ohmylanta1003 said:
|
Hey, I might've started it, but I didn't revive it, I want this thread to die as much as anyone else.
That's why I restated the IMO part, I mean I could ask for a lock, but that would contradict my Modus Operandi.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
The Bible references the word hate a grand total of 71 times in the OT and 16 times in the NT in the King James variant.
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_WordCount.htm
Your argument is defeated.
| RadiantDanceMachine said: The Bible references the word hate a grand total of 71 times in the OT and 16 times in the NT in the King James variant. |
| Word | King James Version | New American Standard Version - 1995 ed. | New International Version | New Revised Standard Version | ||||
| Old Testament | New Testament | Old Testament | New Testament | Old Testament | New Testament | Old Testament | New Testament | |
| Christ | 0 | 555 | 0 | 516 | 0 | 530 | 0 | 468 |
| Hate | 71 | 16 | 80 | 13 | 63 | 17 | 76 | 18 |
| Jesus | 0 | 983 | 0 | 986 | 0 | 1273 | 0 | 999 |
| Love | 131 | 179 | 133 | 215 | 319 | 232 | 317 | 221 |
OBJECTION!!!
*Old testament references love more than hate, and does not even mention Christ or Jesus, which is THE BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY
Old testament, is only there because Christianity originates from Judaism, OT is basically the Torah
*Meanwhile, Christ is mentioned 555 times >> hate mentioned 16 times in New Testament and Jesus is mentioned 983 times >> hate 16 times
*and the relationship hold for all three translations listed here.
Your counter is completly moot.
This is what happens when you take the Bible out of context.
You wanna see what else happens when you take the BIble out of context?
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
| JWeinCom said: If you're trying to make people think, you're failing spectacularly.
this is why we have church doctrine to this day changing to accept beliefs such as evolution because the chruch for a long time now has been intentionally subotaged with the ultimate goal to destroy everything the church stands for under the banner of "progressivism" Wow. You make a halfway decent support of your argument, then you go right back into unsubstantiated nonsense. Anyway, this has nothing to do with whether Hitler was an atheist, and I'm not Catholic, so I don't care enough to argue. But again, it seems that you're just making your own decisions on what is right and holding things against your arbitrary standard. You're also attacking religions, something I still haven't done despite you accusing me of such. So, nice hypocrisy I guess. but what people are too stupid in this day to understand is that without god we have nothing, no creator endowed rights, no morality nothing... it will then be man that sets these things and if the men in charge are corrupt ( and they most certainly are as everyone is ) then the general public will face the consequences but anyway No, what people are too stupid to understand is that you need evidence to support yourself. Our data shows that secular societies score higher on every measure of societal health than comparable religious societies. I'm not going to get into this. Seriously, I don't know why you keep bringing up points that are completely irrelevant to the conversation. I really don't want to engage in any new topics. It's been work enough to dismantle the dumb arguments you've already laid out, so I'm not going to address any new topics. It's a baseless assertion, so until there is some evidence to support it, I don't need to bother with evidence to refute it.
i will repeat for one more time the sun worshippers of the past were esoterically atheists - the outer meaning was of course that they worshipped the sun but the hidden understanding was atheism - yes its complicated and does not make sense initially but it is the truth Wow. Just wow. A poem that says, with god, we shall be free at last, is somehow used to prove that Nazies were atheist. Because it mentions the sun. In the nonsense olympics, that'd take the gold medal. Probably the silver medal too.
This was a hymn for the German faith movement. Some Nazis surely liked it, but the idea that it was "popular" is unsubstantiated, and it was not any part of official Nazi dogma. Nor does either the site you pulled it from, nor the book "Clerical Fascism in Interwar Europe" where the hymn is also recorded mention that this hymn was "popular", nor do they provide any evidence that it was endorsed by Hitler himself. Neither of these sources claim that the poem in any way signifies atheism. So, unless you have some other source, you are again making stuff up.
The source you provided, as suspect as I find in considering its evangelical nature, does not propose that Hitler was an atheism. It claims that Hitler has perverted Christianity, surely an argument one could make reasonably. They further claim that Hitler supported paganism, a claim I'm more skeptical of them. But whoever wrote the piece was at least intelligent enough to know the difference between paganism and atheism, and they do not conflate them. The other soure, the book, is using the poem as evidence of the role the clergy played in supporting the Nazi movement. They do claim the priests have an errant view of Christianity, but never makes the claim they are atheists. "The Nazis may have marched into battle with "Gott mit uns" (God with us) as their motto, but their god was a pagan antichrist god, and they followed a false messiah, Adolf Hitler, and bowed down before idols of power, physical force and the dream of world domination by the Teutonic Master Race" This is the author's interpretation. It has no evidence to back it up. Replacing your unfounded notions with his unfounded notions does nothing for your case. The author doesn't think what the Germans practiced was Christianity. That's fine. But it's an opinion. That's their view of what should or should not count as Christianity. Other opinions are available. And it has nothing to do with Hitler being an atheist.
he also replaced the bible with mein kampf and the examples go on and on and on
I actually did read this, and have been looking for verification on it, but was unable to find any. I'd be legitimately interested in seeing some kind of actual source. Oh, but I don't mean I want you to give me a source, cause you've shown you have no idea what a good source is. But if anyone listening in has information, I'm all for it.
i disagree with this obviously their god was indeed lucifer ( the light bearer, the morning star, etc etc etc ) but to these people the esoteric or hidden understand is that lucifer is intellect which is where the story of the gerden of eden comes from
Dude. You quoted the dictionary definition of atheism like five times, and I repeated it like 6. Do you even read? If they believe in a deity (including Satan) then they are not atheists.
And if you want to go with something as stupid as "they worshipped the light, so they worshipped Satan, so they worshipped atheism", then you should probably be aware that Jesus is associated with light at least a dozen times in the bible as well as being associated with the sun. Not that I think Jesus is the sun, but by your warped logic, that explanation would fit.
And are you seriously back to atheists worship the human intellect? Seriously, THE DEFINITION OF ATHEISM HAS BEEN POSTED LIKE TEN TIMES. Atheists are not the same as humanists, and do not, as a rule, worhsip human intellect. Seriously, learn what something is before talking about it. You have a hard on for the dictionary, so use it. It's not a great resource, but it's a whole lot better than the shit you pull out of your ass.
"You said all humanists are atheists. " and they were initially which is what we have been talking about - the past and imo for all intents and purposes the same still applies now Awwwww... and I actually gave you a shred of credit for realizing how stupid that statement was and going back on it. I got a good chuckle out of this, so thanks for that at least. "You said ALL humanists are atheists" no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so When I initially made that claim, you denied it. And when I pointed out that you can even follow your own line of nonsense, you said. all right fair enough i was thinking of its origins but i will gladly admit that i was wrong to post that So you already admitted you were wrong about that. And once you did, I let it go. So now you are trying to defend something that you yourself admitted was wrong. Your arguments are so laughably bad that not even you agree with them. And you accused me of changing definitions... lulz. Even if you were right, and I've showed that the Humanist manifesto was started by theists and non-theists. If we're going by the "in the past" argument, then that is so retarded I have no idea how to respond. Christianity came from Judaism. So does that mean you consider Jews as Christians? Are Germans still Nazis? Do you still refer to Pakistan as India? Do you realize that things change over time? Assuming a Christian today believes the same thing a Christian 1000 years ago did would be stupid. Your shit was food just a day ago, but I'm fairly sure you wouldn't eat it. So what is it? Are humanists all atheists or not? Since I'm probably not going to waste any more of my time, I'll just give you a response either way. If you say yes, that's idiotic. If you say no, congratulations on showing yourself to be in possession of a brain. And again, you've managed to define everyone by your bizarre standards. Doesn't matter what humanist organizations say, doesn't matter what the dictionary says, doesn't matter what humanists who are Christians say. You've made the decision for them. Such arrogance coming from such a poor mind. As frustrating as it is to have so much stupid flung at me, I am at least amused by the irony. the claim was made of you calling hitler a christian and claiming he was motivated by christianity and i understood instantly why you would make such a claim Lol. I'm not sure how you "understood instantly why I would make such a claim" when I never made that claim. I claimed that there is nothing to suggest Except I never said either of those things. Seriously, learn to read, especially since you've tried to insult my reading skills several times. I never said Hitler was a Christian. What I said was that there is no evidence to suggest Hitler was an atheist. If you can find anywhere where I said that Hitler was a Christian, I'll give you a thousand dollars. I'm totally not kidding. Look over every single post, and if you can find me claiming that Hitler was a Christian, I'll make a paypal transfer of 1000 dollars. (I may have said most likely at one point) This is btw the 14th time you've claimed I said something I didn't say, and you have not been able to back yourself up any time. Here is what I did say. "Hitler was very clearly not a humanist, and we have no evidence to suggest he was an atheist. In any public statement Hitler ever made, he adhered to Christianity. He argued for religious instruction, had close ties with the catholic church, had a large personal library of books regarding Jesus which were all well worn." That is quite different from the words you're trying to shove into my mouth. I'm smart enough to know when I have evidence enough to make a definitive claim or not. That's why I never said Hitler was a Christian. I said we have a good deal of evidence to suggest it, and we certainly do, but I do not have enough evidence to say "Hitler was a Christian". You on the other hand, are not smart enough to realize when you have enough evidence to make a claim, and therefore spew inane nonsense. And that is entirely true. At this point it's not surprising to me that you would make up strawmen arguments, because that's pretty much all you've done. Hell, you can't even keep up with what you've said, so how can you keep track of what I've said. And just for fun, here is what you said. as i conceded yes he appears to be associated with christianity in various ways but as i said there is also various evidence that the movement was inspired by an older religion Protip: When you don't even agree with youself in a debate, it's time to give it up. well i never did so because honestly many of those generalisations are factual but what i'm driving at here is that atheism is full of the same group think and lack of critical thinking... even more so because saying there is no god and denigrating religion seems to puff people up with some kind of ridiculous arrogance in my opinion of course Well, you finally did it. You were close to it this whole time, but you finally actually made me laugh out loud. :) I mean, I linked you to the sweeping generalization fallacy for a third time, but that would seem a waste at this point. Now, as an intelligent person, I try to make as few generalizations as possible. Obviously, it is sometimes necessary, but it is to be avoided when possible. That is why, as you'll noticed, I never once made a generalization about theists or any group. Because, and I'm going to bold this because it is important, generalizations are the cause of things like racism, discrimination, and genocide. Thinking that all members of a particular group are the same is the basis of discriminating. And this dude's going to then call me arrogant. Lol. You got balls man. Not brains, but balls. finally if you yourself do not understand the purpose of your movement and where its taking us then my friend i can't do much for you You just called me arrogant, then you tell me what I think. I'm not a part of any movement. I simply don't believe in a god. I don't really give a fuck whether or not you believe in a god. If there is a movement I'm a part of, it's called the anti-nonsense movement. When people spout out nonsense, especially about me, I set them straight Now, you've accused atheists of having a hive mind, and I can figure out why you think so. Because you have decided in advance what everyone believes, and if they go against that, you just claim they're lying. Hitler says he's a Christian? Lying (possible). Atheists say they don't claim god doesn't exist? Liars. (less likely lying) Christians claim themselves to be humanists? Liars. Webster claims atheism is the lack of belief in deities? Liars. You decided I feel a certain way of thinking because I'm part of an atheist hive mind. And when I say I think differently, you simply claim I'm lying, because my statement goes against your hive mind claim. If you ignore all the evidence against your claims, you'll always be right. In your own mind at least. To everyone else, you'll just be illogical, disrespectful, and dishonest. i came back here to clarify some things because people need to understand that the wrong ideas about history are being propagated whether you yourself can accept or not is your decision but if this inspires just one person to take the time to consider what is going on i'll be satisfied Funny enough I know for a fact that at least one person did take the time to consider what I said. I seriously doubt you've changed anyone's mind. Even if you did have any history backing you up, you've argued with such incredibly disgusting dishonesty that I don't believe anyone could possibly be convinced. If they read this topic, here is what they'll see...
They'll see that you are a liar. I gave you an opportunity to back yourself up on a lie you told about me (well more like 12 lies but who's counting?), and you instead tried to cut my quotes to try and avoid it. Nice manipulation, but I'm not letting it go. You made a claim that you couldn't back up, and don't even have the common human decency to apologize when caught with your pants on fire. I'm not sure why you expect anyone would listen to your views on what happened over 50 years ago in Germany, when you can't even seem to recall what happened in this topic a week ago.
Now, even IF you just made an honest mistake, you've still failed to say a simple "my bad". So not only are you a liar, but you are an unrepentant liar. By the way, the fact that you go on making up pure bullshit about me is why I'm not even pretending to be respectful at this point. Respect is earned, and part of earning it is being honest. If you are not going to show respect, you will not be given any.
They'll see that you like making strawmen arguments. You don't have the ability to respond to what I've actually said, so you keep responding to the things I haven't said. You've constructed about 14 strawmen arguments by my count.
They'll see that you resort to personal attacks when you can't back anything up. Yeah, just accuse me of attacking theists because you can't respond to the actual claims.
They'll see that you try to drop an argument as soon as it no longer suits you. For about 5 posts you harped on about how I was so wrong for defying the dictionary. So, when I show that the dictionary goes against your argument, suddenly you don't want to talk about the dictionary anymore.
They'll also see that you can't use a dictionary. Somehow, you think that humanists are atheists, and that atheists worship the sun and that atheists are nazis and nazis worship satan. I don't even know how your mind can process such garbage. But, use whichever definition you want for atheism, and sun worship and satan worship do not fit into it.
They'll also see that you can't form a sentence. Seriously, if your goal is to win hearts and minds, at least show that you have the basic skills that a first grader should have mastered. Not that it invalidates your arguments, because your arguments do a great job of invalidating themselves. But seriously, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to show you have a grade school education.
They'll see that you are a bigot. You've believe that you have a right to define what people believe in, and then attack them for things that YOU THINK THEY BELIEVE EVEN IF THEY DON'T. This is a dangerous way to think, and a sign of a pathetic mind. You accuse atheism of being a hive mind, then when I say something that goes against your view of atheism you go "nuh-uh you're lying." Beyond stupid.
They'll see that you try and cherry pick to the extreme. Hitler says he's a christian? Nonsense. Poem makes specific appeals to god? Irrelevant. Poem mentions sun disc? AHA! MUST BE AN ATHEIST! BECAUSE ATHEISTS WORSHIP THE SUN! Fuck logic I guess.
They'll also see that you cannot stick to a topic. Took about 8 requests to get you to vaguely address the topic of Hitler's religion. You did a shitty job, but kudos for finally getting there.
To sum it up, as fun as this has been, it is very unproductive to argue with someone like you. If you are just going to make up shit that I've said, what's the point of me being here? If you're just going to ignore what I say and make claims on my behalf, then you can do that without me I guess. I do thank you though, because you just got a logical beatdown to the point that anyone reading this who considered Hitler to be an atheist will now be corrected on that notion.
If you want to continue this (which I wouldn't do if I were you cause you're coming off like a schmuck) then I'll need an apology for misquoting me. It's not because I'm trying to be an ass or to massage my email, but it's because I need to know that you are actually reading my opinions, and realize that it's wrong to just make up what I'm saying. I'll also need you to provide a clear and concise definition of paganism, neo paganism, anti theist, theist, atheism, humanism, and satanism, because you show no knowledge of what these actually mean. I mean... you have some sort of warped definition, but you can't seem to back that up with anything but your deranged logic.
So yeah. Show that you're ready to have intelligent conversation. Otherwise, I won't be responding to this. Honestly, I probably won't even read this, because I have a tendency to take it too seriously when people say stupid things on the interrnet, and I'm sure I'm on the verge of a ban, and I'm already fairly confident you won't say anything of value.
If anyone else would chime in, I'd be really interested to see what others make of this. Otherwise, I'll be off worshipping the sun I guess.
|
"You still have nothing that disputes that Hitler was a Christian."
ah so the fact that he attacked the church, was condemned by the pope, participated in a movement that put forth phrases such as "the time of the cross has gone now", etc etc etc does not dispute that he was christian?
and i thought you were saying that you never said hitler was christian later in your post?
" I never said Hitler was a Christian."
"ou're also attacking religions, something I still haven't done despite you accusing me of such. "
supporting atheism which you are doing means that directly or by proxy you are attacking religions because in case you do not understand ( as you have demonstrated earlier btw) atheism is not a neutral position
you keep convincing me more and more that you do not understand what your own movement is about which doesn't surprise me because most don't as can be said about most followers adhering to concepts that were created by other people
the two movements atheism and theism are antithetical to each other
religion hopes to destroy atheism so that everyone can be saved under the glory of god and live under certain tenants that are identified in the bible which some people find oppressive such as the condemnation of homosexuality
atheism hopes to destroy religion so that the perceived stranglehold religion has on reason and expression can be lifted from humanity
"Our data shows that secular societies score higher on every measure of societal health than comparable religious societies. "
Like communist russia? lol
" A poem that says, with god, we shall be free at last, is somehow used to prove that Nazies were atheist."
do you by any chance understand what symbology means? or is that too abstract for you to understand? they clearly were not referring to the christian god "the time of the cross has gone now" so what does that tell you? does it not perhaps suggest that there is a esoteric meaning?
" I'd be legitimately interested in seeing some kind of actual source. Oh, but I don't mean I want you to give me a source, cause you've shown you have no idea what a good source is. "
says the man that proclaims that we should reject dictionary definitions to gain definitions of movements from adherents themselves... because people are never disengenuous about the purposes of movements lol
your world must be an interesting one to live in
"then you should probably be aware that Jesus is associated with light at least a dozen times in the bible as well as being associated with the sun. Not that I think Jesus is the sun"
my first post in this thread covers this... there is actually loads of evidence that suggests that jesus was a symbolic representation of the sun... whether that is right or not at this point i'm not sure
but phrases like these http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/The-Sun should raise some level of concern in any christian especially since many are actually said in relation to jesus as a man when in the bible its clear that the spelling is s-u-n
"Hitler was very clearly not a humanist, and we have no evidence to suggest he was an atheist. In any public statement Hitler ever made, he adhered to Christianity. "
lol so he adhered to christian principles?... what do we call people like that? oh i know! they are called christians!
"as i conceded yes he appears to be associated with christianity in various ways but as i said there is also various evidence that the movement was inspired by an older religion
Protip: When you don't even agree with youself in a debate, it's time to give it up."
and this is why i criticised your comprehension because you clearly have a problem if you can conflate "association" with "adherence"
i associate with people that subscribe to various ideologies does that mean that i automatically adhere to those ideologies? lol well that's what you are saying here
"Thinking that all members of a particular group are the same is the basis of discriminating."
and here again you demonstrate that egregious lack of comprehension - you are describing absolutism not generalisation
generalisation means that you do accept that there are exceptions to a majority not that " all members of a particular group are the same"
"And when I say I think differently, you simply claim I'm lying, because my statement goes against your hive mind claim. "
if your thinking goes against the very tenant of the group you claim to be a part of then you are not a part of that group
as i said the very purpose of atheism is the destruction of theism... that's why its theism with an "a" in front of it
it is an antithetical movement
"If you ignore all the evidence against your claims, you'll always be right. In your own mind at least."
i conceded that hitler has some degree of association with christianity and reneged on the incorrrect claims that i made
you on the other hand have dismissed my sources including dictionaries lol
"Atheists say they don't claim god doesn't exist? Liars."
do i really have to go for quotes from atheists claiming just that seriously? are you really that dishonest?
" Christians claim themselves to be humanists? Liars."
i addressed this already... you do understand that christianity is only 2000 years old right?
"Webster claims atheism is the lack of belief in deities? Liars."
i never dismissed any dictionary definition... if my memory serves me correctly... you did
with regards to my earlier claims about evolution playing a part in nazi ideology the term "racial hygiene" should provide more than enough evidence
as i said earlier the nazis were trying to create the perfect race of humans to rule over all of humanity ( i was wrong to claim that they wanted to exterminate everyone who wasn't aryan it was just about domination )
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007057
http://www.historywiz.com/racialhygiene.htm
this idea has its roots in the writings of a russian named helena blovatsky who spoke about "root races" with extraordinary powers that were lost through breeding with lower races
"Might this "new form" of man of Hitler's be related to Blavatsky's root race schema? She maintained that the sixth and seventh root races would witness a return to the earlier spiritual state of existence. Man would once again have spiritual insight and be at one with the forces of nature. According to Hitler, "Creation is not yet at an end.... Man has clearly arrived at a turning point.... A new variety of man is beginning to separate out." Hitler further believed that mankind would evolve into two distinct types. "The two types will rapidly diverge from one another. One will sink to a sub-human race and the other rise far above the man of today. I might call the two varieties the god- man and the mass-animal." The new, godlike Aryan would rule over the inferior races, the "mass-animal."43 To Hitler, it was the divine mission of the Nazi movement to bring this about: "Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than a religion: it is the will to create mankind anew."
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395043
this is a man who supposedly adhere's to christian tenants in the 30s when the church views the mere mention of evolution as blasphemy and as you mentioned it accepts now... why the sudden change? because the church was taken over by people with similar ideas afterwards
this also ties into the concept that the average person is too stupid to take responsiblity of their own life and therefore a group of wise men must be created to rule over everyone else or the rabble/massess etc
this has ties to socialism and communism because again many of these things have the same root
and yes you do worship the sun... the vast majority of the population do in various ways anyway so don't feel bad about it
| o_O.Q said:
and yes you do worship the sun... the vast majority of the population do in various ways anyway so don't feel bad about it |
This is the only part of the post I feel the need to respond to. (although I'm tempted to point out that the prefix a is without. There is another prefix that does mean antiethical to... that prefix is anti. Which is why I brought up antitheism. I guess we can list prefixes onto the list of things you have no idea about but still claim expertise on.) Cause if you know what I think, feel, and do better than I do, you could just proceed without me.
o_O.Q said:
block2 |
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 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.
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.
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.
*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.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
Yet people take the verses how they want and use them to fulfill their hateful agenda. The main problem with religion is people. People tend to fuck everything up.
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
*Old testament references love more than hate, and does not even mention Christ or Jesus, which is THE BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY Old testament, is only there because Christianity originates from Judaism, OT is basically the Torah *Meanwhile, Christ is mentioned 555 times >> hate mentioned 16 times in New Testament and Jesus is mentioned 983 times >> hate 16 times *and the relationship hold for all three translations listed here. Your counter is completly moot.
You wanna see what else happens when you take the BIble out of context?
|
Hey, thats a great picture actually !
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.
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
*Old testament references love more than hate, and does not even mention Christ or Jesus, which is THE BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY Old testament, is only there because Christianity originates from Judaism, OT is basically the Torah *Meanwhile, Christ is mentioned 555 times >> hate mentioned 16 times in New Testament and Jesus is mentioned 983 times >> hate 16 times *and the relationship hold for all three translations listed here. Your counter is completly moot.
You wanna see what else happens when you take the BIble out of context?
|
I'm sorry, but is this a joke?
If I say "I love you" to 30,000 people and "I hate you" to one person, does the 30,000 times I've mentioned I love someone mean I don't hate anyone? Of course not.
Kindly review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
