26 Jul 09
Originally posted by divegeesterI believe that it is you who is deluded. I do not believe that Jesus ever claimed to be god or that he would return. I do not believe Jesus ever said half the things attributed to him in the bible. I believe that most of the Jesus mythology was invented after his death.
Sorry to butt in. (This post is about logic of your challenge btw, not about Christianity.)
According to you Jesus was a socialist yes? Well also according to you, Jesus was either deluded or a liar (i.e. claiming to be God and claiming he would return etc). Does the rational hold then that all socialists are either deluded or liars?
Of course ...[text shortened]... ot necessarily do so. Your argument about the Nazis being Christians is childlike I'm afraid.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I do not believe the bible is an accurate rendition of Jesus' teachings, I do not believe that there are ANY true Christians. Or there are very few at least.
Lol, its cannot be so easily parried my friend with reference to such tools of rhetoric, the facts remain and it can easily be established, that they were not following the teachings of the Christ, easily. therefore they cannot be Christian. They are something else.
26 Jul 09
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettOnly an idiot would draw such an inference.
The good doctor's mistake is that by singling out Islam he seems to imply that other religions are not foul, or that Islam is the foulest of religions.
This argument is clearly a non-sequitur:
X has property P.
Hence, for all Y not X, Y does not have property P.
As is this one:
X has property P.
Hence, for all Y not X, Y must have P to a lesser degree.
For example, if I were to claim "RWillis is a weak atheist," nobody would accuse me of implying that you are the only weak atheist, or that you are the weakest of all atheists. Why should it be any different when I claim "Islam is foul?" If there is a mistake to attribute, it is not to me but rather to the fools who draw a fallacious inference from my claim.
Moreover, anybody who actually pays attention to this forum knows that I give all religions their fair share of criticism. Perhaps I need to start another topic on the latest child molesting priest as a reminder. Believe me, if Vatican City ever institutes a law that says women cannot leave their homes without a chaperone or mingle with unrelated men, you'll hear about it from me first.
26 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettyes, that is fine my friend, however, its practically all we have, would you not therefore say, that on its basis, at present, that these persons who perpetrated the Nazi holocaust were in no way following the teachings of the Christ as they are presented in the Bible?
As I do not believe the bible is an accurate rendition of Jesus' teachings, I do not believe that there are ANY true Christians. Or there are very few at least.
i for one hold the view that the whole Nazi regime, functioned on the principles found, not in religion, but on the evolutionary hypothesis with its emphasis on the strong overcoming the weaker elements and its insistence of a pure genetic pool. Thus Hitler was convinced, that the Germans would be able to overcome 'the weaker', Slavonic 'races', and their determination to rid the world of the Jewish Semites was in order to keep the gene pool free of what they held to be contamination.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou will note, good doctor, that I said, "by singling out Islam he seems to imply that other religions are not foul." The fact that nearly everyone has taken your statement to be thus demonstrates my point. Your post was clearly open to that interpretation whether it was warranted or not.
Only an idiot would draw such an inference.
This argument is clearly a non-sequitur:
X has property P.
Hence, for all Y not X, Y does not have property P.
As is this one:
X has property P.
Hence, for all Y not X, Y must have P to a lesser degree.
For example, if I were to claim "RWillis is a weak athei ...[text shortened]... homes without a chaperone or mingle with unrelated men, you'll hear about it from me first.
By the way, when did you convert to Christianity? I seem to have missed that.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Jews being portrayed as "Christ killers" was a large part of Nazi propaganda. As for the Nazis not following the teachings of Christ, I would say that virtually no Christians have done so. Regardless of what you interpret his teachings to be. So I have no interest in playing the "No True Scotsman" game and deciphering who is a true Christian and who isn't. If someone claims to be a Christian, then I will take them at their word.
yes, that is fine my friend, however, its practically all we have, would you not therefore say, that on its basis, at present, that these persons who perpetrated the Nazi holocaust were in no way following the teachings of the Christ as they are presented in the Bible?
i for one hold the view that the whole Nazi regime, functioned on the princip ...[text shortened]... ewish Semites was in order to keep the gene pool free of what they held to be contamination.
26 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettyes but what is your assessment of the role of the evolutionary hypothesis in the Nazi era? are we to think that the Jews were killed on the basis that they were 'Christ killers'? i think not my friend, for others too were killed, not on the basis of religion, but on the basis of racial characteristics, thus the predominating feature of the whole Nazi era, was more or less, applied biology.
The Jews being portrayed as "Christ killers" was a large part of Nazi propaganda. As for the Nazis not following the teachings of Christ, I would say that virtually no Christians have done so. Regardless of what you interpret his teachings to be. So I have no interest in playing the "No True Scotsman" game and deciphering who is a true Christian and who isn't. If someone claims to be a Christian, then I will take them at their word.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
yes but what is your assessment of the role of the evolutionary hypothesis in the Nazi era? are we to think that the Jews were killed on the basis that they were 'Christ killers'? i think not my friend, for others too were killed, not on the basis of religion, but on the basis of racial characteristics, thus the predominating feature of the whole Nazi era, was more or less, applied biology.
I will direct you to the site above which showcases a plethora of artifacts demonstrating the deep connection between Nazism and Christianity. Other than that I have no interest in rehashing yet again the same old argument of whether Christ or Darwin is more responsible for the Holocaust.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettNo Nazism kills so they can have one race, Christianity is actually about morality.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
I will direct you to the site above which showcases a plethora of artifacts demonstrating the deep connection between Nazism and Christianity. Other than that I have no interest in rehashing yet again the same old argument of whether Christ or Darwin is more responsible for the Holocaust.
26 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettit is an incredibly interesting topic, at least from a symbolic point of view, and your displeasure to debate the topic ( i myself am unaware of the arguments for no one has discussed them at any great length with me), but it appears to me, that there are not only Christian, or rather, so called Christian symbols (for they are in effect essentially pagan), but a whole host of non Christian symbolism, the swastika itself being predominately one, a Hindu symbol if i am not mistaken, stolen by the Nazis to signify Arianism, the runic symbolism used by the SS and their divisions are also pre Christian.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
I will direct you to the site above which showcases a plethora of artifacts demonstrating the deep connection between Nazism and Christianity. Other than that I have no interest in rehashing yet again the same old argument of whether Christ or Darwin is more responsible for the Holocaust.
I am surprised at the narrow view taken by the website that you mention perhaps its a reflection of its true objectives (for while it states at the outset that it is impartial, it singling out of 'Christianity', is self evident and rather incriminating) and it is a great pity that we cannot discuss this subject further, for having just finished my epic book, Stalingrad, it is a subject close to my heart at present.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat the guy who killed like millions of people?
it is an incredibly interesting topic, at least from a symbolic point of view, and your displeasure to debate the topic ( i myself am unaware of the arguments for no one has discussed them at any great length with me), but it appears to me, that there are not only Christian, or rather, so called Christian symbols (for they are in effect essentially p ...[text shortened]... r having just finished my epic book, Stalingrad, it is a subject close to my heart at present.