Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Like I said in the OP, there are so called christians who do stupid and anti-christian things, that clearly violate bible doctrine. The worst thing about these christians is that they don't realize there actions are driving people away when they are supposed to be converting people with there actions and words, not by force. It is only expected that those who aren't as informed will simply group all of Christianity on the vocal misbehaviors will try and discredit it. But most arguments fall flat on simple fallacies like out of context and lack of understanding. For instance, when people quote the Old testament, its like talking about the align attribute in an html tag, that shit is depreciated and most web developers will look at you funny.
*Really, the only counter to religion that I see as legitimate, is that it is merely a means to qualify the unknown. In that sense it is unnecessary. This is the gist of Carl Sagan's opinion. For instance, if you are familiar with "here be dragons", then replace that with religion* But to me that doesn't really matter because I beleive there will always be an unknown. Some people want to fill that place with a Religion, others decide not to, or don't think about the unknown at all. |
I'm not entiresly sure who you're responding to in this...
Why does any of this matter? Hitler was also german, white, and human. Does that mean all germans, white people, and humans are Nazis?
I'll explain why Hitler not being an atheist matters to me.
The evidence for Hitler being an atheist is nearly non-existent. There are two or three statements that can be taken out of a book whose authorship is highly suspect. There is simply no logical reason to claim Hitler is an atheist.
Since there is no actual reason to call Hitler an atheist, why do people do so? Because, like you, they feel that Hitler is too evil to be considered a Christian, and therefore he must not be a believer, and therefore he must actually be an evil atheist in disguise, and an atheist society will lead you to murder. Mind you, I'm not claiming that is the argument your making, but it is a common argument, and similar to the one o_O was making. Basically, Hitler must be an atheist because he was evil. You can see why that may offend me.
I never said that Hitler's Christianity caused the Nazi movement. Hitler did say that his hatred of Jews was motivated by their betrayal of Christ. Can't say if that's his true motivation, but that's what he claims. That being said, I don't imagine that Hitler would be a good person if he were an atheist. I don't think Christianity was the motivation for his cruelty, but it's clear that it colored it.
Seriously, instead of making statements and being proud of your flawed bias understanding, simply ask questions. And keep the answers that make sense to you. You can critize christians for not believing in "Evolution", I do does that make me not a Christian lol, but then your making the same mistake.
If that was aimed at me, I don't believe I ever criticized Christians for not believing in evolution. I mean, I'd happily criticize anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, but I never said that all Christians don't. In fact I pointed out that the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution. I'm not sure if o_O claimed that either.
I mean you say "lol so he adhered to christian principles?... what do we call people like that? oh i know! they are called christians!" which christian priciples are those? Because I know he violated practically all of them. None of actions were like Christ. You can't call your self an engineer if you read an instruction manual.
This was him responding to me. Unsurprisingly agaian o_O claimed I said something which I did not. What I said was, " In any public statement Hitler ever made, he adhered to Christianity. "I was using the word adhered to as meaning " To remain devoted to or be in support of something:". I think my meaning should be clear, but if not, all I meant to say was that Hitler claimed to be a Christian (Catholic to be precise) in any public statement ever made. As for whether he adhered to Christian principles, I don't think that can be answered, and certainly not by me.
It is only expected that those who aren't as informed will simply group all of Christianity on the vocal misbehaviors will try and discredit it. But most arguments fall flat on simple fallacies like out of context and lack of understanding. For instance, when people quote the Old testament, its like talking about the align attribute in an html tag, that shit is depreciated and most web developers will look at you funny.
The difference is that noone claimed that HTML 3 was a perfect format handed down by a perfect unchanging deity. If you believe the Bible is literally the word of god, then how can the Old Testament be imperfect or irrelevant? Was god messed up and then he got better? If you believe in a perfect unchanging god, then how can what he claimed moral in the old testament not be moral now? If half the bible can just be thrown out, why is the other half so worthwhile? If we're going to pick out the verses that support what we consider moral and good, why don't we skip the middle man and just believe what we feel is moral and good?
Plus, if you get rid of the old testament, you lose the messianic prophecies, you lose the ten commandments, you lose the creation myth, and you lost basically all of the law.
*Really, the only counter to religion that I see as legitimate, is that it is merely a means to qualify the unknown. In that sense it is unnecessary. This is the gist of Carl Sagan's opinion. For instance, if you are familiar with "here be dragons", then replace that with religion*
The danger of religion is the danger of dogma. Whenever you have ANYTHING that is considered divine or beyond criticism, it is dangerous. It could be nationalism taken to extreme, it could be a divine ruler like in WW2 era Japan, or even an economic system like Communism, and so on. It is incredibly dangerous to have something which cannot be questioned. When you tell people from their birth that they need to follow god without question (and the Bible is VERY clear on whether or not you should question it), AND that there are humans who are more capable of knowing what god wants than you are, then it is all too easy for someone to persuade you to do evil in the name of god.
You've pointed out yourself that it is possible to interpret the Bible in a violent and destructive way. Whether or not it is the correct interpretation, it is possible. And religion can and has been used to rationalize the most bizarre and destructive policies. What possible other reason could there be to tell Africans not to use condoms in the midst of an aids epidemic for instance?
And of course, there is not a lick of evidence to support Christianity and the Bible is obviously false if taken in any kind of literal sense. If you want to enjoy it as a metaphor, that's fine, but when we have people who truly and deeply want to force people to live their lives based on a book, it better be 100% true.
Now, I'm not saying that religion will always be used to manupulate or decieve or that religious people are inherently evil. I'm relatively sure that most religious people are decent enough. But, when you have such a heirachical and dogmatic system, it is incredibly dangerous. It is a tool that can be used to destructive ends. Why leave it in the toolbox for those who would abuse it?
The only reason for keeping religion going is if the potential for good outweighs the potential for evil, or if it is true. I don't believe that either condition is met.
