M
- Status
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
**Walter Buch, the head of the Nazi Party court, admitted Luther’s influence on Nazi Germany:
“When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind “on the Jews and their Lies” for posterity.”
“Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held… From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds.”
-“Geist und Kampf” (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf
-cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich**
That is an ovesimplification of what occurred. The means and the justification for racial purity is a separate thing from antisemitism as it goes back to the idea that some are more genetically advanced, a Darwin idea. Luther advocated prejudice against the Jewish people but not killing them on this scale. He did want to convert them. I am not apologizing for any antisemetic statement he made though because the Nazis could use them as propaganda and to get into power. After they got in power they showed their anti-Christian character in their actions and policies as has been shown.
quote from Darwin:
]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.
Is that ALL you can come up with? Come on Barbarian.read the whole quote! **“it could only be for a contigen benefit”…just as in the letter to Bill Clinton, the lawyer is arguing for a contingent bnefit, namely that society cannot advance with so many poor people having babies so let’s give them reason to abort their children…"WASHINGTON, May 15, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has released four-page letter written in January 1993 by Ron Weddington to then president-elect Bill Clinton asking him to use abortion as a tool for “eliminating” the “barely educated, unhealthy, and poor.” Using terms reminiscent of early 20th century eugenicists, Weddington’s letter has revealed the stark anti-human principles that have always supported the US abortion movement."
Isn’t it time to come clean and admit the truth?
Mary:
The truth:The creation of Social Darwinism and its influence upon history
Charles Darwin, a English scientist, wrote his most famous book, entitled " The Origin of Species," in 1859. Among its principle ideas were that superior species, as defined by characteristics which they inherited through the generations, would triumph over inferior species, those who did not inherit or develop the survival skills which had been obtained by their " Superior " competitors. Due to this inherent, and growing over time, genetic superiority of one group over another it was hence the " natural order " of nature that those species with superior characteristics would live and continue their posterity line through the generations while their inferior competitors would die as a result of their lack of genetic equality. The 2 terms which encapsulated this philosophy were :
survival of the fittest ( only the superiors would survive ); and
the law of the jungle ( the inferiors would be killed by the superiors as a natural consequence of their weakness ).
In relationship to war throughout history the arguments of Darwin were taken by the elite royalty classes of Darwin’s time ( who happened to be caucasian ) and interpreted as follows in both quasi-religious and " scientific " terms :
We as white caucasians are rich and hence the natural rulers of the world according to the theories of Darwin. We are the Superior " cream of the crop " of humanity while those who are weaker and/or poorer …"( but we also have a duty to " protect nature " and to " help " the natural process by stopping the breeding of those who are inferior to us, both for the good of nature and for the sake of the inferior people themselves. "
truthusa.org/articles/life/allpeopleareequal.htm
THAT IS WHAT SOCIAL DARWINISM GAVE US.
Those are the ideas of Social Darwinism and they clearly show how the eugenics movement came from Darwin’s ideas in the 'Descent of Man" where Darwin accepted the term ‘survival of the fittest’ coined by Herbert Spencer, father of social Darwinism.
Go back and read the posts I placed here. The answer is right in front of you and you are participating in the same pjilosophies that propped up the Nazi hgolocaust by denying the original source for the eugenic movement and then continuing to deny that eugenics is still a part of our social programs. The fact that you can read the content of that letter to Bill Clinton and then by pass the content as if it say and means nothing shows how much you don’t care about truth.
So I will repeat part of it here to remind you:
“Weddington, who along with his wife fought the Roe v Wade case on behalf of the then nascent US abortion lobby, calls on Clinton to expand the abortion philosophy by public propaganda campaigns to “convince” the poor that they should not reproduce”
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/may/06051504.html
Social Darwinism, still alive and still as ugly as it ever was.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
“When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind “on the Jews and their Lies” for posterity.”
“Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held… From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds.”
-“Geist und Kampf” (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf
-cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich**
That is an ovesimplification of what occurred. The means and the justification for racial purity is a separate thing from antisemitism as it goes back to the idea that some are more genetically advanced, a Darwin idea. Luther advocated prejudice against the Jewish people but not killing them on this scale. He did want to convert them. I am not apologizing for any antisemetic statement he made though because the Nazis could use them as propaganda and to get into power. After they got in power they showed their anti-Christian character in their actions and policies as has been shown.
quote from Darwin:
]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.
Is that ALL you can come up with? Come on Barbarian.read the whole quote! **“it could only be for a contigen benefit”…just as in the letter to Bill Clinton, the lawyer is arguing for a contingent bnefit, namely that society cannot advance with so many poor people having babies so let’s give them reason to abort their children…"WASHINGTON, May 15, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has released four-page letter written in January 1993 by Ron Weddington to then president-elect Bill Clinton asking him to use abortion as a tool for “eliminating” the “barely educated, unhealthy, and poor.” Using terms reminiscent of early 20th century eugenicists, Weddington’s letter has revealed the stark anti-human principles that have always supported the US abortion movement."
Isn’t it time to come clean and admit the truth?
Mary:
The truth:The creation of Social Darwinism and its influence upon history
Charles Darwin, a English scientist, wrote his most famous book, entitled " The Origin of Species," in 1859. Among its principle ideas were that superior species, as defined by characteristics which they inherited through the generations, would triumph over inferior species, those who did not inherit or develop the survival skills which had been obtained by their " Superior " competitors. Due to this inherent, and growing over time, genetic superiority of one group over another it was hence the " natural order " of nature that those species with superior characteristics would live and continue their posterity line through the generations while their inferior competitors would die as a result of their lack of genetic equality. The 2 terms which encapsulated this philosophy were :
survival of the fittest ( only the superiors would survive ); and
the law of the jungle ( the inferiors would be killed by the superiors as a natural consequence of their weakness ).
In relationship to war throughout history the arguments of Darwin were taken by the elite royalty classes of Darwin’s time ( who happened to be caucasian ) and interpreted as follows in both quasi-religious and " scientific " terms :
We as white caucasians are rich and hence the natural rulers of the world according to the theories of Darwin. We are the Superior " cream of the crop " of humanity while those who are weaker and/or poorer …"( but we also have a duty to " protect nature " and to " help " the natural process by stopping the breeding of those who are inferior to us, both for the good of nature and for the sake of the inferior people themselves. "
truthusa.org/articles/life/allpeopleareequal.htm
THAT IS WHAT SOCIAL DARWINISM GAVE US.
Those are the ideas of Social Darwinism and they clearly show how the eugenics movement came from Darwin’s ideas in the 'Descent of Man" where Darwin accepted the term ‘survival of the fittest’ coined by Herbert Spencer, father of social Darwinism.
Go back and read the posts I placed here. The answer is right in front of you and you are participating in the same pjilosophies that propped up the Nazi hgolocaust by denying the original source for the eugenic movement and then continuing to deny that eugenics is still a part of our social programs. The fact that you can read the content of that letter to Bill Clinton and then by pass the content as if it say and means nothing shows how much you don’t care about truth.
So I will repeat part of it here to remind you:
“Weddington, who along with his wife fought the Roe v Wade case on behalf of the then nascent US abortion lobby, calls on Clinton to expand the abortion philosophy by public propaganda campaigns to “convince” the poor that they should not reproduce”
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/may/06051504.html
Social Darwinism, still alive and still as ugly as it ever was.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
(Statements from Nazi leaders that they followed Martin Luther’s ideas in the Final Solution)
(Darwin objects to the ideas that motivated the Nazis to kill any considered “inferior”)
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.
(Mary presents this rather weird misinterpretation of Darwin)
**Charles Darwin, a English scientist, wrote his most famous book, entitled " The Origin of Species," in 1859. Among its principle ideas were that superior species, as defined by characteristics which they inherited through the generations, would triumph over inferior species, those who did not inherit or develop the survival skills which had been obtained by their " Superior " competitors. Due to this inherent, and growing over time, genetic superiority of one group over another it was hence the " natural order " of nature that those species with superior characteristics would live and continue their posterity line through the generations while their inferior competitors would die as a result of their lack of genetic equality. The 2 terms which encapsulated this philosophy were :
survival of the fittest ( only the superiors would survive ); and
the law of the jungle ( the inferiors would be killed by the superiors as a natural consequence of their weakness ).**
No. Darwin’s observation was that generally, fitness isn’t established by killing competitors, but by outdoing them for resources. Even more important, he showed that cooperation between individuals was a useful and important part of fitness.
And, as you know, he rejected the idea that nature was the standard by which humans should treat each other. Hopefully the person who wrote that foolishness isn’t in a position of power.
More silliness…
We as white caucasians are rich and hence the natural rulers of the world according to the theories of Darwin.
Actually, not. Again, Darwin firmly denied the notion that we should act like animals with one another, and considred those who thought natural selection was a justification for oppression to be “evil.”
We are the Superior " cream of the crop " of humanity while those who are weaker and/or poorer …"( but we also have a duty to " protect nature " and to " help " the natural process by stopping the breeding of those who are inferior to us, both for the good of nature and for the sake of the inferior people themselves. "
Wrong again. Darwin objected strenuously to slavery and the oppression of others. He, like most people of European descent at the time, was a racist, but he was different in that he thought that all humans deserved rights and freedom merely for being human. Many creationists denounced him for such opinions. If Darwinism is what Darwin taught and believed, then Darwinism is directly opposed to “social Darwinism.”
It’s time to accept responsibility, and to stop blaming the very people to denounced eugenics and the Nazi program. It’s time to accept the fact. Luther proposed the Final Solution long before Hitler took his advice. And the Nazis freely credited Luther with his leadership in the extermination of Jews in Europe.
This is why even Stein’s own people denounced his Holocaust denial; he is making excuses for the Nazis, and blaming the people who opposed them.
And as you know, Darwin said we had a responsibility to care for the weak and helpless, and that to ignore this responsibility was evil.
Why not just admit the truth, and let it go, Mary?
They did what Luther advised to be done with Jews. They freely admitted that they took the ideas from Luther. There isn’t any way for you to deny what’s obvious, Mary.
(Darwin objects to the ideas that motivated the Nazis to kill any considered “inferior”)
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.
He calls such ideas “overwhelming evil.” Can’t get much stronger than that. You don’t want to accept what he said, but there it is. At some point, you have to start accepting reality.
Perhaps you don’t know what “contingent” means. Otherwise, I have no idea why you would reject Darwin’s firm rejection of eugenic ideas.
(Mary presents this rather weird misinterpretation of Darwin)
**Charles Darwin, a English scientist, wrote his most famous book, entitled " The Origin of Species," in 1859. Among its principle ideas were that superior species, as defined by characteristics which they inherited through the generations, would triumph over inferior species, those who did not inherit or develop the survival skills which had been obtained by their " Superior " competitors. Due to this inherent, and growing over time, genetic superiority of one group over another it was hence the " natural order " of nature that those species with superior characteristics would live and continue their posterity line through the generations while their inferior competitors would die as a result of their lack of genetic equality. The 2 terms which encapsulated this philosophy were :
survival of the fittest ( only the superiors would survive ); and
the law of the jungle ( the inferiors would be killed by the superiors as a natural consequence of their weakness ).**
No. Darwin’s observation was that generally, fitness isn’t established by killing competitors, but by outdoing them for resources. Even more important, he showed that cooperation between individuals was a useful and important part of fitness.
And, as you know, he rejected the idea that nature was the standard by which humans should treat each other. Hopefully the person who wrote that foolishness isn’t in a position of power.
More silliness…
We as white caucasians are rich and hence the natural rulers of the world according to the theories of Darwin.
Actually, not. Again, Darwin firmly denied the notion that we should act like animals with one another, and considred those who thought natural selection was a justification for oppression to be “evil.”
We are the Superior " cream of the crop " of humanity while those who are weaker and/or poorer …"( but we also have a duty to " protect nature " and to " help " the natural process by stopping the breeding of those who are inferior to us, both for the good of nature and for the sake of the inferior people themselves. "
Wrong again. Darwin objected strenuously to slavery and the oppression of others. He, like most people of European descent at the time, was a racist, but he was different in that he thought that all humans deserved rights and freedom merely for being human. Many creationists denounced him for such opinions. If Darwinism is what Darwin taught and believed, then Darwinism is directly opposed to “social Darwinism.”
Actually, Darwin wrote of “survival of the fit.” And as you learned, Darwin was firmly opposed to the things your people did to promote eugenics.
It’s time to accept responsibility, and to stop blaming the very people to denounced eugenics and the Nazi program. It’s time to accept the fact. Luther proposed the Final Solution long before Hitler took his advice. And the Nazis freely credited Luther with his leadership in the extermination of Jews in Europe.
This is why even Stein’s own people denounced his Holocaust denial; he is making excuses for the Nazis, and blaming the people who opposed them.
And as you know, Darwin said we had a responsibility to care for the weak and helpless, and that to ignore this responsibility was evil.
Why not just admit the truth, and let it go, Mary?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
It’s one of the very first things you learn, studying German. No one who actually knew anything about the language would not know that nouns are always capitalized.
Either this one lied to you about studying German, or lied to you about nouns in German.
Barbarian regarding the connection between Luther and Hitler:
Of course he was anti-Christian. He just thought he was pro-Christian. Just as Luther thought God wanted him to attack Jews, so did Hitler, largely on Luther’s advice.
So he said. And he gets to decide.
At his trial in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Julius Streicher, the notorious Nazi propagandist, editor of the scurrilous antisemitic weekly, Der Stürmer, argued that if he should be standing there arraigned on such charges, so should Martin Luther. Reading such passages, it is hard not to agree with him. Luther’s proposals read like a program for the Nazis. (William Nichols, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995), p. 271).
The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther “the first German spiritual Führer” who spoke to all Germans regardless of clan or confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his “Old Fighters” were mostly Protestants and that it was precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland" in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther’s birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: “Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity in Germany.” Precisely because of Luther’s political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both “to church and Volk.” (Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.138.)
Barbarian regarding some liberal Christians denouncing the Holocaust:
Perhaps they paid more attention to the fact that scientists opposed it. After all, as you learned, Darwin denounced eugenic ideas, and Darwinists showed that eugenics was scientifically indefensible.
Barbarian observes:
Maybe so. Your churches that did promote eugenics should have listened to Darwin and his followers. Then they would have known it was both evil and futile to support classic eugenics.
It’s one of the very first things you learn, studying German. No one who actually knew anything about the language would not know that nouns are always capitalized.
Either this one lied to you about studying German, or lied to you about nouns in German.
He lied to you about one or the other. No one with even a casual understanding of German would not know that nouns are capitalized in German.
Barbarian regarding the connection between Luther and Hitler:
Of course he was anti-Christian. He just thought he was pro-Christian. Just as Luther thought God wanted him to attack Jews, so did Hitler, largely on Luther’s advice.
So he said. And he gets to decide.
He wanted the Church to go back to Luther’s conception of it:
At his trial in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Julius Streicher, the notorious Nazi propagandist, editor of the scurrilous antisemitic weekly, Der Stürmer, argued that if he should be standing there arraigned on such charges, so should Martin Luther. Reading such passages, it is hard not to agree with him. Luther’s proposals read like a program for the Nazis. (William Nichols, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995), p. 271).
The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther “the first German spiritual Führer” who spoke to all Germans regardless of clan or confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his “Old Fighters” were mostly Protestants and that it was precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland" in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther’s birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: “Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity in Germany.” Precisely because of Luther’s political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both “to church and Volk.” (Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.138.)
The Nazis weren’t just talk about Luther; they took his advice on what to do with the Jews, and put it into action.
Barbarian regarding some liberal Christians denouncing the Holocaust:
Perhaps they paid more attention to the fact that scientists opposed it. After all, as you learned, Darwin denounced eugenic ideas, and Darwinists showed that eugenics was scientifically indefensible.
One paragraph. He dismissed it as “evil.” And that’s enough.
Barbarian observes:
Maybe so. Your churches that did promote eugenics should have listened to Darwin and his followers. Then they would have known it was both evil and futile to support classic eugenics.
If they had, they wouldn’t have supported eugenics, would they? As you know, scientists had shown that there was no scientific justification for it.
No. As you know, they were warned by Darwinians that the idea was evil and scientifically insupportable. Making excuses for themselves by blaming the people who denounced what they did is not going to help them.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
To Barbarian–
Your last two posts went over your previous arguments that Darwin placed en emphasis on compassion and sympathy.
However you are still ignoring the rest of his writings and the corrolary effects that are indeed very much a part of them.
This article nicely sums up the six points that Darwin included in his writings that undergirded Social Darwinism and the Nazi racial genocides.
url]http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13061
Darwin and the Nazis
By Richard Weikart
Published 4/16/2008
If you really believe that what Darwin says is who he is, then the above quotes show him to be a Social Darwinist in his heart. His ideas were the basis for the Nazis and they are still the basis for our Culture of Death.I think we have covered most of those points during the past discussions.
If you care about truth…then open your eyes and face it.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
Your last two posts went over your previous arguments that Darwin placed en emphasis on compassion and sympathy.
However you are still ignoring the rest of his writings and the corrolary effects that are indeed very much a part of them.
This article nicely sums up the six points that Darwin included in his writings that undergirded Social Darwinism and the Nazi racial genocides.
url]http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13061
Darwin and the Nazis
By Richard Weikart
Published 4/16/2008
- Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, attacked the “anthropocentric” view that humans are unique and special.
- Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul. He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.
- Darwin and other Darwinists recognized that if morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights. Darwin stated in his Autobiography that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”
- Since evolution requires variation, Darwin and other early Darwinists believed in human inequality. Haeckel emphasized inequality to such as extent that he even classified human races as twelve distinct species and claimed that the lowest humans were closer to primates than to the highest humans.
- Darwin and most Darwinists believe that humans are locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence. Darwin claimed in The Descent of Man that because of this struggle, "[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."
- Darwinism overturned the Judeo-Christian view of death as an enemy, construing it instead as a beneficial engine of progress. Darwin remarked in The Origin of Species, "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
If you really believe that what Darwin says is who he is, then the above quotes show him to be a Social Darwinist in his heart. His ideas were the basis for the Nazis and they are still the basis for our Culture of Death.I think we have covered most of those points during the past discussions.
If you care about truth…then open your eyes and face it.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
For those who might be interested in it there was a video of a 1957 interview with Margret Sanger by Mike Wallace at this link. It is very interesting to watch 9once you get past the cigarette commercials). She was verymcuh oppossed by the Catholic Church during the time period when she was spreading her gospel of birth control. She is very clear that she thinks the greatest sin is to bring into the world any baby who might be
ill or weak in some way. Her attitude toward marriage is very eccentric and her biew of the humanperson as just being an animal unable to control sexual drives is apparent as well.
I think the video reveals a lot about what is underneath the problems in our youth today because her influence and thought has spread into our schools.
Here was the link:
hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/sanger_margaret.html
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
ill or weak in some way. Her attitude toward marriage is very eccentric and her biew of the humanperson as just being an animal unable to control sexual drives is apparent as well.
I think the video reveals a lot about what is underneath the problems in our youth today because her influence and thought has spread into our schools.
Here was the link:
hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/sanger_margaret.html
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
And on his characterization of eugenic ideas as “overwhelming evil.” Oh, and some more evidence that Hitler took Luther’s advice as to what to do to Jews.
He said that letting the weak die was OK , somewhere else? Show us.
So explain to us why he thought that we should save even the weakest of humans, and argued that all humans have a right to life and liberty. That doesn’t seem to square with the unsupported arguments of your source.
**"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. **
Charles Darwin, letter to Catherine Darwin
**Fitz-Roy’s temper was a most unfortunate one. …We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered “No.” I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. **
Charles Darwin, Autobiography
So if our soul happened to have evolved, at God’s direction, how would that change Darwin’s characterization of eugenic ideas as “evil?” How would that change the fact that the Nazis openly admitted that they got their “Final Solution” from Luther?
So explain how Darwin argued that all humans have a right to life and freedom. This one, like the others, seems to be just made up,with no support in Darwin’s writing at all.
So Darwin thought that we can only do what our best judgment tells us to do. What other course would you recommend, keeping in mind, one’s best judgment might well be to follow God/
Human inequality is a fact. As Darwin and Lincoln pointed out, the fact that some are more capable and wise than others, does not entitle them to abuse or enslave less capable persons.
He did think that this would happen, and had good reason to think so, since Europeans had exterminated a number of less-advanced people, and seemed to be bent on exterminating all of them. Darwin dispaired at this being stopped, but he was unnecessarily pessimistic.
This depends on a confusion as to death and it’s place in God’s world. Christians do not and should not think of physical death as an enemy. We have been freed from that.
Nope. As you see, Darwin saw that nature was a rather savage place, and pointedly argued that we should not adapt that as our moral code. You have to stop trusting people who lie to you.
We’ve already settled that. The Nazis did not follow his advice; they killed those they considered weak and inferior. And they followed Luther’s advice as to what to do to the Jews. Not only did their program closely follow Luther’s recommendations, they freely admitted that they got their ideas from him.
Everyone reading here has seen it. What do you hope to gain by pretending otherwise?
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Charles Darwin, Autobiography
But according to Charles Darwin’s ideas that the soul and conscience evolve, then both arguments, pro or against slavery, are just arguments at different stages of understanding. Both sides are acting according to their best judgement, therefore neither is wrong, since there is not universal law or truth…just formed opinions that evolved according to circumstances…
So if our soul happened to have evolved, at God’s direction, how would that change Darwin’s characterization of eugenic ideas as “evil?” How would that change the fact that the Nazis openly admitted that they got their “Final Solution” from Luther?
Here you betray your beliefs to be incompatible with Catholic, nay all Christian teaching, since it is infallibly taught that man’s soul is given whole to him throuugh Divine intervention when the first human was created and for each person at conception. it does not ‘evolve’ slowly.
So explain how Darwin argued that all humans have a right to life and freedom. This one, like the others, seems to be just made up,with no support in Darwin’s writing at all.
So Darwin thought that we can only do what our best judgment tells us to do. What other course would you recommend, keeping in mind, one’s best judgment might well be to follow God/
Let’s put those two statement together, since you believe the soul and reason ‘evolve’ and that each of us muct do what we consider best according to indivdual judgement (perfect 'prochoice arguments here) then I guess there is not such thing as absolute truth for mankind to seek. No source for absolute truth outside of a person, and we are all doomed to the whims of individual conscience. In which case no one of us can even claim Hitler was evil or Martin Luther or anyone for we can only say that they were acting according to their best judgment. Moral relativism. Pope Benedict spoke strongly against that point of view during his visit.
And by that argument, Darwin’s own rejection of slavery was just his imdividual judgement and hardly praiseworth for it did not recognize a universal truth, only the sumpathy of his individual conscnience. Darwin did not have the courage or wisdom to say there was a law higher than his own conscience or intellect…
Human inequality is a fact. As Darwin and Lincoln pointed out, the fact that some are more capable and wise than others, does not entitle them to abuse or enslave less capable persons.
In the spiritual real the poor innocent person who is mentally impaired may have a pristine, beautiful soul that honors God more than all others. Greatness can not be measured by abilities and outer attributes. That is what science cannot give us and Darwin, because of his descent to agnosticism, could not see.
Continued next post.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
He did think that this would happen, and had good reason to think so, since Europeans had exterminated a number of less-advanced people, and seemed to be bent on exterminating all of them. Darwin dispaired at this being stopped, but he was unnecessarily pessimistic.
And what about the letter to Bill Clinton that I posted?
I think we still should be wary. As you say there is a ‘hitler’ in each of us, including Darwin. With scientists like Pianca around, I think it is healthy to fear for mankind. Our own society is near to abolishing the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” in its practice of abortion and euthanasia.
This depends on a confusion as to death and it’s place in God’s world. Christians do not and should not think of physical death as an enemy. We have been freed from that.
Confused what this above point refers to.
Nope. As you see, Darwin saw that nature was a rather savage place, and pointedly argued that we should not adapt that as our moral code. You have to stop trusting people who lie to you.
Since you are arguing that science doesn’t give values how is it now that Darwin even has a right to interject a moral code? If he is going to suggest a moral code I would wish it to be based on something stronger than evolved sympathy…a basis that can be altered through social training. Afterall the world has seen many brutal civilaizations, why should we even judge them as bad?. If the moral code does not come from God, where does it come from? If it comes from God then it exists universally outside of the human heart and is discernable by desire to comply to God’s Will. Why does he not advocate prayer and spiritual practices then? How does he think people grow in this area?
We’ve already settled that. The Nazis did not follow his advice; they killed those they considered weak and inferior. And they followed Luther’s advice as to what to do to the Jews. Not only did their program closely follow Luther’s recommendations, they freely admitted that they got their ideas from him.
Everyone reading here has seen it. What do you hope to gain by pretending otherwise?
Everyone reading this has seen that you bypass things like the evidence in historical record that the Nazis used Luther’s writings as propaganda but that once in power Hitler’s goal was the establishment of a secular nationalistic state and religion…which had nothing to do with Christian beliefs. Martin Luther sinned when he wrote those antisemetic statements and he sinned when he left the catholic Church due to his own pride, and the consequence was many other things which have happened since, many which only God can say. But Hitler was not an advocate for the Bible, which he wanted to destro or Christianity, which he persecuted. Everyone who has been following this discussion has seen those documents.
"The legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has released four-page letter written in January 1993 by Ron Weddington to then president-elect Bill Clinton asking him to use abortion as a tool for “eliminating” the “barely educated, unhealthy, and poor.”
Using terms reminiscent of early 20th century eugenicists, Weddington’s letter has revealed the stark anti-human principles that have always supported the US abortion movement. One quote directly echoes the utilitarian polemicists who called for the elimination of “useless eaters” from pre-war German society. Weddington tells Clinton that the “survival” of US society “depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes.”
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/may/06051504.html
Guess the proabortion/prochice people have found a ‘contigent benefit’ to encouraging poor people to kill their own babies.
That is why we need to be honest and go back and say the root of this tree, the culture of death, is evil. Let’s cut it down and be done with it. Id Darwin knew these things might happen then he should have been forthright enought ot write a lengthy argument aginst the trend he saw developing in Europe. he should have written a lengthy piece why he saw slavery as a universal wrong. But he couldn’t, because it would violate his own theory that everything was based on the individual’s judgement and that for Darwin, there wa an absence of a Creator whose laws transcend Nature and ill-formed consciences…
In Christ, maryJohnZ
And what about the letter to Bill Clinton that I posted?
I think we still should be wary. As you say there is a ‘hitler’ in each of us, including Darwin. With scientists like Pianca around, I think it is healthy to fear for mankind. Our own society is near to abolishing the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” in its practice of abortion and euthanasia.
This depends on a confusion as to death and it’s place in God’s world. Christians do not and should not think of physical death as an enemy. We have been freed from that.
Confused what this above point refers to.
Nope. As you see, Darwin saw that nature was a rather savage place, and pointedly argued that we should not adapt that as our moral code. You have to stop trusting people who lie to you.
Since you are arguing that science doesn’t give values how is it now that Darwin even has a right to interject a moral code? If he is going to suggest a moral code I would wish it to be based on something stronger than evolved sympathy…a basis that can be altered through social training. Afterall the world has seen many brutal civilaizations, why should we even judge them as bad?. If the moral code does not come from God, where does it come from? If it comes from God then it exists universally outside of the human heart and is discernable by desire to comply to God’s Will. Why does he not advocate prayer and spiritual practices then? How does he think people grow in this area?
We’ve already settled that. The Nazis did not follow his advice; they killed those they considered weak and inferior. And they followed Luther’s advice as to what to do to the Jews. Not only did their program closely follow Luther’s recommendations, they freely admitted that they got their ideas from him.
Everyone reading here has seen it. What do you hope to gain by pretending otherwise?
Everyone reading this has seen that you bypass things like the evidence in historical record that the Nazis used Luther’s writings as propaganda but that once in power Hitler’s goal was the establishment of a secular nationalistic state and religion…which had nothing to do with Christian beliefs. Martin Luther sinned when he wrote those antisemetic statements and he sinned when he left the catholic Church due to his own pride, and the consequence was many other things which have happened since, many which only God can say. But Hitler was not an advocate for the Bible, which he wanted to destro or Christianity, which he persecuted. Everyone who has been following this discussion has seen those documents.
"The legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has released four-page letter written in January 1993 by Ron Weddington to then president-elect Bill Clinton asking him to use abortion as a tool for “eliminating” the “barely educated, unhealthy, and poor.”
Using terms reminiscent of early 20th century eugenicists, Weddington’s letter has revealed the stark anti-human principles that have always supported the US abortion movement. One quote directly echoes the utilitarian polemicists who called for the elimination of “useless eaters” from pre-war German society. Weddington tells Clinton that the “survival” of US society “depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes.”
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/may/06051504.html
Guess the proabortion/prochice people have found a ‘contigent benefit’ to encouraging poor people to kill their own babies.
That is why we need to be honest and go back and say the root of this tree, the culture of death, is evil. Let’s cut it down and be done with it. Id Darwin knew these things might happen then he should have been forthright enought ot write a lengthy argument aginst the trend he saw developing in Europe. he should have written a lengthy piece why he saw slavery as a universal wrong. But he couldn’t, because it would violate his own theory that everything was based on the individual’s judgement and that for Darwin, there wa an absence of a Creator whose laws transcend Nature and ill-formed consciences…
In Christ, maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian, regarding Darwin’s fears that primitive tribes would be exterminated:
He did think that this would happen, and had good reason to think so, since Europeans had exterminated a number of less-advanced people, and seemed to be bent on exterminating all of them. Darwin dispaired at this being stopped, but he was unnecessarily pessimistic.
Barbarian observes:
This depends on a confusion as to death and it’s place in God’s world. Christians do not and should not think of physical death as an enemy. We have been freed from that.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. As you see, Darwin saw that nature was a rather savage place, and pointedly argued that we should not adapt that as our moral code. You have to stop trusting people who lie to you.
Barbarian, regarding the source of the Holocaust:
We’ve already settled that. The Nazis did not follow his advice; they killed those they considered weak and inferior. And they followed Luther’s advice as to what to do to the Jews. Not only did their program closely follow Luther’s recommendations, they freely admitted that they got their ideas from him.
Everyone reading here has seen it. What do you hope to gain by pretending otherwise?
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, the last sentence in The Origin of Species
You’ve constructed a straw boogyman and called him “Darwin.” Isn’t it time to learn about the real person?
He did think that this would happen, and had good reason to think so, since Europeans had exterminated a number of less-advanced people, and seemed to be bent on exterminating all of them. Darwin dispaired at this being stopped, but he was unnecessarily pessimistic.
Clinton, so far as I know, hasn’t said that primitive tribes will be exterminated. He did send a bill to Congress to cut welfare benefits, but he wrote it in such a way as to get people into jobs. I don’t think of this as harming people; one of the best things you can do for a person is to help them become self-supporting.
Indeed. Ben Stein was counting on us relaxing our vigilance. He learned to his dismay, that we haven’t.
The difference is, Darwin pointed out that we had to be on guard against it.
As you learned, he was merely warning people about what others were doing. “Kill the messenger” is precisely the wrong idea.
Governments have always killed. It is the nature of government.
Barbarian observes:
This depends on a confusion as to death and it’s place in God’s world. Christians do not and should not think of physical death as an enemy. We have been freed from that.
The source you endorsed said that we should fear death as the enemy. That’s ludicrous for a Christian to consider death the enemy. For us, death has been defeated.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. As you see, Darwin saw that nature was a rather savage place, and pointedly argued that we should not adapt that as our moral code. You have to stop trusting people who lie to you.
Science can’t have values, but scientists can.
Barbarian, regarding the source of the Holocaust:
We’ve already settled that. The Nazis did not follow his advice; they killed those they considered weak and inferior. And they followed Luther’s advice as to what to do to the Jews. Not only did their program closely follow Luther’s recommendations, they freely admitted that they got their ideas from him.
Everyone reading here has seen it. What do you hope to gain by pretending otherwise?
Much more than that, Mary. As you saw, about 90% of the Final Solution was proposed by Luther. The Nazis praised Luther and his ideas, and carried them out to the best of their ability.
He wrote that it was an overwhelming evil. He repeatedly denounced slavery, arguing that all humans were entitled to life and freedom. You read all that. Why not admit it?
He didn’t say that. He said that each person had the right to do what he thought was right. That is, after all, what freedom is.
Odd then, that he would write this…
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, the last sentence in The Origin of Species
You’ve constructed a straw boogyman and called him “Darwin.” Isn’t it time to learn about the real person?
N
nice2000
Guest
corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=
In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said the following amazing thing in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr.
(Full video here tbn.org/video_portal/*)Code:Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers *, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you. Crouch: That’s right. Stein: ... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. Crouch: Good word, good word.
The video won’t play for me
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
So what’s this really about? From the National Review’s John Derbyshire:
**My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools.
Now, there is nothing wrong with that. We are a nation of pressure groups, and one more would hardly notice. However, since parents who want their kids religiously educated already have plenty of private and parochial schools to choose from (half the kids on my street have attended parochial school), as well as the option of home schooling, now very well organized and supported (and heartily approved of by me: I just wish I knew how they find the time); and since current jurisprudence, how correctly I am not competent to say, regards tax-funded religious instruction as unconstitutional; creationists are a pressure group without hope, if they campaign openly for the thing they want.
Understanding this, the creationists took the morally fatal decision to campaign clandestinely. They overhauled creationism as “intelligent design,” roped in a handful of eccentric non-Christian cranks keen for a well-funded vehicle to help them push their own flat-earth theories, and set about presenting themselves to the public as “alternative science" engaged in a “controversy” with a closed-minded, reactionary “science establishment” fearful of new ideas. (Ignoring the fact that without a constant supply of new ideas, there would be nothing for scientists to do.) Nothing to do with religion at all!
I think this willful act of deception has corrupted creationism irredeemably. The old Biblical creationists were, in my opinion, wrong-headed, but they were mostly honest people. The “intelligent design” crowd lean more in the other direction. Hence the dishonesty and sheer nastiness, even down to plain bad manners, that you keep encountering in ID circles. It’s by no means all of them, but it’s enough to corrupt and poison the creationist enterprise, which might otherwise have added something worthwhile to our national life, if only by way of entertainment value.**
tinyurl.com/5pp8c5
**My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools.
Now, there is nothing wrong with that. We are a nation of pressure groups, and one more would hardly notice. However, since parents who want their kids religiously educated already have plenty of private and parochial schools to choose from (half the kids on my street have attended parochial school), as well as the option of home schooling, now very well organized and supported (and heartily approved of by me: I just wish I knew how they find the time); and since current jurisprudence, how correctly I am not competent to say, regards tax-funded religious instruction as unconstitutional; creationists are a pressure group without hope, if they campaign openly for the thing they want.
Understanding this, the creationists took the morally fatal decision to campaign clandestinely. They overhauled creationism as “intelligent design,” roped in a handful of eccentric non-Christian cranks keen for a well-funded vehicle to help them push their own flat-earth theories, and set about presenting themselves to the public as “alternative science" engaged in a “controversy” with a closed-minded, reactionary “science establishment” fearful of new ideas. (Ignoring the fact that without a constant supply of new ideas, there would be nothing for scientists to do.) Nothing to do with religion at all!
I think this willful act of deception has corrupted creationism irredeemably. The old Biblical creationists were, in my opinion, wrong-headed, but they were mostly honest people. The “intelligent design” crowd lean more in the other direction. Hence the dishonesty and sheer nastiness, even down to plain bad manners, that you keep encountering in ID circles. It’s by no means all of them, but it’s enough to corrupt and poison the creationist enterprise, which might otherwise have added something worthwhile to our national life, if only by way of entertainment value.**
tinyurl.com/5pp8c5
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Barbarian, regarding the source of the Holocaust:
We’ve already settled that. The Nazis did not follow his advice; they killed those they considered weak and inferior. And they followed Luther’s advice as to what to do to the Jews. Not only did their program closely follow Luther’s recommendations, they freely admitted that they got their ideas from him.
Everyone reading here has seen it. What do you hope to gain by pretending otherwise?
And they saw that the quotes you provided that mention Christ were dated to the 1920’s when Hitler was rising to power. They also saw that once in power his actions were totally antiChristian.
Goal of Nazi’s: racial purity based on genetics and getting rid of weak, impure racial types and enemies of the state. The writings of the Nazi’s show the Darwing influence:
Konrad Lorenz won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1973 for his analysis of animal behavior in terms of the role of natural selection (particularly group selection). However, in Germany in 1940, in writings that he subsequently disowned, he used the theory as a justification for policies of the Nazi state. He wrote “… selection for toughness, heroism, and social utility…must be accomplished by some human institution, if mankind, in default of selective factors, is not to be ruined by domestication-induced degeneracy. The racial idea as the basis of our state has already accomplished much in this respect. Others have developed ideas that human societies and culture evolve by mechanisms that are analogous to those that apply to evolution of species.”
From reference.com/search?q=%20natural%20selection
The Darwinian theory and natural selection formed the racial idea as the basis of the state of Nazi Germany.
“One of the foundations of Hitler’s social policies was the concept of racial hygiene. It was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, a French count, a pseudo-science called eugenics which sought to breed humans as if they were farm animals, and a misuse of Charles Darwin’s ideas called social Darwinism. Applied to human beings, “survival of the fittest” was interpreted as requiring racial purity and killing off “life unworthy of life.” The first victims were children with physical and developmental disabilities; those killings occurred in a program dubbed Action T4. After a public outcry, Hitler made a show of ending this program, but the killings in fact continued (see Nazi eugenics).”
From reference.com/search?q=adolf%20hitler
Hitler was also not a genuine Christian, though some claim that he was. Hitler’s “Christianity” was an odd smorgasbord of beliefs.
“Hitler advocated a “Positive Christianity”, a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.
pastoralmusings.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/darwin-hitler-and-racism/
Much more than that, Mary. As you saw, about 90% of the Final Solution was proposed by Luther. The Nazis praised Luther and his ideas, and carried them out to the best of their ability.
Not true. 90% anti-Christian, racist…
Odd then, that he would write this…
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, the last sentence in The Origin of Species
So he was capable of writing inspiring passages? So was Karl Marx and so was Hitler…enough to inspire very evil things.
Darwin never did the evil things that Marx and Hitler did, true. he may even had some very noble ideas. But so do many people have a mixture of good and evil ideas. Take for example Margret sanger. She sounds very noble in her interview where she talks about helping poor people, but in reality she was concerned about
eliminating the poor through birth control and abortion…hardly a compassionate approach. The fact that Darwin could speak eloquently makes it more agregeous that he didn’t write a sound, lengthy argument why eugenic ideas were totally wrong. he never did. You can only provide one sentence which you repeat over and over, ignoring all the other prejudices in his writings, as well as his affiliation with people who were the initiators of eugenics.
In the end your evidence is half truths.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
We’ve already settled that. The Nazis did not follow his advice; they killed those they considered weak and inferior. And they followed Luther’s advice as to what to do to the Jews. Not only did their program closely follow Luther’s recommendations, they freely admitted that they got their ideas from him.
Everyone reading here has seen it. What do you hope to gain by pretending otherwise?
And they saw that the quotes you provided that mention Christ were dated to the 1920’s when Hitler was rising to power. They also saw that once in power his actions were totally antiChristian.
Goal of Nazi’s: racial purity based on genetics and getting rid of weak, impure racial types and enemies of the state. The writings of the Nazi’s show the Darwing influence:
Konrad Lorenz won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1973 for his analysis of animal behavior in terms of the role of natural selection (particularly group selection). However, in Germany in 1940, in writings that he subsequently disowned, he used the theory as a justification for policies of the Nazi state. He wrote “… selection for toughness, heroism, and social utility…must be accomplished by some human institution, if mankind, in default of selective factors, is not to be ruined by domestication-induced degeneracy. The racial idea as the basis of our state has already accomplished much in this respect. Others have developed ideas that human societies and culture evolve by mechanisms that are analogous to those that apply to evolution of species.”
From reference.com/search?q=%20natural%20selection
The Darwinian theory and natural selection formed the racial idea as the basis of the state of Nazi Germany.
“One of the foundations of Hitler’s social policies was the concept of racial hygiene. It was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, a French count, a pseudo-science called eugenics which sought to breed humans as if they were farm animals, and a misuse of Charles Darwin’s ideas called social Darwinism. Applied to human beings, “survival of the fittest” was interpreted as requiring racial purity and killing off “life unworthy of life.” The first victims were children with physical and developmental disabilities; those killings occurred in a program dubbed Action T4. After a public outcry, Hitler made a show of ending this program, but the killings in fact continued (see Nazi eugenics).”
From reference.com/search?q=adolf%20hitler
Hitler was also not a genuine Christian, though some claim that he was. Hitler’s “Christianity” was an odd smorgasbord of beliefs.
“Hitler advocated a “Positive Christianity”, a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.
pastoralmusings.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/darwin-hitler-and-racism/
Much more than that, Mary. As you saw, about 90% of the Final Solution was proposed by Luther. The Nazis praised Luther and his ideas, and carried them out to the best of their ability.
Not true. 90% anti-Christian, racist…
Odd then, that he would write this…
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, the last sentence in The Origin of Species
So he was capable of writing inspiring passages? So was Karl Marx and so was Hitler…enough to inspire very evil things.
Darwin never did the evil things that Marx and Hitler did, true. he may even had some very noble ideas. But so do many people have a mixture of good and evil ideas. Take for example Margret sanger. She sounds very noble in her interview where she talks about helping poor people, but in reality she was concerned about
eliminating the poor through birth control and abortion…hardly a compassionate approach. The fact that Darwin could speak eloquently makes it more agregeous that he didn’t write a sound, lengthy argument why eugenic ideas were totally wrong. he never did. You can only provide one sentence which you repeat over and over, ignoring all the other prejudices in his writings, as well as his affiliation with people who were the initiators of eugenics.
In the end your evidence is half truths.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The removal under Wannsee involved shipping Jews to work camps, where the able-bodied were used as slave labor.
Luther:
I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam
The Nazis did agree that mixed-race Jews might be allowed to stay, unless:
The person of mixed blood of the second degree has a particularly bad police and political record that shows
that he feels and behaves like a Jew.
Luther did allow that if Jews converted, they could be accepted as Germans. Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble.
** The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a
short report of the struggle which has been carried on thus far
against this enemy, the essential points being the following:
Luther:
then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., compute with them how much their usury has extorted from us, divide, divide this amicably, but then eject them forever from the country.
Barbarian regarding the notion that Darwin was anti-Christian:
Odd then, that he would write this…
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, the last sentence in The Origin of Species
Why?
Luther:
I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam
The Nazis did agree that mixed-race Jews might be allowed to stay, unless:
The person of mixed blood of the second degree has a particularly bad police and political record that shows
that he feels and behaves like a Jew.
Luther did allow that if Jews converted, they could be accepted as Germans. Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble.
** The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a
short report of the struggle which has been carried on thus far
against this enemy, the essential points being the following:
Code:
a) the expulsion of the Jews from every sphere of life of
the German people,
b) the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the
German people.**then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., compute with them how much their usury has extorted from us, divide, divide this amicably, but then eject them forever from the country.
Barbarian regarding the notion that Darwin was anti-Christian:
Odd then, that he would write this…
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, the last sentence in The Origin of Species
Expressing Christian faith.
Hitler, not Marx. But Hitler’s idea of Christianity was more like Luther’s than Darwin’s.
In fact, unlike Luther, he called them “evil.” You know this. You know Luther’s advice was taken up by the Nazis, while Darwin and Darwinists denounced it. And yet you defend the very people who committed the Holocaust, and denounce the people who opposed it.
Why?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian, regarding the source of the Holocaust:
We’ve already settled that. The Nazis did not follow his advice; they killed those they considered weak and inferior. And they followed Luther’s advice as to what to do to the Jews. Not only did their program closely follow Luther’s recommendations, they freely admitted that they got their ideas from him.
Everyone reading here has seen it. What do you hope to gain by pretending otherwise?
Hitler’s “Christianity” was an odd smorgasbord of beliefs.
“Hitler advocated a “Positive Christianity”, a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.
pastoralmusings.wordpress.com…er-and-racism/
Just like Luther. And exactly what Darwin said was evil. And yet you defend Luther and the Nazi program, and denounce Darwin. Why?
Barbarian observes:
Much more than that, Mary. As you saw, about 90% of the Final Solution was proposed by Luther. The Nazis praised Luther and his ideas, and carried them out to the best of their ability.
Prior to the Wannsee meeting, Jewish synagogues were destroyed.
Luther:
First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.
Prior to Wannsee, Jews lost their citizenship and were treated as “subjects”, as Luther advocated. They lost the protection of law, and were confined to specific ghettos.
Luther:
I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home.
During Kristallnacht Jewish businesses were looted and destroyed. They were told to apply for insurance losses, and then the money was taken from them (largely applied to costs of removing Jews from Germany)
Luther:
I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us an they possess.
We’ve already settled that. The Nazis did not follow his advice; they killed those they considered weak and inferior. And they followed Luther’s advice as to what to do to the Jews. Not only did their program closely follow Luther’s recommendations, they freely admitted that they got their ideas from him.
Everyone reading here has seen it. What do you hope to gain by pretending otherwise?
Not true. The quotes by Nazis praising Luther were from the 30s. And more importantly, they didn’t just praise Luther’s recommendations; they did their best to carry them out.
If they did, they wouldn’t have murdered those they thought inferior. After all, Darwin called such a thing an “overwhelming evil.” Doesn’t it bother you that you are defending the people who advocated and committed the very acts you claim to hate, and are attacking the man who condemned such acts? Why would you do that?
No. Darwin, for example, said that altruism in social animals was more important than competition. The Nazis rejected Darwin’s theory, and accepted Luther’s recommendations.
Hitler’s “Christianity” was an odd smorgasbord of beliefs.
“Hitler advocated a “Positive Christianity”, a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.
pastoralmusings.wordpress.com…er-and-racism/
Just like Luther. And exactly what Darwin said was evil. And yet you defend Luther and the Nazi program, and denounce Darwin. Why?
Barbarian observes:
Much more than that, Mary. As you saw, about 90% of the Final Solution was proposed by Luther. The Nazis praised Luther and his ideas, and carried them out to the best of their ability.
Very true. Wannsee Protocol, which was the “Final Solution” advocated by Luther:
Prior to the Wannsee meeting, Jewish synagogues were destroyed.
Luther:
First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.
Prior to Wannsee, Jews lost their citizenship and were treated as “subjects”, as Luther advocated. They lost the protection of law, and were confined to specific ghettos.
Luther:
I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home.
During Kristallnacht Jewish businesses were looted and destroyed. They were told to apply for insurance losses, and then the money was taken from them (largely applied to costs of removing Jews from Germany)
Luther:
I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us an they possess.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Barbarian:
In fact, unlike Luther, he called them “evil.” You know this. You know Luther’s advice was taken up by the Nazis, while Darwin and Darwinists denounced it. And yet you defend the very people who committed the Holocaust, and denounce the people who opposed it.
Why?
Mary:
I believe you are the one defending those who started the Holocaust and you are the one who is misinterpreting historic record. Clearly Hitle left a legacy that was anti-Judeo Christian in its very heart. ‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society." (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).
members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html#scldrwnsmntxtrnstdrwnsm
“Do you now appreciate the depth of our National Socialist Movement? Can there be anything greater and more all comprehending? Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than religion; it is the will to create mankind anew.”
I really don’t think Darwin believed things would go as far as the Nazis took them. His writings on slavery do show he had sympathy for others, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that his world view allowed for no universal moral law and thus allowed for a world view based on justifying evil for the greater good of society. This same view justifies abortion today.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
In fact, unlike Luther, he called them “evil.” You know this. You know Luther’s advice was taken up by the Nazis, while Darwin and Darwinists denounced it. And yet you defend the very people who committed the Holocaust, and denounce the people who opposed it.
Why?
Mary:
I believe you are the one defending those who started the Holocaust and you are the one who is misinterpreting historic record. Clearly Hitle left a legacy that was anti-Judeo Christian in its very heart. ‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society." (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).
members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html#scldrwnsmntxtrnstdrwnsm
“Do you now appreciate the depth of our National Socialist Movement? Can there be anything greater and more all comprehending? Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than religion; it is the will to create mankind anew.”
- Rauschning, Hitler Speaks
simpletoremember.com/vitals/hitler-quotes.htm
I really don’t think Darwin believed things would go as far as the Nazis took them. His writings on slavery do show he had sympathy for others, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that his world view allowed for no universal moral law and thus allowed for a world view based on justifying evil for the greater good of society. This same view justifies abortion today.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian regarding Darwin’s opinion of Nazi ideas:
In fact, unlike Luther, he called them “evil.” You know this. You know Luther’s advice was taken up by the Nazis, while Darwin and Darwinists denounced it. And yet you defend the very people who committed the Holocaust, and denounce the people who opposed it.
Why?
In fact, unlike Luther, he called them “evil.” You know this. You know Luther’s advice was taken up by the Nazis, while Darwin and Darwinists denounced it. And yet you defend the very people who committed the Holocaust, and denounce the people who opposed it.
Why?
You are defending Luther, whose ideas formed the basis for the “Final Solution.” And you are assailing Darwin who called such ideas evil.
As you learned, Luther proposed the very things the Nazis did. You know that Darwin opposed them. There’s no way to avoid the truth here, Mary.
As you know, Darwin was concerned that was happening in his time; he thought that many groups of humans were going to be exterminated by “civilized” societies.
How then did he determine that all humans were entitled to life and freedom and that even allowing the least of them to die by inaction was an “overwhelming evil?” Be honest with yourself here, Mary.
- Status