pop morality

[Drich]

Sub species:



A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species.





So even though the Jews were scattered throughout the world, they generally did not interbreed with gentiles (sexual selection criteria of subspecies met); and also Africans were originally geographically isolated.  Therefore Hitler, presumably being a self-proclaimed taxonomist, made the necessary determination that Jews and Africans were indeed of a different subspecies than the Nazis.



So I didn't read it carefully before, but now yes, it's clear that Hitler perverted science to further his agenda.  As you note, the scientific community does not divide humanity into different subspecies.

the word is exploit not pervert. Hitler used and legitimately so, the fact that humanity was originally subdivided into a sub species. What wasn't 'science' was to say one race was better/the ultimate evolution of man while the others were genetic casts offs, what evolution was leaving behind.
This is the ultimate end of science/evolution, eventually this question will come around again. we dance around it in movies and in comics with the advent of 'mutants/super heroes/"homo sapeian- superior" but it all originated with the idea that the aryan race was the genetic stock needed to breed the homosapeian- superior (Hitler's supermen) that all other races were genetically inferior/Neanderthal type sub species.

Now the real perversion of science comes in the way of removing our sub species classification in an effort to pretend we are all the same. Now if we are all under God we can claim this unity, unless God puts us in a rank in file order, but if we are all sentient monkeys as Darwin suggests, then the logical conclusion/the truth is closer to what Hitler taught than what we tell ourselves now. So if their is a perversion, it is in the lie/non scientific way we classify ourselves now, and not what Hitler based his deceitful propaganda on.

I find it regrettable, though, that you won't take a firm stance on your moral absolutes.  Please respond to this:

1. The Jews made 600+ Do and Don't laws

So? Jesus Himself said they were a perversion of what God intended. He even took acouple apart to show the wickness found in their 'morality.'

2. These laws were very specific (don't cook a goat in its mother's milk?!)

You are confusing the laws of the Jews with the law of God. The Jews added to the laws of God and as a result had over 600 does and don't.

3. These laws covered minor and major offenses (and punishments were applied accordingly)

as were the law of God.

4. The Jews were aware of what rape is (there was the rape of Dinah, the rape of Tamar, and the dusk-till-dawn-rape-to-death of the levite's concubine in Judges 19)

5. There is no law against rape

As i pointed out, Rape was apart of the survival of the species then.
As distastful as it is now, then it ensured a proper genetic diversity. Don't like rape? know somewhere down your genetic line, one of your grandmothers was indeed raped, and you are here because of it.

6. There is no law against pedophilia

Not true. Their were commands detailing the minimum age one could be to be married. (which wasn't until they were considered to be adults.) to have sex with someone before they were confirmed to be an adult was punishable by death. (God's law) which if you or your source material just did a 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' google search I could see how one would assume that.
Which subsequently how we know marry to be a virgin. Joseph took her to be his wife, but they were not married. This means he took responsibility (provided for her fed her) till she was old enough to be married. back then that was the only reason to wait to get married.

7. There is no law against fornication (unless one of the parties is married/engaged, in which case it is adultery)

Again not true.
The command is no one is to have sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage. or rather a Marriage is the only place to have sanctified sex. which means all other sexual encounters are forbidden. Deu 22 backs into this command by saying a man can marry a woman for the purpose of having sex. This is the only command that sanctifies it in the OT all other examples are forbidden.

The problem here is the same as your 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' claim.. You were looking for an expressed command using the terminology of today. while the terms were not formlized in the OT the principles were indeed spelled out.

So I find a remarkable coincidence here.  We savage atheists have no morality, absolute or otherwise, and therefore our favorite pastime is of course raping babies.  Yet your absolute morality does not outlaw this behavior, so you have no actual way of knowing that it is wrong.  You can't admit that you know raping babies is wrong, because if you do then you admit that the atheist and the Christian both invent their own morality.

maybe if you read a bible you could actually speak intelligently about it, that way you would not have to rely on anti God web sites and bloggers who hate the bible and God to give you a wrong slanted view of it. So that when you get up on your high horse/soap box and begin to arrogantly bestow all the injustices of God, someone who has book chapter and verse won't make you look like a 'stupid head' by contradicting all of the moral points you were so eager to make.