Thursday, September 1, 2011

Matters of Health: Michael Lynch’s Reminder of Evolution’s Eugenics—Junk Science Matters

Michael Lynch’s recent finding that “novel means” of genetic intervention are required for the future genetic well-being of our species is a bit disturbing. After all, the last time evolutionists imposed “novel means” of genetic intervention we had everything from forced sterilization to institutionalization (read imprisonment). Nonetheless, Lynch informs us that the fundamental requirement for the maintenance of a species’ genetic integrity and long-term viability is that deleterious mutations must be balanced by the removal of such mutations by natural selection. And since Darwin’s dispensation of benevolence—otherwise known as death—is a less effective tool in our modern civilized society, and since our mutation load is unpredictable thus rendering genetic counseling ineffective, the result is that some “novel means” of genetic intervention are needed.

Lynch approvingly references evolutionist and eugenicist Hermann Muller from sixty years ago who “was well aware of the enormous social barriers to solving the mutation-accumulation problem, but he held out hope that ‘a rationally directed guidance of reproduction’ would eventually stabilize the situation.”

A rationally directed guidance of reproduction? This pathetically must have been the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove’s classic parody of the academic’s fantasy:



Muffley: Well, I, I would hate to have to decide...who stays up and...who goes down.

Dr. Strangelove: Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. Ha, ha. But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.

Muffley: Wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief-stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?

Dr. Strangelove: When they go down into the mine, everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! [involuntarily gives the Nazi salute and forces it down with his other hand]Ahhh!

Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Like Kubrick’s classic character Dr. Strangelove, Muller, who once wrote a letter to Joseph Stalin imploring the communist dictator to implement the “conscious control of human biological evolution,” promoted a kindler and gentler eugenics.

Muller wanted Stalin to “guide human biological evolution along socially desirable lines” for human nature was not immutable and given the lofty advances of modern genetics such a program could bestow the gift of genius “upon practically every individual in the population” within just a few generations.

Of course “guidance” would have to be furnished to ensure the proper grouping of the most valuable genes “into as highly superior groupings as possible.”

And what type of man should be consciously selected? Well Charles Darwin, of course, would represent the perfect choice. Of course with Darwin long dead, leading evolutionists of the day would have to do. And if Stalin doubted any of this, Muller assured him that “Considering the enormous results achieved by natural biological evolution in the past, the potential value of a biological method of progression cannot be doubted.”

It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the case of evolutionists such as Muller we would have to add a generous layer of junk science. It was this dangerous combination of presumption and ignorance that led to the twentieth century’s eugenics nightmare.

Consider, for example, Sir Francis Galton who was impressed with the work of his half-cousin, a man by the name of Charles Darwin. Galton reasoned that a race of highly-gifted men could be produced by arranged, “judicious” marriages. The notion of eugenics caught on and soon the sick, infirm and botched were targeted as a public enemy.

Blessed are the poor in spirit and the meek, explained Jesus, but that was then. As Nietzsche now explained:

Sick people are the greatest danger for healthy people. …

The invalids are the great danger to humanity: not the evil men
, not the “predatory animals.” Those people who are, from the outset, failures, oppressed, broken— they are the ones, the weakest, who most undermine life among human beings, who in the most perilous way poison and question our trust in life, in humanity, in ourselves. Where can we escape it, that downcast glance with which people carry a deep sorrow, that reversed gaze of the man originally born to fail which betrays how such a man speaks to himself—that gaze which is a sigh. “I wish I could be someone else!”— that’s what this glance sighs. “But there is no hope here. I am who I am. How could I detach myself from myself? And yet—I’ve had enough of myself!”. . . On such a ground of contempt for oneself, a truly swampy ground, grows every weed, every poisonous growth, and all of them so small, so hidden, so dishonest, so sweet. Here the worms of angry and resentful feelings swarm; here the air stinks of secrets and duplicity; here are constantly spun the nets of the most malicious conspiracies—the plotting of suffering people against the successful and victorious; here the appearance of the victor is despised. And what dishonesty not to acknowledge this hatred as hatred! …

Take a look into the background of every family, every corporation, every community: everywhere you see the struggle of the sick against the healthy—a quiet struggle, for the most part …

From scientists such as Charles Davenport (Director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) to elites such as Theodore Roosevelt and Oliver Wendell Holmes, eugenics was well accepted, and all with the best of intentions no doubt. Even Clarence Darrow at one point urged that we “chloroform unfit children.”

Evolutionist Henry Goddard identified a particular family as having inferior genetics on one side, making for a classic case study of good genes versus bad genes. According to this phony evolutionary science, those on the “bad” side were diagnosed as “feeble-minded,” a vague category into which anyone on the wrong side of an evolutionist could be cast. Their penalties included forced sterilization and a life sentence in an institution.

Laws across America and even Supreme Court rulings turned against those who evolutionists pronounced to have the wrong genes. And evolutionist’s such as Goddard enjoyed success and reputation while their victims were mutilated and imprisoned.

Evolution is not just a silly idea advocated by academics. It is junk science at its worst. Religion drives science, and it matters.

31 comments:

  1. What's next? That Hitler was inspired by Darwin?

    (Hat tip to Ben Stein.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in a little mind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter: the last time evolutionists imposed “novel means” of genetic intervention we had everything from forced sterilization to institutionalization (read imprisonment).

    Actually, genetic counseling is an important part of family and health planning. The difference is that it is not coerced. For instance, if a couple each have the recessive gene for sickle cell anemia, they may want to avoid having children. If someone has a predisposition to lung cancer, they may want to make an extra effort to stop smoking.

    Cornelius Hunter: Evolution is not just a silly idea advocated by academics. It is junk science at its worst.

    You're confusing eugenics with evolutionary biology. The latter is science, the former is the application of the science. Eugenics is normally associated with coercive government policies, but genetic inheritance is very real.

    Cornelius Hunter: Michael Lynch’s recent finding that “novel means” of genetic intervention are required for the future genetic well-being of our species is a bit disturbing.

    Heh. Yes, people are losing their resistance to plague and small pox. And with the advent of cool glasses, people with weak eyes can now get dates.

    Which brings up sexual selection, which continues to be a powerful mechanism of evolution. Not everyone wants children, and with modern birth control, and the limiting of the human population, people with stronger parenting instincts will be more likely to produce children, and more likely to produce quality children. Add to that genetic counseling and modern methods of artificial selection working at the cellular level (sperm, egg, zygote, blastocyst).

    ReplyDelete
  4. LOL! First Ann Coulter, now Dr. Strangelove.

    (psst...Cornelius...don't make it so obvious you're working secretly for the pro-evolution side, making IDCers look silly)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pedant said, "What's next? That Hitler was inspired by Darwin?"

    Certainly, though I'm aware of the standard objections. However, Hitler's ethics (used in the broad sense) were an extreme application of Darwinism.

    I certainly am aware of a long history of groups that hijack a philosophy, science or religion for an agenda of murder and destruction.

    Before judging a particular philosophy, science or religion, one needs to look at where the inspiration for the violent deeds actually comes from.

    Jesus and his apostles strongly taught "turn the other cheek" and LOVING your enemies... if someone hates his brother, he does not know God... very, very strong teaching along these lines. So if someone comes along and begins to torture, kill, and do violence in Jesus' name, it is a clear perversion of one of the central teachings of Christianity. It would be like a federal judge ignoring the US constitution and imposing Sharia law on the cases he hears.

    While Hitler certainly had the usual power lust of a dictator, his actions showed more than that. The Nazi's implemented a scientific and methodical approach to "purifying" their so called master race based on the principles of Darwinism. They felt a moral right to help nature out by selecting the master race and destroying inferior races. After all, Darwin had taught that the stronger would eventually succeed and the weaker wouldn't.

    I'm not saying Darwin commanded the holcaust, but without Darwinism, Hitler would not have gotten his radical ideas about selecting the master race and implementing an agenda to destroy "weaker" races. I'm inclined to think that Charles Darwin would have nodded at the eugenics laws in the US, but been aghast at the things Hitler did.

    Hitler felt his agenda was his rightful duty because of the principles of Darwinism. Without Darwin having made natural selection popular and given a scientific basis for racism, it is probably impossible that Hitler could have done what he did.

    It is a healthy thing for society if folks remind evolutionists (however much they object) to what happens when someone gets the hairbrained idea to implement some form of eugenics to make the human race smarter or whatever based on Darwinism. Darwin's ideas had direct consequences. Those that hold to the single moral truth that the purpose of morality is to advance the evolutionary process are dangerous to a free people. The combination of Darwinism and the "elitism" that is associated with it makes it a potentially destructive philosophy.

    Christians that hate, need to be rebuked and reminded of the Lord's teaching. Evolutionists that attempt to implement eugenics need to be reminded of basic human rights that are the foundation of a free society and told to go fly a kite.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Zachriel said, "Actually, genetic counseling is an important part of family and health planning. "

    Is that code word for abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Neal Tedford: The Nazi's implemented a scientific and methodical approach to "purifying" their so called master race based on the principles of Darwinism.

    That would be closer to Mendel than Darwin. Breeding the best strain which has been diluted by mixing is not adaptive evolution.

    Zachriel: Actually, genetic counseling is an important part of family and health planning.

    Neal Tedford: Is that code word for abortion?

    We provided an example that did not entail abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Zachriel said, "We provided an example that did not entail abortion. "

    Do you think an unborn child with sickle cell anemia should be aborted? Do you feel that would be the moral thing to do?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Teford:

    ...The Nazi's implemented a scientific and methodical approach to "purifying" their so called master race based on the principles of Darwinism. They felt a moral right to help nature out by selecting the master race and destroying inferior races. After all, Darwin had taught that the stronger would eventually succeed and the weaker wouldn't.

    I'm not saying Darwin commanded the holcaust, but without Darwinism, Hitler would not have gotten his radical ideas about selecting the master race and implementing an agenda to destroy "weaker" races...


    Ben Stein was right. Darwin caused anti-semitism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tedford, you know very well that the Holocaust was an almost entirely Christian enterprise, industrial-scale murder by Christians of the alleged Christ-killers, the hated Jews.

    If you had been a German during WWII, I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that you had personally shoved some Jews in the gas chambers, seeing as you are being such a good internet soldier for your death cult. After separating them from their possessions, of course, just as sure as you are currently fleecing your flock of useful idiots.

    No offense of course.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Troy,

    "Tedford, you know very well that the holocaust was an almost entirely Christian enterprise, industrial-scale murder by Christians of the alleged Christ-killers, the hated Jews."


    I'm just curious. Did you personally know any of those involved in the 'industrial-scale murder' of the Jews? I'm willing to bet you didn't and therefore I wonder how you could possibly make the statement that the holocaust 'was an almost entirely Christian enterprise.' Could you please explain how you came to this conclusion? And don't come back with the nonsense that Hitler was a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gerry said...

    Troy; "Tedford, you know very well that the holocaust was an almost entirely Christian enterprise, industrial-scale murder by Christians of the alleged Christ-killers, the hated Jews."

    I'm just curious. Did you personally know any of those involved in the 'industrial-scale murder' of the Jews? I'm willing to bet you didn't and therefore I wonder how you could possibly make the statement that the holocaust 'was an almost entirely Christian enterprise.' Could you please explain how you came to this conclusion? And don't come back with the nonsense that Hitler was a Christian


    Gerry channeling Ken Ham:

    "Were you there??? Did you see it???"

    Never mind that the German Third Reich connection to Christianity is one of the most well documented historical facts. Even to the point of the Nazis having "God Is With Us (Gott Mit Uns) on their belt buckles.

    Gott Mit Uns

    But I guess they weren't "True Christians", right Gerry?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gerry,

    Is that the smell of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy?

    95% of Germans at the time self-identified as Christians. But the ones involved with the holocaust weren't True Christians, right?

    Was Martin Luther a true Christian?

    ReplyDelete
  14. troy said, "Tedford, you know very well that the holocaust was an almost entirely Christian enterprise, industrial-scale murder by Christians of the alleged Christ-killers, the hated Jews"

    --

    Hogwash. My mother and her family nearly ended up in one of Hitlers camps and narrowly escaped due to my grandmothers wisdom. You know nothing of what you speak.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey Gerry, I bet you didn't know that the Nazis included Darwin's ideas in Die Bücherei, the Nazi guideline for which books to remove and ban from libraries.

    Principles for the Cleansing of Public Libraries (1935)

    "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel)"

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, they nearly ended up there did they? I'm glad they escaped. Plenty of my and my wife's relatives actually did end up and were murdered in the camps. Because they had the wrong religion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tedford the idiot said...

    troy said, "Tedford, you know very well that the holocaust was an almost entirely Christian enterprise, industrial-scale murder by Christians of the alleged Christ-killers, the hated Jews"
    --
    Hogwash. My mother and her family nearly ended up in one of Hitlers camps and narrowly escaped due to my grandmothers wisdom. You know nothing of what you speak.


    Do you have a point idiot? Do you think the Nazis persecuted only Jews? They took anyone and everyone who they perceived as a threat to their power, other Christians included.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Troy,


    "95% of Germans self-identified as Christians..."

    There are several problems with your argument. First, not all Germans were supportive of Hitler or his philosophy. Second, claiming to be a Christian or a member of any other faith for that matter, does not in fact make you an adherent of that faith. You can claim to be of any faith but if your actions are totally opposed to what that faith teaches do you truly practice that faith? I think not.

    Also, even if there were Christians who got involved in these atrocities Christianity itself is not responsible for their actions any more than Islam itself is responsible for terrorist attacks. I'm assuming you're an atheist, are you responsible for the atrocities carried out by atheists?

    And what about the Christians who suffered at the hands of the Third Reich, are they responsible for their own persecution?

    Before you make such rash statements perhaps you should study a little history. It would also do you well to study sociology and psychology as these disciplines will also help in gaining a better understanding of what was going on in Germany during those years.

    There are those who like to argue that the Third Reich was strongly connected to Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth and those who make this claim display an incredible ignorance of history. Most leaders in the Third Reich were deeply involved in the occult. Though he showed early interest in the occult Hitler actually adhered to no faith.

    A few years ago I had someone try to tell me the Nazis were all Christians because they had Gott Mit Uns on their belt buckles. I see this tripe is being repeated here by Thorton. This is such palpable nonsense. It is beyond the realm of stupidity. Having a slogan on your belt buckle means nothing if you don't actually adhere to its meaning. Do you suppose German soldiers got to pick out which belt buckles they were issued? Besides, out of all the belt buckles issued by the German army I believe it was only two which carried this slogan. It was not all buckles as some would have you believe. I personally possess a WWII German buckle brought home by my father which does not carry this slogan. So, if anyone tries to claim all buckles carried the slogan Gott Mit Uns, they are simply liars or woefully ignorant of the facts. A simple Google search will dispense with that stupidity.

    And lastly, what has Martin Luther got to do with Nazi Germany?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gerry:

    There are several problems with your argument. First, not all Germans were supportive of Hitler or his philosophy. Second, claiming to be a Christian or a member of any other faith for that matter, does not in fact make you an adherent of that faith. You can claim to be of any faith but if your actions are totally opposed to what that faith teaches do you truly practice that faith? I think not.

    Who decides what a faith teaches? Do you? I'm just pointing out that self-proclaimed Christians committed industrial-scale murder of members of a different religion, and that they have been encouraged to do so by leaders of their own religion.

    Also, even if there were Christians who got involved in these atrocities Christianity itself is not responsible for their actions any more than Islam itself is responsible for terrorist attacks. I'm assuming you're an atheist, are you responsible for the atrocities carried out by atheists?

    Atheism doesn't have leaders or lists of commandments that atheists have to adhere to. Most religions do. I consider Christianity and Islam dangerous cults that encourage harmful actions, such as killing Jews.

    And lastly, what has Martin Luther got to do with Nazi Germany?

    Are you kidding? Martin Luther encouraged the killing of Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "A few years ago I had someone try to tell me the Nazis were all Christians because they had Gott Mit Uns on their belt buckles. I see this tripe is being repeated here by Thorton. This is such palpable nonsense. It is beyond the realm of stupidity."

    It's about as silly as blaming the Nazis on evolutionary theory, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And Darrow? A eugenicist? Laughable! Darrow was an early, explicit, vocal, published critic of eugenics. Google it and retract, if you have any intellectual integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gerry, when you finally get you panties unbunched maybe you'll realize we were just giving Tedford a taste of his own medicine. The simple fact is, the Third Reich was run by a bunch of power-hungry madmen who used whatever tools they could (science, organized religion, the occult, ethnic bigotry, etc.) to get and maintain power.

    Blaming 'Darwinism' for the Nazis' acts is every bit as wrong as blaming Christianity just because many German soldiers were Christians. It's as stupid as condemning the Wright brothers for inventing the airplane which the Nazis later used to bomb cities. It's as stupid as condemning all chemistry for the poison used in the gas chambers.

    You'll be much better off if you can ever get past your knee-jerk defensive reactions and learn to *listen*.

    ReplyDelete
  23. NickM:

    And Darrow? A eugenicist? Laughable! Darrow was an early, explicit, vocal, published critic of eugenics. Google it and retract, if you have any intellectual integrity.

    No, it is unfortunately not laughable. Darrow is a more complex case and is a good example because he shows how even a critic of eugenics could nonetheless agree with aspects. I modified the paragraph to clarify that point.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cornelius Hunter: Even Clarence Darrow at one point urged that we “chloroform unfit children.”

    Derrow's statement, "“Chloroform unfit children. Show them the same mercy that is shown beasts that are no longer fit to live," concerned mercy killing, not eugenics.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Zachriel said...

    Cornelius Hunter: Even Clarence Darrow at one point urged that we “chloroform unfit children.”

    Darrow's statement, "“Chloroform unfit children. Show them the same mercy that is shown beasts that are no longer fit to live," concerned mercy killing, not eugenics.


    Extra! Extra! Creationist engages is misleading quote-mining!

    In other equally astounding news: sun rises in the east, water is wet.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One unreferenced quote mine at odds with Darrow's whole career defending civil liberties is not good enough, Cornelius! Darrow's actual views on eugenics were written up extensively here:

    Clarence Darrow (1925), "The Edwardses and the Jukeses." American Mercury, 6, 147-157.

    Darrow, Clarence (1926). "The Eugenics Cult." The American Mercury, 8(30), 129-137.

    The conclusion of the latter article:

    ============
    The history of the race shows endless examples of the pain and suffering that men have inflicted upon each other by their cocksureness and their meddling.

    We know something about biology. We know a little about eugenics. We have no knowledge of what kind of man would be better than the one that Nature is evolving to fit the environment which he cannot escape. We have neither facts nor theories to give us any evidence based on biology or any other branch of science as to how we could breed intelligence, happiness or anything else that would improve the race. We have no idea of the meaning of the world "improvement." We can imagine no human organization that we could trust with the job, even if eugenicists knew what should be done, and the proper way to do it. Yet in the face of all this we have already started on the course, and the uplifters are urging us to go ahead, with no conception of where we are going, or what route we shall take!

    In an age of meddling, presumption, and gross denial of all the individual feelings and emotions, the world is urged, not only to forcibly control all conduct, but to remake man himself! Amongst the schemes for remolding society this is the most senseless and impudent that has ever been put forward by irresponsible fanatics to plague a long-suffering race.

    p. 137 of: Darrow, Clarence (1926). "The Eugenics Cult." The American Mercury, 8(30), 129-137.
    ============

    So, basically, you are horrendously wrong about Darrow, because you decided to write about him without ever bothering to do any serious research on the matter. Are you brave enough, and intellectually responsible enough, to suck it up and admit you were wrong? Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Christianity, by definition from Christ and his disciples, is based upon love and forgiveness. Whatever one calls themselves, as Gerry says, it's actions that matter. Just because someone stands in a garage doesn't make them an automobile. It's what you are and do that defines what you truly are. We are not free to define what a Christian is, Christ did that and he was very plain about it. As He said, not everyone that says, "Lord, Lord" will enter into the heaven. By their fruits you shall know them, He said. It has nothing to do with the no-true-Scottsman fallacy.

    While Darwinism does not teach mass extermination of the weak, ideas do influence behavior.

    Darwinism is about as responsible for the ethical reasoning behind the holocaust as it is for convincing people to become atheists. It brought as much intellectual support to the Nazis to apply their extreme methods of eugenics as it brings intellectual support to atheists today.

    Hitler justified his actions because he thought he was bringing about a greater good of helping evolution out. It was to bring about an ultimately greater good in his mind. Nazism grew out of the garden of the evolutionary mindset. It was cold and calculating and methodical in its execution of this agenda.

    To my knowledge, Mendel was a practical scientist interested in the basic nuts and bolts of what we call genetics and experimented with pea plants...

    Darwin had this grand sweeping philosophy of the origin of all life and the fate of the strong succeeding over the weak. It was within this grand vision that the Nazis and eugenics advocates found inspiration to try to bring about their utopian dreams. Eugenics has a direct link to Darwinism in that it is based on removing support and freedom to the "feeble-minded" so that evolutionary processes can supposedly bring about a smarter and stronger population. Interestingly the horrors of Hitler put an end to the US eugenics movement that had been spawned a generation earlier by one of Darwins relatives. So there is a link that can't be denied. Rather than deny that link, evolutionists today should just acknowledge it and then repudiate the forced application of their theory upon individuals and society.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Tedford the idiot said...

    Darwinism is about as responsible for the ethical reasoning behind the holocaust as it is for convincing people to become atheists.


    Which is to say, effectively zero.

    Whatta ya know, Tedford the idiot actually got something right! Occasionally even a blind hog finds an acorn I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Tedford the idiot said...

    Eugenics has a direct link to Darwinism in that it is based on removing support and freedom to the "feeble-minded" so that evolutionary processes can supposedly bring about a smarter and stronger population. Interestingly the horrors of Hitler put an end to the US eugenics movement that had been spawned a generation earlier by one of Darwins relatives. So there is a link that can't be denied. Rather than deny that link, evolutionists today should just acknowledge it and then repudiate the forced application of their theory upon individuals and society.


    Xyklon B gas has a direct link to chemistry in that it is based on removing the life of people in the gas chamber so Christians can go about becoming the master race. Interestingly the horrors of Germany's Christian Nazis put an end to the US use of gas chambers in prisons made possible earlier by one chemist. So there is a link that can't be denied. Rather than deny that link, chemists today should just acknowledge it and then repudiate the forced application of their theory of chemistry upon individuals and society.

    I have to admit Tedford, I try and try but just can't fathom how you manage to maintain this level of stupidity without keeling over.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tedford:

    Christianity, by definition from Christ and his disciples, is based upon love and forgiveness. Whatever one calls themselves, as Gerry says, it's actions that matter. Just because someone stands in a garage doesn't make them an automobile. It's what you are and do that defines what you truly are. We are not free to define what a Christian is, Christ did that and he was very plain about it. As He said, not everyone that says, "Lord, Lord" will enter into the heaven. By their fruits you shall know them, He said. It has nothing to do with the no-true-Scottsman fallacy.

    But other Christians claim predestination. Deeds don't matter.

    Tedford, you are a sick man. You want to destroy science in the name of a fairy tale. Wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Christianity, by definition from Christ and his disciples, is based upon love and forgiveness."

    Really?:

    "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies will be the members of your own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34)


    "Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)


    Yeah, as long as everyone loves and forgives jesus and god more than they love and forgive their own family members, and does their murdering for them, everything will be just fine.

    And there's nothing as effective as threats to make people love you. I just love to be threatened into loving some monstrous god or messiah. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.

    ReplyDelete