Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[total relism]

Holy crap iron you have been busy.

An example on why people think you're new. I've already presented an example on why "survival of the fittest" can very well lead to the development of empathy and morals. Ignoring that and repeating the argument is poor debating style. You're better when it comes to the Bible parts.

Now, moral absolutism. How is it enforced? By God sends you to hell instead of heaven. Or in other terms, the enforcer executes a punishment. While the natural bias (I explained a bit on why such a thing can develop previously) will give preference to certain moral codes, it is that enforcer that keeps it together, when you have people breaking it. The thing is that the enforcer hardly needs to be a God.
Or simply: by saying that fornication is bad is how we keep fornication as bad and punish those who does it. That's all that needs to be done. And since it's disputed (and has lost as an argument is Sweden decades ago) it is losing ground today.
Now, in say the case of rape, we can make a better case since it's a physical and mental assult on the victim. Using deduction (if it's done on me is it good or bad), helped by empathy, we can conclude it's bad, even without an absolute moral arbiter.

I fully understand you think i am ignoring, but I am trying to get you to think deeper, those "morals" assuming came about by survival of the fittest. Are not real morals, but just chemical reactions in your brain making you think they are morals. So by me caging up woman in my basement forcing them to have sex with me than killing them. Is not a moral "wrong" as there are none. Your chemicals may very well make you feel they are wrong, but my chemicals [I evolved slightly diffident] and my knowledge of the selfish gene and survival of fittest, tell me to do it. In fact i am just acting of my chemical reactions in my brain making me do it.

Moral absolute is true if it is enforced or not. child sacrifice I believe is a moral wrong, regardless of if someone does it.

I was talking in general. Even the Bible version matters for interpretations. You use the International version? One example is the Destroyer (the entity killing the firstborn in Egypt, generally seen to been the archangel Uriel). Some versions doesn't translate that as an entity,b ut rather the process to determine on who to kil or not.

I use many translations, witch do you believe says homosexuality is a good thing.The angel of the lord is the one who kills firstborn, who is uriel? is that swedish for something?.

I'm sure I need to specify anything more on the Flood and Sodom and Gomorra. They were too immoral, destruction pending. Both Noah and Lot has quite morally questionable incidents afterward though. First human stock must have been horrible.

Numbers 25. Yes, God is angry for that some Israelites got seduced into Baal worshipping behind his back. But God is specific that Phinehas saved the Israelites from his wraith, that threatened to put an end to the Isrealites.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

10 The Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them.

Retaliation comes in Numbers 31, were Moses are a bit pissed off on the commanders for not killing enough civilians.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

You might justify the sexually active women as a punishment for the seduction, but the boys? Oh, and I do wonder what will happen to all those virgin girls that the sodiers can keep.

Also, if God acts in moral absolutes, then there's no time drift in values. If someone does the same thing as above today, is that good or evil? Does it change if it undisputed that this man is God's chosen?

all humans sin. We are just not as lucky as the ones in bible that have there recorded.


You really are making it very hard for me, I love these types of questions. As I said before, I will be doing post on cannan and any other questions against the bible. I have 7 thread going on 4 forums right now. So when I have more time I will do post. I have debated these verses before and love to do so. All I will say now is your missing the mark.

I'll be brief, either the verses contradict each other (compare to Deut 23:1) or the complement each other. A spiritual crime seems to last longer, while a physical is not transfered.

Or as I explained last post to you.

You can read parts of a book and not be swooshed away by it's message (I've never claimed to have red the whole Bible, only that my source was the parts of the Bible I've red). Your Bible skill should certainly surpass mine. It's the idea of some kind of holy atheist book that's annoys me. There is no such book. Sure it probably exist more than one book attacking Christianity that's been red by a few people, but I never red one of those and neither has most who doesn't believe in Christianity. And of those that have red such books, very few had some kind of relevation to why they stopped beliving.

fair enough, sorry for assuming.

Fair enough on that it varies. A few notes though. God hardens pharao's heart when the first born are to die. Bad coincidence perhaps. If I display my superiority and my awesome destructive powers by killing people, cattle, causing chaos and destruction, etc, etc, am I good or evil?

Good question, first he harded pharaohs heart as I explained, to do what pharaoh wanted in his heart already, from 4th plague on I think. God was showing his power,who he is to all Egyptians as they worshiped cows,lice,frongs,nile and thought of Pharaoh as god and firstborn. So god was showing there gods were useless.

sometimes a movie can help make it more real. They can help better picture real life. A movie i think that would accurately depict gods use of plagues in bible would be
http://www.amazon.com/The-Reaping-Bl...ds=the+reaping

After the first 6 plagues I think it was, any Egyptian who believed god was spared of remaing plagues. anyone who put the blood of the lahm [jesus] on the doorpost was Passover and did not receive judgment. Many egptians did put the blood on the doorpost and were saved, and left with isreal. The people had no reason not to believe, so those that did die, were in rebellion on purpose. Also the bible says that egypt were being judged as well,for 400 years of slavery and killing babies Israelite.They had chance to repent many times, [many did.]

So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born[c] you shall cast into the river
exodus 1.22a
“When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live
exodus 1.16

God was willing and wanting to relent from sending the plagues at any time ex 10 13-14,19 10 16-19 other verses as well. If pharaoh asked god stopped the plagues 8.15 8.29-32. God was relenting from more severe punishment and was using plagues to show he is god

Firstborn
firstborns, anyone who put the blood of the lahm on there doorpost was spared and did not see judgment.
god killed firstborns in Egypt witch would go to haven.
The bible says all are born into sin we are all sinful and all babies are sinners and will grow up like the rest of us and be sinners .
However the plagues were not sent because of babies. God did not kill them but pharaohs sin against god and the Egyptians. Had the babies kids of Egypt grown up in Egypt worshiping pharaoh they may have missed out on eternity,look at numbers 14 28-33 for this with isreal,kids indirectly suffer for the sins of the parents. When an abusive father kills his child in a fit of rage, the child dies BECAUSE of the SINS of the FATHER, but the child is not being PUNISHED by being killed. When a child dies of an illness caused by neglect of a parent, they die BECAUSE (somewhat, at least) of the SINS of the parent, but their death would not be considered as a PUNISHMENT on the child for the neglect of the parent. It would be a CONSEQUENCE of the sin, but not a ‘punishment’ per se.
The Exodus story involves a corporate or national punishment, and in these cases—including the famines and plagues that later came upon Biblical Israel for their evil—both innocent and guilty suffer. Similarly, when a nation or group is blessed by God for goodness of values and action and direction, both deserving and undeserving benefit.
http://christianthinktank.com/killheir.html

Also the babies were being taken away from A evil world and A evil culture.

The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.
Isa. 57:1

So while we may view death as always bad, god in certain circumstances may not
when believers die it is precious in the lords sight,because they enter into a true relationship with him with no sin or separation
psalm 116.15

God sees the heart of man, Hitler was once a baby and would look innocent, though god would know his heart and know he would grow up to become a monster.
7 For the LORD does not see as man sees for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
1 Samuel 16.7

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
genisis 8 20-21

I like a point a friend of mine made about this. One Skeptic asked why God simply did not kill Hitler as a baby. Yet if "baby Hitler" had died, the Skeptic would ask why God did not prevent the death of this innocent baby. This shows that a far more critical view is needed than "argument by outrage." Indeed, "argument by outrage" often assumes a form of omniscience by the critic.

Genesis 9. Noah gets drunk, his son Ham sees him naked (I've red the interpretation that it means rapes him, which might explain the anger better, but is horribly, horribly messed up), Naoh hears this and curses Caanan (Ham's son) to slavery. This can be interpretated to only one generation, but the slavers using this as justification (the black skin was the physical demonstration of the curse) was on to bloodlines into slavery.

Man created at different times was some idea to justify why black people, that should be slaves (according to the slavers) existed. Not really based on the Bible outside the idea that God created everything and nothing has ever changed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.[b]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth[c];
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his[d] slave.”

I have no idea what this would have to do with endorsing slavery, this is a angry statement by someone who was molested in his sleep/prophecy about what would happen, not endorsing at all.As his descendants after noahs death, did became slave for a time. Notice it says in v25 cannan will be cursed, not because of what just happened. It is a angery/hungover noah v21.Noah dies in v29.

Child sacrifice was common among the Indians in Latin America, so evidently it wasn't a moral absolute for them. Sure they never met God, so they didn't have the true message, but it's still an example on it not being universal. Did they still have morals? Yes, although I'm certain that's there more than human sacrifices I would disagree with.
Can you have strong opinions of morality without having absolute morals? Yes.
Can those opinions change with time? Yes.
Can you have a simple consistant framework to help guide you into what those morals can be? Yes.
If most people have a very similar framework, then you have the basis for how the morality the society will look like.

On the question about God being bad: That's a conclusion drawn from asking myself on the morality of a powerful man doing the same things, while also giving him some leeway (but far from total) because he's acting in a way I can't fully comprehend.

Just because someone does not follow a universal law does not mean its not there. Killing is wrong in us, but people do it.

But again your saying morals are not absolute, that proves my entire thread, well OP thank you. If atheism is true than there are no moral absolutes.

I am not saying you dont feel that it is absolutely wrong, i am saying there is no base to claim something is wrong in first place.

On god, agreed, the bible says all he does is good, he is love, cant do evil etc. assuming that is true, than anything he does will be constant with that, weather we may feel diffident about it or not [golden calf, .].

A few notes. The Byzantine emperor asked for money or mercs and got those barbarian (Byzantine opinion) crusaders instead. Second, many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor. It was certainly easier to live under Muslim rulers than having those Christian "liberators" separating your head from your body because they couldn't tell that you were Christian. Anyway, while it did weaken the Muslims, they were quite weak and fractioned (that's why the crusader states survived so long) anyway. When they got unified, the remaining crusader states lost very quickly. Incursions into Europe was done by the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinopel and destroyed the Byzantine empire. The empire was critically weakened earlier because of the fourth crusade and left by its fate by the rest of Europe. So, no D’Souza does not have a good case there.

20:th century was certainly a brutal one and the church got worse reputation than it deserves on the inqusition and witch burnings, agreed on that.
Although I'm finding a general lack of the 30-years war, the most brutal war until WW1. While politics got involved, denying the religious element there is folly, in particular since it cut the steam out of all religous wars afterwards.

I agree with first part, but point was Byzantine was underatack from expanding Muslims, as all christian were in Europe, until crusades. Everyone starts there, instead of going back to see what got there in first place.

You said
"many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor."

Not at all from what I have herd, there were 2-3 places at most were christian matineded worship, lived in peace under Muslims, the rest forced conversion, killed, pilgrims to the holy lands constanley attack/killed etc.

last highlighted part
How does he not have a case? he is sating the reason for the origin of the crusades.

read these with me, I have not yet. Than well discus,for fun maybe.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...ic_crusad.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...only/52.0.html

Please inform me of the 30 years war and the christian implications, what war? that is how much I now.

And the total number of religious people has never been higher than now (thanks to rapid population growth)... They are evil I tell you!!!

Seriously, you're writing this on a computer, so get off the anti-science horse there. The dangers are more or less a direct consequence of the advantages made. Also, polution, over-population, destruction of habitats are nothing new. What killed off the mesopotanian civilisations? Too much salty soil from irrigation. Easter island? Over-population. The thing that have change is the scale.

agreed, i posted the wrong thing dammit.

Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
As for the Inquisition, much of the modern stereotype was largely made up by Spain’s political enemies, and later by anti-Christians. The Inquisition only had authority over professing Christians, and the Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts. Often the only penalty given was some sort of penance such as fasting. Over a period of 350 years, historians such as Henry Kamen15 estimate only between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy.
The Salem witch trials constitute the best-known example of religiously motivated violence. However, fewer than 25 people were killed in the trials, falling far short of the ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions’ (p. 207) that the late antitheist Carl Sagan wrote about.
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong
#
#
the Salem which trial was stopped by 2 priest that said what they were doing was unbiblical
http://tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html inquisitions

See, a good person/god does not even ask this as an demonstration of devotion, even if the devoted person would consider this as an acceptable sacrifice. Mock executions are considered torture, even if none dies.

Why not? I have kids I ask they things just to see if they will, to see if they love me etc.It is not torture, Abraham new all along, he trusted god.

You're giving a ton of material, way more than will be answered thoughtfully in total. You keep insisting on some things like it's great wonder bullets and ignores the counter arguments on it, you make large assumptions and generalise your opposition. Your English is a bit sloppy, or it's not your first language.

Taken together, you appear very eager and have recently found what you think is a gold mine, and also as young and inexperienced, but certainly with good potential with training. That strikes people as new.

I suspect I appear somewhat haughty myself.

I see. thanks. good talking with you, I am enjoying this. I like you, but not so much the bible would call it a sin lol.