Dear Josephus,

Heroic Christians such as Franz Jaegerstatter and Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave their lives to oppose Hitler.

However, Christian churches in Germany had a tradition of persecuting and massacring Jews. The Nazis printed in their newspapers the sermons against Jews of Martin Luther:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

"In the treatise, he [Martin Luther] argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them""

Hitler was following the program of the founder of Lutheranism.

Unfortunately Christian hate was more influential than Christian love in Nazi Germany. I have read a lot of history, and much of the history of Christianity is ugly. Historically, Christian hate has usually been more influential than Christian love.

//Toni can't be blamed for misunderstanding my views because (s)he hasn't the time to read my posts//

Why the sudden gender confusion, mhaze?

And it's not that the time isn't available to me, it's just that I feel it can be better spent doing other things. There are other, better things to read.

//but can't be accused of not being in a position to understand my posts since (s)he's totally read them.//

No, I've already pointed out that I haven't 'totally' read them. I just don't see why it would matter, unless one is the sort of narcissist that would feel personally affronted if people don't hang off their every word.

But as I said, trouble in the gypsy village...

Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. The idea that a weak argument somehow becomes a strong argument so long it is understood properly in context sounds like post-modernist claptrap to me.

//I have the quaint notion that views ought to be consistent across posts and days.//

Well there you are then... if your arguments never change from post to post, I don't need to read them all, do I?

//“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” So Crates.//

In the interests of tedious twattery and keeping hairs properly split (which I must confess to being somewhat fond of myself), I feel it is necessary that your quote from Socrates doesn't really apply here. If it was defamatory it would be libel rather than slander, but it's not defamatory because it is an insult that is not intended to be taken literally or believed, and does stand to damage your reputation.

Oh, and I do admire the way in which you've declared yourself the winner because I called you a rude name. I imagine you're the sort of chap who views everything as competition, and thinks that winning is terribly important. So good for you for winning, well done for that, the better man won on the day.

Doesn't change the fact that your arguments are full of bollocks though.

mhaze,

I asked you what exactly you meant by “the deity”, but got no response:

“Yes, but what exactly is “the deity”?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286)

I also explained why it is reasonable to assume that you were referring to any god:

“Without a description from Not_Now.Soon of who or what exactly his deity is ... “the deity” can only be interpreted to mean ‘any deity’.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286)

There’s two reasons right there as to why it would have been a good idea to clarify what you meant by “the deity”, and yet you declined.

Now, when I paraphrase you using with an assumption that I had already explained was reasonable and that you did not bother to correct, you suddenly find it in you to object.

<<Nup...untrue...Never thought it, never said it, never wrote it.>>

Not only that, but you STILL don’t take the opportunity to explain to what the exactly “the deity” refers!

I was right to suspect that you used such ambiguous wording to leave yourself with some wriggle room, wasn’t I?

“… almost as if your wording had been purposefully left ambiguous so as to allow you some wriggle room in the event that you were challenged.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286)

<<....in fact said the opposite.>>

Yes, but only after I had explained how a version of god could be disproven. Initially, you had no idea:

"... how do you discredit something that doesn't exist? And/or how do you discredit an omniscient being?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252011)

Are we ready to explain what “the deity” refers to yet? Do you even know anymore?

See what happens when we lie? We get tangled up in those lies and they become plain for all to see.

<<But don't let mere truth get in the way of your attempts to find a way to rationalise your original errors.>>

Really? Which errors would they be? Quotes this time, please.

P.S. No examples of me linking back to past discussions claiming that the opposite happened to what had actually happened, I see. Why am I not surprised?

Errors detected.

//and does stand to damage your reputation.//

should be

\\and not does stand to damage your reputation.\\

and

//I feel it is necessary that your quote from Socrates//

should be

\\I feel it is necessary to point out that your quote from Socrates\\

Mea culpa.

AJ

You said that I said that no god could be disproven.

I categorically denied saying or thinking any such thing.

As evidence you say I failed to define "the deity". I assume you think there's logic in that thought process...but you'd be wrong.

As to defining "the deity" I neither failed to do so nor declined to do so. I ignored the request because its asking for the impossible. I no more know the nature of the deity (if it exists) than you or anyone else does. NNS thinks he knows what the deity is like and more power to him. But I don't. That's why its impossible to prove/disprove/'discredit' the deity. You can't prove/disprove/'discredit' something that can't be defined. You can create your own definition and then seek to examine your version but since your version isn't necessarily mine or his or their's then you've disproven nothing, at least not to the satisfaction of those who don't agree with your version.

For example, you assume an omnibenevolent god wouldn't allow suffering... that it would have the same understanding of suffering as you. But what if the deity views the three score and ten years here as a mere blink of time in terms of infinity and that a little suffering will be of benefit in enjoying infinity elsewhere. A bit like an omni-loving parent might see the suffering of having a band-aid ripped off as acceptable suffering. I'm not saying that's my definition, just that its a possible definition that invalidates your discrediting conceit.

There you go...I've given you more fodder to talk around as you seek to find a way out of the hole you've dug.

As evidence of what, mhaze?

<<As evidence you say I failed to define "the deity".>>

That you meant that no god could be disproven?

I suppose you could put it that way. However, I was more curious about the fact that you suddenly felt an urgency to reject my interpretation of what you had meant, despite there having been ample reason and opportunity to do so before that. Your actions seem a little opportunistic to me.

<<As to defining "the deity" I neither failed to do so nor declined to do so. I ignored the request because its asking for the impossible.>>

I wasn’t asking you to describe the nature of a god or gods. We hadn’t gotten that far. I was just asking if you had a specific god in mind or if your ambiguous wording was meant to encompass any god by alluding a general concept rather than a specific instance:

“Without a description from Not_Now.Soon of who or what exactly his deity is ... “the deity” can only be interpreted to mean ‘any deity’.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286)

The:
1. Denoting ONE OR MORE … things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge. [Emphasis added]

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/the

Nevertheless, according to the rest of your post, you appear have been only referring to one deity.

<<I no more know the nature of the deity (if it exists) than you or anyone else does.>>

What if it does exist, but there are many? I guess it wouldn’t be THE deity either in that case, would it?

For someone who doesn't know if this deity exists and claims that it cannot be defined, you're certainly making a lot of assumptions about it.

Already we have two characteristics:

1. That it is unique, and;
2. That it is unknowable.

You claim to not know if this god exists, yet speak about it as though you believe you do. Your language is very confused.

<<You can't prove/disprove/'discredit' something that can't be defined.>>

How do you know that “the deity” cannot be defined?

Continued…