even know what &quot;consistent&quot; means?

JM: Other than an ad-hom, what's your point?



Keith said that Hitler had consciously applied evolutionary teachings to society. Eliminating the &quot;unfit&quot; members of society and allegedly inferior races is a perfectly consistent application of evolutionary teachings. But even on a weaker level, it is &quot;consistent&quot; with evolution since it there is no inconsistency with believing in evolution and being a Nazi. There is a huge inconsistency in being a Nazi and believing in Christ.

JM:Keith was wrong! You are hoping that by changing the definition of evolution, you can somehow make a point. Evolution says simply "genetic frequency changes through time". It does not say 'kill the Jews'. Keith, for whatever socio-political-religious reason ignores that Hitler repeatedly argued that his actions were consistent with biblical teachings and followed the writings and philosophy of Martin Luther. This entire argument is so incredibly ludicrous that I cannot believe it pops up in the same manner in nearly every forum. Hitler was a wacko, like Jim Jones, David Koresh and others who claimed to be doing the work of the Lord. You completely ignore Hitler's own words and claims and toss out hyperbole in the hopes of winning debate points. On the subject of wacko Hitler following evolution, you have no arguments to stand on.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Roy]

Today @ 06:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113425#post113425)
Socrates:


I note that you were unable or unwilling to refute my point that Hitler and other nazi leaders did not attempt to maximize their own reproductive success and therefore were not following evolutionary principles.



Does Thearle even know what &quot;consistent&quot; means? Keith said that Hitler had consciously applied evolutionary teachings to society.


Just because Keith said something does not mean that it was correct.
This is an obvious attempt to argue from authority.



Eliminating the &quot;unfit&quot; members of society and allegedly inferior races is a perfectly consistent application of evolutionary teachings.


No, it is not. Evolution states that the unfit members of society will have less reproductive success and will not pass their genes on to successive generations. It does not state anywhere that members of society should arbitrarily decide that some portion of their population is unfit and then waste massive resources to murder them.



But even on a weaker level, it is &quot;consistent&quot; with evolution since it there is no inconsistency with believing in evolution and being a Nazi. There is a huge inconsistency in being a Nazi and believing in Christ.

No there is not. There may be an inconsistency with following the teachings of Christ, but there is certainly no inconsistency in being a Nazi and believing in Christ, since Hitler and others apparently did so.
Further, there are plenty of Biblical examples of God-followers behaving in exactly the way that the Nazis did.

And finally, you still seem to be fond of using logical fallacies. There is also no inconsistency with accepting in evolution and supporting Manchester United. By your logic this would mean supporting Manchester United is consistent with evolutionary principles, which is ludicrous - just as your argument is.

Roy

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 11:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113120#post113120)
SherBear:



Yet ... nothing you say here shows that it is out of step with Darwin's words ... and the resulting evolutionary teachings.

And I have seen nothing form you showing that Darwin "taught" that Jews should be exterminated.


Darwin himself was racist ... and Hitler was in line with that mindset.
Darwin was a racist by today's standards, of course. As were most if not all 'upper crust' types of his time. By the standards of HIS day, however, he was quite a bit out of line with mainstream thought.
Of course, Henry Moriis is a racist as well, and justifies this belief using Scripture. And then there is the Worldwide Church of God. Shall we apply your logic there as well?


Christ was not ... and Hitler, even claiming Christianity at first ... was not in the Christian mindset that follows Christ.
Ahhh... So he was not a TRUE Scotsamn.. I mean Christian... Thats the ticket...




If the best you can do is kick conversation as tripe, you are hardly adding to anything here.
And you have added nothing whatsoever to this thread, except to derail it.


Calling people racist without any backup is in violation of the new rules of this thread during a period of heavy moderation. Please refrain from such name-calling. Also, I find it quite revealing that you lumped Dr. Morris in when he clearly believes ALL mankind is descended from the same set of original parents (i.e., there aren't different races according to such a view).

[SLPx]

Today @ 06:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113424#post113424)
SherBear:

Now back to our regularly scheduled program ...

Those posts added SO MUCH to this thread!

:hrm:

[Roy]

Yesterday @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113089#post113089)
SherBear:

Greetings Roy,



Firstly, evolution does not and never has required that the stronger individuals in a species deliberately set out to exterminate the weaker ones. If you think it does, then you simply don't understand evolution.


I would suggest, then, that neither did Darwin. Darwin wrote, Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility. If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct


Nothing here suggests that a tribe should systematically eliminate a section of its own population to the detriment of itself. Darwin was describing the inevitable result when two tribes compete for resources - he was not recommending a course of action.

[attempt to portray Darwin as racist deleted since it is (a) irrelevant and (b) fallacious]



Darwin's writing are shown to have been closely followed by Hitler


Where? You haven't demonstrated this.



... and the reasons behind his atrocities were in keeping with evolutionary teachings ...


No, they were not. You have admitted yourself that the selection of the Jews as victims was due to anti-semitism. There is nothing in evolutionary teaching that says that Jews should be killed - but plenty of religious writings from those such as Luther which advocate this.



which again, attach no morality to killings ... it can't be deemed &quot;murder&quot; in the negative sense in the light of evolution.


So? Just because evolution does not say that genocide is immoral does not mean that it says genocide is necessary.



I disagree. I think the first claim was to &quot;suck the people in&quot; ... to present a false face to garner support and power ... which later fell when it was no longer needed ... similar to hypocrites who politic as Christian ... until their agenda is satisfied (be it governmental politics geared toward election, or social politics for another purpose) ... and it is shown that they never were.


So you are happy to believe that the Nazis claimed support from Christianity in order to achieve their anti-semitic aims, but you won't accept that they claimed support from evolution in the same way. Why the double standard? Why believe Nazi propaganda in one instance but not the other?
Unless, as I said before, you truly believe that the Nazis were correct when they claimed that Jews were inferior, and correct when they claimed eugenics was evolution.


[deletia] The Nazis saw them as animals, as I mentioned, and as such, destroyed them so they did not &quot;pollute&quot; the gene pool and the world for that matter.


Again, this has nothing to do with natural selection, and is not following evolutionary teachings. It is religous bigotry.



Well of course they were anti-semitic ... I never said that they didn't have warped views of religion ... and that was a portion of the original point. That the views of the Nazis were, and still are in their &quot;mini-me&quot; groups, a blasphemy of the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, as I have shown via Darwin, the racism was rampid in the midst of the writings of the &quot;Father of Evolution&quot;.


You have shown nothing of the sort. You have produced only a single quote, and attempted to claim this proves rampid(sic) racism, whereas it obviously cannot. Nor does the quote you cited even state that Darwin thought that some races were inferior, merely less technologically and socially advanced.



So, whose teachings does this show the Nazis were more in line with?


Neither. Though I suspect if anything they were closer to the views of Luther than those of Darwin.





Where have I given the impression that the holocaust didn't happen?

I never said that you give the impression that it didn't happen ... however, I get from you, and forgive me, I really don't mean to be offensive to you, that you subscribe to Revisionist theories of what actually happened.


The revisionist theories that I am familiar with (Irving, etc) state that the holocaust did not happen. By suggesting that I subscribe to revisionist theories you are implying that I am a holocaust denier. I suggest you desist.





Well, for a start, the Poles as a whole weren't - only the Jewish/gypsy/homosexual/political Poles were destroyed.

This is blatently false because of your use of the word only and something I have read revisionism articles to cite. It seems that they want to attempt to lessen the severity of the crime for some reason.


You had said


I'd suggest you read more about how the Jews/Poles/homosexuals/etc. were viewed by the Nazi ... like the skinheads of the present that try to mimic them ... the viewpoints of the Holocaust was all about the destruction of "inferior" people


Implying that the Nazis viewed/treated all the Poles as they viewed/treated Jews and homosexuals etc. I was pointing out that this was false. The ghettos in Warsaw and Krakow were specifically intended for Jews alone - not all Poles. The Nazis made no attempt to eliminate the entire Polish population. Incompetence and malice certainly ensured that there were victims outside the specifically targeted groups, but your implication that the Nazis tried to eliminate the whole Polish population is false.



What it really boils down to, is that this was an example used of hatred ... assumedly towards those that support evolution. No one, I am sure, is saying that Joe Shmoe, evolutionist is responsible for/agreeable with Hitler's mindset. That, I agree is fallacious.


But by repeatedly claiming that Hitler followed evolutionary teachings you are stating that anyone else who follows evolutionary teachings will produce similar results.



However, the point was that Hilter's mindset is in keeping with evolutionary teachings


I defy you to find any evolutionary teaching that requires the genocide of religious minorities.



... not with the teachings of Jesus Christ. To answer Joe here as well, it is not the &quot;strong emotional appeal&quot; of argument ... it is a fact-based statement ... proven by Darwin's own words.

One last point. If, as is possible, your argument is a version of the fallacy that since evolution does not claim that genocide is wrong, evolution allows it, then you need to point out exactly where in the bible it claims that Jesus does state that genocide is wrong. If you can't find such a quote from Jesus, then you should be prepared to agree that Hitler's mindset is equally in keeping with Jesus' teachings.

Roy

[Roy]

Yesterday @ 11:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113147#post113147)
Dee Dee Warren:

... I may still be insulted even if it were true. The truth can be the most insulting of all sometimes. [and later] I am claiming we are both special and created in God's image as far as this conversation goes. And though you object to the phrase of pond scum, it cuts to the chase,and in a crass (there i used it again - smile - I am a colorful speaker) way it is accurate.

I get the impression (possibly wrong) that you think I'm insulting you if I don't believe that everyone was created to be better than other animals. Even if it's true.

If so, isn't that like being ashamed of your parents?

Personally, I consider it something to be proud of that (most) humans have overcome their humble origins and created society and technology far beyond what might be expected. If something else was responsible for making sure humans could do all these things, that somewhat reduces the sense of achievement.

If humans are only special because we were made that way, why is that specialness anything to be jubilant about? It smacks of braggadocio to me.

Roy

P.S. 'rearranged pond scum' isn't accurate. There's nothing in the currently accepted human lineage that is either photosynthetic, pond-dwelling or torpid.

[James]

Saying that Hitler was enacting a fulfillment of evolutionary theory is like saying someone who accepts the law of gravity should push people off buildings in order to fulfill it.

Sorry, but evolution, like chemistry, is just a mindless process that is a result of the fundamental laws and organization of matter. It makes no moral claims, it is simply what happens. There is no commandment in evolutionary theory that says evolution must be fulfilled and that it is moral to do so. You could just as well say that Hitler was "consistent with his application of chemistry" by developing nerve gas to use in genocide. Down with chemistry, then!

[TheFiveSolas]

James,

The fact that evolution is a mindless process is part of the point being made. It offers no justification or foundation for objective and universally binding ethical norms. In addition, since one of its premises (spelling?) is that the most fit organism survives, it follows that if the survival of one's gene pool can be "favored" by eliminating the weaker organisms then that action is preferrable, at least from an evolutionary standpoint.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 10:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113659#post113659)
James:

Saying that Hitler was enacting a fulfillment of evolutionary theory is like saying someone who accepts the law of gravity should push people off buildings in order to fulfill it.

That is exactly the analogy that I was thinking of yesterday when I read this thread. Gravity says people will fall when thrown off a cliff. Therefore, it is a condemnation of gravity when someone uses it in this way.

What I think is ridiculous is the comments that Hitler's actions were consistent with evolutionary teachings. "Evolutionary teachings" say that gene frequencies change over time. The less fit do not always survive to pass on their genes. AIG would completely agree with that, so I fail to see how Hitler's actions, if consistent with evolutionary thinking, would not be consistent with the portions of evolution that AIG accepts.

Someone please explain to me the difference in what the ToE says, AIG accepts, and Hitler's actions. What part of evolutionary theory was he utilizing that AIG would reject? That the most fit survive, or that the least fit may not? AIG would accept that. That the least fit (in Hitler's mind) should not be allowed to survive? The ToE doesn't say that.

Besides that, we all know that Hitler was really a Christian. After all, he said so.:wink: He never said he was an evolutionist. Don't you imagine that if Hitler had made some statement praising Darwin, it would be prominently displayed on every anti-evolution web site? Evolutionist's protests wouldn't matter, because the Creationists would say that we have his own words on the matter as evidence.

But I beg of you all to split this off into another thread. This has absolutely nothing to do with your least favorite Creationist.

FK

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 11:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113672#post113672)
TheFiveSolas:

since one of its premises (spelling?) is that the most fit organism survives,...

Do you disagree with this?

FK

[Frumious]

Today @ 05:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113672#post113672)
TheFiveSolas:

James,

The fact that evolution is a mindless process is part of the point being made. It offers no justification or foundation for objective and universally binding ethical norms. In addition, since one of its premises (spelling?) is that the most fit organism survives, it follows that if the survival of one's gene pool can be &quot;favored&quot; by eliminating the weaker organisms then that action is preferrable, at least from an evolutionary standpoint.

It's not quite so simple. If those weaker individuals somehow cooperate with you to help insure the survival of your genes then it may be in your best interest to help them survive. In any case there is no relevance to the validity of evolutionary theory.

I also find it rather amazing that Sarfati wrote
http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp

Stalin trained in a seminary, but used Darwin as an excuse for apostasy. By becoming a Marxist, by definition he was an atheistic evolutionist (Marx wanted to dedicate his book to Darwin, and Marxist dogma is anti-theistic). And Stalin’s atrocities were committed as a staunch atheistic evolutionary communist.

Stalin, while possibly an atheist, was certainly not a Darwinist. Has Sarfati forgotten about Lysenko?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[TheFiveSolas]

Fedman,

The issue being debated boils down to the rational justification for ethical norms. Evolutionary theory teaches or implies that the nature of the universe is random, unpurposed, impersonal, etc. Therefore, evolutionary theory fails to provide a moral justification for acting one way and not another.

[James]

Today @ 12:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113672#post113672)
TheFiveSolas:

The fact that evolution is a mindless process is part of the point being made. It offers no justification or foundation for objective and universally binding ethical norms.

Exactly. Why should it? That's not the purpose of a scientific theory.


In addition, since one of its premises (spelling?) is that the most fit organism survives, it follows that if the survival of one's gene pool can be &quot;favored&quot; by eliminating the weaker organisms then that action is preferrable, at least from an evolutionary standpoint.

And gravity favors actions that tend towards establishing a state of low potential energy, as these actions are preferrable, at least from a gravitational standpoint. Of course, this has no bearing on whether it's in our best interest - or even correct - to do so, right?

Historically, groups of people have tended to persecute other groups, usually doing so in order to gain control of limited resources. This isn't a condemnation of evolutionary theory, it is a condemnation of physical reality (it's also the foundation of capitalism and conservative morality as it relates to financial competition, but that's an aside). This also doesn't mean that it's the "best" course of action, either. The survival of everyone could be better ensured by working together and developing better technology. I'll respect the wishes of others and not post any more on the subject within this thread. If anyone would like to continue this discussion, feel free to start a new thread or suggest that someone else do so.

[James]

Today @ 12:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113686#post113686)
TheFiveSolas:

The issue being debated boils down to the rational justification for ethical norms. Evolutionary theory teaches or implies that the nature of the universe is random, unpurposed, impersonal, etc. Therefore, evolutionary theory fails to provide a moral justification for acting one way and not another.

I'd say that the only people who argue that evolutionary theory does apply to society are staunch lasseiz faire capitalists, but this is hardly part of the theory of organic evolution.

[TheFiveSolas]

James,

The problem with your critique/rebuttal is that gravity is a specific law/principle, but evolutionary theory attempts to be all-encompassing, explaining how we got here, where we are going, etc.

[James]

Today @ 01:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113714#post113714)
TheFiveSolas:

James,

The problem with your critique/rebuttal is that gravity is a specific law/principle, but evolutionary theory attempts to be all-encompassing, explaining how we got here, where we are going, etc.

You're talking about the results that arise out of evolutionary mechanisms, not the mechanisms themselves. Evolutionary mechanisms are physical processes such as mutation and natural selection that arise out of physical and chemical processes. The analogous mechanism in gravity is gravitation.

Now, by the same token, the effects of gravity can explain "how we got here, where we are going, etc." as well. Gravity explains why we are living on the surface of this planet and not floating around in space. It predicts that we can't get off of this planet without enough compensating force, and so on.

[TheFiveSolas]

James,

You are missing the point, not to mention equivocating and obfuscating it. The single concept of gravity doesn't imply metaphysical assertions as to whether or not the universe is created for a purpose or is utterly purposeless. Evolution on the other hand does imply such philosophical underpinnings. Therefore, your analogy fails.

[James]

Today @ 02:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113744#post113744)
TheFiveSolas:

The single concept of gravity doesn't imply metaphysical assertions as to whether or not the universe is created for a purpose or is utterly purposeless. Evolution on the other hand does imply such philosophical underpinnings. Therefore, your analogy fails.

The processes of gravity imply just as many "metaphysical assertions" as the processes of evolution. Namely, that physical and chemical processes happen the same for any experiment under the same conditions. That's all. If you have a problem with this, then your argument is against the basis of modern science and means of aquiring knowledge, and not any particular theory. Want to start another thread?

[TheFiveSolas]

James:
The processes of gravity imply just as many "metaphysical assertions" as the processes of evolution. Namely, that physical and chemical processes happen the same for any experiment under the same conditions. That's all.


Physical and chemical processes alone don't imply whether or not they exist or were created for a purpose. The same is true of gravity. On the other hand, evolution is a worldview that starts with the assumption that the universe was NOT created with purpose.

The phrase "basis of modern science" is vague since "modern science" can refer to observational/operational science or it can refer to metaphysical speculation such as the theory of evolution.

With regards to the first, the Christian worldview alone supplies the necessary preconditions for the existence and practice of science. The reason is simple, only the metaphysical and epistemological worldview revealed in Scripture can provide a rational account for inductive inference, rational thought, objective and universally binding laws of logic, ethics, human freedom of action/thought/will.

[SLPx]

Today @ 02:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113572#post113572)
SLPx:



And I have seen nothing form you showing that Darwin &quot;taught&quot; that Jews should be exterminated.
Darwin was a racist by today's standards, of course. As were most if not all 'upper crust' types of his time. By the standards of HIS day, however, he was quite a bit out of line with mainstream thought.
Of course, Henry Moriis is a * edited by a moderator * as well, and justifies this belief using Scripture. And then there is the Worldwide Church of God. Shall we apply your logic there as well?
Ahhh... So he was not a TRUE Scotsamn.. I mean Christian... Thats the ticket...
And you have added nothing whatsoever to this thread, except to derail it.




Color me perplexed. This thread has been referring to all sorts of people as this or that with only peronal opinions as "backup."

So, here is my "backup", in Morris' own words:


"The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope
and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.

The Hamites have been the great 'servants' of mankind in the following ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans, cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types
of structural forms and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce and trade--money, banks, postal systems, etc.--were invented by them; (8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, movable type, and other accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people. Truly they have been the 'servants' of mankind in a most amazing way.

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites. " -- Henry Morris, The Beginning of the World (1991), pp. 147-148


Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I suggest you read a bit more of Morris' writing before trying to speak for him. Furthermore, it is not name-calling to use adescriptive term. If that were so, I could point out many posts in this thread alone which contain 'name-calling' yet have not been 'edited.'

I will accept your apology in advance.

[SLPx]

Today @ 05:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113672#post113672)
TheFiveSolas:

James,

The fact that evolution is a mindless process is part of the point being made.

Can you name a single scientific theory that is not "mindless"? What are the mindful processes in physics? Chemistry?


It offers no justification or foundation for objective and universally binding ethical norms. [quote]

Please provide the justification or foundation for objective and universally binding ethical norms found in Germ Theory.[quote]

In addition, since one of its premises (spelling?) is that the most fit organism survives, it follows that if the survival of one's gene pool can be &quot;favored&quot; by eliminating the weaker organisms then that action is preferrable, at least from an evolutionary standpoint.


Please find out what "fit" means in evolutionary terms. This is akin to the "its just a theory" claptrap that I am quite sick of hearing from religious figures and simpleton politicians.

[Sher]

Today @ 09:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113572#post113572)
SLPx:

And I have seen nothing form you showing that Darwin &quot;taught&quot; that Jews should be exterminated.

Yet, I have shown that he considered there to be lesser humans, and this pervasive teaching was present throughout his writings ... teaching that Hitler followed.


Darwin was a racist by today's standards, of course. As were most if not all 'upper crust' types of his time. By the standards of HIS day, however, he was quite a bit out of line with mainstream thought.

Ah ... you see ... that is the point. His racism, which you admit, is present and supported by evolutionary teachings. Being the Father of Evolution, evolutionary teachings cannot help but incorporate that racism because it is such an major part of the original premises.


Of course, Henry Moriis is a * edited by a moderator * as well, and justifies this belief using Scripture. And then there is the Worldwide Church of God. Shall we apply your logic there as well?

No, because you are using the logic ... er .. illogically. A misapplication of a statement does not prove the statement. A misapplication of the words of Christ does not prove that Christ taught as such. However, Hitler did not misapply the words of Darwin. Darwin was a racist who believed that some groups were inferior and would be wiped out for that reason. Hitler made that "prophecy" come true.


Ahhh... So he was not a TRUE Scotsamn.. I mean Christian... Thats the ticket...

As I have said before ... It can only fall in the "true Scotsman fallacy" if it parallels it. If someone claims to be a Scotsman, yet has never even been to Scotland (never mind not having lived, or been born, there), and has not a bit of Scottish blood in his lineage, he isn't a true Scot, no matter what he claims.

Likewise, many will claim the name of Christ as their own, yet be diametrically opposed to everything that Christ stands for and preached.

Just as there are a few requirements to BE a Scot, there are some that are required to BE a Christian. And we aren't talking about butter on our porridge.


And you have added nothing whatsoever to this thread, except to derail it.

Actually this train was on its way to a different station long before I arrived to board it ... so your comment is worthless except to ridicule. And to continue on that thought ...


Today @ 09:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113575#post113575)
SLPx:

Those posts added SO MUCH to this thread!

:hrm:

Why? Don't you like to dance? :frown:

Or is it just that you have had your sense of humor surgically removed? :lol:

Seriously though, it was an attempt to defuse what was quickly becoming a flame war ... sorry you weren't amused, but there it is.

I see you have no adversion to "smilies" though ... which also add nothing to the meat of the thread ... but serve to get emotion across to the reader.

Lighten up already, you'll live longer.

[SLPx]

Today @ 05:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113686#post113686)
TheFiveSolas:

Fedman,

The issue being debated boils down to the rational justification for ethical norms. Evolutionary theory teaches or implies that the nature of the universe is random, unpurposed, impersonal, etc. Therefore, evolutionary theory fails to provide a moral justification for acting one way and not another.

Why should it?

And why is that an issue? Christians act in immoral ways all the time - they just "pray for forgiveness" or some such activity and all is fine (supposedly). WHat kind of morality is that?

But I agree with FK - get this stuff out of this thread.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am going to be merging this one with the other thread once I split it.

[SLPx]

Today @ 06:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113714#post113714)
TheFiveSolas:

James,

The problem with your critique/rebuttal is that gravity is a specific law/principle, but evolutionary theory attempts to be all-encompassing, explaining how we got here, where we are going, etc.

It does? I hadn't heard....

[Roy]

Today @ 09:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113833#post113833)
SherBear:

However, Hitler did not misapply the words of Darwin. Darwin was a racist who believed that some groups were inferior and would be wiped out for that reason. Hitler made that &quot;prophecy&quot; come true.



This is absolutely disgusting. Darwin predicted - in the quote you provided - that less technologically advanced ('civilised') peoples would die out due to being able to compete with industrialized nations. He did not state that European Jews were inferior, nor did he anywhere recommend that whole races be systematically eliminated.

Because of your continued attempts to try to justify Hitler's choice of the Jews as his major victims on grounds of supposed 'inferiority' rather than religious differences I can only conclude that you agree with him.

Roy

[SLPx]

Today @ 09:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113833#post113833)
SherBear:



Yet, I have shown that he considered there to be lesser humans, and this pervasive teaching was present throughout his writings ... teaching that Hitler followed.
And others - Joe Meert, for example - have shown that Hitler explicitly indicated his Christianity. That, as I have come to expect, the "TRUE" Christians go to great lengths to "prove" that he was not a TRUE Christian to protect their beliefs. In the end, this is all utterly irrelevant as to whether or not evolution as a theory is valid.




Ah ... you see ... that is the point. His racism, which you admit, is present and supported by evolutionary teachings. Being the Father of Evolution, evolutionary teachings cannot help but incorporate that racism because it is such an major part of the original premises.

I do not know what "evolutionary teachings" are. But, I 'admit' that by today's standards he was a racist. Again, as were most wealthy, upper class people. Just like today. But he was far form the norm in his own time. Your last sentence is just so utterly ridiculous and premised on illogic that it does not deserve comment.




No, because you are using the logic ... er .. illogically. A misapplication of a statement does not prove the statement. A misapplication of the words of Christ does not prove that Christ taught as such. However, Hitler did not misapply the words of Darwin. Darwin was a racist who believed that some groups were inferior and would be wiped out for that reason. Hitler made that &quot;prophecy&quot; come true.
Nor does a misapplication of evolutionary theory imply that evolution is false, as is apparently what this whole "Darwin was a racist" bilge is supposed to lead to. But lets look at your claim:

"Darwin was a racist who believed that some groups were inferior and would be wiped out for that reason."


Lets look at the intended connotation:

"Darwin was a racist who believed that some groups were inferior and sould be wiped out for that reason."

Isn't that what you really think?

And, yet again, even if this is what Darwin thought, so what?



As I have said before ... It can only fall in the &quot;true Scotsman fallacy&quot; if it parallels it. If someone claims to be a Scotsman, yet has never even been to Scotland (never mind not having lived, or been born, there), and has not a bit of Scottish blood in his lineage, he isn't a true Scot, no matter what he claims.

Likewise, many will claim the name of Christ as their own, yet be diametrically opposed to everything that Christ stands for and preached.

And yet they will say they are Christians, too. Who are YOU to judge them? How do YOU know that THEY are not properly following Christ's words? Luke 14:26 and all that...


Just as there are a few requirements to BE a Scot, there are some that are required to BE a Christian. And we aren't talking about butter on our porridge.

And, of course, YOU know what all those requirements are and, of course, live up to all of them. How convenient. Paul Hill insisted that he was doing Christ's work, and he was a minister. Let me guess - not a TRUE Christian?




Actually this train was on its way to a different station long before I arrived to board it ... so your comment is worthless except to ridicule. And to continue on that thought ...

It is not ridicule to point out that you have been contributing to the derailment of this thread. To think so is, frankly, bizarre.




Why? Don't you like to dance? :frown:


Not really. But I have had thread censored because they supposedly added nothing of substance to a thread. Guess it is an example of the arbitrary application of rules?:poke:

Or is it just that you have had your sense of humor surgically removed? :lol:

Now THAT is so funny! My goodness, I am literally in stitches!
:hrm:




Lighten up already, you'll live longer. I see you are getting your cues from Momma.

Color you ignored from now on.

[Sher]

Hello Roy, thanks for the reply


Today @ 11:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113618#post113618)
rthearle:

Nothing here suggests that a tribe should systematically eliminate a section of its own population to the detriment of itself. Darwin was describing the inevitable result when two tribes compete for resources - he was not recommending a course of action.

You are confusing tribe with humanity as a whole. Darwin was specific that certain peoples, certain tribes, were considered inferior by him. Hitler shared this mindset.


[attempt to portray Darwin as racist deleted since it is (a) irrelevant and (b) fallacious]

LOL! I love how you deleted this ... something that *did* prove that he was racist ... hardly irrelevant to the point of Hitler's racism ... and hardly fallacious since it is the truth.


Where? You haven't demonstrated this.

I don't have to "demonstrate" it further ... I provided Darwin's own words ... which you have snipped as irrelevant ... and it is history why Hitler exterminated those he did ... in keeping with evolutionary teachings. You can't see it, I think, because you are taking personal offense ... which is fine, because it is offensive ... but I am not offending you personally, but pointing out a mindset that supports racism present in the teachings of evolution.


No, they were not. You have admitted yourself that the selection of the Jews as victims was due to anti-semitism.

Yes. It was A factor ... not the only factor. Do you believe that anti-semitism is only for religious reasons? Anti-semitism is "Discrimination against Jews" and/or Judaism.


There is nothing in evolutionary teaching that says that Jews should be killed - but plenty of religious writings from those such as Luther which advocate this.

No, not specifically Jews ... I never said that. It is in line with considering people as 'inferior' though.

And ... Paul says in Gal 3:28,
There is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile; non-Jew], there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If Luther advocated killing of Jews as inferior, and I am not aware of where he did that, then he was in opposition to Scripture ... in opposition to Christ's teachings (as I will show below in answer to another question of yours)


So? Just because evolution does not say that genocide is immoral does not mean that it says genocide is necessary.

Evolution provides no grounds for "outrage from morality" ... so while it doesn't say it is necessary, it also doesn't say that it is wrong ... and in Darwin's teachings, it is supported ... so the Nazis were in keeping with the teachings by say the other races were inferior ... just as Darwin compared: "civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races" ... and his later comments of "savage races".

Yet, Christianity teaches there is no "race" ... that we are all one blood with a variety of outward differences.

Is it a misquote of evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould that said "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory"?


So you are happy to believe that the Nazis claimed support from Christianity in order to achieve their anti-semitic aims, but you won't accept that they claimed support from evolution in the same way. Why the double standard? Why believe Nazi propaganda in one instance but not the other?

It's not an acceptance of "Nazi propaganda" ... it is the understanding of historical evidence. Nazi's claim to Christianity is shown to be overthrown when it no longer "suited" them to claim such. However, the means that they used, the people they selected for the reasons they selected them, is in keeping with what I have been saying here.


Unless, as I said before, you truly believe that the Nazis were correct when they claimed that Jews were inferior, and correct when they claimed eugenics was evolution.

And as I said before, I don't have to accept the mindset to recognize it.

Do you have to support a child molester to recognize that he is one and that it is wrong?

Do you have to believe that child abuse is "correct" to recognize the reason a man, who was abused himself as a child, abuses others as an adult?

Neither do I.


Again, this has nothing to do with natural selection, and is not following evolutionary teachings. It is religous bigotry.

It is biogtry, yes ... but hardly confined to religious reasons. And again, yes, we view it as unnatural in retrospect with the glasses of morality on ... however, they viewed it as removing people they considered inferior and polluting. That is why they would not allow ... indeed killed people for ... intermarriage between Jew and German.


You have shown nothing of the sort. You have produced only a single quote, and attempted to claim this proves rampid(sic) racism, whereas it obviously cannot. Nor does the quote you cited even state that Darwin thought that some races were inferior, merely less technologically and socially advanced.

I produced a single quote that *does* point to rampant (sorry for the misspelling and thanks for pointing it out) racism ... what part of throughout the world is unclear in this part of the quote: "the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world"? If racism ... the extermination and replacement of "savage races" ... is throughout the world ... then it is rampant ==> "Extending unchecked; unrestrained".


Neither. Though I suspect if anything they were closer to the views of Luther than those of Darwin.

Again, you would need to provide proof that Luther's views were such ... AND prove that they were in keeping with Jesus Christ ... since we are talking about the teachings of Christ vs. the teachings of Darwin ... the teachings of the Father of Christianity vs. the teachings of the Father of Evolution.


The revisionist theories that I am familiar with (Irving, etc) state that the holocaust did not happen. By suggesting that I subscribe to revisionist theories you are implying that I am a holocaust denier. I suggest you desist.

Revisionism = "Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements."

Just because you are only familiar with revisionism relating to the Holocaust not happening ... doesn't meant that is the only revisionism that happens.

Rewriting, for instance, that Darwin was not a racist, would be revisionism.


Implying that the Nazis viewed/treated all the Poles as they viewed/treated Jews and homosexuals etc. I was pointing out that this was false. The ghettos in Warsaw and Krakow were specifically intended for Jews alone - not all Poles. The Nazis made no attempt to eliminate the entire Polish population. Incompetence and malice certainly ensured that there were victims outside the specifically targeted groups, but your implication that the Nazis tried to eliminate the whole Polish population is false.

I'm sorry but I didn't imply the whole population ... but it is in recorded history that it was more than just "victims outside the specifically targeted groups".

The mass executions of Poles in 1939 and 1940 included any people that the Nazis deemed inferior ... the 'Unternehmen Tannenberg'. Hitler is quoted as saying, "If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin."


But by repeatedly claiming that Hitler followed evolutionary teachings you are stating that anyone else who follows evolutionary teachings will produce similar results.

No ... I'm not.


I defy you to find any evolutionary teaching that requires the genocide of religious minorities.

You attached religion to it ... not me. I am speaking about how they viewed them as inferiors ... you are moving goal posts by adding "religion".


One last point. If, as is possible, your argument is a version of the fallacy that since evolution does not claim that genocide is wrong, evolution allows it, then you need to point out exactly where in the bible it claims that Jesus does state that genocide is wrong.

My argument is NOT as you claim, so I need not provide anything other than to support what I have been saying ... and I've done that with the quotes from Darwin. However, I have also shown above where Paul spoke of this ... as well as Jesus saying we are to love others as we love ourselves ... and ...

John 15:12 -13 This is my command, that ye love one another, according as I did love you; greater love than this hath no one, that any one his life may lay down for his friends

Mark 12:31 And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.

Matt 5:44-45 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Need more? Do you not see how teachings such as these are vastly the opposite of the quotes from Darwin ... and the remaining words in his works unquoted? Can you quote support that Darwin loved his fellow man? That he advocated the support of those who were unable to support themselves? Darwin's teachings support no morality ... and evolutionary teachings follow in that mindset.


If you can't find such a quote from Jesus, then you should be prepared to agree that Hitler's mindset is equally in keeping with Jesus' teachings.

Well, your boundries aside ... I've shown above only a small portion of the "love thy neighbor" theme throughout Christ's teachings ... which would be opposed to genocide ... by the very nature of the teachings. Can you do the same for Darwin?

[Sher]

Today @ 11:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113659#post113659)
James:

Saying that Hitler was enacting a fulfillment of evolutionary theory is like saying someone who accepts the law of gravity should push people off buildings in order to fulfill it.

Yet, what if Newton had predicted, and supported, in his writings that an inferior race would be pushed off buildings because of gravity?

We would view it as morally wrong because it is murder ... yet, as silly as this seems to us personally because we accept morality as a value ... it would be consistant with the teachings of the law of gravity if such writings existed.

[Sher]

Today @ 05:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113893#post113893)
rthearle:

This is absolutely disgusting.

I think so too ... but I didn't say it ... I merely quoted it.


Darwin predicted - in the quote you provided - that less technologically advanced ('civilised') peoples would die out due to [not - sic] being able to compete with industrialized nations. He did not state that European Jews were inferior, nor did he anywhere recommend that whole races be systematically eliminated.

"less technologically advanced"? I didn't see that anywhere in those quotes. I read:Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility. If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct.
Coupled with his statement here:At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Darwin first speaks of tribes and races, then refers to them as savage ... then speaks of the civilized exterminating and replacing them.

He doesn't talk about something so benign as them "die out due to [not - sic] being able to compete with industrialized nations" ... but does exactly speak of "whole races be systematically eliminated" ... when he saysthe civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world
Where does he show the "savages" naturally dying out? He says 'exterminate and replace'.


of your continued attempts to try to justify Hitler's choice of the Jews as his major victims on grounds of supposed 'inferiority' rather than religious differences I can only conclude that you agree with him.

Don't be foolish. As I've shown already, one can recognize someone's erroneous mindset without having to agree with it. This is just a (not so) subtle attempt at ad hominem by attacking me (as agreeing) rather than attacking the argument trying to prove it false.

I've been very congenial with you ... why turn to personal attacks now? A more logical thing to do would be to prove Darwin did not promote what he wrote ... that he did not mean "exterminate and replace".

(forgive me for any weird phrasing ... I tried to proofread it when I realized I had inadvertently hit the Insert key and I was typing over my own words, but I may have missed something in that section)

[Sher]

Today @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113894#post113894)
SLPx:

Color you ignored from now on.

What color is ignore? :hrm:

Well, since you are "ignoring" me ... I will come back to these points later ... I'm getting tired of talking about this topic today anyway.

[Roy]

Today @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113932#post113932)
SherBear:


Among other responses, you produced these:



Do you believe that anti-semitism is only for religious reasons? Anti-semitism is "Discrimination against Jews" and/or Judaism.


What possible reason can there be for discriminating against Jews and Judaism other than religious reasons?

In response to your claim that


However, as I have shown via Darwin, the racism was rampid in the midst of the writings of the "Father of Evolution".

I pointed out that you had only provided a single example, which was nowhere near enough to show that racism was rampant in Darwin's writings. You responded by deleting your original claim and pretending your argument was about racism being rampant throughout the world instead.

Your quote from Hitler supposedly re executions of millions of Poles:


The mass executions of Poles in 1939 and 1940 included any people that the Nazis deemed inferior ... the 'Unternehmen Tannenberg'. Hitler is quoted as saying, "If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin."

turns out not to have been referring to executions at all, but to enforced breeding restrictions:

We are obliged to depopulate,' he went on emphatically, 'as part of our mission of preserving the German population. We shall have to develop a technique of depopulation. If you ask me what I mean by depopulation, I mean the removal of entire racial units. And that is what I intend to carry out - that, roughly, is my task. Nature is cruel, therefore we, too, may be cruel. If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin! And by "remove" I don't necessarily mean destroy; I shall simply take the systematic measures to dam their great natural fertility. For example, I shall keep their men and women separated for years. Do you remember the falling birthrate of the world war? Why should we not do quite consciously and through a number of years what was at that time merely the inevitable consequence of the long war? There are many ways, systematical and comparatively painless, or at any rate bloodless, of causing undesirable races to die out.'


And when I asked


If, as is possible, your argument is a version of the fallacy that since evolution does not claim that genocide is wrong, evolution allows it,


you responded with



My argument is NOT as you claim, ...


but elsewhere in the same message you say



Evolution provides no grounds for "outrage from morality" ... so while it doesn't say it is necessary, it also doesn't say that it is wrong ...


which looks suspiciously like the argument you denied making. I admit that you followed it up with



and in Darwin's teachings, it is supported ... so the Nazis were in keeping with the teachings by say the other races were inferior ... just as Darwin compared: "civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races" ... and his later comments of "savage races".


but
(i) Darwin doesn't support it; he was stating that races would be eliminated, not that they should be eliminated - he was predicting what would happen, not advocating it;
(ii) Darwin was referring to races that were less civilised, not inferior;
(iii) Darwin explicitly referred to native Africans and Australians, not European Jews, Poles and Russians who were at least as civilised as the Nazis;
(iv) Darwin's views are not equivalent to evolution theory.*

Darwin was predicting what would happen to non-technological peoples, not advocating the elimination of minority populations in developed countries. Unless you can produce evidence that evolution theory advocates genocide of religious or ethnic minorities,** and stop using invalid or deceptive arguments, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Roy

*Darwin also encouraged his children to learn to dance - that doesn't mean dance lessons are part of evolution.
**Examples from other species might be a good start.

[Sher]

Aw ... WTHeck ... I decided to finish this one off before I move on to more enjoyable topics:
Today @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113894#post113894)
SLPx:

And others - Joe Meert, for example - have shown that Hitler explicitly indicated his Christianity. That, as I have come to expect, the &quot;TRUE&quot; Christians go to great lengths to &quot;prove&quot; that he was not a TRUE Christian to protect their beliefs. In the end, this is all utterly irrelevant as to whether or not evolution as a theory is valid.

You are correct that it is irrelevant, which makes me wonder why you kept beating that drum in the first place. But to answer your statement here, which I think I previously covered already in a different way, there are no "great lengths" to go to to show that Hitler wasn't following the teachings of Christ. We only need to show that his actions and later writings show that he either "deconverted" or that he simply had no understanding about what Christ taught. "TRUE Christian" (tm) ridicule is worthless as I've already shown.


I do not know what &quot;evolutionary teachings&quot; are. But, I 'admit' that by today's standards he was a racist. Again, as were most wealthy, upper class people. Just like today. But he was far form the norm in his own time.

If you don't know what the teachings are ... why are you responding to this thread? Being "far form the norm in his own time" has no bearing on this subject at all. We do not need to consider the "norm", only him in particular regarding this topic.


Your last sentence is just so utterly ridiculous and premised on illogic that it does not deserve comment.
Why thank you! How kind of you!


Nor does a misapplication of evolutionary theory imply that evolution is false, as is apparently what this whole &quot;Darwin was a racist&quot; bilge is supposed to lead to. But lets look at your claim:

&quot;Darwin was a racist who believed that some groups were inferior and would be wiped out for that reason.&quot;

Lets look at the intended connotation:

&quot;Darwin was a racist who believed that some groups were inferior and sould be wiped out for that reason.&quot;

Isn't that what you really think?

And, yet again, even if this is what Darwin thought, so what?

I've covered this in a subsequent posting.


And yet they will say they are Christians, too. Who are YOU to judge them? How do YOU know that THEY are not properly following Christ's words? Luke 14:26 and all that...

/ot funny how those that appear not to support Scripture are always quick to quote it when it serves their purpose

I am not judging anyone ... even if it is within my right to judge a "brother" (guess you missed those verses, huh?) ... but pointing out a truth. If Hitler was a brother in Christ, I have every right as a Christian to judge his actions ... If he was not, your point about the scripture is irrelevant.


And, of course, YOU know what all those requirements are and, of course, live up to all of them. How convenient. Paul Hill insisted that he was doing Christ's work, and he was a minister. Let me guess - not a TRUE Christian?

I didn't say ANYWHERE that I was without sin ... "liv up to them all". I am a sinner and ashamed that I sin ... asking for forgiveness daily.

However, as I said about the Scotsman ... there are strict things that HAVE to be present for someone to be a Christian ... if someone opposes them, they are simply calling themselves one ... I said nothing about following them ... (although actions often speak louder than words) ... but actually opposing those teachings.

I don't know who Paul Hill is/was ... nor the relevancy to this topic.


It is not ridicule to point out that you have been contributing to the derailment of this thread. To think so is, frankly, bizarre.

It is ridicule ... both in the way you originally worded your complaint ... AND how you have now backpeddled to to saying I am "contributing to the derailment of this thread" ... when before you said "And you have added nothing whatsoever to this thread, except to derail it" ... after I had several posts of substantive points.

I'll skip your other "kind" words as they add nothing to this part of the conversation ... save to say that I would still like to know what color "ignored" is ... :teeth:

But just for you since you seemed to enjoy it so much ...

Back by popular demand ... Dancing Elmo!


:shifty:




Ahem ... Dancing Elmo!



:shifty:




Oh! I'm sorry. Dancing Elmo has declined to appear because he feels unappreciated and ridiculed ...

... but he did pass on this message, "[i]Wa, Wa .. call the Wambulance"

[Roy]

Yesterday @ 11:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113942#post113942)
SherBear:

Where does he show the &quot;savages&quot; naturally dying out? He says 'exterminate and replace'.


You quoted it yourself. He wrote:

Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct.


Nor does 'exterminate and replace' necessarily mean deliberate genocide.

And either you are equating 'savage races' with Jews, or you are claiming Hitler did; either way this does not follow what Darwin wrote.

Roy

[Joe Meert]

I've been very congenial with you ... why turn to personal attacks now? A more logical thing to do would be to prove Darwin did not promote what he wrote ... that he did not mean &quot;exterminate and replace&quot;.


JM: Martin Luther is also well known for his anti-semitism and arguably had more of an influence on Hitler than did Darwin. So, the MOST logical conclusion is that Hitler was a wacked out psychotic.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Sher]

(this message may duplicate because I am testing our new "reply from email" feature ... when we subscribe to a thread, we should be able to respond from our email program)


Today @ 07:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113988#post113988)
rthearle:

You quoted it yourself. He wrote:

Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct.

Nor does 'exterminate and replace' necessarily mean deliberate genocide.

And either you are equating 'savage races' with Jews, or you are claiming Hitler did; either way this does not follow what Darwin wrote.

Roy

Um ... Genocide is "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

If you "exterminate and replace" a race or tribe ... you ARE commiting genocide by definition.

I am not equating "savage races" with Jews ... I am saying that Hitler did. And I am saying that Darwin's writings do support is with proof of the quote. Where is your proof that he didn't support that mindset ... even as a prequel to it.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Sherbear: Darwin first speaks of tribes and races, then refers to them as savage ... then speaks of the civilized exterminating and replacing them.

And as SLP has pointed out, Henry Morris, the father of modern Creationism, also speaks of inferior races. Since you earlier said:


Sherbear: Being the Father of Evolution, evolutionary teachings cannot help but incorporate that racism because it is such an major part of the original premises.

Then it is clear that being the Father of Creationism, Creationist teachings cannot help but incorporate that racism because it is such a major part of the original premises.

One thing to point out is that when Darwin was writing Origin of Species, technologically advanced Europeans were wiping out the natives in North America, Australia, and Africa. Darwin wasn’t merely speculating that this would happen, it was happening in his day. Nowhere does he condone it; he merely observes that it happens.

FK

[Sher]

Today @ 08:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113989#post113989)
Joe Meert:

Martin Luther is also well known for his anti-semitism and arguably had more of an influence on Hitler than did Darwin. So, the MOST logical conclusion is that Hitler was a wacked out psychotic.

And again ... you have shown no proof in Luther's writing ...

And again ... this is adding another person into the mix. We are speaking about the teachings of Christ ... not the teachings of Luther, thus far not quoted.

The most logical conclusion, then, still remains as I have pointed out ... that Hitler followed what I have shown to be Darwin's racist mindset ... when he set out to "exterminate and replace" the Jews, considering them a (savage) inferior race.

[Bane]

Excerpt from this website:

http://www.awitness.org/books/luther/on_jews_and_their_lies_p2.html

Quotes from Martin Luther
'On Jews and their Lies' Part Two

Luther's Advice for dealing with the Jews
After engaging in a long quarrel over the correct (Christian) interpretation of such books as Daniel, in the midsection of his essay Luther proceeds to list out his 'advice' for dealing with the Jews, and you will note that his call for the princes and leaders of the people to get rid of the Jews was put into practice by Hitler and the Nazis, including his instructions to 'take their gold and possessions', burn down their property, remove them from the country, as well as his talk, in a later section of his eassay of 'killing the Jews' and his advice that one should 'shake the dust from our shoes, and say, "We are innocent of your blood."'



What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews. For in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 he commanded very explicitly that nothing is to be added to or subtracted from his law. And Samuel says in I Samuel 15:23 that disobedience to God is idolatry. Now the Jews' doctrine at present is nothing but the additions of the rabbis and the idolatry of disobedience, so that Moses has become entirely unknown among them (as we said before), just as the Bible became unknown under the papacy in our day. So also, for Moses' sake, their schools cannot be tolerated; they defame him just as much as they do us. It is not necessary that they have their own free churches for such idolatry.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16:18, "You are Peter," etc., inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now traveling across the country with twelve horses his ambition is to become a Kokhba devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with his usury, so that the great lords view it with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, some day a troop may gather against them, having learned from this booklet the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in an their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us an they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting., and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., if they had to serve and work for us -- for it is reasonable to assume that such noble lords of the world and venomous, bitter worms are not accustomed to working and would be very reluctant to humble themselves so deeply before the accursed Goyim -- then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., compute with them how much their usury has extorted from us, divide, divide this amicably, but then eject them forever from the country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule: if my counsel does not please you, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews ... Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us ... so it is not necessary to burden ourselves also with these alien, shameful vices of the Jews ...

And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do, namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to your self: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods ... If I were to eat, drink or talk with such a devilish mouth, I would eat or drink myself full of devils by the dish or cupful just as I surely make myself a cohort of all the devils that dwell in the Jews and that deride the precious blood of Christ. May God preserve me from this!

Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly acts, especially since they boast so proudly and despicably when we do help and serve them that God has ordained them as lords and us as servants. For instance, when a Christian kindles their fire for them on a Sabbath, or cooks for them in an inn whatever they want, they curse and defame and revile us for it, supposing this to be something praiseworthy, and yet they live on our wealth, which they have stolen from us. Such a desperate, thoroughly evil poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune.

Especially you pastors who have Jews living in your midst, persist in reminding your lords and rulers to be mindful of their office and of their obligation before God to force the Jews to work, to forbid usury, and to check their blasphemy and cursing. For if they punish thievery, robbery, murder, blasphemy, and other vices among us Christians, why should the devilish Jews be scot-free to commit their crimes among us and against us? We suffer more from them than the Italians do from the Spaniards, who plunder the host's kitchen, cellar, chest, and purse, and, in addition, curse him and threaten him with death. Thus the Jews, our guests, also treat us; for we are their hosts. They rob and fleece us and hang about our necks, these lazy weaklings and indolent bellies; they swill and feast, enjoy good times in our homes ...

But if the authorities are reluctant to use force and restrain the Jews' devilish wantonness, the latter should, as we said, be expelled from the country ... much more leave our Lord the Messiah, our faith, and our church undefiled and uncontaminated with their devilish tyranny and malice. Any privileges that they may plead shall not help them; for no one can grant privileges for practicing such abominations. These cancel and abrogate all privileges.

If you pastors and preachers have followed my example and have faithfully issued such warnings, but neither prince nor subject will do anything about it, let us follow the advice of Christ (Matthew 10:14) and shake the dust from our shoes, and say, "We are innocent of your blood." For I observe and have often experienced how indulgent the perverted world is when it should be strict, and, conversely, how harsh it is when it should be merciful. Such was the case with King Ahab, as we find recorded in I Kings 20. That is the way the prince of this world reigns. I suppose that the princes will now wish to show mercy to the Jews, the bloodthirsty foes of our Christian and human name, in order to earn heaven thereby. But that the Jews enmesh us, harass us, torment and distress us poor Christians in every way with the above mentioned devilish and detestable deeds, this they want us to tolerate, and this is a good Christian deed, especially if there is any money involved (which they have filched and stolen from us).

What are we poor preachers to do meanwhile? In the first place, we will believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is truthful when he declares of the Jews who did not accept but crucified him, "You are a brood of vipers and children of the devil [cf. Matt. 12:34]. This is a judgment in which his forerunner John the Baptist concurred, although these people were his kin. Now our authorities and all such merciful saints as wish the Jews well will at least have to let us believe our Lord Jesus Christ, who, I am sure, has a more intimate knowledge of all hearts than do those compassionate saints. He knows that these Jews are a brood of vipers and children of the devil, that is, people who will accord us the same benefits as does their father, the devil, and by now we Christians should have learned from Scripture as well as experience just how much he wishes us well.

I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children, as related before ... However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly ... That is what I had in mind when I said earlier that, next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.

Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands -- these venomous serpents and devil's children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. Then let him boast of his mercy, then let him boast that he has strengthened the devil and his brood for further blaspheming our dear Lord and the precious blood with which we Christians are redeemed. Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews in the eternal fire of hell!

[Dee Dee Warren]

There is no doubt that Luther was anti-Semetic, Bane you beat me to that punch. There are all sorts of theories as to how that came about, but they do not interest me much. I soundly condemn that.

[Dee Dee Warren]

This thread/topic began because Jimmy had (I think very foolishly) stated that Dr. Sarfati’s papers were “full of hate.” I challenged him to produce these hate statements and only one likely suspect was ever produced, even though his papers were allegedly “full” of them. All of the conversation was spawned off of that…

Blackthorne produced this piece:


"The evolutionary and anti-Christian beliefs of the Nazi regime are documented in The Holocaust and evolution, and Was Hitler a Christian? shows what Hitler really thought of Christianity. That is, when Hitler wasn’t trying to curry favour with the evolutionized liberal clergy (note that it’s no accident that the Holocaust happened in the country where liberal theology was invented)."

And I say again this is hardly an example of “hate” whatsoever. The over-use of that phrase cheapens it, and it is telling that one sentence has been produced that supposed proves papers “filled with hate.” The theory being advocated is that liberal theology is part of the social phenomena that allowed Hitler to come to power. That is no more hate-filled than stating other social phenomena that allowed such things to happen. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that very often conservative theology acts as a restraint on certain types of behaviour (and I am sure can be argued encourages other types that some people would think undesirable) and that the Holocaust would not have happened in a country solidly and consistently committed to the practice of Christianity as revealed in the New Testament.

In the same series, Blackthorne produces this quote (and this has become the heart and soul of this thread):


"We should also remember that atrocities committed by professing Christians were completely contrary to the teachings of Christ, while the atrocities of 20th century Nazi and Communists were totally consistent with evolutionary teaching."

I would agree with this statement in principle though I may have worded it a bit different.

Here is a statement though that was extraordinarily defamatory (and survived moderation, but don’t anyone it will ruin my reputation) [see bolded parts]:


Just because the Nazis considered Jews and gypsies to be less fit than other humans doesn't mean that they actually were. Evolutionary teaching doesn't state anywhere that natural selection has to be helped along; if an organism is unfit it will be less able to fend for itself, and will probably be less successful by default - it doesn't need to be murdered. That's the religious approach.

Of course this misses the point as multiple other posts did, that it does not matter for purpose of this discussion that the Jews and gypsies were NOT less fit (in fact though I would say that since the different “lines” of people took varying evolutionary paths that strict evolutionists really have no basis other than political correctness to even make such a statement, Darwin’s racist and sexist comments were perfectly in line with logical ramifications of evolutionary philosophy), but that the Nazis believed that they were for WHATEVER reason. This issue got consistently clouded. The buzzword “murder” was used here, and shows another lack of getting the point. Why is it murder when one human kills another. Do we call it murder when one animal kills another of its kind? Don’t other animals kill each other for territory and primacy? Though the human motivations may be more complicated as we are more advanced, that is what was going on boiled down to its essential elements. If nature is “god” and materialism is all there is, then the Nazis in using their strength to kill off the less strong were acting perfectly in accordance with natural selection since they were the predators of the weaker. The paradigm fits.

Joe tries to state: Very silly comment. If you want to take this tact, and you are perfectly welcome to do so, then follow it logically. Please note, I am making this argument solely to counter this absurd assertion. One can take a similar argument that evolution, at its most basic is survival of the species.
Therefore, it is imperative for the stronger of the species to protect, nurture
and make sure that the weaker of the species (say infants) survive to promulgate
the gene pool. The absurd caricature of evolution described in your post is
aimed for its emotive, rather than scientific effect. I don't blame you since it
is an excellent rhetorical tool. The only problem is that it is logically
absurd.[/quote]

Making an argument that one does not even believe is a time-wasting effort. Evolution at its most basic is the survival of the individual to promulgate their genes (i.e. Dawkins “the selfish gene” idea).

And Socrates pointed out these words of Darwin (bolded portions mine as they are so consistent with the Nazi ethnic cleansing idea):



Darwin himself disagreed (The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed.,
pp. 133–134, 1887):

“With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those
that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized
men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination;
we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute
poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life
of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that
vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would
formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilized
society propagate their kind.

[b]No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt
that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising
how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man
 himseol, hard¸c anyon#is so norant¤cs to a\cow hisorst aesmals t¸Ï
breed.
b]

 Thaid whh we f !l impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the
manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can
we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of
our nature … We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the
weak surviving and propagating their kind.”



Joe again:

Evolution, at its very heart suggests that a species will attempt to
survive. If ethics, however abstract, or logic helps the organism reproduce
successfully and dominate its environment, then great. I'm glad to see you
coming around.

And the Nazis did not feel themselves of the same category as the “subhumans” and would have thought if might and power helps their race, the superior one, have the money and the space and the advantages by purging the environment of the subhumans, then they were glad to see it coming around. This is all perfectly consistent with evolutionary philosophy.

Blackthorne stated:


I respectfully disagree. How is differential reproductive success, or Darwinian fitness (what you term "survival if the fittest") in any way associated with the one man's belief (operative word there) that his race was superior to others, and that somehow as a result, included grounds for killing millions?

Because less fit organisms succumb to the stronger.


Evolutionary teaching makes no mention of justifying the slaughter of innocents.

A value judgment that evolution gives no grounds to make. Only some transcendent belief can do that. Might is the only thing that makes right in naked evolutionary philosophy.



One may interpret its explanations for the evolution of species as a way of
rationalizing their own inward inadequacies, but how is this any different from
those who kill, rape, and maim in the name of God?

We are talking about consistency within a philosophy so the difference is obvious.


I don't think it is. Firstly, there's no question of inter-species conflict, since only humans were involved. As for intra-species conflict, this normally takes the form of individuals or tribes competing for the same resources (food, territory, potential mates).

Power, control, domination. You cannot compare the motives of a more advanced species to the less advanced. Human motivations will be more complex.


Picking Jews was a religious choice, fuelled by local anti-Semitism that had been around for centuries. It certainly wasn't natural selection - the Nazis
were trying to circumvent natural selection and build the race they wanted
rather than the one that would have arisen otherwise.

An unwarranted jump without a net. If all there is is nature, then they themselves are natural predators, and thus pa`t of natural selection. If evolution is true, nOthing about humAnity faLls outside its bounds, and thus they are very much acting in accordance with naTural seLection, and they believd so, a.d were consistejt with Phat phi$osophy (and friehtening$y in agreement 'ith DarSin’s quete prod%ced abo4e).


But mainly, the holocaust as a whkle shows very lIttle about natupal selebtion since the fictims ere not generalhy chosel on a genetic basis, buD a poli4ical ona.

Si)plistic sidestep since everythiNg boils down to genetics and en6ironment. Animals competing fo2 food kill eachother for reasoNs other than bape genetics.

BlackthoPne takes up theinitial thought and com-ents….

[quotd]… how is such ! comment any didferent from oneS like: "it is n/ accident that the Holocaust ha0pened i. a country where libera, theolocy was ivented"? From cOnservative leaders shooTing their follofers to liberal theology and evoLutionary teachiJg the cause of Genocide&..looks hatefiled to me.[/quota]

If something is obhectivelx true it cannot be hateful righd? I never said Vork wac hatefidled by $he way, just inFlammatory. And you hav% misrepresented the poiFt.. no ne here (and nop I) have said that evolttion teaches the cause -f genocide, the statemejts were that it can be Consistelt with `he caus% of genFcide in the wrolg hands, as in Hitler. It is c%rtainly not inevitable as demonStrated by the plentitude of veri decentevolutiknists, But theip decency arises from elcewhere, for evoutionary philoscphy protides no ground For it whatsoeveP. One lay obje#t that )t does .ot need to as n/ other Field of sciencedoes. would say that is quite shallog since a theory of man’s originr in intricately tied with his dastiny afd the “iughts” and “shoulds” oflife. In this creation myth, Pbagmatism is God


I faIl to se$ (and net for a lack of trying, though I don't see why )t would be need%d) how Dr. Sarfati supported hi3 statemDnts any more than Vorkocigan suPported is origanal cla)ms.

He refePred to gther written works, and between the two there ip a history of tHe creatAonist pnsition Cn this. Vork came out of thin !ir with his comients.




There are no inno#ents in that thory, you must ge beyond it to eRen have that coLcept. The less fit die, the stponger live. An` Darwin’s statements ablve are Ahillingly in liNe with itler’s philosophy.

Squote]Firstly, Evolution does nJt and never has required that tHe stronber indiViduals in a speaies delhberatelx set out to exterminate the weacer ones.[/quoteD

And no one aaid it did. No one said that eRolutionary philosophy raquires the HoloCaust, m%rely that it waS consispent wit` it. And comparing ani-al motirations 4o human ones is misguided. As the spec`es are Dore advanced, the strug'le will be as w%ll. We are parT of nature (alldgedly),we are #illing ff less fit species all the timD through technology, whch other specier do not do, but that does not maan thatthey ara not being “selected ou” – man over boRrowing gwl or whatever.

[quode]
Yes, but whI did they pick the Jewsat all? Why did they claim the Jews were
inferior? Reeember that it w`sn't onLy Germafy that did this - there were
anti-Semhtic law enacted in RumAnia, Italy and ungary before WVII. If iou can 
come up with aNy justificationother than reliGious bifotry for includIng Jews
amongSt those classed as inferior I'll be verY much sqrprised&

ThaP matter3 not siFce thisbigotry is a prnduct of nature htself.

[quot%]Of course it was. The Hews andgypsies weren't dying out natur`lly, sothe Nazis decidEd to ki$l them all. No "atural selectio. involvDd at al@.[/quotE]

Is man now metaphysically kutside of nature?

[qtote]Tha4 has nothing todo withsurviva` of the fittest. You caL't decide in adtance wh% the fi$test shuld be and slau'hter/netter everyone elCe. That%s not nAtural selection, its eugenics.[/quote]

Natural selection by differing method is all since the perps are products of nature. It certainly isn’t supernatural.




I know of no part of evolution that requires elimination of people who follow a
particular religion, nor do I know of any part of evolutionary theory that
advocates genocide at the expense of one's own reproductive success.

If Hitler had really wanted to act consistently with evolution, he'd have given
up on Eva Braun and followed Solomon's plan of having 300 wives and 700
concubines, and tried to make sure that the majority of the next few generations
of Germans were all descended directly from him.


Are you then saying that birds who mate for life are acting contrary to evolution which produced them? You are being quite simplistic.

And again here is another quote from Darwin perfectly in accord with this (and speaking of competition within the subsets of one species, i.e. races):


Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially
lessened fertility. If any one of these checks increases in power, even
slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining
tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest
is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even
when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to
decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct.

and….


At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the
savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,
as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will
intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the
Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the
negro or Australian and the gorilla.
(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man --
http://www.literature.org/authors/d...chapter_07.html; ibid -- /chapter-06.html)



Have you forgotten that many evolutionists, myself
included are also Christian? I trust this 'atheist' geologist tripe you've been
spouting will now stop.

Off the path a bit, Joe you have made this claim several times, would you care to elucidate exactly what it is that you believe? For example, take a look at the Mission Statement of Tweb in which the Moderator faith requirements are listed. These very basic elements are foundational to the historic Christian faith, can you affirm each of them without reservation? I am curious.


You define Christian as someone who believes like you. Talk about a pathetic argument!

Words do have meaning. If I were to claim to be an evolutionist but believe nothing that evolutionists believe my words would be hollow. It seems only when it comes to matters of religion that some people seem to think that words can have no meaning.


When you can show that evolution teaches that Jews should be summarily
exterminated, then the argument is worth considering.

That was never the argument. The argument was that it was consistent with evolutionary philosophy.



No, it is not. Evolution states that the unfit members of society will have less
reproductive success and will not pass their genes on to successive generations.


They do not reproduce because they do not survive to do so or cannot get mates. Killing them achieves both. The theory of natural selection does not set such restrictions on the mode of competition. It is flexible.



But by repeatedly claiming that Hitler followed evolutionary teachings you are
stating that anyone else who follows evolutionary teachings will produce similar
results.

No one has claimed that whatsoever. But his views were consistent with evolutionary philosophy which has been the whole point. It is consistent with evolutionary philosophy to believe that there is such a thing as a superior race of humans and an inferior one, since there is nothing transcendental of value, but it is brute genetics. Once such a belief is in place WITHOUT any moral underpinnings to curb it(which are transcendent in origin), then such an event is perfectly consistent.


I defy you to find any evolutionary teaching that requires the genocide of
religious minorities.

Straw man since no one said that. And religion was not the only motivating cause. Many of the Jews that died were atheists. When it comes to the Jewish people it is complicated since the term “Jew” refers to both an ethnic and a religious idea.



One last point. If, as is possible, your argument is a version of the fallacy
that since evolution does not claim that genocide is wrong, evolution allows it,
then you need to point out exactly where in the bible it claims that Jesus does
state that genocide is wrong. If you can't find such a quote from Jesus, then
you should be prepared to agree that Hitler's mindset is equally in keeping with
Jesus' teachings.

Since Jesus taught that the whole OT testified to Him and He confirmed the Law, then “Thou shalt not kill” pretty much covers it.

[Bane]

There is no doubt that Luther was anti-Semetic, Bane you beat me to that punch. There are all sorts of theories as to how that came about, but they do not interest me much. I soundly condemn that.



Yep.

And as Joe said Hitler was a kook. Doesn't take a genius to see that Hitler would have found some other way to justify his bigotry even if Darwinism didn't exist. As you can see with Luther he justified his with the fact the Jews wouldn't accept Christ as their saviour. Anti-Semitism is as old as the Jews have been a people.

A nice site on the theological roots of Anti-Semitism:

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/g/goodman/LOWE.htm

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 09:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114029#post114029)
Bane:

ep.

And as Joe said Hitler was a kook. Doesn't take a genius to see that Hitler would have found some other way to justify his bigotry even if Darwinism didn't exist.

Unknown and besides the point of this thread which is whether or not it is consistent with evolutionary philosophy, which all started because Jimmy had to make a false claim about Dr. Sarfati.



As you can see with Luther he justified his with the fact the Jews wouldn't accept Christ as their saviour. Anti-Semitism is as old as the Jews have been a people.

And despite the twisting of the Scriptures by the site you quoted, Luther was wrong in his justification.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 09:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114018#post114018)
Dee Dee Warren:

There is no doubt that Luther was anti-Semetic, Bane you beat me to that punch. There are all sorts of theories as to how that came about, but they do not interest me much. I soundly condemn that.

JM: Perfect! I agree. However, he was a key influence on Hitler and one of the reasons that Hitler claimed to be a follower of Christ. The overwhelming evidence supports the claim that Hitler claimed to be both a Christian and doing the deeds of God. He was wrong, he was wacko and quite frankly anyone who believes anything Hitler said, be it wicca, evolution or Christianity has a very weak argument.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Sher]

Today @ 09:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114033#post114033)
Dee Dee Warren:

And despite the twisting of the Scriptures by the site you quoted, Luther was wrong in his justification.

Exactly. Now we have support to the claims about Luther ... and can compare them to Scripture ... showing that they are not consistant ... So Luther is an invalid example here and should be disregarded.

The whole point to this part of the discussion, as we've stated before, is words of Jesus vs. words of Darwin. Deciding which Hitler was more in keeping with is obvious.

/ot (thank you for "philosophy" ... I should have been more clear)

Since we have provided Darwin's philosophy via his writings ... and valid Scriptural references that show Christ's teachings ... it is easy to see that the actions of Hitler are in opposition to morality, found in the Scriptures ... and more in keeping with Darwin's racist mindset.

And as you pointed out, it has been shown that the original claim of "hatred" is unfounded.


What startles me, is the level of emotion that has been presented from the "Hitler didn't follow Darwin" side. I can understand Christians becoming upset ... we are talking about whether his actions were in keeping with the Word of God.

However, I fail to understand why evolutionists become emotional when it is shown that Darwin was a human with failings such as racism. We aren't talking about your religion, right? If science is so coldly objective, having nothing to do with any religious mindset ... as is so often asserted ... then why the backlash as if we have been speaking blasphemously?

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 09:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114068#post114068)
SherBear:

it is easy to see that the actions of Hitler are in opposition to morality, found in the Scriptures ... and more in keeping with Darwin's racist mindset.

And as we learned, consistent with the racist writings of Henry Morris, Father of Modern Creationism.

FK

[chickenman]

hovind is a tax evader ERGO creationism is a flawed philosophy

i quite enjoy illogical arguments too

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114072#post114072)
Fedmahn Kassad:



And as we learned, consistent with the racist writings of Henry Morris, Father of Modern Creationism.

FK

Complete straw man on several counts. Creationism existed long before Henry Morris. Also, i have no idea what he was talking about in that quote, and will investigate it further, but I can take as true for the sake of argument that he was a racist (which again is simply for the sake of argument), it would be opposed to the doctrines of creationism (he was expounding on a text that is not a creation text at all), unlike Darwin's racist which flows naturally from his theory as he argued it, not I.

And it is not a flawed argument of genetic fallacy since it is an outworking of the theory by his own words. It would not follow since he loved the color blue, that all evolutionists should.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 10:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114083#post114083)
Dee Dee Warren:

Complete straw man on several counts. Creationism existed long before Henry Morris. Also, i have no idea what he was talking about in that quote, and will investigate it further, but I can take as true for the sake of argument that he was a racist (which again is simply for the sake of argument), it would be opposed to the doctrines of creationism (he was expounding on a text that is not a creation text at all), unlike Darwin's racist which flows naturally from his theory as he argued it, not I.


Not a straw man by any means. Henry Morris is certainly the Father of Modern Creationism. Even AIG acknowledges this:


Father of modern creationist revival recognized

Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was recognized by readers of Christian History magazine as one of the "most influential Christians of the 20th century." (February 2000)

For those who voted by e-mail, Dr. Morris, whose books The Genesis Flood and The Genesis Record greatly influenced the creationist and Biblical inerrancy movements, came in at 19th place for the Christian leader "most personally influential" for readers. Dr. Morris, now in his 80's, is president emeritus of ICR, an apologetics ministry that has a "sisterly" relationship with Answers in Genesis (although separate organizations).

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4239news3-9-2000.asp

And by the same token, if Morris' comments are against the doctrines of Creationism, why do you think Darwin's comments, along the same lines as Morris' comments, are consistent with evolutionary theory? He was observing technologically "inferior" races in America, Australia, and Africa being eliminated by more techologically advanced Europeans. Writing this observation is not being racist.

FK

[Joe Meert]

However, I fail to understand why evolutionists become emotional when it is shown that Darwin was a human with failings such as racism. We aren't talking about your religion, right? If science is so coldly objective, having nothing to do with any religious mindset ... as is so often asserted ... then why the backlash as if we have been speaking blasphemously?

JM: We are talking about the use of emotive arguments for the purpose of supporting YOUR religious agenda. This is the sole reason for bringing up the ridiculous arguments about Hitler.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 11:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114108#post114108)
Fedmahn Kassad:




Not a straw man by any means. Henry Morris is certainly the Father of Modern Creationism. Even AIG acknowledges this:

Sure it is... you skipped the word "revival" - he is not the originator of the doctrine which is ancient.





And by the same token, if Morris' comments are against the doctrines of Creationism, why do you think Darwin's comments, along the same lines as Morris' comments, are consistent with evolutionary theory? He was observing technologically &quot;inferior&quot; races in America, Australia, and Africa being eliminated by more techologically advanced Europeans. Writing this observation is not being racist.

Sher has already defeated this argument. And I in this thread (without having to use Darwin's view to prove my point - and your compatriots already conceded he was racist BTW) spoke of how such conclusions that there are inferior races flow logically out of the theory,and Darwin was speaking of his theory, while Morris was not speaking on anything characteristic of creationism in that quoted material. That would akin to the fallacious argument that anything he said would flow out of creationism. Huxley (being much closer in time and in friendship with Darwin to understand exactly what his friend was saying and advocating) made it abundanlty clear what was being said:

"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smallerjawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest." (Huxley, Thomas Henry [Anatomist, Dean of the Royal College of Science, and "Darwin's Bulldog"], "Emancipation-Black and White," in Rhys E., ed., "Lectures and Lay Sermons," [1871], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 1926, reprint, p.115).


And your explaining away does not deal with this quote of Darwin:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html

[Sher]

Today @ 11:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114139#post114139)
Joe Meert:

JM: We are talking about the use of emotive arguments for the purpose of supporting YOUR religious agenda. This is the sole reason for bringing up the ridiculous arguments about Hitler.

Sorry Joe, but that reply doesn't answer the question I asked ... it talks about a whole different issue.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 10:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114152#post114152)
Dee Dee Warren:

Sure it is... you skipped the word revival; - he is not the originator of the doctrine which is ancient.

You skipped the word “modern”. I said he is the Father of Modern Creationism. This is a fact. Creationism was in serious decline until Morris wrote “The Genesis Flood”. That started the modern Creationist movement.


Sher has already defeated this argument. And I in this thread (without having to use Darwin's view to prove my point - and your compatriots already conceded he was racist BTW) spoke of how such conclusions that there are inferior races flow logically out of the theory, and Darwin was speaking of his theory, while Morris was not speaking on anything characteristic of creationism in that quoted material. That would akin to the fallacious argument that anything he said would flow out of creationism. Huxley (being much closer in time and in friendship with Darwin to understand exactly what his friend was saying and advocating) made it abundanlty clear what was being said:

If your sole point is that Darwin was racist, fine. Most of the people of his day had similar views (i.e., that white Europeans were superior). I am sure you would acknowledge that many Christians, even today, are racist. The KKK even claims to be a “Christian” organization. From their website (which I will not link to):


The Goals of the Knights of the KKK are easy. We want to have a Christian
America again.

But my real point of contention is the claim that what Hitler did was consistent with evolutionary theory. Darwin saying “Weaker races will be eliminated” as he was watching it happen in real time is completely different than “Weaker races should be eliminated”.

FK

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 10:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114152#post114152)
Dee Dee Warren:

And your explaining away does not deal with this quote of Darwin:

&quot;With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.&quot; (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], &quot;The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,&quot; [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html

By the way, what exactly do you think Darwin is trying to say here? He is saying that "savages" are far more fit (in terms of health) than are civilized men. This would most certainly be true. He is saying that medical advances have enabled people to propagate who would have been unable to in an uncivilized society. He says this is harming the gene pool. There is no doubt that this is true. I can agree with the Creationists on this point. The gene pool is deteriorating, because of the effects of modern medicine. If we were thrown into the stone age tomorrow, 90% of us would probably be dead within 10 years. Think of every time you went to the doctor with an infection. In the stone age, it could have killed you.

Note that by making this observation, I do not advocate weeding the gene pool. I am simply stating a fact that it is deteriorating in a manner that would have been prevented in the face of the pure natural selection.

But please, if you disagree, enlighten me as to what you think Darwin was saying.

FK

[James]

If anyone is interested in further pursuing the discussion of Social Darwinism specifically, I've created a thread for that here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5350)

[Duvenoy]

That Hitler was a Christian, there is no doubt. He was confirmed in the Catholic Church as a child. Whether he maintained this belief in later life, or just paid lip service to it as many (most?) politicians do is open to question. Here is an excellent and well researched history of Hitler’s early years and his rise to power:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.htm

Open and read it or ignore it, as you please. It matters little to me.


Quotes from Hitler’s writings and speeches:


I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. -Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. -Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933

I have followed (the Church) in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it. -Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed. -Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990


I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. -Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46]

What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. -Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125

This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. -Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. -Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174

Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve. -Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.309

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so -Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941

Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook. -Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 171

I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal. -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 1

And so forth, ad nauseaum.

The question is: What does all this have to do with the scientific Theory of Evolution?

Answer: Exactly nothing. The whole thing is no more than a straw man, and a rather moldy one at that. All of the fulminating and hand-waving in the world will change neither the ToE nor history.

doov

[John Boy]

TheFiveSolas:
The issue being debated boils down to the rational justification for ethical norms. Evolutionary theory teaches or implies that the nature of the universe is random, unpurposed, impersonal, etc. Therefore, evolutionary theory fails to provide a moral justification for acting one way and not another.
Who gets their ethical system from scientific theories? Why would they? Science doesn't answer such questions, nor is it meant to.

Do you think the factuality of the Theory of Relativity means all ethics are relative, too? If not, why not? If so, why so?


Physical and chemical processes alone don't imply whether or not they exist or were created for a purpose. The same is true of gravity. On the other hand, evolution is a worldview that starts with the assumption that the universe was NOT created with purpose.
Evolutionary Theory does not comment on the existence/non-existence of God(s) or other supernatural beings, one way or the other. Nor does gravity. Or Relativity. Or the physical processes that make stars form or "burn".

These theories may have physical implications for certain interpretations of the acts of supernatural beings, but it doesn't say ANYTHING for their existence/non-existence. But, being supernatural, they don't have to conform to natural processes anyways.

As for there being no implications for physical processes, such as gravity, on whether we were "created for a purpose", I'm sure Galileo and other who advanced the Heliocentric idea would disagree. It seems their critics thought otherwise and wanted to make sure such a heretical idea NEVER got out--often at the threat of torture and death.

Evolutionary Theory is a SCIENTIFIC theory and cannot be easily dismissed as nothing more than a "worldview", any more than Atomic Theory is a "worldview". It follows the same rules as EVERY other scientific theory: gathers evidence to support the theory, is scientifically falsifiable, makes predictions and explains observations of the natural world, etc.


The phrase "basis of modern science" is vague since "modern science" can refer to observational/operational science or it can refer to metaphysical speculation such as the theory of evolution.
Evolutionary Theory is not metaphysical. Can you point out a single departure from the standard methods used in science? Is Paleontology also metaphysical? Archaeology? Genetics makes many speculations about the past, too. You seem to be using a peculiar defintion of "metaphysical", IMHO.

Speaking of "modern science", in order for YECism to be correct, just about EVERY branch of modern science MUST be utterly wrong on a fundamental level.

Take care. :smile:

----

P.S. As an aside, by modern standards, Darwin would be slightly racist. By the standards of his time, he was positively enlightened (he opposed slavery, etc.).

Also note, that when the term "race" is invoked by Darwin, he is not necessarily talking about HUMAN races as we assume, today. "Race" was a biological term of the times that referred to designations at the sub-species level. Dogs were classified as all of one race, for example.

[HRG_new]

post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114418#post114418)

What is funny about the "Darwinism implies racism etc." polemic^H^H^H^H^H^Hargument is that a difference between human races would be due to micro-evolution within a created kind, to use creationist terminology.

And most creationists assure us that micro-evolution is quite OK - it's only macro-evolution which is unobserved, metaphysical, a denial of God etc.

Regards,
HRG.

"Macro-evolution is that which has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Micro-evolution is that which has been demonstrated even beyond creationists doubts." (Sverker Johannsen)

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 01:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114062#post114062)
Dee Dee Warren:

There is no doubt that Luther was anti-Semetic, Bane you beat me to that punch. There are all sorts of theories as to how that came about, but they do not interest me much. I soundly condemn that.

Indeed, and Lutheranism is NOT promarily based on the teachings of Luther, but on justification by faith alone and the authority of scripture alone, Luther's most important contributions. The German Confessing Church (i.e. the branch that affirmed the authority of Scripture) totally condemned antisemitism, and many of its leaders were persecuted by the Nazis.


Joe Meert, replying to DDW above:
JM: Perfect! I agree. However, he was a key influence on Hitler and one of the reasons that Hitler claimed to be a follower of Christ.

And so did the humanist Ian Plimer. So what? Meert himself, despite his demonstrable disdain for Christianity, theism and the Bible, has pretended that he is not anti-Christian. It is a known tactic of atheistic evolutionists to make such claims so that more gullible comprosing churchians are anaesthetized towards the dangers. Hitler was doing the same thing when he needed to avoid antagonizing the church too much. When he got into power, he revealed his true anti-christian plans.

Lots of people claim to be Christian who act inconsistently with it. However, Hitler was acting consistently with evolution.


The overwhelming evidence supports the claim that Hitler claimed to be both a Christian and doing the deeds of God.

Thus spruiketh the geologist Meert. I would rather go with the Nuremberg Prosecutor General William Donovan who meticulously documented the anti-Christian aims of Hitler and the leading Nazis www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg.htm
Even Dr. A.J. Pennings, a lecturer (= professor in American) in Communications at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, is far more reliable than Meert, and he wrote (Evening Post 8 March 1994, that Nazism grew out of:


… a deeply held mystical paganism ... strengthened by the teachings of Darwinism and the pseudo-science of eugenics.

Eugenics itself was founded by Darwin's ardently pro-evolution cousin, Francis Galton.

Reason for edit:
Although I agree with what you had written in the edited section above, it is necessary during this period of heavy moderation to substantiate such claims either prior to or during the instance that you make them.

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114376#post114376)
Duvenoy:

That Hitler was a Christian, there is no doubt. He was confirmed in the Catholic Church as a child. Whether he maintained this belief in later life, or just paid lip service to it as many (most?) politicians do is open to question. Here is an excellent and well researched history of Hitler’s early years and his rise to power:

www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.htm

You're so boring Duv. It's hard to have any respect for infidels when they trot out this trash. Your fellow infidels and Gladiatrix Butters spruiked forth this bilge and were soundly thrashed at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56147#post56147. This documented what Hitler REALLY thought when he wasn't trying to curry favor with compromising churchians, as well as the meticulous documentation at Nuremberg of the Nazi plan to exterminate Christianity/

[Joe Meert]

Indeed, and Lutheranism is NOT promarily based on the teachings of Luther, but on justification by faith alone and the authority of scripture alone, Luther's most important contributions. The German Confessing Church (i.e. the branch that affirmed the authority of Scripture) totally condemned antisemitism, and many of its leaders were persecuted by the Nazis.

JM: The protestant movement has its origins in Luther.



And so did the humanist Ian Plimer. So what? Meert himself, despite his demonstrable disdain for Christianity, theism and the Bible, has pretended that he is not anti-Christian. It is a known tactic of atheistic evolutionists to make such claims so that more gullible comprosing churchians are anaesthetized towards the dangers. Hitler was doing the same thing when he needed to avoid antagonizing the church too much. When he got into power, he revealed his true anti-christian plans.

JM: I've publicly stated my religious views here. Your continued caricature of them signifies that (a) you don't read well or (b) you don't want to abandon your false assertions.


Lots of people claim to be Christian who act inconsistently with it.

JM: NO KIDDING!!
[/quote] However, Hitler was acting consistently with evolution.
[/quote]

JM: An assertion you've not backed up with a shred of evidence.


[/quote]Thus spruiketh the geologist Meert.
I would rather go with the Nuremberg Prosecutor General William Donovan who meticulously documented the anti-Christian aims of Hitler and the leading Nazis [/quote]

JM: More evidence that you do not read what I posted and respond reflexively, albeit incorrectly. I've repeated several times that Hitler's actions were that of a severely disturbed man couched in the framework of Christianity. A wacko is a wacko no matter how he/she bases her thought. It just so happens that Hitler used Christianity as an excuse for his sicko actions.


is far more reliable than Meert,

JM: Unqualified statement=ad hom. This seems to be your m.o. Is it successful or do people read right through it?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 10:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113971#post113971)
rthearle, replying to SherBear:


Do you believe that anti-semitism is only for religious reasons? Anti-semitism is "Discrimination against Jews" and/or Judaism.

What possible reason can there be for discriminating against Jews and Judaism other than religious reasons?

Allegedly racial/ethnic inferiority, jealousy at the wealth of many Jews, the need for a scapegoat. Fact is, atheist and Christian Jews were persecuted as well. At least 250,000 Jews who believed in Jesus/Yeshua as Messiah were murdered in the Holocaust. Among the atheistic Jews who had to flee was Richard Goldschmidt of "hopeful monster" fame.

[Dee Dee Warren]

JM: I've publicly stated my religious views here.

Where? I am not saying you have not, I just have not seen it but I don't get to read as much as I would like to. I recall asking you if you agree with the essentials of the historic Christian faith as articulated in TWeb's mission statement.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114762#post114762)
Joe Meert,replying to Socrates:


Indeed, and Lutheranism is NOT primarily based on the teachings of Luther, but on justification by faith alone and the authority of scripture alone, Luther's most important contributions. The German Confessing Church (i.e. the branch that affirmed the authority of Scripture) totally condemned antisemitism, and many of its leaders were persecuted by the Nazis.

JM: The protestant movement has its origins in Luther.

Its TEACHINGS were as I stated above. Protestantism does NOT depend on the authority of Luther.



Socrates: And so did the humanist Ian Plimer. So what? Meert himself, despite his demonstrable disdain for Christianity, theism and the Bible, has pretended that he is not anti-Christian. It is a known tactic of atheistic evolutionists to make such claims so that more gullible comprosing churchians are anaesthetized towards the dangers. Hitler was doing the same thing when he needed to avoid antagonizing the church too much. When he got into power, he revealed his true anti-christian plans.

JM: I've publicly stated my religious views here. Your continued caricature of them signifies that (a) you don't read well or (b) you don't want to abandon your false assertions.

No you haven't. E.g. you haven't replied to DDW's question about what you mean by your religious views. And my point still stands, because while you were elsewhere explicitly declaring yourself as an atheist or agnostic, you wrote some reviews on Amazon that professed to care about the alleged harm that creation does to Christianity. E.g. for the Answers Book, December 13, 2000:


Wow! It is difficult to know where to start describing this book. Ham and colleagues have chosen to misrepresent and misinterpret much of modern science and the Bible. One can only imagine their true purpose in writing this book. It's too bad that this book will present many Christians with a false image of both God and science as it seeks to develop a new religion of ye-creationism. The scientific arguments in the book are designed to bolster a flawed apologetics and the authors are forced to twist both to fit their world-view. There is nothing in the Bible that agues against an old earth on which evolution has taken place. Ham and colleagues argue that the Bible places limits on what their God could or could not have done. Having said that, this book is a must read for anyone interested in understanding how religion can run amuck.

And Meert STILL shows contempt for the Bible.



Socrates:Thus spruiketh the geologist Meert.
I would rather go with the Nuremberg Prosecutor General William Donovan who meticulously documented the anti-Christian aims of Hitler and the leading Nazis

JM: More evidence that you do not read what I posted and respond reflexively, albeit incorrectly. I've repeated several times that Hitler's actions were that of a severely disturbed man couched in the framework of Christianity. A wacko is a wacko no matter how he/she bases her thought. It just so happens that Hitler used Christianity as an excuse for his sicko actions.

More evidence that infidels do not read the post about Donovan and Nuremberg. I've repeatedly shown Hitler's contempt for Christianity, which supports my point that Hitler used Christianese entirely to hide his true feelings from "useful idiot" type churchians before he rose to power.


JM: Unqualified statement=ad hom. This seems to be your m.o. Is it successful or do people read right through it?

It happens to be true in your case. And your own writings are hardly free from them, so don't play lily-white with me.

[Joe Meert]

Where? I am not saying you have not, I just have not seen it but I don't get to read as much as I would like to. I recall asking you if you agree with the essentials of the historic Christian faith as articulated in TWeb's mission statement.

JM: Thumb though the threads and you e-mail.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socrates]

Socrates:It doesn't -- it relies on the true eye-witness record of history found in the Bible.

JM (post 69): It relies on a particularly narrow interpretation

Oh right, now this geologist is going to spruik forth on biblical hermeneutics now? As I've pointed out, this was the universal view of Jews such as Josephus, the Church Fathers and Reformers, so is hardly "narrow" but correct!


...of the bible that was falsified by evidence nearly 200 years ago.

Sez U. Rather, people like Hutton and Lyell applied Endarkenment rejection of Biblical authority to make a priori declarations that only presently observable processes would count as acceptable explanations of the past.



Soc: Keith said that Hitler had consciously applied evolutionary teachings to society. Eliminating the "unfit" members of society and allegedly inferior races is a perfectly consistent application of evolutionary teachings. But even on a weaker level, it is "consistent" with evolution since it there is no inconsistency with believing in evolution and being a Nazi. There is a huge inconsistency in being a Nazi and believing in Christ.

JM (post 70):Keith was wrong!

Oh, and we have the word of a geologist for this, as opposed to one of the leading evolutionists of his day?


You are hoping that by changing the definition of evolution, you can somehow make a point. Evolution says simply "genetic frequency changes through time".

Ah yes, you wouldn't be an evolutionary debater if you didn't use this "bait'n'switch'. Of course, this would make me an aevolutionists too! But Keith, as with most anti-creationists, was talking about goo-to-you theory, and it's modern propagandists who are using revisionism.


Keith, for whatever socio-political-religious reason ignores that Hitler ...

Keith was himself an atheist and evolutionist! And he showed which philosophy Hitler applied to Germany by his actions not simply his words!


... repeatedly argued that his actions were consistent with biblical teachings ...

OK, where? If anything, his "God" talk (even leaving aside his desire to curry favor with liberal churchians) was more the gods of paganism or deism. Certainly not the Bible, which was a Jewish book!!

[James]

Yesterday @ 11:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114776#post114776)
Socrates:

Protestantism does NOT depend on the authority of Luther.

Just for the record, the theory of descent with modification does not depend on the biases of Darwin.

[James]

05-31-2003 @ 01:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113425#post113425)
Socrates:

Does Thearle even know what &quot;consistent&quot; means? Keith said that Hitler had consciously applied evolutionary teachings to society. Eliminating the &quot;unfit&quot; members of society and allegedly inferior races is a perfectly consistent application of evolutionary teachings. But even on a weaker level, [b]it is &quot;consistent&quot; with evolution since it there is no inconsistency with believing in evolution and being a Nazi. There is a huge inconsistency in being a Nazi and believing in Christ.[Emphasis mine]

The portion of the quote I bolded is true, because evolution is not a system of ethics. It is a scientific theory that describes the natural world. However, "Eliminating the &quot;unfit&quot; members of society and allegedly inferior races" is not "consistent" with evolutionary theory, as I've argued in the "Social Darwinism" thread.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114779#post114779)
Joe Meert, replying to DDW:


Where? I am not saying you have not, I just have not seen it but I don't get to read as much as I would like to. I recall asking you if you agree with the essentials of the historic Christian faith as articulated in TWeb's mission statement.

JM: Thumb though the threads and you e-mail.

It was a fair question not deserving of more evasion, and with your track record it's reasonable to ask for clarification. I've come across other professing Christians who are fanatical evolutionists, and it turns out that they deny many other things besides Genesis, including the Bodily Resurrection, Virginal Conception and many of the miracles of Christ.

[Joe Meert]

JM: The protestant movement has its origins in Luther.
Its TEACHINGS were as I stated above. Protestantism does NOT depend on the authority of Luther.

JM: But most have their basis in the teachings of Luther



JM: I've publicly stated my religious views here. Your continued caricature of them signifies that (a) you don't read well or (b) you don't want to abandon your false assertions.
No you haven't. E.g. you haven't replied to DDW's question about what you mean by your religious views. And my point still stands, because while you were elsewhere explicitly declaring yourself as an atheist or agnostic, you wrote some reviews on Amazon that professed to care about the alleged harm that creation does to Christianity. E.g. for the Answers Book, December 13, 2000:

JM: YES, I have made them clear here. However, since you seem oblivious to what is going on around you, I will state them again. I am a Christian. NO, I do not follow the guidelines or requirements of TWEB, Dee-Dee, Socrates, Sarfati or Henry Morris, but those outlined by Jesus. If you can logically and cogently explain to me why the teachings of Socrates are more important that Jesus, then perhaps you can start your own cult. I won't join.



And Meert STILL shows contempt for the Bible.

JM: I show contempt for people who try to force me to believe their narrow interpretation of the bible.



More evidence that infidels do not read the post about Donovan and Nuremberg. I've repeatedly shown Hitler's contempt for Christianity, which supports my point that Hitler used Christianese entirely to hide his true feelings from &quot;useful idiot&quot; type churchians before he rose to power.

JM: Hitler himself claimed to follow Christianity. You may get away with re-writing history on TWEB, but the facts are out there for anyone else who wishes to research the topic.



And your own writings are hardly free from them, so don't play lily-white with me.

JM: I will give due consideration to the reliability of the source for this accusation.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[John Boy]

Socrates:
Lots of people claim to be Christian who act inconsistently with it. However, Hitler was acting consistently with evolution.
JM called you on this, first, but I'll second the motion.


Socrates:
Eugenics itself was founded by Darwin's ardently pro-evolution cousin, Francis Galton.
Eugenics is the ugly step-child of Evolutionary Theory, in much the same way that the KKK or the Christian Identity Movement is the ugly step-child of Christianity. They use the same words and some verses here and there to justify their movements, but they fundamentally misunderstand the main concepts from where they claim their foundation.

Funny how selective you are, too, Socrates. When Hitler makes statements that he is a Christian, it is rapidly poo-pooed; when Hitler makes some reference to Evolution, he is being consistent, even though Evolution doesn't say anything about hating and killing Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals, etc. Hitler was evil and looked for justification of his acts using BOTH religion AND science, ANYTHING that could be twisted to fulfill his agenda.

Say, is the field of rocketry suspect, as Wernher Von Braun was a Nazi? Or even Creationism, since they seem to quote him a bit on the subject of Creation/God's Plan. Why or why not?

But, allow me to play Devil's Advocate: let's say Hitler, himself, did scientific research and wrote Origin of the Species rather than Darwin. Would that refute a SINGLE bit of fossil evidence supporting common descent? Would all the genetic or geological or paleontological evidence supporting common descent disappear? Nope.

Science is separate from the person making the discoveries. If it turned out that Newton was a child molester (or was in some other way a moral degenerate or advocated the murder of Jews, or something similar), would gravity still work? Evolutionary Theory is far beyond the person of Darwin, just as gravity is beyond the person of Newton.

Take care. :smile:

[James]

Just something to ponder:

This is a bit politically off-topic for the thread, but as many of you may have noticed, most fundamentalists are politically conservative and most atheists are politically liberal.

I think that's actually a good indication that most atheists don't give a hoot about evolutionary theory outside the lab or classroom in that they certainly don't apply it as a system of ethics. Many Social Darwinists attempted to justify conservative politics like free-market capitalism through concepts like "survival of the fittest." This is not directly warranted by evolutionary theory, but it is a belief that competition will produce the "fittest" individuals in terms of wealth and productivity. These ideas are generally not found within liberal politics.

[TheFiveSolas]

Let's all try to temper our tempers during this period of heavy moderation.
Thanks,
Mgmt.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114792#post114792)
Joe Meert:

JM: YES, I have made them clear here. However, since you seem oblivious to what is going on around you, I will state them again. I am a Christian. NO, I do not follow the guidelines or requirements of TWEB, Dee-Dee, Socrates, Sarfati or Henry Morris, but those outlined by Jesus. If you can logically and cogently explain to me why the teachings of Socrates are more important that Jesus, then perhaps you can start your own cult. I won't join.

Since Meert is so big on claiming that Hitler was a Christian, one must wonder how meaningful his own claim to be a Christian is. If Meert follows the teachings of Jesus, one must ask , "Which Jesus?" I've detected not the slightest resemblance to the true Jesus revealed in the New Testament, who said "Scripture cannot be broken". :read:

The TWeb guidelines are very fair, and hardly restrict Christians just to YECs!


JM: I show contempt for people who try to force me to believe their narrow interpretation of the bible.

No one's forcing you do believe anything, but we will continue to point out that the YEC view is the historic one of Christendom. :dufus:


JM: Hitler himself claimed to follow Christianity.

:whack: And now Meert is doing the same. Get it? :poke:

[Mandalorious]

about Darwin's alleged "racism":
From Darwin's "Descent of Man" published in 1871, a dozen years after "Origin":



"But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." (you do realize that all people thought like the first part of the last sentence above in Darwin’s time, but it’s Darwin’s observations that led him to say "it is hardly possible to discover distinictive character between them."



Does this sound like a racist?


"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies being extended to men of all nations and races."
Charles Darwin, 1872, The Descent of Man and Selection in
Relation to Sex (2nd.ed., 1901:187-8).


If Darwin's "racism" was to have come from evolution, then why did he hold the views quoted above then? The only reason Darwin was "racist" was because those were the views of everyone around that time in England. (that and the fact he was, well, British! :poke:)

Something that is not often mentioned, is that by our standards today Darwin would have been called a racist, but for HIS time, he was a moderate!

Perhaps you should look at the "beam in your own eye" before you comment on "evolutionists" racism.
See: That TO's Richard Trott has this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html#trott) to say about actual creationist racism, though of course they try to dodge it:
From Morris's The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148:


"The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.
The Hamites have been the great 'servants' of mankind in the following ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans, cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types of structural forms and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce and trade--money, banks, postal systems, etc.--were invented by them; (8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, movable type, and other accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people. Truly they have been the 'servants' of mankind in a most amazing way.

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."

Something that Bob Jones University could have learned from; you remember that they used to oppose "interracial dating"? From looking at their web site, they are NOT some "compromising to evolutionist" college either! :smile:



Now, on to Hitler:
For where Hitler himself gives credit for his anti-semitic views, you should have a look in the book he wrote:


"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party ... The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times ... How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."
Hitler, Mein Kampf: Volume 1, Chapter 2.
So, there you have Hitler himself said he got his ideas from some xian minister, NOT from "the origin of species" or whatnot. How exactly can you blame his attitude on him being an "evolutionist"?






"Kertzer's book refutes the Church's thesis that the Holocaust grew out of "an anti-Judaism that was essentially more sociological and political than religious." In fact, Kertzer asserts, those dimensions of European anti-Semitism developed "in no small part due to the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church itself." The racial laws of fascist Italy and the Nuremberg Laws of 1930s Germany, for example, were directly modeled on the Church's own rules governing treatment of Jews: until the collapse of the Papal States in the late 19th century, Jews living in these territories were forced to wear yellow badges and live in ghettos. Kertzer's arguments make for compelling reading because they're presented in story form, based on the actions of the popes themselves. Access to long-sealed Church archives allowed Kertzer to reconstruct some of the most shocking, secret conversations that occurred in the Vatican in the decades leading up to World War II"
from: The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism
by David I. Kertzer (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375406239/ref=pd_sim_books_1/102-4900343-0184954?v=glance&s=books)





"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
Mein Kampf: Volume 1, Chapter 11.

You may find this site interesting, in relation to the book "Table Talk" used by xians to claim that Hitler was against xianity. See here (http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm)


"The table talk has Hitler saying such things such as: "Christianity is an invention of sick brains...," "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death."

But those that argue against Hitler's Christianity fail to see that Christianity comes in many forms, two of which consist as: a belief system held by Christians, and organized religion. It was the latter, organized Christianity, that Hitler spoke against (just as many Christians do today). Not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.

4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity."



From one of Hitler’s speeches:


"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922 [Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]
From one of hitler's speeches (http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm)



As for the protestant (and AIG's hero) Martin Luther:


Julius Streicher (one of Hitler's top henchmen and publisher of the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer) was asked during the Nuremberg trials if there were any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way., Streicher put it well:
"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."
Web site (http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm) where the following book was referenced:
Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945-- 1 October 1946, Vol. 12, p.318



It wasn't evolution so much as a twisted form of christianity that Hitler used:


"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."
Mein Kampf Volume 1, Chapter 9.




"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
Mein Kampf: Volume 1, Chapter 11.



Please note, all the protestations that Hitler "used" christianity while likely true, still pose a problem for christians: If christianity was supposed to be "non-racist" then why did Hitler feel he could suck up to the christian people at the same time spewing his anti-semitic views? Why did he in fact give the "credit" for his anti-semitic views to a christian preacher instead of "evolutionism"?

Bottom line: it was the CENTURIES of christian abuses and demonization of the jewish people that laid the groundwork for this, not "darwinism" which had been around only about a 100 years or so!


"Everything Hitler did to the Jews, all the horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches....The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people-Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas."
Dagobert Runes' books: "The Jew and the Cross" and "The War Against the Jew" by Philosophical Library, New York.





"Theologian Clark Williamson of Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, said centuries of Christian hostility to Jews "prepared the way for the Holocaust" he said the Nazis "are inconcievable apart from this Christian tradition. Hitler's pogrom, for all its distinctiveness, is the zenith of a long Christian heritage of teaching and practice against Jews".


"Theologian Richard Rubenstein wrote that the Nazis "did not invent a new villain...They took over the 2,000-year-old Christian trdition of the Jew as villain...The roots of the death camps must be sought in the mythic structure of Christianity...Myths concerning the demonological role of the Jews have been operative in Christianity for centuries..."
p. 159-160 "Holy Horrors" by James A. Haught. The books from which the above guys were quoted from:
"After Auschwitz: Religion and the Origins of the Death Camps." Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind., 1966
"Has God Rejected His People? Anti-Judaism in the Christian Church", Abingdon, Nashville, Tenn. 1982


An interesting note: in the original Mein Kampf Hitler once referred to the earth being only "thousands" of years old, but in a later edition, it was changed to "millions"

"[. . .] this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men." p 65

Not that it matters, his anti-semitism was fully developed by the first edition!


Then there is this:
A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces. [AP, 1933]
Associated Press, Feb. 23, 1933. Hitler aims blow at 'Godless' move, Lansing State Journal (Lansing, Michigan).
<~~for those who claim that Hiter was a "consistent evolutionist".

Given what Darwin said at the beginning of this, how can it be said that anti-semitism was "consistent with evolution"??

Even "superman" Neitzche was NOT anti-semitic. It turns out the people he hated were the Germans!

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114863#post114863)
Mandalorious:

See: That TO's Richard Trott has this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html#trott) to say about actual creationist racism, though of course they try to dodge it:
From Morris's The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148:

I'm more interested in AiG's consistent total repudiation of racism www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp , and note that even Trott makes it clear that he does NOT believe that Morris is a vile racist. Alas he gave too much credence to the gap theorist Custance.


Something that Bob Jones University could have learned from; you remember that they used to oppose &quot;interracial dating&quot;? From looking at their web site, they are NOT some &quot;compromising to evolutionist&quot; college either! :smile:

No, they won't repudiate the gap theory as the unbiblical compromise it is.


You may find this site interesting, in relation to the book &quot;Table Talk&quot; used by xians to claim that Hitler was against xianity. See here (http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm)

Hardly reliable (as well as being from a pathetic atheistic site), since the Table Talk gave his franker views on Christianity when he no longer needed to curry favor with them.


As for the protestant (and AIG's hero) Martin Luther:

And since when did Protestantism stand or fall on Luther. As I've said, it stands on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. AiG also has affirmed those truths of Protestantism, but never the infallibility of Luther.


Web site (http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm) where the following book was referenced:
Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945-- 1 October 1946, Vol. 12, p.318.

Ah yes, Streicher, but the head prosecutor Jackson pointed out that ‘[Streicher] complained that Christian teachings have stood in the way of “racial solution of the Jewish question in Europe.”’ from transcript www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htm


It wasn't evolution so much as a twisted form of christianity that Hitler used:

And a twisted form is no form at all, since it had not the slightest relationship to Biblical Christianity. Rather, it was used only to suck up to Churchians. It's far more telling that Donovan at Nuremberg realised that all this was part of the Nazi aim to exterminate Christianity.


Please note, all the protestations that Hitler &quot;used&quot; christianity while likely true, still pose a problem for christians: If christianity was supposed to be &quot;non-racist&quot; then why did Hitler feel he could suck up to the christian people at the same time spewing his anti-semitic views? Why did he in fact give the &quot;credit&quot; for his anti-semitic views to a christian preacher instead of &quot;evolutionism&quot;?

Because the German church was badly infected by the cancer of liberalism. The leading liberal Adolf Harnack had previously got right behind the Kaiser, which was a major factor in Karl Barth's disgust with liberalism. Hah, and and this thread started with an accusation against an AiG scientist of "hate" for pointing out that Nazism sprang up in the birthplace of theological liberalism. :poke:


Bottom line: it was the CENTURIES of christian abuses and demonization of the jewish people that laid the groundwork for this, not &quot;darwinism&quot; which had been around only about a 100 years or so!

And your proof that these alleged abuses were CONSISTENT with Biblical Christianity is, what? One day an infidel might get the point, but I'm not holding my breath. :zzz:

[chickenman]

fivesolas apparently doesn't realise that evolution isn't the theory of everything, its a theory that describes biology

it has nothing to say about the existence of transcendent laws of logic

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yesterday @ 11:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114779#post114779)
Joe Meert:



JM: Thumb though the threads and you e-mail.

Cheers

Joe Meert


First, you never sent me an email that I recall saying any such thing. Second, I do not have to nebuloulsy "thumb through the threads." When someone asks me what I believe, I proclaim it from the housetops.

I see you said this here last page:


I am a Christian. NO, I do not follow the guidelines or requirements of TWEB, Dee-Dee, Socrates, Sarfati or Henry Morris, but those outlined by Jesus. If you can logically and cogently explain to me why the teachings of Socrates are more important that Jesus, then perhaps you can start your own cult. I won't join.


Have you read the statement of faith here before spouting? If you did you wouldn't have raised such red herrings as adding YEC into the mix since that is not an issue with the TWeb statement of faith as our leadership is not all YEC whatsoever. You knew that did't you? You did know as well that I part way significantly with YEC organizations on other issues such as prophecy?

So which essential of the faith do you deny?

The virgin birth?
The atonement?
The Trinity?
The Second Coming?
The bodily resurrection?
That the Scriptures are the final authorative source for doctrine?
The Final Judgment?

Which one is it that you deny that Jesus supposedly never taught? Just as going to a donut shop don't make you a police officer......

Since it is painfully obvious you have never read what I am referring to here is the link:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=missionstatement

Or how about this. I am an atheist. Oh no you don't, I am not going to buy into Joe Meert's narrow minded hogwash about what an atheist must be... nosirreee, I am a Bible-believing, YHWH worshipping atheist. I can redefine words as I see fit.

Joe, Orwell would be proud. Give yourself a hand. And I object to your cult characterization (and find it laugably ironic) and ask (as a poster) that you withdraw it. And Socrates (as a poster) I find some of the parallels drawn between Meert and Hitler because they both professed Christianity though we know Hitler was not, and suspect Meert is not, to be frankly very disturbing and inappropriate. I, as a fellow Christian, ask that you be very clear not to associate the two in that manner, it is slanderous.

If anyone has noticed I have withdrawn from any moderation of this thread as I am too totally entrenched in this debate to do so.

[Joe Meert]

Since Meert is so big on claiming that Hitler was a Christian, one must wonder how meaningful his own claim to be a Christian is. If Meert follows the teachings of Jesus, one must ask , &quot;Which Jesus?&quot; I've detected not the slightest resemblance to the true Jesus revealed in the New Testament, who said &quot;Scripture cannot be broken&quot;. :read:

The TWeb guidelines are very fair, and hardly restrict Christians just to YECs!



No one's forcing you do believe anything, but we will continue to point out that the YEC view is the historic one of Christendom. :dufus:



:whack: And now Meert is doing the same. Get it? :poke:

JM: Let's see. I tell you that I am no longer atheist or agnostic. I tell you tell you directly that I am a Christian and what is your response? You equate me to Hitler in a vain attempt to dismiss my Christianity. Thankfully, you are neither the judge nor the jury regarding my faith. Sorry Soc, your best arguments are all about ad-homs and if a few get tossed back at you, then you've more than earned them.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socrates]

Today @ 09:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114876#post114876)
Dee Dee Warren:

And Socrates (as a poster) I find some of the parallels drawn between Meert and Hitler because they both professed Christianity though we know Hitler was not, and suspect Meert is not, to be frankly very disturbing and inappropriate. I, as a fellow Christian, ask that you be very clear not to associate the two in that manner, it is slanderous.

The point was to hoist Meert by his own petard, NOT to assert that he is a Nazi. I.e. Meert, after trying a bit of slander of his own by his "Hitler was a Christian" nonsense, now agrees (I think) that merely because Hitler claimed to be a Christian, it doesn't mean he was one. Ergo, just because Meert claims to be a Christian, it doesn't mean we should accept him as one either. After all, Meert seems to accept none of the core doctrines of the faith, and still spends much time attacking biblical creation and dredging up tired old infidel attacks against the Bible.

[Joe Meert]

First, you never sent me an email that I recall saying any such thing. Second, I do not have to nebuloulsy &quot;thumb through the threads.&quot; When someone asks me what I believe, I proclaim it from the housetops.


It was sent to you on Tues May 27th at 8:45 pm. You responded at 8:55 pm. Would you like me to pm you copies of those e-mails?
Lastly, if you read my posts, I claimed that Hitler claimed Christianity as the basis for his actions. I also made the point that no matter what motivation Hitler claimed, it was the proclamation of a wacko and has no bearing on WHATEVER claimed ideology he followed (works both for evolution or Christianity). Finally, my faith is not up for mockery here or anywhere else. I am a Christian and if that is not enough for you, then have at me all you want.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

The point was to hoist Meert by his own petard, NOT to assert that he is a Nazi. I.e. Meert, after trying a bit of slander of his own by his &quot;Hitler was a Christian&quot; nonsense, now agrees (I think) that merely because Hitler claimed to be a Christian, it doesn't mean he was one. Ergo, just because Meert claims to be a Christian, it doesn't mean we should accept him as one either. After all, Meert seems to accept none of the core doctrines of the faith, and still spends much time attacking biblical creation and dredging up tired old infidel attacks against the Bible.

JM: You did not succeed because the exact point of my post was to show that no matter what philosophy Hitler claimed, it was the claim of a wacko. That is true for linking Hitler to evolution as well. The sole purpose is to make an emotional appeal to the audience. An excellent debate tactic, but only if your opponent is incapable of pointing out the poor logic. All in all, the Hitler argument is a poor one for either side.

By the way, what does a supposed chemist know about Hutton? You are incorrect above. Hutton would be clearly and unequivocally classified as an old earth creationist. He saw the hand of God's design in the endless cycles he observed.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114920#post114920)
Joe Meert:

JM: You did not succeed because the exact point of my post was to show that no matter what philosophy Hitler claimed, it was the claims of a wacko.

He was a wacko, and that can be shown by showing the gross contradiction between his teachings and actions with Biblical Christianity.


That is true for linking Hitler to evolution as well.

But there was no such inconsistency with evolution.


Young earth creationism is nowhere a core doctrine of ANY faith.

Why not tell us what is, instead of your pathetic evasions?


By the way, what does a supposed chemist know about Hutton?

BTW, what does a supposed geologist know about Hitler?

[QUOTE]You are incorrect above.

A chemist is perfectly capable of reading Hutton's own words, which betrayed his a priori assumptions.


Hutton would be clearly and unequivocally classified as an old earth creationist. He saw the hand of God's design in the endless cycles he observed.

Sounds just like a typical Endarkenment deist.

[Joe Meert]

A chemist is perfectly capable of reading Hutton's own words, which betrayed his a priori assumptions.


JM: Likewise, a geologist is capable of reading Hitler's own words which also betrayed his a priori assumptions. However, you obviously have NOT read Huttons own words because he makes it clear that the Earth was designed by the creator and the processes he described were the handiwork of God. He was unequivocally an old-earth creationist. Here's a good summary of the misinterpretation you've applied to Hutton:


"James Hutton is best known for expanding our notion of the age of the Earth. His observations of geological strata that had been uplifted on edge and eroded away, and then capped with yet more layers, revealed the presence of whole other "worlds" before us. We could no longer measure the history of the planet in terms of ordinary human lifetimes, nor even in terms of the appearance and disappearance of great civilizations. We had to adopt a whole new, geological time scale.

For many, Hutton laid the foundation for dispelling religious misconceptions about a young Earth--especially as professed in some Christian traditions. Yet Hutton himself was a devout Christian. Moreover, his conclusions were strongly guided by his theology. Indeed, for Hutton, a beneficent Christian God was the major reason for believing that the world was extremely old. Somewhere, we have inverted the role of religion in Hutton's work.

Nowhere do we misinterpret Hutton more deeply than in the meaning of the closing image to his great geological work, The Theory of the Earth. Hutton concluded poetically that the Earth offered "no vestige of a beginning,--no prospect of an end." By today's reckoning, Hutton was asserting the unimaginably extended, "deep" time frame of an ancient Earth. But for Hutton, it was quite literal: he saw no beginning and no end to the Earth; the planet was timeless. Why?

For Hutton, the Earth was created by God especially for human habitation. As such the world was wisely self-perpetuating. Though humans might consume many vital elements, they were all replenished. As animals used oxygen, for example, plants regenerated it using the animal's carbon dioxide waste. Rain, so essential for human crops and other vegetation, was supplied continuously by a great cycling of water. Even coal was regenerated--by the burying and consolidation of plants that had captured energy from the sun (using the raw products of earlier coal combustion). Having inherited and managed two farms, Hutton also well appreciated how soil was lost through erosion. But soil, too, was renewed--through geological uplift and breakdown of rock. For Hutton, God had built a great "world machine"--in the Newtonian sense of a clockwork universe. The world was composed of great cycles--cycles without beginning or end. For Hutton, there was certainly no "evolution" in our sense of gradual, directional change. There were only great endless cycles. This view was also shared by Charles Lyell, who later popularized Hutton's "uniformitarian" view of geology that so influenced Darwin. (Lyell, though, never fully embraced Darwin's conclusions about the evolution of organisms, preferring a view of a steady-state world


Finally, my faith is not up for mockery here or anywhere else. I am a Christian and if that is not enough for you, then have at me all you want.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

The point was to hoist Meert by his own petard, NOT to assert that he is a Nazi. I.e. Meert, after trying a bit of slander of his own by his "Hitler was a Christian" nonsense, now agrees (I think) that merely because Hitler claimed to be a Christian, it doesn't mean he was one. Ergo, just because Meert claims to be a Christian, it doesn't mean we should accept him as one either. After all, Meert seems to accept none of the core doctrines of the faith, and still spends much time attacking biblical creation and dredging up tired old infidel attacks against the Bible.

I understood your point, but objected to the phrasing, and I believe my objection still stands. Hitler was so evil that it does not do to even have the appearance of equating anyone with him, that is all.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 08:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114919#post114919)
Joe Meert:



It was sent to you on Tues May 27th at 8:45 pm. You responded at 8:55 pm. Would you like me to pm you copies of those e-mails?

Yes.



Lastly, if you read my posts, I claimed that Hitler claimed Christianity as the basis for his actions. I also made the point that no matter what motivation Hitler claimed, it was the proclamation of a wacko and has no bearing on WHATEVER claimed ideology he followed (works both for evolution or Christianity).

If you read my posts, you will see that I objected to any linking of you with Hitler, and if you read TFS's notice you will see that he corrected Soc in saying that you did state that you do not believe Hitler was a genuine Christian. And I will get back to other thing (i.e. the consistency with evolution etc)


Finally, my faith is not up for mockery here or anywhere else.

Asking someone to define what they believe is not mockery. Do we mock prospective Moderators here when we ask them to read our Mission statement and inquire if they agree before acceptance into leadership? You have claimed to be a Christian, other than those words I have seen no evidence of it by profession, and words have meaning. And you are using it in a sense as a position of "authority" i.e. you are making it an issue by saying since you are a Christian you have a standing to comment on certain things. Fine... but in the same way that I was asked to verify Soc's professional credentials since he made them an issue, I am looking to see if you are a Christian as defined by the essentials of the faith. As far as mockery, it has been the faith of the YEC that has been held up for constant mockery and ridicule here, and hey that goes with the territory, but don't be so one-sided.

[Dee Dee Warren]

By the way, what does a supposed chemist know about Hutton?

Joe, I have no problem with this statement but I am just wondering why it is okay for you to say things like this, but it is utterly offensive if Soc does. I think it is perfectly okay for both of you to say things like this, it is just the inconsistency that is maddening.

[Joe Meert]

JM: When I get home this evening, I will do so.

[quote]If you read my posts, you will see that I objected to any linking of you with Hitler, and if you read TFS's notice you will see that he corrected Soc in saying that you did state that you do not believe Hitler was a genuine Christian. And I will get back to other thing (i.e. the consistency with evolution etc)

JM: Fine, I'd love to see someone justify it without falling into a reductio ad absurdum.


Asking someone to define what they believe is not mockery. Do we mock prospective Moderators here when we ask them to read our Mission statement and inquire if they agree before acceptance into leadership? You have claimed to be a Christian, other than those words I have seen no evidence of it by profession, and words have meaning. And you are using it in a sense as a position of &quot;authority&quot; i.e. you are making it an issue by saying since you are a Christian you have a standing to comment on certain things. Fine... but in the same way that I was asked to verify Soc's professional credentials since he made them an issue, I am looking to see if you are a Christian as defined by the essentials of the faith. As far as mockery, it has been the faith of the YEC that has been held up for constant mockery and ridicule here, and hey that goes with the territory, but don't be so one-sided.

JM: My faith is not open for debate, sorry. You can presume, assume and accuse me of whatever you want, but it makes no difference to me or God.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 11:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114995#post114995)
Dee Dee Warren:



Joe, I have no problem with this statement but I am just wondering why it is okay for you to say things like this, but it is utterly offensive if Soc does. I think it is perfectly okay for both of you to say things like this, it is just the inconsistency that is maddening.


JM: THAT IS EXACTLY the reason I said this. I wanted to make sure a moderator noticed it and equated it to Soc's behavior. Now that you have duly noted that this type of statement is ridiculous, I apologetically and respectfully withdraw my comment. Indeed, it is perfectly ok for a chemist to comment on Hutton or other aspects of geology. The remainder of my post, where I show that said chemist presented Hutton's views incorrectly stands.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 11:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114998#post114998)
Joe Meert:




Thank you but if it is just one saying you are a "Christian" I do not deny you sent that, it is one clarifying what you meant by that that I was inquiring abuot.



JM: Fine, I'd love to see someone justify it without falling into a reductio ad absurdum.

You're welcome Joe. I like how some are quick to find fault, but not so quick to thank when I came to your defense.



JM: My faith is not open for debate, sorry. You can presume, assume and accuse me of whatever you want, but it makes no difference to me or God.

I wasn't debating it, I was asking what you believe. From the little information that I have from what you posted here, you seem like a Deist, not a Christian by any historic definition. Words do have meaning and are important. It is perfectly Biblical for me to inquire about what you believe. The fact that you are reluctant to affirm the few things that bind all Christians together is speaking volumes right now.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

I wasn't debating it, I was asking what you believe. From the little information that I have from what you posted here, you seem like a Deist, not a Christian by any historic definition. Words do have meaning and are important. It is perfectly Biblical for me to inquire about what you believe. The fact that you are reluctant to affirm the few things that bind all Christians together is speaking volumes right now.


JM: By calling me a deist (which I am most assuredly NOT!) you are debating it.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Roy]

Today @ 11:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114876#post114876)
Dee Dee Warren:

The virgin birth?
The atonement?
The Trinity?
The Second Coming?
The bodily resurrection?
That the Scriptures are the final authorative source for doctrine?
The Final Judgment?

Which one is it that you deny that Jesus supposedly never taught?


Just a quibble - Jesus may have taught about scriptural authority, but if he did, he could hardly have meant the New Testament since it hadn't been written at the time...

Oh, and I can't find anywhere in the gospels where Jesus is quoted as referring to the virgin birth.




Or how about this. I am an atheist.


Yay!



Oh no you don't, I am not going to buy into Joe Meert's narrow minded hogwash about what an atheist must be... nosirreee, I am a Bible-believing, YHWH worshipping atheist. I can redefine words as I see fit.


Oh EBAM. *

The problem that those of us on the outside looking in have is that there are many diverse people who call themselves Christians, and who also frequently deny that the others are Christians, that it is hard to decide exactly who is right and who isn't.

Checking the bible doesn't help much either - apart from the fact that all the claimants use it to justify their own particular versions of Christianity, I keep finding texts like Mark-16:18, Luke-6:30 and Matthew-19:21, which don't seem to apply to any of the claimants.

Roy

*Hang on, last time I used a similar rhetorical device I was accused of hypocrisy!?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 11:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114995#post114995)
Dee Dee Warren:



Joe, I have no problem with this statement but I am just wondering why it is okay for you to say things like this, but it is utterly offensive if Soc does. I think it is perfectly okay for both of you to say things like this, it is just the inconsistency that is maddening.





Today @ 11:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115010#post115010)
Joe Meert:




JM: THAT IS EXACTLY the reason I said this. I wanted to make sure a moderator noticed it and equated it to Soc's behavior. Now that you have duly noted that this type of statement is ridiculous, I apologetically and respectfully withdraw my comment. Indeed, it is perfectly ok for a chemist to comment on Hutton or other aspects of geology. The remainder of my post, where I show that said chemist presented Hutton's views incorrectly stands.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Joe must you misrepresent my words? What part of I think it is perfectly okay for both of you to say things like this was unclear to you? I never noted that "this type of statement is ridiculous" so please withdraw that. I said no such thing, in fact I specifically said that I have no issue with either of you saying it. I think it is perfectly valid to point out that someone lacks expertise in a certain area, that does not mean they can never comment, but it does mean that they may not have the requisite kowledge in a specialized area. It is directly relevant, but please do not misrepresent my words.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115053#post115053)
rthearle:



Just a quibble - Jesus may have taught about scriptural authority, but if he did, he could hardly have meant the New Testament since it hadn't been written at the time...

Oh, and I can't find anywhere in the gospels where Jesus is quoted as referring to the virgin birth.

Quibble well taken, I was being very loose with my words there.


Oh EBAM. *

The problem that those of us on the outside looking in have is that there are many diverse people who call themselves Christians, and who also frequently deny that the others are Christians, that it is hard to decide exactly who is right and who isn't.

Difficult does not mean impossible, and does not mean that there is not a historic definition. I am inquirig as to what he believes since he has made it an issue, that is perfectly fair.


Checking the bible doesn't help much either - apart from the fact that all the claimants use it to justify their own particular versions of Christianity, I keep finding texts like Mark-16:18, Luke-6:30 and Matthew-19:21, which don't seem to apply to any of the claimants.

Irrelevant at this point to my inquiry to Meert.


ang on, last time I used a similar rhetorical device I was accused of hypocrisy!?

What are you talking about?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 08:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114914#post114914)
Socrates:
that merely because Hitler claimed to be a Christian, it doesn't mean he was oneHow many people who claim to be Christians fall under this category?

[Dee Dee Warren]

A lot Jimmy, a lot.

[Dee Dee Warren]

JM: By calling me a deist (which I am most assuredly NOT!) you are debating it.


I said what it appeared to me based upon limited information which is why I asked you for additional information which you have oddly refused to give.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115066#post115066)
Dee Dee Warren:

A lot Jimmy, a lot. Whats the basis for judging who really is and who just thinks they are a Christian?

[Roy]

Today @ 05:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115061#post115061)
Dee Dee Warren:

The problem that those of us on the outside looking in have is that there are many diverse people who call themselves Christians, and who also frequently deny that the others are Christians, that it is hard to decide exactly who is right and who isn't.

Difficult does not mean impossible, and does not mean that there is not a historic definition. I am inquirig as to what he believes since he has made it an issue, that is perfectly fair.


What historic definition? Again, AFAICT there are many different definitions of who is and isn't a Christian. I have no idea what Joe's beliefs are, if any, but from outside all I see are several people who claim to all be Christians but who don't agree what a Christian is and who are claiming that some of the others aren't.
It's all very confusing.




... Mark-16:18, Luke-6:30 and Matthew-19:21 ...


Irrelevant at this point to my inquiry to Meert.


Just forestalling the usual response to this sort of query.

(And maybe suggesting an objective test you can use on each other :smile:)

Roy

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115081#post115081)
rthearle:



Difficult does not mean impossible, and does not mean that there is not a historic definition. I am inquirig as to what he believes since he has made it an issue, that is perfectly fair.


What historic definition?


"Christian" means that you recognize Jews as a race rather than a religious/national group. Lying is good and useful, to a "Christian" (see Mein Kampf) A "Christian" doesn't mention Jesus often, and might tend to refer to God as "providence" or "Nature". A "Christian" recognizes the hand of God (or Nature) primarily in the laws of nature, such as the survival of the strongest in the providentially-mandated struggle for survival.

Rthearle, if you don't notice some satire above, then you would appear to adhere to the odd dictum that "all religions are basically the same" and we all might as well call everybody "Christian".

So, now that you're a Christian, what bad things have you done that we can blame on Christianity?
:wink:

[Joe Meert]

Joe must you misrepresent my words?

JM: Not at all, did not mean to do that. I just noticed that you were pointing out the hypocrisy of me making such a statement when I argue against Soc's use and got carried away. Sorry. Soc's constant jibes about what I am and am not qualified to speak about are nothing more than a rhetorical tool since he has no knowledge of my qualifications.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[DivineOb]

Today @ 05:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115086#post115086)
Captain Ochre:

Lying is good and useful, to a &quot;Christian&quot; (see Mein Kampf)

Martin Luther felt this way as well.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 12:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115066#post115066)
Dee Dee Warren:

A lot Jimmy, a lot.

Dee-Dee: Has God given you the authority to judge my faith? I don't believe so. Neither do I believe that anything of value can come from discussing my theological beliefs in this forum. If you want to start a thread "Is Meert a Christian?", then go ahead and debate to your hearts content.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 01:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115107#post115107)
Joe Meert:



Dee-Dee: Has God given you the authority to judge my faith? I don't believe so.

Well none of us have any idea what you believe except you believe you do not need to enlighten us. Apparently you only bring it up when convenient.


Neither do I believe that anything of value can come from discussing my theological beliefs in this forum.

You are the one who made it a point to declare several times that you are Christian. I saw no evidence of that in points you made, so I inquired further so as not to jump to conclusions. Christians generally are not afraid, embarassed, or reluctant to proclaim the doctrines that we hold so dear.



If you want to start a thread &quot;Is Meert a Christian?&quot;, then go ahead and debate to your hearts content.

You are the one making that declaration. Let me ask you, if I happen to think that my Spanish lawn maintenance man Jesus is the cat's meow, and decide to idolize and worship him, am I a Christian? I mean after all, his name is Jesus. Who are you to say that I am not? Words do have meaning.

[Joe Meert]

You are the one making that declaration. Let me ask you, if I happen to think that my Spanish lawn maintenance man Jesus is the cat's meow, and decide to idolize and worship him, am I a Christian? I mean after all, his name is Jesus. Who are you to say that I am not? Words do have meaning.

JM: Have you questioned every poster on this board regarding the details of their beliefs? If someone comes on here claiming to be a young earth creationist and a Christian, do you hound them with questions regarding their faith? I refuse to put my Christian faith in front of you and Soc for mockery. You can conclude whatever you wish from this post, but since my salvation does not depend one iota as to what you or Soc thinks, I believe I can live with your barbs.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115119#post115119)
Dee Dee Warren:
Well none of us have any idea what you believe except you believe you do not need to enlighten us. Apparently you only bring it up when convenient.This is strangely ironic in light of the whole Socrates' qualifications issue that has been raised here.

You are the one who made it a point to declare several times that you are Christian. I saw no evidence of that in points you made, so I inquired further so as not to jump to conclusions. Christians generally are not afraid, embarassed, or reluctant to proclaim the doctrines that we hold so dear.Most scientists shouldn't be afraid to give their credentials either. But a faith is much more personal to a person than academic credentials, so if one is willing to let it slide when someone doesn't want to say their credentials, shouldn't it equally be applied when someone doesn't want to expulge much more personal information?

[SLPx]

Today @ 08:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114848#post114848)
Socrates:



:whack: And now Meert is doing the same. Get it? :poke:


And yet all we have is Socrates' say-so that he is a true Christian. get it? :poke:

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113994#post113994)
Fedmahn Kassad:



And as SLP has pointed out, Henry Morris, the father of modern Creationism, also speaks of inferior races. Since you earlier said:

"Sherbear: Being the Father of Evolution, evolutionary teachings cannot help but incorporate that racism because it is such an major part of the original premises"

Then it is clear that being the Father of Creationism, Creationist teachings cannot help but incorporate that racism because it is such a major part of the original premises.

One thing to point out is that when Darwin was writing Origin of Species, technologically advanced Europeans were wiping out the natives in North America, Australia, and Africa. Darwin wasn’t merely speculating that this would happen, it was happening in his day. Nowhere does he condone it; he merely observes that it happens.

FK

What is that saying about petards and all that?



:cheers:

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 02:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114019#post114019)
Dee Dee Warren:

This thread/topic began because Jimmy had (I think very foolishly) stated that Dr. Sarfati’s papers were “full of hate.”

Well, I don't know if safarti's papers are "full of hate" - by papers, I assume we are referring to his AiG essays? I mean, he really doesn't have any "papers" the way scientists refer to them - but his book is littered with comically inept misinterpretations/misrepresentations and factual errors.

And by book I am referring to the small page size, large font very-long pamphlet-type thing that passes for a "book", "Refuting (sic) Evolution".

And yes, I can demonstrate this.

[Sher]

Today @ 03:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115183#post115183)
SLPx:

What is that saying about petards and all that?

You may want to read a bit futher where this was refuted.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115057#post115057)
Dee Dee Warren:

Joe must you misrepresent my words? What part of I think it is perfectly okay for both of you to say things like this was unclear to you? I never noted that &quot;this type of statement is ridiculous&quot; so please withdraw that. I said no such thing, in fact I specifically said that I have no issue with either of you saying it. I think it is perfectly valid to point out that someone lacks expertise in a certain area, that does not mean they can never comment, but it does mean that they may not have the requisite kowledge in a specialized area. It is directly relevant, but please do not misrepresent my words.

:rofl:

You got there first, Dee Dee ... I was going to say the same thing. Is this what passes for scholarship in your circles, Joe?

[Joe Meert]

You got there first, Dee Dee ... I was going to say the same thing. Is this what passes for scholarship in your circles, Joe?

JM: Did you miss my apology? Apparently so. Do you consider snippets posted in web-based debate forums a form of scholarship in your circles? It's interesting and enjoyable, but we all occasionally make mistakes and misinterpret what other people say. Are you suggesting that you never do such a thing?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Sher]

Today @ 02:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115147#post115147)
Joe Meert:

Have you questioned every poster on this board regarding the details of their beliefs? If someone comes on here claiming to be a young earth creationist and a Christian, do you hound them with questions regarding their faith? I refuse to put my Christian faith in front of you and Soc for mockery. You can conclude whatever you wish from this post, but since my salvation does not depend one iota as to what you or Soc thinks, I believe I can live with your barbs.

Yet, you should understand Joe, that Christians generally do not hide their Christianity unless they are ashamed of it. You asked Dee Dee to please forgive your mistake in posting in an area well-marked as reserved for those believing in Creation ... and claim Christianity as your own ... and if you are going to jump into the fray regarding Hitler being a Christian ... and affirming that you are a Christian, with the Scriptural backing to make that judgement ... deciding who is a brother or not ... asking for a simple show of what Christianity means to you is warranted.

We are not asking if you went to church last Sunday ... or if you sing out loud or simply mouth the words when you praise and worship ... but what tenets you think a Christian must hold to that define him/her as a Christian. All Christians have their own "statement of faith" ... and this shows others if what that person believes is in line with what Scriptures show ... the difference between someone claiming the name of Christ ... or actually being a Christian ... being able to judge that of others ... even in retrospect of history.

I've seen a lot of claims on here about Creation scientists not being "true" scientists ... there is a new thread today started by Minnesota that asks this very thing ... so turn about is fair play.

So ... you claim Hitler is a Christian ... Define what being a Christian means to you ...

~Sherry, who laughs at the hypocrisy of those who ridicule "true Christians" as being a fallacy ... yet, do not ridicule those who make similar claims about "true scientists"

[Sher]

Today @ 04:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115192#post115192)
Joe Meert:

JM: Did you miss my apology? Apparently so.

Yes ... you're right ... I missed the apology for misrepresenting Dee Dee's words in the midst of the "justification" of others doing it first.


Do you consider snippets posted in web-based debate forums a form of scholarship in your circles? It's interesting and enjoyable, but we all occasionally make mistakes and misinterpret what other people say. Are you suggesting that you never do such a thing?

Nope ... never suggested that at all ... just didn't see the apology.

... and as you can see, I was in the midst of a longer post ... and the "snippet" was unrelated to that post, so it was separated.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115200#post115200)
SherBear:
So ... you claim Hitler is a Christian ... Define what being a Christian means to you ... Hitler thought he was a Christian. Rudolph thought he was a Christian. When are saying Hitler was a Christian, it doesn't mean he was a very good one, of those who are so quick to pointout Stalin was an atheist.

[$cirisme]

~Sherry, who laughs at the hypocrisy of those who ridicule "true Christians" as being a fallacy ... yet, do not ridicule those who make similar claims about "true scientists"

An excellent point. Have some pearls.

[Joe Meert]

We are not asking if you went to church last Sunday ... or if you sing out loud or simply mouth the words when you praise and worship ... but what tenets you think a Christian must hold to that define him/her as a Christian.

JM: I would not define a Christian by those terms either.


So ... you claim Hitler is a Christian ...

JM: No, I said that Hitler claimed he was a Christian. If you followed the argument, you also saw where I pointed out that Hitler was a wacko claiming Christian principles to justify homicide. And no, I don't think that's what a Christian is either. My Christianity is not up for debate, sorry. You can join Dee-Dee and Soc in making innuendos and calling me anything other than a Christian if you like (e.g. deist, atheist, agnostic). However, my salvation does not depend on what you think either.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[TheFiveSolas]

Here is AiG's Dr. Don Batten's reply to a critic who brought up very similar argument to the ones being put forward by TWeb's atheists/evolutionists.



Mr Babinksi,

All forms of racism are evil, but only a revelationist such as a Christian has a logical basis for such a moral judgment. From your writings I take it that you are a materialist. A materialist believes that there is no Creator who gave moral laws, and that concepts of morality are ultimately the outcome of the countless accidental rearrangements of chemicals that created our brain, which then plays tricks on us to make us think there are absolutes such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, because this in some way furthers ‘evolution’. Former atheist C.S. Lewis pointed out long ago the philosophical futility of materialists trusting their thoughts, which are ultimately the illusions perpetrated on them by a cosmic accident.

We have passed on your comments to the author of the article, Dr Bergman, who is not a part of AiG, so he is under no obligation (from us) to respond to your comments. However, he may see fit to respond to you in detail.

You have read one article in isolation; an article dealing with a specific issue (how Darwinian thinking gave succour to Hitler). And it is not just Dr Bergman, a Christian, who has connected Hitler to Darwinism. Candid evolutionists who are not Christians have recognized the connection between Nazism and / or racism and evolutionary thinking. Two that come to mind are Sir Arthur Keith and (more recently) Dr Stephen Jay Gould.

Our Web site has quite a bit of material on racism, including ‘Christian’ racism. The book we published, One Blood, was written primarily to challenge Christians / church-goers to abandon racist notions. If you would read other articles on our web site about racism you will see that we recognize that racism did not begin with Darwin. However, as Gould recognized, evolutionary thinking certainly gave impetus to racist notions, giving it a ’scientific’ basis. When an idea has been given ‘scientific’ status / authority in the last 200 years, that idea has taken on much greater powers of persuasion. Whether that ‘scientific’ imprimatur was justified with what we now know is a different issue. The point that Dr Bergman makes is that claims of a scientific basis, based on the writings of scientists who were Darwinists, and who drew their inspiration from Darwinism, who thought in an evolutionary manner, gave succour to Hitler and the Holocaust. That is indisputable.

Yes, Luther’s unbiblical ideas about the Jews (which was a part of the State Church corruption that he did not manage to recognize, but then one man can only do so much!) was a factor in German thinking, but there was no Holocaust until over 400 years after Luther, when evolutionary ideas (‘science’) gave legitimacy to racism, eugenics, etc. The acceptance of evolution by the mainstream churches in Germany (the home of so-called ‘higher criticism’, which is merely evolutionary rationalism applied to the Bible) almost certainly helped pave the way for Hitler’s ideas. AiG of course campaigns in the churches against ‘Christianized’ evolution, which corrupts the church and destroys the moral voice of the Christian Church (as it did in Hitler’s day). We find that those who promote racist ideas in the church almost invariably do not accept the historicity of the Genesis account (if they did, they could not be racist, as we show in One Blood). By the way, there are some in the church who oppose ‘evolution’, but who still do not accept the straight-forward historicity of Genesis. Some of these people justify racist ideas by resorting to unbiblical concepts such as ‘pre-Adamic man’ as the source of ‘races’ they do not like.

I don’t know where you could get the idea that the Bible fosters anti-Semitism. You could not have studied the Bible at all to have this idea. Indeed the Bible, including the New Testament, was written by Jews. How could it be anti-Semitic!? Please read Romans 9–11, for example, written by the Apostle Paul (himself a Jew). And of course Jesus Himself was Jewish! We have also addressed such charges in the sub-article Alleged Antisemitism in the New Testament, and also address it in the article Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern: Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man!. Significantly, the AiG scientist who wrote these articles is himself Jewish, and it’s hardly likely that he would work for a Bible-upholding organization if the Bible really were anti-Semitic. Many Popes have been anti-Semitic, but they did not get this from the Bible. Indeed, they were not too concerned about what the Bible taught (many people were burned at the stake for daring to want to read the Bible for themselves, such was the fear of the Church of Rome regarding the Bible’s teaching). The Reformation was needed because the Church of Rome was corrupt. Unfortunately, some of the errors of that day still persist even in some ‘Protestant’ churches (e.g. anti-Semitism and the treatment of church leaders as Priest-like authorities).

With regard to Dr Henry Morris’s views, you will have to take that up with him, although I think you have been rather unfair on him in lifting his words out of their context. Note that even the first Skeptics who cited this passage made it clear that Morris was not a virulent racist. It should be clear from all his writing, as opposed to out-of-context snippets like this, that Dr Morris is a staunch anti-racist. AiG does not necessarily agree with Dr Morris on everything, though we have a very high regard for him and his pioneering work in the area of creation / evolution and the authority of the Bible.

We have published material refuting the idea that today’s ‘Negroes’ (better: Black Africans) are descendants of Ham and therefore cursed in some way (e.g. in One Blood).

Dr Don Batten

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative4-9-2001.asp

[Sher]

Today @ 04:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115216#post115216)
Jimmy Higgins:

Hitler thought he was a Christian. Rudolph thought he was a Christian. When are saying Hitler was a Christian, it doesn't mean he was a very good one, of those who are so quick to pointout Stalin was an atheist.

That hardly answers my question, Jimmy.


===

/ot Thanks Cir! :smile: (but I thought you were trying to beat Boom?)

[Sher]

Today @ 04:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115222#post115222)
Joe Meert:

JM: I would not define a Christian by those terms either.

Neither would I ... but that wasn't my point ... my point there was privacy issues ... not invading your privacy for specifics ... just asking for your definition of what a Christian is and/or is not ... thus far not provided.


JM: No, I said that Hitler claimed he was a Christian. If you followed the argument, you also saw where I pointed out that Hitler was a wacko claiming Christian principles to justify homicide. And no, I don't think that's what a Christian is either. My Christianity is not up for debate, sorry. You can join Dee-Dee and Soc in making innuendos and calling me anything other than a Christian if you like (e.g. deist, atheist, agnostic). However, my salvation does not depend on what you think either.

Now, Joe, I disagree with you on many things ... but I have not ever said that you are not a Christian. You've given no indication of what you believe a Christian to be ... so I can only say that you have claimed to be one ... not stated whether you are or aren't ... and I have not questioned your salvation ... you have misrepresented me because that word isn't even in my posts.

I am not looking to debate you on this either (again for the privacy issue), but I am asking for a general statement of what you think a Christian is ... just as others have asked for a definition of what a Creation Scientist is. You look to determine and argue against what others believe in the Science area on a regular basis ... now it is time for you to back up your statements with a definition of Christian belief.

[Joe Meert]

Now, Joe, I disagree with you on many things ... but I have not ever said that you are not a Christian. You've given no indication of what you believe a Christian to be ... so I can only say that you have claimed to be one ... not stated whether you are or aren't ... and I have not questioned your salvation ... you have misrepresented me because that word isn't even in my posts.

JM: Please re-read my post, I said YOU COULD JOIN Dee-Dee and Soc, not that you had!


I am not looking to debate you on this either (again for the privacy issue), but I am asking for a general statement of what you think a Christian is ... just as others have asked for a definition of what a Creation Scientist is. You look to determine and argue against what others believe in the Science area on a regular basis ... now it is time for you to back up your statements with a definition of Christian belief.

JM: No, it's not time for me to open up myself for ridicule on this forum. If you want to e-mail me and discuss this privately we can do so. I will implicitly trust you not to share the contents of that e-mail with anyone.

Cheers

Joe Meert

jmeert@geology.ufl.edu

[James]

Five Solas:

Check out my thread on Social Darwinism. I explain why racism is not a warranted or correct extrapolation of evolutionary theory. It is a fact that racists justified themselves with Social Darwinism. It is also a fact that the majority of these Social Darwinists were Anglo-Saxon Protestants who saw no conflict between racism and the Bible.

This points to the fact that racism has a completely separate cause from both Christianity and evolutionary theory, and that racists will use any means they can to justify racism.

[Sher]

Today @ 04:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115240#post115240)
Joe Meert:

JM: Please re-read my post, I said YOU COULD JOIN Dee-Dee and Soc, not that you had!

Actually you said, "You can join Dee-Dee and Soc in making innuendos and calling me anything other than a Christian if you like (e.g. deist, atheist, agnostic)" which gave the implication that I was now joining them in doing so (which I don't believe they have either, but that is a different subject).


JM: No, it's not time for me to open up myself for ridicule on this forum. If you want to e-mail me and discuss this privately we can do so. I will implicitly trust you not to share the contents of that e-mail with anyone.

Thanks, but I am not interested in a private conversation with you on this, Joe, because you have made public statements regarding Christianity ... and if you do not wish to back them up publically, for whatever reason, that is of course your choice. I was not looking to ridicule you ... but rather ascertain what your defiinition of a Christian was ... so we can understand your reasoning here.

[Joe Meert]

Actually you said, &quot;You can join Dee-Dee and Soc in making innuendos and calling me anything other than a Christian if you like (e.g. deist, atheist, agnostic)&quot; which gave the implication that I was now joining them in doing so (which I don't believe they have either, but that is a different subject).

JM: Right, I never said you called me one. However, Dee-Dee has referred to me as a deist and Soc has called me an atheist and an agnostic repeatedly even after I corrected him.



Thanks, but I am not interested in a private conversation with you on this, Joe

JM: I figured as much.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Sher]

Today @ 05:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115257#post115257)
Joe Meert:

JM: Right, I never said you called me one. However, Dee-Dee has referred to me as a deist and Soc has called me an atheist and an agnostic repeatedly even after I corrected him.

I'll let you take that up with them then.


JM: I figured as much.

Yes ... anyone who "knows" me around here knows that I value my privacy, including not sharing my email unless I know and trust the other person. I would be willing to talk to you in PM if you wish ... but that will not resolve the public issue you have presented here ... Again, though, that is your right to not back it up for your own reasons.

[Joe Meert]

Yes ... anyone who &quot;knows&quot; me around here knows that I value my privacy,

JM: On this topic, and in this venue, I also value my privacy on the issue.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 05:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115257#post115257)
Joe Meert:



JM: Right, I never said you called me one. However, Dee-Dee has referred to me as a deist and Soc has called me an atheist and an agnostic repeatedly even after I corrected him.


Are you dizzy after that spin Joe? I never said you WERE one, I said you appeared to be one, and asked for further clarification so that I could make an informed judgment. Merely claiming something don't make it so. You conceded as much with Hitler AND I AM NOT TRYING BY ANY MEANS TO ASSOCIATE YOU WITH HITLER!!! but even you said that he was no Christian. So you apparently agree that one can say one thing and be another. Your words to me did not support what you said, so I asked for clarification so that I was NOT making an uninformed decision.

If you do not wish to speak further that is totally your right, but then again it is totally my right to not take an unsupported assertion at face value, as many here would not take Soc's assertion that he had scientific qualifications at face value, but wanted me to independently verify such fact.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115186#post115186)
SLPx:



Well, I don't know if safarti's papers are &quot;full of hate&quot; - by papers, I assume we are referring to his AiG essays? I mean, he really doesn't have any &quot;papers&quot; the way scientists refer to them - but his book is littered with comically inept misinterpretations/misrepresentations and factual errors.

And by book I am referring to the small page size, large font very-long pamphlet-type thing that passes for a &quot;book&quot;, &quot;Refuting (sic) Evolution&quot;.

And yes, I can demonstrate this.

That would be a different thread. This one is about HATE.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 01:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115094#post115094)
Joe Meert:



JM: Not at all, did not mean to do that. I just noticed that you were pointing out the hypocrisy of me making such a statement when I argue against Soc's use and got carried away. Sorry. Soc's constant jibes about what I am and am not qualified to speak about are nothing more than a rhetorical tool since he has no knowledge of my qualifications.

Cheers

Joe Meert


Bold-faced (and I say calculated since there is no way that you could have misunderstood me) misrepresenation is getting "carried away"? You outright misrepresented me, and you did not "apologize" which I would like you to do. You self-justified yourself. And funny, for all the bellyaching over someone using their own qualifications, you are trying the tactic of being silent of your qualifications as a de facto way of being able to implicitly claim qualification in every field under the sun!!! Nice move. You are claiming qualification by default!!!

PS: I am still waiting for the PM of the email where you explained to me your beliefs or you pointing me to where I could "thumb through the threads" to get that answer. You were being cagey there weren't you?

[Sher]

Today @ 06:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115343#post115343)
Dee Dee Warren:

And funny, for all the bellyaching over someone using their own qualifications, you are trying the tactic of being silent of your qualifications as a de facto way of being able to implicitly claim qualification in every field under the sun!!!

This is a good point, Dee Dee.

Another point ... that is slightly off topic

... but related because this discussion with Joe reminded me of it

... is that I have noticed in the past that some of those that have yelled loudest against privacy and pseudonyms

... have clammed up ignoring the topic or suddenly wanted to take it to PM/email

... and it is usually over things that were very publically presented by them in the first place.

It is one thing if someone wants privacy and is consistant in that mindset ...

... for whatever good reason they have (for me, it's a safety issue)

... quite another to be outspoken against it

... until it pretains to them.

[Joe Meert]

And funny, for all the bellyaching over someone using their own qualifications, you are trying the tactic of being silent of your qualifications as a de facto way of being able to implicitly claim qualification in every field under the sun!!! Nice move. You are claiming qualification by default!!!

JM: I think the only two 'qualifications' I've claimed is that I am a geologist and a Christian. I've merely asked anyone who claims unequivocally that I am not qualified to speak on a topic to provide evidence that their claims are true. An assertion that I am not qualified because you disagree with me is not evidence.


PS: I am still waiting for the PM of the email where you explained to me your beliefs or you pointing me to where I could &quot;thumb through the threads&quot; to get that answer. You were being cagey there weren't you?

JM: You told me that if it was the e-mail where I told you I was a Christian, you did not want to see it, so what's the point in sending it? Everything is not a big conspiracy. I had e-mailed you stating that I was a Christian. Apparently, according to your standards that is not enough. That makes no difference to me since my soul is not in your hands.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 09:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115519#post115519)
Joe Meert:

JM: You told me that if it was the e-mail where I told you I was a Christian, you did not want to see it, so what's the point in sending it? Everything is not a big conspiracy. I had e-mailed you stating that I was a Christian. Apparently, according to your standards that is not enough. That makes no difference to me since my soul is not in your hands.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Joe you are either being cagey or not particularly honest.... let me refresh your memory. This is the original post:




Where? I am not saying you have not, I just have not seen it but I don't get to read as much as I would like to. I recall asking you if you agree with the essentials of the historic Christian faith as articulated in TWeb's mission statement.

JM: Thumb though the threads and you e-mail.

Cheers

Joe Meert
[/quote]

The context of my inquiry was I recall asking you if you agree with the essentials of the historic Christian faith as articulated in TWeb's mission statement. To which you responded for me to check my email or thumb through the threads. I would not an email to see your nebulous "I am a Christian" claim since you already made that on the thread. Get real Joe, your games are tiresome.

[Joe Meert]

... have clammed up ignoring the topic or suddenly wanted to take it to PM/email


I have been consistent on both topics. I use my real name. My faith is my personal faith and it needs no validation from anyone on this board nor is it open for debate. However, I have also noted that if you are truly interested then you can e-mail me and we can have a private discussion on the matter. This requires that you express trust that I won't abuse your e-mail and in turn I trust that you won't open my faith to debate on this board. You turned the offer down and I respect that. I ask that you do the same and drop the questioning of my faith.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Sher]

Today @ 09:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115529#post115529)
Joe Meert:


I have been consistent on both topics. I use my real name. My faith is my personal faith and it needs no validation from anyone on this board nor is it open for debate. However, I have also noted that if you are truly interested then you can e-mail me and we can have a private discussion on the matter. This requires that you express trust that I won't abuse your e-mail and in turn I trust that you won't open my faith to debate on this board. You turned the offer down and I respect that. I ask that you do the same and drop the questioning of my faith.

Feeling culpable, Joe? :huh:

I didn't say you in particular ... just that this discussion reminded me of similar issues.

I said "but related because this discussion with Joe reminded me of it ... is that I have noticed in the past that some of those that have yelled loudest against privacy and pseudonyms ... have clammed up ignoring the topic or suddenly wanted to take it to PM/email"

And I never said it had anything to do with "trust that [ you ] won't abuse [my] e-mail " ... but rather that the ISP provides information I'd rather not relate to people I don't know.

[Joe Meert]

The context of my inquiry was I recall asking you if you agree with the essentials of the historic Christian faith as articulated in TWeb's mission statement. To which you responded for me to check my email or thumb through the threads. I would not an email to see your nebulous &quot;I am a Christian&quot; claim since you already made that on the thread. Get real Joe, your games are tiresome.

JM: So are yours. You are trying to trick me into publicly revealing the details of my faith. I've politely refused and will continue to politely refuse because I don't want my faith debated on this website. I understand that you do not accept my statement that I am a Christian. That's your perogative and I am not interested in debating it further. The offer I made to Sher is also made to you. I would be happy to discuss this with you privately with your promise that none of the discussion is repeated to anyone, anywhere unless I give approval.


Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 09:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115532#post115532)
SherBear:



Feeling culpable, Joe?


JM: Everything is not a conspiracy. I was giving you evidence to the contrary from my perspective.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 09:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115533#post115533)
Joe Meert:



JM: So are yours. You are trying to trick me into publicly revealing the details of my faith.

Please provide evidence of that, thank you. I provided evidence of where you were cagey and left the impression that you answered my question by email or on another thread which you did not.



I've politely refused and will continue to politely refuse because I don't want my faith debated on this website. I understand that you do not accept my statement that I am a Christian. That's your perogative and I am not interested in debating it further.

No problem, then don't make it an issue. I hope you accept my statement that I am an atheist.


The offer I made to Sher is also made to you. I would be happy to discuss this with you privately with your promise that none of the discussion is repeated to anyone, anywhere unless I give approval.

Email me then the answer to the question I was originally asking. However... if you do so, I will not reveal the particulars, but I will not keep silent about my assessment (without revealing particulars) about whether or not you accept the essentials IF it ever becomes an issue again. It may not. And I also would not keep silent about affirming that you accept the essentials IF it ever becomes an issue. If you can accept that, email me the answer.


Cheers

Joe Meert [/QUOTE]

[Sher]

Today @ 09:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115535#post115535)
Joe Meert:

JM: Everything is not a conspiracy. I was giving you evidence to the contrary from my perspective.

I never said it was. However, you jumped in there as if I were personally condemning you.

But, if you want to bring your prespective into it ... giving evidence to the contrary ... I'll answer in kind.

You object very publically to TWeb privacy rules ... one objection you give is using background, cloaked under secrecy, to support positions publically, right? (Yes, I was lurking on that thread ... since it pertained to us.)

Now, to use myself as an example, since it invades no one's privacy but my own ...

I "hide" behind a fake name for privacy/safety reasons ... yet I use my experiences in home education to support my positions in those areas ... and I am willing to provide the tenets I support that go along with it, while continuing to maintain my anonymity.

However, you use your background in Christianity as a guideline here ... while hiding the details of that background ... which is in essence, self-promotion ... while "hiding" behind the claim of privacy.

Now, to me ... that would be fine, as I said I do it myself, and you are welcome to your privacy ... I only bring it up here because you have opened that door.

But to be so verbal about opposing privacy ... yet responding the way you do on this thread ... Well, that does fall under the weird double standard I was referring to above that we have seen previously.

[Joe Meert]

Email me then the answer to the question I was originally asking. However... if you do so, I will not reveal the particulars, but I will not keep silent about my assessment (without revealing particulars) about whether or not you accept the essentials IF it ever becomes an issue again.

JM: Who decides when it becomes an issue? Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that my Christianity is real if and only if you agree with my statement of faith. If someone tells me their religious viewpoint be it "I am a Christian" or "I am an atheist" then I do not take it upon myself to automatically question their statement because I happen to disagree with something they've written on a website. Maybe that's just a difference between us. I understand that my terms are not agreeable to you and I respectfully bow out of this thread.


Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 09:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115550#post115550)
Joe Meert:



JM: Who decides when it becomes an issue? Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that my Christianity is real if and only if you agree with my statement of faith. If someone tells me their religious viewpoint be it &quot;I am a Christian&quot; or &quot;I am an atheist&quot; then I do not take it upon myself to automatically question their statement because I happen to disagree with something they've written on a website. Maybe that's just a difference between us. I understand that my terms are not agreeable to you and I respectfully bow out of this thread.


Cheers

Joe Meert

It is an issue if you make it one, or if say at some point in the future there is a request to keep a thread to Christians only etc., then it would be an issue. I am just saying that as a leader I cannot waive my right to that determination by an email conversation. No need to bow out of this thread, we can get back on the direct topic.

[Joe Meert]

Email me then the answer to the question I was originally asking. However... if you do so, I will not reveal the particulars, but I will not keep silent about my assessment (without revealing particulars) about whether or not you accept the essentials IF it ever becomes an issue again.

JM: Who decides when it becomes an issue? Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that my Christianity is real if and only if you agree with my statement of faith. If someone tells me their religious viewpoint be it "I am a Christian" or "I am an atheist" then I do not take it upon myself to automatically question their statement because I happen to disagree with something they've written on a website nor can I establish what is in their hearts. Maybe that's just a difference between us. I understand that my terms are not agreeable to you and I respectfully bow out of this thread.


Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 09:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115559#post115559)
Joe Meert:



JM: Who decides when it becomes an issue?

Common sense.


Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that my Christianity is real if and only if you agree with my statement of faith.

If that makes you feel better about concealing what you believe (when Jesus proclaimed that we confess Him before men - and there are meanings to words), then have at it. I suppose I could be a Muslim Christian huh? So why wasn't Hitler a Christian? Are you saying he was not one because he did not agree with your narrow minded view of what a Christian is? How dare you!!



If someone tells me their religious viewpoint be it &quot;I am a Christian&quot; or &quot;I am an atheist&quot; then I do not take it upon myself to automatically question their statement because I happen to disagree with something they've written on a website nor can I establish what is in their hearts.

It wasn't automatic. Your words gave me good reason to question, because nothing you said gave any indication... but I am not going to to go on fruther as the point has been made, and we can move on to the main subject...

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115216#post115216)
Jimmy Higgins:

Hitler thought he was a Christian.

How would you know what he thought? Yes, like Meert he sometimes claimed to be a Christian when he wanted to curry favor with less discerning ones who thought that doctrines didn't matter. But he also made his anti-Christianity very clear in both his words once he was in power, and by his actions, as the Nuremberg trials showed.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 09:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115568#post115568)
Dee Dee Warren:

we can move on to the main subject...

Finally. Now, let's discuss this "Hilter" character. Who was he? What did he want? Where did he come from?

Note to moderators: Please don't change the title to "Hitler". Then my post will look stupid. :lol:

FK

[Dee Dee Warren]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 06:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115095#post115095)
DivineOb:



Martin Luther felt this way as well.

Feel free to cite your source, so that we can contrast the two men appropriately.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115053#post115053)
rthearle, replying to:


Dee Dee Warren:

The virgin birth?
The atonement?
The Trinity?
The Second Coming?
The bodily resurrection?
That the Scriptures are the final authorative source for doctrine?
The Final Judgment?

Which one is it that you deny that Jesus supposedly never taught?

Just a quibble - Jesus may have taught about scriptural authority, but if he did, he could hardly have meant the New Testament since it hadn't been written at the time...

Yes He did by implication, when He conferred authority on the Apostles to teach what He had commanded and to bind and loose.


Oh, and I can't find anywhere in the gospels where Jesus is quoted as referring to the virgin birth.

Again, it's implicit in Jesus's sharp reaction to charges that He was illegitimate (Mark 6:3, John 8:41).

And once again, DDW's list is a mainstream set of doctrines that the historic Church has accepted as essential for Christians to believe. It does NOT exclude non-YECs, for example.

Actually, for beginning Christians, I would probably simply restrict it to the Deity of Christ (which is what "Lord" meant in Romans 10:9-13 because it is connected to Joel 2:32), His death for our sins and his bodily resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If someone cannot even affirm these doctrines, I would have no hesitation about regarding that person as unsaved. And I would expect a Christian to mature quickly at least enough to accept those doctrines on DDW's list, otherwise I would question whether there was a true conversion.


Checking the bible doesn't help much either ...

Yes it should, provided that it is read in its grammatical and historical context, which biblioskeptics fail to do.


- apart from the fact that all the claimants use it to justify their own particular versions of Christianity,

Once more, these allegedly different versions of Christianity all agree on the core that DDW outlined above.


I keep finding texts like Mark-16:18,

That is a doubtful text as Jaltus has shown on the thread » Theology Wing » Biblical Exegesis » Is Mark 16:9-20 In the Original? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=106950#post106950)


... Luke-6:30 ...

How boring, another village atheist reading a passage divorced from its historical context -- see Do Luke 6:29-30 and Matthew 5:42 oblige us to give away all our stuff to anyone who asks? (http://www.tektonics.org/nekkid.html)


.... and Matthew-19:21, which don't seem to apply to any of the claimants.

:dunce: Of course not, because this was given to one person only! :dufus: I.e. a person who claimed to be following the 1st Commandment but who idolized his wealth.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 10:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115601#post115601)
Socrates:


Again, it's implicit in Jesus's sharp reaction to charges that He was illegitimate (Mark 6:3, John 8:41).



Duh!!! I knew I wasn't too sharp this morning.... I had to fast for a blood test and it really weakened me all morning. Thanks for straightening me out there.

[Sher]

Today @ 10:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115601#post115601)
Socrates:

That is a doubtful text as Jaltus has shown on the thread » Theology Wing » Biblical Exegesis » Is Mark 16:9-20 In the Original? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=106950#post106950)

Actually, just quibble here (but I haven't been to that thread yet to comment) ... it is very possible that this is refering literally to those that would follow in the first century ...


Acts 28:3-6
3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 So when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, "No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet justice does not allow to live."
5 But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.
6 However, they were expecting that he would swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had looked for a long time and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

But that belongs in a different thread.

[Sher]

Today @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115583#post115583)
Fedmahn Kassad:

Finally. Now, let's discuss this &quot;Hilter&quot; character. Who was he? What did he want? Where did he come from?

Note to moderators: Please don't change the title to &quot;Hitler&quot;. Then my post will look stupid. :lol:

FK

:lol:

Sher, who wished she had Mod power in this thread just for 30 seconds ... :teeth:

[Mandalorious]

Yesterday @ 11:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114873#post114873)
Socrates:



I'm more interested in AiG's consistent total repudiation of racism www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp , and note that even Trott makes it clear that he does NOT believe that Morris is a vile racist. Alas he gave too much credence to the gap theorist Custance.I’m more interested in the fact that you’ve ignored the fact that Darwin himself repudiated slavery and that he did not think that one could really sub-divide humanity into “races”, while you people keep saying that racism is consistent with evolutionary theory? I’m also interested in the fact that it was “christian” europe who for centuries before Darwin came along, advocated slavery and wiped out many other people (like the N. American natives) because they thought that the natives were of the devil or some such thing. See: American Holocaust (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195085574/qid=1054605845/sr=1-35/ref=sr_1_35/104-8212151-5839161?v=glance&s=books ) by Stannard, and especially The Arrogance of Faith (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394579933/qid=1054606009/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8212151-5839161?v=glance&s=books). This “consistency” you speak of, seems relatively recent to me! It’s easy to be consistently against something bad when all of society recognizes something as bad. How consistently did christians oppose slavery and racism since the beginning? That’s the question. For a clue or two, check out the two books I just mentioned!

Now, back to Morris. Face it, if any “evolutionist” had said the stuff Morris did, he’d be nailed for it. Darwin in fact never said stuff like that, and creationists accuse him of being racist anyway! When the guy said that Morris was not a racist in his “heart of hearts” he did say:


Morris concludes that this is not racist by invoking a strange definition of racism. Somehow, if other human beings are responsible for the plight of a group of people, that is racism; however, if someone (such as Morris) believes that a general line of people (such as the Hamites) are "possessed of a genetic character" that makes them innately less "intellectual," "philosophical," and "religious" than the other approximately two thirds of humanity, this is not racism. Morris, for additional mitigation, couples this with an allowance for individual exceptions. <~~Go ahead, Socrates. Explain why a creationist that says this stuff is NOT racist, while any “evolutionist” who’d say something like that is a racist (or at least has racist ideas!) .


In our conversation, Morris also made a big deal about individual exceptions to the prophecy. Of course, I am not concerned with whether or not Morris believes that there are exceptional individuals within each of the three genetic stocks; I am concerned with whether Morris believes that one of the three genetic stocks is, in general, intellectually, philosophically, and religiously lesser than the other two. The existence of exceptions to the prophecy does not address this issue.

Socrates has missed part of the statement where Trott says that Morris is not racist in his “heart of hearts”:

I should mention that I do not believe that Henry Morris is a vile racist in his heart of hearts. The real point of this exercise is to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the arguments of some creationists (including Dr. Morris) concerning evolution as the supposed root of racism. The argument of these creationists applies equally well (i.e., fallaciously) to creationism.


<~~Socrates quote below:


No, they won't repudiate the gap theory as the unbiblical compromise it is.<~~(he's referring to Bob Jones University who had a ban on "interracial dating") and my saying that they weren't a "liberal" christian college...~~

Ah. So, if just ONE slight difference from the official creed is enough so that you can distance yourselves from them completely, then I can point out that the “founders” of modern evolutionary thought like Darwin, repudiated slavery and did not see any real justification for dividing humans into separate “races” (a view that was confirmed by modern science) then I can say that all those who abused other people because of “race” were NOT “true evolutionists” since Darwin himself did not really believe in “races” and modern science has confirmed it. As you say: a “twisted form is no form at all”. Maybe now creationists will stop the old lie that racism is justified by evolution. But, of course, I won’t hold my breath.

<~~Socrates quote below, where he shows some of the "fruits of the spirit": joy, peace, or love. I'll let you decide which ones he demonstrates in the statment of his below:


Hardly reliable (as well as being from a pathetic atheistic site), since the Table Talk gave his franker views on Christianity when he no longer needed to curry favor with them.Too bad that Hitler himself did not do the construction of the book. If you’d bothered to read that site instead of making up names for it, you’d have found out that the guy who DID edit “Table Talk” did hate christianity. Also, you’ve never addressed any of the issues he brought up. Let me remind you then, with some bolding. Maybe that will help catch your attention this time around:

But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.

4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity." You need to do a lot better than name-calling to dismiss the facts, buddy. You have to deal with all four of the above issues if you’re going to dismiss Table Talk.





And since when did Protestantism stand or fall on Luther. As I've said, it stands on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. AiG also has affirmed those truths of Protestantism, but never the infallibility of Luther.<~~Socrates talking about Luther since I pointed out that Luther, a figure embraced by AIG as one of their own, was himself an anti-semite~~
And since when did evolutionary theory stand or fall on what Hitler did? Especially since NONE of the evolutionary “founding fathers” if you will, ever said anything against the jews, and the fact that Darwin himself didn’t see any reason to subdivide humanity into different races? Luther took and used christianity the same way that Hitler took evolution: a FALSE, twisted form of it that has NOTHING to do with the way either view was originally supposed to be. But since creationists love to say that Hitler was the way he was because of evolution, then we have little choice but to see this stupid game through. I should note that on the "Jews for Judaism" site, they have a section called "New Testament Anti-semitism" (mentioned linked to elswhere in this post!) So it would seem that to at least some small extent, "Sola Scriptura" did itself form some of the basis for anti-semitism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-nt.html) through the ages. It's known that Luther like to quote scripture in that regard...




Ah yes, Streicher, but the head prosecutor Jackson pointed out that ‘[Streicher] complained that Christian teachings have stood in the way of “racial solution of the Jewish question in Europe.”’ from transcript www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htmAnd that nullifies the fact that they got encouragement from the christian Martin Luther, how, exactly? Whether christians like it or not, the historical facts and centuries of bloodshed remain. If christians hadn’t hated the Jews first, nazism could never have arisen. Just see my last post, and more importantly, look at the sources that the “pathetic atheist site” used. I hate to have to point this out to a scholar of your obvious caliber, but the site master did NOT just pull his facts from thin air, you know.

Besides, what difference really does it make that the nazis were planning to “exterminate christianity”? That point would be valid only if every anti-semite had that as their goal. But, history shows that for centuries, christians were the ones killing jews. That’s what laid the groundwork for the nazi holocaust! That’s why they were had to “suck up” to the churchians, because christianity in europe was anti-semitic for centuries! The only difference is, that these new guys were more ambitious. At the end they wanted their own religious (not scientific ideology) in charge. You should note that the “christianity” that they were going to wipe out was christianity that helped them get into power in the first place! (ie. The “liberal christians”)!

Anyway, just because christianity would have been the next victim, (see below for Socrates' quote), does not absolve it from the way it acted for centuries. That’s dishonest.





And a twisted form is no form at all, since it had not the slightest relationship to Biblical Christianity. Rather, it was used only to suck up to Churchians. It's far more telling that Donovan at Nuremberg realised that all this was part of the Nazi aim to exterminate Christianity.Odd, the “Jews for Judaism” people see it quite differently. They have a whole series of questions dedicated to “New Testament Anti-Semitism” (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-nt.html ). I’d say that it’s rather telling that for hundreds of years it was “christ-believers” who were the enemies of judaism and the jewish people. Something that’s repeatedly brushed off by creationists!

Besides, why was there a need to “suck up to ‘Churchians’ ” in the first place?




Because the German church was badly infected by the cancer of liberalism. The leading liberal Adolf Harnack had previously got right behind the Kaiser, which was a major factor in Karl Barth's disgust with liberalism. Hah, and and this thread started with an accusation against an AiG scientist of &quot;hate&quot; for pointing out that Nazism sprang up in the birthplace of theological liberalism. :poke:Oh, thank you! "Liberalism"! THIS is why I brought up Martin Luther in the first place. He was the guy who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies.

The AIG people sure don’t consider him a “liberal”! See here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4067.asp) It’s quite clear that the AIG people consider Luther to be a good christian

Luther's words rejecting chance and mechanistically guided processes to explain man are as specific and clear as if he had read Darwin. In his comments on Genesis 1:6 he states, "Here we are taught about the beginning of man, that the first man did not come into existence by a process of generation as reason had deceived Aristotle and the philosophers into imagining."19 His clear rejection of any and all chance processes to explain the world, came from his observation that scripture has clearly ruled these explanations out. "Ungodly and wicked men, who suppose that everything happens by chance, understanding nothing in the Holy Scriptures and creatures of God."20 There can be little doubt that Luther was familiar with the classic basics of evolution. There can be no doubt that he thoroughly rejected them.

CREATION — CHRIST

The heart of Luther's objections to evolution can be found in his commitment to the Gospel.
[b]So, are you now going to say that Luther’s antisemitism, like those of the “churchians” was due to “cancer of liberalism”? For good measure, here’s another quote from that AIG article

Luther, after whom the Lutheran Church is named, would be saddened by the many theologians, educators and educational institutions bearing the name Lutheran which today propagate that which he despised‹evolution. The world should know that those "vulgar persons" who currently call themselves Lutheran, but accept theistic evolution, would get a good thrashing from Luther were he to catch up with them!Time to start looking for a new excuse, sir.


Which reminds me: from this AIG article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative4-9-2001.asp)

Yes, Luther’s unbiblical ideas about the Jews (which was a part of the State Church corruption that he did not manage to recognize, but then one man can only do so much!) was a factor in German thinking, but there was no Holocaust until over 400 years after Luther, when evolutionary ideas (‘science’) gave legitimacy to racism, eugenics, etc. The acceptance of evolution by the mainstream churches in Germany (the home of so-called ‘higher criticism’, which is merely evolutionary rationalism applied to the Bible) almost certainly helped pave the way for Hitler’s ideas.This is amusing. “one man can only do so much”! That’s amusing, given that Luther HELPED anti-semitism. He did not hinder it in any way. Far from “not managing to recognize” that anti-semitism was part of the “corruption”, he wound up contributing to it!! I also loved it when he said that the holocaust was 400 years later. So what? There were MANY other such “purges” well before nazism came along! Who are you going to blame for those? Yet again, see my previous post where Dagobert Runes has said:


"Everything Hitler did to the Jews, all the horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, [b]had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches....The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people-Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas."
Dagobert Runes' books: "The Jew and the Cross" and "The War Against the Jew" by Philosophical Library, New York.

Don’t you think that maybe, the christian church’s actions like this over several hundred years, may have had something to do with the nazi holocaust? After all, since it was done before in europe, what was so hard about making it happen again? Why focus on the last one? Is it because it’s only that last holocaust was the one that happened after evolutionary theory came out?

Guess what? Even if the Nazi holocaust was the ONLY one, which it wasn’t, there’s still the fact that the guy at the trial said that they got their inspiration from Luther. He still influenced them. What difference does the length of time make? After all, it’s been what, 2000 years, almost, since christ was on earth. Christians still claim to be influenced by him. Should we just say that’s NOT the case, simply because a lot of time has passed since christ was here?? Yet here AIG is, saying that since it’s 400 years after Luther, that he can’t be held responsible, even though the guy at the trial said Luther was!

Again, even if Streicher wasn't a "real christian", who thought christianity was an impediment, so what? That doesn't wash away the fact that Luther and other chrisitans though the ages have hated the jews! Remember what Dagobert Runes said: the church has been killing jews for centuries! Quoted earlier, I'll just mention some of it again:

The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people-Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas."





And your proof that these alleged abuses were CONSISTENT with Biblical Christianity is, what? One day an infidel might get the point, but I'm not holding my breath. :zzz: OK! Check out this Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-nt.html) page. You’ll note, that if you do a search on their site, when it comes to anti-semitism, it’s the New Testament, not “Origin of Species” that they noted was used for anti-semitism!

You may also want to re-read part of my last post where I pointed out that Hitler did use biblical passages:
See his speech again:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922 [Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]Here, it’s even bolded for you so you can see it this time…

While we’re at it then, let’s see some documentation from you that racism and anti-semitism is “consistent” with evolutionary theory given what we now know about Darwin’s claim (now backed by genetics) that one can not divide humanity into separate “races”!

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114977#post114977)
Joe Meert:

JM: Likewise, a geologist is capable of reading Hitler's own words which also betrayed his a priori assumptions. However, you obviously have NOT read Huttons own words because he makes it clear that the Earth was designed by the creator and the processes he described were the handiwork of God. He was unequivocally an old-earth creationist. Here's a good summary of the misinterpretation you've applied to Hutton:

Reference?


For many, Hutton laid the foundation for dispelling religious misconceptions about a young Earth--especially as professed in some Christian traditions. Yet Hutton himself was a devout Christian.

But Meert has himself agreed that not everyone who claims to be a Christian really was one, applying this to Hitler. And of course, anything Meert says about someone's Christianity is suspect as long as he affects to be a Christian yet refuses even to affirm the Deity of Christ and His bodily Resurrection from the Dead. And Hutton also seemed to have not the slightest use for bibical revelation.


For Hutton, God had built a great "world machine"--in the Newtonian sense of a clockwork universe. The world was composed of great cycles--cycles without beginning or end.

This is classic Endarkenment Deism, justified by appeal to Newton who himself was NOT a deist though.


For Hutton, there was certainly no "evolution" in our sense of gradual, directional change.

Hahah :whack: yet evolutionists on TWeb, including Meert, deny that evolution is direction and claim that this is merely a creationist distortion, and claim instead that evolution means only "change of gene frequency over time".:poke:


Finally, my faith is not up for mockery here or anywhere else. I am a Christian and if that is not enough for you, then have at me all you want.

Don't be so paranoid! Why would DDW or I mock you if you affirmed the core doctrines of the Christian faith as she outlined? I notice also that you could not contribute to the theists-only Cosmogony board.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115654#post115654)
Socrates:
Don't be so paranoid! Why would DDW or I mock you if you affirmed the core doctrines of the Christian faith as she outlined? I notice also that you could not contribute to the theists-only Cosmogony board. For a person that is so paranoid at giving his true identity and witnessing his academic record to us, you really seem to have no problem digging into a much more personal matter with someone else. If we are supposed to respect your anonymity, Socrates, perhaps you should start respecting other people's privacy. A person's religion, if they choose can be between themselves and God, or in this case for Meert, Christ.

Why can't this just be left alone? Socrates, you know that Christ is the judge, so perhaps you should put the gabble (sp?) down and let He who is in charge do the judging of faith!

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimmy,
I would point out that on a theological discussion board its a bit strange to not want to discuss what you believe theologically. If Dr. Meert's beliefs are such that he can't defend them or whatever his reason, then I'd recommend in the future that he choose a pseudonym.

In the meantime, anonymity/privacy as to a person's name, address, phone number, email, etc. is categorically different from their beliefs ABOUT other things such as who the person of Jesus was.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115669#post115669)
TheFiveSolas:
Jimmy,
I would point out that on a theological discussion board its a bit strange to not want to discuss what you believe theologically.I count 8 specific theological forums on this web board. This is a science forum.

If Dr. Meert's beliefs are such that he can't defend them or whatever his reason, then I'd recommend in the future that he choose a pseudonym.Why should he choose to use a pseudonym? Is Meert to expect that he will always be confronted on his faith in a science forum?

In the meantime, anonymity/privacy as to a person's name, address, phone number, email, etc. is categorically different from their beliefs ABOUT other things such as who the person of Jesus was. Does that include what college you go to, you degree, etc...? Socrates has asked for a large amount of anonymity which this web board has given to him. I don't see why this can't be passed along to Meert as well, especially seeing we are dealing with a personal matter with Meert, not merely a college degree with Socrates.

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimmy Higgins:
Why should he choose to use a pseudonym? Is Meert to expect that he will always be confronted on his faith in a science forum?


Um, he was the one to claim that he is a Christian, and also indicated that not all who profess Christianity are truly Christians (i.e., Hitler). So, the natural reaction to his claim was to ask what he believed. He has no one to thank but himself for the direction this issue took.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115675#post115675)
Jimmy Higgins:

I count 8 specific theological forums on this web board. This is a science forum.

IBTD, this is a science SECTION of a Theology forum ... TWeb and all that ...


Why should he choose to use a pseudonym? Is Meert to expect that he will always be confronted on his faith in a science forum?

If this WERE strictly a science forum, perhaps not ... but as I pointed out it is not a science forum ... It is TheologyWeb ... where we discuss Theology above all and in all things.


Does that include what college you go to, you degree, etc...? Socrates has asked for a large amount of anonymity which this web board has given to him. I don't see why this can't be passed along to Meert as well, especially seeing we are dealing with a personal matter with Meert, not merely a college degree with Socrates.

Again, this is who/what a person is ... not what the person believes or doesn't. Posting on a Theology board opens a person to reasonable questions about Theology ... especially when certain claims are made about being a Christian.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115685#post115685)
SherBear:
Again, this is who/what a person is ... not what the person believes or doesn't. Posting on a Theology board opens a person to reasonable questions about Theology ... especially when certain claims are made about being a Christian. What makes a person more than their spirituality? And you folks seem to be so focused on Meert saying he is a Christian, not that he said he was a Christian and he believed Christians should kill Muslims or something. What has Meert said that would make you doubt his faith? The fact that he doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old?

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 08:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115187#post115187)
SherBear:



You may want to read a bit futher where this was refuted.

That you would think it refuted is of little consequence - it is as given, but not a truth.

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 11:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115336#post115336)
Dee Dee Warren:



That would be a different thread. This one is about HATE.

OK. I will start a new thread on the topic of erors in Sararti's book.

[DunnySaze]

What does it matter if Hitler was a Christian or not at some point or points in his life?

If he was a Christian, he certainly wasn't representative of Christians in general. His actions were not those of a typical Christian.

If he was an Atheist, he certainly wasn't representative of Atheists in general. His actions were not those of an typical Atheist.

If he was a Paganist ...

Well, you see the idea.

Hitler was a social psychopath. That was his true 'religion'. A brilliant orator and propagandist with a horrible vision, who almost made that vision reality.

[Roy]

Today @ 03:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115601#post115601)
Socrates:





Just a quibble - Jesus may have taught about scriptural authority, but if he did, he could hardly have meant the New Testament since it hadn't been written at the time...

Yes He did by implication, when He conferred authority on the Apostles to teach what He had commanded and to bind and loose.


First, this only covers a few of the books in the NT, second, this doesn't confer authority on what was actually written, and third, what's the sense in Jesus telling people that scriptures that they'll never be able to read are authoritative?



Again, it's implicit in Jesus's sharp reaction to charges that He was illegitimate (Mark 6:3, John 8:41).


There's nothing in Mark 6:3 about illegitimacy, only about carpentry.*
John 8:41 is better, but if you think it states that Jesus was born with no earthly father, then you must think John 8:44 states that he had a lot of company.



That is a doubtful text as Jaltus has shown on the thread » Theology Wing » Biblical Exegesis » Is Mark 16:9-20 In the Original? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=106950#post106950)


Isn't this part of the same book that you just claimed Jesus taught was authoritative? You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus knew in advance what was going to be written and approved it, or it can be 'doubtful'. Not both.



How boring, another * edited by a moderator * atheist


Ah. Insults. Can't back up your opinions with facts so have to resort to personal attacks.



reading a passage divorced from its historical context -- see Do Luke 6:29-30 and Matthew 5:42 oblige us to give away all our stuff to anyone who asks? (http://www.tektonics.org/nekkid.html)


Yes. At least, if you want to follow Jesus' commands to those who wish to hear him.

But this might explain why you also fail to love your enemies, offer the other cheek, be merciful and judge not. Apparently things Jesus said to his followers don't apply to you since you weren't there at the time.



:dunce: Of course not, because this was given to one person only! :dufus: I.e. a person who claimed to be following the 1st Commandment but who idolized his wealth.

Just like many modern 'Christians'.

Roy

*Unless you think the mention of Mary but not Joseph is a reference to it., which seems to be a bit of a stretch.

[Sher]

Today @ 08:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115948#post115948)
Jimmy Higgins:

What makes a person more than their spirituality? And you folks seem to be so focused on Meert saying he is a Christian, not that he said he was a Christian and he believed Christians should kill Muslims or something. What has Meert said that would make you doubt his faith? The fact that he doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Based on what you originally asked and I answered, these questions don't make sense to me :shrug: ... but I'll answer them anyway ... except the first one, which would be way too philosophical to explore in this thread and area.

Q2: It isn't so much what he said, as what he didn't say. He professed Christianity, and as such expressed his view with that as backing (review the thread for context). Asking the questions we've asked here is not out of line on a Theology board, as I pointed out previously ... and most (if not all) Christians I have previously encountered do not claim "privacy" when it comes to Christianity ... they, down to a person, subscribe to the words of Christ, as someone else already pointed out, that we should spread the word ... and I personally find this strange in light of
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Q3: has absolutely nothing to do with this point. Russ, Wienerdog, and others here are OEC ... and have no problem speaking as a Christian, defending what they believes from that viewpoint ...

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 02:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115631#post115631)
Mandalorious:

I’m also interested in the fact that it was “christian” europe who for centuries before Darwin came along, advocated slavery and wiped out many other people (like the N. American natives) because they thought that the natives were of the devil or some such thing.

Actually, the Church protested against many of those abuses precisely because these other people were descendants of Adam and Eve. Evangelicals such as Wilberforce led the charge to abolish slavery, opposed by Lord Melbourne who said "Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life". And pagan philosophers such as Aristotle regarded certain people as "natural slaves", while Endarkenment Christ-haters such as Hume and Voltaire believed in inferiority of dark-skinned people. This is well documented in the book Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, Encounter Books, October 2001.


Now, back to Morris. Face it, if any “evolutionist” had said the stuff Morris did, he’d be nailed for it.

And Morris erred by going beyond the literal meaning and applying the curse on Canaan to other Hamites.


Darwin in fact never said stuff like that,

No, far more explicit things on inferiority of negroes, which Morris doesn't believe.


... and creationists accuse him of being racist anyway!

He was -- but a racist abolitionist. There is no logical contradiction.



Socrates quote below:
(he's referring to Bob Jones University who had a ban on &quot;interracial dating&quot;) and my saying that they weren't a &quot;liberal&quot; christian college...~~

Ah. So, if just ONE slight difference from the official creed is enough so that you can distance yourselves from them completely,

That's right, because the gap theory is an unbiblical compromise, and has often been associated with notions of pre-Adamites. There is not the slightest BIBLICAL justification for BJU's nonsense.

And that's the point -- Christianity must be judged by Christ as revealed by the Bible, not Luther, BJU or anyone else. But evolution is fair to judge by Darwin.


Socrates quote below, where he shows some of the &quot;fruits of the spirit&quot;: joy, peace, or love.

Yep, in the biblical sense not the sickly sentimentality that most Westerners think of it -- see Agape[/i] and How Did It Work? (]What is [i) This applies to other Infidel whingers about my style who write far worse garbage on their own site.


I'lToo bad that Hitler himself did not do the construction of the book. If you’d bothered to read that site instead of making up names for it, you’d have found out that the guy who DID edit “Table Talk” did hate christianity.

Bormann, a LEADING NAZI and one of Adolf's right-hand men? And Table Talk was perfectly in line with the Nuremberg documentation of the anti-christian aims of the leading Nazis.


&lt;~~Socrates talking about Luther since I pointed out that Luther, a figure embraced by AIG as one of their own, was himself an anti-semite~~
And since when did evolutionary theory stand or fall on what Hitler did?

<Yawn, stretch> Once more, Luther's anti-semitism was INCONSISTENT with the Bible, while Hitler was CONSISTENT with evolution.


I should note that on the &quot;Jews for Judaism&quot; site, they have a section called &quot;New Testament Anti-semitism&quot; (mentioned linked to elswhere in this post!) So it would seem that to at least some small extent, &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot; did itself form some of the basis for anti-semitism through the ages.

Hahah <scoff> The NT was written by JEWS!! :dufus: And if comments against Jews BY FELLOW JEWS makes the NT antisemitic, then there are far more strident denunciation of the Jewish people by Jews in the OLD TESTAMENT. But those fanatical anti-Christians would never regard the OT as antisemitic.

See Alleged Antisemitism in the New Testament (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1119.asp#8) and Essays on a Jewish "Anti-Missionary" Site (http://www.tektonics.org/tyellow.html)


Besides, what difference really does it make that the nazis were planning to “exterminate christianity”?

:dunce: A great deal, since the pathetic charge was that Hitler was a Christian.


You should note that the “christianity” that they were going to wipe out was christianity that helped them get into power in the first place! (ie. The “liberal christians”)!


Because the true (biblical) Christians of the confessing Church that opposed Hitler would already have been exterminated. Liberal "Christianity" is not Christianity at all, but a totally different religion which merely uses the same vocabulary, but in a dishonest way.


Anyway, just because christianity would have been the next victim, (see below for Socrates' quote), does not absolve it from the way it acted for centuries. That’s dishonest.


Once again, these alleged actions of churchians were INCONSISTENT with the Bible :zzz:


I’d say that it’s rather telling that for hundreds of years it was “christ-believers” who were the enemies of judaism and the jewish people. Something that’s repeatedly brushed off by creationists!

And they fail to show that it was consistent with the Bible, and ignore the radical Jewish anti-Christianism ever since the Bar Kochba revolt.


The AIG people sure don’t consider him a “liberal”! See here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4067.asp) It’s quite clear that the AIG people consider Luther to be a good christian

Of course -- in his major contribution of a return to justification by faith alone and the authority of Scripture alone. But they would presumably recognize that he had feet of clay like everyone else (except Jesus), and was inconsistent with this.


So, are you now going to say that Luther’s antisemitism, like those of the “churchians” was due to “cancer of liberalism”?

I am going to say that it had nothing to do with the Bible, and this is easy to prove.


Don’t you think that maybe, the christian church’s actions like this over several hundred years, may have had something to do with the nazi holocaust?

And I remind you of the many Jews saved by the Confessing Church, Pope Pius XII and "righteous gentiles" such as Corrie Ten Boom, who saved many Jews at great risk to their own lives.


Again, even if Streicher wasn't a &quot;real christian&quot;, who thought christianity was an impediment, so what?

Again, totally relevant since he was the chief Nazi anti-semitic propagandist, and he was also totally opposed toChristianity because it stood in his way.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 06:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115186#post115186)
SLPx:

And by book I am referring to the small page size, large font very-long pamphlet-type thing that passes for a &quot;book&quot;, Refuting (sic) Evolution.

Talk about pathetic huxterism -- whinging about font and page size! How petty can you get? :poke: 11 or 12 point is "large font"? Do authors choose these things anyway?

No, SLPx is just jealous that a Ph.D. scientist and chessmaster has written a book that's apparently sold 1/4 of a million copies, and which might convince many that there are people who are intelligent and highly qualified in science who believe in creation. Conversely, SLPx remains in obscurity, seething impotently against this widely-read attack on the materialistic philosophy masquerading as science that gives him pseudo-intellectual justification for his atheistic faith and his radical pro-abortion agenda :bonk:

:hrm: Oh, to return to the topic as outlined by the IP, any "hate" in this book? I noticed not a trace. :huh:

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 01:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116967#post116967)
Socrates:



Actually, the Church protested against many of those abuses precisely because these other people were descendants of Adam and Eve. Evangelicals such as Wilberforce led the charge to abolish slavery, opposed by Lord Melbourne who said &quot;Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life&quot;. And pagan philosophers such as Aristotle regarded certain people as &quot;natural slaves&quot;, while Endarkenment Christ-haters such as Hume and Voltaire believed in inferiority of dark-skinned people. This is well documented in the book Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, Encounter Books, October 2001.

I get the feeling that you are trying to paint Christianity as having a far more noble past than history would indicate. Christianity is not innocent of the charge of historical antisemitism and Hitler's views on the Jews cannot be solely attributed to a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. I believe the following article is somewhat on point:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/antisem15.htm

There's plenty of interesting information, however the following portion seems most appropriate to this thread (and if this has been said before I apologize, but I haven't really been following this thread)

In Hitler’s Weltanschauung (world view), antisemitism was of central symbolic significance, which added up to much more than a summation of the particularistic objections expressed toward them, such as their hold over the economy, their political inclinations, and so on. The Jews were conceived of as the enemies of humankind, as is clear from statements made by Hitler in Mein Kampf, such as the following: “If with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will as it did millions of years ago move through the ether devoid of men. Hence today, I believe, that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

Oh, and you've also got all of that Inquisition nonsense.

I'm not saying Christianity is evil, just that it has been used by people to justify horrible things. Similarly, people have used evolution to justify horrible things. Neither of these historical facts makes the underlying principles themselves guilty of those atrocities.

[chickenman]

haha, yes, everyone knows scientific accuracy is decided by book sales, and not by the process of peer review in reputable science journals

i'm sure he's incredibly jealous of your ability to convince the scientifically illiterate, while he's stuck with the ignominy of having to try and convince those stupid scientists who read science journals


Your comments added nothing to the conversation and were solely for the purpose of mocking therefore they have been edited.

Just a reminder, this section is under a period of heavy moderation and such behavior crossed the line.

[Sher]

Today @ 04:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116973#post116973)
Socrates:

:hrm: Oh, to return to the topic as outlined by the IP, any &quot;hate&quot; in this book? I noticed not a trace. :huh:

Oh I noticed one hateful thing ... in the CD version anyway ....




:shifty:



... I hated to put it down :teeth:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yesterday @ 08:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115967#post115967)
SLPx:



OK. I will start a new thread on the topic of erors in Sararti's book.

Thank you I really do appreciate that.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I should note that on the "Jews for Judaism" site, they have a section called "New Testament Anti-semitism" (mentioned linked to elswhere in this post!) So it would seem that to at least some small extent, "Sola Scriptura" did itself form some of the basis for anti-semitism through the ages.

Socrates dealt with the accuracy of this claim, but I want to pursue another angle.... the topic of this thread was "hate" and a totally inane allegation of hate in one of Sarfati's writing because of a comment he made about liberal theology. Now since then people have quoted tripe like this comment above... now while it is inaccurate and incorrect, is it hate? Well if that writing by Sarfati is "hate" (not!) then these writings are just filled to the brim aren't they? Why is it okay for others to quote things such as this and it is peachy but the "liberal theology" comment was hate? It seems today "hate" is simply judged by what side of the fence one happens to be on, and it is nonsense. There are very few things in the world today that are classified as "hate" that are truly are,and it is a sick and pathetic cheapening of the word.

[Sher]

Thread split where we trailed off onto Commandments and Laws ... http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5573

~Sherry~
:angel:

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think Captain Ochre really has done a good job of explaining this consistency in this thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5350).

[Mandalorious]

“
Yesterday @ 02:18 PM post located here
Mandalorious:

I’m also interested in the fact that it was “christian” europe who for centuries before Darwin came along, advocated slavery and wiped out many other people (like the N. American natives) because they thought that the natives were of the devil or some such thing.
”


Actually, the Church protested against many of those abuses precisely because these other people were descendants of Adam and Eve. Evangelicals such as Wilberforce led the charge to abolish slavery, opposed by Lord Melbourne who said "Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life". And pagan philosophers such as Aristotle regarded certain people as "natural slaves", while Endarkenment Christ-haters such as Hume and Voltaire believed in inferiority of dark-skinned people. This is well documented in the book Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, Encounter Books, October 2001.
Ah, did Lord Melbourne say that, though, in response to Wilberforece’s desire to end slavery, or was it in response to something else? Context, please!









“
Now, back to Morris. Face it, if any “evolutionist” had said the stuff Morris did, he’d be nailed for it.
”


And Morris erred by going beyond the literal meaning and applying the curse on Canaan to other Hamites.
Just as those who used evolution erred by assuming that humanity was made up of different “races”, which is something that Darwin himself did not believe! As an aside, how do you know that Morris erred? How do you know that you’re right?





“
Darwin in fact never said stuff like that,
”


No, far more explicit things on inferiority of negroes, which Morris doesn't believe.
Oh? Then perhaps you could explain just what he meant by his remarks about genetic tendencies that I quoted previously mean, then! If that isn’t pushing a “general inferiority” idea, than what does??

Also, you’ve ignored the passages where Darwin sympathized with their plight, and said that one really can’t justifiably divide the human race up. Darwin became more MODERATE as he and his theory progressed.



[quote]
“
... and creationists accuse him of being racist anyway!
”


He was -- but a racist abolitionist. There is no logical contradiction.
You seem to have missed something, did you NOT read the part of my post where I mentioned that IN HIS TIME, Darwin was a MODERATE?? Most of the people around Darwin at the time believed that the white/anglo-saxons, etc. “race” was supurior to the other “races”. Darwin, when forumlated his evolution theory, came to the opposite conclusion. That you couldn’t divide humanity up into separate races! The only “Racism” that can be attributed to Darwin is a result of the times he was in. His examination of people led him to believe that we were all ONE race. If you’re trying to make evolutionary theory “consistent” with racism, then you have to show it! You’d have to show that as Darwin believed more in evolution, that he became more convinced of the “inferiority” of other “races”. History and his writings show the exact opposite! That’s one of the reasons that he and FitzRoy were constantly fighting!





“
“
Socrates quote below:
(he's referring to Bob Jones University who had a ban on "interracial dating") and my saying that they weren't a"liberal" christian college...~~
”
Ah. So, if just ONE slight difference from the official creed is enough so that you can distance yourselves from them completely,
”


That's right, because the gap theory is an unbiblical compromise, and has often been associated with notions of pre-Adamites. There is not the slightest BIBLICAL justification for BJU's nonsense.

And that's the point -- Christianity must be judged by Christ as revealed by the Bible, not Luther, BJU or anyone else. But evolution is fair to judge by Darwin.
Exactly. So if you’d bothered to read the Darwin quotes I posted in my earlier post on the subject, you’d see that he did NOT really see any justification for dividing the human race into separate races! How is it that evolution then, is “consistent” with what the nazis did when Darwin himself had said that there is NO real justification for dividing humanity into separete “races”?? On the one hand, you have Darwin saying that you can’t really divide people into separate races, and on the other, you have nazis wiping people out, because of “racial” differences! Can you explain how one is POSSIBLY consistent with the other?
###DeeDee: I'll deal with Captain Ochre's statement in a further post###



Something else you’ve failed to take into consideration; even you had to admit that Darwin was an abolitionist, but you have to explain then how the views of a person who HATED slavery could lead to the HOLOCAUST, which is way worse than what Darwin protested against!





“
I'lToo bad that Hitler himself did not do the construction of the book. If you’d bothered to read that site instead of making up names for it, you’d have found out that the guy who DID edit “Table Talk” did hate christianity.
”


Bormann, a LEADING NAZI and one of Adolf's right-hand men? And Table Talk was perfectly in line with the Nuremberg documentation of the anti-christian aims of the leading Nazis.
Uh, I hate to say this, but so far, on that site (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htm) it’s dealing, not with Hitler himself, but BORMANN, a guy that was already acknowledged by the “pathetic atheist site (http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm)” you referred to earlier, to be the guy who edited Table Talk in the first place
from the Avalon site:

The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology. But we who believe in freedom of conscience and of religion base no charge of criminality on anybody's ideology. It is not because the Nazi themselves were irreligious or pagan, but because they persecuted others of the Christian faith that they become guilty of crime, and it is because the persecution was a step in the preparation for aggressive warfare that the offense becomes one of international consequence. To remove every moderating influence among the German people and to put its population on a total war footing, the conspirators devised and carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.

We will ask you to convict the Nazis on their own evidence. Martin Bormann, in June 1941, issued a secret decree on the relation of Christianity and National Socialism. The decree provided:

"For the first time in German history the Führer consciously and completely has the leadership of the people in his own hand. With the Party, its components, and attached units the Führer has created for himself and thereby the German Reich leadership an instrument which makes him independent of the church. All influences which might impair or damage the leadership of the people exercised by the Führer with help of the NSDAP, must "be eliminated. More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors. Of course, the churches must and will, seen from their viewpoint, defend themselves against this loss of power. But never again must an influence on leadership of the people be yielded to the

115

21 Nov. 45

churches. This (influence) must be broken completely and finally.
And on and on, it’s interesting to note that Roman Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses were also added to the list. Why? Well, it shows that the nazis, instead of singling out “only true christians” went after ANY GROUP who could divert people’s affection from the Nazi party. They wanted absolute control, and ANY thing that stood in their way had to be removed. They did NOT go after christians or those other groups because of “philosophy”!
Here’s another site I’m sure you’ll love: The Nuremberg Deception (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/Nuremberg.shtml)

Moreover, a finding of persecution requires that a particular group is being singled out, ie- they are being treated worse than the rest of the population. And here is where we run into the document's greatest flaw. Every indignity suffered by the Christian churches under Nazism was also suffered by the German population as a whole. Hitler wanted to control the activities of the German people. Their freedoms were restricted, and they were arrested or killed if they spoke out against Nazi policies. Does this mean that the Nazis were persecuting the German people?
Lot more stuff in there, if you’re interested in reading it…





“
&lt;~~Socrates talking about Luther since I pointed out that Luther, a figure embraced by AIG as one of their own, was himself an anti-semite~~
And since when did evolutionary theory stand or fall on what Hitler did?
”


<Yawn, stretch> Once more, Luther's anti-semitism was INCONSISTENT with the Bible, while Hitler was CONSISTENT with evolution.
Isn’t it interesting that it was CENTURIES before christians “figured out” the PROPER way to deal with the jews, then? They sure are slow, aren’t they? On the other hand, it does give them deniability while they themselves accuse others of being the cause of anti-semitism!
Again, oh scholar, please explain just HOW evolution is CONSISTENT with Hitler’s views when Darwin himself did NOT believe that one could divide humanity up into separate races AND Darwin hated slavery itself and the harsh treatment the slaves got. The nazis wiped out people to make a “master race”. Something that is INCOMPATABLE with Darwin’s beliefs that one CAN”T categorize humans according to race! Find for me, then, passages where Darwin advocated the wiping out of the jews based on their being an “inferior race” or something like that.

Either that, or admit that maybe your assertion that Hitler was consistent with evolution is a lie that just serves you to well to ever give up, no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you.





“
I should note that on the "Jews for Judaism" site, they have a section called "New Testament Anti-semitism" (mentioned linked to elswhere in this post!) So it would seem that to at least some small extent, "Sola Scriptura" did itself form some of the basis for anti-semitism through the ages.
”

Hahah <scoff> The NT was written by JEWS!! And if comments against Jews BY FELLOW JEWS makes the NT antisemitic, then there are far more strident denunciation of the Jewish people by Jews in the OLD TESTAMENT. But those fanatical anti-Christians would never regard the OT as antisemitic.

See Alleged Antisemitism in the New Testament and Essays on a Jewish "Anti-Missionary" Site
Uh, no, the NT was NOT written by jews, it was written by CHRISTIANS! They started up a new religion which judaism does not acknowledge to this day!
As for the OT, that WAS written by the jews, so we let them judge themselves. That’s why “anti-christians” don’t bother with the OT. That, and because the anti-semites of the past also concentrated on the NT. I’ll say this, the ancient israelites were far more up front with their moral failings than modern christians seem to be today!<~~see the first site Socrates linked to above. Modern christians blame everything bad on others, and take credit for everything good. Ex) see AIG.



How in blazes can you say that the NT was written by jews? Oh, I know WHY, though. It’d help dispell the charge of anti-semitism in the NT. Tough. Not only do the people at the “Jews for Judaism” site consider the NT to be written by christians, it’s they who consider it anti-semitic. You have a problem with that? Take it up with them.

Wow, this is incredible. First, Holding’s article doesn’t even address the same site that I had linked to, and it appears that really NOTHING is said there about anti-semitism at all! At least the AIG article does mention it,

(AIG article quoted here)


back to index
8) Alleged Antisemitism in the New Testament
8.1) Supposedly antisemitic NT texts

Spong claims that Jesus (as depicted in John) and Paul are guilty of anti-Jewish prejudice, and blames them for 'pogroms, ghettos, ... Kristallnacht and Dachau' (RBF p. 22). Spong should be more concerned that the Holocaust occurred in the country where his beloved theological liberalism first crippled the churches (see section 7.1).

Spong here, and in many other place, confuses legitimate use of biblical passages with their abuse (cf. RBF p. 20). It is not the Bible's fault that antisemites, as well as slavers, wife-beaters, crusaders and inquisitors have read their own prejudices into the texts (i.e. eisegesis).

It is hardly a new charge that the NT contains remarks that antisemites have misused. However, a book which contains scathing remarks about some Jews is not necessarily antisemitic. For example, a certain book calls Israelites: 'stiffnecked people ... rebellious from the day I knew you', another thunders: 'Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity ...', yet another despairs: 'Refuse silver shall men call them, because the LORD has rejected them.' Yet these examples all come from the Old Testament (Deut. 9:6, 24; Is. 1:4; Jer. 6:30)! Not even Spong would accuse the OT of antisemitism, although it is often brutally honest about the faults of God's chosen people.

Critics of the NT also fail to realise that the word Ioudaios usually translated 'Jew', probably only means Jew in the widest sense (descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) when used by gentiles. When used by Jews, it is probably a sectional term meaning 'Judean'.73 This reflected the mutual dislike between Judeans and Galileans. The latter included Christ and his disciples who were most strongly opposed by Judeans. To illustrate the difference, the Roman Pontius Pilate had Jesus labelled: 'King of the Jews' (Mt. 27:37) while the Jewish leaders said: 'If He be the King of Israel ...' [including Galilee and the Diaspora] (Mt. 27:42).

The NT was written by Jews, and its prosemitism is evident. Jesus' first priority was to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Mt. 10:6, 15:24), and says, '... for salvation is from the Jews' (John 4:22, a book Spong singles out for his charge of antisemitism!). Paul always evangelised Jews first in every city he visited (Acts 13:4–5, 14, 14:1, 16:11–13, 17:1–2, 10, 16-17, 18:1–4, 19, 19:1,8). Paul wrote to the church at Rome:
For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16).
I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1).
8.2) Antisemitism and the 'myth' of Judas Iscariot
Since the “Jews for Judaism” site never mentioned Judas in the first place, no need to examine that.
Also, the claims on that site were not dealt with above. All that was given was some “pro-jewish” verses, with no mention of that fact that the VAST MAJORITY of the NT verses that ARE anti-semitic. This is the site I should have included in the first place. http://messiahtruth.com/anti.html ( The Anti-Jewish New Testament
It lists dozens of verses in each gospel pretty much, as compared to the pathetically few “pro-jewish” verses you’ve listed. Which one has more verses to justify it’s position? With some many anti-semitic verses, is it any wonder that for HUNDREDS OF YEARS, the few pro-jewish verses got missed? Besides, the jews themselves, if you’ve read the site, DO NOT regard conversion as being“pro-jewish” in the first place!





“
You should note that the “christianity” that they were going to wipe out was christianity that helped them get into power in the first place! (ie. The “liberal christians”)!
”


Because the true (biblical) Christians of the confessing Church that opposed Hitler would already have been exterminated. Liberal "Christianity" is not Christianity at all, but a totally different religion which merely uses the same vocabulary, but in a dishonest way.
Ah, you mean true “biblical” christians like the Martin Luther kind? Then there’s Barth and Boehoffer that I mention later on…

[Dee Dee Warren]

Mandalorious, do not play the "real name" game here. We are in heavy moderaton in this section. This is your only warning.

[Mandalorious]

Today @ 03:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118974#post118974)
Dee Dee Warren:



Huh?

"Name game?"




BTW, what happened the last time I posted, I could understand taking it off if it was too long, something that wasn't done, but IT'S AS IF IT WAS NEVER THERE! It looks like I never even replied to the guy. (good thing I save all my posts...)

[Mandalorious]

Original Statment from Socrates/Optimus Prime<~~that show's STILL alive.......



“
So, are you now going to say that Luther’s antisemitism, like those of the “churchians” was due to “cancer of liberalism”?
”
I am going to say that it had nothing to do with the Bible, and this is easy to prove.
“
Don’t you think that maybe, the christian church’s actions like this over several hundred years, may have had something to do with the nazi holocaust?
”


And I remind you of the many Jews saved by the Confessing Church, Pope Pius XII and "righteous gentiles" such as Corrie Ten Boom, who saved many Jews at great risk to their own lives.
And I remind you, that even so, many of those people, who were in the minority anyway, still had vestiges of anti-semite views.
From this site (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hakeem/holocaust5.html)

The Barmen Declaration of Faith, which is a statement of principles of the Confessing Church, composed mainly by Karl Barth, says nothing about the Jewish Question. It was Jews who had become Christians that the Church was concerned about. In the words of Professor John S. Conway: "The Confessing Church did not seek to espouse the cause of the Jews as a whole, nor to criticize the secular legislation directed against the German Jews and the Nazi racial philosophy." Further confirmation is provided by the latest, most comprehensive research on the matter, Victoria Barnett's For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler, published in 1992: "For the mainstream Protestant church and even within most of the Confessing Church, the question of church advocacy on behalf of non-Christians Jews did not even arise."
Here’s some more of these “heroes” of yours!

The "heroes" of the Confessing Church had strong antipathy toward Jews who refused to become Christian. Pastor Niemšller's opposition to the Aryan Paragraph reflected more a concern for the church's independence from the government than humane consideration for those affected by the policy. He said, in effect, that defending the Christian Jews was a bitter pill that people had to swallow despite what they had to put up with from the Jews. He referred to their "dark and sinister history of this people which can neither live nor die because it is under a curse which forbids it to do either." The curse was imposed because they "brought the Christ of God to the cross."

Bonhoeffer saw in the Nazi atrocities proof of God's curse on the Jews. "The church of Christ," he said, "has never lost sight of the thought that the 'chosen people,' who nailed the redeemer of the world to the cross, must bear the curse for its action through a long history of suffering." Bonhoeffer, in his lectures of 1934, recommended that the Jews should never be expelled from Europe. They should remain there so they can serve as exemplification of divine wrath.and this is from a guy who actually tried to help the jews, at least according to this http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1064 ( [url) ]Focus on the Family[/url article!
And last, from the page I quoted from above:
Barth was a rarity. From the beginning, he had no illusions about the nature of National Socialism, and he saw that it was not possible to compromise with it. He was outspoken, and unlike the overwhelming majority of his theological colleagues, he condemned the persecution of the Jews. In 1935 he emigrated to Switzerland. Barth would have received more than one cheer here for his courage had he been able to disavow his Christian anti-Semitism, but he could not. In 1942 he taunted the Jews for not subscribing to his religion: "There is no doubt that Israel hears; now less than ever can it shelter behind the pretext of ignorance and inability to understand. But Israel hears--but does not believe." In 1949 he continued to insist that the fate of the Jews' under Hitler was "a result of their unfaithfulness."

The clergy will contend that the Holocaust happened because the Germans and the Nazis were "not real Christians." But renowned theologians in Germany believed that Nazism and its pogroms and programs were the will of God. The unreasoning clergy don't seem to realize what a devastating blow it is to the coherence of Christianity to admit that there is no agreement on what is and what is not Christian.





Again, even if Streicher wasn't a "real christian", who thought christianity was an impediment, so what?
”
Again, totally relevant since he was the chief Nazi anti-semitic propagandist, and he was also totally opposed toChristianity because it stood in his way
Once again, you’ve ignored the fact that it was centuries of xian teaching that led to Hitler and the Germans to pick on the jews. Remember the Dagobert Runes quote, where he said that Hitler just borrowed the villian that the christians have been beating up on for centuries? You also missed the point that NONE of the people who were persecuting the jews for centuries before the nazis did, thought of chritianity as an “impediment”. Only the most recent anti-semites did!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Mandalorious, you tried to slip in a member's real name. Please do not play games with me. Also there is a rule here:


Please respect any comments/warnings by the Moderators. Any grievances with their action should be addressed to the Forum Administrators in Private Message, Email or in the Dean’s Office. If you feel you must repetitively complain, whine, or otherwise bellyache, please take it to the Janitor's Closet.

And I would appreciate it if you would follow that and not post questions/disagreements with Moderator action in the thread.


BTW, what happened the last time I posted, I could understand taking it off if it was too long, something that wasn't done, but IT'S AS IF IT WAS NEVER THERE! It looks like I never even replied to the guy. (good thing I save all my posts...)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not remove any of your posts and am not aware of another Moderator doing so. Please direct any further inquiries into that in the appropriate manner as described by the above rule. We have been having intermittent site bugs that may have lost your post. There would have been a Moderator warning posted if it were deleted by a Moderator.

[Mandalorious]

As far as I can tell, Captain Ochre (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115591#post115591) has made some mistakes:

when Darwin was talking about "races" he regarded the Human Race as "one race". Remember the Darwin quotes I posted earlier?? That alone refutes CO's claim that nazism was "consistent" with evolution. How could a differing race" outcompete you, if there is NO differing race to begin with, just other full humans.

Using the Captains' logic, then normal captialistic competition is also a result of evolutionary thinking: the businesses that survive, thrive and expand. The others "perish".<~~like racism, captitalism was around centuries before Darwin.



Back to the original point here:


I must apologize since you have quote the full title of Darwin¹s work and I will repeat it just to confirm his racist ideas, "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." Is there any doubt as to what he meant by "favoured races?"
B. Cole
Response from the editor:
The reader is thinking of race solely in human terms, but Darwin used the word more generally to denote any potentially interbreeding group of organisms within a species. This should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the book (and not just the title). Even in a human context, there is nothing racist about the term "favored races"; every human race that exists today has been favored by natural selection.
Response from Tim Thompson:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". Just to be pedantic, I do not think that the original title has a comma in it.
I know the editor has already made a resonse to this, but I want to add to that. There are two very important points that are being overlooked. The first is language, and an excellent example is the word 'gay'. When you find a reference in 18th or 19th century literature, to 'gay people', they did not mean to imply homosexuality, although today we would come to that conclusion at once. The meanings change with time. The word 'races' did not mean, in 1856, what it means today, so to call the use of the word 'racist' is simply wrong. It presumes that Darwin meant to use the word the way we use it today, and that is the source of the error.
The second important point is read the book. Evidently you have not read the book, or absorbed little if you did. If the book was actually racist, as implied, then we should be able to find the relevant passages in the book, where Darwin describes the differential reproductive success and survival rates for the various human races (in the modern sense).<~~This is the kind of thing Captain Ochre was referring to, I believe?


Since we have been dared to cite the full title, and have complied, then I return the challenge. I dare Mr. Cole, or anyone else, to cite the relevant passages from the pages of Darwins book, where he shows his alleged racism. I contend that there are no such passages to cite, and the implication of racism falls away.<~~edited to PUT IN THE "[/quote]" thingy! AAgh!


From TalkOrigins feedback, feb97 (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/feb97.html)

[Mandalorious]

Today @ 03:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118981#post118981)
Dee Dee Warren:



Ah! My apologies! Thank you! I've forgotten that this kind of thing can happen with these bulletin board sytems! Sorry if I've offended you!

(is there a redface smily here?) ~~>close enough! Me :dunce:

I'll hunt around and see if it's still here somewhere! Not that it matters, it was too long anyway! (I should have known: I also couldn't find "5Solas" post dealing with mine, either!)



http://beta.sluggy.net/sz/uploads/Photos/In%20reference%20to%20your%20Question-1481.jpg

[Sher]

Quick note:
... check the topic that was split off from this one because of a subject change:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5573
... I may have inadvertently grabbed your and TFS's posts in error when I split the thread earlier ... please accept my apology if I did (it was the first time I split a thread)
... but please, PM me (or one of the other Mods) if you have further questions

[Mandalorious]

06-04-2003 @ 09:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116967#post116967)
Socrates:



Ah. So, if just ONE slight difference from the official creed is enough so that you can distance yourselves from them completely,

That's right, because the gap theory is an unbiblical compromise, and has often been associated with notions of pre-Adamites. There is not the slightest BIBLICAL justification for BJU's nonsense.

And that's the point -- Christianity must be judged by Christ as revealed by the Bible, not Luther, BJU or anyone else. But evolution is fair to judge by Darwin.Too bad that when AIG had the chance (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4231news3-3-2000.asp), they NEVER did chastice BJU for it's "unbiblical compromise". Why is that, do you think? What is it called when you have a chance to correct a "brother" and you don't? It seems to me that you only went against BJU once it's "christian" practices were used against you.



:dunce: A great deal, since the pathetic charge was that Hitler was a Christian.I've dealt with most everything else by now, so I'll just say this: read the rest of the paragraph where I noted that it was centuries of self-professed "chrisitians" who laid the foundation for this. My POINT was that Hitler just took those that others have villified and abused for centuries, and that none of THOSE people, Martin Luther included, had in their agenda the "extermination of christianity"!

(BTW, the links you gave did NOT really address the verses that the Jews for Judaism site gave). My statement about there being a NT anti-semitism still stands! Also, it's the Jews themselves from the J4J site that are calling the NT "anti-semitic", not me! If you have a problem with that, why don't you go to their site, and tell THEM that the NT was written by Jews? The reason that they don't call the OT anti-semitic was because it WAS written by the Jews!

Again, the NT was not written by jews. It was written by those starting a new faith, christianity. No jew today calls a christ-believer a jew. AT MOST, the NT was written by "apostate" jews!

Just because chrisians were to be added to the list (a debatable issue itself!) does NOT excuse the fact that it was they who had provided the initial impetus for anti-semitism for centuries before Darwin, who, as I've pointed out, NEVER said anything about the jews, and never believed that one could divide the human race into "sub-races" in the first place!


(See my reply to "Captain Ochre" above somewhere for why evolution is NOT consistent with nazism or racist stuff)

Also, read this (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/oct02.html)


TalkOrigins October 2002
Feedback Letter Comment: Is it true Darwin was a racist?

Response From: John Wilkins No it is not. The last remaining scientific creationist, during Darwin's day, Louis Agassiz was definitely a racist, but Darwin, and his family, had opposed slavery well before Darwin developed the theory of evolution, adopting the slogan "Am I [the slave} not a Man and a Brother?" If he called the slave his brother then it's obvious that he did NOT regard the slave to be of a "different race" from his own! That kind of shoots down Socrates' statement that Darwin was a "racist abolitionist"! If he regarded the slave as a "brother" than it's obvious he want' the racist that Socrates and AIG would want Darwin to be!
and this did not change after he developed the theories for which he is famous.

One thing that has led many to suppose Darwin was a racist is that he was definitely a Eurocentrist. He, like many of his contemporaries, took it as an article of faith that the British, and more specifically the English, civilisation was the very pinnacle of civilisation, and that the indigenous peoples of the colonised world were "savages".

In modern terms, this is "culturist", not racist. However, since the very notion of "race" in the human species is culturally defined, to that extent, and that extent only, one might call Darwin racist. In so doing, one would have to call everyone who thinks their society is better than others to be racist.


(maybe more later, or not)