"So help me God!?!"

[dsade]

When studied and examined closely, I don't find this to be true, but I can't distance myself from you completely since there are always things that we won't completely understand.

You say the Bible lacks morality in certain cases, but you also have to understand the reasoning behind it...I'm sure you get upset when you see cases where God ordered the slaughter of entire villages of men, women, and children...They were EVIL people. You can't instill the good without first taking out the bad. And yes, children CAN be evil. You better believe that I'd have no problem taking out a seven year old threatening my life who has been brainwashed since birth. I'd have no problem with that.

Newborn babies evil? Oh, please do explain how...and yes, newborns were slaughtered in Egypt on god's orders.

Therefore, they were NOT being punished for their own sins, but the sins of Pharoah (whose heart was hardened by god himself - thereby REMOVING pharoahs free will) thereby showing that gods plan the whole time was to slaughter children. IMMORAL ACT.

in addition, why is the most vile practice that can exist - that of Slavery - NOT condemned by this perfect being, who instead gives advice on compensation for killing someone's "property". I realize this was the thinking of MEN at that time, but a timeless, eternal, and perfect being should have said "Yo, slavery is EVIL...stop it lest I smite you."

 

[AE14]

LEts also keep in mind that there is little to no archeological evidence to support the idea of the jews in Israel around the 19th dyansty. In fact, the only time it could have happened would have been at the end of the last intermediate period as it turned into the 18th dynasty under the Pharaoh Ahmose. At that, there are so many variances to the story that it is hard to believe one over the other.

The Egyptians were great record keepers, and it seems unlikely that their version would be entirely made up. Additionally, there is scientific evidence to support all of the 10 plagues, as most were either annual or bi-annual events. Doesnt seem too divinely inspired. Furthermore, the 10th plague (first born sons) is written about in Egyptian history, specifically with a problem with grain that was infested with an odd mold. The eldest sons were always fed more as they were the next in line in the family.

This was not an act of god guys, sorry


If you cant tell I study and teach Egyptian history!!!

Additionally, discussing the OT and not seeing the evil of the god(s) (referred to in the plural form on many occassions) is just someone who doesnt want to see it.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Mullet, we used to have great discourse back in the day (at least I though) so you should know me better. I am a physicist as well as a Christian. Whatever bits of data I can integrate from ALL observation forms the foundation of my logic. I don't believe anything in full from any particular school, my belief is whatever resonates from an open, eclectic process. In other words, I try not to miss anything! I seek absolute truth, that's it, and I don't care where I find it. You don't think I get your point? You're still missing mine, which was technically accurate. Think about it, and think of the implications concerning your methodology. Is there ever any real predication? There is an intrinsic and predictable uncertainty built into everything we try to validate. You might actually cloud your understanding worse with that relativistic attitude, but it doesn't eliminate the uncertainty. Maybe you fear a Nihilistic conclusion? Regardless, there must be a standard. So what will be your standard to establish reality? Empirical-skepticism?? OK, a logical start, but you already admitted your human capacity for knowledge is limited, so how can you be your own standard? That is impossible. Your logic is therefore fundamentally flawed right outta the gait. You lack some of the same fundamentals that you criticize these Christians about! If you believe that a square has 4 sides based on empirical-skepticism, then you put your faith on a premise that is necessarily in error already, and only really useful in practical matters where it doesn't matter much anyway. Perhaps you underestimate the influence of these error limits on the system. Whether by intentional deceit or honest error, you have to account and correct for it if you honestly wanna apply it as an argument, but still all you get is a few extra sig figs on your probability.

The fact is, god already exists. Did he make us? Well, if nothing else we made him. Regardless, their is a specific slot to be occupied in the mind of humanity, and god's name is on that slot. I am challenging you to rethink your definition of god and form your own conclusion, an updated perspective, with no prejudice or precepts. Question your present standard of faith based reasoning if you want to advance in understanding. Question your system from time to time in general IMO.

D, this unfortunately did not address my reply at all. Please re-read and respond in kind, furthering the discourse! Thank-you!

Being a student of philosophy, it is a bit more difficult to pull me into a bout of stalwart semantics than that. You should know this!

 

[Mulletsoldier]

D, this unfortunately did not address my reply at all. Please re-read and respond in kind, furthering the discourse! Thank-you!

Being a student of philosophy, it is a bit more difficult to pull me into a bout of stalwart semantics than that. You should know this!

I will use this statement to illustrate how you particularly glossed over my point:

There is an intrinsic and predictable uncertainty built into everything we try to validate. You might actually cloud your understanding worse with that relativistic attitude, but it doesn't eliminate the uncertainty.

Such is exactly what I was establishing; such is exactly what Agnosticism means, D. Your misinterpretation of my post is fundamental and self-evident; you may require more background in some of the terms I used to address my point: truth-value, categorical, Agnosticism and so on. This is not an insult, but rather something very ostensible to me.

As a result, here is a useful site with a glossary of terms, so that we may carry out this discourse on the same page!

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Mulletsoldier]

D, this unfortunately did not address my reply at all. Please re-read and respond in kind, furthering the discourse! Thank-you!

Being a student of philosophy, it is a bit more difficult to pull me into a bout of stalwart semantics than that. You should know this!

After second-thought, I am unsure if you could have misinterpreted my post more, D. Haha.

 

[DR.D]

Perhaps it would help clear up the discussion if we were to hear your detailed description of this god. Some concrete characteristics.

OK. God's constitution is everlasting, sovereign and benevolent. His traits could be paraphrased as patient, kind, honest, protective, and just. I am no theologian, so this definition is limited to my meager literary ability.

You use the pronoun "he", which is either for convenience or you actually believe such a being to be of the male gender (why would god need a gender?)

It is the way he associates us (mankind) to himself. He has many 'masculine' characteristics for sure, and I think that reflects an additional sense of duty and responsibility for men more than anything else. Indeed, I feel like you that he probably has no gender as we would consider it, but it's a metaphysical consideration only.

Some people believe that "god is love", which obviously exists, but render the term god superfluous.

The Bible says that all good things are predicated on love. Nothing else can have value without it, so it is a requisite if anything else is to be assigned meaning. Love is not a strict synonym for god, but it's a convenient summarization for sure.

Some claim god is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good - which has been handled to death and proven to be ridiculous and self-contradictory, not jibing at all with concepts of free will and the existence of evil - which again returns concept of god into a vague, useless term.

The claims are accurate, god is all that. You don't state your objections though, so I do not know the contradictions you imply. I have found no contradiction upon my analysis.

This is not an attack at all - at least not to you. Much has been written about this. The bible holds contradictions in it (as well as countless atrocities and LACK of morality), which pretty much eliminates its authorship by some perfect divine being. It knocks it down to the level of a "sometimes nifty, but utimately either fictional or such a mixture of fiction with "fact" rendering it unusable as proof". I am truly curious to hear your definition, because to ponder the existence of anything called "god" we have to know what we are all taking about...define your terms, if you will.

No, your logic is flawed. The Bible may be tainted by human hand (or may not), but that doesn't mean you can't derive a substantial amount of nutritional value nevertheless. If you think it contains contradictions, that may be the case, or it may only be an erroneous conclusion based on your limited Biblical familiarity. If it lacks moral integrity, I would have to ask by who's standard? Besides, if you already question the authorship, why then would you assign those moral errors to god? You can't have it both ways. I'm challenging you to really look at EVERYTHING this time before you reach an updated conclusion, and consider that you may have been mislead the first time.

 

[DR.D]

... This was not an act of god guys, sorry


If you cant tell I study and teach Egyptian history!!! ...

I think this attitude really epitomizes the biggest part of the disconnect. Why couldn't it have been an act of god? 'Well, because I teach history.' OK, well who taught you that history? If a man does not mature enough to question his teachers, then he will always be a student and subject not to reality, but precepts that sculpt a reality for him! Get outta the box and take off the blinders that define your reality options.

 

[DR.D]

I will use this statement to illustrate how you particularly glossed over my point:



Such is exactly what I was establishing; such is exactly what Agnosticism means, D. Your misinterpretation of my post is fundamental and self-evident; you may require more background in some of the terms I used to address my point: truth-value, categorical, Agnosticism and so on. This is not an insult, but rather something very ostensible to me.

As a result, here is a useful site with a glossary of terms, so that we may carry out this discourse on the same page!

Invalid Link Removed

Ok mullet, lol. Thanks for the vocabulary links! Perhaps i will get 'on page' with you when I'm feeling a bit more playful.

 

[DR.D]

After second-thought, I am unsure if you could have misinterpreted my post more, D. Haha.

Have no doubts, I'm sure I could have!

 

[AE14]

I think this attitude really epitomizes the biggest part of the disconnect. Why couldn't it have been an act of god? 'Well, because I teach history.' OK, well who taught you that history? If a man does not mature enough to question his teachers, then he will always be a student and subject not to reality, but precepts that sculpt a reality for him! Get outta the box and take off the blinders that define your reality options.

this has nothing to do with my profession.

Historically the Egyptians dealt with about 9 of the plagues on either an annual or semi annual basis. Therefore it is likely that if and when it happened with the Hebrews (Hyksos) they would not have been concerned about it. Additionally, as I previously mentioned, there is a scientific proven explanation for the 10th plague.

Now, additionally, according to the story, most have related the Pharoah to Ramses II (the Great) which would mean his eldest son was amunherkepeschef. If that is the case, he was not the young child as originally perceived. His mummy was found aging around 30-35, and unless teh angel of death was wielding a hammer or heavy weapon, the death was not typical, as we know he died of a blow to the head.

Bottom line is, many of the stories are nonsensical and have been borrowed from other religious traditions. Keep in mind as well, that men wrote all these books, and we are flawed. Now what makes that the most interesting aspect is that we are created in god (s) image, and since we are flawed, hmm............

 

[AE14]

Just as an aside, take a look at the Syrian version of Moses named Mises, from centuries before. All of these written works are silly.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Ok mullet, lol. Thanks for the vocabulary links! Perhaps i will get 'on page' with you when I'm feeling a bit more playful.

Please do. For example, Agnosticism cannot be so easily characterized as a type of provisional relativism, employed on an ad hoc basis; it is more properly characterized as a type of experiential deductivism, in this case.

You misinterpreted my example of the square, as well. We can claim categorical status for the statement, "All squares and rectangles have four sides" because the predication 'four sides' is universally applicable to the relation 'square' and 'rectangle' via definition. In this light, an Agnostic would say a categorical definition is possible because that statement is definitive: if it does not have four sides, it is not a square, and vice versa.

This does not equate to relativism, or a lack of standard, but merely treating all statements as "I believe..." statements, tempered with a certain degree of doubt. It calls into question - as you stated one should do - what can be considered 'objective'. At the root is the inability to experience all things sufficiently enough to apply universal labels to said object [this is what I meant by incapacity of knowledge, though I believe you misinterpreted that]; therefore, all statements are merely "I believe..." statements whose truth-value depends on its inter-subjective verifiability.

 

[dsade]

OK. God's constitution is everlasting, sovereign and benevolent. His traits could be paraphrased as patient, kind, honest, protective, and just. I am no theologian, so this definition is limited to my meager literary ability.



It is the way he associates us (mankind) to himself. He has many 'masculine' characteristics for sure, and I think that reflects an additional sense of duty and responsibility for men more than anything else. Indeed, I feel like you that he probably has no gender as we would consider it, but it's a metaphysical consideration only.



The Bible says that all good things are predicated on love. Nothing else can have value without it, so it is a requisite if anything else is to be assigned meaning. Love is not a strict synonym for god, but it's a convenient summarization for sure.



The claims are accurate, god is all that. You don't state your objections though, so I do not know the contradictions you imply. I have found no contradiction upon my analysis.



No, your logic is flawed. The Bible may be tainted by human hand (or may not), but that doesn't mean you can't derive a substantial amount of nutritional value nevertheless. If you think it contains contradictions, that may be the case, or it may only be an erroneous conclusion based on your limited Biblical familiarity. If it lacks moral integrity, I would have to ask by who's standard? Besides, if you already question the authorship, why then would you assign those moral errors to god? You can't have it both ways. I'm challenging you to really look at EVERYTHING this time before you reach an updated conclusion, and consider that you may have been mislead the first time.

Let me look at your last paragraph first. By objective morality (vague wording...feel free to form an argument about the basis of morality besides "do this or fry in hell"), it is impermissable to slaughter thousands of babies - yet this is what god did either directly, or ordered be done in his name. Conclusion - the god described in that book is immoral.
And you conveniently ignored my question about Slavery. Are you then going to argue that Slavery AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY, OR FUTURE is anything BUT immoral?

Omnipotence vs. omniscience vs. omnibenevolence (yes, this milennia old argument is pretty simple to find with the googles)...

If god is Omniscient, then he knows what everything will do - including him. Knowing this, he is powerless to do something different (knocking out the descriptor - omnipotent). If he CAN change his mind, then his omniscience is flawed and is also knocked out.

Regarding evil - omipotent, nothing that exists can exist contrary to his will. Therefore it must be his will that babies are raped and murdered. If he has the power to stop it, and does nothing, then he is not benevolent. If he lacks the power, then he is not omnipotent. If he is ignorant of it, then he is not omniscient.

To be judged on your actions, then punished accordingly - one must have free will (see example about about god removing pharoah's free will...IMMORAL). Free will to commit a sin does not take into account free will to be an VICTIM? What kind of psychological damage is done to cripple these people...and how many children are killed before hearing about "magic jesus" and are therefore sent to hell?

Example - in words better than I can type right now:

Here, rape my daughters: Quaint scenes of family values from the Judeo-Christian tradition

By Dr. Shoeshine | August 9, 2008

Sometimes we’re reminded that Christianity had issues long before medieval adventure-hungry young men were offered a trip to the Near East to get off on killing heretics or anyone else who looked rather swarthy; before various Inquisition purges and the campaign against, well, women, basically; before proto-capitalists used Jesus to beat as much labor out of serfs as possible; before actual capitalists did the same; and before the first nutjobs known as Puritans landed on American shores.

In other words, there were problems before culture and institutions made it all worse. Not too far after the nice, if somewhat divergent, creation stories of Genesis (that’s right, stories plural; if that’s surprising, time to go do your homework), is buried that famous little diatribe against homosexuality featuring that early fearer of butt sex: Lot. You may recall that Lot’s wife was the one turned to a pillar of salt when she looked back on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Okay, well see, that happened after Lot welcomed two angels (who looked, it can be inferred, pretty much human) into his house. Somebody saw this and the sex-crazed men of Sodom came and started beating down the door because they wanted to do it with the angels (it can also be inferred that they did not intend to ask permission). Now I can understand, if one is a God-fearing type, not wanting to have two incidents of angel-rape on one’s hands. What might you have done? I might have asked the angels, being, you know, divine & supernatural, to smite the psycho rapists attempting to beat down the door. Not Lot:

6But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,

7and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.

8“Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

(from Bible Gateway.)

The angels then proceed to make all the psycho rapists blind, so you know, their capacity to do such things really isn’t in question here. Which makes me wonder: Why the **** did Lot offer his daughters as rape-depository alternatives?

I’m starting to think that Lot may have been the earliest dues-paying member of Focus on the Family. Would it be excessively unscholarly to interpret Lot as so magnanimous as to offer his daughters’ “virtue” (eew) as a last-ditch effort to “turn” these psycho rapists’ ravenous appetites back in to a correct and harmonious direction? Perhaps. We’re trying to see if we can find any sermons or other evidence of someone making that argument. At any rate, the legacy of God-fearing men storming into villages and raping the women has lasted a very long time.

taken from: Invalid Link Removed

Regarding perfect being...didn't god "repent" for flooding the world killing everyone? Hmm...repentence impies imperfection.

 

[DR.D]

this has nothing to do with my profession.

Historically the Egyptians dealt with about 9 of the plagues on either an annual or semi annual basis. Therefore it is likely that if and when it happened with the Hebrews (Hyksos) they would not have been concerned about it. Additionally, as I previously mentioned, there is a scientific proven explanation for the 10th plague.

Now, additionally, according to the story, most have related the Pharoah to Ramses II (the Great) which would mean his eldest son was amunherkepeschef. If that is the case, he was not the young child as originally perceived. His mummy was found aging around 30-35, and unless teh angel of death was wielding a hammer or heavy weapon, the death was not typical, as we know he died of a blow to the head.

Bottom line is, many of the stories are nonsensical and have been borrowed from other religious traditions. Keep in mind as well, that men wrote all these books, and we are flawed. Now what makes that the most interesting aspect is that we are created in god (s) image, and since we are flawed, hmm............

I'm sure you're a great teacher. I always hated history class, but if I had a teacher like you it may have been more interesting.

 

[AE14]

thanks D

 

[DR.D]

Please do. For example, Agnosticism cannot be so easily characterized as a type of provisional relativism, employed on an ad hoc basis; it is more properly characterized as a type of experiential deductivism, in this case.

You misinterpreted my example of the square, as well. We can claim categorical status for the statement, "All squares and rectangles have four sides" because the predication 'four sides' is universally applicable to the relation 'square' and 'rectangle' via definition. In this light, an Agnostic would say a categorical definition is possible because that statement is definitive: if it does not have four sides, it is not a square, and vice versa.

This does not equate to relativism, or a lack of standard, but merely treating all statements as "I believe..." statements, tempered with a certain degree of doubt. It calls into question - as you stated one should do - what can be considered 'objective'. At the root is the inability to experience all things sufficiently enough to apply universal labels to said object [this is what I meant by incapacity of knowledge, though I believe you misinterpreted that]; therefore, all statements are merely "I believe..." statements whose truth-value depends on its inter-subjective verifiability.

Nice elaboration. So you are agnostic?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Nice elaboration. So you are agnostic?

No.

 

[Jayhawkk]

He just likes to find ways to put his advanced vocabulary to use

 

[B5150]

I'm sure you're a great teacher. I always hated history class, but if I had a teacher like you it may have been more interesting.

If I wasn't so stoned I may have paid attention. :27:

 

[dsade]

No.

Are you waiting for Wopner to start in 10 minutes?

 

[DR.D]

l]... Regarding perfect being...didn't god "repent" for flooding the world killing everyone? Hmm...repentence impies imperfection.

I get it, I think I finally see where you're coming. You're pissed about the contradictions you perceive! If god is not real, then you're disgusted with the masses who think it's real. If god is real, then you're upset and confused at the hoops you think you gotta jump though to qualify. The real problem is that you're just too presumptuous in your fundamental logic. I don't think I can preempt that attitude to open this door to you. You want it closed, and I'll respect that for now on.

As one final word before I abandon this religious discussion: God is all the stuff you mentioned, responsible for everything and anything we observe. What we don't understand about his choices and motives, always comes down to justice. He has his rules to keep the equation balanced, whether we understand his moves or not.

Also, god did not repent after the flood that I am aware of. He said he would not use another flood if he ever felt the need to do it again. However, the flood was inspired by his regret of even making man in the first place. I always found that interesting, that an almighty god would feel regret. It implies that he holds himself to the same rules he asks of us. I will have many questions for him one day.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

He just likes to find ways to put his advanced vocabulary to use

Hah! No, I just like to challenge. I could be described as having Agnostic-tendencies in regards to truth-value analysis, but I am something different altogether!

 

[DR.D]

If I wasn't so stoned I may have paid attention. :27:

ahh yes... High school. I remember those days, I think (lol)

 

[AE14]

most dont remember high school, I see that in my own students too, especially now as I grade their midterms

 

[dsade]

Just as an aside, take a look at the Syrian version of Moses named Mises, from centuries before. All of these written works are silly.

Even better, take a look at the Bovinian myth of "Moo-ses"

Mmmm...tender, delicious Idolatry...now with Au Jus!!!

 

[AE14]

Even better, take a look at the Bovinian myth of "Moo-ses"

Mmmm...tender, delicious Idolatry...now with Au Jus!!!

It is funny how much of judeo-christian tradition has been borrowed "stolen" from earlier sources. There is a distinct possibility that the biblical moses did not exist at all, and was just absorbed into jewish tradition. The same can be said for jesus, as his story bears striking similarities to Horus and Quetzalcoatl.

 

[dsade]

It is funny how much of judeo-christian tradition has been borrowed "stolen" from earlier sources. There is a distinct possibility that the biblical moses did not exist at all, and was just absorbed into jewish tradition. The same can be said for jesus, as his story bears striking similarities to Horus and Quetzalcoatl.

I believe they are symbolic "archetypes" - a steadily decreasing progression of the father figure (god) of lesser and lesser extent, until we reach Jesus (which is not father, but more of a brother figure). The development seems to mimic individual development, from the garden (desire to remain in childlike state - viewing it as paradise and god as parent) upwards through youth, where god becomes something to fear, and through to relationship with older brother....

what it lacks is final development into independence where this "god" symbol is identified with as equal in potential (as perhaps role model, rather than parent) and bringing upon oneself responsibility for morals, actions, etc.

"One repays a teacher badly if one remains but a pupil."

~Nietzsche

 

[DmitryWI]

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

That's why I believe it to be true. I really don't care whether you think it's sad or not. It's not my concern.

It's not your concern? And you don't care? You sound like a real Christian now.
Explain to me, please, why do you believe Jesus actually said it? What proof do you have? Who's John anyway?

 

[AE14]

Ahh the Apostle John. The one that is always depicted in art as an overly emotional, effeminant young man.

 

[DT5]

I realize where it came from.

The oath was administered by the Chief Justice, as "So help me God". This was not a fumble. If it is not constitutional why perpetuate it. If it is perpetuated why not make it constitutional.

Did he swear to God? Did he need to swear to God? Why would he swear to God?[/QUOTE]


he has to swear to god, or the entire mid west would never vote for someone for that reason. the bible belt is the reason politics and religion are mixed, unfortunately. the uneducated hold most of the vote

 

[dsade]

I realize where it came from.

The oath was administered by the Chief Justice, as "So help me God". This was not a fumble. If it is not constitutional why perpetuate it. If it is perpetuated why not make it constitutional.

Did he swear to God? Did he need to swear to God? Why would he swear to God?[/QUOTE]




he has to swear to god, or the entire mid west would never vote for someone for that reason. the bible belt is the reason politics and religion are mixed, unfortunately. the uneducated hold most of the vote

It's what plants crave.

 

[B5150]

President Obama speaks at National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D C

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7l5Y4HvHz4"]YouTube - President Obama speaks at National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D C[/ame]

6:51 thru to the end may be particularly interesting.

This Christian God seems to corrupt everyone. We're doomed.

 

[Irish Cannon]

God this, God that...They never say Jesus.

Love the red tie.

 

[Doug8796]

if there is no god, we are not endowed by our creator with certain unalienable right that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. therefore, our rights can be taken away because they are not god given, and our trust is in nothing. meaning we stand for nothing and we are nothing.. which is happening thanks to the atheists. back when we believed in God, God believed in us.

people say christians started most wars but look recently at the last 100 years. the majority of wars were started by atheists.. communism in Vietnam, Korea, shameful killings in Russia under Lenin and Stalin, and killings in Nazi Germany of Jews and Europeans in World War 2 with help of other atheists such as Mussolini. If atheism offers a much clearer perspective then why has it produced some of the most evil people the world has ever known?

 

[dsade]

if there is no god, we are not endowed by our creator with certain unalienable right that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. therefore, our rights can be taken away because they are not god given, and our trust is in nothing. meaning we stand for nothing and we are nothing.. which is happening thanks to the atheists. back when we believed in God, God believed in us.

people say christians started most wars but look recently at the last 100 years. the majority of wars were started by atheists.. communism in Vietnam, Korea, shameful killings in Russia under Lenin and Stalin, and killings in Nazi Germany of Jews and Europeans in World War 2 with help of other atheists such as Mussolini. If atheism offers a much clearer perspective then why has it produced some of the most evil people the world has ever known?

First of all, the amount of bodies killed in the name of religion is staggering. To claim that somehow "atheism" caused anything of the sort if ridiculous.

Second, nazi germany was a Christian variant - hence their slogan "got mit uns" (god is with us), and in NO way atheist.

Atheism has nothing to do with economic systems, such as communism.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

First of all, the amount of bodies killed in the name of religion is staggering. To claim that somehow "atheism" caused anything of the sort if ridiculous.

Second, nazi germany was a Christian variant - hence their slogan "got mit uns" (god is with us), and in NO way atheist.

Atheism has nothing to do with economic systems, such as communism.

They were not a Christian variant. They borrowed concepts from several religions including pagan beliefs and their use of Christianity as well as other religious variations for the most part was a political maneuver, not one of belief.

The use and definition of "God" to the Nazi movement conveniently changed almost daily.

You can find quotes in which Hitler defends Christianity one day while stating there is no God but Germany the next day.

They were all over the map.

 

[dsade]

They were not a Christian variant. They borrowed concepts from several religions including pagan beliefs and their use of Christianity as well as other religious variations for the most part was a political maneuver, not one of belief.

The use and definition of "God" to the Nazi movement conveniently changed almost daily.

You can find quotes in which Hitler defends Christianity one day while stating there is no God but Germany the next day.

They were all over the map.

Much like many others, when contradictions are pointed out.

I would not, by any means, especially in light of not only Hitler, but the general population of Nazi Germany, classify them as atheist - as if it's at all relevant.

The world, in spite of an overwhelming population of religious people, is a craptastic place. To somehow blame atheism for this is being willfully ignorant.

/I blame Seinfeld.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Much like many others, when contradictions are pointed out.

I would not, by any means, especially in light of not only Hitler, but the general population of Nazi Germany, classify them as atheist - as if it's at all relevant.


The world, in spite of an overwhelming population of religious people, is a craptastic place. To somehow blame atheism for this is being willfully ignorant.

/I blame Seinfeld.

Oh "God" no...they certainly were NOT atheists.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV7m6IIN_tI"]YouTube - Anti- Denetite[/ame]

 

[B5150]

:rofl: :rofl:

"It offends me as a comedian"

 

[Piston Honda]

When Obama is in office and he enacts and repeals laws of the likes of abortion and gay marriage how will it be? ...

...It is right for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman..."So help me God"

I see such a blindness and hypocrisy in so much of our government and our citizenship in this matter of God and faith.

How does the "So help me God" fly under the radar socially and politically in this case of our presidential oath?

Is "So help me God" and "God bless America" a selective soliloquy with selective literal implications?

I don't know if I am communicating my point like I would desire to.

People must think he's the Obamantichrist

 

[DR.D]

People must think he's the Obamantichrist

Who cares what people think?

 

[Piston Honda]

Who cares what people think?

Exactly

 

[B5150]

Bumping a 5 year old thread. Serioulsy? I'll pray to Odin that you find a life before you graduate J.H.S.

Your relentless devisiveness is desparate, sad and very unwelcome here.

I suggest you adjust your behavior while you are here or you will no longer be here.


"Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned."