Religious beliefs on bitcoin

[crumbcake]

...

Are you saying that Muhammad was *not* a prophet?  Read the definition:
"In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people.[1][2] The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam#Table_of_prophets.2Fmessengers_in_the_Quran )

That's the definition as Islam would have it. That makes any old psychic hotline lady a prophet as well.

No, the way it was done in the OT was that if someone had a message with a prophecy from God to declare, they would stand before the elders of that time and deliver it. The scribes would record and notarize it. That way, if it came true, it would be on the record who said it, and further attention would be paid to the other things they said. There was extremely little tolerance for false prophets, so such was rarely attempted. This is why we have the books of the prophets.

Lol.  How did that work out for Joseph & Mary's kid?  He should have worked more with the elders, huh?

[1713910672]

1713910672

[1713910672]

1713910672

[neurobox]

Lol.  How did that work out for Joseph & Mary's kid?  He should have worked more with the elders, huh?

Read my previous post. God did exactly what He said he would do.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." - Jesus

[crumbcake]

No, that IS the answer. Preaching = anecdotal = foolishness > wisdom of man.

If I must spell it out, I'm at your service.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The gospel means redemption to those who believe it, but is completely unnecessary foolishness to those who see no need for redemption, don't see their sin (despite the law), or even equate themselves with God,

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Refers to Isaiah, written before Christ, "Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

The context is of God lecturing the religious:

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught."

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For all the astonishing things God had done for the Hebrew people, they loved their traditions and ego-boosting positions more than Him. He'd rather pour himself out among those who would be grateful.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

The stumblingblock refers again to Isaiah, which Jesus adds to here: [43] "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. [44] Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed." - Mat 21:43-44 NIV

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Corinthians, 18-25, KJV.

This leads us to the doctrine of election, referred to with great consistency in the NT, which is too often mangled by the likes of Westboro as though we weren't on the hook to preach to "every creature."

[5] So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. [6] And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. [7] What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, [8] as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day." [9] And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. [10] May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." [11] Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. [12] But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! - Romans 11:5-12 NIV

EDIT: It is tedious, isn't it? If I miss a point it's not avoidance, just either missed it or don't have the time.

I see.  You read some of the Bible's most sublime words, and all you get is how badly Da Jewz blew it?  It's Da Gentiles turn now?  Your tracting is not just tedious, it's a bit...  Well, I sure won't change you.

[crumbcake]

Lol.  How did that work out for Joseph & Mary's kid?  He should have worked more with the elders, huh?

Read my previous post. God did exactly what He said he would do.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." - Jesus

Good point.  Then why did you point out that false prophets were ill tolerated?  Seems like the true ones fare even worse!  With the elders & all.

[neurobox]

I see.  You read some of the Bible's most sublime words, and all you get is how badly Da Jewz blew it?  It's Da Gentiles turn now?  Your tracting is not just tedious, it's a bit...  Well, I sure won't change you.

"Da Jewz blew it?" I quoted Romans 11 just to highlight the more sublime aspects of it. I didn't write it.

Salvation came to the Jews first, the elect among them who would believe. The elders rejected Jesus because of pride, at least most did. And we're back to Nicodemus.

All of this was called in advance, in the verses I showed you from Isaiah. If you want to dispute that, fine, but I'm about done for today.

Good point.  Then why did you point out that false prophets were ill tolerated?  Seems like the true ones fare even worse!  With the elders & all.

Good point, but killing false prophets was the law. Their killing of the prophets that criticised them was a hidden shame that God has reacted to. Strongly.

[crumbcake]

I see.  You read some of the Bible's most sublime words, and all you get is how badly Da Jewz blew it?  It's Da Gentiles turn now?  Your tracting is not just tedious, it's a bit...  Well, I sure won't change you.

"Da Jewz blew it?" I quoted Romans 11 just to highlight the more sublime aspects of it. I didn't write it.

Salvation came to the Jews first, the elect among them who would believe. The elders rejected Jesus because of pride, at least most did. And we're back to Nicodemus.

Quoting one verse of the Bible to explain another one, especially when asked "what does this mean to you," leads to infinite regress & circular definitions.  I did get your point, i think: "What's sublime to some could be interpreted as ineptly worded bigotry by others."  And no, you didn't write Romans, only selectively quoted it to serve your ends.  Touche.

All of this was called in advance, in the verses I showed you from Isaiah. If you want to dispute that, fine, but I'm about done for today.

Good point.  Then why did you point out that false prophets were ill tolerated?  Seems like the true ones fare even worse!  With the elders & all.

Good point, but killing false prophets was the law. Their killing of the prophets that criticised them was a hidden shame that God has reacted to. Strongly.

In other words, you want us to disregard divine inspiration, and trust, instead, these selfsame elders?  The ones capable of ... such a misstep?

Edit:

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught."

Like the elders you describe, you reject because of your pride.  You make yourself deaf to words like "the foolishness of preaching," thinking you'll get at the truth through reason & scholarly research.  Through the foolishness of prayer.  That's important.  Try reading with the stress on "foolishness" -- it's not always a bad thing.

[neurobox]

Touche indeed.

...

In other words, you want us to disregard divine inspiration, and trust, instead, these selfsame elders?  The ones capable of ... such a misstep?

No, but you'll notice that the very prophecies that they so despised were still recorded and preserved as such for your contemporary reading pleasure. The system of review and "checksums" that the scribes were subject to in preserving the material did not leave room for editorial except to add figures to aid pronunciation as the languages developed. You might be fascinated to learn of the incredible amount of pressure they were under to keep accurate reproductions.

They form encapsulated packets of divine inspiration, sealed and hashed, as it were, in a blockchain of widely published scripture.

Also, IMHO, any divine inspiration should be checked against Jesus own words.

[neurobox]

Like the elders you describe, you reject because of your pride.  You make yourself deaf to words like "the foolishness of preaching," thinking you'll get at the truth through reason & scholarly research.  Through the foolishness of prayer.  That's important.  Try reading with the stress on "foolishness" -- it's not always a bad thing.

I'm still not sure what you think it is I'm rejecting...? God can be presented in a reasonable and scholarly way, and declared in the most foolish. Both are effective and both serve his purposes.

Man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God..

There are many things we can learn, many blessings he has for those who seek. Again, these are not necessary for salvation, just perks for the walk, but that's what it is for me now: Walking with God, by the spirit, not striving, yet being taught, praying, trusting, and He is faithful, even with the small things. I've lost track of how many times he has answered the prayers of my heart in ways I could not expect or imagine were possible, other times he has done exactly what he has shown me he would do, and shown his timing to be so immaculate that it leaves no doubt. I've witnessed the impossible, and seen the unseen, It's my every day life, but does it not sound like foolishness?

All this even though I spent (wasted?) a decade questioning whether there was a god, or who was behind the curtain. Ask him. He'll show you. That's all I've got.

[ktttn]

Can it be done?

You said it yourself, you are predisposed to that conclusion in my case, because I will not validate your mundane concept of deity.

"My satanism redefines deity into something so radically mundane as to render sacredness itself common. Of course, I maintain that this redefinition is needed for any valid discussion of god to be more than a creepy, overmedicated set of empty quotes and salesmanship of snipehunting gear."

If nothing can ever possibly be sacred to you, then we can only miscommunicate. Let it be.

[1] Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. [2] Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. [3] And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. [4] The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. [5] For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. - 2Cr 4:1-5 NIV

MORE:

[41] "I do not accept glory from human beings, [42] but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. [43] I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. [44] How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God ? - Jhn 5:41-44 NIV

Slow mo youtube videos are sacred to me. Planting seeds is sacred.
If youre going to insist that all we can do is miscommunicate, why even acknowledge me as a thinking person? Why not just dismiss and ignore me?
If your backwards relugious dogma isnt compatible, and prevents you from even interfacing with new ideas, you must do away with it.
Who is predisposed here? You, locked into your narrow single book, or me, criticizing you for it?

[neurobox]

...
Slow mo youtube videos are sacred to me. Planting seeds is sacred.

Planting seeds is pretty special.

If youre going to insist that all we can do is miscommunicate, why even acknowledge me as a thinking person? Why not just dismiss and ignore me?

I hope you don't think that was my point. You certainly can't say I've ignored you

Perhaps you're even too sharp for me. Frankly, I'm exhausted.

If your backwards relugious dogma isnt compatible, and prevents you from even interfacing with new ideas, you must do away with it.

Oh goodness, no. Even the premise is off, there. I've been around the block, I'd never go back, and I've yet to hear a new idea here.

If I'm dogmatic, it's because I'm convinced. If I'm religious, it's a byproduct of that.

Who is predisposed here? You, locked into your narrow single book, or me, criticizing you for it?

Lest we get into a game of verbal battleship citing gnostic texts and satanic bibles that each of us may or may not have read, I'm happy to just say "No, thanks."

[ktttn]

A)Calling your god a 'He' is dumb
B)Talking about your god in a way that requires the reader to make a leap of faith to even finish reading one of your premises is dumb.
C)Claiming matter of factly that your god did this, does that, ect is dumb.

These things are dumb because you really know, deep down, the only reason you talk like that is to fit in.
Whether you were raised by enthusiastic consumers of churching or found that later in life it was easier just to play along until you internalized the motions, you know deep down that youre faking it and being dumb.
Everyone else can tell, and suspects that the act is only there to cover up some missing depth or longing for substantial meaning.
Ive done this debate before. The reasonable people always get sick of the neurosis and leave, losing. Religion must not be based in simply refering someone to a vastly overquoted book. We must think for ourselves.

Lots of folks still have faith in the obsolete lie that is the dollar. IN GOD WE TRUST. NOPE.
I left that lie a long time ago as well.
My religion requires that I be sincere, enflamed in prayer, and unforgiving of the sort of monocultural, white supremacist, patriarchical garbage that passes as religious thought.

[neurobox]

I seriously don't have time to get into what's wrong with every single sentence you just wrote, but they don't jive with what makes me tick.

I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day. With no pressure from anyone, just a crack in the door when I let Jesus in. I dropped every worthless thing at his feet, and he changed my heart for the better that day, thank God. I had been a wreck. That trash was destroying me, and you know what led me to it all? Indiscriminate curiosity and that drive to see behind the veil. God has an answer to that. The enemy answers it with a million ego-inflating lies, and it leads to ruin. That's my truth. If I said differently, I'd be lying, pretending, trying to fit in. I can't do that.

a) Jesus was a He, and most fathers are.
b) I'll talk about him in the way that he revealed himself. Sorry, no cheating.
c) I'm claiming matter of factly that I am utterly convinced of what God has done, and you'd need a pretty whacked conspiracy theory or two to explain away any one case. Of course that isn't going to convince you. It's foolishness.

EDIT: Also, goodnight.

[BitChick]

I seriously don't have time to get into what's wrong with every single sentence you just wrote, but they don't jive with what makes me tick.

I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day. With no pressure from anyone, just a crack in the door when I let Jesus in. I dropped every worthless thing at his feet, and he changed my heart for the better that day, thank God. I had been a wreck. That trash was destroying me, and you know what led me to it all? Indiscriminate curiosity and that drive to see behind the veil. God has an answer to that. The enemy answers it with a million ego-inflating lies, and it leads to ruin. That's my truth. If I said differently, I'd be lying, pretending, trying to fit in. I can't do that.

a) Jesus was a He, and most fathers are.
b) I'll talk about him in the way that he revealed himself. Sorry, no cheating.
c) I'm claiming matter of factly that I am utterly convinced of what God has done, and you'd need a pretty whacked conspiracy theory or two to explain away any one case. Of course that isn't going to convince you. It's foolishness.

EDIT: Also, goodnight.

 It is a miracle what Jesus can do if we let Him in!

[Tekkna]

Back.

So you've chosen #2, that your god is evil. And yet you still follow him. Nice.

No, I've selected an option you did not state, that did not fit into your initial argument. You athiests are very skilled at manipulation of words. Nice.

Well now you're just descending into fundamentalist pamphlet talk. If his laws are what make morality and he doesn't follow them, then he is immoral. You're just gonna state "god is good" while all evidence points to the contrary? This is just about checkmate it seems.

All evidence does not point to the contrary, the point is there are things that God can do that we can't, similar to how the Government has the ability to sentence people to death.

I'm confused. You're describing relative morality, where sometimes murder is OK. I'm looking for your examples of absolute morality.

Now you're just being ridiculous, of course there is a separation between murdering someone, and sentencing someone to death because they have murdered.

The whole use of the word moral is a religious shell game. People use it as a weapon; those with morals know what is right and those without do not. Of course that is complete horseshit.

Your god, if he did exist, would be the most capriciously violent and vengeful being in the universe yet somehow he's great to worship because "might makes right" for you, whether the lich you worship is actually "evil" or not. It doesn't matter if he's a vile bastard to you, and that is twisted. Along your line of reasoning, if inside your mythology Satan had cast God out of Heaven you'd follow Satan just as gladly, as long as people sang songs calling Satan's torture of others "love".

Meanwhile you deem atheists amoral because you believe they don't follow any of the "moral laws" in your book of rules. Again, horseshit. We don't need a book to tell us not to kill people, not to steal from others, etc.

Morals are not created by those using the moral system (first point), God is still good(second point), and empathy is not a valid source of morality(third point). I suppose I could take three paragraphs to say what I just said, but that would be a waste of space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I was trying to avoid Godwin's law however you've opened the can of worms, not me. Your argument concerning the "danger" of relative moralism with regard to Hitler falls flat. The point of relative morals is NOT "whatever each individual finds right is A-OK", it is that while we each individually need to determine right from wrong in our own loves (personal morals), these will continually be evaluated and adjusted against family (clan) morals, social, government and worldwide morals. And all of these morals continue to evolve worldwide as the various groups employ empathy to hopefully understand one another, groups and cultures.

Intentional invocation of Godwin's Law was intentional.
So multiple people get together and decide what is moral? Like the German government?

The rest of your argument is "the ten commandments are bad, your morals are bad". The ten commandments are good, a 10th grade could not create a better 10 commandments, and moral relativism = utilitarianism, both are evil, an 10th grader could make a better ideology than moral relativism.

The Code of Hammurabi, which came well before the bible, was carved into stone to preserve it longer. You'd think a god would know that, eh? I love that people claim prophecy and omnipotence for this god and the dude can't even stop his "revelation" for a second to say, "oh yeah, before I forget, papyrus might not be a good idea to record this. Try stone."

The choice of writing material is a human one,. God shows a clear preference for stone in the creation of the ten commandments. The amount of effort put forth by the Jews in their preservation of the Torah is quite incredible, stone sounds fun, until you realize the practical limitations of it. You need a good source of well hewn stone, you need enough stone to write the Torah, and finally you need more effort to record in stone than papyrus.

The law of God was meant to be used by the people, and stone is not very practical.

There's just no way around it -- anyone who thinks 2 consenting adults pile driving the Hershey highway does not requires death is quite simply a big juicy turd of a human. It's a completely irrational belief, has zero a lot to do with right or wrong, and is miles away from anything worthy of such a punishment. But what more can we expect from athiests the most immoral book on the planet?

Ok.

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

This is not being simply naughty, this is flat out rebellion by the child. And do not assume young child either, glutton and drunkard are listed as well.

Furthermore this passage is more a protection to the child, in that the child must be taken to the elders of the city to determine whether of not the child's rebellion deserve death, I would imagine this was not a common occurrence. This is not a commandment to stone all rebellious children. Due to the patriarchal system, this stops the parents from simply stoning the child.

I can't imagine this being common at all, as most parents love their children enough not to stone them :/

Slavery
Slavery in the context of the bible is very widely misunderstood. First, when you say slavery, everyone get's the image of the enslavement of the Africans, however man-stealing in the bible is clearly punishable by death. I imagine this would have been a counter-cultural thing to say.

Exodus 20:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Slavery was allowable in the bible, such as in the repayment of debts or captives in war. However all slaves were granted freedom in the year of jubilee, every 49 or 50 years (at regular intervals of time, if a slave was captured 10 years from the year of jubilee, they were granted freedom 10 years later). Furthermore, all hebrew slave were to be let free 7 years after their enslavement.

Doesn't this basically translate people (also you!) only act moral because they fear punishment.

If you follow the law based only on fear, you've missed the point.

A human being is able to imagine the consequences of it's actions for another being, morals are the decision that no being should experience consequences that I deem unpleasant, compared to the actual value of this experience (work for example is unpleasant for many, yet necessary).

There are people born without empathy, and there are those that are born with a lesser sense of empathy.

However I am invoking Godwin's Law, in the case that a bunch of people get together and decide that the earth would be a better place by wiping out the Jews (because they thought the Jews were destroying Germany) what right would you have to tell them they're wrong?

Also, second argument, an argument against utilitarianism:
Suppose you have an uncle who owns a business, and has many workers for him. Your uncle has developed a terrible disease which causes him much pain, yet he continues along with his job, instead of listening to doctors. Because of his condition he is very miserable, and so makes all his workers miserable as well. You know that once your uncle dies you will inherit a large fortune, as well as the company, so you could improve the workers' lives.

The most logical choice you decide, is to attempt to kill your uncle, after all, you empathize with his pain. If you were in such pain, a terminal illness at that, wouldn't you want an easy way out? Not only would you be improving your uncle's life, but all the workers', and as well as your's as per the inheritance.

The above would be completely moral by your view.

[BitChick]

A)Calling your god a 'He' is dumb
B)Talking about your god in a way that requires the reader to make a leap of faith to even finish reading one of your premises is dumb.
C)Claiming matter of factly that your god did this, does that, ect is dumb.

These things are dumb because you really know, deep down, the only reason you talk like that is to fit in.
Whether you were raised by enthusiastic consumers of churching or found that later in life it was easier just to play along until you internalized the motions, you know deep down that youre faking it and being dumb.
Everyone else can tell, and suspects that the act is only there to cover up some missing depth or longing for substantial meaning.
Ive done this debate before. The reasonable people always get sick of the neurosis and leave, losing. Religion must not be based in simply refering someone to a vastly overquoted book. We must think for ourselves.

Lots of folks still have faith in the obsolete lie that is the dollar. IN GOD WE TRUST. NOPE.
I left that lie a long time ago as well.
My religion requires that I be sincere, enflamed in prayer, and unforgiving of the sort of monocultural, white supremacist, patriarchical garbage that passes as religious thought.

I know this was directed at Nuerobox, but I will interject here.

Trust me when I tell you that it is not very popular to be a Christian anymore it seems so I would not think anyone would "fake it" to "fit in."   I think for many of us that have experience a true conversion, we could never think of turning from Him.  Why, because we have felt God's amazing grace and have been changed by the awareness of His love for us.  It changes us from the inside out. 

I have been reading many of your comments.  You seem very angry with Christians and at God for some reason.  I wonder if that anger is misdirected?   I ask that because I too was frustrated with God at one point when I was younger. (I still often wonder what His plan is in many things but I am learning to trust Him in spite of that)  I questioned why he had allowed me to go through some horrible things as a very young child.  One day I cried out to Him for help and he showed me that he pained by the abuse too.  Knowing this was the start of a miraculous healing of my heart.  Now I know that He is with me no matter what I am going through and He has been faithful to me.  He would do the same thing for you, or for anyone that asks.  I believe that to the core of my being.

That said, we could do cognitive gymnastics debating these things endlessly and you would mostly likely win.  You are obviously extremely intelligent and well read, more so than I could ever dream of being!  However, " God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise." 

[Rassah]

I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day.

If you were a Taoist, channeling, divining, and manifesting (no idea what OOB is), then you were never an atheist. You simply exchanged one brand of bullshit for another.

[ktttn]

I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day.

If you were a Taoist, channeling, divining, and manifesting (no idea what OOB is), then you were never an atheist. You simply exchanged one brand of bullshit for another.

Amen.
Neurobox and BitChick are both badass intelligent rockstars IMO. Sort of. K I'll give them head n shoulders above most theists.
Christians can be great people sometimes. That post was directed at the whole thread.
I still have a monsterous, overwhelming frustration with ABC) in my last post, and hope some of the assertions take root as true somewhere subcon.
That hope doesn't detract from how much I appreciate the hell out of those two people's semi faned consideration.
Until they grow into what I happen to feel is a more mature and realistic state of reflection about the neccessity and pitfalls of ABC) in their personal development, and redefine the language of that external revelation they described as an entirely internal one, I'll still point out flaws with as much gusto as I can muster.
I am very, very angry at the consistent hateful actions, scorn for science, disowned hipocrisy, and blind core untheory of theists in general. It's a good, righteous anger I feel everyone needs to have to do well and have working values.

Fookin bitcoiners, yo.

[Rassah]

However I am invoking Godwin's Law, in the case that a bunch of people get together and decide that the earth would be a better place by wiping out the Jews (because they thought the Jews were destroying Germany) what right would you have to tell them they're wrong?

Science that says Jews are no different from any other people, and that there is no evidence that they are destroying Germany? Hitler was a devout Christian and believed in some f'ed up prophesy and BS, so it was easy for him to believe in other ignorant and hateful things. Thus, it was easy for him to believe unsubstantiated stuff like "Jews are destroying Germany."

Also, second argument, an argument against utilitarianism:
Suppose you have an uncle who owns a business, and has many workers for him. Your uncle has developed a terrible disease which causes him much pain, yet he continues along with his job, instead of listening to doctors. Because of his condition he is very miserable, and so makes all his workers miserable as well. You know that once your uncle dies you will inherit a large fortune, as well as the company, so you could improve the workers' lives.

The most logical choice you decide, is to attempt to kill your uncle, after all, you empathize with his pain. If you were in such pain, a terminal illness at that, wouldn't you want an easy way out? Not only would you be improving your uncle's life, but all the workers', and as well as your's as per the inheritance.

The above would be completely moral by your view.

If death was the uncle's wish, then yes, it would be moral to help him do what he has asked for, since he owns his life and is the only one who can decide what to do with it. If you kill him despite him wanting to continue to work and live his life, then that's not moral, not by the bible's standards, and not by any other set of ethics (including atheist).

[Rassah]

Trust me when I tell you that it is not very popular to be a Christian anymore it seems so I would not think anyone would "fake it" to "fit in."

Are you fucking kidding me?! You only have something like 80% of the US population, all the prior and current presidents, 98% of the politicians, most of the news reporters, most of the school teachers and administrators... This country is steeped in religion/Christianity. Christmas decorations go up in October, all the religious holidays are very overtly celebrated, it's unthinkable for the president to not do any prayer or religious type of ceremony, those who point out that religious icons on public property are unconstitutional get persecuted and receive death threats... Atheists are the ones who are not very popular. Watch any news reporter interviewing an atheist. It's as if they are interviewing some weirdo with cancer.

I questioned why he had allowed me to go through some horrible things as a very young child.  One day I cried out to Him for help and he showed me that he pained by the abuse too. 

If he ever tells you why he allowed for your abuse to happen despite it paining him, and what his plan with all that was, please let us know.

Knowing this was the start of a miraculous healing of my heart.  Now I know that He is with me no matter what I am going through and He has been faithful to me.  He would do the same thing for you, or for anyone that asks.  I believe that to the core of my being.

That's a rather classic Christian conversion/projection story: "I was screwed up, god helped me. Since I was screwed up without god, that obviously means others who are still without god are screwed up too, and the only way they can get better is by accepting god, too." I've heard it countless times: "I used to be a bad person into drugs and alcohol, but Jesus saved me. He can ase your pain and save you too!" and multiple variations thereof. I think most people have a difficult and painful childhood. I'm pretty sure most end up healing without the help of a religion. I know I didn't need it. On the contrary, I only started to heal when I realized it was a crutch that I didn't need, and that was used to beat me down. Rejecting god, and then coming to realize that it's all nothing but a fairy tale was the best thing that has ever happened to me, and I have been happy ever since!

[QuestionAuthority]

Trust me when I tell you that it is not very popular to be a Christian anymore it seems so I would not think anyone would "fake it" to "fit in."

Are you fucking kidding me?! You only have something like 80% of the US population, all the prior and current presidents, 98% of the politicians, most of the news reporters, most of the school teachers and administrators... This country is steeped in religion/Christianity. Christmas decorations go up in October, all the religious holidays are very overtly celebrated, it's unthinkable for the president to not do any prayer or religious type of ceremony, those who point out that religious icons on public property are unconstitutional get persecuted and receive death threats... Atheists are the ones who are not very popular. Watch any news reporter interviewing an atheist. It's as if they are interviewing some weirdo with cancer.

Quoted For Absolute and Undeniable Truth!