The Compassionate Faith of Hitleroonism

[arahant]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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.]

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]

[ 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.