Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[MaryJohnZ]

barbarian:
That is theism. “Creationism” in the accepted use, is that God created everything pretty much as it is today,and that evolution is false. Clearly the Cardinal is not a creationist.

Hmnmmm, I think this confuses things to say this. Surely the Cardinal is a Creationist in that he believes God created the Universe, and all things “seen and unseen”…as we say each Sunday in the Nicean Creed. Fundamental Creationism, or Creationism that interprets genesis in exact literal terms, is not what Schoenbom agrees with.

We can agree that evolution is a process that God has used to bring about life. That is part of Darwin and also part of what Theistic Evolution is saying.

But Theistic Evolution does not necessarily follow Darwin hook, line and sinker… Theistic Evolution does acknowledge God.

"Theistic Evolution is not a defined belief system. A theistic evolutionist is a person who accepts that evolution is the scientific description of how organisms change over time; that all organisms have got here through descent with modification. At the same time, he is a theist - he believes in a God who is both personal and concerned with His creation (as opposed to a ‘wind it up and let it go’ Deist God)

Theistic Evolutionists could thus belong to any of the three main monotheistic faiths, or to any other theistic belief system.

As such, there is still a variety of opinion amongst theistic evolutionists. Some, such as Michael Behe, do not believe that abiogenesis (the transition of non-living to living systems, which is a quite seperate thing from evolution) can occur without the intervention of God. Others, such as Dr. Howard J. Van Till, believe that God created the universe in such a way that what He desires will occur through natural processes, and that abiogenesis will probably be fully understood by science one day. Personally, I’d be inclined to go along with that, and even say that the outworking of God’s creative process and natural laws are much the same thing. It’s complicated, and I’m no theologian, so I’m loathe to try to expand on this here. If enough people ask (or challenge) me, then I’ll give it a stab. Dr. Van Till, by the way, is an evangelical Christian, and a professor of physics at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This is not the sole preserve of theological liberals!

An important difference between theistic evolution and creationism is that theistic evolution is not part of our theology. It is informed by our theology (that God is personal and involved) and our science. We do not try to tell Creationists that they are not proper Christians. We might feel we have to point out where they are not good scientists, however…"

from a fundamentalist site:
freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm

Since Theistic Evolution does exactly what Pope Benedict is
saying, uses facts, observable properties and does not get into theology or interpretation of the bible, yet it doesn’t try to eject God from the scenario either, something which atheistic scientists like Dawkins have done.

I saw this video, a talk by Dr. West, given in regards to Darwin Day at the Discovery Institute and it did asnwer the question a bit for me. I t seems that secular progressives are going towards using religious leaders to support darwinism in the classroom, yes, the very ones who usually oppose any mention of religion are involving religious leaders to give a blessing to Darwin evolution.

discovery.org/v/40

Why would they do that? Can you say they are teaching 'Theisitic Evolution" in the classroom? Or can you say they are teaching materialistic evolution and portraying it as Theisitic Evoltuion?
As I said in my earlier post, secular progressives do this all the time: pretend they aren’t talking about religion and then establish a religion.

As a Catholic I have to go back to several points:

1st: Catholics have to believe in Divine Intervention when it comes to the creation of the human person. The soul, we are taught, was created spontaneously and instantaneously by God and infused into the first man and woman. So if Darwin and Darwinian evolution teach differently from that we can’t accept that part of darwin’s Theory.
2nd. Man is placed as the Crowning point of Creation and was not a random accident but was brought about through guided processes.
3rd The aspect of the human person which sets them a part from animals is their ability to have an intimate relationship with God and to be united to God. In the words of John Paul II to be “Divinized”.

"This last statement means that we need not imitate, from afar and in an external way, the behavior of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel, in order thereby to effect our own divinization and become “like God”; self-divinization is the primal temptation ever lurking in wait. On the contrary, it is the Word who divinizes this human nature, which he has united to himself once and for all. Since his Resurrection his divinehuman energies are those of his Holy Spirit, who elicits and calls for our response; in the measure of this synergy of the Spirit and our heart our humanity shares in the life of the holy humanity of Christ. To enter into the name of Jesus, Son of God and Lord, means therefore to be drawn into him in the very depths of our being, by the same drawing movement in which he assumed our humanity by taking flesh and living out our human condition even to the point of dying. There is no “panchristic” pseudo-mysticism here, because the human person remains itself, a creature who is free over against its Lord and God. Neither, however, is there any moralism (a further error that waits to ensnare us), because our human nature really shares in the divinity of its Savior.

“Man becomes God as much as God becomes a man”, says Saint Maximus the Confessor. [1] Christian holiness is divinization because in our concrete humanity we share in the divinity of the Word who married our flesh. "
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/jcorbon_divinization_oct05.asp

John Paul II:
“Rightly comprehended, faith in creation or a correctly understood teaching of evolution does not create obstacles: Evolution in fact pre* supposes creation; creation situates itself in the light of evolution as an event which extends itself through time – as a continual creation – in which God becomes visible to the eyes of the believers as ‘Creator of heaven and earth.’”

Several months later he declared: “All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its Inventor, its Creator” (General Audience, July 10, 1985).

The following year, the Pope stated “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not preclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis” (General Audience, Jan. 29, 1986).
Pope John Paul insisted, as did Pope Pius XII, that while evolution isn’t necessarily opposed to creation, the human soul did not evolve. “It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith” – according to Pope John Paul – "there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty.
“However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man’s spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature” (General Audience, April 16, 1986).

"In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope explained that materialist, reductionist and spiritualist forms of evolutionary theory couldn’t be reconciled with Christianity. These are philosophies, he noted, not science. As such, they are subject to philosophical refutation. The final judgment regarding their truth or falsity belongs to philosophy and in a certain way to theology. "

Perhaps we should see how Theology can be seen as a science?

it seems to me that parts of darwinian science are acceptable to the catholic faith. We can agree on that. But even the Pope here seems to say it is a hypothesis, as yet unproven, that the human body came through evolution. It wouldn’t bother me if it did personally. But I am disturbed by darwin’s Descent of Man which likens people to animals, “only different in degree”…and I think he went too far there.

the element of the human soul is too precious to be lost, as it is, in that totally reductionist viewpoint.

I can see your point that ID doesn’t give God His due either…

But how can we begin to save guard the human person from modern day eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research. what scientific argument would you use against those elements of science?

In Christ, maryjohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That is theism. “Creationism” in the accepted use, is that God created everything pretty much as it is today,and that evolution is false. Clearly the Cardinal is not a creationist.

Hmnmmm, I think this confuses things to say this. Surely the Cardinal is a Creationist in that he believes God created the Universe, and all things “seen and unseen”…as we say each Sunday in the Nicean Creed. Fundamental Creationism, or Creationism that interprets genesis in exact literal terms, is not what Schoenbom agrees with.

If you use the word differently than common usage dictates, you will be constantly misunderstood. The Cardinal makes a distinction; you should, too.

We can agree that evolution is a process that God has used to bring about life. That is part of Darwin and also part of what Theistic Evolution is saying.

But Theistic Evolution does not necessarily follow Darwin hook, line and sinker… Theistic Evolution does acknowledge God.

That’s because it’s a religious belief. Darwin’s theory, being a scientific theory, can’t do that. Darwin could and did. But his theory couldn’t.

And no, theistic evolution should not be taught in public schools because it’s religious belief. I accept it, but I wouldn’t want it imposed on others against the law.

Catholics have to believe in Divine Intervention when it comes to the creation of the human person. The soul, we are taught, was created spontaneously and instantaneously by God and infused into the first man and woman. So if Darwin and Darwinian evolution teach differently from that we can’t accept that part of darwin’s Theory.

As you saw, it doesn’t do that.

Man is placed as the Crowning point of Creation and was not a random accident but was brought about through guided processes.

Pope Benedict says random processes can be part of divine providence, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, who writes that it is so. But keep in mind, Darwin’s discovery was that evolution was not random.

it seems to me that parts of darwinian science are acceptable to the catholic faith.

I know of no parts that are not acceptable.

We can agree on that. But even the Pope here seems to say it is a hypothesis, as yet unproven, that the human body came through evolution.

Pope Benedict, in consultation with theologians and scientists, has said it is “virtually certain.” He is correct. As he says, a great deal of evidence from diverse sources all confirm this theory.

It wouldn’t bother me if it did personally. But I am disturbed by darwin’s Descent of Man which likens people to animals, “only different in degree”…and I think he went too far there.

As you know, that’s not what he said. He asserted a spiritual aspect to man, which is not different from animals by degree. Only our bodies are different in degree. Notice the Pope said the same thing.

I can see your point that ID doesn’t give God His due either…

But how can we begin to save guard the human person from modern day eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research. what scientific argument would you use against those elements of science?

The truth, Mary. Only stem cell research among those is a matter of science, and God has seen fit to let us find a way to use non-fetal cells to achieve cures.

**Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found throughout the body after embryonic development that divide to replenish dying cells and regenerate damaged tissues. Also known as somatic (from Greek Σωματικóς, of the body) stem cells, they can be found in children, as well as adults.

Research into adult stem cells has been fueled by their abilities to divide or self-renew indefinitely and generate all the cell types of the organ from which they originate — potentially regenerating the entire organ from a few cells. Unlike embryonic stem cells, the use of adult stem cells in research and therapy is not controversial because the production of adult stem cells does not require the destruction of an embryo. Adult stem cells can be isolated from a tissue sample obtained from an adult. They have mainly been studied in humans and model organisms such as mice and rats.**
Wikipedia

God says that truth is the way. He says He is truth. A Christian should never fear the truth. Face it bravely.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I am aware that scientists can use adult stem cells for research and bypass embryonic stem cells, but a lot of people are implying that not allowing embryonic stem cell research is 'anti-science"…so what is your answer to those people?

Since your last post was pretty clearly against teaching religion in the science class what do you thgink of the fact that theologians are being used in science classes to support fDarwin evolution?

I mention it, and I thought I had posted the link to the video that showed this was being done. Doesn’t this seem a bit contradictory to the claim science and religion should not meet together in the same classroom?

It seems that secular progressives are going towards using religious leaders to support darwinism in the classroom, yes, the very ones who usually oppose any mention of religion are involving religious leaders to give a blessing to Darwin evolution.

discovery.org/v/40

In Christ, maryjohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

I am aware that scientists can use adult stem cells for research and bypass embryonic stem cells, but a lot of people are implying that not allowing embryonic stem cell research is 'anti-science"…so what is your answer to those people?

I ask them if the data obtained by the Nazis should be used.

Since your last post was pretty clearly against teaching religion in the science class what do you thgink of the fact that theologians are being used in science classes to support fDarwin evolution?

It’s clear that such a thing in public schools is illegal. In college, the issue is less clear. My zoology teacher brought in a creationist to talk to us. It was interesting; I was 20, and didn’t realize that people like that still existed.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I ask them if the data obtained by the Nazis should be used.

And what do they reply? I bet that scientists are using data from the Nazi experiments.

Oh, and I guess that is admission that Nazi’s did immoral scienitific experimentation on human beings, so scientists were involved in the holocaust

It’s clear that such a thing in public schools is illegal. In college, the issue is less clear. My zoology teacher brought in a creationist to talk to us. It was interesting; I was 20, and didn’t realize that people like that still existed.

is it clear? Seems to me it is happening. Did you watch the video?

Why is it less clear in a college science class if you are going to take a pure approach to science that it should not talk about religion, aren’t you confusing the issue? Now if it were a college theology class… Nonetheless the secular progressives are able to do this type of thing again and again but when traditional Christians try to bring up a point of view they are barred from doing so based on separation of religion and state.

The problem is that if religion is put to serve science and not the other way around…science having the responsibility of being consistent with revelation, than you end up with situation in which religion becomes part of the propaganda for programs that can seem moral but are not.

back to Darwin and the dignoty of the human person. if the human person is nothing but another evolved species, no special dignifying qualitites, then why work to preserve it or work to preserve the life of seemingly less developed humans, such as embryos. Even in Darwin’s view the human embryo had a brain that was akin to a ape’s brain at a lower level evoluttion…and he stated so in Descent of Man. So if you view the embryo in this way, and I think it is fair to say it is a ‘sub-human’ view of the embryo, then you end up feeling justified in using ti for experiments and in aborting it.

Darwin falls short when it comes to establishing the dignity of the human person. He falls short in being compatible with a view that says man was created in God’s own image.

I think Theistic Evolution goes past Darwin and I look forward to reading Pope Benedict’s book to find out what he is saying along those lines.

Back to Darwin and the Holocaust for one more time:

Since you admit the Nazis did scientific experiments on human persons, and you say the Nazi’s were basing everything on religion, where did that come from?

I still think a materialistic view of the human person, which can come from neo-Darwinian sleiefs 9 as we can see in Dawkins for example) is at the root of that tree:

"Less than a century after Darwin’s death, in his chapter on “Nation and Race” in “Mein Kampf,” Adolf Hitler described the struggle for existence in Darwinian terms: “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable.”

The Nazi party framed its mission in terms of a Darwinian struggle to achieve a more evolved life form. According to the Hitler-approved pamphlet “Why are We Fighting?”, “Our racial idea is only the ‘expression of a worldview’ that recognizes in the higher evolution of humans a divine command.”

Another Hitler-approved booklet, “Racial Policy”, outlined the Nazi vision of man as follows: “The preservation and propagation, the evolution and elevating of life occurs through the struggle for existence, to which every plant, every animal, every species and every genus is subjected. Even humans and the human races are subject to this struggle; it decides their value and their right to exist.”

There is a ruthless consistency to the Darwinian-phrased Nazi propaganda. After all, if Darwin has rendered the “God hypothesis” superfluous and hence any notion of man as the intrinsically valuable creature made in God’s image and likeness, what better criteria is there for human worth than power?

According to Darwin, man is different from the rest of the animals only by a matter of degrees. There is nothing that essentially distinguishes man from the other beasts."
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2012184/posts

And that is true, for Darwin said man does not differ from animals in any manner…only in degree and he maintianed man as a one of many species in the animal kingdom. So why treat the human person as anything with greater dignity. You can say Darwin did not mean that, but when it comes down to it his work can and has been and is even now being interpreted that way.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Why is it less clear in a college science class if you are going to take a pure approach to science that it should not talk about religion, aren’t you confusing the issue?

Could happen. That’s why allusions to religious beliefs about nature are less of a problem presented to adults, who should be able to understand the difference more easily.

In one of my evolution classes, a creationist was invited to talk to us. Probably a violation of the First Amendment, but I think we were all grown up enough to take it for what it was.

back to Darwin and the dignoty of the human person. if the human person is nothing but another evolved species, no special dignifying qualitites, then why work to preserve it or work to preserve the life of seemingly less developed humans, such as embryos.

Unless you add (as Darwin did) that humans have a spiritual aspect, and rights to life and liberty, that could be a problem.

Even in Darwin’s view the human embryo had a brain that was akin to a ape’s brain at a lower level evoluttion…and he stated so in Descent of Man.

Yes. Huxley once challenged Owen (the greatest anatomist of his time) to show him one structure in the brain of a man that could not be found in that of a chimp, or vice versa.

He was unable to do so.

So if you view the embryo in this way, and I think it is fair to say it is a ‘sub-human’ view of the embryo, then you end up feeling justified in using ti for experiments and in aborting it.

I don’t know anyone who would be dumb enough to be persuaded by that argument.

Darwin falls short when it comes to establishing the dignity of the human person.

His opinion was identical to that of Abraham Lincoln: humans might differ in intelligence and other abilities, but they still are equal in the sense of all having right to life and liberty. This is the position of the Catholic Church as well.

He falls short in being compatible with a view that says man was created in God’s own image.

If so, so does our Pope. The “image” is not in physical appearance. Jesus says that God is a spirit. He says a spirit has no body. So it’s not what you suppose.

I think Theistic Evolution goes past Darwin and I look forward to reading Pope Benedict’s book to find out what he is saying along those lines.

Darwin was, when he wrote “The Origin of Species”, a theistic evolutionist.

Back to Darwin and the Holocaust for one more time:
Since you admit the Nazis did scientific experiments on human persons,

Most of it was garbage, of no scientific worth at all. They looked at the material after the war, and little of it was worth keeping.

and you say the Nazi’s were basing everything on religion,

No. I said about 90 percent of their “Final Solution” was taken from Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies.”

where did that come from?

Martin Luther. The Nazis freely credited Luther for his advice.

I still think a materialistic view of the human person, which can come from neo-Darwinian sleiefs 9 as we can see in Dawkins for example) is at the root of that tree:

Since other Darwinians have been devout Christians, it’s clear that Dawkins’ atheism comes from something else.

Less than a century after Darwin’s death, in his chapter on “Nation and Race” in “Mein Kampf,” Adolf Hitler described the struggle for existence in Darwinian terms: “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable.”

In fact, in “The Descent of Man”, Darwin showed that humans, as a social species, survive by cooperation and by protecting one another. What you are describing is anti-Darwinian. Things that Luther advocated.

The Nazi party framed its mission in terms of a Darwinian struggle to achieve a more evolved life form. According to the Hitler-approved pamphlet “Why are We Fighting?”, “Our racial idea is only the ‘expression of a worldview’ that recognizes in the higher evolution of humans a divine command.”

That is a religious assertion, Mary. Not anything Darwinian.

Another Hitler-approved booklet, “Racial Policy”, outlined the Nazi vision of man as follows: “The preservation and propagation, the evolution and elevating of life occurs through the struggle for existence, to which every plant, every animal, every species and every genus is subjected. Even humans and the human races are subject to this struggle; it decides their value and their right to exist.”

There is always a struggle for existence. But Darwin argued that humans should care for one another. He said that even letting the weak die was an “overwhelming evil.” Again, the passage you cite is anti-Darwinian.

There is a ruthless consistency to the Darwinian-phrased Nazi propaganda.

Eugenic, not Darwinian. Your people, Mary.

After all, if Darwin has rendered the “God hypothesis” superfluous

Darwin didn’t. In fact, he attributed the creation of life to God.

what better criteria is there for human worth than power?

Darwin asserted that even the least of humans had a right to life and liberty. The Nazi program was more of Luther than of science.

According to Darwin, man is different from the rest of the animals only by a matter of degrees.

And in having a spiritual aspect. And in having a right to life and liberty. Big differences, don’t you agree?

There is nothing that essentially distinguishes man from the other beasts."

If you think that having a soul and right to life and liberty is nothing essential, I’d say you and Ben Stein were on the same page.

So why treat the human person as anything with greater dignity.

According to Darwin, all people deserved life and liberty, and we should not let even the weakest and least of humans die.

You can say Darwin did not mean that

He meant it, and meant it strongly. He was a fierce opponent of slavery, for example.

but when it comes down to it his work can and has been and is even now being interpreted that way.

By people like Ben Stein. But as you know, Stein is not an honorable man; he makes excuses for the Nazis, and blames the Holocaust on the very people who opposed the Nazis.

This is why he was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League; he’s a despicable person.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Why don’t you just group your ideas in a paragraph since they are obviously related ideas and thus create a flow of context which is easier to respond to? it is reidiculous going senetence by sentence through each post, extremely tedious and time consuming. It is a way fo killing the conversation.

Overall you are still saying the Nazi’s used Lutrher as 90% of their rationale for genocide of mixed racial people ( they defines any mixed raced person as Jewish, not just jewish people0 and are thus stubbornly denying that the nazi’s were a racist group, a white supremecist group, not a religious group in terms of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. We have gone over that and over that. You certainly are not going to convince me of that point of view when so many other aspects of the Nazi writings and agenda were anti-Christian, as well as anti-Jewish. They were establishing a state religion and used some of Luther’s writings 9since he was the bif reformer in germany) to build on. Shame on Luther, but shame on you for trying to say this was all about Luther. Hitler wrote back and forth with the eugenic leaders of America, he copied part of the laws for sterilization that were in stste laws of the U. S…so why not blame the U. S. for the Nazi movement as well?

---

on to ideas about the human embryo from Darwin

You state that while Darwin defined the brain of the embryo as only at the level of the lowest primate, this would not effect the view of the human embryo as sub human by any scientist.

well, that just flies in the face of the fact that we are still in the situation of fighting to establish that the embryo, at every stage, is equally human to any adult human. This is an ongoing problem
that keeps many people from recongnizing that the “Right to Life” extends down into the womb of the mother and that every unborn life needs to be protected and cherished.

If Darwin, the basis for modern scientific biology, was so clear on establishing the right of life and liberty to EVERY human person, no matter the ‘quality’ of that life or the ability to the person to sustain their own life, then why are we fighting for that belief in some many areas from protecting people from euthansia to protecting the individual embryos created in test tubes and protecting babies in the womb…the battle rages on all sides and you think that this right was established by Darwin adn Lincoln…
so why have so many scientists missed that great point made by Darwin.

The answer to me is that he never really made that point. Since many of his dearest friends and own son were part of the eugenics movement he failed to make the point to those he was most intimate with.

---

As far as Darwin being a 'Theistic Evolutionists"…I don’t think he was that, simply because he never defined the human person as different from an animal.

When Adam looked around for a mate in Genesis after naming all the animals he found none because he recognized he was different from the rest of the animals. If Adam was merely an evolved animal as he was according to Darwin he probably would have found some animal he could mate with, but Genesis makes the point that he was different. he needed an 'Eve"…and God crated a unique mate for Adam. It seems to me that is saying something different happened here and that man is more than an animal, something which Darwin falls short of saying in very explicit terms when he boasts that man is not different from animals in any way, only in degree…

As long as you define people as animals you will only expect animal behaviors fromthem. You will be continually comparing human persons to apes and other animals. If you define man as the ‘image of God’ as Theistic Evolution does, than you will be drawing man up toward his higher potential.

That is why the writings of John paul II on the Theology of the Body draw us upward toward the self control and beauty of the sacred over how the body and human sexuality is defined by our culture, a culture which still defines the human person as an ‘animal’, driven by appearently uncontrollable sexual urges, requiring birth control to be handed out in our schools and teen clinics and disallowing for natural family planning to be taught and practiced as the healthiest, safest approach most conducive to creating a bond between husband’s and wives. Men simply cannot get there to seeing that they have a responsibility to have self control as well as women…and women have bought into the idea they have the right to be as sexually free and promiscuous as the male has tended to be.

Your idea that this has always been so clear from darwin and Lincoln…so very mainstream historically for so long, just is
inconsistent with the present situation.

The fact that you have defended the very people who promote
distribution of birth control to teens and the teaching of ‘safe sex’ in our schools undermines any conception that evenYOU truly believe that the human person is more than an animal. But I guess you are a Darwinian afterall, and I shouldn’t expect differently.

In Chrsit, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Overall you are still saying the Nazi’s used Lutrher as 90% of their rationale for genocide

Yep. Look up “The Jews and Their Lies” to see. Destruction of synagogues and schools, confiscation of property, loss of rights to protection by law, forced labor, forced relocation. Execution in some cases. They didn’t know about gas chambers then.

You certainly are not going to convince me of that point of view when so many other aspects of the Nazi writings and agenda were anti-Christian, as well as anti-Jewish.

The Nazis lavishly praised Luther and gave him much of the credit for their program. And on the belt buckles of their soldiers, “Gott mit Uns” (God is on our side). They had convinced themselves God was a Nazi.

Shame on Luther, but shame on you for trying to say this was all about Luther.

Just about 90% of it. It’s in black and white in his recommendations. The Nazis merely carried them out.

Hitler wrote back and forth with the eugenic leaders of America, he copied part of the laws for sterilization that were in stste laws of the U. S…so why not blame the U. S. for the Nazi movement as well?

Your people. Remember, Darwinists showed that classical eugenics were not even science, and Darwin himself denounced the idea.

You state that while Darwin defined the brain of the embryo as only at the level of the lowest primate, this would not effect the view of the human embryo as sub human by any scientist.

No. I didn’t. Try again.

If Darwin, the basis for modern scientific biology, was so clear on establishing the right of life and liberty to EVERY human person, no matter the ‘quality’ of that life or the ability to the person to sustain their own life, then why are we fighting for that belief

Many people (you for example) don’t agree with Darwin.

So far as Darwin being a 'Theistic Evolutionists"…I don’t think he was that, simply because he never defined the human person as different from an animal.

You don’t think that having a soul and a right to life and liberty are important differences? Darwin made those assertions about the distinction between man and other animals. I think they are critical. But then, probably not to the people you’re defending here.

As long as you define people as animals you will only expect animal behaviors fromthem.

If that were true, the children of biologists would show more delinquency than average. And the opposite is true.

Men simply cannot get there to seeing that they have a responsibility to have self control as well as women…and women have bought into the idea they have the right to be as sexually free and promiscuous as the male has tended to be.

Speak for your own family. Mine isn’t like that.

Your idea that this has always been so clear from darwin and Lincoln…so very mainstream historically for so long, just is inconsistent with the present situation.

These are historical facts. You can like them, or not like them. But they remain true.

The fact that you have defended the very people who promote distribution of birth control to teens and the teaching of ‘safe sex’

Go back and check. You’ll find that’s a false accusation. The closest you’ll get is my mention of the fact that states are shutting down “abstinence only” education, because it causes more teen pregnancies and STDs.

in our schools undermines any conception that evenYOU truly believe that the human person is more than an animal. But I guess you are a Darwinian afterall, and I shouldn’t expect differently.

As you learned, Darwin saw humans as being different in having a spiritual aspect, and having a right to life and liberty. You’ve told us that those are not important differences.

So yes, you and I differ in that respect.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Yep. Look up “The Jews and Their Lies” to see. Destruction of synagogues and schools, confiscation of property, loss of rights to protection by law, forced labor, forced relocation. Execution in some cases. They didn’t know about gas chambers then.

The Nazis lavishly praised Luther and gave him much of the credit for their program. And on the belt buckles of their soldiers, “Gott mit Uns” (God is on our side). They had convinced themselves God was a Nazi.

…not the Judeo Christian God as they wanted to rewrite the Bible, and change the ten commandments among other blatantly anti-Christian policies.The songs of the Hitler youth made fun of the idea ob the Christian God rather than showed a sense of being inspired by God.The Nazis were racists more than anti-semites…remember they redifined the term “Jewish” to mean racially mixed people. They wanted pure blood, based on idea it would be stronger and more superior./COLOR]

Your people. Remember, Darwinists showed that classical eugenics were not even science, and Darwin himself denounced the idea.

Then why was his own son quoting his ftaher to the eugenics people…stop revising history here…whether you like it or not they claimed they took their ideas from Charles Darwin.

Darwin could not have denounced the Nazi ideas as he was dead at the time. His own son was a ;eader in the eugenics movement as was his cousin who Darwin mentions in his writings. The Galton Institute out of the eugenics movement has ‘Darwin Lecture’ series and certainly considers itself as coming out of darwinian thought. Perhaps there are two Darwins…your versiona nd their version…but Darwin did not refute their ideas directly.

Many people (you for example) don’t agree with Darwin.

I don;t agree with Darwin that people are just animals and that the human conscience and thought can be accounted for by materialistic and natural processes…

You don’t think that having a soul and a right to life and liberty are important differences? Darwin made those assertions about the distinction between man and other animals. I think they are critical. But then, probably not to the people you’re defending here.

Darwin didn’t say people HAD SOULS…he just said science couldn’t talk about a soul…and the way he said human beings were not different from animals claiming they were only more developed makes me doubt he believed in the soul at any rate.

Speak for your own family. Mine isn’t like that.

Don’t be so snobbish and crude, I was referring to our culture…a culture you are building up and creating by supporting Planned parenthood programs in our schools.You are not above it, you are part of it, even a cause of it when you do that…

Go back and check. You’ll find that’s a false accusation. The closest you’ll get is my mention of the fact that states are shutting down “abstinence only” education, because it causes more teen pregnancies and STDs.

The facts which you claim to know so much about are bugus exagerations by pro-Planned Parenthood advocates who say these programs don’t work and admit that even it they did work they still would be against them. Why? Because they are agenda driven individuals…not becuase they really care. here is the real story:

"The April 23, 2008 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on abstinence education, led by Congressman Henry Waxman, who is an outspoken opponent, featured 6 out of 7 “experts” who opposed
this approach. Such is balance in the 2008 Congress.

When asked by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) whether they would support abstinence education if scientific evidence showed it reduced pregnancy rates and STDs, an alarming five of seven panelists stunningly answered no. Apparently the health of American teens is not the top priority of these “experts.”

Dr. Stan Weed, a leading researcher on youth behavior, was the lone voice providing the Committee scientific evidence on the effectiveness of abstinence education and the only one who had ever done any research in this area.

Weed, who has interviewed more than 500,000 teens, articulated current research on the success of abstinence education and dispelled the myths surrounding it. Dr. Weed also brought a compelling challenge to the methodology of studies used to claim success for comprehensive sex education programs, approaches that are contraception-based in teaching.

To download Dr. Weed’s eye-opening testimony, visit
(freeteensusa.org))

As you learned, Darwin saw humans as being different in having a spiritual aspect, and having a right to life and liberty. You’ve told us that those are not important differences.

So yes, you and I differ in that respect.

You are ridiculous. Darwin never said the human being had a soul…only that science could not talk about a soul…and even you admit Darwin leaned toward an agnostic view, so why try to put forth the idea that Darwin said the person was different from animals because of a soul? He rather said human beings were diferent from animals onlky in ‘degree’ not in any im portant factor that would cause him to place the human person in any other category.

So I disagree…I believe human beings do have souls and deserve to realize they are made in a Divine Image.

In Chrsit, maryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Look up “The Jews and Their Lies” to see. Destruction of synagogues and schools, confiscation of property, loss of rights to protection by law, forced labor, forced relocation. Execution in some cases. They didn’t know about gas chambers then.

The Nazis lavishly praised Luther and gave him much of the credit for their program. And on the belt buckles of their soldiers, “Gott mit Uns” (God is on our side). They had convinced themselves God was a Nazi.

color=“blue”]…not the Judeo Christian God as they wanted to rewrite the Bible, and change the ten commandments among other blatantly anti-Christian policies.

So did Luther. Good fit there. You won’t find his program for Jews in the Bible, either.

Barbarian observes:
Your people. Remember, Darwinists showed that classical eugenics were not even science, and Darwin himself denounced the idea.

Then why was his own son…

…disagreeing with his father? You think that’s unusual? Darwin disagreed with his father.

Darwin could not have denounced the Nazi ideas as he was dead at the time.

He did advocate a right to life and freedom for all humans, which the Nazis did not. And he said to let even the weakest human die was an overwhelming evil, while the Nazis considered culling out the weak to be a responsibility.

So yes, he denounced that kind of thinking.

His own son…

…disagreed with his father. Feel free to blame his son, but don’t pretend Charles Darwin agreed with him.

(Mary suggests that although Darwin opposed such ideas, many didn’t listen to him)

Barbarian observes:
Many people (you for example) don’t agree with Darwin.

I don;t agree with Darwin that people are just animals

As you know, he didn’t say they were merely animals. He also attributed to them a soul and an intrinsic right to life and liberty.

Barbarian asks:
You don’t think that having a soul and a right to life and liberty are important differences? Darwin made those assertions about the distinction between man and other animals. I think they are critical. But then, probably not to the people you’re defending here.

Darwin didn’t say people HAD SOULS…he just said science couldn’t talk about a soul…

You own quote from him shows that he knew humans had a spiritual aspect that animals did not. You know this, we’ve already talked about it.

Men simply cannot get there to seeing that they have a responsibility to have self control as well as women…and women have bought into the idea they have the right to be as sexually free and promiscuous as the male has tended to be.

Barbarian observes:
Speak for your own family. Mine isn’t like that.

Don’t be so snobbish and crude

You said it. As a male, I find it crude and offensive. You should know, Mary, that many early Christian writers attributed lewdness to the nature of woman. Took a long time to get that one out. Please don’t play that game.

I was referring to our culture…a culture you are building up and creating by supporting Planned parenthood programs in our schools.

As you know, (since I challenged you to find an example, and you obviously couldn’t find one) I didn’t.

Barbarian observes:
Go back and check. You’ll find that’s a false accusation. The closest you’ll get is my mention of the fact that states are shutting down “abstinence only” education, because it causes more teen pregnancies and STDs.

The facts which you claim to know so much about are bugus exagerations by pro-Planned Parenthood advocates who say these programs don’t work

No. They are by states that found the programs were destructive to the very purpose they were supposed to advance. As of March of this year, seventeen states refused federal money for these programs which have produced the opposite effect of that for which they were designed. The cost in teens pregnant or infected with STDs is just too high.
cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/07/eveningnews/main3680520.shtml

Barbarian observed:
As you learned, Darwin saw humans as being different in having a spiritual aspect, and having a right to life and liberty. You’ve told us that those are not important differences.

So yes, you and I differ in that respect.

You are ridiculous. Darwin never said the human being had a soul…only that science could not talk about a soul…

Your own quote shows that he did.

Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms, the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus giving to man a separate kingdom.[323] Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom

and even you admit Darwin leaned toward an agnostic view,

Late in life, after he had written “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man”, having expressed a believe in such things in both books. Darwin said that man’s spiritual powers and his right to life and liberty were important distinctions.

So I disagree…

Then we will just have to disagree. I think those are the essential characters of man.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Look up “The Jews and Their Lies” to see. Destruction of synagogues and schools, confiscation of property, loss of rights to protection by law, forced labor, forced relocation. Execution in some cases. They didn’t know about gas chambers then.

The Nazis lavishly praised Luther and gave him much of the credit for their program. And on the belt buckles of their soldiers, “Gott mit Uns” (God is on our side). They had convinced themselves God was a Nazi.
I think the Nazis had convinced themselves that the state was god…not that God was a nazi…
The way you try to exclude all the evidence that the Nazi movement was racist and secular is ridiculous. You are revising history to say the nazi’s program of genocide was to create some kind of perfect christian/ Lutheran world? That is crazy and you know it from the statements of the Nazis themselves.

So did Luther. Good fit there. You won’t find his program for Jews in the Bible, either.
You are right , it isn’t in the bible. That is why Christianity and the Nazi program are incompatible. If Luther believed such things Luther was not Christian either.
Sorry…your view that the Nazi program was a fundamentalist Christian based movement is is just flat out wrong.
shoaheducation.com/nazibeliefsFAQ.html
“The Nazis first policy towards the Church was semi-conciliatory. They wanted aid from the Catholic and German Lutheran Church in bringing about their social and economic plans and fighting communism. The Vatican had the goal of fighting Communism also, so in an early meeting, a Papal encyclical was drafted and meeting held with the Nazis including Von Papen, and the Vatican’s Pacell— to ‘cautiously’ agree to work toward a common goal. The document produced was named With Burning Concern”.

Nazi antagonism toward the Catholic Church though became evident in the 1930s as individual German Pastors stood up and decried Hitler’s Racial Policies and Eugenics/Euthanasia programs. In the beginning, Pastors such as Bishop Galen stood formidably against mistreatment of the mentally infirm. Random acts of violence accompanied the early stands; one pastor had shots fired through his office window, and beatings of Catholic students occurred. Many Catholics though and their Rectors were happy to see the anti-communist Nazis move into power, and looked the other way on controversial policies.

The Nazis also made concessions toward the German Christian [Lutheran] Church in early agreement to fund their pastors’ retirement funds through a state pension.1 The concessions the Church had to make in the beginning were small, but increased to eventually include: **Nazi Censorship of Sermons, the Nazi Flag on the altar, and the removal of the Old Testamentfrom doctrine and the Bibles. Church-State relations were never good with the Evangelical Church headed by Bonhoeffer and Niemoller: both ended up in prison and Bonhoeffer died in Flossenburg. **The “Confessing Church” was noted for doctrinal opposition in the “Barmen Declaration written by Karl Barth , a notable theologian who escaped to Switzerland. Hitler severely persecuted the Evangelical Church, as it remained a constant form of resistance to Hitler and thereby treasonous, by the definitions of the third Reich, which included a charge of demoralizing the Fuhrer or German People. (See Charges of the White Rose Bonhoeffer was eventually accused of an assasination plot againstHitler with Canaris and executed. Many from the resistance movement came from backgrounds of faith.”

shoaheducation.com/nazibeliefsFAQ.html

That description of how the Nazis view religion is totally consistent with other facts and website I have already posted on this forum. Your consistent refusal to accept these historically verifiable facts is astounding to me. You must be antiChristian in your view of the world and life to hold onto the idea that the Nazi’s were some sort of evangelical Protestant religious movement.If anything, they misrepresented religious beliefs for their purposes…or made use of the worse stuff that came out of religion for their purposes, but in the end their goals and beliefs were incompatible with any true Christian view of life. the Nazi party knew that and thus they set about persecuting true Christians as related above.

Barbarian observes:
Your people. Remember, Darwinists showed that classical eugenics were not even science, and Darwin himself denounced the idea.
…disagreeing with his father? You think that’s unusual? Darwin disagreed with his father.

You are assuming he disagreed with his father **without proving it with any quote or writings to back up your assertion. **Darwin’s son is quoted as using his own father;s words in his speech before the London eugenics society… he seemd to feel he was part of a maovement to better mankind based on his father’s workd.

This article came up with a search that shows the different influences behind Hitler , and it comments on how the Church had lost power during the early 20th century due to modern philosophical views::
bedfordgaol.com/part3-4.html
“Where was the church in all of this? Confining ourselves for the time being to the 19th century, many people remained faithful to the old teachings, and even strongly argued against modern trends (if they did not ignore them altogether, as Christians are wont to do until it is too late) - but these were considered backward and ignorant, and dismissed as Schwaermer, meaning “gushers” or “enthusiasts.” They were increasingly less relevant in society as modernist trends took root and flourished, and are almost totally ignored by historians. Gasman’s highly detailed study of the social Darwinist and pseudo-scientist Ernst Haeckel mentions in passing one Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, whose orthodoxy was haughtily dismissed by Haeckel.”

He did advocate a right to life and freedom for all humans, which the Nazis did not. And he said to let even the weakest human die was an overwhelming evil, while the Nazis considered culling out the weak to be a responsibility.
So yes, he denounced that kind of thinking.

You are misconstruing the original quote which basically said that there was an evil consequence to the fact that many feeble people would live longer under a society with more sympathy for those people, thus allowing them to have off-spring…and in the end this would slow the evolution of the society…reread the quote slowly…that is what Darwin is saying, as harsh as that sounds.

Barbarian observes:
Many people (you for example) don’t agree with Darwin.

You are right, I don’t agree with Darwin. You don’t measure the worth of a human life based on the physical strength or potential for productivity of that person…

As you know, he didn’t say they were merely animals. He also attributed to them a soul and an intrinsic right to life and liberty.

**Provide the quote…/**COLOR]

Continued next post…

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian asks:
You don’t think that having a soul and a right to life and liberty are important differences? Darwin made those assertions about the distinction between man and other animals. I think they are critical. But then, probably not to the people you’re defending here.

Darwin said man differed from animals only in degree not kind… a minnimalistic difference. he certainly never concretely defined the human person as having a ‘soul’, and only said the mind of man, and his conscience and morals came through natural processes. This asseretion is incompatible with teachings of our Church that says the soul of man was created uniquely and instantaneously through Divine Intervention making man DIFFERENT from animals.

You own quote from him shows that he knew humans had a spiritual aspect that animals did not. You know this, we’ve already talked about it.

You are in denial of what Darwin actually said…that man was an animal, differening only in degree

You said it. As a male, I find it crude and offensive. You should know, Mary, that many early Christian writers attributed lewdness to the nature of woman. Took a long time to get that one out. Please don’t play that game.

The feminine nature is naturally modest. Psychologically women are prone to being modesty in general. There are differences…but for the most part, males are much more likely to be outward and physically immodest. it doesn’t take too long a time and too many experiences to figure that bit of information out about how men and women differ. Femminists today try to convince women that their natural modesty is unnatural and that they should be like guys…and there is a lot of influences on young women to dress immodestly today. I am sure modesty has broken down becaue of the media and fashion industry, but I don’t think women deserve those trends nor do I think it helps women understand their true nature.

As you know, (since I challenged you to find an example, and you obviously couldn’t find one) I didn’t.
An example of what?
Barbarian observes:
Go back and check. You’ll find that’s a false accusation. The closest you’ll get is my mention of the fact that states are shutting down “abstinence only” education, because it causes more teen pregnancies and STDs.

Safe sex porograms have been around a lot longer than true abstinence programs which were only initiated about 9 years ago and have been strongly resisted by influential groups with lots more money like Planned parenthood who basically uses sex ed programs in schools to get business from teens. PP makes millions seeling contraceptive pills to teens…why would they want abstinence programs to take awy that business?

besides the fact that abstinence only programs have a hard time getting into schools, they are also vastly under funded compared to funding for so called ‘safe sex’ programs which spend the majority of time teaching kids how to have sex and where to get condoms…despite the fact that studies show teens will only use those things a small percentage of the time, even if they are told they should use them Even if teens use thoise tings the majority of the time, there will always nbe the ‘one time’ they didn’t have one…and once is enough to be exposed to health risks that can change a young person’s life forever. Not to mention the emotional and psychological risks of having multiple sex partners in casual relationships outside of marriage.

The dicrepencies in funding are drastic. See this article for the full facts on this:heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/bg1718.cfm

"Total government spending for abstinence was only $144.1 million in FY 2002. By contrast, total government spending on family planning, safe sex, and contraceptive promotion was $1.73 billion in the same year. In other words, the government spent $12 on contraception services and promotion for each dollar spent on abstinence.

A similar disparity exists in funding for teens and youth. In FY 2002, government spending on family planning, safe sex, and contraceptive promotion for teens was $653 million. By contrast, total spending for teen abstinence was only $144.1 million. Thus, the government spent nearly $4.50 on contraception services and promotion for teens for each dollar spent on abstinence.

This term, the Senate will act to renew welfare reform by reauthorizing TANF. This legislation will also include reauthorization of the Title V abstinence program. As part of TANF reauthorization, it is likely that some in the Senate will seek to establish new funding for safe sex/contraceptive promotion programs. Given the alarming content of most comprehensive sex-ed programs, and given the current funding imbalance between contraceptive promotion and abstinence, efforts to increase contraceptive programs for teens would be dangerously counterproductive."

No. They are by states that found the programs were destructive to the very purpose they were supposed to advance. As of March of this year, seventeen states refused federal money for these programs which have produced the opposite effect of that for which they were designed. The cost in teens pregnant or infected with STDs is just too high.
cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/07
/eveningnews/main3680520.shtml

So give abstinence programs a chance to work…be fully honbest with kids. Again, if you have never sat and listened to a 100% Catholic abstinence education presentation ( as I have) then you really don’t know what it is about. I advise you and any other parent out there to contact their Diocese, ask about abstinence educators in the area for contacts, invite them to come to your library or home and have some other parents over. Listen to the presentation. Educate yourself on the difference between 'comprehensive SEX education and Abstinence education…you will be mazed at how beautiful a true abstinence program is. I and other parents could not stop saying how the abstinence program was so positive compared to the safe sex program which was so dark and negative… Do it, you will not regret it.

Barbarian observed:
As you learned, Darwin saw humans as being different in having a spiritual aspect, and having a right to life and liberty. You’ve told us that those are not important differences.

So yes, you and I differ in that respect.

GIVE ME ONE QUOTE WHERE DARWIN SAYS PEOPLE HAVE SOULS!
Your own quote shows that he did.
SHOWED HE RECOGNIZED OTHER SCIENTISTS SAID HUMANS HAD SOULS NOT THAT HE DID>>>
**Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms, the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus giving to man a separate kingdom.[323] Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but **he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom

If darwin thopugh people had souls then he thought animals had the SAME KIND of souls…reread what he says…

Late in life, after he had written “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man”, having expressed a believe in such things in both books. Darwin said that man’s spiritual powers and his right to life and liberty were important distinctions.

what does he mean by that and provide the quote and context…

Then we will just have to disagree. I think those are the essential characters of man.

what?! That human beings and animals have the same kind of souls? Differeing only in degree…and not enough for a separate kingdom… I disagree…
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm#366

The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233…

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 "
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm#366

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out the Nazis admiration for Luther and their “Gott mit Uns” motto)

The way you try to exclude all the evidence that the Nazi movement was racist and secular is ridiculous.

Of course it was racist. And anti-semitic. And they twisted Christianity into a hellish mockery of the real thing.

You are revising history to say the nazi’s program of genocide was to create some kind of perfect christian/ Lutheran world?

Mary, wouldn’t it be smarter to argue about the things I actually said, than something you just made up?

Sorry…your view that the Nazi program was a fundamentalist Christian based movement is is just flat out wrong.

Not to mention nonexistent. You just made it up and pretended I said it.

You must be antiChristian in your view of the world and life to hold onto the idea that the Nazi’s were some sort of evangelical Protestant religious movement.

On the other hand, you only need to be honest to admit that the Nazis praised Luther, and declared God to be on their side. Which is what I told you.

Barbarian observes:
Your people. Remember, Darwinists showed that classical eugenics were not even science, and Darwin himself denounced the idea.

…disagreeing with his father? You think that’s unusual? Darwin disagreed with his father.

You are assuming he disagreed with his father without proving it with any quote or writings to back up your assertion.

Darwin, as you know, denounced even allowing the weak to perish as an evil. He said that a person’s right to freedom did not depend on their abilities.

Barbarian observes:
He did advocate a right to life and freedom for all humans, which the Nazis did not. And he said to let even the weakest human die was an overwhelming evil, while the Nazis considered culling out the weak to be a responsibility.
So yes, he denounced that kind of thinking.

You are misconstruing the original quote

No, that’s what he said. He called it an “overwhelming evil.”

Barbarian observes:
Darwin asserted that a persons right to life and liberty did not depend on their abilities. Many people (you for example) don’t agree with Darwin.

You are right, I don’t agree with Darwin.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, he didn’t say they were merely animals. He also attributed to them a soul and an intrinsic right to life and liberty.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
You don’t think that having a soul and a right to life and liberty are important differences? Darwin made those assertions about the distinction between man and other animals. I think they are critical. But then, probably not to the people you’re defending here.

Darwin said man differed from animals only in degree not kind… a minnimalistic difference. he certainly never concretely defined the human person as having a ‘soul’, and only said the mind of man, and his conscience and morals came through natural processes.

And he admitted that man had “spiritual powers” that were beyond the ken of science. That is, to a Christian, the critical element.

You own quote from him shows that he knew humans had a spiritual aspect that animals did not. You know this, we’ve already talked about it.

You are in denial of what Darwin actually said…that man was an animal, differening only in degree

Your own quote from him says something different, Mary. Why deny the truth?

Barbarian observes:
You said it. As a male, I find it crude and offensive. You should know, Mary, that many early Christian writers attributed lewdness to the nature of woman. Took a long time to get that one out. Please don’t play that game.

(more denial)

Humans don’t have to be the pawns of their hormones, Mary. Can’t you accept this?

I was referring to our culture…a culture you are building up and creating by supporting Planned parenthood programs in our schools.

Barbarian replies:
As you know, (since I challenged you to find an example, and you obviously couldn’t find one) I didn’t.

Barbarian observes:
Go back and check. You’ll find that’s a false accusation. The closest you’ll get is my mention of the fact that states are shutting down “abstinence only” education, because it causes more teen pregnancies and STDs.

Safe sex porograms have been around a lot longer than true abstinence programs

And they were working. STDs and teen pregnancies were on the decline. And then “abstinence only” became the rule. And both have now started to rise again. What the federal government is peddling is not only ineffective, it’s actually making the problem worse.

Barbarian, regarding the rejection of failed programs:
No. They are by states that found the programs were destructive to the very purpose they were supposed to advance. As of March of this year, seventeen states refused federal money for these programs which have produced the opposite effect of that for which they were designed. The cost in teens pregnant or infected with STDs is just too high.
cbsnews.com/stories/2008/…n3680520.shtml

So give abstinence programs a chance to work…be fully honbest with kids.

We tried it for nearly a decade. The result is tens of thousands of lives ruined. That’s why states are opting out.

Again, if you have never sat and listened to a 100% Catholic abstinence education presentation ( as I have) then you really don’t know what it is about.

Problem is, the faith part isn’t legal in public schools. I agree that it probably would be more effective than the junk being touted by the government today.

And all churches should be teaching it.

Barbarian observed:
As you learned, Darwin saw humans as being different in having a spiritual aspect, and having a right to life and liberty. You’ve told us that those are not important differences.

So yes, you and I differ in that respect.

GIVE ME ONE QUOTE WHERE DARWIN SAYS PEOPLE HAVE SOULS!

Your own quote shows that he did.

Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom

Barbarian observes:
Late in life, after he had written “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man”, having expressed a believe in such things in both books. Darwin said that man’s spiritual powers and his right to life and liberty were important distinctions.

Then we will just have to disagree. I think those are the essential characters of man.

what?!

That Darwin’s assertion of spritual powers and right to life and liberty are important distinctions for humans.

You seem to think not. Why?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

(Barbarian points out the Nazis admiration for Luther and their “Gott mit Uns” motto)
Of course it was racist. And anti-semitic. And they twisted Christianity into a hellish mockery of the real thing.
Mary, wouldn’t it be smarter to argue about the things I actually said, than something you just made up?
Not to mention nonexistent. You just made it up and pretended I said it. On the other hand, you only need to be honest to admit that the Nazis praised Luther, and declared God to be on their side. Which is what I told you.

So which is it? You say that the Nazi movement was based on Luther and his writings on one hand (90%) and yet you try to wiggle out of saying that you are calling the Nazi movement a Christian fundamentalist movement, or a Lutheran religious movement, Over and over again you have said it is ‘religious’ people that are at the bottom of the Nazi movement. When i present the truth that religion had been undermined during the early twentieth century period by the French enlightnement and its philosophical view and that Hitler and the Nazis opposed traditional Christian beliefs you deny that too. You can’t say “this is a Lutheran movement” and then say “I didn’t say that”… what exactly are you saying? In the end i think you are using the fact that the Nazis propped up their electoral base by using Luther’s writings to put forth a false conclusion that the Nazis came out of the Lutheran religion…a religion they systematically altered when they cam into power. They believed in the SECULAR STATE, the same thing many liberals in this country now believe in as their ‘savior’.

Barbarian observes:
Your people. Remember, Darwinists showed that classical eugenics were not even science, and Darwin himself denounced the idea…disagreeing with his father? You think that’s unusual? Darwin disagreed with his father.

Give the source and the quotes( emphasis on plurality) for multiple Darwinists in the WWII era that said classical eugenics was wrong… I am interested and waiting for this evidence. Sources and links to those sources…

Darwin, as you know, denounced even allowing the weak to perish as an evil. He said that a person’s right to freedom did not depend on their abilities.

You have ONE quote on this…give me more.If what you say is true there must be more. Show me that Darwin didn’t just believe compassion was a ‘learned’ attribute, socially modifiable…something that could be justified away by a belief that it is MORE compassionate to allow a terminally ill person, like Terri Shiavo, to starve to death, since her 'quality of life was gone. Isn’t that the same thing as what the Nazis did because they felt mentally ill people did not have anything more to contribute to society and they were ‘burdens’ on society…and isn’t that the same thing as the lawyer who wrote the letter to Bill Clinton that our American society needed to rid itself of the “burden” of the poor by handing out RU 486 to decrease that surplus population…scrooges all of them. And you are a scrooge as well if you support any of that.

Barbarian observes:
He did advocate a right to life and freedom for all humans, which the Nazis did not. And he said to let even the weakest human die was an overwhelming evil, while the Nazis considered culling out the weak to be a responsibility.
So yes, he denounced that kind of thinking.

But he also gave an openning which allowed that kind of thinking…that is what you are missing. he never stressed there was no way to justify it and by his side by side analogies with animal breeding he even alluded to doing those things. Unfortunate, but true.

No, that’s what he said. He called it an “overwhelming evil.”

Clinging to that one quote again…denying all the other evidence. I need more… But the one quote is all you can come up with. That and some quotes against slavery, which I do give Darwin credit for. Still he made no argument that there was a universal morality that all people should live up to in regard to social policies.

Barbarian observes:
Darwin asserted that a persons right to life and liberty did not depend on their abilities. Many people (you for example) don’t agree with Darwin.

That is not what I saw in his writings either. he obviously thought some people contributed more to society than others. he saw sick and weak and poor as ‘burdens’, even 'hindrances. on social development. he even expressed sadness that caring for the weak might slow the progress of a society.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, he didn’t say they were merely animals. He also attributed to them a soul and an intrinsic right to life and liberty.

No, he did not. He said OTHER naturalists did that, but he wanted to shew it was all part of a natural development.

You are re-interpreting Darwing Barbarian. the Darwin you present is nicely dressed up but it isn’t the Darwin that wrote the “Descent of Man” that I saw online.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

[barbarian:
And he admitted that man had “spiritual powers” that were beyond the ken of science. That is, to a Christian, the critical element.

[COLOR=“Blue”]But so do satanists and Buddhists and people who practice Voo- Doo religions. Some people think of those spiritual powers as simply extensions of the human mind. Since Darwin wanted to define and explain the human mind, conscience and moral practices through natural and social means, why should I not think he was taling about ‘mind over matter’…or some kind of gnostic belief…

You own quote from him shows that he knew humans had a spiritual aspect that animals did not. You know this, we’ve already talked about it.

You keep miscontruing and re-interpreting the quote. You are in complete denial of what Darwin said, that human beings were animals, only differing in degree.

Barbarian observes:
You said it. As a male, I find it crude and offensive. You should know, Mary, that many early Christian writers attributed lewdness to the nature of woman. Took a long time to get that one out. Please don’t play that game.

(more denial)

Humans don’t have to be the pawns of their hormones, Mary. Can’t you accept this?

That is why I believe in Abstinence Education barbarian. it is you and those who wish to pass out condoms in our schools or send our kids down to the local PP clinics that deny the ability to teach kids to just say “no” to premarital sex. Don’t twist what you are supporting. I am the one who is supporting the idea people can control their hormonal drives.

And as to any classical notion that women are the source of lewdness…I am sure that came from a male predominate theological sphere that was in denial and using women as scape goats for their own moments of weakness. Come on, everyone out there is savvy enough to know that men have stronger sex drives of the two sexes. Sure there are exceptions, but don’t be unrealistic.

Barbarian replies:
As you know, (since I challenged you to find an example, and you obviously couldn’t find one) I didn’t.

Barbarian observes:
Go back and check. You’ll find that’s a false accusation. The closest you’ll get is my mention of the fact that states are shutting down “abstinence only” education, because it causes more teen pregnancies and STDs.

THERE! There you go, supporting the idea that human beings are run by their hormones and need those teen clinics and the drug companies running after them to keep them in line and safe. The average age of losing a person’s virginity was in the mid twenties when I was in college and now look where the average age is. Why? What has changed? Safe sex programs…contraceptives for non married people…all post 1970 phenomena. That is what has changed. Even the Russians are doing away with ‘safe sex’ programs because they realize the cost to their health system can not stand up to sexually active teens and all the health issues that come from that.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420071/posts

*"Rome, Jun. 09, 2005 (CNA) - In an about-face, health officials in Moscow have acknowledged that “safe-sex does not exist” and are opting for abstinence-based education for young people.

“One should propagandize total abstinence before marriage,” Ludmila Stebenkova of Moscow’s parliamentary committee for health care told the Pravda news service.

Stebenkova, who is in charge of health care for the 12 million inhabitants of Moscow, believes that “the safe sex propaganda in the USA, for example, has resulted in the dissolution of morals. Sexually transmitted diseases started progressing there. That is why the US government assigns huge money to promote the value of innocence and virginity. It is coming into fashion.”

"People started thinking after the ‘Safe Sex’ program that they would be able to protect themselves against any disease,” she added. Pravda reports that the latest data indicates that “papillomas has increased by 50 percent over several recent years. The number of herpes and fungal infection patients has been growing lately as well.”

Speaking to the Russian daily Izvestia, Stebenkova explained that “during the last three years Americans have quadrupled their funding for premarital sex-ed programs.” “Medical centers and schools over there have excluded from their programs any mention of condoms as a contraceptive method. By promoting safe sex, people are not taught that extra-martial, early sexual contact among young people leads to not only to physical but also psychological negative consequence. Why should we make the same mistakes?” she asked.

Stebenkova criticized government funded “safe-sex programs” as nothing more than opportunities for certain agencies to steal money from the state coffers. She pointed to the recent case of the Ukraine, where $2.6 million was set aside for the purchasing of condoms and $300,000 for training in how to use them. “Could someone tell me what kind of class on how to put on condoms could cost $300,000?” she wondered. Ukraine officials eventually canceled the program.

Stebenkova said her committee intends to spend $900,000 on educational programs, television ads and billboards with the slogans, “Healthy Family, Defense against AIDS” and “Safe-sex does not exist.”

And they were working. STDs and teen pregnancies were on the decline. And then “abstinence only” became the rule. And both have now started to rise again. What the federal government is peddling is not only ineffective, it’s actually making the problem worse.*
Barbarian, regarding the rejection of failed programs:
No. They are by states that found the programs were destructive to the very purpose they were supposed to advance. As of March of this year, seventeen states refused federal money for these programs which have produced the opposite effect of that for which they were designed. The cost in teens pregnant or infected with STDs is just too high.
cbsnews.com/stories/2008/…n3680520.shtml

We tried it for nearly a decade. The result is tens of thousands of lives ruined. That’s why states are opting out.

Nine years to be exacte…after nearly thirty years of safe sex programs, and only in a sprinkiling of national schools…I don’t really call that ‘trying’ it…

Problem is, the faith part isn’t legal in public schools. I agree that it probably would be more effective than the junk being touted by the government today. And all churches should be teaching it.

The problem is Secular religions have free reign in our schools to teach their values, even put down religious beliefs, and all under a false banner on not establishing religion. They have establish a religion: secular progressive atheism.

Barbarian observed:
As you learned, Darwin saw humans as being different in having a spiritual aspect, and having a right to life and liberty. You’ve told us that those are not important differences.

So yes, you and I differ in that respect.

Your own quote shows that he did.

**Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but **he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom

Not different from animals…see it barbaian?
If you don’t think people are different from animals you justify them acting like animals.

That Darwin’s assertion of spritual powers and right to life and liberty are important distinctions for humans.

You seem to think not. Why?

I am arguing for the pro-life side here, don’t twist things. You are the one supporting Planned Parenthood, contraception and immorality in our society.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian oberves:
And he admitted that man had “spiritual powers” that were beyond the ken of science. That is, to a Christian, the critical element.

Some people think of those spiritual powers as simply extensions of the human mind.

But Darwin did not, saying that was beyond science.

You keep miscontruing and re-interpreting the quote. You are in complete denial of what Darwin said, that human beings were animals, only differing in degree.

We are animals, and our physical properties do differ only in degree. Darwin’s assertion was that we had other aspects that were animal at all.

Barbarian observes:
Humans don’t have to be the pawns of their hormones, Mary. Can’t you accept this?

That is why I believe in Abstinence Education barbarian.

Unfortunately, many do not live up to their potential. And that, I think is why abstinence education, in public schools, has been a disaster.

it is you and those who wish to pass out condoms in our schools or send our kids down to the local PP clinics that deny the ability to teach kids to just say “no” to premarital sex.

You made that up. I said no such thing. I’m merely pointing out that the reason many states are refusing federal money for abstinence education, is that it’s doing exactly the opposite; it’s promoting pregnancy and STDs.

Don’t twist what you are supporting. I am the one who is supporting the idea people can control their hormonal drives.

No, you’re assuming that the abstinence programs in place can teach people to do that. And the results show that they cannot.

And as to any classical notion that women are the source of lewdness…I am sure that came from a male predominate theological sphere that was in denial and using women as scape goats for their own moments of weakness.

But your opposite notion is of course a rational idea, um? And how do you know for example, that Saint Augustine is just being a chauvinist, and you are merely making a logical inference?

Come on, everyone out there is savvy enough to know that men have stronger sex drives of the two sexes.

Depends on age.

Barbarian replies:
As you know, (since I challenged you to find an example, and you obviously couldn’t find one) I didn’t.

Barbarian observes:
Go back and check. You’ll find that’s a false accusation. The closest you’ll get is my mention of the fact that states are shutting down “abstinence only” education, because it causes more teen pregnancies and STDs.

THERE! There you go, supporting the idea that human beings are run by their hormones and need those teen clinics and the drug companies running after them to keep them in line and safe.

Just because current abstinence programs are failures, you conclude that? What a silly idea. And we know it’s wrong, because all the evidence shows that there was less sexual experimentation when comprehensive sex education was the norm.

**A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. **
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

The average age of losing a person’s virginity was in the mid twenties when I was in college and now look where the average age is. Why? What has changed?

Abstinence only programs. BTW, I’d like to see your evidence for the average age of first intercourse.

Barbarian on comprehensive sex education:
And they were working. STDs and teen pregnancies were on the decline. And then “abstinence only” became the rule. And both have now started to rise again. What the federal government is peddling is not only ineffective, it’s actually making the problem worse.

Barbarian, regarding the rejection of failed programs:
No. They are by states that found the programs were destructive to the very purpose they were supposed to advance. As of March of this year, seventeen states refused federal money for these programs which have produced the opposite effect of that for which they were designed. The cost in teens pregnant or infected with STDs is just too high.
cbsnews.com/stories/2008/…n3680520.shtml

We tried it for nearly a decade. The result is tens of thousands of lives ruined. That’s why states are opting out.

Nine years to be exacte…

We only have students for 12 years. A whole generation grew up with abstinence only. It’s been a disaster.

after nearly thirty years of safe sex programs, and only in a sprinkiling of national schools…I don’t really call that ‘trying’ it…

The problem is Secular religions have free reign in our schools to teach their values, even put down religious beliefs, and all under a false banner on not establishing religion. They have establish a religion: secular progressive atheism.

Show me a public school that teaches atheism. Name the school district, and your evidence for it, and I’ll file a complaint myself.

Barbarian observed:
As you learned, Darwin saw humans as being different in having a spiritual aspect, and having a right to life and liberty. You’ve told us that those are not important differences.

So yes, you and I differ in that respect.

Your own quote shows that he did.

Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom

Not different from animals…see it barbaian?

He says we are different in a critical way from animals. Of course we are animals; his point is that we are not merely animals.

If you don’t think people are different from animals you justify them acting like animals.

If that were true, the children of biologists would be more delinquent than most, and the opposite is true.

Barbarian observes:
That Darwin’s assertion of spritual powers and right to life and liberty are important distinctions for humans.

You seem to think not. Why?

I am arguing for the pro-life side here

I don’t think so. The concept of humans having a spirit and having intrinsic rights is the basis for being pro-life. And yet you brush these things aside as if they mean nothing at all.

You are the one supporting Planned Parenthood, contraception and immorality in our society.

I told you just the opposite. Be honest, Mary. What I said was that abstinence education, as it is done in public schools is a complete failure; it actually increased sexual behavior, STDs, and pregnancies. That’s not an endorsement for contraception; it’s an indictment of the current abstinence only education. My point is that it needs to be taught in churches with an emphasis on the spiritual side of sexuality.

Until it is taught that way, it will continue to make things worse. If you support abstinence only sex education in public schools, you are the one supporting immorality. And who do you think is referring more people to abortionists because of your programs?

Planned Parenthood.

It’s your game, not mine.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian oberves:
And he admitted that man had “spiritual powers” that were beyond the ken of science. That is, to a Christian, the critical element. But Darwin did not, saying that was beyond science.
(Barbarian asserts darwin did not explain spiritual aspects of man from materialistic process)

I believe you are re-inventing Darwin. he did exactly that. Said Man did not deserve any other classification because he was only an animal, differening only in degree not in “kind”…
If man has a spirit or soul, I wouldn’t know it from reading Darwin.

We are animals, and our physical properties do differ only in degree. Darwin’s assertion was that we had other aspects that were animal at all.

He aserted the opposite.

Barbarian observes:
Humans don’t have to be the pawns of their hormones, Mary. Can’t you accept this?

I accept it, but you and PP and Comprehensive Sex education do not assert that. These programs which you promote are based on the notion that teens will inevitably give in to their hormones. They falsely imply the teens can :choose’ to do this, as it is "their body’, and they even tell the kid their parents don’t have to no anything about it…they can go to a clinic and get what they need for ‘protection’…lying that condoms really protect people, or that birth control guarantees they won’t become pregnant…those are just lies. But drug companies and organizations that make millions providing those pills and condoms are very happy to hand them out and rake in the money. Greed…that is what drives this stuff, not any real concern for young people.

Unfortunately, many do not live up to their potential. And that, I think is why abstinence education, in public schools, has been a disaster.You made that up. I said no such thing. I’m merely pointing out that the reason many states are refusing federal money for abstinence education, is that it’s doing exactly the opposite; it’s promoting pregnancy and STDs.No, you’re assuming that the abstinence programs in place can teach people to do that. And the results show that they cannot.

Check out some sites that are not associated with PP for once.
the one site you gave a link to was very anti-Christian.

Try these sites:
Pysicians for Life:physiciansforlife.org/
Abstinence Clearing House: abstinence.net/search.php?keywords=Government+data+for+loss+of+virginity+pre+1970&x=10&y=6
STOPP:www.all.org/stopp/
Priests For Life: www.priestsforlife.org/

But your opposite notion is of course a rational idea, um? And how do you know for example, that Saint Augustine is just being a chauvinist, and you are merely making a logical inference?

St. Augustine repented of his sins. I don’t think he would have blamed his promiscuity on the woman he had a relationship with.

Depends on age.

I looked on line, all the studies agree men have a very simple sexual response where women are much more complicated. Viagra did an 8 year study and gave up on producing a pill for women because they were too complicated and were affected by so many other factors, emotional, how tired they were, etc…
All the studies agree men are stronger in their sexual agression
and women, because they are the ones who mainly care for the child are by nature more carefull in choosing who they mate with.
Women want a home to raise their child in…
Barbarian replies:
As you know, (since I challenged you to find an example, and you obviously couldn’t find one) I didn’t.

Don’t know what you want me to find.

Just because current abstinence programs are failures, you conclude that? What a silly idea. And we know it’s wrong, because all the evidence shows that there was less sexual experimentation when comprehensive sex education was the norm.

When wasn’t comprehensive sex education the norm? It has been all along. Even during the past 9 years, comprehensive sex ed is given more funding and is in more of the nation’s schools. I know the man who is in charge of overlooking abstinence programs in our state and he is always complaining how hard it is to get abstinence into schools…never had a majority of schools using abstinence. programs.

**A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. **
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

Went to that link didn;t find the article…only anti-Christian web site.

Abstinence only programs. BTW, I’d like to see your evidence for the average age of first intercourse.

I have found it really hard to find the information, and I only recall the average age from reading an article on it previously. But logically it makes sense. Birth control is what allowed the idea that people could become sexually active and it would be safe…
studies have shown that since birht control was made available extra-marital activities have increase at every age. Even elederly people in some of these retirment places are seeing STDs occuring because they are doing it too.

Go the links I previously posted above.

Show me a public school that teaches atheism. Name the school district, and your evidence for it, and I’ll file a complaint myself.

Oh please, they aren’t going to blurt it out that they are teaching it… but essentially they do by saying they can’t talk about anything ‘religious’…and then essentially saying all religions are the same…so young people grow up seeing everything as a ‘story’ and they can pick what ‘story’ they want to believe in, but effectually God has been killed.

(about abstinence educaTION0
Until it is taught that way, it will continue to make things worse. If you support abstinence only sex education in public schools, you are the one supporting immorality. And who do you think is referring more people to abortionists because of your programs?
Planned Parenthood.
It’s your game, not mine.

PP is the biggest opponent to abstinece education. But they are Darwinists aren’t they? believe people are just animals…

I don’t see how you can say teaching abstinence before marriage is teaching immorality. That is just teaching self control. Everuyone should be for that. You can even do it without mentining religious beliefs.

In Christ, mary John Z

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And he admitted that man had “spiritual powers” that were beyond the ken of science. That is, to a Christian, the critical element. But Darwin did not, saying that was beyond science.

I believe you are re-inventing Darwin.

No, you’re just uncomfortable that he didn’t say man was nothing but an animal, because you want to demonize him. But that doensn’t justify denying what he said, Mary.

he did exactly that. Said Man did not deserve any other classification because he was only an animal, differening only in degree not in “kind”…

C’mon Mary, your own quote from Darwin admitted a spiritual nature in man that is beyond science. “Only” was your adjustment to make Darwin out to be what you wish he was.

Barbarian observes:
Humans don’t have to be the pawns of their hormones, Mary. Can’t you accept this?

I accept it,

You argued just the opposite, Mary. Decide what you believe, and stick with it. The silly notion that men are somehow less able to restrain themselves than women is pure sexism.

And the idea that if kids know they are animals they will act without restraint is laughable. Children of biologists are somewhat better behaved than most.

And your assertion that the states that ended abstinence only programs did not have children’s best interests in mind is despicable. They ended them because the programs caused increases in STDs and teen pregnancies.

Barbarian observes:
You made that up. I said no such thing. I’m merely pointing out that the reason many states are refusing federal money for abstinence education, is that it’s doing exactly the opposite; it’s promoting pregnancy and STDs.

No,]/quote]

Yes. The numbers are in; after nearly a decade of abstinence only, the downward trend in teen pregnancies and STDs has been reversed. These programs promote those things.

Barbarian on the sexist notion that men can’t control themselves:
But your opposite notion is of course a rational idea, um? And how do you know for example, that Saint Augustine is just being a chauvinist, and you are merely making a logical inference?

St. Augustine repented of his sins.

But after he did, he continued to blame women.

Barbarian on the idea that men have a stronger sex drive than women:
Depends on age.

(Barbarian concludes that current abstinence programs are failures)

Just because current abstinence programs are failures, you conclude that?

Um, yes…

Barbarian observes:
And we know it’s wrong, because all the evidence shows that there was less sexual experimentation when comprehensive sex education was the norm.

When wasn’t comprehensive sex education the norm?

The past decade. Any time before the 70s.

A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn…041301003.html

Went to that link didn;t find the article…only anti-Christian web site.

It’s still there. Just in case your browser is having problems, try this:
tinyurl.com/2d36bh

Barbarian observes:
BTW, I’d like to see your evidence for the average age of first intercourse.

I have found it really hard to find the information, and I only recall the average age from reading an article on it previously.

Probably not a good idea to be telling us about it, if you don’t actually know, then.

Barbarian suggests:
Show me a public school that teaches atheism. Name the school district, and your evidence for it, and I’ll file a complaint myself.

Oh please, they aren’t going to blurt it out that they are teaching it… but essentially they do by saying they can’t talk about anything ‘religious’

So you just made it up. Of course. No public school in the US teaches atheism.

…and then essentially saying all religions are the same…

So, show me which public school system teaches that all religions are the same. I’ll file a complaint against them, myself.

That’s not a rhetorical question. I want to know.

Regarding abstinence only:
Until it is taught that way, it will continue to make things worse. If you support abstinence only sex education in public schools, you are the one supporting immorality. And who do you think is referring more people to abortionists because of your programs?
Planned Parenthood.
It’s your game, not mine.

PP is the biggest opponent to abstinece education.

That would be pretty dumb, if they wanted more abortions. After all, abstinence only produced more pregnancies among teens.

But they are Darwinists aren’t they?

Don’t think so.

believe people are just animals…

If they did, then they wouldn’t be Darwinists. As you admitted, Darwin asserted that humans were different than other animals.

I don’t see how you can say teaching abstinence before marriage is teaching immorality.

The current abstinence only programs have promoted immorality. They resulted in more STDs, more teen pregnancies and more abortions. You don’t think that’s promoting immorality?

You can even do it without mentioning religious beliefs.

They have. The results have been ruined lives for tens of thousands of girls.

You think that’s a good thing?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Yoiur posts about abstinece programs show an ignorance of what they teach. You are usinf sound bites from their main opponents rather than arguing from actually experiencing and knowing what they teach. After you has listened to an abstinence presentation, especially a good Catholic one ( which is worded to be ecumenical), then perhaps you can criticize it.

I know from experience because I went to several presentations.
I alos have looked at other websites that present the other view point whereas you are only going to the websites that oppose these programs based on data that is squewed against them.
"An August 2004 study in the Journal of Adolescent Health found similar results: 53 percent of the decline in teen pregnancy rates can be attributed to decreased sexual experience among teens aged 15-17 years old, while only 47 percent of the decline is attributed to increased use of contraception among teens.[x]

Not surprisingly, parents overwhelmingly support the abstinence message. A December 2003 Zogby poll found that the overwhelming majority of parents—91 percent—want schools to teach that adolescents should be expected to abstain from sexual activity during high school years.[xi] Only 7 percent of parents believe that it is okay for teens in high school to engage in sexual intercourse as long as they use condoms, which is the predominant theme of “comprehensive” sex education.

Teens themselves welcome the abstinence message and appear to be heeding it. A December 2004 poll by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found that a clear majority of adolescents—69 percent—agree that it is not okay for high school teens to engage in sexual intercourse.[xii] Data from the CDC confirms this, as the YRBS survey shows that the number of teens who have ever had sexual intercourse has fallen seven percent in the last 12 years, from 54 percent in 1991 to 46 percent in 2003.[xiii]

Regrettably, groups like the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and Advocates for Youth would like to see abstinence programs eliminated and replaced with “comprehensive” sex education. These “comprehensive” programs are often misleadingly labeled “abstinence-plus” and falsely claim to be the middle ground between abstinence and safe sex education. This is not true. These programs are virtually all “plus” and almost no abstinence.

Analysis of “comprehensive” sex-ed programs reveals that these curricula contain little if any meaningful abstinence message. On average, these curricula devote about 4 percent of their content to abstinence. Out of 942 total pages of curriculum text reviewed from 9 different “comprehensive” sex ed curricula, not a single sentence was found urging teens to abstain from sexual activity through high school. The overwhelming focus of these curricula (28 percent of the curriculum content) is devoted to promoting contraception among teens.[xiv]"
heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/wm738.cfm

So you are wrong in this area…comprehensive sex education
uses our classrooms to promote a message that sex can be
handled by young teens long before they are truly mentally, emotionally ready for it. Most oral contraceptives were never studied on teens whose reproductive organse were just developing, and long term use of contraceptives has shown to bring about sterility or difficulty in having children later on.
So why promote things which are unhealthy and give a false impression they are safe? That is immoral.

---

As to Darwin and whether he believd the human person had ‘soul’, that came from God, there is no clear recognition of this in his writings. of course you can use the excuse that Darwin was trying to just be scientific, but the fact that he said human beings were just animals and did not deserve a different class from that, begs to differ with that conclusion.

G. K Chesteron had trouble with Darwin as well. Go to this page to see what he said about Darwin:

books.google.com/books?id=4N1F6SpusrgC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=Did+Darwin+believe+in+a+human+soul%3F&source=web&ots=M_7C126AAX&sig=xYWay59v2I-Q5zUOfCqfqlLH9Os&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

In Christ, maryJohnZ