I did not do that, I am reading all of Mathew. It's quite fun to se what christians do and what they don't. It's fun to have you struggle with it, here is some more:

Adultery and divorce? I'd like to see you do those: 5:27 to 32.
If you even look at a woman, you have already comitted adultery. I guess this is why muslims just cover the women?
It's better to rip off body parts instead of your whole body going to hell. Ok...
You are only allowed to divorce if your wife was sexually immoral. But if not, and you divorce, you commit adultery. And her,too! No going to hell threat here,though. Although I guess the previous one still counts,where you are supposed to gouge out your eye when "it" looked at another woman.

This is fun. Oh yeah I am reading the entire chapter of 5 versions, the context is Jesus telling this to his disciples.

I read Mein Kampf, he thought he was doing gods work,too. Book is not as much fun as the bible,though.

I used to work very late at night, and before I left for home, I would linger and chat to the guard for a while. He was a bright fella, and wrote book reviews for a Boston newspaper. One night, he was reviewing "Fire in the Sky" or something similar, and I scoffed. "No," he explained, "I've actually seen UFOs," and went on to describe them. I remember that at that moment, I felt somehow superior to him.

UFOs exist and people see them all the time. Now, if he had said he saw an extraterrestrial spacecraft...

Yes, you attacked them all at the same time, but your attack is on par with someone who knows practically nothing about science saying that Evolution wrong because it is outdated and Darwin didn't know about infinite regress. If you would criticize that behavior, then don't exemplify it yourself when it comes to philosophy. If you want to attack an argument, then you need to show that the form is invalid or that the premises are false. Attacking when it was written is a logical fallacy. *yawn* Aquinas certainly talked about beginnings, but he never used the premise that a universe had a beginning in an argument. If I am wrong, then you should be easily able to demonstrate that by quoting where he did, but you can't and you won't because he never did that and you've got nothing but your fanciful imagination. Likewise, you should be able to show where WLC got his argument from Aquinas, but you've still got nothing. "Infinite regression is possible, we know that now. "

You made the claim that we know infinite regression is possible, but now you're claiming that you can't know that? Even if I were unable to show that there must be a timeless being, that wouldn't show that infinite regression is possible. If you make a claim, you need to back it up or it's just a baseless assertion. WLC at least makes arguments for their being a timeless being, you won't even try to be up your claim. Ummm...they knew there is no nothing back then too. I don't dismiss modern times, but I don't dismiss the 1300's either because if an argument was true back then, then it is still true today. A baseless assertion is making a claim that you refuse to back up, such as infinite regress being possible. WLC makes arguments for a being that transcends the universe, so that is not a baseless assertion. *sigh* When you mix and match conclusion with premises, then the argument is invalid even if the conclusion happens to be true. For instance:

1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
3.) Therefore, the capital of the USA is Washington DC

The conclusion is true, but it doesn't follow from the premises, so it is an invalid argument. Mixing and matching doesn't doesn't show that the argument that you altered is invalid, it just shows that the argument you created is. If you wanted to show that WLC's argument is invalid, then you need to point out where the form is invalid. Good luck with that. You were laughing at what your fanciful imagination told you that faith requires, which is why I tried to correct your misunderstanding of it. If you making an argument for something, then you are not assuming it is true beforehand, whereas if you refuse to consider the conclusion that an argument shows, then you are ruling it out a priori.

Then you selectively understood it because there's no way you could get your interpretation without ignoring the surrounding context. It's not like those were the difficult ones to understand. Struggle? Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by that word - I meant I struggle not to worry (in life), not that I struggled to understand the passage. In all honesty, those were some of the easy parts to understand. (unless you come at it from the POV that you're going to try to make it look false by taking the quote out of context and interpreting it in the most literal / worst possible way). That is indeed why muslims justify covering the women (though in the Koran, it is supposed to be the woman's choice). But we're not talking about Islam.
Again you miss the key word 'lustfully' - it warns against lusting after a woman who is not your wife. If you're married, you should keep yourself for your wife/husband. By looking lustfully at other women, your marriage will be less happy, you won't be as happy with your wife. Married people should only have these thoughts (love and sex) for each other.
The bit about gouging out your eye is another metaphor (and a really easy one to understand given the context) -> you should remove from your life something that causes you to sin. In other words, it's better to lose something you might enjoy in this life than to go to hell.
About divorce: Yes, divorce isn't allowed (unless your partner has cheated on you - even then it's allowed but not commanded). So if you are not legally (under God's law) divorced and you marry another, it is the same as if you had come to another while still married.
(notice he says 'victim of divorce' when referring to the woman who is divorced by her husband unwillingly - so not to blame her). The context is the 'Sermon on the Mount' - (Disciples means followers btw.). He was teaching them. By 'context' I don't just mean where he was stood and who he was talking to (though that may also be important) but rather the surrounding words.

Edit: perhaps you should also read the German version. Might make it easier to understand? (no offense to your English but you're missing the metaphors and the context).

Read it again because he didn't. He included claims that his ideology pleases God but his motivations weren't powered by religious beliefs at all. He just included such statements to win over Christians.

I used to think that, but I've recently looked at some research that shows that Hitler did consider himself to be a Christian, but what he considered to be Christianity is very different from orthodox Christianity. He was actually a member of a cult called Positive Christianity, which threw out all of the Old Testament anything in the New Testament that was deemed too Jewish, so around 75%-90% of the Bible. They were weak on doctrine and strong on nationalism, so that blended into a religion that would be unrecognizable to us as Christianity, but he nevertheless still held religious beliefs.

Hitler's Christianity:

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Christianity-J-P-Holding-ebook/dp/B00EXPBEVW

An interview concerning the book:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok558/2013/11/23/deeper-waters--hitlers-christianity

May I suggest to up your reading skills, because he specifically talks about gods creation.

"Gerade der völkisch Eingestellte
hätte die heiligste Verpflichtung, jeder in seiner eigenen
Konfession dafür zu sorgen, daß man nicht nur
immer äußerlich von Gottes Willen
redet, sondern auch tatsächlich Gottes
Willen erfülle und Gottes Werk nicht
schänden lasse. Denn Gottes Wille gab den Men-
schen einst ihre Gestalt, ihr Wesen und ihre Fähigkeiten.
Wer sein Werk zerstört, sagt damit der Schöpfung des
Herrn, dem göttlichen Wollen, den Kampf an. "

Even if for some reason you claim he is not christian, he is at least a theist, the number of times he mentions Gott is staggering.

I'm sorry, but you don't. As well as the sentences before and after what you quote - the topics at hand.
He's discussing the law and the previous misapplications of the law. "eye for an eye", what constitutes adultery, etc. So you're missing the culture of the way the law was considered and the old testament from which the law comes. I'm sure many Christians fall short of what we should do - that doesn't nullify the law or the wisdom of it.
You summarised it without the word 'lustfully' in your post - in an attempt to make it look ridiculous.
You said "If you even look at a woman, you have already comitted adultery. " - use of the word 'even' to suggest that's all there is. If you meant that 'lust' was obvious, then why do you consider it to be ridiculous?
Crimes are usually first committed in the heart - guard yourself against that and you guard yourself against the act too.
NB: It's not just attraction - you can notice someone's beauty - it's the harbouring of lust in the heart. Because choosing another god is covered elsewhere. And this was a discussion on the law - he was dealing with adultery specifically. But if you want to view it that way it would also apply.
The idea that gouging out your eye would remove lust from your heart also makes it more likely that it's a metaphor.
To guard your heart against lust and other sinful desires is what you need to do. So if you find yourself tempted (which is not, by itself, a sin) you should stay away and refuse temptation.

May I suggest to up your thinking skills. No matter how much he mentioned God in Mein Kampf or during speeches, it's not evidence for his ideology revolving around God. It's only evidence for him trying to reconcile Christianity with his movement in the minds of the readers/audiences and really, you actually think that all his public statements reflected his personal beliefs, especially as early as when he wrote Mein Kampf? One should always look for the practical benefits of such claims and how they fit in with the actual agenda.

Haven't read that book yet but I'm aware of that failed attempt that Positive Christianity was and I highly doubt the book will convince me that Hitler actually believed in that stuff himself. Will listen to the interview, though.

No,you may not. He mentions his loving god alot. He whines about other people not doing what god intended. Your thinking skills fail
Your reasoning for him being an atheist is that you can't believe what anyone says. I'm sure Seyong won't like to hear this, he might be an atheist,too.
You give Hitler too much credit.
Neither do you, or at least you haven't shown that you understand them more than me or any other reader.

I have read those verses multiple times now, they are about something completely different. This culture of the law is random interpretation that many different sects of christianity disagree about, so why do you know what it is supposed to mean other than what it says?

Because men look at hot women with lust, there is jus tno way to avoid it. I was not trying to say that merely looking at someone without any feelings is supposed to be a crime, why would I, this verse is very clear. I get that you often get out of context quotes from atheists to mock you, but I don't think that is necessary.

Well then good luck with defying your heart. You better put some effort into it, hell awaits where your loving god will torture you forever, but with love obviously, but not lust, no BDSM for you there.

I'm sure the many christians who aren't fighting for divorce being illegal will interpret it that way. Hello pick and chose.

And if I don't want to I will be tortured forever? Some choice.

Dude, look at your sole argument: "He said it over and over again." According to your logic anyone who has ever founded and lead a sect or other sort of movement was bound to believe in all the ideas that he/she spread to his/her followers, even all the ones that aren't crucial to the official agenda, not to mention the real one that has often nothing to do with the official one. With that kind of approach you can't even begin to perform proper analysis of individuals or organizations which ever depended on manipulation.

I'm willing to believe that Hitler's ideology was founded on his personal spiritual beliefs IF convincing arguments that fit in the big picture are given. But "he said so" is just perfectly worthless.

Yes because Hitler was such a shy guy who didn't dare to tell anyone what he thinks is right.

Yes, we should do that to anyone. Unfortunately in reality you can't really doubt that other people believe crazy shit. If it was up to me all the religious folk can't possibly be this stupid and are just pretending, but you know, reality...