Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[total relism]

Fun fact of the day: King David were not allowed into the assembly of the Lord, according to the Bible. And Jesus was the decendant of a daughter raping her father.
Ruth and Deuteronomy 23:1-3 are hints.

I will not stay long on that subject except noticing that condemning homosexuality is in the OT, which is a lovely can of worms and contradictions. So to decide which parts of the OT to keep is in the hands of human interpretations, a fun subject. God is horrible on the standard of good btw, unless you count genocide (many times), generational punishments, mind controlling people and then punish them for what they say during said mind control, etc, etc as good. That said, Christianisty is nicer than most religions, but not really thanks to God in the OT.

Anyway, to give an evolutionary example on morals, who are not absolute, but have a significant natural bias. That bias can in turn be overridden by say religion for example. First thing to remember is that morals can only be formed by interactions. If you're the only living being, there is no such things as morals, since the only one you can interact with are yourself and good and evil is irrelevant at that point (gives an interesting but heretical viewpoint on God learning morals with time btw).
So lets focus on interactions.
Murder: Outside the obvious factor of sexual reproduction, there's also the matter of survival. To kill a competitor (for the food or mates) about your own size is hard. Even harder is getting away fresh enough to survive the next day (notice that this still promotes some aggression). So even for solitary species, there's an evolutionary advantage to not kill member of their own specie, even if they're the same gender. For a cooperative specie like humans, this is significantly stronger. So strong that it's never the sole reason and most of the time not a factor at all, for murders.
You can do similar analyses on a lot of moral factors and also see why a behavior can be generally abhored, yet still remain.

But really, good and bad are defined what a group of people agreed on together. That's why for example the opinion of slavery has varied throughout the Christian world and its history, even despite that it should've been absolute according to you total realism. God has eternal slavery as an "appropiate" punishment for example.


Edit: on the point B) The fun stuff about your "atheism is sexist" is that it goes a much longer way to explain the historical sexism (although a lot of it has to do with inheiritence) than your claim that the Bible isn't sexist does it?
Anyway. The denial for a female to select thier natural partner can't be considered good for the female, ergo rape will always be considered bad for the female. Now, who's the fittest? The man who spends time and resources to feed and control his female slaves or the man cooperating with the females, so that the females will feed and sustain themselves? He also got good odds of converting the first man's females and ursup the first man. Ergo, cooperation with females are treated genetically favourly.

King David, what I think your referring to is he could not build the temple, as he had to much blood on his hands.

1 Chronicles 22:7 And David said to Solomon: "My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the LORD my God; 8 but the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'


Jesus
Not sure what if true would have to do with anything? I studies Ruth I have no idea what your talking about, neither does Deuteronomy passages say anything on it.

Homosexuality is condemned in OT, i agree 100%, not sure why that is a "contradiction" in any way. I keep 100% of OT, but I think you misunderstand alittle here and would be glad to clarify. Much of OT applies only for time,space,certain peoples. Just one example, when god told noah to build a big boat, that does not mean me as a believer should today.

God is horible
Genocide, generational punishments,mind control, etc. I would love to disuse these all with you, you bring up all the topics of a atheist book. I will ask you hold on the "genocide" conquest of cannan. That being my favorite, I wish to do a thread of its own, as i do with twc and other forums.That is my favorite, because atheist are so sure of what they have been told and the few passages they quotes that certainly seem to support there claim. That filling in the rest really lets them down, I love that part. The other two bring up exsaples I would love to tell you from bible what is meant, and exspalin the passages for you.

Hell I will answer now
Generational curse This applies if the following generation continues in the sin of the fathers, saying they too will be punished, when they dont, they are not punished.
Harden heart
For example pharaoh harded his heart many times first, than later god "streghtend" or "harden" his heart. He gave him strength to do what his heart wanted, lateer he did same thing again chasing after isreal himself.


The bible is against slavery [punsiable by death in OT]. But overall I agree with your atheist morality, majority opinion as I said on OP. The reason in part slavery was so popular was because darwin taught people that blacks were not fully human, so its not slavery.

But notice you reject god because you think he is immoral [I disagree fully, though if I thought of him as you do i would agree genocide etc] yet realize there is no such thing as morality or absolute morals. No such thing as murder being wrong or rape etc just what some decide on. That makes your argument baseless against god, as it demands certain things to be absolutely wrong [genocide].

[Ironside]

King David, what I think your referring to is he could not build the temple, as he had to much blood on his hands.

Jesus
Not sure what if true would have to do with anything? I studies Ruth I have no idea what your talking about, neither does Deuteronomy passages say anything on it.

Great granny Ruth (to David) was a Moabite and it's less than 10 generations in between. Jesus is supposed to be a decendant from David. Moab was the child/grandchild of Lot. Since there's quite a few generations between and God is lacking a bit of people (due to wiping them out from time to time) it's mostly for fun.

Homosexuality is condemned in OT, i agree 100%, not sure why that is a "contradiction" in any way. I keep 100% of OT, but I think you misunderstand alittle here and would be glad to clarify. Much of OT applies only for time,space,certain peoples. Just one example, when god told noah to build a big boat, that does not mean me as a believer should today.

Yes, and the interpretations on this aren't absolute. That is a bit of problem when talking about moral absolutes.

God is horible
Genocide, generational punishments,mind control, etc. I would love to disuse these all with you, you bring up all the topics of a atheist book. I will ask you hold on the "genocide" conquest of cannan. That being my favorite, I wish to do a thread of its own, as i do with twc and other forums.That is my favorite, because atheist are so sure of what they have been told and the few passages they quotes that certainly seem to support there claim. That filling in the rest really lets them down, I love that part. The other two bring up exsaples I would love to tell you from bible what is meant, and exspalin the passages for you.

The atheist book you mentioned I've read is called the Bible. I'm guessing you're familiar with that one. Notions of genocide: The flood, (duh), Sodom and Gomorra, active threat (plague) on the Jews for deviation of faith (Jews saved by active murder showing devotion to God) and the following retaliation which Moses ups (to cultural genocide, only virgins left) from what the original commanders did (and they were quite brutal).

Hell I will answer now
Generational curse This applies if the following generation continues in the sin of the fathers, saying they too will be punished, when they dont, they are not punished.

Deut 23:1 is specific in that the punishment are on the children and their decendants and not the sinning parents. God took a very long time to forgive the original sin so it's not like it's a unique occurence. Besides, that's a quite suspect interpretation (as in: don't like the original one, let's make up one that sounds better, but is much less based on what's written). Unless there was some bizarre idea that is your parents sinned, you're immune to that sin (say that your father was a thief leads to that you can steal without any problem), there's no need to specify that it only applies if they continue the sins of thier ancestors.

The 10 generations are a nice show that the person isn't familiar to population demographics. The 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc, etc. gives 2^10-1=1023 couples that might have cheated. With 1% cheating ratio (that's a very low count), only about 3 out of 100.000 fullfills that demand.

Harden heart
For example pharaoh harded his heart many times first, than later god "streghtend" or "harden" his heart. He gave him strength to do what his heart wanted, lateer he did same thing again chasing after isreal himself.

The Bible never states the original opinion of the Pharao. Besides, even with this interpretation, God still actively searches a confrontation which will result in the punishment of the Egyptians. That is cruel and a show off display of destructive powers.

The bible is against slavery [punsiable by death in OT]. But overall I agree with your atheist morality, majority opinion as I said on OP. The reason in part slavery was so popular was because darwin taught people that blacks were not fully human, so its not slavery.

The origin of species came out 1859, the US civil war started 1861 (a definite stop to slave import in the US). No, slavery was not popular because of the idea of evolution. Examples of justifications of slavery were that they were decendants of Ham, making it Gods (well Noahs) will to have those in eternal slavery. Alternativly God created man several times before he got it right.

But notice you reject god because you think he is immoral [I disagree fully, though if I thought of him as you do i would agree genocide etc] yet realize there is no such thing as morality or absolute morals. No such thing as murder being wrong or rape etc just what some decide on. That makes your argument baseless against god, as it demands certain things to be absolutely wrong [genocide].

There are no absolute morals. Now, Christianity haven't been very big on it (rather the opposite), but human sacrifice are an example on where murder become virtous, through religion. I'm not knowing any examples, but I'm quite certain that rape has been sanctified in the same way more than once.

Morality on the other hand exists. Even if it is "only" impulses in our brains and an agreement between a group of people. Now such an agreement is quite powerful, since it contains enforcement and the abillity to reject those who doesn't agree. The club is society so to speak. That is a stronger motivator than an arbiter for absolute moralities.

[total relism]

I'm not going to read TR's walls of copypasta, but from what I can gather...

I think Kadagar is talking more on the practical side - that atheists generally are moral people. Whereas TR is trying to say that in doing so atheists are being logically inconsistent, as in his own less eloquent fashion he is referring to your argument that absolute morals can't exist without a universial arbiter ie God.

Although TR is frustrated because he thinks Kadagar can't see this (he may or may not), the real problem is that TR is not open to the idea of any other concepts of morality - for example that morals might not be absolute, and may just be the result of evolution. He might not regard such an idea of morality as meaningful, but it is a commonly accepted explanation for what we observe as morality. He has to accept it is a valid (if not correct) explanation.

Otherwise everyone will continue to be at cross purposes.



This, srsly the "Hitler was an atheist" and "Darwin an a racist sexist therefore so are all evolutionists" lines or argument are the most boring and easily refutable out there.

I'm wondering if TR is maybe a fairly recent convert, and is currently in the sort of 'cage stage' mentality. With the internet he's been exposed to a lot of ideas that seem new to be really new and exciting but in fact to us it's flogging a horse that died long ago. I think I went through the same process myself. Sorry to sound condescending, and I could be miles off, but that's what it feels like...

Thank you for first part, that hits it perfect. As I said first line, I am not saying that atheist are not moral or have no morals, I am saying that if they claim there are such things as moral or "right" and "wrong" killing is "bad" rape is "bad" etc They are being inconstant with atheism. They have no right to say what hitler did was "bad". I am fully aware that some believe morals are the result of evolution, that is what have my post have been on. That is what I have been using showing that when they claim absolute morals, something is "wrong" rape,murder etc they are being inconstant. For example.

I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,

But as atheist why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.

and my Op spells out atheistic morality.

I do not need to accept atheistic morality, I never would. Just because you think I should because others do is a moral argument itself,baseless.But it shows perfectly that the only morals atheist can have is based on majority opinion. So hitler was morally correct in germany in the early 1940's. That was the majority opinion, so therefore correct. Why would I ever accept, some random chemicals evolve dirt, telling me what I can and cant do. the government tells me one morality, Hollywood another,media another,teachers another, parents another,church another. Who is right? I say no one. why listen to random chemical reactions [peoples brains. evolved dirt] tell me what is "right" and "wrong". No I agree with jefery dahmer on this one.

"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

So if I decide that murdering millions of innocent children [abortion] is ok than we can. Or caging woman in my basement forcing them to have sex with me is also ok if I like it.


Hitler
I have no idea what your saying here, showing clearly you did not read about hitler, what I said was, as hitlers quotes show, he was following evolution, it was because atheism/evolution he did what he did. No athist has any right to say what he did was wrong. After all in germany in 1940's as you said
"but it is a commonly accepted explanation for what we observe as morality. He has to accept it is a valid" so therefore it must be accepted by your own grounds. Showing the absurdity of atheistic morality based on majority opinion, just what you admitted to and are proposing.

I like your asumtions on my "new" faith or debating online. I assure you ask my name on twc all the atheist will know me. I have debated years over there, many thread, in fact have no less than 4 other debate thread going on outside of the org right now. The fact you misunderstand me and guess these things, makes me think you jump the gun a little pit.

Great granny Ruth (to David) was a Moabite and it's less than 10 generations in between. Jesus is supposed to be a decendant from David. Moab was the child/grandchild of Lot. Since there's quite a few generations between and God is lacking a bit of people (due to wiping them out from time to time) it's mostly for fun.



Yes, and the interpretations on this aren't absolute. That is a bit of problem when talking about moral absolutes.



The atheist book you mentioned I've read is called the Bible. I'm guessing you're familiar with that one. Notions of genocide: The flood, (duh), Sodom and Gomorra, active threat (plague) on the Jews for deviation of faith (Jews saved by active murder showing devotion to God) and the following retaliation which Moses ups (to cultural genocide, only virgins left) from what the original commanders did (and they were quite brutal).



Deut 23:1 is specific in that the punishment are on the children and their decendants and not the sinning parents. God took a very long time to forgive the original sin so it's not like it's a unique occurence. Besides, that's a quite suspect interpretation (as in: don't like the original one, let's make up one that sounds better, but is much less based on what's written). Unless there was some bizarre idea that is your parents sinned, you're immune to that sin (say that your father was a thief leads to that you can steal without any problem), there's no need to specify that it only applies if they continue the sins of thier ancestors.

The 10 generations are a nice show that the person isn't familiar to population demographics. The 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc, etc. gives 2^10-1=1023 couples that might have cheated. With 1% cheating ratio (that's a very low count), only about 3 out of 100.000 fullfills that demand.



The Bible never states the original opinion of the Pharao. Besides, even with this interpretation, God still actively searches a confrontation which will result in the punishment of the Egyptians. That is cruel and a show off display of destructive powers.



The origin of species came out 1859, the US civil war started 1861 (a definite stop to slave import in the US). No, slavery was not popular because of the idea of evolution. Examples of justifications of slavery were that they were decendants of Ham, making it Gods (well Noahs) will to have those in eternal slavery. Alternativly God created man several times before he got it right.



There are no absolute morals. Now, Christianity haven't been very big on it (rather the opposite), but human sacrifice are an example on where murder become virtous, through religion. I'm not knowing any examples, but I'm quite certain that rape has been sanctified in the same way more than once.

Morality on the other hand exists. Even if it is "only" impulses in our brains and an agreement between a group of people. Now such an agreement is quite powerful, since it contains enforcement and the abillity to reject those who doesn't agree. The club is society so to speak. That is a stronger motivator than an arbiter for absolute moralities.

First part I have no idea what your saying, why do you believe that, what ever your trying to say is a problem for the bible?. Does it have to do with the 10 generations? moabites cant enter?

Moabites cant enter assembly of god?
Ruth was moabite book of ruth.

God loves the foreign resident and Israel is commanded to do the same
Deuteronomy 10.18-19
It is not based on ethnicity,but religion. moab was cananite.


I disagree fully, homosexuality is clearly wrong, according to the bible.


lol nice, I was just saying all the athiet usually bring up in order the ones you did. I agree though god judges, please bring all these up with genocide/plagues. You truly are bringing up all my favs, though the golden calf is very hard to understand. But the claims of genocide are false, and the circumstances around these show them not to be evil, but loving. Sounds crazy, wait for post. You just need to read entire bible. In fact I would reject a god that did not do what he did., time will show. I guess i will have to do a major objections to bible as I did on twc, plagues,conquest of canon,how can god send people to hell etc. But great topic's, now im all existed.


I am not seeing it here at all, also this does not mean they cant worship etc, they just cant go in temple [few could] only levites could.
[a]No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord.
v1 23

This has to do with no defects etc, it is teaching of sinless of messiah, without defect, as all temple worship was.
God forgives sin right away all the time, he did forgive adam and eve, he promised messiah right there gen 3.15. It took awhile for the messiah to carry out the full forgiveness. Notice god provided there coverings after gen 3.21. But are you claiming than no one was forgiven in OT?.
I am sorry but had you read the bible, you would now that it is clearly if the child follows in sins of father.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20

A key to understanding this business is a concept called vicarious punishment that is found in the law codes of the ANE. Greenberg [Chr.SPPS, 295] offers these examples:

A creditor who has maltreated the distrained sin of his debtor that he dies, must lose his own son. If a man struck the pregnant daughter of another so that she miscarried and died, his own daughter must be put to death. A seducer must deliver his wife to the seduced girl's father for prostitution. In another class are penalties which involve the substitution of a dependent for the offerer -- the Hittite laws compelling a slayer to deliver so many persons to the kinsmen of the slain, or prescribing that a man who has pushed another into a fire must give over his son...
Now it is precisely this kind of punishment, which was prescribed in every law code in the Near East, that Deut. 24:16 is intended to forbid. The verse is not a universal motto, but a time-specific law intended as a direct counter to the practices listed above. "The proper understanding of this requires...that it be recognized as a judicial provision, not a theological dictum." [Chr.SPPS, 296, 298]
This does not mean sins of a father will not effect his children.


You claim to have read bible, but I gota say, your theology and claims, fit the bill of a atheist book not the bible.

15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.
exodus 8.15
31 and the Lord did what Moses asked. The flies left Pharaoh and his officials and his people; not a fly remained. 32 But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.
exodus 8.31
7 Pharaoh investigated and found that not even one of the animals of the Israelites had died. Yet his heart was unyielding and he would not let the people go
evodus 9.7
Ex 9:11-12 “And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boils were on the magicians and on all the Egyptians. But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses

God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and we are also told that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (4 times). Both statements are true and do not contradict each other. There was no hope of convincing or converting Pharaoh so his heart would be hardened by God (6 times, 10 times in all). God did not allow him to change his mind and was given no room to do anything else but what his own sinful heart dictated.

Notice that in a very real sense, all four of the following statements are true: (1) God hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (2) Moses hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (3) the words that Moses spoke hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (4) Pharaoh hardened his own heart. All four of these observations are accurate, depicting the same truth from different perspectives. In this sense, God is responsible for everything in the Universe, i.e., He has provided the occasion, the circumstances, and the environment in which all things (including people) operate. But He is not guilty of wrong in so doing. From a quick look at a simple Hebrew idiom, it is clear that God did not unjustly or directly harden Pharaoh’s heart. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), He does not act unjustly (Psalms 33:5), and He has always allowed humans to exercise their free moral agency (Deuteronomy 30:19). God, however, does use the wrong, stubborn decisions committed by rebellious sinners to further His causes (Isaiah 10:5-11). In the case of Pharaoh’s hardened heart, God can be charged with no injustice, and the Bible can be charged with no contradiction. Humans were created with free moral agency and are culpable for their own actions.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...1&article=1205



God uses pharaohs heart, to show egypt and pharaoh that he was the one true god, that the nile,cows,flies etc were not gods, but he alone. It worked to, as many egptians left and joined isreal.

"Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children. A mixed multitude went up with them also."
exodus 12 37-38.

they were grafted into isreal.



I have no idea were you get this from? eternal slavery idea. Or the idea god created men at diffident times. Please with your great knowledge of bible you have shown, provide evidence from bible.



I have no idea what your saying, first you claim there are no moral absolutes, I have to ask are you absolutely sure?
than if there are no moral absolutes, how can you say child sacrifice is wrong?. Or it is ok to kill them?. Than something about rape being ok to the bible? The bible says rape is oviusly wrong, could be punished with death in OT.

Than claim morality does exist, do you not see how many times you contradict yourself in a few sentences?. So you cant object to god as being bad, also please bring your thoughts over here. I just put in long response to this same claim on majority opinion and morality.
well above a few posts.

[HoreTore]

I just love how "atheism" is given a set of attributes, and the notion that one "has to do x" because of "atheist beliefs"(now that's a contradicting term!).

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, if you spent as much time taking in what people answer you, as you do surfing christian webpages, I think you would reach much further mentally.


You seem to repeat your own line of thinking no matter what arguments you are met by, that is what I meant when I wrote that I see no chance for progress here.

There are two sides of a debate. You are supposed to make your case, you do a great job at that BTW mate. However, you are also supposed to really try and understand what the people around you say and why.

I am afraid that your way of arguing comes off as rather childish at this point. Kind of like a child with a megaphone, putting his hands to his ears going "lalala" while catching his breath between his tirades.

[total relism]

I just love how "atheism" is given a set of attributes, and the notion that one "has to do x" because of "atheist beliefs"(now that's a contradicting term!).

never said that, in fact my whole argument show atheist being inconsistent with atheism..

TR, if you spent as much time taking in what people answer you, as you do surfing christian webpages, I think you would reach much further mentally.


You seem to repeat your own line of thinking no matter what arguments you are met by, that is what I meant when I wrote that I see no chance for progress here.

There are two sides of a debate. You are supposed to make your case, you do a great job at that BTW mate. However, you are also supposed to really try and understand what the people around you say and why.

I am afraid that your way of arguing comes off as rather childish at this point. Kind of like a child with a megaphone, putting his hands to his ears going "lalala" while catching his breath between his tirades.

I love first part, as it fits you great, stop using atheist websites that lie to you. Read my op that you still seem not to be able to grasp.


I agree, as me and others have said, you still dont get the argument I am making. So that is why I must try to repeat, as your responses dont answer what I am saying.


I do fully understand what your saying in all things, I dont disagree with what you say. The only point I care to make is my OP argument.

I can see why you would think that, but it is just I care not to argue the points you make, just my original OP.

[HoreTore]

never said that, in fact my whole argument show atheist being inconsistent with atheism..

And that's the funny part, since you can't be "inconsistent with atheism"... Atheism is nothing, you can't be "inconsistent with nothing".