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?)
Oztrich Boy “Yeah. That's far too few.”
A confession that this struggle has nothing to do with the sanctity or the purity of Science. It is quite simply a fight for public money. You want control of that money without any say from the people you propose to take it from. So you come on this thread (and others like it) to do battle with your political enemies, indulging in the tactics of argumentation common to the struggle for political domination that’s been going on for centuries. What Gordon Greene, GodGunsGuts, and others have done is to smoke you out, and make it obvious that you rise not in defense of the purity of Science, but simply to join in the lists of subjugation seeking to obliterate a Christian America.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/546409/posts
Thanks for the support.
See “Guilt by association”
Maybe you should go visit one of those "Witchdoctors" and see for yourself that it is real science and not the hogwash you purport it to be.
“Us guys don’t worship Darwin.” [excerpt]Interesting, um, choice of words.
“I don’t think that you, as a bible believer, are untrue to your roots if you are not pro-slavery, pro-genocide, pro-pedophilia, or pro fig-tree cursing.” [excerpt]You are certainly being true to your roots.
No, I disagree. You base your opposition to evolution on your Christianity, but you won’t define it. Are Catholics Christians? Most Catholics support evolution.
Your answer is not a distraction—it is the kernal of your argument.
Answer, please.
As I alluded to in my previous post, your criticism of using the term “savage” is based on a linguistic anachronism. The term did not have the connotations or meaning that it does today. It just meant technologically undeveloped or uncivilized (in writings from that time you can even find phrases like “savage flowers” for wild flowers).
Some at the time even believed in the idea of the “noble savage” - with the modern definition of the word, that would be an oxymoron.
However, so many saw the “savages” as being violent, cruel, and bloodthirsty that the word not only began to pick up such connotations, but even began to mean that by definition.
So when Darwin calls a group of people savages, he was referring to them culturally. In fact Darwin spends a great deal of time in Descent of Man arguing that the advancement of civilization in europe was due to cultural, not biological, evolution (although there are a few times he seems to waffle on that idea and suggest that some groups are mentally inferior; he may have been unsure himself if it was wholly cultural or partly innate):
“The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.”
As for the American Founders believing that the savages were only different culturally, it’s hard to argue that with Washington making statements like the Indians having “nothing human except the shape”. And in Darwin’s time there was a popular idea among Creationists, particularly in America, called “polygenism”. Many of the scientists who opposed Darwin were polygenists. This idea said that various human races were completely unrelated. Thus many of them believed that only whites were descended from Adam and Eve, and so other races were perhaps not even really human.
There were many cultures Darwin encountered during his trip that he liked and many he didn’t like. Darwin was certainly no cultural relativist - if he didn’t like a culture - most notably the Fuegians, he said so.
Listen, Buck, why don’t you post a thread with your question (or find a thread relevant to your question) and try to stay on topic on this thread?
IIRC, the mod did ask you to stay on topic in regards to you posting your question about Catholics on unrelated threads.
Listen, Fichori, this is a relevant topic to the thread. Other Freepers are asking as well. If you can’t deal with it, stay off the thread.
In the other thread to which you refer, the mod actually restored my post, so apparently the relevance of my inquiry stands.
Why don’t you just jump in and answer the question: Are Catholics Christians?
“this is a relevant topic to the thread.” [excerpt]According to a thread posted by Sidebar Moderator, constantly asking a highly contentious question on completely unrelated threads, is topic dilution and falls under the heading of trolling.
“Other Freepers are asking as well.” [excerpt]That defense is about as good as the 'just following orders' line.
“Why don’t you just jump in and answer the question: Are Catholics Christians?” [excerpt]If you're man enough, post your question as a thread and I'd be happy to answer.
Goebbels & The Art of Propaganda
Goebbels’ brilliance resides in his grasp of the essential truth that the most successful propaganda is to be applied in the simplest of terms within the fewest basic concepts possible.
The Goebbels Principles:
#1 The BIG LIE: Keep it simple. Tell it often. Tell it at every opportunity, in every venue possible. Poison the public well with the BIG LIE until it becomes axiomatic, buried deeply in the public subconscious. The bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell.
#2 Select the few facts that support your case; discard the others, or simply indulge in a brazen reversal of their contents. Distort the facts that don’t quite fit without some creative reshaping. From that base add inference and conjecture. And, follow the techniques of the BIG LIE to drive the point home.
#3 Control the Press (today we would say “The Drive-bys”). For Goebbels this was easy. Anyone who did not follow orders, found himself, at best, on extended vacation in one of the many “resorts” scattered about Germany, or, at worst, in the basement of a government building with a bullet in his head. For 0bamatrons, control has been only a little more difficult (from time to time something will slip out, but an occasional faux pas can be buried under the BIG LIE). For some reason, those who are simultaneously attracted to the BIG LIE and to militant advocacy, also tend to be attracted to journalism.
#4 Accuse your opponent of the very activity in which you are engaged (guess we know where Alinsky got his ideas).
#5 Bury any opponent, who rises in protest, under a mountain of slander, invective and vilification. This technique serves two purposes: it drowns out what the target has to say; it warns away others who might otherwise entertain the same thoughts. And it can be employed in a variety of ways for other means, such as being used against an innocent who has been subpoenaed to testify before a Congressional committee.
#6 Build up a firestorm of hatred to divide people. For Goebbels (and the modern Arab/Islamic terrorist, and 0bamatrons), this provided a target upon which the disaffected could vent their rage, while precluding any possibility of reasoned debate. For Democrat/Socialists it has the added benefit of building coalitions of voting blocs for the aggrandizement and maintenance of political power.
#7 Assemble an SA (popularly known today as a “Rent-A-Mob,” and more lately the SEIU). Although not employed in such a brutal fashion, RAM is used for much the same purposes as were Röhm’s SA . . . the ultimate future of the SEIU remains problematic at this time.
#8 The difficulty the BIG LIE presents its target is that in order to disprove the slander, the target is obliged to prove a negative. To prove a negative (a virtually impossible task) requires a good deal of explanation, involving the summoning of a number of facts (many of which may be arguable, and all of which are subject themselves to other BIG LIES), and extensive use of logical reasoning. The BIG LIE, conversely, can be uttered in but a few seconds or written in a sentence or two. So, while Truth is marshaling its forces and ordering its counter arguments, the BIG LIE can be told and retold, and spread far and wide. The most effective BIG LIE is one that comes the closest to the truth without quite touching the truth.
#9 Change the subject.
Compounding Truth’s difficulties, the BIG LIE fits perfectly the eight second sound bite for much of what passes in the news media today as reporting, while the response, if mentioned at all, will be reported only as a brief summary. That is why the BIG LIE is called what it is, the BIG LIE. It is BIG in its spectacular scandalousness, and it is BIG in its impact when used in a format friendly to its structure.
Anyone, with bad intentions to disguise, may make efficient use of the Goebbels Principles, if they approach the problem with intelligence.
----------------------------------------------
The following are excerpts from Herr Goebbels’ speech at the great Nuremberg rally of 1934. The brackets contain my comments, some recently updated, and other observations. These excerpts demonstrate how the 0bamatrons have adapted Herr Goebbels’ propaganda principles to such brilliant effect in their drive to achieve undeserved political domination.
Goebbels at Nuremberg — 1934 Source: Der Kongress zur Nürnberg 1934 (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Frz. Eher Nachf., 1934), pp. 130 141.
“The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing.”
[Goebbels # 5 Accuse your opponent of the very activity in which you are engaged. It’s obvious that Goebbels learned this early on in his career.]
“Political propaganda in principle is active and revolutionary.”
[The famous Clinton White House Instant Response Team, successfully emulated by 0bama’s Chicago Mafia.]
“It is aimed at the broad masses. It speaks the language of the people because it wants to be understood by the people. Its task is the highest creative art of putting sometimes complicated events and facts in a way simple enough to be understood by the man on the street.”
[Goebbels #1 The BIG LIE: Keep it simple. Tell it often. Tell it at every opportunity, in every venue possible. Poison the public well with the BIG LIE until it becomes axiomatic, buried deeply in the public subconscious.]
“Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal.”
[Goebbels #2 Select the few facts that support your case; discard the others, or simply indulge in a brazen reversal of their contents. Distort the facts that don’t quite fit without some creative reshaping. From that base add inference and conjecture, and follow the techniques of the BIG LIE to drive the point home.]
“The great wealth of ideas and never failing creativity of our propaganda, proven during our struggle for power, was perfected to the last detail. Now we turned it to serve the state itself to find meaningful ways and flexible forms to immunize the people's thinking.
Political propaganda, the art of anchoring the things of the state in the broad masses so that the whole nation will feel a part of them, cannot therefore remain merely a means to the goal of winning power. It must become a means of building and keeping power.”
[Goebbels #1, the BIG LIE, and Goebbels #5, Bury any opponent, who rises in protest, under a mountain of slander, invective and vilification. This technique serves two purposes: it drowns out what the target has to say; it warns away others who might otherwise entertain the same thoughts. The 0bamatrons have adapted Herr Goebbels’ propaganda principles to brilliant effect in their drive to gain undeserved political domination.]
“The nature of propaganda remains the same, whatever the technical means, but the means nonetheless are becoming ever broader and far reaching. One need only consider the revolutionary impact of the invention of radio, which gave the spoken word true mass effectiveness. This has had great effects on the technical apparatus of propaganda, but the art of propaganda has remained the same.”
[Goebbels #3 Control the Press (today it would be “The Drive-By Media”)].
“Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth.” [A “lie” is that which does not serve the cause. A “truth” is that which does serve the cause]
“It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. It must be presented properly if it is to win.”
[Being “presented properly” in a modern setting, necessitates many active and proficient talking heads]
“But a good idea is itself the best propaganda.”
[Employ a lot of polling activity to discover what words and phrases best resonate with the people]
“Such propaganda is successful without being obnoxious. It depends on its nature, not its methods. It works without being noticed. Its goals are inherent in its nature. Since it is almost invisible, it is effective and powerful. A good cause will lose to a bad one if it depends only on its rightness, while the other side uses the methods of influencing the masses.”
[Goebbels #2 Select the few facts that support your case; discard the others, or simply indulge in a brazen reversal of their contents. Distort the facts that don’t quite fit without some creative reshaping. Add inference and conjecture. Follow the techniques of the BIG LIE to drive the point home.]
“The organizational union of mass demonstrations, the press, film, radio, literature, theater, etc., is only the mechanical side to the matter. It is not so much that all these means are in one hand. The important thing is that this hand knows how to master and control them.”
[Goebbels #3 Control the Press. Goebbels #7 Assemble an SA (since known as a “Rent-A-Mob,” and more lately the SEIU)]
“Only when all means of propaganda are concentrated and their unified application assured will it be possible to carry out major educational and propaganda battles as we did before 12 November 1933 [the referendum Hitler called to approve Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations] or 19 August 1934" [The referendum called to ratify Hitler's absolute power after the death of Hindenburg]
[Goebbels #6 Build up a firestorm of hatred to divide people.]
“If such an art of active mass influence through propaganda is joined with the long term systematic education of a nation, and if both are conducted in a unified and precise way, the relationship between the leadership and the nation will always remain close.”
[The shape of things to come.]
“There are no parliamentary parties in Germany any longer. How could we have overcome them had we not waged an educational campaign for years that persuaded people of their weaknesses, harms and disadvantages? Their final elimination was only the result of what the people had already realized. Our propaganda weakened these parties. Based on that, they could be eliminated by a legal act.”
[Find ways to eliminate the opposition’s influence on the operation of government]
“The positive national discipline of the German press would never have been possible without the compete elimination of the influence of the liberal Jewish press. That happened only because of the years long work of our propaganda.”
[Eliminate the opposition’s voice in the media]
“Or consider economic policy. Does anyone believe that the idea of class struggle could have been eliminated only by a law? Is it not rather the fact that the seeds we sowed in a hundred thousand meetings resulted in a new socialist structure of labor?”
[Goebbels #6 For Democrat/Socialists it has the added benefit of building coalitions of voting blocs for the aggrandizement and maintenance of political power]
“We could eliminate the Jewish danger in our culture because the people had recognized it as the result of our propaganda. Major cultural achievements such as the unique "Kraft durch Freude" are possible only with the powerful support of the people. The prerequisite was and is propaganda, which here too creates and maintains the connection to the people.”
[Goebbels #6 Build up a firestorm of hatred to divide people]
“Each situation brings new challenges. And each task requires the support of the people, which can only be gained by untiring propaganda that brings the broad masses knowledge and clarity. No area of public life can do without it. It is the never resting force behind public opinion. It must maintain an unbroken relationship between leadership and people. Every means of technology must be put in its service; the goal is to form the mass will and to give it meaning, purpose and goals that will enable us to learn from past failures and mistakes and ensure that the lead National Socialist strength has given us over other nations will never again be lost.”
[No comment necessary]
Conservatives, believing they have the better case on the issues, are eager to enter into substantive discussions, respond to serious questions, and engage their opponents in genuine debate. 0bamatrons and other Democrat/Socialists, knowing they have the worse case if they allow their true agenda to be substantively aired, have resorted to the use of the Goebbels Principles of propaganda and character assassination, and, in gaining complete control of political power, have succeeded brilliantly.
As the 1937 definition following demonstrates, there was a time when the idea of Propaganda enjoyed a reasonably respectable reputation until Goebbels & Co (Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, the Socialist Intelligentsia of New York City and Hollywood, etc) got their hands on it.
Propaganda, n. [L., gerundive of propagare, to propagate.] 1. A society in Rome, charged with the management of the Roman Catholic missions, and styled Societas de Propaganda Fide. 2. [p--] Any society or means used for advocating or teaching a particular doctrine or system.
propagandism, n. The art or practice of propagating tenets or principles.
Propagandist, n. A person who devotes himself to the spread of any system of principles.
. . . . . Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937
Attempts at moral intimidation doesn’t work with me. Keyboards and computers are operated by the insincere and the sincere alike. Look to the beam in your own eye.
Why does this question scare the pants off of the YEC contingent (sorry, metmom)? You base your opposition to evolution on the grounds that it is antithetical to Christianity, yet most Christians, myself included, disagree. Our inquiries into your definition of Christianity are met with the starry-eyed regurgitation of megachurch Sunday sermons. Upon further inquiry into how you rationalize your “Christianity” with other denominations, eg, Catholicism, you refuse to take a real position. Why is that?
The question is relevant. As you (pl) continue to buttress your arguments against evolution with your arguable Christianity, we will ask the question. You may answer it. If you don’t, well, that’s an answer too, isn’t it.
Does this make me a troll on your home page now? I’ve been working real hard at it, you know...
“If YOU read Darwin you will not find the phrase “survival of the fittest”. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s always best to remain silent.”
I didn’t have time for this earlier, so here you go...
“I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. “
— Charles Darwin
from Origin of Species (1859, 1888), 49.
If you call on me to be silent upon not knowing, then what would you call upon yourself to do?
“Why does this question scare the pants off of the YEC contingent (sorry, metmom)? You base your opposition to evolution on the grounds that it is antithetical to Christianity, yet most Christians, myself included, disagree.” Pardon me whilst I pull my pants up.
To which I say, a man who supposes this much about the thoughts of others with no proof is either 1. an idiot or 2. an evolutionist.
There is no fact at all in your anecdotal statement, but instead the same amount of supposition that resides in the idea Evolution is science fact instead of science fiction.
“Our inquiries into your definition of Christianity are met with the starry-eyed regurgitation of megachurch Sunday sermons. Upon further inquiry into how you rationalize your “Christianity” with other denominations, eg, Catholicism, you refuse to take a real position. Why is that?”
My real position is not to judge a man’s’ soul. I can only judge by what I see and there is nothing in the Word of God that makes you, I nor anyone else capable of condemning someone. I can’t read your heart, but if by your words you refuse to follow Christ as is stated in the scripture then I certainly believe you become a condemnation to yourself. That is your choice. My soul is not saved or lost through faith in a Pope or Priest any more than their souls are saved or lost by anything other than denying the foundational truths. Anything else is heresy... take from that what you will. Your constant prodding on this matter serves to show your true purpose here... to divide. You are as spiteful of Christians and Christianity as your words would suggest. I must admit I get a certain satisfaction from seeing your reaction. That’s one of the reasons I take the time to vent here as opposed to some other venue. I figure if you guys are busy on these posts, you might leave the rest of the site to those who support the country in the same light the Founders followed. I would be more satisfied, however if you would simply repent.
“As you (pl) continue to buttress your arguments against evolution with your arguable Christianity, we will ask the question.”
Still showing the incredible mass quantities of arrogance that flow through your veins, you do question the Christianity of others. You call the Christianity of another “arguable”. I say, if you serve another master it is through no fault of ours. And as for, “we will ask the question”... you got a mouse in your pocket? You speak not only for all Christians but for all Evolutionists? A man for all people, I suppose. Now aren’t you just mankind’s little spokesman? To borrow a phrase from another Evo, Now that’s purely twaddle.
“Does this make me a troll on your home page now? I’ve been working real hard at it, you know...”
I believe your troll-like existence goes far beyond the pages of FR, my rather smallish friend.
If you must, please cry “personal attack”. It’s all in a day’s work.
“To which I say, a man who supposes this much about the thoughts of others with no proof is either 1. an idiot or 2. an evolutionist.”
You don’t read YEC posts, do you? Really, this is a scream.
Despite your veneer of depth and sincerity, your post does not advance the conversation. Instead, you are behaving as an Alinsky leftist in attacking me and questioning my sincerity for daring to ask the question.
Will you have the integrity to answer it?
“You base your opposition to evolution on the grounds that it is antithetical to Christianity, yet most Christians, myself included, disagree.” [excerpt]Fail #1: you make a false assertion about the basis of my opposition to Evolution
“Our inquiries into your definition of Christianity are met with the starry-eyed regurgitation of megachurch Sunday sermons. Upon further inquiry into how you rationalize your “Christianity” with other denominations, eg, Catholicism, you refuse to take a real position. Why is that?” [excerpt]Fail #3: you make a sweeping generalization based on false attributions and apply it to a widely varied group. Such a broad and conjured brush does not give credibility to your assertions.
“The question is relevant. As you (pl) continue to buttress your arguments against evolution with your arguable Christianity, we will ask the question. You may answer it. If you don’t, well, that’s an answer too, isn’t it.” [excerpt]This is a continuation of fail #1, your presupposition is false.
“Does this make me a troll on your home page now? I’ve been working real hard at it, you know...” [excerpt]No, that takes guts. (just because someone might have a 2,000 horsepower turbo charged fan mounted porcelain throne, doesn't mean they are automatically anything more than an annoyance with an ego)
You’re such a antagonist. What was your question again?
(sorry... I’m having a little trouble maintaining my veneer).
“Fail #1: you make a false assertion about the basis of my opposition to Evolution”
Wrong. Your (pl) opposition is based on your literal reading of scripture and your “Christianity”
“Fail #2: you make an assertion about ‘most Christians’, but fail to demonstrate the validity your claim.”
Most Catholics, Episcopalians, and other denominations believe evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity. Oh, that’s right—you may not think that they’re Christians. Or maybe you do. Which is it?
Fail #2.5: you appear to errantly assume that I am defined by the term ‘most Christians’.
Sorry, I don’t understand that one.
“Fail #3: you make a sweeping generalization based on false attributions and apply it to a widely varied group. Such a broad and conjured brush does not give credibility to your assertions.”
No, it’s pretty accurate.
“This is a continuation of fail #1, your presupposition is false.”
No, it’s pretty accurate.
“Seriously, quit dancing around like someone who is afraid of their own shadow and post your Catholic related question(s) as a thread.”
That’s actually a reasonable suggestion. Will you answer the question?
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.