im not a native english speaker so its hard to translate certain technical terms to another language. you could be helpful and point out where you think im using a wrong definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Printable View
im not a native english speaker so its hard to translate certain technical terms to another language. you could be helpful and point out where you think im using a wrong definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Don't worry about it, it was a dumb joke by me. I saw in the other thread you and Brenus talking about semantics and definitions about atheism and belief. So obviously, the joke is that we should just open a dictionary and see what "the answer" is.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
My last statement was just silliness from American high school. In order to do well on the SAT (a main test for getting into uni), people tell you all sorts of things in order to prepare for it, including reading the dictionary so you can look super smart in your 20 min essay portion.
haha i understood that your first post was a joke, but i thought maybe it had a core of truth.
What, you mean right up to the point where their opposition would mean a damn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
“Anyone with spiritual belief can be described as a Christian, having had a Christian upbringing?” Apparently yes, as France is still describe as a Christian Country even if less than 10% of the population go to churches.
“You don't see anything off about this” I do, but in the case of Adolf Hitler, he claimed in public to be a Christian. Now, what give you the right to deny him the right to be? Perhaps, in secret, he was not. But this is a perhaps. The only thing we know for sure is what he said in public meetings.
“but did Hitler follow Christ?” He never said he didn’t. In speeches in public, he told the crowd he was a Christian, and he followed the Christian Doctrine in blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus… So yes, he did follow a part of the Christian Tradition.
“So Hitler doesn't qualify.” So nobody qualifies.
“According to Einstein and voting patterns the Roman Catholic Church opposed Hitler for as song as it was feasible i.e until opposition got you shot.” So, I am pleased that my Grand-father didn’t stop to resist Nazism when the bullets started to fly. According to you, the Churches did resist Hitler until it was too dangerous… That is heroism or I don’t know what it is…:laugh4:
Misleading for a number of reasons.Quote:
Apparently yes, as France is still describe as a Christian Country even if less than 10% of the population go to churches.
1. Religious identification is what is quantified by the state for administrative purposes, not "trueness" to doctrine or ideals. In this area, it's all about self-identification. What do the citizens see themselves as?
2. 10% makes Christianity the dominant religion in the country. There isn't even a need to suddenly adopt such a restrictive definition anyway. Why equivocate?
3. Christianity is the religion that has had the most significant influence on French culture, institutions, language, etc. Is France a Western country?
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-.../dp/1929631057Quote:
The only thing we know for sure is what he said in public meetings.
And other private comments. Unless "public" includes all words to his closest associates?
He commended Christ for agitating against the Jews, but thought his values as laid out in the Bible were a corruption of recording and translation. He clearly wasn't into that 'peace & neighborliness' stuff. Look at all his sayings on the eternal struggle for survival, the primacy of self-defense, and so on.Quote:
He never said he didn’t.
ZOMG... this cant be a Christian doctrine. Anyhow, this is just NOT understanding the purpose of the death of Jesus ACCORDING to Christianity. Remember, they do believe he was a God - and could have prevented this if he chose to. They believe he could have called down fire from the heavens or called a legion of angels that would have leveled the entire empire of Rome to dust. They believe that he chose to die, so that men (humans) might be released from Adam's transgression and could attain resurrection and live forever in glory with God. This is the Christian Doctrine of Christ's death. Why would they blame the Jews for this? They should thank them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Still, "they killed Jesus" has been among the key aspects of christian antisemitism.
As for "who is a christian", I'd say the answer is "whoever defines themselves as such".
An oxymoron if there ever was one.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The correct answer would be: Only God knows who is Christian and who is not. :sneaky:Quote:
As for "who is a christian", I'd say the answer is "whoever defines themselves as such".
Only correct within christianity, not for those on the outside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Why would those outside Christianity want to define themselves as Christians?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No idea, so that wasn't my point ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Defining "christian" your way probably makes sense to a christian. For someone like me who doesn't believe in any gods, it makes no sense. I will have to define a christian as being those who define themselves that way.
It makes perfect sense to me, not being a Christian myself. If someone claims to be a Christian, I would have to retort: That is for your God to decide. :sneaky: ... begging the question you say?? whaddayamean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
“And other private comments.” Yes. People asking questions to former Nazi having a lot to be forgotten and saying what Hitler said (AFTER the war), trying to please the victors… Very reliable witnesses: But wasn’t the Vatican that organise the escape to Argentina and others South American Countries of all the Nazis left without jobs?
“Christianity is the religion that has had the most significant influence on French culture, institutions, language, etc.” As culture is concern, as much as Paganism, Invasions (various), Colonisation and Wars, nothing for the institutions (France doesn’t follow the Rules of St Augustin anymore), and I can’t say that French is linked with Christianity. Latin was first the language of the Romans before to be the language of Christianity, and is the combination of 2 main streams medieval French (langue d’Oc and Langue d’Oi).
Basically, you've got nothing? I see.Quote:
Yes. People asking questions to former Nazi having a lot to be forgotten and saying what Hitler said (AFTER the war), trying to please the victors… Very reliable witnesses: But wasn’t the Vatican that organise the escape to Argentina and others South American Countries of all the Nazis left without jobs?
Christianity has had the most as well as most immediate cultural influence. Paganism isn't a single religion, and I am not convinced that Celtism is more relevant to modern French culture than Christianity.Quote:
As culture is concern, as much as Paganism, Invasions (various), Colonisation and Wars, nothing for the institutions (France doesn’t follow the Rules of St Augustin anymore), and I can’t say that French is linked with Christianity. Latin was first the language of the Romans before to be the language of Christianity, and is the combination of 2 main streams medieval French (langue d’Oc and Langue d’Oi).
Christian influence. That isn't to say that modern institutions in France have a strong religious character.
Tabernac, but Latin is not a religion! Calisse!
Do we have anything more to quibble on?
Now that's being a smart-ass. Well played, good sir! :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
That is not how they curse in France, that's joual right there.Quote:
Christianity has had the most as well as most immediate cultural influence. Paganism isn't a single religion, and I am not convinced that Celtism is more relevant to modern French culture than Christianity.
Christian influence. That isn't to say that modern institutions in France have a strong religious character.
Tabernac, but Latin is not a religion! Calisse!
So reality is and was an an oxymoron? Was Luther e.g. not a Christian or how do you want to claim, that there was no Christian antisemitism whatsoever?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
“Basically, you've got nothing? I see.” I have what Hitler himself said during meetings. And in My Kampf, which is his platform. If you think it is nothing, well, by glasses and you will see. I don’t have second hand comments (well, I have, but some extreme-right novelist contest the reality of it. So I went back to the original: Hitler himself by himself.:yes:
“Christianity has had the most as well as most immediate cultural influence. Paganism isn't a single religion, and I am not convinced that Celtism is more relevant to modern French culture than Christianity.” Paganism is a form of religion. Celtism is not relevant to the French Culture (well, except in the French Founding Myths, along the Franks and the Romans. In fact it is funny to study how the French School Books succeeded to make one thing of it. Christianity had an impact of French Culture of course, but it is now over-rated. Largely. The Pope can tell what he wants, nobody care. And even long time ago: You do know that some Popes were “invited” to live in Avignon do you? Not even speaking of Napoleon wedding…
“Tabernac, but Latin is not a religion! Calisse!”: Er, can I remind you that you are the one claiming the influence of Christianity on the French Language, so I supposed you were mentioning Latin: my mistake. So what did you wanted to say when you mentioned the link between French and Christianity?
And I think that you wanted to say “tabernacle” (that is a cupboard) and “Calice” (that is the central part of a flower, looking like a cup, reason why it is as well the name for the recipient used in liturgy). This words are used more in Canada (Quebec) as swearing than in France.
If you want to develop on the use of religious words in French cursing, you can add “Vains dieu” (Useless God) or “Vingt Dieux” (Twenty Gods) I never know which one is the right one (same pronunciation). Old ones: Mordieu. (Death of God), Milledieu (Thousand Gods), Palsambleu (by the blood of God).
All right, time to go to bed…
“Do we have anything more to quibble on?” Bring it on…:verycool:
You missed the part about Hitler getting elected being important then, and the Roman Catholics trying to stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Here's a question - why didn't the Pope flee to Ireland after the Italians surrendered and Italy was occupied by the Germans?
People outside Christianity can't be allowed to define who or what we are - that allows you to lump us in with anti-Semites, White Supremacists...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Whatever.
That's like me defining who is and isn't a socialist - ultimately it's for the socialist political movement to decide.
Jesus was a Jew - and antisemitism is a complex phenomenon, I'll give you a cookie if you can work out why, historically, almost every group has persecuted Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
i'd say both ways of defining are important, but they serve different purposes. Since you mentioned socialism(ding ding ding!)......Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
There are certain things I consider key aspects of socialism. Those who do not conform to those aspects, are not people I consider socialists at all, regardless of their stance on other issues. Gay rights and internationalism, for example. A person who opposes gay rights or who promote nationalism have nothing to do with socialism - the way I see socialism.
Violá - I've just removed the stench of Stalin from my socialist coat.
That, however, makes very little sense to an outsider - as far as the world is concerned, Stalin is a socialist, no matter how much of a chauvinist I (and Lenin) consider him. Even though have less in common with Stalin than I have with the leader of the conservative party, his name will forever be a part of the socialist movement I'm a part of.
I'd say the same goes for you. Even though it makes little sense to call people you have absolutely nothing in common with christian, to an outsider, the KKK is still christian.
Hitler wasn't one though. Nor was he gay, or any of the other thousands of labels people have put on him in their effort to distance him from themselves and lump him with the groups we don't like.
He was a vegitarian, though. Crazy buddhists.
From a strictly dogmatic perspective maybe. And only a modern one- AFAIK the position of the catholic church was, for a long time, that the jews as a religious (as opposed to ethnic) community were responsible for Jesus' crucifiction. I'm sure you can call upon various arguments as to why that position was ridiculous. Doesn't change the bare fact that christian anti-semitism did exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Again: from a dogmatic standpoint. In broad everyday use the word christian refers to someone who considers himself a member of a christian church. I couldn't care less about how much these self-described christians observe the tenets of their faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
This whole business of defining the term "christian" as the "true scotsman" annoys me. The latest thread about Hitler and atheist morality should give you an idea why. Generally the people who say "a real christian would not do that, it's in the definition of the word" show no reluctance whatsoever to claim that there are 2 billion christians on the planet.
Allthough I must admit I find it remarkable whenever someone calls himself a christian but who choses to cherry-pick the parts of the bible and established dogma which he believes/adheres to, not because of theological thinking but based on convenience or how it fits in with the rest of their worldview. Personally I tend to view the matter as black or white; either the essentials of christian dogma are correct or they're entirely nonsense. If God really exists, why would he allow nonsense about his Word to become so widespread, and why would so many honestly believing adherents fall for this nonsense for centuries?
Believing in only a part of it, for pragmatic reasons, always seemed like a form of hypocricy to me, albeit a harmless one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horetore
It isn't a philosophical quest to find 'the one true X', but a matter of shifting perspectives. Who defines this as what, and why? As for "2 billion Christians n the planet" - of course there are. As I mentioned, governments take census on terms of self-identification, and pretty much that alone. This is the administrative perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Think of the fervent anti-Obamites in the USA, who hold Obama to be a socialist. What makes them 'wrong'? Nothing really, until you consider the label they confer in light of other, more internationally common definitions of socialism, historically common definitions of socialism, and historical individuals and regimes thought to be socialist. But that's just the start of the process - do you at least see the premise?
I do not claim that there are no Christian anti-semitism. I am just pointing out the oxymoronic notion, that people who do believe in the canon of scripture can have any anti-semitic sentiments. If they believe the Bible - then they should believe that Israel including the tribe of Judah (Jews) are God's chosen people. Why would they be anti-God's people? Jesus Christ himself was a Jew, hence the oxymoron. To be "Christian" and have a general anti-Jew attidude doesn't compute. The Gospel of Christ was only taught to the Jews at first. Peter changed that, not Christ whilst alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Agreed, christian's really should be called Messianic Judaism, jews that believe Jesus is the messiah. Or gentiles that became messianic Jews.
Same goes for Islamic anti-semitism.Quote:
I do not claim that there are no Christian anti-semitism. I am just pointing out the oxymoronic notion, that people who do believe in the canon of scripture can have any anti-semitic sentiments. If they believe the Bible - then they should believe that Israel including the tribe of Judah (Jews) are God's chosen people. Why would they be anti-God's people? Jesus Christ himself was a Jew, hence the oxymoron. To be "Christian" and have a general anti-Jew attidude doesn't compute. The Gospel of Christ was only taught to the Jews at first. Peter changed that, not Christ whilst alive.
Yes, it's the exact same thing.
Yes, as the Jew has infiltrated and talen control of the entire world, the resistance to their satanic perversion is pretty much the same all over the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Since we have a new member here, I feel the need to clarify: this was a joke. :beam: although with a core of truth, since the jewish conspiracy myth has spread to pretty much the entire world, and it's largely the same everywhere.
Oatmeal has one related to this thread.
you know its a good satire when you can only just tell its satire :yes:
The problem is the rich history of murder, rape torture and complicity in criminal acts that extend now thousands of years. Its very easy to make a difinitive statement "Christians who support the church, a church which has commited several crimes are they themselves criminal" Its right up there with the driver of the get away car getting a jail sentence along with the bank robber. Sorry but being outside of christianity is a wonderful place to assess its cultural impact over its span and its wrought with ugly episodes of violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So yeah i think we can define what christians are, filthy stinking criminals who belong in the klink. The paddy wagon should be parked outside of churches all over the world this sunday waiting for you clowns to exit to cuff and stuff you for supporting the criminal enterprise. Pray for me and I'll pray for you. When we get to hell Ill be the one holding the suggestion box.
Your so called "definition" begs the question. You have offered nothing to support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
People do bad things - Christians are people - QED Christians do bad things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
The key thing to take away from that is that people do bad things, not Christians specifically.
Having said that, right now you're the one peddling ignorant hatred of something you have no understanding of - you might like to take a look at what everyone else was doing for the last two thousand years. Indians were throwing the wives of dead men on funeral piers alive, Muslims were enslaving Christians women and children on an industrial scale, the Vikings were making sacrifices to Odin.
You might benefit from reading the City of God Against the Pagans, specifically Augustine's bit in book one about how Christians treat each other in War and how Pagans treat each other.
“specifically Augustine's bit in book one about how Christians treat each other in War” You mean, how the English King Henry V treated his French Prisoners after the Agincourt? They were both Christian and same Order (in St Augustin’s definition of the 3 orders). Or do you prefer the Great Peasants' Revolt, Germany, on how the very Christian Monarch and Nobility crushed it?:laugh4:
Perhaps you would like to discuss the reaction of Europe's Christians to Henry's actions? Or the fact that he did not simply kill all the prisoners which is what a Julius Caesar would have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I already covered the fact that Christians can do bad things, I was responding to Odin's claim that we are worse historically than anyone else, we aren't. Far from it.
Cannibalism during the Crusades really did hit a low point though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Atheist have done far worse in history than "christians". But both are sinners. But the point is, is when christian do things that are "bad" they do so in-spite of there beliefs, while atheist have no reason not to, and as hitler/darwin said are not being consistent with evolution if they pretend there are moral right and wrongs.
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?#
matt 7 15-16
Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.#
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.
1 john 4
What's christianitys take on stupidity?Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Well, it wasn't policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
“Atheist have done far worse in history than "christians". : Prove it. You already failed in a previous attempt.:laugh4:
“But the point is, is when christian do things that are "bad" they do so in-spite of there beliefs”: Because their belief is more accurate description.
“ while atheist have no reason not to, and as hitler/darwin said are not being consistent with evolution if they pretend there are moral right and wrongs.” Hitler was a Christian, so were the rulers of Europe during the slavery trade, the colonisation of all continents, and most of the famines created by their greed.
Why do you insist in claim you can’t back-up with evidences? Er, you have no choice, I know…:rolleyes:
I don't think that is logical. If you said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
All people do bad things - Christians are people.
Then you could say that Christians do bad things.
You are being obtuse, without a qualifier "people" can be taken as "all people".Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
His underlying point remains though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Or do you want to make a comparative analysis of Buddhist vs Christian crusades?
There are factors held within Christianity that has an ill effect on the world at large. That is why enlightenment and Christianity has so often clashed.
You don't want to compare Buddhist and Christian religious wars - believe me. You definitely don't want to compare Christian religious wars with, say, Communist Purges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Christianity is not, at root, a violent or militaristic creed - the fact that it has been used to justify military action is a fact of it's context being entirely human.
I stand by my point.
Well...Quote:
Or do you want to make a comparative analysis of Buddhist vs Christian crusades?
“You definitely don't want to compare Christian religious wars with, say, Communist Purges.” You are right. Christian Religious wars were rougher, merciless and bloodier. Under Communist Purges, you had a chance to escape if you were not opponent, but if you were not praying the same God, or not as you were supposed to do, that was the end, my friend (Apocalypse Now, The Door)…
A quick look at the results of the French one (e.g. St Barthelemy Night, Siege of La Rochelle –Christian VS Christian by the way- the Dragonnades of Louis the XIV and the Abrogation of the Edit de Nantes) will give you clues.
http://youtu.be/_faIFf9mB8o
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong
atheist governments killings morality etc
77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields (see also Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994).
Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler#(1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.
The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as “unfit,” and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly “biologically inferior.” (The United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the theory.)
The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.” If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?
Eugenics could only become popular because the theory of evolution seemed to have quashed the need for the sovereign Creator, God, who had given humankind absolute moral laws. When you do away with moral laws, outrageous racism and crimes like compulsory sterilization, Hitler's death camps, and mass murder on a maniacal scale can no longer be said to be evil.
Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky#(1879-1940), left, was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided was an enemy of the Soviet State.
He confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno.
He inflicted torture and violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of the Godless to get rid of religion.
Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's#Origin of Species. He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin's ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.
Like Hitler, Trotsky was a tyrant who saw Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific justification for dismissing God's moral laws. He clearly saw that the two ideas, God and evolution, were totally incompatible. His atrocities were consistent with this belief, for when you do away with the idea of the God who created you and who has given instructions for the right way to live, there is no reason to avoid despicably violent crimes. Even if this means murdering everyone who disagrees with you.
Hitler was not a christian as this thread has pointed out to you many times.
“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003
“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
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. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)
From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
Hitler had to convice germany of his beliefs he did so throgh propaganda, the leading opnents of his beliefs was the church in germany so he changed the bible and took over the church to fit his beliefs.
Heschel, S., The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, Princeton University press, USA, 2008
But what is important is, atheist are not contradicting there beliefs by murdering millions, christian are.
“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003
As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of#Mein Kampf#that Darwinism was theonly#basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work#—#in English#My Struggle#—#alluded to. As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:
‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching#—#probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas#—#quite undisguised#—#lie at the basis of all that is worst in#Mein Kampf#-and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’
Clark, Robert,#Darwin: Before and After,#Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958
And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:
‘#… was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book,#Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’
Hickman, R.,#Biocreation,#Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51–52, 1983
‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.
Wilder-Smith,#B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982
‘ … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that … [their application of Darwin’s theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist “biopolicy,” … [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a monistic, antitranscendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection….
Stein, G., Biological science and the roots of Nazism,#American Scientist#76(1):50–58, 1988
Hitler, as an evolutionist,‘consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution’.
If war be the progeny of evolution#—#and I am convinced that it is#—#then evolution has “gone mad”, reaching such a height of ferocity as must frustrate its proper role in the world of life#—#which is the advancement of her competing “units”, these being tribes, nations, or races of mankind. There is no way of getting rid of war save one, and that is to rid human nature of the sanctions imposed on it by the law of evolution. Can man … render the law of evolution null and void? … I have discovered no way that is at once possible and practicable. “There is no escape from human nature.” Because Germany has drunk the vat of evolution to its last dregs, and in her evolutionary debauch has plunged Europe into a bath of blood, that is no proof that the law of evolution is evil. A law which brought man out of the jungle and made him king of beasts cannot be altogether bad.’#
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946.
‘The Jews, labelled subhumans, became nonbeings. It was both legal and right to exterminate them in the collectivist and evolutionist viewpoint. They were not considered … persons in the sight of the German government.’
Whitehead, J,#The Stealing of America, Crossway Books, Westchester, IL, p. 15, 1983
‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile”#(Mein Kampf).’
talking of chirtianity hitler says
‘ … organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about [destroying religion] … with dynamite. I’ve since realized there’s room for a little subtlety …. The final state must be … in St. Peter’s Chair, a senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women … The young and healthy are on our side#…#it’s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies …. [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples …. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls.’
Hitler, A.,#Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941–1944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 116, 1953.
Hitler was influenced above all by the theories of the nineteenth-century social Darwinist school, whose conception of man as biological material was bound up with impulses towards a planned society.#
Fest, J.C.,#The Face of the Third Reich,#Pantheon, NY, pp. 99–100, 1970.
“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003
“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003
# Hitler made it clear that he “hated Christianity” and was going to eliminate it when the war ended
#“it had crippled everything noble about humanity” (quoted in Kershaw, 2000, p. 936).
Kershaw, Ian. 2000.#Hitler. 1936-45: Nemesis.#New York: W.W. Norton.
# Hitler was trying to use science — especially Darwinism — to create a utopia on Earth, and he made it absolutely clear that there would be “no place in this utopia for the Christian Churches” in his plans for the future of Germany.# He realized that this was a long term goal and “was prepared to put off long-term ideological goals in favor of short-term advantage”
p. 238 Kershaw, Ian. 2000.#Hitler. 1936-45: Nemesis.#New York: W.W. Norton.
#For example, when Germany invaded Poland, around 200 executions a day occurred — all without trials — which included especially, the “nobility, clerics, and Jews,” all which were eventually to be exterminated (Kershaw, 2000, p. 243)
Hitler considered Christianity the “invention of the Jew Saul” (Azar, 1990, p. 154)
Azar, Larry. 1990.#Twentieth Century in Crisis.#Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
“murdered by Hitler’s stormtroopers.# In an attempt to discredit the Church, monks were brought to trial on immorality charges.# In 1935 the Protestant churches were placed under state control.# Protesting ministers and priests were sent to concentration camps.# They had become ‘supervisives’ on a par with the Jews and communists.# Pope Pius XI, realizing the anti-Christian nature of Nazism, charged Hitler with ‘the threatening storm clouds of destructive religious wars ... which have no other aim than ... that of extermination.’# But the Nazi shouts of ‘Kill the Jews’ drowned out the warning voice of the Pope and the agonized cries of the tortured in the concentration camps” (Dimont, 1994, p. 397).
“Hitler spoke of both Protestants and Catholics with contempt, convinced that all Christians would betray their God when they were forced to choose between the swastika and the Cross: ‘Do you really believe the masses will be Christian again?# Nonsense!# Never again.# That tale is finished.# No one will listen to it again.# But we can hasten matters.# The parsons will dig their own graves.# They will betray their God to us.# They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes’” (1995, p. 104).
Lutzer, Erwin W. 1995.#Hitler’s Cross: The Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ was Used as a Symbol of the Nazi Agenda.#Chicago, IL: Moody Press.
physicist Albert Einstein
“lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced.# Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth.# I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom.# I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly” (cited by Wilhelm Niemoller in#Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche#— Struggle and Testimony of the Confessing Church, p. 526. and Cochrane).
Altogether Hitler’s killing machine murdered 5 million Jews, and 7 million Christians — a little published fact that caused Jewish historian Max Dimont to declare that “the world blinded itself to the murder of Christians” by Nazi Germany (Dimont, 1994, pp. 391-392).# In Poland alone 881 Catholic priests were annihilated (Azar, 1990, p. 154).# In time many more priests would end up in concentration camps.
Dachau concentration camp held the largest number of Catholic priests — over 2,400 — in the Nazi camp system.# They came from about 24 nations, and included parish priests and prelates, monks and friars, teachers and missionaries.# Over one third of the priests in Dachau alone were killed (Lenz, 2004).# One Dachau survivor, Fr. Johannes Lenz, wrote an account of the Catholic holocaust.# He claimed that the Catholic Church was the only steadfast fighter against the Nazis.# Lenz tells the agony and martyrdom of the physical and mental tortures Dachau inmates experienced.# Men and women were murdered by the thousands in Dachau, and those who survived were considered “missionaries in Hell.”# The fact is, official Nazi works taught both anti-Semitic and anti-Christian doctrines:
“If one believes the anti-Semitic, one should also believe the anti-Christian, for both had a single purpose.# Hitler’s aim was to eradicate all religious organizations within the state and to foster a return to paganism” (Dimont, 1994, p. 397).
More documents that prove Nazi’s planned to “eliminate Christianity and convert its followers to an Aryan philosophy” are now on the online version of#Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion#(Hotchkin, 2003, p. 3).# The church did much to fight Nazism, but not nearly enough.# Nonetheless, there is no way that they can they be held as the#cause#of Nazism.
‘ …#modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics#—#and it was he who created the term “eugenics”#—#were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’
Ludmerer, K., Eugenics,#In:#Encyclopedia of Bioethics,#Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978
‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946
would people stop saying Hitler was Christian (even if you believe it) - all it does is prompt TR to pull out the stupid copy paste reams he has used so many times in this thread...
stick to Hitler was a "Believer" and not atheist- that way we may survive the copy pasta attacks...
on a serious note
Quote:
I don't think that is logical. If you said:
All people do bad things - Christians are people.
Then you could say that Christians do bad things.
Better would be:
Some People do Bad things > Christians are People > therefore Some Christians do bad things
“would people stop saying Hitler was Christian” Well, it is funny how he is a believer in repetition makes truth.
TR, check who was Aloysius Stepinac, new Croatian Saint of the Roman Catholic Church…
Kershaw, is he the “historian” trying to exempt Hitler of the decision of the “Final Solution”? Yes, very reliable, as much as D. Irving (holocaust Denier).
Do you understand (but I am sure you don’t) that in evolution there no superior or inferior races. In Religion(s), where the Christian Hitler picked his idea, yes, not in evolution. If Hitler wasn’t a Catholic Christian, why did he pick the Jews and the Slavs as inferior? Answers: Because the first killed the Christ (according to the Christian Tradition), and the second went in Heresy. See.
And an “evolutionist” knows that there is one actual human race. Perhaps you don’t know as the Bible agrees with slavery, rapes and slaughters of others populations, but there is ONLY one Human Race. Other races are Equine, Porcine, Birds, etc. Just buy a book of biology. I don’t blame the ignorant writers of the Bible for this, as they didn’t have the knowledge to know this, but Darwin had.:book2:
Religions call for killing on their names. News for you: There no Atheist equivalent of Bible. I can imagine how stupide it would be for an individual to call to kill for nothing: “Kill the believers in the name of err… Nobody” is not really strong. Now, kill for Christ was quite used: From “Kill them all, God will know his own” Arnaud Amaury, Pope’s Legate, 1209, to the “God with us” on the Nazi Germany soldiers’ belt, that sounds much better and motivating.
The victims’ figures of the Atheist regimes: There is no example of Atheist Regime. There are examples of Theocracies. You might have regime lead by atheists. But if you add all the victims during wars to rulers who were Christians, I think you will find the Religions take the lead in numbers of murders and killing, and the Christians one probably competing for the first place (see conversion of the Saxons by Charlemagne).
Eugenic was based more on Comte Arthur Gobineau essay on the “Inequality of Human Races” or other scientists as Francis Galton (1883).
Nothing in Darwin tells about “inequality” in Races, as it is not the subject of the studies. Linking Darwin and his Cousin and then to Hitler is an intellectual fraud, only good for those who have a lot to be forgiven.:yes:
Try again. I mean, copy and paste.:yes:
If Darwin was in favour of eugenics, then that would be pretty ironic, considering that the guy married his own cousin.
I understand that there are some pointers that Darwin and/or his cousin (the male one which he didn’t marry) were in favour of eugenics – not just in this thread, mind you. I don’t know how credible these claims are, and I don’t really care. His theoretical groundwork for evolution is still just as sound, if he endorsed eugenics than that’s his private opinion, and the guy is not some idol or role model for anyone.
The guy who invented insulin was a rabid anti-semite. That doesn’t mean that diabetes doesn’t exist, or that you’re endorsing Hitler if you use insulin shots.
just in case you missed it (you quoted me) - I was being sarcastic about TR's copy Pasta which he brings out like a reflex whenever we point out Hitlers beliefs... hence why this thread was startedQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I don't actually want people to stop saying it - the sooner he comes to terms with the entire thing the better
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
so you find one of many sources unsaleable and that makes them all false? who should we listen to than on hitler? many scholars that agree? or who? The question asked was is hitler christian, the clear answer is no. Hitler/nazi thought was anti christian.
The rest is trying to bring off topic from the clear fact hitler hated christian and was anti christian, the topic of this thread.
You claim there is no Superior races etc in evolution, did you not read what darwins title was of origin of species.?
OnThe Origin of Speciesby Means of Natural Selection,orThe Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
darwin/hitler were both racist, evolution is all about change and surivial of the fittest, blacks are not the same as whites we evolved diferntley. Just as diffident animals change and have diffident species etc so do people. It is all a struggle for life pass on genes and survival.
That is were hitler got his ideas from
‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946
As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of#Mein Kampf#that Darwinism was theonly#basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work#—#in English#My Struggle#—#alluded to. As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:
‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching#—#probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas#—#quite undisguised#—#lie at the basis of all that is worst in#Mein Kampf#-and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’
Clark, Robert,#Darwin: Before and After,#Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958
And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:
‘#… was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book,#Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’
Hickman, R.,#Biocreation,#Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51–52, 1983
‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.
Wilder-Smith,#B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982
In fact the reason many evolutionary nazis like hitler and Ernst hankel hated christian was because they were not racist.
A major reason why Haeckel concluded this was because Christianity:
‘ … makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim?’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946
As Humber notes, Hitler believed that Blacks were ‘monstrosities halfway between man and ape’ and therefore he disapproved of German Christians:
‘ … going to “Central Africa” to set up “Negro missions,” resulting in the turning of “healthy … human beings into a rotten brood of bastards.” In his chapter entitled “Nation and Race,” he said, “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.” A few pages later, he said, “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live”.
Humber, P., The Ascent of Racism, Impact,#February, p. 2, 1987.
You claim hitler hated jews because they killed christ this was already responded to on thread to witch you could not respond, post 127. Not to mention you would have to ignore everything he has said but one quote you can provide in context and can easily be easplanied [post 127] and ignore his deeds actions worldview etc. A few quotes up it says because jews were under evolved.
You than claim the bible agree with slavery rape etc this is topic I would love to discuss, but not on this thread. The bible is so very much against these both.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531534
we define what a race is,that changes with time and who you ask, read textbooks from Germany in 1940's and america see how they threat blacks etc.
Christianity calls to kill for in there names? interesting, not sure you would like to debate this 1v1, nor does this have to do with Hitler. Not to mention you have no right to call murder wrong look here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...orallity/page5
hitler killed because of his worldview/belie in evolution not atheism.
in fact that is untrue, atheist have killed 100 times as many.
eugenics
I was referring to the worldview,not who started it, you missed the point.
‘ …#modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics#—#and it was he who created the term “eugenics”#—#were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’
Ludmerer, K., Eugenics,#In:#Encyclopedia of Bioethics,#Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978
“On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” Where is the superiority of races in the title? Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life means The Lucky Ones that can adapt to Changing Conditions. Please, do some text analyse before claiming absurdities.:wall:
“evolution is all about change and survival of the fittest” Nope, Evolution is the survival of the ones that can adapt, nothing to do with the fittest. Neanderthal was probably the fitter (stronger) of the 2 human races (the other one being Cro-Magnon), but he vanished when we survived as we were more adaptable…:sweatdrop: But you probably deny the existence of Neanderthal, as it is not in the Bible, I suppose.
All the links between evolution and Nazism you propose are not from Hitler himself, but other authors’ opinions on Hitler. So, I will question their motives. And until now, each time, you propose authors very close to the Extreme Right Ideology. This only begs the question about Christianity and Extreme Right.
Humber just lies in his book.
For the web: “English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation.".
“White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Keith: Interesting biography in the site called white nationalism and it goes on for all your references.
None of your sources is a credible one as they all have an agenda and interest in disentangling Christianity from Nazism.
Just for your information and fun, the other evil atheist butcher, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution as it was a Bourgeois’ Theory… The real truth starts to show: you don’t believe in Evolution, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution, you are Christian, so Stalin was a Christian… This fact really nails it, as Stalin was a student in Religion in his youth.:laugh4:
darwin/hitler were both racist: Christianity/Hitler were both racist: Fixed for you
“we define what a race is,that changes with time and who you ask, read textbooks from Germany in 1940's and america see how they threat blacks etc” Nope. Races concept is a Biological description. You mix up (like racist –and I am not telling you are one) a Biological reality the racists extended to politic. The treatment of non-white populations is due to the “politisation” of a Biological observation where politicians twisted biology to support their goals. They spent a lot of resources in trying to prove their theories and had, as we know, some success.
“in fact that is untrue, atheist have killed 100 times as many” It is so true that you can’t come up with facts. But apparently, you are not bothered too much by facts.
“Not to mention you would have to ignore everything he has said” I don’t. You do, when Hitler said “as a Christian”, YOU pretend it was to fool people. I say that when Hitler said he was a Christian, he was genuine, and when Hitler said because of this, he will kill the Jews, he was genuine. When Hitler wrote in My Kampf that the White Race was the creation of God and had to rules the sub-races, I say he meant it.
I am not interested in what other people said that Hitler said; I am not interested in what other people extrapolating from where he took his idea of “Superior” races, I just acknowledge what he said: Form his Christian background and education. And you can bring as much as you want of so-called proofs (indirect ones, Hitler told me, in secret,) as you want, the facts stay stubbornly that in My Kampf and in his public speeches Hitler qualified himself as a Christian. So he was.
Concerning the link with Darwin and Nazism, you emphasize that the one (one of) developing the concept of Eugenic is his cousin. So the fact that you have a stupid or crazy cousin makes your study suspect as well? You have a strange system of analyse.
Darwin was actually a well known racist and white supremacist - it's just that nobody found that particularly noteworthy at the time.
His work was also as much a Scientific flop as a public success, people like to forget that he had no idea what the mechanism of heritability was, and his wild guesses were miles off. Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out.
The monk in question was Gregor Johann Mendel - also I find the statement "Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out." a little odd - not many scientific discoveries of the time were made by "bored" catholic monks so shouldn't it be "surprisingly"
slightly amusing note - Mendel actually reported his discoveries 3 years before Darwin settled on the wrong idea of pangenesis :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
you are rejecting clear teachings/thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution was and how he viewed races, darwin as well. Your not lucky to adapt and survive,your more advanced/evolved as nazi germany taught about evolution in there textbooks,jews less evolved.
The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol. Also all one needs to do is read what hitler/darwin and germany thought in 1940's to tell they would very much disagree with you. Fittest does not mean strongest. Why would I deny Neanderthal? they fit the creation model fine, I tried to debate you 1v1 on evolution or Neanderthal you would on neither.
hitler/evolution
False,go back and read many are direct from hitler,just the source is from a scholar quoiting him so its there book. Its not like this is groundbreaking stuff [maybe to you] Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody? That is a completely baseless claim you cannot support. It is also a logical fallcie to attack source instead of material.
Your one hitler quote
wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm
Notice it does not refrence any page number for the claim it makes about Aryan race etc lol.
That is because your source is trying to hide it. Here are just 3 exsamples
The stronger must rule; it must not unite with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own stature. Only the born weakling can think this cruel, and that is why he is a weak and defective man; for if this law did not hold, any conceivable evolution of organic living things would be unthinkable. (p. 278)
Always struggle is a means to improve the health and stamina of the species, and thus a cause of its evolution.
By any other process all development and evolution would cease, and the very reverse would take place. (p. 278)
But little as Nature wishes a mating of weaker with stronger individuals, still less does she want the fusion of a higher with a lower race, since otherwise the whole labor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)
Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. (p. 249)
But lets assume your correct, what does that have to do with anything said? I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times in Mein Kampf. I never said he had to or did so. I said hitlers evolutionary beliefs led to his racism and view of less evolved races such as blacks/jews to want to ride them of his pure blood Nordic society. Also that hitler hated christian and all religon killing more christian than jews.
wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm
You than claim your online website with no references and not my multiple books/university studies are reliable. I shall ask you to tell me why? knowing you cant refute facts you must attack the source, yet me and any other will clearly see this as a escape from the truth that you dont want to admit. You claim because they have a agenda, yet cant show evidence of it, nor would that change the truth even if they did, hitler was still hitler.
stalin
you do this often, you try to bring discussion somewhere else when it does not go well with you. This thread is on hitler not stalin. Just because someone studies bible/religion does not make them christian. Bart erhman would be christian today if true and darwin etc.
At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections
stalin
An avid reader, Soso acquired a copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, when he was about 13
"One day, he and some friends were talking about the injustice of there being rich and poor. Soso amazed them all by saying, ‘God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just. I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.’ He produced a copy of Darwin’s book"
biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40
not to mention he killed
100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church
because history tells us as do hitler stalin, that they were racist, it should be fixed.
as i sated races are made up words that humans define.
provided many times over to you.
atheist governments killings morality etc
77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields (see also Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994).
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong
You have to ignore all the books quotes his writings etc that dont agree with your one quote you cant put in context that can be easily explained as I stated last post, that is why you cant respond to post 127. I dont ignore the quote at all, that was reason for post 127, you clearly have to ignore so much to keep your view you cling to alive. I will refer to post 207/208 for his own words/opinions writings on how he felt about chritianity, keep in mind hes a weird christian if he killed more of them than jews and directly targeted priest churches etc.
eugenics
I was referring to the worldview,not who started it, you missed the point. my last post, not sure on how to be more clear on this. Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?.
As mentioned, too, those in power such as Gove, especially ones that have relied upon privileged institutions to get where they are, have been helped by biased, interest-vested institutions to then criticise people for not trying hard enough when they have no idea what it feels like to live in poverty, desperation and try to achieve the same things as those who are telling them they aren’t doing/trying well enough. As for women re men, poorer disadvantaged groups have to try twice, at least, as hard to get to the same places that people from wealthier backgrounds do – not to mention the lack of status, and respect such people get in society even if they succeed. Social Darwinists’ advocate natural selection whilst relying on socially constructed privatisation, for instance, to ensure dominance.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
The same can be said for Hague’s comments, who argued that the government’s strategy for growth is simply for people to work harder. How insulting and offensive to all those people who get up, work so hard for not enough to maintain a decent living. How insulting for a government, intent on helping the 1% through socially constructed measures such as allowing bankers’ bonuses to go on at the high they are, lowering corporate tax, whilst cutting benefits at disgusting amounts and arguing benefits such as Disability Living Allowance have been exploited when there is only around a 0.5% fraud rate for this benefit, not to mention only around £1bn of fraud committed by welfare claimants in general as those at the top get away with more than £100bn a year of fraud/evasion. To then hear Hague say the problem with the economy, now back in a recession, is not the government’s austerity measures – which are being rejected around Europe as we speak – but rather is the fault of individuals not working hard enough – adds insult to injury. Again, Social Darwinism blames the individual, whilst ignoring the socially constructed vested interests that ensure the same people get into power and then tell those off who aren’t in power, for being lazy, thick, scroungers and just essentially, they feel, beneath them.
Mendel was a physicist, so really not surprising that he would advance biology on his off days. :smoking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The biologists will just have to weather the stamp collecting criticism.
Most knowledge has been advanced by Roman Catholic monks who are bored - it's what happens when you train bright minds to think logically, and then deprive them of stimulus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
I think that's a little... biased
While you are right I think your reasoning is off - the reason most Knowledge in the West was propagated by Catholic Monks is primarily because for a VERY long time they were the only ones who could read and write (and had the time to actually inscribe books which isn't a fast process)
I like experimenting with pizzas.
pineapple, curry, onion was a favourite. Sounds strange, but is quite nice.
“Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody?” I did it in the text you just answered (white nationalism website, doesn’t ring an alarm bell?)…
“biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40”: novelist, not historian… Sorry.
“Favoured Races” and you read “fittest”, Favoured in adaptation…
“The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol” Err, not. The Sabres Teeth Tiger was incredible fit, and didn’t survive, nor the mammoth, and the mega beast…
“thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution” Hitler completely ignored Evolution as defined by Darwin.
“It is also a logical fallacies to attack source instead of material” What? You have obviously no idea how to study history and texts. The interest of the Author, his own belief and ideology are keys of what he/she writes. It is the core of REAL historians. A person having an agenda will “forget” or twist facts, as YOU do.
In another debate, somebody came-up with the figures of 20 million of the famine in Ukraine due to the Stalin Regime and the Collectivisation of the land. The problem is we have the figures of the Ukrainian population in 1926: Around 30 million. So if you add the alleged 20 million dead and that would have made Ukrainian population before the famine at around 50 million. That would have made Ukraine one of the most populated Countries in Europe at that time (61 million for Germany, 41 million for France). And we know it wasn’t.
“I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times” You didn’t, but the author you mentioned to support your text did. He lies.
Again, providing figures from books of Christian Authors or Extreme Right keen to extract Christianity from Nazism prove nothing. The fact to put Hitler in the list is speaking by itself. The Christians are so keen in it, as you are, that it is laughable. Then who tell you that Pol Pot was Atheist? Or Mao? Perhaps they believed in something, a deity… It the same anti-communism that made the Churches allied with Hitler.
The Pope (Christian) told the Christians that the fight against Communism was a Holly Duty.
“Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?”
That is because I made a free and sapient decision, without fear. That is why we are sapient. It is the same kind of decision I took when at the age of 20 I joined the army and trained to prepare for war to defend the ones who can’t, or when at around 30 I went in Charities to help my brothers and sisters in Humanity in wars, disease and distress. I don’t need a God to tell me what is right from wrong. I can THINK by myself.
The Religious Authorities and their so-called morality are so obsess by sex and death that they forget that there is life. I know you can’t, but read the Bible for what it is with a free mind. Read the words: killing, rape, humiliation, and genocides.
“the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook.” First, you link atheism and the Evolution, which is debatable. Second, can you develop why atheism is consistent with bloodbath? There are no Holly Books in atheism, so you will have trouble to go for it. But again, I don’t think that facts are really a trouble for you, your constant denial of Hitler’s Christianity being the proof.
Religions are consistent with blood bath, as several times illustrated not only in the Bible but by History.
“not to mention he killed 100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church” : Figures from?
He probably killed and deported more Communist than that, and he was still a communist: “We will destroy every enemy, even if he is an Old Bolshevik, we will destroy his kin, his family. Anyone who by his actions or thoughts encroaches on the unity of the socialist state, we shall destroy relentlessly." I.V. Stalin, November 1937”. And just as a reminder, the Gulags existed under the very Christian Tsar(s) of all Russia.
Stalin killed every body, believers, atheists, Jews, non-Jews, all nationalities, Soldiers and Officers, Socialists and Nationalists, etc. He was very open and universalist in the killing spree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
My references not yours, please provide were mine are from far right etc also why would it matter even though untrue, hitler was raciest no matter who tells you. I could also just claim yours are liberal so dont listen to them.
again facts matter stop using logical fallacies for facts you cant respond to. Disprove with facts, something you cannot do so you stick with logical fallacies.
ad hominem
attack on person not argument
and?....
That matters not to what hitler/darwin were saying.
based on nothing, you wont be able to support at all.
Great, than you should be able to refute what I have said based on facts, this you are never able to do, that is why its a logical fallcie. Also you claim I twist facts, yet wont be able to show with facts,only baseless claims as you have so far.
He did not lie as I showed, he diid use the word, my point was it matters not at all to what i was saying. I never said he had to use the word evolution at all though he did as I showed. I think you are alone on a island with your beliefs on hitler, that is why you must give random baseless opinions on subjects.
But why are these wrong? what do you base it on? and if i think rape,murder etc are good, what do you base me doing them being wrong on?
why is jeffery dahmer wrong to you?
"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within
you claim there is facts for hitler being a christian, I really dont know what to say at this point. Its like my kids closing there ears and eyes to not hear "bad" words. The point is death is what got us here in evolution, survival of the fittest, so killing weaker less evolved is just a natural part of life.
True,but did he target caomunist for being communist? me thinks not, also i was referring to hitler and nazi germany.
I take your point - but the Secular University is based on the model of the Religious Monastery for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Why were Monks often the only ones who could read and write?
Because they had the time to learn - in a way the whole Monastery was geared towards education (aside from feeding itself), that's why noblemen sent their children their to study, and it's why so much came from Monks and not the Secular Clergy.
Even today this is true - look at the Jesuits.
The problem occurs when the research isn't sanctioned or ends up silenced though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
There's a theory, though, that the university of Oxford was actually based on the madrasa in the Islamic world.Quote:
I take your point - but the Secular University is based on the model of the Religious Monastery for a reason.
Which has historically happened very rarely - the one always touted is Galileo, but he was obsolete even before he was locked up and he was actually locked up for writing a tract which was seen as satirising the Pope as stupid. The fact is, if Galileo had been a proper observational Astronomer, like Iohannes Keppler, he would have been able to prove heliocentrism to the Pope without being seen to mock him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Don't misunderstand me, he shouldn't have been locked up or accused of heresy but his downfall has nothing to do with the Church rejecting good science because he wasn't offering any, just out-of-date Copernicism. If you compare him to the Protestant Keppler, who was more radical and completely unmolested, you can see his error had nothing to do with supporting heliocentrism - in fact the Pope asked him to write a tract supporting it.
The only example of suppressing scientific knowledge I can think of is the Roman Church's early, and shortlived, objections to evolutionary theory, which, again, was being presented without evidence as to its mechanical operation at the time.
Yep, via the Templar Chapter House. The Islamic Divines were riffing on the same theme though - we're bored and we need to do something that's Holy but doesn't involve just reading the Koran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Of course - both owe a great deal to Plato's Academe as well.
Not only the Roman Church did that. Carl von Linné ended up with something similar, if milder. There is a plant that have a common mutation that messes up Linné's taxonomy system completely and makes it almost impossible for the plant to procreate. He wasn't stupid, so he drew the connections. Only such ideas about evolving plants and it's consequences wasn't that celebrated in the church, so they made him shut up on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I'm also suspect that some research wouldn't really start in a monastary. Human anatomy for example. Let us cut up some bodies!!
You can prove me wrong here though.
According to Wikipedia, Hitler's dislike of the Jews is deeply rooted in Christian anti-Semitism.
As Wikipedia is the fount of all knowledge, I win.