First, Hitler invoking the name of Christ is a far cry from his being anything near a true follower of Jesus. People and politicians all over the world invoke Christ's name to grab power as I know you are all aware. Besides, just as I wouldn't associate atheists as a group with this whack job here in Colorado that just shot up a couple churches, I would hope all followers of Christ would not be associated with the worst possible examples ever to mention Christ when the atrocities they commit completely conflict with his teachings.

Ebon already pointed out that he was not a atheist. I wanted to touch on something else though. I agree that we shouldn't necessarily condemn a group of people for the actions of one or a few. Xianity isn't wrong because Hitler was a bad person. That said, your statement smacks of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Matthew 8:21-22, Luke 9:59-62 -- he tells someone who wanted to bury his father "Let the dead bury the dead." Is that supposed to be a joke? Sort of like "Burying dead relatives is for losers."

Matthew 10:34-37, Luke 12:51-53, Luke 14:26 -- he announces that he's going to break up everybody's families, and that anyone who prefers their families to him are unworthy of him.

Matthew 12:46-48, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 8:20-21 -- his real family is not his biological family but his followers.

Matthew 19:29, Luke 18:29-30 -- he insists that his followers desert their biological families.

Matthew 23:9 -- don't call your human father your real father.

Luke 2:42-51 -- he was very snotty to his parents. As a boy, he and his parents used to visit the Jerusalem Temple, and one time, he studied with the scholars there and forgot about his parents. And when they find him, he was not the least bit apologetic. "Didn't you know that I had to be in my Father's house?" and he demonstrated how super-learned he was.

John 2:4 -- he was snotty to his mother.

Besides, just as I wouldn't associate atheists as a group with this whack job here in Colorado that just shot up a couple churches...

Particularly since, from all accounts, he wasn't an atheist but a disgruntled ex-member who was seeking revenge for being thrown out of the church's missionary training program.

That's not to say there is no hell. According to the Bible, there definitely is, but it's a matter of choice the way I read it.

Even if that's true, I don't see how it mitigates the problem. Regardless of your view of the nature of Hell, the New Testament teaches that the large majority of people are going there for eternity, while only a comparative handful will be saved. Do you consider that to be a view that fills you with hope? Does that teaching strike you as cause for rejoicing?

First, Hitler invoking the name of Christ is a far cry from his being anything near a true follower of Jesus. People and politicians all over the world invoke Christ's name to grab power as I know you are all aware. Besides, just as I wouldn't associate atheists as a group with this whack job here in Colorado that just shot up a couple churches, I would hope all followers of Christ would not be associated with the worst possible examples ever to mention Christ when the atrocities they commit completely conflict with his teachings.

Second, the whole idea of eternal damnation is much misunderstood IMO. That's not to say there is no hell. According to the Bible, there definitely is, but it's a matter of choice the way I read it. As C.S. Lewis says there are two types of people: Those who say to God, thy will be done and those to whom God says thy will be done. God's wrath is not anything like human emotion or anger. It's a theological statement about consciously breaking away from God and suffering the consequences of this isolation. God's wrath is not like my getting mad at someone driving too slow in the fast lane. It's not God gleefully throwing people into a lake of fire.

Third, I completely disagree with the premise that Christ only preached to Jews or was at all discriminatory. Christ made a Samaritan the hero of his parable on how to treat "neighors" (Luke 10:29). This would have been unheard of at the time. Samaritans were racially mixed, considered inferior and largely despised at the time. Also, it's easy to overlook just how revolutionary the apostle Paul's teaching of "neither male nor female, slave nor free" was at the time. Very, very progressive stuff.

Lastly, Christ bringing a "sword" has a very different interpretation than commonly understood. While the ultimate end of the gospel is peace with God, the immediate result of the gospel is frequently conflict with the modern world. Coming to believe in Christ has often resulted in strained family relationships, persecution, and even death at times. Following Christ presupposes a willingness to endure such hardships. The sword is a metaphor of struggle. Jesus demands total commitment from his followers.

As an aside, I actually agree with Thump in terms of a lot of what he's saying about Gandhi. I don't mean to hold him up as an ideal in all ways. His proposed response to the Nazi's was a disgrace. But, it remains that he adhered to certain teachings such as "turn the other cheek" in ways that profoundly and effectively revealed the evil nature of the perpetrator of cruelty. This brought to the life the true meaning of Christ's teaching.

Regarding ghandi, I never thought about it that way. That's quite insightful and eye-opening, I gotta say.

I believe Chad is referring to Martin Luther King of the American civil rights movement, not Martin Luther of Germany, who, aside from your fine reminders of his bigotry, directly helped to bring about the third-bloodiest war in human history, the Thirty Years' War.

Chad --

I'm not so sure you'd ought to assert the goodness of Gandhi's work. The main struggle in his life was for the eviction of British rule in the Subcontinent; yet when that independance arrived, almost a billion people promptly started murdering each other [over religious beliefs, naturally]. Of course, not his intent, but he certainly bears some of the responsibility.

Thereafter, several wars were fought between the two emergent states, India and Pakistan. Finally, we live in an age where two nations now composed of hundreds of millions of fanatics are armed with rocket-mounted nuclear warheads. How this is an improvement escapes me, to be honest.

In 1943, Gandhi advocated the cessation of the war against Japan -- a morally ambiguous position even in the most generous light. His hunger strike, and the Brits going along with it, aroused riots that killed thousands.

Additionally, according to Sam Harris, ole Mahatma advocated protest-suicides by Hitler's victims as a means of stopping him. Thankfully, this advice was not taken; but can you see the resultant evil had it been adopted? I've heard of appeasement as a policy, but that's a tad extreme for my taste. Of course, not a literal changing of the world -- it never came to pass -- but certainly a deficit to your assertion.

The popular picture of Gandhi-as-good-guy may well be true [on an individual level], but his acts had evil repercussions. And as Dear Ole Dad used to say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Also, what of Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Gandhi (I know, I know he wasn't a Christian, but from whose teachings did he derive his methods)?

I'm not familiar with Bonhoeffer, but MLK Jr. got his ideas from Gandhi, and Gandhi got his ideas from the Jains.

Christians are called to live by the New Testament not the book of Leviticus. It doesn't mean the Old Testament is irrelevant, but it's part of a bigger story which is centrally about love rather than wrath.

Anyone who reads the Old Testament for what it says could not be blamed for getting the opposite impression. And even the New Testament, allegedly a gospel of love, contains the clear teaching that the overwhelming majority of humankind will be condemned to an eternity of unimaginable torture. You'll understand if I don't consider that a message of hope.

The second part of the quote states that a man would go insane by strictly following the teachings of the New Testament. In the case of someone like Tolstoy, this would very nearly be true. If you read Christ say "Be ye perfect", you will go crazy trying to do that, but you'd also be missing the point.

I suspect Ingersoll wasn't referring to the NT's teachings about moral perfection, but rather the fact that following what it plainly says would result in the believer becoming a penniless, wandering vagrant, abandoning spouse, parents and children and traveling the world to cast out demons and preach bizarre parables about the imminence of the apocalypse.

They tried as best they could to enact Christ's teachings and, instead of going insane, they changed the world for the better.

Please note that Ingersoll's quote mentioned strictly following the teachings of the New Testament. Bonhoeffer and those others you mentioned did good works, yes, but they, too, picked and chose which verses to obey and which to disregard.

It's always easier to criticize than it is to offer a better, more compelling vision. What other belief system inspires people to sacrifice themselves in service of others?

Many belief systems, of course, including atheism. As for the rest of your point, I'll quote from a previous post of mine, "The Basis for an Atheist's Morality":

Religion has inspired great acts of charity and selflessness, beautiful music, art and architecture, and countless examples of human kindness and compassion. It has also inspired horrific, bloody wars, brutal inquisitions, tyrannical theocracies, fanatical campaigns of terror, and countless incidents of discrimination, prejudice, and bigotry.

Far from being a force that pulls ceaselessly toward the moral apex of the universe, religion is more like a megaphone, amplifying both the good and the bad of human nature in equal measure. This is not surprising to an atheist, because there is no objectively verifiable evidence of any god who wants people to behave in any particular way. As a result, people can without fear of contradiction invent a god who speaks for them, who confirms all their opinions and prejudices - and this is exactly what all religious people do, the liberal as well as the conservative.

"If a man would follow, to-day, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane."

Regarding the first part of the quote, the vast majority of what I read from Hitchens or Dawkins or others is that they are criticisms of religion and of the Old Testament. Christians are called to live by the New Testament not the book of Leviticus. It doesn't mean the Old Testament is irrelevant, but it's part of a bigger story which is centrally about love rather than wrath. Christ clearly taught "love your enemies" which is in direct contradiction to "eye for an eye" so, sure you can call it hypocrisy or selective understanding if you like, but it's not if you look at it as a new covenant that did not so much eliminate the validity of the old, but rather flipped it on its head. Christianity starts and ends with Christ - any other criticisms are interesting, but usually tangential and miss the point.

The second part of the quote states that a man would go insane by strictly following the teachings of the New Testament. In the case of someone like Tolstoy, this would very nearly be true. If you read Christ say "Be ye perfect", you will go crazy trying to do that, but you'd also be missing the point. It's not about us living perfectly or saving ourselves. If we were able to, there would be no need for Christ.

Also, what of Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Gandhi (I know, I know he wasn't a Christian, but from whose teachings did he derive his methods)? They tried as best they could to enact Christ's teachings and, instead of going insane, they changed the world for the better. It's always easier to criticize than it is to offer a better, more compelling vision. What other belief system inspires people to sacrifice themselves in service of others? And why is that automatically assumed to be such a horrible, repressive thing?