Teaching Darwin

Weekly Standars ^ | March 21, 2005 | Paul McHugh

[Elsie]

Most don't know what capitalism is, either. Or liberty.

AMEN!

But, then again, most of THEM ain't Freepers!

[Elsie]

Why can't a creationist stand up and be a man?

'Cause some are women?

[Elsie]

Point out something I've said that you find unclear--as to the meaning of a word, or otherwise--and I will attempt to make amends.

Ok, but leaving behind all the ranting that was going on about communism/capitalism...

Back in 1054, THIS sentence appeared:

Staunch Christian countries like Germany have been excising masses of subhuman jews from the gene pool since long before anyone ever heard of Darwin.

Do you really mean that Jew's are subhuman??

[joe_broadway]

Without reading anything else you have written before your last few posts, I think it is safe to say it sounds like you just don't like the Bible.

The Bible says God made of one blood, all nations. It also teaches that God is no repecter of persons.

You knew that already didn't you.

[Junior]

So, posting exact quotes (in context, mind you) from the Bible -- and even knowing where in the Bible to find the quotes I'm looking for -- means I don't know the Bible. I noticed you didn't actually offer any evidence to back up your claim, but merely made the contention. We may all "be of one blood" but it's pretty obvious that we are not all "of one skin." And the Bible specifically says that some people will be the servants of others. But, don't let the actual Bible cloud your judgements.

[js1138]

What PROBLEM?

Unless you approve of late term abortions, there is a problem.

If you have not dealt with the care of profoundly retarded people, you are not aware of why people are motivated to prevent the birth of seriously defective people.

If we develop the ability to prevent profound disabilities through gene therapy, we should do so, in my opinion. Is there any other area of life in which we observe suffering, have the ability to relieve it, and choose to do nothing?

[Doctor Stochastic]

What about the Hindu Kush?

[joe_broadway]

...some people will be the servants of others.

Based upon the clear scripture and your understanding, who is it specifically in the 21st century who will be the servant of others?

I also mentioned that the Bible says that God is no respecter of persons.

So, posting exact quotes....[etc.]...means I don't know the Bible.

Of course, I did not say that (though it could be relatively true), what I said was 'it sounds like you just don't like the Bible.'

[D Edmund Joaquin]

I dont dispute that Ham's descendents went into Africa. I want you to give me the biblical quote where they turned black as a punishment, lol.

[PatrickHenry]

What about the Hindu Kush?

It's the likeliest location for Osama. Bash away.

[js1138]

I dont dispute that Ham's descendents went into Africa. I want you to give me the biblical quote where they turned black as a punishment, lol.

So how did africans become black, and acquire all the other physical variations in just a few generations. We know they haven't changed much in the last 4000 years. That must mean their transformation after Noah must have been instantaneous.

[Junior]

Based upon the clear scripture and your understanding, who is it specifically in the 21st century who will be the servant of others?

Bubba, I ain't a Bible literalist. Indeed, I argue against folks taking the first dozen or so chapters of Genesis literally because it leads to people thinking one race is superior to another. That was the point of my posting the Scriptural citations.

[Junior]

It wasn't me that originally claimed they were black. It was the Biblical literalists looking for an excuse to enslave their fellow man that considered black Africans to be the children of Ham and therefore destined for servitude to their betters.

[donh]

Do you really mean that Jew's are subhuman??

If you don't follow the arguments, than you will have trouble parsing the language. I was trying to point out that nazi reasoning about "eugenics", was not invented in the 20th century. It was sarcasm.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Again, if it is not in the Bible, which it is not, you are doing exactly what you claim that the creationists do, which is to assert something is true when it is not. If it is not in the bible, then it cannot be interpreted literally and therefore, there can be no Biblical literal interpretation, nor biblical literists, of that phantom passage, doing the literal interpretation.

[Junior]

Except that I didn't do it. The Biblical literalists did. It was their excuse for enslaving their brethren.

[Elsie]

Ok, gotcha!


(I didn't think I'd detected any of that kind of bias in you.)


An example of 'selective editting' by a crevo to make an Evo look bad! ;^)

[D Edmund Joaquin]

well it was never in the bible though, and so they were not biblical literists, more likely they were spiritually deficient people who never read the bible but proceeded to preach it anyway. ( I wasnt blaming you)

[Junior]

It doesn't matter what you think about the particular Scriptural passages. It only matters that the folks back then used those particular passages to justify enslaving blacks. We aren't talking about modern interpretations of Scripture here.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

used those particular passages to justify enslaving blacks. We aren't talking about modern interpretations of Scripture here.

you're talking mystery passages, as there are none to interpret.