Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[usfan]

How does identifying something that actually exists, creating a boogie man?

Human xtians exist, presumably. They are the created boogie men.. didn't you read the post?

It is real. Dominionist and other similar movements exist under Christianity.

Exactly. The false narrative is that all historical xtians are just like these outliers.. a smear by association.. like the reductio ad Nazium fallacy..

And, like 'Hitler!!', they make great boogie men!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. He is guilty of what he accuses others of.

That is not unusual for someone in his position. I have noted it is a common tool in the tool bag of people that rely on false premises to support their own views.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Human xtians exist, presumably. They are the created boogie men.. didn't you read the post?

Do you have any sort of coherent response that a reader can make sense out of?

Exactly. The false narrative is that all historical xtians are just like these outliers.. a smear by association.. like the reductio ad Nazium fallacy..

But the fact remains, everything I noted about Hitler is true.

And, like 'Hitler!!', they make great boogie men!

But you dismiss the facts and fall into a trap by doing so. Now you are just seen as ranting.

A reasonable Christian would recognize those facts about Hitler and go further stating that none of what Hitler did follows the teachings of Christ and that the actions of Christian Germans were from their own flaws and sin. Hitler may have been raised Christian and may have even maintained the identity, but nothing he did was in line with Christianity and he and the Nazis were not representative of Christianity. The onus would be on anyone claiming otherwise. A reasonable response that shoots down false claims.

Your way is ranting and crying persecution and not fixing the issue.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is there some rule that fundamentalist practitioners of religion must lace their posts with an over-use of emojis? Are emojis the new facts?

I am not exaggerating when I say that I can predict a good deal of the kind of responses that are going to be posted when I see profuse use of emojis. It is a very emotional and manipulative and is used that way.

I find it amusing that it has developed into an indicator with predictive power.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, dodging. And in a none too honest way.
I made no assertions about Hitler. I pointed out specifically that I couldn't, a doubt that he was one but don't claim to know.
The German people, on the other hand, were very different. There are hard facts about them, which you totally dodged.
Tom

I think the German people were like any people. They had their own flaws, prejudices and fears. As long as they were not directly effected and there might be some benefit for winning, it was easy to look the other way. Certainly not Christian behavior, but it is more about the fact that Christians can still sin and be Christian.

Arguments like those proposed by usfan are largely built on the idea that once a Christian, there is no longer sin. Whether this is intentional or out of ignorance and zeal I cannot say, but the result is the same. Objective criticism is falsely turned into assault and used as an example of persecution. Even where none exists.

To me it is in the same vein as a burglar claiming that ethnicity is the reason he is being jailed and not the fact that he was in someone's home at night without permission and taking property that was not his.

usfan is claiming that recognizing facts about Hitler and the German people is really persecuting Christianity. Any real lessons to be learned from that history are distorted and dismissed by rantings like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have any sort of coherent response that a reader can make sense out of?

But the fact remains, everything I noted about Hitler is true.

But you dismiss the facts and fall into a trap by doing so. Now you are just seen as ranting.

A reasonable Christian would recognize those facts about Hitler and go further stating that none of what Hitler did follows the teachings of Christ and that the actions of Christian Germans were from their own flaws and sin. Hitler may have been raised Christian and may have even maintained the identity, but nothing he did was in line with Christianity and he and the Nazis were not representative of Christianity. The onus would be on anyone claiming otherwise. A reasonable response that shoots down false claims.

Your way is ranting and crying persecution and not fixing the issue.

The only time I will use the "Hitler was a Christian" argument is when Christians falsely claim that he was an atheist. Now I will put qualifiers in there, such as the facts that you mentioned. He appeared to be his own weird type of theist. He may have believed in Jesus, he may even have thought that he was following him. But any sane assessment of his actions tell us that he was not a follower. Being a believer and a follower are not necessarily one and the same.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only time I will use the "Hitler was a Christian" argument is when Christians falsely claim that he was an atheist. Now I will put qualifiers in there, such as the facts that you mentioned. He appeared to be his own weird type of theist. He may have believed in Jesus, he may even have thought that he was following him. But any sane assessment of his actions tell us that he was not a follower. Being a believer and a follower are not necessarily one and the same.

I agree. It is used as an attack on atheists. A fact that is not surprisingly missing from usfan's list. Along with a host of other false statements and insulting caricatures of atheists. To be fair, his propaganda is directed to support what he sees as Christianity, the persecuted majority.

I like your assessment of what we can say about Hitler in this context. It summarizes the evidence and observations and arrives at the most reasonable conclusion that I think anyone can make.

 

[columbus]

Being a believer and a follower are not necessarily one and the same.

A big part of the problem is the lack of an objective standard for "Christian", or "Christian behavior".
Tom

 

[usfan]

A big part of the problem is the lack of an objective standard for "Christian", or "Christian behavior".
Tom

Imo, it is not, in general, 'lacking', just muddied and redefined.

There is an objective, clear, historic definition of Christianity, from the Founder, that is still in use today. There are many tangents, offshoots, and departures, but there atill exists the unadulterated, unchanged orthodoxy that follows the biblical precedent.

 

[sooda]

Human xtians exist, presumably. They are the created boogie men.. didn't you read the post?

Exactly. The false narrative is that all historical xtians are just like these outliers.. a smear by association.. like the reductio ad Nazium fallacy..

And, like 'Hitler!!', they make great boogie men!

Dominionists have NOT been secretive about their goals and ambitions for the past 40 years.

The question really boils down to .. are you denying their theocracy or what? Declare and take a stand, but don't pretend that they are not an organized political force.

 

[usfan]

Arguments like those proposed by usfan are largely built on the idea that once a Christian, there is no longer sin. Whether this is intentional or out of ignorance and zeal

usfan is claiming that recognizing facts about Hitler and the German people is really persecuting Christianity.

I can only point out the distortion and blatant falsehood of these caricatures. Methinks you are not an honest debater, but distort others points for your own agenda. I'll probably skip over your posts, from now on..

 

[sooda]

Imo, it is not, in general, 'lacking', just muddied and redefined.

There is an objective, clear, historic definition of Christianity, from the Founder, that is still in use today. There are many tangents, offshoots, and departures, but there atill exists the unadulterated, unchanged orthodoxy that follows the biblical precedent.

Peter or Saul/Paul? Which "founder"?

 

[usfan]

Dominionists have NOT been secretive about their goals and ambitions for the past 40 years.

Is reading comprehension a disease, with progressive indoctrinees? Or is this just deliberate distortion, to promote a false narrative?

 

[sooda]

Is reading comprehension a disease, with progressive indoctrinees? Or is this just deliberate distortion, to promote a false narrative?

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are both Dominionists.. Where have you been since the 1970s?

 

[usfan]

So, nobody wants to actually present evidence, or have an honest debate over any of these charges, just assert them over and over, or deflect with personal ad hominem?

That about cover it?

Pile on with your snarky needling and demeaning quips. I don't care. It only proves the impotence of your 'arguments', when distortions, deflections, and catty snark is all you have.

If anyone wants to debate facts, I'll wait. But trading juvenile quips with propagandists is tedious and boring...

 

[sooda]

So, nobody wants to actually present evidence, or have an honest debate over any of these charges, just assert them over and over, or deflect with personal ad hominem?

That about cover it?

Pile on with your snarky needling and demeaning quips. I don't care. It only proves the impotence of your 'arguments', when distortions, deflections, and catty snark is all you have.

If anyone wants to debate facts, I'll wait. But trading juvenile quips with propagandists is tedious and boring...

Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological view, means, or timetable, Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.

Dominionism Rising: A Theocratic Movement Hiding in Plain ...
www.politicalresearch.org/2016/08/18/dominionism-rising-a-theocratic-movement-hiding-in-plain-sight/

 

[sojourner]

Pointing out ad hom is not ad hom. Pointing out a smear, is not a smear.

All i can do is correct the false narratives, and expose the lies, assumptions, and smears directed at Christianity. That has been going on for millennia, and will likely continue as long as lies and distortions have traction.

How else do you defend truth, or correct false narratives?

I don’t see that you’ve corrected any false narratives, though. You’ve created some of your own, however.

 

[columbus]

So, nobody wants to actually present evidence, or have an honest debate over any of these charges,

Now that you've resorted to the "No True Christian" dodge, and ignored my fact based posts, I don't think it worth much of my time.

If anyone wants to debate facts, I'll wait.

You're the one refusing to do that.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, nobody wants to actually present evidence, or have an honest debate over any of these charges, just assert them over and over, or deflect with personal ad hominem?

That about cover it?

Pile on with your snarky needling and demeaning quips. I don't care. It only proves the impotence of your 'arguments', when distortions, deflections, and catty snark is all you have.

If anyone wants to debate facts, I'll wait. But trading juvenile quips with propagandists is tedious and boring...

If you want an "honest debate" then you need to set a good example. The OP was nothing more than a Gish Gallop. Try supporting your own claims properly first.

Do you think that you can do that? Until you do you have effectively refuted yourself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can only point out the distortion and blatant falsehood of these caricatures. Methinks you are not an honest debater, but distort others points for your own agenda. I'll probably skip over your posts, from now on..

I think that you cannot provide logical and rational responses to my points and rely on distortions and logical fallacies in place of that.

Please feel free to run away. I would not stop you if I could.