Posted on 08/22/2006 2:04:20 PM PDT by js1138
The pagan National Socialists killed at least twice as many Christians as they did Jews... and the Soviet Socialists...
What we are dealing with is a claim that Hitler was a Christian. Table Talk is pretty good evidence that he wasn't. Carrier, who has an agenda to convince the world that Hitler was some kind of a Christian, found some translation problems. Even taking into account that Carrier is right, Table Talk -- using Carrier's claims -- still shows Hitler to be an anti-Christian.
Transubstantiation is not accepted by most Christians. Surely you know that.
Again, we'll call that progress. Another one conceding that Hitler was not a Catholic. And transubstantion is accepted by about half of all Christians.
Hitler was critical of Christianity in some passages, and accepting of much of its doctrine in others.
Like Jesus being an Aryan? LOL.
That was Spencer's phrase, not Darwin's.
Spencer was a Darwnist.
There is indeed. It is called excommunicatio latae sententiae, when one commits an act that is so obviously an act of apostasy that no court of canon law needs to convene in order to explicitly declare an excommunication.
Hitler engaged in several activities that automatically excommunicated him, including his participation in meetings of Karl Lueger's anti-Catholic Guido-von-List Gesellschaft.
The passage of the Nuremberg Laws also incurred an automatic excommunication, since anyone who is responsible for crwating and enforcing legislation that voids or impairs the laws of the Catholic Church regarding sacramental marriage are excommunicated.
He was automatically excommunicated for the procurement of abortions of women considered unfit.
He was automatically excommunicated for depriving the Church of its liberties.
There are various stories of his personal life which, if true, also create conditions for various automatic excommunications.
When he ordered the killings of various priests in such places at Mauthausen, he cemented his various preexisting automatic excommunications many times over.
The list goes on and on and on.
Few people ever baptized Catholic have ever incurred more automatic excommunications than Hitler.
So were the ordinary German people who voted Hitler into power and who supported him during all these atrocities in on the gag? Were the German people secretly pagagan all along, and just waved crosses and Christian slogans as a joke?
The German people knew when Cardinal Faulhaber was placed under house arrest and Dietrich Bonhoeffer was driven underground that the regime had no tolerance for traditional Christianity of either the Catholic or Protestant variety.
So your saying you can wish to destroy the Catholic Church, disbelieve in transubstantion and think Jesus was an Aryan, and still be a Catholic?
Were the German people in on the gag? When Hitler said Christianity, did they wink and smile to each other, knowing that they were all secretly pagans?
Most Germans did not vote for Hitler. His party did not have a majority in the Rechistag and he his acquistion of power came via domestic turmoil and misjudgements by his political adversaries. Once he acquired power, he famously took over the means of controlling information and quashing dissent. A whole lot of Germans supported him because they were fed bad data.
A lot of decent Americans support totalitarian-inclined Democrats for the same reason.
Good points.
Do you have the authority to render this judgement, or has this been been made official?
But the bad data included religious rites and symbols. If the justification was pagan, why the public appeal to Christianity?
Now, if imprisoning clerics is automatically anti-Christian, then at least a couple of Popes were anti-Christian.
Irony -- it's what's for breakfast.
It would appear that way, wouldn't it? Especially when you consider the swastika as their broken cross...
It is automatically official, it never had to be "made" official.
If someone who was baptized Catholic goes to medical school, gets a license and then performs an abortion he is automatically excommunicated by Church law.
They don't send him a certificate telling him, there is no formal process. He did a deed which incurs excommunication and that's flat, end of story.
The Catholic Church is not ruled by British common law, but canon law. There is no presumption of innocence for people who violate the canons.
The only formal juridical act the Church can undertake regarding that person, then, is to restore them to communion if they repent in the proper fashion at some point in the future and petition to have the excommunication removed.
People are only formally excommunicated in writing when it is an open question of whether they have actually violated canon law or not - i.e. the law is not sufficiently clear in their specific case.
In Hitler's case there isn't any open question or doubt. He violated the canons openly, substantively and deliberately.
I'm waiting for someone to start blaming Stalin's purges on Christianity LOL
Stalin was an Orthodox seminarian, after all.
Until this topic came up I thought conservatives didn't believe in blame shifting.
Nazis infiltrated, co-opted, perverted and used many institutions to further their political aims, and not just the church. Take, for instance, the Bauhaus. They recognized the need to make their propaganda materials not just emotionally compelling, but visually compelling as well. They weren't Christian in thought or deed. They fooled just enough people, just long enough, to consolidate their domination. Then, the horrors of the Reich began. And, what school of thought came to the fore, in implementing their "solution," their industrial genocide? Eugenics, with a straight line back to Darwin.
Note: Hitler wasn't elected, he was appointed by President Hindenberg.
The Nazis did own a large chunk of the legislature, though.
For someone lecturing on history, you should know that selective breeding of plants, animals and humans was going on for thousands of years before Darwin. All Darwin did was notice that it happend in nature without human intervention.
Wallace, who discovered natural selection independently, called it the tendency of varieties to diverge indefinitely.
Prior to Wallace and Darwin it was thought that varieties always reverted to the "mutt" form.
There is nothing in Wallace's or Darwin's writings that adds anything to the practice or literature of selective breeding.
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.