Bob, Terry Dillard and I were getting into a very interesting discussion over at the Right Track blog and I thought I’d print up my responses to his comments over here, since the comments were getting rather lengthy…and I wasn’t sure if I tried to publish my responses, they could be followed, or if they’d even be published because they’re so long.

to the dude that talked about the ICR heres somthing about them.
“ICR prohibits academic freedom for its members. Staff at the Institute are not allowed to espouse anything that might contradict the basic dogma of the creation science model. To join, each scientist must sign a pledge professing adherence to several major tenets. These tenets include the factual and historical integrity of the Bible and the sudden creation of every living creature during the six-day Genesis creation week (Nelkin 1982).”
The only people that they allow to work with them are already christian creationalists! Wow talk about scientific Bias!

The term “bias” could be looked at in a different way. Darwinists totally discount any scientific evidence that doesn’t fit within the Theory of Evolution; that seems to me to be incredibly biased. You know, in science, when you have a hypothesis, you test it, and if it doesn’t pan out, you’re supposed to withdraw the hypothesis, revise and re-submit. That doesn’t happen with evolutionist scientists. They make up excuses for why the theory doesn’t fit the evidence, and keep moving along.

What they’re practicing is not science. Discounting scientific evidence that debunks Darwinism as a sham is biased. Creationists are using science to prove that the Bible is true; and they’re doing a more effective job of it than the Evolutionists are proving that The Origin Of Species is true. They don’t discount evolutionists, they simply prove why so much of what they say is absolutely ridiculous, based on scientific evidence. Did you know that Hitler saw the “struggle for existence” (as Marx would say it) seeking to develop a “master race”? Did you know that the subtitle of the Origin of Species was “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”? I call THAT pretty biased.

Darwin penned that in an animal context, extending it to human races was a small leap of logic. In his demented way, Hitler was fulfilling this prediction Darwin made in the “Descent of Man”:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, replace, the savage races throughout the world…the break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian (aborigine) and the gorilla.”

Racism was very prevalent among leading early evolutionists, many of whom believed the races had evolved separately. Britain’s Thomas Huxley, whose fierce advocacy of evolution won him the nickname “Darwin’s bulldog”, wrote:

It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places within the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins…”

Isn’t racism a form of bias?

High-school textbooks represent the worst of evolution education, rehearsing long-disproved evidences such as the peppered moth, vestigial organs, and mutated fruit flies. Only a small minority of Americans holds this “evolution only” view, and even most biology teachers suspect there’s more to the story. Unfortunately decades of “evolution only” teaching have produced a generation of teachers that only know evolution. Evidence contrary to evolution, and/or supportive of creation, has been censored. This brainwashed mentality has spilled over into legal education (producing evolution-supporting lawmakers, school board counsel, etc.) and into journalism school (yielding similar reporters, newscasters, etc.) each deeply believing that evolution is fact and creation is irrelevant to science. The opposition is quite strong and well entrenched.

ID experts are scrupulously secular, and their proposals are neither Christian nor creationist.

Efforts to squelch and censor creation information haven’t succeeded, although I find it quite amusing that marxist/stalinists are in such a hurry to demonize both the ideas of ID and Creationism as “biased” whereas Darwinism is not.

Stalin, Marx, Carnegie, Hitler–those are just a bunch of dead guys (who all believed in Evolution). What has that got to do with today? We don’t have Stalins or Hitlers running America. The Constitution decentralizes power, making it very difficult to form that kind of dictatorship.

But it’s reasonable to say that we have experienced a moral decline in America over the last few decades. Certainly we have had recent improvements in this country–in, say, technology and some civil rights. But if we look at statistics such as drug use, teen suicide, and divorce, we see indications that the USA is declining. What happened at Columbine High School would have been unthinkable in the ’50’s when nobody dreamed that weapons detectors would ever be needed at school entrances to protect schools from students.

So what’s cause America’s moral decline? Many would say, “Well, we’ve lost our respect for traditional values.” OK, where did “traditional values” come from? They came mostly from the Bible, which for centuries was Western culture’s central guiding document.

Why have we lost respect for the Bible? It was due, in part, to the widespread teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution as “fact”. As Huxley said, evolution removed God “from the sphere of rational discussion.” Once you’ve made God irrelevant, the Bible becomes irrelevant, and the moral values in the Bible become irrelevant.

Religion traditionally played a strong role in American social life, and evolution tended to negate that role.

Evolution was not heavily underscored in American public schools before the ’60’s. In 1959, the 100th anniversary of the publication of “The Origin of the Species”, the National Science Foundation, a government agency, granted $7 million to the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which began producing high school biology textbooks with a strong evolutionary slant. In the meantime, the Supreme court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional (after having been constitutional for more than a century and a half). From then on, students in public schools heard the evolutionist viewpoint ONLY–man is just an animal–exclusively.(1)

If these guys want to try to appear at least partially credible they should at least stop trying to prove things with quotes from the bible.

Why is that? Because you don’t believe in a God (you think like the Marxists do–that it’s a silly superstition) and you think that evolution is a proven fact? Actually, in recent years, growing scientific evidence has arisen that challenges the theory of evolution. Darwinism is important to know about because of its unique social consequences. Until the nineteenth century, the view almost universally accepted in the West was that God had created the world and man. Society, in turn, was largely structured on values laid out in the Bible.

Darwin’s theory said something dramatically different: That man was not created by God, but evolved from ape-like ancestors, and that life itself was not created by God, but happened because the right chemicals came together by chance in the ancient ocean. After publication of the Origin of the Species in 1859, Darwinian ideas began replacing religious ideas until evolution itself became the prevailing view.

This, however, took a long time. If you look in the not-too-distant past, the Bible was taught in our public schools until the ‘60’s and prayers were said in classrooms every single day.

Now it is true that some people tried to make their religious beliefs compatible with evolution—they’d say something like “Well, maybe God created life, through chance and evolution.” But for many, Darwin’s theory put God out of the picture—he was irrelevant, or didn’t exist. Julian Huxley, one of evolution’s foremost spokesmen during the twentieth century, states that “Darwinism removed the whole idea of god as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.” And that’s how many people saw it. In fact, evolution has produced a lot of atheists.

Joseph Stalin murdered millions of people, and in 1940, a book was published in Moscow entitled Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (2). It states:

At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became and atheist.

G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates:

I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said:

“You know, they are fooling us, there is no God…”

I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before.

“How can you say such things, Soso?” I exclaimed.

“I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,” Joseph said.

“What book is that?” I enquired.

“Darwin. You must read it”, Joseph impressed on me.

If you are good enough, and smart enough, you can probebly prove ANYTHING with quotes from the bible! Heck I’ve read passages from the bible that promote TORTURE GENOCIDE SLAVERY and RAPE! One quote from the bible “He sitteth upon the crcle of the earth” (I forget the chapter and stuff) was used to prove that the earth was flat. Later the EXACT SAME VERSE was used by the opposition to prove that the earth was round. please, If you want to be taken seriousely AT LEAST get rid of the biblical quotes.

Lol. At least you recognize that Christians are “good” and “smart”.

But it’s unfortunate that you’re discounting what’s said in the Bible, but I suppose as an admirer of communists this should be no surprise. People who don’t study the Bible tend to extract extraneous quotes and misinterpret them.

A core value of the Bible is hatred of evil. Indeed, it is the only thing the Bible instructs its followers to hate — so much so that love of God is equated with hatred of evil. “Those who love God — you must hate evil,” the Psalms tell us.(3)

As for the West, with notable exceptions, Christians did not tend to regard evil as the greatest sin. Unbelief and sexual sin were greater objects of most Christians’ animosity. Over time, however, many Christians came to lead the battle against evil — from slavery to communism. And today, it is not coincidental that America, the country that most thinks in terms of good and evil, is the country that most affirms Judeo-Christian values.

In the contemporary Western world, most people who identify with the Left — meaning the majority of people — hate war, corporations, pollution, Christian fundamentalists, economic inequality, tobacco and conservatives. But they rarely hate the greatest evils of their day, if by evil we are talking about the deliberate infliction of cruelty — mass murder, rape, torture, genocide and totalitarianism.

Incidentally, none of those–mass murder, rape, torture, genocide and the totalitarianism that often accompanies it–are not tenets of Christianity, neither are they biblical principles.

Most of the stories in the Bible are indeed just that–stories…and there are lessons to be drawn from them. That’s why people study the Bible.

· anarchy Says:
October 12th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Cao said:
“The fact that nature, species, plants and animals are fully interdependent doesn’t seem to enter into these peoples’ minds.”
Of course it enters our minds! Think about this carefully. (I assume you know a little about evolution) For arguments sake momentarily accept that evolution is genuine. Does it make any sense AT ALL for species to evolve completely alone and independently? Come on people! Organisms are contantly competeing for resources for food for energy for everything. If an animal poops without fully digesting its food it makes perfect sense for another animal to make use of that food. Some organisms even EAT EACH OTHER! You think that god just sudden;y decided, “hey lets make a food chain, just for the heck of it!” Of course not! organisms need a constant supply of energy and if they can get it by eating smaller fish then THEY WILL!
You think that the ants that eath the bread that you discarded in your compost do so simply because it preforms a service to YOU?!?!?

It doesn’t make sense that two different species would evolve from one solitary cell. And where did THAT CELL come from, do you suppose? Darwin’s theory says fish evolved, through many intermediate steps, into human beings. The question then arises; How did fish acquire the genes to become humans? A creature cannot be anything physically its genes won’t allow. A zebra can’t give birth to a baby kangaroo–it only has zebra genes. A woman can’t even be born blonde without genes for blonde hair–otherwise she has to use Miss Clairol.

Genetics was not developed as a science in Darwin’s day, and he assumed animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to environments.

He wrote:

By this process long continued…it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.

In other words, Darwin believed you could take, say, donkeys, and if you put them in the right environment, they could, given enough time, become giraffes. This simply is not true. Even millions of years in the jungle, donkeys would still be donkeys, because they only have donkey genes.

But modern evolutionists, to resolve this “dilemma”, assert that fish’s genes must have mutated into human genes over eons–mutations, of course, are abrupt alterations in genes. They generally occur only very rarely. According to evolutionary theory, an organism develops some new positive characteristic through a mutation, better adapting to the environment. The creature then passes this mutated trait on to the next generation, and eventually, it spreads through the whole species. Organisms without the trait, being weaker, die out (survival of the “fittest”). Through this process, fish gradually evolved into men.

But this hypothesis no longer holds up. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations. He has a book out called “Not by Chance: Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution“. In it, he writes:

“In all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information…All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

Mutations DELETE information from the genetic code. They NEVER create higher, more complex information. What are they actually observed to cause in human beings? Death. Sterility. Down’s syndrome. Sickle Cell Anemia. Cystic Fybrosis. Hemophilia. And over 4,000 diseases. The genetic code is designed to run an organism perfectly–mutations delete information from the code, causing birth defects.

If so then why didn;t god invent any animals to eat stuff like heavy metals tand other pollutants that run through our waterways. Why arent thier fish that drink oil to clean up the oil spill? Why don’t birds breath toxic smog?

By the same token, why haven’t animals mutated to adapt to their environment and do all these things you suggest according to the theory of evolution? If the theory of evolution is true, it would follow that species would not be going extinct because the environment is changing, they’d simply mutate and change with the environment.

Get real. This has got to be the one of the most absurd arguments agianst evolution that I have ever heard.

Methinks thou doest protest too much. Provide some facts to back up that statement, please. Otherwise, it seems that in a word, “absurd” is your argument.

If all life began as a single cell, then chance mutations must have designed and engineered nearly every biological feature on Earth, from dolphins’ remarkable sonar system (which is the envy of the US Navy) to the human heart. The latter is an ingenious structure. Blood is pumped from the right side of the heart to the lungs, where it receives oxygen; back to the heart’s left side, which propels it to the rest of the body through more than 60,000 miles of vessels. The heart has four chambers; a system of valves prevents backflow into any of these; electrical impulses from a natural pacemaker control the heart’ rhythm.

Rarely, mutations cause babies to be born with congenital heart disorders, making blood shunt to the wrong place. There is no known case of mutations improving circulation. Hemoglobin-the blood’s oxygen-carrying component–has over forty mutant variants. Not one transports oxygen better tha normal hemoglobin. To accept evolution, we must believe that human blood circulation–a wonder of engineering–was constructed by chance mutations, when actual observation demonstrates mutations DAMAGE IT.

Ernst Chain, who shared a Nobel Prize for his work in developing penicillin, knew much about bacteria and antibiolics. Dr. Chain stated:

To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable facts.

· anarchy Says:
October 12th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Cao said:
“I oppose the theory of evolution because of the horror it has brought to other nations and people like myself”
Thats like saying that I oppose christianity because of the thousands of people who died because of it in the holocoust, in the crusades, in northern ireland, In south america where indiens were forsced to convert of else be tortured to death. I could name alot of atrocieties committed in the name of christianity.

I don’t know what you know about Islam, but the Crusades were in response to events that were happening up to 400 years before the Crusades finally began. You don’t seem to know a whole lot about your history, my dear fellow.

Over 100 million people have died at the hands of communists; more than the war dead from every single conflict we’ve ever been involved in.

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS

5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS

1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia

These were men, women, and children by the tens of millions being tortured or beaten to death, hung, shot, and buried alive, burned or starved to death, stabbed or chopped into pieces, and murdered in all the other ways creative and imaginative human beings can devise.

But It is just stupid to oppose somthing purely on those grounds. I don’t oppose christianity, true I belive that it is dangerouse and should be watched carefully and I myself do not belive in it but that is no reson for me to go around burning churches.

And why would you say that it is “dangerouse”? Islam is the only religion that wages war against the infidel…most other religions go by the ‘golden rule’…”do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

How is THAT dangerous?

And countries who actually practice the ideology that you think is so great, certainly DO burn down churches.

As I pointed out in my previous comments, there are many men of science in the past who related to their faith through science.

John Ambrose Felming (1849-1945), professor of electrical engineering at the University of Londong for over 40 years, pioneered modern electronics. He devised the first electron tube, and invented the thermionic valve–a vital part of radios and TVs until finally replaced by the transisters. He was knighted for his scientific achievements and received many other honors.

As an active Christian, Fleming also wrote a major book opposing evolution, and led what was then called the Evolution Protest Movement in Britain. The London Times reported in February 1935:

Sir Ambrose Fleming presided at a crowded meeting held at Essex Hall, Essex Street, Strand, last evening to launch a public protest against “the teaching of organic evolution as a scientific truth.”….

Sir Ambrose Fleming said that of late years the Darwinian anthropology had been forced on public attention by numerous books or highly illustrated periodicals in such fashion as to create a belief that it was certainly settle scientific truth, and any objections to it were treated as the result of ignorance or bigotry. The fact that many eminent naturalists did not agree that Dawin’s theory of species production had been sufficiently established as a truth were generally repressed. If there had been no creation, there was no need to assume any Creator, and the chief basis for all religion was taken away and morality reduced to mere human expediency.

Alexander MacAlister (1844-1919), professor of anatomy at Cambridge, authored many leading textbooks on zoology and physiology. He wrote:

I think the widespread impression of the agnosticism of scientific men is largely due to the attitude taken up by a few of the great popularizers of science, like Tyndall and Huxley. It has been my experience the the disbelief in the revelation that God has given in the life and work, death and resurrection of our Savior is more prevalent among what I may call the camp followers of science than amongst those to whom scientific work is the business of their lives.

· anarchy Says:
October 12th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Cao said:
“Science is based on observability and repeatability but there is no recorded example of true macroevolution in all the thousands of years of human history.”
Ahh, but you belive in micro evolution then right? And where do you draw the barrier between micro-evolution and’macro’ evolution? If you belive in only why is it so difficult to accept that the other is possible?

I don’t believe in micro evolution. I believe in the big bang theory–and the scientific evidence is in the cambrian layers of the geological strata that I described earlier. The middle Cambrian grades conformably into the upper Cambrian, which somewhere grades into lower Ordovician then middle Ordovician and so on. From the Cambrian upwards the geologic strata are a record of continuous, catastrophic, rapid deposition under flood waters. This is what we would expect based on the Biblical account of the great Flood.

Cambrian rock is the low geologic layer containing most of the oldest known invertebrate fossils. In it, we find literally billions of fossils of invertebrates: clams, snails, worms, sponges, jellyfish, sea urchins, swimming crustaceans, etc., but there are no fossils demonstrating how these creatures evolved, or that they developed from a common ancestor. (For this reason, we hear of the Cambrian “explosion”). The late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard acknowledged that “our more extensive labor has still failed to identify any creature tha might serve as a plausible immediate ancestor for the Cambrian faunas (animals).” In other words, the bottom of Darwin’s great “tree of life” is merely a speculation unsupported by fossil evidence.

Darwin stated that

“the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.”

He admitted these creatures’ fossils had not been found in his day, but hoped future excavations would turn them up.

They haven’t.

So what’s the problem with pointing this out? This has nothing to do with religion, theology, creationism, or anything else–this has to do with a victorian-age theory that has been proven with the advance of science to be antiquated and no longer relevant. Why is it such a problem for people to at least acknowledge the facts?

We shouldn’t have found handfuls of objectionable fossils, but billions of intermediates validating the theory. Instead, the fossil record shows–animals complete–not in developmental stages–the very first time they’re seen. This would lead a reasonable person to conclude that they were created, and didn’t evolve.

Oops, there it is. That darned “creation” word. That’s the reason evolutionists don’t acknowledge the evidence and keep insisting on the “missing link” myth.

This is not inventing science to back up a biblical claim; this is researching a biblical claim and finding science is true and can back it up. The Cambrian Explosion is very compelling evidence (and isn’t the only evidence) that every single creature came into being as we see them today–and didn’t evolve or mutate from a single cell.

Now an example of evolutionists inventing science to back up their claims is the skull of Piltdown man; the skull of a human being, the jaw of an orangutan, with its teeth filed down to appear human; both pieces carefully dyed to appear as though they came from the same animal. DEBUNKED.

FALSIFIED CASTS, Ales Hrdlicka, Smithsonian (Re: Java Man) “None of the published illustrations or casts now in various institutions is accurate.” Science, 8/17/1923

Modern evolutionists, like Darwin himself, use breeding experiments as evidence of the theory of evolution. We are reminded that dog breeders have developed new breeds of dog; that racehorse owners have bred faster horses; that horticulturists have developed new plant varieties, etc. This is said to show living things change over time. Therefore, lots of time, lots of changes would occur, and over unlimited time, unlimited change would occur–i.e., fish to human-since nature conducts its own form of “breeding” by allowing only the fittest creatures to survive.

This argument is flawed. Here’s why.

Let’s talk dog breeding. Were the dog breeders of past centuries genetic scientists? Did they sit in labs inserting new genes into these dogs? No. They found dogs that already had characteristsics they liked, mated them with similar dogs, and bred them in a certain direction. In other words, they worked with pre-existing genetic information.

A species is normally endowed with a rich, diverse gene pool. Take man himself. There are over six billion human beings on earth, yet no two are exactly aliked (if one wants to get technical, it could be argued that identical twins are alike). The human race has a vast gene pool that permits all the variations we see.

It certainly is possible to change the general appearance of a species over time, by selecting out creatures with particular genes. But the change is confined to the limits of the gene pool. Horse breeders can generate fast horses by choosing the best, but they can’t convert the horse into a cow.

In nature’s parallel, if a group of frogs flee a forest fire, perhaps only the fastest hoppers escape. This could leave us with a strain of fast frogs. It’s a perfect example of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”. But this doesn’t mean that frogs could evolve into people. Nothing new has been created. All that has happened is that slower frogs have been eliminated–this is, in fact, a loss of genetic information, not a gain. We would not contest Darwin on the existence of natural selection or survival of the fittest in nature. But we would argue that the change possible does have limits.

One comic pointed out:

“The princess has kissed the frog, and he turned into a handsome prince. We call that a fairytale. Darwin says frogs turn into princes, we call that science.”

Shifts can and do occur within types of animals. These changes, based on diverse, preexisting genetic information, are called by some “microevolution”. But this is not evidence for unlimited transformation (macroevolution).

The thesis “if we get a little change over a little time, then we get a lot of change over a lot of time” does not hold up. Suppose a girl, dreaming of Olympic glory, learned to ice skate. The first week, she finds she can jump to a height of one foot and land on her skates. The second week, she finds she can leap two feet. The third week, she can jump three feet. Can we conclude from this that after 100 weeks, she will be able to jump 100 feet? No, the law of gravity will strictly limit how high she can get. Likewise, animals are also restricted in how much change they can make–by the limits of their gene pool.

Luther Burbank, the famed American plant breeder, said:

I know from my experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long, or one 2 1/2 inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit…I have roses that bloom pretty steadily for six months in the year, but I have none that will bloom twelve, and I will not have. In short, there are limits to the development possible, and these limits follow a law…plants and animals all tend to revert, in successive generations, toward a given mean or average.

Simple bacteria can produce another generation in a matter of minutes. Yet Alan H. Linton, emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Bristol, noted in 2001:

Throughout the 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.

To change a bacterium into a fish into a frog into a reptile into a mammal into a man, would require that each type of creature largely rewrite its gene pool and replace it with a new one. Evolutionists contend that “beneficial mutations” would allow an animal to exceed the boundaries of its genetic makeup. But as we have seen, mutations do not introduce new genetic information; the changes they cause involve informational losses.

· anarchy Says:
October 12th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Cao said:
“Evolution seems to go hand in hand with the communist/nazi ideology and not coincidentally, out goes humanity, compassion, love for your fellow man, humility, morality, protection of the innocent in society and many of the traits that seem to be inherent in Christians.”
Communist/Nazi ideology?!? Are you aware that these two are complete opposites?

No, they’re not. Hitler was a socialist; socialism is a precursor to communism, and the communists have long held that working alongside democrats is perfectly okay in order to achieve their goals.

The program described in the Manifesto — that is to say, the policies the Communists of its day sought to implement — is termed socialism. These policies included, among others, the abolition of land ownership and the right to inheritance, a progressive income tax, universal education, and the nationalization of the means of production and transport. These policies, which would be implemented by a revolutionary government, would (the authors believed) be a precursor to the stateless and classless society known as communism. The term “Communism” is also used to refer to the beliefs and practices of 20th century Communist Parties, including that of the Soviet Union which differed substantially from Marx and Engels’ conception.

The Manifesto also briefly mentions more controversial policies, including abolition of the “bourgeois” family and the introduction of “community of women” (presumably a reference to free love), which were not (and are not) endorsed by the majority of communists, but which have attracted criticism from anti-communists nonetheless.

One particularly important passage deals with the transition from socialism to communism:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

It is this concept of the transition from socialism to communism which many critics of the Manifesto, particularly during and after the Soviet era, have highlighted upon. Anarchists, liberals, and conservatives have all asked how an organization such as the revolutionary state could ever (as Marx put it elsewhere) “wither away”. Both traditional understandings of the attraction of political power and more recent theories of organizational behaviour suggest instead that a group or organization given political power will tend to preserve its privilege rather than to permit it to wither away into a state of no privilege – even if that privilege is given in the name of revolution and of the establishment of equality.

Nazi ideology seeks to morph big buiseness and big government into one dominating totalitarian state. The rich run the country and the poor do the work.

That’s interesting…that’s what socialism does.

The appellation of “communism” comes from the Latin root communis, which means “group” living. Fascism is a derivation of the Italian word fascio, which is translated as “bundle” or “group.” Both fascism and communism are forms of coercive group living, or more succinctly, collectivism. The only substantial difference between the two is fascism’s limited observance of private property rights, which is ostensible at best given its susceptibility to rigid government regulation. Nazism (a variant of fascism) is derivative of Marxism.

Communist ideology, on the other hand, seeks economic equality for all. Everyone contributes to help everyone else. The government is SUPPOSED to be weak and eventually deteriorate after the people themselves take on the governmental responsibilities. Unfortuantely what (almost) always happens is that the people in charge of the government get greedy and sell out the revolution making deals with thier former enemies to help to subjagate thier own people. If youve ever read the book ‘animal farm’ then you know what i mean.
I know that im getting off topic but oh well.

“equality” which has never been achieved in practice, might I add. The idea of wealth redistribution–from the have’s to the have-nots doesn’t work. Although many people make excuses for the reasons why it hasn’t worked…communism, socialism and the like have been the main reason for christian genocide, not to mention the holocaust.

Im always incredibly surprised at how communism is portrayed as a sort of satani-aithiest ideology that somehow threatens christianity. I was raised in a christian household and went to church on every sunday. Needless to say, christianity ifluenced me ALOT even im I no longer continues to practice the religion. I always loved the things that jesus preached about selflessness and about helping the poor. Jesu, at least to me it seemed, preached that everyone should take care of one another to make the world a better place for us all. To be a servant to society was, in christes (once agian pardon the spelling) view, the most noble thing one could do. I belived this suff, and continue to belive this stuff, which is why I sympathize with the communist cause. Socialism, it seemes to me, it the very thing that jesus was talking about. Every one should be a servant to serve each other so that everyone would benefit.
sorry, but my I have got to be going I know that I havent responed to all of your points but I will make an effort to do so.

Well again you’re pointing to the fact that you don’t really understand that even today, communism is killing Christians all over the world.

When is Commnism Godly?

Here’s what one person says which shows how liberals get deceived into embracing communism:

As for capitalism, this is based on the decidedly anti-Christian concepts of selfishness, greed, and a direct and wholehearted rejection of faith.

Selfishness - as the desire of an individual to work only for his own benefit, and Greed - as his further desire to extract as much benefit for himself from any activity. And as for faith - self interest alone is not enough to drive a capitalist society; it is rational self interest that causes men to build great cities and tame matter to their purposes.

It is ironic that Soviet Russia was so often portrayed as the ‘godless commies’ and so on. Their communist philosophy fits much more closely with the Christian ideals of loving ones brother: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’

Capitalism is not ungodly, of course. It is the economic system that results from following God’s commandments not to steal or to lie. If I cannot steal, then the only way I can acquire goods or money is if I produce something that somebody else wants and is willing to trade with me for voluntarily. If I cannot lie, then I cannot defraud my trading partner about the quality or quantity of the goods or services I am offering to trade.

Self-interest is not sinful, of course, which is why God commands us to love others as we love ourselves. It is capitalism’s tendency to make men provide for their neighbors in order to advance their own self-interest that led Adam Smith, considered the father of economics, to remark that capitalism leads men to promote the welfare of society “as if led by and invisible hand”:

…every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

God’s commandments against stealing and lying - which create capitalism - limit but do not eliminate greed. This is why God gave us the 10th commandment against covetousness. But capitalism does limit greed in two ways:

First, capitalism prevents a greedy person from taking more from somebody else than he can acquire by peaceful, honest, voluntary trade.

Second, capitalism may actually induce a greedy person to give something away, not because he loves or cares about the person he gives to but to acquire a good reputation which will make future trades more likely. We even have a word for this idea in the language of capitalism, it is called “goodwill”.

A greedy person always struggles with Proverbs 11:24, which says “There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.” Capitalism provides incentives to give, but it does not compel giving. That still requires a loving heart.

To overcome greed, one requires a self-interest enlightened by Biblical truth. God tells us that we are made in His image. This means that we are made to love others as well as ourselves. And this in turn means that we cannot be truly happy unless we give some of what God has given us to those less fortunate than ourselves. Even non-Christians understand this because God has written the law on the hearts of all men.

Now lets turn to communism. There are many ways to prove that communism does not work as a national economic system - besides just reading the newspaper - but let’s use the problem of greed that seemed to worry our liberal friend so much.

There is one situation in which the Bible tells us that communism works, it occurs in Acts 4:32-35:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

The key to understanding when communism works is to recognize that those who have the power to distribute goods must love the others for whom they act sacrificially. This is the type of love that Christ commanded Christians to have both within their church families and their natural families. See John 13:34-35; Ephesians 5:24-25.

A second requirement is that property donated to the common store not be taken by force, but rather be donated voluntarily. This requirement appears in Acts 5:1-13, in the story of Ananias and Sapphira.

We are all communists within our families. The father, as the spiritual head, has the authority to distribute property as the family members have need, and the responsibility to teach his family to give of what they have in love for the benefit of other family members. But even within a family, the father does not have an absolute right to expropriate a child, and what right he does have is extinguished completely once the child reaches his majority and undertakes his own support. The duty of loving sacrificially within a family, however, remains in effect for life.

The two requirements for communism to work are never met when communism is implemented as the economic system for a nation. First, communist governments never rely on their citizens to donate property voluntarily - they take it at the point of a gun. Second, they never distribute property according to the needs of their citizens.

Two problems prevent communist governments from distributing property to meet the needs of their citizens. The first is greed. In a communist system, there is no incentive to give anything you have or control away. Just the opposite, the way you acquire control over goods or services is not by inducing others to trade with you voluntarily but by pleasing those in power, so you can acquire more power yourself. Communism actually provides an incentive for people to be greedy - so that they have more power. It is possible to demonstrate that communist economic sytems are based on covetousness by modeling a communist system with game theory and abstract calculus.

The second problem is just as important. Communist governments have no practical way to determine what the needs of their citizens are. The real problem of economics is a problem of distributed information. Each individual knows best what he can produce and what he wants to consume. Under capitalism, this distributed information is captured in the price system, by which people auction their labor and capital and bid on resources, goods, and services. But under communism there is no price system, because there are no markets. As a result, the knowledge that each individual possesses never makes it into the central committee’s five-year plan.

It is interesting to note that once the Soviet Union disintegrated we were able to find out what the distribution of wealth was across their society. To everybody’s surprise, it was no different than under capitalism. The top few percent had most of the wealth. The difference was the size of the pie - the amount of economic production or what we call GDP, gross domestic product.

Because capitalism gives incentives for people to produce and captures the distributed information that each individual possesses, capitalism produces a much larger quantity of goods and services for people to consume. Even though the poor still have a small relative share of the total production, because production is much greater under capitalism the absolute share the poor acquire would make them the equal of the middle classes under commuism.

The fact that the poor receive less under a communist national economic system confirms its sinfulness. Not only does national communism begin with sin - because it begins with stealing and provides no means to ensure that those who wield the power to distribute goods love sacrificially those for whom they act - but also it ends with sin, by oppressing the poor and giving greedy men an incentive to aggrandize arbitrary power to themselves.

To sum up, the difference between capitalism and communism as national economic systems is the size of the pie and how you get a bigger piece of it. In capitalism the pie is much bigger, and you make your piece bigger by producing something that others want to trade for. In communism, the pie is much smaller, and you make your piece bigger by pleasing those who have a bigger piece than you do, whether or not you produce anything that truly benefits anybody else.

Perhaps the reason that liberals stumble at communism is that, because they don’t know Christ, they do not have the Holy Spirit to teach them how to rightly divide scripture. They see a system that arises from the rules God has commanded for families and make the mistake of thinking it can be transplanted to government. They discount man’s sinful nature. After all, if man was sinful, he really would need a Savior! This liberals can never admit.

Now I can take one of my main examples, Reverend Wurmbrand, who was imprisoned by both the communists and the nazis, and he lumped those two into the same totalitarian ideology because they operated similarly.

When I was in High School, my dad gave me a book written by Reverend Wurmbrand about his experiences at the hands of the communists. Although there were no pictures in the book, the vivid images he left me with haunted me for a long time after that. I couldn’t believe that any society could tolerate–not to mention promote–the kinds of things that happened to this man at the hands of communists.

Communist Exploitation of Religion
Testimony of Reverend Richard Wurmbrand

Before I left Rumania I was called twice to the secret police. The first time they said that they don’t know yet if they will allow me to leave the country with my family. They said: “Dollars have been received for you. You will have to leave the country, but perhaps we will let some time to pass, because your remembrances of prison are too fresh and you have too good a pen.”

i.e.,

“You can too well write. Perhaps we will keep somebody here of your family as hostage.” The second time they called me again and they said: “Now you will leave the country, but be very cautious when you come out. You may preach Christ as much as you like. We know that you are a preacher, but don’t touch us. Don’t speak against Communists. If you will speak against communism, for $1,000 we can find a gangster who will liquidate you. We play with you with open cards. You come from prison You have met in prison men whom we have brought back from the West.”

And that is the truth. I have been in prison with a Rumanian Orthodox priest, Vasile Leul, who has been kidnaped from Austria. I have seen his nail torn out and broken, and so they reminded me of that. “You know how our prisons are and that you can come back in prison.”

And the third thing which they said: “We have also another possibility with you. We can destroy you morally outside. We will find story with a girl or a money story or something else and people will be stupid enough to believe it. We will destroy you if you touch us.”

And under these conditions I was allowed to come out. And very sorrowfully in the West I found people in the West, even religious leaders, who told me the same thing: “Preach Christ as much as you like but don’t touch Communists.”

When I came out from prison in 1956, I was licensed to preach - of course, nobody can preach in our country accept he has a license from the Government - and in the beginning I got a license, but which was withdrawn from me after the first week of preaching.

The motives are so comical you would say. In a sermon I said that Christians must keep hope, because of the wheel of history turns, and the wheel of life.

“You meant us, that communism will change, that communism will fall. Never will it fall.” It has been reproached to me that in a sermon I have said Christians must practice patience, patience, and again patience. “Ah, you meant that the Americans will come and we must be patient until they come.”

Everything was misinterpreted, and so the license has been withdrawn from me. And then generally in the Soviet countries there exists the underground church which works as the first Christians worked. Only now we understand texts of the bible which we had not understood before. I did not know why it is written in the Bible that a man named Simon was called Peter. Simeon was called Niger and so on. Everyone is called otherwise than his mother called him. So it is with us now. In every village I was called by another name. I was called Valentin, Georgescu, Ruben. In every village I had another name, and so I could preach.

I did not understand in earlier times why Jesus, when He wishes to have the last supper said: “Go in town and you will see a man with a pitcher and go after him and where he enters prepare the supper.”

Why does he not give an address, a number, and a street? Now we know it when we make secret prayer meetings. We never give the address. We don’t know if that man is not the informer of the secret police. We tell to the main to wait in a public garden or somewhere, and when one with a flower here, or with a necktie passes, go after him. We don’t introduce ourselves to each other, and if somebody asks the name of the other one, we know that he is the informer of the secret police. And so we have developed a technique of secret church work and so I could work.

There were different cells. In solitary confinement I was the first 2 , nearly 3 years. It was in the most beautiful building of Bucharest in the building of the Secretariat of State for Internal Affairs. It is a building before which all foreigners stand and admire it. I can tell you that your White House is a very little building in comparison with ours. And there beneath the earth 10 meters beneath the earth are the cells. There are no windows in the cells. Air enters through a tube. And there were a few desks with a mattress, with a straw mattress. You had but three steps for to walk. Never were we taken out from these cells except for interrogations when prisoners were beaten and tortured.

For years I have never seen sun, moon, flowers, snow, stars, no man except the interrogator who beat, but I can say I have seen heaven open, I have seen Jesus Christ, I have seen the angles and we were very happy there.

But the treatment was very bad. The purpose was to make us mad. You didn’t hear a noise. A whisper you didn’t hear in this cell. The guard had felt shoes. For years, not to hear anything. In all these years of prison we never had a book, we never had a but of paper, we never had a newspaper, nothing to distract our mind except that from time to time tape recorders were put on the corridor. I didn’t know what a tape recorder is. I had not seen such a thing.

But at once we heard beautiful Rumanian music, and then we enjoyed it. We didn’t know what has happened with the Communists that they make us enjoy, and after 10 or 15 minutes at once you heard, “Ha, ha, ha don’t beat,” the torturing of a woman. This lasted for half an hour the torturing of a woman. And of 100 prisoners who had been in that cell, in that corridor, everybody recognized that it is his wife or that it is his girl. I myself thought also that it is my wife.

Never will a Westerner understand, if I would not have the mark on my body, which are my credentials.

A Westerner can’t understand God is here and knows that I will not tell you the while truth because if I will tell you the while truth, you will faint and rush out of this room, not bearing to hear what things have happened. But I will tell you that in a prison they crucified a cat before ourselves.

They beat nails in the feet of the cat and the cat was hanging with the head down, and can you imagine how this cat screamed and the prisoners, mad, bead on the door, “Free the cat, free the cat, free the cat,” and the Communists very polite, “Oh, surely we will free the cat, but give the statements which we ask from you and then the cat will be freed,” and I have known men who have given statements against their wives, against their children, against their parents to free the cat.

They did it out of madness, and then the parents and the wives have been tortured like the cat. Such things have happened with us.

We had hundreds of bishops, priests, monks in prisons; my wife who is near me, she has been with Catholic nuns. My wife tells that they were angels; such have been put in prisons. Nearly all Catholic bishops died in prison. Innumerable Orthodox and Protestants have been in prison, too.

Everybody in prison was very badly treated. And I cannot be contradicted on this question, because I have been with physicians, I have much more broken bones than anybody, so either I broke my bones or somebody else broke them. And if I would not have been a clergyman but a murderer - it is a crime to torture a murderer, too.

The Christian prisoners were tortured in a form which should mock their religion. I tell you again in the prison of Pitesti one scene I will describe you about torturing and mocking Christians, and believe me I would renounce to eternal life to paradise after which I long, if I tell you one word of exaggeration. God is here and knows that I do not say everything. It cannot be said. There are ladies here. There are other people hearing it.

One Sunday morning in the prison of Pitesti a young Christian was already the fourth day, day and night, tied to the cross. Twice a day the cross was put on the floor and 100 other cell inmates by beating, by tortures, were obliged to fulfill their necessities upon his face and upon his body. Then the cross was erected again and the Communists swearing and mocking

“Look your Christ, look your Christ, how beautiful he is, adore him, kneel before him, how fine he smells, your Christ.”

And then the Sunday morning came and a Catholic priest, an acquaintance of mine, has been put to the belt, in the dirt of a cell with 100 prisoners, a plate with excrements, and one with urine was given to him and he was obliged to say the holy mass upon these elements, and he did it. And I asked him afterward, “Father, but how could you make this?”

He was half mad. He answered to me: “Brother, I have suffered more than Christ. Don’t reproach to me what I have done.” And the other prisoners beaten to take holy communion in this form, and the Communists around, “Look, your sacraments, look, your church, what a holy church you have, what fine is your church, what holy ordinance God has given you.”

I am very insignificant and a very little man. I have been in prison among the weak ones and the little ones, but I speak for a suffering country and for a suffering church and for the heroes and the saints of the 20th century; we have had such saints in our prison to which I did not dare to lift my eyes.

I am a Protestant, but we have had near us Catholic bishops and monks and nuns about whom we felt that the touching of their garments heals. We were not worthy to untie their shoelaces. Such men have been mocked and tortured in our country. And even if it would mean to go back to a Rumanian prison, to be kidnaped by the Communists and going back and tortured again, I cannot be quiet. I owe it to those who have suffered there.

The worst thing has been the brainwashing. All the tortures of times before were nothing in comparison with brainwashing.

To describe very shortly brainwashing: First of all we were doped. The dope was put in our food. I did not know about this dope. But we saw only the results, a dope which gave two results. First of all, what the physician calls aleulia which means lack of power of will. The power of will was completely broken. If we were told, “Lift your hand,” I lifted it. If I was not told to let the hand down, I would never have left it down.

We were at the same time very much undernourished. We had times when we received 100 grams, one slice of bread, a week. It was told to us, “We give you as many calories as you need to be able to breathe only,” and so our power of will has been broken.

Second, this drug or perhaps it is another drug, produces the delirium of self-accusation. I have seen prisoners knocking during the night on the door and saying, “Take me to the interrogator, I have new things to say against me.” Prisoners quarreled with their interrogators to say against themselves more than the interrogators asked from them.

And then we have had in prisons the curious phenomenon that we as priests received confessions from other prisoners. Now everybody is a sinner, but not everybody is a criminal. Men who have never murdered confessed that they have murdered, that they have committed adultery, that they have stolen. They felt they had to accuse themselves. This has also been the result of doping.

And after we were doped like that - that is the secret of all the Soviet show trials, in which the prisoners accuse themselves - then the time of brainwashing came. For 17 hours a day from 5 in the morning to 10 in the evening we had to sit like this. We were not allowed to lean. We were not allowed to rest a little bit our weary heads upon our hands. To close your eyes was a crime. Seventeen hours a day we had to sit like that and hear from the morning to the evening:

“Communism is good, communism is good, communism is good, communism is good,” until you heard one who was already 20 years in prison under the Communists shouting, “Communism is good, communism is good, communism is good, I give my life for communism.”

It was after the technique of Professor Pavlov, a scientific suggestion.

In prison there were not only priests and pastors. We have had hundreds of peasants and young boys and girls who were put in prison for their Christian faith. These were separated and for them there was a special brainwashing, not only that “communism is good,” but “Christianity is dead, Christianity is dead, Christianity is dead. Nobody more believes in Christ, nobody more believes in Christ, you are the only fools.”

And so on. And I must tell you that you may know how far this brainwashing went. I do not like to pose here like a hero. I believed that Christianity is dead under this influence. I believed -

I believed that Christianity is dead under this suggestion. Nobody goes more to church. They gave us post cards. I have not seen my wife for 10 years. They gave me post cards, they gave to all of us post cards: “Write to your children and wife; they may come and on that day see you and bring your parcels,” so on that day we were shaved; we expected and expected until the evening and nobody came. They had not sent the post cards, but we did not know.

Then came the brainwashings. “Your wives are laying in bed with men,” obscene words, “Your children hate you. You have nobody to love in the world. You are the only fools. Give up faith. Nobody is more Christians. Christianity is dead.”

I believed also that nobody is more a Christian. I had read in the Bible that there will be in the last time the great apostasy, that people will leave the faith and I believed that I lived now this time. But I said to myself if Christianity is dead, I will sit at its tomb and will weep until it arises again, just as Mary Magdalene sat at the tomb of Jesus and wept until Jesus showed Himself. Then when I came out of prison I saw Christianity is not dead. The number of practicing Christians in Rumania according to the figures given by the Communists themselves in 20 years of Communist dictatorship has grown 300 percent.

That is a very tragic side. The worse thing in Rumania has not been the persecution of Christians. The persecution has make the Christians to be of steel. The worst thing has been the corruption of religion. They have put as religious leaders their man. A bishop, a pastor, a preacher, just a man like other man and can commit sins. Now if they found a preacher or somebody else in adultery or in some money irregularity or I do not know what sin, they called him and blackmailed him and said, “Now you must become our man. Otherwise we publish what we have found.” Or they found others who were weak ones, whom they promised I do not know what. They never keep their promises. And these men, they put at the leadership of religion everywhere.

They have their bishops, their bishop vicar, their professors of theology, their presidents of the Baptists and Pentecostals and so on. I could give names. I know this from firsthand. Because many of these, when we came out of prison, out of remorse confessed to us what they have done. And now they use these men. With us in Rumania religion is a very great thing. You do not find much religious difference in Rumania. By these weak Christians, the Communists used religion for their propaganda.

When the Communists came to power in Rumania, they convoked in the building of our parliament a congress of all the cults. There were 4,000 priests; pastors, rabbis of all religions were there. Our Prime Minister Gorza, said the same things which you hear now in the West. This was in 1945 when they came to power with us.

“You know Rumanian communism will not be like Russian communism. We are a democratic communism. We will not persecute the church. We are on the side of monarchy. We will never collectivate agriculture. We are something entirely else and you should be on our side and then we will protect religion and we will give salaries to the priests.”

And the priests, good men, simply believed him and cheered him. Priests and bishops one after the other stood up and said,

“Well, if your communism is otherwise than the Russian communism, if it will be a good communism, we do not object against communism in principle.”

And one after the other stood up and praised this form of communism. There was only one in that congress who protested and said that communism can never change, that terror is an essential part of communism, because communism is contrary to human nature.

What would you say if I would take the purse out of your pocket? Everyone wishes to have something. A dog wishes to have a bone, and communism is against human nature because it does not allow you to have anything of yours and so communism must use terror.

At that congress there was only one who said these things. This one is now before you.

But what has happened? I went to prison, this was one of the charges against me. I met in prison all those who had praised communism, all those who have collaborated with communism, and they were treated just like me. They had been the fools. There was only one difference that I was in prison with a good conscience and they were with a bad conscience. In prison they had remorse. Religion was used for Communist propaganda in our country.

Just to give you one example: To the Orthodox Church of Rumania foreigners come and see the liturgy and see everything so beautiful.

The church is open. They do not understand the language, they do not know what is preached. I will give you the test of the sermon. It was a sermon about an epistle of St. Paul where it was written that Chris is our peace , and so the priest explained,

“Christ is our peace. Who is against peace? American imperialists. And who is on the side of the peace? We, the Socialist countries.”

So you see that Christ identifies Himself with socialism and so on. Such sermons they have. They have used the religion for their own purposes in the country. Then they have used the religion for getting political positions in the West. They are not fools to send in the West representatives of the Communist Party. They send bishops with great beards and beards are always very impressive here in the West, and through these beards they influence the West.

They tortured by all means. They beat until they broke the bones. They used red-hot irons, they used knives, they used everything.

And what was the first thing is not they beat, not what they did, but how they did it. They interrogated you very politely, and if you did not wish to say what they asked they said,

“Well, we have the first. On the 15th you will be beaten and tortured at 10 o’clock in the evening.”

Imagine what 14 days were after this. We have had prisoners who during this time, which has been given to them, knocked at the door, “I can’t bear it. I will say everything,” before they have been tortured.

I have been in Oslo. I went to a hospital. There were several physicians. I can give their names. I spoke with them about religion. In the beginning they said, “We are atheists,” and then they saw my body and I asked them what treatment do I need. They said:

“About treatment, do not ask us. Ask only the one in whom we don’t believe, but who has kept you alive, because according to our medical books, you are dead. A man who has what you have, with four vertebras broken, cannot live. According to our medical books, you are dead. If you are alive, then the one in whom we don’t believe has kept you alive.”

I have seen Catholic priests, heroes, dying not only for Christ and confessing Christ to the end, but dying for the Pope.

I have heard the word of a Catholic priest, I will not tell his name. He was asked, “Do you still believe in the Pope?” and he said, “Since St. Peter there has always been a Pope, and until Christ will come again there will always be a Pope. And the actual Pope, Pius the 12th has not made peace with you and never will a Pope shake hands with you.” He was trampled under the feet and tortured to death. Under our eyes he was killed. At that time a member of the government who killed this Catholic priest has been Gromyko, and the priest died with the hope that never will a Pope shake hands with his murderers.

Communists are not only anti-Christian. They are anti everything. They are anti their own comrades.

I have been in prison. I have been there with Lucretiu Patrascanu, the great Communist leader, who has brought communism to power in our country. He was put in prison and tortured until he became mad.

My wife has been in prison with Gheorghe Cristescu. Everybody in Rumania knows the founder of communism in Rumania, who has been in prison for communism under the borgeois. He has been with my wife together, and he said to my wife,

“Forty years ago I fought for the 8-hour labor day and now my Communist Party has come to power and I have to work 14 hours a day.”

They are anti absolutely everything. It is not only anti-Christian.

Reverend Wurmbrand started Persecution.com. He died in 2001. These people at the Voices of Martyrs are fighting the persecution of Christians under communist and other totalitarian regimes all over the world. For you to say that Christians do not suffer at the hands of these people is an incredible stretch of the imagination for those of us who know that, for example, hundreds of Christians were killed in Vietnam in 2004, and are being killed in Vietnam and elsewhere–as we speak.

You can also take a look at this table to show the top ten countries who persecute Christians. Think about what kind of governments they are.

References:

1. The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined, James Perloff, December, 2002, Refuge Books

2. E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1940, p. 8 (quoted in Davidheiser).

3. Better Answers: The Case for Judeo-Christian Values, Part VII, by Dennis Prager Frontpage Magazine, March 1, 2005

Tornado in the Junkyard, James Perloff

Nietzsche: A Precursor to Hitler?, by Philip D. Collins

Charles Darwin: Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London, Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 343.

The Case Against Darwin, by James Perloff, Worldnet Daily, 2001

Thomas Huxley: Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York, Appleton, 1871), p. 20.

Whistleblower: Censoring God, August 2005

Darwin: Descent of Man

Darwin: The Origin of the Species

COMMUNIST EXPLOITATION OF RELIGION, TESTIMONY OF REV. RICHARD WURMBRAND, HEARING Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., UNITED STATES SENATE, EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, Friday, May 6, 1966

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Thanks to ID The Future