Why do YOU love Jesus?

[joobz]

Absolutely. There is no doubt that religion provides a dangerous button that maniacs can push.

Exactly.
I wish to simply explain my position with as little rhetoric as possible. Plumjam and 154 can address it as they see fit.

A "love" for Jesus based upon the teachings and morality he brought requires a very selective view of Jesus. I am willing to grant the god elements, but it is completely dishonest to discount the bad.
Let us remember:
1. Jesus taught the concept of thought crimes.
2. Jesus condoned the beating of slaves.
3. Jesus gave tacit endorsement of slavery.

Instead of defending Jesus, Plumjam attacked Darwin as if he was some sort of foil to Jesus. When challenged, Plumjam felt the need to resort to namecalling. The rather silly ploy only serves to underline the lack of support Plumjam actually has to defend Jesus. Why can't one support without attack? What does Darwin have to do with one's love for jesus?

And Why Darwin? Why not Sagan, James Randi, Lenard Nemoi, Obama, Thomas Jefferson?
The problem with the comparison is that no one believes these men to be divine. I feel no compulsion to accept their statements without credulity. However, the same can not be said for Jesus. Once one person buys into the idea of Jesus as infallible, his teachings are less likely to be reviewed critically and it is THIS that I oppose.

The fact is, We should use any and every good idea to make our world better, regardless of the source. Let's us review what they all said and reject the statements which are clearly unethical and false. Jesus did say many things worthy of respect, but a lot of things certainly don't. What is so bad about saying this?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm not posting in this thread, much as I would like to. I'll let others wack PJ and instead toddle off to see what Bruce Voight has for us this week.

 

[Manopolus]

I smoked my first joint with a guy named Jesus. He was a pretty cool guy, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I "loved" him. I really didn't know him THAT well.

 

[dafydd]

i can only speak for myself, but he greatly increased my understanding of life on Earth. and I thank him for that.

Ditto.

 

[dafydd]

Again, prejudice is not Darwinian theory, and it is not and never has been science or based on the results of actual empirical method in any way. If you want to actually learn something about "Social Darwinism" (which was certainly around before Darwin, and was completely misnamed-- it should have been called "Social Spenserism", if anything) and its highly unfortunate descendants, read Stephen Jay Gould's Pervasive Influence, Spandrels of San Marco co-written with Niles Eldridge (see? I even provided a link to the full paper), More Things in Heaven and Earth, and, of course, The Mismeasure of Man. Alas, Poor Darwin is also a wonderful collection of scholarly essays on this subject.

I hope that everyone is paying attention to what Plumjam is doing here, because I'm seeing this particular tactic more and more often now from people who are trying to push intelligent design.

Luckily most of us are too intelligent to believe in Intelligent Design.

 

[HansMustermann]

"We love him, because he first loved us."

Umm, so if some gay guy develops a crush on you, you automatically have to love him back? Even if you were into that kind of thing, I would think there would be other factors in there than a knee-jerk "he loves me, so I have to love him."

 

[Maia]

Luckily most of us are too intelligent to believe in Intelligent Design.

Well, of course most people HERE don't believe in it, and an argument like that isn't going to convince them to believe in it. That's not what I meant. It really seems to be popping up more and more everywhere, kind of like one of those Whack-A-Mole things. (I haven't seen one of those in forever, come to think of it...)

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

=plumjam;6182399]Nice try, but the number of crimes committed while being justified in Darwinist thinking outweighed, in a few decades, the number of crimes commited seeking justification in Jesus, over 2 millenia, and by some orders of magnitude.

You do realize that Darwin's works were both banned and burned under the Nazi regime, don't you, and that Hitler referred to his theory of evolution as disgusting, as it states that races are inherently inter related as that we all originated in Africa?

Darwin's works were banned under the guidelines of "Die Busherei" in 1935, in chapter 2, article 6:

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufkl䲵ng eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (H䣫el).

which translates to:

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

The idea that some races are inherently better than others, that there is a "racial pecking order" originated with the philosophy "scala naturae" and was widely believed in some form or another right up to recent history after being. This idea was first conceived by Artistotle and updated and promoted in medieval times and afterwards by Christian theologians.

Darwin's works in no way support the idea that one race is superior to another due to evolution. Evolution isn't about being "superior" to anything. It's simply about adaptation.

For instance, humans are more evolved than, say, the shark (in that sharks have not evolved much at all for millions of years, compared to the ever evolving homo sapiens and our precursors). But biologists don't consider this a mark against the shark and a boon for humans. The shark is commonly referred to as "a perfect predator." In other words, it was so perfectly adapted to its surroundings that it didn't NEED to evolve any further.

The idea that you think "more evolved" = better or that you think Darwin somehow claimed that Jews/gypsies/etc are "less evolved" than Christian Aryans shows a fundamental lack of unerstanding about evolutionary science.

The fact that Darwinism was actually rejected, banned, and his worked burned by Hitler makes it especially egregious for you to continue this ridiculous myth that Darwin caused the Holocaust. People didn't need Darwinism to consider themselves more inherently advanced than other races.

Also, do Native Americans not count as human beings to you, plumjam, because just the death toll of the Americas alone far outweighed the death toll of the holocaust? And no saying "well that doesn't count, so many of them died of disease." Yes, just as many Holocaust victism died of disease because they were put in horrible conditions in concentration camps and death marches, so to did many of the Natives die of disease after being forced onto reservations and being put on forced death marches. Also, intentionally giving Natives infected blankets is a well known tactic.

Here was "The Pope's Requirement" to be read upon finding a native population:

“I, (name of the Conquistador), servant of the high and mighty Kings of Castile and Leon, conquerors of barbarian peoples, and being their messenger and Captain, hereby notify and inform you … that God Our Lord, One and Eternal, created Heaven and Earth and a man and a woman from whom you and I and all the multitude begotten from these over the past five thousand and some years since the world was made … And so I request and require you … to recognize the Church as your Mistress and as Governess of the World and Universe, and the High Priest, called the Pope, in Her name, and His Majesty (the King of Spain) in Her place, as Ruler and Lord King … And if you do not do this … with the help of God I shall come mightily against you, and I shall make war on you everywhere and in every way that I can, and I shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and His Majesty, and I shall seize your women and children, and I shall make them slaves, to sell and dispose of as His Majesty commands, and I shall do all the evil and damage to you that I am able. And I insist that the deaths and destruction that result from this will be your fault.”


I understand you being mistaken about Darwinism and the Holocaust, as that's a pretty commonly repeated meme. But ignoring the deaths of at least 50 million Native Americans? I find that, frankly, rather appalling.

 

[Cainkane1]

What did, for example, Charles Darwin ever do for any of us here?

He gave us the cold hard scientific truth with no promises.

 

[paximperium]

He has such a lovely smile and big man arms...and he uses Old Spice.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Some people were also good before they bought into the Darwinian logic.

That terrible noise is goalposts being moved.

Nobody said Darwin taught them how to be good. He just taught us some science that explains some stuff.

Babbling on about how atrocities were commited in his name makes you seem somewhat ridiculous.

 

[Cainkane1]

Some people were also good before they bought into the Darwinian logic.

I believe in Darwins theory and I have no criminal record of any kind whatsoever. I'm 63 and no fan of Jesus yet and still I have a deep feeling for the rights of my fellow man which includes a very charitable attitude.

Just because some evil misguided lunatic such as but not limited to Hitler misued Darwins theory doen't mean it isn't true moral or not.

 

[Cainkane1]

Yes what she said.

[


I understand you being mistaken about Darwinism and the Holocaust, as that's a pretty commonly repeated meme. But ignoring the deaths of at least 50 million Native Americans? I find that, frankly, rather appalling.[/QUOTE]

So Hitlers didn't use darwin as a justification for the holocost? This is good to know. I thank you and hopefully so does Mr. Plumjam.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

That terrible noise is goalposts being moved.

Nobody said Darwin taught them how to be good. He just taught us some science that explains some stuff.

Babbling on about how atrocities were commited in his name makes you seem somewhat ridiculous.

This of course is key. Even if, hypthetically, the Nazis DID use Darwinism (which they didn't, they banned it) to justify the Holocaust...evolution is science. It holds no moral codes (though certainly scientists and scientific bodies may develop there OWN moral and ethical standards) and makes no claims that it applies in any way to any kind of personal ideology. It's like blaming the inquisition on the human who first figured out how to make fire, or blaming nuclear war on physics. Science is a tool. How people use it has nothing to do with the science itself, it has to do with the person applying it.

And finally, if the Nazis HAD used Darwinism as justification, it would have been their misunderstanding of Darwinism, not ACTUAL Darwinism, because, as I said, there is no attachment of superiority to being "more evolved." It just means that that species has undergone more adaptaional changes than a less evolved species. And there's certainly nothing in Darwin that says Aryans are more evolved than Jews or gypsies or communists or intellectuals.

But the fact is, the Nazis did not use Darwin to justify the Holocaust, they used a philosphy that was over 2,300 years old and that has been used to justify slavery, genocide, and conquest for milenia. Though, to be fair to Aristotle, I have little doubt that humans would have been unable to find another justification for such behavior if he hadn't been around.


Every single thing you have written here has been false. The idea that the Holocaust killed more people than have been killed in 2,000 years under the banner of Christianity is so false it is offensive. The idea that the Nazis embraced Darwin is false. The idea that evolution somehow indicates superiority is false (if anything, scientists tend to refer to the LESS evolved species in superior terms, i.e. sharks, cockroaches, etc often being referred to as "perfect". Of course, they only mean that they are "perfectly adapted," but in any event, they certainly do NOT think that a more evolved creature is a better one). The idea that Darwin is where the idea originated that species or races were inherently ranked along a linear progression of superiority is false. The idea that Nazis weren't Nazis until they read Darwin is false. Pogroms against the Jews in Germany (or, rather, the area that would eventually become Germany) stretch back to 1298. Ramped up violence and oppression of the Jews in Germany started in 1819 (though Germany wasn't officially unified for abother 50 years) and soon spread to surrounding countries, leading to widespread destruction of Jewish communities, oppressive policies, and violence against Jews, laying the groundwork for the Nazi regime.

Are you perhaps claiming that the modern movement of anti semetism against Jews in Germany was started by Charles Darwin when he was ten years old?

Was it Hitler himself who banned Darwin's writings?

Die Busherei was administered by the Nazi regime itself. It's not like there was one obscure library in Germany who banned the book. Die Busherei were the guidelines the Nazis themselves instituted that had to be followed by libraries, academia, etc. Strange then that they banned and labeled "primitive" the theory you claim was their inspiration for their entire mindset. The book which actually turned them into Nazis.

And as far as murdering people society considers "less desirables" - the insane, the disabled, etc. Well, that's a practice as old as humanity itself. It was especially popular in many ancient Greek and Roman societies like the Spartans. Hitler was famously obsessed with Greek and Roman history and philosophy, and fashioned himself the next Alexander the Great/ Julius Caesar type of character, so it makes sense that he paid special attention to philosophies such as the Great Chain of Being and the disposal of "imperfect" members of society (again, not that I think it's necessarily true that Hitler, or his equivilent, would never have existed had Aristotle or the Spartans didn't exist).

Everything you have written here is just wrong on every imaginable level.

I would suggest your local public library. Educate yourself.

Feel free to rejoin the conversation when you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about.

 

[eerok]

So Hitlers didn't use darwin as a justification for the holocost? This is good to know. I thank you and hopefully so does Mr. Plumjam.

Everything the religious zealots say against science is a lie or non sequitur. They hate science because it's objective and evidence-based, and their appeals to an unsupported ultimate authority can't compete.

And don't worry, Plumjam won't be thanking anyone here.

 

[Twiler]

I'm pretty sure that hideous crimes are committed out of greed and sadism. The more complicated reasons are just rationalisation.

'Hey, there's this huge mass of land inhabited by people we could easily defeat in a prolonged conflict! Obviously, we have a manifest destiny to spread across the continent!'

 

[Thunder]

I should thank Jesus for Catholic girls. They suuuuuuuure are horny.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I'm pretty sure that hideous crimes are committed out of greed and sadism. The more complicated reasons are just rationalisation.

'Hey, there's this huge mass of land inhabited by people we could easily defeat in a prolonged conflict! Obviously, we have a manifest destiny to spread across the continent!'

Twiler, this is for darned sure.

I did try and express this, but want to stress again, the issues I discussed may have been used for justification for crimes against humanity, I certainly do not believe that without these justifications, others could or would not have been found. Humans can be convinced to do all sorts of horrible things using all sorts of justifications and rationallizations. Just because one instance at one point of time was rationalized by "X" does not mean "X" was a necessary precursor without which such event would not have occured.

 

[bookitty]

If you have to pick one book that influenced the holocaust, On The Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther is a pretty good bet.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The reason it was taken as prescriptive is that, unlike other scientific theories that are often raised as comparisons e.g. gravity, magnetism..etc.. the ToE has a very considerable impact on our 'understanding' of the nature of the human being.

That is why it had moral implications.... for decades, and it took the biggest ever war and systematic massacre of humans to clarify to humanity the egregious effects of viewing the human being simply as a purely physical evolutionary stepping stone. It was only this that managed to shake this kind of thinking out of some of the most prestigious bodies of academia.

May I ask...what's wrong with you?

No, I am not kidding. I am asking you, genuinely, what is wrong with you?

Apparently the African slave trade and the genocide of the Americas either

1. did not happen

or

2. didn't count

both of these were systemic acts against two groups of people. And unlike the Holocaust, these specific systems of annhialation and enslavement were in place for centuries, not decades. Far more people and nations were directly involved and supportive of these activities than were in the Holocaust. More people died as a result of these activities than in the Holocaust.

Also, why did the holocaust happen when it did? Seriously? You haven't heard World War I? Why do you think it's CALLED World War II? World War I was absolutely devastating to the German population. It made them desperate, it made them angry, and Hitler used that anger and desperation to his full advantage, building on the well established anti semitic foundations that had been laid for centuries in Germany, which had grown steadily in the hundred years previous to the rise of the Nazi regime.


The idea that Darwinism is what led to widespread crimes against humanity...the complete and utter discounting of all the genocide, enslavement, and butchery that has happened since the dawn of humanity (and yes, well before Christianity came on the scene) is just...

...I honestly don't know what to do with somehow who has so little regard for the value of human life that they pretend that the only time humans ever behaved as they did in the Holocaust was when the Holocaust occurred in order to suit their political/ideological positions. As if humans had no capacity for such monstrosities before Darwin came on the scene. As if we haven't had this capacity since the dawn of our existence.

Oh, and please tell me, who are these "prestigious bodies of academia" who now refute evolutionary theory?

Oh, and by the way, here's a Darwin quote regarding slavery:

"I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernamabuco, I heard the most pitiful moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was a case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house were a young household mulatto, daily and hourly was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass that was not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye…

It is claimed that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified by the illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves to our poorer countrymen: If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin…"

“Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; -- what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope for change! Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God, and pray His will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendents, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any other nation to expiate our sin*.”

Apparently Darwin had more humanity within him than you do, considering he actually considered the enslavement and conquest of people before 1900 to matter and to represent the worst of humanity...whereas you do not think humans had such capacity before the theory of evolution, because apparently Africans and Native Americans (and the innumerable populations systematically enslaved, mistreated, and murdered before them throughout history) actually counts.