Posted on 01/27/2006 11:04:17 AM PST by Lindykim
Greek mythology tells the tale of Prometheus, a Titan who envied Zeus his godlike powers. Driven by his covetousness, he stole some of Zeus's power, then was caught and punished by being tied to a rock. The underlying assumption of this myth is that man and God are antagonists. Man covets godlike powers, but since God refuses to share any of his power, man must take it---or steal it.
In ancient pagan civilizations, Promethean men were able to give free reign to the dark impulses that urged them to become as 'gods.' Although they lacked the ability to create life, they exercised complete control over all matters of life and death. They could dictate who was a free-man with rights and who was a lesser being—an animated tool or animated sex toy—with no rights whatsoever. Promethean man was absolute sovereign and lawmaker. His lusts, jealousies, dark impulses---all became law if he so chose them to be.
It was Biblical religion, and more specifically the Genesis account of creation, that overthrew the classic pagan worldview model with its all-powerful State controlled by totalitarian god-like Promethean men. All of this was repugnant to the Biblical model wherein the Genesis account proclaimed God as Sovereign and Lawmaker. It was He who had created all men and no one was to enslave other men or to treat them as 'lesser beings." Neither were His children to be 'subsumed' into nature, for He had given all of His children dominion over the earth, and they could own land and make use of the earth's resources. In America's founding documents, all statements about equality and freedom as inalienable and inherent rights of all human persons have their basis in the Genesis account. Similarly, because our lives are precious to our Creator, we have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect our lives and those of our loved ones. This view of man and the world was totally alien to the ancient pagan way of doing things.
However, not everyone was pleased with the Biblical model. While all of the former 'lesser beings' were delighted to be free of their oppressors, Promethean men were not happy campers. Thus it was that a group of Enlightenment conspirators, two of whom were Frederick Engel's and Karl Marx, who by temperament was Promethean, devised an ideology based on ancient communal living (communism). Their scheme was to overthrow Western Christian-Judeo civilization and to reconstitute society on the basis of their ideology. What they needed, but lacked, to make their system into a bona-fide worldview was a creation account.
All major civilizations throughout the history of the world began with a creation account which told man where he came from, how he got here, why he is here, and what's wrong with man and the world. The creation account is the authoritative foundation which animates and supports the divine orders (natural laws) that lay down the law for both human and natural order.
Perhaps it was at this point that Screwtape began to choreograph events by steering Marx to Darwin's book. For it was in Darwin's 'Origin of Species' that the conspirators happily discovered the black magic key that would allow them to believe they could steal God's power. After Marx read Darwin's book, he wrote to Engel's and said, "…although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." (Source: "Gods that Fail: Peter Singer and the Darwinian Left," review by Eric Jones).
Marx and Engel's incorporated Darwin's theory into their communist ideology. The synthesized version became 'scientific dialectical materialism." It was in this manner that the two conspirators transformed their ideology into 'absolute scientific truth."
The creation story they gained, and by which they declared the 'death of God,' must have been authored by Screwtape thus for obvious reasons, they preferred to keep it out of the limelight. It essentially states: "In the beginning was non-life bearing, non-intelligence bearing matter which, with neither rhyme nor reason, accidentally self-created by virtue of an accidentally caused quantum fluctuation, which had likewise mysteriously self-created for no purpose nor reason." The moral of this story is: Never make deals with Screwtape---he has a devilish sense of humor.
Trumpeting the death of God, Promethean's calling themselves "Darwinian scientists' immediately set about the business of abolishing mankind. With glee born of darkest envy, they stripped him of his soul, free will and conscience, and then declared that he was but a mechanistic monkey-man. Or in Herr Scientist Frederick Engel's words: "Darwin has given us an approximate description of these ancestors of ours. They were completely covered with hair…had beards…pointed ears and they lived in bands in trees." (www.newyouth.com)
Thus was the world forcefully thrust into Screwtape's "Age of Scientism," wherein Darwinian communists—the animated tools of Screwtape and his hellish minions-- unleashed rivers of human blood on a planetary dimension---all in pursuit of producing scientifically engineered Un-man and a Promethean Utopia.
In observation of the scientifically-induced hellish madness unleashed onto the world, "The Black Book of Communism" offers the following insights and indictments:
"…the roots of Marxist-Leninism are…not to be found in Marx at all, but in a deviant version of Darwinism…Crimes against humanity are the product of an ideology that reduces people…to a…condition, be it ideological, racial, or sociohistorical." (pg. 752)
"…transformation of ideology and politics into absolute 'scientific' truth is the basis of the totalitarianism dimension of Communism. The party answered only to science. Science…justified the terror by requiring that all aspects of social and individual life be transformed." (pg. 739)
"This biological or zoological strain of thinking enables us to understand…why so many crimes of Communism were crimes against humanity and how Marxist-Leninist ideology managed to justify these crimes to its followers." (pg. 751)
On page 4, are these grim statistics:
USSR: 20 million deaths China: 65 million deaths Vietnam: 1 million deaths N. Korea: 2 million deaths E. Europe: 1 million deaths Latin America: 150,000 Africa: 1.7 million deaths
The total approaches 100 million 'animalized' humans shot, gassed, burned, electrocuted, starved, gunned down, beaten to death, impaled, beheaded or otherwise murdered under the authority of 'absolute science.'
The soul and life destroying "biological and zoological strain" of madness is at this very moment poisoning and warping the minds of Americans and being force-fed to our children. Our children are being made to view themselves through Lucifer's "burning eye of envy" in Darwinist textbooks. "You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms." (Source: Johnson, "Biology" as quoted in Norris Anderson "Education or Indoctrination? Analysis of Textbooks in Alabama, 1995, pg. 6)
The anti-human totalitarianism and Promethean megalomania comes through loud and clear in Thomas C. Clark's odious assertions in "Crime and Causality: Do Killers Deserve to Die?" Keep in mind that Clark, who doesn't view himself as an ape, is obnoxiously lecturing all of the lesser beings whom he believes to be mechanistic monkeys. What he's saying in his pompous gasbag manner is that since "God is dead" and we are but human apes, it's time we accept our fate to become subsumed (embedded) into nature. Naturally his Darwinian-induced thimble-wittedness is hee-hawed under the authority of absolute science: "Many have resisted, and will continue to resist, the epistemic authority of science, since it requires we abandon those beloved conceptions of freedom, dignity, and moral agency and responsibility in which persons are understood to be causally privileged over the rest of nature…science proposes naturalized…conceptions of freedom, and responsibility which embed persons…fully within the causal network" (www.naturalism.org) If Darwinian scientism was a road atlas, it would ever lead to but one destination…Hell. If it was a multipurpose set of building instructions, they would ever build but one thing…Hell.
Dr. T. N. Tahmision (Atomic Energy Commission USA) pegged Darwinian evolutionists as 'con men." He commented, "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." ('The Fresno Bee," Aug. 20, 1959, as quoted by N.J. Mitchell, "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes," 1983, title page)
Even after the passage of more than two thousand years, we can see that Prometheus has yet to grow up. Still ruled by Narcissus and the dark passions of envy, covetousness, hatred and vengeance-seeking which she so adroitly keeps aflame, Prometheus remains doomed as a result to serve as Screwtape's 'animated tool."
Neither.
All animals evolved into their present form from something else.
I've answered your question. Please answer mine.
Do you believe that all animals (ALL --mastiff, chihuahua, turtle and chicken) were created by God in their present form with no changes whatsoever to their physiology between the time of their creation and now?
Why is my answer unknown to you?
Okay, let's cut to the chase: Feel free to describe *how* evolutionary biology actually gives any support to communism. We'll wait.
And no, the usual canard about how they're both "based on atheism" doesn't count, because they're not. Evolutionary biology makes no statement either way about the existence of God(s), and is entirely compatible with the existence or intervention of a deity. Communism, meanwhile, is "atheistic" only in the sense that it advocates suppressing religions in order to "avoid competition" with the communist state, but it is entirely compatible with the existence of God (i.e., all of Marx's "justifications" for communism are based on arguments of necessity and charity and so forth, not based on any "since there is no god, then..." arguments). One can believe in God and still think that communism is a workable or desirable economic system -- it's not *predicated* on the premise that no deity exists.
So go for it -- by what line of argument do you think evolution in any way supports communism? This should be amusing.
Because you're being coy.
Cheap excuse #483,225 for avoiding points raised...
I'll be more civil when the anti-evolutionists stop being belligerently obnoxious and militantly ignorant. Let me know when *that* happens, will you? Thanks.
...which you pointedly fail to present...
Stephen Gould, bless his soul, might even call my theory a fact.
Then again, he might tell you you're full of crap.
How much easier it is to claim the dead guy would have agreed with you (especially knowing that he won't be around to disagree) than it is to actually make a case for your claim, eh?
"Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the BASIS of natural history for our views." Karl Marx
You can opine all day about his motives but those are the words of Marx himself speaking of the connection between Marxism and Evolution.
You will go on to deny that there are no links even though people on this forum have pointed them out including the ideas behind the theories.
I find the quote fascinating. Marx considereed his theories an evolution in the world of capital which paralleled evolutionary theories in the natural world, thus the accolades for Darwin, a like-minded thinker.
And the implied self-compliment in the "Screwtape" reference just gets more and more presumptuous. C. S. Lewis was able to write well enough that people would actually pay money to read him.
Why do you need a quote from the article?
What nonsense. Again, the correct analogies are: evolution is similar to market ecomonics; creationism/intelligent design is similar to centrally planned communist economics.
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need.
-- Acts 2:44-45
I have no problem with Lindykim posting from her blog, but such posts definitely belong in Bloggers/Personal, not in News/Activism.
That she attempted to disguise it with a reference to another blog that pretends to be a newspaper is just sad. She has every right to post her writings here for discussion. But news is news and blogs are blogs, even if they pretend to be newspapers.
Yup. The early church was pretty communistic, in fact. As it grew, however, such a social structure was no longer possible. Communal organization is possible among small groups of like-minded people, but breaks down as the group gets larger.
Still, that does sound a lot like a Marxian construct, doesn't it. I'm tempted to think that Marx swiped that right out of Acts.
No connection?
That's right. Which word was unclear?
Can you say materialism?
Sure, but saying it doesn't help you case any.
<>I> They are both materialistic worldviews that assuume that matter and energy is all there is.
Utter nonsense. Evolutionary biology "assuumes [sic]" no such thing. Try learning some science before you attempt to critique it. Evolutionary biology is no more a "materialistic" a "worldview" than say auto repair, meteorology, or glassblowing.
Nor is communism "a materialistic worldview" -- it's an economic system. It can be practiced by religious zealots as easily as by atheists. Nor, as I described in an earlier post, is it in any way predicated upon a presumption of the non-existence of God. Marx saw religions as dividing the loyalties of the people under communism, and thus disruptive of his "system", but the same can be said for many other non-religious things as well. Communism is not *founded* on a presumption of "materialism", nor dependent up on it.
Darwinists are now trying to grapple with the idea that creation also contains, in addition to matter and energy, information in the form of DNA sequences.
ROFL!!! Wow, this is the most empty-headed thing I've read all week, and that's really saying something.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but information exists just fine even if "matter and energy" is all there is, because information resides in *configurations* of matter and energy. Or were you under the impression that little tiny magical elves carried your computer data across the internet, instead of patterns of electrons (WHICH ARE MATTER)? Are magical fairies responsible for the information stored on your hard drive? Or is it actually oriented particles of magnetic films (MADE OF MATTER)? Etc. etc.
"Darwinists" have no problem with this knowledge, don't "grapple" with it, and have understood it just fine for decades, unlike, say, yourself -- you seem pretty confused about it, and are "grappling" with simple concepts like how information exists in "matter and energy". You seem to be "grappling" with the notion that it somehow is carried on "crystal auras" or "fairy dust" or some other non-material substrate... Excuse me while I roll my eyes.
As for the information in DNA, a vast amount is known about it, because it's been studied for many decades by tens of thousands of researchers (at least, probably more), and there has been a huge flood of knowledge gained from it -- all supporting evolution, by the way. But you wouldn't know any of that, since you obviously haven't bothered to crack open a science journal before spouting off on topics you don't understand.
But the existence of a spirit world is strictly and dogmatically ruled out.
No it isn't -- this is yet one more thing you grossly misunderstand.
And what "connection" would that be, specifically? Come on, out with it. Tell us how Marx's statement actually holds water, and isn't just cheap rhetorical rationalization. We'll wait.
If NOW's founder had claimed that the Bible "contains the BASIS of natural history for our views" on abortion, would you beat Christians over the head with it until the end of time, or would you examine the claim to see whether it was cheap posturing which was full of crap first?
I'm one up on you here -- I *know* how Marx "explained" that statement. You don't. And I understand that his claiming evolution as the "basis" for his "natural history" is such a far reach as to be non-existent.
But hey, *you* know better than the rest of us, and you "know" that evolution and communism go hand-in-hand, right?
Spare me from the ignorant...
even though people on this forum have pointed them out including the ideas behind the theories.
Horse manure. Whining incorrectly about how they have "materialism" in common is hardly the same as actually making the case you describe.
I find the quote fascinating.
People are always fascinated by things they don't understand.
Marx considereed his theories an evolution in the world of capital which paralleled evolutionary theories in the natural world, thus the accolades for Darwin, a like-minded thinker.
No, he didn't, but thanks for sharing your false presumptions with us.
Don't be obnoxious. You have been pinging me. And don't be disingenuous...I don't need to tell you about anything which happened before Darwin was published. Just because two people write at different times does not mean they do not have similar ideas. And that these 2 men did is pointed out by Marx himself. If you choose to guess Marx's motives as only wanting prestige from the relationship that's up to you.
I have not evaded anything and pointed out a similarity of ideas from the 2 theories in my previous post. I would appreciate you not pinging me again as you say the same things over and over again. Thanks.
Easy to answer. Marx called Darwin's theory the basis for his idea. There's a connection right there. As to the interpretation as to what he meant exactly, I cannot guess. I only know that Marx himself claimed a connection.
Fascinating quote which I had not seen before today. I look forward to looking more into it in the future.
Easy to answer. Marx called Darwin's theory the basis for his idea. There's a connection right there.
What a *pathetically* lame dodge... I asked you to *explain* this alleged "connection", and you just repeated "Marx says so!" again without explaining or examining it in the least.
Look, if you're unable to support the implication you've been making all day, just be honorable enough to retract it. Don't keep dodging when people call you on it.
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.