Filed under: Uncategorized
“Who am I? Why am I here?”
This immortal line, uttered by Admiral James Stockdale during a vice-presidential candidate debate in 1992, was the funniest political moment of my life.
But it could just as easily be seriously applied to many people without roots in our highly individualistic, commercialized society.
Once people leave the bonds of home and strike out on their own, they face a situation of ever-shifting alliances and allegiances, focused mainly on individualistic premises and seemingly infinitely malleable.
Identity becomes a calculation, rather than something intrinsic.
For many people, there is no history. Family connections do not really hold, because they are based on childlike need, and the link evaporates once the need is over.
I know men in their late 20s and early 30s who are either living with their parents or psychologically and materially dependent on them. They are reluctant to break the bond, because they know what a vacuum is out there.
There is little sense of duty to carry on civilization. Why bother, when norms have crumbled and you have lost a sense of who you are?
For many, civilization itself has lost its value.
Identities are assumed and discarded like commodities.
Am I Sexual Man? Sexual stimulation and eroticism are the only things that can be called real in relationships, if indeed we are defined by what science can demonstrate.
Many have turned to sex in an attempt to satisfy their deepest hunger. They have attempted to compress the full range of human desires into an orgasmic function, with disastrous results.
Think of how much violence can be traced to someone leaving someone they used to sleep with.
Am I Intellectual Man? Does my identity consist in being able to demonstrate that I am more intelligent than others, that I have risen about the common herd of dolts, the mass I am destined to manipulate and rule over?
Or perhaps I am Commercial Man. My objective is to be constantly dissatisfied with what I possess. My job is to believe the advertized lies of corporate America, and engage in a never ending loop of consumption in the belief that fulfillment is just around the retail corner. My finest moments are spent rooting through piles of stuff at Marshall’s, my eyes glazed over, not paying attention, vaguely ill-at-ease, but unable to pull myself away.
How about Violent Man? I am endlessly competitive, always looking for a scrap, defining myself by who I can beat, who I can best in combat. I love horror movies, mixed martial arts, football, and, of course, warfare.
No, no. I am Religious Man. I believe that I have found the faith that is a better path than all the others. The practitioners of those other belief systems have fallen into deception and confusion. I, on the other hand, possess the truth. I attend services constantly, my speech is a kind of godspeak that is endemic to the crowd of believers I huddle with.
We spend most of our time talking about the disturbing trends among “secular” people.
Ah, but what if my identity is rather in Christ, who taught no religion, but rather did something that defined who I am and who I will be?
I maintain that the assumptions of evolutionary theory (that we are the product of randomness) are absurd when applied to human beings. We are created beings, we have a creator, and our creator wants to be in fellowship with us.
The only way to ferret out the false identities hurled our way is to be grounded in the foundation of being itself.
Perhaps we do have a real human identity after all.
But you have to seek to find.
30 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Seth –
I am “Diaper Changing Man.”
MQTA
Comment by MQTA January 4, 2009 @ 3:41 pmSeth, I believe most of us are a hybrid of all those identities you mention, with each attempting to rear it ugly head much like Sybil’s multiple personalities. Maybe that is what makes us interesting and not a zealot.
Comment by Kestrel Tim January 4, 2009 @ 7:27 pmSeth –
I think that football belongs under the category of “Religious Man.”
Seth, you are not “Lab Specimen Man.” Climb out of that petri dish, shower off all that formaldehyde, and join the rest of the confused, misunderstood tools in God’s toolbox.
I enjoyed your critique of each of the categories (i.e., Intellectual Man, etc.). I feel personally overlooked, however. What about Public Bureaucracy Man?
MQTA
Comment by MQTA January 5, 2009 @ 6:28 amHearing your classifications reminds me of the killings at Columbine, where the killers made a point of killing “jocks” who typically wore white hats when they weren’t just killing indescriminately. It reminds me of typical dehumanization.
I would counter that however we may identify ourselves or others, we’re all just people anyway. Same weaknesses, same proclivities.
This is not to dog you, Seth, but it seems to me that a fair amount of your outlook on humanity stems from your classification of others and maybe yourself.
You’re a good guy, Seth. Be merciful.
Comment by Aro January 5, 2009 @ 12:18 pmSeth,
You are correct in your assessment of this rather self-constructed, short, and incomplete list of personalities. I sense, though, an element of desperation in your bellowings. You lash out at all but the one in which you find solace. You are anxious to discover a refuge in a stormy world. If so, I encourage you.
The types are certainly simplistic to the point of “straw men”, fail to recognize that we are a mixture, and ignore the presence of others like “political man”. All the other types sometimes funnel through “political man”. Herein lays the attempt to impose our own inclinations on others.
I do not accuse you of this disguised selfishness. Yet, such sentiments have been known to take that cast. The disparagement of the pursuit of wealth has led to the most rabid form of class bigotry, this time with the rich as the target. The search for targets has morphed into chronic victimhood. The targets are necessary because they are labeled “victimizers”.
To think that “intellectual man” is limited to the fetish with “smart” is shortsighted. Their crusade leads right to the doorstep of the state. They inevitably try to recruit the state in the pursuit of their prescriptions. Human beings become instruments in the campaign. You want to talk about dehumanization: everything else pales in comparison to the stripping of an individual’s inherent worth by the progressive intellectual (More about “progressive” at another time).
I know. I know. You meant this to be a personal account, not something with broader overtones. Sorry. However, personal sentiments, no matter their source or intention, frequently do not stay caged within the unmentioned limits of our original construct.
History is replete with ideas that were meant to be applied in one facet of life having a bigger life outside of it. Einstein’s relativity ended up eroding morality. Darwin’s and Mendel’s biology showed up as eugenics. Freud made freshly plowed ground for the impulse plagued sexualism of our day. All of the above, wittingly or unwittingly, poured the foundation for “materialism”.
Not that these scientific ideas have not contributed to our understanding. They are just the off-the-shelf stuff for the intellectual to pursue their conception of the “good” without any recognition of anything higher. Here, Seth, we could reach a point of common agreement. Tradition in the form of established faith presents to the intellectual limits that even they cannot transgress. Religion then becomes an affront to their egotism and something to be expunged or at least relegated to the periphery. I suspect the reaction to Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are partially rooted in the intellectual’s prejudice against faith.
I could go on but I won’t try your patience as I weave your narrative thread in ways that you never intended. While such wasn’t your intention, your chants bring other thoughts to mind. Are you really surprised?
R. Graf
Comment by R. Graf January 6, 2009 @ 11:14 amSeth –
I agree with Roger. Frightening, but true.
It seems to me that Christian orthadoxy, right back to the Church Fathers, has confronted these same questions and provided substantive answers. Is it that you find these answers to be misguided or unreliable, that you find it difficult to internalize these answers in a way that is emotionally or psychologically satisfying/enduring, or something else?
MQTA
Comment by MQTA January 6, 2009 @ 6:09 pmRoger –
I am still waiting to hear from you about the following (from one of Seth’s previous posts):
Your reference to “…The evil that men do…” is of great interest to me. Although your own personal conduct is admirable by Judeo-Christian standards, you do not yourself accept the basic Judeo-Christian premises. Therefore, I cannot help but wonder how you determine that “The evil that men do” is, in fact, evil.
One more thing. Those of us who believe that there is such a thing as evil also believe that innocent people are deliberately harmed in a wide variety of ways. Roger, is it your view that evil never manifests itself through the means of commercialism, capitalism, and/or corporate behavior?
MQTA
Comment by MQTA January 6, 2009 @ 6:13 pmBiblo –
Our friend Seth is looking for solid ground upon which to walk, build, and rest. Does Post-Modernism provide such solid ground? Is Post-Modernism a kind of commune where the residents include Ambivalent Man, Inert Man, Uncommitted Man, and Despairing Man?
MQTA
Comment by MQTA January 6, 2009 @ 6:26 pmR. Graf writes: I suspect the reaction to Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are partially rooted in the intellectual’s prejudice against faith.
I found an article, that may be of interest to you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886_pf.html
Comment by Proud Dad January 6, 2009 @ 8:45 pmSeth,
Why do you feel that you must be classified? I would imagine if you feel this way about yourself these thoughts must be projected onto the rest of the population so why do you feel that all people must be neatly classified in some order? Would you be unable to function if you couldn’t find a classification for yourself? Would you not be able to function if you couldn’t find one that fit your own needs and desires? Are you positive that when you came to the conclusion that you are ‘Religious Man’ you are being completely honest with yourself about who you are and not what you find more appealing?
I also find your definitions of each classification to be way too narrow in scope to be taken very seriously. For example your definition of ‘Intelligent Man’ seems to state that all intelligent people feel they are destined to rule over others. I highly doubt this is the case for what we would consider to be the more intelligent beings in our world. I don’t think Einstein ever wanted to rule or manipulate the masses. You state that much violence is created by people sleeping with other people and you assert this is bad and I would agree with you but then you come to the conclusion that ‘Religious Man’ is the “Better path than all the others” how can you throw out the violence that has been created because one group of people believed in one make believe daddy figure and another group believed in a different one. How can ‘Religious Man’ really be any better? Unless you are just stating that this is what you have found personally for yourself then only you can know if it is or not but if you are saying this is the case in general I don’t think you could be more wrong.
You say that you find the randomness of evolution to be absurd when humans are taken into consideration and that we must be created beings with a creator who wants to be in fellowship with us. The problem with this statement is the severe lack of any credible evidence to show this is the case. Your own personal revelations are not evidence. There is no physical evidence to show this to be true.
Comment by jeff January 7, 2009 @ 11:44 amSeth,
The blog is all abuzz like those Christmas lights in Hagen Oaks.
MQTA: I don’t know who should be more frightened, you or me? As regards to your query, there are many paths to an overarching moral order. For me, a transcendent code with a transcendent being caries greater weight. That makes me much steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition. But this is not about me. Mostly it is about us.
Proud Dad: I like the moniker. I am, and forever will be, a proud dad. Thanks for the link but I couldn’t access it. It made my computer as hyperactive as Chris Matthews at an Obama interview.
Jeff: I was waiting for the time when you would bring up religious slaughters, once again. Certainly, the crusaders did their fair share, as did Mohammed and his acolytes. Compare this, though, with the terror/war/famine of the Bolsheviks. Or let’s try the terror/war/famine of that great secularist/materialist Stalin. Mao’s terror/war/famine set world records. Hitler didn’t kill Jews because he was enamored with Jesus. And remember, the Holocaust included many others who were eligible for extermination on Darwinian and eugenic grounds. In fact, in the top pantheon of mass killers, we would have to go way down the list before we would ever get to a Christian acting on alleged Christian beliefs.
Seth, may the blog roll on.
R. Graf
Comment by R. Graf January 7, 2009 @ 7:34 pmJeff,
Comment by snidever January 7, 2009 @ 7:59 pmI was being sarcastic about “Religious Man.” I hope I am not, and I never want to be, such a person. Christianity is not about ideology. It is about something that happened in time, and it is the story of the world being caught up in what has happened, along with everybody in it.
It is not some new moral code or set of ideas.
It’s about where the world is headed and what God has done, and will do, to clean up the mess that the world has gotten into.
As for physical evidence, what can I say?
The best argument for Christianity existing at all is that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead after being crucified.
Of course this does not “prove” the resurrection.
But without asserting that the resurrection did happen, its pretty darn difficult to explain the willingness of his followers to proclaim that in Jesus the Kingdom of God had come to Earth – and to do so in the face of great persecution.
Sorry for the confusion
Roger –
You wrote: “For me, a transcendent code with a transcendent being caries greater weight.”
I agree, but are you not being deliberately evasive here? What transcendent being do you consider to be real? What transcendent code do you consider to be authoritative? I am asking about what is real and authoritative, not what is traditional.
MQTA
Comment by MQTA January 7, 2009 @ 8:02 pmMQTA,
Comment by snidever January 7, 2009 @ 8:11 pmI see the postmodern world as a situation of great confusion and uncertainty, where the reign of rationality/science has been challenged and the Pandora’s Box of chaos has been unleashed.
Science/rationality has failed to explain man. But now people are in danger of having nothing to support them in life other than the drive for personal happiness/pleasure.
This works for some who are naturally upbeat, but for others who can’t sink into a pleasant obliviousness, this nihilistic tendency produces great evil.
It is those who are tempted to do great evil that the postmodern context has nothing to say. It is a howling vacuum.
Many have taken cover in the identities created for them by so called experts – psychologists, shrinks, behavioral scientists, commercial geniuses, etc.
When these identities fail them, they buy a new self help book, thinking that they just had the wrong expert.
They do not realize that the whole enterprise of identity-making is doomed.
For those who run out of identities, and come face to face with the vacuum, violence and destruction become enormously tempting, because there is a sure identity there.
“I cannot figure out how to live, but I know how to destroy.” So the thinking goes.
This is where Christianity has such a great opportunity to stand in the middle of the vacuum and say, “There is meaning. There is humanity. There is goodness. And whe know this through the love of God in Christ, who became one of us in order to rescue us from this vacuum that we are in.”
In earlier times, this vacuum was less apparent than it is now.
Now is “springtime of evangelism,” in the words of Pope John Paul.
Aro,
Comment by snidever January 7, 2009 @ 8:22 pmOf course there a gazillion identities one can choose between – and mix and match. But my point is, how do you integrate them?
The postmodern world says be what you want to be, follow your desire.
Well, what if that means, like Snoop Dogg, making pornongraphic DVDs by day and then returning home to assume the role of devoted father and family man.
Can identities be combined in infinitely malleable combinations?
The Christian stands up and says no, there is evil and sin, and they must be resisted.
This is bound to be unpopular, but it at least restores moral choices to people who have been dehumanized into thinking they can assume whatever identities they want.
How terrrible, when people encounter the destructiveness and harm of sin, but do not even possess the category of “sin” with which to understand their predicament!
MQTA:
Comment by snidever January 7, 2009 @ 8:27 pmAh, yes, Bureaucratic Man. How could I forget that modern icon of organization? You truly do reign supreme in the modern world.
You are the manager, the decider, the director, the one who gives direction to those below you on the leadership chart.
All hail, heroic implementer of structure!
Kestrel Tim:
Comment by snidever January 7, 2009 @ 8:30 pmYeah, I think we lurch between these identities, sometimes without any connecting threads. Fractured and fragmented.
Good one moment, plotting evil the next.
Who will deliver us from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Christ Jesus our Lord.
MTQA…
The metaphor that I prefer which accurately describes “a postmodern” response to the dilemma that we find ourselves in is a spider web. The postmodern critique as I understand it has opened to the door to the interaction and integration of multiple sources which work together to support us as we attempt to find our way in what has become somewhat of an intellectual wasteland where for too long religious and secularists have waged hand to hand combat against each other in an effort to defeat what they perceive to be the infidel on the other side.
Comment by Bilbo January 7, 2009 @ 10:22 pmSeth,
While I concur that Christianity has much to contribute to our current dilemma I am reminded that the Judeo-Christian tradition has dominated the west since the reign of Constantine, “yet” there has “always” been a void and a vacuum in which alternative worldviews, ideologies, and competing religious perspectives have at various times captured the imagination and allegiance, to one degree or another, of the masses. Christians often like to blame the competing worldviews of their day but unless Christianity can capture the imagination of the masses by digging deep into their heritage and applying it to our current situation than I am afraid Christianity will continue to stand on the outside looking in.
MQTA,
Comment by Bilbo January 7, 2009 @ 10:36 pmI see the postmodern world as a situation of great confusion and uncertainty, where the reign of rationality/science has been challenged and the Pandora’s Box of chaos has been unleashed.
Science/rationality has failed to explain man. But now people are in danger of having nothing to support them in life other than the drive for personal happiness/pleasure.
This works for some who are naturally upbeat, but for others who can’t sink into a pleasant obliviousness, this nihilistic tendency produces great evil.
It is those who are tempted to do great evil that the postmodern context has nothing to say. It is a howling vacuum.
Many have taken cover in the identities created for them by so called experts – psychologists, shrinks, behavioral scientists, commercial geniuses, etc.
When these identities fail them, they buy a new self help book, thinking that they just had the wrong expert.
They do not realize that the whole enterprise of identity-making is doomed.
For those who run out of identities, and come face to face with the vacuum, violence and destruction become enormously tempting, because there is a sure identity there.
“I cannot figure out how to live, but I know how to destroy.” So the thinking goes.
This is where Christianity has such a great opportunity to stand in the middle of the vacuum and say, “There is meaning. There is humanity. There is goodness. And whe know this through the love of God in Christ, who became one of us in order to rescue us from this vacuum that we are in.”
In earlier times, this vacuum was less apparent than it is now.
Now is “springtime of evangelism,” in the words of Pope John Paul.
R. Graf,
There are major flaws with what you are trying to assert.
First off just because other groups in the past have done evil things does not relieve Christians of the evil things they have done. Stalin and Mao never killed anyone or committed an evil act in the name of Secularism or Atheism. Hitler was a Christian and used the Bible and the word of God to motivate his people. Darwinian science says nothing about Eugenics. Eugenics and Darwinian theories are nothing alike. The Survival of the Fittest theory deals only with natural order. Eugenics couldn’t be farther from this. For an example think of two football teams who are going to play against one another. If you place Eugenics into the equation it is the same as one team pulling out machine guns, slaughters the other team completely and then proceeds to run the ball into the end zone over and over then at the end of the game saying that they won because they were simply the better team.
Christians have killed thousands and thousands of people in the name of their religion and god. You cannot deny this, it’s in the Bible. You believe in the Bible right?
Seth,
Thanks for your response. I did not read this blog to be sarcastic so thanks for correcting my assumption. You said “The best argument for Christianity existing at all is that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead after being crucified.” What proof is there of this ever happening? If you believe it happened that is fine of course you are welcome to your beliefs but I think it is dishonest to say it as if it is irrefutable fact.
Comment by jeff January 8, 2009 @ 9:28 amR. Graf,
I forgot to mention that Mohamed and his acolytes believe in the same god that you believe in. Muslims and Christians are pagan Jews.
Comment by jeff January 8, 2009 @ 9:36 amJeff,
Comment by snidever January 8, 2009 @ 10:57 amI made it clear that it is NOT irrefutable fact. My claim was that if you do not assert the resurrection, it is extremely difficult to explain why Christianity exists at all. There were many competing Judaic prophets in Jesus’ time, with different variations on his “the kingdom of God is at hand.”
But Christians said that the fulfillment was in Jesus himself after he died. If his violent death was the end of the story, how to explain this?
Sorry Seth, I misread what you wrote. I have read your comment over and I see what you mean. I also agree with you.
Comment by jeff January 8, 2009 @ 12:53 pmHey Roger,
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18438582/detail.html#-
Comment by jeff January 8, 2009 @ 2:02 pmJeff –
You stated that, “Hitler was a Christian.”
I must say that I know of no credible source of information that indicates that Hitler thought of himself as a Christian, or was considered to be a Christian by any person who was using an orthadox understanding of Christianity as a frame of reference.
But even if Hitler did claim to be a Christian, it would be absurd for anyone with intellectual honesty to accept such a self-definition.
My friend Bilbo says that, “I see the postmodern world as a situation of great confusion and uncertainty, where the reign of rationality/science has been challenged and the Pandora’s Box of chaos has been unleashed.”
It appears that Hitler was an enthusiastic Post-Modernist.
MQTA
Comment by MQTA January 8, 2009 @ 8:36 pmJeff –
You wrote: “Mohamed and his acolytes believe in the same god that you believe in.”
Christians with orthadox beliefs would describe God in terms of the “Trinity.” Are you suggesting that Christians and Muslims share a belief in the Trinity?
MQTA
Comment by MQTA January 8, 2009 @ 8:52 pmMQTA,
Actually, Seth said that “I see the postmodern world as a situation of great confusion and uncertainty, where the reign of rationality/science has been challenged and the Pandora’s Box of chaos has been unleashed.” I had cut and pasted what he said and forgot to remove his quote before I posted my own response. Personally, I see the current state of chaos and confusion as the “reaction” to the failed promises and unrealistic expectations associated with too much faith in reason, science, and the notion that history is linear and progressive. World War I and World II created a significant amount of cognitive dissonance in that particular assumption.
You added, “It appears that Hitler was an enthusiastic Post-Modernist.”
Bilbo: I am not sure if you meant this tongue and cheek…but, for the record…Post-Modernism was “the reaction” to the failure of the progressive view of history and the notion of the perfectibility of the human race which is antithetical to the postmodern critique as I have come to understand it.
Comment by Bilbo January 8, 2009 @ 11:54 pmSeth,
“Variety is the spice of life.” Different views, great meat for discussion.
Jeff: Your points are well-taken, but I am much perplexed. Your response spills over into cliché (please don’t take offense). Come on, MQTA is right. Hitler was no Bible-thumping Christian. Hitler wanted to resuscitate the Teutonic past, and that includes a renewal of Germanic paganism. The phenomenon goes back to the waning days of the 19th century and Wilhelmine Germany. It was part of their Germanic renaissance.
Further, you missed the point, the main point of my piece: ideas seldom stay cooped up in their original frame of reference. We are quite creative creatures in mixing and matching ideas to produce new epistemological brews. Of course Darwinism and eugenic are different things. That’s not the point, though. They have a common ancestry in 19th century scientism, and Darwin provided the basic scientific framework for eugenics. It’s just that man was going to intervene to improve on the alleged natural flow of evolution. It certainly boosted the tendency to justify inhumanity.
As for your claim that creating a list of champion mass killers is tantamount to “justification” of mass killing, I am truly mystified. My point and “justify” do not belong in the same sentence. Santa Claus makes a list too, but so what. I think that you got the point in spite of the obfuscation. Human beings are weak and flawed creatures. It’s just that materialism (as a philosophy) has shown to be a more fertile breeding ground for wholesale, systematic slaughter. You might say that political murder has finally achieved economies of scale.
MQTA: I claim a great deal of ambiguity on matters such as these. You want a detailed plan of belief; one that I cannot give. Some settle the cognitive discord by taking the “leap of faith”. For me, I hold back to some degree, all the while recognizing the thing that we are trying to get our minds around is too great for our understanding.
Bilbo: Nice to hear from you. Yet, I think that you think too much. Just kidding … but only partially. Sometimes people take apart in the utmost details every facet of their existence and totally lose any sense of proportion. Take, for example, “postmodernism”. It is quite the fashionable phrase of our time, a phrase that could simply be the product of us obsessing about ourselves. Oh some wail that they are torn from this thing to that; oh the pressures of modern life that conflict us; oh this is a new age presenting never-before-seen circumstances; oh we have become totally disconnected from our past. For most of my acquaintance with the term, it has mostly been used by those obsessing about the uniqueness of our time. Are you sure that we have not blinded ourselves? Frankly, read ancient Roman historians such as Plutarch and you will find similar caterwauling. Please let’s moderate the stuff and get some perspective. We have our problems, but are they really that unique?
May the blog live on.
R. Graf
Comment by R. Graf January 9, 2009 @ 8:19 amRoger,
You wrote: Nice to hear from you. Yet, I think that you think too much.
Bilbo: What else would you expect from someone who is single and has three weeks off for winter break?
You wrote:
For most of my acquaintance with the term, (Postmodernism) it has mostly been used by those obsessing about the uniqueness of our time… Please let’s moderate the stuff and get some perspective. We have our problems, but are they really that unique?
Bilbo: I wouldn’t say we are all that unique as you suggest but there is my opinion a “qualitative” difference between the past and present and if we fail to understand those differences than we are bound, as one famous historian put it, “to repeat the mistakes of the past”…Just my take on things…
Comment by Bilbo January 9, 2009 @ 2:56 pmMQTA,
Of course I am not saying Muslims believe in the trinity that would be absurd. You said “Orthodox” Christians believe in the trinity but what about all the other Christians who do not? When Christianity was first started no one believed in a trinity god. The word trinity appears nowhere in the Bible. The trinity theory wasn’t really established until 325 C.E. by the council of Nicea and even at this time it wasn’t accepted by all Christians. Orthodox is defined as adhering to what is commonly accepted and at one time-and one could easily argue still is-the trinity was not commonly accepted. This is irrelevant to my point anyways. Judaism, Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic religions and to think that these three religions do not believe in the same god is to not understand the history of your religion.
R.Graf,
To say that Hitler was not a Bible thumping Christian is a failing to understand Hitler. Have you ever read any of his speeches or Mein Kampf? Here are a few quotes of Hitler.
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.”
“Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God’s truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.”
“Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.”
I’m not sure how much more thumping one would need to do in order to be considered a “Bible Thumper”.
To say that Darwin provided the framework for Eugenics is absurd. Eugenics says that certain traits are fitter than others and inferior traits should be eliminated through systematic breeding. This sounds much more like the preachings of the OT and Hitler than anything Darwin ever said. God told Israel over and over again to slaughter other cultures because they were not chosen by God. This is exactly what Hitler used to motivate his people. Darwinian Theory is nothing like this in any way possible. It was evil men who used his theory incorrectly and twisted the words to their liking in order to support their views. Nowhere does Hitler site Darwinian principles as his reasoning for wanting to exterminate the Jews. He does however on many occasions use the Bible to support his beliefs. The writings of Martin Luther are a more likely suspect for the framework of Nazism.
Even if one were to concede that Darwin started the “Framework” for Eugenics and Nazism it took Christian men to bastardize his theory to do so.
The next part of your reply is puzzling to me. I suspect you meant it for someone else but I cannot be sure. Either that or you misunderstood much of what I said to you.
Comment by jeff January 10, 2009 @ 12:10 pm