Originally posted by daniel58So if we take Satan out of the equation, then god is far and away the largest mass murderer in history. Interesting. But if god killed all those people to prevent more evil then why is there still evil? It doesn't seem to have done much good. Is god incompetent?
Like I said, satan hasn't killed anybody so it doesn't count, Stalin killed people because he was evil, God killed people to prevent more evil.
Originally posted by rwingettNo it prevented it for a certain amount of time, which was good, but saying that God kills people doesn't really make sense because people can only die if He lets them.
So if we take Satan out of the equation, then god is far and away the largest mass murderer in history. Interesting. But if god killed all those people to prevent more evil then why is there still evil? It doesn't seem to have done much good. Is god incompetent?
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWhat about comments made by Hitler about Islam?
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.
"For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperment. Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan empire"
Or how about this quote?
"You see, its been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
Or how about Hitlers association with the Grand Mufti of Jersualem who was Amin al Husseini. He plotted with the Nazis to fight the Jews in the Holy Land and else where and eventually went to Europe in exhile with the Nazis. He participated in war crimes but escaped the trials that brought the other war criminals to justice. His nephew was Yassar Arafat and the rest is history.
In short, Hitler had the option of trying to morph the Christian religion into his own or fight it directly. It appear he chose to try and morph it for his own uses. Of course, we both agree that he was no follower of the teachings of Christ, however, according to you no one else is either. However, when you see those who do, such as mother Theresa to mention a few, your arguments pretty much turn to poo don't they?
Originally posted by whodeyI have no interest in Hitler's opinion of Christianity. Or of anything else, for that matter. The fact remains that most Nazis were members of traditional Christian sects. Does that mean Christianity is worse than other religions? Again, no, it doesn't. It just means that Christianity has the same exact propensity for evil as any other religion.
What about comments made by Hitler about Islam?
"For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperment. Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long ...[text shortened]... uch as mother Theresa to mention a few, your arguments pretty much turn to poo don't they?
I never said that there have been no Christians who have done good in the world. Obviously there have been. But as I think that modern Christianity bears little resemblance to what Jesus actually taught, I don't think they are necessarily following his teachings. They may be following some of what he said and some of what he did not say. As it is probably impossible to fully reconstruct exactly what he did say, there is little basis for saying someone is a 'real' Christian, while someone else is not.