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?)
“What was your question again?”
If a Catholic faithfully follows Catholic doctrine for his or her entire life, is that person a Christian?
Please expain why you disagree with the following statements you posted. Thank you.
“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...”
you posted a bunch of post but I didn't see where you argued against them.
“If a Catholic faithfully follows Catholic doctrine for his or her entire life, is that person a Christian?”
In direct answer to your question, Catholic doctrine does not save one’s soul, nor does any other doctrine. The way to be saved is to follow Jesus. He is, by His own admission, “THE way, THE truth and THE life.” By His own words there is no other way to salvation.
Like it says in Romans:
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Now if you ask me do I believe those words, then yes, I do. If you ask me to pronounce on anyone else salvation or condemnation you’re barking up the wrong tree, Spot. I believe that God and Jesus are who the Bible say they are. I believe that anyone who trusts in a doctrine, be they Catholic or otherwise, and that is what they have put their trust in are in danger of being separated from God for eternity. But I have no right one way or the other to say their heart is not right with God because I don’t know the full depth of their beliefs. Part of your problem is in the phrasing of your question. Most (maybe not all) Christians do not believe that a doctrine saves you but that you are saved by faith. Following a doctrine is more closely akin to salvation by works and the Bible is also clear that is not the way to heaven.
The following verses in Romans go on to say, “How can they hear without a preacher.” It’s not up to the preacher to save anyone else any more than it is up to you to argue someone’s Christianity. The only thing the preacher can even do is put the Word out there. He does not save souls.
You see, it’s like with the defense of our belief in the Biblical account of Creation; we can speak volumes and answer to the best of our ability and if you do not like the answer you will simply claim the question has been avoided. You just rephrase the questions in an attempt to trap someone and confuse the issue.
To quote a line that was said sarcastically the first time, “Surely, you have a dizzying intellect.”
And another favorite, “I want to play guitar badly. I DO play guitar badly.”
And a third, “Batches? We don’t need no steenkin’ batches!”
You’re obfuscating, so I’d like to ask a follow up question:
Do you believe that the actions that are specified in the passages from Romans that you quoted number among the requirements of the Catholic faith?
Did God lie when he said Adam and Eve would die the day they ate the apple? The serpent apparently told the truth as that was what happened when they ate the apple. Also, if you follow the line that now they good distinguish good and evil and their nakedness was apparently evil, does this mean that God created evil?
1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
If you believe in the human day for Genesis, then how in the heck could Adam check out and name all the animals in 24 hours?
Given that they want to replace evolution with their biblical creation, we should also carefully review their theory i these threads.
“Please expain why you disagree with the following statements you posted. Thank you.”
Thank you for your kind reply.
Because I haven’t resigned myself to believing there is no difference between animal and man. Man has a different and greater worth than animal in God’s creation so, even though what Darwin said may be true of animals it is not relatable to mankind... Why?
Because man has a soul that is worth saving and, as a believer in the God of Creation, I believe life was created as a sacred thing and that the weak are not obstacles to overcome.
Because I believe we are all in a fallen state... that there is no life less worthy than my own... or yours.
Because Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost and to redeem the sins of anyone who believes, to heal the sick and infirmed and make the blind man see.
Jesus didn’t tell the blind or the lame to go away and die because they were a blight on humanity and a stumbling block to the able. He offered hope and healing. It is in no way injurious to the state of man to attend to the weak. With man it seems to make the weak strong and encourage the one who lifts up the other... to make them stronger men themselves. Stephen Hawkings would have been left to die if Darwin’s premise were followed to it’s ultimate conclusion. There are countless others who would have perished; Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder, Franklin Roosevelt, Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox... All of these would be left to die so that the strong might survive.
The conclusion most evolutionists draw when confronted with Darwin’s statements is that he meant them in a different context than how we take them. Darwin, however spent some time lamenting the fact he could not be as harsh as he would have liked because of social dictates, ie. the feelings of his family. He would have, by his own admission attacked religion if he felt unfettered from the chains of society opinion.
I apologize for not taking them one at a time, but it was easier to summarize since each comment, in one way or the other drew the same or similar conclusions.
Thank you.
--------------------
Telling All The Lies the Big Boys Won't!
If we don't make it up... Who will?
ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
“you posted a bunch of post but I didn’t see where you argued against them.”
Then would you please take the time to argue for them?
“Wrong. Your (pl) opposition is based on your literal reading of scripture and your “Christianity”” [excerpt]Just because you say it over and over doesn't make it any more true.
“Most Catholics, Episcopalians, and other denominations believe evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity.” [excerpt]I'm not sure what the relevance is, but you still have not backed that claim up. Why continue parroting it?
I'll break it down for you.Fail #2.5: you appear to errantly assume that I am defined by the term ‘most Christians’.“Sorry, I don’t understand that one.” [excerpt]
Yeah, about as accurate as the claims made by the SRM.“No, it’s pretty accurate.” [excerpt]“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.
Parroted like the SRM too.This is a continuation of fail #1, your presupposition is false.“No, it’s pretty accurate.” [excerpt]
“That’s actually a reasonable suggestion. Will you answer the question?” [excerpt]Good grief!
There was a very good editorial/blog in USA Today (today) written by Christian scientists in support of evolution. Unfortunately, USA/T is verboten here. It would have generated a great deal of interest. The authors’ website is www.biologos.org.
Because your answers are inadequate.
You see, it’s like with the defense of our theory of evolution; we can speak volumes and answer to the best of our ability and if you do not like the answer you will simply claim the question has been avoided. You just rephrase the questions in an attempt to trap someone and confuse the issue.
hmmm. Afraid to answer the question. By that action we must infer that you do not believe Catholics to be Christians?
This does not *scare* anyone, no matter how much you might wish it does.
Nobody is afraid of the question, we just recognize it for the thread hijacking and trolling that it is and refuse to play your game.
Whatever any denomination's stand is on the reliability of the Bible and its interpretation of the Genesis account, it has nothing to do with the position before God of any individual member of that denomination.
Your whole line of questioning about whether an individual member of a particular denomination can or is Christian is thread hijacking, baiting, and out and out trolling.
It is not relevant to the topic of the thread, it serves no practical, constructive purpose.
Upon further inquiry into how you rationalize your “Christianity” with other denominations, eg, Catholicism, you refuse to take a real position. Why is that?
Because I am not playing your game. The same reason I've given you before.
The question is relevant.
No, they are not relevant.
“Did yo read the front page of your link?”
Read it, yo? I wrote it, yo!
It used to be just a political site, but I’ve devoted most of it to satire. I note what is not satire.
I guess I should label my satirical postings “DU” and include links to that forum so everyone will be clear on which part of the site is which... I wouldn’t expect everyone to pay attention or anything.
“Nobody is afraid of the question, we just recognize it for the thread hijacking and trolling that it is and refuse to play your game.”
And it scares the pants off you.
You feign no indignation when you engage in full-throated support of the crap (and I mean that objectively) that’s posted from AiG and the rest, yet you bristle and accuse me of trolling when I try to ascertain the core belief that dictates your actions.
“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.”
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.