Excuse me - but you aregue that he was a Christain - which he was not.

Yeah how can I possibly be misinterpreting "Be ye separate?"

I have clearly shown that he was a Catholic. You can argue that Catholics are not Christians all you want. I don’t care about that.

So your argument here (yet again) is there is no way for us to truly interpret Egyptian hieroglyphics? Is that what I am hearing? Are you familiar with the Rosetta Stone? Do you know what that is? Look it up right now.

Of course I am. But what are you basing your belief of the validity of the interpretation on?
Is this not blind trust in the interpretation of one who claims expertise? Yet you discredit anyone who is a Christain when they are brought up and quoted. I don't understand what supports this double standard.

You made a good point.

Are you asking why I doubt that the bible is the inspired word of god? Probably for the 100s of reasons I alone have brought up on this forum. That is not even counting the contributions of everyone else like Abra, JB and several other people. It has become a veritable onslaught of contradictions, misinterpretations, errors, fallacious statements, and blind faith driven conjecture and wishful thinking. It’s a joke.

And then you ask how I can possibly put my faith in the words of Egyptologists such as Gerald Massey and the like? Well it might be that these people are quite well versed in the field of archaeology. They are also historians. Most of them are linguists and have extensive training in this field. They are simply focalized on the scientific study of Ancient Egypt and its antiquities.

I guess that gives significant weight to my so called "double standard."

PS:

There is also no indication that the Egyptians ever suffered a break in their culture or any kind of an interruption due to a gigantic world flood. No destruction caused by water. No sign that this ever took place. No damage to the pyramids or any of their huge free standing monuments in the necropolis on the Giza Plateau.

After fixing your errors, All you have "proved" is that Hitler doesn't fit your definition of a Christian. But, by your definition, no one is a Christian. . .

I think we can agree to disagree on that. Whatever Eljay has determined to be a "real Christian" is not Adolph Hitler. I think my personal definition of a Christian is probably what about 85-90% of the general public would agree with on what meets the criteria as Christian.

So thats that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C9ybS1sx_4 hahahah

"The supposed parallels are spurious. In his important study The Post- Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), John Alsup has examined all the alleged parallels to Jesus' resurrection and shown them to be apotheosis stories, disappearance stories, etc., not resurrection accounts. The myths of dying and rising gods like Osiris or Adonis, for example, concern merely seasonal symbols for the crop cycle--the plants dying in winter and coming back to life in the spring. (ii) There is no causal link to the disciples' belief. This is evident in Dr. Washington's own examples from ancient Mexico or Nepal. According to Gerhard Kittel, there is "no trace" of myths of dying and rising gods in first century Palestine (Gerhard Kittel, "Die Auferstehung Jesu," Deutsche Theologie 4 [1937]: 159). Thus, no informed scholar would today argue that the original disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead due to pagan influences. It is not surprising that as a philosopher Dr. Washington should be unfamiliar with the field of New Testament studies and historical Jesus research; but it is a shame that this sort of ignorance should be perpetuated among students."


This comes from a debate between Craig and Washington.

".... one may answer Flemming by noting that a philosophy should not be judged by its abuse. One could make a similar apologetic against atheism by naming atheists like Stalin, Mao, and the Khmer Rouge who were responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia. Every one of these despots and brutal governments embraced atheism and oppressed people. One could easily produce a “documentary” showing Flemming and his guests smiling and happy with their atheism, then turn to photographs of Stalin who killed 7 million, Pol Pot who killed 1.2 million, and of course Mao who killed more than 70 million. This is certainly a mixed bag. However, this would do nothing to prove atheism wrong.

If the representatives of that Deity, whether priest, televangelist or faith healer, can regularly be found guilty of child abuse, avarice or fraud, then one can hardly tout Christianity as the one effective guide and guarantor of proper moral behavior. Any philosophy, no matter what it may claim for itself in principle, is only as good as it works in practice. Christianity's track record gives us no reason to regard it as occupying a privileged position in regard to divine benefaction, and in that respect Licona's implication (if inadvertent) that we should regard it as part of a level playing-field is entirely correct."

If anything Hitlers catholicism was nominal. You never judge a philosophy by those who abuse it. Its not the logical outworking of the gospel.

But, with the "philosophy" of Religion, it gives people another reason to kill people. As one of George Carlin's bits goes:'You believe in God?' 'No.' *Pdoom*. Dead. 'You believe in God?' 'Yes.' 'You believe in my God? 'No.' *Poom*. Dead.

With Atheism, there is a political, or social philosophy behind the crimes or death tolls.

While it may be easy to explain off Hitler this way, It is much harder to explain of the actions of the church, which very much acted the same way, imprisoning, or putting to death anyone who didn't see the same "truth" that the church saw.

It would be the illogical working out of Christianity to say, kill some one who does not accept Christ. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. So it does not logically lead to the conclusion of the things your saying.

Yet, you have the Crusades.

That was not the logical outworking of the gospels. As I said before, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it.

But again, the Crusades were done BY the Church(which also has yet to excommunicate Hitler)

But to break away from just using Christianity examples, Look at the Middle East today. In Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is a price on EVERY US Soldiers head, not just because they are American, but because they don't believe the same thing as the Taliban and the Insurgents. I'm sure we have all seen the picture of the Middle Eastern man holding a sign that reads(paraphrasing): Islam is peaceful, if you don't think so, I'll kill you"

So, you can say that is is "not a logical outworking" of the holy books all you want, but History has, and continues to show that it is just another reason to slay fellow man.

You judge a philosophy by its teachings and the life of the founder.

A good worldview will have three things
1Logical consistency
2Empirical adequacy
3Experiential relevance