Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-15-2019 3:46 PM
191 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 184 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,540 Year: 2,577/19,786 Month: 659/1,918 Week: 247/266 Day: 19/92 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   We are the gods..
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3914 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 106 of 142 (19398)
10-09-2002 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Tokyojim
10-09-2002 9:59 AM


No problem TJ, if you want to start a new thread. Take your time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Tokyojim, posted 10-09-2002 9:59 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4517 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 107 of 142 (19411)
10-09-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Tokyojim
10-09-2002 9:54 AM


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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are certainly examples of christian forcing of religion but I would rather address the next part of the topic....
------------------

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.[/B][/QUOTE]

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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, alles klar
However, I am more familiar with the sects who cruise childrens playgrounds grabbing kids and telling them they are evil and going to hell etc etc or being harrassed in front of malls, supermarkets, etc by people screaming in your face about how wonderful they are and how evil everyone else is. There are also organizations that pose as help for the needy but withold it unless those in need profess belief in their sect. I am glad that your particular faith does not include these tactics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok, I think you took my question the wrong way. I am not disagreeing with your right to teach YOUR kids. I am saying do you think it is ok to force non-christians, christians of other sects, agnostics, and athiests to learn your particular religious view at a young age without their consent? Not just you own kids.
-----------------------

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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't disagree with that. However, I would not tell them they are not allowed to believe if they decided on their own that it is what they wanted. Much as I rejected religion when I was 10 after being brought up catholic...my parents got out of my way. They kept their faith, I did not.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.
*****************************************+
However, that is also true of you...as below you agree with me that not all christians have the same view..and mind you, the differences between christian sects are not minor discrepancies. In the end, you hold your worldview as correct because you believe it is so from your own PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of your religion which may be completely unique from everyone elses. It boils down to your own little opinion.That mine does not involve a god/gods/alien/etc is irrelevant.

"The statement you quoted" in the above response refers to what statement of mine? Sorry, I didn't follow that.
-------------------------
I probably goofed in editing my post so ignore it...I have had a parts of messages disappearing etc lately and am not sure why.
------------------------

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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This shows that each and every christians worldview is a personal opinion as variable and "bigoted" or "arrogant" as any athiests view...i.e. there is no absolute standard.
-----------------------------------

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 actually answered many of the questions you put to me in the post before you went offline. As for atheists standing with me against your views...first, I only personally know a few athiests and none of them give a crap about evolution and creationism debates. Second, it is mostly other christians, jews, and other believers who support my rights to my own worldview against those who would mandate religion through secular law if that is what you mean by standing against you. From your description of your activities, however, it does not appear that you are activily working against the separation of church and state so I am not actually standing against you so to say. We have yet to engage in a debate on evolution...then we will stand against each other I guess
------------------------

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.
-------

Please scroll back a few posts and see some answers to this.
--------------------

Doesn't that mean that humans are supreme?
-------------------
Please elaborate as I am not entirely sure what you are asking.
--------------

Doesn't that mean that there is no moral absolute to appeal to?
-----------------------
Yes my own...just as you have only your own moral standard to appeal to...yours is not an absolute.
-----------------------

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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

That would be an overinterpretation...I am a naturalist..and a molecular biologist working on viral evolution among other topics. And I do not find that life is trivialized by believing that it is made of chemical reactions which can also lead such things as 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.
----------------------------------
Life after death...sure, my components will likely end up in other living organisms after I die...so in principle, so long as there is biological life, I am alive. As for spirit, no I do not believe that a spirit exists before, during, or after life.
-----------------------

If you are an atheist, then there are certain fundamental co-existing beliefs that go along with that position.
-----------------------

Then list them.

Where have I mis-judged you? So you don't have a missionary spirit like some atheists so you say.
----------------------------

Is there a question attached to the last sentence?
----------------

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.
-------------------------------
Great, then we are both bigots..but under my bigotry you are free to feel the way you want and go your own way..under yours you actively wish to deny that people with different views have the right.

Jim says:
So you see Ifm 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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Then you are now saying that you have the right to force people to subscribe to your worldview...not really 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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok...so you have no right to your worldview...better?

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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because I have not made 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?
******************************
If I were to condemn ALL christians for the fact that many catholic priests have been caught raping children but then in the next line said so how do you reconcile your worldview with that of your fellow christians..what would you assume the intent of the linkage was? You do this repeatedly.
------------------------

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.)
++++++++++++++++++
Why is that important? If my worldview is unique, so be it..it has served me very well. As to what my worldview is, whenever I have answered specific questions you have posted they have been ignored and then you spam me with quotes from groups that you personally despise...no surprise then that you have no idea where I am coming from.
-----------------------

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.
+++++++++++++++++++
Which christians? Do they all believe the same thing as you. What does it mean "believe the bible is the word of god"? Are the amish correct? Mormons? each and every one of you has your own PERSONAL belief that differs from everyone elses whether you say you are all the same or not....you sound like the Monty Python character in Life of Brian where Brian says " you are all unique individuals" and a guy in the crowd shouts "I'm not"

Arrogant or not, I believe in the Bible because I believe it is God's revelation to man.
--------

Good for you...I don't...

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Tokyojim, posted 10-09-2002 9:54 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 12:36 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18246
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 108 of 142 (19427)
10-09-2002 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Mammuthus
10-09-2002 11:21 AM


I started reading your post and would like to finish it, but I had to stop because I kept losing track of who said what. If you get a chance to make it more clear I'd like to come back and read this some time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 11:21 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by John, posted 10-09-2002 12:45 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 5:31 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 142 (19430)
10-09-2002 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
10-09-2002 12:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
I started reading your post and would like to finish it, but I had to stop because I kept losing track of who said what. If you get a chance to make it more clear I'd like to come back and read this some time.

--Percy


Same here.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 12:36 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4517 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 110 of 142 (19489)
10-10-2002 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
10-09-2002 12:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
I started reading your post and would like to finish it, but I had to stop because I kept losing track of who said what. If you get a chance to make it more clear I'd like to come back and read this some time.

--Percy


------------------------------

Sorry guys. I realized by the time I got to the end of my reply that I had at least three posts (statements and responses) all mashed together. I will shorten all my replies and not carry over the quotes but rather paraphrase the points being argued. I would encourage Tokyojim to do the same since both of our posts are starting to look like a rough draft of War and Peace.

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 12:36 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
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 faithh, gnot by good worksh. 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 Godfs 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 TJfs 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 peoplefs 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 sheepfs 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 gChristianh 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:
EEorganized 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 religionE As Keith noted, the Nazi party viewed Darwinism and Christianity as polar opposites.
(Hitler, A., Hitlers Secret Conversations 1941E944, 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 donft 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 wefll just have to agree to disagree on Hitlerfs 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 didnft 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 doesnft 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 FErer, 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 donft doubt you, but Ifm interested in knowing. You are right in saying that Darwinfs 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 Darwinfs 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 didnft think it was wrong. Even scientists thought this was a right application of evolution theory. Unfortunately they didnft 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, Ifm not saying it is all the fault of evolution, but it was a factor in Hitlerfs actions, no doubt.
Why do I say that? Was Hitler influenced by evolutionary thought? Letfs 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 Darwinfs 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 selectionc.f Stein, p. 51.
Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist himself of Hitlerfs time, concluded the Nazi treatment of Jews and other eracesf, then believed einferiorf, 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. Putnamfs Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946
Here are Hitlerfs own condemning and revealing words:
ec 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., Hitlerfs 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, itfs 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 personfs 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 itfs 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 bloodf would contaminate a race line forever, or that ebad blood drives out good, just as bad money displaces good moneyf. 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 einferiorf genes from contaminating the Aryan gene pool. Later, when the egenetically inferiorf were also judged as euseless dredgesf, 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 Hitlerfs 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. Letfs 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 NazisEown 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 ideologyf, 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 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htm) 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.hf (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. Donovanfs 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 wouldnft lie, Ifm sure. He is one of the most trustworthy people I can think of.
*************************************************

M1 reply to TJfs 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 culturefs standards. Not very tolerant if you ask me. Yet you seem to support this! And yet you criticize me for being vocal about morality! Hmmc 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 personfs 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 wrongEand the moral sense of mankindE (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2, The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htm 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. Hmmc 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 grighth. 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 responded

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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 142 (19727)
10-12-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Tokyojim
10-12-2002 11:21 AM


[QUOTE][b]You are right in saying that Darwinfs 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]

I wonder where Hitler the idea of Christianity!!!!! From the Christians, of course.

See how silly the argument is, TJ?

quote:
Who has final say on the right interpretation of evolution to life today?

No one person. Science doesn't work that way.

quote:
If certain races are more evolved than others, then they could be considered to be superior, could they not?

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.

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.

What? The Bible says no such thing.

quote:
Now science agrees that racism is foolishness and unscientific, but that was not true back then.

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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Tokyojim, posted 10-12-2002 11:21 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Tokyojim, posted 10-15-2002 11:47 AM John has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4517 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 113 of 142 (19834)
10-14-2002 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Tokyojim
10-12-2002 11:21 AM


Hi TJ,
I am going to paraphrase your arguments and refer anyone who is interested back to your post 111 for the full text. I do this because to answer you point by point will make things to long and we are already getting flak for the length of our posts. If you disagree where I have paraphrased feel free to address the issue.

TJ2 reply to M1:I believe I am a Christian based on the promises of Jesus. ...edited...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 Godfs 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.

M: The crux of your argument throughout the first part of your post is that you consider yourself a christian because you BELIEVE you are and you BELIEVE that you fullfill he criteria laid out in the bible. However, lots of christians with radically different worldviews (not just minor disagreements on procudure) also believe they qualify including people who have killed, raped, and tortured or supported those who have. Your claim that Hitler could not be a christian is false. He could have and made statements to the effect that he believed he was a christian and he had the backing of the RCC. Why are his claims any less valid than yours regarding what he believed? You have not way of testing it or knowing it.

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 didnft 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 doesnft care what the truth is?

M: This entire part of the debate came up because you claimed that as an atheist that I am philosophically linked to Hitler and that no christian is capable of such crime. Both your heinous attempt to link me to Hitler and your christian apologetics demonstrate that you do not want to acknowledge that christians do horrible things feeling justified by the bible and that your so called "absolute standards of morality" are as flexible or more than those of non-believers.

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.

M: So all babies that die are evil as they did no deeds bearing "fruit"? How do you define this "fruit"? Perhaps Hitler believed that he was doing gods will for the German people by trying to establish the German states hegemony over the world. I don't think this argument you are using is any more valid than a christian is a christian if he believes he is a christian.

TJ2 reply: Mammethus, I am interested in knowing where and when Darwin rejected the use of eugenics. I donft doubt you, but Ifm interested in knowing.

M: Read Daniel Kevles In the Name of Eugenics. If you are interested I will get the rest of the reference but I don't have it in front of me and do not remember off the top of my head the date of publication or the company that published it. It is a historical review of the origins of the eugenics movement.

TJ: You are right in saying that Darwinfs 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?

M: Where did the crusaders get the idea to rape, murder, and pillage? Christianity! I don't think you want to use this type of argument.

Who is to say who is right on evolution...that is easy TJ, evolution is a science with testable hypothesis. Darwin himself knew that Galton misused his definition of fitness for a political agenda. Scientists debunked the definition of fitness by the thousands of experiments that have been done since Darwin's time. Unlike religion, one can actually find out if something is wrong or not!

TJ: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.

M: You are sorely lacking in knowledge on this subject TJ. I suggest you read up a bit since you have no basis for your statements. Evolution has no direction so there is no more or less evolved human. And please show where the bible claims that human populations have greater among group than between group genetic diversity...that claim is really funny that the bible had any bearing on genetics..LOL!

TJ: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.

M: I have to wonder if you ever even cracked the book open. If you had you would realize what "races" he was talking about.

TJ: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.

M: Ditto for religion and in particular christianity.

TJ:
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 Darwinfs 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!

M: Guess who the practictioners of these abuses were? Christian scientists like Galton. And on the one hand you argue that "who knows who is right about evolution?" and then in this paragraph argue that scientists debunked Galton...you are really inconsistent TJ.

TJ:
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.

M: They did not "interpret" it. They redefined Darwin's terms to suit their agenda. Physicists and physics itself are also guilty then because it is a science lead to the development of weapons of mass destruction.

TJ:
Again, who is to really say what is right or wrong application of Darwinism? Plus, back then they didnft think it was wrong.

M: The beauty of science is it is constantly under attack and scrutiny of scientists and Galton was debunked in Darwin's time by Darwin. Relgion forces you to cling to beliefs even when they are demonstrably false.

TJ:
Even scientists thought this was a right application of evolution theory.

M: Scientists studied alchemy and astrology as well, what is the point?

TJ:Unfortunately they didnft listen to the voice of God, but only when science finally proved this to them did they change their views.

M: LOL! Galton and many other eugenicists were christians who believed that evolution confirmed their superiority in the christian gods eyes. They had religion and used it to abuse others with fabricated science to add secular justification to their religious inspired misanthropy.

TJ:
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, Ifm not saying it is all the fault of evolution, but it was a factor in Hitlerfs actions, no doubt.

M: Maybe if Hitler had been a jew instead of a christian he would not have found so many justifications that could be used to sway all those god fearing people to kill mercilessly. You are truly self deluded again that you wish to push off the blame for what christians do on everyone else..but I can understand it considering how many atrocities have been committed by people of your worldview.

TJ:
Why do I say that? Was Hitler influenced by evolutionary thought?

M: TJ, your quotes from your post only show that you are dishonest. You claim that Hitler was influenced by evolutionary thought though eugenics was not based on the principles of evolution even as they were understood at the time. You have such weak arguments that you constantly have to fabricate links between what evolution actually is (which you clearly do not know) and what atheists think (which you clearly do not know either) build up your strawman arguement and let fly. Truly pathetic.

TJ:Have you ever heard of the bad blood theory? This was ANOTHER unscientific view that Darwin and other evolution advocates used to hold to.

M: Show that Darwin held this view...by the way Darwin was a christian to

TJ:
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 itfs 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 bloodf would contaminate a race line forever, or that ebad blood drives out good, just as bad money displaces good moneyf. Poliakov, L., The Aryan Myth (translated by E Howard), Basic Books, New York, 1974, pg. 282.

M: The radical Basques still hold this view and they are majority christian and supported by the RCC...what is your point?

TJ
Mammethus, I suggest that if you are interested in really knowing the full influence that evolutionary beliefs played in Hitlerfs 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.

M: And I suggest you 1. actually read what Darwin wrote 2. learn what current evolutionary theory states (post modern sythesis) 3. learn the history of eugenics.
That people can use psuedoscience to fullfil and agenda is exactly and example of creationism TJ...you guys are philosphically linked with the eugenics movement and considering it was started and propageted by christians it has little bearing on evolution.

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. Letfs 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.

M: So, now you admit that it was unfair? You are again inconsistent. Many people believe they were abducted by UFOs...basically all ancient Greek biological science was wrong....and? Science is a process of unrelenting questioning and probing for cracks in a theory..when found the theory is revised or ditched for one that better fits the data. Religion on the other hand is in a constant state of denial by its proponents as they must unquestioningly stick to dogma and when confronted with inconsistency sit dumbfounded with no recourse but to deny reality.

TJ: 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.

TJ: At the beginning you confuse abiogenesis and evolution. You also ignore the contribution of genetic drift and neutral evolution to the development of species. There is also no "moving up" an evolutionary scale. You admit that your knowledge is lacking. Would you be willing to read up if I made some literature suggestions? I can find some that would not be so overly technical if you are interested.

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 ideologyf, 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 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htm) 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.hf (Same source as above)

M: Actually this does not sound anti-christian but anti-church which was a powerful organization competing with the dictatorship as it did throughout history even prior to the 3rd Reich. Napoleon also tried to destroy the church..not christianity. Martin Luther esentially rebelled against the church to...not christianity.

TJ:
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 wouldnft lie, Ifm sure. He is one of the most trustworthy people I can think of.

M: Why should I not believe what he said about his beliefs? Why should I not believe you when you state yours? How do you know? How do you know with anybody? I am only addressing the point that by your own definition, a christian is one who believes he or she is christian and thus even mass murderers like Hitler could be christians. That you wish to use the common arguement among religious groups (not just christian mind you) that anyone who does evil was not a "true christian" is false. You also fall back on another oft used premise that if they did bad things and you believe they were christians...that they sinned and will be forgiven. Thus the ethics and "morality" of christianity is just as variable and flexible as that of atheists. Your worldview is actually more dangerous as you can justify anything you do by claiming your god supports it and thus religious fundamentalists are infinitely more dangerous and more

TJ: 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 culturefs standards. Not very tolerant if you ask me. Yet you seem to support this!

M: Where did I state that I support this? Another strawman argument of yours TJ...you seem to be getting desperate. The victor writes history. If the Nazis had won WWII they would have written and taught that they had done a great thing and nobody would be able to contradict it. As to the LEGALITY of their actions, they wrote their own laws for their country just as any other does. That the laws were unethical does not make it illegal. We have the death penalty in the US which is unethical yet it is legal.

TJ:
And yet you criticize me for being vocal about morality! Hmmc Something is not right here.

M: Yes, what is not right is your twisting what I am saying around because you cannot counter the points I am ACTUALLY making!

TJ: 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.

M: Actually the US has an official doctrine of pre emtive strikes so there you go. You claim that I and others have to defend this idea when I never freaking stated it. I stated that what they did was legal by their own countries definition. I made no statement as to whether it was correct. And please explain to me how if they had won that they would not have written history to reflect that they had acted morally? Did the USSR after killing and taking over countries and forcing communism on them then teach that they had behaved immorally? No, all the DDR people I have met talk about how they were indoctrinated with the great deeds of the USSR. Thus the victor dictates history. If you don't get this that is your own mental failure.

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 personfs 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.

TJ: So if a nazi committs crimes and then later decides that it was a sin an repents they are still good christians by your definition. Thus there is no inconsistency with christianity and nazism. Your own logic used. And as I pointed out earlier...your morality and ethical standards are both more flexible than mine and further supported by your delusion that a mystical being supports your every act.

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.

M: Ah, so now you have to make assumptions to support your case rather than taking the articles meaning at face value? Flexible arent you

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?

M: I could ask you the same thing.

TJ: Are you implying that everyone has to follow your own particular standards?

M: EVERYONE DOES FOLLOW THEIR OWN PARTICULAR STANDARDS!!!! They don't follow mine. But for humans and all other organisms on the planet it works as no species would survive if its life history traits involved inability to work as a group or to rampantly kill all other organisms. You just do not see that in nature.

TJ:That is being a little bigoted is it not? Sorry, Mammethus, you cannot pass off the blame of WWII on Christians.

M: Your denials not withstanding, I can very well blame the christians for a large part of what occurred during WWII.

TJ: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.

M: I agree in part, not only did they not stand up but they supported and actively participated thus christianity cannot shove away the blame for what happened on others.

TJ: 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.

M: I pity you TJ, you are so dishonest you have to blame evolution (which you do not even understand by your own admission) for the crimes of your religion. It is very sad that you cannot live up to the responsibility and try to do better in the future but rather persist in your denial.

TJ:
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.

M: As that "correct interpretation" is subjective it means there is no absolute.

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.

TJ: Surprise surprise, you don't know what therapeutic cloning is either or what is being proposed. LOL!
If it was majority rules the US would be a theocracy where nobody had any freedom whatsover......Taliban style.

TJ:
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?

M: Oh boy, now end of the world fears per biblical prophecy I suppose?

TJ: 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.

M: We would if the fundamentalists did not keep a large number of people stuck 2000 years behind the rest of the world with their love of war against all those who are different.

TJ:
........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 grighth.

M: You fight it out with true believers...fundamentalists Islamists are identical to you in ideaology with the only difference being the name of the god they worship...you all have your "absolute" moral laws that are all absolutely in conflict with one another...thus war and crime of the religios zealots...and then denial that you have done anything wrong after committing the crime since after all, god told you it was ok....

TJ: 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?

M: We can find hope in a world where diversity is maintained and different worldviews can co-exist as for the most part does exist. If guys like you were not so power hungry like the nazi's to control the entire world and subjugate it to your worldview then the world would be a lot more peaceful and full of hope.

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Tokyojim, posted 10-12-2002 11:21 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 114 of 142 (19898)
10-15-2002 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Tokyojim
10-12-2002 11:21 AM


So much for shortening the posts. I've not much patience for books anyway. But I did catch something I thought humorous -

"Hitlers Secret Conversations ... With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler"

If the conversations were secret, then ... ? And, who really knows the mind of another?

Typical of "mystery religions" if you ask me. But you didn't, yes?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Tokyojim, posted 10-12-2002 11:21 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
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 Darwinfs 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 Alzheimerfs 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 responded

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

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4517 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 116 of 142 (19927)
10-15-2002 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Tokyojim
10-15-2002 11:47 AM


TJ:
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.

M: I will let John respond to you on most points since you and I are going in circles and I find your answers to my questions or statements increasingly less compelling. But this paragraph of yours above is so completely and patently wrong it is hard to believe you posted it. You should really actually know something about evolution or genetics for that matter before you make pronouncements on "genetic loss" or the causes of extinction..or this crap about higher and lower evolution. How can you even be against something that you don't even have the slightest idea about?

cheers M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Tokyojim, posted 10-15-2002 11:47 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 142 (19931)
10-15-2002 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Tokyojim
10-15-2002 11:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
John's reply:
I wonder where Hitler the idea of Christianity!!!!! From the Christians, of course.

See how silly the argument is, TJ?


quote:
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.

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.

quote:
John, sorry, No, I don't quite see how silly the argument is.

It is a double standard, as I have explained. I find that funny Sorry, strange since of humor.

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.

quote:
But many of his unscientific ideas led to this idea.

First, you need to support the claim that his ideas were unscientific.

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.....

quote:
Why are you so concerned about genocide?

Didn't say I was concerned actually.

[quote][b]There is no ultimate right and wrong, so you cannot say it is wrong.[/quote]

[/b]

And you, TJ, is there an ultimate right and wrong? I dare you to find one.

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.

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.

quote:
You speak about it as if you think it is wrong for every man and woman who every lived.

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.

quote:
When you take God out of the equation, you open up the door for all sorts of problems.

God has been in the equation since the dawn of recorded history and the tale is pretty bloody.

quote:
As far as Hitler goes, can you name a Christian who taught him to live like he did?

Try reading the Old Testament, TJ.

quote:
He was influenced by Darwin and simply made the logical step of applying the philosophical implications of Darwinism to life.

Again, try reading the Bible. Racism is part and parcel of what it meant to be an Isrealite.

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?


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.

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.


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.

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.

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...?"

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.

gee.... that isn't racist? It seems to fit the definition.

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.

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.

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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Tokyojim, posted 10-15-2002 11:47 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Tokyojim, posted 11-11-2002 3:28 AM John has responded

  
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 itfs 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 responded

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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 142 (22224)
11-11-2002 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Tokyojim
11-11-2002 3:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
It enabled people to live their lives how they want to without feeling guilty because of it's obvious implications for life.

You have a really warped perception of non-Christians.

quote:
As I mentioned before, the idea of no god and no ultimate right and wrong can be quite dangerous.

As I have pointed out, the IDEA of God has been around for all of recorded history and the tale is pretty bloody. It seems to me that the evidence is that the IDEA of God is pretty damned dangerous.

quote:
It encourages scientists to, for instance, do research on stem cells even though it means killing many fertilized cells.

I'm skipping this. It belongs in another thread.

quote:
In an a-moral world, how do we control scientists?

Right... because scientist are all Hollywoodesque Dr. Moreau mad-man types. Try getting a grip on your mis-perception of non-Christians.

quote:
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?

Eugenics is selection for traits without knowing which traits will eventually be useful. Hence, it makes no sense.

quote:
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.)

Your phrasing abortion as 'torture' is misleading. What you want to ask is whether I know of any cultures who consider abortion/infanticide to be a moral act. Yes. Numerous cultures have taken this stance. The Spartans for one.

quote:
Well, how about rape? Do you know of any culture that thinks this is a moral act?

Yanomamo. oh.... and the ancient Isrealites as long as 1) the victim wasn't an isrealite, 2) you married the victim in the aftermath, 3)certain special circumstances apply-- such as in the case of Lot and the angels.

quote:
Rape is wrong no matter what. Why? Because it hurts someone else?

You need to read your Bible.

quote:
then you have just proven my point about how dangerous it is when we leave God out of the picture.

Why is it dangerous to leave God out of the picture when with God in the picture it is sometimes OK?

quote:
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.


This knee-jerk reaction is sidestepping the issue. I did not say that God is responsible. I said that God-- the idea of God-- has been in the equation all along and that the result has been pretty nasty.

quote:
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.


Don't tell me that you have read the OT and missed all the conquest, murder and kidnapping?

Please, TJ, don't play dumb.

quote:
Besides, the OT has been superceded by the NT and Jesus tells us clearly to love our enemies.

Then why not ditch the OT?

quote:
You will never find a general command given to people anywhere to go out and murder.

I was going to post some verses for you but why bother? You are aware of precisely what you deny.

quote:
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.

quote:
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.)

Right... like a woman's deserving death for touching a man's pee-pee during a fight.

Or, obviously, a rape victim not crying out loudly enough. Deut. 22:23-24.

quote:
TJ replies: Let's see, which part would you be talking about?

Well, there is Numbers 31:9, 31:32-36.

quote:
The part that tells us that we are all created in God's image and have worth?

I was thinking more about how the Isrealites pretty much get to kill, rape and pillage at will and with God's blessing. It doesn't speek much for the theory that we are all equal and have worth.

quote:
They were guilty of racism at times as we Gentiles have been as well. However, it never comes as an order from God.

Like bloody hell! The OT is full of orders from God to kill other peoples. Ex. 23:24, 34:11-14, Num. 21:1-5.

quote:
When Christians use the Bible to justify racism, they are sinning and bringing shame on the name of God.

How do you breathe with your head under so much sand?

quote:
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.

I've covered this.

quote:
Evidence is interpreted by fallible biased people.

Funny thing, the Bible is interpretted by fallible people too. So would you like to retract the objection or shall I dismiss your religion-- with your blessing-- based on the same grounds?

quote:
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.

Only creationists push this characature of science. Scientist know damn well that scientists are biased and fallible. This is why science must be reproducible and conclusions testable. Different people, different biases, same answer--- well gee, maybe it is true.

quote:
If scientists would have enough courage and honesty to say that, we would be getting somewhere.

LOL..... ask a scientist!!!!!!

quote:
It is always tentative and dependent upon current knowledge as you said.

'k

quote:
That is all we want to hear in the science classroom.

If that is all you want, I have no problem; but I bet you want more than that. I'd bet that you want to include theories for which there is no evidence.

[quote][b]TJ replies: No it is not so simple. Let's take a group oof Great Danes..... But if small size were to suddently be an advantage for survival, this species of dog would go extinct.[quote][b]

Exactly what I said.

quote:
Breeders can through selective breeding create many things, but their creations are always limited by the genetic information they have to work with.

Breeders are not working with time-frames of millions of years, and ten's of thousands of generations.

quote:
This is the biggest problem with evolution.

This is the biggest problem with the cartoon creationist version of evolution. Thankfully, that isn't the ToE. Here is an experiment-- difficult but not impossible. Take two dogs and sequence their DNA. Breed the two. Sequence the DNA of the pups and check for mutations. Wham-bam!!!! There is the new genetic material.

quote:
You can never get something in an offspring that you do not have in the genetic code of the parents.

Patently false. See above.

quote:
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.

Really, you have just given a nice pro-racist sermonette.

quote:
TJ replies: John, I know you can never accept what the Bible says at face value so nothing I say can persuade you.

Sure there is, theoretically.

quote:
How did they know it was really God who spoke to them? Because He spoke through the prophets.

And we know the prophet were no lying or tripping becasue they said so? You have got to joking.

quote:
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.

Lots 'o prophets spoke falsely.

quote:
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.

Or so says a book for which we have no external verification of its accuracy. Many religious texts claim miracles. You believe all of them I suppose?

quote:
Oh, that's right. Miracles can't happen.

More like, miracles don't happen. Miracles conveniently stopped happening at some point in the distant magical past.

quote:
TJ replies: John, if I thought you were honestly seeking the truth

And how did you come to the conclusion that I am not?

quote:
You have heard all the arguments I'm sure.

Yeah, and unless you have something new, they are all crap. Otherwise, I'd be on your side.

quote:
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 thought you were honestly searching for the truth?

quote:
I am making perhaps an unwarranted assumption here

No kidding.

quote:
it is not so much an intellectual problem that people have when it comes to being a Christian, rather it is a heart problem.

I'm deleting the sermon.

quote:
Arguing for the sake of arguing to see who can outdo the other is not productive.

I thought you were honestly searching for the truth?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Tokyojim, posted 11-11-2002 3:28 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Tokyojim, posted 11-17-2002 3:13 AM John has responded
 Message 124 by Tokyojim, posted 11-22-2002 10:19 AM John has not yet responded
 Message 132 by nator, posted 01-02-2003 11:36 AM John has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 142 (22972)
11-17-2002 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by John
11-11-2002 10:15 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
It(evolution) enabled people to live their lives how they want to without feeling guilty because of it's obvious implications for life.

You have a really warped perception of non-Christians.

TJ replies: John, if a person is looking for such an excuse, evolution presents a perfect one for them. Of course not everyone is like that, but some are. Some people realize that if evolution is true, then their conscience is not binding. There are accountable to no one and there is no ultimate moral code which they must adhere to. By the way, students are no dummies. If we teach this evolution stuff to them, it doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together.

quote:
As I mentioned before, the idea of no god and no ultimate right and wrong can be quite dangerous.

As I have pointed out, the IDEA of God has been around for all of recorded history and the tale is pretty bloody. It seems to me that the evidence is that the IDEA of God is pretty damned dangerous.

TJ replies: The existence of God is only helpful if people believe it and voluntarily decide to submit their lives to Him. The vast majority of peeople in the world do not honestly believe from their hearts in God in such a way that they are really willing to follow Him. Most people say they believe in God, but their lifestyle shows they really don't. Well, their belief may affect their lives to a certain extent, but when the rubber meets the road, they aren't ready to make the hard choices that are involved if we genuinely want to follow God. So yes, the idea of God has been around from the beginning, but as more and more people choose not to follow Him, His existence has less and less influence on our society.
However, I still argue that our conscience that we all have comes from God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the world of restraining evil has kept the human race in existence. We may have already destroyed ourselves if it weren't for the existence of God and the laws of God that are written in our hearts. Romans 2:14-16
"for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

quote:
It encourages scientists to, for instance, do research on stem cells even though it means killing many fertilized cells.

I'm skipping this. It belongs in another thread.

TJ replies: Skip it but nevertheless, it shows the problem we have if there is no absolute moral law. In essence, nothing is ultimately wrong. As soon as majority opinion shifts to accepting this we could have humans being cloned and harvested for organs or more and more fetuses killed for stem research. According to science, there is no ultimate right or wrong, so what is the problem with killing a few fertilized eggs if the result is helpful to mankind? WHat is the problem with killing a few clones if the result is a longer life for the human who is cloned. And all the suffering and failures of the experiments to get the technology to a working level, who cares? It is worth it for the sake of science. Science becomes the authority.

quote:
In an a-moral world, how do we control scientists?

Right... because scientist are all Hollywoodesque Dr. Moreau mad-man types. Try getting a grip on your mis-perception of non-Christians.

TJ replies: Of course not. I don't have a misperception of non-Christians. The Bible says that all humans are sinners in nature. Not that we never do anything right, but that we have a natural tendancy to do what is wrong or even if we do what is right, chances are it is for impure motives.(selfishness, pride, personal gain, etc.)
However, don't tell me that you are willing to trust scientists to make good moral choices in their research. There needs to be some kind of check on them or SOME will go astray.
It is interesting that even non-christians here in Japan are concerned about this. In fact, there were a couple of days over New Year's a few years ago here in Japan that the newspapers featured long articles about science and the need for moral standards. People realize the danger and they want some controls and they are not even Christians.

quote:
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?

Eugenics is selection for traits without knowing which traits will eventually be useful. Hence, it makes no sense.

TJ replies: Oh, so if you could come up with some way to make scientific sense of it, it would be OK. See, John, this is the problem. Everything is relative. Someday someone will come us with just such an idea and then what. Or technology will improve to the point where we will be able to do that and then what? Even now, we know that certain traits are harmful so why not try and get rid of them. (Down's Syndrome, retardation, etc.) To me, it does make sense if evolution is true and there is no God.

quote:
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.)

Your phrasing abortion as 'torture' is misleading. What you want to ask is whether I know of any cultures who consider abortion/infanticide to be a moral act. Yes. Numerous cultures have taken this stance. The Spartans for one.

TJ replies: John, I didn't make myself clear here. Abortion is a little different than torture since torture is purposefully inflicting pain on the victim. In abortion, pain iss inflicted on the baby, but it isn't done for the sake of making the baby suffer. How about we leave abortion out of it and make the issue purposeful inflcting of pain on babies? Do you know of any cultures where this is thought to be a moral act? I don't and I don't think you will find one. And just because some cultures practiced infanticide doesn't mean that they really thought it was a moral act.

quote:
Well, how about rape? Do you know of any culture that thinks this is a moral act?

Yanomamo. oh.... and the ancient Isrealites as long as 1) the victim wasn't an isrealite, 2) you married the victim in the aftermath, 3)certain special circumstances apply-- such as in the case of Lot and the angels.

TJ replies: Don't know anything about the Yanomamo. Indians? And as I said above, I would doubt that these Indians really thought that this act was a moral act. It may have been practiced and tolerated, but I doubt the women thought it was a moral act. Is it only the men's opinions that count? Even overall, I bet the majority of the people would not have thought rape to be a morally good thing. I have no evidence to back up that opinion. I'd like to read more about the Yanomamo.
Did rape happen in the OT among the Israelites? Yes it did, unfortunately. No surprise there. However, it was never condoned or left unpunished. Marrying the victim in the aftermath was actually a punishment for the man. It made him take responsibility for his sin. If he didn't marry her, the woman would be left unmarried forever. Marriages weren't love marriages so much back then anyway like they are today. There is one example in the Bible of when a guy raped a women. She asked him to marry her and when he wouldn't, she got all upset. She wanted him to marry her.
Lot's case is very unique. Don't tell me he wanted to give his daughter to those men to rape. Where's your head at? He only did it to spare the angels who were sent from God from homosexual rape. I think he was wrong to do that. The angels could certainly have defended themselves I'm sure, but that is what Lot did. In that case, he chose the lesser of two evils. Give the men the angels sent from God to be gang raped or give them his daughter. No one would want to be in that position, but to take that example and say the Bible sanctions rape is misguided.

quote:
Rape is wrong no matter what. Why? Because it hurts someone else?

You need to read your Bible.

TJ replies: OK then I'll answer my question. It is wrong not only becuase it hurts someone else, but at a more fundamental level, it is wrong because of who God is. He is holy and pure. He is love and acts on our behalf and tells us love others in the same way. All men are made in God's image and deserve respect and rape goes against this principle. In the 10 Commandments, we are told that it is wrong to commit adultery. This has a broader meaning too - purity in sexual relationships which comes from God being pure and holy. Rape fits under this commandment in a broad way.

quote:
then you have just proven my point about how dangerous it is when we leave God out of the picture.

Why is it dangerous to leave God out of the picture when with God in the picture it is sometimes OK?

TJ replies: Did you cut out some of my post here? Doesn't seem to flow. Maybe it was just my poor writing.
Nevertheless, imagine how much worse it would be if it was never even prohibited. Plus it is not right even with God in the picture so your statement doesn't make sense.

quote:
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.


This knee-jerk reaction is sidestepping the issue. I did not say that God is responsible. I said that God-- the idea of God-- has been in the equation all along and that the result has been pretty nasty.

TJ replies: I dealt with this misguided statement above. History is bloody because men and women have made choices to do their own thing rather than follow God. You can't blame all the blood and nastiness on Christians. They are only responsible for a small part of it. Stalin, Mao Tse TUng, Hitler, and their many cronies in just this past century, godless dictators like Idi Amin, Pol Pot, etc are responsible for far more meaningless murders than are Christians over the whole dawn of time! They pale in comparison.

quote:
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.


Don't tell me that you have read the OT and missed all the conquest, murder and kidnapping? Please, TJ, don't play dumb.

TJ replies: John, I'm not playing dumb. You misunderstand what I am saying. There are never any statements in general terms like the 10 commandments to this effect. "You may go out and kill whoever you want." On the contrary, it says "You shall not kill". Now there are times when God commanded the Israelites to go and destroy a neighboring people as judgment for their sin etc., but it is a specific directive to the Israelites for a specific time and cannot be interpreted as God condoning anyone going out and doing in their neighboring country. No one would argue that that is what God is saying in the Bible.

quote:
Besides, the OT has been superceded by the NT and Jesus tells us clearly to love our enemies.

Then why not ditch the OT?

TJ replies: No way. The OT has a lot of value. It gives us a valuable historical record of human history. THere are lots of lessons we can learn from the mistakes of others in the past. We learn much about God in the OT. We have a record of prophecies that validate Jesus as the Messiah. There are many types of Christ in the OT that further confirm the identity of Jesus. We have the Law in the OT through which we learn much about the character of God. It is very valuable. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it. Ditch it? No way.

quote:
You will never find a general command given to people anywhere to go out and murder.

I was going to post some verses for you but why bother? You are aware of precisely what you deny.

TJ replies: John, on the contrary. I am not aware of any general command that God gives to humans to go out and kill their fellow humans. Please go ahead and post them. Thanks.

quote:
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.

quote:
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.)

Right... like a woman's deserving death for touching a man's pee-pee during a fight.

TJ replies: John, you confuse judgement for sin and murder. I'm not sure what you are talking about here, but I think you have twisted it a little to make it look foolish. Plus you have to understand that God gave many rules concerning ceremonial purity. They had to be ceremonially clean when they approached God and worshipped Him. This was to emphasize the holiness of God and our own sinfulness. If people directly violated these commands it was a direct acto of rebellion against God and his holiness. Eventually we will all die because of our sins against God. Some of us will suffer eternal death, eternal separation from God, because of our sins. The Bible says "The soul that sins will die." God means it. He made rules to show the people of Israel that taking His holiness and His Law lightly is not permissable. God meant business and some found that out the hard way. Having said that, I don't understand all of God's judgments in the Bible, but I am not God. I cannot see things from his persective, only from my warped finite sinful perspective. Sin is a natural thing for us humans, me included. I commit sins every day and I live among people who do the same. Small sins don't seem so serious sometimes, but sin is sin and the wages of sin is death, both physical and spiritual.

Or, obviously, a rape victim not crying out loudly enough. Deut. 22:23-24.

TJ replies: John, lets look at this in context.
"If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,
22:24 "then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.
22:25 "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
22:26 "But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death..."

Notice that this is only true if the adultery happens in the city. They are condemned for committing adultery. It is assumed that if she had cried out, people would have heard her cries. Everyone knew this law to start with. It was designed to discourage such a thing.
Obviously rape is wrong. Remember, we're talking about ancient housing, not modern sound-proof housing. It isn't all that unreasonable.
However if the attack happened in the country, the woman is assumed to be innocent. It is assumed that she cried out and that no one heard her. Pretty advanced women's rights for an ancient civilization, I think. Did mistakes ever happen? Perhaps, I don't know, but this was how God set things up.

Gotta stop with this. I'll get to the rest of it next time. I answered the whole thing yesterday and then lost it after spending a couple of hours on it. Forgot to enter my password so it never got posted. I'll be back sometime.
regards,
Tokyojim


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by John, posted 11-11-2002 10:15 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by John, posted 11-17-2002 12:18 PM Tokyojim has responded

  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019