The Compassionate Faith of Hitleroonism

[Taraz]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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.