search the site



rss feeds

[rss feed]
[rss feed]

« previous entry | return home | next entry »

March 19, 2009
Mengele ahead of his time: post-Holocaust abortionist

A senate staffer doing research for her boss stumbled on the following February 11, 1992, New York Times article and sent it to me.

mengele 1.gifShe wrote, "So many people have referenced [Josef Mengele] recently with the stem cell decision, mostly along the lines of, 'Yes, let the scientists do whatever they want, and say hello to the next Mengele.'"

Yes, Mengele was ahead of his time on both the abortion and human experimentation fronts....

The Argentine authorities were either unwilling or unable to bring Nazi war criminals to justice even when they had them in custody, archives made public for the first time today show.

The archives on 5 Nazi war criminals that were made available by Argentina show a pattern that confirms what many have said for years, that war criminals found a safe haven here and that this country was probably one of the easiest in which to disappear and escape justice....

mengele 2.gif

Last week, President Carlos Saul Menem ordered the files opened and gave Government agencies 30 days to produce any they had on suspected war criminals who came to Argentina.

According to the documents released today, Josef Mengele, the Auschwitz death camp doctor known as the "Angel of Death" for his experiments on inmates, practiced medicine in Buenos Aires for several years in the 1950's. He "had a reputation as a specialist in abortions," which were illegal. When one young woman died from his treatment, he was taken before a Buenos Aires judge, who detained him only briefly.

[HT: S]

[pulse]
posted on March 19, 2009 6:00 AM
[pulse2]



Trackback Pings:

TrackBack URL for this entry:





Comments:

Dehumanizing people gets to be a habit, I suppose.

Posted by: Christina at March 19, 2009 6:52 AM



Wow! George Tiller could be the next Mengele in the History books. Yes, Christina you are right dehumanizing gets to be a habit.

Posted by: Maria at March 19, 2009 7:37 AM



Scientist going mad. Of course the Sanger abortion movement is racist at it's core. Many years ago there was commitment to Darwinist science in Germany by trying to insert ape sperm in a black woman to create a hybrid. I read the article in German and do not know if it has been translated. Naturalists of course claim blacks are less evolved.

Posted by: xppc at March 19, 2009 8:08 AM



If you read the book the Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer there is a chapter on the experimentation undertaken by the Nazis. It is truly horrific.
Good grief xppc! I think when Shirer wrote his book, many things were still unknown.

Posted by: angel at March 19, 2009 8:26 AM



Naturalists of course claim blacks are less evolved.

Which is my problem with evolution.

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 19, 2009 8:52 AM



That's so sad. Has he been caught? Is he still alive?

Posted by: Vannah at March 19, 2009 8:54 AM



This is unbelievable ! To compare experimenting with cells, which can yield enormous benefits to humanity, with a monster like Mengele is so hysterically paranoid and over the top as to boggle the mind.
It's one thing to be opposed to abortion, which is certainly your right, as misguided as it is, but to be so hostile to vital medical and scientific research is beyond belief.

Posted by: Robert Berger at March 19, 2009 9:17 AM



When you attempt to link a medical procedure to the holocaust you loose. The holocaust is a tragedy, abortion is a medical procedure. Your sweeping generalizations and appeal to emotions denegrates the tragedy of hitler to nothing more than a rhetorical point. In short, another classic Jill Stanek FAIL!

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at March 19, 2009 9:20 AM



The holocaust is a tragedy, abortion is a medical procedure.
posted by ylt.


The holocaust was a medical procedure performed by German political doctors.

That's what Mengele was.

A doctor creating a holocausr for and from medical research.

There were hundreds more such doktors like Mengele.

YLT is a propagandist for abortion.

YLT is a symapthizer with Mengele by the common cause of abortion research performed by Mengele and his fellow German political doktors.

Posted by: yllas at March 19, 2009 9:49 AM



The same spirit, satan, who masterminded the Jewish Holocaust, is the same spirit behind the Abortion Holocaust:

"Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,

Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,

Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,

Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it's earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it's earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,

Abortion's desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.

Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it's solution; annihilation, it's goal; death, it's dream; breaking God's heart, it's vision, Satan's ultimate power.

Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;

Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,

Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan's feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him......for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.

Copyright 2007, 2008, 2009 by HisMan"

Posted by: HisMan at March 19, 2009 9:55 AM



This is unbelievable ! To compare experimenting with cells, which can yield enormous benefits to humanity, with a monster like Mengele is so hysterically paranoid and over the top as to boggle the mind.

Let's see now the difference is size and level of development. Would you consider the murder of a one month old child less than a 40 year old. Difference size and level of development...both living humans.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2009 10:05 AM



I don't know how that last post came up anonymous..it was Maria.

Posted by: Maria at March 19, 2009 10:06 AM



my fav's HisMan:

Abortion's desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.

Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,

Abortion is against all that is hopeful,

well done!

Posted by: angel at March 19, 2009 10:06 AM



"Scientist going mad. Of course the Sanger abortion movement is racist at it's core. Many years ago there was commitment to Darwinist science in Germany by trying to insert ape sperm in a black woman to create a hybrid. I read the article in German and do not know if it has been translated. Naturalists of course claim blacks are less evolved."

WTF dude. There's nothing "Darwinist" (not a word) about making 'hybrids.' Furthermore, it was Christians who claimed that blacks were inferior; looking at it through evolutionary theory, skin color is only an adaptation to environment and we are the same species.
Furthermore, Darwin was never mentioned in Mein Kampf. However, God was in there quite frequently, as well as similar creationist rhetoric. Try again.

It's true that a lot of the eugenics ideas in Germany came from eugenics movements in the U.S. I believe at the trials the Nazi lawyer quoted the U.S. on this same subject; also to be noted that language against hte japanese in this country at the time were eerily similar to the language the Nazis used against the Jews. So scary!!
Still that has nothing to do with evolution, so lets keep that stuff out of your argument, okay?

"Which is my problem with evolution."
Again, it is not a problem with evolution. If anything it should be your problem with Christianity, based on its past with "converting the savages" being their noble "mission." And their insistance that slaves are a-okay.

I know what you are going to say. That doing so was a misinterpretation of what the Bible was really saying (which is absolutely true). But maybe you can apply that same logic to people who misinterpreted the science to fit their own prejudices.

Think about it.

Posted by: PiP at March 19, 2009 11:34 AM



But maybe you can apply that same logic to people who misinterpreted the science to fit their own prejudices.

But that is precisely what I have a problem with. I actually have no strong theory for or against evolution in and of itself except that it is a theory and people who push this theory usually have the above-stated agenda (social Darwinism).

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 19, 2009 12:28 PM



"misinterpreted the science to fit their own prejudices.

Think about it.

Posted by: PiP at March 19, 2009 11:34 AM"

PIP:

In fact, this is exaclty what you do and don't realize it.

I mean science (in it's present form) can't prove there is a God so using science as the trump card and asking the question, "is or is there no God" should not even be a question in your mind, because of your worship at the altar of science.

I mean you are not following your own logic but in fact, are doubleminded. Science is only a tool. It is not to be placed ahead of God's Word. Your presumption is that science is always correct and trumps the claims of the Bible when the proper position, especially for a believer like you claim to be is that, the Bible is true and we use science to confirm the claims of the Bible. Any other position is idolatry.

The Bible never said the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe. These were man's imaginings based on their understanding of the "science" of the day. In fact, it was Christopher Columbus, who was a devout believer, who risked his life and that of his crew because he believed the Bible taught that the earth was round.

Various religions said the earth was held on the backs of elephants, however, the Bible says the earth is suspended on nothing. The point is, the Bible is inerrant, science confirms the Bible but only if the science is correct. If science contradicts the claims of the Bible one has to challenge the so-called "scientific evidence".

No matter how to try to twist it, the Bible says the earth was created in six literal days. This is an explicit claim. And you try to argue, based on an unproven and unscientific theory of evolution, that the earth and all living things were created over billions and billions of years. Even though all physical laws including the first law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy make evolution is impossible and the overwhelming evidence of the Great Flood.

It is no wonder, that people, (most of secular aademia) who have built there lives, their portfolios, their tenure, their reputations and in fact wagered their very souls on this false claim of evolution, are so willing to murder and kill anyone who stands for the truth by attacking their reputation, demonizing them etc. They are whores of the first kind willing to sacrifice all for the purpose of short term gain. It is the utmost demonstration of stupidity.

It makes absolutely no sense to me that people who claim science as their guiding light to ignore the rules of it's application. I mean isn't a primary rule of science "to observe". Never, nowhere, nada, has evolution (that species evolve from one kind to another kind) ever been observed, NEVER! And disingenuously, none of you so-called disciples of the scietific method ever admit this because you know it would tumble down your house of cards. In fact, envolutionists are supreme disgraces to the scientific method, they are charlatans and quacks who have poisoned the minds of past generations.

Just look at the fruit. Abortion, the normalization of homosexuality, the attempt to destroy the intitution of marriage, removing God from schools, violence, etc., etc., etc.

Your logic confounds me. It is not the logic of a free-thinker. No it is the logic of a person in bondage, to the norms and attitudes of the day. You are no revolutionary, you are typical of an ultimate conformist afraid to take God at His word and to stand firm.

A true free thinker humbles himself before God and asks God to lead Him when presented with the overwhelming evidence that He is and that His word is true.

Evolution is headed for the trash heap.

Posted by: HisMan at March 19, 2009 12:38 PM



No, HisMan, you just don't get it, we've been over this, and I don't have a desire to discuss it with you again.

"people who push this theory usually have the above-stated agenda (social Darwinism)."
NO. That is what I"m saying. Back in the day they used it to justify their own prejudices JUST LIKE Christians did. They are not different.
Scientists today are usually pretty socially liberal. That would be the opposite of "social darwinism." You don't have a problem with the theory, but it's bad application, which I agree with. But very little people now are suggesting that social darwinism is a proper economic stance. Futhermore, as I"ve stated before, Hitler used principles of artificial selection and adaptation which have been described since agriculture began, and frequently used God and creationist language as a persuasive tool. So I'm just saying it wouldn't be accurate to say that you are opposed to evolution for the theory itself, but instead you should acknowledge that it, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, can be abused. You oppose any social adaptation of "darwinism" which is what most people in modern times do, LEAST of all those who strongly support social programs.

Posted by: PIP at March 19, 2009 2:52 PM



I don't think that evolution disproves God; if anything, it will prove His existence. I do not personally believe that humans descended from monkeys, but proving evolution would not harm God and disproving evolution would not harm God. It would only cause us to rethink God's definition of seven days and our own interpretations of Genesis.

And, back to the Nazi, this is such sad news. Why is it that there are people here defending abortion when this man was a Nazi who was so committed to this? I don't understand bigotry and intolerance. Would someone please care to explain it to me?

Posted by: Vannah at March 19, 2009 3:59 PM



"I don't think that evolution disproves God; if anything, it will prove His existence. I do not personally believe that humans descended from monkeys, but proving evolution would not harm God and disproving evolution would not harm God. It would only cause us to rethink God's definition of seven days and our own interpretations of Genesis. "

I agree with you here, definitely, and the Catholic stands by you as well. (However, I have an issue from the "humans descended from monkeys bit, both semantically and philosophically, but that's another discussion for another day).

I guess I just wanted to remind Pansy that like everything, people can distort it to support their wrongdoing, but it's not that particular "theory" or "religion"s fault unless it specifically condones that behavior (which it doesn't). But I have no problem with saying that for whatever reason someone might use to support eugenics, etc. it is wrong, period! Reading some of the things people wrote in the 20's is particularly painful for me...I'm epileptic and if I was born during that era, I wouldn't be considered worthy to have children. Insulting. Noone should let anything related to this activity to happen in whatever form it may take.

Posted by: PIP at March 19, 2009 4:30 PM



"I don't think that evolution disproves God; if anything, it will prove His existence. I do not personally believe that humans descended from monkeys, but proving evolution would not harm God and disproving evolution would not harm God. It would only cause us to rethink God's definition of seven days and our own interpretations of Genesis......

Posted by: Vannah at March 19, 2009 3:59 PM"

At the begginng of the post you started with, "I think...", well, you're not thinking. The whole theory of evolution is that we are decendants of single cell animals, yes, and monkeys too". If you don't believe that then you don't believe in evolution.

And yes anything that contradicts the word of God, especially a lie like evolution, only comes from one source......yep, satan (through rebellious men and women) , whose only purpose to to kill, steal and destroy.

If you can diss the creation story in Genesis, you can discount everything that Moses wrote about including Christ. Evolution is extremely destructive.

You should ask yourself this, "Am I afraid to embrace and speak the truth for fear of rejection, persecution and ridicule?"

PIP, it is not I who doens't get it. I bought and read the book written by your evolutionist who tries to promote theistic evolution. It is evident that while this guy has some knowledge in his field he hasn't got a clue as to who God is.

If you don't want to debate evolution then don't write about it anymore. I was responding to your illogic. The facts are not that the matter is settled, but that you don't have any way to counter what I am saying. This is the psychopathy of evolutionism.

Whether you know it or not, if you don't believe the creation story, the very word of a God who cannot lie or deceive, you are in fact calling God a liar and a deceiver.

Why is the creation story so hard for you to believe as it is written? Is it because of what the majority of people think regarding an unscientifically proven theory like evolution? Well, God and any one person who stands firm with Him are a majority.

Posted by: HisMan at March 19, 2009 5:43 PM



HisMan, you never read the book and you know it. Else you would give me SPECIFIC quotes and objections to them. You obviously have no desire to listen to reason, especially if it goes against your reading of the Bible.

For the last time, I don't want to discuss it any further with you for that reason. Have a good journey.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 19, 2009 5:49 PM



Last thing, HisMan, for dumping all of this sh*t on evolution, you might as well dump it all over the Catholic Church, who accepts it. If anyone who accepts the theory (thus "rejecting god") is bound for hellfire, grow some balls and condemn the church. Go ahead, do it.

No? Then I suggest you save yourself from your hypocrisy now. there is nothing new to say. If you think I'm going to hell, fine. None of your threatening language scares me. So give up, I'm not going to change my opinions.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 19, 2009 5:53 PM



And, back to the Nazi, this is such sad news. Why is it that there are people here defending abortion when this man was a Nazi who was so committed to this? I don't understand bigotry and intolerance. Would someone please care to explain it to me?
Posted by: Vannah at March 19, 2009 3:59 PM

We can't reject everything the NAZI's did just because they did it. They also made cars, treated sore throats, and collected art. We condemn the evil the Nazis did like invade countries, commit Holocaust, and suppress freedoms, not mundane things like inventing the Volkswagen or abortion.

Posted by: Hal at March 19, 2009 5:56 PM



FROM DARWIN TO HITLER:

EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY

http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/fromdarwintohitler.htm


Posted by: Jasper at March 19, 2009 6:28 PM



I absolutely can and do reject things supposedly "good" that the Nazis did. First of all... treated sore throats? Where did that one come from?

But I refuse to even ride in, much less purchase, any type of Volkswagen. And how can you compare an abortion to a car, but not to the evils of the Holocaust? Bizarre thought process, that. And had I the money to be purchasing art, I would not purchase anything that could even remotely be linked to the Nazi's stealing from Jewish families and selling to the Swiss to finance their atrocities.

It's this little thing called ethical principles.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 19, 2009 7:50 PM



Elisabeth, maybe I wasn't clear.

I would do the same as you (although I might buy a German car someday--haven't really thought about that)

I was just trying to say you can't argue "Nazis did it so it's bad" The Nazis did a lot of things, mostly bad, sure. But they also, for example, probably treated sore throats. Doesn't make treatment of sore throats evil because they did it. So, Abortion is either evil or it's not. It's not evil *because* the nazis did it.

Vannah asked how we could defend Abortion since abortion was done by the evil Nazis. ("Why is it that there are people here defending abortion when this man was a Nazi who was so committed to this?

Posted by: Hal at March 19, 2009 7:57 PM



I am a Christian HisMan. I'm glad that you have such fire in your heart for God. It makes me happy to see one so committed to the Lord and so unafraid to stand up for what is an unpopular position. I wish that I could be as courageous as you.

No, I mean that, there is quite a lot in evolution that- though I'm skeptical about the belief that humans came from monkeys (or was it chimps- does someone remember?) and that life burst forth from slime, I do believe that God used elements of His own creation to further other creations. Think of the big bang- let there be light. All of these things happen in the same order as the Bible. I think that, if God wanted, he could have sped up evolution, he could have created life, plain and simple as the Good Book reads, or he could have measured seven days differently.

But thank you for your comments. I shall consider your opinions and reconsider my own stances. :).

Posted by: Vannah at March 19, 2009 8:59 PM



Oh, and Hal, I meant on this commentary when people said, "Abortion's okay!" after reading other commentators pointing out their disgust at this man's actions both during the Holocaust and after it that I was wondering how people could be defending this man's actions. I'm pro-life. I don't defend abortion, Nazi or no Nazi. Sorry that I wasn't very clear on that...I was in a rush because I was late about to walk out the door. Did this clear up what I meant?

Posted by: Vannah at March 19, 2009 9:03 PM



PIP:

If I said I read the book, I read the book. So please, refrain from calling me a liar or telling me to grow balls and express any other profanity. As far as specific quotes go, I think the book is packed away since we are moving. I'll go look upstairs in the throne room but I really believe it is packed away.

Having said all that, you think that if I read the book I would somehow be convinced of theistic evolution? You think that a book written by a man would change my mind over a book written by God? Sheeeeeeesh!

How would I know the dude knows nothing, absolutely nothing about God if I didn't read the book? All of his theological statements are supposition and assumption which is the lowest form of knowledge.

And I never meant to imply that believing in evolution sends one to hell. However, if one is committed to Christ and truly seeking God I don't think God would lead them to believe in evolution. I mean you are a prime example. Are you seeking God with your whole heart, mind and soul Pip, honesstly? Based on many of your posts I seriously doubt it.

Once again, you have never onced addressed any, not one of my assertions about creation, biblical or scientific, other than to arrogantly disrespect me by telling me to grow balls? Wow, what an intellectual ginat you are.

Regarding your question about the Catholic Church, I don't think this is a matter of life and faith to them or heaven or hell. Abortion is. So why don't you beleive and practice what your church teaches about abortion? Hmmmmmmmm? What are you, 19 or 20? I can assure my balls are big enough.

You said this about me, "You obviously have no desire to listen to reason, especially if it goes against your reading of the Bible." You meant to say my 35 years of ardent Bible study didn't you?

Let me say this about you, "You obviously have no desire to listen to reason especially if it goes against your belief in abortion and evolution and you will pick and choose those teachings of the Catholic Church which you see fit to beleive in for you are a cafeteria Catholic".

Posted by: HisMan at March 19, 2009 9:11 PM



Vannah:

You have a lot of class.

Posted by: HisMan at March 19, 2009 9:12 PM



HisMan, I believe PIP is against abortion.

Posted by: Hal at March 19, 2009 9:21 PM



And you have a lot of faith (I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic; I don't think so; you're a man of God). Do you teach Bible study? I should imagine so. You're a man of God, HisMan, and I have no qualms with your beliefs. I agree with you. And I hope that God blesses you immeasurably for your devotion to Him. :). You remind me of my friend, Katie- my absolute best friend who has more faith in all of the hard times than I could muster in all of the good times and it is a virtue that God has blessed both of you with. :).

Posted by: Vannah at March 19, 2009 9:24 PM



"or was it chimps- does someone remember"

it was actually an ape-like ancestor. We are very closely related to chimps in that we shared a common ancestor not too long ago. We actually share 98-99% of our DNA with them and the differences in our chromosomes etc. are very easily explained by evolution. If you are interested, I can send you some good videos by a Catholic scientist (theistic evolution) who does a really nice job explaining this kind of stuff without getting too dry. He's a great speaker in person too!!

Ugh. I can't believe I am responding to this.
"How would I know the dude knows nothing, absolutely nothing about God if I didn't read the book? "
HisMan, you are great about making assumptions. So I can guess you decided since he wrote a book about a different interpretation of Genesis, you decided he didn't know God. When I asked you to cite the quotes that you have a problem with to see if I can offer my bit on it, you NEVER did after I asked you more than 10 times. So yes, I'm calling you a liar if you can't produce any criticism other than "I know he doesn't know God."

"However, if one is committed to Christ and truly seeking God I don't think God would lead them to believe in evolution."
You are still leveling this accusation at the Catholic Church. You are saying they don't truly seek God, and this is the Church that He founded. Hmmm...

"Once again, you have never onced addressed any, not one of my assertions about creation, biblical or scientific,"
Because I've answered them many times over and you continue to say the same things again and again. You are being intellectually dishonest by doing so and, no, I don't respect that. I respect you as a person, but I don't respect your willful ignorance on the subject.

This is similar to the last three times I called Jasper on his "from darwin to hitler" stuff, especially by pointing out creationist language in Mein Kampf and pointing out the context of the time period, which I've spent several months studying. I see he is still spreading lies. I think that's intellectually dishonest too.

"So why don't you beleive and practice what your church teaches about abortion?"
I'm against abortion. I'm also against the death penalty. I believe in theistic evolution.
(Although, I wouldn't label myself a "Catholic" anyway, but I take a lot of moral and theological guidance from the Church)

"You meant to say my 35 years of ardent Bible study didn't you?"
Yes. If you stay willfully ignorant on a subject just because you are afraid it contradicts your interpretation of the Bible, then yes I would say you have no desire to listen to other viewpoints on the subject and therefore I have no desire to talk with you on the subject. Why do so?

""You obviously have no desire to listen to reason especially if it goes against your belief in abortion and evolution and you will pick and choose those teachings of the Catholic Church which you see fit to beleive in for you are a cafeteria Catholic"."
Not a Catholic. Try again.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 19, 2009 10:01 PM



Thanks, PrettyinPink. I am not quite as well-versed in scientific matters as I am linguistic and philosophical ones, I suppose. That would be a very lovely link to see. I like hearing Catholics talk (and I've never seen a Catholic scientist before)- and I have no idea why, since I'm a Protestant, but I think that it is due to the fact that Catholics are constantly treated like babbling fools and I love seeing them prove their intelligence. If you would, I would love to see the link that you told me about.

Oh, and just curious so that I don't accidently insult you, are you a Christian or atheist or what? :)

Posted by: Vannah at March 19, 2009 10:29 PM



...for dumping all of this sh*t on evolution...
Posted by: prettyinpink at March 19, 2009 5:53 PM

I think that's the first time I've seen anyone actually call a literal Biblical viewpoint "sh*t" here on this board. I guess you get that distinction, PIP. ;)

However, I think it might be nice to refrain from calling a perfectly acceptable Biblical viewpoint by that term in the future.

Posted by: Kel at March 20, 2009 12:00 AM



PIP, do you believe that the Great Flood occurrred as described in Genesis? Yes or no?

I already know your answer is no because the great Flood and evolution are incompatible.

Your choice is to accept a man-made, scientifically unproven theory over the Word of God by making up a flawed asertion that Genesis is allegorical. So God didn't make a promise to Abrahma, Joseph wasn't made second in comand in Egypt, the Israelites weren't held captive and Moses didn't negotiate their release and the Red Sea didn't part, it's all just a nice story? Nice try PIP. If any part of Genesis is allegorical then Christ is a fraud (I'm sure Hal will amen that) since the Book of Genesis is foundational to Christ Himself. I can assure you that things happened as described and someday you will know this as "every knee will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord".

The Catholic Church's teaching on theistic evolution does nothing for me. There are more than 20 different theories on theistic evolution and they all disagree with each other and are all incompatible and contrary to the creation story. There are many things that the Catholic Church teaches that I disagree with....including celibacy, infant baptism, etc., etc. and this to no one's surprise. So stop trying to create a crafty little rift here.

I, unlike you, could care less what people think of me as I do not live and breath for their approval. To the contrary, I try to focus on the the things we do agree on like the divinity of Christ, the salvific effects of the death and resurrection of Christ and His awaited return and of couse, the absolute evil of abortion.

Now, if you are anti-abortion, just how anti-abortion are you? Totally 100% or OK in some cases? What manner of justification for the murder of babies in the womb do you dissapprove of?

I did find the book PIP. My wife moved it to my office library.

Page 21: "Yes, and we are the children of evolution too. Can we be absolutely certain of this? In the strictest sense no."

Page 100: His whole rant in this area goes into how the imperfections in us, imply that there was no intelligent designer, i.e., quoting some idiot who said, "the senseless signs of history". This is a huge mega-error. If he understood that we are fallen creatures he would understand that sin was the culprit and not God. Again showing his complete misunderstanding of what happened and who God is. In fact, why in the hell did the flood occur if it were not to destroy sinful men?

And on page 195, this theological idiot, Mr. Miller makes this blasphemous comment, "Science has shown that material mechanisms, not spirits, were behind the reality of nature. It had found that each level of analysis was connected to ones above and below in the same way that the function of a clock is connected to the gears and shafts and springs within. And it had given mankind a new view of ourselves as material beings. Could there be anything left for God to do". Science has not shown this, There are so many gaps and holes in evolutionary theory that this is a downright dishonest statement. This friggin' guy is a secular humanist and you're trying to convince me that he can spout on how God used evolution to create man even though what he says above is in absolute direct conflict with Biblical reality and truth?

No, we are not material beings, we are spiritual beings living in material bodies.

Mark 8:35-37 "35For whoever wants to save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?"

Ephesians 6:11-13 "11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."

Colossians 1:15-17 "15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

PIP, no person knowing God's word could have ever written this book which is filled with this BS. Over and over again, in his acedemic arrogance, makes untrue and inaccurate statements. Therefore, he disqualifies himself since he assumes that because he is a "biologist" who believes in some big daddy in the sky that he can then compromise or ignore God's word. In fact, he is of utmost dishinesty or is absolutely lost and unaware of the Christ of the Bible. He is a spiritual generalist trying to protect his territory, a very, very dishonest man. I suggest you stop believing his misguided lies and assertions.

And if you look at thw rocord PIP, I did try to answer your questions, however, you had found a boy toy at the time if I recall and you ignored me as well.

Posted by: HisMan at March 20, 2009 12:51 AM



Hey vannah!
I'm a "freelancer" I guess you could say. I'm studying theology as a minor at a Catholic college and I grew up and was confirmed Catholic, but there are a few differences between us that makes we want to be safe and say I"m not really a Catholic. However, as said before, I look for guidance toward the Catholic church because they have really well thought out positions and interpretations and I respect them for that.
So Kenneth Miller is a Catholic, "theistic evolutionist" who has written numerous biology textbooks and has a PhD in Molecular Biology (or something similar- I'd have to look it up again). He was also a key witness in the Dover Trial.
Here is a good quick video that demonstrates some of the evidence, and looks at ways to test evolution and how Ken ties it back into his religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

If you like this video I recommend you watch an entire lecture (there are several vids and I saw the same lecture in person and its fabulous). I'd also recommend his book, "Finding Darwin's God." :)


"However, I think it might be nice to refrain from calling a perfectly acceptable Biblical viewpoint by that term in the future."
Kel, I didn't call the viewpoint sh*t and I apologize for getting frustrated and using that word in the first place. I meant only that if I try to correct someone if they use the word wrong, or I start to get into a discussion, HisMan usually comes in and says more things about how evolution is evil and so on and how I'm not Christian for believing in literal creation and so on. I get it- and he doesn't have to change his mind. I'm not asking that on anyone. I only comment on the subject to people who may just have the wrong information about something and I want to correct them. I just want him to start acknowledging a valid viewpoint separate from his. He has not. If he's not going to, why does he keep doing this??
Sorry for getting frustrated, HisMan, but I hope you realize how I might have felt that way.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 12:52 AM



Why thank you HisMan, for pulling up some quotes. Let me see if I can help you.

"Page 21: "Yes, and we are the children of evolution too. Can we be absolutely certain of this? In the strictest sense no.""

Well DUH, this is something I've been trying to beat you over the head with. Science is never absolutely sure of anything. Nothing can be claimed to be "proven." But the evidence stands for evolution, nothing has falsified the theory yet.

"His whole rant in this area goes into how the imperfections in us, imply that there was no intelligent designer, i.e., quoting some idiot who said, "the senseless signs of history". This is a huge mega-error. If he understood that we are fallen creatures he would understand that sin was the culprit and not God. Again showing his complete misunderstanding of what happened and who God is. In fact, why in the hell did the flood occur if it were not to destroy sinful men?"

His point was that evolution doesn't find perfect solutions to problems, just ones that "work better" in a certain situation. We have many signs of these. ID doesn't explain that stuff at all. It claims that we were made that way, which means the designer made us with all of these similarities to other species and leftover bits and pieces from evolution that are overly complicated or needless. I don't know what "sin" would have to do to suddenly make us have all of these features. But evolution gives good explanations for many of them.

"Mr. Miller makes this blasphemous comment"
You mean in that chapter called "Beyond Materialism"?? When he says "In the final analysis, absolute materialism does not triumph because it cannot fully explain the nature of reality"? That one?
Why don't you reread page 218-9 and think about interpreting things in context.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 1:07 AM



PIP:

There are more than 74 points on which theistic evolution and the Biblical Creation Account disagree.

Here's just one: Theistic evolution says that struggle and death preceded man's arrival on earth and that this struggle has continued ever since. The Bible says that the completed creation, which included man, was "very good" (Gen 1:3). There was no struggle and death. Later, man by his willful disobedience fell from this universal paradise causing struggle and death to enter the world. Someday this pradise will be restored as a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 22:2-3).

Here's the point: If evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is not the cause of death -so we do not need a Savior.


And here are some remarkable parallels between Noah's Ark and Jesus Christ: Both provided the only refuge from a horrible judgement. Both were perfect provisions, designed by God and freely available to sinful people. Conventional "wisdom" has doubted, even mocked, the sufficiency of each (i.e., Hal). To save oerhs, both took a unique and teriible beating. People scoffed at teh thought of water falling fromt teh sky and needing to be saved; today (i.e., Hal) many scoff at teh cross and the need to be saved. The Ark had any rooms; Christ has prepared a place with many rooms (John 14: 2-3). The Ark had one door, which God closed; Christ said, "I am the door" (John 10:9). God will close it as well. Genesis 8:4 sasy the Ark landed on the 17th day of the 7th month (in the ancient Hebrew calendar) - today's 17th day of Nisan. Christ rose from the dead on the 17th day of Nisan- 3 days after the Passover, which begins on the 14th day of Nisan. The Ark was mae leak-proof by pitche (Hebrew: kopher); Christ's blood is a "watertight" ranson (Hebrew: kopher) that perfectly shields us. (Kopher is closely related to teh Hebrew word, kaphar, which means "to atone" or "to cover.")

One cannot be a believer in the Bible and a theistic evolutionist, i.e., and be a person that understands both.

There are many people who understand the Bible but don't understand evolution and in ignorance reject evolution. There are many people who understand evolution but don't know squat about the Bible and reject the Bible.

Rare is the person who knows both. I can assure you I know both very well and evolution is a fraud.

You see PIP, if you accept any version of evolution, (and true evolutionsists actually view you as one needing faith as a crutch and put up with you), then you can't accept the Creation Account of the Flood. However, understanding the flood in foundational to believing in Christ.

Posted by: HisMan at March 20, 2009 1:22 AM



HisMan, which creation story do you follow? The one that starts out all water? or the one that starts out all earth? The one that was written first? The one where he created men and women at the same time, or the one where eve is made after adam got bored?

Really though, I'm not going to get into the rest of this stuff with you. We've been down that road before. I get meaning and fulfillment from these stories, I don't read the creation story like a history or science textbooks. Easy as that. You do. That's okay. Go ahead.


"and true evolutionsists actually view you as one needing faith as a crutch and put up with you"
No, "true" evolutionists don't care about religion.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 1:38 AM



"Well DUH, this is something I've been trying to beat you over the head with. Science is never absolutely sure of anything. Nothing can be claimed to be "proven." But the evidence stands for evolution, nothing has falsified the theory yet......

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 1:07 AM"

"Nothing can be claimed to be "proven." HUH?

And this was a gem: "But the evidence stands for evolution, nothing has falsified the theory yet......"

Are you admitting that evolution hasn't been proven yet, hmmmmmmm, because it hasn't been falsified? Is that a new rule of "scientific" thought? Something is accepted as truth until it is falsified? I thought is was accepted as truth if the observations could be verified and dupicated. Well, the Flood hasn't been disproven either has it? And Creation hasn't been disproven yet even though there is evidence of it all around us?

PIP: I've got to admit it, you have worn me out calling me a liar, telling me I should grow some balls, accusing me of deficating on evolution, telling me I hate the Catholic Church amd then you just blurt it out "might". Now you're saying that evolution "might" be right, not is right but "might" be right, therefore, let's diss the Bible and just party on....?

God, Lord in Heaven, please help me.......no Lord, please help PIP understand her doublemindedness.

Oh, because evolution hasn't been falsified yet we should never teach alternative theories to our children?

PIP: Do ou know what being confused means?

Please don't say this prayer tonight, again: "Dear God, evolution might be right, therefore, I don't need you. When I find out it isn't right you might hear back from me. In the meantime, you don't exist, or, have any real relevance to my life. The truth is, I am all I need for now. So, just go away, for now, maybe, I think: Truly Yours, Maybe, PIP."

Posted by: HisMan at March 20, 2009 1:46 AM



"HisMan, which creation story do you follow? The one that starts out all water? or the one that starts out all earth? The one that was written first? The one where he created men and women at the same time, or the one where eve is made after adam got bored?......

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 1:38 AM"

PIP: Your biblical illiteracy is astoounding, but, not as astounding as your unwillingness to accpet the Bible at face value. Rather you seek out those who will tell you what you want to hear.

I don't want to be accused of not answering your silly little and canned assumptions of theistic evolution. So, I am going to correct you here:

Genesis contains two descriptions of creation. The first is chronological, while the second is from man's perspective. A close study of the Hebrew word shows no conflict. Christ, who in a single sentence mentioned both descriptions, knew they referred to the same creation event.

Matthew 19:4-5 " 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

Posted by: HisMan at March 20, 2009 2:05 AM



""Nothing can be claimed to be "proven." HUH?"
Yup.

"Are you admitting that evolution hasn't been proven yet, hmmmmmmm, because it hasn't been falsified? Is that a new rule of "scientific" thought? Something is accepted as truth until it is falsified?"
I'm saying nothing is proven. If evidence points to a legitimate interpretation (you know, a theory) it is accepted unless new evidence comes to light that falsifies it.

This is basic science philosophy, HisMan.

": I've got to admit it, you have worn me out calling me a liar"
I do apologize for that assumption, but you should know it was an honest assumption given your hesitance to be specific as I asked you over and over to do so.

"telling me I should grow some balls"
I'm just asking you to be consistent. If me being a "theistic evolutionist" is blasphemy and turning away from God" then the same criticism should be attributed to everyone who thinks so. But you don't do that. Why not?

"accusing me of deficating on evolution"
In fairness it was said out of genuine frustration and I admit its a fault of mine to get frustrated easily. Despite me going to great efforts to correct any errors in thinking regarding evolution (e.g. showed you that you were wrong about what evolutionary theory is, says, etc), you refuse to acknowledge it and often then turn to spiritual attacks. I still call that intellectually dishonest though, without the profanity.

"telling me I hate the Catholic Church"
Never said such a thing. I was calling you out on being inconsistent. If you respect the Church, you should be respectful of their legitimate beliefs. I pretty much follow what they have laid out. If my belief is a form of atheism, so is theirs. That's why I asked you to grow a pair and proclaim this, but you obviously don't do so. This leads me to believe you are just picking on me to get me frustrated and you can get your jollys on.

" amd then you just blurt it out "might"."
I've been saying all along that nothing is ever "proven." But I also added that evolution has some serious evidence in its favor that has yet to be falsified despite over 100 years of scrutiny. Do you ever listen to me? I'm being absolutely serious with that question. I don't know how many times I've said that here but its definitely in the double digits.

"Now you're saying that evolution "might" be right, not is right but "might" be right, therefore, let's diss the Bible and just party on....?""

I'm saying you are being inconsistent when you proclaim that creation is the absolute historical account, when there are 2 stories. So which one is it HisMan? If the creation account is not about our relationship with God and each other, and you can agree with me on that hopefully, you and I only squibble on history. Which of course, favors my view according to what we can gather from historical documents. The two stories were written at 2 different times at 2 different locations. In no way does it "diss the Bible" it's calling your interpretation different than mine.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 2:19 AM



Hisman is going to win when it comes to matters of biblical exegeis.

PIP is a Catholic that picks and choses her Catholic "ism". She has no knowledge of the bible beyond what little she was taught as a child.

I bet PIP has not had a bible study class in years. Which confirms Hisman's view of Catholic's and bible study.

Evolution sprang forth from "noticing" related parts of nature. That's all. It's a guessing game of making parts fit together. Evolution breaks down miserably within "quantum physics" and the molecular level of living entities.

Evolution is a useful political tool of those who believe in national/racial superiority.

What purpose does/did evolution serve in the psycho-social(spirit) of Western civilization?
Quite simply, it replaced the waning religious faith in Christian superiority expressed as in "defending Chrisitan slavery", and attracted those who found a new faith in racial/national superiorty.

What made it popular? Quite simply, those that were rich, and those that wanted the power of riches. After playing out Christian biblical studies, which were Earth centered on "going forth and multiplying" plus that old time fact that God wants you to be "prosperous, healthy, and to use those "gifts" which bring you prosperity,health, and the power of that Trinity.

And where was such thinking about making yourself one of chosen one/group/race/nation/culture of God?
Why the Jewish history of man and God---the old Testament. Which beings up a question if the Jews ever found slavery "against their religion/God", and fought a civil war to abolish slavery within their theology/culture? I do know that those who believe in the god of the Jews owned slaves also.
Which leads to the modern era of asking the question if Palestinians are viewed as defeated people, not of their God, and nothing more then slaves of the God/nation of Israel. To be allowed to live by the grace of God, as less then human, a slave, unless they convert to being Jews.

But Christians have it written in their heart to do the right thing and attacked the wealth generating business of slavery. Wilberforce being one of those Protestant Christians, amongst many others.

So what's a man, still believing in using your God given talents to prosper, if not by owning human beings, to do?

Well justify it by evolution, the study of parts becoming more parts, and more parts, that you "fit together". Along the way, you replace God with your own version of what God used to preach---multiply,prosper and be healthy.

Evolution filled a void created by Christianity rejecting three Earthly kings; God, King, and nation/culture. Slowly but surely.

The King is not God's representative on Earth brought forth the butchery of the French Revolution first, ending in the self rightous slaughter of the Romanov's.

But, it was the German's who bit off the biggest chunk of evolutionary zeal via their philosophers making a faith out of their words, which found themselves into "science books."

Although the English used evolution to justify de-humanizing their subjects of the King, nothing compared to eliminating those destined by evolution to be conquered/enslaved/medical research/murdered, then the German's.

The question of why just the German's became amoured with Evolution as a basis to invade/conquer and murder millions still has not been answered completly.

And it won't be, since PIP, and millions more can't think of science being connected to philosophy/culture in its first stirrings before a physical act of a scientist occurs.


Posted by: yllas at March 20, 2009 4:48 AM



Hisman, great posts about creation/evolution!

You addressed the pivotal point about evolution when you wrote this:

"Here's the point: If evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is not the cause of death -so we do not need a Savior."

This is the most important thing, in my opinion. The creation account, if it didn't happen the way Scripture says it did, would make the rest of the entire Bible senseless. There would be no point in Christ dying for our sins because there would be no original sin. The creation story is absolutely necessary in order to understand Christ's death and resurrection correctly.

If evolution was how we came about, why did Christ die? And at what point in evolution did we become sinners? And why is Adam's chronology listed in the Bible, if he is fictional? And why is Jesus a son of Adam? Why did Christ speak about Adam, as a literal person?

And if evolution is true, were we in need of a Savior when we were still apes or amoebas? Did we have the ability to ask for Salvation then? At what stage of development were we evolved to the point to be in "God's image"? At what stage of development were we in need of salvation, or could we repent and ask for it?

And the questions could go on and on....

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 8:44 AM



Yllas, that was also a wonderful post at 4:48!

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 8:45 AM



Are you admitting that evolution hasn't been proven yet, hmmmmmmm, because it hasn't been falsified? Is that a new rule of "scientific" thought? Something is accepted as truth until it is falsified? I thought is was accepted as truth if the observations could be verified and dupicated. Well, the Flood hasn't been disproven either has it? And Creation hasn't been disproven yet even though there is evidence of it all around us?

That is such a good point.

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 9:00 AM



Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death ruled from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.

1 Cor. 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Cor 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

1 Tim 2:13-14
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Jude 1:14
It was also about these men that (A)Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "(B)Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,


*************************

GENERATIONS OF ADAM TO CHRIST

**************************
23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 9:12 AM



When I was a child, I used to wonder what the point was of all of the genealogies mentioned in the Bible, and would skim over them. Now, I understand their importance!

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 9:16 AM



""Nothing can be claimed to be "proven." HUH?"
Yup.

Many things can be scientifically proven, PIP.

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 9:18 AM



Bethany, nope. Nothing is proven in the technical sense of the word.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 9:49 AM



Yllas, I am not a Catholic.

Everyone else, I never ever ever intended to talk about it yesterday in the view to challenge HisMan's religious beliefs, but he did that to me and I merely responded. No I don't want to "battle" you HisMan over exegesis. If you have any questions, why don't you head over to the vatican.va website and read for yourself. They lay it out in a detail I cannot. I don't want to set myself up as the authority on theistic evolution. Calling me spiritually weak doesn't scare me, and neither does posting random Bible quotes with out the context.

I only came here to correct some misconceptions about evolution and racism and to answer Vannah's question that she asked.

When HisMan came in with his spiritual attacks, I've only been trying to take a defensive stance. I don't care if he believes in the literal creation, but he also refuses to recognize theistic evolution as legitimate. That is literally ALL I AM ASKING. I asked him to read that book so he can understand the viewpoint and he simply writes Miller off as someone who "does not know God." If he claims that it is not legitimate, he has a problem with every church who accepts or believes in theistic evolution.

So let's all take a big breath, okay??
Once again, I do not want to get into a biblical discussion, and I said this from the very beginning. I just basically got tricked into this whenever HisMan insisted that I don't believe in God.
So I'm done. If you have any questions about theistic evolution go to the vatican website. If you want resources or explanations regarding evolution in the context of science, ask one of the moderators for my e-mail and we can talk then.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 10:06 AM



This is interesting stuff. Bethany, you bring up a really good point via HisMan's statement

"If evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is not the cause of death"

So I don't try and take any position either way, but let me know what you think about this possible solution. In a few posts later, you mention the verses from Romans and 1 Corinthians that talk about death entering the world because of the original sin, and of course, I agree. But it seems to me that when the bible speaks about death, there are [at least] 2 different kinds. Let me illustrate. Consider Genesis 3:3-4

" 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

Eve tells the serpent that God said that when they eat of the tree, they will die. The serpent, being the father of lies, says "no, you won't die." But what happens when they eat from the tree? Do they die? No. Does that make God a liar? Of course not. But I think the word "die" and "death" is used in a different sense here then how we think of a person dying (separation of body from soul). To me, it seems that when they talk about death, it is a spiritual death; a death where you are cut off from God, where you are no longer in his friendship, and that needs to be restored through Jesus.

If nothing else, we KNOW that when God said "you will die" for eating the fruit, he could NOT have been talking about physical death because Adam and Eve didn't physically die, right? And then when St. Paul talks about death entering the world through one man, it seems like he means death in the same way that God meant death, which isn't physical. So it may not necessarily be this spiritual death that I talked about above, but it almost seems impossible that it is a physical death because Adam and Eve simply didn't die immediately.

Sorry to keep going on, but I could see that one possible way to argue that it was physical death is by saying that it eventually would happen; that is "you've eaten from the tree, now you're gonna die in 600 years or whatever." I can see that, actually. But as long as the scenario I described above is even a possible understanding of death (that death is meant in that text in a different sense), then it is possible that some of the ideas of evolution and teh Genesis account are not contradictory. Again, not necessarily saying I buy any particular interpretation, but just throwing it out there to see what people think. Hopefully this won' t turn into another 3500 post thread :) God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 20, 2009 10:38 AM



Bethany, nope. Nothing is proven in the technical sense of the word.

I don't know what you consider to be the technical sense of the word, but it's pretty simple to prove many things scientifically. My son learns about testable and observable science every day.

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 10:48 AM



Bobby, I agree that death in the verse you mentioned is a spiritual death. (of course, I believe that physical death was also a part of it, because before Eden, there was no physical death).

This is why the Bible continually refers to that moment as the moment when we spiritually became dead. Adam's sin brought us death, and that is a foreshadowing which explains how it is that through Christ we all become alive.

There is figurative language in the Genesis account, and I never have denied that...but there is also figurative language in many accounts in Luke, Matthew, John, etc. That doesn't mean that the account itself is figurative, but that sections of it have figurative language within it. I'll see if I can find you some examples so you'll know what I'm talking about.

I hope I'm making sense to you. :)

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 10:56 AM



Here is one example of figurative language in a literal account- the account of Jesus resurrection, which we know is 100 percent literal- I have underlined the figurative speech:

Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 “Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 10:59 AM



Oh, I'm not saying that Genesis is all figurative at all necessarily. Right, there is certainly figurative language in the gospels, yet they are historical, agreed, which I have no problem believing about Genesis as well; that there is figurative language, but that Adam and Eve were real people who underwent a real test and failed, where tempted in some way by Satan etc.

I don't know if this is what you're thinking or not, but I'm not equating "spiritual" with "figurative." I believe that their death was very real. It just seems to me that the death being a real spiritual death leaves open the possibility for physical death before the fall.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 20, 2009 11:04 AM



Physical death of plants and other animals, that is; not humans.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 20, 2009 11:07 AM



I'm confused... ?

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 11:09 AM



Oh wait! I think I get what you're saying.

I don't know...I wouldn't think that there was death before the fall, physical or spiritual.

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 11:10 AM



Oh, of animals? I don't know. That's way beyond what I am capable of knowing. lol! But very interesting!

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 11:11 AM



Umm... yeah, this may get tricky to try and hash out our ideas here. I can't devote too much time to it today anyway, so perhaps we can put this on hiatus and save it for another time. I'll think some more about how to explain what I"m trying to say :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 20, 2009 11:13 AM



"Oh, of animals? I don't know. That's way beyond what I am capable of knowing"

Ah, I think this might clear it up. Forget my previous post then... Hang on...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 20, 2009 11:15 AM



I guess I am just really confused as to what you're trying to tell me. I know you're trying to get something across but for some reason, it's just whizzing past my head.

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 11:16 AM



"I don't know what you consider to be the technical sense of the word, but it's pretty simple to prove many things scientifically. My son learns about testable and observable science every day."

You mean facts? Verifiable observations? Yes, there are facts. But nothing is "proven."

Check out this link: http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 11:27 AM



"Oh, of animals? I don't know."

So I think the following is the idea of evolution and Genesis integrated together: So you know the basic idea of evolution; that there were different forms we took over time, started from a single cell organism and constantly producing new offspring with slight variations, etc. What it would postulate is that all the "previous forms" of human (all the stuff we evolved from) was never a human- it was always animal, which is why I say that I think animals died before the fall. The way theistic evolution understands Genesis, is that once God says "Let us create man in our image", he then proceeds to directly infuse the RATIONAL SOUL into that animal which had evolved into something that looks like a human but is not, thereby MAKING it into a human being. So there were all these animals that kept evolving, closer and closer into what we physically know as a human being, but it was always an animal because it was never rational and it was never a moral creature able know right from wrong, which is what the rational soul does for us.

In other words, so the theory would state, if you were to PHYSICALLY study the animal that God was ABOUT to infuse the soul into and then studied the HUMAN which God had just infused the soul into, you would not be able to tell any PHYSICAL difference. Physically, they are exactly the same, but one is a moral agent able to make rational decisions and know and love and serve God, and the other is simply a brute, an animal who throws his own feces at himself. And so once God infused that soul into that animal, thereby turning him into man, there was no physical or spiritual death of that man or his offspring until the fall. Yet the whole time, these animals are able to die physically.

Another way to think about it is like when sperm and egg meet. You had a sperm, you had an egg, but once they fuse, you have a completely new thing, a human being. Analogously, you have an animal, you have a rational soul, you fuse them together and you have a completely new thing, a human being.

So I think that's how a theistic evolution understanding might put those things in harmony. May not be true, but yeah. That is how one might understand it, I think.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 20, 2009 11:28 AM



I can see what you're saying now, Bobby, and it's a very interesting theory.

However, I just don't think it adds up at all. It wouldn't correlate with other scripture which clearly says that animals and humans are created distinctly differently. (All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 1 Cor. 15:39)

It also doesn't mesh with the account of God creating Adam from nothing but the dust of the ground. The Bible was able to mention that God took a rib from Adam to make a woman- why wouldn't it also say that God took an animal to create man from? I just can't see it going along with scripture at all.

So now I finally get what you're saying, but I just have to disagree... but I know you weren't saying that is what you believe, but you were showing me a theory to help explain how another side might see it. I'm just trying to explain why I can't agree with that theory. There are probably many other reasons I could think of but those were the first two that popped into my head.

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 11:43 AM



Right, those are good points to consider too, Bethany. I understand your what you're saying as well. And I also understand the view that if you see that if scripture teaches that something is true, then this IS what is true, and anything that contradicts that must be wrong. And I agree. Word of God 100% infallible, wrong in nothing.

Thanks for the discussion. Someone has a dirty diaper [hint: not me] so I must get to that, and then it's lunch time for miss Stinky Pants. I"ll talk with you later. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 20, 2009 11:59 AM



Aww how cute. I am sure you are really looking forward to meeting miss boo berry too! :)
I am looking forward to seeing her pictures when she's born. ;)

Have a great day!

Posted by: Bethany at March 20, 2009 12:02 PM



Bethany.

When the Son of God died, and was buried, where was he for those three days "while he was dead"?


Some say he "decended into hell". Hell being nothingmore then a "trash pile". St Dismas, the good thief,(Greek translation =sunset/death) was told by Jesus he was going to "be with me in Paradise this day". In essence, one of the few people, if not the only one?, we know got to Paradise, while millions have come and gone, not knowing if they got to Paradise/Heaven.

Also, why did Jesus say, "My God why have you foresaken me"?. Heli, Heli, lema sabachthani.

Finally, why do you think the Germans were soo faithful to "evolutionary science" that they became remorseless mass murderers in the name of Evolution,and pre-Christian roots?

Posted by: yllas at March 20, 2009 2:07 PM



PIP.

"I only came here to correct some misconceptions about evolution and racism and to answer Vannah's question that she asked".


Most historians have come to the conclusion that "evolution science" was used by the Germans to justify their actions of superiority.

Which included scientific superiorty concerning human experimentation for the advancement of medical science.

Such as the problem of passing out in high G turns for their pilots. Or the problem of the freezing of their sailors in the North Atlantic.

Or lack of protein in the diet of their armed forces, which led to the re-discovery of that popular diet known as the protein diet of today. Use some "fat please", or die otherwise. Learned from German evolutionary medical science PIP.

Shall we discuss "blood experiments" based on racial/evolutionary science by the Japanese? Which is why the Japanses lead in artificial blood science.

By what reasoning did the Germans know they could do such actions to other human beings PIP?

One is the reason of saving future lifes from pain and suffering, but more importantly, German lifes, which were superior to other racial/national/cultural lifes in this world.


Science is based upon philosophy PIP. Philosophy gives science its morality to murder other humans for scientific medical advancements. Evolution is science PIP.

St Science is like the good thief when it repents of its sins. When was the last time you heard of science repenting of any wrong which it has created?

Posted by: yllas at March 20, 2009 2:33 PM



HisMan:

God bless you for telling the truth about evolution and creation. I too believe that the creation is presented literally.

Some more thinking points for Vannah and others who might be interested:
If the days aren't really days, why are they so carefully described as having a morning and evening each time? If the creatures changed into other kinds of creatures, why does Genesis keep saying that God created them "according to their kinds"? And Death--we all know it is evil, physical death as well as spiritual death. Why would God have made a creation that depended on an evil?

PIP, I want to admire you for this:
"(Although, I wouldn't label myself a "Catholic" anyway, but I take a lot of moral and theological guidance from the Church)"

Thank you! Thank you for not saying something silly like "I'm a Catholic and the Church is wrong." Thank you for being willing to disassociate yourself from the Church to preserve its reputation, for recognizing that you cannot say that you are a Catholic who disagrees with Catholic teaching.

Your religion can be whatever you want it to be, but if you adopt an existing religion, you must hold to its truths.

I think theistic evolution is perfectly valid. But not if you believe the Bible. I think theistic evolutionists must be worshipping some other god.

Posted by: YCW at March 20, 2009 2:49 PM



Bethany:

There was no death of either man or animals before sin. As I stated before when God was finished he said it was "good". Then sin and death came. Otherwise the god of theistic evolution is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible, Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah Jira, does not play these games.

Romans 8:19-23 "19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."

Verse 21 is the point.

Literal creation is obvious, is fundamental, is basic to our faith in Christ.

Please learn this rule about Biblical exegesis: Use the Bible to explain the Bible. Don't just go ask a theologian or a professor because they are just men. Always ask God first. This is why it is so important to read and study the Bible individually for we will all individually make account to God.

And Bethany, Yllas, Studly, XPPC, please keep fighting the good fight. It's worth every ounce of energy you can muster and the benefits are out of this world.

You know, if I can get all of you Cathoics and Protestants alike to hunger and thirst for God's Word, your daily bread, the sustenance of your soul, just watch what He will do through you.

Good job Bethany, I am impressed. I think you guys are starting to get it.

Posted by: HisMan at March 20, 2009 3:19 PM



God Bless you as well, YCW.

Posted by: HisMan at March 20, 2009 3:21 PM



"telling me I hate the Catholic Church"
Never said such a thing. I was calling you out on being inconsistent. If you respect the Church, you should be respectful of their legitimate beliefs. I pretty much follow what they have laid out. If my belief is a form of atheism, so is theirs. That's why I asked you to grow a pair and proclaim this, but you obviously don't do so. This leads me to believe you are just picking on me to get me frustrated and you can get your jollys on.....

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 2:19 AM"

No PIP, I don't get my jollies on doing any of this. Your frustration is a result of me not cowtowing to your heresy. No, you are not the center of the universe. I see your philosophies as very, very dangerous, perhaps unawares, and I am trying to protect others from your compromising beliefs.

You covet approval and this has caused you not to think critically or even courageously. The point is, you are willing to compromise if it gets you what you want. That's dangerous.

I've told you befoer I think you are an intelligent person, however, you need to fully embrace and sureender to God before He can use you for what you created to be. Otherwise..."Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind.........

Posted by: HisMan at March 20, 2009 3:58 PM



PIP:

You were right when you said that scientific method is one based upon falsification. In other words, you cannot really "prove" anything - you can only "disprove" something.

I guess I was thinking more mathematically than scientifically. So rethinking what you said I agree.

Furthermore, creation and evolution really do rule out all other possible models. For example, suggesting that aliens transplanted us here on earth (and thus answering the question "where did we come from?") does not answer the question, "From whence did we come?" It is actually an intellectual cop-out - it only brings up the question, "Where did the aliens come from?"

It all boils down to creation, or evolution. Either we were created by supernatural processes, or we evolved by supernatural processes.

My problem with you is that you want to combine the two, evolution and creation, when I think the two ideas are totally incompatible.

The beat goes on.....

Posted by: HisMan at March 20, 2009 4:34 PM



Hmmm...those are very excellent points, YCW. I'll look over them. I was only curious and forming a theory that I think, is based more on my personal philosophy of God (like any of us know everything about God, though :)) and not my ideas regarding science. Science, in my opinion, is lovely, but superfluous in the grand scheme of things. Again, thanks for the video Pretty in Pink.

God bless!

Posted by: Vannah at March 20, 2009 5:38 PM



"You covet approval"

I don't know why you keep telling me this. You really don't know me. And I could give a fig about what you think of me. I just get annoyed when you start badgering me about evolution almost EVERY TIME something about it comes up between other people. I'm willing to let you believe what you want, why can't do the same for me? I think you do it because you think I will change my mind, but believe me HisMan, I won't.

"My problem with you is that you want to combine the two, evolution and creation, when I think the two ideas are totally incompatible."
Seems a lot of people here think the same. It comes down to how you interpret the Bible. You can think I'm wrong, that's okay. I think you are wrong about many things too (such as capital punishment and other human rights issues). There's no need to go here again (as I've tried to say before) when it leads to the same thing every time.

Good luck on your journey.

Vannah you're welcome :) Let me know if you are looking for some other resources--the mods know my e-mail!

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 20, 2009 6:31 PM



"I don't know why you keep telling me this. You really don't know me. And I could give a fig about what you think of me."

PIP,

I would argue that we know you pretty well. You have alot of good qualities PIP, relax.

like Hisman said "you need to fully embrace and surrender to God before He can use you for what you created to be".

God Bless.


Posted by: Jasper at March 20, 2009 8:07 PM



"If nothing else, we KNOW that when God said "you will die" for eating the fruit, he could NOT have been talking about physical death because Adam and Eve didn't physically die, right? And then when St. Paul talks about death entering the world through one man, it seems like he means death in the same way that God meant death, which isn't physical. So it may not necessarily be this spiritual death that I talked about above, but it almost seems impossible that it is a physical death because Adam and Eve simply didn't die immediately."

@Bobby:

I believe and this is what I have always been taught - that original sin caused both physical and spiritual death.
Because Adam and Eve were terribly sorry for their sin against God they were forgiven and their souls did not die (ie go to Hell). In fact, they are in Heaven.
However, the rupture between body and soul meant that the gift of living forever on Earth in the Paradise God created in complete unity with Him, would not happen. The body would weaken and age and humans would die. Not only that but we would struggle with sin becuase our unity of soul and body was destroyed. The will would now be subject to the body whereas prior to the fall, the body was in perfect harmony with the will.
The death God was referring to was not a sudden physical death at all.
Any biblical scholar will tell you that the death was both physical and spiritual. This has always to my mind, been the teaching of the Catholic church.

Posted by: angel at March 20, 2009 9:19 PM



Bethany:

There was no death of either man or animals before sin. As I stated before when God was finished he said it was "good". Then sin and death came. Otherwise the god of theistic evolution is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible, Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah Jira, does not play these games.

Thank you, Hisman! I really appreciate that. I didn't think that animals died beforehand, but I was not able to find a Biblical defense to refute the idea, so I just wasn't totally sure.

Thanks for helping me out there. I've never actually heard of the theory that animals died before Eden before...but apparently it's been discussed among people before many times, because when I googled it, many sites came up.

Posted by: Bethany at March 21, 2009 8:55 AM



Bethany: its a very interesting discussion

I think we have no concept of just what it was like before the fall - I think it was probably so incredibly beautiful (and we were beautiful) before that terrible day.

Posted by: angel at March 21, 2009 9:36 AM






Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)





Visit www.FightFOCA.com
Sunday quote
As my vision continued that night, I saw someone who looked like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient One and was led into his presence.

He was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language would obey him.

His rule is eternal – it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.


~ Daniel 7:13-14, New Living Translation
who do they think i am?

“… Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse and anti-abortion activist, wrote on her Web site…”

~ Associated Press

Jill Stanek, an anti-abortion blogger with a nationwide following… says…”

~ Chicago Tribune

“Other high-profile conservatives… include… anti-abortion activist Jill Stanek”       ~ CNN

Jill Stanek, a prominent antiabortion columnist and blogger… said…”                                 ~ Los Angeles Times

Jill Stanek, a prominent anti-choice blogger, said…”

~ NARAL fundraising letter

“… said Jill Stanek, a nurse in the Chicago area who… writes an anti-abortion blog.”                            ~ New York Times

“… says Jill Stanek, a prominent pro-life blogger.”

~ Newsweek

“Anti-abortion activist… Jill Stanek, was even blunter… ”

~ Politico

“Influential antiabortion activist Jill Stanek has written …”

~ U.S. News & World Report

“… said Jill Stanek, a conservative blogger popular with the pro-life community.”                         ~ Wall Street Journal

“Here’s [a blog] worth clicking on… jillstanek.com.

~ Washington Post

“Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek... pointed out....”

~ Washington Times


…and then Jill rendered O’Reilly speechless…


(click to view)
barack obama’s radical positions on abortion
  • Barack Obama opposed legislation as IL state senator to protect abortion survivors from being shelved to die:

    » Links to Obama's votes on IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act

    » Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide

    » Why Jesus would not vote for Obama

    » Audio of Obama arguing against giving medical care to abortion survivors

  • Barack Obama thinks partial birth abortion is a “legitimate medical procedure”:

    » Michelle Obama's partial birth abortion fundraising letter

  • Barack Obama opposes parental notification of minor girls before they abort:

    » Media Matters corroboration

  • Barack Obama has stated “the first thing I’d do as president“ would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every local, state, and federal abortion law passed in the past 35 years:

    » Video of Obama promising FOCA to Planned Parenthood

  • site proofreaders
    (notify for corrections)
    daily record
    March 2009
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    8 9 10 11 12 13 14
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    29 30 31        


    have news?
    BornAliveTruth.orgBornAliveTruth.org

    [World Net Daily]

    [Heritage House76]
    Click the photo above to order Jill's DVD from Heritage House



    Operation Rescue




    [CWA]


    [ProLifeBlogs.com]
    ProLifeBlogs - An independent news site created to capitalize on weblog technology as an uncompromising defender of the sanctity of human life.

    Contact Jill Stanek for more info on placing an advertisement with jillstanek.com.