Christianity is the worst religion out there

[Super Bisdak]

Not all of those people are Christians. Most people use "Christians" as a category to separate from muslims and other people oriented religions.


1 John 3:6
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

1 John 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

Amen!

ang pulong nga christian kung susihon nato ni sa Bible, mao ni ang hugpong sa mga tawo nga nagsunod sa pagtulon-an Jesus.

Acts 11:26(KJV)
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

[SioDenz]

nganu kaha nga worst?unsa may reasons?

Di man pariha sa ilaha tinuhuan..hehe

[SioDenz]

hahahaha... clearly this makes sense! Christians do not reconcile - either by faith or beliefs. Each of you don't even meet at the same point. lahi-lahi mo ug baruganan kabahin sa inyong ginoo.

Alangan, lahi lahi baya utok, kadaghan kaayu religion diri sa kalibutan, so ig mangita sa sakto syempre magka lalis jud nah kay lahi lahi man pag translate sa bibliya...ang gituhuan isa ra pero mga mga nituo lahi lahi ug utok. I think its normal man siguro bro..unsay naka kataw anan?

[Beanman]

unsay worst religion? taka lang...kana diayng mga kulto nga maghikog? mas maayo pa na sa mga kristyano?

[mayvenp]

woi. laina na ani inyoha mga gipang storya woi... basta sa imoha gud self. kabalo ka sa imoha mga sala. and u know that u have repented on it. wala man na sa religion jud... as long as u trust God. and believe in him... Have Faith lng...

[netad77]

nganu kaha nga worst?unsa may reasons?

ambot unsa nasud sa utok ani bai nerds. hihihi... la na gani mureply sa akong gipangyawyaw ambot kakita baka ato ako gipangreply niya... hihihi... niconcede na guro ni... hihihi... makalagot man gud!

[Traditz]

dunno bout that, but what we are seeing here is high corruption rates done by christians. ironic isnt it.

And can their actions be rightly called Christian when they contradict the ideals of Christianity? Can any one person rightly consider himself a follower of Christ when he deliberately and habitually commit acts that go against Christ’s teachings?

nope. as what the highlighted post say, it has no correlational strength. it only shows less atheists in that federal prison state.

Yes. I don’t know if those figures really tell us anything other than what you said.

so much for those table talks its only source came from anti-catholic Bormann,

There’s also that other version by Henry Picker, one of Hitler’s stenographers. It’s also written in the original German, and it has an entry there that referred to Christianity as a kind of disease.

But those that argue against Hitler's Christianity fail to see that Christianity comes in many forms, two of which consist as: a belief system held by Christians, and organized religion. It was the latter, organized Christianity, that Hitler spoke against (just as many Christians do today).

Hitler was very hostile to traditional Christianity, indeed. His own view of Christianity is a radical departure from the traditional understanding. An "Aryan Christ" who is a fighter and is anti-Jewish? He grossly distorted traditional Christianity, despising even its central ideals like compassion, forgiveness, love of enemies, etc., seeing them as weaknesses.

Not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus

True, he did not explicitly renounce it, but his actions spoke louder than his words ever could.

Once again, his portrayal of Jesus is radically different from the traditional view.

But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

It wouldn’t be that easy to dismiss the Table Talks. It’s not mere “hearsay,” because Heim and Picker are two of Hitler’s closest aides, therefore he trusted them. True, it was Bormann who put those notes together, editing them. But there’s no reason for him to twist Hitler’s words to suit his own prejudices if Hitler was indeed a Christian. He wouldn’t dare antagonize Hitler, wouldn’t he? Would Bormann have reached the top echelons of the Nazi hierarchy if his religious views were opposed to Hitler’s?

2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

A man named Karl Ludecke published a book in 1937 in which he related a conversation he had with Hitler in Munich. Hitler: “Yes, National Socialism is a form of conversion (the idea of a tangible, living faith), a new faith (the sense of renewal), but we don’t need to raise that issue—it will come of itself (he is insinuating that Germans will eventually throw off the yoke of “Christianity” in favor of this living faith)… once we hold the power, Christianity (as practiced up to this point) will be overcome and the Deutsche Kirche (he is referring to the future Reich Church) established."

Writes the historian Allan Bullock, “Another picture of the Nazi leader at this time is given by Kurt Ludecke. Ludecke had gone to visit Hitler in Munich at the end of September, and, after an evening spent in Hitler's company at his Munich flat listening to him denounce the influence of Christianity, he accompanied him by car to a mass Hitler Youth demonstration in Potsdam.”

3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.

True, but he persecuted many Christians, and that says a lot about what he thinks of Christianity.

Some of Hitler’s actions:

-- The murder of 7 million Christians, in addition to the 6 million Jews. (According to Jewish historian Max Dimont)

-- Putting Protestant churches under state control in 1935. Priests and ministers who protested were sent to concentration camps. (Max Dimont)

-- The murder of Dr. Erich Klausener, the German leader of Catholic Action and other Catholic leaders by the SS. (Allan Bullock)

-- Marriage to Eva Braun by a secular city official. He took no counsel from a clergyman before his death. (Trevor-Roper)

-- Removing Catholic nuns from all social service jobs.

-- The annihilation of 881 Catholic priests in Poland. (Larry Azar)

-- The imprisonment of over 2,400 Catholic priests in Dachau, one-third of whom were eventually killed. (Johannes Lenz)

These are the conclusions of some historians and biographers of Hitler:

Ian Kershaw:

-- Hitler made it clear that he “hated Christianity” and was going to eliminate it when the war ended. One reason Hitler “hated Christianity” was because he believed that “it had crippled everything noble about humanity.”

-- The Jesuits were “swine,” and all of Christianity was “Jewish Christianity” which was comparable with “Jewish Bolshevism.” Hitler concluded that both were evil and both had to be destroyed.

-- He concluded science would win, and the Christian church would eventually in due time be destroyed. Hitler even believed science was the creation of the German race. Hitler was trying to use science — especially Darwinism — to create a utopia on Earth, and he made it absolutely clear that there would be “no place in this utopia for the Christian Churches” in his plans for the future of Germany. He realized that this was a long term goal and “was prepared to put off long-term ideological goals in favor of short-term advantage.”

-- Hitler had to fight one battle at a time — and elected to take on the fight with the churches in due time. The Christian church would be destroyed later, and for now it was needed. Only after the war would Germany be able to fully implement the “final solution” to the “Christian problem.” In the meantime, “calm should be restored ... in relations with the Churches.”

Larry Azar:

-- Hitler’s reasoning was based on his belief that Christianity was an “illegitimate” Jewish child and, as a Jewish child, was swine like its parent that must be eradicated. He considered Christianity the “invention of the Jew Saul.”

-- A major reason Hitler opposed Christianity was because he saw Christianity and Science as diametrically opposed to each other.

Hans Kung:

-- “the great figures of terror in our century—Hitler, Stalin and their deputies—were programmatic anti-Christians."

-- "...we cannot make Jesus a guerrilla fighter, a rebel, a political agitator and revolutionary or turn his message of God's kingdom into a program of politico-social action, unless we distort and reinterpret all the Gospel accounts, make a completely one-sided choice of sources, irresponsibly and arbitrarily work with isolated texts...and largely ignore Jesus' message as a whole...Even though it is as much the fashion today to speak of Jesus, the rebel, the revolutionary, as it was in Hitler's time to speak of Jesus the fighter, the leader the military commander, or in sermons of the First World War of Jesus the hero and patriot, it must be made unmistakably clear—for Jesus' own sake, regardless of the spirit of the age—that he was neither a supporter of the system nor a politico-social revolutionary."

4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.


Some authors blend the anti-clerical views of Martin Bormann or the mystical beliefs of Rosenberg with Hitler in an attempt to rewrite history. afterall, IMO hitler was on his way on making his own.

gott mit uns=God with Us...you expect to find that from an atheist?

Ironic, isn’t it? The German regular army carried belt buckles that bore that message, but not the SS. Hitler’s leading advisers were atheists: Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and of course, Bormann.

sure, but did HITLER renounce his? i dont think so. and yet here we are arguing about this dead guy's beliefs, pay your respects to the dead . only hitler can do that. not other parties.

Again, I think that Hitler's actions and his regime's policies provide some very good clues as to his real beliefs and motives.

Pero I think sakto ka, that Hitler was not an atheist. I stand corrected. Pero dili pud siya matawag nga Christian, in the real sense, kay his actions and beliefs betrayed him. He believed in a sort of "god", but not the Christian God, or at least, a gross distortion of the Christian God. Sometimes you even get the impression that he thinks Nazism is god, or National Socialism, or the Fatherland, or he himself is god.

[digitalsuperman]

for me, religion is just an early form of education.. and education were made with good intentions..but some of the worst things that could happen came up with the best intentions..

[munzter666]

@traditz

And can their actions be rightly called Christian when they contradict the ideals of Christianity? Can any one person rightly consider himself a follower of Christ when he deliberately and habitually commit acts that go against Christ’s teachings?

so you mean to say there is no TRUE Christian
i only know there are two types of christian, a good and a bad one. <----and it all depends on who is giving such "christian" definition a fundie or a non-fundie. hahaha

besides who's in the position to say who is TRUE or not? last time i checked, neither one of us has that right to say so. maybe i'm wrong...

Ironic, isn’t it? The German regular army carried belt buckles that bore that message, but not the SS. Hitler’s leading advisers were atheists: Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and of course, Bormann.

why? aren't the 2 sig runes enough? eh, occultist ni hitler ang in charge niyan eh.hehe
leading advisers, so what? it doesnt change hitlers belief status. he had a lot of advisers, even those religious types that hold strong connections with the VATICAN. heck, he even had OCCULTIST advisers. what does that have to do with hitlers beliefs? nothing at all.

Again, I think that Hitler's actions and his regime's policies provide some very good clues as to his real beliefs and motives.

Pero I think sakto ka, that Hitler was not an atheist. I stand corrected. Pero dili pud siya matawag nga Christian, in the real sense, kay his actions and beliefs betrayed him. He believed in a sort of "god", but not the Christian God, or at least, a gross distortion of the Christian God. Sometimes you even get the impression that he thinks Nazism is god, or National Socialism, or the Fatherland, or he himself is god.

FUNDAMENTALIST Christianity may be tagged with racism and bigotry...not you nor I nor others are in the position to say they are not TRUE christians. they themselves call and claim they are TRUE.

when you speak of actions, does that mean the prime movers of the crusades, inquisitions, ethnic cleansings, witch hunts etc...what, they're not christians too? *

Pero dili pud siya matawag nga Christian, in the real sense, kay his actions and beliefs betrayed him.

i chose my words carefully, i did mention hitler is a christian...a bad one that is.

[Traditz]

so you mean to say there is no TRUE Christian
i only know there are two types of christian, a good and a bad one. <----and it all depends on who is giving such "christian" definition a fundie or a non-fundie. hahaha

besides who's in the position to say who is TRUE or not? last time i checked, neither one of us has that right to say so. maybe i'm wrong...

I guess all I'm saying is that you can't really call yourself a Christian if you're corrupt, because what you're doing directly violates the teachings of your faith.

I believe there's really no such thing as a 'bad Christian." A "bad Christian" is no Christian at all. Such a person may only be a nominal "Christian," but not really, in essence, a follower of Christ. A person can claim to be a Christian yet live a life that betrays his ideals.

FUNDAMENTALIST Christianity may be tagged with racism and bigotry...not you nor I nor others are in the position to say they are not TRUE christians. they themselves call and claim they are TRUE.

You're right, we don't have any right to say that a particular group is not truly Christian, but at least we can agree that racism and bigotry clearly contradict the central ideals of Christianity of compassion and love of enemies?

when you speak of actions, does that mean the prime movers of the crusades, inquisitions, ethnic cleansings, witch hunts etc...what, they're not christians too?

They called themselves Christians, yes, but violence clearly runs counter to the essential Christian message of love. So those crimes were clearly un-Christian, but, yes, they were committed by religious people who used religion to sow terror. But that speaks only of the misuse of religion. The essential message remains valid.

i chose my words carefully, i did mention hitler is a christian...a bad one that is.

Again, I believe there's really no such thing as a "bad Christian." One is either a Christian or he is not -- a pretender or someone who convinces himself that he is even though his actions bear no resemblance to Jesus' teachings.