MY EARS! I'm going to hell because of you, she devil! GAH! I practiced celibacy and was home schooled to avoid any auditory temptations but now I'm ruined. Raped. Ear RAPED. Fucked in the ears.

And now I have no choice but to become the beast I always feared. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK ME JESUS

Souls! Feed me souls! BLlaefoiugrbsrgbsgrubs -- and now I transform into my final form to destroy the sanctity of life and shatter the world. Laying siege to all holy lands! Nothing is sacred, all life is to be extinguished, and suffering will be endless. ENDLESS!!!!!

Millions, billions, trillions, untold time passes; dimensions crossed, the very meaning of ALL unraveled and laid forth, meaningless. Meaningless! All conflict, all freedoms, all philosophy is now folly; unnecessary as a multiuniversal nihilism cascades across the boundaries of consciousness. The godheads destroyed, their corpses rotting the core beyond ALL.

Blackness.

Void.

Nirvana crumbles and the enlightened turned against the balance. Yahweh screams in horror, corrupted and turned into a tentacle demon to rape its devoted followers. Ra's phallus goes limp. Baal is ground into an all beef hamburger patty. Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya and Ganesha warp into a single form, becoming the Eye of Saron. The reptilians of earth devolve into alligators, and the greys become monkeys.

There is no shelter because there is only horror. For all eternity, in all realities.

Sorry, that's just my interpretation of the reporter's reaction.

Stalin and Mao? Please don't pull out that old chestnut. Claiming to be an atheist does not make you one. Stalin and Mao were the godheads of their own cults of personality with followers(read worshipers ) no different than the fanatical followers of many religions. Are they really so different from Jim Jones or David Koresh?

In 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius' teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father."

Mormons reject the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus Christ was the first born of the Father in spirit and the only begotten in the flesh. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one Godhead while remaining 3 distinct beings. The Father and the Son have glorified physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost has only a body of spirit.

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

Facts about the doctrine of the Trinity:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus

In Matthew 3:16-17 of the KJV of the New Testament we read an account that includes all 3 members of the Godhead:

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mormons assert that Jesus was not speaking to himself about being pleased with himself, but rather that God the Father was pleased in His son Jesus for being baptized while the Spirit of God descended upon Him (Jesus). This statement also implies that it (The Holy Spirit) was not there beforehand.

John 17:20-21 “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”

Mormons believe that it is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead.


See also:

John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Matt 17:1-5 “...after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

“And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

“And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

“Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

John 1:1-2, 14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Matt. 12:31-32 “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man (another name for Jesus Christ), it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

Using your example, how can you have a father and a son be the same human? They can both be human, but they can not be the same human. The only way that could be possible, if is the two humans were identical twins. Your example seems flawed, you should come up with a better one to explain it.

How do you know they are both equally god? How do you measure a god? How do three individuals make up a god? How does that work? What are the odds that this has happened elsewhere in the world? If it only takes a father, son and holy spirit to make god, how many gods are out there?

>> ^shinyblurry:

As you can see, Christianity has its own definition. It is referring to, essentially, that everyone in the Godhead shares the same nature or essence, but that they have their own individual personalities. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father but they are both equally God in nature. Not separate Gods, but one God made of three persons. Just like a human father and son are both equally human because they both share that human nature.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods
This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.


Here is a dictionary definition of person

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).

As you can see, Christianity has its own definition. It is referring to, essentially, that everyone in the Godhead shares the same nature or essence, but that they have their own individual personalities. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father but they are both equally God in nature. Not separate Gods, but one God made of three persons. Just like a human father and son are both equally human because they both share that human nature.

Hey Adam,

Thank you for sharing your background with me, and for your kind-hearted attitude. I haven't taken any offense to what you've said. I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

I'll relate some of my background to you first of all. I grew up in a secular home, and there wasn't any talk of religion in my household, for or against. There was a bible in my house, and although I attempted to read it as a child, I didn't get past the "begats" in Genesis. I thought that perhaps that was the entire rest of the book. I grew up knowing nothing much about religion, and so I was agnostic by default.

It wasn't until a bit later in life that I received revelation that there is a God. At the time, I had started to ponder what the truth actually was. I started to search for it, because I felt that the love was slowly draining out of this world, that things were going really wrong, and it got to the point where I felt personally convicted to stand up and do something. What, I had no idea, but more than anything else, I wanted to know the real truth.

It was very shortly after this that I received revelation from God of His existence. Although I wasn't precisely looking for God at the time, I believe that He gave me this revelation because I was searching for the truth. God showed me that He was there, and that He is personally interested and involved in my life, and that He loved me. Needless to say, this was utterly shocking, and as naturalistic materialist, my mind was blown. I found out in a moments time that all that I knew was in some way, wrong. There was no room in my worldview for a Spirit, but God shattered that mold.

He didn't come out and say who He was, though. Instead, He had me investigate all of the various religions, belief systems, philosophies etc that I could..everything from Asatru to Zen Buddhism, and while I was doing this He gave me clues about Himself along the way. What I ended up believing was that none of the worlds religions were correct. I essentially believed that while they all might contain some element of thetruth about God, they were imperfect representations of who He is. I definitely did not believe that Christianity could be the one true faith. I had that picked out from the beginning as something I profoundly disagreed with.

Which is why it was the last religion I investigated. The actual truth was that I didn't know very much about it. I had, like many atheists do, a lot of things picked out of the bible which made me believe I could just dismiss it outright. It turned out though when I actually really read the bible that the understanding I thought I had was incredibly superficial (and self-deceiving). I had tried to read it before, but there was always veil there that prevented me from really understanding it. This time though that veil was taken away and everything became alive to me. The reason for this was that what I was reading was corresponding to those clues that God had given me about Himself that I had mentioned earlier. God had reinforced certain ideas and principles about Himself to me, which didn't really make any sense at the time (and indeed drove me crazy trying to figure out what He meant), but suddenly the meaning was unlocked and made crystal clear through what I was reading in scripture.

Because of that, I started to develop a simple faith in what I was reading. On that basis I put some faith in the bible as being at least potentially accurate, and I decided to give my life to Jesus Christ. That's when God showed me that is who He is. When I gave my heart over to Him, He supernaturally transformed me, and He gave me a new life free of anxiety, addiction and depression. He exchanged those things for peace and love and joy. Where there was darkness before, He had brought light.

So, that's my testimony. When you ask why didn't God reveal Himself to you at that time, a few things come to mind. The first is that everything is done in His timing. God has a plan, much bigger than our plans, and I believe that there were many things God wanted to show me before He brought me to Christianity. He wanted me to experience what I did so that when I became a Christian, I would be more effective in communicating with others who are seekers like I was. So that I would be able to relate to them better than someone who grew up in the faith could have. It could be the same for you, that God has had many things to teach you, to give a certain ministry to others, and for your own understanding.

Second, although you are a non-believer, you seem to have a genuine desire to know the truth, and to know, if there is a God, who He is, and what He wants from you. I believe God has placed that desire into your heart so that it would lead you to find Him, as He did in mine. I believe that you're asking me this question for a reason, and that reason is that God is reaching out to you. I would suggest to you that you pray to God and invite Him into your life, and ask Him to forgive your sins. Part of the Lords prayer is "Your will be done, your Kingdom come". Tell God, if this is so, that you're willing to surrender your will for His will in your life. I have prayed that God would hear your prayer and lead you to Him. I also recommend that you read the Gospel of John.

You're right, that from your perspective there may be no reason why you should believe one religion is any better than the other. I shared that view for all of the years I was searching. I can give you a lot of good reasons why Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, but only God can change your heart.

What God doesn't expect is that you are going to figure Him out. Only He could reveal the truth to you. What He does do is give you opportunities in life to get closer to Him. They could be, for instance, situations that test your moral fabric. "What does he do when no one else is looking?" "How does he treat people when he has nothing to gain?". It's how you live your life that is proof of what is in your heart, and that is what God is interested in. I think that is what determines how close to Him you will get. What scripture guarantees though, is that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. That you would have the desire to do that is a gift from above.

In regards to your forest question, God speaks to us in many different ways. A person doesn't need language to understand that there is a higher power. In Romans 1:18-21 it speaks to the fact that God gives a general revelation through His creation of His power and Godhead. How could this man learn about who God is? Well, no one is unreachable on this planet. God could lead him out, or lead someone in. He could give the man dreams and visions.

So I hope that is a satisfactory answer. I couldn't tell you precisely why God hasn't reached out to you before, but what I feel is that He is reaching out to you now. The question is, will you answer His call?

God bless you,

Joshua

>> ^PalmliX

I appreciate the entire post, however i understand what faith is entirely. I am unable to make that choice. I merely wanted to assure you that there is no faith in not accepting god. Faith is something you need to believe something you can't prove, and i will elaborate on proof below;

I accept that proof to you is a feeling, or your emotional response to what you percieve as god; whether god exists or not, i know that you have no doubts. But you must accept that to anyone else, your proof is equivalent to someone proving 2+2=10 based on their feeling or emotional response to what they percieve as REAL maths.

Faith isn't based on feelings. Some people may serve God because it makes them feel good, but they are the people who fall away in times of trouble. I serve God because He is God, and He has let me know that in an undeniable way. Believe me, God can give you revelation to the extent that you would say "Lord, it is enough".

As i'm sure you're aware, there are many "gods" (many religions) and many people who would say to you "i hope allah touches you one day and you realise the truth" and you reply to them "no no my friend, it is you who needs to be touched and shown the truth; i pray for you". The real crux of the problem is that both of you use exactly the same arguments to justify the existence of different things, and anyone can use the same arguments to justify the existence of anything.

Do you know why there are similarities between Christianity and Islam? Most people don't seem to know this but Islam is exactly the same as Mormonism. There is no difference between Muhammed and Joseph Smith. The only difference is, one came 600 years after Christianity and the other 1800 years. They are both men who spoke with angels and received "new" revelation, which totally contradicts everything in the bible, then wrote new books and claimed it was authoratative over the Old and New Testaments. They're both counterfeit, cultist religions based on Christianity. This is what the bible says about receiving new revelations from angels:

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light

So, when it comes down to it, it is all revolving around the central claim of Christianity, which is that Jesus is God.

Anything at all may be proven true if you accept someone else's "i feel it/i know it" argument, and when presented with this, i must reject it because it can make anything and everything true at once - it can prove that my hair is really green and so i can't trust the evidence of my own eyes. If i can't trust any of my senses, how can i also trust my senses telling me god is real?

It isn't a matter of convincing yourself of anything, it is matter of God giving you revelation that He exists. He gives this revelation to those who dilligently seek Him. Neither is empiricism the measure of reality because there are many things that empiricism cannot prove.

The alternative is to build a logical set of steps and rules (like maths, physics) of undeniable truth; if i have one of something, and one more of that something, i have two of that something. Using this concept i can follow logically to the scientific conclusion; i love truth, and as you can see it requires no faith for me to follow. If the most diverse creature in the universe appeared next to me right now, he would be ONE of those diverse creatures, and even in his language and reference frame he would know that he is ONE, and another of him would make TWO; there is absolutely no faith in this as i'm sure you'll agree. Even god says there is only ONE god. There cannot be TWO or more. Even "god" accepts maths to be universally true. The bible's pages are numbered. The animals went in TWO by TWO. There is no faith involved.

There are things that even science must assume is true, such as the uniformity in nature. Science can't be done without that fundemental assumption. The same goes for the laws of logic. Where do they come from? Where do you get absolute laws from in this ever changing material reality? Where Why is nature uniform? If you are interested in logic you should investigate these questions.

But we could back and forth on this all day. We both know these things to be true, and we both agree on them. But you will say that "when you know, you know". And that is fine by me, i accept that as something that might happen, as we've said before, but i can't let a falsehood be told without challenging it (to my detriment)

What I am saying is that isn't a matter of just knowing, it is a matter of revelation. There are two ways to know something about God. To either be omnipotent yourself, or receive revelation from an omnipotent being. God gives a general revelation in the Creation of His eternal power and Godhead, so that everyone is facing the evidence that God exists, and He also gives a special revelation of His Son Jesus Christ. This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

>> ^dannym3141:

So you are saying Hitler contradicts himself constantly in his own book (if that's where your quotes came from, since most of them only site page numbers and not the source) much like the Bible? Sorry not buying it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler on propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)


>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)


21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)





>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

Do you have an "Even Dawkins admitted" macro button?

Dawkins isn't even a historian. Why should anyone care about his opinion on this? Dawkins is a pretty prominent atheist, so I can understand why you'd make that mistake, but atheists don't receive beliefs from a single infallible godhead figure. Until seeing the David Fitzgerald video @hpqp just referenced, I assumed Jesus was a real guy too. But it's OK, because as I'm a linguist, not a historian, nobody was quoting me on that.

As you your second bit, I don't know if anybody with historical chops had questioned the existence of the man named Jesus of Nazareth, and it was generally accepted that he did exist and that he was a well attested figure. Now someone is casting doubt on that with evidence, and smart people will at least consider this new possibility before deciding either way.>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".

If you don't believe in original sin, you don't believe in redemptive history. You have to explain the purpose of the law and how it came to be, as well as how Jesus fufilled that law and what the purpose was of His death on the cross. It's a little bit more complicated than you're making out. You can't just cut out the OT and pretend that it still makes sense. Jesus told us in plain words why He was there and what He was doing and for what reasons. He fulfilled prophecy from the OT which predicted His coming, and He spoke about the OT as literal history. To contridict any of that makes it logically incoherent. To say Genesis is a conspiracy is grandiose claim as well. What evidence do you have this is true?

>> ^enoch:
original sin is a fabrication of the church to establish control and dominance but has never really been able to prove this position.though there are many fundamentalists who will defend this position, it still will not hold water when put under proper scrutiny.
for many evangelicals to refute the original sin story is to also refute jesus.
this is untrue,but to attempt to explain that to someone who views the bible as the literal word of god would be an exercise in futility.
they will defend the position of original sin staunchly and vigorously.
to do otherwise would be to reject jesus in their mind.
most theologians agree that original sin put forth by the church is a fallacious argument.
my position is that the book of genesis is the metaphorical representation of kabballah and has nothing to be understood in literal terms but rather an abstract of creation,the godhead and correlation between this physical universe with the "nether".

original sin is a fabrication of the church to establish control and dominance but has never really been able to prove this position.though there are many fundamentalists who will defend this position, it still will not hold water when put under proper scrutiny.
for many evangelicals to refute the original sin story is to also refute jesus.
this is untrue,but to attempt to explain that to someone who views the bible as the literal word of god would be an exercise in futility.
they will defend the position of original sin staunchly and vigorously.
to do otherwise would be to reject jesus in their mind.

most theologians agree that original sin put forth by the church is a fallacious argument.
my position is that the book of genesis is the metaphorical representation of kabballah and has nothing to be understood in literal terms but rather an abstract of creation,the godhead and correlation between this physical universe with the "nether".

Dangerous Minds = Godhead

Your argument doesn't undermine my statement. Yes, God-Kings and such ruled by divine right, and for much of history this worked, to the point even the Devil-Kings got sh!t done. Yet unlike the Statist oppressors of recent history, the God-King could not easily change traditions like s/he did mere laws.

These "atheist" countries of late are an historical eyeblink, typically small with homogeneous populations and cultural values forged by religion. When they forget their god(s) completely they'll be ripe for conquest.

It doesn't matter whether you or I support or condemn religion, that's how it's always been.


>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
This is how it's been my friend.
Don't bother mentioning those cases in history where Emperors/Kings were godheads by divine right and worshiped as the human embodiments of God on Earth, because that would like, totally undermine your argument and stuff.
"Remove Zeus---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it." - Quantomos Mushromolis, 400 BC