Jesus, religion or reality......

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
that is why Christianity disgusts me. Any religion that says new born babies deserve to die is morally bankrupt.

I agree. But what the hell does that have to do with Christianity? I hate your lying, distorted view of Christianity more than you do. Why do you make up stuff to disgust you? Aren't there enough real things in life for that, like racism, cockroaches and Joy Behar??

El Cid

Well-known member
Initially he thought Christian churches would just die off by themselves. According to Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews, and Ordinary Germans by Eric A. Johnson, "After the first few years of Hitler rule thousands of clergyman Catholic and Protestant endured house searches, surveillance, Gastopo interrogations, jail and prison terms, fines, and worse." In addition, 5 million Christians were murdered especially in Poland where they led the resistance.
I am going to guess the Christians murdered in Poland were killed for leading the resistance, not because they were Christians.
Maybe but during Hitler's reign, the main ones that resisted at all in all the countries he invaded were devout Christians including in his own nation.
The issue here is whether Hitler wanted to destroy Christianity or organised religion. What you describer here could be either.
I notice you ignored the quote from Goebbels diary, but I could provide many more quotes and actions by Hitler that it was specifically Christianity, especially Biblical Christianity, since he believed the Bible was a product of the jews.
Richard Weikart is a well respected historian. I know atheists dont like him because he is an orthodox Christian. But that is committing the genetic fallacy.
Atheists do not like him because he has been caught lying so often in his attempts to link Darwin and Hitler. He is well-respected by creationists who want to hear that evolution is wrong, but not anyone else.
Actually not all atheists dislike him, in fact one on this site En Hakkore cited him as a reliable source on Nazi Germany. But many non Christian historians also agree that Hitler and the Nazis strongly believed in Darwinian evolution.
This statement came from a monologue recorded by Heinrich Heims also on Dec. 13, 1941.
It can be found here (in German), page 123 of the PDF.

As far as I can see, Hitler is talking about organised religion. The second sentence is The organized lie must be broken in such a way that the state is absolute master..
There are many organized religions including Judaism and Islam, why would he use the singular term lie and not lies? He was plainly referring to Christianity. So actually your link confirms my point.
It is interesting that he reveres Jesus, but rejects Paul (paraphrasing somewhat; Paul used his teaching to protect the underclass and to mobilize and organize an early form of communism; with his theft we lost a beautiful clarity of the ancient world). He clearly was a theist who accepted parts of Christianity,
He only "reveres" Jesus in public and his version of Jesus is totally unlike the historical Jesus. For example, he didnt think Jesus was a jew nor divine and rejected the supernatural. Other than a few stories like the driving of the money changers, he rejected most of the NT and most of its teachings.

but he also mentions Islam in a positive way
Yes, the reason why is that it teaches that Christians and Jews were evil and deserved to die.
True about Jesus, but there is evidence that most ancient and 'primitive" societies and religions originally worshipped one Supreme God basically the Christian God, and according to Romans 1, they will be judged by the knowledge they acquired from nature about Him.
Where do you get the idea that primitive societies were monotheistic? The orthodox view is that most primitive cultures were pantheistic - including the Hebrews originally.
There is a minority of anthropologists that disagree with the standard view. Such as Wilhelm Schmidt and Michael Harbin. The standard view is biased by a priori assuming that social Darwinism is true.
I cant prove it, but as a human and student of human nature, I know human nature.
AKA opinion.
True, but based on experience.
If you place your nations laws above Gods laws, that is placing your nation above God. Such as the Nazis ignoring the commandment, "you shall not murder" and yet making it legal to murder jews.
I would guess they did not consider it murder.
Exactly, they rationalized murder away by placing the nations laws and goals above Gods.
No, Satan is tortured as well.
So how does that work? Is he tortured 8 hours a day, Monday to Friday, but then he goes home, and can torture others?
I dont know but according to the Bible hell was originally created for Satan and his demons, not for humans.
Who is torturing Satan? Is that God? Why does God get Satan to do his dirty work for him?
Yes, God tortures him.
But people dont go to hell just for failing to love God, they also go for their sinful behavior. The two are inextricably interwined.
Really? I thought everyone had sinful behaviour.
Generally. unbelievers engage in more sin and more serious sins. Studies have shown that regular church goers are more law abiding than non church goers.
Are you saying Christians do not sin?

If you are not saying that, then sinful behaviour is the case whether you love God or not. And going to heaven or hell clearly does not depend on sinful behaviour if we all do it.
See above. And the seriousness and type of sins depend on what level of heaven and hell you go to.
Not loving God causes you to do wrong and sinful things and even have wrong and sinful attitudes even when you are doing things that outwardly may appear to be good. Such as the billionaire that gives millions to the poor so that he will get adulation and praise. That is the wrong reason to give to the poor.
Is a good reason to give to the poor that you want to please God so you avoid hell? Seems like a selfish reason to me.
Pleasing God is a good reason, but doing it to avoid hell is not the best. Mature Christians do good out of love for God and man (His image bearer) not to avoid hell.
If I give to charity, I do not tell anyone, and, as an atheist, I expect nothing from God. Sounds like that makes it better than when a Christian gives to charity.
Loving certain humans more than God is not a good reason either.
Do you disagree that not forcing someone to convert is giving them freedom of religion or conscience? Hardcore Islam does not allow freedom of conscience but for Christianity it is a basic principle.
Telling someone to be a Christian or else they will burn for eternity in hell is forcing someone to convert. How you can call that "freedom of conscience" I do not know.
How? That makes no sense. If you reject the gospel message then you are not going to believe in hell, right? So there is no threat of force at all. It would be like telling an adult that if they dont act better Santa Claus wont bring them any toys. They would just laugh. So it is if you reject Christianity.
Actually the better parts of hell may not be much worse than the Gulag, but the part where Hitler went is much worse.
Where does the Bible say there are grades of hell?
Matthew 11:22-24.
When God tells me it is my first offense, I will change my position. So far, that has not happened; I have seen nothing to make me think he even exists.
There is strong evidence He exists. The Cosmological argument has never been refuted.
And yet Christianity says it does not have to be! Love God, trust in Jesus, or whatever, and you can dodge that eternal punishment. Turns out it was not necessary after all.
No, someone has to experience that punishment. If you repent and accept Gods gift of eternal life, Christ has to experience that punishment in your place.
That bit I put in bold - that is why Christianity disgusts me. Any religion that says new born babies deserve to die is morally bankrupt. As far as I am concerned, you lost the argument there.
How do you know that is morally bankrupt?