lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-27-2009, 01:12 AM   #1
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
No. You made the claim; the burden of proof is on you.
Yes, very true.

I'll try my best then:
Show spoiler

I've got dozens and dozens more if you'd like to see them. Much of what Hitler wrote in both his speechs, books, and private notes all point towards him being a very "christian" man. While he was insane, this does not clear him of his religious beliefs.

Here are some Nazi symbols:
Show spoiler


Which comes to the myths about Hitler:


Myth 1: Hitler was not a Christian
Show spoiler


Myth 2: Hitler pretended his Christianity only for political purposes
Show spoiler


Myth 3: Hitler got his ideas of Aryan superiority and Jewish hatred from Darwinian evolution
Show spoiler


Myth 4: Hitler followed Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy
Show spoiler


I think that is a good enough start.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur
I know you're not. Neither would I try to justify the slaughter of the Amalekites. The only thing that I was objecting to, really, was the placing of Hitler in the same boat with people like John Paul II.
Personally, I am of the belief that there is no "Christianity" to be defined as a boat, but many different interpretations of the same or near same book. Basically, almost everyone has their own boat. As the Bible says, the kingdom of god is within yourself.

While Hitler was a power hungry mass murderer, he still believed in God and Jesus Christ which would, by definition, make him a christian of some sort. And even if he was denying it, there is no evidence to support a claim. If he didn't, then he acted one of the best parts in history.

Not to mean that all Christians are like each other mind you. If you would like to take it as "clumping all together", then that is your prerogative. It is perfectly understandable why you wouldn't want to be anywhere near the same category as that man.

But, then again, we are all humans anyway.

Last edited by True_Avery; 03-27-2009 at 02:11 AM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 01:53 AM   #2
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Interesting site there, Avery. Truly impartial.
Quote:
The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim.
I thought that it was people's deeds that defined them; not their words. People do tend to be full of crap, you know. In my experience >90% of those who claim to be Christian are anything but. By his deeds, Hitler was about as much of a Christian as <insert random atheist Lucasforumite's screen name here>.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 02:09 AM   #3
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Interesting site there, Avery. Truly impartial.
Haha, yeah. Its 11pm right now and I'd be glad to find you less biased sources tomorrow.

Site did do a fair job of sourcing, however. Still, perfectly understandable if you don't accept it. The Symbols are all historically accurate, but if you would like me to source the myths then I would be happy to later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
I thought that it was people's deeds that defined them; not their words. People do tend to be full of crap, you know. In my experience >90% of those who claim to be Christian are anything but. By his deeds, Hitler was about as much of a Christian as <insert random atheist Lucasforumite's screen name here>.
Agreed. He was about as far from an outstanding christian as you could get.

But, then again, what exactly do we use to define a Christian? Do we define them on how they follow the bible, their actions, or their personal beliefs?

The Bible has area of blatant genocide towards a group of people done by god, or a follower of god. While it is tasteless to say, Hitler's attacks of the Jews seems to be as justified as the murder's described in the Bible.

His Actions, as well, have on and offs to the Bible. Again, the Bible has many examples of ethnic cleansing, genocide, murder of entire cities, etc. While it may not condone such behavior, it does cite them as examples of the progress of humanity and their relationship with god.

But his actions also contradict the 10 commandments, and much of what Jesus spoke of. That I will not deny in the slightest. Which, essesially, means he was not a by the books Christian.

But his beliefs, however, still put him in some Category of christianity:
Chris⋅tian
   /ˈkrɪstʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kris-chuhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

He believed in the Christian God, and believed he was being guided or at least following Christ. This makes him a some sort of Christian, probably of a Nazi Germany Christianity denomination of the religion tree.

Still, very understandable why people would be resistant to the idea. Knowing quite a few outstanding Christians, I feel, as you do, he does not meet the definition of such but at least thought he was following his own interpretation of said religion tree.

I'm not exactly arguing that he was an outstanding christian as I am that he perceived himself as a Christian.

Last edited by True_Avery; 03-27-2009 at 02:18 AM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 02:35 AM   #4
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
Knowing quite a few outstanding Christians, I feel, as you do
Unfortunately, I've known very few, which is why you won't see me anywhere near a church these days. It's just too depressing. Take my family, for example: out of the six that claim to be Christian, I can count only one that is. The one that I'm referring to is not me, BTW. While I still can't help but believe, I haven't been able to honestly claim to be a Christian for quite a few years now.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 02:48 AM   #5
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
well... actually, according to his own words:
Quote:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.
from Hitler's Table Talk

Now what a person puts in their speeches and what he says in private are two different things. He may have used the Christians, but it seems quite apparent he didn't like them.

Actually since there were the ...'s there I'll parse out the exact quotes

Quote:
When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no
longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from
ours.
In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no
longer be able to exist together.
Quote:
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming
of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.
Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter
of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.
Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to
bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave
them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and
gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened
by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first
creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of
love. Its key-note is intolerance.
and the last
Quote:
Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of
the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.
These can be found on pages 12 and 13 of the linked PDF though a search on religion would show you more of the same... in fact some of what he says is echoed by modern Atheists. (not to insult atheists, it appears he was more agnostic than atheist, as he does say some positive things about God.)

This quote could be confused for at least ONE active Atheist on this board:
Quote:
Man seizes hold, here and there, of a few scraps of truth, but
he couldn't rule nature. He must know that, on the contrary,
he is dependent on Creation. And this attitude leads further
than the superstitions maintained by the Church. Christianity
is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have
undergone...


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 03-27-2009 at 05:17 AM. Reason: athEIst
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 05:30 AM   #6
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Indeed Hitler's Table Talk does show signs of Hitler denouncing Christianity, but there are also some issues with the book that I feel should be pointed out, If I may:

Christianity comes in many forms, two of which consist as: a belief system held by Christians, and organized religion. It was the latter, organized Christianity, that Hitler spoke against (just as many Christians do today).

Not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus:
Show spoiler


As Qliv pointed out about actions:
The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for his views for Christianity:
Show spoiler


It is also Important to note that in Interviews other than Table-Talk, he denounced Christianity while praising Jesus and God:
Show spoiler


And, finally, we get to the crux of the problem:

How accurate is Hitler's Table Talk?
Show spoiler


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
In fact some of what he says is echoed by modern Atheists. (not to insult atheists, it appears he was more agnostic than athiest, as he does say some positive things about God.)
Even in Table Talk, Hitler denounces Atheism as well as in his speeches. It also contradicts his own beliefs in Jesus and God for him to be Atheist. On the contrary, his acceptance of Jesus removes the possibility of agnosticism as well.

What he did was he denounced and demonized the organized churches that were falling to socialism in Russia. He felt that Socialism/communism (both things Hitler hated) could not co-exist with Christianity, and any Christians or Churches that accepted the ideas were spitting on Jesus, God, and the true meaning of his religion. He also felt that the Church was (ironically) manipulating people into believing lies.

He speaks of God and Jesus in his speeches, spreads it to the Hitler Youth, staples it all over uniforms, flags, badges, etc and tries to unite Germany's Christian churches. While he demonizes some sects of Christianity, it does not mean he hated all denominations. As with Martin Luther King, a well known Christian, you can speak out against the church without sabotaging your own personal beliefs.

The distinction between organized church and the personal christian beliefs must be made. My parents do not go to Church, but both consider themselves Christians and both believe in God and Jesus, effectively making them both Christians. However, like many, they do not agree with the Catholic or organized churches as a whole.

So, in summary, Table-Talk is a second, if not third hand source of apparently undocumented statements by Hitler recorded and edited by a man who was heavily anti-christian. Table-Talk is the only piece of work that contradicts much of not only Hitler's speeches, but personal journals and logs as well. Is it coincidence, or is this second/third hand account as accurate as people would like to believe?

His belief in Jesus, God, and failure to denounce his own Christianity points to him being personally Christian even if the Table-Talk interviews were not fabricated.

Sources:
Show spoiler

Last edited by True_Avery; 03-27-2009 at 05:52 AM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 05:57 AM   #7
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
I figured yu might try that tact, so I present to you:
THE NAZI’S PERSECUTION OF RELIGION AS A WAR CRIME: THE OSS’S RESPONSE WITHIN THE NUREMBERG TRIALS PROCESS
That tends to fly in the face of nobeliefs.org's accusation that Hitler never did anything against the Christian churches.

But then I guess nobeliefs.org doesn't have an answer for that one yet, so you might have to actually read some of it. I already read that nobeliefs page, and it has a bunch of speculation as to the meaning, which when teh quotes are taken out of context as they did, could be interpreted different ways. BTW the reason he didn't want to teach atheism: It was because Atheists were harder to lead around.

Also as to the accuracy of the statements: "Albert Speer confirmed the authenticity of those of Hitler's table talk transcripts made by Henry Picker in his 1976 Spandau: The Secret Diaries, and rejected accusations calling Picker a cunning forger." Wiki on Table talk

For reference here is the part that he says he doesn't want to teach Atheism:
Quote:
Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this allmighty,
which we call God (that is to say, the dominion of
natural laws throughout the whole universe). The priests, who
have always succeeded in exploiting this feeling, threaten
punishments for the man who refuses to accept the creed they
impose.

When one provokes in a child a fear of the dark, one awakens
in him a feeling of atavistic dread. Thus this child will be ruled
all his life by this dread, whereas another child, who has been
intelligently brought up, will be free of it.

It's said that every man needs a refuge where he can find
consolation and help in unhappiness. I don't believe it! If
humanity follows that path, it's solely a matter of tradition and
habit. That's a lesson, by the way, that can be drawn from the
Bolshevik front. The Russians have no God, and that doesn't
prevent them from being able to face death.

We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.
So in essence when taken OUT OF CONTEXT is may seem that he just doesn't want to teach Atheism. HOWEVER, IN CONTEXT it is quite a different meaning. They do not want the masses to have the lack of fear that the religious do about dieing.

Quote:
An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature
and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the
other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a
return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that
the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in
the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything
on pure science.
Again, IN CONTEXT it shows that it is in how the uneducated man who falls to athiesm will catch on when the State uses religion after it had been using science.

Quote:
I envisage the future, therefore, as follows : First of all, to
each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its
rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing
with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from
interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest
age, education will be imparted in such a way that each
child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the
State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped
from the clutches of dogma,
I've no reason to fear that the
Church will get its hooks on them.
Gosh... seems to refute the claim all by itself when IN CONTEXT.

And um.. you MIGHT want to look at what Speer ACTUALLY said

Quote:
"The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element." he might say at one time or another in his private circle. However, he concieved of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him.
Again, IN context it takes on a different meaning.

Quote:
Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their
childish certainties until they've acquired others that are more
reasonable. Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief
should be well established in them before the lower belief has
been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would
serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that
would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to
re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had
ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing
dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world
was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship
of idols. It's not desirable that the whole of humanity should
be stultified—and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is
to allow it to die little by little.
Last one... dang... I thought it would be harder to refute nobeliefs.org. But they made it WAY too easy to refute each of those claims.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 03-27-2009 at 07:16 AM. Reason: clarification and in context quotes
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 07:50 AM   #8
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
I figured yu might try that tact, so I present to you:
THE NAZI’S PERSECUTION OF RELIGION AS A WAR CRIME: THE OSS’S RESPONSE WITHIN THE NUREMBERG TRIALS PROCESS in which it talks about the Nazi plan to destroy Christianity and replace it with Aryanism.
It seems more about overthrowing the Christian Churches to make sure they were more Aryan oriented to indoctrinate the youth, which is what I assumed they did in the first place unless I am missing something important. But the fact stands the Church, in a sense, still stood and had say in the new Constitution while the others were burned the ground.

This also does not address Hitler's own personal beliefs, but rather the manipulation and control over the German Churches which I would assume a totalitarian dictator with a God complex would do.

With most of Germany under their heel anyway, I wouldn't discount plans for eventual dismantlement of the Churches but the fact Hitler tried so hard to unite this one religion's church while targeting a group that has been at odd with said religion still seems to heavily imply his own twisted Christianity.

He states that his hatred of the Jew stems from the fact he believes they killed God. Which would imply that he 1) believes in Jesus and 2) believes in God and 3) believes the Jews committed a horrific Sin, as well as his own paranoia which stemmed from the fact he was raised Catholic and died Catholic.

So, again, unless I am missing something I fail to see how your source discounts Hitler's religion, and even less on how your source claims they are going to "destroy" Christianity, by a given definition of "destroy".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Also as to the accuracy of the statements: "Albert Speer confirmed the authenticity of those of Hitler's table talk transcripts made by Henry Picker in his 1976 Spandau: The Secret Diaries, and rejected accusations calling Picker a cunning forger." Wiki on Table talk
There is not a source on the wiki for this statement.

And it was not stated that Picker was the forger. It was stated that Bormann was the one that edited the documents before handing them over for translation.

Which, even if they were 100% un-edit, he still Praises Jesus and God which still reinforces my point that he was a Christian. He does so in speeches and interviews outside of Table-Talk as well.

That is, in the end, all I'm arguing. I cannot speak for the entirety of the Nazi Party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
For reference here is the part that he says he doesn't want to teach Atheism.
Yes. If he was against teaching Atheism to the Youth, then why would he, a God and Jesus praising individual, be atheist or agnostic himself?

If he taught Athiesm, he would have rebellion. The Hitler Youth was indoctrinated to follow his every word, as well as being heavily Nazi-German Christian through the manipulation of the Christian churches.

Which, brings up the question: Why Christianity? Germany was one of the more religiously prolific countries, so why get rid of all of them, but save one for manipulation and indoctrination? Even before the overthrow, he mentions God and Jesus his his book, which implies a connection before hand.

His praise of Jesus and God points to him being personally Christian, but even a Christian can admit that religion can be used as a tool for manipulation and speak down upon the institution.

He and his ilk were masters of propaganda, but I fail to see how realizing as such means he was absent of religion he himself has admitted to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
So in essence when taken OUT OF CONTEXT is may seem that he just doesn't want to teach Atheism. HOWEVER, IN CONTEXT it is quite a different meaning. They do not want the masses to have the lack of fear that the religious do about dieing.
Both in and out it still seems to imply the same meaning. He didn't want atheists, but his acknowledgment that they would rebel does not imply his own atheism especially in the same book he praises Jesus as an Aryan and savior to the German people, and explicitly mentions God many a time.

Which, again, implies his own twisted personal Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Again, IN CONTEXT it shows that it is in how the uneducated man who falls to atheism will catch on when the State uses religion after it had been using science.
See above.

Are you implying that one that knows how to manipulate through religious institution is not religious themselves? They may be dishonest in their intentions, but I thought that was what converting was all about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Gosh... seems to refute the claim all by itself when IN CONTEXT.
Then lets break it down:

Quote:
I envisage the future, therefore, as follows : First of all, to
each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its
rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing
with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from
interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest
age, education will be imparted in such a way that each
child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the
State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped
from the clutches of dogma, I've no reason to fear that the
Church will get its hooks on them.
This quote seems to only, again, reinforce my point that Hitler was against organized religion.

dog·ma (dôg'mə, dŏg'-) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-mə-tə)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

Dogma does not necessarily mean Faith, although they have very similar meanings. As he has shown, he has his own beliefs in God and Jesus that he holds himself, but has a distaste for the Church. Especially the Church's following a code of socialistic or communist ideals.

Hitler seems to have been someone who's spirituality was grounded in Christian Faith and not the Church's Dogma, which has already been established by Hitler is a bunch of manipulative lies.

Again, back to my point that one does not have to be a member of the church to be personally religious.

Hitler's warning was that "the church will get its hooks on them", implying that the Church is dishonest and authoritarian in its attempted control over someone, which is also stated in the Memoirs of a Confinant quote.

Which would not make, as the beginning of the thread implies, the overthrowing of the established Church all that odd. He thought the current church was corrupt and manipulative, so he wanted to Aryanize it to not only Indoctrinate the youth of the time, but also make sure the Church was not trying to undermine him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Quote:
"The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element." he might say at one time or another in his private circle. However, he concieved of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him.
Again, IN context it takes on a different meaning.
It does?

It means exactly the same thing as far as I can see. He thought it was a "strong and conservative element". He still said it, and everyone already knows he used the church.

I think we are on different tracks here or something, because I am not implying that Hitler didn't manipulate people with the Church. Quite the contrary.

Where we are at odds seems to be about whether using the church still makes you religious or not. You've given him at least agnosticism, but I claim that his use of Jesus and God makes him a personal Christian against the established church.

Quote:
Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their
childish certainties until they've acquired others that are more
reasonable. Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief
should be well established in them before the lower belief has
been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would
serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that
would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to
re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had
ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing
dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world
was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship
of idols. It's not desirable that the whole of humanity should
be stultified—and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is
to allow it to die little by little.
From what I can see, this still states that Hitler was against pagan mythology, or at least the re-establishment of such. Considering his attacks on Jews, Gypsy, and various other religions I wouldn't be surprised in pagan made it on that list.

What this seems to be stating is that he believes that for a new world, or new religion to take control it must be well indoctrinated into the minds of the world, the old being carefully pulled from people's minds until no-one remembers it.

He mentions that Christianity implanted itself into the minds of the people too early and too quickly, effectively becoming more of a virus than a new flower. It just left the Christian seed along with the other seeds still growing, none of them being more established than the other. This would lead to humanity becoming ignorant and misguided.

Christianity would have to wither away slowly with all its different flowers before it can disapear.

I think both of us can agree that he hated the established church. Within this comparison he makes, how would that play out with his plans?

He took a population and implanted a belief into them, destroying the other religions to make sure this one took root. He overthrew the established German church to Aryanize it, effectively indoctrinating the youth and planting fresh seeds on fresh ground.

It indeed reinforces the fact he believed the church was bad for Germany and humanity in general, but with his youth indoctrination he seemed (or at least the Nazi's seemed) to be trying to place his own, self important personalized Christianity within them.

He could have easily gotten rid of the Christian churches as well, but he chose to teach god and Jesus to the masses instead of making his own up, or even replacing himself with Jesus. For how self obsessed we portray him and he may have been, he still seemed to put credit with the christian deities that he so loved mentioning.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 08:36 AM   #9
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Negative on his use of Christian words in his speeches making him Christian. He's a public figure, using the church to his own gain, it is only natural for him to use some of their words to help further that agenda. So that puts him at least at agnosticism(which is what I said in my first post in this thread).

Note, I changed the wording on that first part. Guess I was still editing. while you were posting.

Actually what I meant with requoting was that the meaning was changed to point out that he was opposed to Christianity.

As for dogma, seems that I tend to see it as the organized religion. Guess I was using this one:
3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.
Especially with his multiple mentions of Christianity versus Science in Table Talk.

Things like:
Quote:
Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid
of things that can't, or can't yet, be explained—that is to say,
of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature,
I can't satisfy them with the Party's programme. Time will go
by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.
Quote:
So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle
with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a
natural death. A slow death has something comforting about
it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the
advances of science.
Religion will have to make more and more
concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is
to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic
and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has
become widespread, when the majority of men know that the
stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited
worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted
of absurdity.
Quote:
Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in
this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse.
Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the
more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will
decline.
Quote:
If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science
arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will
not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's
always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge,
to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does
so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual
conflict with itself.
Need I go on? Seems to me that his references of dogma are in regards to Christianity as a whole. Quite frankly if I wasn't the one that found the link, I might be confused into thinking it was Skinwalker.

Then in Speer's Memoirs he talks about Hitler only using the church for political gains, though he was not himself connected to the church. I'd quote that one, but unfortunately I can't copy/paste from it. Do a google book search for Speer memoirs.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 03-27-2009 at 08:44 AM. Reason: let people know I was being humorous
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 12:47 PM   #10
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Hm, that seems like a fair assessment. What I think this comes right down to is this:

I think we can both agree he believed in some God. We both agree he hated the Church.

But did he believe in Jesus? Even in Table Talk with all his talk of God and the denouncement of Christianity, he does praise Jesus and called him an Aryan liberator. He even denys the that Jesus was Jewish, as that would imply he was impure.

If he did not believe in Jesus, he would indeed be agnostic. If he did, he would have to be defined as some denomination of Christianity.

This would make Hitler a hypocrite, but it wouldn't be the first time.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 06:03 PM   #11
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
I dunno, He talks highly of jesus, but doesn't exactly call him godly. If anything he seemed to admit in a man called jesus who the Jews created a religion around.

Actually an agnostic(or near atheist) that doesn't believe in Jesus but still using Jesus's name somehow seems less hypocritical than a Christian killing Christians(whoops Ireland). But belief in god, with denial of Christianity as a whole(being a Jew construct) seems to indicate that he was at best Agnostic, familiar with Christianity.

I believe Speer even mentioned why Hitler remained a part of the church, as it held a tenuous grasp on the hearts of the common German. He even ordered his top men to remain a part of the church even though most of the SS would leave the church.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 12:33 AM   #12
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quick, ask Mimartin what the SS had engraved on their belt buckles!

*runs*
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 12:42 AM   #13
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Quick, ask Mimartin what the SS had engraved on their belt buckles!

*runs*
Gott Mit Uns (God With Us)

Except while the evidence is there for speeches and propaganda, does that exactly equal that Hitler was, himself, a christian man?
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 12:51 AM   #14
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Well done!

No, of course not. But if he proclaimed to be christian, how do we establish that he was not? Clearly it would seem that he thought god was on his side (or was at least willing to profess as much).
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 04:10 AM   #15
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Well, unless he was sadomasochistic in the extreme, he did not treat others as he would have liked to have been treated, nor did he make any attempt to do so that I'm aware of.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 04:47 AM   #16
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Well, unless he was sadomasochistic in the extreme, he did not treat others as he would have liked to have been treated, nor did he make any attempt to do so that I'm aware of.
While Hitler is an extreme example, I've never felt like I've met a Christian or, frankly, a human that does. It is a concept that requires a level of empathy that I don't believes humans (or perhaps even life itself) are capable of.

That is just my supposition though, and I understand that the concept is something meant to be aiming towards instead of living upon in every moment. I just believe that basing that around whether someone is a christian or not is unreasonable.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 05:10 AM   #17
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Well, unless he was sadomasochistic in the extreme, he did not treat others as he would have liked to have been treated, nor did he make any attempt to do so that I'm aware of.
That is one small message that can be cherry-picked from christian doctrine. There are others in the judeo-christian tradition...some of which would contradict this one.

All it takes is one example of a devout using matthew 25 to justify bombing an abortion clinic to see that scripture can be interpreted lots of different ways. Just because it isn't the way you would interpret it doesn't mean that their interpretation isn't valid. It would seem that we need something greater (and more reliable) than the bible to interpret the bible, no?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 10:43 AM   #18
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
But if he proclaimed to be christian, how do we establish that he was not?
My definition of a Christian is someone that has taken Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Since that is something that cannot be verified beyond the word of that person, I personally believe anyone that proclaims himself/herself as a Christian is a Christian.

My real question is why does it matter if Hitler was a Christian or not? Would Hitler being a Christian mean all Christian are evil mass murders? It makes the same amount of sense to me as some extremist Christian groups saying Atheism is “the real force behind mass murders.” To me it is more of this blame the group I’m not part of for all of mankind’s problems mentality. Instead of examining the real issues and the hatred that allows things like genocide to occur even today, we just blame it on someone else. The blame game only seems to allow these prejudices to continue thus allowing Rwanda, Bosnia and Sudan to happen even in the modern world.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 11:26 AM   #19
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
My definition of a Christian is someone that has taken Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Since that is something that cannot be verified beyond the word of that person, I personally believe anyone that proclaims himself/herself as a Christian is a Christian.
This pretty much sums up my thinking on the matter perfectly. Unless we see that person later that day praying in a mosque or at a local satanist bbq, the only thing we have to go on is what the individual says about their beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
My real question is why does it matter if Hitler was a Christian or not? Would Hitler being a Christian mean all Christian are evil mass murders?
Not in my book. I think these things get started when someone claims that Hitler was an atheist and therefore by extension all atheist are like Hitler. That tends to make me (I can't speak for other non-theists) wonder how that shoe fits when it's on the other foot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
It makes the same amount of sense to me as some extremist Christian groups saying Atheism is “the real force behind mass murders.” To me it is more of this blame the group I’m not part of for all of mankind’s problems mentality.
So there is no unifying (or at least fairly common) pattern of thinking that we can identify as being fertile soil for such acts? If there were, would it be helpful/useful to know what it is? I think I'm probably missing the point here, so my apologies in advance if I am.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Instead of examining the real issues and the hatred that allows things like genocide to occur even today, we just blame it on someone else.
If blame is all that's happening, then sure. I guess I'm wondering if "examining" might look like "blaming" from certain perspectives (???).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
The blame game only seems to allow these prejudices to continue thus allowing Rwanda, Bosnia and Sudan to happen even in the modern world.
I would tend to want to pin these examples on apathy, but that's just my deal.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 12:31 PM   #20
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Not in my book. I think these things get started when someone claims that Hitler was an atheist and therefore by extension all atheist are like Hitler. That tends to make me (I can't speak for other non-theists) wonder how that shoe fits when it's on the other foot.
I agree with you. I think it is just as wrong to say all Atheist are evil because of the actions of one man or one group of people within one country. I don't really care what shoe the foot is on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
So there is no unifying (or at least fairly common) pattern of thinking that we can identify as being fertile soil for such acts? If there were, would it be helpful/useful to know what it is? I think I'm probably missing the point here, so my apologies in advance if I am.
No need. Again I actually agree that it is important to examine all reasoning and behavior that lead to crimes against humanity such as these. I happen to believe they are not derived from the teaching of Jesus Christ, but I believe anything and everything should be open to examination. My point is we are not attempting to find the real cause, but only attempting to blame the other side without actual examining the evidence. It is easy just to blame the Atheist or blame the Christian then to look at the real root cause. If after careful examination of the ‘fertile soil for such acts’ it is proven that the teachings of Christ are behind this behavior, then I would be willing to reexamine my beliefs. However, from personal experience I have never felt homicidal tendencies while reading the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
If blame is all that's happening, then sure. I guess I'm wondering if "examining" might look like "blaming" from certain perspectives (???).
I'm sure it does, but do you consider article such as this one by “The Christian Science Monitor” to be anything beyond just playing the blame game?

In the immortal word of Yoga Bera “This is like déjà vu all over again.”

Last edited by mimartin; 03-30-2009 at 12:37 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 03:33 PM   #21
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
While Hitler is an extreme example, I've never felt like I've met a Christian or, frankly, a human that does. It is a concept that requires a level of empathy that I don't believes humans (or perhaps even life itself) are capable of.
I agree that humans are indeed incapable of achieving that level of empathy on their own, as it is quite unnatural. I will state that people with that level of empathy do exist, however, because I have been fortunate enough to have met them. Sadly, they are the exception rather than the rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
That is one small message that can be cherry-picked from christian doctrine. There are others in the judeo-christian tradition...some of which would contradict this one.
On the contrary: that "one small message" is one of the two Great Commandments. With the two Great Commandments Jesus condensed the original Ten Commandments into just two:

(Matthew 22)
But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. (1-4 of the original 10 Commandments) This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (5-10 of the original 10 Commandments) On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

As such, it is a fundamental (for lack of a better word ) Christian ideal and is hardly "cherry-picked." From my (very) limited experience with the subject, I have come to the conclusion that keeping the second Great Commandment comes naturally to those who keep the First.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 06:12 PM   #22
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Just for clarification, I didn't intent for the message of this thread to be "Hitler was a christian, thus all Christians are bad"

The thought was brought up in another thread, and I thought his own personal implications of supposedly godly influence may have relevance to his actions. No harm meant beyond that.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 08:18 PM   #23
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
No need. Again I actually agree that it is important to examine all reasoning and behavior that lead to crimes against humanity such as these. I happen to believe they are not derived from the teaching of Jesus Christ, but I believe anything and everything should be open to examination.
The people who are responsible for such things do not share your interpretation of christian doctrine. To say that one could not find justification for such things in the bible though is a serious error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
My point is we are not attempting to find the real cause, but only attempting to blame the other side without actual examining the evidence.
But both sides think that they have all the evidence that they need, no? What's left to discuss?

Interesting that the dogmatism that causes such things is the same dogmatism that dominates the discussion of said things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
It is easy just to blame the Atheist or blame the Christian then to look at the real root cause. If after careful examination of the ‘fertile soil for such acts’ it is proven that the teachings of Christ are behind this behavior, then I would be willing to reexamine my beliefs.
Probably not the teachings that are the foundation of your belief, but I'm willing to bet some of the teachings that contradict your belief might.

At the end of the day though, such an exercise would only point out that the bible is terrible source for morality. It would not prove that christianity is the sole source of buttheadedness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
However, from personal experience I have never felt homicidal tendencies while reading the Bible.
You don't but clearly others do.

It's the same mechanism that causes my blood to boil when I read about the discovery institute trying to change science standards in schools, whereas someone else might look at the article and be unimpressed. I have a friend who is easily knocked into a tailspin when it comes to politics. Each of us has something we are passionate about. Some people are willing to take their passions too far. So when I hear that some guy goes in and shoots up an abortion clinic, I'm not surprised. He read the same bible that you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
I'm sure it does, but do you consider article such as this one by “The Christian Science Monitor” to be anything beyond just playing the blame game?
Clearly this article is playing the blame game. But the author's citation of Harris and Dawkins speaks to my point.

I've read both of the books which he referenced, so I know the argument they were actually making.

Here is a quote from Harris, which I think sums the argument up nicely:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Harris
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
On the contrary: that "one small message" is one of the two Great Commandments. With the two Great Commandments Jesus condensed the original Ten Commandments into just two:
Moment of silence for the late great George Carlin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
As such, it is a fundamental (for lack of a better word ) Christian ideal and is hardly "cherry-picked."
The first one is so open to interpretation that I'm struggling to understand its relevance. I don't see how loving god with all your soul prevents one from killing. Clearly there are some assumptions being made about what that means, and I can guess at what they are, but I'm willing to bet that if we identified them all, we'll find that they are nothing more than preferences and perceptions.

As to the 2nd, I guess it all comes down to how we define "neighbor", doesn't it? I don't think it take much imagination to see how in-group bias will allow us to kill "that guy" while still loving our "neighbor".

Process for Religously Motivated Genocide
Step 1: label some group you don't like "other".
Step 2: label some group you do like "neighbor".
Step 3: commense wholesale slaughter.

There are example of this bias all throughout the bible, so one doesn't have to look for long to find justification. So, yes, I think my argument for cherry-picking stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
From my (very) limited experience with the subject, I have come to the conclusion that keeping the second Great Commandment comes naturally to those who keep the First.
Assuming that they interpret everything the same way that you do, no?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 08:41 PM   #24
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Just for clarification, I didn't intent for the message of this thread to be "Hitler was a christian, thus all Christians are bad"

The thought was brought up in another thread, and I thought his own personal implications of supposedly godly influence may have relevance to his actions. No harm meant beyond that.
And it looks like people are pointing out that you may be barking up the wrong tree, because the argument being presented is that Hitler was an Atheist.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost....85&postcount=5
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 10:34 PM   #25
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
The first one is so open to interpretation that I'm struggling to understand its relevance.
How so? Either you love someone, or you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I don't see how loving god with all your soul prevents one from killing.
By obeying His commandments. In this case, that would be "Thou shalt not kill".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
As to the 2nd, I guess it all comes down to how we define "neighbor", doesn't it? I don't think it take much imagination to see how in-group bias will allow us to kill "that guy" while still loving our "neighbor".
Your neighbor is your fellow man, no matter who they are. The example that you're providing is one of human hypocrisy, which is a concept that I think we're both familiar with, and that neither of us likes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Process for Selfishly Motivated Genocide, Conveniently Disguised as Religiously Motivated:
Step 0: disregard the Commandments.
Step 1: label some group you don't like "other".
Step 2: label some group you do like "neighbor".
Step 3: commense wholesale slaughter.
Fixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
There are example of this bias all throughout the bible, so one doesn't have to look for long to find justification.
How do we know that these occurrences in the Bible aren't examples of the Israelites doing the same thing that Hitler and countless others have done in using God to justify genocide? Kind of like what they're doing right now with the Palestinians. I'm not one of those that believes in the Bible's 100% infallibility. It was written by man and from man's point of view (specifically ancient man, as in "little more advanced than caveman" ), after all.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 03-30-2009 at 10:47 PM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 11:00 PM   #26
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
How so? Either you love someone, or you don't.
I repeat: I don't see how loving god with all your soul prevents one from killing.

I'll add: "loving" someone is also open to interpretation. A stern father that frequently displines his child believes that he is behaving in a loving way. Someone with a different opinion of what it means to love a child might disagree. Which one is right? Whatever answer you come up with will be your opinion based on your beliefs about love.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
By obeying His commandments. In this case, that would be "Thou shalt not kill".
Yet we have countless examples of god commanding his people to do just that. Usually against some "other" group. I don't know how to reconscile a source that says "kill" and "don't kill". If the source is to be obeyed without question, which of those things do you do? Clearly whatever mechanism you use to make that decision is outside of (and therefore superior to) the source itself. Feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Your neighbor is your fellow man, no matter who they are.
Yes, that certainly is one interpretation and it's one that I think is good to aspire to. However it is not the only one. It's subjective, therefore someone who says, "well my neighbor is someone who looks like me, acts like me, likes the things that I like, etc" is also valid. Coincidentally, this is also the one that people use to justify killing people who are "other".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
The example that you're providing is one of human hypocrisy, which is a concept that I think we're both familiar with, and that neither of us likes.
It very well may be hypocrisy, however that doesn't mean that this isn't how humans work. In-group bias is an undeniable, observable phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Fixed.
Well, that's very cute, but as I keep pointing out, your Step 0 is extremely vague and open to interpretation. If someone felt that in order to love their neighbor, they needed to kill some group of infidels that were threatening their way of life, then it would seem that the act of killing itself would be adherence to the commandment rather than abandonment of it.

And all of this assumes that the commandments deserve our attention (an assumption that I don't share).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
How do we know that these occurrences in the Bible aren't examples of the Israelites doing the same thing that Hitler and countless others have done in using God to justify genocide?
Well the bible is god's perfect word, no? I mean if you think you've found a good reason to second guess some of what's in the bible, who's to say that we shouldn't second guess all of what's in the bible. You have to come down on one side of this argument or find yourself guilty of special pleading. Sorry, man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Kind of like what they're doing right now with the Palestinians. I'm not one of those that believes in the Bible's 100% infallibility. It was written by man and from man's point of view (specifically ancient man, as in "little better than caveman"), after all.
Ok, so why follow it at all then? Every human endeavor has advanced significantly in the past 6,000 years except moral philosophy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Avery really, "Gott mit uns" really translates to God not us, instead of the misinterpretation “God with us.”
Close. Come to find out, it actually means "Got mittens?". Apparently their hands got cold as they were invading Russia and this was their form of silent protest against their oppressive quartermasters.

I have a newsbusters link around here somewhere that confirms this. Hold on...
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 11:07 PM   #27
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Ok, so why follow it at all then? Every human endeavor has advanced significantly in the past 6,000 years except moral philosophy?
Because I have my reasons, born of personal, first-hand experience, that are very subjective and therefore useless to anyone else and, well, personal.

As far as morality goes, feel free to totally ignore Commandments 1-4 if you wish. 5-10 are still the best social rules to live by that I know of, and I don't believe that anyone could invent any that are better.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 03-30-2009 at 11:24 PM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 11:19 PM   #28
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Because I have my reasons, born of personal, first-hand experience, that are very subjective and therefore useless to anyone else and, well, personal.
The ultimate conversation stopper, known as "personal faith".

Discussion over. You win.

@Edit: (coveting neighbor's ass)

Last edited by Achilles; 03-30-2009 at 11:32 PM.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2009, 11:43 PM   #29
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
I've always wondered if that one had more than one meaning.

And as far as the origins of my belief: not only would you reject it, but I suspect that most Christians would as well.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-09-2009, 02:24 AM   #30
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,255
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
@ thread
Since some seem to want to do anything they possibly can to tarnish christianity and I'd have a hard time disproving hitler was a christian in the way it has been presented... I guess my liege is that if Hitler was christian as he claimed, he's not MY kind of christian, never was and never will be; He's more of an insult to christianity. So it comes as understandable (I'd hope) that those who distance themselves will say he wasn't. Sure he used it to back his stance for world domination and there is lots that would support that hie was acting in accordance with christianity. However, as contradictions have been pointed out, he certainly also did a whole lot that was against christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Not to mean that all Christians are like each other mind you. If you would like to take it as "clumping all together", then that is your prerogative.
Now where have I come across this before? Hmm, 2 ominously familiar turns of phrase, albeit variations thereof, and on a different subject. I don't know whether to be more flattered or creeped-out. Impressed at the very least. To great effect, you used it to make a rather pivotal distinction and to have allowances for exception.

Point taken. I'm not clumping myself in, but many would clump Hitler (and all other terrible things possible) with the generalization of anyone claiming to be such.

Quote:
It is perfectly understandable why you wouldn't want to be anywhere near the same category as that man.

But, then again, we are all humans anyway.
It's more of, this town...nay PLANET ain't big enough for the two of us when it involves any christian (or just plain human being, for that matter) and Hitler.
As per individual it is a question whether the primary motivator was christiantiy or humanity...or a mix of both... Latter-most I'd say.

@ Qliv: I wish I'd had those words, before. It's more how you live than what you follow. Well said.

To paraphrase Web Rider: "Since there is no original anymore, there kind of doesn't leave much option BUT to go on interpretation." ---or something like that. (Thanks)

That isn't necessarily to say one can rightly just make whatever of it, though. Or so I gather--and very much agree with.

Is hitler not an example of that? Bending it to his will?
To retort: "You know that you have shaped god in your own image when god hates all the same people that you do." --unknown pastor, 2007


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-09-2009, 06:46 AM   #31
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
My definition of a Christian is someone that has taken Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Since that is something that cannot be verified beyond the word of that person, I personally believe anyone that proclaims himself/herself as a Christian is a Christian.
This pretty much sums up my thinking on the matter perfectly. Unless we see that person later that day praying in a mosque or at a local satanist bbq, the only thing we have to go on is what the individual says about their beliefs.

Actually, mimartin, you need only examine a person's actions to see to what degree they jive with their words. It's easy to say you're something, though it might be harder to prove it. Though ach hints at that in his reply, you could just as easily use someone's words to demonstrate that their claims are false/empty as well with some well placed questions.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-09-2009, 06:50 AM   #32
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
Actually, mimartin, you need only examine a person's actions to see to what degree they jive with their words. It's easy to say you're something, though it might be harder to prove it. Though ach hints at that in his reply, you could just as easily use someone's words to demonstrate that their claims are false/empty as well with some well placed questions.
Just requote my posts since it's obvious they haven't even looked them over. Either that or they are pretending that the evidence to the contrary does not exist.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-09-2009, 06:52 AM   #33
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
Now where have I come across this before? Hmm, 2 ominously familiar turns of phrase, albeit variations thereof, and on a different subject. I don't know whether to be more flattered or creeped-out. Impressed at the very least. To great effect, you used it to make a rather pivotal distinction and to have allowances for exception.
Thanks?

You'll have to forgive me as I'm a little lost on this... compliment? I dunno.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
Since some seem to want to do anything they possibly can to tarnish christianity and I'd have a hard time disproving hitler was a christian in the way it has been presented... I guess my liege is that if Hitler was christian as he claimed, he's not MY kind of christian, never was and never will be; He's more of an insult to christianity. So it comes as understandable (I'd hope) that those who distance themselves will say he wasn't. Sure he used it to back his stance for world domination and there is lots that would support that hie was acting in accordance with christianity. However, as contradictions have been pointed out, he certainly also did a whole lot that was against christianity.
That pretty much sums up my point as far as the thread goes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Just requote my posts since it's obvious they haven't even looked them over.
I looked over them! *sad eyes*
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-09-2009, 07:00 AM   #34
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
...... or they are pretending that the evidence to the contrary does not exist.
That doesn't surprise you, does it?


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-09-2009, 07:10 AM   #35
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
I looked over them! *sad eyes*
Haha sorry Avery, I was speaking mainly of the latecomers to the thread who say there is no evidence to the contrary.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-09-2009, 10:04 PM   #36
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Just requote my posts since it's obvious they haven't even looked them over. Either that or they are pretending that the evidence to the contrary does not exist.
Why do you think I usually repeat the same points at times, because often it only sinks on on the third or forth time.


The evidence you presented seems to indicate that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of Atheists and not Christians, and while certain Atheists here love to bash Christianity or anyone else whom is religious for that matter, I think you kinda proved that the ones preaching that Christians are intolerant should look in the mirror.

Fact is there were many Christians that helped people escape from the Nazis.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-09-2009, 10:24 PM   #37
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Why do you think I usually repeat the same points at times, because often it only sinks on on the third or forth time.


The evidence you presented seems to indicate that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of Atheists and not Christians, and while certain Atheists here love to bash Christianity or anyone else whom is religious for that matter, I think you kinda proved that the ones preaching that Christians are intolerant should look in the mirror.

Fact is there were many Christians that helped people escape from the Nazis.
Actually to be honest, it points more to his being an Agnostic rather than Christian. Nowhere does he say that God does not/may not exist. He speaks highly of God while talking negatively about the religious.

I know it can be confusing since almost everything I quoted could easily have been confused for quotes of Achilles posts, but I still think he was an Agnostic at best. Of course I just considder Hitler a psychotic f***er that would use whatever was available to control the population.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-09-2009, 10:39 PM   #38
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Actually to be honest, it points more to his being an Agnostic rather than Christian. Nowhere does he say that God does not/may not exist. He speaks highly of God while talking negatively about the religious.
Well he thought of the Germans as the master race, so I don't see where the idea that he believed in God comes from. Remember he had to be careful because if he started trashing God in his speeches and it got out that might have eroded some of his support and get some people to see past is charisma.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
I know it can be confusing since almost everything I quoted could easily have been confused for quotes of Achilles posts, but I still think he was an Agnostic at best. Of course I just considder Hitler a psychotic f***er that would use whatever was available to control the population.
I would consider Hitler to be a psychotic egomaniac, that probably thought of himself as God or with some other delusional ego trip.

Quote:
Führer is "leader" or "guide" in the German language, derived from the verb führen "to lead". In standard German it is pronounced [ˈfyːʁɐ], but in English it is usually pronounced /ˈfjʊərɚ/. It can be spelled Fuehrer or Fuhrer in languages where the ü-umlaut is not used. In German only Fuehrer may serve as a substitute in cases where no umlauts are available.
--wikipedia.org
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-10-2009, 07:14 AM   #39
Doomie
Do the Black Mage!
 
Doomie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The black void...
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Why do you think I usually repeat the same points at times, because often it only sinks on on the third or forth time.


The evidence you presented seems to indicate that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of Atheists and not Christians, and while certain Atheists here love to bash Christianity or anyone else whom is religious for that matter, I think you kinda proved that the ones preaching that Christians are intolerant should look in the mirror.
There was no evidence that Hitler was an atheist presented in this thread, perhaps it needs to be repeated a third or fourth time?
To say that people in this thread are bashing Christianity and 'preaching that Christians are intolerant' is grossly misrepresenting what this thread is about. Hitler was an evil man. Hitler was a Christian. What does this say about every other Christian? Absolutely nothing. This is not intolerance against Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Fact is there were many Christians that helped people escape from the Nazis.
So there were good Christians and bad Christians in WWII. Gee, it's almost as if their belief system didn't really matter to wether or not they were good persons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Well he thought of the Germans as the master race, so I don't see where the idea that he believed in God comes from. Remember he had to be careful because if he started trashing God in his speeches and it got out that might have eroded some of his support and get some people to see past is charisma.
The idea that Germans are the master race is not inherently incompatible with Christianity. Unless I missed the verse that said 'Germans are not the master race'.
Also, if Hitler had to appeal to Christians to gain support, then does this not indicate that regardless of Hitler's beliefs, at least many of his followers were Christians? So were all the nazi's fake Christians, only pretending to be Christian for each other because they believed all the others to be Christian?

Lastly, some grammar pet peeves. Atheist should not be capitalised unless it is at the beginning of a sentence and you should have used 'who' rather than 'whom'. You make this mistake a lot and it irks me every time.

EDIT: I'd like to add that saying 'Hitler didn't act like a true Christian' or variations thereof are just examples of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Aside from that there is a lot of debate about what constitutes 'true' Christianity (especially among Christians) so this is obviously not a definition of 'Christian' we can work with.

Last edited by Doomie; 04-10-2009 at 07:25 AM.
Doomie is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-10-2009, 07:53 AM   #40
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomie View Post
So there were good Christians and bad Christians in WWII. Gee, it's almost as if their belief system didn't really matter to whether or not they were good persons.
Garfield seems to not get the point of this thread.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.