The View From 1776

Charles Darwin and the Constitution

On what basis are we to accept liberals’ contention that Darwinian evolution trumps the work product of the founders who wrote the Constitution?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/23 at 07:13 PM
  1. I wish I could read on, this ridiculous argument. However, I find it so shallow and silly that it's not worth it.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/23  at  10:24 PM
  2. The ACLU is the KGB of the hippie movement. They are a part of a new proletariat "the people" that uses hundreds of ways legal and illegal to get what they want. They want to get rid of everything in the US they consider bourgeoisie. They want a US that has stripped everybody and everything of the real meaning of our revolution. Like the Soviets they want to strip everybody and everything in the US of Christianity. Everything they want will be called constitutional whether it is or not. Everything that was normal for the first 150 years of the US history will be called unconstitutional whether it is or not or not. Christians, other than using elections and judicial appointments, have totally failed to stand up to them. Christians are clueless to the real danger and are losing a generation of their children who are adrift from their parents faith. What Christians fail to understand is that even if they are totally successful getting all the judges to change what is being imposed on us by the courts, this proletariat will break the rules a hundred new ways, to get what they want and Christians will still dutifully follow all the rules and lose their country and lose their own children. The only way to stop this new proletariat is by using the second amendment. Christians would rather lose their country and see their own children end up hell than do that.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/24  at  01:32 AM
  3. The Constitution was written to be interpreted as the Bible was. The writers of those two documents knew no one group was blessed with total understand of things. Knowledge and understanding is acquired through the struggle of deliberation and interpretation. The writers of these two documents also understood that any sound and lasting laws for humanity emerge through the reconciling of different points of views and interpretations, not just one that would end up being divisive and inherently dangerous. The writers of those two documents also knew that circumstances change and thus those documents had to remain open and flexible so as to remain relevant.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/25  at  11:34 AM
  4. In comparison, documents and scripture that have allowed no interpretation or flexibility have left their constituents in a miserable state, because they have not been allowed to evolve.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/25  at  12:02 PM
  5. David you are dangerously wrong on both counts:

    The Bible is not open to interpretation. "One Lord, one faith one baptism..." Don't try to call yourself a Christian if you don't accept the scriptures as they were written by the Apostles and understood by the early churches. If you have your own interpretation you are a heretic you are apostate, you are a cult, but you are not a Christian.

    The Constitution is a bit more flexible than the bible. Unlike the bible the words of the constitution actually say it can be amended, and clearly defines the process to amend it. Don't try to call yourself a patriotic American if you have different interpretations. Imposing Darwinism, and everything else the ACLU does is because they are just a bunch of hippies who have despaired of our culture who are going around like street gangs with cans of spray paint, defacing everything they can. The language used in the constitution is still in common use in the country and all the notes of those who wrote it are still readily available that even an idiot like me who is a product of a deficient public school education can sit down and read it an know exactly what it means. People like you who disagree with the constitution and want to use activist judges and every other means to make the US like Amsterdam and impose it on every one else trying to stop you by calling it your interpretation of the constitution. You want to erase and call unconstitutional the way it was viewed by everyone for 150 years. You are not a patriot. Either amend it, or fight a war to defeat the US and write your own new constitution.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/25  at  01:27 PM
  6. I am sorry but the Bible is so full of contradictions that it requires interpretation to figure out what is meant. Just read Genesis. It presents the read with a puzzle and in debating and trying to work it out is how humans have transcended themselves.

    Only a narrow, closed mind can except the Bible at its primary or face value.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/25  at  01:59 PM
  7. And if the Bible is so solid in its mean how come it spawned so many religions that interpret it differently. I think that was the intent of the Bible, to create conflict among interpretations. And from that conflict a meaningful human existence would emerge. And it is still emerging, or evolving.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/25  at  02:06 PM
  8. David, everything you said is true if you view the Bible as literature. You are also reading it with Darwinist sunglasses, with your statements about emerging and evolving.

    However, if you view it as scripture, for the Jews and the Christians, it had one meaning by the men who wrote it, to the people to whom they were writing. Today, it can be said more than any previous generation, there is more archaeological, anthropological, and cultural information about the people to whom scriptures were written that ever. We are certain about what it meant to the people to whom it was written. There is a history in each culture of how they understood the scriptures. For the past two thousand years the Holy Spirit has been using whoever is available to translate the scripture into every language, every tribe, every nation, every cultural group of people, and confronting them with the message of this book. Some individuals within these societies accept the message and make significant changes to their society and their personal lives, and it becomes a tradition to pass from generation to generation. Others reject the message and are either, neutral or hostile to it. There is some good and some bad in each society before they receive the message, so the things the Holy Spirit needs to change in each culture is different. The way each culture makes music is different so the way they dance with God will be different. But the original message going out is the same. Almost the entire Torah of the Jews and New Testament of the Christians is in the form of stories that would be read to your family or your tribe around a campfire, in the evening when everybody tells stories. Only scholars doing something that is not natural to the scriptures seem to have their perceived problems of contradiction and need for interpretation. Just read the stories.

    The world is still under the curse of Babel. The Roman Empire for a thousand years used force to hold it's conquered peoples together, but eventually broke down into its cultural groups. The Soviets used a lot force to impose their religion, language, politics, and economy, on the USSR but eventually it broke down into ethnic groups. All of this is evidence that the curse of Babel in Genesis is still on humanity, and all of our languages slowly change over time. Romans who all used to speak Latin now have to have a translator if they are from Spain and they travel to France or Italy. The Muslims require the Quran be printed and read in the original Arabic language throughout the Muslim world. But every local group has a different way of speaking Arabic, so they don't understand a word of the conversation when they are in a different Arabic Country. The curse of Babel still divides the world's politics , economies, languages, and religions. Christianity has been here for two thousand years and there is much division into cultural groups and hostility between groups, due to this curse. But all that hostility does not for one minute change the fact that there is one meaning to the scripture. God will judge.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/25  at  04:19 PM
  9. The relativist position is one in which the relativist seeks non-responsibility. While he rejects criteria for choice, he seeks flexiblity of meaning and virtue in life - other than carnal satisfaction and non-guilt for his indulgences and inferiority self-image. Patty-cake mentality. Tsk-tsk-tsk.

    GOD says, "I change not!"

    Absolutely.

    semper fidelis
    vincit veritas
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  10/26  at  12:42 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.