They want to make sure they have more control then those commie bastards!
Which Commie bastards would that be. The Soviet Bloc was finished 25 years ago - and the Chinese stopped most actual communist policies even longer ago than that - turning itself into a big version of Singapore.
1. Jesus cast out devils by casting them INTO pigs, which then threw themselves off of a cliff and died (Jesus Vick) Well he "allowed" the demons to do that - but what happened after that was not his particular responsibility - except for the general "why does God allow evil?" question. If you want to understand THAT one then i suggest you study the sporotuality of St Isaac the Syrian - it is most enlightening. (see below) It doesn't amount to a command to his followers to drown pigs.
Jesus says that cities that will not admit the disciples shall suffer worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.... this is talking about the last judgement - not something that Christians are commanded to implement. Again - go study St Isaac. 3. Jesus quite plainly says that he has come to split families that will fight over his religion.
Prediction does not amount to responsibility - otherwise weather forecasters would be toast! 4. Jesus quite often talks about how many people his angels will cast down into hell-fire.
Last judgement again - see above.
5. Peter quite literally says that those who do not follow Christ must be killed.
Citation needed - I'm gueessing you've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere - but you need to tell me where you got that from. 6. Romans and Leviticus both recommend putting homosexuals to death, which qualifies as recommending horrible acts Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery - which is a similar punishment in Leviticus. I'm not sure which bit of Romans you're reading BUT my recollection is that - at most it simply says that such will not inherit the Kingdom - again we're talking last judgement and you need to read about St Isaac.
7. Romans also deems blood sacrifices a good way to absolve sin....
Again I'll need a specific reference to answer that one.
You may have missed it but the bible is chock full of 'God's chosen people' being punished by god for screwing up in one fashion or another,
Or rather they believed that their misfortunes were the result of their sins - but please bear in mind that the bible isn't supposed to be the literal word of God (like the Koran) but rather the writing of men inspired by God.
On the other hand God himself - as reported by Christ - has a rather different line.
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
I could easily point to a good number of passages in your holy book that actually are 'should' passages that command some really horrible acts, so be careful before throwing those stones.
No you can't - at least not from a purely Christian (as opposed to old testament) point of view.
Matthew 22 37 “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’e 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’f 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”
and 1 john 4: 20
. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
You can accuse Christianity of inconsistency if you believe that the old testament commands violence whilst Jesus (whose words surely trump anything in the old testament) says differently but you cannot reasonably accuse it of commanding violence.
As for the whole 'Darwinism' line below about how Darwinism somehow supports actions like his,
Of course scientific theories should never be dragooned into supporting particular philosophical, religious or political opinions. But lots of people do ( mostly not quite in the Hitler category - eg Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc). Once that happens then other people can legitimately (if rather sloppily) complain about (say) "Darwinism" as a shorthand for "a particular political theory that claims to be based on Darwin's theory". That doesn't necessarily imply rejection of the scientific theory.
Way to misunderstand the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
It annoys me how often people misuse "no true Scotsman".
You see the important point is to understand the basis of the membership of a set. Now the set of "Scotsmen" is defined by those who are either born in Scotland, born to scottish parents or naturalised to Scotland . Now there is some ambiguity about these criteria but these are all based on matters of birth or residency. The person who erroneously says "no true Scotsman would fiddle his taxes" (or whatever) is trying to associate a moral category with a birth or residency category and of course you can redefine scottishness based on a moral quality.
However Christianity is either a moral category or a belief category to start with so the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't work in this one.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. ....etc.... For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
Those were Hitler's PUBLIC views - his private views were somewhat different:
You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?
Quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115
Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.
Adolf Hitler's Monologe im Führerhauptquartier (Monologue with Headquarters of the Führer). Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus, 1980.
However, why you would lead with Mao as an example of secularism instead of, oh I don't know, the UNITED STATES, is beyond me.
It rather depends on what you mean by secularism. Does secularism simply mean the separation of church and state - or does it mean some kind of aggressive anti-religious stance?
Since the United States motto is in God We Trust" it is not clear to me why it should be held up as an example of secularism.
I would describe the United States as a deeply religious, (historically) overwhelmingly Christian, country that adopted an (officially) religiously neutral government system in order to prevent the otherwise inevitable rise of religious conflict. In doing this the founding fathers were extending the model for defusing religious conflict that had earlier ended the 30 years war in Germany. To portray the founding fathers as non or even anti-religious is more than a stretch.
The US government is thus a very different animal from the Chinese government - which still officially espouses atheism.
Hitler was Christian. Well actually the most that can be said is that Hitler publically espoused Christianity as a matter of practical convenience. His mother may have been catholic but his father was rather anti-church.
He is on record as saying that Islam would have been better for the German people. The Nazis also attempted to create an "Aryan" version of Christianity with the Jewish bits taken out!
If you want to take over a nominally Christian country you had better call yourself a Christian - it doesn't mean you are one.
Mao was Theravada Buddhist. Take that one up with the Dalai Lama!
Stalin was Christian and studying to be a priest but probably become an atheist. However, Stalin never actually did anything in the name of atheism.
Stalin did almost everything from the revolution up to mid WW2 in the name of "dialetical materialism" - of which atheism is a core tenet. To anyone who knows the history of the Russian Church between the wars your statement appears to be the result only of breathtaking ignorance!
Somewhere in mid WW2 he dramtically changed tack for a while because Russia was losing. After the war the soviet regime returned to its atheist mantra.
USA messed up the Olympics for Europe - and then didn't bother to watch
Once again many of the prime olympic events were scheduled to suit the US viewing public - and consequently were held at between 2.00 am and 5.00am for most European countries. I was unable to watch ANY of the swimming or major athletics finals live as a consequence of this. I would have accepted this if it was done to coincide with normal timings in the host country - but no. Following the usual schedule of these events in Brazilian time would have resulted in events at 11pm-1am ish - quite maneagable to stay up for.
Now I discover that, having made the Olympics unwatchable for much of the rest of the world, the US didn't even bother to watch it themselves. Thank you USA!!
So the link between fiction and law enforcement goes full circle.
There is little doubt in my mind that the contempt for due process that has been displayed by fictional detectives since... forever has influenced the behaviour of actual detectives - many of whom will have grown up watching these shows. Hell if a nice gentle forensic scientist like Quincy can threaten a newspaper man with "I can always come back tonight with a warrant and 20 officers tonight and 'trash' this place" in order to get a list of people who responded to a particular advert* - then why shouldn't I?
*old episode probably mad in the 70's I saw just the day before yesterday.
Weakening the US through internal struggle, taking pressure of their nearer concerns. Maybe even weakening the NATO.
The only reason why they have any of these concerns was that their attempt in the immediate post cold war era- to join NATO was rebuffed. It seems to me that many western politicians want to retain them as an enemy.
What exactly do you believe the Russians are trying to achieve here?
It's not as if they were trying to win the world for communism anymore.
In other words why do you think Russia doesn't like the west and - equally what is there about them to dislike?
After all Russia's interest in what it regards as its own backyard (ie Ukraine - incidentally Kiev was the original capital of Russia) is really no different from the US meddling in South and central America and the Caribbean ( Chile and Grenada spring to mind in an instant.
Also why do we complain about Russia's actions in Ukraine whilst turning a 40 year blind eye to Turkey's blatant military invasion of North Cyprus, Saudi Arabia's bombing of Yemen etc etc etc
Reminds me of David Penhaligon - sometime leading light in the British Liberal Party:
After an opinion poll that suggested his party might actually win the next election he was quizzed by a BBC interviewer who said: "If an election happened now then you would become Chancellor - that's ridiculous isn't it? (Penhaligon was known as something of a jokey character). His reply was along the following lines: " Well when I consider the great responsibilities of the chancellor I do think 'who am I to take on such a task?' but then I go down to the House of Commons and see the man who is doing the job now (Nigel Lawson at the time) and all my doubts vanish!"