NO WONDER Unbelievers….are so defensive!

Response to radorth's Post #136

radorth said:

In fact atheists are so "right" that they felt the need to murder or starve to death at least 50 million people who dared ask questions about their first attempts to rule the world. They are so "right" that they claimed Reagan would cause Armageddon by telling Russian leaders they were evil and oppressive. They wanted him to "appease" the Russians as Chamberlain appeased Hitler. But in fact he freed hundreds of millions of people from their evil, oppressive atheist run societies. They are so "right" that given any power, they quench all self-expression and tell posters to "be quiet" even here.

Click to expand...

The above in conjunction with radorth's Post #147

radorth said:

franklin said:

I think it's quite obvious you have gone off the edge here rad. How about showing your so called source of information where all these people were killed in the name of atheism.

Click to expand...

Oh they weren't killed in the name of atheism. They were killed because that's what people do who do not have the NT or Christians around to tell them its wrong.

Click to expand...

So when the Communist took over, all Christians and all copies of the Bible just vanished? Don't think so. [/quote]

You keep promoting Christianity (your version that is) as morally superior to every other worldview and again I remind you that your advertisment is a false one.Points to keep in mind:

1. This would be a good point, but unfortunately for you, we are not talking about races, nationalites, or political systems.

2. Also bear in mind that at no time have I ever made any claims that a secular society would necessarily be any better or has been any better than a religiously-based one.

3. We are talking about a religion, Christianity.

• A religion that claims to be different from all other religions.
• A religion that claims to possess the actual words of the One True God™.
• A religion that claims to be guided by the spirit of God™d.
• Furthermore, it is you are also claiming that there is something wonderful and special about the power of Christian religion that makes it a safeguard for the kinds of personal freedoms we now enjoy.
• Yet you can not point to a single country with a religious regime of ANY stripe and say "yes...see how free these people are, because they follow X (Christian?) religious principles".

Worse yet, upon examining the history of this Christianity, we can see that these claims are false.

4. Instead you resort to playing the "moral equivalency" game in the form of "but actually it was atheists, who murdered, worked or starved to death more people in one 70 year period than all the religions put together since the beginning of recorded history."

First, this is is an example of what is known as a tu quoque ("you too") fallacy. When the inquities of Christians are enumerated, you attempt to counter with an equal catalog of "atheistic"crimes. What someone else does or is alleged to have done is NOT justification for Christians doing the same. This is especially true in light of the supposed occupation of the highest moral ground by Christianity.

Second, In short, it's very dangerous to cast stones in the "moral equivalency game" when you live in the glass house of "moral superiority." Or to state it another way, it very dangerous for your argument because all you have really succeeded in doing is to show that theists are really NOT "better" than non-theists at promoting the "common good".

6. An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in any god. There is no "philosophy" that goes with that. The atrocities committed by under the Communists regimes (I again assume that is what you mean when you yell "atheist who murdered") of China, the USSR, or Pol Pot did NOT kill anyone to promote atheism. Religion was regarded as another competitor for power and its any dissenting adherents were killed for political reason, not religious ones.

Of course, you seem to be one of those theists who assumes

• that all non-theists are corrupt, immoral, pleasure-seeking hedonists because they don't live in some kind of God-fear
• any government composed of non-theists will automatically be evil because such persons don't think they will ever be held accountable for their actions (by an angry God)

Actually you seem intent on just misrepresenting the motives and character of non-believers with every word.

I find such arrogance from those who, in the same breath, will often claim to be "so 'umble", to be both ironic and hypocritical in the extreme. Uriah Heep a prime example of this sort of "Christian humitility", a praise I find to be nothing but another oxymoron after reading your posts on this thread, i.e., such as THIS ONE

One of the best in the world in my field apparently. A highly qualified person recently remarked that I should be the highest paid in a company of hundreds of them, who do much of the most advanced engineering in the world. No brag, just fact my friend. But then Newton, Pascal and Faraday were Christians, indicating we hold our own.

Click to expand...

You're so 'umble (putting yourself in the same class a Newton etc. ) "Christian humility"...an oxymoron, as so exemplified by your statements. And again a reminder:

Christianity did not "Invent" Morality

Altruistiism/Morality is simply a set of behaviors that evolved as part of group survival strategy, no deity need apply. Humans certainly have no patent on these strategies which are common throughout the animal world.

Post #21-Morality Simply Evolved

Recent articles on altruism in non-human species:

Chimps have a sense of fair play

Chimpanzees display a similar sense of fairness to humans, one which is shaped by social relationships, experts claim.
They found that, like humans, chimps react to unfairness in various ways depending on their social situation.

Details of the study appear in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

A similar finding has been reported in capuchin monkeys, suggesting that a sense of fairness may have a long evolutionary history in primates.

Click to expand...

Altruism exhibited by Turkeys

The sex lives of wild turkeys in a remote Carmel Valley nature reserve offer striking evidence that animal altruism pays and that cooperation rather than combat can often be the best way to keep a species flourishing.

Click to expand...

Like I said, "morality" is nothing more than a set of behaviors that facilitate our survival as a group species, no deity need apply.

Let's just take one case a non-human demonstration of moral behavior WITHOUT Christiantiy. Neanderthals are not human and according to most Christians would not have had a "soul", the all-important conduit to your God, that is supposed to be what "enables" us to "know" about "God" and develop a consciencious. Pehaps you would care to explain to us how Neanderthals developed a compassion, a sense of community, etc. WITHOUT any exposure to Christianity (died out as a species long before that)?

BTW, Christianity is not the guarantor of moral behavior, despite your claims to moral superiority over other world-views. All one has to do is compare the blood-soaked history of Christainity to the history of other regimes to see that. Seeing that Christianity is no better at securing the public good or insuring lawful behavior, why would I choose it over any other worldview. Now I am not calling Christians morally bankrupt here, I am simply disputing the claim advanced that Christianity is somehow the author of morality and indeed the SUPERIOR version. Or by way of an analogy, as the "feller" said about Smiley's frog (Christianity) in Mark Twain'sThe Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaverus County

"Well,' he says, 'I don't see no p'ints about that frog (Christianity) that's any better'n any other frog (any other worldview)." (in response to Smiley's claim about the superiority of his frog's athletic prowess)

Why should I pick your "frog" (Christianity) other "frog" (other worldview)? Or why should I become a Christian as opposed to say a Wiccan, a pagan or a Buddhist? Nothing so falsifies Christianity's claim to any kind of owership for the moral high ground when we have posts like yoursare so hate-filled (atheists portrayed by you, radorth, as nothing but immoral, murdering hedonists). It is no wonder that with attitudes like these that Christians have engaged in blood-baths where they have persecuted and slaughtered those they have so dehumanized.

Then you and Edmond have the immense gall to harrumph about "unbelievers defensiveness". As another poster said this is simply a quite justifiable response your offensiveness.

WITH REGARD TO RADORTH'S CLAIMS ABOUT JEFFERSON.....

radorth said:

That is why humans made so little social progress until the NT was published, and why they went backwards where it was not published. That is why Jefferson and Madison called themselves Christians, and why Christians first set the example of all the social rules we live by.

Click to expand...

But Jefferson was NOT any kind of Christian that you would recognize. Funny that you forgot to mention that Jefferson

• viewed Jesus as a great, but MORTAL, HUMAN sage
• and considered himself a Christian, BUT did not think that Jesus was divine
• considered the Trinity an absurdity
• did not believe in the miracles recorded in the New Testament (took a razor and cut them out of the Bible)

To him, all the miracles and salvation message were just later additions by "priests" who were trying to sell the message. Here is what he thought about Revelations....

EXCERPT
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered itas merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams... I cannot so far respect [the extravagances of the composition] as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas... What has no meaning admits no explanation... I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms which, He would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Smyth, 1825. ME 16:100 [The ellipses omit portions related to a specific book manuscript Smyth sent to TJ.]

Click to expand...

He took a razor to the Bible and cut out those parts describing miracles and what he considered to be other "priestly additions" to make the message more palatable to those that Christians were trying to convert.

A copy of the Jeffersonian Bible can be found HERE.

Whatever Jefferson's opinion of as Jesus as a MORTAL philosopher, he certainly didn't think Jesus was a virgin-born, miracle-working demigod (son of the one TRUE God™) AND most certainly did NOT write any of his religious OPINIONS into the Constitution.

Somehow I don't think that Jefferson's OPINION of Jesus is really worth very much, considering that the things that Jesus is alleged to have espoused are NOTHING NEW. As much as it may pain you, Radorth, Christianity DOES NOT hold the patent on morals.

wow gladiatrix, hats off to you, that's a lot of research, top quality too.
Cheers

WITH REGARD TO JAMES MADISON...

radorth said:

That is why humans made so little social progress until the NT was published, and why they went backwards where it was not published. That is why Jefferson and Madison called themselves Christians, and why Christians first set the example of all the social rules we live by.

Click to expand...

As for Madison, another reminder that even though most of the founders of this nation were theists, they DID NOT make the "US a Christian Nation". The Constitution is a SECULAR document which doesn't even mention the word "god".

The above is nothing but the usual Religious Right historical revisionism. The very LAST thing Christianity would "guarantee" is "freedom of religion". Take the first of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Doesn't look like to this commandment would be very "religious freedom friendly" to me (just on this one issue alone).

Anyway, why radorth's claim is false (recycling an old post).

It is the Constitution that is the basis of the government. Documents like the Declaration of Independence are irrelevant...WHY?==> no laws come from this document. Furthermore, the Constitution is a SECULAR document where god(s?) are not even mentioned.
The majority of the framers were Christians or Deists (theists at any rate) Given the fact that they were mostly Christians/theists, I would also expect them to venerate such teachings. What you are consistently and stubbornly refusing to face is this:

• They did not make their beliefs, however much they venerated them, in the law of the land, in the Constitution.
• They had every opportunity to do so, and did no such thing==>there was nothing to stop them from doing so, except the lessons of history.

I think that the founders simply looked at the what happened any time in THEIR past that religion became the "guiding" force of government and realized just how dangerous to the idea of personal liberty the endorsment of religion was by government. To put it simply "there was a time when religion ruled the world and that time was called the Dark Ages". They just didn't want to create a climate that would recreate the "Dark Age" that Reason had just escaped (endorsing any particular religion , would give it the power to force it's particular dogma on everyone).

What I especially admire is that even though the majority were Christians/deists and had a golden opportunity to hardwire Christianity/deism into the fabric of government, they resisted the siren song of power and didn't do it. Why? All one has to do is open a history book or pick up a newspaper to read what a failure religion is when it overtakes and replaces or even just overly-influences (the "power behind the throne") secular authority. (Crusades, Inquisitions, Christian-on-Christian persecution, repression of scientific investigation, repression of free speech, Iran, the Taliban, the "Irish troubles", etc.).

Before radorth starts squawking, I challenge him or anyone else to name just one religious government, past or present, that didn't disintegrate into a repressive tyranny. You may find yourself like Lot looking for a righteous man is Sodom or Gomorrah....you won't find one. I think the founders knew this and did indeed learn from history (they already had plenty of examples of religious tyranny)

But I digress, so back to the topic.....

How did Christianity contribute to the writing of the Constitution , especially in light of the fact that some Christains are alway trumpeting that this is a "Christian nation founded on Christian principles". But it that really true? Let's look at:

• A = Constitutional principle
• B = What the Bible says on the subject

Adapted/Quoted FROM Christian Bible Foundations of the U.S.A
Sometimes now we hear that the United States is "founded on biblical principles", as a slightly softened version of the "Christian nation" idea. People making that claim don't give specifics on what foundations of the U.S. and what parts of the Bible they mean.
Of the many foundations of our country, I was able to find two which are supported in the Bible, and several which run contradictory to the Bible.
(A)FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I don't find in the Bible any defense of freedom of speech.
(B) On the contrary: "he that doubteth is d@mned" (Romans 14:23); "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...whose mouths must be stopped.." (Titus, 1:10-11); and "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ......and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19). The last passage could be construed as being against democracy, since anyone who runs for office against an existing administration is sowing discord.

(A)RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE. This is embraced in both the original Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) and in the First Amendment. Yet in the Bible we have:
(B) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3) ; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18); "He that sacrifice unto any god save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20); "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23); "he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" (Leviticus 24:16). [Such stoning was actually carried out, in 1 Kings 21:13] Anyone proselytizing for another religion is to be put to death, and if that person is a member of your family, you are to strike the first blow to kill him or her (Deuteronomy 13:5-10). "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). The practice of "shunning" someone who disagrees with you on religious matters is advised in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

(A)A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Our Constitution demands this (Article IV, Section 4). But I find nothing in the Bible to support it.
(B) On the contrary, Romans 13:1-7 tells people to obey authority because it is instituted by God. NOTE: For an interesting view of this go HERE (libertarian)

(A)"CORRUPTION OF THE BLOOD" is forbidden by the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2). In the Bible, though:
(B) "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). However, the Bible does contradict itself on this: "... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16)]. Also: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut. 5:9); "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). B@st@rds may not enter the temple, nor their descendants (Deut. 23:2). God even killed a baby because of a sin by its father (2 Samuel 12:14). Ahab escaped punishment for murder by making an elaborate apology, and his descendants were punished instead (I Kings 21:29). The doctrine of original sin is also against this part of the Constitution.

(A)SLAVERY. This was an important social and economic foundation of our country both before and after independence. It was an institution condoned by the founders and recognized and defended by the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise"
(B)Slavery is also condoned in both the Old and New Testaments, but it is never condemned. On the contrary, it is codified, and made an inherited condition:
Exodus 21:4ff gives rules for keeping slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says that heathen may be purchased as slaves, that their children become slaves, and that they are inherited as property by the owner's children for ever. Other places that indicate that slavery is a hereditary condition are: Genesis 9:25, Exodus 21:4, Corinthians 7:20. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says that when you conquer a city, if it surrenders then all people inside it become your slaves; but if it doesn't surrender, then all males are to be killed and all women and children "take unto thyself". Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to honor their masters.
In the book of Philemon, Paul sends a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his former master. But this conflicts with the admonition in Deuteronomy 23:15 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped..." So the Bible is on both sides of the 1857 Dred Scott case!

(A)TREATMENT OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. Here is another place where one of the foundations of our country is justified by the Bible. NOTE: No Constitutional protection for the original inhabitants of this country................
(B)"Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy....And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein.." (Numbers 33:52-53). This biblical injunction was obeyed many times by Americans.

(A) WOMEN'S RIGHTS Not mentioned by the author of the previous website is women's rights which are ignored by the Constitution......
(B)The Bible is very clear on their inferior status as reinterated in these articles:

The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, by John Knox (1558)

A 1993 DEFENSE of the Knox Hatred of Women(yes, you see correctly 1993, in the 20th Century and then there's the SBC's (Baptist) notion of "freedom" for women { their "all people are equal (men,women), but some people (men) are more equal than others (women)" Orwellian Newspeak)}

Looks like the "Christian" contributions of slavery and discrimination against women and minorities did indeed get into the Constitution. NOTE:Of course, Christians are not the only religious group with adherents guilty of promoting the slavery or discrimination. Not all Christians now support the submission of women and /or slavery (views of Randall Terry, a Christian Reconstructionist) And yes IMO the views of such Christains are totally inimical to freedom in any shape, form, or fashion.

The bottom-line here is that the Constitution is a SECULAR document (begins with "We, the people, NOT We, the Christians), containing no mention of God or Christianity. There is even a provision outlawing religious tests for holding office.

HISTORY OF "GOD' ON US CURRENCY, THE PLEDGED
The phrase "one nation, under God, was a LATE addition to the pledge of alligance. This change came about the height of the McCarthy communist witchhunts and represented the desire of some to distinguish the US from the "evil, godless communists".

The phrase "in God we trust"http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html did not appear on a LIMITED set of coins until the mid 1860s (it didn't appear on the same coins in a consistent fashion, either). It didn't appear on the paper currency til 1957 (again as a counter to all those "evil, godless commies! Better dead than atheist-Red! according to radorth)

Where's the "I'm not worthy" icon?

Ah well. This'll do.

Magnificent, Gladiatrix. Simply magnificent.

Response to radorth's Post #136

radorth said:

They are so "right" that a scientist with three Phd's, who disagrees will be said to be "not a real scientist." They are so "right" that they pretend unbelievers led the "enlightenment" when Jefferson himself claimed to be a Christian,

Click to expand...

Again, Jefferson was most certainly NOT your kind of "Christian". For you to claim that your sort of Christianity influenced Jefferson is nonsense.

radorth said:

and Washington said atheists cannot possibly be patriots.

Click to expand...

And a CITATION that gives documented evidence that Washington said any such thing would be WHERE?

However, George Bush Sr. said that. I guess that means that according to both you and him, those of us not walking in lock-step with your worldview should have no rights. What a relief that the Constitution, at least for now, protects the rights of minorities so despised by Christains like yourself, Bush, Falwell, Rushdoony, and Co. Look at it this way....

[sarcasm]
1. Or don't atheists have a reason to be "so defensive", especially in light of all the misinformation spread about by the religious or the attitudes of Christians like George Bush and fellow travelers in the Religious Right such as "atheist are not citizens or patriots".

2. Or how about this lovely sentiment expressed toward non-believers:
14% Should Sit Down and Shut Up! Gotta love all this respect for other people's freedom of expression (NOT!)

3. Then there's the little matter of those Christians trying to rewrite the history of this nation as a "Christian nation" when it was founded as a secular state.

4. Or how about those Christian Reconstructionists who now surround the current president who want to construct a Christain theocracy, founded on Leviticus (Bush told to "pay up" by James Kennedy and Co. recently) Christian Reconstructionst (CRists) wouldn't hesitate to kill atheists. All one has to do is read the works of CRists, who would publically execute atheists ("blasphemers) along with homosexuals, witchs, women who have abortions, disobedient children.

Invitation to a Stoning

The Views of CRist, Operation Rescue's Randall Terry

The Words of CRists

Rushdoony's CR Website

The above is some of the tamer stuff from CRists....


5. Then there's the well-financed campaign to force the teaching of Christian fundamentalism under the guise of "creation science" and "Intelligent Design" (more CRists money bags, like Howard Ahmanson at work)
[/sarcasm]

The "defensiveness" of atheists had nothing to do with a lack of belief in god(s?) and everything to do with what many of us perceive as a real threat to freedoms we all NOW enjoy. The most vocal and powerful are those from the Religious Right. All one has to do is pick up a history book or a news paper (Afganistan, Iran? anyone) to know just how real this threat could prove to be. Unlike others, I don't think It Can't Happen Here. (IOW, oppression courtesy of the Christain Right "will happen here" if "unbelievers" fail to be "defensive")

Also see
Post #417: Response to radorth's "Turn or Burn Christianity" (or what is IMO his true problem with "unbelievers")

Response to radorth's Post #319

radorth said:

Not atheism per se, but the lack of New Testaments to read. There is a clear and provable pattern of no Bibles to read= darkness. The darkness comes and goes as the Light of the world comes and goes. Thus modern unbelievers resort to the same oppression and murder as the Crusaders did, and worse.

Click to expand...

Again, if the Bible was the bastion of moral superiority that you claim it is, the Crusade, Inquisition, virtual extermination of most Native Americans, etc. would NOT have taken place. People such as yourself, who live in the proverbial glass house of " Moral Superiority" have no business casting stones in what appears to be your favorite game of "Moral Equivalency. IMO, such "gaming" on your part simply blows up in your face as I have already explained.

radorth said:

Even ghandi claimed to be a better Christian than some Christians were and said all religious roads lead to Christ.

Click to expand...

And your citation of where Ghandi said any such thing would be?

Here is what he actually said:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi

Click to expand...

Where in this or anything by Ghandi is there any claim by Ghandi that "all religious roads lead to Christ"?

Response to radorth's Post #350

radorth said:

Danhalen said:

I am only giving in to the manner in which radorth likes to portray me.

Click to expand...

I did no "portray" you as anything, did no "portray" you as anything, certainly not in the cynical light I was personally portrayed. I portrayed atheist arguments here for what most of them are, cynical, simplistic and having little or no basis in historical fact.

Click to expand...

Oh the irony! And you have YET to support a single claim you have made as a "historical fact"

radorth said:

And by the way, I am one of a miniscule group of Christians who notes exceptions like H.G. Wells and Will Durant.

Click to expand...

Only when you can twist and misrepresent what they say (again NEVER once, supporting what you claim they say with a citation from any work). Again I point out just how outrageously you have misrepresented these gentlemen (not to mention showing your considerable ignorance of evolution)

Post #371: Response to radorth's Misuse and Abuse of Evolution, Durant and Wells

Biblical Contradictions to which radorth responds that Durant claims they are "minutae" (no CITATION to support claim)

Post #389: More on the Misuse of the Works of Durant and Wells

Ameriskool said:

wow gladiatrix, hats off to you, that's a lot of research, top quality too.
Cheers

Click to expand...

Vermithrax said:

Where's the "I'm not worthy" icon?

Ah well. This'll do.

Magnificent, Gladiatrix. Simply magnificent.

Click to expand...

Why thank you...you are both too kind..

gladiatrix said:

Response to radorth's Post #142

This is a lie that you continue to post, Radorth. Allow me to expose this bovine scatology of yours once again.....

1. Contrary to Radorth's claim, Stalin WAS NOT an Evolutionist

2. Contrary to Radorth's claim Hitler WAS NOT an Evolutionist

3. And despite your disclaimers (like THIS ONE), Hitler was most definitely a Christian as I outline here:

Evidence for Hitler's Christianity

A. Part 1: Hitler's Christianity
B. Part 2: Hitler's Christianity
C. Part 3: Hitler's Christianity

Realize that at NO TIME do I consider Hitler to be anything other than a "black sheep Christian" (all families have them) and not representative of the majority of Christians, so please don't resort to whining that I am using his example as some kind of tar brush to discredit all Christians.

Click to expand...

Doh...I never knew Hitler said any of those things. Wow, ok, I need to read up on it...

The very fact that Christians have murdered/persecuted one another and continue to do over doctrine means that the NT isn't what you are advertising it to be. Otherwise Christians would have been able to come to an agreement over doctrine and just what it means to be a TRUE Christian™. Somehow the NT seems to be so vague in that regard that Christians still haven't been able to sort it out (without butchering each other, that is...the only "peace" has been the "peace" of the grave as the truimphant sect buries the loser sect).

Click to expand...

We tried to tell him, but you put it so eloquently.

Vermithrax said:

Where's the "I'm not worthy" icon?

Ah well. This'll do.

Magnificent, Gladiatrix. Simply magnificent.

Click to expand...

Ditto, Vermithrax. She's outdone us all again. And thank goodness.

Game. Set. Match.

Gladiatrix: you RULE!

Response to Gladiatrix (IIDB link):

Gladiatrix said:

The truth is that the Vatican knew what Hitler was doing and willfully turned a blind eye. What do you think would have happened if Pope Pius XII had stood against Hitler and excommunicated him and ordered all Catholics to oppose him (an edict like this would have had a far greater effect then than it would now) instead? I don't think Hilter's regime could have survived an outraged Catholic majority. But instead, Pius just collaborated like all the rest and what is worse, did it first! Furthermore, I think one would also have seen the 'bandwagon effect'. Other world leaders would have probably been emboldened and/or energized to condemn Hitler as well.

Click to expand...

This is blatantly false revisionism. Pope Pius XII saved many Jewish lives during WWII. This article that Lifesaver links to in his post (postcount 15) has detailed information about how Pope Pius XII spoke out against the Nazis.

You will note that, despite your allegations that Pope Pius XII did not speak out against Hitler, if his message was not oft heard it was due to Nazi censoring, not his silence:

"As part of the Nuremberg Project, a collaboration between Rutgers and Cornell, the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion this month posted online a 108-page report originally prepared by Gen. William J. Donovan, a leading American investigator at the trials. One of the first pages describes the document's contents: 'This study describes, with illustrative factual evidence, Nazi purposes, policies and methods of persecuting the Christian Churches in Germany and occupied Europe. Draft for the War Crimes Staff. 6 July 1945.' Donovan notes that investigators could use this information to prove that 'measures taken against the Christian Churches were an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest.'

The report begins with a summary: 'Throughout the period of National Socialist rule, religious liberties in Germany and in the occupied areas were seriously impaired. The various Christian Churches were systematically cut off from effective communication with the people. They were confined as far as possible to the performance of narrowly religious functions, and even within this narrow sphere were subjected to as many hindrances as the Nazis dared to impose. These results were accomplished partly by legal and partly by illegal and terroristic means.'

Several elements of the above passage have serious implications for arguments regarding the behavior of church leaders and of Christian laypeople in Nazi-controlled lands. For example, in The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965 (Indiana, 2000),Michael Phayer writes, 'No one would accuse the bishops or the pope of murdering Jews, but did they not have the duty or mission to urge Catholics to protect, not harm, Jews? Rather than individual 'straying' Catholics, was it not the church itself, including especially its leaders, who bear the burden of guilt?' If, however, church leaders could not communicate with their people-'Interference with the Central Institutions of Church Government,' 'Interference with Freedom of Speech and Writings,' and 'Interruption of Official Communications within the Church Government' are all elements of the Nazi strategy discussed in Donovan's report-perhaps the leaders' share of guilt must be revised downward" (Christianity Today, Jan. 25 2002).

More on Hitler's facade of Christianity from the National Review.

Further supporting the bold in the above quote, we have a quote by Hitler on Oct. 14th, 1941. Hitler was not about to let the Church or any church get in his way. That much is clear:

"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State" (Hitler's Table Talk p 49-52).

Hitler's private contempt for the Papacy is also expressed rather clearly (from a conversation that took place on Dec. 13, 1941):

"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease" (Hitler's Table Talk p 118-119).

Hitler was not the only one antipathetic towards the Roman Catholic Church. Joseph Goebbels, one of Hitler's top lieutenants, denounced the Papacy for its interference, lending legitimacy to the fact that Pope Pius XII spoke out against the Nazis.

Goebbels wrote in his diary, in March 26, 1942: "It's a dirty, low thing to do for the Catholic Church to continue its subversive activity in every way possible and now even to extend its propaganda to Protestant children evacuated from the regions threatened by air raids. Next to the Jews these politico-divines are about the most loathsome riffraff that we are still sheltering in the Reich. The time will come after the war for an over-all solution of this problem."

You can read this quote in Lifesaver's post, which I linked to earlier. If you would like to see Goebbels' diary entry for yourself, look at a compilation of his writings here. I assume the book would be available at your local library. Getting back to the quote itself (more specifically, the bolded portion), you see that Goebbels also hinted to proposed militaristic action against Christians, or at least the Church, after the war.

Gladiatrix said:

But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)
2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.
3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.
4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

Click to expand...

I am skeptical about this for a few reasons. First of all, you have no citation for number one. And number two is a misrepresentation, because Hitler's tone about Christianity became progressively more distasteful once he was in power and Christianity threatened his leadership. With this in mind, it seems clear to me that Hitler used Christianity as a tool for public relations, but once it threatened his power, he spoke against it in private.

You go on to talk about how Hitler's Table Talk calls Christianity "an invention of sick brains..." and say that Hitler was talking about organized religion, not the belief system itself. This is easily refuted from one of Hitler's own statements (recorded Dec. 14th, 1941, long after he was in power, BTW) about early Christianity, circa two centuries before the Church became fully organized under Constantine:

"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism,
under a tinsel of metaphysics." (Hitler's Table Talk p 119 & 120).

As for Hitler's social Darwinism, to quote "OrthoByzEgypt", a reviewer/critic on Amazon.com who says this better than I could, "There are many anti-Jewish statements strewn throughout MEIN KAMPF, but they are not so much to be as shocking as many would think. The 'anti-Semitism' is more assumed than explained, but the explanation involves the Nazi theory of a three-tiered racial makup of mankind which determines human interaction between cultural and religious groups. The 'founders of culture' are the mythical Aryans. All ancient cultural, religious and other developments can be traced to them, even though Hitler never explains who they are, or how they could be related to Germans. The 'preservers of culture' are those who got culture from the Aryans, but stagnated after the Aryans interbreeded with those of lesser racial stock. The only apparent 'preservers of culture' that Hitler mentions here are the Japanese. The Jews are the 'destroyers of culture.' Hitler criticizes them for using their religion to justify a racial-preservation group tactic. Hitler does not cite any sources as to where he got this information, and MEIN KAMPF generally relies on the readers' percieved, innate, subjective insight regarding racial and social issues."

Now, I notice you say that Hitler wasn't an evolutionist. This is true; he wasn't. But there is a difference between evolution and social Darwinism, and Hitler was certainly a social Darwinist. You see, tying into this idea of "superior races" was Hitler's involvement in the occult. Under the tutulage of Dietrich Eckart, Hitler began to see the Aryans as the preserver of "superior culture", and the Jews as responsible for Marxism, socialism, and other ideologies that he believed worked to subvert his "superior culture". Because science at the time promoted a social Darwinist view, that is, that there are actually inferior races and that the Aryans are superior because of their progress (as opposed to, say, the basic culture of the "savages" of Africa and Asia enslaved and subdued due to imperialism in the early 1900's), Hitler could easily see his ideas as legitimate biology. This fraud science was further promoted by its sister pseudo-science, Hitler's warped method of anthropology, which classified the German races by physiological appearance alone (google this if interested).

Scholar in training said:

You will note that, despite your allegations that Pope Pius XII did not speak out against Hitler, if his message was not oft heard it was due to Nazi censoring, not his silence:

Click to expand...

So let make sure I understand this. You are saying that the RCC did indeed excommunicate Hitler but, because of censorship, could not tell anyone about it?

Edmond said:

I think that is an interesting perspective...but that's not what I'm saying....

Religous institutions have adopted Jesus. Jesus did not adopt religious institutions. In fact, He was very much outside of them...even in His day.

What they have done, in many cases, is to institutionalize what He is. To many minds Jesus and 'the church' are inseperable. But He does not dwell in temples made with hands. He either dwells in human vessels by ivitation or dwells nowhere on earth.

Jesus tells a parable about a mustard seed, a seed that moves along in small clusters and is spend by the carrying of the wind. He then says that is suddenly changed into a very large and stationary tree. He then said that bird came and nested in its branches.

First century beleivers were like the mustrad seed plant. They were pungent and moved about as with the wind. By the third century the mustard seed had all but vanished and a lagre staionary tree had well began taking root. Birds came and began nesting in its branches. When the Lord spoke a parable His was always consistent with the imagry and what it meant. A bird in aparable was a symbol of evil.

He could foresee what would happen in what He call the kingdom of God here on earth during the age to come. One of the things was that tares would come into His feild and grow. It would be hard to tell them form the real wheat util they were fully grow. Those tares looked like the wheat but they were not.

There are many who are known as 'Christians' who have used the 'church' for many purposes. We are not to try to pull the tares form among the wheat Jesus said. The angels will sort them out at the end of this age.

Jesu is very real. We can't get saved. We can only ask Him to save us. He is the person with the power and position to do so. We can only ask and receive. Fear and guilt are not of Him. Peace and forgiveness is what He is and brings.

--------------------------

Click to expand...

What malarky! How the hell else are we going to know about your "jesus" except from the religious institutions who tell us about him???? What if I take a bible, read about Jesus and come to a vastly different conclusion then what you believe? Would you say its ok? No, you would give me the interpretation of Jesus that you have been given through the "religious institutions". So your point is moot.

As for your last statement, I will tell you that I did ask. I did not receive. Period.

You are the biggest critic of religion and its institutions. How is it you now defend them? That is the epitome of unreligious hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Sigh. No where have I "defended" religious institutions. I was pointing out the insanity of telling us not to look to religious institutions while at the same time continually givings us your perspective on Jesus which has been at least in part created by religious institutions!!! Sheesh!

Scholarship and theology have also BECOME part of the religious institution. The apostle Paul was no part of that. His scholarship is above all who have come after him. I have no problem defending the Bible with the Bible.

Click to expand...

So why is it you hold to the theology you hold? Why not another? You may not admit it, but your views on christianity, Jesus, etc. have been filtered and refined through religious institutions. To deny this is silly.

As with much evolutionist ranting...you need to do more homework before going on one of your head-long rages....and...need to be consistent in your defenses. You don't seem to know which side to pick. As long as its 'the oppositon' you seem to be ok.

Click to expand...

Read the above, and try again.

Robby said:

Sigh. No where have I "defended" religious institutions. I was pointing out the insanity of telling us not to look to religious institutions while at the same time continually givings us your perspective on Jesus which has been at least in part created by religious institutions!!! Sheesh!



So why is it you hold to the theology you hold? Why not another? You may not admit it, but your views on christianity, Jesus, etc. have been filtered and refined through religious institutions. To deny this is silly.



Read the above, and try again.

Click to expand...

If you want my advice, Robby...just forget it.


Edmond, I started a thread, challenging any theist to a debate about the existence of God. It's title "Well....", and it's semi-formal. Why don't you take a crack at it?