Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
usafjay1976

Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

Recommended Posts

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty

Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.â€

 

[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

“What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the

fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission

assigned to it by the Creator.â€

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of

the Almighty Creator.â€

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46] 

 

Just to name a few. But lets look at what you and me had to say with regard to his actions though:

 

 

 

 

 

I think it is established that your position is closer to Hitlers... LOL

 

 

 

 

It kind of seems to me that your moral compass is the same, regardless whether you would be a Christian or an atheist. You would somehow be able to justify genocide in both cases. Aren't you now demonstrating that people read into the Bible the morality they have prior to its teachings? Its obvious that you have your own subjective morality, create a specific interpretation of the Bible and then label that as your objective standard. I stated earlier in this topic that that was my interpretation of how morality works, and now you've demonstrated it.

 

On to the statistics course:

If you have 1 red ball, and 3 yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(3+1) chance to draw the red ball.

If you have 1 red ball, and 10 yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(10+1) chance to draw the red ball.

If you have 1 red ball, and 100 yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(100+1) chance to draw the red ball.

If you have 1 red ball, and 1000 yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(1000+1) chance to draw the red ball.

You see a pattern appearing?

 

Yet somehow you disagree with the following statement:

If you have 1 red ball, and X yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(X+1) chance to draw the red ball.

 

""I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty

Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.â€

[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

“What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the

fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission

assigned to it by the Creator.â€

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of

the Almighty Creator.â€

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46

 

 

Notice that I DIDNT SAY that Hitler was an Atheist..

But I DID say that he used Darwinian Principles in the ultimate way..

 

 

You forgot to mention who Hitler's "Almighty Creator" was LOL.. it was HIMSELF!

 

It was NOT The Judeo Christian God of the Bible whom he HATED..

(A FIRMLY ESTABLISHED FACT Proven by his violation of EVERY ONE of Christ's Mandates (DEEDS).as well as his own WORDS..)

 

It is so easy debating you Atheists as you continue to defend the indefensible..

 

 

Hitler was NOT a Christian. He hated Christianity. If he made any public remarks in support of Christianity, that was because he was in public and would lie or obfuscate to appease a crowd at times. Hitler was opposed to atheism because he was a spiritual man: “atheism… is a return to the state of the animal…†(Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59). But opposition to atheism doesn’t make anyone a Christian. Nazism was his religion, an authentic religion of his own creation (yes, life is SO much better when people create their own personal religions in a search for “authenticity,†ha).

 

Hitler’s Table Talk is a compilation of sayings by Hitler in private conversations that were recorded by other Nazis. It is a good source for what Hitler really thought.

 

“…the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61

 

“It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61

 

“In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 6

 

“Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145

 

“As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 394

 

“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 418

 

“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 75-76

 

“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, pg 145

 

“Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 343-344

 

“Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 146

 

“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 322

 

“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7

 

“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 144

 

“It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 314

 

“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7

 

“We must recognise, of course, that, amongst us, Christianity is coloured by Germanism.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 46

 

“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 62

 

“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 51

 

“By nature the Duce is a freethinker, but he decided to choose the path of concessions. For my part, in his place I’d have taken the path of revolution. I’d have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out—reserving the right to apologise later: “Excuse me, it was a mistake.†But the result would have been, they’d have been outside!†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145

 

“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59

 

“But, even so, it’s impossible eternally to hold humanity in bondage with lies. After all, it was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed on our peoples by princes who had an alliance of interests with the shavelings. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 143

 

“Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 667 (Talk about Islamo-fascism!)

 

“The priests of antiquity were closer to nature, and they sought modestly for the meaning of things. Instead of that, Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force. Such a religion carries within it intolerance and persecution. It’s the bloodiest conceivable.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 322-323

 

“One cannot succeed in conceiving how much cruelty, ignominy and falsehood the intrusion of Christianity has spelt for this world of ours. If the misdeeds of Christianity were less serious in Italy, that’s because the people of Rome, having seen them at work, always knew exactly the worth of the Popes before whom Christendom prostrated itself.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 288

 

“With what clairvoyance the authors of the eighteenth, and especially those of the past, century criticised Christianity and passed judgment on the evolution of the Churches!†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 88

 

“When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59

 

“The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their successes, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

 

“This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

 

“It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn’t facilitate our exercise of power…. I’m convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.†–Hitler’s Table Talk, pp. 58-59

 

“It is to these private customs that peoples owe their present characters. Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.†–

 

FOR MORE INFO..

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/hitlers-war-on-christianity-quotes/amp/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please demonstrate that it cannot have meaning. If not you're presenting a bare assessment fallacy.

I think he meant that life cannot have Righteous meaning..

 

It can have "Meaning", but if the Authority of our Creator is removed from the equation, that "Meaning" is COMPLETELY subjective..

 

To some people, that which gives their lives "meaning" might be to go around in gangs like the Mara Salvatrucha 13 who enjoy murdering, torturing, child prostitution, drug traffiking, kidnapping, and anything else that floats their boat.. And if the current "War on Police" continues, many cops might start deciding it is too risky politically to confron these gangs.. And you are left with nothing..

Because as an Atheist, you have ABANDONED the right to claim the moral high ground as your opinion of what is "Meaningful" is just your opinion which has ZERO Authority behind it as you have removed the Author of Life itself from our Society... You can no longer tell people what they should consider "Right" or what is "Wrong" It is called Moral Anarchy.. And we are living that today... How else do you think that it is "Legal" to torture and murder innocent, defenseless human beings for Convenience? I meant Convenience with "MEANING" Sorry... Yes.. Life has meaning... Sure it does..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what Blitz is trying to point out is that violence and all those other things he mentioned, are not consistent with Christianity and Christian morals, but that they aren't inconsistent with atheism and evolution, which preaches that we are accidental pond-scum.

 

Christianity isn't teaching that morally genocide is okay because Christianity has very little to do with rare acts that God causes, in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is specifically and purposefully used by evolutionists, to try and link to Christians, but there aren't any Christians approving of genocide. The gospel says nothing about doing such things or approving of them. The only genocide a Christian could approve of would be if God Himself came down from heaven and decided to wipe people out.

 

It is logically absurd to implicate God, for He is the Creator of all life, meaning He has the right to take life any moment, even all life.

 

Imagine now, if by analogy, the workers in an office owned by a certain owner, said to him, "we are not allowed to take time off according to your rules, but you have just taken the afternoon off, therefore you should be fired."

 

That would be 1. Absurd, because he owns the place and it all belongs to him. 2. Inappropriate, because the rules that apply to those UNDER him, do not apply to him.

 

In the same way for a man or woman, a mere sinner, from a place of moral subjectivity, is to implicate God and shake their fist at Him, what logical credence can this have?

 

ZERO credence, because in the same way God owns the entire universe and invented it, and invented all life and gave the gift of life to all people. To assume He doesn't know what He is doing when He takes life, is unthinkably naive.

 

God is not a man. A man takes a life by murder but a man did not invent life. God does not act for the same motives as a man, nor can God be judged by a man's standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty

Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.â€

 

[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]“What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the

fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission

assigned to it by the Creator.â€

 

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of

the Almighty Creator.â€

 

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

Just to name a few. But lets look at what you and me had to say with regard to his actions though:

 

 

 

 

 

I think it is established that your position is closer to Hitlers... LOL

 

 

 

 

It kind of seems to me that your moral compass is the same, regardless whether you would be a Christian or an atheist. You would somehow be able to justify genocide in both cases. Aren't you now demonstrating that people read into the Bible the morality they have prior to its teachings? Its obvious that you have your own subjective morality, create a specific interpretation of the Bible and then label that as your objective standard. I stated earlier in this topic that that was my interpretation of how morality works, and now you've demonstrated it.

 

On to the statistics course:

If you have 1 red ball, and 3 yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(3+1) chance to draw the red ball.

If you have 1 red ball, and 10 yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(10+1) chance to draw the red ball.

If you have 1 red ball, and 100 yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(100+1) chance to draw the red ball.

If you have 1 red ball, and 1000 yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(1000+1) chance to draw the red ball.

You see a pattern appearing?

 

Yet somehow you disagree with the following statement:

If you have 1 red ball, and X yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(X+1) chance to draw the red ball.

I love statistics.. One of my favorite subjects.. BTW..

 

 

"Yet somehow you disagree with the following statement:

If you have 1 red ball, and X yellow balls and put them into a bag. You draw 1 random from them. You have 1/(X+1) chance to draw the red ball."

 

????

 

I DONT disagree with that statement.. I just dont think that you can find a bag big enough to hold all of the yellow balls (3 inch) required to make a comparible representation concerning the odds against AbioDarwinism.. The Bag would have to be the size of 140 Trillion of OUR UNIVERSES full of All Yellow 3 inch Balls except the one 3 inch Red one..

 

I hope that puts things in better perspective for you..

 

Athiests remind me of an uncle I had.. He would play the lottery at 14 million to one against him winning and insisted his odds were much much better than that..

 

He would tell me .... Hey Jim.. The odds are 50/50 .. Either I win it, or I don't.. (No kidding)

 

 

Never underestimate the Faith and eternal optimism of an Atheist..

(Against ALL odds..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how adding God does much of anything to morality; sure the consequences of actions have greater repercussions if we assume the Heaven/Hell paradigm, but I don't see how that illuminates why certain things are moral and others immoral. So we have the creator God, and if we follow his commands we get eternal paradise, and if we don't follow his commands we get eternal torment. Because he is the creator God, he also has the right to impose his morality on us. How is any of that different than a cosmic dictator using the stick and carrot to impose his own arbitrary morals? 

 

As for your take on atheism, if the main thrust for why morality is relevant is the eternal reward/punishment after death, then doesn't that turn morality into nothing more than a self-serving paradigm wrapped up in pious language? X is good because if I do X then I will get rewarded. Z is bad because if I do Z then I will be punished.

 

I have no problem with God being a "cosmic dictator".  And you're right - one reason I strive to comply with God's moral standards is to enhance my chances of gaining eternal life in Heaven ... and this is certainly a "self-serving paradigm" - but so what?  I want to go to Heaven, not hell; and I will do whatever it takes to get there.

Guess what? We are all "self-serving", every second of every day - breathing oxygen is self-serving.  Eating food and drinking water are self-serving.  Not stepping in front of a bus is self-serving.  Survival is self-serving.  Seeking happiness is self-serving.  Falling in love is self-serviing.  

 

But there's more to complying to God's morality than just being self-serving - I love God and don't want to offend him by sinning against his laws.  Plus God gave me life, so I express my thanks and respect for him by obeying him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it still remains possible in the ever so fervant imagination of science deniers like Yourself... Hope springs eternal!..

 

"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."

(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology

When it comes to abiogenesis, atheists rely on a form of circular reasoning that trumps all other reasoning:  Life exists,  therefore It is a fact that inanimate matter must have given rise to the first simple life form. The scientific impossibility of it happening is not a concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blizkrieg said:

 

Amen Blitz! I couldn 't have said it better. Because of conflcts in their belief system they don't seem to "honor" Hitler for his work of "cleansing" and thus contributing to the on going process of evolution. Goku Driewerf and Fjuri seem to balk at Hitler contributing to evo by his antics. Their position does not make sense to me. They make the claim evolution is the only gasme in town. Thus, all roads lead to evolution except when they don't. LOL Can intellegence (Hitle et al) thwart the "mighty" evolution? My argument too was that Hitler aided Evo. I thought they would agree that "all" roads lead to evo? I thought they wood agree nothing can flaut or daunt their mighty evo?

According to evolution, humans are just accidents of nature and are no more important than rocks; in fact, humans don't even need to exist.  So genocide is neither moral nor immoral; it's just irrelevant.  If it is not immoral to kill 6 million bacteria, why should it be immoral to kill 6 million humans?  How can an atheist prove that - contrary to what "science" implies - the life of a human is worth more than the life of a bacterium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is the Creator of all life, meaning He has the right to take life any moment, even all life.

 

Why? 

If I found a way to create sentient life in a lab, in your opinion would I then have the right to kill the beings I created?  If your answer is 'yes', on what basis?  If your answer is 'no', then why should God be given a free pass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? 

If I found a way to create sentient life in a lab, in your opinion would I then have the right to kill the beings I created?  If your answer is 'yes', on what basis?  If your answer is 'no', then why should God be given a free pass?

 

False Narrative...  You would have to be an omniscient eternal being in order to qualify first..

 

God doesn't "Kill" Anyone.. He merely shortens their lives, which is his right as Man's Creator..

 

YOU SEE...

 

Got lives OUTSIDE of the Time Space Matter continuum, So the future and the past are all the

same to him.. That is why his Son said "You must be born again" And worship God "In spirit and

in Truth"... You see, as far as God is concerned,, Atheists and God haters ARE ALREADY DEAD....

They are merely walking, talking, breathing CORPSES  Completely Dead to the Spirit. Which is all

that is important in God's view.. He is not impressed with bones, organs, skin, and tissue... All that

he cares about is Man's Heart and having a meaningful relationship with him.. He forces Nobody

to seek him....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jambob: Why? 

If I found a way to create sentient life in a lab, in your opinion would I then have the right to kill the beings I created?  If your answer is 'yes', on what basis?  If your answer is 'no', then why should God be given a free pass?

 

As the boss analogy shows, I can only laugh at the suggestion a puny human can give God a free pass. Just think of the sheer arrogance of this statement in it's total ignorance and lack of reverence for Who God is, it shows that atheists are complete ignoramuses when it comes to God, they just think of him in a childishly simplistic way, because they don't know Who He is. 

 

This is the same as saying, "come on workers, let's all get together and get this boss fired, for taking the afternoon off." when he owns the company!!!

 

There is nobody higher than God, a four year old could "get", that level of logic - therefore there is nobody the boss is accountable to when it comes to company rules because he invented the company. The power of your, "morals" don't mean anything, for they have no power, and mean nothing to God, as it is written, "your righteousness(morals) is as filthy rags to me".

 

So when you take your morality to God and accuse Him it is like going before him with rags you have just wiped your behind on, and saying, "see, clean." But "God sees the heart", He knows all of the secret sins you have committed - he knows the state of your heart, that it is hard, and doesn't have the love of God which is the chief commandment of morality given by Christ.

 

Your analogy is absurd, if you invented life in a lab, which you never could, then if you had that power then it would mean you had the power of life and death, but the difference is that your actions wouldn't be 100% holy, 100% righteous, 100% omniscient, because only God has those characteristics. So basically it would be like putting a baby in charge of a monster truck.

 

(I am not attacking you in this post, I am attacking the types or arguments athiest use, thinking they have a right to judge God is an offense to me, which comes from their arrogant pride, which is a sin. You cannot judge God, didn't anybody tell you? You are nothing more than a sinful man.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 288

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 88

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pp. 58-59

Its like you've quoted all from the same source... Which turns out to be a fraudulent translation...

Example:

Published translation:

"I realize that humans can commit countless mistakes in their imperfection, but willingly commit to mistakes is something that I cannot do. I will never be able to reconcile myself with the Christian lie. ...

Original:

Ich weiß, dass der Mensch in seiner Fehlerhaftigkeit tausend Dinge falsch machen wird. Aber entgegen dem eigenen Wissen etwas falsch tun, das kommt nicht in Frage! Man darf sich persönlich einer solchen Lüge niemals fügen....

Correct translation:

I know that people fail to do a thousand things in their shortcomings. But doing something wrong willingly is something that I cannot do! One should never personally accept such a lie.

 

I think he meant that life cannot have Righteous meaning..

 

It can have "Meaning", but if the Authority of our Creator is removed from the equation, that "Meaning" is COMPLETELY subjective..

Everything else in your life is valuated subjective to you. Life itself isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what Blitz is trying to point out is that violence and all those other things he mentioned, are not consistent with Christianity and Christian morals, but that they aren't inconsistent with atheism and evolution, which preaches that we are accidental pond-scum.

Well, nothing is inconsistent with atheism apart from the belief in a God.

Evolution on the other hand presents selfish genes instead of selfish persons, which would be inconsistent with large scale violence.

 

Christianity on the other hand:

I don't think I can ever conclude that God can do something immoral but I don't think that means that He can't do something ugly or sad, or tragic. I also believe that God does not want to do those things but if God is not true to His own holiness then ultimately we would live in a world of chaos. For, "I the Lord, do not change".

So God can do ugly, sad and tragic things.. hey. But are they rare events?

The Canaanites were a wicked, immoral, idolatrous people, and God judged them. He similarly judged 25,000 Israelites who fell into pagan idol worship during the time that Moses was on the mountain receiving the 10 commandments. Noah's flood. Ananias and Sapphira were judged merely for lying. There really is a huge list of such judgments by God.

But still, Christians are moral, right?

Of course genocide is STILL moral IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS..

 

For example..

 

The Cancer and Scourge called ISIS should be wiped off the map (Genocide on Steroids) Every single one of them.. Annihilated..

 

Christianity is violent (and ugly, sad and tragic at times).

 

Christianity isn't teaching that morally genocide is okay because Christianity has very little to do with rare acts that God causes, in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is specifically and purposefully used by evolutionists, to try and link to Christians, but there aren't any Christians approving of genocide. The gospel says nothing about doing such things or approving of them. The only genocide a Christian could approve of would be if God Himself came down from heaven and decided to wipe people out.

But the genocide of the Canaanites was executed by men, not by God. So faithful men do commit to "ugly, sad and tragic" things.

Your own Blitzking approves.

 

It is logically absurd to implicate God, for He is the Creator of all life, meaning He has the right to take life any moment, even all life.

Sure, but that would be ugly, sad and tragic violent, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The Canaanites were a wicked, immoral, idolatrous people, and God judged them. He similarly judged 25,000 Israelites who fell into pagan idol worship during the time that Moses was on the mountain receiving the 10 commandments. Noah's flood. Ananias and Sapphira were judged merely for lying. There really is a huge list of such judgments by God.

But still, Christians are moral, right?

This wasn't done by Christians.

 

The Jewish law was guided by: "An eye for an eye."  Christian teaching is ruled by: "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

 

Christianity is violent (and ugly, sad and tragic at times).

One must recognize there is a difference between "Christianity" and "Christians."  Yes, we are taught to love our neighbor but we are just as human as anyone else and subject to the same human weaknesses.

 

Christians have been guilty of horrible acts.  That includes acts committed on Christians by Christians.  We need only look at the brutality by both sides, triggered by the Protestant schism which lasted from the time of Luther to modern times in Northern Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canaanites were a wicked, immoral, idolatrous people, and God judged them. He similarly judged 25,000 Israelites who fell into pagan idol worship during the time that Moses was on the mountain receiving the 10 commandments. Noah's flood. Ananias and Sapphira were judged merely for lying. There really is a huge list of such judgments by God.

 

But still, Christians are moral, right?

 

 Fjuri, I don't get your judgment of Christians today because of God's judgment on some people thousands of years ago. What does one have to do with the other?

 

God did what he did because he had a good reason, and he had the right to do it. Then you make the huge leap to Christians today believing in genocide. Others here have pointed out your fallacy, but I don't believe you have actually justified your erroneous belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christians have been guilty of horrible acts.  That includes acts committed on Christians by Christians.  We need only look at the brutality by both sides, triggered by the Protestant schism which lasted from the time of Luther to modern times in Northern Ireland.

 

Not to start an argument, but I've always believed that the "Christians" who committed those horrible acts were not really born-again, Bible-believing, saved Christians. How could they be? Truth is there are many, many who think they are Christians of whom Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to evolution, humans are just accidents of nature and are no more important than rocks; in fact, humans don't even need to exist.  So genocide is neither moral nor immoral; it's just irrelevant.  If it is not immoral to kill 6 million bacteria, why should it be immoral to kill 6 million humans?  How can an atheist prove that - contrary to what "science" implies - the life of a human is worth more than the life of a bacterium?

Important to whom? Irrelevant to whom? Worth more to whom? These are all subjective questions that evolution can't really speak to, other than possibly to explain how we as humans came to consider other humans more important than rocks.

 

Because humans tend to think of individual humans as worth more than most bacteria, we construct our morality on that basis. Bacteria might disagree if they had the capacity to do so, and if they did we wouldn't really be able to resolve that disagreement with proof, since it's a conflict that goes down to fundamentally subjective questions about what we value and why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 288

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 88

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pp. 58-59

Its like you've quoted all from the same source... Which turns out to be a fraudulent translation...

Example:

Published translation:

"I realize that humans can commit countless mistakes in their imperfection, but willingly commit to mistakes is something that I cannot do. I will never be able to reconcile myself with the Christian lie. ...

Original:

Ich weiß, dass der Mensch in seiner Fehlerhaftigkeit tausend Dinge falsch machen wird. Aber entgegen dem eigenen Wissen etwas falsch tun, das kommt nicht in Frage! Man darf sich persönlich einer solchen Lüge niemals fügen....

Correct translation:

I know that people fail to do a thousand things in their shortcomings. But doing something wrong willingly is something that I cannot do! One should never personally accept such a lie.

 

I think he meant that life cannot have Righteous meaning..

 

It can have "Meaning", but if the Authority of our Creator is removed from the equation, that "Meaning" is COMPLETELY subjective..

Everything else in your life is valuated subjective to you. Life itself isn't?

 

 

"Its like you've quoted all from the same source... Which turns out to be a fraudulent translation..." :funny:

These are all RECORDED comments from Hitler's  OWN MOUTH..

 

“…the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.†  MISTRANSLATED?  You are Delusional

 

“It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.†  MISTRANSLATED?   You are Delusional

 

“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.†  MISTRANSLATED? you are Delusional

 

“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."  Delusional

 

“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.†  Delusional

 

“Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance.† Delusional

 

“Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind.†Delusional

 

“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries.† Delusional

 

“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.†Delusional

 

“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. Delusional

 

“It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity.†Delusional

 

“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.†Delusional

 

“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.† Delusional

 

 

“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic.†Delusional

 

“One cannot succeed in conceiving how much cruelty, ignominy and falsehood the intrusion of Christianity has spelt for this world of ours. Delusional

 

“The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their successes, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity.†Delusional

 

ALL of these are a "Fraudulent Translation"? :rotfl3: 

 

 

I am sorry,   I cant take someone like you seriously anymore.. 

:burp: 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

According to evolution, humans are just accidents of nature and are no more important than rocks; in fact, humans don't even need to exist.  So genocide is neither moral nor immoral; it's just irrelevant.  If it is not immoral to kill 6 million bacteria, why should it be immoral to kill 6 million humans?  How can an atheist prove that - contrary to what "science" implies - the life of a human is worth more than the life of a bacterium?

Important to whom? Irrelevant to whom? Worth more to whom? These are all subjective questions that evolution can't really speak to, other than possibly to explain how we as humans came to consider other humans more important than rocks.

 

Because humans tend to think of individual humans as worth more than most bacteria, we construct our morality on that basis. Bacteria might disagree if they had the capacity to do so, and if they did we wouldn't really be able to resolve that disagreement with proof, since it's a conflict that goes down to fundamentally subjective questions about what we value and why.

 

 

"Because humans tend to think of individual humans as worth more than most bacteria, we construct our morality on that basis. Bacteria might disagree if they had the capacity to do so, and if they did we wouldn't really be able to resolve that disagreement with proof, since it's a conflict that goes down to fundamentally subjective questions about what we value and why. "

 

 

INTERESTING  ANALYSIS....

 

So if Bacteria were able to disagree with Humans, We wouldn't be able to prove that we are worth more than they are..

 

 

How about Insects, Plants, and Fish? They aren't able to disagree with us either..

 

HOWEVER

 

Evolutionists have already Declared that Man is NOT worth more than a plant, a fish or an insect...  :cry:  :burp:

Tell me, does believing such Demented Garbage make you depressed sometimes? I know it would if I were forced to believe it..This kind of Thinking is a DANGEROUS sickness on steroids..

 

 

HERE.. SEE FOR YOURSELF.. STRAIGHT FROM CAL STATE UNIVERSITY WEBSITE ( EVOLUTION 101)

 

And here Darwinists were just telling it is all just about the "Science" Right?  Sure.. Just the Science,,,,  :checklist:

 

 

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_54laddervstree.gif  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Everyone.  If life is the result of a series of mindless, random accidents, then it cannot have meaning.  If you believe it can, then I suggest you are suffering from some kind of delusion.

 

Please demonstrate that it cannot have meaning. If not you're presenting a bare assessment fallacy.
This is a tough assignment! But in the meantime, I'll say this: I think how life "ends" is more important than how it starts. By that I mean, only immortality can begin to give life purpose and meaning, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Please demonstrate that it cannot have meaning. If not you're presenting a bare assessment fallacy.

I think he meant that life cannot have Righteous meaning..

It can have "Meaning", but if the Authority of our Creator is removed from the equation, that "Meaning" is COMPLETELY subjective..

To some people, that which gives their lives "meaning" might be to go around in gangs like the Mara Salvatrucha 13 who enjoy murdering, torturing, child prostitution, drug traffiking, kidnapping, and anything else that floats their boat.. And if the current "War on Police" continues, many cops might start deciding it is too risky politically to confron these gangs.. And you are left with nothing..

Because as an Atheist, you have ABANDONED the right to claim the moral high ground as your opinion of what is "Meaningful" is just your opinion which has ZERO Authority behind it as you have removed the Author of Life itself from our Society... You can no longer tell people what they should consider "Right" or what is "Wrong" It is called Moral Anarchy.. And we are living that today... How else do you think that it is "Legal" to torture and murder innocent, defenseless human beings for Convenience? I meant Convenience with "MEANING" Sorry... Yes.. Life has meaning... Sure it does..

Most humans beings need to believe that their lives have meaning and purpose. Atheists are no exception; and they will vehmently insist that their lives are meaningful - while at the same time vehmently insisting that life is the result of mindless evolution, and that when they die they go from being an organised collection of atoms to a disorganised collection of atoms. But evolution also implies that rational thinking is optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Everyone.  If life is the result of a series of mindless, random accidents, then it cannot have meaning.  If you believe it can, then I suggest you are suffering from some kind of delusion.

Please demonstrate that it cannot have meaning. If not you're presenting a bare assessment fallacy.
This is a tough assignment! But in the meantime, I'll say this: I think how life "ends" is more important than how it starts. By that I mean, only immortality can begin to give life purpose and meaning, imo.

You've talked about the end, and the beginning of life, but not what happens in between (life itself). Isn't that telling in your assessment?

 

edit: I bet you never go on holidays either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Christians have been guilty of horrible acts.  That includes acts committed on Christians by Christians.  We need only look at the brutality by both sides, triggered by the Protestant schism which lasted from the time of Luther to modern times in Northern Ireland.

 

Not to start an argument, but I've always believed that the "Christians" who committed those horrible acts were not really born-again, Bible-believing, saved Christians. How could they be? Truth is there are many, many who think they are Christians of whom Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

I concede that if limiting Christians to a very specific definition, including aspects of morality, you'll have morally good people only. But to who do these apply?

 

From this topic alone:

Dave seems to fit the bill.

Mike the wiz, if my memory serves me correct, I could be mistaken, once told me that some lies were allowed. -> not a Christian

Mike Summers lies. -> not a Christian

Blitzking is in favor of genocide nowadays. -> not a Christian

Piasan and Dredge support an institution that actively protects child molesters. -> not a Christian

My apologies if I offended anyone earlier and if I forgot someone in this list.

 

 

 

The Canaanites were a wicked, immoral, idolatrous people, and God judged them. He similarly judged 25,000 Israelites who fell into pagan idol worship during the time that Moses was on the mountain receiving the 10 commandments. Noah's flood. Ananias and Sapphira were judged merely for lying. There really is a huge list of such judgments by God.

But still, Christians are moral, right?

This wasn't done by Christians.

 

The Jewish law was guided by: "An eye for an eye."  Christian teaching is ruled by: "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

The idea was to evaluate genocide now and then. Apparently, all Christians here agreed that genocide was moral in the past, but not anymore (apart from Blitzking, who still sees genocide as a moral thing to do).

 

We have thus demonstrated that morality under Christian doctrine (=by God's law) is subjective to the time period (at least one of the factors involved).

 

My earlier assessment was thus wrong:

The foundation of morality is subjective. The foundation of my morality is well-being. The foundation to yours is your interpretation of the Bible. ...

The evaluation of actions with respect to that morality is objective. 

It should be "the evaluation of actions with respect to my morality is objective, the evaluation of actions with respect to your is still subjective".

 

So if theists think that morals being objective is superior to being subjective, they should keep that in mind when comparing our morals.  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 288

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 88

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pp. 58-59

Its like you've quoted all from the same source... Which turns out to be a fraudulent translation...

Example:

Published translation:

"I realize that humans can commit countless mistakes in their imperfection, but willingly commit to mistakes is something that I cannot do. I will never be able to reconcile myself with the Christian lie. ...

Original:

Ich weiß, dass der Mensch in seiner Fehlerhaftigkeit tausend Dinge falsch machen wird. Aber entgegen dem eigenen Wissen etwas falsch tun, das kommt nicht in Frage! Man darf sich persönlich einer solchen Lüge niemals fügen....

Correct translation:

I know that people fail to do a thousand things in their shortcomings. But doing something wrong willingly is something that I cannot do! One should never personally accept such a lie.

 

These are all RECORDED comments from Hitler's  OWN MOUTH..

I didn't know Hitler spoke English in his table talks?

 

Hitler's table talks were arranged meetings where he knew that the words were being recorded. Were recorded in German and noted down in German.

These were after the war translated to French and suddenly included a lot of references to Christianity in a negative way. They were subsequently translated to English (from the French translation).

 

 

 

 

According to evolution, humans are just accidents of nature and are no more important than rocks; in fact, humans don't even need to exist.  So genocide is neither moral nor immoral; it's just irrelevant.  If it is not immoral to kill 6 million bacteria, why should it be immoral to kill 6 million humans?  How can an atheist prove that - contrary to what "science" implies - the life of a human is worth more than the life of a bacterium?

Important to whom? Irrelevant to whom? Worth more to whom? These are all subjective questions that evolution can't really speak to, other than possibly to explain how we as humans came to consider other humans more important than rocks.

 

Because humans tend to think of individual humans as worth more than most bacteria, we construct our morality on that basis. Bacteria might disagree if they had the capacity to do so, and if they did we wouldn't really be able to resolve that disagreement with proof, since it's a conflict that goes down to fundamentally subjective questions about what we value and why.

 

"Because humans tend to think of individual humans as worth more than most bacteria, we construct our morality on that basis. Bacteria might disagree if they had the capacity to do so, and if they did we wouldn't really be able to resolve that disagreement with proof, since it's a conflict that goes down to fundamentally subjective questions about what we value and why. "

 

 

INTERESTING  ANALYSIS....

 

So if Bacteria were able to disagree with Humans, We wouldn't be able to prove that we are worth more than they are..

 

 

How about Insects, Plants, and Fish? They aren't able to disagree with us either..

 

HOWEVER

 

Evolutionists have already Declared that Man is NOT worth more than a plant, a fish or an insect... 

Correct, yet what we feel and what is, can differ can it not?

People feel more closely related to other "things" they have more in common with. As Popoi nicely explained to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Christians have been guilty of horrible acts.  That includes acts committed on Christians by Christians.  We need only look at the brutality by both sides, triggered by the Protestant schism which lasted from the time of Luther to modern times in Northern Ireland.

 

Not to start an argument, but I've always believed that the "Christians" who committed those horrible acts were not really born-again, Bible-believing, saved Christians. How could they be? Truth is there are many, many who think they are Christians of whom Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

I concede that if limiting Christians to a very specific definition, including aspects of morality, you'll have morally good people only. But to who do these apply?

 

Some points to consider:

 

First - Nobody but God himself knows what is truly in someone's heart. Christians refrain from passing judgment on who is or is not actually a saved Christian. Non-believers in no way, shape or form are in the least qualified to say whether someone is or is not a Christian.

 

Second - A person is not defined as a Christian solely by his works ... going to church, giving to the poor, being a "good" person do not make someone a Christian.

 

Third - A person is not a Christian just because of cultural or social attachments, allegiances or involvements.

 

Fourth - A true Christian will have evidence in his life of his being saved ... outwardly in the form of good works.

 

Fifth - Scripture is very clear that a true Christian is someone who has placed his faith in Christ, repented of his sins, accepted Christ's gift of salvation by his death on the cross, and who strives to have the mind of Christ. Jesus himself acknowledges that there will be many who say they are Christians, but who are not.

 

The book of 1John is God's test for individuals to examine their walk with the Lord. This test is for the individual, not for others who want to determine if someone else is a true Christian.

 

I submit that there will be many surprises at who we meet in Heaven. Some who we expect to see there may not be. Some who we never guessed would be there will be. But God knows, and that's what's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms