The Compassionate Faith of Hitleroonism

[vhawk01]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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 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]

[ 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]

[ 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

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah yes, nobody is authentically outraged by the Bible. Never that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Dawkins finds The Bible distasteful, but it is the magnitude of his disgust which I question. It's incommensurate with the facts at hand, and since Dawkins doesn't strike me as Mr. Sensitivity, I suspect his apoplexy is about as genuine as that of Hitchens or any number of semi-professional gadflies whose reputations hinge upon their ability to muster up a little indignation.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the whooshing bother your concentration?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look. If you hear a whoosh, it may be because you whiffed so badly with this wisecrack. The count is 0-2.