Christianity is Anti-Hatred of People or Groups of People

[Dr.Henry_Killinger]

JWeinCom said:

My counters follow, but you can skip everything and read the bolded italics if you like.

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 

First of all keep your arguments straight buster, I never said that Hitler was an atheist, christian, buddist. etc. I said it does not matter. Because people, not the believes they subscribe to are responsible for their actions. To even "hint" at Christianity being a motive, is merely the same method of painting Atheism as "evil" that you were critizing others for. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Why can't we just leave hitler out of this.

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.

It is an example. It is also more generalized then simply Christianity. Asking questions rather than making statements about something you don't understand.

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.

I can, and he did not. Whether he asked for forgiveness, is between him and God, but I doubt it because, from what I've seen he lacked remorse, and saw Jews and really all non aryans as less than human.

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?

Thanks for asking. The Old testament is not thrown out, since it does have a purpose. But unless your Jewish(Torah) you do not follow it, because it is the Old Convanent. It chronicles the time before Jesus, and that is important but not with respect to lifestyle. The new testament is the new convanent that Christian's subscribe to because we believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Now rather than sacrificing animals and following the ten commandments, you simply ask for forgiveness through Christ and try to live like him.

As for your criticism of the different seemingly contradictory Gods in the OT and NT, yes that is a legitamate complaint, and one that has often been studied by theologists. However, since the bible is a book of faith, and not a textbook, Christians beleive it is the word of God, is it a stretch to consider that either the writers, cause there are writers who did transcribe gods words, the bible didn't just appear on the mountain, or us as readers failed at comprehension because the human perspective is a limited scope. Undoubtedly, there are things that are outside the Human Scope, so could we logically assume that Humans would not fully understand God? And Christians don't try to understand God, loving him is the only req really.

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. 

Again, none of that "law" is required because of the New Covanent. The Messianic prophecies are only there to legitamize Christ, but Jews don't believe Christ is the messiah, even though those prophecies are still there. The ten commandments, popular as the might be aren't neccessarily tenants that Christians have to follow. The only reason they are so prevalent however is because they are a good approximation of Jesus's "Love Thy Neighboor". In that regard, the Ten Commandments are a shortcut to "Love Thy Neighboor".

In terms of logic.

"Love Thy Neighboor" > Ten Commandments, because it is the much stronger statement, covering a lot more range

at the same time

"Love Thy Neighboor" ~= Ten Commandments, because following the Ten commandments implies Loving thy neighboor

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.

The danger of dogma applies to anything that people identity in, its not mutually exclusive to Christianity or Religion, as you've stated. So its not just the danger of religion. While the first part holds, the second part does not. That doesn't come from Christianity, that comes from abuse of power, it happens in ALL of those cases you listed previously in some form or the other. Thus what follows is a result of human corruption leading to brainwashing. 

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?

Thats because religion is recognized as an authority, and thus using it to rationalize actions is an appeal to authority, regardless of whether or not the actual content makes such a suggestion, which I claimed in the OP, generally does not. Saying Religion is responsible because it was used to rationalize something is simply making a scapegoat of it, because people don't want to to address that those bizzare and destructive policies were made by fellow human beings. The policy that you mentioned is not rational at least from the health perspective, why not back it up with an authority not based in Logic? Its easy as pie, because if you are insecure in your own beleif, you will believe what someone with a stronger conviction says, and you dare not challenge it from the otherside cause, "how can god be wrong?"

The Bible actually states that Satan knows all of the scripture in the Bible and can quote them verbatim. Even trying to tempt Jesus by using his own faith to make him test God. The only way to combat this is to become more versed in the Bible and strengthen ones own conviction and understanding. Then if someone tells you that God said to do this, you can actually think. Unfortunately, that requires a lot of willpower, to overcome the rudimentary understanding you were given as a child, and think for yourself, but again that isn't exclusive to Christianity or Religion. That is the responsibility of the Parents, they determine what kind of person that child becomes.

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.

False and true are logical statements on validity. The Bible is a book of Faith, so it cannot be taken for true or false and is not intended to be taken literally. As for your second statement, you are again assuming that people are rational actors. People have been forcing their believes on others since the dawn of humanity, it predates religion, whether it is factually true or not is as it is in the case of religion, irrelevant. People also have motives for doing so typically to maintain power, or because they themselves believe it to be true to themselves.

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?

Its not mutally exclusive to Religion, so removing it does nothing. It does not address the problem of it being inherent in Human nature, and thus removing it does nothing but antagonize the innocent.

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.

Is it strange to consider a scenario of an outside species considering the same about the human race in general? The fact that religion can and has been used as a scapegoat for evil, means that we should address that propensity in Humans as a species. Simply removing the Religion is moving the problem out of one's line of sight, It is still there.

Personally, I think the only effective way of addressing this is to distribute power so that corruption is stamped out. Unfortunately, this is much harder then simply blaming a scapegoat.

What Hitler and other failed dictators of the past never realized is to destroy a doctrine, you simply have to delegitamize it, and let it melt away. Vocal "Christians" spewing "hate fueled nonsense" are effectively digging there own graves, an inevitable result of outdated modes of teaching with the fast changing times, and the momentary catharis of those threatened by Christianity, experincing its slow suicide, are distracted from considering the possibility of the problem going beyond religion. 

Those "decent" christians you mentioned are left no choice but to try and attack the detractors and become "Vocal" themselves, speeding up the destruction, or silently sit by and watch it burn. With enough, strength in faith, one can call the Vocal out on their Bullcrap, but unfortunately, even if the numbers were even, which they are not, it would, for a long time, be fruitless. If the reason of empirical indisputable fact still isn't fully accepted, "Global Warming/Climate Change", what hope does calling out the Vocal based on a book of faith have of working at all?

I thought the positions where reverse, however this is holds regardless.