Posted on 08/11/2006 10:55:59 PM PDT by doug from upland
Was Hitler a Christian?
By John Baskette - but the information came from Marty Helgesen in a soc.religion.christian post.
The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. 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.
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.21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)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)9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)27th February, 1942, midday:
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 Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Posted on 08/11/2006 7:03:41 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
August 11, 2006 - 21:47
It doesn't take much to offend liberals' exquisite sensitivities. The latest? Referring to Islamofascists as . . . Islamofascists. Chris Matthews got the ball rolling on this evening's Hardball. But Charlie Rangel upped the ante to the max, managing to impugn Christians and Jews in the bargain. Fortunately, GOP Congressman Dan Lungren had the guts to call Rangel on it.
Matthews got things started by challenging Lungren: "Would you include Hezbollah in that group [of Islamofascists]? Would you include Hamas, they are they enemies of Israel. Are they also enemies of ours? Are they also fascists because they have a dispute with Israel? Anybody who is against us is a fascist now."
Chris, are you really asking whether Hezbollah, who killed 241 of our servicemen in Lebanon, is our enemy?
Rangel sent things to the moon a bit later with this line: "You take Islamic and you call them fascists, you call them radical. You never called Hitler a Christian fascist. This is insulting to an entire religion."
Lungren wouldn't be intimidated: "No it's not that at all, and that is absolute nonsense to say that."
Rangel wasn't finished: "We got Christian killers, we got Jewish killers, and we never identify them by religion. What you're doing is demonizing."
Demonizing, Charlie? What would you call the people who wanted to blow up thousands of innocents civilians over the Atlantic this week?
What a freakin ignoramus. That a member of Congress can't grasp the difference between someone who was a Christian (which is Charlie's stupid argument) and a tyrant, and those who are tyrants in order to force their religious beliefs on others is terrifying. If someone with the information available to him that Rangel has can't grasp the nature of the threat we're dealing with, how can we expect the average American to do so?
On the other hand, it's nice to see the Michael Moore wing of the party flexing its muscles and chasing away voters.
I call them craven Islamikazes. I think Charlie calls them "victims."
I don't have anything deep to add, but as a simple protestant, we (I) believe a person is only a Christian when he believes he is a Christian.
Birth, parents, tradition, rituals etc. mean nothing.
Being a Christian is a self declarative relationship with God, and of course the acceptance of Christ.
hell no, he was a socialist.....
Charlie is stupid, even for a Congress person.
'Christian' killers who kill in the name of Christ truly are fringe, in that there are only a handful of them, and they have no support from the greater Christian community.
Islamic killers, on the other hand, number at least in the tens of thousands, and despite what we are constantly told by the press and politicians, their views and actions actually enjoy signficant support from the greater, allegedly moderate, Muslim world.
If Rangel can't see this huge distinction (and its just one of many), then he's more of an idiot than I thought. But in reality you never really know with a demagogue like Rangel if what he is saying is a result of stupidity, or a calculated tactic whereby, secure in the knowledge that the press will not call him out, he says outrageous things he knows to be false.
MA list?
Good article about Hitler and his personal philosophy:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895696/posts
Hitler's Forgotten Library: The Man, His Books, and His Search for God
"Was Hitler a Christian?"
To be a CHRISTian one must be a follower of CHRIST.
Hitler obviously chose to NOT follow Christ.
Hitler chose not to be a Christian.
Isn't it wonderful to see the democrats outing themselves?
He isn't smart enough to come up with such a strategy; he's just a dunce with a big yapper.
Your tagline fits Charlie Rangel to a T...;-)
Birth, parents, tradition, rituals etc. mean nothing.
What about Baptism?
"I don't have anything deep to add, but as a simple protestant, we (I) believe a person is only a Christian when he believes he is a Christian." I'm not Sure about that, but you're on the button with this fact:..."and of course the acceptance of Christ." Bless ya.
Rangel would call them potential constituency. Of course he fails to grasp that they'll be dead...although that doesn't stop many dems from voting.
As far as I know the person has to ask to be baptized, then it is done.
For the Catholics, as far as infant baptism goes, I don't know, my gut and my protestant background says no.
If I was a dedicated Catholic, I would feel safe, but if I were only born into a Catholic family and baptized at birth, I would go to a priest and ask for an in depth conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.