PDA

View Full Version : Religion, atheism and political brutality



antichrist
30-01-2009, 04:31 PM
Isnt this a bit chicken and eggish

Be careful Kaitlin, any heretical screams out of you can have you up for death or your tongue cut out, or hot oil poured into your mouth etc

Capablanca-Fan
30-01-2009, 04:56 PM
Be careful Kaitlin, any heretical screams out of you can have you up for death or your tongue cut out, or hot oil poured into your mouth etc
What, getting some ideas from the atheist Mao Zedong, the worst mass murderer of all time (http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C30E3119-E90B-4051-9581-F863D39BF040), who developed 120 types of torture for use on innocent people he wanted to force into phony confessions so as to rule by terror (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0109/prager012709.php3)?

antichrist
30-01-2009, 05:07 PM
What, getting some ideas from the atheist Mao Zedong, the worst mass murderer of all time (http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C30E3119-E90B-4051-9581-F863D39BF040), who developed 120 types of torture for use on innocent people he wanted to force into phony confessions so as to rule by terror (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0109/prager012709.php3)?

The commos coppied the Catholic Inquisition, which follows the Bible in death 4 dis n death 4 dat - kill homosexuals blah blah,and witches also so Kaitlin better watch out

Capablanca-Fan
30-01-2009, 05:51 PM
The commos coppied the Catholic Inquisition,
2000 deaths over three centuries under the Inquiz (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html), compared to hundreds of millions under atheistic communism in the last century alone (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM).

Rincewind
30-01-2009, 11:24 PM
2000 deaths over three centuries under the Inquiz (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html), compared to hundreds of millions under atheistic communism in the last century alone (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM).

Not to mention the millions of Jews killed by good Nazi Christians.

antichrist
31-01-2009, 03:54 PM
2000 deaths over three centuries under the Inquiz (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html), compared to hundreds of millions under atheistic communism in the last century alone (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM).


your joking, you are taking that "research" as serious. My Catholic philosphy lecturer, a doctor he was, said that whole villages across Germany there were only a few women left in each.

communism is just another religion, but based on human gods who exist rather than alien ones that do not exist. The first communists were religious ones during the Glorious Revolution (if I have my revolutions correct)

ER
31-01-2009, 04:17 PM
Not if you look at the French Revolution during the first state of which priests and nuns suffered horrible deaths. Indeed, the torturers, assassins and generally the thuggish mobs who participated in the murders were not communists as such, however, they committed those attrocious crimes in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity!
As for the October revolution I do not believe that any of the Bolshevics were Christians!

antichrist
31-01-2009, 04:20 PM
Not if you look at the French Revolution during the first state of which priests and nuns suffered horrible deaths. Indeed, the torturers, assassins and generally the thuggish mobs who participated in the murders were not communists as such, however, they committed those attrocious crimes in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity!

they committed those crimes against the Church coz the Roman Catholic Church was in bed with the monarchy in making the people's lives misery - serve them ruddy right. A lousey communion host would not fill the hole in my tooth - as my mother would say - is that an original saying by the way?

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2009, 04:31 PM
your joking, you are taking that "research" as serious. My Catholic philosphy lecturer, a doctor he was, said that whole villages across Germany there were only a few women left in each.
Who cares what he thinks? Historian Henry Kamen's research on the Inquiz found only about 2000 over 3 centuries.


communism is just another religion, but based on human gods who exist rather than alien ones that do not exist.
It's still atheistic.


The first communists were religious ones during the Glorious Revolution (if I have my revolutions correct)
You don't. The Glorious Revolution booted out King James II and put William of Orange on the British throne.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2009, 04:33 PM
Not to mention the millions of Jews killed by good Nazi Christians.
Yawn, stretch, Rincy takes Hitler at his lying word, and not the word of his friends, biographers, Nuremberg prosecutors and Churchill that he and the Nazis hated Christianity, which is why many of the early Nazis were homosexuals.

antichrist
31-01-2009, 04:33 PM
Who cares what he thinks? Historian Henry Kamen's research on the Inquiz found only about 2000 over 3 centuries.


It's still atheistic.


You don't. The Glorious Revolution booted out King James II and put William of Orange on the British throne.

the first communists I came across were Christian ones in 17c England, they interpreted the Bible in a working class manner and defied all authority

I consider it a human psychologiical weakness when people need any "gods" whether they be alien varieties or human ones

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2009, 04:34 PM
they committed those crimes against the Church coz the Roman Catholic Church was in bed with the monarchy in making the people's lives misery - serve them ruddy right. A lousey communion host would not fill the hole in my tooth - as my mother would say - is that an original saying by the way?
Good grief, learn about the Reign of Terror some time. They butchered people whose lives were being MADE miserable too!

ER
31-01-2009, 04:35 PM
they committed those crimes against the Church coz the Roman Catholic Church was in bed with the monarchy in making the people's lives misery - serve them ruddy right. A lousey communion host would not fill the hole in my tooth - as my mother would say - is that an original saying by the way?

No, the poor priests and nuns, unlike the top hierachy church officials, did not serve Luis's regime. They belonged in the third Estate and suffered state oppression as much as the rest of the populace. Yet, they were purged because of their Christian Credo. With respect to your mum, holy communion is a sacrament and as such should not be a subject of humiliation or degradation!

antichrist
31-01-2009, 04:38 PM
No, the poor priests and nuns, unlike the top hierachy church officials, did not serve Luis's regime. They belonged in the third Estate and suffered state oppression as much as the rest of the populace. Yet, they were purged because of their Christian Credo. With respect to your mum, holy communion is a sacrament and as such should not be a subject of humiliation or degradation!

I stabbed a communion host, a blessed one, at the public speaking venue in Sydney, the Domain, and it did not bleed and cry out like Catholic mobs reakon it used when Jews stabbed it. The Catholics accused the Jews of killing the child Jesus and they would go on a pogrom killin Jews, wonderful people those Catholics were

ER
31-01-2009, 04:56 PM
A/C, you stabbed nothing and be serious! Antisemitism was the main cause of all Jewis suffering throughout the ages culminating in the holocaust. Christianity sought to understand this in order to ensure it did not happen again. Antisemitism was NOT a Christian invention and look at all those serious efforts of Catholicism to reconcile Christians and Jews! It is good, however, that you, an enemy of the State of Israel, saw the light acknowledging pogroms against the Jews. Usually, you present the case as a Zionist propaganda!

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2009, 04:57 PM
I stabbed a communion host, a blessed one, at the public speaking venue in Sydney, the Domain, and it did not bleed and cry out like Catholic mobs reakon it used when Jews stabbed it. The Catholics accused the Jews of killing the child Jesus and they would go on a pogrom killin Jews, wonderful people those Catholics were
Crap. Rabbi David Dalin's book The Myth of Hitler's Pope (http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/sep2005p12_2050.html) documents that the medieval popes were at the forefront of denouncing the "host desecration" and "blood" libels (well, duh, Jewish food laws prohibit consumption of blood). But such antisemitic libels are very popular in the Islamic world. Two of my relatives, the father and son Samuel and Joseph Sarfati (d. 16th C) were leaders in the Jewish community and physicians to popes. See also Christian opposition to antisemitism (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Christian-opposition-to-antisemitism)

Rincewind
31-01-2009, 05:05 PM
Yawn, stretch, Rincy takes Hitler at his lying word, and not the word of his friends, biographers, Nuremberg prosecutors and Churchill that he and the Nazis hated Christianity, which is why many of the early Nazis were homosexuals.

Yawn, no stretch required. Regardless of Hitler's actual faith (which Jono cannot prove one way or another). Hitler frequently appealed to the religious beliefs of the German population to justify the persecution, ni much the same way Martin Luther did.

Hitler often ended his wartime radio broadcasts with a prayer, a few examples of which I've attached here...


Only when the entire German people become a single community of sacrifice can we expect and hope that Almighty God will help us. The Almighty has never helped a lazy man. He does not help the coward. He does not help a people that cannot help itself.

The principle applies here, help yourselves and Almighty God will not deny you his assistance.
-Adolf Hitler, in a broadcast from Berlin, 03 Oct.1941


Thus the home-front need not be warned, and the prayer of this priest of the devil, the wish that Europe may be punished with Bolshevism, will not be fulfilled, but rather that the prayer may be fulfilled: "Lord God, give us the strength that we may retain our liberty for our children and our children's children, not only for ourselves but also for the other peoples of Europe, for this is a war which we all wage, this time, not for our German people alone, it is a war for all of Europe and with it, in the long run, for all of mankind."
-Adolf Hitler, 30 Jan. 1942, in Berlin


May therefore God give us the strength to continue to do our duty and with this prayer we bow in homage before our dead heroes, before those whom they have left behind in bereavement, and before all the other victims of this war.
-Adolf Hitler, in prayer at the end of a radio address on 15 March 1942.


Few people can begin to imagine the fate which would have overtaken Germany had the assassination attempt succeeded. I myself thank Providence and my Creator not for preserving me - my life consists only of worry and work for my People - I thank him only for allowing me to continue to bear this burden of worry, and to carry on my work to the best of my ability.
-Adolf Hitler, speaking about the attempt to kill him, in a radio broadcast on 20 July 1944


God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work....

Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me....

Therefore, it is all the more necessary on this twelfth anniversary of the rise to power to strengthen the heart more than ever before and to steel ourselves in the holy determination to wield the sword, no-matter where and under what circumstances, until final victory crowns our efforts....

In the years to come I shall continue on this road, uncompromisingly safeguarding my people's interests, oblivious to all misery and danger, and filled with the holy conviction that God the Almighty will not abandon him who, during all his life, had no desire but to save his people from a fate it had never deserved, neither by virtue of its number nor by way of its importance....

In vowing ourselves to one another, we are entitled to stand before the Almighty and ask Him for His grace and His blessing. No people can do more than that everybody who can fight, fights, and that everybody who can work, works, and that they all sacrifice in common, filled with but one thought: to safeguard freedom and national honor and thus the future of life.
-Adolf Hitler, in a radio address, 30 Jan. 1945


We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this bate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight.
-Adolf Hitler, in a recorded radio address, 24 Feb. 1945


From these quotes (all post 1939) Hitler certainly doesn't sound like an atheist. And even if he was he was an atheist then he was trying very hard not to sound like one. The only reason for such behaviour would be if the majority of Germans were themselves theist Christians.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2009, 05:19 PM
Yawn, no stretch required. Regardless of Hitler's actual faith (which Jono cannot prove one way or another).
Of course, which is why I point to his anti-Christian actions and opportunistic speeches, as well as what he said to his closest friends (http://answers.org/history/hitquote.html)


Hitler frequently appealed to the religious beliefs of the German population to justify the persecution, in much the same way Martin Luther did.
As I said, Rincy takes Hitler at his word (at least his public words not those to his closest friends); I judge him by his actions, as do his biographers, Churchill (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5905/), Nuremberg prosecutors (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/464/), who know about his real hatred of Christianity.

Indian-born American author Dinesh D’Souza (1961– ) writes in What’s So Great About Christianity?:


In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that “the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in.” Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler’s government became increasingly anti-religious.

The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as “troublemakers” were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. Poor Sam Harris [atheist propagandist] cannot explain how an ideology that Hitler and his associates perceived as a repudiation of Christianity can be portrayed as a “culmination” of Christianity.

I also judge him by the actual evolutionary propaganda (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1892) his regime used to justify eugenics and racism, including:


LiO_c5-6_Hw


From these quotes (all post 1939) Hitler certainly doesn't sound like an atheist. And even if he was he was an atheist then he was trying very hard not to sound like one. The only reason for such behaviour would be if the majority of Germans were themselves theist Christians.
Not at all. No different from anti-Christian Dems in the states who talk crap like "God's green earth" to fool some non-discerning liberal churchians, while atheists love Dems because they know they don't mean it.

Kevin Bonham
31-01-2009, 06:47 PM
Yawn, stretch, Rincy takes Hitler at his lying word, and not the word of his friends, biographers, Nuremberg prosecutors and Churchill that he and the Nazis hated Christianity, which is why many of the early Nazis were homosexuals.

Are you suggesting Nazis became gay, or that some people who happened to be gay were attracted to Nazism because of its supposedly anti-Christian nature?

Mokum
31-01-2009, 08:15 PM
Yawn, stretch, Rincy takes Hitler at his lying word...
Rincewind mentions good Nazi Christians that killed millions, not Hitler. As you yourself admit, at least in appearance Hitler remained a Christian. Why? Because the German people where Christian, and he needed them. 12 years Nazi regime (or any regime) was never going to change that. Of course, if Hitler was a Christian, he was hardly a very devout one. His anti-Semitism was based on race, not religion, after all, so Jesus, being a Jew, would have ended up the same way every as every other Jew in Hitler's Reich. But that doesn't make him an atheist. Hitler believed in providence and that he was chosen to lead the German nation to greatness. It was his time, he was put in the position of Fuhrer, and until the very end he believed he couldn’t fail because of that. So if he was an atheist, he was hardly a very devout one. And of course the Nazi’s brought back a lot of old pagan Germanic rituals as well, often fanatically. All that is still irrelevant. The German population was by and large Christian, and it was within a Christian nation that the atrocities of WWII occurred. But it wasn’t because they were Christians that this could happen either, and to try to draw any type of moral conclusions from the supposed (non)religion of Hitler, the Nazis and the Germans is futile. And if not futile, it still does not proof that God exists.

Rincewind
31-01-2009, 08:20 PM
Not at all. No different from anti-Christian Dems in the states who talk crap like "God's green earth" to fool some non-discerning liberal churchians, while atheists love Dems because they know they don't mean it.

Ipse dixit.

Rincewind
31-01-2009, 08:28 PM
Of course, if Hitler was a Christian, he was hardly a very devout one. His anti-Semitism was based on race, not religion, after all, so Jesus, being a Jew, would have ended up the same way every as every other Jew in Hitler's Reich.

That is debatable. I have also mention in earlier posts about the dejudification of the bible by the Third Reich particularly by the group calling themselves Deutsche Christen which tried to start this story that Jesus was the offspring of a German soldier in the Roman army and thus not ethnically Jewish.

All complete hogwash of course but those inclined to believe what they read on faith are not inoculated against such shenanigans.

Kevin Bonham
31-01-2009, 08:28 PM
Moderation notice

This split thread has been created as a new home for:

* Discussions about whether Hitler and/or the Nazis were Christian/atheist/other.

* Discussions exploring, debating or debunking claimed links between other mass-murderous regimes and either religion or atheism.

* Other stuff along vaguely similar lines.

Mokum
31-01-2009, 08:42 PM
That is debatable. I have also mention in earlier posts about the dejudification of the bible by the Third Reich particularly by the group calling themselves Deutsche Christen which tried to start this story that Jesus was the offspring of a German soldier in the Roman army and thus not ethnically Jewish.

All complete hogwash of course but those inclined to believe what they read on faith are not inoculated against such shenanigans.
Which seems to me a reaction from Christians to reconcile their beliefs with the inevitable conclusion of Hitlers racism. I have never seen any evidence that Hitler was particularly concerned about this, but yes, of course a lot of Nazi Christians would have been.

antichrist
31-01-2009, 08:45 PM
A/C, you stabbed nothing and be serious! Antisemitism was the main cause of all Jewis suffering throughout the ages culminating in the holocaust. Christianity sought to understand this in order to ensure it did not happen again. Antisemitism was NOT a Christian invention and look at all those serious efforts of Catholicism to reconcile Christians and Jews! It is good, however, that you, an enemy of the State of Israel, saw the light acknowledging pogroms against the Jews. Usually, you present the case as a Zionist propaganda!

Taking the last sentence first, I have never presented the Holocaust as Nazi propa - not even Mike Baron would accuse me of that. Indeed I have had printed in public journals years ago, like 15 years, admonishing people who did such and also I stood up to anti-semitics. How about a little apology for that one.

I did stab something - I have told this boring story before, KB will vouch for that. A Catholic got upset and threw a punch at me, me with the host in my hand I put my hand up to defend myself and the Catholic hit the host breaking it up into hundreds of tiny fragments. Then when I told him that he had just smashed Jesus he had to be dragged off me. Suffer little atheists to come unto me.

What history have you been reading that anti-semitism was not a Christian invention - they blamed the Jews for killing their Christ and the rest is history. I have always honoured Jews for their contributions down the ages, just not what they have done in Isreal, by the right-wingers, the left-wingers were the best once but they have mutated. Shows that no one is perfect.

Rincewind
31-01-2009, 09:35 PM
Perhaps the c.20 was not as bad as everyone says it was...

ramBFRt1Uzk

ER
31-01-2009, 10:24 PM
Taking the last sentence first, I have never presented the Holocaust as Nazi propa - not even Mike Baron would accuse me of that. Indeed I have had printed in public journals years ago, like 15 years, admonishing people who did such and also I stood up to anti-semitics. How about a little apology for that one.

1) are you serious? where the hell do I say you presented Holocaust as Nazi (???) propaganda? or zionist propaganda as you might wanted to say? No apologies mate, I am saying here clearly and i quote

It is good, however, that you, an enemy of the State of Israel, saw the light acknowledging pogroms against the Jews. Usually, you present the case as a Zionist propaganda! Meaning that you actually comparing and finding equal Nazi and Jewish atrocities.
Can I give you a typical example? If yes, I will!

A/C Israel restraints amounts to killing 10:1, about on par with the Nazi SS - the Star of David about a 3/4 length behind the Swastika

This is only a small example of this attitude as it was expressed in a thread here on 22/08/06


I did stab something - I have told this boring story before, KB will vouch for that. A Catholic got upset and threw a punch at me, me with the host in my hand I put my hand up to defend myself and the Catholic hit the host breaking it up into hundreds of tiny fragments. Then when I told him that he had just smashed Jesus he had to be dragged off me. Suffer little atheists to come unto me.

2) What on earth were you doing with a host in your hand? maybe you grabbed it from a priest giving the other person a reason to be infuriated?

What history have you been reading that anti-semitism was not a Christian invention - they blamed the Jews for killing their Christ and the rest is history. I have always honoured Jews for their contributions down the ages, just not what they have done in Isreal, by the right-wingers, the left-wingers were the best once but they have mutated. Shows that no one is perfect.

3) Obviously, you have either not read your history books or you are closing your eyes to historical facts...

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Epiphanes - distinguished or prominent in Classical Greek)
Phoenicians
Assyrians
Dynasties of Pharaos
Islam

Were they all Christians?

No apology!

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2009, 10:24 PM
Rincewind mentions good Nazi Christians that killed millions, not Hitler. As you yourself admit, at least in appearance Hitler remained a Christian.
No, made some Christian noises. He was rather like Obama, telling people what they want to hear.


Why? Because the German people where Christian, and he needed them.
As I've documented, biblical christianity was very rare in Germany, the home of liberal theology.


12 years Nazi regime (or any regime) was never going to change that. Of course, if Hitler was a Christian, he was hardly a very devout one.
He wasn't one at all, but an anti-Christian who wanted to destroy Christianity and turn churches into temples of Nazism, as shown by his statements to his friends and the Nuremberg documents.


His anti-Semitism was based on race, not religion, after all, so Jesus, being a Jew, would have ended up the same way every as every other Jew in Hitler's Reich.
Exactly. Many Jewish Christians were gassed.


But that doesn't make him an atheist.
He was an evolutionary pagan. A lot of other leading Nazis were outright atheists. At the Nuremberg Trial, Hermann Göring had no time for religion, and Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi ‘philosopher’, declared himself an atheist to Gustave Gilbert, the psychologist who interviewed the Nuremberg defendants at length. Hitler's buddy Benito Mussolini was also well known as a rabid antitheist, challenging God to strike him dead if He existed.

The viciously anti-Jewish propagandist and pornographer, Julius Streicher, complained that Christian teachings have stood in the way of ‘racial solution of the Jewish question in Europe.’ He told Gilbert that he had no time for ideas of God. Eichmann (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6217)was so furious when he saw his wife reading the Bible that he threw it across the room.


Hitler believed in providence and that he was chosen to lead the German nation to greatness.
If anything, an anti-Christ, given that the Greek prefix "anti-" means "in place of" as well as "against".


It was his time, he was put in the position of Fuhrer, and until the very end he believed he couldn’t fail because of that.
I.e. he, not Christ was the final authority.


So if he was an atheist, he was hardly a very devout one. And of course the Nazi’s brought back a lot of old pagan Germanic rituals as well, often fanatically. All that is still irrelevant.
Not at all. Christians don't like pagan rituals. You prove my point.


The German population was by and large Christian, and it was within a Christian nation that the atrocities of WWII occurred.
Wrong again. Germany was thoroughly evolutionized, as shown by Teodor Fritsch (1852–1933), a notorious promoter of Aryan racial supremacy and author of The Handbook of the Jewish Question aka the Anti-Semitic Catechism; Allowing the Annihilation of Life Unworthy of Life (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens) 1920 by two evolutionists, lawyer Karl Binding (1841–1920) and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche (1865–1943); and that propaganda film claiming "we have sinned against natural selection".


But it wasn’t because they were Christians that this could happen either, and to try to draw any type of moral conclusions from the supposed (non)religion of Hitler, the Nazis and the Germans is futile. And if not futile, it still does not proof that God exists.
Rincy is the one following the gutter atheist websites inhabiting the darker hovels of the Internet with his incessant "Hitler was a Christian" bilge.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2009, 10:28 PM
Which seems to me a reaction from Christians to reconcile their beliefs with the inevitable conclusion of Hitlers racism.
They are just following Rincy's preference: for Christians to butcher the Bible to follow anti-Christian fads, like evolutionism. The Nazis "Christians" were doing just the same thing in principle: denying biblical authority.

Mokum
31-01-2009, 11:15 PM
No, made some Christian noises. He was rather like Obama, telling people what they want to hear
And they wanted to hear these noises because they were Christian. Which is why I said that at least in appearance Hitler was a Christian.



He wasn't one at all, but an anti-Christian who wanted to destroy Christianity and turn churches into temples of Nazism, as shown by his statements to his friends and the Nuremberg documents
Hitler had no friends, and the table talk transcripts have not stood the test of time, but no matter, Hitler was not a very nice guy.


He was an evolutionary pagan
Not an atheist.


A lot of other leading Nazis were outright atheists.
Yes, and a lot of others weren't. The German population wasn't.


Not at all. Christians don't like pagan rituals. You prove my point.
Atheists don't like pagan rituals either.

Kevin Bonham
31-01-2009, 11:18 PM
Just [/quote] without the =postername bit works for a close-quote.

ER
31-01-2009, 11:20 PM
thanks Kev, you told me once more, I will try to do it properly next time... It was a case of having to dig back in the search thing to find some of A/Cs statements to support my arguement!

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 09:04 AM
And they wanted to hear these noises because they were Christian.
Yet as amply documented, true (biblical) Christianity was very rare.


Which is why I said that at least in appearance Hitler was a Christian.
Hitler made evolutionary noises far more, which suited the widespread reach of evolution in the universities, media and judiciary. He certainly didn't appear Christian to many outside Germany, including overseas Lutherans of German ethnicity.

Brannon Howse has pointed out the following anti-Christian actions by the Nazis, which have disturbing parallels for the way militant misotheists want to marginalize Christianity in the USA:


Hitler eliminated Christian holidays in the schools first by calling Christmas “Yuletide.” Most American public schools now call Christmas vacation a “winter break.”
Hitler outlawed school prayer in Germany . In 1962, The U.S. Supreme Court did the same for us.
Hitler took Easter out of schools and instead honored that time of year as the beginning of spring. It has likewise become common for schools in America to refer to time off at Easter as “spring break.”
Hitler controlled the church using intimidation and threats. A half-century ago, U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson, promoted a bill that included an amendment to use the Internal Revenue Service to remove the non-profit status of a church that speaks against the election of any specific political candidate.
Hitler enticed thousands of pastors to promote paganism in their congregations. Neopaganism is one of the fastest growing religions in America , doubling every 18 months according to a June 2008 article in The Denver Post. Many American church-goers practice paganism such as “Christian” yoga, contemplative prayer, and walking a labyrinth. As evidence that church doors continue to open further to aberrant beliefs, a 2008 survey found that 57% of evangelicals do not believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God.
Hitler prevented dissenters from using radio to challenge his worldview. Many powerful liberals in America have made clear their intent to reintroduce the “Fairness Doctrine” that would require conservative and religious radio stations to offer equal time to anti-Christian, anti-conservative worldviews.
Pastors who spoke against Hitler’s worldview and his murderous regime found themselves on trial and frequently imprisoned for “Abuse of Pulpit.” In America , hate-crime legislation has the potential to criminalize Christians and pastors who speak out against the homosexual agenda.

[/QUOTE]

Hitler had no friends,
You know what I mean. His closest associates then.


and the table talk transcripts have not stood the test of time, but no matter, Hitler was not a very nice guy.
They accurately reflect what Hitler really thought. They were compiled while Hitler was alive, so would not have dared to misrepresent him.


Not an atheist.
He left that to his party "philosopher" and other close associates. He liked the pomp of teutonic paganism, while applying evolutionary philosophy to eugenics and racial supremacy.

The German-Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) wrote [The Origins of Totalitarianism]:


‘Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.’

British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith (1866–1955) wrote [Evolution and Ethics]:


‘To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution provides the only real basis for a national policy. … The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

Alan Bullock (Baron Bullock) (1914–2004) wrote in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny:


‘The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.’

The book The Coming of the Third Reich (Penguin, 2003) by British historian Richard Evans (1947– ) also argues that the eugenics movement and social Darwinism gained wide acceptance among German élites starting in the last decades of the 19th century. Evans argued that this new secularist world view overturned the Judeo-Christian teaching ‘of the sanctity of marriage and parenthood, or the equal value of every being endowed with an immortal soul …’ He documents that the German Darwinist philosopher Alexander Tille (1866–1912) strongly advocated the killing of the mentally and physically unfit and leaving congenital children's diseases untreated ‘so that the weak could be eliminated from the chain of heredity.’ Evans concluded that the Nazis’ anti-Semitism and racial hygiene were extensions of this secularization of society.


Yes, and a lot of others weren't. The German population wasn't.
Thanks to liberal theology, they weren't Christian either in any way that has a semblance to Christ's actual teachings.


Atheists don't like pagan rituals either.
They didn't mind them as a way of recruiting the youth.

Desmond
01-02-2009, 09:23 AM
Are you saying that one cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution, Jono?

Rincewind
01-02-2009, 09:58 AM
Yet as amply documented, true (biblical) Christianity was very rare.

:lol:

You have one quote from a scientist who said he didn't see any "biblical" christianity. There are several problems with what you have the audacity to call "amply documented" evidence.

1. The reporter is not an expert in theology or religious practice
2. The comment is clearly anecdotal and was not based on a systematic survey of religious beliefs
3. The rest of the world uncontroversially considers Lutheran and Catholic churches as christian.

Time to gather some real evidence Jono since you seem to be using "aply documented" as a synonymous with "dodgy".


Brannon Howse has pointed out the following anti-Christian actions by the Nazis, which have disturbing parallels for the way militant misotheists want to marginalize Christianity in the USA:

This is funny as it highlights how brainless right wing fruitloops like you and Howse actually are.



Hitler eliminated Christian holidays in the schools first by calling Christmas “Yuletide.” Most American public schools now call Christmas vacation a “winter break.”
Hitler outlawed school prayer in Germany . In 1962, The U.S. Supreme Court did the same for us.
Hitler took Easter out of schools and instead honored that time of year as the beginning of spring. It has likewise become common for schools in America to refer to time off at Easter as “spring break.”

State schools should be inclusive of all religions (and atheism) which means religious feast celebrations are not appropriate.


Hitler controlled the church using intimidation and threats. A half-century ago, U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson, promoted a bill that included an amendment to use the Internal Revenue Service to remove the non-profit status of a church that speaks against the election of any specific political candidate.

Clearly if the church is being used as an organ of a political party the non-profit status should be questioned. I don't know the specifics of the LBJ bill but there is nothing in that anecdote which makes me think LBJ was the devil. More likely the author of the list was just scrapping around for anything to make his case look credible when really all he was apposed to was a separation of church and state.


Hitler enticed thousands of pastors to promote paganism in their congregations. Neopaganism is one of the fastest growing religions in America , doubling every 18 months according to a June 2008 article in The Denver Post. Many American church-goers practice paganism such as “Christian” yoga, contemplative prayer, and walking a labyrinth. As evidence that church doors continue to open further to aberrant beliefs, a 2008 survey found that 57% of evangelicals do not believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God.

This seems pretty unsubstantiated and waffly. How did Hitler entice these pastors and which neopagan practices are we talking about?


Hitler prevented dissenters from using radio to challenge his worldview. Many powerful liberals in America have made clear their intent to reintroduce the “Fairness Doctrine” that would require conservative and religious radio stations to offer equal time to anti-Christian, anti-conservative worldviews.

Ummm.... Isn't the fairness doctrine the opposite of what Hitler did?

The purpose is sure for both sides to get air time. The religious stations, by opposing the fairness doctrine, are doing exactly what Hitler did. IE preventing dissenters from challenging their worldview on radio.


Pastors who spoke against Hitler’s worldview and his murderous regime found themselves on trial and frequently imprisoned for “Abuse of Pulpit.” In America , hate-crime legislation has the potential to criminalize Christians and pastors who speak out against the homosexual agenda.

Under the laws of the Third Reich it was illegal to criticise the regime and it is not surprising pastor who used the pulpit to do so were arrested. In America (and most civilised countries) it is illegal to incite criminal activity and particularly incite crimes of violence. Pastors in such countries should not be surprised if they break the law in their sermons to be arrested. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.


You know what I mean. His closest associates then.

Many of whom were also Christians including:

Helmut Bruckner
Walter Buch
Rudolf Buttman
Dietrich Eckhart
Hans Frank
Wilhelm Frick
Joseph Goebbels
Hermann Goring
Rudolf Hess
Hans Hinkel
Heinrich Himmler
Rudolf Hoess
Joachim Hossenfelder

I'll stop there but there are many others (I just got up to H). There are documented quotes of all these people saying and behaving like Christians. They invoked the names of God and Christ, quoted from the bible, attended religious services. Married in the church and/or baptised children in the same.


They accurately reflect what Hitler really thought. They were compiled while Hitler was alive, so would not have dared to misrepresent him.

So you say but they were never read or endorsed by Hitler. They did not have wide circulation at the time they were compiled so any falsehoods could not be challenged. They contradicted many thing Hitler said as documented in public speeches and broadcasts. And perhaps most importantly, they portray Hitler as sympathetic to the beliefs of the editor.

There may be some truth to them but they should be approached with suspicion.


He left that to his party "philosopher" and other close associates. He liked the pomp of teutonic paganism, while applying evolutionary philosophy to eugenics and racial supremacy.

Many of Hitler's associates were Christian and Hitler himself is reported to have considered himself a Catholic as late as the 1940s.


Thanks to liberal theology, they weren't Christian either in any way that has a semblance to Christ's actual teachings.

You and all the other religious sects argue about those particular teachings even today. Hitler was against homosexuality so on that front he is closer to your brand of right-wing Christianity than liberal theology.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 10:59 AM
You have one quote from a scientist who said he didn't see any "biblical" christianity. There are several problems with what you have the audacity to call "amply documented" evidence.
A man who was there, and was explicit that biblical Christianity was practically non-existent.


1. The reporter is not an expert in theology or religious practice
2. The comment is clearly anecdotal and was not based on a systematic survey of religious beliefs
3. The rest of the world uncontroversially considers Lutheran and Catholic churches as christian.
But the German churches were liberal, i.e. Bible denying. The pastors who followed the Bible were imprisoned or killed.


Clearly if the church is being used as an organ of a political party the non-profit status should be questioned.
Apparently not if they promote Obama.


Ummm.... Isn't the fairness doctrine the opposite of what Hitler did?
No, exactly the same: government decrees on what private radio stations must broadcast.


The purpose is sure for both sides to get air time.
If it's a private station, it's none of the government's business to mandate what is said. And of course, there will be no similar law for the leftist media to print balancing conservative commentary. E.g. the NYT published an article by Obamov but refused one from McCain.


The religious stations, by opposing the fairness doctrine, are doing exactly what Hitler did. IE preventing dissenters from challenging their worldview on radio.
What crap. There is nothing to prevent challenge on radio. But nothing about free speech compels someone to provide you with a microphone, just that the government can't prevent you from saying it.


Under the laws of the Third Reich it was illegal to criticise the regime and it is not surprising pastor who used the pulpit to do so were arrested. In America (and most civilised countries) it is illegal to incite criminal activity and particularly incite crimes of violence. Pastors in such countries should not be surprised if they break the law in their sermons to be arrested. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Idiot. It's one thing to incite violence, but quite another to criticise the government. So Rincy actually supports the Nazi actions of persecuting dissenting pastors.


Many of whom were also Christians including:

Helmut Bruckner
Walter Buch
Rudolf Buttman
Dietrich Eckhart
Hans Frank
Wilhelm Frick
Joseph Goebbels
Hermann Goring
Rudolf Hess
Hans Hinkel
Heinrich Himmler
Rudolf Hoess
Joachim Hossenfelder
What crap. Göbbels was an out and out atheist. Frank made something akin to a deathbed conversion (i.e. when he was sentenced to death) which recognized that his actions during the dritter Reich were NOT Christian. Gustav Gilbert documented in The Nuremberg Diaries that Göring wanted nothing to do with the chaplains or chapel during the Nuremberg trial. Since Rincy was wrong on those I could check easily, I have no reason to trust him on the others.


There are documented quotes of all these people saying and behaving like Christians.
Christianity forbids murder and worshipping other Gods.


They invoked the names of God and Christ, quoted from the bible, attended religious services. Married in the church and/or baptised children in the same.
Hatch, match and dispatch churchians are not necessarily Christians.


So you say but they were never read or endorsed by Hitler.
Who says? Bormann was a close associate.


They did not have wide circulation at the time they were compiled so any falsehoods could not be challenged. They contradicted many thing Hitler said as documented in public speeches and broadcasts.
Well, duh! That's the point. What he said to his friends shows his real views as opposed to his opportunism in his speeches.


And perhaps most importantly, they portray Hitler as sympathetic to the beliefs of the editor.
Yet Hitler chose this editor as a close associate.


There may be some truth to them but they should be approached with suspicion.
What should be approached with caution is treating opportunistic power-hungry speeches as reflecting Hitler's real views.


You and all the other religious sects argue about those particular teachings even today.
No argument at all: biblical teachings are unambiguous. So the question is whether one follows Christ in "Scripture cannot be broken" or follow the Rincy/Nazi preference of reinterpreting (i.e. disbelieving) what conflicts with the fad of the day.


Hitler was against homosexuality so on that front he is closer to your brand of right-wing Christianity than liberal theology.
Yet he wouldn't have risen to power without the homosexual SA leader Ernst Röhm.

Spiny Norman
01-02-2009, 11:26 AM
Christian is as Christian does. You can show me a Christian by his words, but I'll show you a Christian by his deeds. Words and deeds need to be in sync. Everyone can see that ... its quite obvious ... Hitler was not Christian. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Those suggesting otherwise should therefore stop being ridiculous.

Rincewind
01-02-2009, 12:00 PM
Christian is as Christian does. You can show me a Christian by his words, but I'll show you a Christian by his deeds. Words and deeds need to be in sync. Everyone can see that ... its quite obvious ... Hitler was not Christian. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Those suggesting otherwise should therefore stop being ridiculous.

The problem with your position is you can avoid any inconvenient atrocity by saying, "oh, he wasn't being christian THEN".

The history of Christianity is full of persecution of various groups. Particularly, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, women and indigenous populations. You seek to distance your brand of Christianity from these persecutions, and I understand that.

However, if Jono is going to say silly things like the entire population of Germany was non-christian in the 1930s and 1940s but were Christian prior to that and subsequent to that. Then he deserves to have the facts brought up that show that

1. Most Germans continued to practice their Christian religion during the Third Reich

2. Hitler and other prominent members were to all outward appearances also Christians

3. Even if Hitler was completely atheist (which I don't believe for a minute) then he still made no outward indication of this conviction and rather maintained a pretense of Christianity which can only be justified if the German people were themselves primarily Christian.


The problem with your Forrest Gump position is there is no one authoratative Christian religion. Everyone thinks there is the right one, of course. But there are many and so you cannot discount another interpretation.

For homework read Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies" and tell me if Luther was a Christian according to the Forrest Gump position.

Rincewind
01-02-2009, 01:11 PM
A man who was there, and was explicit that biblical Christianity was practically non-existent.

What crap. Only an idiot would repeat the same specious testimonial when the problems with that testimonial has been repeated many times.

1. We don't know what he meant by "biblical Christianity"
2. He was not an expert in theology or religion,
3. he did not undertake any systematic survey of beliefs.

All you have is opinion of a non expert who experienced a minute number of Germans directly.


But the German churches were liberal, i.e. Bible denying. The pastors who followed the Bible were imprisoned or killed.

What crap. Liberal doesn't mean bible denying except your your myopic religious right wing groupies. Priests and pastors were jailed for a number of offenses but following the Bible is not one I've heard of.


Apparently not if they promote Obama.

What crap (and off topic).


No, exactly the same: government decrees on what private radio stations must broadcast.

The radio station may only broadcast by right of a license purchased from the government and thus the radio frequency is ultimately owned by the people. "Private" radio stations can't broadcast whatever they want.


If it's a private station, it's none of the government's business to mandate what is said. And of course, there will be no similar law for the leftist media to print balancing conservative commentary. E.g. the NYT published an article by Obamov but refused one from McCain.

What crap. The radio frequency is owned by the people and the radio station is only given license to broadcast according to the terms and conditions of the license. It is the business of the people to regulate radio.


What crap. There is nothing to prevent challenge on radio. But nothing about free speech compels someone to provide you with a microphone, just that the government can't prevent you from saying it.

What crap. See above.


Idiot. It's one thing to incite violence, but quite another to criticise the government. So Rincy actually supports the Nazi actions of persecuting dissenting pastors.

What crap. Either you are pretending to be stupid or you are actually stupid. I have a theory on which but won't share it here.


What crap. Göbbels was an out and out atheist.

What crap. Goebells was raised a catholic and retained his faith in public at least until 1936. And invoked Christian arguments in public speeches at least until this time.


Frank made something akin to a deathbed conversion (i.e. when he was sentenced to death) which recognized that his actions during the dritter Reich were NOT Christian.

What crap. Frank was raised by one Catholic and one Protestant and his "deathbed conversion" was only from one brand of Christianity to another.


Gustav Gilbert documented in The Nuremberg Diaries that Göring wanted nothing to do with the chaplains or chapel during the Nuremberg trial.

What crap. Goring not wanting to have anything to do with the Nuremberg chaplains is hardly proof of anything. He was a prisoner and refused to talk to the chaplains appointed by his captors.

I myself am not what you might call a churchgoer, but I have gone now and then, and have always considered I belonged to the Church and have always had those functions over which the Church presides-- marriage, christening, burial, et cetera-- carried out in my house by the Church.

Goring - The Nuremberg Trials, 1945


Since Rincy was wrong on those I could check easily, I have no reason to trust him on the others.

What crap. I was wrong on none of them and since Jono was incorrect on every single one of his supposed rebuttals everything else he has ever said is also probably wrong.


Christianity forbids murder and worshipping other Gods.

What crap. Some Christians share your view but that is not universal. Are you saying that anyone who has ever killed another person or ordered that killing cannot be a christian?

This would include police, judicary, soldiers, governments during war time. Etc, etc, etc.

Also the bible contains passages where God himself instructs men to kill other men, women and children.


Hatch, match and dispatch churchians are not necessarily Christians.

What crap. We have been through this furfy before. Just because someone doesn't conform to Jono's narrow ideal of what a Christian is, doesn't make them non-Christian. There is an everyday usage of the word Christian which includes Lutheran and Catholics such as those which undertook the holocaust.


Who says? Bormann was a close associate.

Well duh! Other than the editor of course.


Well, duh! That's the point. What he said to his friends shows his real views as opposed to his opportunism in his speeches.

What crap. What Bormann said he said is hardly evidence at all. By legal standards it would not be admissible.


Yet Hitler chose this editor as a close associate.

Whether Hitler chose Bormann or the other way around is not clear. What is clear are the problems I outlined already a number of times.

Lack of corroberation
Lack of opportunity of Bormann's "transcripts" to be challenged by contemporaries
Contradiction with the contents of Bormann's transcripts and quote from other sources (both public speeches and anecdotal private conversations)


What should be approached with caution is treating opportunistic power-hungry speeches as reflecting Hitler's real views.

It is not only public speeches where Hitler invokes God. He remained a paid up member of the Catholic church. He is referred to as a Catholic by others including Goring during the Nuremburg Trial. There is testimony Hitler also referred to himself as a life-long Catholic.


No argument at all: biblical teachings are unambiguous.

What crap. If that were true why are there so many different Christian churches with different rules?


Yet he wouldn't have risen to power without the homosexual SA leader Ernst Röhm.

I would say that Ernst Röhm's sexuality was hardly an issue.

The point is the Nazi's persecuted homosexuals in much the same way that Christians like you would wish to continue.

Desmond
01-02-2009, 01:55 PM
this thread has really gone to the w.c.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 02:07 PM
this thread has really gone to the w.c.
Of course. This is what happens when misotheists like Windy try to prove that Hitler and other Nazis were Christians, ignoring the copious evidence to the contrary. I wonder what other murderers Windy takes at their words — selected from power-seeking opportunistic speeches.

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2009, 02:11 PM
this thread has really gone to the w.c.

I actually set this split thread up as one that could spend its whole life there if it wanted, since the whole topic area is not especially conducive to good debating and discussions of a similar kind often make a mess on other threads.

Mokum
01-02-2009, 02:15 PM
this thread has really gone to the w.c.
It is clearly impossible to have a serious discussion with someone like Jono, with his arrogant nonsense statements and spurious resources. But it is ammusing nevertheless. Next he will announce that Hitler was a lefty. Perhaps he is right, three times right is left after all.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 02:41 PM
What crap. Only an idiot would repeat the same specious testimonial when the problems with that testimonial has been repeated many times.
Only a moron would take selected portions from Hitler's opportunistic speeches rather than his actions or what he said to his close associates, or take phrases like "positive Christianity" at face value although it meant substituting Hitler for Christ. Windy probably also believes that "People's Democratic Republic of ..." really means something other than communist dictatorship.

Robert Wistrich, the professor of modern Jewish history at Hebrew University, wrote in Hitler and the Holocaust:


Indeed, the leading Nazis … Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Goebbels and Bormann … were all fanatically anti-Christian, though this was partly hidden from the German public. … The conviction that Judaism, Christianity and Bolshevism represented one single pathological phenomenon of decadence became a veritable leitmotif for Hitler around the time that the "Final Solution" had been conceived of as an operational plan.

See also some of the Nuremberg Trial documentation on the master plan to exterminate Christianity (http://www.lawandreligion.com/publications/nazimasterplan03.pdf) and "The Nazi's persecution of religion as a war crime: The OSS's response within the Nuremberg Trials Process (http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_2.pdf)" Rutgers University. The first installment (http://www.lawandreligion.com/nurinst1.shtml), The Nazi Master Plan; The Persecution of Christian Churches, showed how the Nazis planned to supplant Christianity with a religion based on racial superiority:


"Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked … complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion."

The second document documented the plan of the Nazi "philosopher" Alfred Rosenberg, Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories and head of the Centre of National Socialist Ideological and Educational Research, which included:


The National Reich church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
The National Reich church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.
The National Reich church does not acknowledge forgiveness of sins. It represents the standpoint which it will always proclaim that a sin once committed will be ruthlessly punished by the honorable and indestructible laws of nature and punishment will follow during the sinner's lifetime.



1. We don't know what he meant by "biblical Christianity"
Biblical Christianity means following the Bible, according to its original meaning, which can be objectively determined by the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.


What crap. Liberal doesn't mean bible denying except your your myopic religious right wing groupies. Priests and pastors were jailed for a number of offenses but following the Bible is not one I've heard of.
It's because they followed the Bible that they opposed Hitler and his counterfeit authority.


The radio station may only broadcast by right of a license purchased from the government and thus the radio frequency is ultimately owned by the people. "Private" radio stations can't broadcast whatever they want.
Ah yes, Windy shows his true socialist colours, wanting the government to regulate the airwaves. The USSR agreed, in the name of the people of course. Naturally, the Left aren't talking about fairness for the leftist government-funded radio and TV, only for their competition in the private sector.


What crap. The radio frequency is owned by the people and the radio station is only given license to broadcast according to the terms and conditions of the license. It is the business of the people to regulate radio.
The best regulation is free competition. It's only because liberal talk radio has failed miserably that the Left want to use force to push liberal crap on the radio waves.


What crap. Either you are pretending to be stupid or you are actually stupid. I have a theory on which but won't share it here.
More likely, Windy would rather use government force to restrict what's said on the radio, like Hitler and Stalin.


What crap. Frank was raised by one Catholic and one Protestant and his "deathbed conversion" was only from one brand of Christianity to another.
No, he explicitly recognized that his Nazi atrocities were contrary to the Catholicism he professed to convert to, and repented and agreed that he deserved to hang for them.


Are you saying that anyone who has ever killed another person or ordered that killing cannot be a christian?
It's certainly easy to say that murder is incompatible with Christian teachings.


This would include police, judicary, soldiers, governments during war time. Etc, etc, etc.
Don't be a moron all your life. Not all killing is murder.


Also the bible contains passages where God himself instructs men to kill other men, women and children.
Yawn, more of the same paranoia (see Outrageous Reasoning: A Closer Look at a Common Skeptical Tactic (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html) by James Patrick Holding).


Lack of opportunity of Bormann's "transcripts" to be challenged by contemporaries
Bormann was one of Hitler's inner circle at the time.


It is not only public speeches where Hitler invokes God. He remained a paid up member of the Catholic church. He is referred to as a Catholic by others including Goring during the Nuremburg Trial.
Prove it. I've documented my case from Gilbert's Nuremberg diaries, and he was the psychologist who examined the defendants at length.


What crap. If that were true why are there so many different Christian churches with different rules?
Some are wrong. And when maths problems are receive many different solutions from students, it would prove that there was no one correct solution.


I would say that Ernst Röhm's sexuality was hardly an issue.
It shows that Röhm, like many of the other early Nazis who were homosexuals, didn't perceive the Nazis as a threat to their sexuality.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 02:47 PM
It is clearly impossible to have a serious discussion with someone like Jono, with his arrogant nonsense statements and spurious resources.
What would you know? If you swallow the "Hitler was a Christian" nonsense, you're as stupid as Rincy.


But it is ammusing nevertheless. Next he will announce that Hitler was a lefty.
He was. As Thomas Sowell points out (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021308.php3):


The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and "rigidly secular" schools.

Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.

...

Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini — as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they "did things," instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco's Spain.


Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s.

W.E.B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers.

...


In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions.


Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs.

...

If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today.

Hitler and the Communists were fighting over the same leftist territory of government control of business and the press. It is a lie to call Hitler "right".

Rincewind
01-02-2009, 03:11 PM
this thread has really gone to the w.c.

Well yeah when Jono started name-calling in post #36 it was hardly going to go anywhere else.

antichrist
01-02-2009, 03:25 PM
Justaknight:
2) What on earth were you doing with a host in your hand? maybe you grabbed it from a priest giving the other person a reason to be infuriated?

Later when in mood will look at your post a bit more. I did not know you were referring to years ago..

That host was a blessed one I got from a church, I pretended I put it in my mouth but shot out the door with it. Would not want to eat the stupid thing anyway - not without Lebo garlic sauce, Sharon's favourite as well.

That is another gripe, I don't like how Israel's copy Lebo food (very poorly I might add) calling it Middle Eastern and give it a bad name, as texture and taste leave a lot to be desired. Even Sharon would not tolerate Israeli Lebanese cooking. Nothing but the real thing for him,.

Rincewind
01-02-2009, 03:42 PM
Robert Wistrich, the professor of modern Jewish history at Hebrew University, wrote in Hitler and the Holocaust:


Indeed, the leading Nazis … Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Goebbels and Bormann … were all fanatically anti-Christian, though this was partly hidden from the German public. … The conviction that Judaism, Christianity and Bolshevism represented one single pathological phenomenon of decadence became a veritable leitmotif for Hitler around the time that the "Final Solution" had been conceived of as an operational plan.

Robert Wistrich is pushing too hard (or you are misquoting again) Because calling Hitler fanatically anti-Christian is an overstatement when Hitler was still openly professing a belief in god in radio broadcasts in 1945.

Himmler sated in 1937:
In ideological training I forbid every attack against Christ as a person, since such attacks or insults that Christ was a Jew are unworthy of us and certainly untrue historically.
-Heinrich Himmler, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, 28 June 1937

Hardly the position of a fanatical anti-Christian to ban attacked on Christ.

Goebells in 1936:
We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God, including all classes, professions and creeds, where the Führer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty.
-Joseph Goebbels, in a broadcast, 19 April 1936

Again hardly the statement of a fanatical anti-Christian.


I'll give him Bormann and Rosenberg.



Biblical Christianity means following the Bible, according to its original meaning, which can be objectively determined by the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.

That is your interpretation but its hardly the only one just the one you feel justifies your present argument.


It's because they followed the Bible that they opposed Hitler and his counterfeit authority.

Ipse dixit. It was not the charge. Following the bible was not explicitly illegal in Hitler's Germany.


Ah yes, Windy shows his true socialist colours, wanting the government to regulate the airwaves. The USSR agreed, in the name of the people of course. Naturally, the Left aren't talking about fairness for the leftist government-funded radio and TV, only for their competition in the private sector.

It is the present state of affairs. No point buying into the game by purchasing a radio license and then cmoplaining about the rules.


The best regulation is free competition. It's only because liberal talk radio has failed miserably that the Left want to use force to push liberal crap on the radio waves.

Free competition was largely responsible for the Great Depression and the present economic situation. This thread is hardly about economic policy. Take your other ultra-right wing attitudes to the appropriate threads.


More likely, Windy would rather use government force to restrict what's said on the radio, like Hitler and Stalin.

It is standard practice thoughout the Western world to regulate the radio broadcasts. Jono obviously prefers the Mexican pirate radio system when unscrupulous privateers can ride roughshod over law-abiding operators.


No, he explicitly recognized that his Nazi atrocities were contrary to the Catholicism he professed to convert to, and repented and agreed that he deserved to hang for them.

Yep. Another flaw with the Christian concept of atonement and salvation. You can commit atrocities, beg forgiveness and still get a ticket to heaven.


It's certainly easy to say that murder is incompatible with Christian teachings.

Of course it is easy to say. However it is clear that the majority of Christians don't believe it.


Don't be a moron all your life. Not all killing is murder.

Perfect a loophole. So to all the concentration camp workers, it was not murder because not all killing is murder.


Yawn, more of the same paranoia (see Outrageous Reasoning: A Closer Look at a Common Skeptical Tactic (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html) by James Patrick Holding).

How is Robert these days?

The point is that with so much justified genocide in the Bible it is hardly the German's fault for thinking these was justified. The christian mindset is to believe.


Bormann was one of Hitler's inner circle at the time.

Yep. Bormann was the only person to have read the transcript and the show Hitler as supporting Bormann's own ideological position. The point is Hitler or no one else read the transcripts and therefore we have to trust Bormann's representation of the facts.


Prove it. I've documented my case from Gilbert's Nuremberg diaries, and he was the psychologist who examined the defendants at length.

Prove what exactly.

Hitler was a catholic
He often referred to God in public
Others in the Nazi regime thought of him as a catholic

For this last point see Goring testimony at the Nuremberg Trial:
Although he himself [Hitler] was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant.
-Hermann Göring, Nuremberg, 1945


Some are wrong. And when maths problems are receive many different solutions from students, it would prove that there was no one correct solution.

Sometimes there is no unique solution.

For example, solve the following
sin(x) = 0, for x in {-infinity, infinity}

You believe x = 0
Catholics believe x = Pi
Lutherans believe x = 2 Pi

You get the analogy.


It shows that Röhm, like many of the other early Nazis who were homosexuals, didn't perceive the Nazis as a threat to their sexuality.

It certainly does not show that. Regardless of Rohm's motivation, what is true is that you and Hitler have a similar beliefs on homosexuality. Hardly surprising when you are both exteme right wing fruit loops.

antichrist
01-02-2009, 03:44 PM
Justaknight:

1) are you serious? where the hell do I say you presented Holocaust as Nazi (???) propaganda? or zionist propaganda as you might wanted to say? No apologies mate, I am saying here clearly and i quote

It is good, however, that you, an enemy of the State of Israel, saw the light acknowledging pogroms against the Jews. Usually, you present the case as a Zionist propaganda! Meaning that you actually comparing and finding equal Nazi and Jewish atrocities.
Can I give you a typical example? If yes, I will!

A/C Israel restraints amounts to killing 10:1, about on par with the Nazi SS - the Star of David about a 3/4 length behind the Swastika

This is only a small example of this attitude as it was expressed in a thread here on 22/08/06

A/C
Yeah I think I will have to revise that figure of 10:1, I think in the Gaza incursion the figure was about 100:1, whereas the Nazi policy against the Jews was I think 60:1, Or 6:1 I can't remember.

I recently read that for all those 8 years of rockets from Hamas they managed to kill a total of 15 people, the Gaza incursion killed about 1500, so was 100:1

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 04:02 PM
Robert Wistrich is pushing too hard (or you are misquoting again)
I.e. yet another expert is not as gullible as Rincy, and takes into account far more data than opportunistic speeches.


Because calling Hitler fanatically anti-Christian is an overstatement when Hitler was still openly professing a belief in god in radio broadcasts in 1945.
Belief in a god is irrelevant. Even the demons believe in a god.


Himmler sated in 1937:
Hardly the position of a fanatical anti-Christian to ban attacked on Christ.
Or, a fanatical anti-Christian who wanted to exterminate the churches, as the Nuremberg trials proved, but tried to hide his intentions.


Goebells in 1936:
Again hardly the statement of a fanatical anti-Christian.
More like the Caesars you like: they "tolerated" all religions, as long as there was a place for the Emperor. They persecuted Christians because they wouldn't give him the final authority. Similarly, for a while, the Nazis tolerated the churches as long as they proclaimed Hitler as final authority.


Free competition was largely responsible for the Great Depression and the present economic situation. This thread is hardly about economic policy. Take your other ultra-right wing attitudes to the appropriate threads.
Take your ultra-left group-think to the appropriate threads, where it has already been documented that Hoover was not a supporter of free competition but was an interventionist, protectionist, big spender, and tax-rate–increaser, and that FDR's continuation and extention of these policies made the depression "great". Nice to see how Rincy supports the Nazi aims to control the means of production, and shows how antithetical right-wing thinking like free economic competition is to both him and the Nazis.


It is standard practice thoughout the Western world to regulate the radio broadcasts.
Not to tell broadcasters what they must broadcast.


Jono obviously prefers the Mexican pirate radio system when unscrupulous privateers can ride roughshod over law-abiding operators.
I prefer the current American system, not the one Rincy and the American Left want, which is to control the political discourse. Once more, Rincy is on the side of the Nazis in wanting to regulate political content on the radio waves.


Perfect a loophole. So to all the concentration camp workers, it was not murder because not all killing is murder.
Their victims were innocent. Conversely, soldiers can justly kill invading enemies, and policemen can justly use lethal force to prevent a criminal taking life.


How is Robert these days?
Robert who?


The point is that with so much justified genocide in the Bible it is hardly the German's fault for thinking these was justified.
Not at all, since the conditions of rampant child sacrifice and temple prostitution didn't apply to the Jews, and neither had the Jews attacked Germany with lethal force. That's why the overseas German Lutherans opposed Hitler.


The christian mindset is to believe.
The atheistic lefty mindset is groupthink. Christians are to love God with their minds.


Sometimes there is no unique solution.
Irrelevant to the point, i.e. that the mere existence of wrong solutions doesn't mean that there is no right solution.


For example, solve the following
sin(x) = 0, for x in {-infinity, infinity}

You believe x = 0
Catholics believe x = Pi
Lutherans believe x = 2 Pi
More likely, your argument is more like: because some students give answers of Pi/2, 3Pi/2, it follows that it's arrogant to believe that only integral multiples of Pi are right. While I would say that all integral solutions are valid.


It certainly does not show that. Regardless of Rohm's motivation, what is true is that you and Hitler have a similar beliefs on homosexuality. Hardly surprising when you are both exteme right wing fruit loops.
He didn't like it because he thought it was an unsound evolutionary view. Of course, there was nothing

Spiny Norman
01-02-2009, 04:17 PM
The problem with your position is you can avoid any inconvenient atrocity by saying, "oh, he wasn't being christian THEN".
... and the problem with YOUR position is that you can smear any system of belief by pointing to someone who professes to be an adherent of that system whilst behaving in ways that are totally incongruent with that system ... in other words, when actions are inconsistent with words, your position is that one ought to believe that the actions are consistent with some kind of gross interpretation of the beliefs. You'd believe any liar. You'd prefer to believe that one of the greatest mass murderers of history is a follower of Christ who preached "turn the other cheek".

Nah. Sorry ... if you were my son, I'd tell you "stop being a silly goose".

In fact, you're worse than that ... you're being a complete bloody idiot.

Now shut up, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2009, 04:44 PM
Brannon Howse has pointed out the following anti-Christian actions by the Nazis, which have disturbing parallels for the way militant misotheists want to marginalize Christianity in the USA:

This is another instance of the argument ad Hitlerum fallacy, especially when the reasons for some of the actions (like renaming particular holidays) are clearly different. And there's this:


Hitler controlled the church using intimidation and threats. A half-century ago, U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson, promoted a bill that included an amendment to use the Internal Revenue Service to remove the non-profit status of a church that speaks against the election of any specific political candidate.

This is hardly "intimidation" but simply indicates that if churches want to get special treatment from the State then they should be churches and not soapboxes.


As evidence that church doors continue to open further to aberrant beliefs, a 2008 survey found that 57% of evangelicals do not believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God.

This paints a rather different picture to some other stats you've quoted concerning how fervent religious belief supposedly makes people more sceptical of paranormalist views and other trendy religion substitutes.

I believe the above stat actually. There will always be exceptions (those who are devout to one faith exclusively) but in general if a person will believe something that is far-fetched then they are more likely to believe something else far-fetched even if the two beliefs are inconsistent with each other. And I've seen stats on this.

Rincewind
01-02-2009, 05:22 PM
... and the problem with YOUR position is that you can smear any system of belief by pointing to someone who professes to be an adherent of that system whilst behaving in ways that are totally incongruent with that system ... in other words, when actions are inconsistent with words, your position is that one ought to believe that the actions are consistent with some kind of gross interpretation of the beliefs.

You'd like to believe that Christianity is the world's most popular religion. However now you are saying the only Christians are the ones who never break the rules. However, I think you will be the first to admit that everyone is a sinner. Therefore, by your strict application of a definition of a Christian is that they are defined by there action, there are no Christians.

The point of the argument is no so much what Hitler himself believed but the holocaust was perpetrated by the majority of the German population, predominantly Christians like you and Jono. Occasional sinners but mostly trying to follow the teaching of Christ.

They also killed six million Jews.


You'd believe any liar. You'd prefer to believe that one of the greatest mass murderers of history is a follower of Christ who preached "turn the other cheek".

You are just taking a small part of a huge body of text and saying "turn the other cheek" epitomises the teaching of Christ.

Jono will be the first one to say that Jesus didn't always turn the other cheek when it came to making his argument. It is the way he justifies his penchant for name calling.


Nah. Sorry ... if you were my son, I'd tell you "stop being a silly goose".

If I was your son that would be the least of my concerns.

Spiny Norman
01-02-2009, 05:37 PM
... now you are saying the only Christians are the ones who never break the rules.
I don't think I said that at all ... please stop putting words in my mouth.

How about I put it like this. Some Christians failed to act to stop Hitler (perhaps through fear, perhaps because they were deceived). Some may even have killed Jews.

If they did, they were wrong to do so. Their actions were not those of a Christian. Even if I were to accept that Hitler thought he was a Christian (and I don't, as it seems obvious to me that he was using the language of Christians in order to manipulate people) ... but even if he was ... he was wrong to do so and was acting in a non-Christian way.

Therefore his actions cannot be used as a justification to criticise Christianity. The whole idea is quite preposterous.

antichrist
01-02-2009, 06:12 PM
Robert Wistrich is pushing too hard (or you are misquoting again) Because calling Hitler fanatically anti-Christian is an overstatement when Hitler was still openly professing a belief in god in radio broadcasts in 1945.

A/C
I have his book and autographed when he was here about 8 years ago. I attended his lecture based on his book "Anti-semitcism - the longest hatred". Nice guy he is. I also have video of his talk somewhere.

I showed it a few places around sydney and I was accused of being a Jew-Lover (not that I minded). Everything depends on context.

Mokum
01-02-2009, 06:38 PM
He was.
I rest my case

Mokum
01-02-2009, 07:02 PM
What would you know? If you swallow the "Hitler was a Christian" nonsense, you're as stupid as Rincy.

I never did make that call, and I keep trying to explain to you that Hitler's religion is irrelevant. This whole discussion started with Rincewind stating that Nazi Christians killed millions of Jews. They did. Germany was a Christian nation, not an atheist one. That doesn't say much about Christianity. I would never use that argument to prove that Christianity is bad. But you do use the fact that Mao and Stalin killed tens of millions to prove that Atheism is bad. And for good measure you try to push Hitler in that camp as well, to make life easier. And now you claim Hitler was another lefty as well. Nice and easy. You're a joke, Jono, and not a very funny one.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 07:17 PM
I never did make that call, and I keep trying to explain to you that Hitler's religion is irrelevant. This whole discussion started with Rincewind stating that Nazi Christians killed millions of Jews. They did.
Wrong. They were not Christians.


Germany was a Christian nation, not an atheist one.
They were a highly evolutionized nation, and the church was corrupted by liberal Bible-rejection, so was no longer Christian.


That doesn't say much about Christianity. I would never use that argument to prove that Christianity is bad. But you do use the fact that Mao and Stalin killed tens of millions to prove that Atheism is bad.
In this thread, it was replying to antichrist's usual christophobic rants.


And for good measure you try to push Hitler in that camp as well, to make life easier.
No, that his policies were strongly motivated by evolutionary ideas, as many non-Christian experts have stated. It is true that Hitler and the Nazis were hostile to Christianity and wanted to wipe it out.


And now you claim Hitler was another lefty as well. Nice and easy.
You want to claim he was right wing, although he was diametrically opposed to current right-wing policies, but had a lot in common with leftist polices. Before the racism became over-arching, many on the Left regarded him as a fellow traveller. Sure, Hitler was anti-communist, but that was fighting over the same territory. Communists killed communists too.


You're a joke, Jono, and not a very funny one.
You're a moron, Mokum, and they don't have to be funny.

Mokum
01-02-2009, 07:52 PM
You're a moron, Mokum, and they don't have to be funny.
I am glad we've got that out of the way. As I said before, there is very little point arguing with Jono. But amusing enough.

Rincewind
01-02-2009, 08:42 PM
I.e. yet another expert is not as gullible as Rincy, and takes into account far more data than opportunistic speeches.

Well I haven't seen the original work and your use of ellipses in the quote makes me think that perhaps you are quoting out of context. However referring to all those individuals as "fanatically anti-christian" just cannot be maintained.


Belief in a god is irrelevant. Even the demons believe in a god.

:lol: I like that one. I guess you would know.


Or, a fanatical anti-Christian who wanted to exterminate the churches, as the Nuremberg trials proved, but tried to hide his intentions.

As I said I will give you Rosenberg and Bormann. The others were hardly fanatical and even openly referred to themselves as Christians.


More like the Caesars you like: they "tolerated" all religions, as long as there was a place for the Emperor. They persecuted Christians because they wouldn't give him the final authority. Similarly, for a while, the Nazis tolerated the churches as long as they proclaimed Hitler as final authority.

Hardly the words of a "fanatical anti-christian", as claimed by your quote.


Take your ultra-left group-think to the appropriate threads, where it has already been documented that Hoover was not a supporter of free competition but was an interventionist, protectionist, big spender, and tax-rate–increaser, and that FDR's continuation and extention of these policies made the depression "great". Nice to see how Rincy supports the Nazi aims to control the means of production, and shows how antithetical right-wing thinking like free economic competition is to both him and the Nazis.

Whatever, as I said take your ultra right wing economics elsewhere.


Not to tell broadcasters what they must broadcast.

It is standard practice. As I said, just because you have a license to broadcast it doesn't give you carte blanche on content.


I prefer the current American system, not the one Rincy and the American Left want, which is to control the political discourse. Once more, Rincy is on the side of the Nazis in wanting to regulate political content on the radio waves.

It is regulated now. The only thing we are discussing is the degree of regulation. However the whole radio broadcast is just an attempt by you to obfuscate the discussion on the religious leanings of 1930s/40s Germany.


Their victims were innocent. Conversely, soldiers can justly kill invading enemies, and policemen can justly use lethal force to prevent a criminal taking life.

Same with Germany and the holocaust. They could justify it theologically by appealing to Luther.


Robert who?

Your librarian mate.


Not at all, since the conditions of rampant child sacrifice and temple prostitution didn't apply to the Jews, and neither had the Jews attacked Germany with lethal force. That's why the overseas German Lutherans opposed Hitler.

Ipse dixit. The fact that the German Lutherans were overseas to start with means they had prior issues with remaining in Germany so prior disaffections would make it more likely they would oppose Hitler anyway.


The atheistic lefty mindset is groupthink. Christians are to love God with their minds.

Well such as they are.


Irrelevant to the point, i.e. that the mere existence of wrong solutions doesn't mean that there is no right solution.

You misunderstood my statement. "No unique solution" does not preclude non-unique solutions.


More likely, your argument is more like: because some students give answers of Pi/2, 3Pi/2, it follows that it's arrogant to believe that only integral multiples of Pi are right. While I would say that all integral solutions are valid.

No in keeping with the analogy only a liberal Christian would entertain multiple solutions. You would still be labouring under the false assumption that there was a unique solution and your particular methodology lead to x = 0 and therefore everyone else is wrong, regardless of their reasoning.


He didn't like it because he thought it was an unsound evolutionary view. Of course, there was nothing

An evolutionist would not care about homosexuality since if it was exclusive it could not be transmitted genetically and if it was inclusive then it was besides the point.

Rincewind
01-02-2009, 08:53 PM
I don't think I said that at all ... please stop putting words in my mouth.

What I do is take what you say and take it to its logical conclusion to demonstrate the indefensibility of your position. It is called reductio ad absurdum.


How about I put it like this. Some Christians failed to act to stop Hitler (perhaps through fear, perhaps because they were deceived). Some may even have killed Jews.

If they did, they were wrong to do so. Their actions were not those of a Christian. Even if I were to accept that Hitler thought he was a Christian (and I don't, as it seems obvious to me that he was using the language of Christians in order to manipulate people) ... but even if he was ... he was wrong to do so and was acting in a non-Christian way.

No doubt most Christians agree with you. However, the belief system of Hitler himself is almost a moot point. He was obviously using christian language to manipulate a mainly Christian population to do some very bad things.


Therefore his actions cannot be used as a justification to criticise Christianity. The whole idea is quite preposterous.

What is preposterous is the misapprehension which Jono is trying to promulgate that Germans in the 1940s and 50s were mainly non-Christian. That is just unsustainable.

I'm not calling all Christians Nazis or even anti-Semitic. However, in general, the Christian record on persecution of a whole number of groups including Jews is not good.

In another thread I might argue that the reason for this is the moral flaw of Christianity which allows people to do terrible things and then atone for there sins and still attain salvation (a la Hans Frank)

Mokum
01-02-2009, 09:16 PM
What is preposterous is the misapprehension which Jono is trying to promulgate that Germans in the 1940s and 50s were mainly non-Christian. That is just unsustainable.

That is indeed all here is to this discussion. No matter what Hitler or some of the Nazis thought, the question is, can you claim that Germany under the Nazis was an atheist society, and if so can you claim that the atrocities that were committed by these Germans were atheist atrocities that wouldn't have happened if Germany had remained Christian. Germany was not an atheist society, before, during nor after the Nazi era. Maybe in Jono's definition they weren't true Christians, but not many would be because even most Christians are educated, and don't suscribe to Jono's hardline creationist nonsense. For everyone else, Germany was indeed a Christian society. And they committed those atrocities. Not because they were Christian, mind you, but because they were otherwise deluded.

Desmond
02-02-2009, 09:17 AM
Germany was a Christian nation, not an atheist one.

They were a highly evolutionized nation...
I ask again, can one be a Christian and believe in evolution?

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2009, 09:35 AM
I ask again, can one be a Christian and believe in evolution?
I respond again: see my articles like ‘Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery’ (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4504)for the answer.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2009, 09:41 AM
That is indeed all here is to this discussion. No matter what Hitler or some of the Nazis thought, the question is, can you claim that Germany under the Nazis was an atheist society, and if so can you claim that the atrocities that were committed by these Germans were atheist atrocities that wouldn't have happened if Germany had remained Christian.
Mokum's dogmatic mind is made up, despite the copious evidence of evolutionary dogma infiltrating society and even the church, as Prof. Wiekart copiously documented (http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/fromdarwintohitler.htm), and my posts above have produced further evidence. Not all evolutionists are atheists.


Germany was not an atheist society, before, during nor after the Nazi era. Maybe in Jono's definition they weren't true Christians,
They weren't. Gresham Machen's classic 1923 book Christianity and Liberalism showed that theological liberalism was not a branch of Christianity but a totally different religion. And the birthplace of theological liberalism was Germany.

I deign to defend only true (biblical) Christianity, not wolves in sheep's clothing.


but not many would be because even most Christians are educated,
I have an earned science doctorate and master title. That's quite educated.


and don't suscribe to Jono's hardline creationist nonsense.
As if Mokum would know.

Desmond
02-02-2009, 11:10 AM
I respond again: see my articles like ‘Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery’ (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4504)for the answer.Did you post that earlier? Sorry I must have missed it. Found this conclusion:


"Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is both scientifically and biblically untenable. The Lord Jesus took a literal view of Genesis. The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator, and its teaching leads to a disastrous secularizing of society."

Sounds a bit like "yes, but no". Not surprising since you don't want to lose the majority of your readers by declaring them non-Christian. In any event, you using evolution as some sort of evidence that the Germans were atheists sounds more like a solid "no" to me.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2009, 11:16 AM
Sounds a bit like "yes, but no".
No, like "yes, but here are some dangers of this position all the same."


Not surprising since you don't want to lose the majority of your readers by declaring them non-Christian.
No, I want to tell them what I really think. We will not be bought; one person cancelled a $1000 cheque after a recent article said that Jesus is God.


In any event, you using evolution as some sort of evidence that the Germans were atheists sounds more like a solid "no" to me.
Some were, a lot were pagans, and lot were Bible-denying churchians. What were almost absent, except in the concentration camps, were biblical Christians.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2009, 11:23 AM
This is another instance of the argument ad Hitlerum fallacy, especially when the reasons for some of the actions (like renaming particular holidays) are clearly different.
At best, this argument ad Hitlerum fallacy would apply to an argument against current American policies. But the above examples were legitimate as examples of Hitler's christophobic actions.


This paints a rather different picture to some other stats you've quoted concerning how fervent religious belief supposedly makes people more sceptical of paranormalist views and other trendy religion substitutes.
More likely, they show that American Christianity is mile wide and inch deep. There is far too much dependence on Christian celebrities as well.


I believe the above stat actually. There will always be exceptions (those who are devout to one faith exclusively) but in general if a person will believe something that is far-fetched then they are more likely to believe something else far-fetched even if the two beliefs are inconsistent with each other. And I've seen stats on this.
I've seen stats on superstitious beliefs correlating with rejection of the Bible, e.g. Look Who's Irrational Now (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html), WSJ, 19 Sept 2008:




"What Americans Really Believe", a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.



In his 1983 book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.



We can't even count on self-described atheists to be strict rationalists. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's monumental "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" that was issued in June, 21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven.

On Oct. 3, Mr. Maher debuts Religulous, his documentary that attacks religious belief. He talks to Hasidic scholars, Jews for Jesus, Muslims, polygamists, Satanists, creationists, and even Rael — prophet of the Raelians — before telling viewers: "The plain fact is religion must die for man to live."

But it turns out that the late-night comic is no icon of rationality himself. In fact, he is a fervent advocate of pseudoscience. The night before his performance on Conan O'Brien, Mr. Maher told David Letterman — a quintuple bypass survivor — to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him. He proudly stated that he didn't accept Western medicine. On his HBO show in 2005, Mr. Maher said: "I don't believe in vaccination. … Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory." He has told CNN's Larry King that he won't take aspirin because he believes it is lethal and that he doesn't even believe the Salk vaccine eradicated polio.


Mokum
02-02-2009, 11:38 AM
I have an earned science doctorate and master title. That's quite educated.
So you keep telling everyone. You bite too easily, Jono.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2009, 11:48 AM
So you keep telling everyone. You bite too easily, Jono.
As Steinitz supposedly said after his brilliant splattering of Bardeleben (http://www.quazen.com/Games/Board-Games/Chess-Game-Analysis---Steinitz-Vs-Von-Bardeleben.139512), "I may be an old lion, but if someone puts his hand in my mouth, I can still bite it off!"

ER
02-02-2009, 01:37 PM
Hi Jono, thanks for the "old lion still biting" moto, (for oldies like me it means a lot :owned: ) thanks for the great analysis and thanks for that wonderful website as well!
CAGLES

Rincewind
02-02-2009, 01:37 PM
[a] lot were Bible-denying churchians

Regarding the group you call "Bible-denying churchians":

How would you classify the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. He has made some statements which UI'm sure you don;t agree with.
Is he a Christian or a "Bible-denying churchian"?

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2009, 06:56 PM
Regarding the group you call "Bible-denying churchians":

How would you classify the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.
See my article Church of England apologises to Darwin: Anglican Church’s neo-Chamberlainite appeasement of secularism (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6048/), which includes links to the Yes Prime Minister episode "Bishop's Gambit" that brilliantly satirizes the real nature of the Church of England.


He has made some statements which UI'm sure you don;t agree with.
Is he a Christian or a "Bible-denying churchian"?
The latter, esp. with his support for Sharia law.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2009, 07:13 PM
More of Hitler's hostility to Christianity documented in Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg (2007):

[T]he Nazis worked relentlessly to replace … Christianity with a new political religion. The shrewdest way to accomplish this was to co-opt Christianity via the Gleichschaltung ["coordination" in German] while at the same time shrinking traditional religion’s role in civil society. …

The German historian Götz Aly explains how Hitler purchased popularity with lavish social welfare programs and middle-class perks, often paid for with stolen Jewish wealth and high taxes on the rich. Hitler banned religious charity, crippling the churches’ role as a counterweight to the state. Clergy were put on government salary, hence subjected to state authority. “The parsons will be be made to dig their own graves,” Hitler cackled. “They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable little jobs and incomes.” …

When some Protestant bishops visited the Führer to register complaints [against Nazi policies attempting to co-opt/replace Christianity], Hitler’s rage got the better of him. “Christianity will disappear from Germany just as it has done in Russia … The German race has existed without Christianity for thousands of years … and will continue after Christianity has disappeared … We must get used to the teachings of blood and race.”

Rincewind
02-02-2009, 09:31 PM
How would you classify the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. ... Is he a Christian or a "Bible-denying churchian"?

The latter

Ok so the majority of the population of 1940s Germany are in the same set as the Archbishop of Canterbury?

I put it to you then that you are using a definition of the word "Christian" which is much more narrow than the general usage. By general usage the Archbishop of Canterbury is undeniably and uncontroversially Christian.

Kevin Bonham
02-02-2009, 10:35 PM
At best, this argument ad Hitlerum fallacy would apply to an argument against current American policies. But the above examples were legitimate as examples of Hitler's christophobic actions.

Even if so that doesn't mean that calling present-day actions "disturbing" for no other reason than a loose parallel with some actions taken for different reasons under Hitler is valid.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 04:29 PM
Reviving an old topic...

Inquisition became synonymous with ultimate oppression. While I cannot commend execution for "thought-crime", the figures show that it's reputation is unwarranted.

For example, article on Spanish Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition) estimates at least 1251 execution out of 87000
for the period of 1540-1700. Less then 10 execution in a year. By the harsh standards of the time it's virtually nothing.

The estimation for Roman Inquisition is similar.

By contrast, the witch hunting (mostly in protestant Europe and North America) is estimated to claim between 40,000-100,000 lives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt). between 1480-1750.

antichrist
07-04-2011, 08:16 PM
No, the poor priests and nuns, unlike the top hierachy church officials, did not serve Luis's regime. They belonged in the third Estate and suffered state oppression as much as the rest of the populace. Yet, they were purged because of their Christian Credo. With respect to your mum, holy communion is a sacrament and as such should not be a subject of humiliation or degradation!

RW, do you still hold the same reverance for the bolded section? You seem to have moved a bit my way a few cogs. You should thank me

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2015, 01:10 AM
Hitler and Christianity (http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm)
by Edward Bartlett-Jones


What about his attitude to religion and the Church later on? In Mein Kampf (1925) Hitler criticized the Catholic Church in its political form, which he said failed to recognize Germany’s and Europe’s “racial problem”. His Party Charter for the nascent Nazional Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei demanded in Article 24, in contrast to strong Christian control of German’s spiritual life, “complete freedom of religion” (in so far, of course, as that was not a “danger to Germany”) (William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Arrow, 1991). Indeed, the official “Nazi Party Philosopher”, Alfred Rosenberg, (later to be hanged at Nuremberg), appointed of course with Hitler’s consent, was totally opposed to Christianity. However, Hitler the politician was also aware that to achieve power he would need to win votes from the Catholic Centre Party and could not afford total alienation.

Upon attaining office and enjoying a free hand, what line did Hitler take on religion and the Church? Five days after becoming Chancellor in 1933, Hitler allowed a sterilization law to pass, and had the Catholic Youth League disbanded (Shirer, The Rise). The latter was a measure applied to other youth organizations too, in order to free up young people to join the Hitler Youth. At the same time, Hitler also made an agreement with the Vatican to allow the Catholic Church to regulate its own affairs. (It is probably worth noting here the low value that Hitler placed on written agreements.) Parents were pressured to take their children out of religious schools. When the Church organized voluntary out-of-hours religious classes, the Nazi government responded by banning state-employed teachers from taking part. The Crucifix symbol was even at one point banned from classrooms in one particular jurisdiction, Oldenburg, in 1936, but the measure met with fierce public resistance and was rescinded. Hitler remained conscious of the affection for the Church felt in some quarters of Germany, particularly Bavaria. Later on, though, a wartime metal shortage was used as the excuse for melting church bells (Richard Grunberger, The Twelve Year Reich, Henry Holt, Henry Holt, 1979 and Richard Grunberger, A Social History of the Third Reich, Penguin, 1991).

Hitler’s references to providence and God and the ritualistic pageantry of Nazism were more than likely pagan than Christian. Earthly symbols of German valour and Teutonic strength were to be worshipped - not the forgiving, compassionate representative of an “Eastern Mediterranean servant ethic imposed on credulous ancient Germans by force and subterfuge” (the phrase is Burleigh’s own, in Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: a New History, Pan, 2001). A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:


We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

(Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.)

The SS were particularly anti-Christian, and officers and men were encouraged to leave the Church, although those that refused to renounce their Christian faith were not visibly punished, perhaps because their otherwise faithful adherence to SS codes of behaviour gave the lie to any claim of true Christian affiliation. The SS also brought in its own neo-pagan rituals for marriage ceremonies and baptisms.

In conclusion, it is reasonable beyond doubt to say that Hitler was not at any stage of his life a Christian.

Rincewind
21-03-2015, 10:02 AM
What rubbish.

Rincewind
21-03-2015, 10:14 AM
One of the way Hitler sought to control the German people was to change the oaths of allegiance which means the soldier, officers and even civil servants took a oath to obey Adolf Hitler by name (not the Chancellor or the constitution). It is telling that these did not replace Gad in the oath. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath

Here are the English translation of the SS oath used in 1935...


Loyalty oath of the SS, 9 November 1935

"What is your oath ?" - "I vow to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and chancellor of the German Reich loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to the leaders that you set for me, absolute allegiance until death. So help me God !"

"So you believe in a God ?" - "Yes, I believe in a Lord God."

"What do you think about a man who does not believe in a God ?" - "I think he is arrogant, megalomaniacal and stupid; he is not eligible for us."

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2015, 09:10 AM
Honor your Fuhrer and master (http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/honor-your-fuhrer-and-master.html)
Bede Journal, 9 December 2008


This effort to Nazify the Church appears to have only been a temporary charade. According to Ian Kershaw’s biography (http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1936-1945-Nemesis-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393322521), by 1944, urged on by the hotheads in his party, Hitler appears to have resolved to destroy the churches after the war.


There would, he made clear, be no room in this utopia for the Christian Churches. After the trouble of the summer he had to take a line which appeased the party hotheads but also restrained their instincts. For the time being he ordered slow progression in the 'church struggle'. 'But it is clear', noted Goebbels, that after the war it has to find a general solution......there is namely an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a Germanic-heroic world view'.(Ian Kershaw, 'Hitler : Nemesis' p 449)

His later pronouncements followed the same theme.


It was necessary, commented Hitler, not to react to the seditious activities of the clergy; 'the showdown' would be saved for a 'more advantageous situation after the war' when he would have to come as 'the avenger'.(Ian Kershaw, 'Hitler : Nemesis' p 509)

He was determined, after their insidious behaviour, he said, doubtless playing here on the many compliments fed to him by Goebbels and the other Gauleiter, to destroy the Christian Churches after the war. (Ian Kershaw, 'Hitler : Nemesis' p 516)

Possibly some version of Christianity might have survived had the Nazis won the war and carried out their purge, but as the wartime activities of Grundmann’s institute show, it would have contained none of the most essential orthodox dogmas. What would have remained would have been the vaguest impression, combined with anti-Jewish prejudice and unquestioning worship of the Fuhrer and the Nazi state. In keeping with the Nazi approach to all areas of life in the Third Reich, the religious life of the nation was to be colonised completely by Nazi ideology. Hitler might have approved of the Ten Commandments, but then again he would do, he had them rewritten.

antichrist
03-11-2015, 09:20 AM
The OT god was a Hitler and Hitler was an OT god - so of course there will be demarcations disputes between them.

ER
27-05-2017, 06:14 AM
Hey atheopaths, careful! Your Allahu Akbar bros are out to get you in Saudi Arabia!


https://youtu.be/K2WIuuzHSRA

Don't say you weren't warned if you are busted when propagating your causes over there!

Patrick Byrom
27-05-2017, 09:21 AM
Hey atheopaths, careful! Your Allahu Akbar bros are out to get you in Saudi Arabia! ...
Don't say you weren't warned if you are busted when propagating your causes over there!
Something Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists have in common - they both persecute atheists!

ER
27-05-2017, 09:52 AM
Hey atheopaths, careful! Your Allahu Akbar bros are out to get you in Saudi Arabia!


https://youtu.be/K2WIuuzHSRA

Don't say you weren't warned if you are busted when propagating your causes over there!

and remember, over here you 're getting away with murder with just a hiding by Capa-Fan in the birthplace of the holy Prophet they will make suvlakis out of your nuts!

Desmond
27-05-2017, 10:23 AM
and remember, over here you 're getting away with murder with just a hiding by Capa-Fan in the birthplace of the holy Prophet they will make suvlakis out of your nuts!
I doubt Jono would attempt any of these so called hidings there either. He'd be doing the other sort of hiding.

Kevin Bonham
27-05-2017, 11:39 AM
Saudi Arabia is simply employing state terrorism against its own citizens, as it does in many other regards. Whatever its complicity (or not) in terrorist acts elsewhere, it is itself a terrorist nation.

Patrick Byrom
27-05-2017, 12:19 PM
Saudi Arabia is simply employing state terrorism against its own citizens, as it does in many other regards. Whatever its complicity (or not) in terrorist acts elsewhere, it is itself a terrorist nation.And, unfortunately, it is receiving massive support from Trump, who has effectively told the Saudis that he doesn't care what they do to their own people.

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2017, 03:16 AM
And, unfortunately, it is receiving massive support from Trump, who has effectively told the Saudis that he doesn't care what they do to their own people.

So you finally care about supporting Saudi Arabia? No whinges when the Saudis and the Clinton Foundation were close—Saudi Arabia had given between $10 million and $25 million (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html).

Patrick Byrom
30-05-2017, 08:30 AM
So you finally care about supporting Saudi Arabia? No whinges when the Saudis and the Clinton Foundation were close—Saudi Arabia had given between $10 million and $25 million (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html).And the Saudis have business deals with Trump, which is worse. But Clinton and Obama still criticised the Saudis for their human rights record; Trump didn't.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2017, 02:52 AM
And the Saudis have business deals with Trump, which is worse. But Clinton and Obama still criticised the Saudis for their human rights record; Trump didn't.

Melania didn't wear a veil, and still the Saudi king shook her hand.

Patrick Byrom
01-06-2017, 12:56 PM
Melania didn't wear a veil, and still the Saudi king shook her hand.Michelle didn't wear a veil - or a headscarf - either.

ER
01-06-2017, 07:16 PM
Melania didn't wear a veil, and still the Saudi king shook her hand.

Michelle practicing.

3477

Barack doesn't seem to be enthused! :D

Rincewind
01-06-2017, 09:06 PM
Barack doesn't seem to be enthused! :D

That's so weird because Melanie normally copies from Michelle verbatim.

Rincewind
01-06-2017, 09:13 PM
Ah. It's OK I see now Melania was copying from Michelle's visit in 2015.

3478

It's amusing to note that at the time Donald Trump made the following tweet...


Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted.We have enuf enemies - Donald Trump, 29 January, 2015

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 10:01 AM
THE GREAT MYTHS 5: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GREAT LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA (https://historyforatheists.com/2017/07/the-destruction-of-the-great-library-of-alexandria/)
Tim O'Neill, History for Atheists, 2 July 2017

If there is a story that forms the heart of New Atheist bad history, it’s the tale of the Great Library of Alexandria and its destruction by a Christian mob. It’s the central moral fable of the Draper–White Thesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis), where wise and rational Greeks and Romans store up all the wisdom of the pre-Christian ancient world in a single library, treasuring science and reason and bringing western civilisation to the brink of a technological and industrial revolution. But then a screaming mob of irrational Christian zealots puts this treasure of science and learning to the torch, thus ushering in the Dark Ages and setting back technology by one thousand years. It’s certainly a great story, retold in Carl Sagan’s seminal Cosmos TV series (1980) and in Alejandro Amenabar’s film Agora (2009). The only problem is … it never happened.

And if that tangle of confused fantasy isn’t enough, no fervid bad history surrounding the Great Library would be complete without linking it to another New Atheist fable, the murder of Hypatia of Alexandria on account of her learning and rationality.

So where are these people getting all this stuff that makes them so angry? Unfortunately, this is another case where the average New Atheist’s grasp of history has been informed not by a historian, but by a scientist and where the scientist has, yet again, got pretty much everything wrong. The main culprit here is, unfortunately, the late Carl Sagan.

Sagan was drawing on Gibbon’s tradition in his hymn to the Great Library, which means the New Atheists are getting their ideas on the subject third or fourth hand and from sources that are dubious, patently biased and totally outdated.

The fact that the Great Library was actually associated with a religious shrine is something that is ignored or glossed over in many modern accounts. Sagan, in the video sequence above, mentions about how one of the “daughter libraries” was the Serapeum, which was the temple of Serapis, but he skips around this in a rather gingerly manner. He says the Serapeum was “once a temple, but was later reconsecrated to knowledge”. This is nonsense. The Serapeum was always a temple and was not “reconsecrated” to anything. Libraries were often established as adjuncts to temples but it seems Sagan was attempting to distance the “annex” of the Great Library from the temple in which it sat because this did not quite fit his theme of secular knowledge’s superiority to “mysticism”. Like the Serapeum, the Mouseion was a temple with a research institution and a book collection associated with it.

The New Atheist mythic conception of the “Great Library of Alexandria” bears very little resemblance to any historical actuality. It was a shrine with scholars attached to it, not a secular university. Its scholars were far more concerned with poetry, textual analysis, grammar, lexicography and rhetoric than anything we would see as “science”. The proto-science they did do was mainly of a highly abstract and often metaphysical nature rather than anything like modern science. And it was also generally divorced from technical innovation and what little practical application it was given did not much at all to advance technology. The idea that if the Great Library had not been burned down by wicked Christians we’d all be living in gleaming space cities on Europa or Callisto is, therefore, a silly fantasy. And not least because the Great Library … wasn’t burned down by wicked Christians.

The Muddle of the Myth

The story of the destruction of the Great Library is a positivist fairy tale, cobbled together from disparate elements and bearing almost no relationship to accurate history. The library was not a secular establishment, it was not as large as is claimed, it was not a particular centre of science and it was not a wellspring of wondrous technology. Most importantly, it was not destroyed by a crazed Christian mob intent on the destruction of rationally-based knowledge.

Like all New Atheist pseudo history, the myth of the burning of the Great Library is caricature of the facts, compressed into a moral fable. Its constant repetition and resistance to any correction is a testament to both the historical illiteracy of the average New Atheist and the ideological zeal with which they cling to convenient fictions.

Rincewind
05-07-2017, 11:28 AM
I agree and I'm pretty sure I have commented on Sagan's part in promulgating this myth some time ago on this board. While Sagan would have no influence on historians (who would realise that his is not one) as a popular science communicator Sagan should have been more careful as his writing would have been influential on the general public where to limits of his expertise are not so well appreciated.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 11:30 AM
I agree and I'm pretty sure I have commented on Sagan's part in promulgating this myth some time ago on this board. While Sagan would have no influence on historians (who would realise that his is not one) as a popular science communicator Sagan should have been more careful as his writing would have been influential on the general public where to limits of his expertise are not so well appreciated.
We agree on something then.

Rincewind
05-07-2017, 11:34 AM
We agree on something then.

For sure but this is not news (at least not here). See for example this post (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?9003-Is-the-Bible-quot-non-fiction-quot-sf-books-thread&p=216114&viewfull=1#post216114) where I give an errant Sagan reference in regards the Hypatia/Library history. That post is nearly 9 years old.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 11:52 AM
For sure but this is not news (at least not here). See for example this post (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?9003-Is-the-Bible-quot-non-fiction-quot-sf-books-thread&p=216114&viewfull=1#post216114) where I give an errant Sagan reference in regards the Hypatia/Library history. That post is nearly 9 years old.

Right you are; I had forgotten that. Your posts there were pretty good.

Ian Murray
07-09-2017, 01:39 PM
Fading white evangelicals have made a desperate end-of-life bargain with Trump (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/06/fading-white-evangelicals-made-desperate-end-of-life-bargain-with-trump-robert-jones-column/635115001/)
Washington Post
6.9.17

They are a grieving community. After decades of equating growth with divine approval, they're on the losing side of demographics and LGBT rights....

Capablanca-Fan
15-09-2017, 12:13 AM
↑↑ Absurd article from christophobe who didn't listen to real reasons: most evangelicals voted for Trump not because he is one of us, but because we thought he wouldn't be hostile to Christian faith and morality as Clinton would have been. Hillary has explicitly said that conservative Christians' religious beliefs "have to be changed" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-threat-to-religious-liberty/2016/10/13/878cdc36-9150-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html). Obamov's Solicitor General explicitly admitted that the government could go after Christian institutions that still maintained the Christian belief that marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/07/the-supreme-court-oral-argument-that-cost-democrats-the-presidency/) And as one legal blogger said, “When you find yourself in the Supreme Court adverse to the Little Sisters of the Poor you might consider whether maybe you have pushed a little too far.”

And to confirm that it was the right choice, Democrats have ramped up hostility against Christianity. Bernie Sanders said that a conservative protestant was not fit for public office (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/bernie-sanders-chris-van-hollen-russell-vought/529614/), and Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durban said the same about a conservative Catholic judicial nominee (https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1498). None of these leftist politicians care that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Patrick Byrom
17-09-2017, 06:41 PM
And to confirm that it was the right choice, Democrats have ramped up hostility against Christianity. Bernie Sanders said that a conservative protestant was not fit for public office (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/bernie-sanders-chris-van-hollen-russell-vought/529614/), and Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durban said the same about a conservative Catholic judicial nominee (https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1498). None of these leftist politicians care that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”It's exactly the opposite (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-aron-feinstein-barrett-faith-and-law-hearing-20170915-story.html): Feinstein and Durban are trying to stop a judicial nominee imposing her religion on other people by deciding cases according to her Catholic faith, not according to the law or the US Constitution:

The Judiciary Committee could have insisted on hearing how the same person who wrote that for Catholics the “prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia … are absolute” and that “Catholic judges … are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty” could suddenly be at a loss for examples of cases she would avoid. Instead, the nominee was allowed to send mixed signals: Maybe she’d recuse, but more likely she wouldn’t.

Capablanca-Fan
18-09-2017, 01:13 PM
It's exactly the opposite (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-aron-feinstein-barrett-faith-and-law-hearing-20170915-story.html): Feinstein and Durban are trying to stop a judicial nominee imposing her religion on other people by deciding cases according to her Catholic faith, not according to the law or the US Constitution:
What nonsense. And when you look at what Amy Barrett actually said: that she would recuse herself if it came down do it. But what you, Feinstein, Durban, Sanders, and that moron who wrote that LA Times article really mean is: we reject Article VI of the constitution. They really believe that there should be a religious test for public offic:


Because some senators didn’t like Barrett’s religious views. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein evidently meant for that sentence to sound sinister. I can only say that I wish people would say the same thing about me. And as Ross Douthat of the New York Times has pointed out, it’s not only the dogma that has lived loudly within Barrett; a faithful Catholic, she is the mother of seven children.

But Feinstein’s blatantly anti-Catholic swipe at Barrett was not, actually, the most troublesome moment of the hearing. Nor was it the most flagrant violation of the constitutional ban on a religious test. For that we must turn to Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, a self-described Catholic. Durbin took Barrett to task for her use of the term “orthodox” to describe Catholics who uphold Church teaching. Some Catholics who use that label have criticized Pope Francis, Durbin said. He relented only when Barrett said that she would prefer to describe herself as a “faithful” Catholic, and that she admires the Pope. So a “faithful” Catholic who supports the Pope could be an acceptable candidate for a federal judiciary seat, but an “orthodox” Catholic who criticizes the Pope could not? Isn’t that clearly a religious test?

Feinstein wants us to fear Barrett because of the (Catholic) dogma that is living within her, ready to pounce out upon an unsuspecting public.

Patrick Byrom
18-09-2017, 02:58 PM
What nonsense. And when you look at what Amy Barrett actually said: that she would recuse herself if it came down do it. But what you, Feinstein, Durban, Sanders, and that moron who wrote that LA Times article really mean is: we reject Article VI of the constitution. ...This is what Barrett actually said:

That questioning should have become even more pointed when Barrett’s hearing took an unexpected turn. Having established that she believes recusal is the answer for a religious judge in a moral quandary, Barrett claimed in response to senators’ questions that she couldn’t “imagine … any class of cases” where faith would force her recusal. But Barrett has commented extensively about that very thing: cases that are morally difficult for a Catholic judge. The Judiciary Committee could have insisted on hearing how the same person who wrote that for Catholics the “prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia … are absolute” and that “Catholic judges … are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty” could suddenly be at a loss for examples of cases she would avoid. Instead, the nominee was allowed to send mixed signals: Maybe she’d recuse, but more likely she wouldn’t.
So she said that (hypothetically) she would recuse herself, but then couldn't give any examples of when she would avoid imposing her religious beliefs on other people. Even in cases where she previously said that she would impose her beliefs, she is not guaranteeing recusal. Feinstein was absolutely right to question her about this - all Barrett has to do is to guarantee to recuse herself in such cases.

ER
27-09-2017, 12:46 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/school-girls-who-wear-shorts-are-cursed/ar-AAsuXGS?li=AAabC8j&ocid=spartandhp

All you school girls who wear shorts are cursed!!! :D :P

Or so he says!


An Australian Muslim community leader has spoken out against moves to allow school girls to wear shorts
as part of their uniform, saying, "The Prophet cursed men who imitate women and women who imitate men."

I think the chances of this guy voting yes in the postal plebiscite are about as many as
my pub mate Ron the retired boilermaker!

Kevin Bonham
27-09-2017, 02:27 PM
Which century is he living in? Girls at my school could wear trousers in the late 1980s.

Glad he's aware that the frog story is dubious though. That at least shows some attention to detail.

Patrick Byrom
27-09-2017, 05:50 PM
Which century is he living in? Girls at my school could wear trousers in the late 1980s.Probably the century this part of the Bible (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-5.htm) was written:
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Kevin Bonham
27-09-2017, 06:26 PM
Crossdressing used to be illegal in Tasmania although the law had not been enforced for a long time. I knew a man (heterosexual and otherwise gender-typical but a bit of a showoff) who used to wear dresses in the then ultra-conservative town of Ulverstone and was frequently chased and bashed up for it. Ulverstone has since changed a lot.

antichrist
03-03-2018, 02:56 PM
Crossdressing used to be illegal in Tasmania although the law had not been enforced for a long time. I knew a man (heterosexual and otherwise gender-typical but a bit of a showoff) who used to wear dresses in the then ultra-conservative town of Ulverstone and was frequently chased and bashed up for it. Ulverstone has since changed a lot.

What cowards that they cannot tolerate a view different to their own without resorting to violence

antichrist
03-03-2018, 02:58 PM
Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position' - priceless!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq6SomTJmOw

MichaelBaron
06-03-2018, 10:29 AM
Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position' - priceless!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq6SomTJmOw

On a more serious note, alot depends on how we define ''religion''. For instance I perceive ''Communism'' as a kind of religion and it explains why communist societies always fought religious establishment in their respective countries.

Rincewind
06-03-2018, 10:41 AM
On a more serious note, alot depends on how we define ''religion''. For instance I perceive ''Communism'' as a kind of religion and it explains why communist societies always fought religious establishment in their respective countries.

Almost everything you say here is confused. In the interest of clarity perhaps you should give your definition of religion that makes sense of this woolliness.

idledim
06-03-2018, 04:19 PM
Almost everything you say here is confused. In the interest of clarity perhaps you should give your definition of religion that makes sense of this woolliness.

If Rincewind speaks on behalf of Our Lady of Clarity She has a poor champion!

A miscellaneous anthology of Rincewind's own contributions to this genre in the Chesschat Echo Chamber includes:


It is premised on the idea that marriage is something defined by marriage but that si certainly not accurate ... Rincewind


The problems with attention seekers like those anarchists are bad they are not as bad as attention seekers who like to draw attention to them ... Rincewind


Societal racism does not rely on the conscience intent and any individual... Rincewind


I do try to assume the best of people you you make it quite difficult to concolude... Rincewind

Patrick Byrom
06-03-2018, 06:01 PM
Almost everything you say here is confused. In the interest of clarity perhaps you should give your definition of religion that makes sense of this woolliness.Michael has a point. A totalitarian society will naturally seek to oppose any alternative ideologies. And Communism, as practised in the USSR, has many of the features of a religion. But it's probably better to use a term like 'pseudo-religion' to describe Communism.

Kevin Bonham
06-03-2018, 06:06 PM
On a more serious note, alot depends on how we define ''religion''. For instance I perceive ''Communism'' as a kind of religion and it explains why communist societies always fought religious establishment in their respective countries.

Communism absolutely isn't a religion; it is a political ideology. There is no need to broaden the word "religion" to include things that already have another label. It is a broad and messy enough concept without doing so. Like many concepts it has evolved organically and is probably best considered through "family resemblance" rather than placing absolute stress on essentials, but anything that has neither a spiritual dimension nor a ritual component is highly unlikely to qualify.

Communist resistance to religion can be explained sufficiently without considering communism a religion - for instance because most religion is inimical to communism's professed desire to make humanity the measure of all things, and also because imposing communism in practice frequently involves repression of a sort that Western religions will object to.

Rincewind
06-03-2018, 10:37 PM
If Rincewind speaks on behalf of Our Lady of Clarity She has a poor champion!

A miscellaneous anthology of Rincewind's own contributions to this genre in the Chesschat Echo Chamber includes:

I also said idledim's handle was well chosen on two grounds.

Rincewind
06-03-2018, 10:44 PM
Michael has a point. A totalitarian society will naturally seek to oppose any alternative ideologies. And Communism, as practised in the USSR, has many of the features of a religion. But it's probably better to use a term like 'pseudo-religion' to describe Communism.

An ideology is not a religion. If it were then we can call feudalism a religion but then why did feudalism largely coexist with religion? While there were some growing pains, Feudalism did not try and replace religion but rather incorporated the benefits of religion.

This gets to the heart of the silliest part of what Michael was trying to argue that it was Communisms hostility to religion which means it must be a religion. The biological analogy of that argument would be that grizzlies must be fish because they are so hostile to salmon.

Patrick Byrom
07-03-2018, 12:20 AM
An ideology is not a religion. If it were then we can call feudalism a religion but then why did feudalism largely coexist with religion? While there were some growing pains, Feudalism did not try and replace religion but rather incorporated the benefits of religion.Communism is definitely an ideology. But it has many features of a religion. Jim McClelland make that point here (https://aso.gov.au/titles/tv/book-show-jim-mcclelland/clip2/#) much more charmingly than I ever could. Vladimir Putin isn't quite so charming, but he agrees here (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/904717/Putin-communism-christianity-Russia-Lenin-saint-bolshevik-revolution-Stalin-atheism-news).


This gets to the heart of the silliest part of what Michael was trying to argue that it was Communisms hostility to religion which means it must be a religion. The biological analogy of that argument would be that grizzlies must be fish because they are so hostile to salmon.I'm pretty sure Michael's argument is the other way round: That Communism is a religion, and therefore hostile to other religions.

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2018, 07:40 AM
I'm pretty sure Michael's argument is the other way round: That Communism is a religion, and therefore hostile to other religions.

Which also doesn't work because not all religions are hostile to other religions.

Rincewind
07-03-2018, 10:32 PM
I'm pretty sure Michael's argument is the other way round: That Communism is a religion, and therefore hostile to other religions.

It's couched in that form but the thrust of Michael's post is to conclude that Communism is a "religion" and the hostility towards "other religions" seems more like evidence for this conclusion than the other way around.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2018, 01:35 AM
Or else: Communism is a particularly murderous political and economic philosophy that stems from the religion of dogmatic atheism, although not all or necessarily even most dogmatic atheists are Communists.

MichaelBaron
08-03-2018, 10:33 AM
Communism is definitely an ideology. But it has many features of a religion. Jim McClelland make that point here (https://aso.gov.au/titles/tv/book-show-jim-mcclelland/clip2/#) much more charmingly than I ever could. Vladimir Putin isn't quite so charming, but he agrees here (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/904717/Putin-communism-christianity-Russia-Lenin-saint-bolshevik-revolution-Stalin-atheism-news).

I'm pretty sure Michael's argument is the other way round: That Communism is a religion, and therefore hostile to other religions.

If we look at Communist Russia or China for instance: The respective religions were fought aggressively. Reason being - those who believe in God can not believe in Communism same time so how to convince someone to believe in Communism if the person is Christian, Buddhist etc.

One of defining features of a religion (along with with believing in super powers - and even this has been claimed in some countries such as North Korea) is ''a particular system of faith and worship.'' in communist countries - this is exactly what the State wanted people to believe in.

Desmond
08-03-2018, 12:28 PM
Or else: Communism is a particularly murderous political and economic philosophy that stems from the religion of dogmatic atheism, although not all or necessarily even most dogmatic atheists are Communists.

Atheism is a religion is the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2018, 02:37 PM
Or else: Communism is a particularly murderous political and economic philosophy that stems from the religion of dogmatic atheism, although not all or necessarily even most dogmatic atheists are Communists.

Except it doesn't. There is nothing in atheism, dogmatic or otherwise, that supports a communist approach to political economy as opposed to a capitalist or socialist or mixed or protectionist one or anything else. Ayn Rand was a dogmatic atheist and she certainly wasn't a communist!

The causality is the other way around - practical communism employs dogmatic atheism because it is not very compatible with theism and requires on illiberal repression to survive.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2018, 03:21 PM
Except it doesn't. There is nothing in atheism, dogmatic or otherwise, that supports a communist approach to political economy as opposed to a capitalist or socialist or mixed or protectionist one or anything else. Ayn Rand was a dogmatic atheist and she certainly wasn't a communist!
Hence my statement, "although not all or necessarily even most dogmatic atheists are Communists."


The causality is the other way around — practical communism employs dogmatic atheism because it is not very compatible with theism and requires on illiberal repression to survive.
That could well be right.

antichrist
12-03-2018, 07:57 PM
this poor guy never got a word in edgeways

https://www.memri.org/reports/egyptian-tv-host-kicks-atheist-out-studio-recommending-psychiatric-treatment

Ian Murray
27-10-2019, 05:52 PM
We’re Less and Less a Christian Nation, and I Blame Some Blowhards (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opinion/sunday/christianity-united-states.html?te=1&nl=nicholas-kristof&emc=edit_nk_20191026?campaign_id=45&instance_id=13408&segment_id=18280&user_id=6eca652084e81ae15bb2df5b9165d0e8&regi_id=72214258)
Nicholas Kristof
New York Times
26.10.19

Perhaps for the first time since the United States was established, a majority of young adults here do not identify as Christian.

Only 49 percent of millennials consider themselves Christian, compared with 84 percent of Americans in their mid-70s or older, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.

We don’t have good historical data, and the historians I consulted are wary of definitive historical comparisons. But something significant seems to be happening. The share of American adults who regard themselves as Christian has fallen by 12 percentage points in just the last decade.

“The U.S. is steadily becoming less Christian and less religiously observant,” the Pew study concluded....

antichrist
27-10-2019, 06:47 PM
We’re Less and Less a Christian Nation, and I Blame Some Blowhards (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opinion/sunday/christianity-united-states.html?te=1&nl=nicholas-kristof&emc=edit_nk_20191026?campaign_id=45&instance_id=13408&segment_id=18280&user_id=6eca652084e81ae15bb2df5b9165d0e8®i_id=7221 4258)
Nicholas Kristof
New York Times
26.10.19

Perhaps for the first time since the United States was established, a majority of young adults here do not identify as Christian.

Only 49 percent of millennials consider themselves Christian, compared with 84 percent of Americans in their mid-70s or older, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.

We don’t have good historical data, and the historians I consulted are wary of definitive historical comparisons. But something significant seems to be happening. The share of American adults who regard themselves as Christian has fallen by 12 percentage points in just the last decade.

“The U.S. is steadily becoming less Christian and less religiously observant,” the Pew study concluded....

Capa Fan would classify himself as a Christian but I left the Church 55 years ago but I am still more Christian than him. Probably about the same time he was born.

antichrist
27-10-2019, 07:52 PM
Crap. Rabbi David Dalin's book The Myth of Hitler's Pope (http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/sep2005p12_2050.html) documents that the medieval popes were at the forefront of denouncing the "host desecration" and "blood" libels (well, duh, Jewish food laws prohibit consumption of blood). But such antisemitic libels are very popular in the Islamic world. Two of my relatives, the father and son Samuel and Joseph Sarfati (d. 16th C) were leaders in the Jewish community and physicians to popes. See also Christian opposition to antisemitism (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Christian-opposition-to-antisemitism)

If there was not Catholicism there would not have been a body and blood of Christ host that the Jews could be accused of stabbing. Straight out of the Holy Scriptures

Matthew 26:28 - Bible Gateway
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew 26:28

“Take and eat this,” he said, “it is my body.” Then he took a cup and after thanking God, he gave it to them with the words, “Drink this, all of you, for it is my blood, the blood of the new agreement shed to set many free from their sins. I tell you I will drink no more wine until I drink it fresh with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2019, 02:27 AM
REVIEW – NATHAN JOHNSTONE “THE NEW ATHEISM: MYTH AND HISTORY” (https://historyforatheists.com/2019/08/review-nathan-johnstone-the-new-atheism-myth-and-history/)
Tim O'Neill, History for Atheists, 3 August 2019

Nathan Johnstone, The New Atheism, Myth, and History: The Black Legends of Contemporary Anti-Religion, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) 309 pp.

Since 2015 I have been arguing on this blog that many anti-theistic and anti-religious activists often abuse and distort history while making their case against religion. Too many New Atheists use outdated, naive, over-simplified or simply plain wrong ideas about history in their arguments and claim to be “rational” while doing so. Now historian Nathan Johnstone has written an excellent monograph arguing precisely the same thing and drawing on a number of the same examples of New Atheist bad history.

The Historical Innocence of Atheism

Christian apologists and other critics of atheism often try to turn the historical tables on atheists by noting that, in the twentieth century in particular, atheism proved itself as bloodstained as any religion.

The issue here for the New Atheists is that if atheism can be as capable of inspiring mass murder as any other idea, then their claim that religious ideas are uniquely or particularly malevolent loses its force. Johnstone notes their various lines of defence against this problem.

None of these arguments work particularly well. Harris’ argument is little more than an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy by trying to redefine “true” atheists as ones who do not do murderous things in the name of atheism. This is not convincing when Christians try to do the same thing to brush aside the Inquisition or the Crusades, so it is equally ineffective when the boot is on the other foot. Hitchens, in typical style, uses many eloquent words to try to redefine Soviet Marxist Leninism as a religion and so dodge the implications of its murders, but this is just smoke and mirrors. Whatever outward trappings and superficial similarities Stalin’s ideology may have with some forms of religion, it was inherently atheistic and, at several key points, overtly and murderously anti-religious. The argument that atheism per se is not an ideology so cannot be blamed for anything done by an actual ideology is cute, but disingenous.

To pretend that Soviet Marxist Leninism having atheism as a core tenet did not mean that it therefore proposed answers to this and related questions is being wilfully blind. And to pretend that, especially at certain points, it did not decide to enforce that tenet and its attendant ideological answers to these questions by force is being wilfully ignorant of history.

Of course, D’Souza and his ilk are trying to argue that there is something inherently immoral in an ideology that had no room for God. This is simply an extension of the apologist argument from morality, that assumes no true ethical system is possible unless it is based on objective absolutes mandated by a divine power – which is a dubious proposition, as any undergraduate moral philosophy student could explain to D’Souza (not that he would listen). But while it is hard to blame the totality of Soviet Marxist Leninism’s millions of murders on the supposed inherent wickedness of Godlessness, it is impossible for the New Atheists to dodge the fact that at least some of this murderous oppression was based on atheism as a central idea in the ideology.

Patrick Byrom
03-11-2019, 05:03 PM
The idea that religious (or atheist) ideas are uniquely malevolent is obvious nonsense. But the New Atheist argument is stronger than O'Neill acknowledges. Persecution of religious people by atheists is effectively confined to a very specific group of atheists - totalitarian Communists. However, persecution by religious people of atheists - and other religious people - is not restricted to any single religion. Indeed, almost every religious group has engaged in it.

So an atheist could reasonably argue that the persecutions by totalitarian Communism were not due to its atheism but because of a trait that it shared with the persecuting religions - totalitarianism. And a New Atheist could make the further point that atheism, in general, appears to be less totalitarian than religion.

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2019, 10:20 PM
REVIEW – NATHAN JOHNSTONE “THE NEW ATHEISM: MYTH AND HISTORY” (https://historyforatheists.com/2019/08/review-nathan-johnstone-the-new-atheism-myth-and-history/)None of these arguments work particularly well. Harris’ argument is little more than an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy by trying to redefine “true” atheists as ones who do not do murderous things in the name of atheism. This is not convincing when Christians try to do the same thing to brush aside the Inquisition or the Crusades, so it is equally ineffective when the boot is on the other foot. Hitchens, in typical style, uses many eloquent words to try to redefine Soviet Marxist Leninism as a religion and so dodge the implications of its murders, but this is just smoke and mirrors. Whatever outward trappings and superficial similarities Stalin’s ideology may have with some forms of religion, it was inherently atheistic and, at several key points, overtly and murderously anti-religious. The argument that atheism per se is not an ideology so cannot be blamed for anything done by an actual ideology is cute, but disingenous.

To pretend that Soviet Marxist Leninism having atheism as a core tenet did not mean that it therefore proposed answers to this and related questions is being wilfully blind. And to pretend that, especially at certain points, it did not decide to enforce that tenet and its attendant ideological answers to these questions by force is being wilfully ignorant of history.

Of course, D’Souza and his ilk are trying to argue that there is something inherently immoral in an ideology that had no room for God. This is simply an extension of the apologist argument from morality, that assumes no true ethical system is possible unless it is based on objective absolutes mandated by a divine power – which is a dubious proposition, as any undergraduate moral philosophy student could explain to D’Souza (not that he would listen). But while it is hard to blame the totality of Soviet Marxist Leninism’s millions of murders on the supposed inherent wickedness of Godlessness, it is impossible for the New Atheists to dodge the fact that at least some of this murderous oppression was based on atheism as a central idea in the ideology.


I don't think this really stands up philosophically. Firstly I agree that Hitchens is incorrect to characterise Soviet Marxist Leninism (hereafter SML) as a religion, although it may be taken to have some aspects in common with many religions. And I agree that what Harris offers is a fudge, and I think Dawkins' "they don’t do evil things in the name of atheism" is an over-generalisation. However the claim that SML was "inherently atheistic" requires much more unpacking. There is nothing in the empirical claims of Marxism regarding class struggle and historical progression that is logically incompatible with belief in a deity/creator/God of some kind as such. Rather, SML promoted atheism and attacked religion because it saw religion as in the way and harmful to securing goals dictated by its core beliefs about humanity and human progress. The attack on religion is not therefore not SML's answer to the questions raised by atheism; rather its opposition to religion already arises from its theory of society, and atheism is a means to an end, albeit one that it considers essential. So where Tim O'Neill writes:


To pretend that Soviet Marxist Leninism having atheism as a core tenet did not mean that it therefore proposed answers to this and related questions is being wilfully blind.

...I am not convinced the "therefore" is correct. SML has decided religion is in the way and it is against it before it has to think about whether there is actually a God or not.

Likewise:


And to pretend that, especially at certain points, it did not decide to enforce that tenet and its attendant ideological answers to these questions by force is being wilfully ignorant of history.

The "attendant ideological answers" were those of political Marxism. Indeed "If there is no God, why has mankind been so disposed to believe in one?" is not even the question being answered; it's more like "If religion is harmful to social progress, why has mankind been so disposed to believe in it?"

The other difficulty here is that SML's philosophical roots lie ultimately in philosophy that is alien to how most atheists in the West now think. Indeed it's very strange given the philosophical shape of today's active atheism to think of this stuff coming via all the weird arguments involving Hegel then Feuerbach then Marx. (The latter two of whom should have listened when Stirner said it was all a bad idea, but I digress ...). By the standards of the current underpinnings of western atheism, post-Hegelian thought is a very strange way to get there and essentially outmoded. While there are still Marxists, critical theorists and so on out there for whom some kind of belief about humanity is philosophically basal, for most active atheists, atheism derives as a conclusion from some kind of assumption about observable evidence (and then noticing that there isn't any). From that kind of position an atheist is bound to proceed from their atheism to their responses to religion and to their responses to the questions mentioned, but that's not how the underlying basis of SML worked.

(This is the only thing I disagreed with in the article, by the way. )

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2020, 04:43 AM
(This is the only thing I disagreed with in the article, by the way. )

Thanks for that explanation.

Meanwhile, here is another review by Tim O'Neill on the History for Atheists site:

REVIEW – TOM HOLLAND “DOMINION: THE MAKING OF THE WESTERN MIND” (https://historyforatheists.com/2020/01/tom-holland-dominion)
Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (Little, Brown, 2019) 624 pp.
11 Jan 2020 Tim O'Neill Comments 34 Comments

Tom Holland is the best kind of popular history writer. He is a good researcher who knows what can be stated with emphasis and what needs to be judiciously hedged. He is a fine story-teller, who can weave bare facts into a smooth and engaging narrative. He is provocative and startling enough to keep the reader on their toes and turning pages. And he is quietly and wryly funny. He displays all of these qualities in this fine new book, but it is his role as wily provocateur that will cause it to ruffle feathers in certain quarters.

One of the things that often startles me about the way most anti-theist activists speak or write about Christianity is their almost visceral emotionalism. I happen to be a person raised a Christian who abandoned any faith pretty readily in my late teens and who lives in a highly secular country in a largely post-Christian society. On occasion certain Christians, particularly some prelates or politicians, will annoy me with a particularly stupid statement or action, but on the whole I can regard Christianity as I regard any faith – something that other people do that interests me largely as a historical phenomenon.

Many of those who are the focus of this blog, however, cannot seem to get Christianity out of their systems. A large number of them are, like me, ex-Christians, but ones who seem still mentally entangled in their former faith. Never able to emerge from a kind of juvenile angry apostasy, they seem impelled to strike out at it at every turn. They have to constantly remind others – and, it seems, themselves – of its manifest stupidity and wickedness.

Tolkien versus Hitler

If the vision of the world Tolkien brought from the Somme was one of hope and friendship in a long defeat, Hitler’s was of merciless dominance and raw willpower resulting in a ultimate glorious victory. A natural pessimist, Tolkien had hope because he saw God’s grace as “like the light from an invisible lamp”, deriving ultimately from God’s sacrifice as a broken figure on the cross. A fierce optimist, Hitler made sure his followers had no time for this weak, Jewish stuff. One SS magazine was typically scornful of useless Christian qualities like compassion:


“Harping on and on that God died on the cross out of pity for the weak, the sick and the sinners, they then demand that the genetically diseased be kept alive in the name of a doctrine of pity that goes against nature, and of a misconceived notion of humanity.”
(quoted in Holland, p. 460)

The Nazis had a notion of humanity based on the strong rightfully dominating the weak, the healthy removing the sick and the “superior race” exterminating the “genetically diseased”. While they were forced by political expediency to pretend otherwise, their doctrine of mercilessness was patently and knowingly anti-Christian – it represented a rejection and reversal of everything people like Tolkien stood for and everything the world had inherited from Christianity. Yet it was Hitler who came to be rejected and defeated 988 years short of the Nazi’s projected “thousand-year Reich”, while Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, a paean to compassion, humility and friendship, came to be one of the most loved and most read novels of the twentieth century.

Holland’s book does not shy away from the dark side of Christian history. On the contrary, he emphasises it to the point that some Christian reviewers believe he overdoes that part of the narrative: a likely sign he has actually got the balance about right. But his point is that “the standards by which [these Christians] stand condemned are themselves Christian” (p. 525). He concludes:


“Nor, even if the churches across the West continue to empty does it seem likely that these standards will quickly change. ‘God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.’ [1Cor 1:27] This is the myth that we in the West persist in clinging to. Christendom, in that sense, remains Christendom still.”
(Holland, p. 525)

antichrist
16-01-2020, 09:18 AM
I know nothing about Tolkien who what is but back to the Hitler and Inquisition. The Inquisition sent it's guilty to the state to enact punishment so not to have blood on its hands, Hitler did not locate his gas chambers on German soil. Hitler learned from Christianity. The Hitler youth copies the Children's Crusade where they did in the thousands in a futile cause.

Adamski
16-01-2020, 04:47 PM
JRR Tolkien was a Christian. In the same Uni group as CS Lewis.