How long until the plague of religion goes away?

[JamesM]

How long until the plague of religion goes away?

 

Ignoring all of the fallacies that you have committed and the unproven or already disproved allegations, I will answer your question.

 

While I do not believe all religions are a plague, I can say that religion will go away for you (and every person who lives or lived) the day you die. And then if you find there to be no God (because you will simply cease to exist), then all will be gone. But if you find that there is a God (because you will "awaken"), then religion (and God) will still have disappeared for you and you will spend eternity cursing both yourself and God.

 

Do not fear...one way or another, your greatest desire will come true. But consider that it may also be your greatest curse.

[KathyM]

Are these the perspectives of a loving creator?

He gave you the chance to have paradise with Him for all eternity. He gave you your whole life to accept His offer. He paid for your rebellion with the blood and suffering of His own Son. What more do you expect? Do you think people should just be able to reject Him, deny His existence, offend Him with their sin, blastpheme His name for their entire life, and once their earthly life is over and they are faced with the truth of His existence, that God should now reward them with paradise, after a life of denial and offense? Doesn't work that way.

[TheFinalWord]

The best justice system I can imagine would be one in which each person was forced to live in the world of their own creation.

 

I'm glad God didn't leave me in the prison I made for myself. Drugs, lost, no hope, depression, alone; a life of folly and rebellion.

 

He released me and for that I owe Him my life I like your analogy though. We should all think about the prison's we create for ourselves. For me, I believe God can break any chains holding us down.

 

....reminds me of a song:

 

[sally4sara]

Churches are able to form Political Action Committees within 501c4 groups (with very strict guidelines).

 

 

 

Political Speech & Non Profit Tax Issues | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

 

Your point? I'm not talking about them getting together for coffee and donuts before carpooling to the voting booths. I'm not talking about milling about before service and talking about what they saw on the debates during the week. I believe I said it is illegal for churches to tell their members who to vote for and taking money given to the church and funneling it towards backing any party or candidate. It is something many churches do anyway.

I figure some might not realize they are involved in criminal activity; not too surprising from a group that takes what they are told is in the bible as fact and often without having read their own book in its entirety.

Others however, do it because they do not respect the law unless it reflects the law of their holy book - a book that promotes murder, rape, theft, and slavery simply for not sharing the same beliefs as their faith. Romans 13 tells them its okay to ignore the laws of the land if it goes against their faith allowing them to interpret that as freely as their personal interests and egos would like to believe that includes. So its no wonder they have trouble respecting the views of others or legal restrictions. Their book is a license to walk all over anyone not in their club.

[skydiveaddict]

How long do you think it will take for mankind to undo the horrible harm that has been done to mankind by the Abrahamic religions over the past few milennia?

 

You're kidding right?

 

How about the 20 million Stalin slaughtered in the name of communist atheism? (His own people by the way).

 

Or the the six million Jews murdered in the name of (atheist) racial purity by Hitler, not to mention the murder of another 20 million Russians, or the 8 million Chinese murdered by Mao in the communist (atheist) revolution in China?

 

Or the four million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot in the name of racial, atheist purity as well?

 

How many millions died at the hands of the Imperial Japanese in WWII because they were Christians?

[Taramere]

Religion (all religion - I did not intend to single out Christianity) is evil. Period.

 

There are many brilliant people who have put this myth to bed, and I recommend that you consider checking them out. Before you do that though, please read your Bible/Koran/Torah first. THEN check out people like Christopher Hitchens, Christina Rad, and Richard Dawkins. Once you're done with that, you may have a new perspective.

 

Nobody can deny the evils done in the name of religion in times (and in regions) where brutality reigns. The media regularly shares with us all the weirdness and dysfunctionality that tends to accompany religious fundamentalism. However, there is that fairly common approach to religion whereby people identify themselves as cultural Christians, Muslims or Jews.

 

Or, at least, it's certainly common here in the UK. When I worked in London, Christianity tended to predominate (in terms of people swapping Christmas cards and having a Christmas lunch/party). Muslim staff would, for the most part, participate and would also encourage people to participate in Islamic festivals (eg, laying a party on at lunchtime for Eid al-Fitr).

 

From what little I know about Islam, fundamentalists would be livid to hear about that...but the people I worked with couldn't give a crap what Islamic fundamentalists thought, any more than the people organising organising the Secret Santa list would care about the views of Christian fundamentalists. When Christmas rolls around, Richard Dawkins is as likely as anybody to be found in his local church belting out Christmas carols. He's even suggested before that he'd be happy to read out a lesson from the bible as part of getting into the spirit of it all.

 

Various studies have suggested that believers have better health than non believers. I would agree with critics who say it's probably more accurate to say that people who are part of a community (with all the supports that offers) probably have better health - both mental and physical - than people who lack that support....and regular church or mosque goers are more likely to have that kind of support network.

 

Atheism is a rational belief (or non belief) system...but it's pretty hard for atheists to make their movement an appealing one. For a start, as Harmfulsweetz has touched on, atheists are often arrogant in the way they present their case. Religious groups tend to be better at sending out the warm, fuzzy, welcoming and all-inclusive vibe that's going to draw people in.

 

When people need comfort, support or just friendliness they will tend to gravitate towards that which is comforting rather than that which is logical. And the more atheists preach the message of those with faith being stupid, irrational etc the more of a turn off atheism is. I say that as an agnostic. It's not logical, nor sensible of basic human psychology, to think that you can persuade others around to seeing things from your perspective by telling them they're stupid, illogical or naive.

 

One David Attenborough probably does a million times more good in terms of encouraging people to be interested in, and excited about, the science of the natural world than the average atheist message board poster. If you're really so passionate about your cause of spreading the atheist message, why aren't you doing it in a way that's more conducive to winning hearts and minds?

Edited September 12, 2012 by Taramere

[TheFinalWord]

When Christmas rolls around, Richard Dawkins is as likely as anybody to be found in his local church belting out Christmas carols. He's even suggested before that he'd be happy to read out a lesson from the bible as part of getting into the spirit of it all.

 

Interesting points. Call me crazy, but for some reason I don't see Dawkins singing Christmas carols...he seems more like the Grinch to me (I'm joking )

 

 

I do so love Sir Attenborough's films. Interesting...wonder if it's true??

 

Evolutionist David Attenborough says there could be a God as he claims the two beliefs are not incompatible | Mail Online

 

One of my fav documentaries of his:

 

Edited September 12, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[Taramere]

Interesting points. Call me crazy, but for some reason I don't see Dawkins singing Christmas carols...he seems more like the Grinch to me (I'm joking )

 

 

I think that's a reaction to the right to freedom of religious belief tending to be translated as "the right to immunity from ridicule".

 

I think most people would probably say that it's bad form to publicly ridicule and mock a person for their beliefs - religious or otherwise - unless those beliefs are hateful (and I don't subscribe to the notion that in expressing religious beliefs people are automatically expressing hateful beliefs).

 

Believe it or not, he has said he likes singing Christmas Carols. Here's the clip where he talks about being a cultural Christian.

 

 

I do so love Sir Attenborough's films. Interesting...wonder if it's true??

 

I love him. He talks here about his reservations about theology

 

 

...but I think he's of a totally different temperament to Richard Dawkins. His passion is for sharing the wonders (and, sometimes, horrors) of nature with people, and I think that's a very good passion to have.

 

I couldn't get the video you linked to run, unfortunately....but yeah, I'm a huge fan. I don't know if you saw his "spy in the...." documentaries where they used cameras that were disguised as natural objects in order to get really close to animals.

 

He did "Spy in the Den" (following the lives of a pride of lions) Spy in the Herd (elephants - with an unforgettable clip of elephants grieving over an elephant skeleton they found) and my absolute favourite, Spy in the Jungle - which took the viewer into the private world of wild tigers like never before. If you haven't seen them already, you can find them all on youtube. Unmissable.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Taramere
forgot to add link

[TheFinalWord]

I think that's a reaction to the right to freedom of religious belief tending to be translated as "the right to immunity from ridicule".

 

I think most people would probably say that it's bad form to publicly ridicule and mock a person for their beliefs - religious or otherwise - unless those beliefs are hateful (and I don't subscribe to the notion that in expressing religious beliefs people are automatically expressing hateful beliefs).

 

I agree Believe it or not, I think athiests are a blessing. It's good to have a devil's advocate (no pun intended). It helps keep us Christians in check

 

BTW you totally busted my mental image of Dawkins. I would pay money to see a video of Dawkins singing "Oh Holy Night" :laugh: I believe you, I'm just having a little fun.

 

Here is the vid. I'm fascinated with birds and loved this documentary:

 

 

Thank you for bringing his name up. Brought up a lot of good memories for me. I <3 nature documentaries and his were some of the best

[TheFinalWord]

The one I was looking for. Fascinating!

 

"David Attenborough presents the amazing lyre bird, which mimics the calls of other birds - and chainsaws and camera shutters - in this video clip from The Life of Birds. This clever creature is one of the most impressive and funny in nature, with unbelievable sounds to match the beautiful pictures. "

 

 

PS: Total hijack, I'll stop now

[Taramere]

I agree Believe it or not, I think athiests are a blessing. It's good to have a devil's advocate (no pun intended). It helps keep us Christians in check

 

BTW you totally busted my mental image of Dawkins. I would pay money to see a video of Dawkins singing "Oh Holy Night" :laugh: I believe you, I'm just having a little fun.

 

Here is the vid. I'm fascinated with birds and loved this documentary:

 

 

Thank you for bringing his name up. Brought up a lot of good memories for me. I <3 nature documentaries and his were some of the best

 

 

I know, I never tire of watching them. What an amazing life and profession he's had. I still couldn't see that clip, but I googled and found another version (I think) of it.

 

That bird's a natural born night-clubber. I love the part when it turns into a sort of black fan with a "blue eyes and lips" design, as it's dancing with its girlfriend. There is indeed a God!

[mercy]

The one I was looking for. Fascinating!

 

"David Attenborough presents the amazing lyre bird, which mimics the calls of other birds - and chainsaws and camera shutters - in this video clip from The Life of Birds. This clever creature is one of the most impressive and funny in nature, with unbelievable sounds to match the beautiful pictures. "

 

 

PS: Total hijack, I'll stop now

 

One last jack!

 

I loved that video thank you!

 

I have birdbaths all over my gardens. Love watching the birds!

 

God is an amazing God!

[Robert Z]

I agree with much of what you said. Not to derail the thread, but out of curiosity, what kind of mathematical models are you referring to?

 

Inflation theory [of the early universe], the Conservation Laws, Carnot's Theorem, Maxwell's equations, the Dirac Delta function, General Relativity, Bernoulli's Principle, and so on... to include obviously, arguably the most succesful mathematical model in all of physics, Quantum Mechanics. Obviously these sorts of laws, theorems, and principles can be applied to complex computer models with ever increasing layers of complexity, depending on the application. So in addition to the most basic concepts, I would extend my comments to include a wide variety of applications of physics and engineering.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Robert Z

[strongnrelaxed]

Yes. And yours are the perspectives of a limited, finite creature.

 

And on this we can both agree. I am actually comforted by my own limitations. It leaves so much wonder and awe about the world around us and the universe. There is so much more to learn and it would take several lifetimes (for me ) to beging to understand half of what we already know.

 

This to me is what you might call a "spiritual" feeling. The difference is that I just know this to be an intrinsic beautiful feeling.

 

I too have been strident on here at times. I look back on my previous posts and can see that they are worded sharply. This doesn't help make my case any more clearly, so I will watch out for that going forward.

 

Perhaps there can be a negotiation here. I will start another post about this and I ask that you chime in.

[Robert Z]

Reason I ask is b/c I create mathematical models (specifically structural equation models). SEM is a method for examining causal relationships between variables. There is quite a bit of subjectivity in terms of model fit indexes. There are entire journals dedicated to this topic b/c researchers have varying opinions.

 

As far as fundamentalists, I can see why you think that b/c as humans we like to compartmentalize. However, I know many "fundamentalists" with tattoos, long hair, and harley bikes. How is this dress and manner?

 

 

Please see my last post [previous page] for examples of what I meant. As a rule, the farther away we get from pure physics and mathematics, the most assumptions we make. Even Quantum Mechanics contains assumptions, but it is so well tested that we can at least state with high confidence that it is correct within its domain. For example, certain assumptions are made about the nature of space, but those assumptions have been tested ad infinitum here on earth, and I would imagine that a great deal of evidence is found in the cosmos suggesting that these assumptions are valid within all of the known universe. But that doesn't mean that there can't be some place in a galaxy far far away where these assumptions fail. But that doesn't make the model of QM incorrect because we recognize that these are still assumptions. The model is still correct within its domain. The same can be said for Newtonian Physics. While incorrect at exceeding high velocities and in strong gravity fields, it still produces the correct answer for almost everything we do here on earth.

 

I would have to know specifics about your pastor to know if he fits the model of fundamentalist as I see it. And while his dress may be relatively radical, his manner strikes me as classic "Born Again" rather than fundamentalist. Even his tatoos say "Born Again" to me.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Robert Z

[TheFinalWord]

Please see my last post [previous page] for examples of what I meant. As a rule, the farther away we get from pure physics and mathematics, the most assumptions we make. Even Quantum Mechanics contains assumptions, but it is so well tested that we can at least state with high confidence that it is correct within its domain. For example, certain assumptions are made about the nature of space, but those assumptions have been tested ad infinitum here on earth, and I would imagine that a great deal of evidence is found in the cosmos suggesting that these assumptions are valid within all of the known universe. But that doesn't mean that there can't be some place in a galaxy far far away where these assumptions fail. But that doesn't make the model of QM incorrect because we recognize that these are still assumptions. The model is still correct within its domain. The same can be said for Newtonian Physics. While incorrect at exceeding high velocities and in strong gravity fields, it still produces the correct answer for almost everything we do here on earth.

 

Thanks! Nothing wrong with assumptions. I was talking about modeling indices. Not a big deal. Thanks for the follow up.

 

I would have to know specifics about your pastor to know if he fits the model of fundamentalist as I see it. And while his dress may be relatively radical, his manner strikes me as classic "Born Again" rather than fundamentalist. Even his tatoos say "Born Again" to me.

 

Glad you watched. He's not my pastor per say, more of a virtual minister

 

Like you said, the further we get away from mathematics the more assumptions we make What do you think a fundamentalist is?

Edited September 14, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[Robert Z]

Thanks! Nothing wrong with assumptions. I was talking about modeling indices. Not a big deal. Thanks for the follow up.

 

How do modeling indices differ from basic assumptions? I don't see the disconnect.

 

Glad you watched. He's not my pastor per say, more of a virtual minister

 

Like you said, the further we get away from mathematics the more assumptions we make What do you think a fundamentalist is?

 

A fundamentalist is most generally a person who takes the bible literally. He's a born again, right?

[TheFinalWord]

How do modeling indices differ from basic assumptions? I don't see the disconnect.

 

Good question. Basically modeling indices are various measures for assessing model fit. They're based on assumptions (i.e. theoretical sampling distributions), but which measures provide the most accurate method for assessing model fit? Lots of debate there. That's one of the hindrances of modeling software. When you're analyzing hundreds of variables, there are a lot more issues with evaluating fit indices. Every solution creates a new set of problems

 

A fundamentalist is most generally a person who takes the bible literally. He's a born again, right?

 

Not sure. I am pretty sure he takes the bible literally. Personally, I know lots of people that take the bible literally but don't look like Christians in the traditional sense. Rick Warren is probably the main figure I can think of. He preaches in t-shirt and jeans and wears sandals Heck, Pres. Obama had him do his inauguration speech. If you watch some of his interviews they rake him over the coals about all of the hot topics i.e gay marriage, abortion and he answers from a very literal biblical interpretation. I think fundamentalism is typically denoted as someone that won't sway from core Christian doctrines. It's often given a negative connotation.

 

[Robert Z]

Good question. Basically modeling indices are various measures for assessing model fit. They're based on assumptions (i.e. theoretical sampling distributions), but which measures provide the most accurate method for assessing model fit? Lots of debate there. That's one of the hindrances of modeling software. When you're analyzing hundreds of variables, there are a lot more issues with evaluating fit indices. Every solution creates a new set of problems

 

Yes, this is what I had in mind when I spoke of increasing layers of complexity. The model for a nuclear reaction might be highly realiable because the parameters are tightly constrained, but with many practical applications the answers are not so clear. The same is true with weather models. But I think weather modeling is constrained more by a lack of data than anything else. We understand the physics but would need a weather station on about every square foot of the planet to have all of the required intitial considions for long term and highly accurate weather modeling - meaning predictions like, it will rain at my house from 4:20 PM to 7:35 PM.

Not sure. I am pretty sure he takes the bible literally. Personally, I know lots of people that take the bible literally but don't look like Christians in the traditional sense. Rick Warren is probably the main figure I can think of. He preaches in t-shirt and jeans and wears sandals Heck, Pres. Obama had him do his inauguration speech. If you watch some of his interviews they rake him over the coals about all of the hot topics i.e gay marriage, abortion and he answers from a very literal biblical interpretation. I think fundamentalism is typically denoted as someone that won't sway from core Christian doctrines. It's often given a negative connotation.

 

 

When I commented on this I mentioned both dress and manner. Given, there are always exceptions to the rule, but I would bet dollars to donuts that this guy is a BAC and not a true fundamentist.

 

I believe it takes a certain type of personality to reject all of science and accept something as poorly documented as biblical accounts as the gospel truth. It really is highly irrational! I have a few friends who think the earth is only 6000 years old. REALLY? wow, But I can see in their thinking why they are inclined to such beliefs. There is a pattern here. I know people want to think the holy spirit drives all of this, but I think it is mostly a matter of psychology and a prediposition to certain types of views. It might be both nature and nurture, but it is automatic that there are fundamental difference between someone who thinks like I do, and people who think like they do. And I usually recognize the personality type when I meet someone like this. To them I probably seem narrow minded, or whatever.

[skydiveaddict]

I could say the same thing about your appalling ignorance of history.

 

Then do it.

 

To imply that Stalin was motivated solely or primarily by his atheism is absolute bilge.

 

Really? Is that why he outlawed Christianity and butchered every member of church clergy that he could?

 

To say that Hitler was atheist, and to ignore the sheer volume of Christian-based justification for his persecution of Jews is just outright dishonest.

 

"Christian-based" Justification for persecution Jews? By Hitler? I doubt it. Hitler was an avid atheist. Show me where he said Jesus Christ wanted to murder the Jews. He had no more use for Christianity than he did for the Jews.

 

Is that why Hitler forbid bibles in churches and insisted they be replaced with "mein kampf?

 

I'm not going to claim that Hitler was Christian, since he was undoubtedly a massive rhetorician and opportunist and there are many conflicting accounts regarding his view of Christianity.

 

That's a good claim. Hitler never professed Christianity, he condemned it.

 

It's unclear either way, but it betrays a huge amount of disregard for truth on your part to assert that he was an atheist, or that he was motivated by atheism.

 

It's perfectly clear. There was no power higher than the third reich, and any history book will tell you that.

 

The rest of your assertions are unadulterated drivel, a pathetic attempt to pin atheism to notions of racial purity as though the two are somehow related. The reverse is just as often true: you only need read Numbers or Joshua to get a taste of what happens when some tribe believe themselves alone to be god's chosen people, and how they tend to tread inferior people.

 

I get it joe. you're an atheist who wants to pin all of the evil in the world on Christians.

 

In all cases you have mentioned, people are motivated by ideology, nationalism, narcisism, paranoia, a lust for power, and any combination thereof. There is no correlation, let alone causation, between this and not believing in a god.

 

yea right joe: Hitler: kill the Jews.

Mao Zedong: remove ALL religion in the name of communist purity,which he did on the backs of 4 million poeple

 

Pol Pot: he imposed agrarian socialism in Cambodia which starved and butchered 2.5 million people out of existence in the name of religious purity

And also in all cases, the persecution was not even remotely limited to people of faith: all opponents were silenced. Intellectuals, writers, teachers, ethnicities, rival political parties, you name it. Because of a non-belief in god? Yeah, right. That makes perfect sense.

 

And most of those people you cast aside did have religious beliefs

[sally4sara]

"Christian-based" Justification for persecution Jews? By Hitler? I doubt it. Hitler was an avid atheist. Show me where he said Jesus Christ wanted to murder the Jews.

That's a good claim. Hitler never professed Christianity, he condemned it.

 

 

Hitler's Christianity

 

Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

 

He absolutely did claim he was christian.

[sally4sara]

Publicly, yes. Hitler's Table Talk, however, paints a subtly different picture. It is honestly unclear as to what degree Hitler held Christian beliefs. He certainly had very little regard for the church, and saw it as anything from an ally of convenience or necessity to an outright political enemy.

 

Christians try to claim that his persecution of churches is a clear sign of his atheism, but really, history is absolutely full of Christian-on-Christian persecution action. It continues to this very day in Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants. It's noteworthy that, even privately, Hitler apparently held to a belief in the Creator, and his views on Christianity itself (as opposed to the church) seemed to vary greatly. His only recorded comments on atheism, however, were highly scathing, and he also outlawed all German atheistic groups.

 

In light of this, there is absolutely no historical case to be made for asserting that Hitler was an atheist. Like Stalin, he persecuted pretty much all organised groups that he thought might represent any threat or obstacle to his goals. They were motivated by power and paranoia.

 

I wanted to respond to skydiveaddict's rancid, brain-meltingly ignorant tripe sooner and in more detail, but this will do for now. And, if I'm honest, it's all I could be bothered with. This is clearly not an individual with which it is possible to have any rational discussion.

 

I think the most telling part about Hitler and religion is that no matter what he actually believed, he recognized the point of the christian bible and the organization of that religion as a weapon and unifier of the masses. It was the right seasoning he needed to gain support; it certainly is full of justifications for mass killing and see entire groups of people as well - not people anymore but targets and the scary "alien other". If he was privately someone who believed in nothing he certainly did recognize who would be ready to back him quite accurately.

[BetheButterfly]

I think the most telling part about Hitler and religion is that no matter what he actually believed, he recognized the point of the christian bible and the organization of that religion as a weapon and unifier of the masses. It was the right seasoning he needed to gain support; it certainly is full of justifications for mass killing and see entire groups of people as well - not people anymore but targets and the scary "alien other". If he was privately someone who believed in nothing he certainly did recognize who would be ready to back him quite accurately.

 

Hitler had horribly inaccurate ideas about Jesus. He did not obey Jesus as all. Rather, it seems that Hitler used his own un-Christlike form of "Christianity" as a means of hatred against people. He was not the first person to do so. Horribly, history is full of people twisting Christian beliefs and disobeying Jesus' teachings, including with the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the witch hunts, and the struggles for power with bloodshed.

 

Jesus never killed anybody. Rather, he preached love for God (Matthew 22:37-40), love for each other (John 13:34) and even love for one's enemies (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27-35). Hitler obviously was not a true Christian because he did not follow Jesus' teachings.

 

Rather, he was an imposter. He used the dominant current religion of Germany and fed into the frustration and hatred they had after World War I. However, many true Christians did not follow him. One of my role models, Corrie ten Boom, a sweet and brave lady in Holland, and her family helped rescue Jewish people. She was put into a concentration camp with her sister, who died there. Her Dad, a loving elderly gentleman, died in jail. Many true Christians in Germany and the surrounding nations were persecuted by Hitler's followers. Thus, Hitler merely proves to be an imposter, one who twisted Christianity, instead of one who was truly a Christian who obeyed Jesus' commands to love.

[thatone]

Hitler had horribly inaccurate ideas about Jesus. He did not obey Jesus as all. Rather, it seems that Hitler used his own un-Christlike form of "Christianity" as a means of hatred against people. He was not the first person to do so. Horribly, history is full of people twisting Christian beliefs and disobeying Jesus' teachings, including with the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the witch hunts, and the struggles for power with bloodshed.

 

Jesus never killed anybody. Rather, he preached love for God (Matthew 22:37-40), love for each other (John 13:34) and even love for one's enemies (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27-35). Hitler obviously was not a true Christian because he did not follow Jesus' teachings.

 

Rather, he was an imposter. He used the dominant current religion of Germany and fed into the frustration and hatred they had after World War I. However, many true Christians did not follow him. One of my role models, Corrie ten Boom, a sweet and brave lady in Holland, and her family helped rescue Jewish people. She was put into a concentration camp with her sister, who died there. Her Dad, a loving elderly gentleman, died in jail. Many true Christians in Germany and the surrounding nations were persecuted by Hitler's followers. Thus, Hitler merely proves to be an imposter, one who twisted Christianity, instead of one who was truly a Christian who obeyed Jesus' commands to love.

 

all christians twist christianity. it's designed to be twisted into whatever you want it to be.

 

kings in the dark ages twisted it into crusades. then the kings became popes and bishops and twisted it into eliminating political opposition with inquisitions. hitler twisted it into killing jews. the early americans twisted it into killing native americans. the same bigots who twisted it into supporting segregation in the 1950s now twist it into the bigotry against homosexuals.

 

it never ends. it is an evil religion ripe with evil people. non evil people following and participating just furthers the goals of the evil ones.

 

we'll be better off when it doesn't exist outside of a history book.

 

and no i'm not singling them out. the only difference in islam and christianity is rural islam is at the same place christianity was a couple hundred years ago. christians have no basis to condemn honor killings and stonings when they were doing the SAME THING in salem massachusetts just a short time ago.

Edited September 18, 2012 by thatone

[BetheButterfly]

We are (or, at least I am) only saying that Hitler was not an atheist, or at the very least there is not one good reason to think that he was. Nobody is arguing he was a model Christian, or accurately represented Jesus in any way.

 

I'm just sick of misinformation and agenda-laden compost from both camps.

 

Based on all that we know, he was almost certainly religious and believed in a god. His actions were based purely on self-interest and lust for power and control. Mouthpieces for atheism and Christianity alike are utterly wrong and misguided in their attempts to tart him up as a poster boy for the other side.

 

Less shouting, more reading is in order.

 

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

I don't know what Hitler truly believed concerning God. His actions though show that he did not obey Jesus' teachings to love. I don't think he was Atheist, but rather he was just a person who twisted Christian beliefs instead of following them. There are also reports of him being fascinated by the Norse gods, which is interesting. I don't know much about Norse gods. Anyways, Jesus and his apostles didn't kill people, whereas Hitler and his followers killed many.