Who is the most evil person you can think of in the recorded history?

Or, if you don't believe that anyone is evil, who is the person who has commited, or caused to be commited, the most horrific events in recorded history?
 

[This message has been edited by Leto II (edited November 06, 2002).]
 

Of course I trade all those people in for the inventor of the snooze alarm. There is nothing quite so evil as getting your hopes up of falling back to sleep and then having the damn thing go off again.

 

Or for those who need an actual answer I would say Hitler. Ok, sounds stereotypical but Hitler did some of the most horrific things.
 

dang him. dang him straight to heck.
 

celia - for obvious reasons
 

I'd be evil if I wasn't so icy...

Ni!
 

But only because she threatened me the the Total Perspectivity Voretx if I didn't say so!

Feyd
 

No, seriously now. I meant YOU!!!
 

....or me.

 

My point is that most dictators committed their crimes against humanity mostly because they were power hungry and ambitious. Some serial killers and child molesters for me are far more 'evil' than anyone who has committed famous atrocities. For example, Stalin was a fairly cold and uncaring man, but I doubt he could have taken a knife and brutally murder a little girl with his own hands. That to me is evil personified.

Of course Hitler and other leaders were responsible for the death of millions of children. I think Hitler had a deranged enough view of his acts to think he was actually doing the world a favor by exterminating the Jews, who he thought were less than human. So while I think Hitler was directly responsible for the greatest act of evil ever committed (the Holocaust), he himself would lose the title of "Most Evil" to someone who knows he is doing great evil, and not only does the acts anyway, but commits them because they are evil. I'm not a big crime buff, but I'm sure there have been child molesters and serial killers that fit this description (not just crazy, but evil).

[This message has been edited by Xavier (edited November 06, 2002).]
 

And terrorism really isn't a symptom of religion. Evildoers use the power structures available to them. Religion is often one of these, just as government also is.

I think I shall go with Chairman Mao. The man was more ruthless and unrelenting than Stalin, and his policies certainly killed more (comes from having a larger population to work with, largely).
 

I'd be really interested in reading more about your theory that Islam would have either died or become fairly inconsequential, had it not been for the Mongol invasion. I've always been of the opinion that Islam as a whole would have been a richer, more open minded movement had it not been for the Mongol invasion. Do you have any links, book suggestions, or the like?
 

quote:

---

Evil

---

Yes?
 

Anyway thats my view.
 

Most Evil, not counting Bob (he is EVIL under all that nice humor. Evil people always pun just out of sure sadistic pleasure) I would have to say Caligula.

Jeffry Dalmir is evil as well.

I think Charles Manson is just silly. If I say that loud enough and he hears it, boy would that pi...upset him.
 

I also would like to take up Squicky's gauntlet (as making such a silly statement as his in this forum can be construed as nothing less than a flung gauntlet):

So Squicky: why do you think that the God of the Old Testament is evil?
 

edit: Specific examples:
In the Garden of Eden, god gave a comfortable living in exhange for worship and no free will. As it is written, when man and woman gained free will, God threw them out of the garden because he was afraid of them, that they would eat of the tree of life and become his equal.

Later, God incited jealousy in Cain against his brother Abel. He was a contributing cause in Abel's death.

In Exodus, God continuously hardened Pharoh's heart so that he would not let Moses' people go and God would have an excuse to rain more plauges down on the largely innocent populace. His final act was to slaughter innocent children. We've had plenty of threads here already about how this type of terrorism is about the pinnacle of evil.

Later on, God commanded the Israelites to visit the Caananites with all manner of atrocity for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

God upheld the iniquitous, such as David, Lot, or Joseph, as long as they were doing his bidding. He unjustly punished the innocent if they got in his way.

God played a game with Job's life. After wrecking it, he gave him a new wife and family and all the other stuff back and thought that this made everything ok.

God meted out incredibly harsh punishments for not following his seemingly abitrary laws. He never explained any of them, other than, you do it because I'm god and will smite you if you don't.

That's how I see Yahweh, if you take him literally as he is written. You're free to disagree with me, but I'd ask that you then explain why what I see as incredibly evil things are actually signs of a beneficent deity.

[This message has been edited by MrSquicky (edited November 06, 2002).]
 

There I said it now stop pointing that gun at my head.
 

That's exactly the sort of information I'm digging for at the moment (when I'm not doing my actual work, that is). If you have any links or book titles you'd care to pass on, it would be much appreciated. I'm trying to find that information about both sets of invasions of Muslim territory.

Unfortunately, most of my knowledge of this subject came from various classes I took as an undergraduate, the notes for which were lost when my parents' house burned, along with handouts that would have contained bibliographical information, so I'm having to start from scratch.
 

So, in the interests of speeding up my research, got any references, either web or paper based?
 

I don't think we know the name of the most evil person who ever lived. I suspect that the most evil person who ever lived did many subtle things that deconstruct the best parts of life. You can kill a person only once, but you can tear him down over and over again. That, IMO, is worse. So I don't think we know the person who has been best at unmaking. Evil is far too sneaky and subtle to be caught for long.
 

quote:

---

In the Garden of Eden, god gave a comfortable living in exhange for worship and no free will. As it is written, when man and woman gained free will, God threw them out of the garden because he was afraid of them, that they would eat of the tree of life and become his equal.

---

The Garden of Eden is symbolic of a choice all of us made before we were born to continue in God's presence where all things were perfect or to enter into this world where we would face sickness, evil and death with the benefit that by coming to earth we would learn to choose between good and evil and thus become as God- agents capable of freewill.

The part about kicking them out before they partook of the tree of life can be explained as follows: no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. By choosing to undergo the trials of mortal life Adam and Eve would become unclean as they made wrong choices and sinned. In order for them to be able to return to the presence of God there must be a way for them to first become cleansed (the atonement of Christ). If they could have become immortal while they were yet unclean they would in effect be shutting themselves off from the presence of God forever.

quote:

---

Later, God incited jealousy in Cain against his brother Abel. He was a contributing cause in Abel's death.

---

I assume that you are referring to God accepting Abel's offering while rejecting Cain's. This was not God's doing but Cain's for two reasons: 1) Cain made the offering at Satan's behest showing who he had chosen as his master and 2) Cain made the wrong offering on purpose. The whole point of the burnt offerings was to point the minds of the people to Christ. All of the symbolism of the sacrifice of a lamb was the whole reason for the sacrifice. By making the wrong sacrifice Cain was doing the equivalent of hitting someone with a snowball and calling it a baptism- the whole reason for the ritual was in the symbolism.

quote:

---

In Exodus, God continuously hardened Pharoh's heart so that he would not let Moses' people go and God would have an excuse to rain more plauges down on the largely innocent populace. His final act was to slaughter innocent children. We've had plenty of threads here already about how this type of terrorism is about the pinnacle of evil.

---

I agree that it is ridiculous that the Lord should harden Pharoah's heart. However, I believe that this is a result of translation/transcription error and that the verses should all read as they do in verses like Ex 7:22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.

As to the children of the Egyptians dying: it depends on how one views death. I personally do not see it as a great tragedy, nor do I think that God views it as such. If you think of it we will all die at some time as it fits into God's time table. It is no more evil for God to kill the children of the Egyptians in one fell swoop than it is for him to kill children one at a time from starvation or disease or what have you that kill children off today.

quote:

---

God upheld the iniquitous, such as David, Lot, or Joseph, as long as they were doing his bidding. He unjustly punished the innocent if they got in his way

---

I don't know what you mean with this one. David was not only punished by the consequences of his evil actions which came back to rend the country with civil war, he also suffers the fate of all murderers.

I suppose that these examples will do. As I said in the beginning, it all depends on the interpretation of events; more so than the events themselves.

[This message has been edited by Jacare Sorridente (edited November 06, 2002).]
 

If you look at the changes in the Arabic culture before and after the Mongolian invasions you will see something much more profound. Islam was fairly confident (with good reason) that they could overcome Christian kingdoms, this is evideneed by the eventual ouster of all remanants of Christians. The invasions from Europe around 1100 had already been repulsed and Jerusalem recaptured. It doesn't get better for the Christians from there. Then around 1215 the devestating Mongol invasions came. You had the mongol leader preaching to Muslims about how lowly they were or God would not have had them conquered (the Khan was good at rubbing their face in it because he was that powerful).

A good comprehensive view I read a few years back was "Muslim History from 570 to 1950".

While they were ineffective against the muslim world, the crusaders committed great atrocities to civilians in cities friendly to them on the way. The acts of war against islam, while perhaps motivated for the wrong reasons, were not inherently evil or barbaric. The conduct of the crusaders against civilians (friendly and enemy) was the evil part.
 

::adds to list::
 

I'm not interpreting. I'm using the words that are written in the book and taking them at face value. Is there any preface or addedum to Job that says "Oh, this is just a metaphor. You're not supposed to believe that God actually did this."? In my Bible there isn't. A literal intepretation of the Book of Job, with God actually doing what he is said to have done, shows that God is self-centered and immature. A literal reading of Exodus shows that God is willing - more accurately eager - to torture and kill innocent people, if it suits his purposes to do so.

I don't know how you can defend the murders of a God by saying, "Well, killings not that bad." when that God actually comes out and makes "Thou Shall Not Murder" one of his primary commandments. I also don't see how you can look on a book like Leviticus and say "We don't follow that because the rules are savage and the punishments horrifying." without laying any responsibility at the feet of the entity that is supposedly responsible for those rules.

Another thing not in my Bible is Satan getting Cain to offer God inferior sacrifices. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe that it simply states that he and Abel give their sacrafices and God favors Abel over Cain. Where does what you claim happen?
 

Baldar, are you sure about the title of that book? When I did a search for it on Amazon.com, the closest thing it could come up with was _Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live_. While that might be a very interesting book in its own right, it's not quite what I was looking for.
 

aside: My high school's mascot was the Crusader. Looking back years later when I know a lot more about the nature of the Crusaders, I find this ironically disturbing.
 

quote:

---

In the Garden of Eden, god gave a comfortable living in exhange for worship and no free will.

---

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

...

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the bknowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

You'll forgive me for not equating your interpretation with what is actually said in the scriptural account. It seems that what you said to me applies in equal measure to you: if you are determined to see God as evil you will do so whether evidence to the contrary exists or not.

quote:

---

Another thing not in my Bible is Satan getting Cain to offer God inferior sacrifices. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe that it simply states that he and Abel give their sacrafices and God favors Abel over Cain. Where does what you claim happen?

---

You are right- I had forgotten that this part was not in Genesis. In LDS canon Moses 5:18 says: And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord.

Although this distinction does not matter as much as the fact that Cain deliberately offered an offering which went counter to the whole purpose of the thing.

quote:

---

I don't know how you can defend the murders of a God by saying, "Well, killings not that bad." when that God actually comes out and makes "Thou Shall Not Murder" one of his primary commandments.

---

quote:

---

I also don't see how you can look on a book like Leviticus and say "We don't follow that because the rules are savage and the punishments horrifying." without laying any responsibility at the feet of the entity that is supposedly responsible for those rules.

---

Actually as I understand them those rules were pretty enlightened for their place and time. These progressive rules no doubt replaced previous actions which were much more reprehensible; As I understand it God will only lead a people as far as they are willing to be led; the more they are willing to accept God's guidance the farther they may progressw hich is the whole reason for the existence of prophets.

quote:

---

Is there any preface or addedum to Job that says "Oh, this is just a metaphor. You're not supposed to believe that God actually did this."?

---

The thing is, Squick, the Bible was written by humans for humans. A commonly used tool of human communication is analogy and symbolism. Surely you will agree that many, many passages of the Bible are written as analogy and symbolism? Surely "Thy neck is as a tower of ivory;" from the song of solomon is not literal? And no, there is no chapter heading spelling it out; one has to figure it out for oneself (that is what the Holy Ghost is for).

[This message has been edited by Jacare Sorridente (edited November 06, 2002).]
 

Also, I don't see how God killing people is better than people killing people. If you do believe that God decides when everyone dies, then he must also decide that people must be murdered by other people, which seems to me that it would put human homicide on the same moral level as God's killings'.

Hobbes
 

Lets put it another way:

On one side you have unlearned barbarian Christians that might be good fighters but seem to be constantly losing territory to you.

On the other side you have a mongol horde that blows every army you have out of the water and says God does not love you from your own mosques (in Mecca) because God is the Khan. So tell me, which effects you more?
 

I would not be surprised to find out that number is wrong, since it is so staggering. But the point is, they certainly reshaped the world in their wake.

The crusaders were lucky when their boats didn't sink in the channel.
 

quote:

---

There is a distnction here that needs to be made: it is alright for God to kill people. Such a thing is not murder. It is man that is prohibited from killing. this much should be obvious since it is generally believed among Christians that God decides when a man will die.

---

If God decides when a man will die, He must decide when a man murders another.

Hobbes
 

First, every reading of the Bible (or any other text) is an interpretation. Ever since Martin Luther (and likely before) various people and groups have claimed to ignore interpretation in favor of “the plain sense” of the text. It’s never too hard to show that they are, in fact, reading from a particular perspective. It’s nonsense when fundamentalist Christians make this claim and it’s just as nonsensical when non-Christians make it. Everybody brings their own perspective to everything they read.

Second. The idea that the God of the Old Testament is somehow a distinguishable being from the God of the New Testament (which was declared heresy in the 2nd century, but keeps popping up) has been a contributing factor to a great deal of anti-Semitism, up to and including the holocaust. I just thought I'd mention that, since we’re discussing evil, and contributing factors thereto.

 

Next question: Does that make God evil?
 

He's the alpha and the omega.

What God says ...goes.
 

Hobbes
 

created man....

created me....

then YES.

He is good.

[This message has been edited by Tammy (edited November 06, 2002).]
 

Hobbes
 

If bad things happen...do we blame God?

If his agenda is beyond our comprehension...do we question?

I believe he created us with the capacity to think. To decifer right from wrong.

We are more intelligent than the "animals" he provided for our enjoyment..are we not?

WHY...did he do that?

This brings up the everlasting question of "Why is man on earth".

"He" knows what he is doing. Just because "We" don't understand everything....doesn't muddle the truth. Who are we to question him? It's "His" game!
 

But if we were going to go strictly by what the Bible clearly states, we’d have to conclude that God is good. The Bible says so quite clearly. “O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, his steadfast love endures forever.” – Psalm 118.

 

P.S. I come off sounding kind of negative in this post. I'm still not sure if God's existance is proof of his perfection, but I just felt that there was a flaw in Tammy's reasoning. (Also, just to re-itterate, not only am I not a good speller, I'm not an Atheist )

Hobbes
 

However...I firmly stand by my belief that God...is perfect, good and of course...right.

I'm flexible in every other area in my life...except this one.

I refuse to belive in a possibly "wrong", imperfect God. It's a major contradiction in my mind.
 

Hobbes
 

I believe it to be a gift from God.

Because of human imperfection, I believe that there may very well be "typos" in the Bible. But for the most part...I take it to be inspired by God. His words.

No where in the bible does it state that God is wrong, evil, mistaken, unjust, ridiculous, or comparable to mere humans or any other entity for that matter.

I believe. I have faith.

So there lies the contradiction in my mind.

If I believe what is written to be words inspired by him..... then of course I believe that he's not wrong and he is good.

[This message has been edited by Tammy (edited November 06, 2002).]
 

Hobbes
 

[This message has been edited by blacwolve (edited November 06, 2002).]
 

You know, I'm trying to withdraw from the conversation, but by writing what I think, I'm just saying "worse" things. So be it. That's what I really think. I do not judge christians or christianity by this, just the literal writings. The experience of truth in all its forms is constantly changing.

dkw,
The separate gods theory wasn't a cause of anti-semitism, it was an excuse for allowing it. The people using it wanted to hate jews already, they just had to come up with a reason for why it was ok.
 

quote:

---

I believe he created us with the capacity to think. To decifer right from wrong.

---

Please understand, I talk of these things as written as lessons, not as historical events. When the writers say that God did such and such, I don't necessarily believe that this is objectively true, but rather the lesson to be learned is what would be true if such a thing happened. To me, to study the bible or any religious/philosophical text is to see what lessons were intended and what lessons are actually learned from it. I view the idea that humans' perfect intended state is that of contented beasts that lack the ability to tell right from wrong as a bad lesson, and so I dislike the story.
 

quote:

---

No where in the bible does it state that God is wrong, evil, mistaken, unjust, ridiculous, or comparable to mere humans or any other entity for that matter.

---

Well...if the Bible is, in fact, a "gift from God"...it wouldn't say he was evil, now would it? God's not gonna diss himself!! And if the Bible was changed and/or interpreted over the years by different sects of people all working towards teaching people *their* way of life -- they wouldn't describe their God as wrong, evil, or mistaken either!

 

Hobbes
 

Constantine's Sword by James Carroll is a good one, although it's rather long it's quite readable. It traces Jewish-Christian relations over the last two millenia.

For a summary, it's fairly simple. The idea that the OT God = evil, NT God = good, translates fairly easily into Jewish God = evil, Christian God = good. From there it's a pretty short step to Jews = evil, Christians = good.

Not a part of our heritage to be particularly proud of, but there it is.

Hobbes
 

quote:

---

For a summary, it's fairly simple. The idea that the OT God = evil, NT God = good, translates fairly easily into Jewish God = evil, Christian God = good. From there it's a pretty short step to Jews = evil, Christians = good.

---

Well, one could also interpret it as Jewish God: disciplined, Christian God: easy. But, then again, it's all in the interpretation...

Question: do Christians believe in the OT God AND the NT God, or just NT? I was always confused on that point, because the Bible contains both testaments, but no explanation as to why God suddenly became so much less...ruthless i guess is a nice way of putting it. If they believe in both, how do they explain the change?
 

Back to something that was said earlier (can't rember who said it, just that someone did ) I thought that Stalin killed more people than Mao, does anyone have any figures on this (I thought that it was something like 30 million to 20 million)?

...Just looked through the old posts, it was Fugu who said

quote:

---

I think I shall go with Chairman Mao. The man was more ruthless and unrelenting than Stalin, and his policies certainly killed more (comes from having a larger population to work with, largely).

---

<--*Goes off to do some info hunting*

Hobbes

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited November 07, 2002).]
 

Hobbes
 

Now, both China and Russia had extremely large populations at the time of their communist revolutions and subsequent governmental mass-killings. Even now, China is so bent on shrinking their population that they've taken the one-child policy to the forced abortion of second children. I'm wondering if the apparent low value they put on human life is a direct result of the economic realities of trying to support huge populations in the communist system. If perhaps, the famous purges and massacres were at least partially conscious attempts to decrease the population to more manageable numbers.

I don't know, the little men down there send up some wierd thoughts from time to time. This is one of them, I think.
 

That is an interseting point; I'm not sure how much of it is economical, and how much is based on the Communist model. Just before people start calling me on the Communism is an economic model, it isn't. Communism is based on the Socialist economic model, but has other concerns as well. Of course Marx never put anything like this in his Manifesto (sp?) but you're right, it does seem to appear a lot in Communist countries. However, the ideal socialistic model is based on the assumtion that there is enough produced for everyone, so that it can be shared among the entire population and still keep everyone happy. Since we must assume that this was the basis for the leaders actions, that would mean that their actions could not be based off of the fact that there were too many people for his ideas. And much of what they did reflect this. They attempted to increase the number of jobs to solve whatever problems there were. So it seems that the murders would have occured not off of lack means of production, but lack of control.

Note: Before you continue reading, sit back, take a deep breath, and rember that the above was written in a very small text box by someone who needs more sleep . I'm sorry it was a bit...all over the place; but I'll try harder for my next post

Hobbes
 

I stand firmly by my convictions that God is good. The definition of good being the same as we all know it to be.

No debate necessary.

[This message has been edited by Tammy (edited November 07, 2002).]
 

quote:

---

The definition of good being the same as we all know it to be.

---

Which would be ...?

*isn't sure about it

 

quote:

---

good (MORAL RIGHT)
adjective
morally right or based on religious principles ; behaving well ; kind and helpful
May you lead a good life and live long.
Try to set a good example to the children.
Do a good deed every day.
If you're a good boy (=If you behave well) at the doctor's I'll take you swimming afterwards.
It's good (=kind and helpful) of you to offer but I can carry the shopping.
He's always good (=kind and helpful) to his grandchildren.
The college has been very good (=helpful) about her health problem.

Good can be used to make particular exclamations stronger.
good gracious/grief/heavens/God/Lord

Someone, esp. a child, is as good as gold if they behave very well.
She's been as good as gold all evening.

If you are (as) good as your word, you do what you say you will do.
He was as good as his word about phoning.

If you do (someone) a good turn, you do something which is helpful or kind.
You did grandma a good turn by carrying her bags.

(saying) 'One good turn deserves another' means that it is right to do a helpful or kind act for someone if they have done something for you.

If something is done in good faith, it is done sincerely and honestly.
She was acting in good faith for her client.

(dated) The good book is the Bible.

A good cause is either something which deserves effort, or a strong reason for doing something.
Please give what you can, it's for a good cause.
The judge ruled her actions were done without good cause.

In the Christian religion, Good Friday is the day Jesus is believed to have died, the Friday before Easter Sunday.

Someone who is good-hearted is kind, helpful and generous.

If someone or something is good-natured, they are kind and friendly.
a good-natured child/manner

(formal) Good offices are the helpful actions of someone, esp. if they are in authority.
Thanks to the good offices of the senior administrator, the annual party will be held again this year.

A good Samaritan (also samaritan) is a person who is always ready to help someone else.

(saying) 'If you can't be good, be careful'.

good
noun [U]
There is an eternal struggle between good (=the force which produces morally right action) and evil.
Ambition can sometimes be a force for good (=morally right action).
The government could do a lot of good (=provide help) by sending aid to the area.
Even a small donation can do a lot of good (=provide help).
I'm punishing you for your own good (=to help you).

Someone who is up to no good behaves in a dishonest or bad way.
Anyone who spends so much time taking other people to court is up to no good.

good
plural noun
The good means all the people who are good.
You can't buy your way into the ranks of the good.

goodness
noun [U]
Mother Teresa's goodness is an example to us all.

FORMAL Would you have the goodness to (=please) phone me as soon as they arrive.

goody
noun [C usually pl]
A goody is someone who is good.
It's one of those films where you don't know until the last moment who are (the) goodies and who are (the) baddies.
The goodies usually win in the end.

---

You've given a pretty comprehensive snippet of various defintions, examples of usages, etc. -- but please clarify for me, exactly which definition (clear, succinct, and obvious) would be the one we all agree on?

For example, one of the definitions listed above is "good (=the force which produces morally right action)." But there are a lot of things which may be "good" but have no moral relevance at all. More importantly, defining "good" as "morally right" comes out rather circular, since we don't agree on what is "morally right." AND if you define something in terms of something else which itself is at least as unclear, then you haven't made any progress.

________________________________________________________________________________________

So, what would a helpful definition of "good" that we all agree on be?

(Remember, I really am a dunderhead. )
 

quote:

---

good
noun [U]
There is an eternal struggle between good (=the force which produces morally right action) and evil.
Ambition can sometimes be a force for good (=morally right action).
The government could do a lot of good (=provide help) by sending aid to the area.
Even a small donation can do a lot of good (=provide help).
I'm punishing you for your own good (=to help you).

---

Does it help you CT?

I recognize the apparent contradictions.

[This message has been edited by Tammy (edited November 07, 2002).]
 

Question: what is the difference between 'good' and 'right'? In my language (Dutch) we use only one word.
 

Also, probably no one's going to agree with on this, but I always found the NT much scarier than the old testament. I think there is a different focus in each, which might be the reason. The OT deals mainly with large groups of people, empire building, and the like, where the NT is very personal and tends to speak more to individuals.
 

The author of the quoted article is discussing Marcion, who was declared heretic in the second century for teaching that the God of the OT and the God of the NT were not the same being. His claim is that Marcionism was a more reasonable religion that Christianity as taught by the church fathers.

quote:

---

When Christian propaganda reached him, he saw, as all reasonable men must, that the ferocious, vindictive, and cruel god of the "Old Testament" was utterly incompatible with the god of mercy and love preconized by Pauline Christianity, and he accordingly decided that Yahweh was only the Demiurge, creator of the material world, but inferior to the good and supreme god who sent his Son (an avatar of himself) to save mankind from the Demiurge.
.
.
.
Why the Fathers should have chosen to burden their cult with the onerous and malodorous bundle of fictions of the "Old Testament", which blatantly contradicted the very doctrine they were peddling, is almost inexplicable, except on the assumption that it was made profitable for them. And we must not forget that, with very few exceptions, we really do not know which early Christian theologians were "converted" Jews or stooges for the Jews, like the contemptible hirelings who now misgovern Germany.

---

It occurred to me that my earlier post could have been read as saying that the Marcionite heresy was/is anti-Semitic and that orthodox Christianity was/is not. I didn’t mean to imply that. There has been a great deal of Christian theological interpretation, both inside and outside the institutional church that has contributed to anti-Semitism. It’s one of those things that I hope we’re growing out of.

 

I never thought of that aspect, I agree with your solution though.

Thanks for the info, it's nice to know that the only sites you could find whose creator's thought this way were to vile to post at Hatrack.

Hobbes