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 have corrected Buck on this issue and defended you. I hope you will be a good Christian and assist me when someone lies about me.
In that case, I retract my statement about e-s claiming that Catholics are not Christians. However, the issue is not whether any ONE Catholic is a Christian; it is whether Catholicism confers Christianity on all faithful adherents. I don’t think we have his statement on that point.
We do have the BD statement, though, and that’s a good one!
Thank you Buck for your very sincere retraction. You have honored this thread and site.
Perhaps now, we can continue the discussion related to in the rest of your post.
However, the issue is not whether any ONE Catholic is a Christian; it is whether Catholicism confers Christianity on all faithful adherents. I don’t think we have his statement on that point.
No church can confer Christianity on a single soul. It is completely between the individual and Christ. (”there is one mediator between God and man; the man Christ Jesus.”)
Yes. You said that earlier. But looking at Buck's question (it is his question so maybe he would like to review my interpretation) I understand it as asking whether a faithful, by adhering to the tenents of the Catholic Church has a basis for declaring himself a Christian. There must be some rational basis. For example, if a person went around declaring himself a Christian but stated that his belief that Jesus Christ was a mere mortal heretic and never peformed the miracles in the Bible could that person actually self-determine himself to be a Christian?
Its not up to self, its up to Christ.
He said that there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth at the judgement.
Buck retracted his statement. Should you not accept his retraction and Ping JR?
That is contrary to a previous post of yours:
The individuals do.
Are you sure of what determines whether one is a Christian or not?
Interesting. I thought it did not matter whether you were wicked or just, only whether you accepted Jesus Christ as your saviour?
-----------------
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:49-50).
On determining one's Christianity:
First: It is the individual that determines it.
Next: It is not the individual, it is the individual and Christ.
Next: It is only Christ that determines whether a person is Christian.
Now we have gnashing of teeth and it is the angels that determine the judgement.
I’m a bit confused myself. Perhaps it is the late hour, as you suggest.
I defended you against Buck's attack. How about a courtesy notation that you were mistaken in stating that I attacked the SDA's?
I am signing off. It is too bad that editor does not have the honor that you have. He never acknowledged your retraction and never retracted his false post claiming I had attacked the SDA's. I must say that anyone that will follow Jesus Christ with no promise of eternal rewards has more of my respect than one that follows Jesus Christ with the promise of eternal life. Seems a much less selfish position. Anyhow, you tried. Good night.
Boy, I step away from the computer for a minute to get lunch and BOOM, we’re in the Smokey Backroom!
I can’t help but wonder if that wasn’t the intent of some all along. Way to go guys.
It seems neither you nor Buck W are interested in answers (they were given already). What you want is every poster to give answers a million times over.
I was referring to the general tone and content of the articles and threads.
I’m new to the smoky backroom so I’m not sure exactly what it is. But bw and cw are a total waste of time. I’m ashamed I took the time to justify their collective comments.
I see. I am not the writer to whom you refer. Whew! That was close. For a moment, I thought I was being held to account for something I had written in a parallel life.
”Can you read?”
Yes I can. But I can see where someone, who has never made an error in reading, would not understand how such an error could possibly happen.
“Here we have an article posted by the writer that compares Darwin to Hitler and Obama and company and you are upset because we ask a few innocent questions.”
I’m not upset. It takes things like flying very large jets at very high speeds into very tall buildings (or attempts to control every waking moment of my life) to upset me. This is a debate forum (hopefully civil to some degree, at least). There are no innocents here (or innocent questions). Everything is done to advance an argument. And, that’s as it should be. You’ve been told what you need to do if you want to push your agenda with a particular issue. That you won’t do it, indicates the sincerity of your intentions.
Then address yourself to those responsible for the offending articles and threads. As for my part of that offensive material, I would observe that failing all other recourse, one can always take exception to the “tone” of an argument. It is a last redoubt.
As for the content (mine or others), it exists. You are free to rebut. It’s problematic whether you can convince your antagonist, but then no more problematic then the likelihood that you will be convinced. Otherwise, there is the abuse button if you think it appropriate.
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.