Posted on 08/09/2009 8:10:48 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
Just in case anyone missed it (and I think most did), there is little difference between the brother of Rahm Emanuel (Ezekial) and none other than Charles Robert Darwin.
I trust at this point most of you have seen the ravings of one of the lunatic healthcare advisors to Obama, the high potentate of all that is to be united. Ezekial Emanuel’s words could just as well have been spoken in the Third Reich and are as follows:
"When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated... The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value."
Justification for killing children under the guise of abortion started with something as humanistic as “only in cases of rape and incest” and landed squarely in the passenger seat of “a woman’s right to choose”. As a society we have been flirting with euthanasia for some odd years now. Well, as incrementalism would have it, it is now beating down our doors and trying to take control of our healthcare system.
Another of Obama’s close compatriots, Cass Sunstein had this to say about his relationship with Obama:
“Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School. He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not exactly call every day.”
This is a quote from Mr. Sunstein regarding the topic of healthcare:
"I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people."
As a general rule, those in politics and academia do not speak in a vacuum. It is only through years of programming that these people, including Obama develop a callousness that is unmatched in normal society. The teachings of public education and education in our major universities have centered on the idea that Darwin’s theories are correct even against human and scientific evidence to the contrary. If you want to know where these radical thinkers derived their ideas, you need look no further than the writings of one Charles Robert Darwin.
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one up to the last moment. ..”
“Vaccination has preserved thousands who from a weak constitution would formerly have suc-cumbed to smallpox. Thus, the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man....”
“ Excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
“[Yet,] the aid which we feel impelled to give to the help¬less is mainly an incidental result of the [otherwise good] instinct of sympathy...”
“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind...”
Evolution… the survival of the fittest… we wonder why our children emerge from the higher institutions of learning and forsake our God, our morals and our teachings. They do so because the theory that is so pervasive in those institutions belittles our existence and lowers our relevance to that of a simple animal. Is humaneness in a society a trait to be honored? Yes. Are animals meant to be abused, neglected or treated dishonorably? No!
It’s perspective, man!!!
If there is no God and we are truly left to our own moral devices, then we are no more than animals. Our our worth is no greater than the sum of all our parts and any Evolutionist who claims the strength of their morality is being dishonest with themselves and dishonoring the very name of their evolutionary savior, Charles Darwin! Don’t tell me we are no greater than the animals that were placed on this earth to serve mankind and then brag to me that the strength of your convictions is greater than Christianity.
If you love The Origin of the Species, embrace it! Call Australian Aborigines, Blacks and Indians what your father called them… SAVAGES! Rave about the inferior female mind:
“. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).”
Be true to your roots as Evolutionists, supporting those like Emanuel and Sunstein who sound more like Darwin and Hitler than Jefferson or Reagan. You keep your faith and vote for healthcare reform: I’ll keep mine and fight Darwinism, Communism, Humanism, Socialism, Marxism and everything they stand for!
Or perhaps you could look into what it is Charles Darwin actually believed. Take note that your beliefs on the origin of the species are more in line with the Communist and Nazi than with the Christian. Don’t just listen to your mealy-mouthed professors who watered down the conclusions of a man possessed of the opinion that you came into this world from ancestors swinging from the trees. READ WHAT DARWIN ACTUALLY SAID. Then use the brain God put in your thick skulls to draw your own conclusions.
P.S. If you actually read Darwin’s writings and believe what the man said then, why do you consider yourself conservative? No, I really want an answer.
Question: Who said this?
"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife . . .where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed, one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die."
Answer: Adolph Hitler (Now tell me how that differs from Darwin’s survival of the fittest mentality?)
I disagree that nature is the issue. You, apparently have no problem with Obama, and Ezekial Emanuel’s ideas on a health care plan.
Why don’t you say it now... or does the idea of answering that question scare your socks off? (see, I found another phrase)
You and Buck have no idea when you’re being toyed with, do you?
“Not at all. They’re [Catholic Church and the Pope] just generally not well educated in the parts of the Bible that deal with this.”
Sounds like Kathleen Sibelius (sp?) on ObamaCare! I’m tellin’ ya, these YECs are all Alinsky leftists!
I would have said: acceptance of the Apostles Creed, but there ain't nothing about denying Darwinism in there.
One that believes in Jesus Christ, the virgin born son of God that died for our sins, and is the only way to the Father; and accept God’s word as inerrant, and the decider of all things on Earth.
“So, Catholics, Orthodox and most other denominations who call themselves Christians are Christians. “
Thank you for the straightforward answer.
“You and Buck have no idea when you’re being toyed with, do you?”
Are “they” toying with “us”?
I have been hearing good Christians say it for over 50 years. I am not positive but I think it may have got a start by good Christians that replace 'the hell out of me' with 'the pants off of me'.
The apostles creed is a creation of men, and is no measure of one's salvation.
Leave this one out, “ Excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
And this one... “Vaccination has preserved thousands who from a weak constitution would formerly have suc-cumbed to smallpox. Thus, the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man....”
Or you can just snippet us to death.
That answer doesn’t jive with the one given in 140.
“accept God’s word as inerrant”
Even the allegory?
“and the decider of all things on Earth.”
Except who’s Christian, of course. You get to decide that.
I think it is wishful thinking. One of the posters reacted to a common phrase with thoughts of viewing private parts.
Nutshell.
“The apostles creed is a creation of men, and is no measure of one’s salvation.”
What part of the creed do you take issue with?
It's no different than you wanting to. Why condemn others for doing the very thing you're trying to do?
When you try to nail him down on any specific quotes and how he comes to his conclusion from that post, he jumps the shark.
GG:The problem is that you are asking people who embrace Christianity to condemn others so that you can use their words for your own personal, sick purpose.
You: Nutshell.
Buck has never asked you to condemn others. I would have to infer from the above that to answer the question would require you to either lie or to condemn Catholics.
“It’s no different than you wanting to. Why condemn others for doing the very thing you’re trying to do? “
I’m not trying to decide. I’m asking you if Catholics are Christians, and it’s scaring your pants off.
I know little of Catholocism and very much appreciate your reply. I would no sooner answer for the faith of the Catholic than I would defend the Atheist (who is, in my opinion indefensible). This is mostly because I don’t subscribe to either. I do, however know that the Catholic subscribes to the same Holy Text (with some exception) as I do and that makes it easy to defend based on the scriptures. I actually don’t believe most Catholics are evolutionists, but it matters little what I believe about Catholics when I don’t attend the church or study their doctrine. It’s a fairly widely unnaccepted concept in the Catholic church as far as I know. That’s one of the reasons I argued with Buck when he made the rather assinine claim that almost every Christian believes in Evolution.
His claims are generally baseless.
“When you try to nail him down on any specific quotes and how he comes to his conclusion from that post, he jumps the shark.”
I wonder if “he” knows that “we’re” toying with “him”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.