Posted on 10/03/2013 12:54:16 PM PDT by kimtom
A trip through a major Holocaust museum will tell you most of what you need to know about the mindset of the fiends who murdered millions in the middle of the last century. Poster-size images of death-camp inmates – all staring blankly – attest to the monstrous worldview of the prisoners’ tormentors.
What, though, really explains the Nazi capacity for murder? How could “regular people” slaughter children? What possessed – pun intended – Hitler’s willing executioners to butcher women and old men?
I think Jerry Bergman has figured it out In a new book, “Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview,” Bergman (a university professor for four decades) presents fascinating portraits of the top Nazi killers, the men who planned the ghastly Final Solution.
Although “secular science” has issues with his conclusion, the data and analysis are unmistakable: Darwin did it.
The overall premise of naturalism – that everything in the universe is random and purposeless – is a damning indictment of the worst elements of Darwinian philosophy. This mindset has created everything from schoolyard bullies to the Third Reich. Bergman’s offers a devastating critique of Darwinian philosophy, and frankly, his profiles of Hitler and his henchmen are so riveting, you won’t be able to look away. Even though you want to........
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“..Unfortunately, many other societies and traditions and oral histories predate the Moses fables ....”
OOps! your ignorance is showing!
outstanding
“.. and deserved advantage, so they overshoot the mark and end up being ridiculous and offensive...”
Although many scientists had similar ideas, and these were not new ones, Darwin gets the credit because he published it first.
(like Orville and Wilbur**)
**Gustave Whitehead
Describing the natural world has to be accurate and doesn’t involve value judgments. It’s like blaming Copernicus for the notion that we aren’t at the center of the universe (God’s attention). Blaming Darwin for the Nazis is like blaming Newton for the communists - the Utopian principles of engineering a perfect society can be vaguely traced right back to Newton’s vision of a clockwork, mechanistic universe. Same with Einstein and moral relativism. All are silly arguments.
You’d get a kick out of this thread.
since you’re not serious I’ll not waste the time.
Well, well, no pat answer this time? Nailed you!
Game, set, match!
It’s science, not morals. The moral reason is that if you’re looking for an excuse for mass murder you already screwed up.
Before I can answer your question I need to understand from what moral lensing do you view the world? From what body or philosophy do you judge right from wrong? After all it is no fair borrowing from Judeo Christianity to judge Judeo Christianity if you have no superior morality from which to frame your questions.
Paul states “If there be no resurrection of the dead then, let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!” So it all depends on what you believe and are prepared to put your trust in. If God, who came to Earth as flesh and allowed himself to be crucified in his own “rivers of blood” and then was resurrected....if one is prepared to believe it, then one may have to accept the other “difficult” parts of scripture as being true as well.
Speaking of violence, Christ said he came “not to bring peace on the Earth but a sword”. The only unity he commanded was that his followers “love one another”. Christ’s kingdom will be established from fiery judgments that will fall upon the Earth. Ultimately , the heavens and the Earth will pass away save for the words of Jesus Christ. I don’t have to justify the word of God, the Bible speaks for itself...accept or reject as you will.
If you think you know some higher truth or wisdom, then play your ace of spade, the house will announce “call!” soon enough!
“All are silly arguments”
Value Judgment alert. You had a justifiably logical post there until you added a tautological adjective. You have no way proving absolutely that such arguments are “silly” or not “silly”. From what objective lensing can you prove “silly”? Now if you say, well it’s just my own subjective opinion, then at least you are back in the realm of truth, that being that it WAS just a subjective OPINION. (MEANT, OF COURSE BY EXTENSION, to be a psychological pejorative OF those who don’t find all such arguments “silly”!)
So judge and look down on folks much? ;)
re: “Blaming Darwin for the Nazis is like blaming Newton for the communists - the Utopian principles of engineering a perfect society can be vaguely traced right back to Newton’s vision of a clockwork, mechanistic universe. Same with Einstein and moral relativism. All are silly arguments.”
I’m not blaming Darwin for the Nazi’s. But, you say the natural world doesn’t involve value judgements and, I’m assuming, that you believe the naturalistic, evolutionary view of the universe is the accurate one - that there are natural explanations for the existence of the universe and no God is needed as an explanation.
I’m also assuming that the Darwinian view that all organisms are the result of random mutation and thousands of transitional forms that had no outside influence (i.e. “intelligent design”) on how these organisms became what they became. I’m also assuming that you believe the Darwinian view that all organisms, including human beings, carry no inherent “value” beyond the fact that they exist. Organisms are just different in some ways, but regarding human beings, they are just another form of animal life.
Please explain why the Nazis or other eugenics advocates are “wrong” to treat human beings with any more respect that any other animal? Explain why experimenting on human beings, from embryo to full grown adulthood, is any less moral that experiment with fungi or plant life or any other animal life?
Whether you want to admit it or not, Darwinian ideas have moral consequences beyond just mere explanation for the universe.
If it really is true that the universe just is, that matter and energy just always existed, or appeared from nothing, and all that exists in the universe are simply evolutionary “flukes” of physical and evolutionary “laws”, if morality is simply that which promotes the survival of organisms, then why is it wrong to manipulate or experiment with ALL animal life (the human animal included)? Why are the eugenics advocates wrong to make a “scientific” judgement to rid “useless” organisms from society? Why is that wrong, immoral, or a “silly” argument?
You say that Newton’s vision of a “clockwork” mechanistic universe could be just as valid an “argument” for the communist idea of a utopian society as Darwin for nazi eugenics. The problem with your analogy is that Newton’s ideas did not imply a “Godless” universe, in fact it implied the opposite.
The Darwinian view of the how the universe came to be implies a naturalistic, purposeless, undirected, random, always changing universe with all the implications that that idea comes with - no “God”, no transcendent values/morality - the universe just is. In fact, there could just as easily been no universe. The fact that the universe does exist is, well, a big mystery.
“The Darwinian view of the how the universe came to be”
There is no “Darwinian view of the creation of the universe”.
Darwin didn’t talk about the origins of life only how it develops and adapts while here. Your questions about the Nazis have no bearing at all on discussions of how the Darwinian model explains biological adaptation. It’s two seperate discussions. And, as mentioned above, Darwin doesn’t presuppose the absence of God.
I think we need to straighten out a few inaccuracies in your post.
Slavery wasn’t a subtle or complicated practice in ancient Rome. It was brutal and simple. A slave was for life, could be treated as inheritable property and the level of brutality applied was entirely dependent on the individual conscience of the slaveholder. Additionally, freeing slaves was not an uncommon practice in the Roman Empire. It was perfectly acceptable to free slaves and the Roman world wasn’t hostile to them.
In the Bible’s view, slavery is a perfectly acceptable and moral practice. All it does is try to regulate the excesses not condemn it per se. Even then, the regulations permit a harsher regime on non-Hebrews slaves than Hebrew ones.
The idea that there has been a consistent condemnation or moral consideration of slavery in Judeo-Christian teachings throughout the ages is patently false. The position has evolved dramatically and that makes kimtom’s concept of an ‘Absolute Moral Law’, unchanging through the ages a distortion of the truth.
Some of the few solid teachings and concepts the NT speaks of slavery can be derived from the letter of Paul to Philemon:(who had been missing a slave Oneisimus, who had become a Christian and had been serving Paul. Philemon was also known to Paul as you will see in this letter). The OT has quite a few passages regarding slavery but the question is how are Christians to view slavery.
Philemon 1
Greeting
1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, 2 to the beloved[a] Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Philemon’s Love and Faith
4 I thank my God, making mention of you always in my prayers, 5 hearing of your love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints, 6 that the sharing of your faith may become effective by the acknowledgment of every good thing which is in you[b] in Christ Jesus. 7 For we have[c] great joy[d] and consolation in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by you, brother.
The Plea for Onesimus
8 Therefore, though I might be very bold in Christ to command you what is fitting, 9 yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you—being such a one as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ— 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains, 11 who once was unprofitable to you, but now is profitable to you and to me.
12 I am sending him back.[e] You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart, 13 whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister to me in my chains for the gospel. 14 But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary.
15 For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
Philemon’s Obedience Encouraged
17 If then you count me as a partner, receive him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. 19 I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay—not to mention to you that you owe me even your own self besides. 20 Yes, brother, let me have joy from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in the Lord.
21 Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 But, meanwhile, also prepare a guest room for me, for I trust that through your prayers I shall be granted to you.
Farewell
23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, 24 as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers.
25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
There is no real passage in scripture that says” owning slaves and doing what you want with them is lawful...if you can keep them.”
I don’t need to have any inaccuracies about slavery corrected...it’s ultimately a shameful practice. It’s a no brainer that some households treated slaves better than others...but reading thru various histories of the Roman empire was quite revelatory as to the intertwining social and psychological dependencies that grew up between slave owners, slaves, and freedmen. Treatment also did depend on the conscience of the slave owner; for example Philemon, whose conscience Paul hoped to prick.
Paul also wrote the Galatians letter, chapter 3:26-29 which, I again remind you, lays out the utter unity of all men in Christ with no regards to class, race, or status. Indeed, juxtaposing Philemon verses 12-16 with the Galatians passage lays out the spiritual reality that is in Jesus Christ, that all men and eventually nations will someday share in.
Oneisimus was being returned to Philemon not just as a slave but as a brother in Christ and Paul practically commands Philemon to treat him as such...urging Philemon subtly, with loving tact, but with spiritual imperative !(Paul even offers to pay any losses incurred).
There is no direct new Testament verse that says “you can be a slave owner and God won’t hate you for it...because they are inferior people. If they weren’t inferior, they wouldn’t be slaves...so have as many as you can and treat them how you wish”. Such teachings have been said to be inferred from scripture, but Galatians chapter 3:26 thru the end pretty much spells out what Christ thinks about the differences between men.
Nope, no slaves in Christ’s kingdom other than all men being slaves to Jesus Christ...who states, “learn of me for I am meek and lowly, take my yoke upon you for my yoke is easy and my burden is lite!”
You wrote, “First of all, Darwin, in his own words, said he was out to destroy God.”
I challenged that contention.
You replied with a real Darwin quote - almost in its entirety! With only a few sentences conveniently cropped out. This is a rare event, and I salute you.
I’ll post the full quote below, which includes a nod to the “beautiful morality of the New Testament.” Yes, it’s quite true that through Darwin’s meticulous studies he came to question the existence the god of the bible. He makes it clear that it was a long and slow process, but one that was almost forced upon a man who spent many years studying natural history. I posit that the same exact thing would happen to every single Freeper creationist if he or she were to undertake the same studies as Darwin. There is simply no other conclusion.
I’m not saying you’d become an atheist - but that you’d certainly come to question the validity of the mythology of the bible.
In short, Darwin certainly was not, in any way, “out to destroy God.” He merely collected evidence that, to this day, directly contradicts many of the biblical accounts.
Here’s your quote, which you will certainly still find reprehensible, but it is a bit more nuanced and thoughtful than, “I’m out to destroy god.” (Bonus - he discusses the quite old but new again idea of “intelligent design!) Enjoy:
“During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, &c., &c., & from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind & would not be banished, — is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible. By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant & credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.
The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on
the interpretation which we now put on metaphors & allegories. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; —I feel sure of this for I can well remember often & often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans & manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more & more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, & have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, & this would include my Father, Brother & almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.1
Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings & in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of Domestic Animals & Plants,1 & the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.”
I’m at work whattajoke, so I don’t have ready access toall of my books. I have read books that are extremely critical of Darwin. passages that show his overt hostility toward Christianity while his wife kept her faith. I will endeaver to give you an example of his “over the top” hostility toward Christianity. I know Darwin lived a bitter life alienated from his family and made some interesting statements as he neared death. As for stealing ideas, I believe the theory of natural selection was being developed rapidly by Lyell and Wallace at the time Darwin trumped them with “The Origin of the Species” It can be argued (like many pre-victorian scientists) that he borrowed a few ideas from competing scientists. The basic inadequacy of Darwinism is it’s inability to explain the existence of matter and the exquisite complexity of even the most basic living cell. The “1st cause argument is the most difficult to overcome. Something cannot come from nothing. Yes, I am a YEC, as you call it. I believe the geologic table, the existence of dinosaurs, the speciation of all living creatures can be explained by a careful analysis of the days of creation and the Noahic flood. Cheers. . Keep up the correspondence if you want to. I’m sorry for relegating you to hell so quickly. I just don’t want anyone to perish since God provided such a free way of salvation through Jesus Christ. As a believer in Christ, you don’t absolutely have to understand the mysteries of creation immediately, but you do have to believe in the most intelligent of designers, The God of Creation!
Over time, Darwin’s hostility to Christianity did play a role in his scientific views. While Darwin was originally very modest about evolution—a theory to account for transitions from one life form to another—he became increasingly insistent that evolution was an entirely naturalistic system, having no room for miracles or divine intervention at any point. When Darwin’s co-discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, wrote him to say that evolution could not account for man’s moral and spiritual nature, Darwin accused him of jeopardizing the whole theory: “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.” Darwin’s ultimate position was that it was disastrous for evolution to, at any point, permit a divine foot in the door. . .Dinesh D’Souza
Some in Darwin’s family, including his wife, Emma, felt his reputation would suffer irrevocably if his lack of conventional religious belief were widely known. Emma successfully argued for the purging of sensitive remarks from the public text in a letter to her son Francis in 1885: “There is one sentence in the Autobiography which I very much wish to omit, no doubt partly because your father’s opinion that all morality has grown up by evolution is painful to me. . . .” It is unsettling to realize that we might not have learned of Darwin’s profound idea for seventy-one years if Darwin had not already openly published it in The Descent of Man (Darwin 1871, pp. 161-166).
Darwin describes his slow but complete loss of faith (italicized passages are those that were originally expurgated): “Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox. . . . But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world . . . and from its attribution to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian.”
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection undermined the conventional religious concept of an all-powerful God. It could explain in a natural way the existence of complex organisms without the need for an intelligent designer, a term made popular by the Reverend William Paley.1 In an argument familiar to us today, Paley asserted that the incredible perfection of the human eye could not be explained by any hypothesis other than a supernatural one. Many were convinced that Paley had proved the existence of God because no competing plan existed. But that was simply only a matter of time. Darwin himself confessed (1958) that he, too, was at first convinced by Paley that God must exist, but that lasted only until a much better theory-natural selection-came along. That better theory made God superfluous in Darwin’s view.
His aversion to Christianity was explicit. For example (Darwin 1958, pp. 86-87), “By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be [required] to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported . . . that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us . . . disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete.
“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all their best friends, will be everlastingly punished. . . .” Charles’s father, Robert, also a nonbeliever, warned Charles that he would be wise to keep his religious feelings to himself because few of his acquaintances would understand his lack of faith.
“One last point - I would hope that an omniscient god would not be besmirched or phased by a lone long-dead student of natural history. “
No, no need to worry about that one...”God is not mocked”!
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.