Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?

"In just two sentences you’ve managed quite nicely to make clear the inner contradictions of evolutionary humanism. Either primordial slime magically changed into dinosaurs, then into tumble bugs, fish, humming birds, apes, and then finally man, or it did not. If it did, then your claim of ‘unchanged behavior’ is sheer nonsense. Unchanged? From what?! From that of slime? Seaweed? Lizards?"

Ignoring that it only the supernatural alternative that makes any appeal to "magic," you are equivocating.

The "unchanged behavior" to which I refer has (in this discussion) been limited to the time frame of the last 2000 years, so no slime or seaweed need be considered. Your confusion over "From what?" is therefore difficult to credit.

And when the magician controls the magic wand, he smugly believes he can spin the story to his liking, such as: The “unchanged behavior” to which I refer has (in this discussion) been limited to the time frame of the last 2000 years.

As with all post moderns, you obviously believe that whatever you say is your personal ‘truth’ and everyone else must accept the ebb and flow of your fantastical nonsense. I don’t. Your spin is merely repugnant doublespeak.

Returning to the issue at hand: “Either primordial slime magically changed into dinosaurs, then into tumble bugs, fish, humming birds, apes, and then finally man, or it did not. If it did, then your claim of ‘unchanged behavior’ is sheer nonsense. Unchanged? From what?! From that of slime? Seaweed? Lizards?”

Your counter-attack is understandable. If I believed my ancient ancestors were slime, bugs, fish, and other such superstitious nonsense, I suspect I would be as defensive as you so obviously are. On the whole however, by your defensive nonresponse you have conceded the argument quite nicely.

An excellent summation of the evolutionary worldview, with but one flaw: despite the fact that, theoretically, materialism should have no objective moral code, it appears to have one that it thinks superior to G-d's own. While sexual morals "evolve" (or devolve), other taboos against "bigotry," "discrimination," etc., not only exist but appear to be objectively written in stone somewhere and unchanging. No, it doesn't make any sense, but materialists seem to think this way. Why else would they constantly engage in moral crusades to "improve" the world and boast of how their moral/ethical system is so "self-evidently" superior to that of G-d? Why else, while loudly insisting that there is no point to anything, demand that everything we do have some sort of point, to "make a difference?" Why?

You also failed to mention (or I did not see it) how the Biblical religions have caved in to Darwinism, all for apparently no other reason than that they're ashamed to think like "those awful people who live in the trailer parks down South."

"And when the magician controls the magic wand, he smugly believes he can spin the story to his liking, such as: The “unchanged behavior” to which I refer has (in this discussion) been limited to the time frame of the last 2000 years."

Hey... your equivocation does not constitute my contradiction. If you want to call names and misread the thread to make a point that has nothing to do with the subject actually being discussed, have at it. But you will end up talking to yourself.

If, on the other hand you actually want to have an interesting discussion on this interesting topic, I'm all ears. Make an argument.

Yes, yes Wiggins. I am close to understanding the naturalist view because I used to hold it, and really do get it. What you seem oblivious to is how ridiculous they look to those who have moved beyond them. You dogmatically presume them in every post you offer. You seem oblivious to Natural Law, and unwilling to even entertain it in your posts.

And the same act can be either moral, immoral or have no moral implications whatsoever depending on the communities involved. And when different communities overlap the identical act can be both moral and immoral at the same time... depending again on the perspective of that community.

Thus on the naturalist view, there is no sense saying we are better than the nazis, because as far as they are concerned they are better than us. Naturalism insists that neither of us are particularly right. Rather it merely says the moral decisions to despise jews, blame them for all ills, and exterminate them in ovens, is just as valid as mercy and understanding.

Where you had deviated from naturalism, is that you don't recognize that your embrace of empathy as the only component of morality is nonsense...as you have demonstrated yourself now. Alternatively maybe you define a special meaning for empathy that is overtly broad. But I refuse to be blinded by a word association fallacy in your arguments.

Moreover, you spend many characters building a moral case against a Christian view of morality, as if it is some how inferior. But how can one morality be inferior to another? Just as naturalism rejects free will, it rejects this notion as well, as you have demonstrated above!

The biggest failing of "revealed truth” is that it causes so many of us to abdicate the hard work around defining what is good or bad to some great cosmic lawgiver who does not ultimately exist. It allows us to stop making moral choices at all and instead blindly follow like sheep those who would use the authority of God to manipulate us against our genuine interests. It misleads us into bleieveing that we are not responsible for those choices.

ROFL! Naturalism tells us we have no free will! How can one get more absolved from moral responsibility than that?

Dang, you are amusing!

I'm sorry. I should be kinder.

You simply do not get the Christian view of morality in the slightest. If you think you do, you are so wrong it makes my head spin to think how much you don't get it.

If you want me to explain I am willing to try, but first you will have to seriously pledge to avoid dogmatic assertions of your own religious doctrines and open your mind a bit. It may take a while for you to understand, as you are quite obviously hard wired to reject super naturalistic views without any consideration.

...Now that sounds arrogant on my behalf, and I regret that it does. But I am just honestly calling it as I see it.

” What you seem oblivious to is how ridiculous they look to those who have moved beyond them. You dogmatically presume them in every post you offer. You seem oblivious to Natural Law, and unwilling to even entertain it in your posts. “

Well, then our symmetry is perfect because I was a devoted and practicing Christian for the first 37 years of my life, and “you seem oblivious to is how ridiculous they look to those who have moved beyond” them. So perhaps our discussion is best served by not telling each other how ridiculous we all look, and actually spending time on reasoned argument.

Now... I have no problem with natural laws, but if by “Natural Law” you actually mean “Divine Law” why should I consider it? I would first expect you to give me a basis for suspecting that it actually existed , and then we could entertain it.

My own position is that the “Natural Law” of which you speak is inconsistent with objective reality, and so it deserves to be tossed into the trash heap of discredited scientific ideas along with phlogiston, orgone energy and the luminiferous aether. None of them were abandoned because they "looked ridiculous." They were abandoned because they were wrong.

”Thus on the naturalist view, there is no sense saying we are better than the nazis, because as far as they are concerned they are better than us.”

You seem to be willfully missing the point. It does not matter what they think. It matters what the community of concern thinks.

It makes perfect sense to condemn them as immoral because of the very nature and origin of morality. Do you imagine for a second that even Hitler or Goebbels would have welcomed their treatment of the Jews on themselves? Do you imagine that the Jews (members of the community also) believed the Nazis were "better than us?" Do you believe that the rest of the world (members of the community also) believed they were "better than us?" Of course not... so the immorality of their actions (as contradictions of empathy) is unquestionable.

History is filled with egregious examples of immorality gaining periodic if temporary ascendancy. This has happened under both atheistic leadership and under the banner of the cross. This is because people are, in fact, periodically immoral. This is why we have law... to codify and coerce the community as a whole into behaving morally. Remember... morality in meaningful only in a communal context. What is of moral consequence to one community is not of moral consequence to all communities.

The immoral behavior of Nazi Germany was of consequence to the entire world. So the world responded by invading Germany and destroying the Nazi regime.

See how that works?

” Naturalism insists that neither of us are particularly right. Rather it merely says the moral decisions to despise jews, blame them for all ills, and exterminate them in ovens, is just as valid as mercy and understanding. “

Naturalism insist no such thing. And I have to tell you, it is growing tiresome having to knock down one straw man after another. If you want to go start your own “naturalistic religion” with all these preconceptions you hold, have at it. But don’t expect anybody else to show them much deference.

Naturalistic philosophies are (in my opinion) far superior to any “revealed morality” in discerning wrong from right if for no other reason than they actually demand the intellectual effort to sort it out. “Revealed morality” in contrast demands slavish obedience and the purposeful suppression of natural empathy. Hence the explicitly Christian phenomenon of the Nazi Holocaust, or the Islamic genocide of the Jews of Yathrib at Muhammad’s own hand.

And I still am bemused that you want to use Nazi anti-Semitism as your exemplar for “naturalistic morality” when in fact it is a Christian phenomenon, not an atheistic one.

”Moreover, you spend many characters building a moral case against a Christian view of morality, as if it is some how inferior. But how can one morality be inferior to another? Just as naturalism rejects free will, it rejects this notion as well, as you have demonstrated above!”

Actually... this whole naturalism “rejects free will” canard is something that is pointless in this discussion. “Free will” is meaningless outside of the context of a salvation scheme in which the consequences of one’s actions in life are eternal salvation or suffering. Certainly, if God is just, such a consequence must be the ultimate fault of the judged individual, not the Judge. Otherwise, why even worry about it?

Of course, since the Islamo-Christian conception of God is internally contradictory and self refuting, “free will” becomes one of your greatest theological impossibilities. After all... “free will” cannot exist in the same universe as omniscience since they are mutually exclusive. In a universe with an omniscient God, even God Himself does not have “free will.” But perhaps that is a discussion for another thread.

Back on point... in proposing the idea that naturalism rejects the notion that one morality can be inferior to the other, you are again arguing against a figment of your own imagination. In fact naturalism has an objective (if messy) way of evaluating the relative superiority of competing moral frameworks, and it is simply a utilitarian accounting of whether or not the moral system serves its purpose.

Any community of individuals possesses shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And any community of individuals will experience events and instances where individual prerogatives and desires compete, impinging on those interests. Human ethics and morals are codified agreements among the members of a community designed entirely to secure those shared communal interests, at the least possible violence to the individual.

That moral system is better that does the best job of securing those interests.

"Naturalism tells us we have no free will! How can one get more absolved from moral responsibility than that?"

Naturalism does not believe the concept of "free will" is even meaningful. And you have hit the nail precisely on the head regarding why.

"Free will" is explicitly am Islamo-Christian theological concept formulated to justify God's eventual decision regarding salvation or damnation. "Free will" has no genuine significance in any other context.

This is another example of why I believe that atheists possess, as a whole, a superior moral framework to Christians. When atheists behave morally, they do not do it from fear of some ultimate cosmic spanking. They do it because they have reasoned to the conscious consideration of what is right and what is wrong.

"If you want me to explain I am willing to try, but first you will have to seriously pledge to avoid dogmatic assertions of your own religious doctrines and open your mind a bit. It may take a while for you to understand, as you are quite obviously hard wired to reject super naturalistic views without any consideration."

I would love for you to explain.

But I have no idea why my persona conclusions should be considered "dogmatic." I have not received them from some ancient manuscript or modern prophet. I do not hold them because some authority has dictated that they are indispensable article of faith. I have reasoned to them carefully and with great effort. And if I hold great confidence that they are true, it is because they have held up to the pressure test of reality.

My rejection of supernatural explanations is not something hard wired at all. It is simply the realization that eventually any thinking person must take the information at hand and draw conclusions. It is (as the wag wrote) one thing to keep an open mind. It is another altogether to let your brains fall out on the floor.

I do not reject supernatural explanations because they are supernatural. I reject them because they are generally not explanations at all. Give me a reason to consider them and I will. But some small measure of that reason must be a demonstration that they are real.

So... since your and my sensitivity levels regarding "dogma" appear to be misaligned, it is my hope that you will show some latitude regarding statements of conviction that I make.

In response, I will be more gentle when you try to attribute to "naturalists" in general and me in particular beliefs that I do not hold. In short, please stop trying to tell me what naturalists believe. It is the only way you will be able to enhance your understanding (if not your agreement) on our position regarding morality.

Any community of individuals possesses shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity.

Good technique. Now you are hiding the flaw in another place. In this schema, you hid the super-nature in "individual", "interests", and "justice". Rather ambitious concepts in an arbitrary world filled with a few biochemical machines here and there.

“Revealed morality” in contrast demands slavish obedience and the purposeful suppression of natural empathy.

What did Jesus say the two greatest commandments again? Oh yes, "Love God with all your heart mind and soul" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". No doubt the reason that Hitler and probably that Luther character were hating Jews and throwing them into ovens. I mean I can't see how Hitler could have wanted any other thing given his slavish obedience to such concepts.

Let us grant your contention that "Christianity" waw responsible for the brutality of the Nazis against Jews for a minute. If so the obvious reason was being mad over the Jews turning Jesus over to the Romans for crucification right? Please note, this has nothing to do with "revealed truth", but the regular secular reasons that people get riled up about things. Something like "Hey they got one of ours, we can't let them get away with that! Lets get the bastards!". After thirty-seven years as a supposed Christian I am appalled at your ignorance as to what Jesus said about how to respond to wrong doing. He said to Love your enemy, and pray for those that persecute you.

”Good technique. Now you are hiding the flaw in another place. In this schema, you hid the super-nature in "individual", "interests", and "justice". Rather ambitious concepts in an arbitrary world filled with a few biochemical machines here and there.”

You find them “ambitious” concepts? I offer that this is reflection on you, not on the concepts. If you do not feel that communities have those shared interests, I’d be curious to know why. But in short, it appears that from the perspective of substantive argument you are abandoning the field.

”What did Jesus say the two greatest commandments again? Oh yes, "Love God with all your heart mind and soul" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". No doubt the reason that Hitler and probably that Luther character were hating Jews and throwing them into ovens. I mean I can't see how Hitler could have wanted any other thing given his slavish obedience to such concepts.”

That would have been more convincing had Jesus not also called the Jews sons of Satan. In John 8:44 Jesus says to them, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

Now that’s what I call loving your neighbor as yourself.

Though not as loving as "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

That certainly makes me all confident in the love of Jesus.

”Let us grant your contention that "Christianity" waw responsible for the brutality of the Nazis against Jews for a minute. If so the obvious reason was being mad over the Jews turning Jesus over to the Romans for crucification right? Please note, this has nothing to do with "revealed truth", but the regular secular reasons that people get riled up about things. Something like "Hey they got one of ours, we can't let them get away with that! Lets get the bastards!".”

I’m sorry... but you have literally just taken my breath away. Did you actually just try to justify 2000 years of Christian atrocities against the Jews because “people get riled up about things?”

It is the explicit articulation of anti-Semitism in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of John, that generated the unspeakable sufferings of the Holocaust. Now... correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Gospels supposed to be "revealed truth?" So... please note, it had everything to do with 'revealed truth." It is a Gospel lesson taken to heart and executed with bloody intent.

Look.. you were the one who brought up the Nazi genocide of the Jews. I thought that once you were reminded it was a Christian tradition to murder Jews rather than a “naturalistic philosophy” tradition you would at least try to find a better example. I never dreamed for a second you would instead try to rationalize it as just one of those crazy things that people do.

"After thirty-seven years as a supposed Christian I am appalled at your ignorance as to what Jesus said about how to respond to wrong doing. He said to Love your enemy, and pray for those that persecute you.”

Too bad Christianity as a religion has so little to do with what Jesus said. "You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" We are too well acquainted with the fruits of your faith to put particularly high stock in its moral excellence or adherence to the admonition of Jesus to "Love your enemy."

If you ever want to get back around to a serious discussion of morality and naturalistic theology, I’ll be around. But that no longer appears to be of interest to you.

You find them “ambitious” concepts? I offer that this is reflection on you, not on the concepts. If you do not feel that communities have those shared interests, I’d be curious to know why. But in short, it appears that from the perspective of substantive argument you are abandoning the field.

Of coarse communities have such concepts. Which is why I think of humans as more than mere biochemical machines. Which in turn stands as evidence inconsistent with the predictions made by naturalism.

Too bad Christianity as a religion has so little to do with what Jesus said.

Wait a minute...you are saying its too bad that Christians aren't following "revealed truth" now?

That would have been more convincing had Jesus not also called the Jews sons of Satan. In John 8:44 Jesus says to them, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

Jesus was not calling "the Jews" the sons of Satan, but particular Jews. You do get that Jesus was a Jew right? He was calling out religious leaders of the time for being corrupt hypocrites who loved the power and authority and honor of their station, but were not true to the Word of God. Do you have some reading comprehension difficulty I should know about? I am amazed you missed this.

Now suppose, I as an American Christian call out some T.V. preacher for only being interested in money and high living, and for not following the ways of Jesus. Are you going to then accuse me of hating American Christians? Get Real!

It is the explicit articulation of anti-Semitism in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of John, that generated the unspeakable sufferings of the Holocaust.

Uhm, perhaps I am the one with the reading comprehension problem. I have read this gospel and studied it quite a bit, and somehow completely missed this. Could you be more specific as to where this directive to persecute Jews is?

”Of coarse communities have such concepts. Which is why I think of humans as more than mere biochemical machines. Which in turn stands as evidence inconsistent with the predictions made by naturalism. “

Too bad then that these things are already perfectly consistent with a naturalistic world view. Why explain them using magic” when no such explanation is necessary? It reminds me of when Napoleon complained to Laplace that his epic volume on mathematics never once referred to God. Laplace responded simply, “Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.”

”Wait a minute...you are saying its too bad that Christians aren't following "revealed truth" now? “

Well, in the first place, what I was saying is that you are being disingenuous by ignoring the vast majority of the New Testament (let’s not even get started on the Old) by pretending that two quotations from Jesus constitute the whole of “revealed truth” found in them. The entire set of books is supposed to be “revealed truth,” so you cannot run away from the cow to skim the cream.

But ultimately, of course they’re not following “revealed truth” since there is no reason to believe there is any such thing. They are following the product of ordinary human artifice under the false belief they are “revealed truths.” This is how such patent and atrocious immorality as the holocaust gains its temporary ascendancy. People falsely believe that God has given them permission to slaughter their fellows.

Do not mistake my arguendo acceptance of "revealed truth" for the sake of discussion as agreement that there really is such a thing.

”Jesus was not calling "the Jews" the sons of Satan, but particular Jews. You do get that Jesus was a Jew right? He was calling out religious leaders of the time for being corrupt hypocrites who loved the power and authority and honor of their station, but were not true to the Word of God. Do you have some reading comprehension difficulty I should know about? I am amazed you missed this. “

Why are you accusing me of a reading comprehension problem here when the early church father’s all understood that passage exactly as I have portrayed it? Even Augustine wrote a Diatribe Against the Jews and (like Martin Luther later) used exactly this passage along with the rest of the Gospel of John to justify their anti-Semitism. If I have such a problem, then I share it with the greatest theologians of Christianity.

Worse... based upon your previous post even you accept and embrace the image of the Jews from the Gospel of John as "Christ Killers." I imagine that embarrassment keeps you from acknowledging that you were already called out on your justification of the Holocaust as payback for the murder of Jesus. But your paper trail is already in place.

”Now suppose, I as an American Christian call out some T.V. preacher for only being interested in money and high living, and for not following the ways of Jesus. Are you going to then accuse me of hating American Christians? Get Real!”

No. I would instead accuse you of being out of lockstep with historical Christianity.

”Uhm, perhaps I am the one with the reading comprehension problem. I have read this gospel and studied it quite a bit, and somehow completely missed this. Could you be more specific as to where this directive to persecute Jews is?”

If you have completely missed it, I cannot help you. I can only point out to you that historical Christianity and the Church fathers did not miss it. Although the actual “blood curse” ("His blood be upon us and upon our children.") is found in Matthew, it is in the Gospel of John that greatest efforts are made by the author to shift the responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion most firmly from the Romans to the Jews. Throughout John, “the Jews” is used as a collective term for the entire Jewish people rather than a small number of Jewish leaders among the Sanhedrin or the Pharisees. It is simply an acknowledged and tragic fact of history that through Gospel of John, the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus became fixed in the Christian mind.

Now... it appears that you have selected as you rationalization here that the Gospel of John has simple been tragically misunderstood by 2000 thousand years of Christianity. And my only response to that is to reflect upon the competence of its author. Certainly, a competent God might have anticipated that reaction and written a subtly different book, thus saving millions of “His chosen people.”

You know, I an humble enough to expect very little from God. But one thing I would expect is the ability to deliver a single volume of unambiguous prose.

Too bad then that these things are already perfectly consistent with a naturalistic world view.

Not one soul really believes that.

Well, in the first place, what I was saying is that you are being disingenuous by ignoring the vast majority of the New Testament (let’s not even get started on the Old) by pretending that two quotations from Jesus constitute the whole of “revealed truth” found in them. The entire set of books is supposed to be “revealed truth,” so you cannot run away from the cow to skim the cream.

Ignoring nothing! I am only bringing up the most relevant points. Jesus being the most relevant represenitive of Christian revealed truth, and the statement of what he asserted were the two most pivotal commandments upon which all morality is based as being the most relevant.

My respect for Christianity is pretty profound, and I am very dedicated to understanding the entire NT correctly.

Why are you accusing me of a reading comprehension problem here when the early church father’s all understood that passage exactly as I have portrayed it?

Because Jesus made it plainly clear that he was referring specifically to the religious leaders and nobody but a dope or bigot who bothered to read it in context could have possibly missed it! Thus after making sure what your position is, and making sure I did not mis understand you, I have to hold that you are too bigoted to objectively read the plain words of the gospels, and you have definitively proven me right in front of all but your self.

Have fun projecting back at me, but it won't work for anyone who is not also willfully blind.

EW: But ultimately, of course they’re not following “revealed truth” since there is no reason to believe there is any such thing.

Spirited: Man has always lived by revelation. The foundations of your arguments, disclaimers, and in fact, the entirety of everything you believe is true, has its’ ultimate source in revelation. The occult-—shamanism, channeling, the mystery traditions, magic-—all came roaring back during the Renaissance.

Emmanual Swedenborg, for instance, had appear to him a discarnate entity that called itself ‘god.’ Swedenborg accepted its’ claim without question, thus commencing a relationship wherein under the controlling influence of this entity, Swedenborg rewrote the Bible, incorporating within the revised version, Hermeticism, among other magic traditions. Swedenborg’s ‘revealed’ knowledge and rewritten Bible became the catalyst for Tubengin’s Higher Criticism and for what is known as Liberal Christianity.

Feuerbach reworked Hegel’s Hermetic magic-formula. Engels, Marx, and many others accepted the reworked magic formula without question, and incorporated it within their own systems.

What you believe to be true, real, false, etc., has its basis in spirit revelations.

"Not one soul really believes that."

Aaaah... so now you claim omniscience do you? Not one soul? How do you possibly explain me then?

Now... it seems quite clear that you have abandoned the discussion and instead have chosen to make your last stand a milquetoast testimony of your respect for Christianity. If that is how you choose to leave the discussion, I am content to do so, since I have no interest in attacking anybody else's religious beliefs once they have ceased to offend. And I am comfortable that I have done a competent job of defending the fact that morality requires no imposition by a Cosmic disciplinarian.

But I feel obligated to hold your feet to the fire on one particular issue, and it has deeply troubled me for a couple days now. Several posts ago, you inexplicably defended the long and acknowledged history of Christian anti-Semitism as understandable payback for the Jews having killed Christ. Now, I do not believe you think it was deserved payback, and you certainly didn't say so. But you did seem to say that it was understandable, just one of those things that happens "when people get riled up."

Now... it was you and not me that volunteered the reputation of Jews as "Christ Killers." And yet you seem to deny that the Gospel of John could possibly have anything to do with that reputation. So, I still have to ask: If it did not come from the Gospels, where did it come from?

You wrote that, "My respect for Christianity is pretty profound, and I am very dedicated to understanding the entire NT correctly." Is it still not clear to you that it is precisely your "correct understanding of the NT" that led to the damning rhetorical stumble where you actually tried to justify the Holocaust as payback?

As uncomfortable as it must be to be that introspective, do you honestly not connect the dots between your "correct understanding" of the NT and your own justification of violence against the Jews?

Aaaah... so now you claim omniscience do you? Not one soul? How do you possibly explain me then?

Are you saying you have a soul? I thought you were a naturalist!

...led to the damning rhetorical stumble where you actually tried to justify the Holocaust as payback?...

Now... it was you and not me that volunteered the reputation of Jews as "Christ Killers." And yet you seem to deny that the Gospel of John could possibly have anything to do with that reputation. So, I still have to ask: If it did not come from the Gospels, where did it come from?

Thank you for seeking clarification! I would hate to think anyone thought that I was in any way trying to justify the horrific evil that was the Holocaust.

I was accepting what I thought a false premise for the sake of argument (and let me make clear: ONLY for the sake of argument). Specifically I was entertaining your notion that Christianity led to the Holocaust as if it were plausibly true.

My point was that even on your view, the motivation for the Holocaust must have been along the lines of the normal natural human animal desire for vengeance. Essentially acting from a naturalistic moral code which had evolved into the human animal. In contrast to acting on the ethical teachings that Christianity accepts as revealed by God, which demands that we forgive others and love our neighbor and so forth.

Let me help your contention that the "revealed truth" Christianity is bad for a minute. You are better served by the Spanish Inquisition, which is far easier to tie to Christianity is it not? After all it was conducted under the political and religious authority of the most prominent recognized Christian church of the time.

Even so, your desire to blame "revealed truth" in regard to Christian ethics is still frustrated...because it is very clear that the last thing the evil men torturing the Jews wanted to do was actually follow Jesus. They just wanted to claim to be Christian because it was the popular thing to be at the time (not just a good way to avoid torture, but a good way to make an easy living et al).

Now certainly, I would expect some bogus rationalizations along the "Christ killers" line crossed the mind of some of the sick-puppies running the Spanish Inquisition. And if so, it is because they are choosing to ignore what they claim they hold as "revealed truth" in regard to ethics, in favor of their own ethic based on empathy, anger, their own reasoning and their own concept of justice.

Doing evil in the name of good requires buying into a lie which justifies good as evil. The Nazis bought into a such a lie, just as those who committed the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition bought into such a lie.

Of coarse somebody can do evil, knowing it to be evil. But people so prefer to think they are doing good, they are quite industrious with coming up with rationalizations and other bogus arguments to support the evil that they want to do as being good. Sometimes the lies are supported by bogus religious revelation. Sometimes its just bogus arguments based on cold soulless reason.

Such lies are at root falsehoods in regard to ethics, not falsehoods in regard to fact (although false facts might be believed because of a bias connected with the ethical lie).

Essentially then, man fell from grace by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They invented their own definition of good and evil in place of God's.

I grow more and more bemused by your delusion that you seem to be arguing with me. The army of straw men that has populated your posts show no sign of abating.

Can you not simply answer the question? Without any help from me, you decided to portray the Jews as "Christ killers" and then use that reputation as an excuse for historic Christian anti-Semitism. You accepted that slur with complete matter-of-factness, offering no demurral or dissent. You did not frame it as if it were a controversial portrayal, but offered it as factual evidence for an argument you were making.

I am not asking you to squirm around the details of Christian history in the attempt to explain them away. I am asking you to account for your own behavior and your own ideas.

You are the one who volunteered that Jews were persecuted by Christians because they were "Christ Killers." We know exactly where the church fathers got that idea because they told us. You also had to have gotten that idea from somewhere.

So where, if not the Gospels?