COMMENTARY: Myths, Motives Of Human Imperfection

Posted: March 31, 2013 at 1:36 a.m.

Acompanion to the myth atheism is a more rational belief than monotheism is the myth monotheists are the perpetrators of the worst atrocities of history. Focusing primarily on Christianity, conservative scholar Dinesh D’Souza debunks this myth in his 2007 book, “What’s So Great About Christianity.” D’Souza considers the major crimes committed in religion’s name, including early Christian-Muslim conflicts, the Inquisitions, witch trials, etc. and the Thirty Years War, which began over religion but continued for secular reasons.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 11 on 03/31/2013

Somebuddy's gonna get a spank'in....

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Could it be that the goal with Buddy is to fit as many howlers, whoppers and palpable falsehoods as possible into his 750 limit? And if that is the goal, he's actually pretty good at it. But that's not the goal is it? I certainly hope not.

Buddy admits that he leans on the "conservative scholar" (*cough*) Dinesh D’Souza this time around. That's not a good idea. Two reasons, Dinesh is a profoundly dishonest misinformed hack on matters touching upon religion and politics (examples below), and as Buddy has shown repeatedly in his columns he is so completely lacking in discernment and any ability to distinguish fact from fecal matter that he is as helpless as a babe when it comes to knowing when a two bit charlatan like Dinesh is making it up as he goes (which with Dinesh is easily most of the time).

Dinesh on slavery: "...the "American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well."

Nice. Incidentally, it was only a few months ago that Dinesh was forced out of his job as president of a small evangelical college because he was caught with his pants down in a hotel with a woman and some bit about him going around introducing her as his fiancee. Normally this wouldn't have been a problem except for the fact he is still married to his wife of 20 years. "Dinesh D’Souza Resigns Presidency of The King’s College"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles... )

But that bit of hypocrisy pales in comparison to his shameless dishonesty and incompetence on matters touching upon religion and politics. This is easy to show so let's give it a little poke before formally wading through of Buddy's feast of howlers.

"Forbes’ Shameful Piece on Obama as the “Other”
The worst kind of smear journalism..."
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/forbes_s...

Here is the conservative Weekly Standard ripping Dinesh's stupidity a new one: http://www.weeklystandard.com/article...

See also this thorough unpack of his ridiculous movie: "Dinesh D'Souza's Lies About Obama, Now In Movie Form"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/...

Which was based upon his ridiculous farcical book: "D'Souza's The Roots of Obama's Rage rooted in lies"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010...

This guy has less credibility than Glenn Beck, if that's even possible. And this is the well from which Buddy draws his ludicrous and grade school distortions about political leaders and religion. Pathetic.

Enough about his source, let's get into the specifics of why Buddy's second-hand Dinesh material is wrong.

D.
-----------
Weekly Standard excerpt below:

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 3:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Weakly Standard: "The Roots of Lunacy
How not to understand Obama"

Excerpt:

"Readers will not be shocked that D’Souza’s paradigm easily passes D’Souza’s test, thanks to the author’s misstatements of fact, leaps in logic, and pointlessly elaborate argumentation. The misstatements range from the very small to the very large. As “further evidence that this anticolonial reading is on the right track,” he cites Obama’s press conference after the Gulf oil spill.

"Time and again,” he [Dinesh] writes, Obama “condemned ‘British Petroleum’—an interesting term since the company long ago changed its name to BP. Given our anticolonial theory, it’s no surprise that Obama wanted to remind Americans of what BP used to stand for.”

Right you are, Holmes! Except .  .  . I’ve read the transcript of the press conference, and Obama didn’t make a single reference to British Petroleum—a name which, in any event, is commonly used by many people of a certain age (including me) who are sworn enemies of anticolonialism. D’Souza makes many errors of this sort, citing facts that aren’t facts in support of an otherwise unsupported conclusion. He says that Obama, in his memoir Dreams from My Father, never mentions his father’s drunkenness. Obama mentions it often. Indeed, D’Souza misreads the entire memoir: Far from admiring his father and emulating him, Obama makes his disillusionment with his father one of the themes of his own life story.

And where facts are missing altogether, faulty reasoning bolsters the case. “Wonder why Obama went to Harvard?” D’Souza slyly asks. “Here is a clue: It is the leading academic institution in America. And here’s another: His father went there.” Forget that neither of these facts is a clue, technically."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 4:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just yesterday that we had a lecture on this issue of Hitler and atheism at the Fayetteville library (freethinker meeting). It's too bad Buddy didn't attend because he might have known better than to make such obvious mistakes on the issue. Let's unpack:

Buddy: "...the myth monotheists are the perpetrators of the worst atrocities of history.">>

Buddy doesn't tell us who passes along this "myth" but there's probably something to it. But this would just be the guilt by association fallacy. As was pointed at the beginning of the lecture yesterday, the truth of theism or atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with the behavior of some of the people who happen to hold one of these beliefs. The truth of these beliefs is entirely independent of that. No group wants to be associated with these bad characters of history so there is an entire cottage industry of dolts like Dinesh who are devoted to peddling this blatant fallacy. And that wouldn't even be so bad, if they could at least get their facts straight. And they can't.

Bud: "Atheists’ simplistic, inaccurate scapegoating of religion ignores the territorial, ethnic and power motivations of the Sunni-Shiite, Balkans, Palestinian-Israeli, Northern Ireland...">>

This is where we are supposed to believe, with a straight face, that these plainly religious disputes (consider these juicy examples, good grief) are based upon something other than religion. Is there a difference between the people on the two sides of the Ireland conflict other than that one side is Catholic and the other side Protestant? Is there a race/genetic difference between the two sides of the Sunni-Shiite conflict other than religion? Of course not. It's entirely a product of religion. 100%. Just how GD stupid does Dinesh believe his readers can be? It truly boggles the mind.

Bud: "Atheism is at the heart of Stalin’s murder of 20 million..., Mao Zedong’s slaughter...">>

Let's start with the basics. Buddy doesn't even bother to attempt to show what he needs to show in order to establish a causal relationship from atheism... to... these slaughters. Like Dinesh he just makes it up and hopes no one notices.

Basic definitions:

a = meaning "not" or "without"

theism = belief in a personal living God

Thus an atheist is one who does not have a belief in a personal living God. They are not, a, theist. That's all that word does. It only does one thing. That's it. Anything beyond that one thing, is made up. Put another way:

A theist says a God exists and an atheist says they don't believe you. It's really that simple.

There is only one thing an atheist can do that is inconsistent with that word and that is: believe in a personal living God. That's it. The only thing Buddy can try to smear an atheist with that would be inconsistent with that word, would be theism. Buddy should learn this simple fact before he begins since it may help him from falling for this most basic guilt by association fallacy.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

While even Buddy acknowledges that millions have been killed *specifically* "in the name of religion" and quite often his religion, he should also learn that this differs entirely from his made up correlation that this is somehow similar to when people who don't believe in God also happen to be very bad totalitarians (or whatever else). No one has been killed "in the name of atheism." Not one. That's just stupid. Again, the word atheist doesn't get you any of that. It only does one thing: not, theist. It's a one trick pony. Anything else is made up until Buddy and Dinesh can show otherwise, and they haven't and they won't, because they can't.

Bud: "of up to 70 million Chinese, Hitler’s extermination of 10 million “inferior” Jews,...">>

Again, Buddy can't begin to show that a person being a very bad dictator follows from a lack of belief in God. He just regurgitates the guilt by association fallacy and hopes it'll stick. This differs entirely from his comparison with the Christian Hitler and his Christian Nazis who specifically said, repeatedly, that they were killing Jews in the name of Christianity and Buddy's God.

The notion that Hitler was an atheist is so stupid and ill-informed that it was necessary to play a clip of public idiots like Bill O'Reilly making the claim just so people at the lecture yesterday wouldn't think it wasn't a made up strawman.

If you want to see this, jump to the 4:00 minute mark on this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_iNC...

Buddy plainly falls for making the claim himself, and he doesn't bother to support it. There was a lady in attendance yesterday who actually was in a Japanese internment camp in Indonesia during WW2. She's Dutch and I think also lived in Europe for some time. She said she thought this line of BS about Hitler being an atheist was uniquely American. Other than here, she hadn't heard of people in Europe being so misinformed that they would fall for such nonsense.

I know exactly why Dinesh thinks he can get away with claiming Hitler was an atheist, and I know exactly why he is absolutely, conclusively, wrong. If Dinesh had done even a little homework he could have figured this out on his own, but again, he's so profoundly inept it's amazing anyone could take him seriously.

Dinesh has fallen for the Trevor-Roper-endorsed translation of the Table Talk quotes which have been shown to be frauds (link to clip of Dinesh saying this provided upon request). This is entirely debunked in a nice short article written eleven years ago by historian Dr. Richard Carrier who went back to the original, earliest available German documentation and plainly shows that they are frauds:

"Was Catholic Hitler "Anti-Christian"? On the Trail of Bogus Quotes" http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2002/n...

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 5:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Other than the bogus Table Talk quotes, Dinesh and Buddy have nothing to support their Hitler/atheism claim (not that it would matter if they did). This stands quite in contrast to the evidence on the other side.

First remember, it says nothing about Xtianity being true or false just because a fanatic was able to use it as a foundation for a genocide against the Jews and others. We don't want to fall for the same fallacy Buddy does. But this doesn't change the historical fact of Christianity's long and established history of anti-semitism, which goes back right to the time of Jesus.

Let's consider these lines of evidence regarding Hitler's religion. I'll limit myself to only about a dozen examples, of *many* more available.

***
1) “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.”
--Hitler, speech in Passau October 27, 1928. Holy Reich: Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. pg. 60.

2) The Nazis were explicitly Christian:
"We demand the freedom of religion in the Reich so long as they do not endanger the position of the state or adversely affect the moral standards of the German race. As such the Party represents a positively Christian position without binding itself to one particular faith.”
--24th principle of the Nazi Party, from the Twenty Five Points (1920)

3) Hitler's beliefs are expressed clearly in his founding book Mein Kampf. He believed in Heaven, Hell, a supreme being who created the universe, Jesus Christ, life after death, special creation, original sin, expulsion from paradise, and divine judgment. His book is filled with references to God and the Bible, such as: “...I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord.” --Hitler, Adolf Mein Kampf, p. 65

4) Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic, a communicant and an altar boy. He was never excommunicated.

5) Nazi General Gerhart Engel reported in his diary in 1941 that Hitler stated: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
--Adolf Hitler in 1941 to General Gerhart Engel. John Toland (1992). Adolf Hitler. pg. 507.

6) Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signed a Concordat with the Nazis in 1933.
An excerpt:
"Article 21. Catholic religious instruction in elementary, senior, secondary and vocational schools constitutes a regular portion of the curriculum, and is to be taught in accordance with the principles of the Catholic Church. In religious instruction, special care will be taken to inculcate patriotic, civic and social consciousness and sense of duty in the spirit of the Christian Faith and the moral code, precisely as in the case of other subjects."

cont....

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 5:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

7) Prayers to Jesus became mandatory in all schools under Hitler's administration:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. . . we need believing people." --Hitler speech, April 26, 1933, Ernst Helmreich, "The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 241.

8) Nazi solders wore belt buckles inscribed: "Gott Mit Uns" which is: "God With Us."

9) Nazi soldiers gave the following oath:
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler,…”

10) The Nazis banned books that ridiculed religion:
“All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk." --Blacklist for Public Libraries, (Stadtbibliothek Koblenz, 1993; pp. 5-7)

11) From Hitler's first address as Chancellor:
"We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government... will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volkand state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk." --Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933, Volkischer Beobachter, 5 Aug. 1935, [Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich].

12) Hitler said:
"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 only 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..." --Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

13) Hitler hated the godless and specifically targeted atheists. He started a campaign against the "godless movement:"
"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.” --Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939. Vol. 1. p. 378

Atheist Hall Converted (into religious hall)
Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers
[New York Times, May 14, 1933, on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933.]

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 5:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

14) Hitler's refers to longstanding Christian anti-semitism:
“The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc,… I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.” --Speech 26 April 1933, Richard Steigmann-Gall (2003). Holy Reich: Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. p. 117-118.

15) Hitler admired Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, who also shared his profound hatred of the Jews. Examples:

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them." --Martin Luther, "On the Jews and their Lies"

"Burn the synagogues; take away their books, including the Bible. They [Jews] should be compelled to work, denied food and shelter, preferably banished. . . . Moses said that idolators should not be tolerated. If he were here he would be the first to burn their synagogues."
--Martin Luther, "On the Jews and their Lies"

"The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." --Martin Luther, "On the Jews and their Lies"

Further reading:
"The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis" by Gregory S. Paul
Free Inquiry Magazine, Volume 23, Number 4.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/librar...

See 169 references regarding: "Hitler on Christianity, Catholicism and Religion"
http://tinyurl.com/bmb7jwh

Also: "Hitler's Christianity" http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Along with the "Hitler atheist" whopper here are a few other objections/myths see a few others briefly addressed here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths...

The notion that Hitler was an atheist has no support. On the face if it, that he was a Christian, appealing to an overwhelmingly Christian populace steeped in centuries of Christian based antisemitism, has considerable support.

Rather than continue going through Buddy's article bit by bit, I'll give him a chance to catch up. Don't want to filibuster. This response is archived on our forum: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Buddy is welcome to join in there which allows much larger posts along with pictures and a few other things.

Bonus, video: "Hitler Learns Christians Claim He Is An Atheist" (parody) http://tinyurl.com/d9d4fxy

D.
--------------
"[The truth is] six million Jews were targeted and systematically murdered in the heart of Christendom, by baptized Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox who were never rebuked, let alone excommunicated."
--Dr. Franklin Littell of Baylor University speaking at US Holocaust Memorial Museum, 12/8/93, Awake, 8/22/95, pg. 12

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 6:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Boy, FFT, anything about Christianity really gets you going. Wonder why that is? I think you are just trying to convince yourself more than anybody else.

Posted by: mycent

March 31, 2013 at 6:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "FFT, anything about Christianity really gets you going.">>

No, actually when people publish falsehoods in public, that gets me going. A very small fraction of my posts on this forum have had any reference whatsoever to Christianity. Unlike, for instance, you.

MyC: "Wonder why that is?">>

I bet you do.

MyC: "I think you are just trying to convince yourself...">>

No, I am rather confident of my claims, having studied them and considered them in some depth before adopting them.

Other than suggesting I'm not convinced of my own stated beliefs, do you have anything of substance to add to the topic?

D.
----------
"In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler." --Friedrich Heer, Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University, Awake mag., pg., 13.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 7:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Buddy Rogers would like his readers to believe that tabulating a body count for history's worst mass murderers will serve to illustrate the evils of atheism vis a vis Christianity, since by his count, worshippers of his God have not killed as many as those who worship no God.

Of course, Buddy's body count is thrown off by his placing Hitler in the wrong category (Hitler was NOT an atheist). But the whole exercise is absurd - I don't see the point of a competition trying to establish that the white hat mass murderers are not as bad as the black hat mass murderers.

Christian mass murderers, including Hitler, must rationalize their slaughter to be the will of God. Other, non-theistic slaughterers don't have that particular rational up their sleeves, so they may appear to be acting from purely evil motivations.

History teaches us that evil may be made manifest in the inhuman heart, regardless of whether one professes to be a Christian or an atheist.

Buddy asserts that evil motivation is "a logical consequence of a godless worldview," but he fails to convince with any expression of logic in this article.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

March 31, 2013 at 7:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good article, Mr. Rogers.

Hitler was an occultist. Attaching a Christian label to his attrocities is weak.

It is funny to see someone talk to themselves over several posts though.

Happy Easter.

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 31, 2013 at 11:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "Hitler was an occultist.">>

I know it's more popular to pretend to know more about a persons belief than the person in question (especially if that belief causes discomfort for a pet myth) but let's consider Hitler's opinion on the matter anyway:

"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." --Speech in Nuremberg, September 1938. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, vol. 1, pg. 396

I suspect he would be in a better position to know something about that than you.

D.
------------
"For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion."
--Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 369-370.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 31, 2013 at 11:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You won't see Hitler in heaven. He was not a Christian, even if he himself claimed to be. Many claim to be Christian, whom God will not recognize.

"We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion."
Even if Hitler said this, which I doubt, the devil was Hitler's God. One day, more will be killed because they will not 'take the mark of the beast'. Just like Christians are being murdered today because of their faith.

The only one that will put an end to evil is God.

Posted by: mycent

April 1, 2013 at 8:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "You won't see Hitler in heaven.">>

Such knowledge. MyC not only knows there is a God and a heaven, she knows how this God decides about who gets to go where. Of course.

But she's right about Hitler not going to heaven. He isn't, just like everyone else. As my Bible scholar friend puts it:

"The truth is that when we die our bodies return to the dust from which they were made, and the breath of life returns to the air around us (Genesis 3:19, 22-24; Ecclesiastes 3:16-22; etc.). Any honest physician or veterinarian will tell you the same thing. This is what God promised to Adam and all his descendants (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). God made it clear that he does not want us to have eternal life (Genesis 3:22-24). That explains why in the entire Hebrew Bible (OT) not a single person dies and goes to heaven.

When God saw that the man might eat from the tree of life and live forever like God, God kicked him, and the woman, out of the garden of Eden and made sure they would never eat of that fruit. That is why when we die we return to the dust from which we were made. Paul had ideas of life after death but can you show us that God changed his mind about life after death? Who do you believe: Paul or God?" –R. Nielsen

MyC: "He was not a Christian, even if he himself claimed to be.">>

"Even if?"

MyC: "The only one that will put an end to evil is God.">>

Maybe if he was a little sharper, he would have thought to have not made it in the first place.

D.
----------
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." --Isaiah 45:7

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 1, 2013 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Buddy Rogers is one of many whose arguments consist largely of schoolyard name-calling. Anybody they disagree with is socialist or atheist (during the Cold War, it was Communist).
+
They never define what they mean by these words.
It is obvious that they don't recognize any religions except Christianity and Judaism, and everybody else is lumped in with "atheists."

Posted by: Coralie

April 1, 2013 at 11:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The old 'circle of life' theory. Bah, humbug.

Posted by: mycent

April 1, 2013 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth says "Many claim to be Christian, whom God will not recognize.".
It is certainly true that the claim and the expression of beliefs are often far apart..
Also, nations that claim to be Christian have frequently started wars and committed war crimes. They have invaded other lands in the name of Christianizing them (such as the Spanish conquistadors).
Rios Montt, former dictator of Guatemala, is a modern example. During his regime, an estimated 200,000 people lost their lives, mostly indigenous (Mayan Indians).
According to Wikipedia
"In 1978, [Montt] left the Roman Catholic Church and became a minister in the California-based evangelical/pentecostal Church of the Word]; since then Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been personal friends. Ríos Montt's brother Mario is a Catholic bishop, and in 1998 succeeded the assassinated Bishop Juan Gerardi as head of the human rights commission uncovering the truth of the disappearances associated with the military and his brother."

Posted by: Coralie

April 1, 2013 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I don't understand your "circle of life" comment, mycentworth. To what post are you referring?
==
I resent that the newspaper gives houseroom to such poorly reasoned and intentionally provocative writings as those by Rogers (nyah, nyah, your mother wears army shoes).
Especially now that letters now seem to be limited to one or two at most.
Especially when writers such as Lowell Grisham and Art Hobson present such a great contrast.

Posted by: Coralie

April 1, 2013 at noon ( | suggest removal )

The first time I heard 'circle of life' was in Lion King. Since then I have heard others that believe just like FFT described:
"The truth is that when we die our bodies return to the dust from which they were made, and the breath of life returns to the air around us "
Of course, he added his own interruption from Genesis in a cut and paste fashion.

I'm sure you have heard that we become a star or something when we die as our "dust" goes flying off somewhere. Hence 'the circle of life'.

I could goggle it and recite some source for you, if you would like. But what does that prove.

Posted by: mycent

April 1, 2013 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "...you have heard that we become a star or something when we die as our "dust" goes flying off somewhere. Hence 'the circle of life'.">>

That's not "the circle of life."

Someone once asked astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson what he considered "the most astounding fact." He gave this answer:

http://vimeo.com/38101676

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 1, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pretty video that did not change my mind. God created those exploding stars and created life with His own breath.

Posted by: mycent

April 1, 2013 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, you aren't actually reading the posts by freethinker, coralie, alpha and frank, are you?

I think it's funnier to just state my opinion and let them rant and rave. For example if I can entice freethinker to regurgitate long lines of nonsense...my job is done. Keeps them off the streets and out of the pool halls.

Regards to you...

Posted by: patrioteer

April 1, 2013 at 10:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

By the way mycentworth, just to clear up any confusion, when I do read these posts I read those by fellow Christians like yourself and Tank. It gives me the gist of the conversations.

I used to read their replies but they only want to call you names and question your intelligence. That's the only pleasure they seem to get from this life, so it's best to let them enjoy what they have.

Posted by: patrioteer

April 1, 2013 at 10:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, patrioteer, you made me laugh and also gave some good advice. I'll try to follow it.

Posted by: mycent

April 2, 2013 at 7:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT....would you run for President. God you are good....!

Posted by: MANofFEWwords

April 2, 2013 at 7:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You think anyone who requires more than 250 words to explain a thought, concept or idea would ever be in a presidential race? Really. We're now in $50,000 a plate private-secret dinners and sound-bite campaigns.

Obama's "positions" during the last campaign was no more than bullet points on a website. Romeny's were even less. In fact Romney was for and against the same thing.

FFT is way too analytic and bright to be POTUS. Plus, he's foreign born.

Posted by: cdawg

April 3, 2013 at 12:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer, you have just described yourself as a troll.
But I think you are better than that, simply someone who is afraid of entertaining a thought that is different from the ones you always thought before.
I used to have a boss like that. He didn't like new ideas unless he came up with them himself. However, he never came up with any new ideas.

Posted by: Coralie

April 3, 2013 at 2:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hitler was not involved in the occult because he said people in the occult were not national socialists? Yeah, because he was always good on his word.

Hitler had a contested yet never-the-less extensive involvment in the occult. Again, attaching a Christian label to his attrocities is weak.

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 4, 2013 at 7:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Hitler had a contested yet never-the-less extensive involvment in the occult."
Insofar as he was a Catholic, that is very true.

RE "Again, attaching a Christian label to his attrocities is weak."
So Hitler was weak. He attached the Christian label to his atrocities himself. He didn't think of them as atrocities, however; he was "doing the Lord's work".

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 4, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "Hitler was not involved in the occult because he said people in the occult were not national socialists?">>

Let's see, provided above are 15 specific lines of referenced evidence showing conclusively that Hitler and his Nazis where up to their eyeballs in Christianity. Does Tank respond to any of it? No. He burps up a naked unsupported assertion about Hitler being involved in the occult. It would seem appropriate to consider Hitler's opinion on the matter, and this too was provided. Does Tank respond to that? No. We are to believe upon Tank's mere assertion that he knows more about Hitler's beliefs than the person actually holding them. How convenient. Amazing the lengths people will go to in order to cling to completely unsupportable indefensible emotionally based beliefs.

Imagine if the tables were turned and all of the evidence were going the other way. If Hitler wrote a book detailing how he didn't believe in God or the Bible, the Nazis wore belt buckles saying "there is no God," they worked to shut down churches and put up atheist halls in their place (which is the opposite of what they did). Imagine they banned God from school and said: "we need an unbelieving people," and had it in their statement of principles that they weren't Christian but rather atheists.

And then someone came along, inspite of all of this mountain of evidence and said:

"...attaching an atheist label to his atrocities is weak."

Would Tankersley be swayed but such a response? Hell no, and for a change he would be right and have the facts on his side. But he doesn't here, they go against him. And he probably even knows this, that's why he doesn't even try to address the evidence. Like Buddy, who got fooled by that conservative wingnut Dinesh, he cannot deal with the evidence because it is all against him.

Tank: "Again, attaching a Christian label to his attrocities is weak.">>

Incidentally, I didn't do that. That's the game on your side of the table (guilt by association). I am careful to qualify that the Nazi atrocities do not follow from Christianity. If they didn't build from that foundation perhaps they would have found another. If Hitler had been an atheist (and there is no evidence for that), he could have done what he did and this would still say nothing about whether theism/atheism are true.

But there is this question of his religious beliefs. And it's a fair question. And the evidence points to the basis of the antisemitism of that day and time, being rooted in centuries of Christian antisemitism.

Sorry about that. That's just the way it is.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 4, 2013 at 9:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

Re-

"So Hitler was weak. He attached the Christian label to his atrocities himself. "

Good point.

The idea of Gleichschaltung mean anything to anyone? Or Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg's plans for Germany for that matter?

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 4, 2013 at 11:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The notions of an "Aryan race" and its supposed superiority were based on ideas put forward in the late 19th century by occult writers such as Madame Blavatsky, Guido von List, and others.
Hitler himself wasn't as deep into other bizarre occult ideas as some of the other Nazi leaders. They were a rare bunch.
http://listverse.com/2010/08/22/top-1...

Posted by: Coralie

April 6, 2013 at 12:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )