Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We are the gods..
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 142 (16833)
09-07-2002 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
09-04-2002 10:55 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
I would say my worldviewEshould be fairly obvious from my post. However, my particular philosophy has no bearing on the evidence or lack thereof for yours or dogmai’s claims (or those of anyone else, for that matter). I’ll be quite happy to evaluate whatever evidence you’d care to provide in support of whatever assertion you’d care to make.
quote:
TJ's post:
In calling man supreme, it is true in the Christian worldview that the earth and the animal kingdom were created for God’s glory first of all, but God also created it for man. So in Christianity, man is supreme Efundamentally different and of more value than the animals. Only humans were created in God’s image and only humans have a spirit that lives on after death. This is what the Bible teaches. So yes, I do believe that we are special! Is. 45:18 says that God did not create the earth to be empty, but He formed it to be inhabited. He created it specifically for us humans to live on. It is interesting that of all the heavenly bodies we see, only the earth is so well prepared for support of life. Some believe that is just luck of course. Yes, we humans are special. No other creature that God created was created in God’s image. Man was the last thing God created Ethe climax of his creation. Jesus became man to pay for the sins of mankind. He did not become an angel or an animal(animals cannot sin anyway). So yes, we have different points of view on the identity of mankind. You state 'This is patently untrue.' I'm sorry but you are exercising faith when you make a dogmatic statement like that. That is your particular belief and you are entitled to hold that belief, but you have no proof for that outside of the fact that it fits your worldview.
Q's reply:
I have several problems with this outlook.
In the first place, it is inconsistent with the basic fact that all life on earth is interrelated. For example, every living thing on this planet shares a specific biochemistry. If initial conditions had been different, life would either not exist or would be recognizably different. Along the same lines, all the processes that have shaped the various forms of life also apply to humans. We process energy in similar ways, we replicate, we are effected by the same abiotic environmental factors. Ultimately, at the macro level, anything that upsets the balance too far will also directly effect our existence. This mitigates against the idea that humans are separately created.
******************************
TJ's rebuttal:
Only if you hold to naturalistic worldview presuppositions is it inconsistent. Quetzal, you are making an assumption here based on your worldview when you say that everything is interrelated. If you want to say everything has much in common, that is a statement of fact, but the other is a scientific guess or an interpretation of the facts. It may be the best guess or interpretation of the facts at this time, but it is not proof. It is more proper to call it evidence supporting your interpretation of the scientific observations that have been made. However, I can use the same scientific observation as support for the Creationist position. I hear this argument often from scientists, but I have never yet heard one admit that the same facts can be used to support the Creationist position. They either are ignorant of that fact or conveniently ignore that fact in order to more persuasively state their case.
Quetzal, you have to realize here that we are both biased when it comes to interpreting scientific observations. Evolutionary science, a bit of a misnomer anyhow since evolution cannot be repeated and tested in a laboratory and confirmed as scientific truth. But that's beside the point. Evolutionary science starts from a biased position. Let me back up that statement.
One of those presuppositions or a priori assumptions is that "There is no Creator." That is an assumption for which there is no proof. All kinds of evidences to support this will be brought up, like the one you stated above, but these so-called evidences have been derived through research that has been done and interpretations that have been made assuming tha naturalist worldview to be true. It assumes from the start that there is no Creator, so certainly a Creator could not be used to explain that fact in your worldview. In the next paragraph you accuse me of circular reasoning, but here it seems to me that you are guilty of the same. Ifll confess if Ifm guilty. I havenft gotten there yet. But do you see what I mean? You observe, (rightly so of course,) that biologically speaking, living things have much in common and so the immediate conclusion is that everything is interrelated. Why? Simply because it supports your worldview presuppositions. Now obviously, if there is a God and He did actually create the earth, scientists are never going to come up with the right answer because they have eliminated Him from the equation from the beginning.
Here is one example of this that was given in the context of the debate about how evolution is to be taught in Kansas schools: Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
eEven if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalisticf
Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
Although not rational a rational conclusion, at least he is being honest. No matter what the data says, we are going to teach and believe the opposite. Granted he said -even if-, but that is the point. The data, the facts, are not given priority. Priority is given to the presuppositions of the naturalistic(atheistic) worldview.
So, even if the facts can be interpreted in different ways, even if the facts don't fully support us, we cannot allow God into the picture. Now there's an attitude I can really respect!
Here is another one. Professor Richard Lewontin, is a geneticist and one of the worldfs leaders in evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation, regardless of whether or not the facts support it. When you read his quote, you will see that it goes without saying that he is an atheist. Now tell me if this is the proper attitude for a true scientist in search of true conclusions to hold: (dashes added by me)
eWe take the side of science -in spite of- the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, -in spite of- its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, -in spite of- the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.f
Richard Lewontin, eBillions and billions of demonsf, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.
Again at least you have to appreciate his honesty. He said it himself. We factored out God from the beginning. I wish others would be so forthcoming. Here we see an unabashed wholehearted endorsement of an unsubstantiated philosophy – the philosophy of materialism. Quetzal, you were complaining to me in another post about majoring on the philosophical side of things. It is precisely for this reason. The whole basis for evolutionary research and worldview comes down to this commitment to a materialistic philosophy! Now tell me, have his fellow scientists been up in arms about this kind of a statement seemingly unfit for a true scientist? I can't say for sure, but when a creationist admits his bias, everyone immediately cries foul - he's nothing but an unscientific religious bigot is scientific clothing! Some people aren't fooled by these double standards.
Now, you may not be as wholeheartedly and stubbornly committed to the materialistic philosophy as these scientists are, I donft know. But, even if you are not, in your serch for truth, you have been evidently been persuaded to believe the resulting scientific interpretation of origins that is based on that philosophy. Not all scientists though will admit it so clearly, but (imho) your worldview/philosophy of life, whether you realize it or not, has been by and large, derived by people with just such a bias.
Somehow scientists have succeeded in perpetrating the lie that scientists are unbiased, whereas Christian scientists are very biased. In fact they are ridiculed and people claim they are not even capable of doing real science because of their mistaken presuppositions. How quickly we forget the discoveries of the well-respected famous Christian scientists in the past. Atheistic scientists are not biased while Christian scientists are biased unscientific bigots. What a bunch of hooey! Let's just be honest here and admit the fact that we are both biased!
We creationists are biased too and we're honest enough to admit it. We start with the basic assumption that there is a Creator and interpret scientific facts based on that assumption. So, back to your first sentence in your post above, this idea that all living things have much in common biologically speaking is exactly what you would expect in the Biblical worldview. I mean after all, everything was created by the same Creator and therefore of course you would expect things to look alike in the basics of things. It is a good design. It works well. Why re-invent the wheel? But when you get into the externals of various living things you see wonderful, amazing, and even mind-boggling differences among even creatures of the same species. Here is where we see Godfs amazing creativity and appreciation for beauty.
Herefs another quote:
"In seeking to understand why the Haeckelian view(idea that the human embryo goes through various stages (fish, reptile, animal, etc) in the womb.) persisted so long, we have also to consider the alternatives. We often are highly conservative and will hold to a viewpoint longer than is justified when there is no alternative or, worse, when the logical alternative upsets the rest of our world view." Keith Stewart Thomson, "Marginalia Ontogeny and phylogeny recapitulated", American Scientist Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 274
He's right of course. This haeckelian theory has been used to propagate their theory for years. Only recently has it been debunked as a fraud - purposeful deceit by Haeckel to support his theory. But, the worst thing is that it is still taught in some schools as substantiated scientific fact and is still found in many textbooks. Why? I think he answered it well. Honesty? No. Good science? No. Simply a commitment to remain faithful to their philosophical presuppositions. (imho) This is just one of many such examples.
That's enough to think about for today. My goodness Quetzal, that was quite a post. It will take me a year to work through all that. I don't think I'll last that long. I already feel guilty that I am neglecting more imortant things to do this. I'm not implying that you guys are unimportant, but my purpose for being here in Japan is not to carry on computer conversations, but I'll keep plugging through you post Quetzal. The pace might slow down though. Thanks for understanding. Today's post almost concludes my comments on the above paragraph we started with.
Regards,
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 09-04-2002 10:55 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 142 (16835)
09-07-2002 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by joz
09-06-2002 2:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
There is nobody who will hold you accountable for that trespass of your personal behavior code. What is your motivation to follow it?
Well i`m not Mammuthus but I`ll give you an answer....
Yes there is....
Me... Geddit...
Motivation is real simple if I don`t I feel like a 6 foot tall walking turd....

*****************************************
TJ's reply:
Come on Joz, get serious. Or are you? I'm trying to understand how that would work. Imagine if everyone got to be the judge in his own trial. Do you think everyone would take the laws of society much more serious and have a much deeper respect for them? Do you think crime rates would fall or rise? Do you think it would be a real deterrent to crime? I see we're on different wavelengths here. Try and run for office on that idea and see how far you get.
How does your idea work in your own life JOZ? Do you discipline yourself when you violate your own personal behavioral code? What are some of the disciplines you have used on yourself? If you haven't disciplined yourself, why? Isn't it because it really doesn't matter at all if you do violate your code since it is just a personal thing anyhow? All you have to put up with is feeling like a turd for a little while and that feeling soon passes and the next time you do it, you don't feel as much like a turd. Pretty soon you can do it without even a second thought. You have now evolved from a turd into a fool. I'm sorry. I'm not attacking you in particular. This happens to us all, me included, when we violate our God-given consciences. Just because we don't feel like a turd anymore, we think the action is OK. In my opinion, personal choice, everyone doing what is right in their own eyes, just cannot effectively maintain law and order in society. So we have to continually make more laws. New laws to cover things that haven't been covered before to try and control crime. Just look at today's society and I think there is ample evidence of that.
Here's another problem for atheists. Since we all have our own personal behavior codes, what happens when those codes conflict with the personal choices of another? Whose code then is right and valid or takes priority?
food for thought,
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by joz, posted 09-06-2002 2:58 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by joz, posted 09-07-2002 11:55 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 142 (16876)
09-07-2002 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nator
09-06-2002 12:44 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
OK Mammuthus, what is your definition of a Christian? I think we are using these terms in two different ways if you think Hitler was a Christian. Enlighten me on what a Christian is.
TJ

Are the following people or institutions Christian, TJ?;
Timothy McVeigh
The Ku Klux Klan
Randal Terry
The Catholic priests who protected criminal child molesors because they were also priests
TJ REPLIES:
I'm not excusing what they did, but so what if they are?
Your point is what?
Because some Christians struggle with sin Christianity is bad? Is that your point? That same thing can be turned on you as well.
Atheism has some pretty dark spots in its history. And as I mentioned in another post before, when a Christian does evil, he is going against his worldview. It is inconsistent with his beliefs.
Regards,
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 09-06-2002 12:44 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 6:12 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 142 (16877)
09-07-2002 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Quetzal
09-07-2002 3:57 AM


Have a good trip. I'll try and hang in there, but I can see that I'm spending too much time on this and neglecting other things. I also see that I am totally outnumbered and cannot possibly hope to adequately deal with every argument thrown my way, but that's just the way it is.
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Quetzal, posted 09-07-2002 3:57 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Mammuthus, posted 09-08-2002 8:48 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 142 (16908)
09-08-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Mammuthus
09-08-2002 8:48 AM


Thanks for the note, Mammuthus.
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Mammuthus, posted 09-08-2002 8:48 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Mammuthus, posted 09-13-2002 9:28 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 142 (17295)
09-12-2002 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Quetzal
09-07-2002 3:57 AM


Quetzal,
I'm taking my computer into the shop today. DOn't know how long I'll be gone.
Regards,
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Quetzal, posted 09-07-2002 3:57 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 142 (17340)
09-13-2002 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mammuthus
09-09-2002 5:23 AM


Originally posted by Tokyojim:
OK Mammuthus, what is your definition of a Christian? I think we are using these terms in two different ways if you think Hitler was a Christian. Enlighten me on what a Christian is.
TJ
MAMMUTHUS:I am surprised you want my definition of christian. Anyway, anyone who proposes that they believe in the bible (both literalists and non-literalists) and in jesus christ. By definition you have to believe in jesus to be a "christian". I include Hitler because he was a catholic, never excommunicated, and in his own view a christian.
************************************8
TJ’s reply:
The reason I wanted your definition of a Christian is that you are throwing around the word as if it has no meaning. We are obviously using the term in two different ways and so will never agree until we can at least understand what we mean by the term. (By the way, I capitalize the word Christian because my word processor prompts me to do so, so I thought it is grammatically correct.) You said your definition of a Christian is someone who believes in the Bible(both literalist and non-literalist) and in Jesus. This is a standard definition used by religious pollsters to determine someone’s religion and so in this sense, America could be said to be mainly a Christian country or at least that there are more Christians in America than practitioners of other religions. I disagree with this description of America, but using this definition, you could say that.
When I use the term Christian, I am referring to someone who, yes, believes in the Bible and believes in Jesus. When I use the term believe in Jesus I do not mean simply an intellectual recognition or even mental assent of the Biblical facts. Someone can even believe that Jesus was God’s Son and that He died for their sins and still not go to heaven. James 2:19 says You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble! He is saying. Even if you believe in your head that there is one God, so what. Big deal. Even the demons know that, but they are not saved. Intellectual knowledge and assent to the facts is the first step to becoming a Christian, but if that is all there is, then that person is not a true believer. There must be a recognition of sin and a genuine repentance resulting in a spiritual rebirth for a person to qualify as a Christian according to the Bible. Being baptized as an infant doesn’t count. Baptism cannot make anyone a Christian. If that baby grows up and decides to go his own way, then he is not a Christian. The Bible says Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Each person must confess his sins, repent, and place his faith and trust in Jesus as His Savior. The Bible says this in Matthew 7:15-29.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!' Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall. And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
It is clear from the above passage that Jesus knew there would be false prophets that infiltrate the church. He also said there would be many others who think they are saved, but really are not. So it is valid for me to say that NOT EVERYONE WHO THINKS THEY ARE A CHRISTIAN REALLY IS.
MAMMETHUS, EVEN BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, HITLER IS NOT A CHRISTIAN as the following quote will show. Hitler once revealed his attitude toward Christianity when he bluntly stated that religion is an:
‘ organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about [destroying religion] with dynamite. I’ve since realized there’s room for a little subtlety . The final state must be in St. Peter’s Chair, a senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women The young and healthy are on our side it’s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies . [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples . Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls.’
So you see, even by your own definition of a Christian, Hitler doesn’t fit the facts. This was evidently penned by Hitler from 1941 —1944. He obviously doesn’t believe in the Bible nor in Jesus Christ at least at this time in his life. And he even says that When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to destroy religion with dynamite so it is not even a recent change in thought he is revealing here. His beliefs as revealed in this quote are abundantly clear: the younger people who were the hope of Germany were ‘absolutely indifferent in matters of religion’. As Keith noted, the Nazi party viewed Darwinism and Christianity as polar opposites.
(Hitler, A., Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941—1944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 117, 1953).
Granted, Hitler was baptized a Catholic and was never even excommunicated. Evidently he ‘considered himself a good Roman Catholic’ at one time, and at times even used religious language. But he threw it all away as the above quote makes clear. He clearly had strong anti-Christian feelings as an adult, as did probably most of the Nazi party leaders. But you have to remember that he was a politician and as such he openly tried to win over the church and exploit it to accomplish his own personal goals.
If you were to convert to say Hinduism, I could not claim that your atheistic worldview had anything to do with some crime you might commit as a Hindu. Why? Because you threw away your atheistic worldview and now are living by the Hindu worldview. Well, if Hitler threw away his Christian worldview and embraced atheism, how can we call him a Christian? How can we blame the Christian worldview for his crimes? This is the problem I have with your claim that Hitler was a Christian. If you say, in his early years he embraced Christianity, I could agree with that. I still don’t believe he was truly saved because of what happened, but working with your definition of a Christian, you might be able to call him a Christian.
Mammuthus continues:
Though I could be wrong, I am assuming you are asking me this as a typical introduction of the fundie argument that anyone who does anything wrong is not a "real" christian i.e. Hitler said he was catholic but murdered millions of people so he cannot be a christian type of argument. Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.
TJ REPLIES:
Thank you for asking before attacking. I already explained why I asked. So your assumption is at least partly right. I wanted to understand the logic behind your claim that Hitler is a claim. Now I understand. As I thought, you have a totally different definition of what a Christian is. It comes down to whose definition of a Christian is most accurate. I think the words of Jesus are more accurate and true than your definition. Nothing personal, but Jesus is the founder of Christianity and I think he knows better than you. The above passage has much to say about what a true Christian is.
And yes, I certainly would argue that if Hitler was a true Christian, he would not have murdered millions of people like he did. That is so contradictory. Who would believe that unless they have a specific reason for wanting that to be true? Doesn’t it make more sense to say that although he may have been baptized as an infant and perhaps embraced Christianity early in life, he later totally rejected it and embraced atheism which does not make any moral demands on a person? What he did can fit in with that kind of a worldview, but it cannot fit into a Christian worldview.
Did you know that he was even trying to get rid of Christianity itself? That seems strange if he was really a true believer. He was deeply influenced by evolutionary ideas which is clear from his whole concept of eugenics which he so wholeheartedly endorsed and literally tried to put into practice. It is interesting that much of the opposition to the eugenic movement came from German Christians. Even secular scientists like Sir Arthur Keith and the late Dr. Stephen J. Gould recognize the influence that evolution had on him.
Sir Arthur Keith said this: ‘The German Fhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’(Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.)
Here’s an interesting quote from Hitler himself: In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that ‘higher race subjects to itself a lower race a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,’ because it was founded on science (Tenenbaum, J., Race and Reich, Twayne Pub., New York, p. 211, 1956). I could find many more similar quotes to show the influence of evolutionary thinking on Hitler and Nazi Germany in general
.
It is interesting that during the Nuremburg Trials, when Hermann Goerring was on trial for what Germany did to the Jews, etc, his argument was that what we did was in accordance with our laws. He claimed that the Nazis were on trial only because they lost the war, not because they were guilty of any crime a trial of the victors over the vanquished. (Persico, J.E., Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial, Penguin books, NY, USA, p. 82, 1994.) After all, the Nazis’ own laws permitted persecution of the Jews. He was arguing that there was no absolute moral standard that can be used to apply to this situation. (Which by the way is what you yourself claim Mammuthus — no absolute moral standard) He said that what they did was in accordance with their own morality. But the Chief U.S. Prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, appealed to ‘moral as well as legal wrong’ and ‘the moral sense of mankind’. (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2, The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School Page Not Found | Yale University Jackson argued that what the Nazis did was not only illegal, but that it clearly violatated a higher, universal moral law against mass murder, no matter what their own laws said.
Would you agree with Jackson? If no, how can you condemn Hitler for what he did? You claim that morality is left up to our own personal standards, our own character and choices. Hitler made his choices. How can you condemn him for it? It may violate your code and my code, but he is entitled to have his own code is he not? Like Goerring said, what he did was not illegal in his country. Atheists have no absolute moral standard to appeal to. In this sense, the atheistic worldview leaves room for someone like Hitler.
My plans changed. I didn't take my computer in yet. I think now tomorrow.
Regards, TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 5:23 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Mammuthus, posted 09-13-2002 7:23 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 142 (17360)
09-13-2002 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Mammuthus
09-09-2002 5:36 AM


Tokyojim said:
Did I claim that you are a co-signer(of the Humanist Manifesto)? Forgive me for making any assumptions. I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were aware of and had read the Humanist Manifesto. If you have read it, you prefer to make me look stupid by accusing me of making assumptions. If you haven't read it, then I guess you were too embarrassed to admit it. You always keep things so vague in your messages that one never knows. Have you or haven't you read it? Regardless, it doesn't matter. Here is what the leading atheists are saying about atheism:
Mammuthus replies:
"I actually I have not read it and I am not being vague in my posts...you constantly make assumptions about what my position really is and then claim I am dishonest when I tell you otherwise.
Tokyojim replies again:
You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this, but believe me they are organized and they have an agenda. Read the Humanist Magazine if you don’t believe me. Here’s one quote from there:
MAMMETHUS says:
I have no reason to beleive you on this because you have shown absolutely no knowledge about other worldviews beyond your own personal beliefs. And by the way, your relgion has its own rather nasty agenda i.e. forced theocracy.
TJ’s reply:
I think I proved my point with the quotes. Let me rephrase what I said to avoid misunderstanding. SOME atheists are organized and the leaders of the group have a real agenda. SOME view their worldview as a religion. I'll expect the same treatment when you speak of Christians.
My religion has an agenda? Yes, Jesus told us to go into the whole world and preach the gospel and redeeming the culture is part of the cultural mandate God gave us. When we talk about making laws in society, the problem becomes ‘Whose morality do we follow?’ Either we legislate Christian morality or the morality of the majority or whatever, but atheists want laws to protect them and Christians want laws to protect them as well. You must agree that we must legislate morality so a certain extent or there would be total chaos in society. The question is how far do we go on that? I would probably fight to go further than you do, but we both want our morality legislated to a certain extent. I freely admit that. To you it is a nasty agenda. To me it is an agenda to provide a moral base for society to preserve order and prevent it’s collapse.
********************************************
Citation of Tokyojim's:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being.
>I for one find this part of the paragraph to be bullshit much like you do I guess.
TJ
"These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p.
‘ This guy is over the top...your point..that all atheists agree with this? You must be truly incapable of logical thought if that is the case.
TJ’s REPLY:
MAMMUTHUS, did I or did I not preface these quotes with this statement:
"You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this, but believe me they are organized and they have an agenda."
What is it again that you are accusing me of? I gave you the benefit of the doubt from the very beginning. Please have the decency to at least read what I write before jumping all over me.
The point of the quote as you should know if you follow the conversation back in our various posts, is to show you that there are SOME very prominent atheists who do see their worldview as a religion and they are organized and they do have a scary agenda! You seemed to be unaware of this and I just wanted to point out that fact.
************************************************
TJ’s quote: Here’s another one from the now deceased Madelyn Murray O’Hair: "The atheist realizes that there must not only be an acceptance of his right to hold his opinion,
but that ultimately his is the job to turn his culture from religion, to eliminate those irrational ideas which have held the human race in intellectual slavery."The atheist must abandon his defensive positions, take up the cudgels and go forward, rather than into the retreat of apathy."
Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of the American Atheists Organization. Quotes from her speech at their annual convention in Sacramento, California, on April 10, 1993 (from C-SPAN)
MAMMUTHUS:
"I would have interpreted the second part as meaning that atheists must defend themselves from those who would force religion upon them." But since I do not have the entire speech at hand I cannot judge it as it is not in context.
TokyoJim says:
So you see I’m not just spouting off here about saying humanism is a religion. It's leaders are dedicated evangelists and they encourage others to become as such. Evidently they think their worldview is right. I guess that makes them bigotted like me.
MAMMUTHUS' reply:
"What about atheists...again, YOU are lumping everyone together including me into a specific worldview that I do not necessarily share. You are either doing that because of a conceptual limitation due to the narrowness of your own worldview or because you are insecure of your own worldview and do not wish to be exposed to what other people actually think. I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others. You have a truly annoying tendency to try to link me (for example) and other peoples worldviews to examples that fit your agenda but do not represent reality.
*********************************************
TJ REPLIES AGAIN: Again, a groundless attack given my above statement saying that you might not agree with this but...
But let me ask you this. On what basis is their opinion wrong? Aren't you being a little narrow-minded in calling them wrong and your views right?
And I apologize for giving the false impression that I'm insecure in my own worldview. Obviously neither of us are. We're both hateful bigots to use your term.
It’s funny though. You lump me together with all Christians and think that is all right don’t you? You say Hitler was a Christian. Your definition of a Christian will not allow me to distinguish between a true Christian and a Christian by name only. You call that a fundy game even though it is a distinction Jesus makes in the Bible. It looks like now you want me to make different categories for atheists as well.
It seems that it is you who does not want to be exposed to what other atheists think and are preaching. Rather than me not understanding the worldview of others, it seems it might be you that doesn’t even understand the logical conclusions of your own worldview. You didn’t even know about these atheistic preachers.
Maybe humanism and atheism and agnosticism could be more accurately called a "faith" rather than a "religion" since there aren’t ordinances as such and it isn’t very well organized.
But every atheist, humanist, and agnostic has his own philosophical assumptions that he places his faith in.
Mammethus, let me ask you again, Do you think your worldview or your own particular brand of atheism is right or at least the best overall choice? Be careful in your answer or you might label yourself as a hateful bigot. Anyone with convictions seems to be a bigot in your view.
CHEERS, TJ
PS I am planning to send my computer by mail to get fixed tomorrow so I probably won't check in for a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 5:36 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 142 (19308)
10-08-2002 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Mammuthus
09-13-2002 10:44 AM


Hey guys, wake up. I'm back. Got my computer back and Friday and haven't been able to get to the board since. I won't be as regular as before, but I'll try and hang in there for a while. I have to get back with Quetzal soon, but for now let me respond to John and Mammethus in this post:
JOHN says:
Plenty of religious people have great personal standards, but wasn't the point that due to the fact that books must be interpretted the claim to absolute moral standards is false?
MAMMUTHUSsays:
I stand corrected...I re-read my sentence and it sounded like a sweeping condemnation of all religious people which is not the intent. The intent, as you observe, is to state that relying on a book as a standard is no less flexible than a personal standard and is actually identical as each will interpret it in their own way and hence act based on their own standard..not an absolute.

[Replaced fixed width line of "^" with
. --Admin]
TJ replies:
Guys, I respectfully choose to disagree with you. Just because we sinners who have a natural bent to justify sin may never totally be able to agree on the moral code down to the letter does not mean that an absolute standard does not exist. Tax accountants disagree on the interpretation of the tax code, but that doesn not mean that an absolute standard does not exist. Besides, the areas of disagreement would end up being fairly few I would imagine. Most of what the Bible says about morality is pretty black and white. Thou shalt not kill.Eis pretty black and white to me. In other words, murder is wrong in an absolute sense. How that applies to war is another matter. Here we have different interpretations. There are pacifists and those who believe in just wars. Perhaps here there is room for not being dogmatic. But the fact that not all Christians agree does not mean that in Gods eyes either position is OK. Obviously both cannot be right. It is not wrong to choose the position you believe to be right. In fact that is what we should do. Now to state dogmatically on this issue that your view is absolute truth would be playing God like Mammethus always accuses me of. Anyway, whatever position we choose on the matter, we must do so with a clean conscience and with the realization that we are accountable to God for our actions and even our interpretations of Scripture.
Thou shalt not steal, bear false witness, covet, commit adultery, etc. is pretty black and white to me. You shall have no other gods besides Me.Eis pretty clear to even first graders I would think. I could list a whole bunch of very clear moral statements and principles. This is what I am talking about.
Mammethus, you or was it John who said it, anyway, someone said relying on a book as a standard is no less flexible than a personal standard and is actually identical as each will interpret it in their own way and hence act based on their own standard..not an absolute.
No doubt there will be slightly differeing interpretations of what is permissable and not permissable in Christianity. Even God allows for this on some issues such as the eating of meat that was first offered to idols. In this case, we are commanded to follow our conscience. So if my conscience permits me to eat and someone elses conscience condemns them then they should not eat. So I will not say that every action is listed in the absolute moral code, however what is absolute are the moral principles that we use to apply to the actions that are in the gray areas. There are many black and white issues though and they are non-negotiable. I do not agree that just because various people may have slightly differing interpretations, that there is not one true interpetation. Do not see the logic of that.
For the sake of argument, let's stick just to the very basics, the clear Biblical commands and others that aren't so controversial. But even if we stick to that, you won't admit to an absolute moral code. Let's admit. We're both prejudiced.
Just because some weirdos twist Scripture and try to use the Bible to prove their own personal convictions does not mean there is no absolute moral standard that God will hold us accountable to. Nice try but that argument doesn’t work. Even if it cannot be worked out to the letter or only agreed on in a general way, still it is absolute and applicable to all cultures. And that is what is important! Or even if we can’t know it as you claim EI disagree Ethe fact that one still exists is what is important. Why? It means that we are accountable for our actions and we had better try our best to honestly discern what God is saying to us through the Word because He will judge us by His standards.
Plus the Bible CLAIMS to speak authoritatively which is a very important point. And it does so based on the fact that it is revelation from above rather than personal opinion of man. The Creator who is over and above mankind gives us His standards in the Bible and whether a person chooses to believe it or not makes no difference. It is still the standard by which all our lives will be judged when we appear before God.(This is what the Bible claims and I believe it.)
Now, if there really is a God, that sounds like a very reasonable thing for Him to say, don’t you think? It doesn’t prove the Bible is the Word of God, but it lends support to that idea.
You gotta remember here that we humans don’t naturally want there to be a God over us. We want to be supreme and free to live our lives however we want. So we are biased in our thinking from the beginning. I know this is a stretch, but humor me here. Would it be wrong for me to assume that even if you became convinced of GOd's existence and the truth of the Bible that you still would not follow God? The only way you guys can live with yourselves and not believe in God is to say there is no god. If you can convince yourselves of that, then you do not have to worry about sin, and can freely ignore whatever the Bible says that you do not like. Not only are we humans naturally bias on this issue, but we are also blinded by our sin nature from the beginning.(Romans 8:5-8, I Cor. 2:14) Even Adam and Eve did not want to admit responsibility for their sin when it was so clear. The first thing Adam did was to blame God and Eve. Eve proceeded to blame the serpent. We all try and defend ourselves and justify ourselves, but when it comes to sin in the eyes of a holy God, this is a dangerous game. Even if a person can convince himself that he is not a sinner and thinks he has won the game and beaten his conscience, in the end he has lost big time. God will never be convinced.
No, there is an absolute code of morality that God reveals to us in Scripture and we are all accountable to it whether we recognize it as existing or deny that it exists. If there were no absolute moral code, if God had not impressed his moral laws on our hearts, made us in His image, and given us a conscience, where would this world be today? We might have destroyed ourselves already.
[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Mammuthus, posted 09-13-2002 10:44 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2002 12:14 PM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 142 (19317)
10-08-2002 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Mammuthus
09-09-2002 5:36 AM


Tokyojim says:
You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this, but believe me they are organized and they have an agenda. Read the Humanist Magazine if you donft believe me. Herefs one quote from there:
***********************************************
I have no reason to beleive you on this because you have shown absolutely no knowledge about other worldviews beyond your own personal beliefs. And by the way, your relgion has its own rather nasty agenda i.e. forced theocracy.
*************************************************************
Mammethus, I'm not trying to force God on anybody. It is impossible to do. Even if I point a gun at someone and get a confession out of them, it doesn't make them a Christian. So, sorry, "My religion" does not have such an agenda. Jesus did tell us to go into all the world and spread the gospel. Yes, I would like as many people as possible to find joy and forgiveness and life in Jesus and meaning in this life. But I would never think of forcing it on anybody. I guess some have tried the forceful thing in the past - like Charlemagne, but what a ridiculous effort!
*******************
Citation of Tokyojim's:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being.
>I for one find this part of the paragraph to be bullshit much like you do I guess.
TJ continues:
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p.
> This guy is over the top...your point..that all atheists agree with this? You must be truly incapable of logical thought if that is the case.<
*****************************************
TJ's reply:
Nice jab! I'll ignore it. I'm actually relieved that you disagree with your fellow atheists. But, Mammethus, the point is that some atheists actually believe this stuff and have an agenda. And how are we to know who is right? How are we to know that this opinion is actually bull- like you said? Are these guys right or are you right? How do we measure? Aren't all opinions equally valid? So in response to these people, what can you say besides what you said?! It is each to his own in your worldview so neither can be considered superior or better than the other can it? Aren't you being a little bigoted and arrogant there in calling that view bullshit? It almost sounds like you believe that your own beliefs are right. Come on. Show a little tolerance here! After all, they are on your side.
***********************************
TJ's previous post continued:
Herefs another one from the now deceased Madelyn Murray OfHair: "The atheist realizes that there must not only be an acceptance of his right to hold his opinion,
Mammethus: Do you disagree with this statement jim?
TJ says:
No, of course not. Did I ever say differently? I just think you are wrong as you think I am wrong.
*************************************8
Jim says:
So you see Ifm not just spouting off here about saying humanism is a religion. It's leaders are dedicated evangelists and they encourage others to become as such. Evidently they think their worldview is right. I guess that makes them bigotted like me.
I say:
"What about atheists...again, YOU are lumping everyone together including me into a specific worldview that I do not necessarily share. You are either doing that because of a conceptual limitation due to the narrowness of your own worldview or because you are insecure of your own worldview and do not wish to be exposed to what other people actually think. I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others.
TJ replies:
Oh, I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood your last sentence. For a minute there I thought you were trying to dictate your worldview to me. But isn't that exactly what are you doing in that last statement? Are you allowed to dictate your belief to me that you just stated above: "but you have no right to dictate them to others." In other words, I can't dictate my views, but you can yours. Nice try.
*************************************8
Mammethus continues:
You have a truly annoying tendency to try to link me (for example) and other peoples worldviews to examples that fit your agenda but do not represent reality.
My response: And you have a truly annoying tendancy to put words in my mouth. I never said you agreed with these guys. In fact, I need to question your ability to read. Did I or did I not preface this whole thing with the following words: "You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this,..." I vaguely recall writing that, but in spite of that, you blast me. You make meaningful dialog difficult when you either don't read, don't notice, or blatantly ignore what I write.
You wanted justification for what I was saying and I gave it to you. The quotes simply show that the leaders of the atheistic humanist movement do have a scary agenda. They are seeking to rally their fellow atheists to their cause. You have not been persuaded yet for which I am thankful!
Cheers,
Mammuthus[/B][/QUOTE]
CHEERS, TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 5:36 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by joz, posted 10-09-2002 12:55 AM Tokyojim has not replied
 Message 102 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 4:38 AM Tokyojim has not replied
 Message 103 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 7:54 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 142 (19385)
10-09-2002 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Mammuthus
10-09-2002 7:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Ok, I have some time to answer your post.
TJ's first post: Mammethus, I'm not trying to force God on anybody. It is impossible to do. Even if I point a gun at someone and get a confession out of them, it doesn't make them a Christian. So, sorry, "My religion" does not have such an agenda. Jesus did tell us to go into all the world and spread the gospel. Yes, I would like as many people as possible to find joy and forgiveness and life in Jesus and meaning in this life. But I would never think of forcing it on anybody. I guess some have tried the forceful thing in the past - like Charlemagne, but what a ridiculous effort!
*******************
Don't forget the crusades or religious fanatics involved in hate crimes...forced religion (not just christianity) is practiced today as much as at any other time in history.
TJ replies: Yes, especially in Muslim lands and I am against that. Religion must be free. Forced religion has no meaning because you can't make anybody actually believe something from their heart.
I am not aware of any Christians who are forcing religion on others at this point, all though I'm sure you will find some for me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Out of curiousity, where do you draw the line between spreading the gospel as you say and harrassment? Do you think it is ok to force small children to be taught a particular faith as fact? My point here is that force and coercing people is not only done by holding a gun to their heads.

TJ replies:
Let me tell you what we do here in Japan. We give out tracts, have Bible studies for those who show an interest and seek to share with people through normal life and conversation about the difference Jesus has made in our lives. Many people are hurting and the god-shaped vacuum in their heart is empty and crying out for fulfillment. They haven't found fulfillment in their life so far and some are ready to consider the question of God's existence and the answers the Bible has to offer. I could quote the testimonies of numerous Japanese who came to believe in Jesus and have been greatly helped. I will only baptize someone who of their own free will comes to me and says they have believed in Jesus. Then we do some studies together to make sure they really do understand what it means to be a Christian. Then if they still want to get baptized, we allow them. I don't quite see how we force religion on anyone.
Mammuthus continues: Do you think it is ok to force small children to be taught a particular faith as fact? My point here is that force and coercing people is not only done by holding a gun to their heads.
I don't call teaching children about Jesus force. I call it education. And the Bible tells us that as parents we have a responsibility to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If I believe the Bible is true, I certainly want them to find the same joy and fulfillment I have in Jesus. We teach our children to pray, seek God's help, obey Him, and we read the Bible together. I will die for the right to teach my kids the truth. Now you may say I am forcing my religion on them. No, I am teaching them and I hope that when they are old enough to make a decision on their own that they too will choose to follow Jesus. I cannot make that decision for them though. THey must do that for themselves.
And don't tell me that you don't teach your kids anything. By the very life you live, you are teaching your kids. They know that Daddy doesn't believe in God and that he is rather vocal about it. They know that Daddy doesn't want them to believe in God. Forgive me, I'm assuming that to be the case. I'm assuming you don't want them to believe in a fairy tale. So you are teaching your kids as well. Don't you teach your kids the fact that "God does not exist"? Even if you don't say it in those words, you are teaching that to them. It is unavoidable. We teach by example, by what we say, by our attitudes, and by what we believe.
TJ's quote:
Nice jab! I'll ignore it. I'm actually relieved that you disagree with your fellow atheists. But, Mammethus, the point is that some atheists actually believe this stuff and have an agenda. And how are we to know who is right? How are we to know that this opinion is actually bull- like you said? Are these guys right or are you right? How do we measure? Aren't all opinions equally valid?
************************
You answered your own question with the last sentence. The statement you quoted disallows other opinions i.e. much like fundamentalism. I find that niether valid nor practical as history has shown that trying to force people to subscribe to a belief or political system (operative word being force) ultimately fails. Use your own religion as an example, why are there so many different sects with extremely different views even though the catholic church with much greater power at the time attempted to force christiantiy on the world?
--------------------------
TJ's reply: I should have said "Aren't all opinions equally valid in the atheistic worldview?" They are not equally valid in my worldview. And to tell the truth, I don't think you really think that all opinions are equally valid. That is one reason why you so vehemently disagree with me. I didn't answer my own question. Besides, even you don't believe that all opinions are equally valid because you are debating with me. You have said that you disagree with Hitler. You have said that you disagree with some of your fellow atheists on their views on spreading atheism. Obviously not all opinions are equal. But the problem is, you have no standard by which to evaluate the different views that atheists have except your own particular ideas. So these atheists are only wrong in your little opinion in the end.
"The statement you quoted" in the above response refers to what statement of mine? Sorry, I didn't follow that.
I agree that the Catholic Church has made some grave mistakes in the past. That is why the Protestant Reformation took place. But even among Protestant Churches there are a lot of different views mostly on periferal issues. Some people hold these issues to be very important and start their own little group. It is definitely not a good thing. It shows that Christians are human and susceptible to sin just like everyone else. However there is a lot of fellowship and cooperation that goes on between churches(not all churches) and we have learned to respect each other's right to hold differing views while still maintaining our own distinctives. Yes, debate still takes place, but that is a healthy thing as it causes us all to re-examine our own beliefs and defend them and hopefully learn through it all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TJ's post continued: So in response to these people, what can you say besides what you said?! It is each to his own in your worldview so neither can be considered superior or better than the other can it? Aren't you being a little bigoted and arrogant there in calling that view bullshit? It almost sounds like you believe that your own beliefs are right. Come on. Show a little tolerance here! After all, they are on your side.
***********************************
You appear to be getting desparate TJ...my side? Really. You have made it clear from your first post that you are not capable of comprehending any other "side" than your own personal worldview. If you wish to meet a kindred spririt go to Bible Inaccuraccy or Inerrancy and look for a poster called Wordswordsman...he has this same problem.
TJ replies:
Not sure why I appear desparate here. When I said on your side, I meant that they are fellow atheists and in that sense they stand with you against my views. Can you please enlighten me on the distinctives of your personal worldview? I keep getting reprimanded for not knowing, but you prefer to keep me in the dark it seems. I'm assuming you are an atheist. Doesn't that mean that humans are supreme? Doesn't that mean that there is no moral absolute to appeal to? I don't think you are a naturalist since you admit to the existence of a conscience, so it seems you do believe that life is more than just an existing form of protein (arranged amino acids made up of hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen). You believe that not only material things exist it would seem - ie. conscience. However, I think you do not believe in life after death or the existence of some spirit in the body that continues to exist after death. If you are an atheist, then there are certain fundamental co-existing beliefs that go along with that position. Where have I mis-judged you? So you don't have a missionary spirit like some atheists so you say.
Mammuthus continues:
I of course believe that my positions are correct..your point being? You believe yours are correct though we do not share much in common in our worldviews. Both of us are constrained by our own worldviews and the law...I don't see us shooting at each other with guns...seems to work for most people...except those who kill or abuse others to force their religions on others.
------------------
TJ REPLIES: My point being that we are both bigots because we both think we are right. You can't label only me a bigot if you are going to say that you think your views are right too. And if you don't think your views are right, then they are obviously meaningless.
Jim says:
So you see Ifm not just spouting off here about saying humanism is a religion. It's leaders are dedicated evangelists and they encourage others to become as such. Evidently they think their worldview is right. I guess that makes them bigotted like me.
I say:
"What about atheists...again, YOU are lumping everyone together including me into a specific worldview that I do not necessarily share. You are either doing that because of a conceptual limitation due to the narrowness of your own worldview or because you are insecure of your own worldview and do not wish to be exposed to what other people actually think. I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others.
TJ replies:
Oh, I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood your last sentence. For a minute there I thought you were trying to dictate your worldview to me. But isn't that exactly what you told me that I can't do in that last statement? Are you allowed to dictate your belief to me that you just stated above: "but you have no right to dictate them to others." In other words, I can't dictate my views, but you can yours. Nice try.
*************************************
Then you are being willfully obtuse. I stated you have the right to your beliefs I have mine. YOU have not rebutted my point that you are unable to engage me in debate unless you place my worldview in the constraint of a definition that does not apply. You always quote from sources other than myself and then attempt to claim that this is my position i.e. strawman arguement. You then increase this shame by falsely claiming that I am dictating my worldview to you. I suggest you engage me in debate or concede that you cannot. If you want to engage in a debate on secular humanists or want to know what other atheists actually think I would propose you start a thread here on those topics.
---------------------
TJ REPLIES: Mammuthus, you said this: "I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others." But in stating this opinion of yours to me you are dictating your beliefs to me - which is what you just said is not permissable to do. So the statement is meaningless. I'm just pointing out a flaw in your argument. If you say I have no right to dictate my beliefs to others, how am I supposed to respond to that statement that you just made. It is a logical fallacy. Sorry, I admit I was being a bit sarcastic there.
Mammethus continues:
You have a truly annoying tendency to try to link me (for example) and other peoples worldviews to examples that fit your agenda but do not represent reality.
My response: And you have a truly annoying tendancy to put words in my mouth.
*********************
LOL! Pot calling the kettle black.
I never said you agreed with these guys. In fact, I need to question your ability to read.
********************+
Then I question your need to post such distractions into the conversation unless it was your intent to link me to them.
TJ: Did I or did I not preface this whole thing with the following words: "You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this,..." I vaguely recall writing that, but in spite of that, you blast me. You make meaningful dialog difficult when you either don't read, don't notice, or blatantly ignore what I write.
***************************+
Ditto
TJ replies: Goodness me. THis is ridiculous. Give me a break here Mammuthus. It seems you have an inability to admit when you make a mistake. I clearly prefaced my statement in a way that I was not accusing you of agreeing, but wanted you to know about what the leaders of the atheist movement in the States are thinking since you didn't seem to be aware of it.
You wanted justification for what I was saying and I gave it to you. THen you accuse me of saying I'm assuming all atheists are the same, when I just said I didn't believe that. And in your next statement you continue harping on this theme. I give up. How clear do I need to make myself?
******************************
You are very sadly misinformed if you think that all athiests subscribe to one worldview or are actually an organization. That is like saying all christians are southern baptists. The only thing that links atheists is that we do not believe in god/gods/supreme beings etc. Your fear of a giant conspiracy would be better directed at the religious sects that forcibly indoctrinate, kill, and otherwise harrass individuals in order to establish power over them....i.e. the "scary agenda" of many missionaries.
TJ replies: By the way, how many other people in the world hold the same worldview that you do? ( I haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what that is yet, it would seem.) And why should we think that your own particular worldview is right? What makes you think that it is right? At least my worldview is not something that I have dreamed up on my own. It is shared with many other Christians who believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Arrogant or not, I believe in the Bible because I believe it is God's revelation to man.
Cheers,
Mammuthus
Cheers,
Jim

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 7:54 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 11:21 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 142 (19388)
10-09-2002 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Quetzal
10-08-2002 12:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi TJ - Welcome back. I'm glad you got your computer fixed. IIRC, we were still working on your reply to my You'd finished with the first paragraph, and were going to continue from there (your message I didn't answer that one, 'cause I was waiting for you to sort of catch up. Post 48 has a lot of meat in it. Looking forward to continuing our conversation.
Quetzal, yes, let's slowly work through that. It will take a while I'm sure. The computer thing was very frustrating. I still have to send it back in for a few days when a certain part comes in, but for now it is usable. Actually, I'd like to start a new thread for this topic. Our posts are lost in the pile and it is confusing. I have worked on your post a bit in the meantime. I still have a few things to talk about with Mammuthus yet. Do you mind if try and finish things with him first? Hopefully it won't take too long.
Regards,
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2002 12:14 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Quetzal, posted 10-09-2002 10:50 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 142 (19724)
10-12-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Mammuthus
09-13-2002 7:23 AM


Mammuthus, I want to present a different side of Hitler and back up my views here. I will probably drop the issue here. I do not see any kind of a resolution here. But I want readers to be able to hear my side fairly. They can decide for themselves. This is a long one. I have tried to make it more understandable for others. Hopefully it is. Thanks for taking the time to read it.
I skipped the first long part of the post. Sorry if it confuses someone. The original post is number 84 I think.
TJ1 - original post by TJ: It is clear from the above passage that Jesus knew there would be false prophets that infiltrate the church. He also said there would be many others who think they are saved, but really are not. So it is valid for me to say that NOT EVERYONE WHO THINKS THEY ARE A CHRISTIAN REALLY IS.
*********************************************+
M1 reply to TJ1: Ok TJ, Then by your logic, you are not a christian either or at the very least, you do not know if you are one. It is a useless definition. If someone thinks they are and thinks they are saved or whatever but according to you cannot really know then there is NO definition of a christian.
********
TJ2 reply to M1:I believe I am a Christian based on the promises of Jesus. He said that whoever believes in him would not perish but have eternal life in John 3:16. There are many other simple and clear promises like this. The Bible says gyou are saved by grace through faithh, gnot by good worksh. But a genuine faith will result in a life of good works. And we are told that if our lives do not exemplify the normal changes, good works, and growth that is to be expected, then perhaps our faith is not genuine. I have recognized that I am not a perfect person and therefore am not qualified to go to heaven. I have believed that Jesus is Godfs Son who God sent from heaven to provide a way for all mankind to be saved. I believe that Jesus died for me and paid for my sins on the cross. I have repented of my sin and have asked God to forgive me. I have given him my heart and life and I am seeking to grow in love for Him and to exemplify that love in my daily life. I have met the conditions for salvation in the Scripture – repentance and faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus as my Savior – and I am fully satisfied that my life does show evidence of my faith in Jesus. John writes to his readers saying in I Jn 5:13 that you can know that you have eternal life. No one can know in the fullest sense, but we can have assurance that if the Bible is true, we have eternal life.
M1 continues reply to TJfs original post:
"There must be a recognition of sin and a genuine repentance resulting in a spiritual rebirth for a person to qualify as a Christian according to the Bible." How do you know who has or has not fullfilled this criteria?
Again, you seem to think that YOU personally are the highest authority regarding all worldviews...you have a god-complex
TJ2 reply to M1 reply: I do not know and never claimed I did. I cannot judge accurately whether another person is a true believer or not. It is not my decision. God sees the hearts. However, based on the fruit that should normally be seen in a persons life who claims to be a Christian, it is valid to question a persons claim to be a Christian. John does that the whole way through the book of First John. He is trying to help people know how to make an accurate assessment of their claim to be a Christian. He gives various tests that we can use to help determine if we are true believers or not. My god-complex as you say would probably come from the fact that I actually use these tests to apply to my life as well as the lives of others who call themselves Christian. Remember, even Jesus taught that there would be those who claim to be Christians but who are in reality only wolves in sheep clothing trying to do damage. I feel justified in questioning the validity of peoplefs claim to be Christian because Jesus told us to watch out for false believers and false teachers. Of course, I cannot be absolutely sure in some cases, but I need to be aware of the possibility. But, by the way, Hitler would fail on all points that John gives us. I am not being judgmental in saying that he was a wolf in sheepfs clothing trying to use the Church for his own evil purposes. He clearly fails the tests! It is for this very reason, people like Hitler, that John gives us these tests. Too bad the people of Germany were not a bit more discerning. Regardless of how much stuff you quote from him, he was a wise politician who knew how to play both sides. In public he put on his gChristianh face in the beginning to gain trust, but in private he revealed his true self as was evident from some of the quotes I showed you earlier from his secret memoirs. These have not come from Christians seeking to condemn Hitler, but are published by reputable secular sources and clearly show his real heart intent and belief. This next quote I posted before is more evidence to that fact.
TJ1 post continued: MAMMETHUS, EVEN BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, HITLER IS NOT A CHRISTIAN as the following quote will show. Hitler once revealed his attitude toward Christianity when he bluntly stated that religion is an:
EEorganized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about [destroying religion] Ewith dynamite. I have since realized there is room for a little subtlety E The final state must be Ein St. Peters Chair, a senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women EThe young and healthy are on our side Eit is impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies E [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples E Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It does not prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls.E
So you see, even by your own definition of a Christian, Hitler does not fit the facts. This was evidently penned by Hitler from 1941 E944. He obviously does not believe in the Bible nor in Jesus Christ at least at this time in his life. And he even says that when I was younger, I thought it was necessary to destroy religion with dynamite so it is not even a recent change in thought he is revealing here. His beliefs as revealed in this quote are abundantly clear: the younger people who were the hope of Germany were absolutely indifferent in matters of religionE As Keith noted, the Nazi party viewed Darwinism and Christianity as polar opposites.
(Hitler, A., Hitlers Secret Conversations 1941E944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 117, 1953).
********************************************************
M1 reply: LOL!!!
TJ2 reply to M1: LOL with embarrassment? Are you saying you do not believe this? Sometimes it is hard to accept the truth.
*********************************************************************
M1 post continues: Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.
TJ2 reply: Now wait. Let me get this straight. You are saying that you actually believe that. You are more gullible than I thought. Or biased, I am not sure which. But, on second thought, I guess Hitler must have been pretty convincing because a lot of Germans believed him and trusted him in the beginning. But at least you have the benefit of hindsight which the Germans did not have.
*********************************************************************8
M1 continues: Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church, and the church never left him. Great literature was banned by his church, but his miserable Mein Kampf never appeared on the index of Forbidden Books. He was not excommunicated or even condemned by his church. Popes, in fact, contracted with Hitler and his fascist friends Franco and Mussolini, giving them veto power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain, and Italy. The three thugs agreed to surtax the Catholics of these countries and send the money to Rome in exchange for making sure the state could control the church.
TJ2 reply to M1: And the Catholic Church should be ashamed for their refusal to stand up to him. If anyone ever deserved to be excommunicated, it was Hitler. I donft know if they can ex-communicate a dead person or not according to their church rules. In our church, ex-communication is a mute point after a person dies. But even if he committed suicide before they had a chance to do so, @it should have been done much earlier than that. You are justified in your criticism here. Perhaps they feared for their own lives, I do not know. Still it was a terrible mistake and can honestly be called a sin of omission.
******************************************************************
M1 continues: Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical. Mein Kampf is full of biblical references.
_____________________________________________________
TJ2 reply: All political propaganda and propaganda to boost troop morale in my opinion. I agree with you though. For some reason, these people bought the lie he perpetrated and it resulted in great evil. Yes, I believe that Catholic Church has some responsibility in all of that.
However, I remain unconvinced that Hitler was a genuine Christian. He fails all the tests that John gives in the book of First John.(not loving the world, not continuing in sin as a pattern of life, not loving your fellow man, etc.) So the conclusion John would have us make when it comes to people like Hitler is that his was nothing more than an empty meaningless profession, one which he used skillfully for his own means. I guess wefll just have to agree to disagree on Hitlerfs religious identity. I would venture to say though that your view on this issue is in the vast minority in the world today.
************************************************************
M1 continues: But since you don't think anyone is a christian other than you what difference does it make what the truth is?
TJ2 REPLIES: You knew I would respond to this didnft you? This statement does not even deserve a response except to say that you seem intent on proving that Hitler was really a Christian in spite of the newly revealed evidence that shows what his real thoughts in private were. You would rather believe the ravings of a madman in Mein Kampf that was written for his propaganda purposes than believe his secret confessions. Who did you say doesnft care what the truth is?
******************************************************************
M1 continues: Since you claim that even believing you are a christian and saved is not evidence that you are you have no definition of a christian for Hitler or anyone else to violate.
TJ2 reply: Let me explain that a bit further. Belief and public confession is the first step obviously. But if there is no fruit to back up the profession, then the Bible says it is a meaningless confession. James 2:17 Faith without works is dead. In other words, faith that does not result in spiritual growth and the display of spiritual fruit is not saving faith. Ergo: the person is not a true Christian. It may be just an intellectual consent to the facts, but that is not saving faith. If our faith is a genuine faith, one that God accepts, it will be clearly seen in our lives. That is the ultimate test. This is what the Bible teaches and this is why I can say with conviction that Hitler was not a true believer in spite of his silly rhetoric claiming otherwise.
************************************************8
TJ1 original post: Did you know that he was even trying to get rid of Christianity itself? That seems strange if he was really a true believer. He was deeply influenced by evolutionary ideas which is clear from his whole concept of eugenics which he so wholeheartedly endorsed and literally tried to put into practice. It is interesting that much of the opposition to the eugenic movement came from German Christians. Even secular scientists like Sir Arthur Keith and the late Dr. Stephen J. Gould recognize the influence that evolution had on him.
Sir Arthur Keith said this: ‘The German FErer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.EKeith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.)
_________________________________________________________
M1 reply: Hitler sure was of great use to the Catholic church...so he certianly did not try to destroy it but used it to further his goal...and the church was fully compliant.
You are also full of crap regarding eugenics...if you actually read anything about it, the entire movement was based on the stupidity of Francis Galton who wished to co-opt evolutionary theory to proclaim that the upper class of society is more "fit". Darwin rejected this claim because it was a misrpresentation of the theory. That Hitler used a complete distortion of evolutionary theory that even the originator of theory rejected as a support for his aims is irrelevant.
Just as Hitler being a christian and using the bible to justify genocide does not make christianity intrinsically bad either.
_________________________________________________
TJ2 reply: Mammethus, I am interested in knowing where and when Darwin rejected the use of eugenics. I donft doubt you, but Ifm interested in knowing. You are right in saying that Darwinfs COUSIN, Francis Galton was the originator of the word eugenics. I wonder where he got that idea from! From the theory of evolution of course. He hijacked the theory? Some say so, but who is to say that he is wrong? Who has final say on the right interpretation of evolution to life today? If certain races are more evolved than others, then they could be considered to be superior, could they not? Of course, today, science has finally caught up with the Bible on this and they recognize that all humans are related and extremely close genetically. Now science agrees that racism is foolishness and unscientific, but that was not true back then. That is a relative new discovery due to the developments made in micro-biology and gene mapping etc.
Let me back up what I am saying here a little about Darwin and then about Hitler.
First of all, was Darwin racist? I cannot say that for sure. But the sub-title of his book causes one to wonder. As you know it was this: The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Whether it was intended or not, Darwinian evolution gave people what they thought was a scientific basis to justify their racist beliefs. Evolution is not ultimately to blame. Our sin nature is the root of it, but evolution contributes to this wrong way of thinking. Darwin taught that Aborigine Australians were a less evolved race and closer to their ape ancestors than other races. Some even viewed them as less than human as a result. Plus, when you think about evolution being the survival of the fittest and how natural selection works, you can easily see how people could think they were helping the process along a little by getting rid of these less evolved groups. However, current day science now knows that Darwinfs teaching on this issue was a bunch of hooey. The term race is not really scientific at all, but Darwin did not know that. He made clear distinctions that have been clearly disproved today.
This idea of favored races can cause big problems. Hitler thought the Aryans were the favored race and tried to ensure that it worked out to be so. Australians used to think that the aborigines were the missing link between an ape—like ancestor and the rest of mankind. (Missing Links with mankind in early dawn of history – NY Tribune Feb. 10, 1924, pg. 11) This idea led to terrible abuses and sins against these people. Plus, thousands of their bones were shipped to museums around the world as evidence of this missing link. False deductions based on in vogue science of that time! Even Stephen J. Gould himself admits this. He says gBiological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.h(Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977. pg. 127-128) They were wrong you say. They interpreted evolution and applied it to life in a misguided way. Again, who is to really say what is right or wrong application of Darwinism? Plus, back then they didnft think it was wrong. Even scientists thought this was a right application of evolution theory. Unfortunately they didnft listen to the voice of God, but only when science finally proved this to them did they change their views. Imagine how much evil, abuse, and suffering could have been avoided in they would have just listened to God in the first place? MAYBE even WWII itself would have been avoided if Hitler had not been so deceived by evolutionary thought. No, Ifm not saying it is all the fault of evolution, but it was a factor in Hitlerfs actions, no doubt.
Why do I say that? Was Hitler influenced by evolutionary thought? Letfs see what the evidence shows.
In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that ehigher race subjects to itself a lower race ca right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,f because it was founded on science. Tenenbaum, J., Race and Reich, Twayne Pub., New York, p. 211, 1956 .
Nazi governmental policy was openly influenced by Darwinism, the Zeitgeist of both science and educated society of the time. Stein, G., Biological science and the roots of Nazism, American Scientist 76(1):50–58, 1988.
e c straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that c [their application of Darwinfs theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist gbiopolicy,h c [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a monistic, antitranscendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selectionc.f Stein, p. 51.
Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist himself of Hitlerfs time, concluded the Nazi treatment of Jews and other eracesf, then believed einferiorf, was largely a result of their belief that Darwinism provided profound insight that could be used to significantly improve humankind. Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, G.P. Putnamfs Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946
Here are Hitlerfs own condemning and revealing words:
ec peoples to decay c. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements. One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that ALL LIVING THINGS should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird c to know the laws of nature c enables us to obey them.f Hitler, A., Hitlerfs Secret Conversations 1941–1944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 116, 1953.
Hitler argued:eIf I can accept a divine Commandment, itfs this one: gThou shalt preserve the species.h The life of the individual must not be set at too high a price. If the individual were important in the eyes of nature, nature would take care to preserve him. Amongst the millions of eggs a fly lays, very few are hatched out — and yet the race of flies thrives.f Same reference above, page 32.
Mammethus, it would seem to me that Hitler here does not seem too inclined to receive divine commandments. In fact, the only one he wants to recognize is not a divine commandment at all, but one he derived, right or wrong, from evolutionary teaching. It led him to conclude that one particular personfs life has little value. Surprise, surprise!
Have you ever heard of the bad blood theory? This was ANOTHER unscientific view that Darwin and other evolution advocates used to hold to. They used to think that bad blood was responsible for inferior characteristics of certain people so eventually, not only were the Jews seen as an inferior race, but also other certain segments of society who were thought to have bad blood that might therefore pollute the Aryan race and hinder itfs evolution. So, mentally handicapped people were targeted for elimination after a while with the justification being that they had bad blood that they could pass on - or - that they might also have had some Jewish or other non-Aryan blood in them. Poliakov notes that many intellectuals in the early 1900s accepted telegony, the idea that ebad bloodf would contaminate a race line forever, or that ebad blood drives out good, just as bad money displaces good moneyf. Poliakov, L., The Aryan Myth (translated by E Howard), Basic Books, New York, 1974, pg. 282.
Darwin even compiled a long list of cases where he concluded bad blood polluted a whole gene line, causing it to bear impure progeny forever. Numerous respected biologists, including Ernst Ruedin of the University of Munich and many of his colleagues such as Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton, and Eugene Kahn, later a professor of psychiatry at Yale, actively advocated this hereditary argument. These scientists were also the chief architects of the German compulsory sterilization laws designed to prevent those with defective or einferiorf genes from contaminating the Aryan gene pool. Later, when the egenetically inferiorf were also judged as euseless dredgesf, massive killings became justified. The groups judged inferior were gradually expanded to include a wide variety of races and national groups. Later, it even included less healthy older people, epileptics, both severe and mild mental defectives, deaf-mutes, and even some persons with certain terminal illnesses. Ideas taken from Wertham, F., A Sign for Cain, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1966
Mammethus, I suggest that if you are interested in really knowing the full influence that evolutionary beliefs played in Hitlerfs thinking that you read such books as the ones listed above. And here is an article that is much more thorough on this subject than I have been. I took the above quotes from this paper.
********************************************************
M1 continues:
Then define the theory of evolution. If you think that Hitler was following evolutionary biological principles (even those set out by Darwin) show it with references. Your cluelessness is striking...here read this book before you open your mouth again and stick your foot in it....In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity -- by Daniel J. Kevles
You will find more quotes linking Hitler and Nazi Germany to christianity by the way.
__________________________________________
TJ2 reply: Maybe saying that he was following evolutionary biological principles is unfair. Letfs say he was applying the idea of survival of the fittest to society and trying to aid evolution along in creating a superior race. Evolutionary biological principles themselves do not advocate eugenics, but if one accepts evolutionary biological principles as true, you can sure see how easy it would be to come to that conclusion. Many many SCIENTISTS at that time made that misguided conclusion.
Define evolution: OK. Evolution is the process by which life is said to have come into existence and evolved into the form we see today. The means for this change are said to be mutations and natural selection which takes place over long periods of time during which small beneficial changes(a result of copying mistakes in the genes – mutations) provide survival advantage to the organism which then passes that on to its offspring. These beneficial changes begin to pile up over time and slowly new species come into being and life moves up the evolutionary scale by creating its own genetic information totally unguided by any outside force or intelligence.
What kind of evolution do you believe in? Would you agree with my novice definition? It is lacking I am sure. Please help me out here.
****************************************
TJ1 post continued: It is interesting that during the Nuremburg Trials, when Hermann Goerring was on trial for what Germany did to the Jews, etc, his argument was that what we did was in accordance with our laws. He claimed that the Nazis were on trial only because they lost the war, not because they were guilty of any crime Ea trial of the victors over the vanquished. (Persico, J.E., Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial, Penguin books, NY, USA, p. 82, 1994.) After all, the NazisEown laws permitted persecution of the Jews. He was arguing that there was no absolute moral standard that can be used to apply to this situation.
**************************************************+
TJ 2 interjection: Here is more evidence of that since you still seem unconvinced: During the trial, Justice Jackson stated that eThe Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideologyf, and ecarried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.f He cited a decree of leading Nazi, Martin Bormann: eMore and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors.f (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2, The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School Page Not Found | Yale University) Jackson cited another defendant, the viciously anti-Jewish propagandist and pornographer Julius Streicher, who ecomplained that Christian teachings have stood in the way of gracial solution of the Jewish question in Europe.hf (Same source as above)
Another senior member of the US prosecution team at Nuremberg, General William Donovan, compiled a huge amount of documentation that the Nazis planned to destroy German Christianity systematically — see The Case Against the Nazis, The new York Times, 13 January 2002. Donovanfs documents were stored at Cornell University after his death in 1959, and are now being posted online at Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. The first installment is the huge (108 pages) PDF file, The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches.
But in spite of all this, I am sure that you are right Mammuthus. Hitler must have been a Christian because he said so. I mean Hitler wouldnft lie, Ifm sure. He is one of the most trustworthy people I can think of.
*************************************************
M1 reply to TJfs original quote: He(Goerring) was arguing that he was not breaking any Third Reich German laws. and if they had won he would technically have been correct. Luckily they lost.
_________________________________________________________
TJ2 reply to M1: Of course he was arguing that he did not break the 3rd Reich laws, but he was certainly implying by in that statement that there is no absolute moral code and so they were free to do things their way.
I am sorry, but I still can not believe that you actually think that Goerring would have been correct – morally justified - if the Nazis had won. Where is your brain? Do you know what you are saying? You are saying that power determines what is morally acceptable and inacceptable. You are advocating the use of force to force your own moral ideas on others and make them conform to your standards or your culturefs standards. Not very tolerant if you ask me. Yet you seem to support this! And yet you criticize me for being vocal about morality! Hmmc Something is not right here.
The Nazis were not wrong because they lost! Come on. That idea is a hard sell I think, but unfortunately you are not the only one who actually believes such nonsense. Many atheists and intellectual elite today find themselves stuck having to try and defend this ridiculous idea. Why? Simply because they refuse to consider the possibility of a Supreme Moral Lawgiver. Well, if they are right, then maybe we better launch pre-emptive strikes against China, N.Korea, and Iran before they do something to us and our impose their morality on us. We do not want our morality to be proven incorrect just because we lose a war.
*****************************************
TJ1 - old post: (Which by the way is what you yourself claim Mammuthus Eno absolute moral standard)
M1 reply: That you wish to link me with Nazi's (again!) says more about your character than mine. By your definition I guess you are no longer a christian or would this be the debate tactic of jesus to
_____________________________________
TJ2 reply: I am sorry for the unintended inference. I am just trying to show you and the Nazis have the same idea in this idea of morality. They have simply applied that idea to their life in a different way than you have. You have chosen for matters of conscience to live a more moral life than they have, but they have taken the idea to its logical extreme. If there is no god, if I am accountable to no one, if there is no absolute moral code to which I must submit, then lets make the best of it and make sure our own race comes out on top. And atheism has no absolute standard to appeal to to say that is wrong.
By the way, lets say I was trying to be nasty there. Lets say that I did sin against you in what I said. Are you trying to say that then I am no longer a Christian? No, that is not it at all. No one is perfect or ever will be until heaven so you are misunderstanding something somewhere. A Christian will still sin and probably do so every day in attitude, word, deed, or thought. But when we realize it, we should repent and make things right with the other person if necessary. You have to look at the general overall direction of a personfs life. Individual actions may or may not bear out his faith, but they should do so more consistently than not and they should do so more and more each year as we grow in the faith. When your son does something wrong and you punish him, he does not cease being your son, does he? No. Your relationship is strained until the appropriate party confesses and apologizes. Same with our relationship with God.
****************************************++
TJ1 - old post continues: He said that what they did was in accordance with their own morality.
M1 reply: He said that what they did was in accordance with their own LAWS...you are a revisionist...maybe you are one of those types that think the holocaust did not happen? Hitler from his own quotes demonstrates how their actions were in accordance with christianity
________________________________________________
TJ2 replies: OK, yes, if you quote the article verbatim, you are right technically, but come on, Mammethus, the meaning is almost the same. Your powers of induction seem to be failing you here. Goerring would have felt that their laws were not only in accordance with their law, but consequently also in accordance with their views on morality, would he not? If the Nazis did not believe so, I think they would have had a hard time going through with all they did. At least that is how I see it. Admitted assumptions are involved here.
***********************************************************
TJ1 post continues: But the Chief U.S. Prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, appealed to moral as well as legal wrongEand the moral sense of mankindE (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2, The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School Page Not Found | Yale University Jackson argued that what the Nazis did was not only illegal, but that it clearly violatated a higher, universal moral law against mass murder, no matter what their own laws said. Would you agree with Jackson?
********************************
M1 reply: Nope, it was clearly illegal but there is no universal moral law.
____________________________________________________
TJ2 reply: I am glad you were not the prosecutor at that trial.
**************************************
TJ1 post continues: If no, how can you condemn Hitler for what he did?
M1 reply: What he did violates MY standard...(or are you claiming again that I am a nazi?) (An unnecessary addition Mammuthus) Nazism certainly did not violate the "moral" standards of millions of other Germans and their allies including millions of christians. Christianity provided absolutely no buffer against horrid acts as you claim it would. Your worldview is entirely consistent with mass murder...you just have to justify it in the name of your god.
_______________
TJ2 replies to M1 reply: Since when does YOUR standard become the basis on which to condemn others? Are you implying that everyone has to follow your own particular standards? That is being a little bigoted is it not? Sorry, Mammethus, you cannot pass off the blame of WWII on Christians. I do agree that the Roman Catholic Church blew it big time though. They should have stood up to these idiots when it became clear what was happening. In that sense, they must share some of the blame, but the main blame has to be laid at the feet of the corrupt leaders of this war and even though Hitler was a Christian by name, he certainly was not a true believer as my above quotes so clearly show. Rather he was a crazy indoctrinated evolutionist gone wild.
And, I am sorry, but no, you cannot make room for mass murder, eugenics, or genocide in a Biblical worldview. Gods Word is absolute and it cannot be twisted to justify sin even if some people may try and do that. This is where correct interpretation is so important.
*********************************************
TJ1 old post: You claim that morality is left up to our own personal standards, our own character and choices. Hitler made his choices. How can you condemn him for it?
****************************
M1 reply: He violated my standards...and that of a lot of other people both religious and non-regligious...so I can condemn him completely. According to your own defintion of christianity, nobody can know if they are christian or not so they are left to think what they think, act accordingly and hope they are acting in accordance with a set of PERSONAL standards. Everyone acts according to their own personal standards including you.
TJ2 reply: Oh, so now majority rules when it comes to deciding morality. That is scary too because over time, the liberals just keep chipping away at the current moral laws that are in vogue and pretty soon cloning for organs etc. will be seen to be morally OK - either because the vast majority of people will be persuaded by the scientists that it is good or those in power who make the laws will be persuaded by them to give it the OK. Either way, we are in for a dismal future if we allow popular opinion and political power to determine morality. But then, that is what Jesus predicted is it not – that things will get worse in the end times. Why am I not surprised that this is happening?
In Romans 1:29-32 we find the following:
cbeing filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
This is how Paul describes people back in his day. Now you would think that with all the scientific achievements and progress that has been made, with all the educated people in the world today, with all the new knowledge and possibilities for communication that are available today, you would think that we humans would have overcome some of these primitive sins and problems that were common 2000 years ago. But this list reads like it could be a very accurate current day commentary on the world. Hmmc It would seem that science is not able to provide the answers that we need. A few years go here in Japan, a prominent scientist was calling for moral restraint for scientists. He said if we do not put some limits on science, we will be in trouble in the future. He was recognizing the problems that are inherent in science when science is made supreme and the only reliable source of truth. Science can tell us a lot of helpful things about what the world is like, but it cannot tell us how what the world should be like. Without God and His absolute moral law, both of which so many scientists have dismissed from the start, we humans are left to argue and fight it out to see whose values will end up being accepted and judged grighth. If you can somehow influence many people to accept your views, then you have an advantage. Or if that does not work, political or military power might. What a great world we live in! Where can we find hope?
Regards,
Tokyojim

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Mammuthus, posted 09-13-2002 7:23 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by John, posted 10-12-2002 12:11 PM Tokyojim has replied
 Message 113 by Mammuthus, posted 10-14-2002 6:32 AM Tokyojim has not replied
 Message 114 by doctrbill, posted 10-15-2002 12:57 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 142 (19924)
10-15-2002 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by John
10-12-2002 12:11 PM


I finally got back on line again. Since Sunday evening my time, my internet wasn't working. Finally tonight it started working again. Very frustrating. Anyway, John, let me interact with what you said a little here.
quote:
TJ's original post:
[B][QUOTE][b]You are right in saying that Darwinfs COUSIN, Francis Galton was the originator of the word eugenics. I wonder where he got that idea from! From the theory of evolution of course.[/quote]
[/b]
John's reply:
I wonder where Hitler the idea of Christianity!!!!! From the Christians, of course.
See how silly the argument is, TJ?
TJ Replies:
I think guys that if you haven't gotten it yet, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue of Hitler being a Christian. John, sorry, No, I don't quite see how silly the argument is. Certainly we can't say that Darwin is responsible for eugenics. I didn't claim that. But many of his unscientific ideas led to this idea. Besides, what is the big deal here? Why are you so concerned about genocide? There is no ultimate right and wrong, so you cannot say it is wrong. You can only say you are against it personally and that most people are against it. But it isn't wrong in the ultimate sense. You speak about it as if you think it is wrong for every man and woman who every lived. That comes dangerously close to an absolute moral standard. When you take God out of the equation, you open up the door for all sorts of problems.
As far as Hitler goes, can you name a Christian who taught him to live like he did? No, you can't. He was a Christian in name only. His heart was far from God as he himself confessed and as my post revealed. He never learned this stuff from the Bible or even from the Catholic Church. He was influenced by Darwin and simply made the logical step of applying the philosophical implications of Darwinism to life. No God. No morality. Only the strongest survive. Let's make sure our race endures. Get rid of the weaker, etc.
***********************************
[TJ's original quote]Who has final say on the right interpretation of evolution to life today?[/quote]
John's reply:
No one person. Science doesn't work that way.
TJ replies:
Exactly my point. So who is to say that Galton and his ideas of eugenics(taking natural selection one step higher and making it intelligent selection rather than letting things up to chance.) Why is that wrong? Why is that not permissable under Darwin's theory? Why did Darwin himself never say anything against it?
Recently, Princeton University appointed the animal-rights activist Peter Singer to a Bioethics chair. Singer, an ardent evolutionist, is notorious for his support of abortion, euthanasia, and killing handicapped infants and old people (except his own mother, who suffers from Alzheimerfs Disease). How can we say that he is wrong? Who can control scientists? This is a problem guys!
*********************************
TJ's original quote:
quote:
If certain races are more evolved than others, then they could be considered to be superior, could they not?
John's reply:
There is no such thing as 'more evolved' There is 'better adapted to a particular environment than ....' but this isn't the same thing. More specialized organism only have the advantage until conditions changed. Then they are at a BIG disadvantage. The less specialized come out on top as the less specialized are more flexible though less efficient.
TJ's reply to J's reply:
John, I don't even believe in evolution so don't tell that to me. Tell that to Darwin and his cronies. Tell that to the Australians who used that argument to try and help the evolutionary process out by getting rid of the aborigines who were viewed as a lower less evolved race. Tell that to Hitler. As I quoted in my first post: In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that ehigher race subjects to itself a lower race ca right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,. Tenenbaum, J., Race and Reich, Twayne Pub., New York, p. 211, 1956.
Of course there is no such thing as more evolved, but that is not what the scientists of Darwin's time believed. Better adapted to a particular environment. Yes, we see that a lot today. And yes, when conditions change, then they are at a big disadvantage. Why? They have lost the genetic information that would enable them to adapt back to the other environment. Actually here you admit a big problem for evolution. The more specifically an organism adapts to it's environment, the more genetic information is lost. It might be temperorily beneficial, but when the environment changes again, evolution stops and extinction ensues - unless there are other less adapted organisms to mate with through which the necessary genetic information can again be recovered.
******************************
[TJ's original quote]Of course, today, science has finally caught up with the Bible on this and they recognize that all humans are related and extremely close genetically.
John:
What? The Bible says no such thing.
TJ replies:
Of course, not in those words. What it does say is that all men are descended from a common ancestor Adam and Eve, and then from Noah and his family. We are all humans from the very beginning. So of course we are all closely genetically related! What I said was simply a logical deduction from the teaching of the Bible. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
[TJ's original quote]Now science agrees that racism is foolishness and unscientific, but that was not true back then.[/quote]
John's reply:
Really? Have you read the Old Testament? It is full of genocide and injucntions against inter-marriage with non-Isrealites. Sounds pretty racist to me and sounds like a program of eugenics to boot.
TJ replies:
Yes, you bring up a difficult point here, but you didn't address my argument. Let me address yours: God prohibited inter-marriage by the Israelites not because He is racist, but because He wanted to preserve their special relationship with Him. He said that if they married other people who worshiped false gods, that they would be adversely influenced and some would be led astray into idolatry. This would ultimately be harmful to them and out of love, He prohibited such marital unions. It is the same in the New Testament as well. Christians are actually forbidden from marrying non-christians. II Cor. 6:14-17 This is not racism. This is a whole different thing. In the OT, it obviously meant not marrying foreigners, but it wasn't racism.
Genocide? Yes, some would call it that. The Bible speaks of it as judgment against sin. Some of God's judgments do sound very harsh. I mean in Noah's time, it was more than just genocide. God wiped out almost the whole world and He was perfectly right to do so. He had set the rules in teh Garden of Eden. If you eat the fruit, you shall die. They ate and God could have justly taken their lives at that time. In other words, just that fact that human life continued is an act of God's mercy.
Back to God's judgments against surrounding nations. These are not just off the cuff impulses to wipe out a certain people. These were idolatrous people who lived wicked lives. God had warned them for hundreds of years about their sin and they refused to repent. I'm afraid that we just have no idea how ugly and obnoxious sin looks to a holy God. We are so used to sin that we think it is not really a big deal. Anyway, the Bible says that God, as the Judge of all the earth, always does right. My faith is in a just and holy God. If it weren't for his love, we would all be wiped out. Actually, I know myself and how frustrated I get at times with just a little evil I see in other's lives. I think if I were God, a person like myself might have already been zapped. Fortunately God is also a God of mercy and grace and although there is a limit to His mercy and grace as some found out in the OT, yet it is far greater than any mercy and grace that any of us possess. Of course, critics who do not believe in God can easily pick out these things and criticize the Bible, but when you know the background, itis easier to understand. I don't expect you to understand. This would take a bit longer to really answer and I would need to give you some specific Biblical references to back up what I am saying. I will do that if you would like to, but I doubt you are that interested or that it would make a difference in what you think.
Also it is interesting to realize that the Jews themselves were not immune to God's righteous judgment against sin. They suffered terribly at various times because of their idolatry and immorality. In that sense, God was fair. He didn't only wipe out the surrounding nations, but He also held His own people to the same standards. His standards are absolute and universal. He never totally wiped out His people because He has a plan for them, but He certainly could have and been totally just in doing so according to the covenant He made with them.
Regards,
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by John, posted 10-12-2002 12:11 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Mammuthus, posted 10-15-2002 12:38 PM Tokyojim has not replied
 Message 117 by John, posted 10-15-2002 1:07 PM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 142 (22172)
11-11-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by John
10-15-2002 1:07 PM


John said: TJ, it doesn't matter if Hitler was a Christian or not. He used the idea of Christianity for his own purposes whether sincerely or deceitfully. This is exactly what people have done with the ToE. The idea has been used to draw unwarranted conclusions. You feel perfectly comfortable criticising the ToE because it has been mis-used, but you do not want Christianity criticised because it has been mis-used. This is a double standard.
TJ Replies:
John, I see your point. You may be right, but there is a sense in which the theory of evolution paved the way for people to be "intellectually fulfilled" atheists as Richard Dawkins has said. It enabled people to live their lives how they want to without feeling guilty because of itfs obvious implications for life. As I mentioned before, the idea of no god and no ultimate right and wrong can be quite dangerous. You may still say this is a misuse of the GTE or ToE, but it is hard to escape those conclusions.
Scientific ideas do have consequences in society and we must not forget that. Of course so do religious ideas of atheists and Christians.
********************88
quote:
Certainly we can't say that Darwin is responsible for eugenics.
You may as well say it. This is the teeth of your argument. Without this inference, what is left of the criticism of Darwin? "Darwin was wrong" hmmmm..... not terribly wicked.
TJ replies: OK, I don't know enough about this to argue further here. He certainly cannot be held directly responsible, but I'm not convinced yet that he was opposed to Galton's ideas in this area. Mammuthus suggested something to read, but I haven't done it yet so I can't say anything more here.
**************************
quote:
But many of his unscientific ideas led to this idea.
John: First, you need to support the claim that his ideas were unscientific.
TJ replies: Let me deal with this in a separate post in the future.
*******************
John's reply continued:
Secondly, most anything can lead to unpleasant consequences. You could blaim Einstein for the atomic bomb, or Spanish ship builders in the 1400s for the deaths of countless American Indians, or Chinese fireworks makers for the death and destruction caused by firearms, or Jung for new-age pop psychology.....
TJ replies: Your point is well taken. Science is amoral, but it can be used for both good and evil. That is why to say there is no god is dangerous. It encourages scientists to, for instance, do research on stem cells even though it means killing many fertilized cells. It encourages them to proceed in cloning experiments even in humans which will again mean lots of suffering and killing for the humans that are cloned. It frees them from moral constrainsts that they should be following. In an a-moral world, how do we control scientists?
**********************
quote:
Why are you so concerned about genocide?
Didn't say I was concerned actually.
TJ replies: Not in so many words, but you are speaking as if genocide is a bad immoral thing. What is your basis for that moral judgment?
***************************** [quote][b]There is no ultimate right and wrong, so you cannot say it is wrong.[/quote]
JOHN: And you, TJ, is there an ultimate right and wrong? I dare you to find one.
TJ replies: John, at least I think you see the problem here. You want an example of absolute morality? Try this: How about torturing babies? Do you know of any cultures that think this is a moral act? (Actually it seems it is legal in America right now with the partial birth abortions. Bad example.) Well, how about rape? Do you know of any culture that thinks this is a moral act? I know some scientists claim rape is easily explainable by evolution, but that is a cop out. Rape is wrong no matter what. Why? Because it hurts someone else? Because it is against the law? Yes, that too, but ultimately it comes down to who God is. Rape is wrong because God is love and He is holy. The character of God is the determining factor for right and wrong. God Himself is that standard and we have that revealed to us humans in His Word. Of course, you do not believe this, but that is your choice.
****************************************
quote:
You can only say you are against it personally and that most people are against it. But it isn't wrong in the ultimate sense.
JOHN: I could say that it makes no sense. This is a rational decision and one I could defend, but for the sake of the topic, I won't.
TJ replies: Hitler thought it made great sense. Just a difference of opinion I guess.
********************************************
quote:
You speak about it as if you think it is wrong for every man and woman who every lived.
JOHN: Did I now? I don't remember saying anything of the sort. That makes your statement an unwarranted conclusion whether I believe the statement or not.
TJ replies: No, it is an unwarranted conclusion if I am wrong. You didn't tell me that I am wrong though, so I'm assuming I am right. I'm glad you think it makes no sense, but I'm sad that you don't think it is wrong in an ultimate sense. If you really don't think it is wrong for every man and woman who ever lived, then you have just proven my point about how dangerous it is when we leave God out of the picture.
quote:
When you take God out of the equation, you open up the door for all sorts of problems.
JOHN: God has been in the equation since the dawn of recorded history and the tale is pretty bloody.
TJ replies: Sorry, but you can't blame God for the evil choices of humans. He created us in His image and one part of that is giving us free will. I'm assuming you would rather have a free will than be a robot. But if we have a free will, there must be a possibility to make a choice. Sometimes we make good choices and sometimes we don't. God is not responsible for our bad choices.
*******************************************
quote:
As far as Hitler goes, can you name a Christian who taught him to live like he did?
JOHN: Try reading the Old Testament, TJ.
TJ replies: Sorry, John, your analogy fails. The OT never tells us to go out and do what Hitler did. Besides, the OT has been superceded by the NT and Jesus tells us clearly to love our enemies. You will never find a general command given to people anywhere to go out and murder. God did order the Israelites at times to go out and destroy the idolatrous nations around them especially when conquering the Promised Land, but that was a specific command for a specific occasion. You find "Thou shalt not kill." in the Bible many times, but you never find the command "Thou shalt kill." (except for sins that deserve capitol punishment.) Punishment is different then murder.
*******************
quote:
He was influenced by Darwin and simply made the logical step of applying the philosophical implications of Darwinism to life.
JOHN: Again, try reading the Bible. Racism is part and parcel of what it meant to be an Isrealite.
TJ replies: Let's see, which part would you be talking about? The part that tells us that we are all created in God's image and have worth? The part that tells us that God is no respector of persons? The part that tells us that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world? The part that tells us that since we are all equal, and since we are all sinners, we all face the same judgment when we die? Or maybe it is this part: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Or maybe it is the part where it says that God is just and right in all He does. Must be one of them.
Yes, I know the Jews thought they were special because they were God's chosen people. They were guilty of racism at times as we Gentiles have been as well. However, it never comes as an order from God. You find the exact opposite in the Bible. When Christians use the Bible to justify racism, they are sinning and bringing shame on the name of God.
*********************************
quote:
John's reply:
No one person. Science doesn't work that way.
TJ replies:
Exactly my point. So who is to say that Galton and his ideas of eugenics(taking natural selection one step higher and making it intelligent selection rather than letting things up to chance.) Why is that wrong? Why is that not permissable under Darwin's theory? Why did Darwin himself never say anything against it?

JOHN said:
You have completely missed the point. Science is based on evidence. That evidence is interpretted by thousands of researchers, not by one. The consensus of opinion determines the corect interpretation-- always tentatively and dependant upon current knowledge.
TJ: No not really. Evidence is interpreted by fallible biased people. That is the problem with science. Everyone wants us to believe that scientists are these unbiased people seeking truth and that their conclusions are always trustworthy. No way. You rightly point out that consensus of opinion determines the (correct) let's say accepted interpretation. That is the key. If scientists would have enough courage and honesty to say that, we would be getting somewhere. The consensus of opinion is not always right. It is always tentative and dependent upon current knowledge as you said. That is all we want to hear in the science classroom. Instead of this evolutionary brainwashing junk, let's have a little honesty here. When we don't know, let's admit it. When there are real problems with the hypothesis of evolution, let's admit it.
******************************
quote:
TJ's original quote:
If certain races are more evolved than others, then they could be considered to be superior, could they not?
John's reply:
There is no such thing as 'more evolved' There is 'better adapted to a particular environment than ....' but this isn't the same thing. More specialized organism only have the advantage until conditions changed. Then they are at a BIG disadvantage. The less specialized come out on top as the less specialized are more flexible though less efficient.
TJ's reply to J's reply:
John, I don't even believe in evolution so don't tell that to me. Tell that to Darwin and his cronies. Tell that to the Australians who used that argument to try and help the evolutionary process out by getting rid of the aborigines who were viewed as a lower less evolved race. Tell that to Hitler. As I quoted in my first post: In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that ehigher race subjects to itself a lower race ca right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,. Tenenbaum, J., Race and Reich, Twayne Pub., New York, p. 211, 1956.
John: Struck a nerve?
What is this outburst about? You don't need to believe evolution to understand how it is supposed to work.
Yeah, Hitler believed in higher and lower races. That isn't the point. Evolution does not work that way, hence Hitler WAS NOT USING EVOLUTION. Why is that so hard to grasp?
******************************************
quote:
Of course there is no such thing as more evolved, but that is not what the scientists of Darwin's time believed.
Some scientists.... Besides, you have your causality wrong. Racism existed long before Darwin and was quite widely accepted as fact. The scientists were not converted by Darwin, they just went on believing what they had always believed. Some used Darwin's theory to justify that belief.
TJ replies: Yes, I agree with you here. Racism existed long before Darwin and many used Darwin's theory to justify their own prejudices.
*******************************************
quote:
It might be temperorily beneficial, but when the environment changes again, evolution stops and extinction ensues - unless there are other less adapted organisms to mate with through which the necessary genetic information can again be recovered.
This is a mis-representation of the process. The organisms that cannot survive don't survive, they don't mate with "less specialized creature to regain genetic information" The organisms that can survive, move in and take over. Simple.
TJ replies: No it is not so simple. Let's take a group oof Great Danes. Now through breeding, they have lost genetic information. Breeders have bred into them all the possible genes for large size. In the group could there be some recessive genes for smaller size still remaining? Maybe? But if small size were to suddently be an advantage for survival, this species of dog would go extinct. Breeders can through selective breeding create many things, but their creations are always limited by the genetic information they have to work with. If they breed certain genes out of the species, then they can never re-introduce them back into the species unless having one of the dogs mate with a less specialized dog - a mutt as we would say. This is the biggest problem with evolution. Change within a group is limited to the available genetic information in that group. You can never get something in an offspring that you do not have in the genetic code of the parents. This is simple common sense.
Oh of course, you can place your faith in mutations, but I don't think you want to go there.
******************************************
quote:
Of course, not in those words. What it does say is that all men are descended from a common ancestor Adam and Eve, and then from Noah and his family. We are all humans from the very beginning. So of course we are all closely genetically related! What I said was simply a logical deduction from the teaching of the Bible. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
umm..... what about all of that "thou shalt not mate with foreigners stuff...?"
TJ replies: What does that have to do with anything? Still, all humans are descended from a common ancestor - Adam and Noah. I dealt with the intermarriage issue already. It was not a racial thing, although, if you don't believe in God, then I see how you might think it is.
*************************
quote:
TJ replies:
Yes, you bring up a difficult point here, but you didn't address my argument. Let me address yours: God prohibited inter-marriage by the Israelites not because He is racist, but because He wanted to preserve their special relationship with Him.

JOHN: gee.... that isn't racist? It seems to fit the definition.
TJ replies: I understand your feelings. God's plan for the Jewish people was to reveal Himself to the surrounding nations through them. He promised to bless them and to bless others through them as well if they would follow Him. It was important that they didn't get led astray into idolatry and other sins that the surrounding nations practiced. God knew that if they were to intermarry there would be a negative result spiritually on the Jews and this is why He forbid intermarriage. Even in the NT, Christians are not supposed to marry non-christians. This is not racist. This is simply for the benefit of the family. Having similar values and goals in life helps a lot in a marriage. Plus if the parents have different ideas about spiritual things, then whose ideas do you teach your kids? I would never have married a non-christian because as parents, it is important for us to be united in child-rearing concerns. I wouldn't want my kids to have to choose between Mommy and Daddy which is how it could be conceived. This is for the kid's own best interests as well. It just so happened that in the OT, the only believers in God were the Israelites and that is why they could only marry each other.
**************************************
quote:
Genocide? Yes, some would call it that. The Bible speaks of it as judgment against sin.
quote:
Back to God's judgments against surrounding nations. These are not just off the cuff impulses to wipe out a certain people. These were idolatrous people who lived wicked lives. God had warned them for hundreds of years about their sin and they refused to repent.
JOHN: Right. And God did the punishing himself? Nope. Hordes of sword wielding Isrealites killed, raped and pillaged in the name of God. How do we know God told them? We don't. And neither did they. A priest or a King told them it was God's will. Hi ho! hi ho! its off to war we go. Just like in the case of Adolf.
TJ replies: John, I know you can never accept what the Bible says at face value so nothing I say can persuade you. How did they know it was really God who spoke to them? Because He spoke through the prophets. There were proofs of God's presence and leading in the OT. First of all, if ever the words of a prophet did not come true, then it was clear that that prophet had not spoken the word of God and actually he was to be put to death. Giving false prophecy was no laughing matter. So someone who was a prophet for a long period of time had a proven track record and the people knew that what he said was from God. There were also various miracles that took place from time to time that gave further confirmation to them that God had indeed spoken and was leading them. Oh, that's right. Miracles can't happen. You are right that miracles cannot happen if there is no god, but you haven't proven that either.
********************************
quote:
This would take a bit longer to really answer and I would need to give you some specific Biblical references to back up what I am saying. I will do that if you would like to, but I doubt you are that interested or that it would make a difference in what you think.
Verify the Bible as a source first, then I'll listen. You guys always seem to forget this necessary logical step.
TJ replies: John, if I thought you were honestly seeking the truth, we could get into the Bible as a trustworthy source. You have heard all the arguments I'm sure. Fulfilled prophecy, archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, changed lives as a result of conversion, etc. etc. etc. I'm sure you have an answer for each one of them so it would just be a waste of time to discuss it. I am making perhaps an unwarranted assumption here, but I have found that for most people, it is not so much an intellectual problem that people have when it comes to being a Christian, rather it is a heart problem. They don't want to believe. They don't want to follow Jesus. Hence they have a strong interest in seeing the Bible proven false to justify their actions and relieve their consciences. If I wasn't a Christian and knew what the Bible taught about the after life, I too would strongly hope that the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of man-made lies.
I am a missionary in Japan and most people I have talked to who reject Christianity would fall into this category. The biggest problem is not that they cannot intellectually believe, but rather it is more that they do not want to believe. Of course it is a combination, but since they don't want to believe, they never genuinely seek for answers to their problems with the Bible.
To become a Christian would mean too many lifestyle changes for them and living the way they want to live is more important than living how God wants them to live. So the intellectual arguments often seem like more of an excuse or a smokescreen for the real issue.
You may be different. But I would bet that you don't want the Bible to be true either. In fact, it would trouble you greatly if it was true. It would probably disturb you greatly if there really was a God. I doubt you really want to bring your life into accord with Jesus' teachings. How much do those feelings color your thought processes on this issue? Only you can answer that.
If you are really interested in seeing the evidence for the Bible, I'll be happy to recommend a good book for you to get and look at. But otherwise let's just agree to disagree.
John, I know that not all of the teachings of the Bible are easy to accept. It starts with understanding who God is. If you don't believe in God, then the Bible must seem like a revolting book to you. And Christians must be high on your dislike list.
I can understand how people like me who actually believe the Bible to be God's Word might make you mad and I truly am sorry about that. I do not want to make you or anyone else mad. I wish you, Mammuthus, and others as well would make peace with God and find the abundant life that Jesus alone can give to you.
Wouldn't it be a good thing if there really was a God who made you and loves you and wants you to live with Him forever in heaven after you die? That is the part that is easy to accept. It is the bad news that is hard to accept - that we are all sinners who deserve eternal punishment because of our rebellion against a holy and just God. If that were actually true, God would not be good and just if He didnt' warn us about the consequences of rejecting Him, would He? He only tells us because He loves us.
John, in my e-mails I speak straightforward at times, but it is not with the intent to offend. We are talking about issues that have a great influence on life and I am greatly concerned about the problems that have occured, are occurring, and will continue to occur as people adapt the evolutionary worldview and so I argue passionately at times. If I got carried away and you felt attacked or offended, I apologize. I know you feel strongly about your views as well.
I'm getting burned out on these boards. I don't think my time has been wisely used here. Arguing for the sake of arguing to see who can outdo the other is not productive. I got caught up in that for a while especially with Mammuthus and it was a waste of both of our time. Well, I probably did learn some things from him though. I guess I can't say it was totally useless. With different worldviews, we process all the information we receive in different ways and there will never be agreement.
Anyway, the frequency of my posts has greatly decreased and it will probably stay sparse. I hope not to totally disappear, but I can't make the board a priority so I probably won't make a very good debate opponent. I'm sure you will have some comments in reply to this mail and if you have some questions, I will try and reply as I have time. Please be patient.
Regards,
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by John, posted 10-15-2002 1:07 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by John, posted 11-11-2002 10:15 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024