The Compassionate Faith of Hitleroonism [Archive]

madnak

01-28-2007, 03:12 PM

This is a hypothetical question drawing on the Christian bashing thread.

Assume, 200 years from now, there is a community of people who are essentially ideal. They all live lives full of love and peace, helping one another and living lives of purity and benevolence. Nobody would ever call these people bad, and everyone who meets them is struck with great affection for them.

The catch is that this group of people follows a religion that heralds Mein Kampf as the word of God and Hitler as the messiah. According to their interpretation of Hitler's work and actions, he was a peaceful man with a loving message. They claim that only through the grace of Hitler's benevolence are they such kind, caring people. They call themselves the Born Again Nazis.

Now, the followers of Hitler are all good people, the accepted interpretation of Hitler's work is 100% peaceful and benevolent, and the social effect of Hitler's work appears to be positive.

Under these conditions, is it rude or unacceptable to criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf? Is it insulting to the good, peaceful Nazis to imply that Hitler is a villain? If so, why? Taraz, I'm looking at you in particular.

(I'm using Hitler here because I assume we can all agree he's a tyrant.)

CallMeIshmael

01-28-2007, 07:15 PM

v nice

einbert

01-28-2007, 07:39 PM

If you lived in this hypothetical fairy tale, what would you do? Would you devote your energies to dethroning the villainous philosophy that just happens to be accepted by a near-perfect humanity?
You could say that it would be right to do so. But is it worth any effort whatsoever to try to inflict a change on an idealized population? Of course not.

Friedrich888

01-28-2007, 08:13 PM

I would not go out of my way to interfere with those people but I would not join them either.

luckyme

01-28-2007, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You could say that it would be right to do so. But is it worth any effort whatsoever to try to inflict a change on an idealized population? Of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question was, 'Is it rude, unacceptable or insulting?'
"Is it worth the effort" is not related to any of those, at least I can't make a connection ... clarify? ( oh, and it was you that added the 'idealized' characterization, if that matters).
I think it is worth the effort just because of the nature of our view of truth. If your spouse is a secret bigamist but your marriage seems wonderful most people would still want to know. Surprisingly, a fair number of them place a high value on not 'living in a lie' even though it's a pleasant enough one. There is an evolutionary advantage to wanting to know the truth it would seems, so we're stuck with it.

I don't see how it can be anything but ok, perhaps even obligatory, nice people don't like lies.

thanks, luckyme

bunny

01-28-2007, 08:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a hypothetical question drawing on the Christian bashing thread.

Assume, 200 years from now, there is a community of people who are essentially ideal. They all live lives full of love and peace, helping one another and living lives of purity and benevolence. Nobody would ever call these people bad, and everyone who meets them is struck with great affection for them.

The catch is that this group of people follows a religion that heralds Mein Kampf as the word of God and Hitler as the messiah. According to their interpretation of Hitler's work and actions, he was a peaceful man with a loving message. They claim that only through the grace of Hitler's benevolence are they such kind, caring people. They call themselves the Born Again Nazis.

Now, the followers of Hitler are all good people, the accepted interpretation of Hitler's work is 100% peaceful and benevolent, and the social effect of Hitler's work appears to be positive.

Under these conditions, is it rude or unacceptable to criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf? Is it insulting to the good, peaceful Nazis to imply that Hitler is a villain? If so, why? Taraz, I'm looking at you in particular.

(I'm using Hitler here because I assume we can all agree he's a tyrant.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I cant see how anyone could make a case that it was rude, insulting or whatever.

What they may claim though is that the current comments directed at religion are not "Hitler was a bad man" type but rather "People who follow Mein Kampf are bad". I think the second would be insulting (and wrong).

einbert

01-28-2007, 08:55 PM

My point is that some things are more important than being right.

Taraz

01-28-2007, 09:00 PM

I like the hypothetical. I don't think it would be rude to simply criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf. But I think there would be rude and insulting ways of criticizing. A lot of them probably would be insulted if you simply declared Hitler to be an evil guy. In their minds you would be saying that the philosophy they follow is an evil philosophy even though it's not at all. Because that is what most would infer if you just started saying randomly, "Hitler was the antichrist."

I think there would be a better way of educating these people about the past than initially declaring Hitler a villain. You could try to show them that the lifestyle they lead isn't based off of Hitler's teachings before you start attacking Hitler. At the same time I'm not quite sure it would be worth trying to change everyone's mind if it would make no difference in society.

Another two points:

- I'm not necessarily saying that you were trying to be insulting and rude before. But I can assure you that many people would be insulted by the comments you made. It seems like you could phrase your claims more eloquently. Again this relates to whether or not you want the Hitleroons or whoever to listen to you. If you don't care whether they change their minds or embrace truth/reason, then I guess there is no reason to care whether they are insulted or not.

- I hardly think you can equate Hitler and Jesus Christ. Although I think your hypothetical made the argument a lot clearer.

vhawk01

01-28-2007, 10:05 PM

Taraz

01-28-2007, 10:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

He wasn't equating Hitler and Jesus Christ, he was equating Hitler and God. And you are correct, that is grossly unfair to Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's the fundamentalist interpretation of God, I'm ok with it /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

vhawk01

01-28-2007, 10:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He wasn't equating Hitler and Jesus Christ, he was equating Hitler and God. And you are correct, that is grossly unfair to Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's the fundamentalist interpretation of God, I'm ok with it /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?

Sodom? Noah's Flood?

EDIT: Actually, scratch that. It doesn't make any difference whether the Great Flood literally happened or not. The 'moral' of the story suits my purposes just fine.

Prodigy54321

01-28-2007, 10:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like the hypothetical. I don't think it would be rude to simply criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf. But I think there would be rude and insulting ways of criticizing. A lot of them probably would be insulted if you simply declared Hitler to be an evil guy. In their minds you would be saying that the philosophy they follow is an evil philosophy even though it's not at all. Because that is what most would infer if you just started saying randomly, "Hitler was the antichrist."

I think there would be a better way of educating these people about the past than initially declaring Hitler a villain. You could try to show them that the lifestyle they lead isn't based off of Hitler's teachings before you start attacking Hitler. At the same time I'm not quite sure it would be worth trying to change everyone's mind if it would make no difference in society.

Another two points:

- I'm not necessarily saying that you were trying to be insulting and rude before. But I can assure you that many people would be insulted by the comments you made. It seems like you could phrase your claims more eloquently. Again this relates to whether or not you want the Hitleroons or whoever to listen to you. If you don't care whether they change their minds or embrace truth/reason, then I guess there is no reason to care whether they are insulted or not.

- I hardly think you can equate Hitler and Jesus Christ. Although I think your hypothetical made the argument a lot clearer.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't equating Hitler and Jesus Christ, he was equating Hitler and God. And you are correct, that is grossly unfair to Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL..I /images/graemlins/heart.gif vhawk

bunny

01-28-2007, 10:52 PM

I understand although I confess I am not making myself clear at all of late.

My point was intended to be that the analogy breaks down. With hitleroonism the hitler-attacker and the strangely-interpretive-hitler-follower both agree he exists. They disagree on his motives and character(presumably).

In the atheist attacking christianity, they disagree on the authorship. So the atheist is NOT saying "your religion is fine, but you are misinterpreting the words of what is actually an evil being, however well intentioned you may be". Rather they are taking the view that the only source of the religion is the religious people themselves. Thus, an attack on the religious beliefs doesnt have the third person element that the attack on hitler does.

Having said that, I personally dont find it insulting to attack people's beliefs, nor to label a belief stupid. However, I do think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you hold a stupid belief, you must be stupid - this is not correct as you may be misinformed, alternatively it may just be a blind spot in an otherwise impeccably rational mind.

madnak

01-28-2007, 11:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I like the hypothetical. I don't think it would be rude to simply criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf. But I think there would be rude and insulting ways of criticizing. A lot of them probably would be insulted if you simply declared Hitler to be an evil guy. In their minds you would be saying that the philosophy they follow is an evil philosophy even though it's not at all. Because that is what most would infer if you just started saying randomly, "Hitler was the antichrist."

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey - it gets their attention.

[ QUOTE ]
I think there would be a better way of educating these people about the past than initially declaring Hitler a villain. You could try to show them that the lifestyle they lead isn't based off of Hitler's teachings before you start attacking Hitler. At the same time I'm not quite sure it would be worth trying to change everyone's mind if it would make no difference in society.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this forum, rationality is frequently assumed. But my desire to share my frustration about Christianity isn't rational. so I can't evaluate myself according to that standard. I can say that it's probably more rational to find a way to express my ideas than to simply keep them to myself, but putting it in the terms of a mission statement is beyond me.

Call me a cynic or an apathetic, but I don't think it's in my power to destroy religion. And if it were, I'm not sure I'd want to go about it - it's not my job, and it would be very drastic. In terms of changing people, I believe in leading by example. If my actions and ideals are more effective, then they will presumably succeed on their own merits. There is the idea of the "virus meme" that disturbs me, but propaganda isn't what I'm about. Let other people do the macrophaging, where (and if) it's necessary.

I think Jesus (as depicted in the New Testament) was a manipulative sociopathic con-man, and it's frustrating to me that nobody else shares that view. So I have an itch to express it, but I don't want to go crashing anyone's party. I'll scratch that itch by posting on a philosophy forum, where (eerily enough) some people actually agree with me. It's really that simple. No high-minded goals here, or at least none that are developed enough to let out of the sandbox.

[ QUOTE ]
- I hardly think you can equate Hitler and Jesus Christ. Although I think your hypothetical made the argument a lot clearer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't my intent. If I were to equate Jesus with anyone, it'd be Josepth Smith, Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard. Hitler was an amalgam, because I believe the actions of the God of the Old Testament were analogous with those of Hitler (the cult of personality was more like Jesus).

madnak

01-28-2007, 11:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I understand although I confess I am not making myself clear at all of late.

My point was intended to be that the analogy breaks down. With hitleroonism the hitler-attacker and the strangely-interpretive-hitler-follower both agree he exists. They disagree on his motives and character(presumably).

In the atheist attacking christianity, they disagree on the authorship. So the atheist is NOT saying "your religion is fine, but you are misinterpreting the words of what is actually an evil being, however well intentioned you may be". Rather they are taking the view that the only source of the religion is the religious people themselves. Thus, an attack on the religious beliefs doesnt have the third person element that the attack on hitler does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. It's true there's no clear source of blame, like Hitler. But at the same time, modern Christians are no more responsible for the Bible than my Hitleroons are for the concentration camps. There is a third person, it's just hard to clarify - partially the writers of the gospels, partially Roman Catholicism, partially the ancient Hebrews, and maybe Jesus himself (if he existed and fit the image of him described in the New Testament).

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I personally dont find it insulting to attack people's beliefs, nor to label a belief stupid. However, I do think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you hold a stupid belief, you must be stupid - this is not correct as you may be misinformed, alternatively it may just be a blind spot in an otherwise impeccably rational mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that.

Taraz

01-28-2007, 11:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Below are some links and an explanation of what I'm talking about. What you guys are calling "religion" is a very recent phenomenon. You might understand this, but many of the arguments that are being made here are against fundamentalism.

wikipedia article on fundamentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism)

The Fundamentalism Project was a decade long project funded by the American Academy of Arts and Science that produced five volumes of research on 75 different fundamentalist movements throughout history. Over 100 scholars from around the world contributed. I haven't read that much of it, but it's really fascinating stuff. They concluded there are five basic characteristics shared by all fundamentalisms:

1. Men hold the power and women are seen as subservient.
2. All rules apply to all people. There can be no pluralism
3. The rules have to be handed down to the next generation precisely.
4. A rejection of modernity and a desire to return to a previous "golden age" that never really existed.
5. The denial of history in a radical way.

Here's a review of it by The Council of Foreign Affairs:
link (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030701fareviewessay15416/david-aikman/the-great-revival-understanding-religious-fundamentalism.html)

I randomly googled it and found a shorter summary if you scroll down on this web page (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html).

Taraz

01-28-2007, 11:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I personally dont find it insulting to attack people's beliefs, nor to label a belief stupid. However, I do think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you hold a stupid belief, you must be stupid - this is not correct as you may be misinformed, alternatively it may just be a blind spot in an otherwise impeccably rational mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I do too. But I also try to avoid making comments that will be perceived as insults. I admit I'm probably overly sensitive to that.

madnak, I didn't ever mean to suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion. I probably did at some point and started this whole debate.

vhawk01

01-29-2007, 12:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Below are some links and an explanation of what I'm talking about. What you guys are calling "religion" is a very recent phenomenon. You might understand this, but many of the arguments that are being made here are against fundamentalism.

wikipedia article on fundamentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism)

The Fundamentalism Project was a decade long project funded by the American Academy of Arts and Science that produced five volumes of research on 75 different fundamentalist movements throughout history. Over 100 scholars from around the world contributed. I haven't read that much of it, but it's really fascinating stuff. They concluded there are five basic characteristics shared by all fundamentalisms:

1. Men hold the power and women are seen as subservient.
2. All rules apply to all people. There can be no pluralism
3. The rules have to be handed down to the next generation precisely.
4. A rejection of modernity and a desire to return to a previous "golden age" that never really existed.
5. The denial of history in a radical way.

Here's a review of it by The Council of Foreign Affairs:
link (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030701fareviewessay15416/david-aikman/the-great-revival-understanding-religious-fundamentalism.html)

I randomly googled it and found a shorter summary if you scroll down on this web page (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certainly arguing against that, but certainly not exclusively that. How can you claim that the Great Flood story isn't barbaric and far, far worse than the Holocaust?

Taraz

01-29-2007, 12:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I am certainly arguing against that, but certainly not exclusively that. How can you claim that the Great Flood story isn't barbaric and far, far worse than the Holocaust?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware that I claimed that.

vhawk01

01-29-2007, 12:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am certainly arguing against that, but certainly not exclusively that. How can you claim that the Great Flood story isn't barbaric and far, far worse than the Holocaust?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware that I claimed that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, YOU didn't, but a large number of theists who don't come even close to fitting your criteria for fundamentalists do. And they think that story is just fine by them.

Taraz

01-29-2007, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]

No, YOU didn't, but a large number of theists who don't come even close to fitting your criteria for fundamentalists do. And they think that story is just fine by them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those criteria were for the fundamentalisms (fundamentalist movements), not for fundamentalists (actual people). I'm not quite sure what you're getting at though. Some Christians who aren't fundamentalists believe that there is nothing wrong with some of the more barbaric stories in the bible, so we should do away with religion?

DougShrapnel

01-29-2007, 01:01 AM

People need to realize it isn't hiler that makes them good. A correct answer for the wrong reason will eventually bite them in the ass.

vhawk01

01-29-2007, 01:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, YOU didn't, but a large number of theists who don't come even close to fitting your criteria for fundamentalists do. And they think that story is just fine by them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those criteria were for the fundamentalisms (fundamentalist movements), not for fundamentalists (actual people). I'm not quite sure what you're getting at though. Some Christians who aren't fundamentalists believe that there is nothing wrong with some of the more barbaric stories in the bible, so we should do away with religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am the one who is confused. Do you think this thread is only relevant if the theists in question are fundamentalists? That seems to be your recurring point. My point is that it clearly isn't. Non-fundamentalist Christians believe in and accept a God who is far worse than Hitler. They do not need to be fundamentalist for that to be a valid criticism.

John21

01-29-2007, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You could say that it would be right to do so. But is it worth any effort whatsoever to try to inflict a change on an idealized population? Of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the operative word is "inflict". And I'd agree that you can't "inflict" change, but I believe you can "create" change. In the context of your statement the difference between inflict and create, would be that the latter is a positive while the former is a negative. Negative, "anti" positions never work in developing change unless they correspond with a positive or "pro" something position.

At one time there was a great deal more racial inequality in the U.S. and a corresponding anti-racial position. But the movement that created the change was a positive i.e. a pro-equality movement. The same with the American Revolution, "anti" Monarchy sentiment married with a "pro" democracy movement. Even the fundamentalists understand this: they're anti-abortion, but the movement is pro-life.

I believe change can happen, even against an idealized population. But not through an "anti" anything. It's the associated positive or "pro" movement that makes anything resembling positive change occur.

madnak

01-29-2007, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
madnak, I didn't ever mean to suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion. I probably did at some point and started this whole debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I find it interesting. And the issues surrounding it - political correctness, etc. But the question of what to do when someone takes actions that are "good" and then attributes those actions to some other thing that may not be considered "good" is relevant. I wouldn't start a thread based on a personal slight - if I get offended I typically just stop posting, so everything's fine here.

I like sharing my views, though - even sharing my views about sharing my views (about sharing my views...).

Taraz

01-29-2007, 02:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am the one who is confused. Do you think this thread is only relevant if the theists in question are fundamentalists? That seems to be your recurring point. My point is that it clearly isn't. Non-fundamentalist Christians believe in and accept a God who is far worse than Hitler. They do not need to be fundamentalist for that to be a valid criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like we're going in circles. Fundamentalists are generally the ones who believe in the Great Flood as historical fact. I'm too lazy to do research on the statistics, but I'm contending that non-fundamentalists don't think God actually killed all of humanity except for Noah. They believe it's just a story. The God you're saying is vile, murderous, etc. isn't a God who non-fundamendalist Christians believe in because they (generally) don't believe the bible is literal history.

luckyme

01-29-2007, 02:25 AM

From a Rasmusssen Reports National Poll 2006

[ QUOTE ]
Fifty-four percent (54%) of all Americans believe the Bible is literally true while 32% disagree and 13% are not sure. Among those who attend Church at least once a week, 74% believe it is literally true. At the other extreme, 29% of those who rarely or never attend Church believe the Bible is literally true.

Among Evangelical Christians, 85% believe the Bible is literally true. That numbers falls to 55% among other Protestants and 53% among Catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they believe it is literal, does that mean that people were killed in the flood when it says people were killed in the flood? Or do you have a different take on 'literal'?

luckyme

vhawk01

01-29-2007, 02:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am the one who is confused. Do you think this thread is only relevant if the theists in question are fundamentalists? That seems to be your recurring point. My point is that it clearly isn't. Non-fundamentalist Christians believe in and accept a God who is far worse than Hitler. They do not need to be fundamentalist for that to be a valid criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like we're going in circles. Fundamentalists are generally the ones who believe in the Great Flood as historical fact. I'm too lazy to do research on the statistics, but I'm contending that non-fundamentalists don't think God actually killed all of humanity except for Noah. They believe it's just a story. The God you're saying is vile, murderous, etc. isn't a God who non-fundamendalist Christians believe in because they (generally) don't believe the bible is literal history.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. EVEN IF it's just a story, and it didn't literally happen...it doesn't change anything. They WORSHIP that guy. What if Hitler was just a fictional story? Would you still be uncomfortable around people who worshipped him and thought he was the very definition of good? Whether the people died or not, the moral is that God would wipe out the entire world if they displeased him.

Sephus

01-29-2007, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
From a Rasmusssen Reports National Poll 2006

[ QUOTE ]
Fifty-four percent (54%) of all Americans believe the Bible is literally true while 32% disagree and 13% are not sure. Among those who attend Church at least once a week, 74% believe it is literally true. At the other extreme, 29% of those who rarely or never attend Church believe the Bible is literally true.

Among Evangelical Christians, 85% believe the Bible is literally true. That numbers falls to 55% among other Protestants and 53% among Catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they believe it is literal, does that mean that people were killed in the flood when it says people were killed in the flood? Or do you have a different take on 'literal'?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

am i the first one to point out the likelihood that many of the respondents of the poll didn't understand the question?

can't you see people saying "yeah, it's true. god didn't create the earth in six actual days, but if you interpret it the right way, it's all true... literally"?

vhawk01

01-29-2007, 03:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From a Rasmusssen Reports National Poll 2006

[ QUOTE ]
Fifty-four percent (54%) of all Americans believe the Bible is literally true while 32% disagree and 13% are not sure. Among those who attend Church at least once a week, 74% believe it is literally true. At the other extreme, 29% of those who rarely or never attend Church believe the Bible is literally true.

Among Evangelical Christians, 85% believe the Bible is literally true. That numbers falls to 55% among other Protestants and 53% among Catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they believe it is literal, does that mean that people were killed in the flood when it says people were killed in the flood? Or do you have a different take on 'literal'?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

am i the first one to point out the likelihood that many of the respondents of the poll didn't understand the question?

can't you see people saying "yeah, it's true. god didn't create the earth in six actual days, but if you interpret it the right way, it's all true... literally"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a really good point. It would be very interesting to know how many of them really believe in EVERYTHING literally. Its probably 0, if we use the strictest possible definition of 'literally,' but I would bet you that most of these people would just default to a literal interpretation for any Bible passage they weren't familiar with.

arahant

01-29-2007, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From a Rasmusssen Reports National Poll 2006

[ QUOTE ]
Fifty-four percent (54%) of all Americans believe the Bible is literally true while 32% disagree and 13% are not sure. Among those who attend Church at least once a week, 74% believe it is literally true. At the other extreme, 29% of those who rarely or never attend Church believe the Bible is literally true.

Among Evangelical Christians, 85% believe the Bible is literally true. That numbers falls to 55% among other Protestants and 53% among Catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they believe it is literal, does that mean that people were killed in the flood when it says people were killed in the flood? Or do you have a different take on 'literal'?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

am i the first one to point out the likelihood that many of the respondents of the poll didn't understand the question?

can't you see people saying "yeah, it's true. god didn't create the earth in six actual days, but if you interpret it the right way, it's all true... literally"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a really good point. It would be very interesting to know how many of them really believe in EVERYTHING literally. Its probably 0, if we use the strictest possible definition of 'literally,' but I would bet you that most of these people would just default to a literal interpretation for any Bible passage they weren't familiar with.

[/ QUOTE ]

While we're on the subject of speculation, I suspect the question was phrased more explicitly than this. I think Rasmussen is probably aware of the fact that people are too stupid to know what 'literal' means. Though to be fair, these polls are always biased towards religious belief.

Either way, these are scary [censored] numbers, and I shudder when I think of them. I live in CA, and I would be shocked and disgusted if these numbers held here. I know maybe 2 people who believe this kind of [censored]. Granted, I don't live in a trailer park, but still...wtf?!

luckyme

01-29-2007, 03:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]

am i the first one to point out the likelihood that many of the respondents of the poll didn't understand the question?

can't you see people saying "yeah, it's true. god didn't create the earth in six actual days, but if you interpret it the right way, it's all true... literally"?

[/ QUOTE ]

polls are extremely tricky to do right. The issue you raise is a valid one. But I've seen other ones where the questions were specific "did X actually happen" and the numbers are still amazing ( though I think lower).

I was only making the point that a surprising number of non-extremists are literalists. Taraz thinks people who believe Mary's face is on a piece of toast will be discerning in their base belief. no way.

luckyme

luckyme

01-29-2007, 03:40 AM

I found a specific one -

ABC poll 2004-
[ QUOTE ]
Overall, 64 percent believe the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is “literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word.” About as many say the same about creation (61 percent) and Noah and the flood (60 percent). About three in 10 say, instead, that each of these is “meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally.”

[/ QUOTE ]

( this is 64% of all americans, not just christians)

You're right, it is frightening. If it stayed in trailer parks it wouldn't be so bad, but oval offices... cheeesh.
Yep. I think I have to speak up, maybe insult a few.

luckyme

IronUnkind

01-29-2007, 04:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think Jesus (as depicted in the New Testament) was a manipulative sociopathic con-man, and it's frustrating to me that nobody else shares that view

[/ QUOTE ]

There are people who share this view, but it is not an enlightened one. It is strange that a skeptic such as yourself would read the text like a fundamentalist. Nevertheless, you take the words at face value but reject the attendant metaphysics, so you (unsurprisingly) end up casting Jesus as a charlatan. If you lack the courage of your agnostic convictions (by trusting the historicity of the text), then at least I can follow your logic.

[ QUOTE ]
If I were to equate Jesus with anyone, it'd be Josepth Smith, Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better to be an historian than a polemic. I am confident that the former would reject your comparison. If your goal, however, was to ape the faux-outrage of Dawkins, then I suppose he would be impressed. It's pretty foolish to hold him up as a paragon of impartiality, though.

IronUnkind

01-29-2007, 04:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yep. I think I have to speak up, maybe insult a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sport seems to be gaining popularity. The most popular skeptics aren't valued for the depth of their thoughts but rather for the audacity of their insults. I think you guys confuse being a dick with courage.

Taraz

01-29-2007, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]

No. EVEN IF it's just a story, and it didn't literally happen...it doesn't change anything. They WORSHIP that guy. What if Hitler was just a fictional story? Would you still be uncomfortable around people who worshipped him and thought he was the very definition of good? Whether the people died or not, the moral is that God would wipe out the entire world if they displeased him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points:

- My contention is that non-fundamentlists dont believe that God would wipe out the entire world if humans displeased him. I mean, read about how many different interpretations there are of the Noah story. I'm saying they don't worship that God.

- I never said the majority of Christians in the U.S. aren't fundamentalists. Those numbers are really scary. I'm arguing that religion != fundamentalism. We should be fighting against the fundamentalism that has taken this country by storm, not religion. (Or if you want to fight religion too, it's of much lesser importance.)

I would be interested in what the world-wide opinion of Christians is on this matter. And even if a large number of them believed in those stories, that doesn't change the fact that it is a recent view to interpret all these stories literally.

I do agree it's pretty morbid to worship a God that would do the things that the God of the Old Testament did.

Mickey Brausch

01-29-2007, 04:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Under these conditions, is it rude or unacceptable to criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf? Is it insulting to the good, peaceful Nazis to imply that Hitler is a villain? If so, why? (I'm using Hitler here because I assume we can all agree he's a tyrant.)

[/ QUOTE ]VG hypothetical - and close to home (not for Christianity, in particular, but about the new imaginary constructs born out of the distance of time.) Napoleon or Tamerlane are examples of leaders who rampaged over entire continents, but are now remembered primarily as brilliant military strategists.

My answer is this:

Those future Hitleroonist people should be left alone, at their own devices, to worship whomever they want -- as long as what they are doing does not go against the laws of that future time and eminent human values. On the other hand, a discussion of History should not be forbidden and inhibited, either. If historical research shows up Hitler to have been a tyrant and a criminal, then people who wanna air that side of the Messiah should be allowed to.

As simple as that.

[ QUOTE ]
Taraz, I'm looking at you in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]Adolph Hitler once styled himself as the Greatest Warleader of All Time, a title whose acronym in German reads Grofaz. I kinda flashed back to it.

Mickey Brausch

Taraz

01-29-2007, 04:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Taraz, I'm looking at you in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]Adolph Hitler once styled himself as the Greatest Warleader of All Time, a title whose acronym in German reads Grofaz. I kinda flashed back to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grofaz is a cool name. I think I'll use that as a username at some point.

Matt R.

01-29-2007, 10:28 AM

madnak,
I had a more detailed reply typed up yesterday, but the forum decided the time had expired or something and ate it. I didn't feel like re-typing the whole thing.

First of all, no, I don't think it would be rude or unacceptable to criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf in your hypothetical scenario.

Rather than type up (again) why I think the analogy fails, I will pose my own question for you.

What if 200 years from now there is a community of people who are essentially ideal, living lives full of peace and love while helping one another. Exactly like the society you described. The main difference is that the society is atheistic. However, they take the combined teachings and works of Nietzche as truth. From his work, which they believe to be axiomatically true, they believed Nietzche professed that we should all love one another and treat each other with respect. This was their intepretation of Nietzche and they derived their society from his teachings. Therefore, rather than taking Mein Kampf as the word of god (as in your example) and thus axiomatically true, they take the combined writings of Nietzche as axiomatically true simply because the writings are "obviously right". The only difference is that I have removed the "word of god" part because it is an atheistic society. Other than that they are analogous statements.

So we have this peaceful, loving, and benevolent society. The society is also atheistic and derives their beliefs from Nietzche.

Now, what would you say if someone came along and described Nietzche's philosophical ideals as far far worse than Hitler's political and philosophical ideals? What would you say if that same person called Nietzche a tyrant like Hitler, only far worse? What if he compared Nietzche's greatest works to Mein Kampf?

Alex-db

01-29-2007, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now, what would you say if someone came along and described Nietzche's philosophical ideals as far far worse than Hitler's political and philosophical ideals? What would you say if that same person called Nietzche a tyrant like Hitler, only far worse? What if he compared Nietzche's greatest works to Mein Kampf?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are they able to logically and objectively justify this opinion?

I think the implication from your post is that those opinions cannot be justified, which either makes it a poor comparison to Abrahimic religions (perhaps fair if we were discussing Buddism?), or I misunderstood your meaning.

vhawk01

01-29-2007, 12:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No. EVEN IF it's just a story, and it didn't literally happen...it doesn't change anything. They WORSHIP that guy. What if Hitler was just a fictional story? Would you still be uncomfortable around people who worshipped him and thought he was the very definition of good? Whether the people died or not, the moral is that God would wipe out the entire world if they displeased him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points:

- My contention is that non-fundamentlists dont believe that God would wipe out the entire world if humans displeased him. I mean, read about how many different interpretations there are of the Noah story. I'm saying they don't worship that God.

- I never said the majority of Christians in the U.S. aren't fundamentalists. Those numbers are really scary. I'm arguing that religion != fundamentalism. We should be fighting against the fundamentalism that has taken this country by storm, not religion. (Or if you want to fight religion too, it's of much lesser importance.)

I would be interested in what the world-wide opinion of Christians is on this matter. And even if a large number of them believed in those stories, that doesn't change the fact that it is a recent view to interpret all these stories literally.

I do agree it's pretty morbid to worship a God that would do the things that the God of the Old Testament did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am trying to imagine a watered-down, non-literal, metaphorical interpretation of the Old Testament that makes any difference. I can't. In what possible way can you interpret the OT to come to the conclusion that God ISN'T the biggest [censored] of all time?

Oh wait, NOW I thought of one. If humans are worthless insects not deserving of mercy and only deserving of misery and torture! At least he didn't make anyone wear armbands, right?

revots33

01-29-2007, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What they may claim though is that the current comments directed at religion are not "Hitler was a bad man" type but rather "People who follow Mein Kampf are bad". I think the second would be insulting (and wrong).

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem is it seem to be impossible to do one without the other. If you say, "the Christian god is an evil tyrant", Christians immediately feel insulted. Even if you never said anything about them directly.

The Hitleroonians would probably have the same reaction to anyone who says bad things about Hitler or Mein Kampf.

luckyme

01-29-2007, 12:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep. I think I have to speak up, maybe insult a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sport seems to be gaining popularity. The most popular skeptics aren't valued for the depth of their thoughts but rather for the audacity of their insults. I think you guys confuse being a dick with courage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, speaking up is on the rise. There have even been attempts at laws passed to prevent speaking up and much social pressure.
Do you hear a lot of Whoooshing when you're reading posts? There is a debate going on ( oh, it's in this thread !) about whether disagreeing with historical claims and literary interpretations ( speaking out) is in itself insulting.
Context, my son, context.

luckyme

madnak

01-29-2007, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Jesus (as depicted in the New Testament) was a manipulative sociopathic con-man, and it's frustrating to me that nobody else shares that view

[/ QUOTE ]

There are people who share this view, but it is not an enlightened one. It is strange that a skeptic such as yourself would read the text like a fundamentalist. Nevertheless, you take the words at face value but reject the attendant metaphysics, so you (unsurprisingly) end up casting Jesus as a charlatan. If you lack the courage of your agnostic convictions (by trusting the historicity of the text), then at least I can follow your logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how the metaphysics absolve Jesus at all. Obviously if Jesus were simply lying through his teeth, that would support my case. But even if he were capable of miracles, he'd be a manipulative con-man. There are only two things that go against my interpretation - the idea that Jesus knew he was going to be crucified and did it willingly, and the story of the angels coming down and raising him from the dead. I find the most consistent interpretation of the character fits my view, however.

Ultimately it's a complicated thing. You have the actual Jesus (assuming he existed), then you have the texts written about him in the decades after his death, then you have the politicization of the texts as Roman Catholicism got going, and then you have the modern expressions of the texts. And we don't even have all of the texts.

So in a sense you're right that it's impossible to make sweeping statements about Jesus. But I can say that, both as stories and as literal truth, the texts that were selected and edited by the early Church are texts of manipulation and coercion. And the character of Jesus, as he is known based on the New Testament of the Bible, is a charlatan (according to my evaluation).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I were to equate Jesus with anyone, it'd be Josepth Smith, Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better to be an historian than a polemic. I am confident that the former would reject your comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends entirely on the historian.

[ QUOTE ]
If your goal, however, was to ape the faux-outrage of Dawkins, then I suppose he would be impressed. It's pretty foolish to hold him up as a paragon of impartiality, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes, nobody is authentically outraged by the Bible. Never that. And I have never claimed impartiality. I try to evaluate the information that is available to me as rationally and objectively as possible, no more.

madnak

01-29-2007, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Those future Hitleroonist people should be left alone, at their own devices, to worship whomever they want -- as long as what they are doing does not go against the laws of that future time and eminent human values. On the other hand, a discussion of History should not be forbidden and inhibited, either. If historical research shows up Hitler to have been a tyrant and a criminal, then people who wanna air that side of the Messiah should be allowed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me. I didn't want this one to be about Christianity either, but I think it's too late for that.

IronUnkind

01-29-2007, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you hear a lot of Whoooshing when you're reading posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Context, my son, context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckyme:

If I were the eponym (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8545112&an=0&page=4# Post8545112) of a logical defect, I would be slow to patronize my intellectual superiors.

As for the rest of your response, the soapbox gave way the moment you missed the context clues of my post: "insult" is the clear antecedent of "this sport." I was bemoaning assholic (see note), not free, speech. In point of fact, I support everyone's right to speak up. Though in your case, it might be better for to exercise the concomitant right to refrain from speaking.

Note: Lest I stand accused of undermining my own point, let me be clear. Insults are a permissible form of expression. They just shouldn't be mistaken for a form of argument.

Mickey Brausch

01-29-2007, 03:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Taraz, I'm looking at you in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]Adolph Hitler once styled himself as the Greatest Warleader of All Time, a title whose acronym in German reads Grofaz. I kinda flashed back to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grofaz is a cool name. I think I'll use that as a username at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]Don't you think it's too soon in time to be using a term associated with Nazism for a nickname?

What are you, a punk rocker?

luckyme

01-29-2007, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As for the rest of your response, the soapbox gave way the moment you missed the context clues of my post: "insult" is the clear antecedent of "this sport."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it was clear. Doesn't the whooshing bother your concentration?

[ QUOTE ]
If I were the eponym of a logical defect,

[/ QUOTE ]

I LUV that honor.
You do realize that DS strawmanned that post, correctly expressed my position (LMS) in a later thread, and then used LMS correctly himself in an even later thread ( although he reversed what it was by that time because he was using it himself).

thanks for reminding me of that, one of my most enjoyable times on this forum.

luckyme