Free Republic

What an amazingly long list of crappy beers!

I've been boycotting Miller ever since I tasted my first microbrew. But I'll pretend it's because of this too, if yopu like :-)

What we are dealing with is a claim that Hitler was a Christian. Table Talk is pretty good evidence that he wasn't.

I've read the original Table Talk, in German. Looking at all of the evidence, not just quote-mined passages critical of Christianity, I came to the conclusion that Hitler was a deviant, heretical Christian. He endorsed a personal God, original sin, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, etc. Werner Jochmann, the editor of the Heim version of the Table Talk, and an expert on the Nazi era, came to a similar conclusion.

arrier, who has an agenda to convince the world that Hitler was some kind of a Christian, found some translation problems.

ROFL! 'Translation problems'. What a curious euphemism for 'outright fabrications'!

Like Jesus being an Aryan? LOL.

Notice, though, he did not question the existence of Jesus. Isaac Newton did not believe Jesus was God. Christians over the years have come up with many, many weird theories - that the English were a lost tribe of Israel, for example.

Spencer was a Darwnist.

Spencer was a philosopher in his own right, whose ideas on 'social evolution' preceded the Origin of Species

If Carrier claims that Nazism in general . . . was without doubt a Christian movement and cites the belt buckles and the Reichsconcordat he's not someone who can be taken seriously.

His claims about the bogus quotes have survived peer review. I have also checked them. That was what we were discussing, not Carrier's atheism. Deal with it. "Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly."

Transubstantiation is not accepted by most Christians. Surely you know that.

It seems to me you are pretty much splitting hairs. Hitler was not a Christian and hated Christianity.

Hitler was critical of Christianity in some passages, and accepting of much of its doctrine in others. He was of course a monster, and much of his language is immoderate.

I guess Hitler was a Darwinist, after all.

That was Spencer's phrase, not Darwin's.

Mr. 'Atheist', you are completely ignorant of the succession of the Kings of Israel. Saul was the first king of the united Kingdom of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_the_King

You are referring to the northern of the two kingdoms that succeeded the original Kingdom of Israel after the split. The northern kingdom retained the name 'Kingdom of Israel', but its kings were obviously not the first Kings of Israel.

GSR is a peer-reviewed journal.

But in any case, I have copies of both German versions of the Hitler monologues, and have examined Carrier's claims personally. He is absolutely correct; the English version contains anti-Christian passages that are in neither of the two German versions and were apparently inserted by a translator. If Tribune7 would like to come out to Central Washington and examine them, in the unlikely event he knows enough German do do so, or to call me a liar to my face, we can arrange that.

When the word is used in conjuction with policies of eugenics, as the Nazis invariably did, what other possible connotation would you assign to "hoherentwicklung," other than advancing evolution?

Give me a specific citation, please. 'Invariably' won't cut it.

I see. You can't discredit the material, so you try to discredit the source.

Notice that the sinister entity behind this discovery is Darwin Central. It sees all, it knows all, and it's long been aware of Phyllis Schlafly/Jack Kemp's dual nature. Evolution? Ha! Evolution is the least of your problems!

(Cue evil laugh!)

And, that end was, in German, "Hoherentwicklung," a higher state of evolution.

Entwicklung in German means a number of different things, including development, production or generation, or processing. 'Höherentwicklung' (sp!) usually just means a more advanced stage of development. There is no necessary connotation with biological evolution.

You really don't understand that criticizing D. James Kennedy is not the same as criticizing Christianity? Maybe this discussion stuff isn't really your thing.

If you quote me, don't remove punctuation. That's fraud.

Nobody said he wasn't Christian. Don't waste my time.

False Jews? What on earth are you talking about?

You need to parade yourself before our resident Christian fundamentalists, and they will deign to tell you if you're an authentic Jew or not.

And then they're distinctly resentful that ADL is suspicious of fundamentalists!

But by using the term 'supremest' the ADL is engaging in the exact same idiocy, trying to link Christianity to the NAZI's.

D. James Kennedy is not 'Christianity'.

In the absence of religion you can rationalize anything as being good.

On this very thread, we have a poster from an obscure sect of Christianity who rationalizes slavery as being good. Of course, other Christians have rationalized it as being evil. In fact, just 150 years ago, most of our major Protestant churches split over the issue. One must conclude that from religion you can rationalize anything as being good.

If you feel I am "infesting your country," perhaps you would like to exterminate me?

Thanks for the generous offer, but no. Though I despise sdvocates of slavery, I'd prefer they emigrate. I do believe there are places in the Islamic world where you can still enslave your fellow human beings.

You seem to be under the impression that because you embrace universally abhorred practices as a result of your religion, said policies are somehow rendered immune from criticism. I'm afraid not.

By the way, I have never heard anyone claim the Bible is an antisemitic document, and would consider such a claim idiotic.

So what happens in the Messianic future when a thief cannot recompense his victim? The Torah says he is to be sold into slavery and the profit from the sale used to recompense the robbery victim. So . . . you won't let him do this?

There is the small matter of the 13th amendment.

Since you reject the Constitution of the United States, why are you here on FR? Heck, why are you infesting my country?

I always say, if you're going to read a crevo thread on FR, it's a good idea to have a copy of the DSM IV handy, to identify the odd things you meet.

Still, the line about the Mosiach slitting our throats was worth the price of admission. It's always thought it would be hard to make a fanatical Islamist look sane and moderate by comparison, but now I know it's possible.

The "fact," it seems to me, is that Hitler's Secret Conversations is accepted as a primary source in numerous publications about Hitler (Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, etc.).

Unless you're claiming Hitler spoke English at dinner time, Hitler's Secret Conversations (the Trevor-Roper 1953 translation) is not a primary source. The primary sources are the notebooks of Picker and Heim; the next most direct sources are the two published German editions of those transcripts. The first German edition was published by Picker, the man who originally transcribed Hitler's words. Those two editions agree with each other almost everywhere, and do not agree with the English translation. Jochmann, who edited Heim's notes, also provides some of the original pages to demonstrate the authenticity of the work. Trevor-Roper, who edited the 1953 English edition, didn't even speak German and had to rely on a couple of translators! Also, recall that the same Hugh Trevor-Roper was the historian who 'authenticated' the fake Hitler diaries.

The Trevor-Roper edition appears not even to be a direct translation of the German; it is a translation of Genoud's French translation of Picker's notes. Carrier thinks, and I agree, that Genoud, an atheist Nazi, added some anti-Christian remarks of his own; in another case, he was found 'augmenting' source material.

Any biographer who used Trevor-Roper's edited translation as opposed to the easily available German original is simply not doing a competent job. And a historian or biographer of the Nazi era who doesn't even understand enough German to read the primary documents should find another career.

The "fact," it seems to me, is that Hitler's Secret Conversations is accepted as a primary source in numerous publications about Hitler (Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, etc.).

Unless you're claiming Hitler spoke English at dinner time, Hitler's Secret Conversations (the Trevor-Roper 1953 translation) is not a primary source. The primary sources are the notebooks of Picker and Heim; the next most direct sources are the two published German editions of those transcripts. The first German edition was published by Picker, the man who originally transcribed Hitler's words. Those two editions agree with each other almost everywhere, and do not agree with the English translation. Jochmann, who edited Heim's notes, also provides some of the original pages to demonstrate the authenticity of the work. Trevor-Roper, who edited the 1953 English edition, didn't even speak German and had to rely on a couple of translators! Also, recall that the same Hugh Trevor-Roper was the historian who 'authenticated' the fake Hitler diaries.

The Trevor-Roper edition appears not even to be a direct translation of the German; it is a translation of Genoud's French translation of Picker's notes. Carrier thinks, and I agree, that Genoud, an atheist Nazi, added some anti-Christian remarks of his own; in another case, he was found 'augmenting' source material.

Any biographer who used Trevor-Roper's edited translation as opposed to the easily available German original is simply not doing a competent job. And a historian or biographer of the Nazi era who doesn't even understand enough German to read the primary documents should find another career.