At 02:58 AM 21/02/02 -0500, PHSEELY@aol.com wrote (see below my reaction,
to see where I am reacting against)
I do think that (if you talk about men) "survival of the fittest" is
inhumane and un-christian.
Our Lord wants us to take care of the poor. What God does is something
else. We cannot and are not allowed to judge God, But God does judge us
when we do not take care of the "poor" who we have always with us.
"Humane" to have some "humans" die, so that others live well? To say that
is very un-christian. We must take care of the poor around us. The
hardest thing to see in N.America is the lack of proper care for the
poor. I am not the only one thinking that. A quote from "themelios" the
Editorial of Vol.27 No.2, page 1:
Of course, when I look at American society in general, I am left
with profound doubts about the depth of much American society in
general. The rates of abortion are tragically high; the ubiquity of drugs
eats at the fabric of society; unbelievable levels of deprivation stand
side by side with vast wealth and opulence; the awful urban violence easily
(and ironically, given American help in the province) eclipses that of
Ulster in numbers of dead and wounded; andd glib political blasphemies drip
constantly from the lips of politicians who constantly identify the
American way with God's way.
End of quote
Written by someone who accepted a position in Philadelphia, PA
>In a message dated 02/20/2002 10:24:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
><< > Lucy responds:
> > I have never held the popular opinion that "social Darwinism" or
> > "survival of the fittest" was in any way cruel or inhumane. Because of
> > this, I have also not had philosophical difficulties accepting that God
> > would design a system that seemingly works this way.
> > Consider...in the long run, it is much more humane and compassionate to
> > have some humans lose their lives so that others may not only live but
> > may live well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 09:18:50 EST