Christians - A Penny For Your Thoughts.

[TeePee]

Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.

In other words, he interpreted christianity how he wanted it. Which is exactly what you are doing, and exactly what you are doing and exactly what the Evangelical church is doing.

I would point out that my number of 30 million (while not an insignificant number in itself) was wrong. I reached in haste for quick data rather than well-sourced, and I apologise. That's just a small part. The correct number is 420 million worldwide, making it the largest and most active group of christians in the US, and the fastest growing.

Still in a minority?

Atheism isn't open to interpretation. It doesn't have a moral code. Examples of 'atheism gone bad' really mean 'Here's what happens when you have no religion'.
Christianity does have a moral code, and different interpretations apply it in different ways. If a culture wants to kill the jews, or the moors then christianity can be interpreted to support it. If the religion is good or bad depends only on interpretation.

[JPreston]

Then you don't know that many.

If I had my way I wouldn't know any. So what?

Actually, Hitler was raised in this thread by one of your cohort, Stewart, on p16 in a spurious attempt to assert some connection between his actions and Christianity.

I was replying to Alex on page 25.

Indeed most attempts to raise him in this thread have been to assert that he was representative somehow of Christians, not atheists

That's logical, because he was a christian, not an atheist. Damn us godless atheists and our tendency to point out inconvenient truths!

I've generally gone for Stalin and made the point that one CAN'T extrapolate an assessment of the morality of a belief or lack thereof .from the actions of one evil man

What you don't understand is that there is no over-arching atheist moral code, handed on stone tablets to our founding fathers and now taught to us and signed up to by me, Pol Pot and Stalin.

The fact that there is no personal god watching over any of us is totally independent of the concept of morality. Or do you shoplift whenever you aren't being covered by CCTV?

If you're still wurbling about Hitler,

Still? What, in the same single post that you are quoting? I'll draw your attention to the fact that 'patience' is purportedly a chistrian characteristc. So is 'humility', for that matter...

It is when their numbers are dwarfed massively by the number of Christians who don't belong to it.

According to you anyway. I lump them all together, because I don't see any difference between you or the tent-show revivalists - you don't spend any time arguing with fuddam about his interpretation of christianity, so why should I or anyone else believe there are any significant differences between you and christians who you claim to label as different to yourself?

...They still represent a pretty small minority....Oppose them, as we already do.

How do you - personally - oppose them? And over what issues? I'm all ears.

Don't forget church-going christians are a pretty small minority in this country - something like 5% to 10% - so are you happy for their views to be discounted as the rantings of a vocal and manipulative minority in future, or do you want to keep your 26 seats in the House of Lords, faith schools and copious govt funding?

[JPreston]

...
I would point out that my number of 30 million (while not an insignificant number in itself) was wrong. I reached in haste for quick data rather than well-sourced, and I apologise. That's just a small part. The correct number is 420 million worldwide, making it the largest and most active group of christians in the US, and the fastest growing.
...

Scary numbers.

Like George Carlin says - "I'll tell you what's wrong with America. Think how dumb the average American is - well, half of them are even dumber than that!"

[nichomach]

Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.

A slightly insane proposition from the start being utterly antithetical to Biblical teaching, and conveniently ignoring that Christ WAS a Jew. But then you appear to be assuming that Hitler was rational; he was a nutter, and he cherry picked perverted science, Teutonic myth, and bits of multiple faiths. Why do you think he selected an Aryan sun sign as the Nazis insignia if he was a Christian? Because it looked good, so he pilfered it. Further, Hitler extended his genocide to populations that were substantially Christian.

In other words, he interpreted christianity how he wanted it.

With all the Christianity removed, you mean, and the Party (and himself) in its place. In fact, as noted above (sigh) Hitler took active steps to suppress or marginalise Christianity and supplant Christ and the Church with Party and Fuhrer.

Which is exactly what you are doing, and exactly what you are doing and exactly what the Evangelical church is doing.

No; we don't ignore the explicit teaching of Christ. He did.

I would point out that my number of 30 million (while not an insignificant number in itself) was wrong. I reached in haste for quick data rather than well-sourced, and I apologise. That's just a small part. The correct number is 420 million worldwide, making it the largest and most active group of christians in the US, and the fastest growing.

So less than half of the number of Roman Catholicism alone. And still a minority in the US. And how does the worldwide number "make" it anything in the US? The worldwide number alone could be 419,999,954 in Russia and 46 blokes in a shed in Alaska, FFS. It is a minority in the US and worldwide. End of.

edit: Further, I assume that you're still using Wikipedia as a reference to extract that 420 Million? Then you might with advantage see what that reference says about evangelism and its links or otherwise with the Right:

However, the Christian Right is not made completely (or even a majority) of Evangelical Christians. According to an article in the November 11th, 2004 issue of The Economist, entitled "The Triumph of the Religious Right", "The implication of these findings is that Mr Bush's moral majority is not, as is often thought, just a bunch of right-wing evangelical Christians. Rather, it consists of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: Catholic and mainline Protestant, as well as evangelicals, Mormons, Sign Followers, you name it. Meanwhile, modernist evangelicals (yes, there are a few) tend to be Democratic."

There are approximately 420 million members of the World Evangelical Alliance. Your error is in assuming that this automatically translates to 420 million Bush supporters.

Still in a minority?

Yes. As noted.

Atheism isn't open to interpretation. It doesn't have a moral code.

A point that I made several pages ago. Indeed I further made the point that the reciprocal position to atheism is theism, which in and of itself implies no moral code either.

Examples of 'atheism gone bad' really mean 'Here's what happens when you have no religion'.

No, I have said precisely the opposite; that whether or not you have religion it is perfectly possible to be moral. Why are you treading the same damned ground that we already went over several pages ago?

Christianity does have a moral code, and different interpretations apply it in different ways.

To a certain extent, there are differences of doctrine.

If a culture wants to kill the jews, or the moors then christianity can be interpreted to support it.

No, it can't. Excepy by throwing out Christ's explicit teaching. For that matter, however, Josef Stalin didn't need Christianity to promote pogroms and anti-Semitic legislation.

[Akira]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion

You may find this interesting,

Enjoy!

[nichomach]

I was replying to Alex on page 25.

Which still doesn't explain your other attempts to claim that he was representative of Christians.

That's logical, because he was a christian, not an atheist.

No, he was an insane secular leader who persecuted populations that were largely Christian as well as Jews on the basis of a perversion of science; and who also attacked the church, removed religious education from schools, banned state teachers from cooperating with voluntary RE lessons and dissolved the Catholic Youth League in order to supplant it with the Hitler Youth.

Damn us godless atheists and our tendency to point out inconvenient truths!

Actually, you demonstrate more of a capacity to ignore them.

What you don't understand is that there is no over-arching atheist moral code,

Actually, a point that I made several pages ago, noting that belief or lack thereof in a god or gods did not imply adherence to any moral code. Your argument's leaking a bit of straw there, JP. See

POST

Still? What, in the same single post that you are quoting? I'll draw your attention to the fact that 'patience' is purportedly a chistrian characteristc. So is 'humility', for that matter...

And in all the other posts where you've attempted rather pathetically to paint Hitler as representative of Christians.

According to you anyway. I lump them all together, because I don't see any difference between you or the tent-show revivalists

Well, I wouldn't expect any different from you; to acknowledge difference would be to negate your own argument. You're dependent upon that "lumping together" since your argument rests upon finding the most extreme examples that you can and then claiming that they are representative.

- you don't spend any time arguing with fuddam about his interpretation of christianity,

Actually, I HAVE in this very thread respectfully disagreed with fuddam over his interpretation of doctrine.

so why should I or anyone else believe there are any significant differences between you and christians who you claim to label as different to yourself?

How do you - personally - oppose them? And over what issues? I'm all ears.

You mean aside from petitions, demonstrations and forum fights with them? What exactly have YOU done?

Don't forget church-going christians are a pretty small minority in this country - something like 5% to 10% - so are you happy for their views to be discounted as the rantings of a vocal and manipulative minority in future, or do you want to keep your 26 seats in the House of Lords, faith schools and copious govt funding?

And if you bothered to read the thread rather than inventing the arguments that you'd like the other side to have used, you'd have noted that I've already said several pages ago that I have no objection to the disestablishment of the Church of England; although on the schools front, I'd note that there's a lot of non-church-going parents who want to send their children to church schools because they are of better quality in many cases than their wholly state equivalents.

[JPreston]

Which still doesn't explain your other attempts to claim that he was representative of Christians.
....
And in all the other posts where you've attempted rather pathetically to paint Hitler as representative of Christians.

I have nowhere done that, which is why you are unable to quote any of these posts that I have apparently made, and you know it. So - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

You're dependent upon that "lumping together" since your argument rests upon finding the most extreme examples that you can and then claiming that they are representative.

No, wrong again - it's just that the evangelists make better subjects on Youtube. Your problem is simply that I don't think you are any 'better' more intelligent or more rational than they are, or scientogolists, or south pacific cargo cults for that matter.

There was a study on sheep, researchers showed sheep photos of other sheep's faces and measured their reaction. Show a sheep a photo of a hungry sheep and they will become distressed, show them a photo of a just-fed sheep and they will be happy. Conclusion: sheep feel empathy for other sheep and can distinguish between happy and sad sheep just by facial expression.

To me, they all just look like sheep. Any difference between them is imperceptible. Same thing.

You mean aside from petitions, demonstrations and forum fights with them? What exactly have YOU done?

I bully them mercilessly and discriminate against them with no regard for the law whenever I am able. I am the brutal face of secular authority, remember? "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

Remembering that the only opinion I have seen from you is that you are pro-discrimination on the subject of gay adoption, I wonder what petitions you sign? I bet I know where you stand on this UK/US schism over gay bishops, and I'm not aware of any other issues the CoE is campaigning over. Jerry Springer the Opera, was it?

...I'd note that there's a lot of non-church-going parents who want to send their children to church schools because they are of better quality in many cases than their wholly state equivalents.

Purely because they are the only schools that are still allowed to practice selection - another case of special rights granted to religious groups. Even you must be able to understand that it's not the hymns they sing in assembly (or whatever else it is they do - maybe the teachers pray for exam success) that makes a blind bit of difference to academic results.

I don't think that I should have to pay for an organisation that short-changes the community it is supposed to serve by perpetuating bronze-age myths and a system of segregation based on religion, when not many things are more harmful in the modern world.

I feel quite strongly about this abuse of the trust children place in adults (for very good and non-controversial reasons of evolution), that you will say 'my infant child is a christian' and baptise him into your group when he is barely conscious of the world around him let alone able to have any say in proceedings. Would you say 'my infant child is conservative on social issues but fiscally liberal'? Of course not. So why not leave religion as something a child makes his own mind up on when he gets older, like politics or economic theory? Why not make religious dogma stand up to examination of it's merits by adults, rather than teaching it by telling horror stories to children?

Because then religion would die out within a generation - and you know it. Which is why you so doggedly defend it, and all aspects of it.

As an atheist I really couldn't give a toss about what you think of my beliefs, or the bed-time stories you tell your children about atheists (so long as none of them try to blow me up in the future). I have nothing invested in my beliefs at all, you can blow your nose on my copy of 'The Selfish Gene' for all I care, they are just ideas and I'm always genuinely open to new ones, question all you want.

Nobody religious will say that - the difference is that I have the security and self-confidence afforded by actually being right.

[fuddam]

Well heck, I'm trying to make sure I don't go to hell, so I've been working up a salvation list... Follow these instructions and you should have a good chance!

Accept the man Jesus,
Live a good life,
Follow the 13 principles of faith,

And you have the Abrahamic religions covered. But just to assure a good afterlife, make sure you:

Are one of the 144,000.
Obey the Rede.
Choose the middle path.
Get listed as a Ujiko.
Accept vāhgurū as well.
The Bahá'í will accept you anyway, which is very nice of them.
Know the nine Tattvas.

you'd think someone who is so ardently passionate about scientific process / logic etc would apply it himself.

at the same time, you often resort to sarcasm and derision, so it's difficult to know when you're being serious. I assume in this case you were just being facetious.

for the record and those less facetious than yourself, what gives one the freedom to pick and choose pieces from various belief systems that are in contradiction?

If there is absolute truth (which no doubt you believe, since you hold science to be our doorway to such), then in the case of conflicting beliefs, they cannot all be true.

thus when comparing (eg) islam & christianity, since they contradict, they cannot both be right. Of course you will say they are both wrong, but your post perpetuates a common fallacy: that one can pick 'n mix beliefs to suit one's own perceptions.

The idea of "what's right for you is right for you" is a load of bollocks. Either there is an objective truth or there is not. If
there is, it is uncompromising. It is not about comfort levels and "what feels right".

That is why not all religions can be valid. They cannot all lead to Rome. In choosing one belief system, it necessarily requires rejection of others.

other religions may share (eg) qualities espoused by Christianity (do not murder etc), but where they differ, one has to stick with one. That's where logic comes in - geddit?

[fuddam]

fuddam will reply that he wasn't a christian because he didn't obey fuddam's interpretation of christianity.

nope (though thanks for thinking for me).

he was unlikely to be a Christian because as the Bible says: by their fruits you will know them.
matt 7:16 & 20

as a million times before, going to church does not make one a Christian. Neither does simply proclaiming to be one.

do you believe Blair is all he claims to be, simply by what he says?

thought not.

[JPreston]

Hey fuddam, I agree with you there.

In fact I think we agree on probably 99.9% of all the religions ever practised

I think TeePee was just making the point that if you are going to place your stock in any one religion, you are almost certainly picking the wrong one.

But yes, it's total guff to pick and choose from religions - at the end of the day you either believe it or you don't, and at least you're consistent. Similarly it's hypocritical guff to say "I have my religion, but I still respect your religion" like many mealy-mouthed christians do - if you place any worth on your faith you will necessarily think others are totally wrong. The question is, will you come out and say that? We both know the answer to that anyway

EDIT: I mean your post two above this one, we cross posted. On the subject of why hitler was not a christian, I half expected you to say 'because he wore garments woven of two different cloths' or something

[fuddam]

OK then: he was raised to be a christian, thought he was a christian, said he was a christian, used christian phraseology in his speeches ("god is with us", etc), led a christian people and a christian army, was never excommunicated from his church (despite the church having a long and ignoble history of excommunicating the brightest and best throughout european history), and in fact was provided material support and collaboration by his church even as millions were being murdered.

If that isn't a christian, I don't what is - you'd better tell me quick, because for all I know I am a christian

raised - insufficient
thought - insufficient
said - insufficient
led - insufficient

anyone with Christianity 101 would be able to ascertain the true nature of his beliefs, eg "reconcile your claims with your actions?"

That is why Christianity has always been espoused as requiring community - amongst other reasons, to keep checks and balances on the actions & beliefs of the individua. Please don't now go off on a tangent asking me why the catholic church failed to do so. Please.
etc etc etc

[fuddam]

Hey fuddam, I agree with you there.

I think TeePee was just making the point that if you are going to place your stock in any one religion, you are almost certainly picking the wrong one.

If one of the religions IS true, there has to be a way of ascertaining that. There has to be a logical approach that requires (eg) internal consistency, historical evidence, extra-scriptural evidence, etc
that is a sphere I am intimately involved in. Watch this space

But yes, it's total guff to pick and choose from religions - at the end of the day you either believe it or you don't, and at least you're consistent. Similarly it's hypocritical guff to say "I have my religion, but I still respect your religion" like many mealy-mouthed christians do - if you place any worth on your faith you will necessarily think others are totally wrong.

I respect believers of other religions, but I do not respect their beliefs. I respect the individual but not the system. Case in point: someone asked me at work today about what I think about Islam.
My response: I have no problem with Muslims. I love speaking to them. But I have a big problem with Islam.

anyway, as most Christians should say, the fight is not with flesh and blood, but.......

[TeePee]

If one of the religions IS true, there has to be a way of ascertaining that. There has to be a logical approach that requires (eg) internal consistency, historical evidence, extra-scriptural evidence, etc
that is a sphere I am intimately involved in. Watch this space

There are a bunch of people who have done this before and very well. A group who have spent time applying logic to every religion in order to determine what's right or not. They call such people 'Atheists'.


Nicomach, I have no doubt Hitler was a raving looney, but he was a raving looney able to twist the bible to suit his own ends. Just as you are able to do. Your end happens to be trying to show it's a good religion, and you can use your chosen parts to try do that. Saying your parts are supported by <insert random bible quote here> just shows your chosen dogma. I'm sure Hitler qoted scripture as well.

I never mentioned Bush supporters. If I were a US citizen right now, I'd be a Bush supporter. Although only because the liberal alternative is so bad.

[nichomach]

I have nowhere done that, which is why you are unable to quote any of these posts that I have apparently made, and you know it. So - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

So in fact your raising of Hitler's alleged Christianity was not in support of any argument, advanced no position and was done with no other purpose than to troll.

No, wrong again - it's just that the evangelists make better subjects on Youtube....

So, again, not advanced to support any argument, merely to troll.

I bully them mercilessly and discriminate against them with no regard for the law whenever I am able. I am the brutal face of secular authority, remember? "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

So...we've gone from you claiming NOT to bully Christians - your subordinate at work - to admitting that you do at every opportunity. Well, a little honesty is something isn't it...

Remembering that the only opinion I have seen from you is that you are pro-discrimination on the subject of gay adoption,

Your memory is faulty; I was AGAINST discrimination on gay adoption:

I'm a churchgoing Anglican, and am deeply disappointed with the attitude that the leadership of my own church has taken on this issue. The Church of Rome has failed to consider what is better for the children in their care, and the Anglican church leadership has (disgracefully) in my view supported them in that lack of care.

That said, there is a misconception in this thread that the church is somehow wanting to break the law (cf JPreston, obit.). That is incorrect. The law is not yet in effect, so cannot be broken at the moment anyway. The Roman Catholic Church is asking for an exception to anti-discrimination legislation when it comes into force; this is hardly unprecedented. Exceptions already exist to anti-discrimination legislation covering gender or race. For instance, were a shelter especially established for battered women to advertise for a new staff member, they would be entitled to state that only women would be acceptable. It is legitimate to argue for an exception, and it is NOT advocating the breaking of the law, but that said, I am NOT in favour of an exception in this case.

I attempted to look for a compromise later in that thread, but one that would result in children in RC care being able to be adopted by gay parents and gay parents being able to adopt those children, but possibly through an intermediate agency; in other words, at NO point have I favoured discrimination - rather, I've sought equal access through the most expeditious means. I would still favour a lack of exception as the best solution, but sometimes politics is the art of the possible, rather than the ideal.

I bet I know where you stand on this UK/US schism over gay bishops,

If your bet is that I have no problem with gay clergy generally, so by extension have none with the idea of a gay bishop, then you win. Don't think it is though.

Jerry Springer the Opera, was it?

Nope. Sorry. I didn't particularly want to see it, but I don't believe in banning it.

blah blah blah...bile...invective...blah, blah, blah

/killfile

[Akira]

removed by me - sorry

[fuddam]

There are a bunch of people who have done this before and very well. A group who have spent time applying logic to every religion in order to determine what's right or not. They call such people 'Atheists'.

I find that quite amusing: that someone who does not believe in an absolute truth should be able to determine an absolute, namely what is right.

I have no doubt Hitler was a raving looney, but he was a raving looney able to twist the bible to suit his own ends. Just as you are able to do. Your end happens to be trying to show it's a good religion, and you can use your chosen parts to try do that. Saying your parts are supported by <insert random bible quote here> just shows your chosen dogma. I'm sure Hitler qoted scripture as well.

The point is, when Hitler was quoting / twisting scripture, he was quoting out of context. It is encumbent on all Christians to treat the Bible as a whole, to NOT pick & choose various verses to suit their own ends. That is very valuable, since it forms a self-regulating system.
You'll no doubt disagree with me, as usual, but the Bible is coherent & consistent.

Unfortunately, in a very controversial manner, the truth of the Bible is not accessible without divine intervention. Laugh if you will, but that is how it is. When I read it, I need to actively work against a purely fuddam-oriented understanding, since it is human / flawed. I need the assistance of the Holy Spirit to make things clear, for a particular situation / context.

you can now stop clutching your aching sides

Reading the Bible purely as a piece of literature is fine, but you will never have sufficient understanding. Is impossible.