Hitler was a catholic. Except after going to jail he started hanging around the gays. Then he became an atheist! If one noted what he did to churches and believers they wouldn't say he was christian. Also the comments he was noted to say about Christianity. Example 'we got along for 2000 years before without their god and did just fine'. He had to become an atheist before he could become a monster. Yes people can give up their faith, so don't be an idiot.
"We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else—in any case something which has nothing to do with us."
Speech in Nuremberg on 6 September 1938. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Volume 1
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Hitler, his wars, and his huge armies and his long worldly speeches should be enough for you realize, but I guess its not.
@AtheistAussie@Draugh39 Saying someone did not follow what Jesus taught, and therefore is not a Christian, is NOT a NTSF. Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No IMMORAL (HITLER), impure, or greedy(THE POPE) person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God!!.... Hitler did not profess Jesus as his Lord and savior, he was a greedy and WORLDLY man, no doubt about that.. Read what Jesus actually said!
@RBNightlinger Wiki says they are, go and read a little about the reformation. It doesn't say in Leviticus "and the lord didst say Catholics are not of my flock'. Also read up on 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Talk to me after you do that.
@RBNightlinger God's word is truth eh? God made a woman out of a rib? LOL Noah managed to fit two of every animal on an ark 450 feet long ? LOL Stripy cattle from poplar, hazel and chestnut rods? LOL Virgin birth ? LOL, Bats are birds ? LOL. Yes, the word of God is truth... LOL
Hitler was an atheist in his beliefs. At some point, he stopped paying church taxes and left the Catholic church. It's true that the Catholic church was heavily anti-Semitic and Hitler may have harvested those hateful ideologies. But Hitler was not a Christian b/c he did not believe in the biblical Jesus. He did not like Jesus' being an Eastern man (i.e.,a Jew), so he wanted the church to change the gospels and make Jesus into an Aryan white man whom the evil Eastern men (i.e. the Jews) killed.
"At some point, he stopped paying church taxes and left the Catholic church."
That is a lie.
Hitler NEVER left the Catholic Church and he was never excommunicated. His very first treaty was with the Vatican (The Reichskonkordat) which insisted that Catholicism was to be taught in school (Article 21) and gave the Catholic church the legal right to levy Church taxes (Article 13).
@Draugh39 Hitler did leave the church and stopped paying church taxes. You are right that he did make deals with the Vatican, but he made those deals as an atheist who adhered to social Darwinism. He was not a genuinely Christian. He spoke out against Christianity but made some politically correct deals with the Catholic church for propaganda purposes. His references to God in his hateful book are also propaganda. He did not really believe in or fear God.
@Draugh39 I was wrong on one issue: Hitler did continue to pay church taxes even after he left home and stopped attending Mass. After watching and reading expert documentaries, I assumed that by not attending mass and adopting atheism & Darwinism, Hitler would have stopped paying church taxes too. Hitler NOMINALLY stayed a member of Catholic church, and for tradition and propaganda, he visited the church as Fuhrer. Thanks for pointing it out. See "tinyurl dot com /8xr23gk" for more info.
"I assumed that by not attending mass and adopting atheism & Darwinism"
1) Hitler BANNED Darwins work (I gave the reference to that).
2) Hitler was not an atheist. He imprisoned atheist and banned their organisations!
h t t p://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/German_Freethinkers_League
Hitler was a Roman Catholic up till the end, why is this surpricing? The Vatican helped the Nazis and the "Ustaše" to flee Europe after the war, in the "Ratlines"
@Draugh39 He was nominally a Catholic. Not a true believer. The church mostly cooperated w/ him mostly b/c they had no other choice. You want proof, search YouTube for "Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not" and visit "tinyurl dot com /8xr23gk". The YouTube video list his anti-Christian atheist beliefs w/ sources. The website cites Catholic church's opposition to Nazism. Yes, of course, many in the Catholic church may have been glad about Hitler's carrying out the Holocaust. Pagans did it too.
@Draugh39 You can also find Hitler anti-Christian views by searching YouTube for "Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not" sources are listed in this video.
So the Nazis accused the Roman Catholic Church of hiding sex-scandals? Well they got that one right then! The book "Hitlers secret conversations" (later called "Hitlers table talks") is riddled with deliberate mistranslations, misquotes and outright lies. You can't use it as a reference.
Here is a study of that topic:
Richard C. Carrier, "Hitler's table Talk:trubling finds", German Studies Review 26/3 (2003) pages 561-576.
@Draugh39 What does church sex scandals have to do with Hitler's being Catholic or not? The YouTube video and the website I gave you are good reference sources, and they are not the only ones. Search google and YouTube and you will come up with many other experts that cite Hitler's anti-Christian statements. Let's not make up excuses like mistranslation. Use Google translate if you like to translate stuff for yourself.
YOU, told me to look at a video which dealt with that. I replied to it.
"Let's not make up excuses like mistranslation. Use Google translate if you like to translate stuff for yourself."
You silly person! Do you honestly thing that "Google translate" is doing a good job in correctly translating?! I gave you the REFERENCE to why this book can't be trusted. Why don't you read that, it is a scientific study.
@Draugh39 Look at the video's later half that list's Hitler's anti-christian and atheist statements. The maker of that video lists multiple sources, and you can't say that they are all bad translations. Yes, Google translate is not accurate, but it's good enough to give you a rough independent translation if you have problems with someone else's translation. I corrected myself when you mentioned my error. So now you do the same regarding Hitler's being an atheist. Catholicism is not innocent.
Sorry, but do you have problems reading? As I have already stated, you can't use "Hitler's Table Talk" as a trustworthy reference! The fact that there are quotes in a book which is riddled with falsehoods doesn't make those quotes true! I have given you the reference where this has been studdied! READ!!
@Draugh39 Not so fast. Your source was Richard C. Carrier, "Hitler's table Talk:trubling finds." I read up on Prof. Carrier, and he is a devout atheist, and I need other neutral sources to confirm each mistranslation. There are some mistranslations but not all. Thanks for informing me about the dispute about Hitler's Table Talk, but Carrier does not debunk all the Hitler's anti-Christian, pro-atheist quotes. Carrier's atheist bias must also be taken into account. I suggest we investigate more.
You should read the PEER REVIEWED article! What particular beliefs a person have doesn't matter, especially in regards to translating German (something he didn't do single handed). Note that the original German is in that article, so you can check it. Further note that all quotes in HTT are edited and second hand.
Francis Collins is a Bible believing Christian but that does not affect his science in genetics, as he publish in peer reviewed journals!
@Draugh39 Not everything in Hitler's Table Talk is fake from a mistranslation or forgery. There is a dispute over the translations, and there maybe some bad translations. You are the first to bring up this argument before me. Later on, I will get a copy of Carriers' book and review his claims. I think when I do the research, there may be two sides to this story. In any case, Hitler did not truly believe in the biblical God. So if he was not an atheist, which God did he really believe in?
What on earth is a devout atheist?! But let's look at what you say. You question Carriers work on the basis that he is an atheist but you accept Hitlers Table Talk as OK despite the FACT that the few bits of Original German that we have does not match the translation. There are even bits omitted in the English version!
Now who is showing a bias here, Carrier you yourself?!
@Draugh39 Carrier's description on Wikipedia is that he is a promoter of atheism, so I called him a devout atheist. No one want to have Hitler in their corner, neither atheist nor Christians. So each side tries to come up w/ ways to pass him to the other side as Carrier is trying to do with his book refuting the translations of Hitler's Table Talk. So Carrier and his peers will have some bias. He may have used a bad German version, but I must investigate these claims.
1) Even if Hitlers Table Talk was undisputed (and it is far from that) there is nothng in it that speaks to atheism. A crittesism of the Church doesn't make one an atheist. Martin Luther did that. A Muslim or a Hindu are not atheist either but they don't agree with Christianity. Hitler is on record both in words and in actions as an anti-atheist, he is also on record for actions promoting Catholisism, and he himself proclaimed himself as one.
@Draugh39 The statements made in that YouTube video (Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not) as well as many other statements (search YouTube for "Hitler was NOT a Christian" and "Why did Adolf Hitler hate Christianity so much?") clearly indicate that he was anti-God, anti-Christian, and anti-religion. Yes, Hitler did make pro-Catholic statements and did on occasionally invoke God, but all that was propaganda. At the very least, he wanted to change Christianity into a Nazi ideology.
Sorry, I'm getting real evidence from historical records and you, again, give a reference to a youtube video based on bloody Hitlers Table Talk?!
"Although he himself [Hitler] was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant."
-Hermann Göring (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol.9)
@Draugh39 Visit "tinyurl dot com /8xr23gk" for new historical records that debunk you claims. Yes, the YouTube references all cite Hitler's Table Talk, and I said that not all those quotes are a mistranslations, but I will look at your source for historical accuracy. I will check every one of those statements against anything that Carrier may have on them. As I said Hitler's public pro-Christian pro-God statements were for propaganda. He did not believe or fear the biblical God.
And now you use the Pave the Way Foundation?! An organisation that actively work to make Pope Pius XII (Hitler's Pope) a saint?! And you are complaining about bias!?
This organisation have been very heavily crittisised by real scholars and Jewish organisations for their actions.
@Draugh39 I condemn Pope Pius XII as a closet Nazi. He could have done more but didn't. He was glad that the Jews were being liquidated in some part of his heart. I think I was clear on my previous statement on this issue. Once again, I condemn that genocidal Nazi Pope, Pius XII.
There was no need to change Christianity to Nazi- views in regards to e.g. Jews. The founder of protestantism (Martin Luther) had already declared what should be done with them in his book, "On the Jews and their lies". What the Nazis did was just to apply what Christianity of the time taught. The actions is supported by the Bible.
Deuturonomy 13:1-18 spells out in detail what you are to do with people that do not follow your God.
@Draugh39 Marting Luther was indeed a devout anti-Semite, and undoubtedly would have loved the Holocaust. The anti-Semitic hatred that the gentile Catholic church inherited from the pagan Greeks and Romans and were spread and sustained throughout Europe by the Catholic church. Hitler reaped the fruits of hate. Deut. 13:1-18 says to execute those among you who want to do idol worship because idol worship of that land was murder in the form of human sacrifice. This murderous practice had to end.
Deut. 13:1-18 say more than that. It state that you should kill EVERYONE in a city where you fina any worshippers of other gods. It states that you should kill your family members if they worship other gods. This isn't limited to "idol worship".
So doing this action is not against Christian teaching. Thus why do you find it strange that Hitler was a Catholic when a person like Friar Miroslav Filipović actions were worse than any that Hitler personally did?
@Draugh39 Whenever you are dealing w/ passages in the bible in which God orders mass killing, know that it is just b/c God said whoever that sheds man's blood, by man his blood must be shed. Canaanite pagan religion involved human sacrifice by every member of the community. Joining them equals to murder, and murderer must be executed. God ordered that Israel wipe out certain cities of the Canaanites and to drive out the rest to destroy the political entity of Canaanite to stop human sacrifice.
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians."
This was Martin Luthers teaching! (On the Jews and their lies, chap. XI
@Draugh39 Martin Luther himself was a devout Catholic before separating from the church. He was an evil man, and if he knew that his idea of a plain reading of the bible may one day result in Christian support for the Jews (e.g., Abraham lincoln's support for Jews against hateful decrees of General Grant and Christian Zionism), he would turn in his grave. Well, God used him to set the record straight on what the bible really says about Jews. Both Old & NT are pro-Jewish if taken in context.
"Martin Luther himself was a devout Catholic before separating from the church. He was an evil man,.. "
He pales in comparison with Pope Benedict IX and Pope Alexander VI though, and Alexander was one of the reason Luther left the Church. So you agree then that there is no problem being Catholic and evil or being Christian and evil.
So why should it them be strange that Hitler was Catholic?
2) Carriers article is in a peer reviewed journal. that mean that other experts in the field has checked it before it was allowed to be published. Most historians, and linguists (his peers in the field) in USA and in Germany are Christian, not atheists. So if there is any religious bias it is towards Christianity and not atheism.
Furthermore, the German text isn't a "bad version", it is the ORIGINAL! Thus any deviation from that text is "bad" or "dishonest".
@Draugh39 As I said, I will read Carrier's book later on. I don't think that the "original German" has Hitler saying nothing against religion or that all the English or French translations' statements are gross mistranslations. But I will look into your source whenever time permits. As I said even if your source is right, Hitler did not really believe in the biblical God. So if he is not an atheist, then which deity did he really believe in and follow?
@Draugh39 Thanks for the link to the article. Unfortunately, it's $12, so I will have to look at other places for a cheaper price. Or maybe if I access it from a university website, then it will be free. Thanks anyway.
There was an active attempt to try to get the fact that the vast majority of the people that comitted the attrocities and who ordered them were Christian. But the vast majority of people in Europe were Christian! Note that the Vatican actively supported the Ustaše in Croatia and some of the extermination camps were run by the clergy. The Catholic church then helped these people to flee justice, including Ante Pavelić who was personally protected by the Pope.
@Draugh39 Yes, that is true. For example, many Christians Catholic or not, were too eager to get rid of the Jews. I have read that people of Norway send Jews to the death camps even though the Nazi's had not asked them to do it. Nazis were surprised at the overzealousness of the the French to help them get rid of French Jews. Undoubtedly, the many in the Vatican including the pope were very happy that after the war, at least there may be no more Jews in Europe. Catholic church is not innocent.
@Draugh39 I know that you wish that Hitler not be an atheist. But Hitler did not really believe in the biblical God. Otherwise, as I asked before, if he is not an atheist, then which deity did he really believe in? Besides, there are other atheist mass murders who have done just as bad as Hitler in the 20th century. Examples of such atheists are Joseph Stalin of USSR and Mao Ze Dong of China. I have Professor Dawkins on YouTube acknowledging the Stalin was an atheist.
"I know that you wish that Hitler not be an atheist."
I don't wish that! Hitler was a catholic according to the doctrin of the faith, according to his best friends sworn testamony, according to his own writing and his recorded words.
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." (October, 1933)
@Draugh39 Hitler was raised a Catholic and stopped being a Catholic once he left home. He no longer attended mass because he was disillusioned with Christianity. He wanted "natural law" to be the order of the day, and therefore, all the mass killings of the inferior sub-humans. All the references to God and statements that he was Catholic in the public as the Fuhrer was for PROPAGANDA. Can you understand that Hitler was a clever lier??????
Can't you understand that Hitler like most of the people that did the actulal killings where Christians?1. In the German 1939 Census the total number of Christians was 94% of the population. The number of Neo-pagans was 3.5% and unbelievers was 1.5%
h t t p://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Most of the leading Nazis (including Hitler) was naturally Christian. He was only doing what other Christians of the time was doing.
@Draugh39 They were of Christian background and were dumping the Christian faith for atheistic Nazism. I am saying that atheism = Nazism. There are different versions of atheism. Hitler's version was social Darwinism hence his genocides to give nature a helping hand and get rid of the inferior humans. The ones that actually remained Christian and still carried out those crimes were adherents of Replacement Theology. Not all the criminal of WWII were atheists but their top leaders were.
You are utterly wrong. Nazism was not atheistic either, nor is it that today. The Neo-Nazi parties you find are all strongly Christian. The Catholic Church has worked with and supported all fascist countries. The Christian-right works with Neo-Nazi organisations. The KKK is Christian etc.
Now name a fascist organisation or a Neo-Nazi one that is atheistic.
@Draugh39 I apologize. That was a typo. I meant to write: "I am NOT saying that atheism = Nazism." I was typing fast and left out "NOT". I am totally sorry. Read my statement with that correction please.
That was a typo. I meant to write: "I am NOT saying that atheism = Nazism."
ok. no worries.
"Hitler's version was social Darwinism"
Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin. It is a misnomer as it is not at all based on evolution but on Lamarck’s ideas. Social Darwinism and "eugenics" (Francis Galtonwas darwins cousin though) originated in the USA and UK (not in Germany) and Roosevelt and Churchill were both supporters of it- before Hitler.
@Draugh39 I never said that Social Darwinism has was advocated by Charles Darwin. It's just a name for applying Darwin natural selection and survival of the fittest ideas of nature to human society. Darwin himself never advocated this application of his theory. Other people did that. I don't think Darwin himself ever hear of the term Social Darwinism. It's just a name, and I know that it gives Darwin a bad rap. Roosevelt and Churchill were wrong, but eugenics is an atheistic idea. God forbids it
No I stated it was a misnomar because his theory is not used at all in social Darwinism. Social darwinism is based on Lamark's ideas, which Darwin disproved.
No Eugenics is NOT an Atheist idea at all. You can go from "I do not believe in any God", to any action. The non-belief in Sata Clause, doesn't lead you to an action based on that non-belief, and neither does a unbelief in any gods.
Sweden is mostly atheistic now, has that lead to particular actions?
@Draugh39 Darwin's theory relies on natural selection of genes that exhibit superior, more adapt phenotypes for speciation. That's natural selection as stated in college textbooks. Lemark's theory was also natural selection but his mechanism was debunked. Both theories rely on survival of the fittest, aka, natural selection. Social Darwinism demands applying jungle's survival of the fittest to civilized humans. Bible says God created all, not nature. Natural selection is thus atheism = no god.
Mate you need to look up what evolution teaches! What you are talking about is changes in populations, which mean that a broad variation in a population is advantageous as it allows such a population to survive in a changing environment. If you have a smaller gene-pool (as you do if you select one particular type of people) that goes against what is good for the species. "Inbreeding" is such an example. Does Darwinism argue that inbreeding is good?
@Draugh39 I have studied evolution and summarized what the textbooks say. You did not read what I said carefully. Please re-read but don't read to much into it. I wrote plainly. Look up any college level textbooks and they both tell you that Darwin's and Lamark's theories rely on survival of the fittest, aka, natural selection. Population changes and inbreeding have no bearing here about whether natural selection, Social Darwinism, & eugenics are atheistic ideas = no god. You ran out of excuses.
Mate I'm a Ph.D. and teach at university level. I have two full research groups in genetics just 2 floors above me and a a protein-design group a few doors away. Are you trying to tell us that we don't know anything about this?
Evolution = "any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations", thus it is related to the group (= the population).
Furthermore you obviously do not know what atheism means.
@Draugh39 That's ad hominemism again. Your PhD does not mean that all your arguments are right. How many of your arguments were wrong as you were going about getting your PhD? You're an intelligent person and know much about evolution. You are probably working late nights in labs to debate so much :-) You are bringing up details of evolution. I was talking about natural selection collectively and how atheist used it to create Social Darwinism. The details of theory of evolution are irrelevant.
No it's not an "ad hominem" it is possibly an "argumentum ad verecundiam". However, as you were the person who stated "Look up any college level textbooks " and "I have studied evolution and summarized what the textbooks say" I would argue that it is well justified.
Secondly, atheists didn't create "Social Darwinism", The base comes from the work of Malthus (a cergyman). But I'll let you make the case. Which atheists was it that you claim created Social Darwinism?
@Draugh39 "No it's not an "ad hominem" it is possibly an argumentum ad verecundiam. However, as you were the person who stated "Look up any college level textbooks..."
I disagree. Prior to that statement that you have me quoted, you said, "Mate you need to look up what evolution teaches! What you are talking about is changes in populations..." I simply responded that I had studied evolution, and what I knew was adequate to answer you and was out of textbooks. PhD pride is misguiding you!
"Look up any college level textbooks and they both tell you that Darwin's and Lamark's theories rely on survival of the fittest,"
No they don't, at least not any that know anything about the theory of evolution. The idea of "survival of th fittest, isn't even from Darwin, its a bastardisation done by the sociologist Herbert Spencer. So you obviously have not studied evolution if you write as you do.
@Draugh39 "No they don't, at least not any that know anything about the theory of evolution. The idea of "survival of th fittest, isn't even from Darwin, its a bastardisation done by the sociologist Herbert Spencer. So you obviously have not studied evolution if you write as you do."
We are going back to the old argument that I have already answered repeatedly. Survival of the fittest was mentioned in many of my textbooks, so stop lying. Evolutionist use it all the time as part of Darwin's idea
"Biol. The transformation of animals, plants, and other living organisms into different forms by the accumulation of changes over successive generations; the transmutation of species " (OED)
"Survival of the fittest" isn't necessarily true as over-specialization leads to extinction if the environment changes. A broad genepool is better for survival of the species then a narrow one, which is contrary to eugenics.
@Draugh39 "This is the DEFINITION of what evolution is..."
1) That is the latest revision of evolution's def., and I already knew it. I was introduced the phrases of "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" as means of evolution from high school bio texts. Since then, "survival of the fittest" has been revised to "Darwinian fitness" and "natural selection" revised to "selective pressure". None of these revisions, which are still ongoing, changes the crux of the arguments that I made.
"That is the latest revision of evolution's def."
No it isn't. You find the basis for it in Huxleys writing from 1860. He is using the word "transmutation" as that is what Darwin originally called it. (the word evolve only appears in the last sentence in Darwin's book). "Natural selection" is one part of the Theory of evolution - it isn't the same thing as evolution. And "survival of the fittest" was coined by a sociologist.
@Draugh39 "This is the DEFINITION of what evolution is..."
2) In some of my college courses, professors claimed that the so-called junk DNA proved the book of Genesis false b/c these DNA sequences were leftover junk that evolution was in the process of getting rid of and that if you manually got rid of them, the species would still live w/o any problems. We not know that was a lie: junk DNA is really non-coding DNA that may serve for protection or regulation. So evolution keeps changing.
"In some of my college courses, professors claimed that the so-called junk DNA proved the book of Genesis false."
No Genesis is proven false by every natural scientific discipline there is (physics, chemistry, geology, cosmology etc). A literal reading of Genesis (with talking snakes and all that) is rejected by the vast majority of Christians for that reason. It is unsupported fantasy, no more true than any other mythology, nothing supports it.
Evolution hasn't changed, and the Theory of evolution is more or less the same as it was 150 years ago.
All scientific theories will change as more information comes to light. They may even become discarded if new observations and theoretical models contradict them. That's because science is not dogmatic, it strives to find the best model to describe reality and it has the best track record of any discipline in doing this.
@Draugh39 "This is the DEFINITION of what evolution is..."
3) Bottom line is don't be arrogant to think that evolution by natural selection of mutant genes has debunked the bible. And yes Nazis used this theory was used to justify genocide by giving an atheist nature a helping hand. Just watch the movie Schindler's List at part where the Nazis had displays of Jewish skulls next to other "sub-humans". However, I will say that Darwin did not advocate genocide. Nazis twisted his atheist idea.
I have already given you the referfence to historical record that proves your claim wrong. Darwin's theory was officially BANNED by the Nazis in 1935.
"Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279" [point 6]
h t t p://w w w(dot)library(dot)arizona(dot)edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents(dot)htm#guidelines
"... genocide by giving an atheist nature a helping hand..."
Sorry, are you claiming that everything that doesn't include a god is "atheist"?! Are rocks "atheist", is mathematics?
Furthermore, "Schindler's List" is a Hollywood fictional movie, based on true stories - sure, but it is not a historical document or even claim to be one.
Eugenics and racial purity was obviously not based on evolution (as it goes contrary to what evolution say is good for a species).
@Draugh39 "Secondly, atheists didn't create "Social Darwinism", The base comes from the work of Malthus (a clergyman)...Which atheists was it that you claim created Social Darwinism?"
1) I am sure you have read the Wikipedia article & its sources about Social Darwinism. The term is a re-labeling of a Godless idea that were becoming popular in the 19th century. Phony people of God like Malthus and atheist like Darwin's cousin (F. Galton) independently came up w/ it & historians labeled it S.D.
"Phony people of God like Malthus and atheist like Darwin's cousin (F. Galton)"
And where have you found that information that Francis Galton was an atheist? (according to himself he was a "pure theism" - others calls him a pantheist.) Malthus was a clergyman. So I guess you haven't found any atheists yet?
@Draugh39 "But I'll let you make the case. Which atheists was it that you claim created Social Darwinism?"
2) I disagree with your premise. It does not matter if even a pope had come up with the idea a 1000 years ago. The point is that it's a Godless idea b/c God says have mercy and give charity. Jesus in NT says the meek will inherit the earth. Social Darwinism say opposite: the strong survive on earth, no god exists & no belief in god (atheism), and so no accounting of any crimes to any god.
@Draugh39 "So far you haven't listed a single atheist."
I answered you before remember: According to Wikipedia article "Social Darwinism" and its cited sources: Others whose ideas are given the label Social Darwinism include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century. Isn't F. Galton an atheist? And phone clergy Malthus, isn't his idea against Jesus' the meek will inherit the earth?
@Draugh39 "So far you haven't listed a single atheist."
Anyone who adheres to eugenics, which is a godless ideology is by definition subscribing to an atheist idea: an idea that rejects God and says nature and natural selection are the order of the day. You want more atheists: Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong of China, Fidel Casstro and Che Guevara of Cuba. The list goes on. Don't say Stalin was not an atheist b/c Professor Dawkins is on YouTube from a FoxNews Inerterview saying he was.
@Draugh39 "But I'll let you make the case. Which atheists was it that you claim created Social Darwinism?"
According to Wikipedia article "Social Darwinism" and its cited sources: Others whose ideas are given the label Social Darwinism include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century. Isn't F. Galton an atheist? And phone clergy Malthus, isn't his idea against Jesus' the meek will inherit the earth?
" ..our personalities may be the transient but essential elements of an immortal
and cosmic mind."
This is obviously not a atheist. He was a likely a pantheist or what he called himself "a Pure Theist.""
That quote does not mean that he was not an atheist. All that means is that we are an part of the universe said in a fancy way to alleviate the consequence of no afterlife as he saw it.
@Draugh39 I am talking on a collective basis about natural selection, and yes, people of the early last century applied the idea to human society. Social Darwinists want people to give nature a helping hand as did Nazis. Atheism means no theism and no theism means no god. Let's not play word games. Atheist have no God or belief in God. Newton's laws are explanations of God's universe. Newton was a devout Christian. Evolution says no Creator; this is written in college textbooks.
Neton was a christian and also and alchemist? However, there is no god in any of his models, only nature. So if you argue that something which doesn't contain a god in the explaination is atheist (which you appear to do) then Newton's laws are also atheist.
You're using the word "atheist" the wrong way. Atheist is a responce to a theistic claim.
"Evolution says no Creator"
No, evolution doesn't mention a creator. Most christians has no problems with this.
@Draugh39 Eugenics is definitely an atheist idea. You are saying it's not because as an atheist, you don't want to be associated w/ it. If you don't accept it, just condemn it in explaining you version of atheism. But don't say that eugenics is not an atheistic idea. Eugenics is a method of implementing Social Darwinism among humans. I explained in my last post that Social Darwinism is definitely an atheist idea and by extension so is eugenics. Remember I didn't bring up eugenics, you did.
That is utter bollock. "Not believing in a god" has nothing to do with it. One of the strong proponents of Eugenics was The United Methodist Church! (Who finally apologised for its support of it in 2008). Are you now claiming that the various churches that supported eugenics (which also includs the Catholic) are "atheist organisations"?
@Draugh39 NT says Jesus heals a person blind from birth and in the OT, Mose's refusal to go to Pharaoh angers God to say that He was the one to create people handicapped. Is there anywhere in the bible that advocates eugenics. No, the opposite. Eugenics is anti-bible. You criticized individual church organizations that practice contrary to their bible. That's not the bible's fault or God's fault. He said no. Those churches that advocated eugenics are murderers for subscribing to eugenics.
"Is there anywhere in the bible that advocates eugenics."
Yes. According to the Bible, Jews are gods chosen people. The curse of Ham's son Canaan was there to justify slavery of that "race". The bible also say that people with disabilities are second class citizens:
Lev 21:23 "Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them."
@Draugh39 "Yes. According to the Bible, Jews are gods chosen people."
God commands (10 commandments) that we not covet what others have. God may choose whatever humans as he pleases to implement his will on earth. For example, He gave Israel a tiny land but gave the rest of the nations thousand of times more land and million times more resources. Do not covet what material or status He gives to one person or group b/c He may want to use that to give the rest of us even more!
@Draugh39 "The curse of Ham's son Canaan was there to justify slavery of that "race"."
Bible forbids slavery unless it is to work to pay off a debt (and you knew that in advance of the loan) or if you come for war. And even that slavery is limited to 7 years. That slavery should not be confused w/ kidnapping humans from one continent and enslaving the to death in another continent. God forbids it. Consider that God crushed Egypt to free the Israelites from such slavery.
The 7 year rule was for Hebrew slaves only and you could make them your permanent slaves too (Exodus 21:2-6). Your "normal slaves" were to be taken from the people living in countries around you and forigners in your own land. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
You were allowed to beat your slave even unto death, and if he didn't die within "a day or two" you were not to be punished because the slave was your property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
@Draugh39 "The 7 year rule was for Hebrew slaves only and you could make them your permanent slaves too (Exodus 21:2-6)."
No, Exodus 21:2-6 says that after the 7 years rule, the Hebrew slave MAY CHOOSE to be a slave for life, but he DOESN'T HAVE TO. In the past, some people preferred to be slaves b/c that was a job that could sustain them for life. The bible does command that the Hebrew slave is to be given GIFTS to sustain him after 7 year rule, but still some felt economically safer as slaves
You use the same arguments as the slave-owners of the South.
The way to make him a slave for life was to give him a wife (another slave) then the slave had to choose between losing his wife and children and being your slave forever. If he caved in (you having his wife and children as a hostage, that was likely to happen) you were to take him to your front door and ram an awl through his ear making him you permanent property (to be inherited to you children).
@Draugh39 "You use the same arguments as the slave-owners of the South."
Once again, NO! The people of the south were guilty of kidnapping free people who were capable of sustaining themselves and making them into slaves. The bible sets the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping. It's forbidden. What part of it do you not understand? Deut 24:7 forbids kidnapping fellow Israelites and Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping anyone, Israelite or not.
@Draugh39 "The Bible only does that if you kidnap Jews! The whole of Exodus 21 is about how you treat other JEWS!
"These are the regulations you must present to Israel." (Exo. 21:1)"
Read it carefully: That verse 1, does not limit the laws to apply only to the Jews. It says tell them these are the laws they must abide by. Read Leviticus 19:34 "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God."
@Draugh39 "It also states that ANYONE born off a slave is the master’s property, forever!
(Exodus 21:4...)"
No, here is Exodus 21:4 "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." It says that the children will belong to the master as in the master may have them as adoptive children, not as slaves. As in levirate marriages, adoptive father was more important that bio dad among past Jews.
@Draugh39 "The hell it does! It states clearly that they are not the mastes children (but instead his propperty) in the very next verse."
No, it doesn't. Here it is (Leviticus 21:4): "If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself." You interpret the wife and children as being the master's other slaves, but I interpret is as they shall be the master's adoptive children.
@Draugh39 "You are trying to twist the Bible to say something it doesn't (and this is not the first time) - you are dishonest."
Not true. That's what you are doing. I explained myself every time. You repeated your hateful claims, and I chose to give you even more details. So now you are angry. You got lost on each one of you accusations about the bible. You cannot believe that the God of the bible is just contrary to your beliefs. You are angry that the bible repeated commands the Golden rule.
The Bible approves of slavery and even instructs you how to beat your slaves."
How does Leviticus 25:44-46 approve of beating your slave? Verse 44 permits taking non-Jewish slaves and verse 45-46 deals with taking slaves from among temporary residents (Jews and non-Jews). As I said before, this slavery is voluntary. People in the past sold themselves and their family as slaves (workers) to live off a richer person. Your slavery involves sinful kidnapping.
@Draugh39 "The way to make him a slave for life was to give him a wife (another slave) then the slave had to choose between losing his wife and children and being your slave forever."
You forget that such a person does not have to accept the wife from the master. It is voluntary. So he can always negotiate the terms of it. The Talmud of rabbis recommends to marry a teen daughter young even if you must give it to your slave. So such slaves can negotiate and it's not always another slave wife.
@Draugh39 "If he caved in (you having his wife and children as a hostage, that was likely to happen) you were to take him to your front door and ram an awl through his ear making him you permanent property (to be inherited to you children)."
That's the bible way of discouraging you from choosing lifelong slavery by making it shameful to desire as would be the earring. Among the Israelites makes permanent cuts or tattoos on the body was forbidden and so shameful to have.
There is NO place in the Bible that forbids slavery, furthermore you are not “choosing” anything if your wife and kids are held hostage, now are you. The same tactics were used by slave-owners in the South.
You are sitting here making excuses for slavery, which makes YOU just as horrid a person as any slave-owner in the history of mankind.
@Draugh39 "There is NO place in the Bible that forbids slavery..."
You definition of slavey is kidnapping a free person for no reason and holding him as a slave. This is specifically forbidden in the bible as I mentioned before: Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." This verse hold for Jews & non-Jews. Moreover, next chapter in Exodus 22:21 and in Leviticus 19:33-34 specifies it for non-Jews.
"You definition of slavey is kidnapping a free person "
No it isn't, stop trying to use strawmen arguments.
My definition of slavery (and this is what is normally ment) is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.
The Bible advocate such a system. Kidnapping was wrong in the South as well but slavery was still okay.
Now where in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong?
@Draugh39 "My definition of slavery (and this is what is normally ment) is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work."
The slavery that occurred in the Americas and in the Muslim Middle East was the result of kidnapping free people. The bible's slavery is for the purposes of debt or if you sell yourself as a slave to survive or if you come for war. As long as you are not kidnapped, bible's system of slavery (or being a worker) is just.
@Draugh39 "Now where in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong?"
He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death (Exodus 21:16). That is forced slavery. You are forced to work as a slave if you are kidnapped not if you agree to it for survival or as a consequence of paying back a debt.
Slavery was legal in the South but kidnapping was not and children born to slaves became the property of the master, just as the Bible say it should be. Taking slaves was also okay according to the Bible but the Israelites prefered virgin girls and killed little boys.
@Draugh39 "Slavery was legal in the South but kidnapping was not ..."
No, the slaves that came off the ships were all kidnaped from Africa and elsewhere. Bible forbids kidnapping of Jews and non-Jews. So what the South did was against the word of God. They knew the slaves were kidnapped free people.
@Draugh39 "and children born to slaves became the property of the master, just as the Bible say it should be. Taking slaves was also okay according to the Bible but the Israelites prefered virgin girls and killed little boys."
The bible says no such thing. That is your biased interpretation and anyone else that interprets Exodus 21:4 in that way is also mistaken. It says children of slave belong to the master as in the master can have them as adoptive children.
"It says children of slave belong to the master as in the master can have them as adoptive children."
Nope, as it clearly states that the slaves are recognised as the offspring of the biological father (as is the wife of the slave recognised as "his wife" and not the wife of the master) just one verse later. What you stae is bollocks
@Draugh39 "but the Israelites prefered virgin girls and killed little boys."
Those people attempted genocide on the Jews. The Jews were defending themselves against bio-warface that the Midianites wanted to inflict on them. I explained this many times. Argument on this issue is over.
@Draugh39 "The same tactics were used by slave-owners in the South."
South's slaves were kidnapped, not by choice for survival. Once again, bible forbids kidnapping to enslave: Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." This verse hold for Jews & non-Jews. Moreover, next chapter in Exodus 22:21 and in Leviticus 19:33-34 specifies it for non-Jews. Bible does not accept kidnapped people as slaves.
@Draugh39 "...furthermore you are not “choosing” anything if your wife and kids are held hostage, now are you."
Exodus 21:4 does not force the Hebrew slave (i.e., worker) to accept the wife from his master. So he is free to negotiate. The conditions of taking the wife would have been known by the Hebrew slave (worker), and the slave status originally comes from inability to pay a dept. Borrowing was also voluntary. If slave leaves, slave's children became master's adoptive children, not slaves.
"and the slave status originally comes from inability to pay a dept."
No it doesn't, that's an assertion from you. Indepted servitude was one way of getting a slave, but any child born to a slave that you had would be your slave for life (just as in the South). And slaves were inherrited in your family and you could sell those.
@Draugh39 "No it doesn't, that's an assertion from you. Indepted servitude was one way of getting a slave, but any child born to a slave that you had would be your slave for life (just as in the South). "
The bible does not make children born to slaves as another generation of slaves. That is your interpretation of Exodus 21:4, but as I said, it can also be interpreted as the children of the slave shall belong to the master in terms of being the master's adoptive children.
@Draugh39 "You are sitting here making excuses for slavery, which makes YOU just as horrid a person as any slave-owner in the history of mankind."
Don't lie. I condemn your version of slavery and make no excuses for it. If anyone kidnaps someone to make him a slave, that person should be executed as the bible says. Can you agree to that or are you anti-death penalty for such evil doers? Bible's slavery should be called volunteer contracted worker. Some people volunteered as slaves to survive.
@Draugh39 "Your "normal slaves" were to be taken from the people living in countries around you and forigners in your own land. (Leviticus 25:44-46)"
1) Just like a Hebrew slave that CHOSE to sell himself into slavery to sustain himself or to pay a debt, the non-Israelite people were also permitted to sell themselves or their children that they could not care for as slaves. But the bible forbids YOUR VERSION of slavery as in kidnapping someone to enslave them including gentiles (Exodus 21:16).
Bollocks, slaves were war-booty and buying a slave that had been taken was perfectly okay. The Bible even tells of many such things, First you are to murder all males, women and infant boys, but the young virgin girls you can keep as property. (Numbers 31:1-40)
The kidnapping is wrong only against Israelites (Deu 24:7)
and the there is nothing about the slave being freed only the kidnaper punished. (Exo. 21:16)
@Draugh39 "The kidnapping is wrong only against Israelites (Deu 24:7)
and the there is nothing about the slave being freed only the kidnaper punished. (Exo. 21:16)"
The bible sets the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping. What part of it do you not understand? Deut 24:7 forbids kidnapping fellow Israelites & Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping anyone, Israelite or not. Your reasoning that only the kidnapper should be punished but not free the victim shows how bad your ability to reason is.
@Draugh39 "...murder all males, women and infant boys, but the young virgin girls you can keep as property. (Numbers 31:1-40)"
A) Num 31:1-40 applies only to a group of Midianites. They and their leader Balaam conspired to wipe out the Israelite by sending them diseased woman for prostitution. Then a plague, probably an STD, spread among the susceptible Israelites but God healed them. To prevent a repeat, God commanded Israel to wipe them out but keep their virgins alive for themselves.
@Draugh39 "It talks about what was done to the Midianites, but this actions was done on other people too, it was a part of the ethnic clensing the Jews did."
Jews had nothing against other races. In fact Jews wanted to be like them and worship their Gods and marry their wives. But God said no and ordered those people to be destroyed b/c they were murderers of their own children. They practiced humans sacrifice & didn't repent. It had to stop. US did the same with Nazis & other human sacrificers
And afterwards he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord. So God doesn’t mind human sacrifices either, and likes the smell of burning flesh.
@Draugh39 "Ha ha ha. What happened to the Ammonites?
They were conquered by Jephthah, right? And afterwards he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord. So God doesn’t mind human sacrifices either, and likes the smell of burning flesh."
Yes, they were. It was defensive war. By the way, cite the versus you have in question. As for Jephthah's sacrifice of her daughter: it was murder in the eyes of God. He sinned despite his faithfulness b/c he misinterpreted the bible as you do.
Jephthah’s sacrifice was not murder in the eye of God!
God gave Jephthah the victory because Jephthah promised to sacrifice whatever first came to greet him (and God knew beforehand that it would be his daughter). God never stopped the sacrifice or punished Jephthah for his actions, thus God wanted this to happen.
@Draugh39 "Jephthah’s sacrifice was not murder in the eye of God!"
Did God tell you that? Does it say somewhere in the bible (specifically) that it was not murder in the eyes of God? Time and time again, God commanded Israel not to commit human sacrifice. Not even one. You are so evil in your thoughts. Not many people here will believe your biased accusations against the bible.
God never punished Jephthah and God could have stopped this at any time if he didn't want that sacrifice to happen. He is obviously not against it. Furthermore God has commanded human sacrifices before, are you unfamiliar with the story of Abraham and Isaac?!
That was a direct order, and something that Abraham thought was well within Gods character.
@Draugh39 "God never punished Jephthah and God could have stopped this at any time if he didn't want that sacrifice to happen. He is obviously not against it..."
God could have stopped many others from doing evil but didn't b/c there is free will in this world. He commanded no human sacrifice, you must obey. Jephthah did not read the word of God carefully and sinned. God forbid it, but Jephthah did not understand it. You also misconstrue the word of God. Many have misinterpreted the Bible.
@Draugh39 "Furthermore God has commanded human sacrifices before, are you unfamiliar with the story of Abraham and Isaac?!"
God tested Abraham and rejected the sacrifice. By that act, he rejected all the human sacrificer of the world. He said no. No human sacrifice. God doesn't need it.
@Draugh39 "And he did NOT reject the sacrafice of Jephtha which proves my point."
God asked for Abraham's sacrifice and so caused Abraham to do it. So He felt obligated to stop Abraham. God did not ask for Jephtha's sacrifice and had forbidden it in numerous verses of the bible. Jephtha should have read the bible carefully and you should read it w/o your hateful atheist bias.
"I will give to the LORD whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
God gave Jephthah the victory which means he accepted the vow. God either knew or orchestrated it so that the first thing that came to visit Jephthah was his daughter, so it was God that made sure that the little girl should be sacraficed. God could have let a clean animal be first but he didn't.
@Draugh39 "God gave Jephthah the victory because Jephthah promised to sacrifice whatever first came to greet him (and God knew beforehand that it would be his daughter). God never stopped the sacrifice or punished Jephthah for his actions, thus God wanted this to happen."
God gave him victory and whatever that came out of the house initially meant a kosher animal as Jephthah thought. His daughter came out, but God had said no to that sacrifice. So Jephthah was obligated not to do it.
"His daughter came out, but God had said no to that sacrifice..."
That is not true, nowhere is that chapter does it say that God disapproved of the sacrifice. Also, God KNEW what the first thing that came out would be, even before Jephthah had made his vow (which God accepted).
2 Samuel 21 also tells about how human sacrifice:
"Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose."
@Draugh39 "That is not true, nowhere is that chapter does it say that God disapproved of the sacrifice. Also, God KNEW what the first thing that came out would be, even before Jephthah had made his vow (which God accepted)."
Do you not get it. God forbid human sacrifice in the five book so Moses written well before Jephthah. I am no even going to bother looking up all those verses for you. Prior to Jephthah's vow, God had rejected human sacrifice in every case including that vow.
@Draugh39 "2 Samuel 21 also tells about how human sacrifice:
"Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose.""
David violated the law; it was murder. It was not an issue of sacrifice anyway. David could had to offer money compensation, but he offered the sons of Saul. It was an evil act and murder. Again, David should have offered them money instead.
@Draugh39 "Obviously not according to God, as the story finishes with:
" ...After that, God ended the famine in the land."
So God accepted the human sacrifices."
God ended the famine b/c the Gibeonites were satisfied. But Bible does not say that God was in any way pleased with the way that David achieved Gibeonites' satisfaction. There are ways of doing things, and David chose murder. God will be His judge. Never did God ask David to hand over Saul's sons. Never. Stop repeating your arguments.
Hitler was a catholic. Except after going to jail he started hanging around the gays. Then he became an atheist! If one noted what he did to churches and believers they wouldn't say he was christian. Also the comments he was noted to say about Christianity. Example 'we got along for 2000 years before without their god and did just fine'. He had to become an atheist before he could become a monster. Yes people can give up their faith, so don't be an idiot.
onemarktwoyou 3 days ago
Anyone please tell me the name of this music or the composer!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Emil9914 2 weeks ago
Cathlics are not christians
ryderc69 2 weeks ago
@ryderc69 Yes they are, do some research or stop trolling.
AtheistAussie 2 weeks ago
@ryderc69 why are you so ignorant?
Emil9914 2 weeks ago
@ryderc69 YES WE ARE
cowboy8555 1 week ago
@Draugh39 thanks just saw a video that he was into the occult so yeah.. Jw so thanks for showing his speech.
Marv23able 3 weeks ago
Didn't hitler also follow alot of the occult?
Marv23able 3 weeks ago
@Marv23able
Not really, he stated:
"We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else—in any case something which has nothing to do with us."
Speech in Nuremberg on 6 September 1938. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Volume 1
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
James 2:17
In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead
JesusisLord685 1 month ago
Any argument that Hitler believed in Jesus is out of ignorance. You think this because you have no spiritual understanding whatsoever.
Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Hitler, his wars, and his huge armies and his long worldly speeches should be enough for you realize, but I guess its not.
JesusisLord685 1 month ago
Comment removed
JesusisLord685 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AtheistAussie @Draugh39 Saying someone did not follow what Jesus taught, and therefore is not a Christian, is NOT a NTSF. Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No IMMORAL (HITLER), impure, or greedy(THE POPE) person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God!!.... Hitler did not profess Jesus as his Lord and savior, he was a greedy and WORLDLY man, no doubt about that.. Read what Jesus actually said!
JesusisLord685 1 month ago
Hitler was a Catholic. Catholics are NOT Christians.
RBNightlinger 1 month ago
@RBNightlinger Yes they are. They are the largest Christian denomination. Don't let protestant revisionism fuck with the facts.
AtheistAussie 1 month ago
@AtheistAussie Catholics say they're Christian. The Bible says they're not.
RBNightlinger 1 month ago
@RBNightlinger Wiki says they are, go and read a little about the reformation. It doesn't say in Leviticus "and the lord didst say Catholics are not of my flock'. Also read up on 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Talk to me after you do that.
AtheistAussie 1 month ago
@AtheistAussie Wiki? LOL. God's Word is truth, not Wiki. I was raised Catholic, bud. I know what they teach.
RBNightlinger 1 month ago
@RBNightlinger God's word is truth eh? God made a woman out of a rib? LOL Noah managed to fit two of every animal on an ark 450 feet long ? LOL Stripy cattle from poplar, hazel and chestnut rods? LOL Virgin birth ? LOL, Bats are birds ? LOL. Yes, the word of God is truth... LOL
AtheistAussie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RBNightlinger
"Catholics say they're Christian. The Bible says they're not."
I'd like chapter and verse for that.
Draugh39 1 month ago
Hitler was an atheist in his beliefs. At some point, he stopped paying church taxes and left the Catholic church. It's true that the Catholic church was heavily anti-Semitic and Hitler may have harvested those hateful ideologies. But Hitler was not a Christian b/c he did not believe in the biblical Jesus. He did not like Jesus' being an Eastern man (i.e.,a Jew), so he wanted the church to change the gospels and make Jesus into an Aryan white man whom the evil Eastern men (i.e. the Jews) killed.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
"At some point, he stopped paying church taxes and left the Catholic church."
That is a lie.
Hitler NEVER left the Catholic Church and he was never excommunicated. His very first treaty was with the Vatican (The Reichskonkordat) which insisted that Catholicism was to be taught in school (Article 21) and gave the Catholic church the legal right to levy Church taxes (Article 13).
Reality is the opposite of what you claim.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Hitler did leave the church and stopped paying church taxes. You are right that he did make deals with the Vatican, but he made those deals as an atheist who adhered to social Darwinism. He was not a genuinely Christian. He spoke out against Christianity but made some politically correct deals with the Catholic church for propaganda purposes. His references to God in his hateful book are also propaganda. He did not really believe in or fear God.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
There is NO record of Hitler leaving the Catholic Church, give the reference to where this is found. He was the GODFATHER to Görings daugher
(This is the requirements for one: w w w(dot)catholicdoors(dot)com/courses/godpar(dot)h t m).
Göring testefied under oath that Hitler was a Catholic.
The Nazis officially BANNED Darwins work from 1935 and onwards
(Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279).
Now give your references.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 I was wrong on one issue: Hitler did continue to pay church taxes even after he left home and stopped attending Mass. After watching and reading expert documentaries, I assumed that by not attending mass and adopting atheism & Darwinism, Hitler would have stopped paying church taxes too. Hitler NOMINALLY stayed a member of Catholic church, and for tradition and propaganda, he visited the church as Fuhrer. Thanks for pointing it out. See "tinyurl dot com /8xr23gk" for more info.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
"I assumed that by not attending mass and adopting atheism & Darwinism"
1) Hitler BANNED Darwins work (I gave the reference to that).
2) Hitler was not an atheist. He imprisoned atheist and banned their organisations!
h t t p://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/German_Freethinkers_League
Hitler was a Roman Catholic up till the end, why is this surpricing? The Vatican helped the Nazis and the "Ustaše" to flee Europe after the war, in the "Ratlines"
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 He was nominally a Catholic. Not a true believer. The church mostly cooperated w/ him mostly b/c they had no other choice. You want proof, search YouTube for "Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not" and visit "tinyurl dot com /8xr23gk". The YouTube video list his anti-Christian atheist beliefs w/ sources. The website cites Catholic church's opposition to Nazism. Yes, of course, many in the Catholic church may have been glad about Hitler's carrying out the Holocaust. Pagans did it too.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@Draugh39 You can also find Hitler anti-Christian views by searching YouTube for "Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not" sources are listed in this video.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
So the Nazis accused the Roman Catholic Church of hiding sex-scandals? Well they got that one right then! The book "Hitlers secret conversations" (later called "Hitlers table talks") is riddled with deliberate mistranslations, misquotes and outright lies. You can't use it as a reference.
Here is a study of that topic:
Richard C. Carrier, "Hitler's table Talk:trubling finds", German Studies Review 26/3 (2003) pages 561-576.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 What does church sex scandals have to do with Hitler's being Catholic or not? The YouTube video and the website I gave you are good reference sources, and they are not the only ones. Search google and YouTube and you will come up with many other experts that cite Hitler's anti-Christian statements. Let's not make up excuses like mistranslation. Use Google translate if you like to translate stuff for yourself.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
YOU, told me to look at a video which dealt with that. I replied to it.
"Let's not make up excuses like mistranslation. Use Google translate if you like to translate stuff for yourself."
You silly person! Do you honestly thing that "Google translate" is doing a good job in correctly translating?! I gave you the REFERENCE to why this book can't be trusted. Why don't you read that, it is a scientific study.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Look at the video's later half that list's Hitler's anti-christian and atheist statements. The maker of that video lists multiple sources, and you can't say that they are all bad translations. Yes, Google translate is not accurate, but it's good enough to give you a rough independent translation if you have problems with someone else's translation. I corrected myself when you mentioned my error. So now you do the same regarding Hitler's being an atheist. Catholicism is not innocent.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
Sorry, but do you have problems reading? As I have already stated, you can't use "Hitler's Table Talk" as a trustworthy reference! The fact that there are quotes in a book which is riddled with falsehoods doesn't make those quotes true! I have given you the reference where this has been studdied! READ!!
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Not so fast. Your source was Richard C. Carrier, "Hitler's table Talk:trubling finds." I read up on Prof. Carrier, and he is a devout atheist, and I need other neutral sources to confirm each mistranslation. There are some mistranslations but not all. Thanks for informing me about the dispute about Hitler's Table Talk, but Carrier does not debunk all the Hitler's anti-Christian, pro-atheist quotes. Carrier's atheist bias must also be taken into account. I suggest we investigate more.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
You should read the PEER REVIEWED article! What particular beliefs a person have doesn't matter, especially in regards to translating German (something he didn't do single handed). Note that the original German is in that article, so you can check it. Further note that all quotes in HTT are edited and second hand.
Francis Collins is a Bible believing Christian but that does not affect his science in genetics, as he publish in peer reviewed journals!
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Not everything in Hitler's Table Talk is fake from a mistranslation or forgery. There is a dispute over the translations, and there maybe some bad translations. You are the first to bring up this argument before me. Later on, I will get a copy of Carriers' book and review his claims. I think when I do the research, there may be two sides to this story. In any case, Hitler did not truly believe in the biblical God. So if he was not an atheist, which God did he really believe in?
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
"... he is a devout atheist.."
What on earth is a devout atheist?! But let's look at what you say. You question Carriers work on the basis that he is an atheist but you accept Hitlers Table Talk as OK despite the FACT that the few bits of Original German that we have does not match the translation. There are even bits omitted in the English version!
Now who is showing a bias here, Carrier you yourself?!
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Carrier's description on Wikipedia is that he is a promoter of atheism, so I called him a devout atheist. No one want to have Hitler in their corner, neither atheist nor Christians. So each side tries to come up w/ ways to pass him to the other side as Carrier is trying to do with his book refuting the translations of Hitler's Table Talk. So Carrier and his peers will have some bias. He may have used a bad German version, but I must investigate these claims.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
1) Even if Hitlers Table Talk was undisputed (and it is far from that) there is nothng in it that speaks to atheism. A crittesism of the Church doesn't make one an atheist. Martin Luther did that. A Muslim or a Hindu are not atheist either but they don't agree with Christianity. Hitler is on record both in words and in actions as an anti-atheist, he is also on record for actions promoting Catholisism, and he himself proclaimed himself as one.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 The statements made in that YouTube video (Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not) as well as many other statements (search YouTube for "Hitler was NOT a Christian" and "Why did Adolf Hitler hate Christianity so much?") clearly indicate that he was anti-God, anti-Christian, and anti-religion. Yes, Hitler did make pro-Catholic statements and did on occasionally invoke God, but all that was propaganda. At the very least, he wanted to change Christianity into a Nazi ideology.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
Sorry, I'm getting real evidence from historical records and you, again, give a reference to a youtube video based on bloody Hitlers Table Talk?!
"Although he himself [Hitler] was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant."
-Hermann Göring (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol.9)
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Visit "tinyurl dot com /8xr23gk" for new historical records that debunk you claims. Yes, the YouTube references all cite Hitler's Table Talk, and I said that not all those quotes are a mistranslations, but I will look at your source for historical accuracy. I will check every one of those statements against anything that Carrier may have on them. As I said Hitler's public pro-Christian pro-God statements were for propaganda. He did not believe or fear the biblical God.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
And now you use the Pave the Way Foundation?! An organisation that actively work to make Pope Pius XII (Hitler's Pope) a saint?! And you are complaining about bias!?
This organisation have been very heavily crittisised by real scholars and Jewish organisations for their actions.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 I condemn Pope Pius XII as a closet Nazi. He could have done more but didn't. He was glad that the Jews were being liquidated in some part of his heart. I think I was clear on my previous statement on this issue. Once again, I condemn that genocidal Nazi Pope, Pius XII.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
There was no need to change Christianity to Nazi- views in regards to e.g. Jews. The founder of protestantism (Martin Luther) had already declared what should be done with them in his book, "On the Jews and their lies". What the Nazis did was just to apply what Christianity of the time taught. The actions is supported by the Bible.
Deuturonomy 13:1-18 spells out in detail what you are to do with people that do not follow your God.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Marting Luther was indeed a devout anti-Semite, and undoubtedly would have loved the Holocaust. The anti-Semitic hatred that the gentile Catholic church inherited from the pagan Greeks and Romans and were spread and sustained throughout Europe by the Catholic church. Hitler reaped the fruits of hate. Deut. 13:1-18 says to execute those among you who want to do idol worship because idol worship of that land was murder in the form of human sacrifice. This murderous practice had to end.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
Deut. 13:1-18 say more than that. It state that you should kill EVERYONE in a city where you fina any worshippers of other gods. It states that you should kill your family members if they worship other gods. This isn't limited to "idol worship".
So doing this action is not against Christian teaching. Thus why do you find it strange that Hitler was a Catholic when a person like Friar Miroslav Filipović actions were worse than any that Hitler personally did?
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Whenever you are dealing w/ passages in the bible in which God orders mass killing, know that it is just b/c God said whoever that sheds man's blood, by man his blood must be shed. Canaanite pagan religion involved human sacrifice by every member of the community. Joining them equals to murder, and murderer must be executed. God ordered that Israel wipe out certain cities of the Canaanites and to drive out the rest to destroy the political entity of Canaanite to stop human sacrifice.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians."
This was Martin Luthers teaching! (On the Jews and their lies, chap. XI
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Martin Luther himself was a devout Catholic before separating from the church. He was an evil man, and if he knew that his idea of a plain reading of the bible may one day result in Christian support for the Jews (e.g., Abraham lincoln's support for Jews against hateful decrees of General Grant and Christian Zionism), he would turn in his grave. Well, God used him to set the record straight on what the bible really says about Jews. Both Old & NT are pro-Jewish if taken in context.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shahriar5252
"Martin Luther himself was a devout Catholic before separating from the church. He was an evil man,.. "
He pales in comparison with Pope Benedict IX and Pope Alexander VI though, and Alexander was one of the reason Luther left the Church. So you agree then that there is no problem being Catholic and evil or being Christian and evil.
So why should it them be strange that Hitler was Catholic?
Draugh39 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
2) Carriers article is in a peer reviewed journal. that mean that other experts in the field has checked it before it was allowed to be published. Most historians, and linguists (his peers in the field) in USA and in Germany are Christian, not atheists. So if there is any religious bias it is towards Christianity and not atheism.
Furthermore, the German text isn't a "bad version", it is the ORIGINAL! Thus any deviation from that text is "bad" or "dishonest".
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 As I said, I will read Carrier's book later on. I don't think that the "original German" has Hitler saying nothing against religion or that all the English or French translations' statements are gross mistranslations. But I will look into your source whenever time permits. As I said even if your source is right, Hitler did not really believe in the biblical God. So if he is not an atheist, then which deity did he really believe in and follow?
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
It isn't a book! It is a peer reviewed article. Here is a link t it.
h t t p://w w w(dot)jstor(dot)org/stable/1432747
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Thanks for the link to the article. Unfortunately, it's $12, so I will have to look at other places for a cheaper price. Or maybe if I access it from a university website, then it will be free. Thanks anyway.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
There was an active attempt to try to get the fact that the vast majority of the people that comitted the attrocities and who ordered them were Christian. But the vast majority of people in Europe were Christian! Note that the Vatican actively supported the Ustaše in Croatia and some of the extermination camps were run by the clergy. The Catholic church then helped these people to flee justice, including Ante Pavelić who was personally protected by the Pope.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Yes, that is true. For example, many Christians Catholic or not, were too eager to get rid of the Jews. I have read that people of Norway send Jews to the death camps even though the Nazi's had not asked them to do it. Nazis were surprised at the overzealousness of the the French to help them get rid of French Jews. Undoubtedly, the many in the Vatican including the pope were very happy that after the war, at least there may be no more Jews in Europe. Catholic church is not innocent.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@Draugh39 I know that you wish that Hitler not be an atheist. But Hitler did not really believe in the biblical God. Otherwise, as I asked before, if he is not an atheist, then which deity did he really believe in? Besides, there are other atheist mass murders who have done just as bad as Hitler in the 20th century. Examples of such atheists are Joseph Stalin of USSR and Mao Ze Dong of China. I have Professor Dawkins on YouTube acknowledging the Stalin was an atheist.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
"I know that you wish that Hitler not be an atheist."
I don't wish that! Hitler was a catholic according to the doctrin of the faith, according to his best friends sworn testamony, according to his own writing and his recorded words.
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." (October, 1933)
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Hitler was raised a Catholic and stopped being a Catholic once he left home. He no longer attended mass because he was disillusioned with Christianity. He wanted "natural law" to be the order of the day, and therefore, all the mass killings of the inferior sub-humans. All the references to God and statements that he was Catholic in the public as the Fuhrer was for PROPAGANDA. Can you understand that Hitler was a clever lier??????
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
Can't you understand that Hitler like most of the people that did the actulal killings where Christians?1. In the German 1939 Census the total number of Christians was 94% of the population. The number of Neo-pagans was 3.5% and unbelievers was 1.5%
h t t p://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Most of the leading Nazis (including Hitler) was naturally Christian. He was only doing what other Christians of the time was doing.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 They were of Christian background and were dumping the Christian faith for atheistic Nazism. I am saying that atheism = Nazism. There are different versions of atheism. Hitler's version was social Darwinism hence his genocides to give nature a helping hand and get rid of the inferior humans. The ones that actually remained Christian and still carried out those crimes were adherents of Replacement Theology. Not all the criminal of WWII were atheists but their top leaders were.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
"I am saying that atheism = Nazism. "
You are utterly wrong. Nazism was not atheistic either, nor is it that today. The Neo-Nazi parties you find are all strongly Christian. The Catholic Church has worked with and supported all fascist countries. The Christian-right works with Neo-Nazi organisations. The KKK is Christian etc.
Now name a fascist organisation or a Neo-Nazi one that is atheistic.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 I apologize. That was a typo. I meant to write: "I am NOT saying that atheism = Nazism." I was typing fast and left out "NOT". I am totally sorry. Read my statement with that correction please.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
That was a typo. I meant to write: "I am NOT saying that atheism = Nazism."
ok. no worries.
"Hitler's version was social Darwinism"
Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin. It is a misnomer as it is not at all based on evolution but on Lamarck’s ideas. Social Darwinism and "eugenics" (Francis Galtonwas darwins cousin though) originated in the USA and UK (not in Germany) and Roosevelt and Churchill were both supporters of it- before Hitler.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 I never said that Social Darwinism has was advocated by Charles Darwin. It's just a name for applying Darwin natural selection and survival of the fittest ideas of nature to human society. Darwin himself never advocated this application of his theory. Other people did that. I don't think Darwin himself ever hear of the term Social Darwinism. It's just a name, and I know that it gives Darwin a bad rap. Roosevelt and Churchill were wrong, but eugenics is an atheistic idea. God forbids it
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
No I stated it was a misnomar because his theory is not used at all in social Darwinism. Social darwinism is based on Lamark's ideas, which Darwin disproved.
No Eugenics is NOT an Atheist idea at all. You can go from "I do not believe in any God", to any action. The non-belief in Sata Clause, doesn't lead you to an action based on that non-belief, and neither does a unbelief in any gods.
Sweden is mostly atheistic now, has that lead to particular actions?
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Darwin's theory relies on natural selection of genes that exhibit superior, more adapt phenotypes for speciation. That's natural selection as stated in college textbooks. Lemark's theory was also natural selection but his mechanism was debunked. Both theories rely on survival of the fittest, aka, natural selection. Social Darwinism demands applying jungle's survival of the fittest to civilized humans. Bible says God created all, not nature. Natural selection is thus atheism = no god.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
Mate you need to look up what evolution teaches! What you are talking about is changes in populations, which mean that a broad variation in a population is advantageous as it allows such a population to survive in a changing environment. If you have a smaller gene-pool (as you do if you select one particular type of people) that goes against what is good for the species. "Inbreeding" is such an example. Does Darwinism argue that inbreeding is good?
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 I have studied evolution and summarized what the textbooks say. You did not read what I said carefully. Please re-read but don't read to much into it. I wrote plainly. Look up any college level textbooks and they both tell you that Darwin's and Lamark's theories rely on survival of the fittest, aka, natural selection. Population changes and inbreeding have no bearing here about whether natural selection, Social Darwinism, & eugenics are atheistic ideas = no god. You ran out of excuses.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
Mate I'm a Ph.D. and teach at university level. I have two full research groups in genetics just 2 floors above me and a a protein-design group a few doors away. Are you trying to tell us that we don't know anything about this?
Evolution = "any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations", thus it is related to the group (= the population).
Furthermore you obviously do not know what atheism means.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 That's ad hominemism again. Your PhD does not mean that all your arguments are right. How many of your arguments were wrong as you were going about getting your PhD? You're an intelligent person and know much about evolution. You are probably working late nights in labs to debate so much :-) You are bringing up details of evolution. I was talking about natural selection collectively and how atheist used it to create Social Darwinism. The details of theory of evolution are irrelevant.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
No it's not an "ad hominem" it is possibly an "argumentum ad verecundiam". However, as you were the person who stated "Look up any college level textbooks " and "I have studied evolution and summarized what the textbooks say" I would argue that it is well justified.
Secondly, atheists didn't create "Social Darwinism", The base comes from the work of Malthus (a cergyman). But I'll let you make the case. Which atheists was it that you claim created Social Darwinism?
Draugh39 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "No it's not an "ad hominem" it is possibly an argumentum ad verecundiam. However, as you were the person who stated "Look up any college level textbooks..."
I disagree. Prior to that statement that you have me quoted, you said, "Mate you need to look up what evolution teaches! What you are talking about is changes in populations..." I simply responded that I had studied evolution, and what I knew was adequate to answer you and was out of textbooks. PhD pride is misguiding you!
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"Look up any college level textbooks and they both tell you that Darwin's and Lamark's theories rely on survival of the fittest,"
No they don't, at least not any that know anything about the theory of evolution. The idea of "survival of th fittest, isn't even from Darwin, its a bastardisation done by the sociologist Herbert Spencer. So you obviously have not studied evolution if you write as you do.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "No they don't, at least not any that know anything about the theory of evolution. The idea of "survival of th fittest, isn't even from Darwin, its a bastardisation done by the sociologist Herbert Spencer. So you obviously have not studied evolution if you write as you do."
We are going back to the old argument that I have already answered repeatedly. Survival of the fittest was mentioned in many of my textbooks, so stop lying. Evolutionist use it all the time as part of Darwin's idea
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
This is the DEFINITION of what evolution is:
"Biol. The transformation of animals, plants, and other living organisms into different forms by the accumulation of changes over successive generations; the transmutation of species " (OED)
"Survival of the fittest" isn't necessarily true as over-specialization leads to extinction if the environment changes. A broad genepool is better for survival of the species then a narrow one, which is contrary to eugenics.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "This is the DEFINITION of what evolution is..."
1) That is the latest revision of evolution's def., and I already knew it. I was introduced the phrases of "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" as means of evolution from high school bio texts. Since then, "survival of the fittest" has been revised to "Darwinian fitness" and "natural selection" revised to "selective pressure". None of these revisions, which are still ongoing, changes the crux of the arguments that I made.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shahriar5252
"That is the latest revision of evolution's def."
No it isn't. You find the basis for it in Huxleys writing from 1860. He is using the word "transmutation" as that is what Darwin originally called it. (the word evolve only appears in the last sentence in Darwin's book). "Natural selection" is one part of the Theory of evolution - it isn't the same thing as evolution. And "survival of the fittest" was coined by a sociologist.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "This is the DEFINITION of what evolution is..."
2) In some of my college courses, professors claimed that the so-called junk DNA proved the book of Genesis false b/c these DNA sequences were leftover junk that evolution was in the process of getting rid of and that if you manually got rid of them, the species would still live w/o any problems. We not know that was a lie: junk DNA is really non-coding DNA that may serve for protection or regulation. So evolution keeps changing.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"In some of my college courses, professors claimed that the so-called junk DNA proved the book of Genesis false."
No Genesis is proven false by every natural scientific discipline there is (physics, chemistry, geology, cosmology etc). A literal reading of Genesis (with talking snakes and all that) is rejected by the vast majority of Christians for that reason. It is unsupported fantasy, no more true than any other mythology, nothing supports it.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"So evolution keeps changing."
Evolution hasn't changed, and the Theory of evolution is more or less the same as it was 150 years ago.
All scientific theories will change as more information comes to light. They may even become discarded if new observations and theoretical models contradict them. That's because science is not dogmatic, it strives to find the best model to describe reality and it has the best track record of any discipline in doing this.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "This is the DEFINITION of what evolution is..."
3) Bottom line is don't be arrogant to think that evolution by natural selection of mutant genes has debunked the bible. And yes Nazis used this theory was used to justify genocide by giving an atheist nature a helping hand. Just watch the movie Schindler's List at part where the Nazis had displays of Jewish skulls next to other "sub-humans". However, I will say that Darwin did not advocate genocide. Nazis twisted his atheist idea.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"And yes Nazis used this theory..."
I have already given you the referfence to historical record that proves your claim wrong. Darwin's theory was officially BANNED by the Nazis in 1935.
"Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279" [point 6]
h t t p://w w w(dot)library(dot)arizona(dot)edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents(dot)htm#guidelines
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"... genocide by giving an atheist nature a helping hand..."
Sorry, are you claiming that everything that doesn't include a god is "atheist"?! Are rocks "atheist", is mathematics?
Furthermore, "Schindler's List" is a Hollywood fictional movie, based on true stories - sure, but it is not a historical document or even claim to be one.
Eugenics and racial purity was obviously not based on evolution (as it goes contrary to what evolution say is good for a species).
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "Secondly, atheists didn't create "Social Darwinism", The base comes from the work of Malthus (a clergyman)...Which atheists was it that you claim created Social Darwinism?"
1) I am sure you have read the Wikipedia article & its sources about Social Darwinism. The term is a re-labeling of a Godless idea that were becoming popular in the 19th century. Phony people of God like Malthus and atheist like Darwin's cousin (F. Galton) independently came up w/ it & historians labeled it S.D.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"Phony people of God like Malthus and atheist like Darwin's cousin (F. Galton)"
And where have you found that information that Francis Galton was an atheist? (according to himself he was a "pure theism" - others calls him a pantheist.) Malthus was a clergyman. So I guess you haven't found any atheists yet?
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "But I'll let you make the case. Which atheists was it that you claim created Social Darwinism?"
2) I disagree with your premise. It does not matter if even a pope had come up with the idea a 1000 years ago. The point is that it's a Godless idea b/c God says have mercy and give charity. Jesus in NT says the meek will inherit the earth. Social Darwinism say opposite: the strong survive on earth, no god exists & no belief in god (atheism), and so no accounting of any crimes to any god.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 You wrote:
"I was talking about natural selection collectively and how atheist used it to create Social Darwinism."
So far you haven't listed a single atheist.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "So far you haven't listed a single atheist."
I answered you before remember: According to Wikipedia article "Social Darwinism" and its cited sources: Others whose ideas are given the label Social Darwinism include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century. Isn't F. Galton an atheist? And phone clergy Malthus, isn't his idea against Jesus' the meek will inherit the earth?
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "So far you haven't listed a single atheist."
Anyone who adheres to eugenics, which is a godless ideology is by definition subscribing to an atheist idea: an idea that rejects God and says nature and natural selection are the order of the day. You want more atheists: Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong of China, Fidel Casstro and Che Guevara of Cuba. The list goes on. Don't say Stalin was not an atheist b/c Professor Dawkins is on YouTube from a FoxNews Inerterview saying he was.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "But I'll let you make the case. Which atheists was it that you claim created Social Darwinism?"
According to Wikipedia article "Social Darwinism" and its cited sources: Others whose ideas are given the label Social Darwinism include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century. Isn't F. Galton an atheist? And phone clergy Malthus, isn't his idea against Jesus' the meek will inherit the earth?
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"Isn't F. Galton an atheist? "
No he wasn't. Here is a quote from him
" ..our personalities may be the transient but essential elements of an immortal
and cosmic mind."
This is obviously not a atheist. He was a likely a pantheist or what he called himself "a Pure Theist."
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "No he wasn't. Here is a quote from him
" ..our personalities may be the transient but essential elements of an immortal
and cosmic mind."
This is obviously not a atheist. He was a likely a pantheist or what he called himself "a Pure Theist.""
That quote does not mean that he was not an atheist. All that means is that we are an part of the universe said in a fancy way to alleviate the consequence of no afterlife as he saw it.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
Social Darwinism is NOT natural selection. Nature doesn't select, people do.
Furthermore “no god” doesn't equal atheism.
Theism is the belief that there is at least one god. “Atheism” (= not-theism) is the disbelief in that claim.
There is no God in Newton's laws of motions either, just nature. Does that mean that Newton's Laws of motions are "atheistic"?!
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 I am talking on a collective basis about natural selection, and yes, people of the early last century applied the idea to human society. Social Darwinists want people to give nature a helping hand as did Nazis. Atheism means no theism and no theism means no god. Let's not play word games. Atheist have no God or belief in God. Newton's laws are explanations of God's universe. Newton was a devout Christian. Evolution says no Creator; this is written in college textbooks.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shahriar5252
Neton was a christian and also and alchemist? However, there is no god in any of his models, only nature. So if you argue that something which doesn't contain a god in the explaination is atheist (which you appear to do) then Newton's laws are also atheist.
You're using the word "atheist" the wrong way. Atheist is a responce to a theistic claim.
"Evolution says no Creator"
No, evolution doesn't mention a creator. Most christians has no problems with this.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Eugenics is definitely an atheist idea. You are saying it's not because as an atheist, you don't want to be associated w/ it. If you don't accept it, just condemn it in explaining you version of atheism. But don't say that eugenics is not an atheistic idea. Eugenics is a method of implementing Social Darwinism among humans. I explained in my last post that Social Darwinism is definitely an atheist idea and by extension so is eugenics. Remember I didn't bring up eugenics, you did.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
"Eugenics is definitely an atheist idea"
That is utter bollock. "Not believing in a god" has nothing to do with it. One of the strong proponents of Eugenics was The United Methodist Church! (Who finally apologised for its support of it in 2008). Are you now claiming that the various churches that supported eugenics (which also includs the Catholic) are "atheist organisations"?
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 NT says Jesus heals a person blind from birth and in the OT, Mose's refusal to go to Pharaoh angers God to say that He was the one to create people handicapped. Is there anywhere in the bible that advocates eugenics. No, the opposite. Eugenics is anti-bible. You criticized individual church organizations that practice contrary to their bible. That's not the bible's fault or God's fault. He said no. Those churches that advocated eugenics are murderers for subscribing to eugenics.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252
"Is there anywhere in the bible that advocates eugenics."
Yes. According to the Bible, Jews are gods chosen people. The curse of Ham's son Canaan was there to justify slavery of that "race". The bible also say that people with disabilities are second class citizens:
Lev 21:23 "Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them."
Draugh39 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "Yes. According to the Bible, Jews are gods chosen people."
God commands (10 commandments) that we not covet what others have. God may choose whatever humans as he pleases to implement his will on earth. For example, He gave Israel a tiny land but gave the rest of the nations thousand of times more land and million times more resources. Do not covet what material or status He gives to one person or group b/c He may want to use that to give the rest of us even more!
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "The curse of Ham's son Canaan was there to justify slavery of that "race"."
Bible forbids slavery unless it is to work to pay off a debt (and you knew that in advance of the loan) or if you come for war. And even that slavery is limited to 7 years. That slavery should not be confused w/ kidnapping humans from one continent and enslaving the to death in another continent. God forbids it. Consider that God crushed Egypt to free the Israelites from such slavery.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
Your wrong.
The 7 year rule was for Hebrew slaves only and you could make them your permanent slaves too (Exodus 21:2-6). Your "normal slaves" were to be taken from the people living in countries around you and forigners in your own land. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
You were allowed to beat your slave even unto death, and if he didn't die within "a day or two" you were not to be punished because the slave was your property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "The 7 year rule was for Hebrew slaves only and you could make them your permanent slaves too (Exodus 21:2-6)."
No, Exodus 21:2-6 says that after the 7 years rule, the Hebrew slave MAY CHOOSE to be a slave for life, but he DOESN'T HAVE TO. In the past, some people preferred to be slaves b/c that was a job that could sustain them for life. The bible does command that the Hebrew slave is to be given GIFTS to sustain him after 7 year rule, but still some felt economically safer as slaves
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
You use the same arguments as the slave-owners of the South.
The way to make him a slave for life was to give him a wife (another slave) then the slave had to choose between losing his wife and children and being your slave forever. If he caved in (you having his wife and children as a hostage, that was likely to happen) you were to take him to your front door and ram an awl through his ear making him you permanent property (to be inherited to you children).
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "You use the same arguments as the slave-owners of the South."
Once again, NO! The people of the south were guilty of kidnapping free people who were capable of sustaining themselves and making them into slaves. The bible sets the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping. It's forbidden. What part of it do you not understand? Deut 24:7 forbids kidnapping fellow Israelites and Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping anyone, Israelite or not.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
The Bible only does that if you kidnap Jews! The whole of Exodus 21 is about how you treat other JEWS!
"These are the regulations you must present to Israel." (Exo. 21:1)
And in (Deu. 24:7) "If anyone kidnaps a fellow ISREALITE and treats him as a slave..."
It also states that ANYONE born off a slave is the master’s property, forever!
(Exodus 21:4 and Leviticus 25:44-46)
The Bible approves of slavery and even instructs you how to beat your slaves.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "The Bible only does that if you kidnap Jews! The whole of Exodus 21 is about how you treat other JEWS!
"These are the regulations you must present to Israel." (Exo. 21:1)"
Read it carefully: That verse 1, does not limit the laws to apply only to the Jews. It says tell them these are the laws they must abide by. Read Leviticus 19:34 "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God."
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "It also states that ANYONE born off a slave is the master’s property, forever!
(Exodus 21:4...)"
No, here is Exodus 21:4 "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." It says that the children will belong to the master as in the master may have them as adoptive children, not as slaves. As in levirate marriages, adoptive father was more important that bio dad among past Jews.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"It says that the children will belong to the master as in the master may have them as adoptive children,"
The hell it does! It states clearly that they are not the mastes children (but instead his propperty) in the very next verse.
"But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and MY wife and children and do not want to go free.."
You are trying to twist the Bible to say something it doesn't (and this is not the first time) - you are dishonest.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "The hell it does! It states clearly that they are not the mastes children (but instead his propperty) in the very next verse."
No, it doesn't. Here it is (Leviticus 21:4): "If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself." You interpret the wife and children as being the master's other slaves, but I interpret is as they shall be the master's adoptive children.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "You are trying to twist the Bible to say something it doesn't (and this is not the first time) - you are dishonest."
Not true. That's what you are doing. I explained myself every time. You repeated your hateful claims, and I chose to give you even more details. So now you are angry. You got lost on each one of you accusations about the bible. You cannot believe that the God of the bible is just contrary to your beliefs. You are angry that the bible repeated commands the Golden rule.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "...and Leviticus 25:44-46)
The Bible approves of slavery and even instructs you how to beat your slaves."
How does Leviticus 25:44-46 approve of beating your slave? Verse 44 permits taking non-Jewish slaves and verse 45-46 deals with taking slaves from among temporary residents (Jews and non-Jews). As I said before, this slavery is voluntary. People in the past sold themselves and their family as slaves (workers) to live off a richer person. Your slavery involves sinful kidnapping.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "The way to make him a slave for life was to give him a wife (another slave) then the slave had to choose between losing his wife and children and being your slave forever."
You forget that such a person does not have to accept the wife from the master. It is voluntary. So he can always negotiate the terms of it. The Talmud of rabbis recommends to marry a teen daughter young even if you must give it to your slave. So such slaves can negotiate and it's not always another slave wife.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "If he caved in (you having his wife and children as a hostage, that was likely to happen) you were to take him to your front door and ram an awl through his ear making him you permanent property (to be inherited to you children)."
That's the bible way of discouraging you from choosing lifelong slavery by making it shameful to desire as would be the earring. Among the Israelites makes permanent cuts or tattoos on the body was forbidden and so shameful to have.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
There is NO place in the Bible that forbids slavery, furthermore you are not “choosing” anything if your wife and kids are held hostage, now are you. The same tactics were used by slave-owners in the South.
You are sitting here making excuses for slavery, which makes YOU just as horrid a person as any slave-owner in the history of mankind.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "There is NO place in the Bible that forbids slavery..."
You definition of slavey is kidnapping a free person for no reason and holding him as a slave. This is specifically forbidden in the bible as I mentioned before: Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." This verse hold for Jews & non-Jews. Moreover, next chapter in Exodus 22:21 and in Leviticus 19:33-34 specifies it for non-Jews.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"You definition of slavey is kidnapping a free person "
No it isn't, stop trying to use strawmen arguments.
My definition of slavery (and this is what is normally ment) is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.
The Bible advocate such a system. Kidnapping was wrong in the South as well but slavery was still okay.
Now where in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong?
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "My definition of slavery (and this is what is normally ment) is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work."
The slavery that occurred in the Americas and in the Muslim Middle East was the result of kidnapping free people. The bible's slavery is for the purposes of debt or if you sell yourself as a slave to survive or if you come for war. As long as you are not kidnapped, bible's system of slavery (or being a worker) is just.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "Now where in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong?"
He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death (Exodus 21:16). That is forced slavery. You are forced to work as a slave if you are kidnapped not if you agree to it for survival or as a consequence of paying back a debt.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
Do you have problems understanding this.
Kidnapping is NOT slavery.
Slavery was legal in the South but kidnapping was not and children born to slaves became the property of the master, just as the Bible say it should be. Taking slaves was also okay according to the Bible but the Israelites prefered virgin girls and killed little boys.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "Slavery was legal in the South but kidnapping was not ..."
No, the slaves that came off the ships were all kidnaped from Africa and elsewhere. Bible forbids kidnapping of Jews and non-Jews. So what the South did was against the word of God. They knew the slaves were kidnapped free people.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "and children born to slaves became the property of the master, just as the Bible say it should be. Taking slaves was also okay according to the Bible but the Israelites prefered virgin girls and killed little boys."
The bible says no such thing. That is your biased interpretation and anyone else that interprets Exodus 21:4 in that way is also mistaken. It says children of slave belong to the master as in the master can have them as adoptive children.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shahriar5252
"It says children of slave belong to the master as in the master can have them as adoptive children."
Nope, as it clearly states that the slaves are recognised as the offspring of the biological father (as is the wife of the slave recognised as "his wife" and not the wife of the master) just one verse later. What you stae is bollocks
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "but the Israelites prefered virgin girls and killed little boys."
Those people attempted genocide on the Jews. The Jews were defending themselves against bio-warface that the Midianites wanted to inflict on them. I explained this many times. Argument on this issue is over.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "The same tactics were used by slave-owners in the South."
South's slaves were kidnapped, not by choice for survival. Once again, bible forbids kidnapping to enslave: Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." This verse hold for Jews & non-Jews. Moreover, next chapter in Exodus 22:21 and in Leviticus 19:33-34 specifies it for non-Jews. Bible does not accept kidnapped people as slaves.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "...furthermore you are not “choosing” anything if your wife and kids are held hostage, now are you."
Exodus 21:4 does not force the Hebrew slave (i.e., worker) to accept the wife from his master. So he is free to negotiate. The conditions of taking the wife would have been known by the Hebrew slave (worker), and the slave status originally comes from inability to pay a dept. Borrowing was also voluntary. If slave leaves, slave's children became master's adoptive children, not slaves.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"and the slave status originally comes from inability to pay a dept."
No it doesn't, that's an assertion from you. Indepted servitude was one way of getting a slave, but any child born to a slave that you had would be your slave for life (just as in the South). And slaves were inherrited in your family and you could sell those.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "No it doesn't, that's an assertion from you. Indepted servitude was one way of getting a slave, but any child born to a slave that you had would be your slave for life (just as in the South). "
The bible does not make children born to slaves as another generation of slaves. That is your interpretation of Exodus 21:4, but as I said, it can also be interpreted as the children of the slave shall belong to the master in terms of being the master's adoptive children.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "You are sitting here making excuses for slavery, which makes YOU just as horrid a person as any slave-owner in the history of mankind."
Don't lie. I condemn your version of slavery and make no excuses for it. If anyone kidnaps someone to make him a slave, that person should be executed as the bible says. Can you agree to that or are you anti-death penalty for such evil doers? Bible's slavery should be called volunteer contracted worker. Some people volunteered as slaves to survive.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "Your "normal slaves" were to be taken from the people living in countries around you and forigners in your own land. (Leviticus 25:44-46)"
1) Just like a Hebrew slave that CHOSE to sell himself into slavery to sustain himself or to pay a debt, the non-Israelite people were also permitted to sell themselves or their children that they could not care for as slaves. But the bible forbids YOUR VERSION of slavery as in kidnapping someone to enslave them including gentiles (Exodus 21:16).
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
Bollocks, slaves were war-booty and buying a slave that had been taken was perfectly okay. The Bible even tells of many such things, First you are to murder all males, women and infant boys, but the young virgin girls you can keep as property. (Numbers 31:1-40)
The kidnapping is wrong only against Israelites (Deu 24:7)
and the there is nothing about the slave being freed only the kidnaper punished. (Exo. 21:16)
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "The kidnapping is wrong only against Israelites (Deu 24:7)
and the there is nothing about the slave being freed only the kidnaper punished. (Exo. 21:16)"
The bible sets the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping. What part of it do you not understand? Deut 24:7 forbids kidnapping fellow Israelites & Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping anyone, Israelite or not. Your reasoning that only the kidnapper should be punished but not free the victim shows how bad your ability to reason is.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "...murder all males, women and infant boys, but the young virgin girls you can keep as property. (Numbers 31:1-40)"
A) Num 31:1-40 applies only to a group of Midianites. They and their leader Balaam conspired to wipe out the Israelite by sending them diseased woman for prostitution. Then a plague, probably an STD, spread among the susceptible Israelites but God healed them. To prevent a repeat, God commanded Israel to wipe them out but keep their virgins alive for themselves.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
It talks about what was done to the Midianites, but this actions was done on other people too, it was a part of the ethnic clensing the Jews did.
There was no "disease"! (Num. 31:1-2) states
"Then the LORD said to Moses, “On behalf of the people of Israel, take revenge on the Midianites for leading them into IDOLATRY"
They were murdered for being of the wrong race and having the wrong religion.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "It talks about what was done to the Midianites, but this actions was done on other people too, it was a part of the ethnic clensing the Jews did."
Jews had nothing against other races. In fact Jews wanted to be like them and worship their Gods and marry their wives. But God said no and ordered those people to be destroyed b/c they were murderers of their own children. They practiced humans sacrifice & didn't repent. It had to stop. US did the same with Nazis & other human sacrificers
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"Jews had nothing against other races."
Ha ha ha. What happened to the Ammonites?
They were conquered by Jephthah, right?
And afterwards he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord. So God doesn’t mind human sacrifices either, and likes the smell of burning flesh.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "Ha ha ha. What happened to the Ammonites?
They were conquered by Jephthah, right? And afterwards he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord. So God doesn’t mind human sacrifices either, and likes the smell of burning flesh."
Yes, they were. It was defensive war. By the way, cite the versus you have in question. As for Jephthah's sacrifice of her daughter: it was murder in the eyes of God. He sinned despite his faithfulness b/c he misinterpreted the bible as you do.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
Jephthah’s sacrifice was not murder in the eye of God!
God gave Jephthah the victory because Jephthah promised to sacrifice whatever first came to greet him (and God knew beforehand that it would be his daughter). God never stopped the sacrifice or punished Jephthah for his actions, thus God wanted this to happen.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "Jephthah’s sacrifice was not murder in the eye of God!"
Did God tell you that? Does it say somewhere in the bible (specifically) that it was not murder in the eyes of God? Time and time again, God commanded Israel not to commit human sacrifice. Not even one. You are so evil in your thoughts. Not many people here will believe your biased accusations against the bible.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
God never punished Jephthah and God could have stopped this at any time if he didn't want that sacrifice to happen. He is obviously not against it. Furthermore God has commanded human sacrifices before, are you unfamiliar with the story of Abraham and Isaac?!
That was a direct order, and something that Abraham thought was well within Gods character.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "God never punished Jephthah and God could have stopped this at any time if he didn't want that sacrifice to happen. He is obviously not against it..."
God could have stopped many others from doing evil but didn't b/c there is free will in this world. He commanded no human sacrifice, you must obey. Jephthah did not read the word of God carefully and sinned. God forbid it, but Jephthah did not understand it. You also misconstrue the word of God. Many have misinterpreted the Bible.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "Furthermore God has commanded human sacrifices before, are you unfamiliar with the story of Abraham and Isaac?!"
God tested Abraham and rejected the sacrifice. By that act, he rejected all the human sacrificer of the world. He said no. No human sacrifice. God doesn't need it.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"God tested Abraham and rejected the sacrifice."
And he did NOT reject the sacrafice of Jephtha which proves my point.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "And he did NOT reject the sacrafice of Jephtha which proves my point."
God asked for Abraham's sacrifice and so caused Abraham to do it. So He felt obligated to stop Abraham. God did not ask for Jephtha's sacrifice and had forbidden it in numerous verses of the bible. Jephtha should have read the bible carefully and you should read it w/o your hateful atheist bias.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
Jephtha stated:
"I will give to the LORD whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
God gave Jephthah the victory which means he accepted the vow. God either knew or orchestrated it so that the first thing that came to visit Jephthah was his daughter, so it was God that made sure that the little girl should be sacraficed. God could have let a clean animal be first but he didn't.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "God gave Jephthah the victory because Jephthah promised to sacrifice whatever first came to greet him (and God knew beforehand that it would be his daughter). God never stopped the sacrifice or punished Jephthah for his actions, thus God wanted this to happen."
God gave him victory and whatever that came out of the house initially meant a kosher animal as Jephthah thought. His daughter came out, but God had said no to that sacrifice. So Jephthah was obligated not to do it.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"His daughter came out, but God had said no to that sacrifice..."
That is not true, nowhere is that chapter does it say that God disapproved of the sacrifice. Also, God KNEW what the first thing that came out would be, even before Jephthah had made his vow (which God accepted).
2 Samuel 21 also tells about how human sacrifice:
"Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose."
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "That is not true, nowhere is that chapter does it say that God disapproved of the sacrifice. Also, God KNEW what the first thing that came out would be, even before Jephthah had made his vow (which God accepted)."
Do you not get it. God forbid human sacrifice in the five book so Moses written well before Jephthah. I am no even going to bother looking up all those verses for you. Prior to Jephthah's vow, God had rejected human sacrifice in every case including that vow.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@Draugh39 "2 Samuel 21 also tells about how human sacrifice:
"Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose.""
David violated the law; it was murder. It was not an issue of sacrifice anyway. David could had to offer money compensation, but he offered the sons of Saul. It was an evil act and murder. Again, David should have offered them money instead.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago
@shahriar5252
"David violated the law; it was murder. "
Obviously not according to God, as the story finishes with:
" ...After that, God ended the famine in the land."
So God accepted the human sacrafices.
Draugh39 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "Obviously not according to God, as the story finishes with:
" ...After that, God ended the famine in the land."
So God accepted the human sacrifices."
God ended the famine b/c the Gibeonites were satisfied. But Bible does not say that God was in any way pleased with the way that David achieved Gibeonites' satisfaction. There are ways of doing things, and David chose murder. God will be His judge. Never did God ask David to hand over Saul's sons. Never. Stop repeating your arguments.
shahriar5252 2 weeks ago