M
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
The website I had posted some quotes from yesterday has a very interesting Catholic view point on Darwin and how his theories have led to pantheism and a view point like Pianka’s that puts human life on par with other life forms.
Here is a portion of their article which I would recommend.
christianorder.com/features/features_2006/features_oct06.html
"And contrary to evolution, there is such a thing as a ‘moderate’ approach to all this; one which holds a correct understanding of the relationship of human beings with nature. It is embodied as always in the heavenly balance of Catholic teaching. “Seen in the light of the doctrine of God the Father, the maker of heaven and earth,” wrote John Paul II, “this relationship is one of ‘stewardship’: human beings are set at the centre of creation as stewards of the Creator.” [Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis, 2003]
Countless issues rightly demand such stewardship. Take your pick: the plight of hundreds of millions of British broiler and battery cage chickens pumped with antibiotics to speed growth while crammed into windowless sheds 20,000 at a time; damning research from Denmark on the hazards to human health of feeding growth hormones to cattle; the safe disposal of the million tons of toxic electrical goods and two million toxic TV tubes tossed away in Britain each year; the multiple dangers posed by genetically modified crops promoted by governments in bed with giant American agribusiness conglomerates…
…
Amidst the good and bad of our ecologically-obsessed age, however, it is the preoccupation with animals and the natural environment over and above human life that most attunes a post-Christian society to the deadly Green gospel handed down by Darwin – which, to recap, preaches an evolving human species indistinct from nature and, as a consequence, views the human person as expendable matter.
The tendency assails us every other day: as in reports of the Australian Humane Society’s call for an end to students dissecting frogs and rats in science classes, or the ‘bill of rights’ for pets proposed by the British Environment Ministry in cahoots with the RSPCA, which “five freedoms” defining standards under which animals should be kept invites further nanny state intrusion into our lives and opens up Pandora’s Box in respect of the way we treat farm animals, vermin and fish.
This inversion of the Divine Order - according inalienable rights to animals and natural phenomena even while showing “genuine contempt for man”, as John Paul II put it - has dehumanised the mainstream. Thus, consumer and animal welfare groups react with justifiable horror at the proposed sale of meat and milk from cloned animals. “Cloning is about treating animals as commodities,” they recently cried. Yet they hail so-called “therapeutic” cloning which treats early human life as an object to be manipulated and destroyed for their advantage.
Grass-roots Engineering and Control
The subversive history of socio-political control behind this mass dehumanisation at the very heart of the Green agenda is unknown to an ‘evolutionised’ electorate. It should be made aware that its apparently caring-sharing eco-leaders are direct descendants of a host of Darwinian socialist admirers, like Marx and Hitler:
In Germany, for instance, … Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) emerged from a political culture which associated pollution, big cities, and the destruction of the natural environment with what was called “Jewish cosmopolitanism.” Hitler indeed remained a Green in some respects throughout his life, and his notions of how the environment should be protected played a part in his vast schemes of social engineering. The “rights of nature”, as we may call them have figured on the agenda of the radical left for at least a century, and have been accompanied by far-reaching plans to reconstruct society in order to protect them.
Indeed, those concerned with upholding Christian principles should be highly suspicious of any philosophy which accords “rights” – on a par with the rights that Christian teaching accords to human beings – to natural objects. “Is Totalitarianism Dead? Beware of the ‘New Left’”, Paul Johnson, The Human Life Review, Spring, 1989]
The only problem with this sober warning is that nobody is listening. Evolution has helped facilitate an epochal reduction in the number of those “concerned with upholding Christian principles” and left Joe Average spiritually receptive, instead, to a pantheistic gospel which accords nature more than its due. "
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
Here is a portion of their article which I would recommend.
christianorder.com/features/features_2006/features_oct06.html
"And contrary to evolution, there is such a thing as a ‘moderate’ approach to all this; one which holds a correct understanding of the relationship of human beings with nature. It is embodied as always in the heavenly balance of Catholic teaching. “Seen in the light of the doctrine of God the Father, the maker of heaven and earth,” wrote John Paul II, “this relationship is one of ‘stewardship’: human beings are set at the centre of creation as stewards of the Creator.” [Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis, 2003]
Countless issues rightly demand such stewardship. Take your pick: the plight of hundreds of millions of British broiler and battery cage chickens pumped with antibiotics to speed growth while crammed into windowless sheds 20,000 at a time; damning research from Denmark on the hazards to human health of feeding growth hormones to cattle; the safe disposal of the million tons of toxic electrical goods and two million toxic TV tubes tossed away in Britain each year; the multiple dangers posed by genetically modified crops promoted by governments in bed with giant American agribusiness conglomerates…
…
Amidst the good and bad of our ecologically-obsessed age, however, it is the preoccupation with animals and the natural environment over and above human life that most attunes a post-Christian society to the deadly Green gospel handed down by Darwin – which, to recap, preaches an evolving human species indistinct from nature and, as a consequence, views the human person as expendable matter.
The tendency assails us every other day: as in reports of the Australian Humane Society’s call for an end to students dissecting frogs and rats in science classes, or the ‘bill of rights’ for pets proposed by the British Environment Ministry in cahoots with the RSPCA, which “five freedoms” defining standards under which animals should be kept invites further nanny state intrusion into our lives and opens up Pandora’s Box in respect of the way we treat farm animals, vermin and fish.
This inversion of the Divine Order - according inalienable rights to animals and natural phenomena even while showing “genuine contempt for man”, as John Paul II put it - has dehumanised the mainstream. Thus, consumer and animal welfare groups react with justifiable horror at the proposed sale of meat and milk from cloned animals. “Cloning is about treating animals as commodities,” they recently cried. Yet they hail so-called “therapeutic” cloning which treats early human life as an object to be manipulated and destroyed for their advantage.
Grass-roots Engineering and Control
The subversive history of socio-political control behind this mass dehumanisation at the very heart of the Green agenda is unknown to an ‘evolutionised’ electorate. It should be made aware that its apparently caring-sharing eco-leaders are direct descendants of a host of Darwinian socialist admirers, like Marx and Hitler:
In Germany, for instance, … Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) emerged from a political culture which associated pollution, big cities, and the destruction of the natural environment with what was called “Jewish cosmopolitanism.” Hitler indeed remained a Green in some respects throughout his life, and his notions of how the environment should be protected played a part in his vast schemes of social engineering. The “rights of nature”, as we may call them have figured on the agenda of the radical left for at least a century, and have been accompanied by far-reaching plans to reconstruct society in order to protect them.
Indeed, those concerned with upholding Christian principles should be highly suspicious of any philosophy which accords “rights” – on a par with the rights that Christian teaching accords to human beings – to natural objects. “Is Totalitarianism Dead? Beware of the ‘New Left’”, Paul Johnson, The Human Life Review, Spring, 1989]
The only problem with this sober warning is that nobody is listening. Evolution has helped facilitate an epochal reduction in the number of those “concerned with upholding Christian principles” and left Joe Average spiritually receptive, instead, to a pantheistic gospel which accords nature more than its due. "
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Gasoline is going up, because people on Wall St. are betting that it will go up.We’ll see. I wonder if you checked out the links I posted. If gasoline falls back to the $3.00 range I might begin to believe you; if it keeps going up and up I’ll believe ASPO, Simmons, LATOC, Heinberg, Kunstler and others. So far the evidence is favoring their predictions.
Already, demand is falling, even in summer, when it should be rising. And large vehicles are now almost impossible to sell. If demand by US drivers falls 5%, the bubble bursts. That’s a lot, BTW.
But consider what five percent would be in your own driving habits. Very doable.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Since you already acknowledged that Darwin’s own statements refute this libel, why would you still listen to people who say it? BTW, in terms of environment, Catholics are not neutral on this:Amidst the good and bad of our ecologically-obsessed age, however, it is the preoccupation with animals and the natural environment over and above human life that most attunes a post-Christian society to the deadly Green gospel handed down by Darwin – which, to recap, preaches an evolving human species indistinct from nature and, as a consequence, views the human person as expendable matter.
Freedom and the capacity for moral decision making are central to what it means to be human. Stewardship—defined in this case as the ability to exercise moral responsibility to care for the environment—requires freedom to act. Significant aspects of this stewardship include the right to private initiative, the ownership of property, and the exercise of responsible freedom in the economic sector. Stewardship requires a careful protection of the environment and calls us to use our intelligence "to discover the earth’s productive potential and the many different ways in which human needs can be satisfied."
USCCB
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Yes – falling demand helps; the driving of Hummers and other SUVs has been one of the besetting sins of the new millennium. I’m glad that’s over!Gasoline is going up, because people on Wall St. are betting that it will go up. Already, demand is falling, even in summer, when it should be rising. And large vehicles are now almost impossible to sell. If demand by US drivers falls 5%, the bubble bursts. That’s a lot, BTW.
But consider what five percent would be in your own driving habits. Very doable.
But that doesn’t change the basic point that the era of cheap fossil energy we have enjoyed since 1859 is drawing to a close. I view it as a positive thing that frequent air travel will be unaffordable. Think about the blessings of living more locally: getting to know and rely upon your neighbors, spending more time with you family, working the land, living and working and studying and worshipping within walking or bicycling distance from your home, etc.
Petrus
C
Crow
Guest
This snipet made me laugh:
Each fanciful theory has its own fanciful facts to support it! LOL
Back top evolution Bob…
So the sun expanding is ‘warming the outer planets’ eh? But of course the warming of the earth is due to our spurting CO2 into the air.Reporting the discovery of Colwellia 34H, a marine bug which thrives at nearly 200 degrees below freezing, the Daily Mail of 10 August 2006 raised the possibility of life on Mars and its evolutionary implications. “As the sun continues to expand and warm the outer planets,” it solemnly concluded, “scientists are now considering the possibility that Colwellia’s icebound alien cousins could one day turn into us”!
Each fanciful theory has its own fanciful facts to support it! LOL
Back top evolution Bob…
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
If you read the whole piece it placed human stewardship as central, which is more healthy than seeing human beings as the disease destroying the planet. The problem is that darwing could not possibly have foreseen the total consequence of n explanation for life being totally separate from Divine Authority and influence. This is what leads to environmentalists saying that if 90% of the human population was destroyed it would be better for the planet.Since you already acknowledged that Darwin’s own statements refute this libel, why would you still listen to people who say it? BTW, in terms of environment, Catholics are not neutral on this:
Freedom and the capacity for moral decision making are central to what it means to be human. Stewardship—defined in this case as the ability to exercise moral responsibility to care for the environment—requires freedom to act. Significant aspects of this stewardship include the right to private initiative, the ownership of property, and the exercise of responsible freedom in the economic sector. Stewardship requires a careful protection of the environment and calls us to use our intelligence "to discover the earth’s productive potential and the many different ways in which human needs can be satisfied."
USCCB
“Amidst the good and bad of our ecologically-obsessed age, however, it is the preoccupation with animals and the natural environment over and above human life that most attunes a post-Christian society to the deadly Green gospel handed down by Darwin – which, to recap, preaches an evolving human species indistinct from nature and, as a consequence, views the human person as expendable matter.”
Perhaps Darwin did not want his view to evolve into that extreme
environmentalism, but it has done so as can been seen.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
D
drpmjhess
Guest
The sun is not warming the outer planets yet – that is tens if not hundreds of millions of years into the future. It is irrelevant to the discussion of current terrestrial anthropogenic warming.So the sun expanding is ‘warming the outer planets’ eh? But of course the warming of the earth is due to our spurting CO2 into the air…
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
About CDC sex education programs you commented that abstinence programs tell kids that:
“Some of the morons running these programs have been teaching kids that you can get HIV from sweat or tears. But they won’t tell them the mechanics behind getting pregnant. With the predictable results…”
Hmmm, I had read that cancer of the mouth is increasing these days as well, because PP has encouraged oral sex as a safe replacement for intercourse. But that isn’t moronic is it?
So what does the CDC program look like if you want to compare:
"Among the programs that the CDC was “putting to work” before the order to kill them were:
— Becoming a Responsible Teen: Originally designed for teens from 14 to 18, it suggests in a list of recommended activities a trip to the grocery store to examine the different kinds of lubricants for condom use.
— Be Proud! Be Responsible!: Designed for adolescents from 13 to 18, it includes “brainstorming” about different ways to make condoms sexy. It also includes role-playing situations involving “negotiating safe sex” in bisexual and homosexual relationships.
— Focus on Kids: Designed for youths 9 to 15 years of age, provides “condom hunts” at local markets and a condom race to see who can apply the condom fastest.
Rector said all of the programs give the concept of abstaining from sex a nod, but the emphasis on condom use and sex play is over the top.
“It’s not as if every word in them is bad, but they have a considerable amount of material that no sane parent is going to want their kid exposed to,” he said.
SIECUS, comprised of a public health and education network as well as a lobbying arm that works with the leading gay and lesbian organizations, feminists, HIV/AIDS and pro-choice groups, has developed its own “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education.”
The guidelines, published in 1991, cover 13 very broad subject areas “from communications skills to proper medical information to assisting parents with talking to their kids,” Verrilli said.
“They’re not a curriculum, they are really a pick-and-choose for communities,” she said.
Among the choices in the guidelines are recommendations to teach children as early as 5 years old about masturbation and homosexuality. As early as age 12, children might be learning about having fantasies about other kids of their own gender, mutual masturbation to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, and that legal abortion “is very safe.”
Verrilli said with 20,000 copies in circulation, the guidelines “have become the most widely recognized and implemented framework for comprehensive sexuality education across the country.”
The SIECUS Web site also recommends several other links for teens, including Planned Parenthood’s Teenwire (search), and Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice (search). All offer graphic descriptions of sex acts, how-tos for so-called safe “sex play” and other hints and suggestions for achieving sexual pleasure.
Opponents of safe-sex education point out that many organizations that provide resources like these get some form of state and federal assistance to pursue their agendas, and say that taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going.
“All these things in schools are funded with government money, it’s their bread and butter,” said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents’ Rights Coalition (search) in Massachusetts, which has gone head-to-head with Planned Parenthood (search) and other groups in front of the state legislature.
“[They] stand to lose money if parents stop these programs. They never want parents to have a choice,” Camenker said.
Groups heralding the candid approach say talking openly with kids who are going to have sex anyway gives adults an opportunity to offer them information and options to avoid STDs, HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. They say critics would rather tell kids not to have sex and leave it at that.
“It’s not the abstinence we object to, it’s the abstinence-only programs we object to because they are dangerous and they do not work,” said Jim Farrell, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood, which says teens armed with information about safer sex methods use them when they become sexually active. “We want to give them the skills and information to delay the activity until they can have a mature experience.”
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96660,00.html_______________________________________________
A Planned Parenthood spokesperson ehh? Like asking the fox to
watch the chicken house.
No wonder the kids get involved in early sex. They are invited into that activity by everything in the media and the school programs.
This has to do with a view that likens people to animals with uncontrollable instincts and appetites. If you tell them that is what they are they act that way.
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
“Some of the morons running these programs have been teaching kids that you can get HIV from sweat or tears. But they won’t tell them the mechanics behind getting pregnant. With the predictable results…”
Hmmm, I had read that cancer of the mouth is increasing these days as well, because PP has encouraged oral sex as a safe replacement for intercourse. But that isn’t moronic is it?
So what does the CDC program look like if you want to compare:
"Among the programs that the CDC was “putting to work” before the order to kill them were:
— Becoming a Responsible Teen: Originally designed for teens from 14 to 18, it suggests in a list of recommended activities a trip to the grocery store to examine the different kinds of lubricants for condom use.
— Be Proud! Be Responsible!: Designed for adolescents from 13 to 18, it includes “brainstorming” about different ways to make condoms sexy. It also includes role-playing situations involving “negotiating safe sex” in bisexual and homosexual relationships.
— Focus on Kids: Designed for youths 9 to 15 years of age, provides “condom hunts” at local markets and a condom race to see who can apply the condom fastest.
Rector said all of the programs give the concept of abstaining from sex a nod, but the emphasis on condom use and sex play is over the top.
“It’s not as if every word in them is bad, but they have a considerable amount of material that no sane parent is going to want their kid exposed to,” he said.
SIECUS, comprised of a public health and education network as well as a lobbying arm that works with the leading gay and lesbian organizations, feminists, HIV/AIDS and pro-choice groups, has developed its own “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education.”
The guidelines, published in 1991, cover 13 very broad subject areas “from communications skills to proper medical information to assisting parents with talking to their kids,” Verrilli said.
“They’re not a curriculum, they are really a pick-and-choose for communities,” she said.
Among the choices in the guidelines are recommendations to teach children as early as 5 years old about masturbation and homosexuality. As early as age 12, children might be learning about having fantasies about other kids of their own gender, mutual masturbation to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, and that legal abortion “is very safe.”
Verrilli said with 20,000 copies in circulation, the guidelines “have become the most widely recognized and implemented framework for comprehensive sexuality education across the country.”
The SIECUS Web site also recommends several other links for teens, including Planned Parenthood’s Teenwire (search), and Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice (search). All offer graphic descriptions of sex acts, how-tos for so-called safe “sex play” and other hints and suggestions for achieving sexual pleasure.
Opponents of safe-sex education point out that many organizations that provide resources like these get some form of state and federal assistance to pursue their agendas, and say that taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going.
“All these things in schools are funded with government money, it’s their bread and butter,” said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents’ Rights Coalition (search) in Massachusetts, which has gone head-to-head with Planned Parenthood (search) and other groups in front of the state legislature.
“[They] stand to lose money if parents stop these programs. They never want parents to have a choice,” Camenker said.
Groups heralding the candid approach say talking openly with kids who are going to have sex anyway gives adults an opportunity to offer them information and options to avoid STDs, HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. They say critics would rather tell kids not to have sex and leave it at that.
“It’s not the abstinence we object to, it’s the abstinence-only programs we object to because they are dangerous and they do not work,” said Jim Farrell, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood, which says teens armed with information about safer sex methods use them when they become sexually active. “We want to give them the skills and information to delay the activity until they can have a mature experience.”
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96660,00.html_______________________________________________
A Planned Parenthood spokesperson ehh? Like asking the fox to
watch the chicken house.
No wonder the kids get involved in early sex. They are invited into that activity by everything in the media and the school programs.
This has to do with a view that likens people to animals with uncontrollable instincts and appetites. If you tell them that is what they are they act that way.
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Why don’t you think so?But that isn’t moronic is it?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Not much. The Sun fluctuates a bit in size and output, but it’s mostly variations in orbit that changes warming of planets. Mars is a bit closer now, and is warming. Pluto is moving farther out, and is in a cooling period.So the sun expanding is ‘warming the outer planets’ eh?
So the evidence indicates.But of course the warming of the earth is due to our spurting CO2 into the air.
Evidence is “fanciful” only to the deniers.Each fanciful theory has its own fanciful facts to support it! LOL
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian on why “abstinence only” has lead to more pregnancies and more STDs:
Some of the morons running these programs have been teaching kids that you can get HIV from sweat or tears. But they won’t tell them the mechanics behind getting pregnant. With the predictable results…"
“It’s not the abstinence we object to, it’s the abstinence-only programs we object to because they are dangerous and they do not work,” said Jim Farrell, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood
Um, no kidding. Until “abstinence only” the trend for teen pregnancies and STDs was trending down. Now, it’s up again. The programs have been abject failures at the very thing they were supposed to do for teens.
BTW, I might be old, but I remember enough to know that kids aren’t going to wait for adults to tell them to investigate sex.
Some of the morons running these programs have been teaching kids that you can get HIV from sweat or tears. But they won’t tell them the mechanics behind getting pregnant. With the predictable results…"
Planned Parenthood isn’t doing “abstinence only.” But if they are recommending oral sex without protection, they are morons, too. If. Do you have any evidence for that?Hmmm, I had read that cancer of the mouth is increasing these days as well, because PP has encouraged oral sex as a safe replacement for intercourse.
“It’s not the abstinence we object to, it’s the abstinence-only programs we object to because they are dangerous and they do not work,” said Jim Farrell, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood
Um, no kidding. Until “abstinence only” the trend for teen pregnancies and STDs was trending down. Now, it’s up again. The programs have been abject failures at the very thing they were supposed to do for teens.
BTW, I might be old, but I remember enough to know that kids aren’t going to wait for adults to tell them to investigate sex.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Mary, you’ve already admitted that this is a lie. Why did you repeat it?“Amidst the good and bad of our ecologically-obsessed age, however, it is the preoccupation with animals and the natural environment over and above human life that most attunes a post-Christian society to the deadly Green gospel handed down by Darwin – which, to recap, preaches an evolving human species indistinct from nature and, as a consequence, views the human person as expendable matter.”
Just because some dishonest person said it, does not mean that we have to accept that it’s true.Perhaps Darwin did not want his view to evolve into that extreme environmentalism, but it has done so as can been seen.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Planned Parenthood isn’t doing “abstinence only.” But if they are recommending oral sex without protection, they are morons, too. If. Do you have any evidence for that?
PP Teen Wire website:
teenwire.com/ask/2004/as-20041101p900-virgin.php
if u have oral sex are you still virgin?
karlynn2, 11.01.04
The Answer:
Dear karlynn2,
There are many different beliefs about what losing one’s virginity means. Most people agree that women and men lose their virginity the first time they have penile-vaginal intercourse. Many people also believe that two women or two men can lose their virginity through oral or anal intercourse. Some also believe that people have to give consent to lose their virginity — that virgins who are raped, for example, do not lose their virginity. Nearly all people in the U.S. agree, however, that people who masturbate or have other kinds of sex play — like touching a sex partner’s genitals with the hands — are still virgins.
Hope this information helps!
Take care,
teenwire.com® Editors
Here is there statement on oral sex which is on theri teen website:
…
Many teens are thinking about oral sex, and a study by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) found that more than half of U.S. teens ages 15 to 19 have done it. So why is oral sex so popular?
“Technical Virgins”
First, there’s the idea of preserving virginity. Most teens agree that people lose their virginity the first time they have penile-vaginal intercourse. (Many also agree that people can lose their virginity through oral and anal sex if they have same-sex partners.) To some teens, being a “technical virgin” is very important — they believe they can do everything but have vaginal sex and still remain a virgin.
The increasing importance of “technical virginity” is likely influenced by abstinence-only education, which focuses on teaching teens to avoid vaginal sex. “In abstinence education, you learn that you should stay a virgin,” says Matt, 15. “So if you have oral sex, you don’t have to lose your virginity, and you don’t feel like you are doing something as bad.”
( Mary: as if there own question/answer site doesn’t give this impression, see above))
Matt isn’t the only teen who thinks oral sex “doesn’t count.” A Columbia University study found that teens who took virginity pledges were more likely to have anal and oral sex than teens who didn’t pledge. Pledgers were substituting these other kinds of sex play for vaginal sex in order to stay “technical virgins.”
(what about there own statement above? It seems to me they are the ones teaching this))
The New Safer Sex?
Sarah, 19, thinks teens are having oral sex instead of vaginal sex because they believe it’s safer. So … is it? “There are fewer health risks for oral sex than there are for anal and vaginal sex, and pregnancy rates are down,” says Nora Gelperin, director of training for the Network for Family Life Education in New Jersey, which publishes the website Sex, Etc. “Infection rates are up, which is not good, but we need to acknowledge that oral sex is less risky than other things.”
Oral sex can’t cause pregnancy, and it’s very low risk for HIV. However, oral sex can put both partners at risk for other, less dangerous sexually transmitted infections, including cytomegalovirus (CMV), gonorrhea, hepatitis B, herpes, and syphilis. Using condoms to cover the penis or a dental dam or cut-open condom to cover the vulva or anus can reduce the risk of infection.
Do teens use protection for oral sex? “Never happened, never will,” says Lisa, 15. Sarah agrees, saying the people she knows rarely use condoms for oral sex. And the NCHS study found the same — only nine percent of the teens surveyed reported using condoms for oral sex.
Since abstinence-only education doesn’t teach about safer sex, many teens may not be aware of how to reduce their risk of infection during oral sex. “We need to look at how to help kids be informed and safe when they’re engaged in this behavior,” says Gelperin.
'Tis Better to Give Than Receive?
In the past, many people thought of oral sex as a one-way street — something girls would give and guys would get. “A lot of adults are concerned about the seeming inequity of girls performing oral sex on guys — that she’s just being exploited by him,” says Gelperin.
…
Gelperin says she wasn’t very surprised by the findings, since the study looked at older teens. “As teens mature, the relationships are a little more long-lasting, and the issue of reciprocity and equality in relationships becomes more important,” she says.
I am posting a second part with the abstinence view of oral sex.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
PP Teen Wire website:
teenwire.com/ask/2004/as-20041101p900-virgin.php
if u have oral sex are you still virgin?
karlynn2, 11.01.04
The Answer:
Dear karlynn2,
There are many different beliefs about what losing one’s virginity means. Most people agree that women and men lose their virginity the first time they have penile-vaginal intercourse. Many people also believe that two women or two men can lose their virginity through oral or anal intercourse. Some also believe that people have to give consent to lose their virginity — that virgins who are raped, for example, do not lose their virginity. Nearly all people in the U.S. agree, however, that people who masturbate or have other kinds of sex play — like touching a sex partner’s genitals with the hands — are still virgins.
Hope this information helps!
Take care,
teenwire.com® Editors
Here is there statement on oral sex which is on theri teen website:
…
Many teens are thinking about oral sex, and a study by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) found that more than half of U.S. teens ages 15 to 19 have done it. So why is oral sex so popular?
“Technical Virgins”
First, there’s the idea of preserving virginity. Most teens agree that people lose their virginity the first time they have penile-vaginal intercourse. (Many also agree that people can lose their virginity through oral and anal sex if they have same-sex partners.) To some teens, being a “technical virgin” is very important — they believe they can do everything but have vaginal sex and still remain a virgin.
The increasing importance of “technical virginity” is likely influenced by abstinence-only education, which focuses on teaching teens to avoid vaginal sex. “In abstinence education, you learn that you should stay a virgin,” says Matt, 15. “So if you have oral sex, you don’t have to lose your virginity, and you don’t feel like you are doing something as bad.”
( Mary: as if there own question/answer site doesn’t give this impression, see above))
Matt isn’t the only teen who thinks oral sex “doesn’t count.” A Columbia University study found that teens who took virginity pledges were more likely to have anal and oral sex than teens who didn’t pledge. Pledgers were substituting these other kinds of sex play for vaginal sex in order to stay “technical virgins.”
(what about there own statement above? It seems to me they are the ones teaching this))
The New Safer Sex?
Sarah, 19, thinks teens are having oral sex instead of vaginal sex because they believe it’s safer. So … is it? “There are fewer health risks for oral sex than there are for anal and vaginal sex, and pregnancy rates are down,” says Nora Gelperin, director of training for the Network for Family Life Education in New Jersey, which publishes the website Sex, Etc. “Infection rates are up, which is not good, but we need to acknowledge that oral sex is less risky than other things.”
Oral sex can’t cause pregnancy, and it’s very low risk for HIV. However, oral sex can put both partners at risk for other, less dangerous sexually transmitted infections, including cytomegalovirus (CMV), gonorrhea, hepatitis B, herpes, and syphilis. Using condoms to cover the penis or a dental dam or cut-open condom to cover the vulva or anus can reduce the risk of infection.
Do teens use protection for oral sex? “Never happened, never will,” says Lisa, 15. Sarah agrees, saying the people she knows rarely use condoms for oral sex. And the NCHS study found the same — only nine percent of the teens surveyed reported using condoms for oral sex.
Since abstinence-only education doesn’t teach about safer sex, many teens may not be aware of how to reduce their risk of infection during oral sex. “We need to look at how to help kids be informed and safe when they’re engaged in this behavior,” says Gelperin.
'Tis Better to Give Than Receive?
In the past, many people thought of oral sex as a one-way street — something girls would give and guys would get. “A lot of adults are concerned about the seeming inequity of girls performing oral sex on guys — that she’s just being exploited by him,” says Gelperin.
…
Gelperin says she wasn’t very surprised by the findings, since the study looked at older teens. “As teens mature, the relationships are a little more long-lasting, and the issue of reciprocity and equality in relationships becomes more important,” she says.
I am posting a second part with the abstinence view of oral sex.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
So what does research say about teens, abstinence and oral sex.
abstinenceassociation.org/newsroom/pr_052008_study_showcases_need.html
What do abstinence educators say about this? For one thing the fact that abstinence education increases oral sex is not true according to a study in the journal for adolescent medicine:
abstinenceassociation.org/newsroom/pr_052008_study_showcases_need.html
Washington, DC (May 20, 2008) — The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) calls on health professionals and educators to address the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) associated with oral and anal sex by redoubling abstinence education efforts after a study reveals more than half of U.S. teens have given or received oral sex. Eleven-percent of teens have engaged in anal sex. The findings of the study are published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.According to the study, sexually experienced teens were almost four times more likely to engage in oral sex and 20 times more likely to engage in anal sex than their peers who were virgins. Additionally, the study reveals teens that combine oral sex with vaginal sex are more than four times more likely to have multiple partners than teens who have not had vaginal intercourse, ]discrediting the theory that “technical virgins” account for the rise in oral and anal sex in young people.
“Teens are confronted with the dominant cultural message that says that sex, in all its varieties, is expected behavior and without consequence. It’s a message young people receive not just from mainstream media, but in classrooms that teach so-called comprehensive sex education. Some of the most popular sex education curricula encourage risky activities like showering together and body rubbing,” said Valerie Huber, Executive Director, NAEA. “This research shows that risk begets risk, so the risk avoidance approach of abstinence-centered education remains the healthiest message for teens to receive.”
(Mary: As a Catholic adult you see that as a responsible message to give young people?)
Abstinence-centered education programs teach teens medically accurate information about pregnancy prevention, STDs, HIV/AIDS and contraception, all within the context that abstaining is the only way to completely avoid the physical and emotional risks of casual sex
mary:
The people who say abstinence education doesn’t tell kids the full story or gives them myths are probably in some way associated with PP. They certainly don’t believe in purity as a virtue or in God’s grace. They don’t believe in developing self discipline or in true protection for children.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
abstinenceassociation.org/newsroom/pr_052008_study_showcases_need.html
What do abstinence educators say about this? For one thing the fact that abstinence education increases oral sex is not true according to a study in the journal for adolescent medicine:
abstinenceassociation.org/newsroom/pr_052008_study_showcases_need.html
Washington, DC (May 20, 2008) — The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) calls on health professionals and educators to address the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) associated with oral and anal sex by redoubling abstinence education efforts after a study reveals more than half of U.S. teens have given or received oral sex. Eleven-percent of teens have engaged in anal sex. The findings of the study are published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.According to the study, sexually experienced teens were almost four times more likely to engage in oral sex and 20 times more likely to engage in anal sex than their peers who were virgins. Additionally, the study reveals teens that combine oral sex with vaginal sex are more than four times more likely to have multiple partners than teens who have not had vaginal intercourse, ]discrediting the theory that “technical virgins” account for the rise in oral and anal sex in young people.
“Teens are confronted with the dominant cultural message that says that sex, in all its varieties, is expected behavior and without consequence. It’s a message young people receive not just from mainstream media, but in classrooms that teach so-called comprehensive sex education. Some of the most popular sex education curricula encourage risky activities like showering together and body rubbing,” said Valerie Huber, Executive Director, NAEA. “This research shows that risk begets risk, so the risk avoidance approach of abstinence-centered education remains the healthiest message for teens to receive.”
(Mary: As a Catholic adult you see that as a responsible message to give young people?)
Abstinence-centered education programs teach teens medically accurate information about pregnancy prevention, STDs, HIV/AIDS and contraception, all within the context that abstaining is the only way to completely avoid the physical and emotional risks of casual sex
mary:
The people who say abstinence education doesn’t tell kids the full story or gives them myths are probably in some way associated with PP. They certainly don’t believe in purity as a virtue or in God’s grace. They don’t believe in developing self discipline or in true protection for children.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
Planned Parenthood isn’t doing “abstinence only.” But if they are recommending oral sex without protection, they are morons, too. If. Do you have any evidence for that?
(apparently not, declined to substantiate the accusation)
Planned Parenthood isn’t doing “abstinence only.” But if they are recommending oral sex without protection, they are morons, too. If. Do you have any evidence for that?
(apparently not, declined to substantiate the accusation)
No evidence for that either, um? No surprise there.The people who say abstinence education doesn’t tell kids the full story or gives them myths are probably in some way associated with PP.
That’s wrong. Most just think that nothing good can come from lying to kids. You should, too.They certainly don’t believe in purity as a virtue or in God’s grace. They don’t believe in developing self discipline or in true protection for children.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Mary:Barbarian observes:
But if they are recommending oral sex without protection, they are morons, too.
Mary: With or without protection it is dangerous.
Barbarian:
That’s wrong. Most just think that nothing good can come from lying to kids. You should, too.
Teling them that sex outside marriage is safe with condoms and birth control pills is lying to them. From the Physicians for Life website, you can read about PP education and the people behind PP to see what their agenda is and their goals, which is primarily to sexualize our kids, not protect them.
physiciansforlife.org/content/view/228/27/
"In the PP brochure “Sex…The first time or anytime!”, the young reader is informed: “Intercourse isn’t the only way. Kissing, hugging, touching, masturbating, oral sex, are often very exciting and satisfying.”
PP has been instrumental in blocking or injuncting parental notification and consent laws (regarding minors’ abortions) and informed consent laws (providing 24 hours and medical information to women considering abortion) throughout the nation over the years. PP fights fiercely against sexual abstinence programs for teens, and against decent burial or cremation for aborted babies. They also vehemently oppose health rules & regulations for abortion centers. This certainly seems to show a pattern to which most parents in this nation would object. For example, on the issue of abstinence, most American parents want their teens to learn how and why to abstain from sexual activity outside marriage. [click here for the stats] And certainly, if they were truly concerned about women’s health, they would support abortion center regulations, just as we all support health regulations for restaurants.
SIECUS is an acronym for Sex Information and Education Council of the United States. SIECUS was founded in 1964, has under 3000 members, a staff of 15, and an annual budget of about $1 million. Their mission is to insure that all people – including adolescents – have the right to affirm their sexuality as a natural part of their lives. This may sound wonderful, until one comes to understand that they work to promote the right of any individual at any age to make their own “responsible” sexual choices *. There is a push to lower the age of sexual consent worldwide to 10 years; homosexuality and heterosexuality are to be equated.
SIECUS sees this agenda being accomplished through comprehensive sex education. Quoting SIECUS: “Homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual are morally neutral. Incest between adults and younger children can prove to be a satisfying and enriching experience”. Their position on abstinence is that it is “a good choice, but only one choice”. Debra Heffner, past-president of SIECUS and Planned Parenthood educator in a training session for teacher trainers and educators [SIECUS Report, Sep-Oct/1988], noted: “We should teach teens about oral sex and mutual masturbation in order to help them delay the onset of sexual intercourse and its resulting consequences”. *How many adults could realistically be involved in these activities and not have intercourse? Yet, she believes that teens would have that kind of control. Since she believes that, why can’t she understand that teens would have the control to abstain by avoiding sexual activity altogether? And amazingly, in this age of high teen pregnancy rates and STD epidemics, SIECUS writes: “Fear-based abstinence programs exaggerate the negative consequences of premarital sex.” Explaining to teens the actual physical/psychological effects – the medical consequences – of “risk reduction” sexual activity is not fear-based; it shows real concern for their lives, and sincere respect for who they are as human beings.
Another actor in this movement was Alfred C. Kinsey. His works, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (1948) and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” (1953) were “the stellar authority behind” the “Model Penal Code”, which was drafted in 1955 by the American Law Institutes (ALI), which “deconstructed the family and paved the way for ‘non-traditional families’”. Kinsey’s so-called “scientific” studies were “cited and referenced by the U.S. Supreme Court when handing down the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973”. However, “Kinsey used unscientific fraudulent and even criminal methods in his research. He collected data from co-workers who sexually abused hundreds of minors and children as young as two months old to prove that children are sexual beings from birth and can enjoy sex with an adult. Some of his victims were subjected to more than 24 hours of non-stop sexual atrocitie”… "
physiciansforlife.org/content/view/228/27/
MaryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
I think we can end this discussion.
We have gone through Darwin and his theories showing that it lead to a view of creation which allowed for some to see the world as totally separate from any Divine influence. Darwin knew this himself and the ramifications of this tore at his own conscience. he was at times plagued with doubts himself. He presented a natural-selection view of man, seeing the human being as a highly developed animal and nothing more. He defined all emotions, expressions, and human conscience in terms of natural instincts and development. Several sources have been cited showing quotes about and from Darwin support that this was what his view represented.
We have shown that historical records link family members of Darwin, including his own son and cousin, as well as close friends directly to the eugenics movement. Darwin was sympathetic to social Darwinism and even the quote that was provided to counter that fact ,shows that Darwin saw the care of the ill and the weak to be more of a ‘necessary evil’, since they would propogate more weak people, than something that was part of a universal good.
We have seen through different descriptions of the history of the eugenics movment, that it did not end with the demise of the Nazi regime but morphed into ‘reform eugenics’. Some here have argued that reform eugenics are a way of positively effecting or curing genetic defects. So we can see that there may be a good ends in that regard, however, the concept of a loving all human beings equally and with full measure has been under attack through other governments and social policies which we can say are spin offs of the eugenics movements… Some of these include agencies like Planned Parenhood that attck the poor and show racial prejudice by placing more of their abortion clincs in those poor, often black areas. Abortion has allowed for millions of babies who merely had the possibility of defects of one kind or another to be killed. Abortion has also allowed couples to choose to end a pregnancy based on sexual preferences, even if the baby had all the potentials of being a healthy individual.
Beyond that, abortion has been defined by the courts as emergency contraception. Contraception originally was only for sale to married couples, but laws allowing it to be available to unmarried single people have encouraged the break down of trust, faithfulness and longevity in relationships. The term 'serial monogamy" has become the new terminology replaing the traditional ideal of forming a permanent, life long bond with another person. Divorce has proliferated along with sexually transmitted diseases.people being told they have no control over their sexuality at a young age have acted out in the ways they
have been encouraged to by a sexually permissive society filled with bad role models and sex education programs, many of which can be traced to a woman named Margret Sanger, tied to the Nazi
eugenics movment herself.
Other scientists have shown that they have taken Darwin’s view of man as being one part of a world of multiple creatures and has interpreted that concept to mean that men are equal to all the other creatures in terms of their rights on the planet. Some of these extreme environmentalists have even agrued that the planet would be better off if many of the world’s people would die off.
Thus, again and again we see a modern science bent on describing the world from a totally materialistic mindset and the terrible repurcussions of that path.
In the end, I believe that Ben Stein’s movie is a wake up call for all of us to re-evaluate the path we are following and seek ways of integrating faith and science once more. Not that science should be falsely represented based on faith but neither should be it be falsely represented, as if it superior or above or completely free of the influence of faith.
We can see that while science can and does many good things, it has led to many evils, including human genocide. we had the genocide of Nazi Germany and today we have a holocaust of the unborn.
Scientists cannot portray themselves as being ‘value free’, for their theories and how they are articulate them imply values which can either raise mankind up toward a higher calling or bring men down toward their baser natures. Scientists need to recognize this responsibility and rather than becoming so terribly defensive about their roles so as to deny that anything evil has ever occurred, they should strive to bear in mind that their words are heard and interpreted into social policies and cultural viewpoints.
With a true concern for the welfare of each ;ivingperson, they should make sure to speak and act responsibly.to protect rather than to harm others.
I believe enough evidence is out there to say science has been wrong in the past and some scientist are dangerously wrong now. Pagan science does bring death.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
We have gone through Darwin and his theories showing that it lead to a view of creation which allowed for some to see the world as totally separate from any Divine influence. Darwin knew this himself and the ramifications of this tore at his own conscience. he was at times plagued with doubts himself. He presented a natural-selection view of man, seeing the human being as a highly developed animal and nothing more. He defined all emotions, expressions, and human conscience in terms of natural instincts and development. Several sources have been cited showing quotes about and from Darwin support that this was what his view represented.
We have shown that historical records link family members of Darwin, including his own son and cousin, as well as close friends directly to the eugenics movement. Darwin was sympathetic to social Darwinism and even the quote that was provided to counter that fact ,shows that Darwin saw the care of the ill and the weak to be more of a ‘necessary evil’, since they would propogate more weak people, than something that was part of a universal good.
We have seen through different descriptions of the history of the eugenics movment, that it did not end with the demise of the Nazi regime but morphed into ‘reform eugenics’. Some here have argued that reform eugenics are a way of positively effecting or curing genetic defects. So we can see that there may be a good ends in that regard, however, the concept of a loving all human beings equally and with full measure has been under attack through other governments and social policies which we can say are spin offs of the eugenics movements… Some of these include agencies like Planned Parenhood that attck the poor and show racial prejudice by placing more of their abortion clincs in those poor, often black areas. Abortion has allowed for millions of babies who merely had the possibility of defects of one kind or another to be killed. Abortion has also allowed couples to choose to end a pregnancy based on sexual preferences, even if the baby had all the potentials of being a healthy individual.
Beyond that, abortion has been defined by the courts as emergency contraception. Contraception originally was only for sale to married couples, but laws allowing it to be available to unmarried single people have encouraged the break down of trust, faithfulness and longevity in relationships. The term 'serial monogamy" has become the new terminology replaing the traditional ideal of forming a permanent, life long bond with another person. Divorce has proliferated along with sexually transmitted diseases.people being told they have no control over their sexuality at a young age have acted out in the ways they
have been encouraged to by a sexually permissive society filled with bad role models and sex education programs, many of which can be traced to a woman named Margret Sanger, tied to the Nazi
eugenics movment herself.
Other scientists have shown that they have taken Darwin’s view of man as being one part of a world of multiple creatures and has interpreted that concept to mean that men are equal to all the other creatures in terms of their rights on the planet. Some of these extreme environmentalists have even agrued that the planet would be better off if many of the world’s people would die off.
Thus, again and again we see a modern science bent on describing the world from a totally materialistic mindset and the terrible repurcussions of that path.
In the end, I believe that Ben Stein’s movie is a wake up call for all of us to re-evaluate the path we are following and seek ways of integrating faith and science once more. Not that science should be falsely represented based on faith but neither should be it be falsely represented, as if it superior or above or completely free of the influence of faith.
We can see that while science can and does many good things, it has led to many evils, including human genocide. we had the genocide of Nazi Germany and today we have a holocaust of the unborn.
Scientists cannot portray themselves as being ‘value free’, for their theories and how they are articulate them imply values which can either raise mankind up toward a higher calling or bring men down toward their baser natures. Scientists need to recognize this responsibility and rather than becoming so terribly defensive about their roles so as to deny that anything evil has ever occurred, they should strive to bear in mind that their words are heard and interpreted into social policies and cultural viewpoints.
With a true concern for the welfare of each ;ivingperson, they should make sure to speak and act responsibly.to protect rather than to harm others.
I believe enough evidence is out there to say science has been wrong in the past and some scientist are dangerously wrong now. Pagan science does bring death.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Since Darwin himself attributed the origin of life to God, that could not be true.We have gone through Darwin and his theories showing that it lead to a view of creation which allowed for some to see the world as totally separate from any Divine influence.
Since Darwin said that we must save every human life, no matter how miserable, that is also false.Darwin knew this himself and the ramifications of this tore at his own conscience. he was at times plagued with doubts himself. He presented a natural-selection view of man, seeing the human being as a highly developed animal and nothing more.
A half truth might as well be a lie, Mary. Let’s tell the whole truth, um?We have shown that historical records link family members of Darwin, including his own son and cousin, as well as close friends directly to the eugenics movement. Darwin was sympathetic to social Darwinism and even the quote that was provided to counter that fact ,shows that Darwin saw the care of the ill and the weak to be more of a ‘necessary evil’, since they would propogate more weak people, than something that was part of a universal good.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Interestingly, even some IDers reluctantly agree that this is an important part of Darwinism. From the website of IDer William Dembski:
**Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.
If there’s any real case to be made for Darwin and the holocaust it’s the opposite of what’s messaged in Expelled. The holocaust resulted from a failure to heed Darwin’s warning that eugenics could only be practiced by sacrificing the noblest part of our nature, the very part and only part that separates us from other animals. Those responsible for the holocaust, beginning with the eugenics movement in America, were the true animals. Those opposed were nobler than the animals.**
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-complete-darwin-quote-with-a-brief-translation/
Which, as you see above, Darwin condemned, and about which you learned that later Darwinians demolished as a scientific idea.We have seen through different descriptions of the history of the eugenics movment,
So some scientists disagreed with Darwin that humans were uniquely endowed with the right to life? Why would you support them, against Darwin?Other scientists have shown that they have taken Darwin’s view of man as being one part of a world of multiple creatures and has interpreted that concept to mean that men are equal to all the other creatures in terms of their rights on the planet.
As you now seem to understand, his film is a blood libel against Darwin and against science. He assails the very people who condemned the Holocaust and the thinking that went into it. His contemptible denial of the reasons for the Holocaust is a disservice to every human that died in it, and makes excuses or the people who committed it.In the end, I believe that Ben Stein’s movie is a wake up call for all of us
Of all his lies, this is the most egregious. He will someday have to account for it. It would be wise not to join in with him on that.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
I appreciate the lengthened version of the quote from Darwin. I see that this provides some evidence that Darwin saw a nobler potential in man. However one quote simply does not refute the fact that his sone was so largely involved in the eugenics movements as well as his cousin, and other associates. Now if he
strongly condemned the movment on more than one occassion and if there was a history that he was divided against his son on this issue then perhaps we can say that Darwin was not a social Darwinist. We have to remember that these people thought they were benefitting mankind…evil never presents itself barefaced. It almost always wraps itself up in some kind of noble cause or end.
That is why the extreme environmentalists get away with some of their statments. They see an end that is mightier than the ‘present evil’ and so they are willing to suffer to bring about that greater good.
I cannot judge Darwin’s intentions or understanding fully and I would not venture to make a statment condemning him completely as a person, but his ideas did open a venue for
evil interpretations and applications.And scientists were involved in caring those things out.
I feel we have covered this topic enough. I feel there has been enough said about the wrongs that are now occuring in our own culture which has been called by John Paul II, a culture of death.
To go on and on about Darwin will only leave us staring backwards.
we need to move forward by admittng things like abortion and euthanasia are wrong. If anything maybe we can take that one quote of Darwin and say “yes”, "yes, we have strayed once again, and acted in a way that is far less than the nobler side of
what human nature is called to be…
In Christ, maryJohnZ
strongly condemned the movment on more than one occassion and if there was a history that he was divided against his son on this issue then perhaps we can say that Darwin was not a social Darwinist. We have to remember that these people thought they were benefitting mankind…evil never presents itself barefaced. It almost always wraps itself up in some kind of noble cause or end.
That is why the extreme environmentalists get away with some of their statments. They see an end that is mightier than the ‘present evil’ and so they are willing to suffer to bring about that greater good.
I cannot judge Darwin’s intentions or understanding fully and I would not venture to make a statment condemning him completely as a person, but his ideas did open a venue for
evil interpretations and applications.And scientists were involved in caring those things out.
I feel we have covered this topic enough. I feel there has been enough said about the wrongs that are now occuring in our own culture which has been called by John Paul II, a culture of death.
To go on and on about Darwin will only leave us staring backwards.
we need to move forward by admittng things like abortion and euthanasia are wrong. If anything maybe we can take that one quote of Darwin and say “yes”, "yes, we have strayed once again, and acted in a way that is far less than the nobler side of
what human nature is called to be…
In Christ, maryJohnZ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.