Dr. Brown offers seven principles to help you keep your spiritual focus and your faith strong while living in the midst of moral chaos and then responds to an opinion piece against the marriage amendment written by a Baptist pastor in Lexington, NC.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Whatever situation you are facing, and no matter how Hellish things are that surround you, Jesus is Lord! Our God continues to rule and reign, and He will bring light out of darkness, order out of chaos, and triumph out of defeat! Focus on Him and things will turn!
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is a call on the people of North Carolina to stand up and do what is right. There is a call for us to say we will do what is right regardless of cost, consequence, or backlash because we love people and we love God; therefore we will stand strong for righteousness in North Carolina and send a message to the Nation!
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
How to Be Led by The Spirit
Deepening Our Prayer Lives
Foundations of Prayer [mp3 CD]
Foundations of Intercession [mp3 CD]
Giants of the Faith [mp3 CD] with Dr. Brown: Experience the ministry and message of men and women of God who shook their world! Charles Finney, George Whitfield, John (Praying) Hyde, Smith Wigglesworth, John G. Lake, Maria Woodworth-Etter, John Alexander Dowie, and Adoniram Judson.
Matt and Bo,
The methodological naturalism of scientific work and knowledge does not mean that scientific work and knowledge are atheistic. Let me demonstrate this point. Do you consider God in deciding where to park your car in a parking lot or where to sit in a theater? If not do you reject God because you did not consider Him in your decisions? I think not. Scientific work and knowledge are properly silent about God because they do not consider Him. Science cannot logically conclude that God does or does not exist because science does not consider God in their work. Claims that evolution is atheistic or that science denies God are based on faulty logic or assume a particular philosophical view, or both. As you or Bo pointed out there are scientists who believe in a God and even some who claim to be Christians. However when these Christians study the natural world they do not consider God in their work in much the same way they didn’t consider God when they parked their car when they got to work.
Bo,
Well if all of your arguments against modern science are so good then you should be picking up a Nobel Prize for science and get very rich and famous real soon. Yet somehow I just don’t think that is going to happen. Like I said, take all of your ridiculous claims about evolution down to the Christian college or university of your choice and demand that they stop teaching evolution and replace it all with a story about a magic wizard creating the universe and life on earth. You won’t do that and we both know why now don’t we? You don’t want those Christian scientists to laugh in your face. You already know the rest of the world is laughing at you.
Boris,
You are the one that is afraid of mere people, scientists or oterwise, laughing in your face. You fear the man. Peer pressure has great effect upon you.
I fear YHWH. I have confronted scientists to their faces in regard to accepting evolution and other faulty ideas that are against scripture. I really am not known for mincing words on this website or most anywhere else. I am not looking for respect from proponents of higher education, whether that would be religious, historic, scientific higher education. As can be seen by my writing skills, I am probably not too intimidated by English professors either.
As for the rest of the world laughing at me…there are plenty of other things that I take strong stands on that most of the Christian world are opposed to me on. I would also bet that there is a solid 50% that would agree with me that the universe was created by a supernatural being. Maybe more.
It is too bad that you cannot see through the futile circular reasoning that is the foundation of evolutionary science. I notice that you do not refute my critique of the molecular clock, nor do you show any scientific evidence of one type of animal evolving into another. Nor do you do much more than produce rhetoric and ridicule and remind us that Christian colleges teach evolution. You have produced precious little true refutation, if any.
And you are quite right in recognizing, in your post above, that it does not take a materialistic, evolutionary, atheistic mindset to do good science. Science was invented mostly by people that believed in a Creator.
Shalom
Bo blurted: “You are the one that is afraid of mere people, scientists or oterwise, laughing in your face. You fear the man. Peer pressure has great effect upon you.”
I’d ask if you’re kidding but I know you really believe that. Only 10 to 20 percent of Americans claim to be atheists. We atheists live among the lost who keep trying to force their absurd beliefs on us anyway they can. But we don’t knuckle under to peer pressure the way the lost do.
Jesus said that the meek will be blessed and will inherit the earth. He told those who said that they see, that they were blind, for they were yet in their sins and were walking in darkness. (Matt 5:5, John 9:41)
We know that these things are true, the evidence being all around us.
Jesus is the only life for us that will endure forever in the presence of Almighty God the maker of us all. Jesus is the only one who remained faithful at all times and in all things to the image of God which was his calling and purpose.
Every knee shall bow to him. The weight of sin and the greatness of his glory will overwhelm
everyone who is not right with him. They will buckle. They will fall. Though they boast, their boasting will be short lived. If they will be saved, they will be ashamed of it. They will be made whole in the light of his countenance.
Boris, the point is that many evolutionists, particularly those most vocal, are in fact professing athiests who state that they will not allow the evidence to lead to a particular conclusion. The predilection has lead to spurious conclusions and distortion of the scientific data.
Truly science will never “prove” God created the universe and life within it; however if God did indeed do so, then the discoveries of science will only point to that fact. In fact even the eminent (if unaccomplished) Richard Dawkins exlaimed that life gives the impression of having been designed by intelligent agent(s).
His current theory is that space aliens planted life here on earth. I suppose that could be true but there is absolutely no evidence support that hypothesis. Indeed, it may not even qualify as a hypothesis, as it cannot be falsified.
I understand that scientific research and even scientific philosophy is about getting to the bottom of “what” and “how”. And I’m totally excited about that (I am both a scientist and an engineer by training and by trade). Science, like any other form of knowing, is inherently good.
So what I have pointed out is just that- science cannot disprove God, yet many advocates of evolutionary explainations for the origin of life claim just that. And they openly ridicule reasonable and substantial challenges to their theories.
In both the past and the present times, theists and Christians have given sizeable and notable contributions to science for the betterment of life in our present age. To claim otherwise or to shut out these scientists or FUTURE SCIENTISTS because they believe in God, and have reservations or outright disagreements with evolutionary theories extant, is tragic.
Oh, and in fact there is not uniform or even broad support for the idea that first life forms used RNA for information encoding and transfer (sans DNA). It seems only to be a line of reasoning and labratory experimentation, untenable as an origin of life theory. Experiments with RNA and self-replicating molecules may lead to useful new discoveries.
Most who know these processes in detail realize that RNA is delicate unstable, therefore not viable except under carefully controlled conditions, which did not exist prior to living beings themselves being formed.
One more thing- I do (or should) consult with God about even seemingly mundane questions like parkig the car. After all I am the Lord’s bondslave, and He the good master. It’s a priveledge to be in contiuous communion with Him who loves me most. And I miss out if I seek to go my own way even in smaller decisions, though this is a process of sanctification (being set apart for His purpose).
This will likely mystify anyone who does not have this experience with the Lord.
God brought the animals to Adam, so see what he would name them. There is interaction and freedom, if there is communion.
So when I am undertaking a new design or development process, I certainly ask for guidance, wisdon, and most of all humility to see where I am going wrong, and that I might learn fro others. To God be the Glory.
Boris,
Are you confessing that you are afraid of 10 to 20 percent of the population? And that you do dare not get on the wrong side of those that you are trying to impress? That you have to be in the educational elite’s status quo? That you do dare not think outside of higher educations “godless” box?
The problem is that they have a god. And he is very small. And they worship him every day. All day long. SELF. He is a very important god in this 10 to 20 percent of the population. Everybody has a different name that they call him, but he is quite persistent that he be worshiped. And his followers bow at his every whim. They cannot see outside of his narrow brainwashing. You might want to throw away your mirrors. I think that they have blinded you.
I can just see you with your elitist “friends”, when you get together, laughing at all of us ignorant non-atheists. All the while your colleagues are forging data about climate change and rewriting history to suit their elitist agendas and proclaiming supposed transitional forms. Deceiving themselves and others that are afraid to think outside of new “norm.” Hmm…that just might be the real name of the the Atheist’s god. Norm. They do not want to offend “Norm”, whatever they think that he is or whatever they think that the “Norm” is thinking at the current time.
Well I am not normal, or a “Normist”. I do not worship “Norm”. And I am very happy about that. Let the world that serves “Norm” laugh in my face. As for me and my house, that has over 9 times more children in it than “Norm’s”, we will serve YHWH.
Shalom
“Boris, the point is that many evolutionists, particularly those most vocal, are in fact professing athiests who state that they will not allow the evidence to lead to a particular conclusion. The predilection has lead to spurious conclusions and distortion of the scientific data.”
That is truly hilarious. What evidence is there that the Christian God actually exists? FYI arguments are NOT evidence. So let’s see this evidence scientists may be ignoring.
Refer you back to Richard Lewontin quote.
No other world view but materialism allowed. The evidence therefore is not allowed to speak for itself, were it to indicate an intelligent creator.
Stifling.
Boris, the word of G-d is clear, Unless the holy spirit reveals to you that Jesus Christ is Lord and G_d..all the proof in the world would not help you beleive..
*believe
I know that God exists, in small part, because a great many athiests are working so hard to cover up His fingerprints.
We would know nothing of God unless He revealed Himself to us. And part of this revelation is His very creation. You exist, and that is evidence that God exists.
Matt B
Refer you back to Richard Lewontin quote.
No other world view but materialism allowed. The evidence therefore is not allowed to speak for itself, were it to indicate an intelligent creator.
Stifling.
Refer you to the truth of the matter:
Response: No other worldview but Christianity allowed. The evidence therefore is not allowed to speak for itself, were it to indicate naturalistic explanations.
Stifling.
Ken
Boris, the word of G-d is clear, Unless the holy spirit reveals to you that Jesus Christ is Lord and G_d..all the proof in the world would not help you beleive..
Response: In other words because I do not believe in hell I cannot be frightened into believing the Bible is the Word of God the way you were. Got it.
Matt B
I know that God exists, in small part, because a great many athiests are working so hard to cover up His fingerprints.
We would know nothing of God unless He revealed Himself to us. And part of this revelation is His very creation. You exist, and that is evidence that God exists.
I know that the universe and life have naturalistic explanations, in small part, because a great many theists are working so hard to cover up the evidence. We know nothing of God because he has not revealed himself to us. There is no evidence of God in the universe. You exist, and that is evidence that man created God.
So Boris, we part ways, for now.
Boris, No was never frightened into believing
I believe because, The Holy spirit revealed to me and all who believe that Jesus Christ was and is the one and only true living G_d!
unless the Holy Spirit reveals that truth to you
you will not and can not know him..
what good is proof to a blind man who can not see it and a deaf man who can not hear it.
Peace,Love and Joy to you!
Ken,
You believe because OTHER PEOPLE convinced you that hell exists and that you cannot trust yourself to make rational decisions. Once they did that they hooked a fish, a mental slave and you were then willing to believe whatever it took to avoid the flames of hell. Your fear of hell is two-fold. Your greatest fear now that you’ve been indoctrinated into the religion of Christianity is that hell doesn’t exist. If hell does not exist then all the unbelievers will live their lives in so-called debauchery and self-indulgence rejecting your religious claims and they will not be judged or punished for their unbelief in your God. And conversely you will have lived your miserable life in intellectual servitude and self-denial and you will not be rewarded for subjecting yourself to these things at all. I’ve studied religious fundamentalism and I know all of your dirty little secrets. The truth is that religions like Christianity survive by making non-disprovable claims and frightening people into accepting them. The way to counter non-disprovable claims is with non-disprovable claims like this one: People who make non-disprovable claims are lying. See what I mean? You can’t disprove that claim either. Your fear of the existence of hell was unfounded but your fear that hell does not exist is justified.
Boris your so wrong! about me, about Christ, about most things you post!..I serve Jesus the Christ out of LOVE for HIM. the sad thing is your missing out on the greatest LOVE you can ever experience..because of your unbelief SAD! SAD! SAD!
Peace, love and joy to you.
“If hell does not exist then all the unbelievers will live their lives in so-called debauchery and self-indulgence rejecting your religious claims and they will not be judged or punished for their unbelief in your God. And conversely you will have lived your miserable life in intellectual servitude and self-denial and you will not be rewarded for subjecting yourself to these things at all. ”
In this Boris is quite right, as Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians 15 vs 19.
However, we believe and join in the witness of the last two thousand years that Christ is raised from the dead. Therefore our service to the giver of Life is offered because we are glad to no longer be slaves of sin, made free, not slaves to that which would control and destroy us.
So it is for love of God, returned in kind for the greater Love and Mercy He has given us, that we labor and submit to His Lordship.
Now we began and could continue a long discussion on whether Christ Jesus has been raised from the dead, and if He even existed at all as recorded in the Bible. Weight of testimony:
1. The beginning and continuance of the Church.
2. Miracles recorded throughout history and in recent days- many undeniable accounts that have been verified. The recent book from Craig Keener on miracles:
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525
3. Changed lives- people who have been delivered from addictions, from murderous anger, from destructive sin; marriages reborn, families re-united, criminals reformed (Chuck Colson a wonderful example of Christ’s power).
4. The consistency of the old and new testaments in the Bible, presenting God’s creation, man’s fall, and God’s redemptive work in Love and mercy, by His grace. The works are themselves a wonderful testament to the truth, by the nature of their message over many centuries of being written.
Other points could be made; witness of creation, the operation of living organisms, the greatly to be preferred result when society is based on Christian truth and principles. We’ve hit on all these things in the threads posted here. These matters are not trivial could be refuted at length; in the right context I for one am willing because I don’t fear the truth (though I cannot hope to have all the answers- many books have been written and I for one have only scratched the surface). The point is that we have considered these things and only found deeper truth and experience of God and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
By the way, my life is a LOT less miserable the more I am in servitude (intellectual, physical, and spiritual) to God through Jesus. In fact He fills me with His Holy Spirit, better than the finest wine.
Boris, in your above post I couldn’t help but notice that you say that if hell does not exist, then all the unbelievers will spend their lives in
“so called debauchery and self-indulgence..”.
Looking up the word debauchery in my dictionary, I see that it is defined by terms such as moral corruptness, going astray, even using the term orgies.
My dictionary says nothing about it being a “so called” condition as you suggest.
Most people, if not all people, when in an honest condition of heart and soundness of mind, will agree that there is truly such a thing as that which the word debauchery describes.
I tend to honestly suppose that there are very few words in a common dictionary that use the term “so called” anywhere in their definition.
If a man were to live only by indulging himself in whater he would please himself to do, would that not truly be self-indulgence?
I’m sure you can find more words than you could count in a day in a dictionary that are not defined by using the term “so called”.
How many other words do you suggest should be defined by using the term “so called”?
I trust that hell has a place as well as a purpose of God and for such reasons and more, it really does exist, one of them being that were it not to have an existance, many more people living today, might be living their lives in debauchery, even more than are doing so now, (in part or in whole) for without the fear of God, people in this world would be without wisdom.
Boris, are you saying that orgies are not a form of debauchery? Are you for them or against them and if so, why?
If a man is neither for or against such a thing, then it seems to me that he has little or no moral sense, conscience, or good direction in life, and if a man walks with no good direction, will he not become lost?
What should guide a man other than goodness, virtue, honesty, purity, righteousness, truth, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith, which are in Christ Jesus?
Or are you saying that whatever it is that the Bible may refer to that would seem to suggest debauchery, that such a thing is only “so called” debauchery, but is not the real thing?
How would you then define debauchery?
Would you define it only by whatever terms would be fitting to please yourself? Might that in itself be a form of debauchey?
And if a man has his own rule, should he violate it by his behaviour, should he judge himself by his own rule or not?
Have you ever found a consequence to vioationg what you have believed to be right, good, or true?
Who is it that designed the world to hold such consequences as a man falling should he climb too high upon an unstable step ladder, for example?
Is a man truly better off to have no moral rule?
If a man has no moral rule, will he find higher moral ground? Or does morality have no virtue?
If there is no such thing as morality, would it be right for a man to judge nothing at all?
About the love of God, there is no rule against it is there?
Though there are things in this world that are contrary to love, in heaven they have no place, rule, authority, or power.
And so, to arrive there should be the hope of every just man, because of Jesus.
Now we began and could continue a long discussion on whether Christ Jesus has been raised from the dead, and if He even existed at all as recorded in the Bible. Weight of testimony:
1.The beginning and continuance of the Church.
Response: How does that prove anything? The beginning and continuance of Islam must prove the truth of the Koran then.
2. Miracles recorded throughout history and in recent days- many undeniable accounts that have been verified. The recent book from Craig Keener on miracles:
Response: Miracles? Ah yes, the Judeo-Christian God, easily defeated by chariots of iron, and whose greatest miracle of the modern day is a light show to some people in a field.
What we do have undeniable proof of is the fact that believers will filter their experience to see and/or hear what they need to in order to maintain their worldview. I don’t think the topic of miracles even deserves the attention of skeptics.
3. Changed lives- people who have been delivered from addictions, from murderous anger, from destructive sin; marriages reborn, families re-united, criminals reformed (Chuck Colson a wonderful example of Christ’s power).
Response: People of all religions especially those who convert to them after childhood make the exact same claims about how their religion changed their life for the better. Why should I accept something as evidence for the truth of your religion that you would not accept as evidence from adherents of other religions as proof of the truth of their religion?
4. The consistency of the old and new testaments in the Bible, presenting God’s creation, man’s fall, and God’s redemptive work in Love and mercy, by His grace. The works are themselves a wonderful testament to the truth, by the nature of their message over many centuries of being written.
Response: I already explained much of this perceived consistency between the Old and New Testaments. It’s a willful contrivance. The gospel writers wrote their fables to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them. Any rabbi would tell you all of those prophecies were fulfilled in the Old Testament and had nothing to do with Jesus.
Other points could be made; witness of creation, the operation of living organisms, the The point is that we have considered these things and only found deeper truth and experience of God and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Response: The existence of the universe and the operation of living organisms have satisfactory naturalistic explanations. The claim that, “God did it!” explains absolutely nothing. It’s nothing more than a desperate plea from Bible believers for scientists to stop discovering facts about the universe. That’s because every fact we discover about the universe argues against the supernatural.
What should guide a man other than goodness, virtue, honesty, purity, righteousness, truth, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith, which are in Christ Jesus?
Response: The value of human life itself should guide a person. Whatever harms or protects life is termed good and anything that harms or destroys life should be considered bad. That leads to a much more rational moral system than one based on a bunch of religious dogma and nonsense.
I meant whatever enhances or protects life should be termed good.
Boris,
You wrote:
“The value of human life itself should guide a person. Whatever harms or protects life is termed good and anything that harms or destroys life should be considered bad. ”
So do you think that the killing of life in the womb via abortion is bad?
Why is life the ultimate ideal? How can you back this idea up from an atheistic approach? If there is no absolute authority, why should we accept your version of what is good and bad? Why can we not all decide for ourselves?
Are you trying to assert your materialistic atheistic religious morals upon the rest of us?
Should we make our decisions on how many people will be harmed or killed in the long run or in the immediate? Is the death penalty good if it keeps the convict from killing more people or bad because it harms a life?
Does all animal life count as the same? Should we swat a fly or smash a spider? Wouldn’t be wrong to kill the bacteria that is making us sick? Are you a vegetarian?
Shalom
Bo
So do you think that the killing of life in the womb via abortion is bad?
Response: According to our laws terminating a pregnancy is not killing. Abortion is a medical procedure and there are a few good reasons to get an abortion. And then there seem to be a whole lot of really bad reasons to get an abortion. For example sex selective abortion doesn’t seem like a very good reason to get an abortion does it? So whether a woman’s decision to get an abortion is a moral choice or not depends on the reason she’s getting an abortion.
Why is life the ultimate ideal? How can you back this idea up from an atheistic approach?
Response: Atheists realize they only have one life and so life itself is the ultimate value.
If there is no absolute authority, why should we accept your version of what is good and bad? Why can we not all decide for ourselves?
Response: Everyone does decide for them self what is right and what is wrong. They may use the Bible, Koran or some other guide to justify their personal beliefs but everyone still makes those choices for them self. There is an ultimate authority, the laws and the governments of the societies we live in. There are consequences for violating these laws, which is why most of us obey most of them.
Are you trying to assert your materialistic atheistic religious morals upon the rest of us?
Response: No I was just answering Matt’s question about what I thought should guide a man. I just gave the answer that in reality all of us, religious or not, use as a guide for morality, which is the value of life itself.
Should we make our decisions on how many people will be harmed or killed in the long run or in the immediate?
Response: Human history says we sacrifice the few and the brave in the short term for the good of the rest of us in the long term. Living in the real world means taking chances and making tough choices.
Is the death penalty good if it keeps the convict from killing more people or bad because it harms a life?
Response: I don’t think the death penalty is absolutely necessary to keep convicts from killing more people. However there are cases in which killing is justified such as self-defense or in defense of others.
Does all animal life count as the same? Should we swat a fly or smash a spider?
Response: I specifically said that moral choices are based on the value of human life. But let’s talk about the spider and the fly. Do you think it’s moral for the spider to catch the fly in its web and then kill and eat it? Who came up with that idea may I ask? Don’t avoid this question Bo.
Wouldn’t be wrong to kill the bacteria that is making us sick? Are you a vegetarian?
Response: Why would God “design” bacteria that would make us sick in the first place? I think evolution explains all the different strains of bacteria a lot better than the God hypothesis does. I’m not a vegetarian and that is not a healthy lifestyle. The reason our ancestors evolved differently from the other ape species is because they ate meat. This made their brains evolve differently and is what made humans the dominant species on earth. Notice how the other animals that eat meat are more intelligent and agile than those that don’t.
Boris, most states it is homocide or manslaughter (depends on intent and other particulars) if you kill an unborn child.
Why is that, if the terminating a pregnancy is not killing?
Our laws are terribly inconsistent on this point. Therefore, should willfully causing the death of an unborn child no longer be murder?
All of you need to watch this. According to Hitler, it was “legal” “by law” to kill Jews.
http://180movie.com/
Sheila, Hitler believed in evolution and in existential naturalism (ecology) as the highest ideals. “Lower” forms of human evolutionary chain were responsible for crimes against nature and therefore needed to be removed, to make room for the “higher” forms.
Sick, but not far from what some groups are promoting today. Godless existential belief, supported by evolutionary premise, has many times over lead to extremely horrific acts by those who are in power, in the “know”, and are not resisted.
Some have claimed Hitler was a Christian, which simply does not hold up under even a cursory examination of his own beliefs and writings, much less his actions. He was a naturalist, humanist, racist (as were most evolutionists during that period), following where “new” philosophies allowed him to go. But they really were not new at all.
Saints, let’s hold fast to what is true, and use our time for God’s glory- the days are evil.
Let’s draw more closely to our Savior, and being filled with His Holy Spirit, bear the fruit of the good Vine! Even those who have rejected God, when finding their needs met through love as they are touched by His Body, will turn and look on Him whom they pierced. So let us not grow weary of doing good, and not fear, for the battle is the Lord’s.
Matt,
You have a wreckless disregard for the truth. Adoplh Hitler did NOT accept evolution and neither did Joseph Stalin. Hitler insisted that Christian creationism be taught in the German public schools and this is a matter of record. The German schools did not stop teaching creationism until 1960. By then there was only one other Christian nation teaching creationism, that bastion of Christian ideology known as South Africa. The Soviets let millions of people starve to death because they rejected evolutionary biology in favor of something called Lysenkoism which led the Russians to believe they could grow wheat on the frozen tundra. One of the many tragedies that have occurred when humans have rejected modern science.
“National Socialism is not a cult-movement– a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship… We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938.
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism.
“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race.
The quote below is from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-hitler.html
“Once Hitler had gained power, he began to see Christianity as a threat to the National Socialists’ domination of Germany. After 1935 his speeches and writings became more and more virulently anti-Christian; he argued that Christian worship was a sign of weakness, and that it should be replaced by reverence for the nation and the state, and of course for the National Socialist Party. However, he retained his belief in reincarnation, and his conviction that there was some supreme creative force whose will he was enacting.
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity … The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.
I’ll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.
[Quoted from Hitler’s “Table Talks” with Bormann,
in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny by Allan Bullock.]”
The following quote is from: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Adolf_Hitler%27s_personal_beliefs
” Hitler was a strong believer in Paganism. He had Pagan advisers and also star gazers that would tell him when to attack. Basically, he and Aleister Crowley are some of the people that made Paganism so infamous, when really it is all about energetic balance and natural harmony. Paganism is not polytheistic like most believe, it is actually free for anyone to believe in any god/goddess they choose. This misconception is connected to Wiccans. Most believe they are one in the same, but they are completely different.
Hitler really didn’t hate the Jews at all. He was hated and rejected by his father and smothered by his mother. He wandered around while young (nothing particularly intelligent about him during this time) and eventually became involved in politics. If he wasn’t so ego-maniacal and a maniac he could have done some wonderful things to improve the world instead of the degrading deeds he did do. Hitler wanted an Arian race (blond and blue-eyed pure German). If you can ever get the book “The Doll’s House” read it! This place existed. It was a huge, mansion for the elite of blond, blue-eyed German soldiers and higher ranking officers and very selected blond, blue-eyed young women knowing full well the plan was for them to get pregnant and create a new Arian race. Hitler paid these women handsomely for each child they produced. The more power Hitler had the more he lost his belief system in what he started out to do.
HITLER AND CHRISTIANITY: Also contrary to popular belief, Hitler and the Nazis were not Christians, and were in fact vehemently opposed to that religion, which they saw as a Jewish originated belief system. In public, Hitler accepted or even praised Christianity when it was anti-Jewish, but in private, he detested it, as a reading of his personal dinner table chat recorded by Martin Borman and published as “Hitler’s Secret Conversations”, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, 1953: The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilization at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” – Adolf Hitler, ibid, Night of 11th-12th July 1941.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Adolf_Hitler's_personal_beliefs#ixzz1wxy7sEvP
The following quote is from: http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm
“What were Hitler’s religious beliefs?…
So much for Hitler’s early life. What about his attitude to religion and the Church later on? In Mein Kampf (1925) Hitler criticized the Catholic Church in its political form, which he said failed to recognize Germany’s and Europe’s “racial problem”. His Party Charter for the nascent Nazional Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei demanded in Article 24, in contrast to strong Christian control of German’s spiritual life, “complete freedom of religion” (in so far, of course, as that was not a “danger to Germany”) (William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Arrow, 1991). Indeed, the official “Nazi Party Philosopher”, Alfred Rosenberg, (later to be hanged at Nuremberg), appointed of course with Hitler’s consent, was totally opposed to Christianity. However, Hitler the politician was also aware that to achieve power he would need to win votes from the Catholic Centre Party and could not afford total alienation.
Upon attaining office and enjoying a free hand, what line did Hitler take on religion and the Church? Five days after becoming Chancellor in 1933, Hitler allowed a sterilization law to pass, and had the Catholic Youth League disbanded (Shirer, The Rise). The latter was a measure applied to other youth organizations too, in order to free up young people to join the Hitler Youth. At the same time, Hitler also made an agreement with the Vatican to allow the Catholic Church to regulate its own affairs. (It is probably worth noting here the low value that Hitler placed on written agreements.) Parents were pressured to take their children out of religious schools. When the Church organized voluntary out-of-hours religious classes, the Nazi government responded by banning state-employed teachers from taking part. The Crucifix symbol was even at one point banned from classrooms in one particular jurisdiction, Oldenburg, in 1936, but the measure met with fierce public resistance and was rescinded. Hitler remained conscious of the affection for the Church felt in some quarters of Germany, particularly Bavaria. Later on, though, a wartime metal shortage was used as the excuse for melting church bells (Richard Grunberger, The Twelve Year Reich, Henry Holt, Henry Holt, 1979 and Richard Grunberger, A Social History of the Third Reich, Penguin, 1991).
Hitler’s references to providence and God and the ritualistic pageantry of Nazism were more than likely pagan than Christian. Earthly symbols of German valour and Teutonic strength were to be worshipped – not the forgiving, compassionate representative of an “Eastern Mediterranean servant ethic imposed on credulous ancient Germans by force and subterfuge” (the phrase is Burleigh’s own, in Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: a New History, Pan, 2001). A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:
We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
(Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.)
The SS were particularly anti-Christian, and officers and men were encouraged to leave the Church, although those that refused to renounce their Christian faith were not visibly punished, perhaps because their otherwise faithful adherence to SS codes of behaviour gave the lie to any claim of true Christian affiliation. The SS also brought in its own neo-pagan rituals for marriage ceremonies and baptisms.
At this time then, the only alignments between Nazism and Catholicism were the Church’s perceived anti-Semitism and anti-communism, and an abhorrence of abortions by healthy pregnant German women (although Hitler did diverge from the Church once again in 1939 when he authorized the medical extermination of mentally and physically handicapped children). As the war progressed and the Wehrmacht gained control of large parts of the Soviet Union, the question of the suppressed Russian Orthodox Christian sects surfaced. Hitler’s response was to leave them to their own devices “so they can beat each others’ brains out with their crucifixes”. He also had contempt for European Protestants: “as submissive as dogs” (Shirer, The Rise). In the debate about his spiritual leanings, Hitler is also sometimes alleged to have flirted with the occult, although in fact it was far more a passion of Himmler’s. For instance, Hitler loathed astrologers. Others close to him, such as Goering, were also dismissive of Himmler’s obsession with the supernatural and Hitler would no doubt have enjoyed Goebbels’ joke, during one clampdown on eccentric religious types, that it was “odd that not a single one [of a group of arrested clairvoyants] predicted he would be arrested”. Goebbels would later try to rally Hitler in his bunker at the end of the war with astrological charts predicting victory but Hitler was still unmoved.
At times, Hitler was more pragmatic about religion: “If my mother were alive, she would definitely be a churchgoer, and I wouldn’t want to hinder her. On the contrary, you’ve got to respect the simple faith of the people”. If Hitler was motivated by a supreme being, or convinced that his success was providential, it is hard to see that he was referring to the same God worshipped by Christians. These elements of his orations were dramatic and poetic figures of speech, and the immortality he stood for was of the earthly type, in which heroic legends and monumentalist architecture alone would preserve a great name or event for generations. This analysis stands entirely apart from the actions committed in Hitler’s name which shatter any pretence of Christian leaning. In conclusion, it is reasonable beyond doubt to say that Hitler was not at any stage of his life a Christian.”
The following quote is from:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/hitler/hitler1.htm
“Hitler’s main opposition to Christianity was its rejection of Darwinism. (Azar, 1990, p. 154). His entire “scientific” racism was built on secular Darwinism with influences from Theosophy and other bits of New Age nonsense…
Historian Steigmann-Gall argues that Hitler demonstrated a preference for Protestantism over Catholicism, as Protestantism was easier to reinterpret with non-traditional readings, more receptive to positive Christianity, and because some of its liberal branches had held similar views. These views were supported by the German Christians movement, but rejected by the Confessing Church.
According to Steigmann-Gall, Hitler regretted that “the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped.” Hitler stated to Albert Speer, “Through me the Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England.”
Not all the Protestant churches submitted to the state, which Hitler said in Mein Kampf was important in forming a political movement. Hitler supported the appointment of Ludwig Müller as Reichsbischof over the Protestant churches, hoping that he would get them to adhere to Nazi positions. After 1935 Hitler was advised by the newly-appointed Reich Minister for Church Affairs Hans Kerrl. Many Protestants who were not persuaded by argument were arrested and their property and funds confiscated.
By 1940 it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned advocating for Germans even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity. Dachau concentration camp alone held the largest number of Catholic priests at 2,579. ]To quote,
“If one believes the anti-Semitic, one should also believe the anti-Christian, for both had a single purpose. Hitler’s aim was to eradicate all religious organizations within the state and to foster a return to paganism” (Dimont, 1994, p. 397).”
And now we know “The rest of the story.”
The following quote is from: http://www.muhammadanism.org/Inquiries/Jesus/hitler_jesus.htm
“Did Hitler Use Jesus To Justify His Actions?…
The library edition of the book [Mein Kampf] does not list either the Bible or Jesus in its Index.1 Now, if Hitler had based his justification for murdering Jews upon the Bible and Jesus, one would expect to find a number of references to them in the Index of Mein Kampf. However, neither word is found there. So, it appears that the Muslim’s assertion may be false. Secondly, using a Google search of the Adolf Hitler web site, which includes an English translation of Mein Kampf, a word search does not yield any result.2 Now if the word Jesus or Bible is not found a single time in a book of 694 pages, the Muslim’s assertion is clearly without foundation. Because, if the justification for killing 6 million Jews were Hitler’s belief in Jesus, Jesus’ name should be mentioned numerous times in Mein Kampf. As a result, this appears to be another Muslim claim that has no basis in reality. In other words the claim is false and shows a disregard for the truth…
So, nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler refer to his personal belief in Jesus or the Bible to justify his actions against the Jews. In fact, Jesus was a Jew and Hitler hated Jews. So, why would Hitler turn to any Jew to support Nazism. Where does Hitler turn to Christ’s true doctrine to base his claims of race superiority, worldly economics, and earthly militarist conquest? So, even on the surface, the Muslim’s charge is ridiculous to any who knows history and values the truth. This may not be the case with ignorant Muslims who are disposed against Jews and Christians and who are not acquainted with the history of Adolph Hitler. As stated during the Nuremberg War trials in Germany,
The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology. … the conspirators devised and carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches. 4
Reichsleiter Martin Bormann wrote in the secret decree entitled, Relationship of National Socialism and Christianity, that “National Socialist and Christian concepts are irreconcilable.” 5″
Boris,
Your revisionist history beliefs have fooled you again. Try some real history some time. You also might try reading a bit from the other side of your personal irrational hope of there being no Creator.
Shalom
Boris, evidently the Nazi propaganda machine is still working on some.
The things Hitler said in public do not necessarily reflect what he really believed. That much should be clear.
BTW, I never stated that Hitler was atheist. Stalin, Lenin were, and also evolutionists. The starvation which resulted from the Communist farming reforms were one of many ways that the party kept the masses in submission.
Boris, per your earlier post, you have a view of the Bible which is unorthodox and not commonly held by scholars. In fact, most who have earnestly studied their origins would eschew the idea that as a whole the NT was written late. It is simply not possible that the writers arranged it so that the events as they recorded them would fit just so with ancient OT prophesies.
The idea that the OT psalmists and prophets could have possibly known (in the natural) or arranged for crucifixion as a method of capital punishment would be invented and implemented in the future is absurd.
You can choose to disbelieve the veracity of the Bible, but it does not hold up to investigation.
Boris,
Your revisionist history beliefs have fooled you again. Try some real history some time.
Response: Let’s see we have Hitler’s own words confessing his faith in and love for Jesus Christ. Hitler’s inspiration for the Holocaust was Martin Luther the founder of your version of Christianity. His soldiers all had belt buckles that said ‘God is with us.” Onward Christian soldiers. Then we have Christians, without a shred of evidence to prove it, telling us that in secret Hitler really wasn’t a Christian! Sure. Look at how much time and effort and all the words you cut and pasted from Christian propaganda websites to try to hide the truth about Adolph Hitler. No dice Bo brother Adolph is all yours you keep him.
You also might try reading a bit from the other side of your personal irrational hope of there being no Creator.
Response: You also might try reading a bit from the other side of your personal irrational hope of there being no evolution by natural selection. Let’s look at some of the things other people have frightened you into believing are real for which there exists not one shred of evidence: Angels, demons, Satan, heaven, hell, seraphs, Jesus, just to name a few. You’ve got no business calling anyone else irrational. Wow religious indoctrination has really turned your world upside down.
MattB
Boris, evidently the Nazi propaganda machine is still working on some.
The things Hitler said in public do not necessarily reflect what he really believed. That much should be clear.
Response: We know what Hitler said in public and we have Christian propagandists telling us on no basis whatsoever they he really didn’t mean it. Gee, whom should we believe? We couldn’t trust people with a religious agenda even if they told us they were lying to us.
BTW, I never stated that Hitler was atheist. Stalin, Lenin were, and also evolutionists. The starvation which resulted from the Communist farming reforms were one of many ways that the party kept the masses in submission.
Response: Not true. Stalin rejected Darwinian Evolution as a bourgeois Western philosophy and instead his government employed a pseudo-science called Lysenkoism. This is what caused the Russians to believe they could grow wheat on the frozen tundra. Look it up. You have to read something besides Christian propaganda to get the facts about things you know.
Matt B
Boris, per your earlier post, you have a view of the Bible which is unorthodox and not commonly held by scholars. In fact, most who have earnestly studied their origins would eschew the idea that as a whole the NT was written late.
Response: Precisely how have any “scholars” studied the origins of the gospels? The early dating of the gospels is based on nothing but Christian wishful thinking. The first witness to the gospels, if he actually existed at all was Iraneus and that was in 190 CE. There is nothing from before that time for your “scholars” [read: grown men who still believe in fairies and magic] to study. Not a thing.
It is simply not possible that the writers arranged it so that the events as they recorded them would fit just so with ancient OT prophesies. The idea that the OT psalmists and prophets could have possibly known (in the natural) or arranged for crucifixion as a method of capital punishment would be invented and implemented in the future is absurd.
You can choose to disbelieve the veracity of the Bible, but it does not hold up to investigation.
Response: The gospel writers were not recording any actual events, they were writing religious fiction. I mean really man. Who was around to record a conversation between Satan and Jesus on a mountaintop may I ask? Go ahead take a story literally that talks about absurd bogey entities for which there exists no evidence like Satan, demons and angels or that claims dead people came back to life, unburied themselves and walked into Jerusalem and appeared to many other people. There’s no way you would believe a word of these stories if they appeared anywhere else but the Bible because they are without any evidence to support them, they are written in the style of fiction and above all they are ridiculous. What doesn’t hold up under investigation is the claim that the gospels are a record of actual events. The gospels claim Jesus was followed by huge crowds and his fame spread throughout the land. However not one single person wrote one single word about any of the miraculous events described in the Bible or anything about Jesus or any of his disciples. We have no artifacts and no evidence to support anything that is written in the gospels. Why would we? They’re solar myths just like the stories of Hercules and the other superheroes of the day. You’re never going to convince me that the fairytales your religion is based upon are somehow true. So you can stop wasting your time now.
My unbelief is a constant reminder to you Christians of just how implausible your beliefs really are. That’s why you waste so much time trying in vain to answer my objections to your absurd and completely baseless claims. You’re not going to change my mind so you’re just going to have to deal with that unless or until you change yours.
“My unbelief is a constant reminder to you Christians of just how implausible your beliefs really are. That’s why you waste so much time trying in vain to answer my objections to your absurd and completely baseless claims. ”
No, I am not threatened by your unbelief, but it is lamentable. The efforts to discuss these things here may as much be for the benefit of others reading the posts as to try to persuade you. On the other hand, as I’ve said, my hope and prayer is that you will be persuaded. This would gain me nothing but you, everything.
I’m still interested in you take on how death by cricifixion was prophesied in the OT before that method was invented. How could the writers have arranged that? And the evidence is that the OT books are as old as they purport themselves to be.
Boris,
It would seem that the modern politically correct movement to only teach materialistic evolution is along the lines of Lysenkoism. It is an educational and political and philosophical agenda that is employed to produce a populace that is void of free thinking but full of free sex. The followers of this new “Lysenkoism” are dieing of aids instead of starvation. They are committing suicide in ever increasing numbers. They are living their lives without hope of finding meaning and going to their graves without hope of salvation.
Here are some quotes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
“Lysenkoism, or Lysenko-Michurinism, also denotes the biological inheritance principle which Trofim Lysenko subscribed to and which derive from theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics,[1] a body of biological inheritance theory which departs from Mendelism and that Lysenko named “Michurinism”.”
Mendel was a Christian, a scientist, and he developed the foundation for our modern scientific view of genetics. Lysenko was an pawn in an atheistic regime.
“The word (Lysenkoism) is derived from the centralized political control exercised over the fields of genetics and agriculture by the director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and his followers, which began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.
Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.[2]”
That last sentence sums up the educational monopoly of our land and Boris is one of it’s most zealous converts.
“In 1928, Trofim Lysenko, a previously unknown agronomist, claimed to have developed an agricultural technique, termed vernalization, which tripled or quadrupled crop yield by exposing wheat seed to high humidity and low temperature. While cold and moisture exposure are a normal part of the life cycle of fall-seeded winter cereals, the vernalization technique claimed to enhance yields by increasing the intensity of exposure, in some cases planting soaked seeds directly into the snow cover of frozen fields. In reality, the technique was neither new (it had been known since 1854, and was extensively studied during the previous twenty years), nor did it produce the yields he promised.”
Just like Darwin claiming to have discovered the idea of evolution that had been shown to be impossible by real scientists such as Pasteur and Mendel, Lysenco made a name and a career for himself by promoting a philosophical hope as science.
“Lysenko’s political success was due in part to his striking differences from most biologists at the time.”
Kind of like Darwin, don’t you think.
“Lysenko did not apply actual science.”
Kind of like Darwin, don’t you think.
“On August 7, 1948, the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as “the only correct theory”. Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko’s research.[3] Criticism of Lysenko was denounced as ‘bourgeois’ or ‘fascist’, and analogous ‘non-bourgeois’ theories also flourished in other fields in the Soviet academy at this time (see Japhetic theory; socialist realism). Interestingly, perhaps the only opponents of Lysenkoism during Stalin’s lifetime to escape liquidation came from the small community of Soviet nuclear physicists. But as Tony Judt has observed, “Stalin left his nuclear physicists alone… [He] may well have been mad but he was not stupid.”[4]”
And now the truth comes out. State run education always has a political agenda. Boris has taken the bait…hook, line and sinker, and rod and reel and boat and has even swallowed the whole ocean of religious, materialistic, evolutionary, atheism. It is amazing what people will believe if they do not want to serve their creator. It is amazing what lies can be invented and histories changed and even what scientific data can be fudged (man-made global warming anyone?) by the supposed “educational elite” to produce societal manipulation for their god “Norm’s” cause.
“It is often suggested that Lysenko’s success came solely from the desire in the USSR to assert that heredity had only a limited role in human development; that future generations, living under socialism, would be purged of their ‘bourgeois’ or ‘fascist’ instincts.”
Evolutionary doctrine, in the same way, is being used to purge the world of conscience and purpose. Hitler used his propaganda machine, Stalin used his, and the new world order uses theirs.
“Many other countries of the Eastern Bloc accepted Lysenkoism as the official “new biology” as well; however the acceptance of Lysenkoism was not uniform in communist countries. In Poland, all geneticists except for Wacław Gajewski[5] followed Lysenkoism. Even though Gajewski was not allowed contacts with students, he was allowed to continue his scientific work at the Warsaw botanical garden. Lysenkoism was then rapidly rejected starting from 1956[5] and modern genetics research departments were formed, including the first department of genetics headed by Wacław Gajewski, which was started at the Warsaw University in 1958.”
Today we have the same thing happening to award winning scientists. They can continue to do their research if they are Creationists, but they are not allowed to teach in the classroom. The documentary movie “Expelled” gave ample evidence of this sort of thing.
“Lysenkoism dominated Chinese science from 1948 until 1956, when, during a genetics symposium opponents of Lysenkoism were permitted to freely criticize it and argue for Mendelian genetics.[8] In the proceedings from the symposium, Tan Jiazhen is quoted as saying “Since [the] USSR started to criticize Lysenko, we have dared to criticize him too”.[8] For a while, both schools were permitted to coexist, although the influence of the Lysenkoists remained large for several years.[8]”
I wonder what would happen if molecules to man materialistic evolution had to defend it’s propaganda against Intelligent Design on a level playing field, instead of imposing it’s political weight through censorship and peer review (read peer pressure).
“From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko’s admonitions and with Stalin’s approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.[9]
Genetics was stigmatized as a ‘bourgeois science’ or ‘fascist science’ (because fascists — particularly the Nazis in Germany — embraced genetics and attempted to use it to justify their theories on eugenics and the master race, which culminated in Action T4).
Despite the ban, some Soviet scientists continued to work in genetics, dangerous as it was.[citation needed]
In 1948, genetics was officially declared “a bourgeois pseudoscience”;[10] all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued. Nikita Khrushchev, who claimed to be an expert in agricultural science, also valued Lysenko as a great scientist, and the taboo on genetics continued (but all geneticists were released or rehabilitated posthumously). The ban was only waived in the mid-1960s.”
The same thing as above, though not prison and death sentences in the west, is happening today against Creationists and ID proponents. The one thing that history teaches us, is that we fail to learn from history…true history, that is, not Boris’ revisionist propagandized “history.”
Shalom
Not competing with Bo on detail, a much earlier ‘genetic experiment’ is recording in the ancient Hebrew texts (whenever the oral record was written); the Testimony being both Written and Holy) of @ 3500 years ago, of several different Caananite names for the local ‘giants’; coinciding with Egyptian pictographs of the same period; so either everyone in the region had a jack-in-the-beanstalk complex back then, or Boris has a bit of rethinking to do. He managed to dodge the pyramid question quite well, but the record of archaeology refutes evolutionary theories over and over; the ancients weren’t that dumb in many spectacular ways. So show me irrefutable evidence of the existence of the Trade Towers; if you can’t give me more than pictures and stories, I’ll suppose they never existed.
In Him, Ron M.
No, I am not threatened by your unbelief, but it is lamentable. The efforts to discuss these things here may as much be for the benefit of others reading the posts as to try to persuade you. On the other hand, as I’ve said, my hope and prayer is that you will be persuaded. This would gain me nothing but you, everything.
Response: Well I am definitely not threatened by your superstitions but is lamentable that we still have people in this country who know so little about science, what science is, what scientists do and even why we study nature in the first place.
I’m still interested in you take on how death by cricifixion was prophesied in the OT before that method was invented. How could the writers have arranged that? And the evidence is that the OT books are as old as they purport themselves to be.
Response: Are you talking about Genesis 40:19? That’s hardly referring to Jesus. What evidence do you have that crucifixion actually was invented and used as a method of punishment and when do you claim this mythical method of punishment was actually used and by whom? The New Testament mythmakers twisted Old Testament prophecies away from their original meaning and reinterpreted them to make it seem like their Jesus had fulfilled them. Again ask any rabbi if you don’t believe me. It’s pretty easy to see that the gospel stories were reverse engineered. If you hadn’t been frightened by other people into accepting these stories without any evidence that they even might be true then it would seem a bit odd to you that actions should be deliberately performed by Jesus just so a prophecy could be vindicated. It sure looks like fiction writing me. But then I’m not afraid to consider that these stories are fiction. You are. Therefore your opinion on them is irrelevant.
Bo, You have proved exactly two things, which are that you know how to cut and paste religious propaganda and that you don’t even bother to read what you cut and paste. There are several examples I could point to but just one will suffice.
Bo
June 5th, 2012 @ 6:55 pm
Hitler really didn’t hate the Jews at all.
Bo
June 5th, 2012 @ 7:35 pm
In fact, Jesus was a Jew and Hitler hated Jews.
Really Bo? Which is it? Did Hitler hate the Jews or not? You’re hilarious! These posts are 40 minutes apart. Why should I bother reading your posts when you don’t even read them? Why does the fact that Hitler was a Christian bother you so much? Had he had gas chambers, machine guns and the necessary political muscle Martin Luther would have done the exact same thing.
Boris,
Read a little closer. I was quoting other people to show you what others have said about Hitler. It is interesting that so many with differing ideas and ideologies do not think that Hitler could be convicted in the court of law for being a Christian. His actions and confessions take the mask off of his political speeches and his well tailored public image.
And for the record. I am no follower of Martin Luther nor the Pope.
You think that you can show that religion in general and Christianity in specific has perpetrated hate crimes and massacres. The problem is that you fail to realize that atheism is a religion too. It is power that tends to corrupt people…Atheist and Christian alike.
And you also fail to realize that all atrocities against mankind that supposed Christians have committed have been done to the contrary of what Messiah taught. In otherwords, if they were truly following Messiah, they would not have done those things. Being Christian in name is much different than being a Christian in deed.
As for Atheists they have no basis for their morals and will always be found to commit great atrocities when they are in power…especially absolute power. Survival of the fittest brings no morality with it. Self preservation will lead to all kinds of lies and cover ups. Please do remember those wonderful scientists that forged data on climate change. A political leader that claims to be Christian and abuses power proves that he has said in his heart “There is no God.” He is an Atheist for all practical purposes.
Hitler was one of these practical Atheists. He deceived those that heard him and himself. So does every Atheist…whether they say that there is no God in their heart of with their mouth or both.
2 Timothy 3
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Shalom
‘Science has triumphed over religion.’
This is the (unspoken) Big Lie that has divided the U.S. in half, and upon which we will vote this November. It is sad that these discussions are many times more intelligent and relevant than the millions of dollars that will be spent on drivel the next few months. This is for the Heart of the People, so what is said here is indeed important.
Boris comtinues to make some good points, though he refuses to play by anyone’s rules. Oh well, relativism. Science is somewhat flashy and gives immediate gratification; a good definition of an idol. I say that this new generation, these teenagers who CAN go to college (less and less) are being taught to put on the blinders and not think about death even more than my generation of 40 years ago, if that is possible; and that is dangerous. Selective history was being discussed as a philosophical novelty back then; now it’s the norm. BTW, Boris, have you ever read Hart Crane? Brilliant poet; dove into the middle of the ocean off a ship when he was around thirty (seemingly much more deliberate than Natlie Wood). Life is short; there’s something we’ll eventually agree upon.
In Him, Ron M.
Boris, I find it strange that you frequently accuse other posters on these pages of being ignorant of science and scientific method. I suppose that is the party line among athiests who wish to vindicate their positions. I cannot really see what of any that has been posted is anti-science or mis-application of science. With the very stark exemption of the idea that life sprung forth from non-life. There is absolutely no evidence for this either in nature, or in the lab.
In any case, are you familiar with the term “Science qua science”? Are you familiar with anthropic philosophy?
Sorry, I meant exception, not exemption in my post above. I need to slow down and play editor.
Boris,
Read a little closer. I was quoting other people to show you what others have said about Hitler. It is interesting that so many with differing ideas and ideologies do not think that Hitler could be convicted in the court of law for being a Christian. His actions and confessions take the mask off of his political speeches and his well tailored public image.
Response: Read a little closer? ROFL! You don’t even read your own drivel! I don’t care what anyone said about Adolph Hitler. We have his speeches and his writings and we know what he did. Those things alone prove Adolph Hitler loved Jesus and was a devout believer. According to Christian doctrine your brother Adolph is in heaven and present with the Lord. Heaven sounds just like Nazi Germany to me so I would expect if it really existed Hitler would be quite the hero there.
And for the record. I am no follower of Martin Luther nor the Pope.
You think that you can show that religion in general and Christianity in specific has perpetrated hate crimes and massacres. The problem is that you fail to realize that atheism is a religion too. It is power that tends to corrupt people…Atheist and Christian alike.
Response: Atheism is not a religion. It has no holy book, no churches or temples, no leaders or preachers, no dogma, no miracles or magical healings. Atheists are not insecure just because they are a minority and don’t need strength in numbers to reinforce what they believe or don’t believe they way Christians do. We don’t see atheists gathering together once or more a week to listen to someone else tell them how to live and what they must believe nor do atheists gather to sing, shout, scream and screech about something they are trying desperately to believe. THAT is what religious people do and it’s insane.
And you also fail to realize that all atrocities against mankind that supposed Christians have committed have been done to the contrary of what Messiah taught. In otherwords, if they were truly following Messiah, they would not have done those things. Being Christian in name is much different than being a Christian in deed.
Response: That is a logical fallacy known as the No True Scotsman Fallacy. No dice, Hitler was a Christian and he did not act alone. It took a whole nation of Bible believing Christians to commit the atrocities of the Holocaust, not just one man.
As for Atheists they have no basis for their morals and will always be found to commit great atrocities when they are in power
Response: Atheists objectively base their morality on the value of life itself. Whatever harms or destroys life is bad or evil and whatever enhances or protects life is termed good. This basis for morality is objective because it is based on the value of human life itself. This leads to a far more compassionate and rational system than that of a deity most of the world does not believe exists and whose whims cannot be understood and who is not constrained in any manner by the commands he gives to others. Your Christian morality is subjective to the extreme because it is established by a being of dubious existence and whose motives and very nature are absolutely beyond human comprehension, which makes it impossible to discern any moral law beyond, “God wills it.” The commandment against murder in the Bible actually means, “Thou shalt not kill “except when I (God) tell you to do so.” Multiple times in the Old Testament, God orders what we would now term “ethnic cleansing.” Saul was directed to utterly exterminate the Amelekites, including “men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” He lost his kingship and eventually his life because he failed to carry out these instructions from God to the letter. That is moral relativism at its starkest. Even the slaughter of infants is “good” when ordered by God under particular circumstances. So who has no basis for morality? ROFL! I just demonstrated that it is the Christians who have no basis whatsoever for morality and of course all the atrocities committed by Christians not to mention their constant war on advancing science prove this beyond any doubt whatsoever. Christians have always been the most violent, intolerant, dangerous people in the world and if it weren’t for the rise of secular humanism they would still be just as violent and bloodthirsty as ever. It is from we atheists and humanists that Christianity has adopted its modern morals and ethics. Humiliating isn’t it?
…especially absolute power. Survival of the fittest brings no morality with it.
Response: Survival of the fittest is not a belief system. That is simply the description of how Nature operates. I already showed how science has reversed survival of the fittest so that the unfit among us can lead long and healthy lives and even reproduce and pass their defective genes on to their progeny.
Self preservation will lead to all kinds of lies and cover ups.
Response: Yes the Watergate crime was planned and carried out by devout evangelical Christians who then conspired and lied to cover it up.
Please do remember those wonderful scientists that forged data on climate change. A political leader that claims to be Christian and abuses power proves that he has said in his heart “There is no God.” He is an Atheist for all practical purposes. Hitler was one of these practical Atheists. He deceived those that heard him and himself. So does every Atheist…whether they say that there is no God in their heart of with their mouth or both.
Response: Hitler claimed to have wiped out atheism and atheists from Germany. Just like you Bo, Hitler hated and feared the spread of free inquiry and critical thinking. The Nazis didn’t just murder 6 million Jews, they murdered 5 million other people, deists, Muslims, atheists, agnostics and anyone else who did not profess faith in Jesus Christ. The Holocaust is simply the latest Christian Crusade. Christians have gone to great lengths to cover up the fact that the Holocaust was a totally Christian deed. But it was and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to change that.
ron david metcalf
‘Science has triumphed over religion.’
This is the (unspoken) Big Lie that has divided the U.S. in half, and upon which we will vote this November.
Response: Science always wins. When have scientists ever had to revise any of their findings or theories in the face of the constant complaints and whining from Bible believers? It’s always the Christians who have to back off their flat earth claims and then they try to make excuses and lie about all the scientific blunders in the Bible. It’s a shame half of our population rejects rational science in favor of non-rational authoritarianism. This kind of ignorance is to be expected in theocracies like Saudi Arabia but it’s shameful that it exists in a supposedly free society. That’s what we get for letting the Republicans dumb down our public schools. They knew their religion of Christianity would not survive another generation if our children learned about science and how to think for themselves.
Matt B
Boris, I find it strange that you frequently accuse other posters on these pages of being ignorant of science and scientific method. I suppose that is the party line among athiests who wish to vindicate their positions. I cannot really see what of any that has been posted is anti-science or mis-application of science. With the very stark exemption of the idea that life sprung forth from non-life. There is absolutely no evidence for this either in nature, or in the lab.
Response: Are you kidding me? Claiming that there is no evidence for evolution or that transitional fossils do not exist is as anti-science as you can get. You might not like the findings and explanations of modern science but they’re not going anywhere. What is disappearing and faster than ever before is your religion. Fundamentalist Christian lies about science are the main reason 3 out of 4 Christian college students reject their faith before they graduate. So just keep on spreading all your lies and propaganda about modern science because you’re killing Christianity much more effectively than we critics can do it.
In any case, are you familiar with the term “Science qua science”? Are you familiar with anthropic philosophy?
Response: What could you possibly know about philosophy? Like it is with science philosophy is completely incompatible with religion. Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered while religion gives answers that may never be questioned. You might as well give up Matt. I’m never going to believe in an afterlife, angels, demons, Satan, Jesus or in any of the other things you have believed because other people scared you out of your mind with threats of hell. I’m not a coward.