The trouble with these sorts of articles is that there is nothing new. We go over the same old predictable and repetitive ground.

The bottom line is that Christians of runner and Peter Sellick's ilk will always claim that virtue is only achievable through Christianity. I can see that for them, it cannot be any other way. To remotely entertain the idea that virtue may be characteristic of another set of values, or naturally existing in mankind, would be to cast doubt on their own entrenched belief system.

That is the problem with religion overall. It is like a vast football league with all the teams vying for first place. First place in heaven. First place for virtuous behaviour. First place for allegiance to their particular brand of God. First place for obedience. First place for relevance.

It is competitive to the core and hardly humble or simple if the myth or fables of Jesus's humanity is to be used as the paragon of virtue.

As much as we think we might just ignore another Sellick demonisation or sermon, like moths to the flame or reaching for that last Tim Tam when you know you have had enough, we just can't help ourselves. :)

AdamD

<<If Hitler was inspired by evolution, then it was from a misunderstanding of what evolution is - a misunderstanding that shows just how dangerous the push of misinformation from creationists really is.>> posted by runner.

I have seen accounts of Nietzsche and his mate Wagner getting into Social Darwinism, which led through to the Prussian master race and Hitler. Certainly Nietzsche was mentioned at Nuremburg.

When the fundamentalist Christian movement was formed a little over 100 years ago it was to counter Social Darwinism but in error they went after Darwin. Runner still seems confused about the difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. The two have nothing in common.

Pericles and Oliver seem good on this sort of detail. Maybe they can add more.

>>Pericles you ask 'runner, what is your source for this claim?' Actually someone who has visited there.<<

Ravi Zacharias' address to a prayer breakfast in 2002.

Was this one of the prayer breakfasts run by the infamous ultra right Christian group 'The Family' that Bush, Blair and Howard used to attend? Marion Maddox gives a good account this in 'God under Howard.'

Davidf

<<Christianity, like all other religions, is a human invention as is God.>> Religion a human invention? Yes. God a human invention? Maybe.

Dear runner,

Christians, not secularists, persecute the weak. Christians burnt the mentally ill at-the-stake. Compare, “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live (Exodus 22:18 KJV)” with “an individual should experience only unconditional positive regard” (Carl Rogers).

Humanists don’t kill the delusional. We help them. We care for them. Conversely, Thomas Moore and John Wesley, took the immoral path of Christian cruelty, rather than a path of compassion and treatment. Likewise, Christian jurist, William Blackstone (1765) would have withheld humane treatment saying, “to deny the possibility, nay, the actual existence of witchcraft and sorcery is at once to flatly contradict the revealed word of God”.

Hitler’s eugenics is the mirror image of God’s “chosen” people. Here, we have the notion of a “special” race claiming pre-eminence over the other races. Psalm 82, is all about the Hebrew tribal god asserting supremacy over other (existing) gods (here, read tribes too). As if by proxy, their God helps smite inferior races (e.g. the Hittites). Later, Jewish exclusivity was seen by the Romans as uncivil.

Arnold Toynbee observes, occupied Peoples mentally retreat into their golden past (archaism) or see a superior future (futurism). Here, we see Hitler in Germany, after its WWI humiliation and financial occupation, remembering a Teutonic past and, we learn of the promise of the Thousand Year Reich. Hitler’s burning of the Armistice Car was a variation of the same theme. The shame shall not be repeated. Likewise, in the Jesus era, we have the House of David (past) and a Messiah (the future saviour).

Hitler was influenced by Nietzcshe. Fascism is opposed to Liberalism by counter-posing reason and logic with “irrational forces, intuitive aspirations, heroic instincts … Truth is not objective and universal; it is an aspect of the self, that which is felt and willed to be so” (Wasserman, 1944). This NAZI philosophy is not Social Darwinism.

Christians kill their young. Pope Innocent VIII had three young boys killed to provide him with blood transfusions before he died (1492). Christians followed his murderous decrees!

The wanton mass killing of undesirables: The Flood and Sodom.

Sir Vivor stated “The question remains arguable: Did humans invent Gods, or did God invent humans?”

Dear Sir Vivor,

Which God are you talking about? In Genesis two inventions of humans by God are mentioned:

One creation story is from Genesis 2:4 to 3:24 of the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament. Extensive analysis has led scholars of the Bible to conclude that the story was written in about the Tenth Century B.C.. That was around the time of King Solomon's reign and in a time when Israel was a powerful nation. In contrast, the story in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 was written three or four centuries later and under very different circumstances.

Yahweh and Elohim, were the two inventors of humans in the stories above.

The pagan Norse have another story for the invention of humans.

On the sea shore, Bor's sons found two logs and made people out of them. One son gave them breath and life, the second son gave them consciousness and movement, and the third gave them faces, speech, hearing, and sight. From this man and woman came all humans thereafter, just as all the gods were descended from the sons of Bor.

There are many other creation stories. People who believe in creation stories accept the legends current in their society. Christians and Jews who say they believe in the truth of the Bible stories are oftentimes unaware that there are two different creation stories in the Bible.

St. Olaf, the patron saint of Norway, gave the pagan Norse the choice of Christianity, exile or an agonizing death. He was quite effective, and, as far as I know, nobody now believes that all people came from the two logs given life by Bor’s sons.

I see no more reason to believe in Yahweh, Elohim or Bor’s sons than I have to believe in the many other Gods that humans tell of in their creation myths.

The inventions that are accepted are often the beliefs of those able to exert greater physical force.

Hi Oliver.

<<Truth is not objective and universal; it is an aspect of the self, that which is felt and willed to be so” (Wasserman, 1944). This NAZI philosophy is not Social Darwinism.>>

Could you expand on this please? As an interested amateur in these areas I enjoy hearing from those who have more detail.

To my understanding Social Darwinism is built on a totally corrupt interpretation of one sentence from 'The origin of the Species'. The sentence that mentions 'the survival of the fittest.'

The basic tenant of the SD is 'If you find a poor person in the gutter starving leave him/her to starve. The reason they are there is because they are stupid and ignorant, and if you help them they will breed more stupid and ignorant people.'

I understand Nietzcshe was influenced by this. Nietzcshe also theorized that Greek Tragedy died out because the music was removed. His friend Wagner developed the idea of promoting the concept of uniting the Germanic states under the superior Prussian master race using music as a vehicle. This was after Wagner got over his little flirtation with Communism.

The idea of the Prussian master race developed to the point where the Prussian army were doing the world a favour by invading because they were 'the fittest' to rule the world.

This seems to get tied up with Hitler and the Nazi music and the Classical architecture of the Nazis.

Of course the whole concept of Social Darwinism has been around in one form or the other for many years. 'The survival of the fittest' only provided another excuse to promote the basic idea. The Christian church has been practicing it for 2000 years and there many others before that.

It seems a pity that 'runner' has confused Darwin with the Corruption of his work that Darwin was not party to.

If Liberalism can avoid the idea that they are somehow superior for being Liberal maybe there is hope for the world.

David F, you ask which God I am talking about. You may re-read my question if you wish, and appreciate its inclusive nature. Your reply does not address my assertion that:

"It is your opinion that God is a human invention, but it is impossible to separate our conceptualisation of God (or Gods, Christian or not)from the world beyond our senses."

Anyone who pretends to be strictly rational, on the topic of higher consciousness vested in entities independent from human consciousness, had best argue from an agnostic position.

I can almost hear the daffodils whispering to each other in their vase - "What's out there that we don't know about? Perhaps the guppies can tell us!"

Then again, if you want to believe tht humans are the ultimate flower of consciousness, you are welcome to engage in your faith and its accompanying myths.

But if you wish to be strictly rational, you had best hedge your bets as an agnostic.