The Antichristian Phenomenon

Would like to see them talk their way out of this one. Almost every christian I have met thinks that salvation can be obtained though repenting and asking forgiveness, and many believe salvation depends on belief in Jesus as savior. This means that Christianity understood as such is more likely to permit Hitler into heaven than Gandhi, and most likely to condemn Gandhi to eternal damnation. Great religion isn't it? How kind God must be to reward sorry tyrants and torture the spreaders of peace!

Great article with clear structure. This is very helpful because it prevents people from doing mental gymnastics too much. You clearly stated the axioms and then derived the logical conclusion to the cases of Hitler and Gandhi. I can't wait for your infinity article.

Additional comment – sorry for the double post, it just came to me at a later time.

Some might point out there are other prerequisites for going into heaven, pointing to John 14:6: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" Other verses that allude to faith in Jesus (or "accepting Jesus") as the way to eternal life are 1 John 5:13 ("I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."), John 3:16 (""For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.") and John 6:47 ([Jesus says] " I tell you the truth, he who believes [in me] has everlasting life."). (Source: NIV)

In that case, the only requirement is merely accepting Jesus, and it doesn't really matter whether you are a bad person or a good person to begin with; an equally appalling system.

I don't think they must necessarily do so, but because they know that that i am a good person, and this implicates that god also knows, they cannot understand how I, as a I good person, should be tormented for rejecting god only. If it was someone else though, they would've agreed just because there is no personal bias. Maybe I should write an article to explain it more throughly, because there are other examples as well, such as the massmurderer who commits crimes in god's name by killing what he considers to be bad and sinning people, and similarities too where a family member is convicted for a serious crime such as paedophilia, and usually the personal liking towards that person will still overweight the horror of the criminal act, although people who do not know this paedophile will shun him, f ex.

To make it more clear, what I am trying to say is that the black and white morality is very applicable, but the outcome of who is good and bad is not something we may generally agree with, because there are many other reasons that make us disagree. Since I started to think about it, I will certainly explore it a bit further, because it piqued my interest, so stuned tuned!

Hello John,

Thanks for leaving a comment on this site. It shows you are not daunted by the somewhat confronting name of this website. I hope you understand that we are not 'out to get Christians', but to simply voice our opinions on matters of religion.

First of all, I agree it hard to know someone's mind (what you call heart, which I will not use because it is merely a blood-pumping organ.) This does not mean we can make an educated guess. The post contains some pretty clear references to Hitler's religious convictions, which lead us to assume he would be allowed into heaven. Be sure to steer clear of no true Scotsman fallacy.

Anyway, that is not the most important thing I wish to convey in this reply. You assert that because it is God we are talking about, he will know what decent ethics are. First I wish you to consider Euthyphro's dilemma, which for monotheism is this: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The implication is clear: if something is moral because it is commanded by God, it is in that sense arbitrary and independent of God. If something commanded is moral because it is moral, then God is merely the messenger of what is moral. This means that in theory, we might understand what is moral due to our own efforts (in the philosophy of ethics).

I will put it to you in less abstract terms. Consider the following hypothetical situation: if God commanded that rape was a virtue, and that he would reward those who raped little girls, would you? You would have a problem with this, I'm sure. The point is, this hypothetical situation isn't that far off from the God in the Old Testament, who demanded child sacrifices (Isaac & Jephthah), who demanded and comitted genocides (of the Amalekites particularly, but don't forget the Flood!), who killed the innocent (the firstborn of Egypt) and various other crimes against humanity. To say that God must have had a very good reason that we simply fail to see is simply beyond me. I happen to think that you and I are more moral than God. Perhaps that is a lot to wrap your head around because of your current Christian frame of mind, but consider the situation where this "God" was a king rather than a god. We would deem him a dictator, right? Why would divinity suddenly make him exempt from our moral judgement?

Power does not exempt you from ethical standards. If anything, with more power one expects more responsibility.

Hello John,

Thanks for leaving a comment on this site. It shows you are not daunted by the somewhat confronting name of this website. I hope you understand that we are not 'out to get Christians', but to simply voice our opinions on matters of religion.

First of all, I agree it hard to know someone's mind (what you call heart, which I will not use because it is merely a blood-pumping organ.) This does not mean we can't make an educated guess. The post contains some pretty clear references to Hitler's religious convictions, which lead us to assume he would be allowed into heaven if we accept the set conditions. Be sure to steer clear of no true Scotsman fallacy.

Anyway, that is not the most important thing I wish to convey in this reply. You assert that because it is God we are talking about, he will know what decent ethics are. First I wish you to consider Euthyphro's dilemma, which for monotheism is this: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The implication is clear: if something is moral because it is commanded by God, it is in that sense arbitrary and independent of God. If something commanded is moral because it is moral, then God is merely the messenger of what is moral. This means that in theory, we might understand what is moral due to our own efforts (in the philosophy of ethics).

I will put it to you in less abstract terms. Consider the following hypothetical situation: if God commanded that rape was a virtue, and that he would reward those who raped little girls, would you? You would have a problem with this, I'm sure. The point is, this hypothetical situation isn't that far off from the God in the Old Testament, who demanded child sacrifices (Isaac & Jephthah), who demanded and comitted genocides (of the Amalekites particularly, but don't forget the Flood!), who killed the innocent (the firstborn of Egypt) and various other crimes against humanity. To say that God must have had a very good reason that we simply fail to see is simply beyond me. I happen to think that you and I are more moral than God. Perhaps that is a lot to wrap your head around because of your current Christian frame of mind, but consider the situation where this "God" was a king rather than a god. We would deem him a dictator, right? Why would divinity suddenly make him exempt from our moral judgement?

Power does not exempt you from ethical standards. If anything, with more power one expects more responsibility.

Hello John,

Thanks for leaving a comment on this site. It shows you are not daunted by the somewhat confronting name of this website. I hope you understand that we are not 'out to get Christians', but to simply voice our opinions on matters of religion.

First of all, I agree it hard to know someone's mind (what you call heart, which I will not use because it is merely a blood-pumping organ.) This does not mean we can't make an educated guess. The post contains some pretty clear references to Hitler's religious convictions, which lead us to assume he would be allowed into heaven if we accept the set conditions. Be sure to steer clear of no true Scotsman fallacy.

Anyway, that is not the most important thing I wish to convey in this reply. You assert that because it is God we are talking about, he will know what ethical behaviour is. First I wish you to consider Euthyphro's dilemma, which for monotheism is this: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The implication is clear: if something is moral because it is commanded by God, it is in that sense arbitrary. If something commanded is moral because it is moral, then God is merely the messenger of what is moral, and independent of God. This means that in theory, we might understand what is moral due to our own efforts (in the philosophy of ethics).

I will put it to you in less abstract terms. Consider the following hypothetical situation: if God commanded that rape was a virtue, and that he would reward those who raped little girls, would you? You would have a problem with this, I'm sure. The point is, this hypothetical situation isn't that far off from the things God commands in the Old Testament, who demanded child sacrifices (Isaac & Jephthah), who demanded and comitted genocides (of the Amalekites particularly, but don't forget the Flood!), who killed the innocent (the firstborn of Egypt) and various other crimes against humanity. To say that God must have had a very good reason that we simply fail to see is simply beyond me. I happen to think that you and I are more moral than God. Perhaps that is a lot to wrap your head around because of your current Christian frame of mind, but consider the situation where this "God" was a king rather than a god. We would deem him a dictator, right? Why would divinity suddenly make him exempt from our moral judgement?

Power does not exempt you from ethical standards. If anything, with more power one expects more responsibility.

As an active author of this site, I embrace the fact that you want to have an open debate with us although it is obvious we may come off as rather offensive and "in the face", which is of course part of the point of this site, the other goal is of course, to be open for debate.

First of all, I agree with you and Waldheri that it is hard to know someone's "heart", I also agree with Waldheri here that using the term "heart" feels a bit wrong, "mind" is a better term because it also includes such things as intentions. However, we know Hitler's intentions pretty well, while he very well may have been completely mad at the end of his rule (his doctor pumped him full of opium among other things to keep his stress down), and we can make some very good educated guesses based on his writings and interactions with the people who lived around him while he was still alive. We can thus be pretty certain that Hitler thought he did which was right for his country, and it was the only way to save it. Also, he did, the problem was that he pushed it too far. Hitler brought Germany out of a severe economical depression in a couple of decades, he reconstructed the German infrastructure, he industrialized the country. Germany went from being one of the poorest countries in all Europe to one of the most technologically advanced in mere decades. Not many can boast about that (I think the only country which could ever possibly be compared to is Japan during WW I and II which went from a feudal state into the fastest growing industrial country in the whole world). These things among many others, are usually forgotten in the debate about Hitler and the Holocaust. Truth be told, if Hitler hadn't built such road constructions as the Autobahn, which is the biggest and longest highway in whole Germany, maybe Germany would've still be effected by the economical crisis that occured after WW I.

Also, your analogy with the Christian god perceived as a father is a bit fallacious because what if the father orders the child to do things which are completely morally wrong? This happened a lot in the OT, such as the examples Waldheri brought up. Just because god is an authority it does not make the actions and wishes of god right. Additionally, it's easy to claim that if we have two Christians and they both say two different things that they think is considered moral according to god, to state that the other person is wrong and thus not a true Christian (this is what Waldheri referred to when he said "no true Scotsman fallacy"). The fact that we have two people claim two different things of what is moral and not shows that there is a disagreement, and then we can argue whether the disagreement stems from people misunderstanding god or that god cannot function as a moral compass because not even god knows what is right and wrong.

A more clear example: I am sure Joseph Fritzl still loved his daughter, despite sexually abusing her, he gave her food and shelter, and he even took her children to a doctor when they were very ill, but it doesn't make the damage he caused to her and her children right.

Judge a man by his actions, not his "words".__Hitler was not a Christian!!! He was just a vessel, used as a mouthpeice,for a small moment in time, by a very real and dark force !

To clarify Waldheri's point: The New Testament is often cited as that it's enough to accept Christ in your heart to be forgiven and thus be sent into heaven, regardless of all the sins you've committed during your life, and regardless of the severity of them. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that if Hitler did just that, and accepted Jesus into his heart upon his death, he would've been sent into heaven regardless of the crimes he had committed.

This is what Ethereal is trying to point is a very flawed logic which just seems wrong, because according to this logic, ANYONE can get into heaven regardless of their crimes as long they accept Jesus upon their deaths.

So you’ve pulled quotes from Hitlers book in order to prove his Christianity…weak, very weak. Here are a few more quotes from Hitler….

“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. “Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. “…the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little….
“Christianity the liar…. “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State”

Quoted from “Hitlers Table Talk”

Like most atheists (and even more so-called Christians), you have a very limited understanding of the Bible. First….Jesus hasn’t sent anyone to hell. Nor does the Bible claim that hell even exist (Yet). The word, “Hell” is nothing more than a Greek translation of the word, “Grave”. Nowhere in the bible does it say that we’re each judged immediately upon death. The book of Revelation states there will be one final judgement for both the living & the dead & that those names not found in the book of life would be cast into the lake of fire for all eternity. No one goes to hell upon death. Of course it doesn’t say they go to heaven either, hence the Catholic doctrine of purgatory (I’m not Catholic by the way)

Second, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the holy spirit, which, as far as I know, Gandhi was not guilty of. True, Gandhi was not a Christian, but neither was Jesus. I would also say that Gandhi was probably the closest example of Christ. Christ defied Roman authority through peaceful means, just as Gandhi did with the the British authority.

There are many instances in the O.T where God punishes the Israelites for worshiping false idols. But again, nowhere is it stated that this will keep anyone out of heaven. Its human nature to prioritize the severity of immorality, ie, one sin is worse than another. The Bible doesn’t draw a line of separation…in Gods eyes, sin is sin…one is no better or worse than the other (with the exception of blasphemy).From day one God knew that we could never meet his standards of morality or obedience…our very first act on earth was to defy God. He said “Hey guys, I’ve given you paradise and a whole planet of trees, fruits, berries, meat etc..this is all yours, except this one tree right here. Don’t partake of that fruit”…and what’s the first thing we did? We took the fruit of the one tree we were told not to. Afterwards God was left with two choices…allow us to pay the price for our actions, or send one man to pay the price for ALL of us.
Gandhi & Hitlers eternal fates are not yet known, maybe they’ll both go to heaven, or maybe they’ll both get cast into the lake..either way, the logic in your entire argument if flawed.

Waldheri…Youre statement that "Such a system is neither perfect nor desired" would only be 100% true by assuming that we have a crystal clear understanding of that system. Contrary to what many evangelical Christians tell us, the bible is not perfect. It was written by men in one language, then translated, and/or transliterated by men (very poorly in many instances) Which, by default, makes it fallable.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but: you're saying you agree that judging someone only on whether he has committed a particular sin is neither perfect nor desirable, but that we simply can't know that's what God will actually be doing based on the Bible's errancy – even though in your previous comment you stated "the Bible makes it abundantly clear that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the holy spirit"? Please clarify if this is not what you actually meant.

"My personal opinion is that people should be judged by their actions,and not their stated beliefs." In that case we are in agreement. The implied argument in this article is this: If god is just, then he will not judge people for their beliefs, but rather their actions. However, this isn't explicitly clear in the Bible, seemingly placing great value on belief. Therefore, God isn't just if he exists.

It is important to consider that part of the reason Christian missionaries were sent into the world was to bring Christ to the ignorant, so that they may accept him and go to heaven. The very idea of non-Christians needing 'saving' is based on this idea that your beliefs are of paramount importance to what happens after you die.

Gandhi and Hitler were used in this example to illustrate what happens with such a belief-based standard – we care because of the implications of this if God would exist. Also remember that atheism is just the lack of belief in / rejection of theism. Reincarnation is not incompatible with atheism, so the worm's buffet does not have to be true for all atheists. It is for me though (and I think for the author of this article as well).

“It is important to consider that part of the reason Christian missionaries were sent into the world was to bring Christ to the ignorant, so that they may accept him and go to heaven. The very idea of non-Christians needing ‘saving’ is based on this idea that your beliefs are of paramount importance to what happens after you die”.

I concede you’ve made an excellent point here. Christ did in fact direct his disciples to spread the word…However, the Bible never mentions Christians and/or non-Christians. The only two groups distinctly mentioned in the Bible (where salvation is concerned) are the Jews and the Gentiles; both of whom are afforded salvation through Christ. Remember, Christ came as a living example as to how we should live our lives…this is why I believe that so long as our actions mirror the example set by Christ then we will go to heaven. Again, let me emphasize this is my personal belief.

“Also remember that atheism is just the lack of belief in / rejection of theism. Reincarnation is not incompatible with atheism”

I had never heard of this part before. Very interesting.

As a final note…Let me also clarify that while I do proclaim Christianity as my stated belief, I do not attend church, nor am I claim affliation with any particular denomination. I have more issues with organized religion than most atheists probably do. I do not see atheism as the threat that most Christians do. I happen to think that the biggest enemies of Christianity are the many so called Christians who either, knowingly preach lies from the pulpit for their own monetary gain (ie Tim Lahay, who’s made millions through his “Left Behind” series, which is based on a total lie). And two, those who don’t practice that which they claim to be so passionate about, ie Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Ted Haggard, and the majority of Catholic Priests. Christ spent more time warning us of these people than of anyone else…ie “Wolves in Sheeps clothing”, and, “Ye shall know them by their fruits”. Its also important to remember that Christ wasn’t sent up to be crucified by atheists. He was sent up by the main stream religious leaders of the time who saw him as a threat to their money and power. Its also funny that I’ve been to a number of on line Christian forums and the minute I mention something that contradicts their practices and/or doctrines I am immediately banned. I’ve yet to be banned from any atheist websites. Maybe that’s only because I give you all something to laugh about. Maybe not. Who knows. The point is that While hardly no one ever agrees with me in places like this, at least they allow me to state my opinions without banning me….LOL, Yet.

Then, in your theology, Ghandi probably isn't that bad off. When asked his opinion on Christianity, he said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I understand you're frustration with these televangelists. Another two of such wolves are Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff (who, after his fraudulence having been uncovered by James Randi and Steve Shaw in the eighties, has now re-established his 'faith-healing ministry'). I think the active atheists (like us) simply enjoy debating more than people who are set on a particular denomination or set of dogmas. The perceived holiness of their beliefs perhaps makes it less easily discussable. Also, it would be hypocritical of atheists who see themselves as being open-minded and free-thinking to censor someone with a different point of view by banning them. You don't have to be afraid to be banned here, we've never banned anyone before. In fact, I quite enjoyed the discussion.

In fact, many theories of modern science that are allgededly accepted have major holes in them, simply because they are still in development and thus still require completion. I do however believe that the point Taniya is trying to make is that imperfection —> mistakes. If something is perfect it cannot contain mistakes, easy as that. Then even things we may perceive as mistakes are done so on purpose, and we just simply fail to see that the mistakes are deliberate to make it perfect. Take for example a painting of a human face. If the face itself is too symmetric, it will actually look less realistic than if it's asymmetric, because I doubt that 100% body symmetry exists. I really don't see how this analogy can be properly applicable to such a work as the Bible though, because contrary to a painting which is supposed to resemble the imperfection of human beings, the Bible is supposed to be logically sound according to god's infallibility. But god simply cannot be perfect if god's existence isn't logical, or at least that's how I perceive it, and I am sure many members of this site willa gree with me.

LeaT,

With regards to your first post. Thank you for clarifying the distinctions of atheism. I feel like a total dumbass now for not thinking of that sooner. I’m usually very adament when it comes to word origins…You further proved it by mentioning a number of more obscure beliefs. I have a friend who is a professed believer in Wiccan practices. I onced asked her about their beliefs regarding the afterlife. She said they believe that, upon death, you are given one of two options..You could either become a guardian of the living, or become part of what they refer to as the Collective Soul.

In your second post you mentioned the more recent relationship between atheism and science and the acceptance of certain areas of study as irrefutable facts (ie, Evolution).
Somewhere along the way there became this common belief that evolutionary science could only be validated through secular reasoning and that any attempt at refutation automatically meant that your arguments were driven by spiritual beliefs as opposed to practical and/or scientific reasoning. The problem here is that both sides refuse to allow the possibility of either. I’m certainly no scientist but I have attempted to educate myself as much as possible where evolution is concerned. I’ve read arguments from both sides of the coin. This includes (but not limited to) Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion”, as well as Michael Behes’, “Darwins Black Box” I’ve learned enough to say that evolution is in fact valid science. But like you said, has many holes & unanswered questions but still must be accepted as irrefutable fact. Many of the most adament atheists (such as Dawkins) are quick to agree that there are many holes. They are even quicker to say that those holes can only be filled by materialistic answers, which haven’t been found. In the mean time we are ALL required to accept, without question what has been found. Any attempt to do so means you are cast off as a fundamental Christian extremist.
Its kind of funny how, when asked about the origin of life, many (such as Dawkins) are quick to point out that evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life, only how life evolves. Yet the possibility of design by a higher power is out of the question. This is where they lose credibility with me. They admit they have no idea how life on earth originated. But in the same breath they proclaim with absolute certainty to know how it didn’t. Until science can answer this question I don’t think its unreasonable to allow the possibility of design by a higher power.

Sorry for digressing so far off the original topic. That’s one of the many down sides to A.D.D. Damnit, where’s my Adderall. LOL.

Anath,

First, thanks for the warm welcome and I’ve enjoyed the short time I’ve been here.

I have done some research (though not as much as I’d like) into biogenesis, abiogenesis, thermodynamics, relativity etc…all the usual topics brought up when discussing the origins of life. The only response I have (other than to agree with 99% of your statement), is to emphasize that I don’t demand, or require those holes to be filled with a designer by default, or by process of material elimination. My position was to simply say that I don’t think its unreasonable to at least allow for the “possibility” of a designer. I say this because science is often times bound by philosophical reasoning. In this case it states..that which has not been proven to be impossible, must remain a possibility.

In either case I still think we’re years and years from even scratching the surface of finding definitive answers.

To give a more proper examples of Anath's post again, you might want to look up the logical problems that come when working around hypothetical deductive method, which is the most common logical method used in modern science. Inductive methods exist, but very rarely used. I so far only see them actively within the fields of anthropology (my own field of study). There is also abduction, but it's even worse.

A lot of great philosophers such as George Berkeley used the deductive card filling out his logical gaps with "god", as well as Descartes and many others. To shortly explain Berkeley's idea, he said that objects can only exist as long we can sense them, but then we have a logical problem that once we stop sensing, they just disappear like that. To solve his idea, he had to toss in god that constantly thinks of all objects so they won't disappear everytime we say, leave a room. For his time when the belief of god was much more widely accepted than now, I don't think people thought much of this, but now in retrospect, we can see that tossing in what I've come to class as the "god card" to solve all your logical problems just weakens your ideas more than if you would just have said that you simply don't know. At least you are then being logically honest and admit that there are flaws.

I think you missunderstand of what I am trying to say. I am trying to say that it is very easy to use the supernatural as an explanation when we aren't quite sure of how to ourselves solve a problem we've set up; such as in Berkeley's case where things would just disappear once we leave a room, although we know that this is quite rediculous. To solve the problem, he used the explanation of god, but in this case, it really just sounds like a weak excuse because in reality he couldn't give any better reason as to why things wouldn't disappear. Instead of then changing his philosophical ideas to make them more logically sound, he insisted on that god would solve all other problems.

I am not saying that god cannot have a strong part in an argumentation, Spinoza argued very beautifully why god is the one and only substance, what I am saying is whether god has any logical reason to be a part of a theory except for the reason alone solving holes and paradoxes we cannot solve ourselves with logic. If it is the latter, then god or any other force should just be omitted completely and it would be better to just say that we are aware these problems exist but we cannot currently solve them with the knowledge that we currently possess.

An argument can only be truly convicing if it's logically sound.

God is created by man… and lets look at man… he is a liar a cheat and a murderer… he is greedy and pathetic and will use his fellow man as a stepping stone to further his own ends. Christians have demonstrated these attributes throughout history. But when you tell a Christian these facts they are the first to say… "It was the devils fault". There are some people that have removed themselves from religion, and they have become real people. Not mindless sycophants… but just people that want to live their lives in peace. Christians were the cause of the dark ages… a time of superstition… murder… and the suppression of free will. And they are still the cause of suppression of the free will today.

Let me tell you a little story… it's kinda short and prolly not all that great but here we go… I actually had one of these fanatics come up to me at work and ask me… " aren't you scared about burning in hell forever?" and I said "Not really… if it gets me away from you then it'll be worth it… for I would rather go to hell than suffer your company in heaven… because at least in hell I will be in the company of like minded people". My final thoughts on this issue is… be yourself… accept your imperfections… we are not perfect… and relish your mistakes… because this is what makes us human… we have the right to fuck up… and I shall do so till the day I die.

“God and Christians are the most prolific mass murderers in the recorded history of mankind. But I’m sure you will kinda overlook that hey, and tell me that you are really nice guys”.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. You really need to do a little historical research before making any more dumbass statements like that. Throughout history the most prolific mass murderers have been non-believers or practicioners of other beliefs. Stalin, Mao, Polpot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Ill etc… Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Christianity doesn’t have blood on its hands, because it does (A LOT). But their not the most prolific mass murderers in history as you so ignorantly seem to think.

“You make me want to puke”.

Well have it, big man! Just make sure you do it AFTER you wet the bed.

Oh and by the way… I don't wet my bed anymore… I'm all grown up and stuff… I go the all the way now and shit my pants

I'm very ignorant though… I don't learn none to good… mebbe you should enlighten me. I'm just a pant pooer, and a lost soul that's just trying to find his way back into the light and shit. And you are going to help me Chad. You were the one that called me ignorant… so you are going to answer all my questions, and do your church proud bro. Just think of it as your moment of glory… bringing a sinner back to the light and shit… I'll be waiting right here for my revelation… and you are going to give it to me… and I will question you every inch of the way.

Sweet… I haven't really read the bible basically because of all the crap I've heard from church, so I basically formed my own belief over time, from other writings… science, and music. See I can't really believe that God would be a tyrant. I'm my opinion God would be more like a parent figure, let's say, like Karma. If we do something wrong or stupid, then we'll pay for it. If we keep making the same mistake, then we pay for it over and over again until we learn our lesson. Even science says… every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But lets say in the instance of Hitler, once he learned his mistake I'm sure he would have been forgiven. I think I would like to read your version of the bible, it sounds interesting. I'm not sure if I'll believe everything it says though, I can be a bit skeptical at times.

Umm… hang on a sec you just said man works for six days?!?!

Stuff that… I'm screwed after 5

Chad I did think that you were a bible thumper… but your last statement changed that for me. You've got some good insight bro. rock on.

Chad,

Your comments I must say make interesting reading. It's refreshing to hear a logical argument on what is essentially an intuitive topic. May I ask what particular denomination you identify with ? The phrase ' Grail Initiate ' comes to mind. I am not myself; simply an habitual reader and avid student of history.

And apparently they are working off the same bible you are… the King James Bible

It's a bit scary to tell you the truth.

Ok I have to ask the question. Are all copies of the King James bible the same? Or have they been edited to suit the various churches? And if they have been edited, then where can I get a copy of the original bible?

Because churches have been known to edit scriptures to suit their own needs.

I guess it's just the way my mind thinks… I have to pause and collect my thoughts… and my thoughts are random. I write as I think.

All KJV are the same. Churches usually choose a particular Bible version. The KJV is quite popular it seems, despite that it is quite badly translated as compared to other versions.

crazy thought…if god has all the power to crate, destroy, know how many hairs are on your head, etc., who's to say that he couldn't have had his hand in those translations? not to say for a fact that they ARE perfect, but i think AT LEAST the overall message is still in tact, the way god wanted it.

There are just so many people out there that have this infatuation with the number, check out this website and, if you could… please explain to me where these people get such odd ideas. I mean the guy says that he's found four words that add up to 666, however, "Federal Reserve, and New York" is 2 words. I think he may be a bit disillusioned.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/barcodes/wor…

People can see anything they want to see, if they want it just strong enough. Can suggest you to watch The Number 16 with Jim Carrey to show you what I mean; he basically ends up seeing the number everywhere and get paranoid because he cannot understand its supposedly hidden meaning where there really is none. So the true fault is the human psyche if anything, and our will to see things which just aren't there.

Oh yes, total confusion!

So do you think that this Antichrist could possibly be propped up by the church then? I mean, the church has a lot of money. I've always thought that if people believe something enough, then they will try to make it happen. They will wish to see their beliefs come to fruition. It would mean more money for the church; more believers equals more money. Also, apparently the Catholic church did nothing in World War 2. They stood on the sidelines and watched… was Hitler supported by the church to become the anti christ, only to be denounced later? Was he a scapegoat, only to bring more funds to the church? I'm not sure. Maybe you guys have a better answer.

I honestly think you misunderstood what I said. It hasn't to do so much with the church but with personal beliefs. If I read the newspaper about 9/11 and then go read the Bible and finds something which MIGHT seem like the two are connected, then I will make that assumption even though there was no connection at all. Also, the Catholic Church didn't just stand by the side and watch during World War II, they actually supported Hitler.

I am not sorry about my statements though; there may actually be some truth within that ignorance as you see it. I'm not sure… but I am just a man; trying to work out what the fuck is the major malfunction… of the human fucking race.

See I'm not talking about all Christians in that previous statement… I have met a lot of good Christians in my time; people that just say to me "Yeah man I'm Christian, those are my beliefs and I'm not going to try to bash my beliefs down your throat"; and I can seriously respect them. They are good decent, normal human beings. Then there is the other side of the coin. The bible bashers; which in my opinion are so out of touch with reality that they may as well be considered cripples. Every decision they make according to themselves is inspired by God. Which is enforced upon them by their church. Their church smells blood and money. So they send out their minions to feed off people at their weakest moment. When a person has suffered a personal tragedy in life, that is when they come in for the kill.

But that's just my fucked up thoughts on the matter…

Chad,

Yes I can understand what you are saying about the vocal minority; but unfortunately, I have been stuck in the middle of these fucktards. and my workmates seem to think that it's funny to stir them up and get them ranting at me. Now; I don't think that this is a very funny situation to be in. I have actually experienced a tragedy in my life that does not involve these fuckwits; however, these fuckwits are still trying to sell me their bullshit. For some reason though; these people left the worksite en masse after I started posting my disregard of their bullshit on this website. I just hope that they either see the light; or they go to hell… one or the other… it doesn't bother me. This is possibly one reason why I am not a big fan of religion… actually I feel that I am becoming anti religious, after the input they have given me. Why would someone beloved by me be sent to hell? I have done nothing wrong, and neither did the one that left me… And if these fuckers think that everyone who doesn't do as they say goes to hell… why should they have a say at all? Beware of false teachers and all that shit. Because they are fucking prolific.

And Chad… I believe that you are a real person… someone that actually gives a shit about the mental wellbeing of the people around you; even if they are strangers. But the bible bashers are the worm in the mind of a lot of common folk. The only thing that they really want is more company. Psychologicaly they are the lonliest most fucked up people that I have ever met. They have done bad things in their time and are trying to atone for it by recruiting more people… to make themselves feel just that little bit better.

So far as your situation at work goes…If you REALLY want to shut these people up then call their bluff. Make them put their money where their mouth is by showing you (NOT telling you what their pastor or church doctrine says) but SHOWING you exactly where, in the Bible, their statements are justified. As I've stated in previous posts, NOWHERE in the Bible does it state that ANYONE goes to hell (or heaven) immediately upon death. If you look closely at the Gospels and the Epistles, you will see that both Jesus and Paul spend more time warning people of the dangers presented by main stream religions. Jesus doesnt warn us of THE Antichrist, he warns of MANY antichrists, i.e. wolves in sheeps clothing. Jesus also speaks at great length about people judging others, i.e. "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged Yourself".

Thanks for the kind words, Steve. I do believe theres a Heaven and that my daughter is there…

So far as your father goes…I'm very sorry to hear about such a tragedy. It sounds like he was truly an honorable man. That being said….Once again, ask these people to SHOW YOU where this belief that suicides go to hell comes from. I can assure you that no such statements exist in the Bible. If you want to get technical with them then ask them about Martyrs. After all, does a martyr not commit suicide? Being in a position to prevent your own death, yet allowing it to happen anyway…Is that not a form of suicide?

I think you misunderstood me when I was referring to judging others….I meant to point out that those around you should not be judging you, or your father. Sorry if that came across wrong.

And also like you said… if I tell them this shit, then they will throw the idea over their shoulder and say that I'm a heretic. Or the Antichrist or some shit like that. I'm not much of a diplomat when it comes to dealing with fucktards

It sounds like youre surrounded by some real idiots at work. Not to mention some heartless bastards.

Therein lies the problem, no one likes to be made to look the fool. These people may also have suffered in their lives, and this is where the situation becomes complicated. And no… these people at work are not heartless, they are just ignorant of my situation. I have met some truly good people there. Some of which have brought laughter and light to my life. But then there are the bible bashers, which even though their intentions may be good in their own eyes, they are not good for me. They tell me time and again that they are not willing to accept anything that doesn't coincide with their belief. I have never met a group of people that are so narrow minded as these. They preach their bullshit, but will not accept any argument that some of their views may be incorrect.

In their mind they have found all the answers in life… and any question of mine is just dusted off as inconsequential. Now if I buy a copy of the bible, and put it in front of these people, as they listen to their audio tapes, and tell them to read from the bible along with the words on the tape; do you think that the words of the preacher they are listening to, will coincide with the words of the bible? If not, why are these people even allowed to preach? When any peace they could give anyone through their words, is hell?

I may be ignorant, but some of these people have a monopoly on ignorance; I like to question and debate; these people do not respond well to questions, or debate. They just shut off and deny any new input, unless their church tells them that it's ok to learn something.

I can't debate with these people or show them anything new… because I think that they are blind.

Yeah man it's venting time for me again… I get angry a lot :/

Do we have anything better to do? Hmm, let me think…oh yeah, I think I’ll troll into a few online forums & call everyone a bitch. Now THAT’S putting your time to good use.

What a tool!!

Where did Jesus send Hitler and Gandhi after they died? » The Antichristian Phenomenon was a very interesting post

Ethereal, your interpretation of the term “neighbor” is too exclusive. The Biblical sense of the word (translated from the Greek word “plēsion”) actually means anyone who is near you, so the Jews were Hitler’s neighbors, too. Furthermore, I don’t believe that Hitler really loved anyone as he loved himself.

You’ve also ignored the significance of the fact that the Christian Bible affirms the Jews as God’s chosen people (Exodus 19:3-6; Deuteronomy 7:6; 1 Peter 2:9), and that Jesus was Himself a Jew (Matthew 1:1-17).

Your assumption that Hitler asked God for forgiveness overlooks the fact that Biblical repentance (“metanoia” and “metanoeō”) also requires regret and the changing of one’s mind. In light of this, it’s clear that Hitler did not repent.

Of the many flaws in your argument the most significant one is found in its very foundation and fatally compromises the whole thing. To love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and to love your neighbor as you love yourself are the two greatest commandments because they are the basis for all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:34-40). However, contrary to your claims, they are NOT the means to salvation (Heaven/eternal life), since we cannot be saved by anything we DO (Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:4-7; Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works and obedience to the Law are the effect or evidence of one’s salvation and not the cause of or means to it (James 2:14-18; Ephesians 2:10; John 14:15; Matthew 7:15-23). What the Bible actually teaches about salvation is that it can only happen by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9; Acts 4:11-12; John 3:16-18; 14:6). This means that no one – not you, me, Hitler or Gandhi – is going to Heaven without trusting in Jesus to get us there, no matter how “good” we’ve been, because none of us (not even Gandhi) could ever be good enough to be saved based on our own merits (Romans 3:23).

You have an interesting argument, but it really does a bad job of representing what the Bible says about a person's forgiveness or lack there of. The basic Christian message is that all of humanity has fallen from their relation with God through sin. That sin, then, is the wall that separates man from God. The Bible says that in order to be where God is (heaven) when we pass from this life into the next is to be forgiven of that sin.

If you read the Bible, its climax is found in the person of Jesus Christ who was God incarnate (God with us). Jesus opened a way for forgiveness through Jesus for humanity to partake of. The question is, how does this forgiveness happen? Well, Jesus made it clear that to be a part of His Kingdom, one must simply follow him. Not pray a prayer, not identify with him, not go to church, but follow him. In order to follow him we have to know what he did so that we can do what he did. The book of James (as well as the rest of scripture in my opinion) makes it strikingly clear that faith without works is dead. In other words, though we are saved from our sins by grace alone (Eph 2), it is our actions that validate sincere faith.

To say you have faith, and yet to deny his principles through mass genocide, would probably call into question the sincerity of that faith. Look at the end of John 5 (I think) and you will see masses of people who identified with Christ, but that weren't validated by Christ because he knew their hearts. Association with Christ isn't the answer, following Christ is.

In Ghandi's case, the idea that all are separated through sin would require that he need forgiveness just as much as anyone else. And since Jesus (at least biblically) established himself as the means to come to God, unless Ghandi decided to become a Christ follower, he would continue to be separated to this day. As an added note, Ghandi, though he respected many of Jesus practices, he openly rejected the notion of being a follower of Christ and the forgiveness that he offered.

I respect your writing here, I just don't agree with it. You are separating two elements of Christianity which are inseparable…faith and works. Neither on their own save people. And sincere faith ALWAYS leads to works.

Well I believe it is not very difficult to understand why suicide is a sin, because when you commit suicide you have destroyed any chances of you fulfilling your duties. For example, if he would of repented all his sins would of been forgiven, then he could of preached about his testimony and talked about his errors and how everyone should love thy neighbor. Even though he would of been executed, but he could of wrote a letter, like Paul did in prison.

shalulz~

I stopped right there when you implied that the Bible is entirely God’s word and thus any contradictions would imply that it is God who contradicts himself. You might want to start debating actual Christian theological beliefs and not the bullshit Bible-thumping evangelists on US-American television spout. Well, keep on trying though. One day you too might come down from your LaVey trip.

Spot on with this write-up, I really think this website needs far more consideration. I’ll in all probability be again to read far more, thanks for that info.