The Four Color Media Monitor

On the other hand, Pizzolatto did say that "The first time I got excited about writing was reading comic books by Alan Moore and Grant Morrison as a kid. Growing up in southwest Louisiana, in a house without many books, the sophistication and depth of their stories were really mind-blowing for a kid."

http://www.geekrex.com/2014/02/the-comic-book-influences-in-nic.html

And his version of the Batman is less dark than some. He "also said he hates the version of Batman as “some wounded boy, some man-child who can’t get over his parents [sic] death. He’s not an arrested child. He’s not the Phantom of the Opera. He’s not broken in any way. He’s the opposite.” Pizzolatto called Batman a “story of how one human Saint turned a life-defining tragedy into the pinnacle of human achievement and the single greatest humanitarian crusade the world has ever known."

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/04/nic-pizzolatto-batman-true-detective-1202225800/

"Batman's no-kill policy is valid and should always remain. BUT the policy does not exist because 'killing makes me as bad as them' or some kindergarten bullshit. That never held any water at all. Batman's no-kill policy exists BECAUSE BATMAN'S REAL AND ETERNAL ENEMY IS DEATH. DEATH is his real enemy."

I'm pretty sure it's more because he believes in law and order rather than death being Batman's real enemy, even if he does occasionally do extrajudicial methods to lock criminals up behind bars.

Still, agreed with Pizzolatto regarding the "killing makes me as bad as them" being a poor rationale for Batman's refusal to kill. In fact, quite frankly, I actually blame Nietzsche and his "gazing into the abyss" quote for that stupid idea being pushed, even being pushed in STAR WARS of all places, especially in Return of the Jedi (and Ben Shapiro had a field day with THAT one in his article "The Force is Stupid and Amoral" on The Daily Wire). Actually, in a way, Batman, with all due respect to him, comes across as profoundly WEAK for NOT killing the Joker when he had several chances, especially when Joker clearly isn't the type to be repentant (and heck, even imprisoning him has constantly proven to not do any good). I could understand the other rogues being spared, since they at least DO have a chance at redemption. Joker's too far gone to even be able to redeem himself, and if anything, killing him would be a mercy killing at that point.

"also said he hates the version of Batman as “some wounded boy, some man-child who can’t get over his parents [sic] death. He’s not an arrested child. He’s not the Phantom of the Opera. He’s not broken in any way. He’s the opposite.” Pizzolatto called Batman a “story of how one human Saint turned a life-defining tragedy into the pinnacle of human achievement and the single greatest humanitarian crusade the world has ever known."

I agree there. Batman might be many things, but a manchild he is not, he's not even a high-functioning manchild at that. Actually, if anything, he was forced to grow up at a VERY young age, so he's arguably more mature than most people his age. If ANYONE comes cross as a manchild, high-functioning or otherwise, it's the Joker or Harley Quinn, or heck, most of the Batman rogues (with the only real exceptions that come to mind are Poison Ivy, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, and maybe Two-Face, though he's in the gray area.). He might be driven to fight crime because of his parents' death, but that's more of a motivating factor than ACTUAL arrested development (put another way, he's about AS much of a manchild as Special Agent Dwayne Pride was, especially in the most recent season of NCIS New Orleans where it's revealed his obsession with trying to stop criminals from getting away, which even interfered with his family life and may have led directly to his divorce, had roots in childhood scars where he witnessed his music mentor being nearly beaten half to death by his father over an affair he had with his mom, and worse, his being forced to confess to his father beforehand. And to be clear, that means, not a manchild, period.). You want ACTUAL arrested development? Take a good look at Emperor Geldoblame from Baten Kaitos, especially his bedroom that looks like a pretty pink little girl's room. THAT'S arrested development (especially after the revelation in Origins that he pretty much got messed up over being backstabbed by his mentor and implied boyfriend Quaestor Verus). Heck, just look at Hugh J. Magnate from that live action Fairly Oddparents movie, or even Syndrome from The Incredibles for that matter. THOSE are much closer to actual arrested development.

The final film killcount for Batman is as follows:

28 in the Buton/Schumacher films, mostly unnamed thugs who are killed by explosions, though some of those are actually killed by other thugs using explosives and Batman dodging them in such as way that other thugs get hit. He still definitely kills 10+ thugs and 2 supervillains using his own explosives though.

The Nolan films are a bit of a hard one to analyze since Batman kills tend to be kind of nondirect compared to the other films (i.e. people die from his actions, but he doesn't usually perform those actions with the intent to kill them). So, about 10 ninjas and the fake Ra's are killed in Batman Begins when explosives go off in their palace and the place collapses on them (caused by Batman flicking a hot poker into their explosive cache), Batman decides not to save Ra's from his killer train letting him die instead (technically a kill, but once again other factors), Batman rams one of Joker's trucks in the Dark Knight that probably killed its occupant when the front crumpled in, Batman killed Two Face by tackling him off a building to prevent him from shooting Gordon's son, and he shoots Talia al Ghul's truck, which gets her and the driver in an accident that kills her. So that's about 13-15 in total (depending on if the vehicle drivers also died).

Batman V Superman has Batman kill 21 people (about a dozen more in his dream, but that's just a dream).

Generally speaking, I prefer the concept that Batman doesn't kill, but with some qualifications. The no kill rule is based on the concept that the justice system itself is capable of handling the criminals that he brings in. Thus, if someone really should be executed (i.e. Joker), the state should really be deciding on that. Where the issue comes in however is that the Gotham state has arbitrarily decided that all criminals only commit crime because they are mentally insane, and thus Arkham Asylum exists, which is a revolving door of criminals. And then when you get someone evil like the Joker who just fakes being insane to torment and mock the system, well, obviously the state system can't work then. That's just the issue with the Joker though, he basically makes Batman seem stupid for holding to a no kill rule. The endgame of that is just like the Dark Knight Returns where Batman finally gets fed up with the Gotham state's incompetence and begins gunning for the Joker because he literally has to at that point. So in the end, is the Joker really just a meta commentary on the historic DC hero no kill rule? Quite possibly.

If someone wanted to make a film about a vigilante figure/s in the DC universe, the Question and Huntress team would be much better for the role since they don't have the same rules as the others by intention. If you had to do a film where "Batman" kills, you should really be doing something based on the Knightfall series using Jean-Paul in the Batman role rather than using Bruce Wayne.

"And then when you get someone evil like the Joker who just fakes being insane to torment and mock the system, well, obviously the state system can't work then."

It would be hard to make a case for saying that the Joker is actually sane. But he is not always portrayed as beyond redemption. J M DeMatteis wrote a story called Going Sane, in Legends of the Dark Knight 65-68, where the Joker, believing Batman dead, lost his compulsion to commit crime and, for a time, built a normal life for himself.

If you read Alan Moore's Killing Joke on its own terms, without preconceptions or ideas about canon, you might be surprised by the last page; it reads as a story where Batman finally does kill the Joker.

But - if Batman does kill the Joker, without the legalities that attend an execution, then he is a murderer. His life as a hero is over, and his life working tacitly with the police is over, and every moral principle he stood for is gone. I dont think any of the comics have really explored the fallout from his, shall we say, enhanced interrogation techniques; what would happen if someone had a heart attack while Batman was intimidating him into giving out information, what would happen if he did go after the wrong guy for once?

"If you read Alan Moore's Killing Joke on its own terms, without preconceptions or ideas about canon, you might be surprised by the last page; it reads as a story where Batman finally does kill the Joker."

Yeah, about that... not even the comic's script indicated that Batman killed Joker.

http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/08/17/the-killing-joke-script-proves-batman-didnt-kill-the-joker/

Besides, didn't Batman swear to Gordon in the same comic that he is to bring Joker in "by the book"? I'm doubtful he'd just up and out break his promise like that. More likely than not, Grant Morrison, the guy making that claim, was talking out of his butt. It wouldn't be the first time, based on some articles on here that have really negative commentary against Grant Morrison for some justified reasons.

Interesting how the script diverges from the way Brian Bolland drew it. In the script, panel 5 says that each of them is holding the other up as they stand there ragged in the rain. But the drawing shows Batman in an aggressive pose holding the Joker just below the neck, with the Joker's head twisted back in what could be pain or laughter and Batman's face twisted in a grin that looks menacing; and panel 6 shows only the Joker's hand going limp. And then we see only the rain in the puddles.

Brian Bolland, in his afterword to the Deluxe Edition, writes that 'people seemed to find the last page of the story ambiguous" so he tells us he will say what really happened: "as our protagonists stood there laughing in the rain at the final joke, the police lights reflecting in the pools of filthy water underfoot, the Batman's hand reached out and...." Full stop. Bolland ends his explanation right there in midsentence. But it is clear that he wants the reader to be left with the ambiguity of whether Batman did commit murder then or not. It is not just something that Morrison made up.

And I doubt Bolland would have made that subtle shift without either discussing it with Moore or being told to do it by him.

Calling it a no-kill policy trivializes the issue. Thou Shall Not Kill is one of the Ten Commandments. It is not one of God's ten non-binding administrative policy guidelines. It is a serious moral, ethical and religious issue, not a position paper. Turning Batman into BatMurderer would be more than just a policy change.

Batman's father was a doctor. Someone whose career was helping to save lives. Apart from everything else, wouldn't having him kill people be a betrayal of his father's legacy?

"Calling it a no-kill policy trivializes the issue. Thou Shall Not Kill is one of the Ten Commandments. It is not one of God's ten non-binding administrative policy guidelines. It is a serious moral, ethical and religious issue, not a position paper. Turning Batman into BatMurderer would be more than just a policy change."

"Thou Shall not kill" is a mistranslation. It was originally "thou shall not murder."


And I think the no-kill rule is stupid, too. Sometimes, superheroes SHOULD kill, if they have other option. It's no different than cops or soldiers having to kill people in tough situations.

""Thou Shall not kill" is a mistranslation. It was originally "thou shall not murder."


And I think the no-kill rule is stupid, too. Sometimes, superheroes SHOULD kill, if they have other option. It's no different than cops or soldiers having to kill people in tough situations."

I agree with you that the no-kill rule comes across as stupid, ESPECIALLY when the only reason it exists, at least in the case of Batman, is because the writers drunk too much of Friedrich Nietzsche's Kool-Aid, especially his abyss argument.

However, in regards to the whole "kill/murder" debate from the bible, I wish it were as simple as a mistranslation, but the problem is that Jesus's actions regarding his crucifixion makes it impossible to limit it to just murder. And believe me, were it just outright murder that was banned, Jesus could have easily used exact words to just slaughter the Roman officials with his divine powers when they tried to arrest him and cite "self-defense" precisely BECAUSE he knows they're inevitably going to kill him and not actually violate that commandment, since self-defense wasn't banned. You know, like Joker being a "man of his word" in The Dark Knight.

Wow, that is quite a power bump-up you have given Jesus! In Scripture, he performs miracles and has the gift of prophecy, but is not described as all-knowing and omnipotent. All his miracles are about healing and creation or transmutation, not about death or destruction. When you describe him as if he was a superhero exercising self-restraint, it just makes the Gospel sound childish and robs it of meaning.

The difference between Batman and a soldier or a cop is that, corny as it sounds, they are operating legally while he is a masked vigilante answerable only to himself. Cop's actions are subject to review by higher-ups and judges if they murder, soldiers have to follow the laws of war and are answerable to military tribunals; Batman operates outside the law. If he kills, he becomes a one-man lynch mob.

if he did kill, his cozy relationship with the cops would be over. And even if he was in a situation where the law would decide that he had a legitimate reason to kill, such as self-defence or to save the life of another, and that there was no lesser use of force that could have accomplish the same end, does he really want to have the cops bring him in to stand trial to justify himself?

The problem is, of course, that in the fictional world Batman is perfect and makes all the right decisions; he doesn't go after the wrong guy, he doesn't abuse his power. He is a law unto himself, but he is smarter than anyone else and his law is always just and his villains are irredeemably evil. No real life cop or soldier is inhumanly perfect like that, few real life crooks are that far gone, and so they need laws and rules.

"All his miracles are about healing and creation or transmutation, not about death or destruction."

I wouldn't say that. Let's not forget that Jesus did in fact curse a fig tree to wither and die, so he's most certainly got powers relating to death and/or destruction that he most certainly could use if he so wanted to. It's in Gospel of Matthew 21:18-22.

"The difference between Batman and a soldier or a cop is that, corny as it sounds, they are operating legally while he is a masked vigilante answerable only to himself."

If he were solely answerable to himself, he'd have no reason to even cozy up to the cops, and if anything, he'd attack cops seeing them as no different from criminals (and I don't mean crooked cops, I also mean honest cops, be essentially Two-Face with a cowl).

And I'd argue that real life crooks are in fact far further gone than you might think. Look at Karl Marx, for example, or Marquis de Sade, or Vladimir Lenin, or Robespierre, or even Jean Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault, not to mention Nietzsche.

It is scary, and unchristian, when you lump together people who have real blood on their hands with people who have done nothing other than have ideas you disagree with, and describe them all as crooks - and, looking at your words in the context of this discussion, as crooks so far gone that they deserve death. De Sade was brutal and did his time in prison, Lenin and Robespierre have blood on their hands (although it is weird to describe them as crooks, since they acted for the most part with surface legality, through the intrumentality of the state). But the worst actual crime Sartre ever committed that I can think of, apart from advocating existentialism, was advocating for the assassination of French collaborators in the midst of the Nazi occupation, without ever actually killing any of them, and Nietzche led an overwhelmingly boring life. Michel Foucault led a libertine lifestyle, and initially spoke of AIDS the way Donald Trump initially spoke of the coronavirus, but that does not make him a crook. Certainly not one deserving of murder because he was so far gone that he is beyond redemption.

"De Sade was brutal and did his time in prison"

Clearly not enough, considering that people like Joseph LeBon and Baptiste Carrier emulated him and his views even AFTER Robespierre, in one of the few GOOD things he ever did, locked that sick puppy back up. Not to mention him, you know, outright jumpstarting the French Revolution or at the very least Bastille Day by literally inciting a riot via a jury-rigged megaphone.

"Lenin and Robespierre have blood on their hands (although it is weird to describe them as crooks, since they acted for the most part with surface legality, through the intrumentality of the state)."

Won't comment on Robespierre, but Lenin most certainly didn't act with legality, and in fact, he would have utterly hated the very concept of legality and would NEVER have wanted even the PRETENSE of acting legally. I suggest you read up this article about him and his views, it makes clear that he if anything wanted legality of any sort erased: https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/10/leninthink

"But the worst actual crime Sartre ever committed that I can think of, apart from advocating existentialism, was advocating for the assassination of French collaborators in the midst of the Nazi occupation, without ever actually killing any of them"

Which only shows how much of an utter self-serving hypocrite he actually was since, far from being a resistance member, he was consistently supporting the Nazis, and even had the audacity to denounce Charles de Gaulle, an ACTUAL resistance fighter, as a Nazi collaborator. Besides, that's FAR from his worst crime. During the Algerian revolution, he openly advocated for the Algerians to kill his fellow Frenchmen. I believe his exact words were, and I quote, "[For a black man] to shoot down an European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time." In the book The Wretched of the Earth's preface. He also frequently lied and defended the USSR, even AFTER Stalin's atrocities came to the forefront, and then cozied up with Mao Zedong, who was an even more depraved tyrant than even the likes of Stalin, let alone Hitler. Oh, and apparently, he had a hand in the massacres committed by the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot in Cambodia (since apparently, Pol Pot just so happened to be one of Sartre's students, and he evidently took his lessons to heart), and he defended the creeps who did the terror attacks at Munich, and even went as far as to imply that the Jacobins should have killed even MORE people than they did (and him basically being responsible for a psychotic man like Che Guevara, a guy who deliberately tries to emulate Stalin and especially Mao Zedong, being falsely called the most complete human being of the century, when if anything a more fitting epithet for him is "the most complete MONSTER of the century"). And that's not even counting his rather sick and despicable treatment of various women who managed to look up to him DESPITE his deformities. I can assure you, his direct hand in Cambodia was MUCH worse of a crime than him demanding that collaborators be assassinated.

"Nietzche led an overwhelmingly boring life."

Well, aside from instigating the Nazis' views on life, including portions of the Holocaust, and advocated the complete dismantlement of Christianity, yeah, I guess he DID lead a boring life.

"Michel Foucault led a libertine lifestyle, and initially spoke of AIDS the way Donald Trump initially spoke of the coronavirus, but that does not make him a crook."

When he knowingly infected countless people with AIDS after discovering he had it, yeah, actually, he DOES qualify as a crook. And don't get me started on his throwing rocks at the police during his radicalization of Vincennes University as part of a solidarity movement with Sorbonne University's protest a month prior (which most certainly DOES make him a crook).

"Certainly not one deserving of murder because he was so far gone that he is beyond redemption."

That's the guy who advocated basically rehashing the September Massacres in a debate with Maoists, probably one of the worst aspects of the French Revolution, and arguably even MORE lawless and horrific than Robespierre's Reign of Terror (and that's saying a lot, considering how utterly depraved THAT bit was, with it already being bad enough that Sartre and Marx wanted to reenact and make even gorier that kind of event.), and his views on the world were sick enough that even Noam Chomsky, who's no conservative by any stretch, was downright disturbed by him and his views. In fact, he's probably the closest to a real world version of the Joker in overall outlook on life.

Nice to know that armchair philosophers can have so much influence on history.

But what happened to the Nietszche of a few comments back, you know, the unrealistic namby-pamby guy who said that if you fight evil with evil you become evil yourself? He died in 1900. How does he get the blame for both Batman's code against killing and Hitler's mass slaughter, all at once?

And De Gaulle was in England during the war; he couldn't have collaborated even if he had wanted to. How could Sartre have called him a collabo? Sartre has been accused at the worst of buttering up Nazi officials while under Nazi rule; if he did, does that rate as collaboration or survival?

With Foucault, no-one knows whether he knowingly infected anyone with AIDS or not, but most likely he did not. He was engaging in risky behaviour at a time when he was sceptical of the existence and reality of a 'gay plague' and the disease was still new; anything else is just speculation.

By this standard, you would have to say Jesus is a crook because he caused the Crusades and the Inquisition and the Troubles in Northern Ireland; that Mahatma Gandhi is a crook because he caused the slaughter of Muslims after partition; that Einstein is a crook because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; that Euclid is a crook because he made possible the science of ballistics; that Trump should be hung for the massacre at Christchurch. When did it become moral to say that people should be murdered for the use other people make of their ideas?

Maybe you have looked into Nietzsche's abyss for too long.

"But what happened to the Nietszche of a few comments back, you know, the unrealistic namby-pamby guy who said that if you fight evil with evil you become evil yourself? He died in 1900. How does he get the blame for both Batman's code against killing and Hitler's mass slaughter, all at once?"

Oh, believe me, it's all too common for people like him to be contradictory. Nietzsche, I mean. Hideo Kojima, for example, was staunchly against nuclear weapons, yet he had absolutely no problems with singing praises to Maoist China and Che Guevara. Same goes for George Lucas, who sang praises for the Vietcong enough to actually model the protagonists of Star Wars' original trilogy after them explicitly, yet adheres to anti-war views. And when they specifically attribute Nietzsche to their actions, yes, he gets the blame as well, ESPECIALLY if he deliberately tried to push said views to ensure that. He created "Ubermensch" to destroy Christian morality and leave it all relative. Heck, forget Nazis, he inspired post-modernists as well.

"And De Gaulle was in England during the war; he couldn't have collaborated even if he had wanted to. How could Sartre have called him a collabo? Sartre has been accused at the worst of buttering up Nazi officials while under Nazi rule; if he did, does that rate as collaboration or survival?"

Actually, he was a collaborator, not merely trying to survive. In fact, after France was liberated, he actually claimed Vichy France was more free than under de Gaulle. And like I said, his hand in Cambodia, including training Pol Pot, is FAR worse than even his ties to the Nazis.

"With Foucault, no-one knows whether he knowingly infected anyone with AIDS or not, but most likely he did not. He was engaging in risky behaviour at a time when he was sceptical of the existence and reality of a 'gay plague' and the disease was still new; anything else is just speculation."

Actually, there's sufficient evidence that he definitely knew, or at the very least suspected, that he was infected with AIDS when he infected others, as you can see in these articles: http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-perversions-of-M--Foucault-4714

https://www.wnd.com/2014/08/america-exceptionally-good-or-exceptionally-evil/

"By this standard, you would have to say Jesus is a crook because he caused the Crusades and the Inquisition and the Troubles in Northern Ireland; that Mahatma Gandhi is a crook because he caused the slaughter of Muslims after partition; that Einstein is a crook because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; that Euclid is a crook because he made possible the science of ballistics; that Trump should be hung for the massacre at Christchurch. When did it become moral to say that people should be murdered for the use other people make of their ideas?"

When they created those things with the specific INTENT of trying to inflict pain and misery onto others, or at least trying to destroy something, YES, actually, they DO count as crooks that deserve death. Unforeseeable factors is an exemption to that rule.

And considering Sartre is a Communist stooge, willingly supported the Communist movement even when his fellow leftists tried to move away from it after Stalin's crimes got exposed and if anything became even MORE extreme about supporting it, yes, actually, he FULLY intended for his ideas to be implemented for the worst. You can also read up Intellectuals by Paul Johnson, which goes into further detail of just how much of a moral degenerate he was. Same goes for Foucault, where he among other things openly advocated just slaughtering everyone upon taking power. Heck, if anything, he's even MORE radical than Karl Marx and Sartre, those guys only stopped at the Reign of Terror, he wanted a rehash of the September Massacres, as you could see here: https://web.archive.org/web/20141114060055/http://www4.uwm.edu/c21/conferences/2008since1968/foucault_maoists.pdf And here's a couple of links regarding the debate with Michel Foucault and Chomsky: https://chomsky.info/1971xxxx/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TUD4gfvtDY And here's the bits about slaughtering everyone upon taking power: "When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the proletariat will exert towards the classes over which it has just triumphed, a violent, dictatorial and even bloody power. I can’t see what objection one could make to this."

"I would like to reply to you in terms of Spinoza and say that the proletariat doesn’t wage war against the ruling class because it considers such a war to be just. The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because, for the first time in history, it wants to take power. And because it will overthrow the power of the ruling class it considers such a war to be just."

Chomsky even stated afterward that it felt as if they were from two different moral universes after the debate and was left disturbed. And Chomsky is no conservative, and in fact, he continues to sing praises for the likes of the Khmer Rouge and bash America for the genocides there. So if even the likes of him was deeply disturbed by what Foucault advocated, it's pretty obvious Foucault's pretty horrific in his outlook and views.

And Trump had absolutely NOTHING to do with that Christchurch massacre. That was a bunch of radical muslims who would have tried to slaughter them anyway.

And there are plenty of Christian men who did slaughter people for mere disagreements. Case in point, Charlemagne and Charles the Hammer. In fact, even Jesus advocated going and spreading the gospel across the four corners of the world, and that can truly only be done via conquest and subjugation. God didn't tolerate differing viewpoints, either.

The Christchurch terrorist wrote that he supported Trump "As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a police maker and leader? Dear god no."

As for "And there are plenty of Christian men who did slaughter people for mere disagreements. Case in point, Charlemagne and Charles the Hammer. In fact, even Jesus advocated going and spreading the gospel across the four corners of the world, and that can truly only be done via conquest and subjugation. God didn't tolerate differing viewpoints, either." ....

You really have been staring into that abyss too long.

Oh, you're talking about the New Zealand shooter? I thought you were talking about that nut last year that struck on Easter.

In any case, the shooter made it very clear that he had more support for the Chicoms and socialism and held Conservativism in utter contempt, so no, if anything, his shootings were more because he adhered to Communism and was more likely to be a Bernie supporter.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/31759-christchurch-shooter-praises-communist-china-condemns-conservatism-and-capitalism-media-call-him-a-trump-supporter

And say what you want, it's still what happened. Or have you forgotten that Charlemagne, or was it Charles the Hammer, outright slaughtered various pagans if they refused to convert? If anything, tolerating differences in mindset is the TRUE anti-Christian thought process. It was tolerance that got King Louis XVI killed and Christendom destroyed.

Why would you worship a God of slaughter?

You are describing an evil nihilistic deity whom man has a moral obligation to abandon.

"Why would you worship a God of slaughter?

You are describing an evil nihilistic deity whom man has a moral obligation to abandon."

Yeah, actually, we have a moral obligation to STAY with God, want to know why? Because God CREATED morality, so the moral obligation to abandon him doesn't even exist, as he has totalitarian control over everything even WITH our free will.

As far as why I'd worship such a God? Simple. Aside from the fact that he would slaughter me if I don't, there's also the fact that having a God that cowers over possibly breaking the rules like, say, Lamar Bone when confronted with breaking one of the rules he made doesn't match up with the Bible at all, Old or New Testament.

Are you really advocating the worship of a god who created morality but cannot be bothered to act with morality and justice in his governance of the universe?

According to the Bible, man has independent knowledge of good and evil, and in that respect is like a god. This means that man does have moral choice and obligation, apart from God's control or even in defiance of it.

Genesis 3:5 - "For God knows that on the day you eat of the tree [in the midst of the garden] your eyes will be opened and you will become as gods knowing good and evil."

Genesis 3:22 - "And the Lord God said, 'Now that the human has become like one of us, knowing good and evil...."

First of all, Genesis 3:5 was stated by the Serpent, aka, Satan. And last I checked, that's NOT how it turned out. They didn't become gods. If anything, they were reduced to even LESS than that.

Second of all, no, man DOESN'T have moral choice or obligation apart from God's control, heck, even in defiance of it. If we did, God would NOT be considered omnipotent, or even omniscient. At most, we might have slight autonomy, but not enough to even have any way of unseating God. Think of it along the lines of the Sons of Liberty terrorist group in Metal Gear Solid 2 and how the Patriots manipulated their actions and their not knowing that (and would still have required enough free will to even CONSIDER defying the Patriots in any case).

Third of all, when I think of someone who rules with morality and justice in the terms you defined it as regarding God, I think of Lamar Bone from Doug, more specifically during his nervous breakdown when he realized that he had unknowingly broken his rule of not snatching papers during Saturday detention. Another example would be like how X from Day of Sigma freezes up regarding a reploid-shield situation twice, not to mention disarming himself despite Sigma very obviously planning to launch nukes at Abel City due to being terrified of killing those in the crossfire. In other words, he'd be so bound by his rules, bound by his Ten Commandments, Laws of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, that most if not ALL of the events in the Bible that he caused would NEVER have happened (no flooding of the earth, no blowing up Sodom and Gomorrah, no Exodus, certainly no plagues, no blowing up a well, no nothing), and that doesn't strike me as being at all impressive, and in fact, it comes cross as utterly weak, and I DON'T envision God as a weakling. Besides, Zeus was literally considered the God of law and justice, and he flagrantly ignored several laws he enacted. Morality and justice REQUIRES rules, in other words.

Genesis 3:22 is stated by the Lord, aka God.

According to the Bible, Adam and Eve, Earth and Life, did not become gods. Unlike gods, they were or became mortal, and were exiled from Eden to prevent them from eating of the tree of eternal life and gaining immortality. But they had acquired a moral awareness that they lacked before, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, which was seen as a moral property of gods.

So, no, they did not become the kind of god that can zap people to death with deity rays, but they became moral beings, capable of judgment. the Bible is not a video game or a kid's cartoon; credit its narrative and metaphors with a bit more subtlety and meaning than Day of Sigma.

As Abraham asked God in Genesis 18:25, "Will not the judge of all the earth do justice?"

If a god who adheres to his own laws is weak, does that mean men who follow his laws are also utterly weak? Is doing what is right a weakness or a strength?

"Genesis 3:22 is stated by the Lord, aka God."

Except humanity already HAD knowledge of good and evil even before biting into that apple. If they didn't, why would they even NEED to disobey God's rule of NOT eating from the tree of knowledge at all? Obeying rules, especially those laid out by God = good. Disobeying them = evil. It's that simple, and is explicitly what God stated.

"If a god who adheres to his own laws is weak, does that mean men who follow his laws are also utterly weak? Is doing what is right a weakness or a strength?"

If adhering to his own laws in the most absolute unbinding manner is what ends up ALLOWING criminals to commit crimes out of sheer terror of breaking his own laws, yes, actually, it DOES make said men weak, as it does God (the entire POINT of justice and enforcing laws is to STOP crime and criminals, heck, doing what's right literally ENTAILS stopping criminals, crime, and making sure only God's will remains). In fact, that's even EXACTLY the point behind that story about Jesus defying the whole "don't work on the Sabbath" rule to help out some guy and denouncing the Pharisees and their laws as hypocritical (and no, he was NOT referring to the Laws of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers, but rather the further add-ons with that Oral Torah business).

And for a judge of earth doing justice, he certainly broke his own rules a few times in the process. Ignoring the slaughters he did with the great flood, Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, and his hand in the Malenkite genocide via Saul, there's also the fact that during Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, he flat out LIED to Abraham (he knew since before day one of creation that Sodom and Gomorrah was fated to be destroyed by him due to their sinful nature, that being the definition of omniscience after all, yet STILL led Abraham to believe that they could be saved by doing that barter game. Last I checked, telling someone something you knew full well beforehand was not even close to being true by ANY stretch IS the definition lying. That's certainly the definition my parents gave. Had he been truthful... well, let's just say God would have eschewed with the barter game altogether and basically treated Abraham like Bahamut treated Ardyn Izunia when he refused to become a fallguy while ranting at Abraham that doing a barter game against an omnipotent and omniscient being is futile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJX4tEr7NIk&t=237s ). He didn't suffer any punishment from it, and if anything, he got away with breaking the law precisely BECAUSE he's God and can do whatever he wishes. Sin is meaningless if he does it, in other words, just like in the case of Zeus.

"So, no, they did not become the kind of god that can zap people to death with deity rays, but they became moral beings, capable of judgment. the Bible is not a video game or a kid's cartoon; credit its narrative and metaphors with a bit more subtlety and meaning than Day of Sigma."

They were already moral beings aware of good and evil (heck, if anything, they LOST their morality when they ate from that tree). They knew God told them not to eat there, they did so anyways, tricked by the serpent or not, so they STILL had moral choices even before then.

And the example of Lamar Bone was more of an example of what would happen with a guy TOO obsessed with ruling with justice (I can tell you one thing, he wasn't like the hypocritical Pharisees who literally operated under "rules for thee, not for me". Actually, if anything, he was EXTREMELY harsh and merciless regarding dispensing his rules, reporting students onto permanent records for even the tiniest infractions, practically the embodiment of the zero-tolerance policy, yet if that scene was of any indication, he's so obsessed with the rules he created he constantly goes out of his way to ensure he himself follows it to the letter no matter the cost to him, even having an outright mental and emotional breakdown when he himself violated one of those rules, which is NOT something a hypocrite would do. He's a zealot, in other words.). As far as X, he was created by Dr. Light essentially to ensure that, even WITH his unlimited potential (that's even why he's named "X") and possessing free will (the first robot to actually do so), he still follows morality to the letter, and in fact, the story even insinuates that his hesitation in combat, while a problem, is also an outlet of his inner potential (and it's no trivial matter either, it's literally what CAUSED Sigma to do that crap of launching nukes at Abel City in the first place, to get X to draw out his unlimited potential. At the very least, it acted as added incentive.).

EDIT: Sorry, here's the full video regarding Ardyn: https://youtu.be/PJX4tEr7NIk And here's the video for the specific full part of the defy destiny ending: https://youtu.be/PJX4tEr7NIk?t=173

One interesting detail of the Eden story that I had not noticed before until these postings started discussing it. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they moved from a way of thinking in which they only knew obedience or disobedience, to a way of thinking in which they had the god-like quality of judgment. And, as the story goes, they saw that they were naked and covered themselves with fig leaves. God was angry, and to prevent them from eating of the tree of immortality exiles them from the garden. But when he does, he does not leave them in their fig leaves; God makes them clothing of animal skins for them to wear before he sends them into exile.

So compassion and caring is part of His judgments and punishments.

But as for your interpretation of Christianity - it is one in which might makes right, and morality is following orders. I would have thought that kind of belief was discredited and rejected 75 years ago. It is certainly antithetical to most mainstream Christian beliefs. It is as if you disregard Scripture when it contradicts what is taught by uber-violent videogames.

"(the entire POINT of justice and enforcing laws is to STOP crime and criminals, heck, doing what's right literally ENTAILS stopping criminals, crime, and making sure only God's will remains)."

That is not the ENTIRE point. Justice also is there to ensure that people accused of crime get a fair trial, so that innocent people are not punished for crimes they did not commit, and guilty people get punishment that is not out of proportion to the crime.

"But as for your interpretation of Christianity - it is one in which might makes right, and morality is following orders. I would have thought that kind of belief was discredited and rejected 75 years ago. It is certainly antithetical to most mainstream Christian beliefs. It is as if you disregard Scripture when it contradicts what is taught by uber-violent videogames."

If you're implying that mainstream Christians adhered to Nazi beliefs before 1945, that's false. Actually, the Nazis contrary to popular belief as well as Eli Wiesel were actually pagans, explicitly pagan in fact by even their own admission. And Hitler forming "Nazi Christianity" is not even close to confirming they are Christian, any more than Stalin helming the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II proves he's Christian.

Also, the Nazis' views are reflected in the Hippie movement, and in fact, the Hippies even adhered to the Nazis' views in everything, including the environmentalist movement. You could even say the Nazis were more comparable to the Soviets than they are to Christianity.

Also, God by doing his actions with Sodom and Gomorrah, the great flood, the massacre of the Amalenkites via Saul, and the seven plagues DOES ultimately adhere to a might makes right view. If he didn't, he'd act like a wimp, period, not even use his powers at all, not even to defend his creation. And as far as requiring absolute obedience to God, he literally DEMANDS absolute obedience to him absolutely, as can be seen with the Ten Commandments, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, or how about how Mary obeyed God to the letter, and was considered immaculately conceived as a result. In fact, if absolute obedience to him WASN'T required to be moral, why the heck did he even create those rules in the first place?!

And video games weren't the only things I'm going by. I also go by anime and manga. Like, I don't know, Zeno from Dragon Ball Super, who was described as being pure of heart like Goku, innocent, decent, child-like, and all of that and yet... well, the following sequence ought to give some insight to the character, not necessarily good:

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1BzO0Tc0ws

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x97AR2Xj-oM

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYCY5aAodxM

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKTM_dxFmN0

(cont'd) And bear in mind, three out of four of those were from the anime and English dub. Did I also mention he was the absolute strongest out there?

The manga's even worse, in that regard, as you can see here:

https://i.imgur.com/VYTcj0u.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/NshBzhu.jpg

Bear in mind, this was the same guy who flat out erased a universe/timeline out of disgust for a guy trying to exterminate all mortals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zemaTlkH9Zk

And I also go by films as well, like Raiders of the Lost Ark's climax and Matrix Reloaded's Architect scene. Heck, as evidenced by the specific acts God has committed in prior posts, heck, what Jesus pulled off, I even cited stuff directly FROM the bible.

And as far as compassion, considering what Malesherbes did with the Encyclopedie and its writers by interfering with police raids and allowing them to print the encyclopedie, even while being loyal to King Louis XVI, not to mention Louis XVI's loss of nerve towards the mob and telling his men to stand down despite their obviously intending to off him, that gives me even MORE reason to not see how God would allow himself to be compassionate. At least Jesus rose from the dead. Here: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Encyclopedists

"That is not the ENTIRE point. Justice also is there to ensure that people accused of crime get a fair trial, so that innocent people are not punished for crimes they did not commit, and guilty people get punishment that is not out of proportion to the crime."

God already blew up two community including children, and ordered for the Amalkenites to be exterminated of everyone and everything (even punishing Saul when he ended up sparing some of them). It's already out of proportion as it is, his actions. God is ultimately like Injustice Superman, to put it another way.

No one, not even Elie Wiesel as far as I know, is saying that Christianity held to Nazi beliefs, even if some Christians were Nazis, and there was no intention of insulting the religion, now or historically. Hitler vacillated on his opinion of Christianity; he thought Christianity was a religion of weakness, one that exalted martyrdom rather than strength, but he did make his peace with Christianity and the Church for reasons of realpolitik.

The point is that the legitimacy of a belief in the morality and lawfulness of just following orders died at Nuremburg.

Hippies were mostly anarchists, which is as far from fascism as you can get.

Making laws is incompatible with a demand for absolute obedience. Once you make rules, people have independent principles to follow, rather than direct commands.

"No one, not even Elie Wiesel as far as I know, is saying that Christianity held to Nazi beliefs, even if some Christians were Nazis, and there was no intention of insulting the religion, now or historically. Hitler vacillated on his opinion of Christianity; he thought Christianity was a religion of weakness, one that exalted martyrdom rather than strength, but he did make his peace with Christianity and the Church for reasons of realpolitik."

I wouldn't say that. Hitler DID have several Christians locked up in camps for their religion, and if ChurchMilitant is to be believed, the number of Christians locked up actually outnumbered that of his primary targets, the Jewish people. Not to mention he actually attempted to have Pope Pius XII abducted when he proved to be a thorn in his side, and one of his generals had to barely talk him out of it.

"The point is that the legitimacy of a belief in the morality and lawfulness of just following orders died at Nuremburg."

Too bad that didn't stop them from letting Soviets get away with THEIR war crimes, even helming the Nuremberg Trials. Besides, by that logic, God needs to be tried as a war criminal for King Saul's actions, especially when he directly ordered for that genocide.

"Hippies were mostly anarchists, which is as far from fascism as you can get."

Not really. Anarchists actually have a lot in common with Marxism, Socialism, and, yes, even Fascism. In fact, did you know that Fascism was a modification of Marxism specifically made to take into account how World War I proved Marx wrong about all the European workers exploiting the war to rise up against their masters? Besides, technically, the Nazis weren't Fascists, they were Socialists, and anarchism actually falls in line with socialists. Just ask the French Revolutionaries, or even Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx who both wanted Communism to repeat with more gore the Reign of Terror.

"Making laws is incompatible with a demand for absolute obedience. Once you make rules, people have independent principles to follow, rather than direct commands."

Actually, making laws is fully compatible with a demand for absolute obedience. In fact, the entire POINT of rules and laws is to obey them absolutely and without question. It was the case in the school system, heck it was even the case in the Bible. Those who obey God's rules lived, those who didn't were severely punished. Besides, using your argument, the Old Republic from Star Wars represents law and order well despite ignoring most of their laws to the extent that they're unenforceable, even the ban on slavery.

Hitler put into concentration camps prisoners of war, political opponents, Spaniards who had fought against fascism in the Spanish civil war, common criminals, homosexuals, gypsies. Many of the people in each of these categories were Christians. He also put into the camps those christians, including priests and nuns, who had recent Jewish ancestors and so were of the Jewish ‘race’ according to his Nuremberg laws. He did not put Protestants or Catholics into the camps for being Protestants or Catholics, although he did imprison and have killed the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There was a hierarchy in the camps; the common criminals were at the top of the prisoner hierarchy, and the Jews at the bottom. Christians in the camps were treated less horribly than the Jewish prisoners.

There are allegations that Hitler considered kidnapping the Pope. There is no documentary evidence in support, and many historians think it is fake news, originating in war-time British propaganda.

Fascists, Marxists and socialists all believe in a strong central government with control of the economy. Communists believe it should be run to benefit working people of all races, fascists believe it should be run in coordination with the interests of corporations and rich people, Nazis for the benefit of the national race. Anarchists do not believe in any state authority of any kind; Marxists like that state of freedom as a goal for the end of days or when the messiah comes, but think they need a strong state dictatorship for now.

Fascism is a modification of capitalism made to take into account the disasters of the Great Depression, and the need for central control and coordination of government and business interests to cure economic devastation.

It is impossible to obey laws absolutely and without question, because all laws can be interpreted in more than one way, different laws often conflict with each other, and the application of any general law to specific circumstances always raises new questions.

By the way, what would have been the fate of Middle Earth if Bilbo had killed Gollum when he had the chance? Where would the Avengers have been if Iron Man and the X-Men had killed off Black Widow, Hawkeye, Magneto and Wanda and Pietro back when they were villains an served communist masters or described themselves as evil mutants? Sometimes mercy is good. Even in fiction.

"Hitler put into concentration camps prisoners of war, political opponents, Spaniards who had fought against fascism in the Spanish civil war, common criminals, homosexuals, gypsies. Many of the people in each of these categories were Christians. He also put into the camps those christians, including priests and nuns, who had recent Jewish ancestors and so were of the Jewish ‘race’ according to his Nuremberg laws. He did not put Protestants or Catholics into the camps for being Protestants or Catholics, although he did imprison and have killed the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There was a hierarchy in the camps; the common criminals were at the top of the prisoner hierarchy, and the Jews at the bottom. Christians in the camps were treated less horribly than the Jewish prisoners."

Tell that to Church Militant. Besides, Bill Donovan compiled a 150-bound volume series of evidence confirming that the Christians were ALSO on the chopping block. https://creation.com/nazis-planned-to-exterminate-christianity Even IF the Jews got it worse than the Christians, it's not by much.

"There are allegations that Hitler considered kidnapping the Pope. There is no documentary evidence in support, and many historians think it is fake news, originating in war-time British propaganda."

Actually, there IS one set of documentary evidence proving it: Dan Kurzman's book "A Special Mission." Bear in mind this was released back in 2012. Besides, I'd argue The Deputy, the thing claiming that Pope Pius XII was a Nazi collaborator, was the real fake news (and that's the one most historians think was ally true). Heck, even the left-wing rag the Guardian confirmed back in 2005 that Hitler DID in fact try to abduct the Pope weeks before the Nazis fled Italy.

"Fascists, Marxists and socialists all believe in a strong central government with control of the economy. Communists believe it should be run to benefit working people of all races, fascists believe it should be run in coordination with the interests of corporations and rich people, Nazis for the benefit of the national race. Anarchists do not believe in any state authority of any kind; Marxists like that state of freedom as a goal for the end of days or when the messiah comes, but think they need a strong state dictatorship for now."

Actually, Sartre's an anarchist who helped found the French Communist party. And let's not forget, Marx advocated for the complete annihilation of the state AS WELL AS the various classes. I can also list Noam Chomsky, who is a libertarian socialist AND an anarchist, and also Sacco and Vanzetti. Oh, and Bill Ayers as well. He uses flags supporting anarchism and considers himself both an anarchist AND a communist. Heck, just look at the New Left. Even the guy who founded anarchism, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, advocated for socialistic policies (case in point, he stated the phrase "property is theft"). And let's not forget the first instance of anarchy: The French Revolution, where they all but destroyed the state, and then had everyone go wild and slaughter each other a'la what Joker envisioned the world as. Any infighting is more like why Penguin and Joker fight each other in gang battles.

"It is impossible to obey laws absolutely and without question, because all laws can be interpreted in more than one way, different laws often conflict with each other, and the application of any general law to specific circumstances always raises new questions."

Last I checked, "Thou Shalt Not Kill/Murder" doesn't exactly allow for much legroom or alternate interpretations. Nor does "A Man Shalt Not Sleep With A Man As If With A Woman, For It Is An Abomination."

"By the way, what would have been the fate of Middle Earth if Bilbo had killed Gollum when he had the chance? Where would the Avengers have been if Iron Man and the X-Men had killed off Black Widow, Hawkeye, Magneto and Wanda and Pietro back when they were villains an served communist masters or described themselves as evil mutants? Sometimes mercy is good. Even in fiction."

It certainly wasn't good for Beast, got stabbed in the back when he spared Gaston (and if it weren't for Belle saying I love you at the last possible second, he most certainly WOULD have died by that point). Same goes for Goku sparing Dr. Gero (boy did that come back to haunt him and the rest of the world BIG time, including an alternate future which WOULD have been the main future had Trunks not interfered). It certainly wasn't good for Malesherbes or King Louis XVI, who constantly capitulated to the French Revolutionary mobs and bent backwards to accommodate them as acts of mercy, and in the case of Malesherbes secretly aided the likes of Voltaire and Diderot, who exploited free speech to try and destroy Christianity. Want to know what happened to those two? They lost their heads, literally. Heck, Saul was merciful to the Amalenkites by sparing a few people. That resulted in God losing favor of him, and promptly replacing him with King David after Goliath was dealt with.

As far as your examples, at least with Gollum, it was made clear by Gandalf that the latter still had a role to play regarding ending the One Ring, and Sauron with him, so there was an actual reason to be merciful to him. The others, just more villains that are stopped.

And just so we're clear, by "those two", I meant Louis XVI and Malesherbes.

“Last I checked, "Thou Shalt Not Kill/Murder" doesn't exactly allow for much legroom or alternate interpretations.”

What about in self-defence? Or as a soldier in time of war? Or in carrying out a death sentence imposed by a court of justice? Does it apply only to human beings, or does it also apply to some or all animals? Is suicide prohibited? What about people who are terminally ill and brain dead? Can one allow death through inaction if one has the ability to save a life? Does it depend on the degree of risk in which you place yourself by trying to save the other person, or the amount of effort that would be required?

“Nor does "A Man Shalt Not Sleep With A Man As If With A Woman, For It Is An Abomination." ”

Sleep is a euphemism, but for which specific sexual practices? There is a whole range of sexual practices in which men can engage with each other - are all prohibited or only some? Should this be extended to prohibit lesbianism by analogy, or is it not an abomination for a woman to sleep with a woman as if she were a man? What about someone who is born inter-sex? Or someone who has undergone sex-change surgery?

"Tell that to Church Militant. Besides, Bill Donovan compiled a 150-bound volume series of evidence confirming that the Christians were ALSO on the chopping block. https://creation.com/nazis-planned-to-exterminate-christianity Even IF the Jews got it worse than the Christians, it's not by much."

You are mixing up apples and tennis balls here. There is an argument to be made that Hitler wanted to turn Germans away from Christianity over the long term and destroy the Churches as institutions, although he was by no means consistent about this. That is what the website you give the link for talks about. But he was not out to kill the Christian population. On the other hand, he meant to exterminate each and every ethnic Jew, even ones of the Christian faith, in the most dehumanizing way possible.

I would say that the Jews had it a lot worse.

Don't forget, the overwhelming majority of citizens of the Reich were Christians. If he treated them like he did the Jews, there would have been nobody left in Germany. He shot his country in the foot by getting rid of all its Jewish soldiers and scientists; if he got rid of the Christians too, there would have been no army left to lead, and no herrenvolk left.

"Don't forget, the overwhelming majority of citizens of the Reich were Christians."

So? The overwhelming majority of citizens of the Russian Empire/USSR as well as the Kingdom of France under Louis XVI were also Christian as well. Never stopped Lenin and his successors until the USSR's fall, to say little about Robespierre and his ilk in the first French Republic, after dethroning and beheading Louis XVI no less, from trying to wage a dechristianization campaign that amounted to outright mass-slaughter both times (with a brief relaxing period during World War II due purely to pragmatic reasons on Stalin's part thanks to, you know, having to deal with Hitler's Operation Barbarossa, and once the war was no longer an issue, he and his cronies went right back to massacring and rounding up every single Christian they could get in Russia, and in fact, he even tried conduct his own Holocaust as well, called the Doctor's Plot. And Robespierre's arguably worse, as he ended up trying to up and out destroy Christians outright even when claiming they have to deal with neighboring countries in a war like Austria via saber-rattling, even exterminated Vendee as a result.). Heck, Karl Marx advocated for a whole dechristianization campaign against Germany and the entire world, and even advocated for a similar campaign against Jews as well (and in that regard, he's actually even WORSE than Hitler. As bad as Hitler even CONSIDERING the holocaust was, let alone enacting it, at least with Hitler, whatever Jewish blood he had from his maternal grandfather's illicit affair would have been diluted enough that he barely even qualified as a Jew, though still enough that had the Nazis been consistent, Hitler HIMSELF would end up thrown into the camps via a coup. Marx, on the other hand, was very much a 100% ethnic Jew who actually wanted to commit outright genocide against his own ethnicity. Would YOU want to exterminate YOUR OWN ethnic group? I couldn't even stomach the idea of outright annihilating my own ethnic group.). Do you REALLY think Hitler's NOT going to exterminate Christians when the time came? Heck, by the War's closure, Hitler actually ATTEMPTED to go out of his way to slaughter Christians as well, as can be read up on that link, and also his attempt at kidnapping the Pope. Had Robespierre as well as Lenin, Stalin, and the rest of those guys succeeded, BTW, there probably wouldn't even be a France and Russia left at all, either (and in Russia's case at least, they also tried to exterminate Jews. In fact, there's even an anecdote that Leon Trotsky's old Rabbi tried to beg the Soviets from massacring Jews, only for Leon to coldly state he's not Jewish but an internationalist, causing the Rabbi to dryly comment in response "Of course. The Trotskys create the revolution, and the Bronskys are destroyed by it." [note: Leon Trotsky's birth name is Lev Bronsky.]. And bear in mind, this was back under the days of Lenin, BEFORE Stalin's Doctor's Plot accelerated things against the Jews, so Religious Jewish extermination by the Soviets was common since its founding, heck, even ethnic Jewish extermination [since Kaganovich almost got killed for being a Jew and only survived because he backed Stalin at the last minute after Lenin bit the dust].). So the long and the short of it is, if the Bolsheviks and Communist Party, not to mention the various French Revolutionary groups (Girondins, Jacobins, Cordeliers, Enrages, you name it) were willing to try and outright exterminate and dehumanize Christians even when pragmatically speaking it would shoot their country in the foot if they did so, make no mistake, Hitler will ultimately do the exact same thing himself when push came to shove.

And quite frankly, a lot of Christians were REALLY dehumanized during that time in Nazi Germany (for goodness sakes, about 700 Protestants actually PROTESTED the Nazi regime's actions and got arrested for it), so I fail to see much of a difference.

Dude, this goes beyond stupid. Trotsky's birth name wasn't even Bronsky.

"Would YOU want to exterminate YOUR OWN ethnic group? I couldn't even stomach the idea of outright annihilating my own ethnic group.)"

Nice to know you have moral scruples, though.