Saturday, August 6, 2011

FacePalm of the Day #116 - Debunking Christianity: Osama Bin Laden Was Probably a Good Man

John Loftus wrote the following quote several weeks ago. It's taken me a long time to post on this because I'm still shocked that a rational human being could actually think the following quote:

Osama Bin Laden was probably a good man; sincere, devout and God fearing. But all it takes to make good people do evil is religion. Keep that in mind. That is the lesson of his life. He was deluded in the same way as other believers. Some delusions cause more harm than others though, and he caused a great deal of it. The problem is he will never know he was deluded. Neither will any of the rest of them. What a waste of a life.


John Loftus and many atheists said much the same thing about Anders Behring Behring a few weeks ago. They blamed religion for the acts of Bin Landen and Behring. Truly facepalm worthy because the attitude is that Bin Laden would what have been a better person but his religion corrupted him as if every Muslim would do what he did. The same accusation was made about Behring. However no one can honestly say that Behring is a Christian. He has way more in common with John Loftus' fantasy Christianity than with any born-again Christian I have known. Again, David Wood more than proved this. Go back and watch his video if you missed it.




Debunking Christianity: Osama Bin Laden Was Probably a Good Man
Enhanced by Zemanta

27 comments:

  1. Do you think someone who directly lead to the expulsion of Jews from Saxony and Brandenburg-Prussia could be a "good man"?

    I think you completely missed John's point. Which is especially amusing given how you are the first to try to distance "christianty" from "religion".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ryan. No one is "good" but God. Please try to keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would disagree. But never mind "good", I just want to see you keep a consistent standard when determining if some is a True Christian™ or not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You said... "Truly facepalm worthy because the attitude is that Bin Laden would what have been a better person but his religion corrupted him as if every Muslim would do what he did."

    So for the record, do you think Osama bin Laden's actions were motivated by his Islamic faith? You seem to be implying that since Breivik couldn't have been a True Christian™, then bin Laden couldn't have been a True Muslim™. Just want to be clear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nope. I'm saying that just because someone is a Muslim doesn't mean they are a terrorist. I have not been inconsistent about what a True Christian is. Neither you, or Breivik, nor Bin Laden are Christians. And you should watch David Wood's video about if Breivik is a Christian or not and then argue that he is. I'm not trying to argue that Bin Laden is or is not a Muslim. Loftus was trying to argue that all Religion is the same and you make that same silly presupposition and equivocation. At least you are consistently wrong.

    Of course you would disagree about only God being good. You are an apostate. You don't even know who God is. Not surprising.

    You can't show how you were a true Christian, can you show how Breivik is a true Christian?

    Didn't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have not been inconsistent about what a True Christian is.

    Yeah, actually you are very inconsistent when you would not acknowledge the possibility that Luther could have not been a True Christian™, but then also wouldn't entertain the possibility that Hitler (or whomever) could have been one.

    You can't show how you were a true Christian...

    You may recall that you also cannot prove that you didn't just have very similar experiences to my own and now you are erroneously ascribing your religious priors to those subjective emotional experiences.

    can you show how Breivik is a true Christian?

    One, I don't think True Christian's™ exist, so it's an impossible standard that you can always back anyone you want away from (i.e. Hitler, Breivik, Rudolf, etc... but why not Luther?). And two, I've not read his manifesto, but the parts I've seen indicate he wasn't even a nominal christian.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, actually you are very inconsistent when you would not acknowledge the possibility that Luther could have not been a True Christian™, but then also wouldn't entertain the possibility that Hitler (or whomever) could have been one.

    Proving that Luther was not a christian and that Hitler was a Christian are two positions that you totally failed to do. The thing you kept dodhing is what a born-again Christian is and what it means. You don't know and by your own admission never experienced it.

    You may recall that you also cannot prove that you didn't just have very similar experiences to my own and now you are erroneously ascribing your religious priors to those subjective emotional experiences.

    On of the hallmarks of being born-again is that you don't turn around and go back to your sin - turning your back on Jesus. Which you have done and i have not done. Proving you are not born-again but not being able to show that I am not. Again just because you are not saved, sanctafied, and filled with the Holuy Spirir does not mean I am not.


    One, I don't think True Christian's™ exist, so it's an impossible standard that you can always back anyone you want away from (i.e. Hitler, Breivik, Rudolf, etc... but why not Luther?).


    Just because you don't think that there are any true christians does not mean that they don't exist. "Christian" is a historical term that has a specific meaning. The bible well-defines what Christians are supposed to be and what they are supposed to believe. No one is perfect but we are supposed to be growing into being more like Jesus. Luther fell short. As near as anyone can tell neither Hitler, Breivik or Rudolf even tried. They rejected Christ. So do you. Luther did not.

    And two, I've not read his manifesto, but the parts I've seen indicate he wasn't even a nominal christian.


    And this is the point I am raising. You agree! Hallelujah. However this means you disagree with John Loftus and most of the media. At least you have some honesty, hopefully God will fan that into flame that will burn for Him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Proving that Luther was not a christian and that Hitler was a Christian are two positions that you totally failed to do.

    I just took your standard that a True Christian™ would get less hateful as their life went on. Luther got more hateful relative to the Jews. Ergo... With Hitler, I don't think my position has ever been that he was a christian, but most of the Wermatch and SS were... Most of the people who lived in the town of Dauchau who ignored the camp within a stones throw of the city center, were christians. That's the problem...

    The thing you kept dodhing is what a born-again Christian is and what it means.

    No idea...

    On of the hallmarks of being born-again is that you don't turn around and go back to your sin

    See above...

    Luther fell short.

    No, his hatred got worse as he got older. Explain that!

    They rejected Christ.

    I'm not sure you can prove that with any of the three.

    However this means you disagree with John Loftus and most of the media.

    To be fair, he seemed confused (obviously!). There are some statements he made that could only be taken to mean he's a christian. Others seem to indicate otherwise. I'd say he's at least a "cultural christian". Which would put your religion back in the blame mix.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You don't know what a Christian is. You cannot prove that Hitler hated Jews less when he was young than when he was young. all you can say he wrote more about them when he was older. Says nothing about his Spiritual state in God's eyes. Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not not mean they are perfect. No one is. There was way more spiritual fruit in Luther's life than Hitler's life (Gal 5)

    If you kill people and try to take over the world - you have obviously rejected Christ's commandments.

    You aren't fair at all in this case - horribly confused if you think that "cultural" Christianity is any where as viable as being born-again. I mean are you really that confused? We agree that Breivik is a cultural Christian but that is not what I mean by the term being a "born-again Christian". There is a profound difference. So much in fact that I would not consider a nominal (ie culturally)Christian a christian in the Biblical sense. If you want to claim you used to be a chrisitan, "cultural Christian" describes you because you were never born-again

    ReplyDelete
  11. You cannot prove that Hitler hated Jews less when he was young than when he was young.

    You did it again, I think you meant Luther, not Hitler. Its kinda funny all things considered.

    all you can say he wrote more about them when he was older.

    Yes, that's one vague quantifiable measure, but there's also what he wrote when he was younger vs. when he was older. I can only assume you've not read Daß Jesus Christus ein geborener Jude sei (1523) and Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (1543, Luther died 3 years spater). Read and compare. He changes for the worse. It's a literary and historical fact.

    ...if you think that "cultural" Christianity is any where as viable as being born-again. I mean are you really that confused?

    Here, repeat with me slowly... I... do... not... believe... "being born-again"... is... a... real... thing. So being a cultural-christian is not all that dissimilar to being what you would consider "born again". Got it?

    ...a nominal (ie culturally)Christian...

    Two different categories. A nominal christian is someone who goes to church, but isn't as insane as you. A cultural christian is everyone living in a christian culture, which would include the likes of me.

    ...because you were never born-again

    Yeah, no duh. Neither were you though. And you never will be. It's not something that actually happens.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You did it again, I think you meant Luther, not Hitler. Its kinda funny all things considered.

    I did make a mistake. Glad you got a laugh out of it.

    Read and compare. He changes for the worse. It's a literary and historical

    Not all scholars agree with your conclusion. Again, I see nothing about that disproves that God moves on the hearts and minds of his people. How do you know that he could have actually been worse when he was 25 yrs old and this is improvement? You can't know that.


    Here, repeat with me slowly... I... do... not... believe... "being born-again"... is... a... real... thing. So being a cultural-christian is not all that dissimilar to being what you would consider "born again". Got it?


    I think you are confused. I know you don't think there is a difference. That is why I said you have no idea what being a "Christian" means.

    Two different categories. A nominal christian is someone who goes to church, but isn't as insane as you. A cultural christian is everyone living in a christian culture, which would include the likes of me.

    Another example of your delusion. A nominal Christian is a Cultural Christian. They are indistinguishable aside from nominal Christians still go to church but a cultural christian at least wants to ground their morals in what they think is Christian and deny the power of it. You were once a nominal Christian but you now definitely just a cultural now.

    Yeah, no duh. Neither were you though. And you never will be. It's not something that actually happens.

    Again just because you weren't born again and deceived doesn't mean I am or every other believer is. You sure like to project your issues on others.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How do you know that he could have actually been worse when he was 25 yrs old and this is improvement?

    Yeah, so read Daß Jesus Christus ein geborener Jude sei (1523) and then read Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (1543) and tell me he was "worse" in 1523 than he was in 1543.

    Another example of your delusion... and then you go on to restate my position nearly verbatim. Classic!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeah, so read Daß Jesus Christus ein geborener Jude sei (1523) and then read Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (1543) and tell me he was "worse" in 1523 than he was in 1543.

    And what about 1520? 1518? What do you know about what Luther thought at every point of his life? That's right...nothing. Feel free to weigh his heart and mind nearly 500 years later and guess at what his spiritual state was. That's all it is...a guess. And you can't possibly be dense enough to not realize that not all experts (people have read significantly more about and by Martin Luther than you.) don't asgree with you about Martin Luther.

    Let's look at what was rteally written. You said that there was a difference between a nominal Christian and cultural Christian

    Two different categories. A nominal christian is someone who goes to church, but isn't as insane as you. A cultural christian is everyone living in a christian culture, which would include the likes of me.
    '
    I responded:

    Another example of your delusion. A nominal Christian is a Cultural Christian. They are indistinguishable aside from nominal Christians still go to church but a cultural christian at least wants to ground their morals in what they think is Christian and deny the power of it. You were once a nominal Christian but you now definitely just a cultural now.

    See my point? Probably not. I forget you are dense. I said you were deluded because nominal and cultural Christians are indistinguishable besides the practice of going to church. Functionally they don't live differently day-to-day in the eyes of God - they are still going to hell. And I agreed with you that you are just a Cultural Christian.We disagree on how different nominal and cultural "christians": are. from each oather and from being born again. You claim that they are mostly all the same, but I am saying that they are not There are are identifiable difference. Apparently you need to meet more people to learn the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So you are saying in 1520, Luther was worse than Hitler, but then by 1523 had gotten better, but then by 1543 had gotten much, much worse, but not as bad as he was in 1520? You would be able to know this how? And you somehow think this supports your case that by your own standard Luther couldn't have not been a True Christian™?

    You claim that they are mostly all the same...

    Yeah no. All Holsteins are cows but not all cows are Holsteins.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Feel free to weigh his heart and mind nearly 500 years later and guess at what his spiritual state was.

    Aren't you actually the one doing this? I simply maintain that his "spiritual state" is just like everyone else's, non-existent.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, I'm not making any comparison between when if ever Luther was better than Hitler. Luther himself would not have thought he was. He said our righteousness as Christians was snow-covered dung. Making us worse without Christ. You are still attempting to figure out who is a Christian and who isn't based on things you cannot know. You think that no one has been born again just because you never was - the failure is in you not in God.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You are still attempting to figure out who is a Christian and who isn't based on things you cannot know.

    No, I honestly don't care if Luther was a True Christian™ or not. But you are attempting to figure out who is a Christian and who isn't based on things you can know, i.e. Hitler, Breivik. There are things we do know about Luther, which by your apparent standard, would not make him not a True Christian™. I'm just trying to get you to be honest. Either admit you don't know if Hilter was a True Christian™ or not, or admit that it's likely Luther wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But you are attempting to figure out who is a Christian and who isn't based on things you can know, i.e. Hitler, Breivik. There are things we do know about Luther, which by your apparent standard, would not make him not a True Christian™. I'm just trying to get you to be honest. Either admit you don't know if Hitlter was a True Christian™ or not, or admit that it's likely Luther wasn't.

    I think this is where the discontinuity is: You do not know what criteria I am using to determine what being a Christian means. This is the definition I am using:

    A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus Christ is God. All people are sinners in need of a savior. Jesus is the perfect savior who atoned for the sins of His people (Those who believe in Him) when he was crucified. This salvation obtained for us was perfected by His resurrection. This is a continuing faith that does not end. This faith is living and affects how the believer lives his/her life as we grow to become more like Christ. The New Testament explains what this looks like when it is lived out.

    This describes neither Hitler, Breivick, or you. But it was fit Luther.

    You once said that you accept anyone as a christian who claims to be a Christian. According to your standard anyone is a Christian and the term means nothing. I'd be way more concerned about my own salvation than Hitler's or Luther's if I were you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You once said that you accept anyone as a christian who claims to be a Christian.

    That's my standard now, although I'd qualify that they actually have to believe the claim themselves. A Jew in 1943 pretending to be a christian is obviously not a christian.
    But it would include Hitler (as far as I know) and Luther (as far as I know).

    And no duh that's the criteria you use. You act like I wasn't a christian for a large chunk of my life so far and haven't read the bible or Luther. His words actually fits me perfectly (with one exception) for that period.

    But that's totally besides the point because you shot yourself in the foot by adding another criteria. You claimed that hate (or whatever negative quality/sin) would not grow over time if one was a True Christian™. But in Luther's case his hate grew and he had the good sense to document it in his own and. Explain that...

    ReplyDelete
  21. That's my standard now, although I'd qualify that they actually have to believe the claim themselves. A Jew in 1943 pretending to be a christian is obviously not a christian.
    But it would include Hitler (as far as I know) and Luther (as far as I know).


    But that isn't the Bible's definition of what a "Believer" is. and the Bible's definition is the only one that counts.

    And no duh that's the criteria you use. You act like I wasn't a christian for a large chunk of my life so far and haven't read the bible or Luther. His words actually fits me perfectly (with one exception) for that period.

    No, I recognized that you were a cultural Christian for most of your life but not a born-again Christian ever. And I know you have called yourself reading the Bible and Luther's words, I just doubt that you understand them.

    But that's totally besides the point because you shot yourself in the foot by adding another criteria. You claimed that hate (or whatever negative quality/sin) would not grow over time if one was a True Christian™. But in Luther's case his hate grew and he had the good sense to document it in his own and. Explain that...

    The last antisemitic thing you point out that Luther wrote was three years before he died. Can you prove he still felt that way as he laid dying in his final thoughts? I don't think so. Could God have changed him in just three years? Yes. We don't know what happened. What we do know is that Luther was a fallible human being and I'm not saying that as a Christian you have to cross all the "t"s and dot all the "i"s. The point of Christianity is that we are fallen and only the power of God and lift us out of it. You prove that you don't know what the Bible says about being a Christian. It's a process. A continual irreversible transformation. You grow. We all need to grow in several different areas. Can I back that up Biblically? You bet ya.

    Romans 12:1-2 discusses a continuous process. And how about

    3 I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. - Philippians 1:3-6

    Still not convinced that this is irreversible. You are an antichrist. You left the church proving that you were never really part of it.

    Re-read 1 John 2 - the whole thing is talking about you.

    It's not too late to fix it. Jesus will take you back if you repent and genuinely turn to him. He can really save you this time if you turn it all over to him.

    ReplyDelete
  22. But that isn't the Bible's definition of what a "Believer" is.

    No duh. Remember where I said it's my standard now?

    The last antisemitic thing you point out that Luther wrote was three years before he died. Can you prove he still felt that way as he laid dying in his final thoughts? I don't think so.

    Can you prove Hitler didn't have a change of heart in the bunker while the Soviets were rolling through Berlin? I don't think so.

    We don't know what happened.

    Smartest thing you've said. Run with it...

    ReplyDelete

  23. Can you prove Hitler didn't have a change of heart in the bunker while the Soviets were rolling through Berlin? I don't think so.


    If Hitler did have a change of heart, he's in heaven and you won't. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Enjoy your potential eternity with him.

    ReplyDelete