Posted on 10/03/2007 10:15:01 AM PDT by jacknhoo
I POSTED everything you wrote. And for the record, I DON'T consider you to be evil, even though you espouse some evil principles (abortion, euthanasia) and I certainly NEVER said you were evil.
Which are meaningless, since there are plenty of others which show Hitler's contempt for Christianity in his own words. You can also do a search on "Hitler Pagan" and come up with a lot of evidence as well. Some people like to post pics of Hitler in front of a church which "prove" he was a devout Christian.
There's been a political effort underway for some time to lay the blame for the holocaust at the feet of the RC Catholic church (which did more than any other entity or organization to save Jews from the death camps).
I hate to tell you this, but it's done all the time by some on FR.
I’ve seen people use Hitler and the Nazis to denounce Lutheranism and Catholicism (though the Catholic Church saved millions of Jews and the Lutheran minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer is one of the greatest Christian martyrs of modern times); however, I don’t recall anyone using Hitler and the Nazis to disparage Christianity as a whole. And I might add the notion that the entire Bible is a “fairy tale” is offensive to Jews as well.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
Lots of sub links in there and quotes where Hitler declaims his Christianity, attends Church, etc. As much as you folks want to obfuscate the truth (much like you do with Evolution and science in general) of this issue - Hitler thought himself a Christian and in his sick mind thought his actions were justified by God. I hate Hitler and I hate Nazi’s - but the truth is the truth. He thought he was a Christian. Here’s just one quote from the monster: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
There are lots more like that at the provided link.
Again I am NOT equating Christianity with Nazism. There is no comparison between the two at all, unless you want to contrast them as almost perfect opposites. The Nazis twisted Christianity completely outside its intended meaning.
You people are really something. You think just because someone doesn’t share your religious beliefs that this makes them automatically inferior, amoral and evil. Does that sound like anybody we’ve been discussing lately? Ring a bell at all?
To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.
By using historical evidence of Hitler's and his henchmen's own words, this section aims to show how mixing religion with politics can cause conflicts, not only against religion but against government and its people. This site, in no way, condones Nazism, Neo-Nazism, fascist governments, or anti-Semitism, but instead, warns against them.
You say you hate Nazism, it is obvious that you hate Christianity (and by extension Judaism since they believe many of the same "fairy tales" that Christians do) and you say that you are not trying to equate Christianity with Nazism. So, why then do you link to a page which opens with the premise that there is a connection between Christianity and Nazism?
Wrong!!! Wagglebee - you are OUT OF YOUR MIND!!!
How can I be wrong? It is from the page you linked.
Wow, complete with a picture of Hitler in front of a church!
But:
Hitler: Christian or Pagan?
Adolf Hitler privately to Heinrich Himmler, October 14, 1941:
"It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn't facilitate our exercise of power.
"First, in this way the authority of the state would be vitiated by the fact of the intervention of a third power concerning which it is impossible to say how long it would remain reliable. In the case of the Anglican Church, this objection does not arise, for England knows she can depend upon her church. But what about the Catholic Church? Wouldn't we be running the risk of her one day going into reverse after having put herself at the service of the state solely in order to safeguard her power? If one day the state's policy ceased to suit Rome or the clergy, the priests would turn against the state, as they are doing now. History provides examples that should make us careful.
"Secondly there is also a question of principle. Trying to take a long- range view of things, is it conceivable that one could found anything durable based on falsehood? When I think of our people's future, I must look beyond immediate advantages, even if these advantages were to last 300-500 years or more. I'm convinced that any pact with the church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the state will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.
"An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature, and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the state, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.
"Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can't, or can't yet be explained - that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can't satisfy them with the party's program. Time will pass until the moment when science can answer all the questions.
"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there's no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds - perhaps inhabited worlds like ours - then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
"But one must continue to pay attention to another aspect of the problem. It's possible to satisfy the needs of the inner life by an intimate communion with nature., or by knowledge of the past. Only a minority, however, at the present stage of the mind's development, can feel the respect inspired by the unknown and thus satisfy the metaphysical needs of the soul. The average human being has the same needs, but can satisfy them only by elementary means. That's particularly true of women, as also of peasants who impotently watch the destruction of their crops. The person whose life tends to simplification is thirsty for belief, and he dimly clings to it with all his strength.
"Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they've acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed it's most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.
"It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to reestablish the worship of Odin. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that point the ancient world was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship of idols. It's not desirable that the whole of humanity should be stultified - and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.
"If in the course of 1-2,000 years science arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity which is the liar; it's in perpetual conflict with itself.
"One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of a belief in God. That's not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretize the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?"
- Adolf Hitler, in _Bormann-Vermerke_ (transcribed by Martin Bormann), reprinted as _Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944_ (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Trans.), New York: Farrar, Straus & Young, 1953, pages #48-51.
As much as you folks want to obfuscate the truth (much like you do with Evolution and science in general) of this issue - Hitler thought himself a Christian and in his sick mind thought his actions were justified by God.
Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was about evolution and science. That comment was bizarre. But FWIW, I'm no more "anti-science" than I am anti-anchovy. I hope you're not one of those people who think that science hinges on how one feels about Darwin's thory of evolution.
I hate Hitler and I hate Nazi’s - but the truth is the truth. He thought he was a Christian. Here’s just one quote from the monster: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
There are lots more like that at the provided link.
And many more where Hitler proclaimed the opposite. I've just posted some. Of course, some historians like the Jewish Studies professor you origianlly quoted deal (or more accurately avoid) with these by proclaiming them forgeries. Rather convenient.
Again I am NOT equating Christianity with Nazism. There is no comparison between the two at all, unless you want to contrast them as almost perfect opposites. The Nazis twisted Christianity completely outside its intended meaning. You people are really something. You think just because someone doesn’t share your religious beliefs that this makes them automatically inferior, amoral and evil. Does that sound like anybody we’ve been discussing lately? Ring a bell at all?
After writing that, you would almost think that the topic of this thread wasn't an atheist conference where they stated religion must be destroyed. That does, in fact, sound evil to me.
I don't think anyone denies that there were many Christians who were also Nazis. It would be hard to avoid in a nation where the dominant faiths were Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism. However, being a Roman Catholic priest wasn't enough to save a distant relative of mine from a death camp.
But there does exist a movement to blame the holocaust on the RC Catholic church, despite the fact that the RC Catholic church did more to save more Jews than any government, person, or synagogue.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
I really appreciate this site. Some of the brightest people, in the world today, post on this site.
And from time to time we get some real wackos! Thankfully, they seem to get banned fairly quickly.
As an aside, why is that people always ask where things came from and not where they're going?
Simple -- It's because where things came from is the far more interesting question. The slow descent into total entropy isn't all that interesting. The unexplained order at the beginning of it all is. If you see a jigsaw puzzle sitting assembled on a coffee table, do you wonder about what kind of landfill goo it's going to be in a gazillion years, or do you wonder about who might have put it together?
For part b), a finite region need not have borders.
How can a finite region not have borders? Isn't that what distinguishes it from an infinite region?
It doesn't. And you're not including the sun in your calculations.
True.
You’re welcome...good luck on your search for meaning!
>>Hey 8mm - ask nme any question you like about guns - I’ll bet I can answer in real time. I’m a life-member in the NRA and an instructor. 8:43 signed, troll
From me
>>>Fine on the gun stuff, I spent the weekend with NRA instructor friends practicing double taps.
>>>My wife wants a Kimber Compact .45 now that she found it works wonders for her. The Colt defender looks the same but just doesn’t feel the same. Is there really a difference other than price? 9:15 Signed me.
Some NRA instructor that guy turned out to be. Never answered in real time or in unreal time. Now how can we decide? Actually, wife already decided while troll was busy shooting himself in the foot and bending himself all out of shape.
I hope you still have some troll tags left and that you tagged this one properly. It is still early in hunting season and there are a few more antlerless troll tags to use.
8mm
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.