Tags
Christians like to claim Hitler was an Atheist. I get so tired of hearing this argument. So I wanted to provide some simple facts so that we may move on from the misinformed statement. Hitler was baptised and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church as a boy. He remained a member of the Catholic church until his suicide. If this is not enough proof for you than let us allow Hitler to speak for himself.
Adolf Hitlers speech in Munich April 12, 1922:
“I say: my feeling as a christian points me to my lord and saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, god’s truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before – the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago – a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.”
Adolf Hitler Speech at the Berlin Sportspalast -January 30, 1942:
“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 wage, not for our German people alone, but for all of Europe and for all of humanity.”
Adolf Hitler speech on enabling act 1933
“Similarly, the Reich Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethics and morality of the Volk, places great value on friendly relations with the Vatican and attempts to develop them.”
I think it is very clear that Adolf Hitler considered himself a christian. I hope this puts the discussion to rest.
~AW
Atheist Wan 
And you can say you are a better golfer than Tiger Woods. So what.
This lame gripe of yours has long been put to rest by common sense and the very scriptures that you make your appeal to.
Btw, seems quite odd that a new blog, with no customers, has its first visitor, zande. I smell something rotten.
https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/honesty-smells-hitler-and-spoons/
LikeLike
ColorStorm – I made no appeal to scripture.
So what you are saying is even though he was baptised and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church and remained a member of the Catholic church until his suicide. Even though he stated publicly on many occasions that he was Christian. You still come to the conclusion he was not Christian? You are exposing yourself. You are interested only in anything that will support you view, your faith. So I won’t waste my time with you for you are truly confined from the world around you in the silo of your christian faith. I will leave you with a quote from Christopher Hitchens that seems to fit you well.
“Faith is the surrender of the mind, it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It’s our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. … Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.”
BTW – I read the post you linked and I can only say politely it is …wrong.
~AW
LikeLike
Ha AW, you are too funny.
You say you made no appeal to scripture, yet you cite Hitler’s alleged faith from the scriptures.
Wake up. Atheism is the religion of fools. No hatred in this statement btw, just the fact’s ma’am.
And I do not know what Hitler was, other than a monster, but he was no Christian.
Scriptures condemns all masqueraders.
LikeLike
I make no appeal to scripture. I think the scripture is nonsense. Hitler appealed to scripture like you would expect from a christian.
Atheism is a religion? This is so uninformed it shocks me. Where to start?
Websters dictionary defines religion as:
The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due.
That is clearly not Atheism.
Finally we agree on something!!
Hitler was a monster. We are making progress so I will end it here.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Hitler was indeed a Christian. In fact, he considered himself a very, very good Christian, and many Church leaders agreed.
Father Senn, a Catholic priest, writing in a Catholic publication, May 15, 1934:
Kirchenrat Julius Leutheuser, addressing German Christians in Saalfeld, August 30, 1933:
Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, meeting of Bavarian bishops on his meeting with Adolf Hitler, December 13, 1936:
Catholic Hierarchy of Austria, March 18, 1938:
Bishop Hans Meiser of the Bavarian Evangelical-Lutheran Church, May 18, 1938:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Funny how, when confronted with irrefutable evidence, christians don’t become humble like they always claim to be. They don’t learn from it. They look away and act like it doesn’t exist. Between my post and your fantastic comment I think we buried this topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, they like to claim Hitler wasn’t a TrueChristian™, but it’s hard to argue against the studied (public) position of Bishops and Cardinals and priests whjo adored the man as a superb Christian. There’s some excellent pre-war NYT’s articles on Hitlers crackdown on atheist groups in Germany, which further cements the case.
But hey, we can see how it happens. More evangelicals voted for Trump than they did for Bush. They voted in a Hitler, but unlike Hitler, Trump is also a sexual predator and a perverted one at that as we’ve discovered about his penchant for golden showers (literally pissing on women).
Quite the fellow, and applause to Evangelicals like Colourstorm, who voted for him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He may have considered himself Christian, but he was certainly not acting in accordance with the teaching of the Bible… “thou shalt not kill” comes to mind. If a wolf calls itself a sheep, does that make it any less a wolf? Scripture says, by their fruits ye shall know them. Christ says to the scribes and Pharisees, if ye were the children of Abraham you would do the works of Abraham. It’s not enough just to say, a true Christian – as defined by Christ – is one that does as well as says. Unfortunately that excludes many who sincerely believe.
The Catholic church was formed by a Roman emperor trying to create a new religion that would reunite his empire. Between the pagans and those who believed the apostles witness that Jesus rise from the dead. Constantine provided a mixed-up combination of the two religions that didn’t truly keep to either. It’s whole purpose was and still is political. It changes with the times to keep acceptable to the populace at the expense of scripture. The clams of papal infallibility irrationally support this purpose.
Just because the Catholic church or one of its Trinitarian spiltoffs supported Hitler, it doesn’t say anything of the teaching of Jesus!
The plain fact is that in action he was not Christian, in action he was clearly following evolution which is an Atheist alternative to the genesis account. The Atheist idea of eugenics, which is completely contrary to scripture and the command not to murder.
LikeLike
Hitler committed his horrible acts in the name of and with the support of Christianity. You can deny it all you want. You can try to shift the blame to a single group within Christianity but the truth is he did these things in the name and with the support of Christianity. I would also like to point out you don’t understand the meaning of atheism. Evolution is not an atheist alternative to to genesis. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many Christians didn’t even know what Hitler was doing at the time (American Christians). It’s an utter nonsense to blame them or Christianity as a religion for the actions of Hitler.
Christians are followers of Christ, point me to one of the teachings of Christ himself that persuaded him to commit genocide! There are none, in fact, if Hitler really did follow Christ’s teachings they would have prevented him from doing what he did. The same can be said for everyone who supported him… including the Pope of the day, infallible as he claimed to be.
What can be shown to support Hitler in rationalising his actions is the theory of evolution. That Humans are an evolving species with some more evolved than others… all Hitler was doing in his mind was removing the less evolved part of the species from the gene pool. These ideas, not Christianity were the driving force behind Hitler’s actions.
As for evolution and atheism, you are clearly deluding yourself. All the Theists I know of have creation stories involving the Theos they ascribe to. Evolution (using the term loosely as most people do, to include Abiogenesis) is not required by anyone but the Atheist. If there were no Atheist then there would be no theory of Evolution! By the way, Abiogenesis (Abio-genesis) is the study of the genesis (beginning) of biological organisms from matter. It’s right there in the name of it wasn’t obvious enough. This is the Atheists genesis story, which actually requires far more faith to believe than that the abundant appearance of design in nature had a designer…
LikeLike
If there were no Atheist then there would be no theory of Evolution!
Really? So nothing evolved before 1859?
Interesting pantomime you have there.
LikeLike
Nothing evolved full stop. It was all created a per Gen 1. See creation.com
Yes, without Atheism then you would not have any reason to find an alternative for the origin of life. Theism already has an answer… Theos (God)!
LikeLike
The Theory of Evolution is a description of how life evolves. It does not deal with the origin of life.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, then i would advise you not to talk about subjects in which you’ll simply embarras yourself… as you are doing here.
LikeLiked by 4 people
In not embarrassed in the slightest thanks for your concern. As it happens I have searched this subject out over many hours. The logical conclusion is obvious. I don’t understand how anyone who has looked at the subject with an open mind can rationally still hold to the notion of matter becoming alive through random collisions. The only reasonable explanation is cognitive dissonance…
If you read my other comment you would see my distinction between Evolution and Abiogenesis. I was using the word into the popular sense which has come to include Abiogenesis. You sound like someone who delights in correcting people when they say they boil the kettle.
Besides, separating between Evolution and Abiogenesis is largely academic. You can’t have one without the other if your intent is to explain the organisms around us today.
Add it happens I do believe in natural selection – the isolation of genes from a bigger and already existing gene pool. To give a focusing of traits – commonly defined as new species. But God created the original animals(termed Kinds in Gen 2), with a rich gene pool to select from.
I also believe in mutations, but there are no clear scientific examples of positive mutations by adding information to the genome. There are plenty of examples of mutations damaging the genome in situations where it doesn’t matter – cave fish loosing their eye sight. But the genome is constantly degrading, with 10-100 new mutations(copying errors) passed on to subsiquent generations… see the book called Genetic Entropy.
Why do you want to separate out Abiogenesis and evolution? Is it because going from matter to even the simplest life form is such a large hurdle you just sweep it under the carpet?
Abiogenesis, is more of a pipe dream, a vague wish. No experiment, with all the “intelegent” design that went into has ever come close to creating even the simplest building blocks for life. There is the Chirality problem. The probability of even one chain of amino acids forming randomly with the correct Chirality, to make a single simple protine once in the whole 14b years this universe has supposedly existed for is so slim it may as well be termed impossible. The instability of that protine is another issue. Even if it did form the chain is going to brake up again rapidly anyway. The instability of DNA is an issue, and it’s far worse for RNA. Really you don’t have a starting point, let alone discussing evolution after that.
I could go on, but it would be wasting my time. If you are sincerely interested in resolving this one for yourself take a look at creation.com. There are more PhD scientists on there than you have probably meet in your lifetime. The evidence is well laid out and they respond with reasoned scientific responses to all reasonable objections. They are activly improving there knowledge as science progress. All the answers to your objections are on there – apart from the trinity, that doesn’t make sense any way you try and argue it…
LikeLike
No experiment, with all the “intelegent” design that went into has ever come close to creating even the simplest building blocks for life.
You should really keep quiet.
In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey set out to test Alexander Oparin’s and J. B. S. Haldane’s hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favoured “chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors,” and through their experiments successfully cooked up the first manmade Amino Acids in the lab. Since then NASA’s Stardust probe triumphantly returned to earth in 2006 with Amino Acids it’d captured after intercepting the comet 81P/Wild (Wild-2) around Jupiter, proving that these fundamental building blocks of life occur naturally on earth and are found equally naturally in space.
In 2009, Dr. Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and his graduate student, Tracey Lincoln, pretty much nailed primitive ‘life’ – a progenitor of life if you like – when they developed a molecule composed of nothing but RNA enzymes in a test tube that replicated and evolved, swapping genes for just as long as the conditions were right to do so. Doing what molecules do it Xeroxed itself by using its own basic structure as a scaffolding from which to build new copies from pairs of smaller molecules. Incredibly, when incorrect copies were made mutations arose and the molecule quite happily passed on those changes to the proceeding generation, and so it slowly evolved. Although not technically speaking ‘life’ Joyce and Lincoln’s work was an astonishing in-road into a beautiful albeit strikingly simple process first teased-free by Darwin five generations ago.
Also in 2009 John Sutherland of the University of Manchester went even further when he successfully cooked up two of the four ribonucleotides found in both RNA and DNA molecules and by doing so created the first stirrings of life on earth. Unlike other researchers before him, Sutherland and his team did not jump right into sugars and nucleobases rather they started first with a host of simpler molecules most likely around in earth’s primordial goo. They diluted the molecules in water, heated the solution, and then allowed it to evaporate so as to replicate sequential changes in conditions which was then irradiated with ultraviolet light; a process which left behind hybrid half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, irradiated it, and repeated the process over and over. Remarkably, with each passing phase the molecules became more and more complex and when phosphates were added in the very last stage Sutherland found himself staring at two ribonucleotides; half a naturally built RNA molecule.
“My ultimate goal,” said Sutherland, “is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first.”
Even more recently and perhaps even more remarkably researchers led by Phil Holliger at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge announced in early months of 2012 they’d successfully made the first synthetic RNA and DNA molecules which they called, XNA: xeno-nucleic acids. They achieved this mind-jarringly colossal leap in constructing artificial life by building synthetic versions of RNA and DNA’s nucleobase ladder rungs. By synthesizing enzymes (what they’ve called, polymerases) they could then bind the XNA molecules to DNA or reverse the process back to a single RNA strand; passing genetic information between the natural and synthetic molecules at will, leading MRC scientist, Victor Pinheiro, to observe “Thus heredity and evolution, two hallmarks of life, are not limited to DNA and RNA.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
“You should really keep quiet.”
Why? So you can avoid a reasoned argument? and continue content in blissful in ignorance?
Like I said, these don’t even come close! Rather than waste time rewriting what has already been written, I’ll refer you to articles written by people who do have the time and the qualifications.
In order to get anything convincing, you need to show that random chance can convert base chemicals -> amino acids -> proteins -> RNA -> DNA -> useful information in that RNA/DNA strand -> Machinery to actually interpret the information stored and self replicate -> Cells -> Organs and network of complex biological systems -> Neural networks -> Thought and reason. Increasing the number of sub-steps does not help reduce the absolute enormity of the issue. Probability prevents you getting past a probably solution to the first issue, let alone getting any further!!!
* Urey-Miller experiment is full of issues – this one virtually proves that Abiogenesis “Chemical Evolution” is impossible as some of the basic amino acids could not be formed [http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis]
* Joyce – far from “nailing primitive life” he starts with already formed RNA chains? What is this supposed to prove? This proves nothing more than an intelligent being can manipulate already existing RNA [http://creation.com/rna-self-replication]
* Sutherland – similar issues to Urey-Miller. These are very specific conditions that seem unrealistic in reality [https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/primordial-soup/attempts-to-trace-life-back-to-chemical-origins-still-flawed/]
* Phil Holliger – XNA is no more likely to have chemically evolved than RNA or DNA, the probabilities are similar. All this shows is that an intelligent designer can store the information in RNA/DNA in other mediums [https://answersingenesis.org/chemistry/molecular-magic-magician/]
Even if you could show that in very specific conditions then the building blocks of life could be formed. You are still miles away in terms of feasibly getting even the simplest life form [http://creation.com/answering-another-uninformed-atheist-galileo-miller-urey-probability]
An extract from the last link:
As the following conservative calculation shows, even making generous assumptions to the evolutionists (e.g. ignoring the chemical problems), the origin of life from non-life still defies probability.
20 amino acids
387 proteins for the simplest possible life
10 conserved amino acids on average
∴ chance is 20–3870 = 10–3870.log20 = 10–5035
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!
Is time really ‘the hero of the plot’? No:
1080 atoms in the universe
1012 atomic interactions per second
1018 seconds in the universe, according to the fallacious big bang theory
∴ only 10110 interactions possible. This is a huge number, but compared with the tiny chance of obtaining the right sequence, it is absurdly small: only 10–4925.
LikeLike
You don’t understand what atheism is and you have based your entire view of atheism on the lack of understanding. To make it worse you are not even trying to gain an understanding of atheism from an atheist because you have an agenda. You are not looking for truth. You looking to support your ideals only.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Atheism is the exact opposite of theism. It’s a world view, a perceived view of reality…
Without God, Atheists are left with a problem. Where did we come from? The prevalent idea at the moment, generally accepted as fact is evolution. This idea was formed in the Atheist world view and is generally accepted within it. To separate Evolution from Atheism is purely theoretical. For all practical purposes Atheism leads to an accepting of Evolution by default. There may be some Atheists that refuse to consider the issue of where we came from, but I’d suggest that’s the exception of the rule.
LikeLike
You’re wrong about atheism. I’m an atheist and I’m trying to tell you your wrong but you’re not listening. Atheism is not a world view. I don’t believe there is a tooth fairy. Does that mean atoothfairyism is a world view?
LikeLike
Atheism is by definition a world view. A view that the world doesn’t have a God in it! How is that not a world view?
LikeLike
We may have to agree to disagree about this. Your definition of world view would mean every conclusion you make would be a world view. For example, my friend told me raw cabbage tastes good. I don’t think it does taste good. So I guess I have a cabbage is bad world view. Atheism does not explain how the world works. Atheism is just not believing the claim by theism that they know.
LikeLike
Technically yes, every conclusion you come to is a contribution to your world view… view of the world. Each are individual, but can be classified. The Atheistic world view I refer to is a generalised world view that represents the majority of Atheists. The class all world views that contain the view that there is no God.
LikeLike
As for your comment that Hitler was not acting in accordance writhe the Bible…. you should read Ezekiel 47. “And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and daughters and burn up their houses with fire”. This is the example the bible sets. It is intellectually dishonest for you to represent Christianity as peaceful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLike
It looks like you have your quote wrong, I can’t see those words in Ezk 47. Which verse did you actually mean? Plucking verses out of context is generally not good practice.
I never said that Christianity is wholely peaceful, only Hitler would not have done what he did if he followed what Christ tought.
There are many examples of wars in the Bible… It’s a historical account, as well as prophetic. Many bad things are recorded to show what man kind is capable of. If you read the context, you will often find God did not ask for or want that war (there are exceptions though). Usually a nation starts a war with Israel (generally not the other way around, unless the current king of Israel is a bad one). Unless you have read the Bible cover to cover it would be difficult for you to understand this. Plucking verses out of there context (often the whole book) is just meaningless.
As for photos of Hitler with Roman Catholic bishops… yes, they supported Hitler and yes they wanted to get rid of the Jews because they saw themselves as replacements for the Jewish people (Gods people). This is in direct contradiction of the Bible. For that reason and others, I do not class the Roman Catholic System of religion as true Christianity – it’s a mix of paganism with a veneer of Christianity.
LikeLike
Ezekiel 23: 47
LikeLike
Okay, so that verse is in the middle of a section symbolically describing the punishment of Israel and Judah for not serving God. In that verse it was the Assyrians and the Babylonians doing the killing. God let it happen.
There is quite a bit more to it than this. The leaders of the nation of Israel had rejected God and started abusing their positions. They were oppressing the people. So God allowed those leaders to be removed in battles with the nations around. The remnant regathered and re-established true religion for a period of time.
You may or may not agree that approach is moral. So basically it all hangs on the principal that God defines absolute morality. If you don’t agree with that then you will always be able to pick verses out of the Bible and say you wouldn’t have done it that way.
My approach is a fairly rational one. We must have come from somewhere, God is the most logical explanation, therefore we should understand why he did what he did. I get that you don’t see the evidence, and therefore don’t see things the way I do.
But you can’t kid me that you don’t have an agenda, you put your beliefs on a blog to be read by others. I disagree with what you are implying, Hitler was a Christian and by implication that was the reason he did what he did. I’m sorry, but I just can’t agree with that.
LikeLike
I’m not “plucking” versus out of context. I have read the KJV and the New Testament. That is why I am atheist.
You seem to blame man for the bad things found in the bible and hold god accountable for none of it.
To answer your question about where hitler might have learned in the bible that genocide is acceptable just read Deuteronomy 20; 13-17.
LikeLike
Try reading it in context, I wish all armies of the world followed these principles! This is just about the most moral thing an army can do!
This is about the children of Israel going into Battle with their enemies… people who wanted to kill them. They were not expected to just sit there and be killed, they were expected to stand up for themselves and protect their families.
This situation was most likely in situations where another nation had declared war on Israel… otherwise the advice would not make sense.
Read verse 10… as the army approached an enemy city, the first thing was to proclame peace to the city. To give them the option of resolving the issue peacefully – after all it was the people of the leaders of the city that had declared war on Israel.
Verse 11 – if they open the gates, then go in and put them under tribute. The financial punishment for starting the war is also one of the best ways to keep that city non military. With less money, they would have found it more difficult to start another war the following year.
Verse 12 – if the city doesn’t open the gates but persists with their intent to fight. Then the city was put under seige – the situation was contained. This gives the inhabitants the personal option of fleeing the city to safely, or staying in the city and fighting to the death.
Verse 13 – when the city is taken, all the men of fighting age are killed. As they wished to do to the Israelites. But the women and children are not killed. This is merciful because in that day the men made the decisions… women generally didn’t have a say. So to kill them would not believe merciful if they had not agreed with the war. Children are again too young to have been complicit.
So we see that this law is merciful and considerate. The least number of people die as possible, and the people are judged according to their responsibility.
LikeLike
This cannot be compared to the unprovoked attempted genocide of a whole people, men, women, and children… by a raving lunatic evolutionist.
LikeLike
djmcorrie, we had sound evidence from Churchill’s writings that he knew about, thought deeply, and endorsed evolution. We have no such evidence for Hitler. But we do have a lot of evidence that he didn’t understand anything about it
It is standard apologetic PRATT (points refuted a thousand times) that tries to link evolution with atheism and atheism with totalitarianism (and immorality, of course).
You’ve completely swallowed this religiously prepared Kool-Aid and here present it yet again.
In fact, in reality, in the real world,we have compelling evidence that Hitler considered himself a good Christian, a good Catholic, endorsed religious belief in social policies, and was knee deep in all kinds of superstitious nonsense, He was a proponent of eugenics not because he understood heritable traits through natural selection but because he believed in the superiority of the Aryan race and using ARTIFICIAL selection (not natural selection). He incorrectly thought wider social policies that endorsed targeted eugenics could weed out the impure. That aim has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution properly understood. Nothing. In fact, it is opposite to endorsing evolution.
You are the one trying to repackage what is true by distorting it to the extent that your creation can serve a purpose that has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with supporting a counter-factual religious belief. Huxley (called Darwin’s bulldog) is the one who wrote a book about why presuming ‘nature’ favoured the strong over the weak had nothing whatsoever to do with evolution and everything to do with importing beliefs – religious and otherwise – into this science in order to try to justify racism and bigotry. You obviously don’t care to understand why Huxley argued as he did but simply go along with the charade that tries to use this idea that underlies eugenics as if it came from those of us who understand evolution. This is a straight up lie. And you believe it. For religious reasons.
These are the facts. You have gone along with those who have twisted and rewritten history and repackaged it into lies to serve a religious master and then wholeheartedly endorsed the lies in order to smear and demean and blame atheists and atheism.
Is going along with such lies and distortions and intentional misrepresentations what Jesus would do? Does this mean (using your own rationalization about Hitler not being a ‘real’ Christian) that YOU are not a ‘real’ Christian… because you endorse and spread falsehoods in its name?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve read that comment several times trying to find something of substance in it and sadly failed! Boy, you guys do prefer insults to rational reasoning don’t you!
So what I get from this is “he believed in the superiority of the Aryan race”, why? What gave him that idea? Does the bible give the idea that the Aryan race is superior… or that some races can indeed be genetically superior? No, the bible states all mankind came from one created couple Adam and Eve. So that means all Humans are genetically equal according to the bible. Something external to the Bible must have prompted him to this idea. Mmmm… I wonder what that might have been?!?
LikeLike
You wonder?
John Chrysostom, considered perhaps the greatest preacher of the early Church said:
And Luther, the founder of Protestantism:
LikeLiked by 3 people
German belt buckles. The inscription means “God is with us.”
The substance of the comment I made is to reveal to you that you’ve accepted revisionist history that equates with it being a fabrication. Hitler was neither an atheist nor demonstrated any understanding of evolution. His program of eugenics is in fact opposite to evolutionary theory and relies wholly on artificial selection and breeding. Your ignorance in these matters is profound and you seem to think it is pious to keep it this way. In this, you are gullible and naive.
Because reality and facts and accurate history don’t fit with the fabrications you’ve been fed… in equivalency straight up lies used to promote a religious viewpoint incompatible with an understanding of both evolution (a theory you clearly do not understand) and Hitler’s supposed connection to it for his genocidal policies, and Hitler’s inaccurate connection to atheism (a claim historically false demonstrating your lack of knowledge in this area)… you put yourself at odds with what is true.
So the interesting thing here is twofold but connected Either you place greater value on your so-called piety and reject what’s true, or you put away this childish and vindictive religious fabrication used to vilify real people in real life for fabricated reasons and respect what’s true. If you do the former, then by your own admission you’re not a real Christian (for breaking the ninth commandment) and so your piety is really idolatry (breaking the 1st commandment, or if you do the latter, then your religious evangelical brethren will consider you heathen! (Just like us atheists who do respect what’s true. Welcome to the club, djmccorrie.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Have read the KJV and the New Testament?
LikeLike
It’s odd, isn’t it, how so many Christians today, well those who are prepared to make such statements on the internet, vehemently deny that Hitler was a Christian, based largely I would think, on his genocidal actions toward the Jews and any other individual who didn’t fit his ”plan”.
My knowledge of history in this area is not as broad as some but what I find even more odd that it is stated by some that Hitler cited Luther’s views as one of the motivators/inspirations of his actions.
It would seem that had there not been such levels of hostility and in some cases open hatred of the Jews in the preceding centuries, resulting in several pogroms likely spurred on by the fallacious nonsense that they were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, and the resulting epithet of ”Christ Killers” it would be fair to state that the examples Hitler had to draw upon might not have induced him to enact the holocaust?
To deny Hitler was Christian is about as untenable as to deny that Luther was also Christian.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes you are undoubtedly correct. Roman Catholicism and certain reformation leaders… not long left the Catholic system did indeed harbour religious hatred towards the Jews. That is why Hitler and the Catholic Church colluded, becasue it was in their interest. But to tar all Christianity with the same brush is not fair.
Did this hatred of the Jews stem from Christianity? It was certainly found within it at the time. But what about Christ himself, did he hate Jews? Of course not… he himself was a Jew. In fact, the opposite… even during his crucifixion he prays for the Jews (general populace) that consented to his murder.
“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Lk 23:34).
LikeLike
The hatred for the Jews throughout Pauline centered Christianity is well documented.
Although no contemporary records of this even exist, he was executed for sedition.Not murdered.
Your interpretation and assertion of ”murder” is nonsensical and has basis in evidence or fact.
However I think you may just be trying a little theological two step shoe shuffle here, my friend?
The fish rots from the head down.
The schisms within the church are all because of corruption and/or failure to agree on doctrinal issues.
Luther had no intention of not being Catholic but simply wanted he viewed as corruption to be addressed.
But his views of the Jews are well documented so, in this respect, yes, we can tar all Christians with the same brush, not least because as they do not believe the character Jesus of Nazareth was divine or in any sense a god, Christian doctrine states the Jews like all non-believers will all be going to hell for eternity.
Maybe if you were to begin acknowledging the horrors perpetuated in the name of your god, including what Hitler did, and made a concerted effort to accept that biblical Jesus of Nazareth was crucified for sedition and the supposed culpability of the Jews is simply a flight of fancy things might begin to change in this respect.
Hitler was a Christian. This is documented fact. Best you accept it and begin to deal with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your underlying assumptions are incorrect, and reasoning circular.
Yes it’s plain you don’t agree the Bible is accurate historical record… I do, and I believe it can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. That aside.
By definition, all true Christians believe the Bible. Otherwise what can they base their following of Christ on? Nothing more than their own imaginations? They effectively make up their own religion. If the Bible is not wholly inspired from beginning to end, then there is nothing to base any faith on.
Therefore my original comment stands. To be Christian you have to believe in the Bible, and follow Christ’s teachings as a way of life from the Bible. The Bible record shows Christ clearly did not hate his own people, he died for them… in fact, before Christ’s crucifixion most Christians were themselves Jews! Did they hate themselves?
Hitler may have associated himself with Christianity, but his actions cannot have been driven by them. He clearly found common ground with the Roman Catholic System. But that is to their detriment, their own envey that the Jews were prospering dispite their belief that the Jews had been permanently cast off (contrary to the Bible). This is more a tail of Human greed and envy than anything to do with the actual teaching of the Bible.
Some Atheists are murderers and rapists, theives and liars. Same can be said of some self identified Christians. Does that mean all Atheists are murderers and rapists? Of course not! It’s just not logical to say that all Christians share Hitler’s beliefs because he thought of himself as Christian. You know, I’ve honestly met someone who thinks of themselves as a Christian Atheist… go figure! How does that fit your logic…
LikeLike
blockquote>Yes it’s plain you don’t agree the Bible is accurate historical record… I do, and I believe it can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. That aside.
Then before any more ”that asides” and because I think it better for your sake that you not make yourself look even more silly, I strongly suggest you do just that….
The floor is all yours …. we await with baited breath your scholarly expertise on the subject : the accurate historical record of the bible.
Take it away maestro …..
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is exactly what I intend to do over the next few months on my own blog. The plan is to go through the evidence as if I were starting out as an Atheist and work my way from the ground up with as much of an open mind as I can. I’ve got a couple of posts, but not really started properly. It’s going to take a while given family commitments I’ve not really got a lot of free time. I came over here to see what Atheists say, but then got dragged into debate.
It’s clear I’m probably wasting my time just arguing like this, you guys seem to be very emotional with more emphasis on insults and feelings than rational argument? The approach seems to be, insult first.
I’d like to address this question, but It does need time and a structured approach. Starting with first things first… origins of life, naturalism just doesn’t cut it. Which nicely shows a creator is needed. Then show that geology can only be explained by a global flood as described by the Bible. That rules out most other religions. Then there is all the archeological evidence for the accuracy of the Bible. Historical correlation with non friendly sources. And then there is prophecy… the list goes on. If you want to refer to something already available, you could read “I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist”. The plan was to expand on this work, which I think is excellent. Apart from the poorly argued justification for the trinity. I’m not a Trinitarian, don’t believe in heaven or hell. All of which I think came into Roman Catholic Christianity from paganism. There is no logical way of arguing the trinity. The Bible says to search things out logically, trinity is not logical.
I’m probably going to drop out of this one here for the moment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, this sounds absolutely marvelous. There has probably never, ever, not ever been a recently converted reborn Christian type person who has ever offered a highly detailed account of the historical veracity of the bible and also why Jesus created the universe.
I look forward to your thesis.
As a not-a – Trinitarian, but one who seems to believe in the historical veracity of the bible including the Old Testament, and this would also include the Pentateuch, you might like to explain how the likes of Finkelstein and Dever and Avalos, to name just three, got the archaeology all wrong – and most other top flight people in this field.
However, if you are looking for ”friends” who might help your Creation Case … try Luke Barnes. He’s a Christian and also a cosmologist from Australia ( but don’t hold against him … he can’t help it).
He believes in a fine tuned universe – but he is very cagey about using the term Yahweh. That’s Jesus’s other disguise. You can find him him Genesis.
Neither is walking on water and coming back from the dead … or cursing fig trees! I mean, seriously, what sort of dickhead would curse a perfectly viable food source?
I think your comment is starting to make you look very silly.
Why not cool off for a while and go play with toy boats in your bath … and remember Jesus is watching you so … well you know , right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In case you hadn’t worked it out – Non Trinitarian means I don’t believe Jesus is God. It would help if you though for a few seconds before spouting.
Your starting to sound rather like a kid in the playground who throws insults instead of engaging in logical discussion. Seems to be fairly common with Atheists and evolutionists. No substance so you have to hide the fact somehow I guess.
Anyway, seen as this has devolved I’ll leave you guys to your childishness.
LikeLike
So you are what exactly …?
LikeLike
A real Christian (Christadelphian)
LikeLike
Ah … fine.
And you still beleive in the historical veracity of the Pentateuch?
LikeLike
Yes, and the whole Tanakh
LikeLike
So I take it you dismiss the data of the Human Genome Project and it’s unequivocal findings that refute the Adam and Eve story?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which part are you referring to exactly? They appear to have reconstructed the genome by taking many small snapshots of sequenced partial DNA strand and pattern matching the pieces to order them together. On the whole, these pieces are probably fairly accurately placed. Although I’m sure there is potential that some minor revision may take place in the years to come as improvements in sequencing technology take place.
How exactly does reading the genome, or at least the genetic part of it (epigenetics is fairly new), refute the Genesis record? They have just read the data that God put there, in my view. They still don’t know what most of it means and what it does.
In fact, it goes some way to disproving chemical evolution. Even if you manage to get the building blocks of life formed randomly, the biological machines to read and execute the instructions in DNA. To join the correct Amino acids together to create RNA, then from RNA to a properly folded 3D protein structure. How long did it take very well designed machines that can sequence DNA to read the whole Genome. And this is supposed to have happened randomly through the comparatively long round trip cycle of sexual reproduction and natural selection? There just isn’t enough time, not even 13.82 billion years.
The fact we are here with such a complex biological makeup implies design and an intelligent creator.
I don’t have enough faith to believe against all odds all of this is random chance.
LikeLike
The HGP demonstrated that humans could not possibly have derived from two human beings as depicted in the story of Adam and Eve.
That is a statement based on opinion that has no basis in fact and which the evidence refutes.
You are wandering into Creationism and someone with far more in-depth knowledge is going to jump in quite soon and send you to the naughty step with a dunce’s cap.
Please stop being silly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the contrary, Epigenetics provides the key. Two Humans containing all the variants already programmed into the DNA to be triggered by environmental triggers – and passed on to their offspring – could easily account for this.
Anyway, the evidence is there if you want. Just trawl through creation.com and answersInGenesis.com for more information on creationism. Just ignore references to Jesus the creator and other pagan ideas.
I could just keep going, but I’ve probably wasted enough time already. Hope you find the truth some day…
LikeLike
Epigenetics holds the key? Well, not according to the faculty heads of evolutionary biology departments sick to death having to debunk this claim for the hundredth thousand time. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne explains why: “there is simply no good data supporting the idea of non-genetically based and transgenerational inheritance as an important factor in evolution.” Further, “when we can dissect the genetic basis of real adaptations in real organisms, they invariably turn out to rest on changes in DNA sequence, not in environmental and non-DNA-based modifications of nucleotides.”
The Discovery Institute’s creationist agenda-driven promotion of epigenetics (by Lusken et el and ‘defended’ by poo-flinger extraordinaire Klinghoffer) in place of natural selection is scientifically invalid, djmccorrie. That’s just the fact of the matter (see this point driven home by Panda’s Thumb aghain and again and again and utterly destroyed by Nick Matzke).
Simply put, epigenetics is being used as a replacement for natural selection only by those who lack a substantive understanding of what it really is and what role it really plays genetically. Like you. You don;t care one whit about this science; you are simply trying to use it to support your religious convictions BECAUSE you don;t understand it. And this aligns beautifully with Panda’s Thumb author Reed Cartwright claim that such an argument is put forth only because of lack of scientific understanding by those who tout it as such. He thinks it’s because ” many college programs in the biological sciences don’t even require a course in evolutionary biology. (Seriously! Are they afraid that the pre-meds will revolt?) Until that changes, we will still be training too many biologists and physicians whose knowledge about evolution is gathered more from television than the classroom.” I think it’s because it’s a convenient means for the religious under-educated to convince the religious uneducated.
LikeLike
The fact we are here with such a complex biological makeup implies design and an intelligent creator.
How then do you explain the amoeba proteus, a gelatinous, microscopic, single-celled blob of primitive organics that boasts a staggering 670 billion base pairs in its genome, whereas a 5 trillion-celled human being has only 2.9 billion base pairs?
Such wasted—junk—DNA speaks only to accidents, not navigation.
LikeLike
On the contrary, just because we don’t yet understand what certain parts of the DNA does it doest mean we can call it junk? Does that mean Atheism is Junk because I don’t understand it?
In fact much of what was originally thought of as junk has now been found to have important functionality. And that’s not accounting for epigenetic switches that disable or enable genes based on environmental triggers! Another reason to discount Evolution. So not only did the genome randomly assemble itself, it also created the mechanism for disabling the bits it didn’t need right now but might do again in the future!?!
My guess is that epigenetic switches will turn out to be THE source of genetic variation in the created “kinds”. Of which some variants have been named species in their own right.
The evidence fits with a created gene pool and a natural selection of genes switch on or off based on environmental triggers. On top of that degrading copying errors (mutations) introducing bugs.
http://creation.mobi/junk-dna-functions
LikeLike
Are you seriously suggesting the 670 billion base pairs in the amoeba proteus are there as some sort of preemptive reserve for when it might become more complex than a single cell? By that hypothesis, humans (all organisms, in fact) would not have 2.9 billion pairs, but something closer to (if not in excess of) 670 billion…
Do they?
LikeLike
Amoebas are anything but primitive. Until you know what each gene does, you can’t say either way. But that does kind of argue against Evolution. Even the so called simple organisms are incredibly complex… how did all of those genes randomly form? If Humans we’re an evolutionary development from amoebas, where did all the extra genes go? If the ratio of “junk” to useful genes was as a result of random chance, then surely you would expect the same kind of ratio in Humans? If you say that Humans have evolved out some of the Junk, then why haven’t modern Amoebas done the same?
The more you look into it, the more ridiculous the whole idea is.
I work for a company that creates a product that boasts to have more lines of code than the space shuttle… and currently by far the most complex product Humans have developed so far. The number of interconnected modules, networks, real time control involved is incredible. But nothing in comparison to the complexity of one of those “primitive” Amoebas! I can tell you first hand, random chance does nothing to forward development. In fact most of my work day is wasted chasing down bug after bug as some small increment breaks dependencies with other systems and the general result is complete loss of function – this is at development phase I might add, where code/hardware changes cause the issue. The final production product is generally orders of magnitude more stable, and designed to be fault tolerant to hardware failure. It’s the developing stage where software is changing that this issue is so obvious!
LikeLike
If Humans we’re an evolutionary development from amoebas, where did all the extra genes go?
Good. Grief.
Didn’t I mention earlier that you should probably not talk about subjects that you so clearly know positively nothing about?
LikeLike
There we go again, another insult where you fail to have any reasoned response. Using insults to hide a failed argument is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance, a basic requirement to believe something so stupid as Evolution. And there we go, I’ve stooped to your level with an insult. This conversation is no longer profitable… time to really leave. So long…
LikeLike
You can’t reason with a wilfully ignorant idiot.
Now, let’s try that image again
LikeLike
Sorry, clicked that too fast … yes I know what non – trinitarian means. I meant to add. Do you still consider the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth to be a divine being?
LikeLike
No, not in body. Only in mind. He was just add Human as you or I, but didn’t sin.
I wrote a long reply, explaining my understanding of the Hebrew words for “God” but alas clicked the back button on my phone and lost it. If your genuinely interested you will have to wait for my blog post. But basically all your assumptions of political Christianity don’t apply to me.
If you are interested though compare Psalm 82:6 with Christ’s explanation of his claim to be son of God and in what sense in John 10:33-36. He basically says that the whole nation of Israel could make the same claim. The original word in Psalm 82 is Elohim, plural of Eloah. It just means mightily ones – it’s used of both mortal Humans and immortal angels.
Since his resurrection Jesus is immortal, and now directs the angels on behalf of his father.
I’m not expecting you to believe any of this, just helping you understand how I understand the Bible. You asked, so I gave an honest answer.
LikeLike
I have read a little on your particular cult, and while it is interesting, you still adhere to an awful lot on nonsense that also includes Creationism and it seems a literal reading of the bible – please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, in essence you appear to be another individual suffering from some form of Christian indoctrination.
May I ask, did you convert or where you brought up as a Christadelphian?
LikeLike
That is correct, apart from the nonsense part. We are a community who study the Bible as individuals and share amongst our selves what we have learnt. There is no central organisation that dictates doctrine.. As such you can find a full range of beliefs on our community including unfortunately theistic evolution and partial inspiration. We are baptised add adults with Full immersion baptism, after making a personal request and a short interview to make sure we agree with some basic principles. So yes while I was raised in a Christadelphian family I made the commitment myself having evaluated the evidence. Many of the people I grew up with were not baptised and left. Other people have come in from other religions after searching for some interpretation that fitted with scripture.
If your not taking the Bible as truth and literal – where it itself presents itself as literal, there are many pages that are obviously meant to be taken as symbolic. Why read it at all, or follow it if you don’t believe the whole thing… it’s not something you pick and choose with. It’s either all right or all wrong. I believe the former – creation is an integral part of that.
LikeLike
So, to clarify, you have been indoctrinated since childhood?
How do you square away with your interpretation of the bible the archaeological evidence that now refutes the Exodus and conquest?
LikeLike
As have all of us in one direction or another.
There are PhD archeologists who see it both ways – the evidence is there, but some are ignoring it because they insist it has to be in a different time frame.
* http://patternsofevidence.com – this is a bit dramatised, but does come to some interesting conclusions. He is not an archeologist himself, but interviews many who are. Basically a video version of David Rohl’s book.
* http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx Bryant G. Wood PhD
LikeLike
@djmcorrie
Compared to the raving lunatic creationist, Jesus in his Yahweh disguise who liquidated all life bar one soon-to-be-incestuous family that took refuge on a rather large house boat?
LikeLiked by 2 people
This thread has wandered quite a bit because the reasons used to deny Hitler was a Christian requires a lot of historical revisionism. This revisionism then uses purely religious reasons embedded on an incompatible faith-based belief. These same faith-based beliefs then require revisions to all kinds of tangential subjects that are supported by mutual yet inconvenient facts to the faith-based foundation.
So it’s no surprise to me that one must try very hard to make imaginary, magical, and supernatural beliefs equivalent by dishonest means to evidence-adduced beliefs. And this thread is very useful to demonstrates that process exhibited so clearly by djmccorrie who is convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that his incompatible faith-based beliefs are true FIRST and that everything else must then comport to them… even if the scientific method that works for everyone everywhere all the time must itself be cast into doubt in order to maintain high confidence and trust in the assumed faith-based beliefs… beliefs that are unsupported by any facts extraneous to scripture and in possession of zero unique knowledge. Zero.
And that is the pernicious effect of religion that upholds the very definition of delusional thinking that when done for religious reasons are to be considered a virtue greater than finding out and respecting what is true. And this is why arguing with creationists under the delusion of piety is widely considered not just a waste of time but itself an indication of crazy!
I take a different tack: I think the delusion can only be broken by the planting of an honest and earnest seed of doubt… a seed that takes root when respect for reality intrudes once too often in all this apologetic defense of the indefensible. My hope is that djmccorrie will one day wake up and begin to pull on a single thread of doubt and begin to unravel the lies and deceit and dishonesty he has helped promulgate not in the common pursuit of trying to understand what’s true, not seeking insight and knowledge into the reality we share, but denying these in the name of an empty piety. One seed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on kennethandrebrownsr.
LikeLike