Re: [asa] Creationists for genocide

From: David Opderbeck <>
Date: Tue Aug 28 2007 - 08:12:20 EDT

At this point, Pim, all I can do is laugh. You are yawning at Pope John
Paul II as an example of a Biblical ethic against genocide? You seriously
deny that it's *possible *to build a genocidal ethic from the facts of
evolution? *You* make the statement that "reasonable is a subjective
standard at best," and *I'm* employing a strawman when I use it to question
your position using your own words? You have dug yourself into such a deep
hole in this discussion that you've become incoherent.

On 8/27/07, PvM <> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, David Opderbeck <> wrote:
> > Just time for a few quick responses:
> >
> > 1. I can claim the Bible forms a foundation for rejecting genocide,
> even
> > when some people have read it to support genocide, because that is a
> > verifiable historical fact. Pope John Paul II arguably did more to stop
> > genocide (as perpetrated by atheists in the Soviet Union with the
> presumed
> > blessing of Darwin as filtered through Marx, BTW), than any other figure
> in
> > human history. John Paul II's ethics were thoroughly Biblical, and I'm
> > pretty sure he was aware of the problem texts Avalos cites.
> Yawn, those are such irrelevant statements of what you believe and
> appeals to authority. Avalos seems to be quite correct here, there is
> no real good standard for what is just based on biblical teachings.
> > 2. Yes, I claim the text of nature can be read to support genocide. Do
> you
> > deny that? If so, why is your intepretation more reasonable than mine?
> I surely deny that. As far as your question is concerned why is an
> interpretation that the bible supports genocide less or more
> reasonable than one which claims it does not?
> > Isn't the fact that we can reach differing interpretations of the same
> text
> > conclusive evidence that the text is worthless as a source of norms? Or
> It surely makes it hard to claim that it can form a source of norms,
> worse, it can form a great source of conflicts.
> > does that logic only apply one way? Or, could it be that the
> possibility of
> > differing interpretations is an invetable result of the human condition
> and
> > the variability of all complex texts, which does not necessarily render
> > every potential reading equally valid?
> How does one establish which reading is more 'valid'? wishful thinking?
> > 3. "Reasonable is a subjective standard at best?" Are you claiming
> that
> > there is nothing objective at all about reason? On what basis, then,
> should
> > anyone accept Avalos' and your claims about how best to interpret
> scripture,
> > or about any conclusions of science? Is this just some kind of
> Foucaultian
> > knowledge/power thing? Or is it that you're restricting "reason" in
> > positivist fashion to that which is empirically verifiable?
> Nice strawman.
> > 4. Before you "sigh," read what I'm writing. The Darwin=genocide claim
> > stands if we apply your and Avalos' Biblical hermeneutic to the text of
> > nature.
> Nope, just because you make this claim does not mean that it stands.
> > As I reject that hermeneutic, I reject Darwin=genocide as an
> > absolute, necessary progression.
> Sigh.
> So much objections and still missing the point

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 28 08:12:50 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 28 2007 - 08:12:51 EDT