Hitler and repentance

John · Post by **John** » 2002-08-19 01:37am

I guess then that you are unaware that Canis Familiaris (Dog) is a direct desndant of Canis Lupis (wolf).

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-08-19 03:14am

Christians attending denominational churches are no worse than one who attends a non-denominational church.They are just names, jesus can change anything.I attend a baptist church, but we do not act like a baptist church.We are to praise him with all our heart, not act dead and be so traditional.The church of God is what matters, names do not have to mean anything if the people of the church don't allow it.

Darik Sdair · Post by **Darik Sdair** » 2002-08-19 03:26am

John wrote:I guess then that you are unaware that Canis Familiaris (Dog) is a direct desndant of Canis Lupis (wolf).

funny, I did.

1) Man did not create Wolf
2) Man did not create Dog

While the evolutionary changes, particularly psychological, that seperate Dogs and Wolves, are likely a result of changes in human society in the distant past, it was not an engineered or conciously created change.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-08-19 03:27am

Priesto,

I am very interested in how you get the idea that we were angels before descending upon the earth.

God creates man, man creates dog. - John

As Darik Sdair said, what exactly do you mean by that? Man did not "create" wolves either. At best, man domesticated wolves.

XPViking

Darik Sdair · Post by **Darik Sdair** » 2002-08-19 03:33am

Priesto wrote:Christians attending denominational churches are no worse than one who attends a non-denominational church.They are just names, jesus can change anything.I attend a baptist church, but we do not act like a baptist church.We are to praise him with all our heart, not act dead and be so traditional.The church of God is what matters, names do not have to mean anything if the people of the church don't allow it.

See, here's where I'm confused Priesto. When I questioned your statement about Mormons...

Priesto wrote:Mormon? nope,Christian. The mormon faith was founded by an ungodly man.

You said that Mormonism (a Christian denomination) was created by an ungodly man. You implied through your choice of words that Mormonism was not a Christian religeon for that reason.

I followed up the question by suggesting you didn't recognize rival denominations are part of the Christian religeon. I'll be the first to admit that this was an exaggerated claim intended to provoke a response.

That response was...

Priesto wrote:Denominations are not of God. I never said they were bent on getting anyone in hell.The original founder was ungodly that's all.

I'm sure you can see how I equated the term "not of God" and the term "ungodly." I'm well aware of the fact that there are sects of Christianity, such as the World Church of the Creator, do not recognize other denominations are true Christians... I simply assumed that you had a similar philosophy.

So, to clear things up, what exactly is your take on rival denominations? What muster do they have to pass to be Christians in your eyes. We know that Mormons don't (see above) qualify, and vis-a-vis your previous comments on the topic of Hitler I presume Catholics don't either.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-08-19 03:34am

John wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Leap in logic. Explain why the act of creating something removes that thing's rights where you are concerned.
God creates man, man creates dog.
God demands obedence from man, man demands obience from dog.
God punishes man for disobedience, Man punishies dog for disobedience.
Mike, if God created us, then He own's us. If so, we OWE Him our obedience.

Not if he is a cruel master. Tell me, what happens to a dog owner who treats his dog in an inhumane fashion, hmmm? The authorities come and take his dog away and then lock his abusive ass up.

The act of "creating" something (a loose term in the case of dogs, but I presume you're referring to genetic engineering through breeding methods) does not remove its rights, nor does it give you the right to unlimited cruelty and abuse.

Try again, Falwell.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2002-08-19 04:04am

I personally think religion is one of humanity's worst creations. It can make a person convinced of some reality without any real world evidence to back it up.

If one were to use the bible as evidence of the God or a God, then as far as I see it, Mike Wong's arguements are completely valid and I would choose oblivion rather than have anything to do with "God".

As to my own personal beliefs, I'm agnostic. I have no need for religion, therefore until my interpretation of reality is drastically altered, any God or "the" God is unimportant to me other than as a curiousity having to do with my wanting to understand the universe in my own way.

Question: Why do people thank God for the food they are about to recieve, when if they don't go about getting food for themselves or are incapable of doing so, they starve?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-08-19 06:23am

Robert Walper wrote:
Question: Why do people thank God for the food they are about to recieve, when if they don't go about getting food for themselves or are incapable of doing so, they starve?

Better yet, why don't they thank god for making it necessary for them to eat in the first place?

If god chose to make people that way, assuming he/she/it is all powerful, then isn't that just another example of how god gets off screwing with people? Not only do people have to eat, drink, breathe, but except for in the Garden of Eden people have to work to varrying degrees just to survive.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-08-19 10:57am

John wrote:
Then your arguments are purely subjective, hence they are not meaningful in a general discussion.[\quote]
Of course, any arguments regarding God are subjective.

All I am saying is, if you accept that 'God" exists, then 'He' has a right to our obedience, because 'He' created us.
Leap in logic. Explain why the act of creating something removes that thing's rights where you are concerned.

My son would not exist if not for my actions. This does not mean I have the right to demand absolute obedience from him in perpetuity to any and all commands, no matter how arbitrary or cruel.
God creates man, man creates dog.
God demands obedence from man, man demands obience from dog.
God punishes man for disobedience, Man punishies dog for disobedience.
Mike, if God created us, then He own's us. If so, we OWE Him our obedience.

We OWE him nothing. He loves us. That is what we are taught. I love my daughter but AT NO TIME have I EVER expected, demanded or wanted her undying, blind loyalty. I love her whether she loves me in return or not that is up to her. Granted at 4 she does not have much of a choice in the matter, I am daddy she loves daddy, but I'm sure it won't be so cut and dry as she gets older.

Why is God different? Why does he demand blind loyalty from us? Why give us free will in the first place to CHOOSE not to love him??? If he indeed wants blind loyalty and we have no right to question him then he should not have created us with intelliegence, drive, ambition. He should not have given us eyes to question the order of the universe.

In effect, you are saying either: There is no free will because we MUST be obedient. So Obediant that we cannot even QUESTION him. OR God is one cruel SOB because he gave us the ability to think, question, and sin BUT he does not expect us to and in fact if we do we are going to burn for all eternity. Is God some twisted deity who gets a kick out of poor old suffering humanity???

The don't question just obey JUST HAPPENS to favor Fundie religious movements that want parroting puppets and not true believers.....disgusting.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-08-19 01:32pm

John: Try taking a disobedient dog out onto your front lawn and lighting it on fire. Then see how long it takes you to be thrown in a cell.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2002-08-19 01:45pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:John: Try taking a disobedient dog out onto your front lawn and lighting it on fire. Then see how long it takes you to be thrown in a cell.

Ummm...let's not suggest such a thing, since I'm familar with the fact that there are religious people who consider animals inferior to human beings and wouldn't consider such an act evil because "animals don't have feelings because they don't pray". People like that disgust me.

buzz_knox · Post by **buzz_knox** » 2002-08-20 01:22pm

A basic principle of Protestant Christian belief is that God is pure and that all sin is abhorrent in the face of such purity. Thus, effectively, all sin is equal since every sin, no matter whether venal or mortal, is glaring in the face of absolute purity. Accepting for the sake of argument the principle that all humans are sinners, all are equally condemned before God. Thus, a salvation that is effective for the spiritual equivalent of a jay walker must therefore be effective for even the worst sinner. Had Hitler truly been convicted of his sins (i.e. to have recognition of what he had done as being wrong) and asked for salvation, most Protestant beliefs would hold that he would receive forgiveness. He would still bear the consequences of his actions on Earth.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-08-20 01:30pm

buzz_knox wrote:A basic principle of Protestant Christian belief is that God is pure and that all sin is abhorrent in the face of such purity.

That lunatic in the Bible is "pure"? LOL!

buzz_knox · Post by **buzz_knox** » 2002-08-20 01:30pm

As to the question of free will, there is apparently a fundamental misunderstanding of what relationship is sought in most Christian belief systems. Under those systems, we are granted free will so that we may choose to love God and have a relationship of our own accord in order to glorify God. If we were forced to love God by our nature or by direct command, then testimony to others would be meaningless. The fact that people choose to enter into this relationship and to maintain the relationship in the face of hardship, persecution, turmoil, is intended to show others that it is a worthwhile relationship.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2002-08-20 01:36pm

Darth Wong wrote:
buzz_knox wrote:A basic principle of Protestant Christian belief is that God is pure and that all sin is abhorrent in the face of such purity.
That lunatic in the Bible is "pure"? LOL!

How about pure evil? That would work, wouldn't it? :p

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-08-20 02:29pm

Pure my arse.

At least, you'd figure the Big Bearded Guy (BBG) upstairs is a great marketer. According to his publisher, he managed to do very bad things, and still manage to convince everyone that he's on their side and a good and pure guy.

That's the kind of PR that *I* want:

"News 6 reporting: A busload of kids were killed and devoured in a bizarre ritual this afternoon. However, a lot of people are sure it was Lagmonster that did it, and we all know he's pure and works in mysterious ways. We can assume his victims were evil. Or have been called on to something else in another life. Or whatever. All hail the Lagmonster. If you aren't hailing the Lagmonster right now, go operate a jackhammer with your groin as penance. For News 6, this is a complete moron."

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2002-08-20 03:29pm

Lagmonster wrote:Pure my arse.

At least, you'd figure the Big Bearded Guy (BBG) upstairs is a great marketer. According to his publisher, he managed to do very bad things, and still manage to convince everyone that he's on their side and a good and pure guy.

That's the kind of PR that *I* want:

"News 6 reporting: A busload of kids were killed and devoured in a bizarre ritual this afternoon. However, a lot of people are sure it was Lagmonster that did it, and we all know he's pure and works in mysterious ways. We can assume his victims were evil. Or have been called on to something else in another life. Or whatever. All hail the Lagmonster. If you aren't hailing the Lagmonster right now, go operate a jackhammer with your groin as penance. For News 6, this is a complete moron."

ROFL!

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2002-08-20 05:22pm

This is the way I always understood it:

Because of Adam and Eve, everyone is damned. Every last one of us. It doesn't matter how well you behave in this life: if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior you go to hell. Original sin doesn't get the same mention it used to (at least with the more "progressive" sects of Christianity) but it's still a Biblical doctrine... in fact, it's the whole reason why God let his son be tortured to death. So the biblical answer would be yes, that Hitler would deserve Heaven just as much as anyone else who repented because there's no "heirarchy" of sin... any sin, even "original sin" is enough to damn you.

Just one of many reasons why I'm glad I'm an ex-christian...

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-08-21 02:04am

It wouldn't happen though.It is like saying someone who rapes people and has been for years, could easily stop.But the will not stop unless he's caught.It's a possibility that he could stop, a very slim one though.Evil consume your mind over a period.Eventually logic in your mind would really be insane.The dis-funtional things eventually becomes functional if you do it enough where you see it as normal.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-08-21 02:20am

Priesto wrote:It wouldn't happen though.It is like saying someone who rapes people and has been for years, could easily stop.But the will not stop unless he's caught.It's a possibility that he could stop, a very slim one though.Evil consume your mind over a period.Eventually logic in your mind would really be insane.The dis-funtional things eventually becomes functional if you do it enough where you see it as normal.

Hmmm ... you do realize that you're inadvertently talking about yourself, right?

"Evil consumes your mind"; in your case, you have lost the capacity to judge even atrocities such as infanticide or genocide as "evil".

"Logic in your mind would really be insane"; you have publicly stated that you reject logic in favour of things you perceive to be true without a shred of objective evidence, ie- delusions.

"The dysfunctional ... eventually becomes functional"; you claim that the Bible can actually be taken literally and not contradict itself. Classic example of taking something which is inherently dysfunctional and believing it is functional.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-08-21 02:41am

The Bible never contradicts itself. The taking of life to be with God, is nothing evil, since you're in a better place instead of the wicked land.I'm refering to your comment on the killing of babies.Objective evidence? All truth will not be accepted by everyone, so that's fine if you think I'm having delusions.
Evil would be to torture someone.Of course, evil tortures itself.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-08-21 02:59am

Interesting that this same subject came up not to long ago in Texas. Some woman had killed someone and was on death row for her crime. On day she declared herself a born again Christian. Immediately you had groups surrounding G.W. Some expected him to pardon her for her conversion, and were at full ready to critisize him for it. Other groups wanted her pardoned, mostly Christian groups. G.W. decided to let the execution go through. This woman seemed to believe that because she was "born-again" that this negated her crimes, but it seems to me that anyone who is truely convicted of their crimes would accept their earthly punishment with the sure knowledge that they were bound for heaven. But with this woman it seemed to me to be more a last ditch effort to save her sorry hide.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-08-21 04:09am

Priesto wrote:The Bible never contradicts itself.

You're a complete idiot. See Biblical Errancy, by Dennis McKinsey.

The taking of life to be with God, is nothing evil, since you're in a better place instead of the wicked land.

As I said before, you have lost the ability to recognize that murder is evil.

I'm refering to your comment on the killing of babies. Objective evidence?

Suck my dick, you pedantic little sophist fundie moron dipshit. You know perfectly well that babies are killed in the Bible, and your tactic of asking for evidence is a deliberate attempt to waste time. The Bible explicitly describes the murder of babies in many cases. All of the first-borns in Egypt, for example. See my list at http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... lence.html for more examples.

All truth will not be accepted by everyone, so that's fine if you think I'm having delusions.

The fact that you are delusional has been made abundantly clear by your moronic and self-contradictory posts on this board.

Evil would be to torture someone.Of course, evil tortures itself.

Good. Then you admit that God is evil, since God tortures "sinners" for all eternity.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-08-21 05:38am

Hitler and repentance you say?
Well:

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-08-21 09:27am

I'm generally inclined to believe that if someone believes they are doing the right thing while doing it, but then realise they are in error, then the repentance should be accepted.

It's hard to tell where to draw the line at what is too evil to be forgiven. Most people, for example, believe that Hitler's policy of exterminating Jews, Gypsies, homosexials etc was evil, but some of those who believe that these policies are evil would understand his policy of sterilising stupid people. Others would believe that the last idea was also evil.

And if they don't realise they are in error, buggered if I know what I'd think then. If I was God, I'd probably feel sorry for all these people who rock up to the Pearly Gates thinking that they lived a good life, only to be chucked out because they were a janitor for Hitler and thus aided him in his holocaust-makings. So I'd let them in.

But, if someone hurts someone badly, simply because they enjoy causing pain and knowing that it is wrong, then I do not believe their repentance should be accepted.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hitler and repentance

Would Hitler deserve eternal joy and bliss if he repents his crimes?

Man and Dogs

Re: Man and Dogs