Previous  1 ... 14  15  16  17  18  19  20 ... 23  Next

Exactly

   

No, the historical facts surrounding Hitler is what is driving my argument. My hatred of Xtianity is what drives my attitude.



By who's moral interpretation? Yours? Lily's? gods? Lily has already said that it is god who has the final word so the most she can say is that "Hitler did not live up to my personal idea of what a Xtian is.

Hitlers beliefs made him Xtian. His actions made him a bad Xtian but still a Xtian. lets take a random example. John Doe was led a good moral life and believes in god/jesus/etc. He gets married and on eday he meets a girl and commits adultery. He has broken a commanment. Good Xtians do not do this. Does this invalidate his beliefs? Does this suddenly strip him of Xtian status? It makes him a Xtian who has sinned, but still a Xtian.

From Reuz's website:



nobody can be a Xtian by trying to be a good person, only jesus christ can make a person a Xtian.

Hitler beleived in jesus so Reux's own website proves my argument.



I've read and rejected them as faulty logic. It is just someone else judging another persons actions. Time and time again you Xtians say god has the final word so you can't really say who is and who isn't. My defintion is based on a persons oen beliefs so I can do just that. You are the ones assigning moral judgement on someones actions as a validation of whether they can call themselves Xtian or not.



He did. According to his interpretation. How is your interpretation more accurate then his? Again you are saying you are the judge & jury of someones actions. You are very much using your own moral code to judge Hitler's actions as "not being Xtian in scope".



In essence you say to follow the teachings of jesus but will not say what those teachings are. You just reply with a question becasue you don't want to answer.



Because my answer is based on what that person believes. In other words if someone believes in jesus and calls themself a Xtian who am I to say they aren't. That is the difference. You morally judge their actions before allowing them the right to call themselves a Xtion in spite of their beliefs.

An Atheist is an Atheist if he doesn't believe in god(s). It does not matter whether he is a mass-murderer or a charity worker.



That is just dumb. The historical record shows Hitler quite clear & consistently showing his faith in Xtianity. You logic is simply atrocious.



The allies most certianly did not fight for the jews. You forget the boatload of jewish refugees sent back to nazi germany. People of good conscience helped the jews. Some were Xtian, some were Atheist, some were (insert X). You are again making a judgement call that he did not follow the teachings of jesus. It has been well established that Hitler gained his anti-semetism at the hands of his Xtian teachers. Anti-semetism has and still is present in the Xtian community.



See above comments on exactly who taught Hitler to hat e the jews. I'll give you a hint, it begins with the letter "X".

   

That is the general concensus of all religions. That is the general concensus of all the world.

BTW, come down off your little high horse.

   

Sorry your wrong again Derby. It's not about what Hitler believed that made him a christian. Hell I believe I'm the king of Spain. Doesn't mean squat in the real world. But hey just keep beating your head against the wall. soon enough the pain will go away.

   

Dodge # 3

Didn’t you initiate the insults? Didn’t you first write “time to go back on the medication.”? That was complimentary? Perhaps it was projection – look that up, Freud, as it’s a relevant observation

Didn’t you call Derby an idiot? It went like this, “Your an idiot, i think that explains everything. Now idiot if you read some posts back.”

Perhaps you need to practice what you preach. This smells of blatant hypocrisy and you reek of it.



You are a psychologist too? Really? What help do I need, learned professional? Perhaps you could pass along the clinical data that helped you arrive at you dime-store psychobabble conclusion.

Moreover, you claimed I was wrong. Demonstrate it. Quit cowering behind pedantic declarations and either produces the historical information (that includes a historiographical examination of the orthodox sources) that proves the historical community and me are incorrect or piss off. This is about history – it’s not a medium for you to illustrate your historical unawareness.

Again, “I’m wrong? Prove it, Herodotus. You demonstrate exactly how I’ve erred (along with Burleigh, Steigmann-Gall and other Third Reich and Holocaust scholars) in labelling Hitler a “Christian”. If it’s so easy, it shouldn’t take you long.

Go ahead, coward. Let’s see what you’ve got – I’m predicting that you don’t know jack about history, historiographical analysis, Third Reich studies or anything that you’ve tried pass off as coherent thoughts. I’m eagerly waiting for your “learned” critique of the orthodox historical communities conclusions and I’ll bet it will be thoroughly enlightening to see how you sever the ties between the contemporary Churches and National Socialism.

   

You use a lot of fancy words. You got's lot's of book lernin boy. Good for you.

   

My high horse? Why do you say that?

You're right to say it is the general concensus of all religions. Ok so we're getting closer.

Based on this general concensus of what is a christian, a person who exterminate millions of jews cannot really be considered as one.

Based on another definition of what is a chrisitian, he may well be one.

   

Dodge # 4

Yes, I do and the ideas behind them are even more impressive. I noticed how you still couldn’t successfully challenge them.




Yep…true again. That’s why I’ll put my “book lernin” against your unsubstantiated, trivial fluff any day. Still haven’t proved me (or the historical community) wrong yet. I wonder why it’s taking you so long?



It is, but I don’t need your praise for validation. Thanks anyway. Exposing the ignorance that plagues society is reward enough. Any thoughts on the links between the contemporary churches and National Socialism? I’d be very interested in your historical conclusions.

   

No sorry you've been proven wrong. If you don't accept it, well that's your problem. I don't need no fancy book lernin' to know that.

   

Dodge # 5

Nope…still haven’t proved anything. Simply whining like a 7 year old mowed down at recess by a dodge ball (get it? Probably not) only draws attention to the fact that you have yet to produce anything relevant on the history or its scholar’s conclusion. I’ve merely asked for you to substantiate your claim. You can’t. You aren’t here to debate history – you are here to promulgate your ignorance. You’ve gone beyond your meagre intellectual tether and I’ve exposed it. Sorry.

Read a history book and come back when you possess a historical clue.

Bye – your done now.

Anyone else want to look at the historical relationship between Hitler, National Socialism and the contemporary Churches? By all means, let’s continue the discussion and the philistines can maybe learn something.

   

Yer funny, I'll bet your gonna grow up to be somebody special someday.

   

Translation: Ruez is done.

   

Mustang, why do every arguments should be based on history? I think we all know that Hitler was "technically" a christian. He was baptized and claimed himself as a Christian, but what he did violated the general concensus of christianity. That's why saying whether or not he was a Christian remains an opinion only... because we don't have a unique definition of christianity.

   

I did a google search on the definition of christianity, and I have not found one site that claims it is merely accepting that Jesus is the son of God. These were mostly religiouis sites, but I think a religous organization would have a better understanding of christianity, than a couple of pseudo intelectuals. I also did a search on Hitler being a christian and the only people claiming he was were the people who hate religion. Why do you boys hate religion? Jebus loves you.

   

What should a discussion about Hitler, the Third Reich, National Socialism and Christianity be based upon then? History provides the vehicle that allows one to systematically evaluate the past (which is what we are doing) and its rigorous, dogmatic adherence to proper methodological protocols (good history, not the bunk found on the Internet) usually offers the best conclusion regarding past questions.

The only reason some here cower from its teachings is that it seriously calls into question their unsubstantiated opinions (I don’t have a bias here – I’m merely arguing history). People seem to want to distance themselves from Hitler’s monstrosity by claiming that his is a false Christian. He was indeed a bad Christian (so were countless other historical figures, but they are left out of analysis because they lack the notoriety), but that doesn’t deter history or its label (nor does it excuse the other acts made by contemporary clergy and their moral culpability).



True. But I don’t think everyone here shares that conclusion



That is my point – many other Christians did similar acts (unspeakable works of violence, degradation, torture and inhumanity) and yet there isn’t debate about their religious convictions, only condemnation of their acts. That’s why some historical perspective is needed. That’s why I initially asked, was Urban II a Christian? What’s Torquemada’s religion? What about Roderigo Borgia? And Julius II? Or his successor, Leo X? Can one call Luther a Christian? Or Calvin? Was Zwingli a legitimate Christian? Hernan Cortes? How about Cromwell? Robespierre? Abraham Lincoln? It illustrates well the problems inherent when people lose historical outlook.



It’s not an opinion – historians label him as such. He’s a bad Christian – true. His political aims surely trumped any semblance of religious conviction he may have possessed – true. He propagandist drivel (and actions) was often anti-clerical – true. He likely would’ve established an Aryanized National Socialist Church (a church/religion nonetheless) – true. Was he still a Christian? Yes. Because if you eliminate Hitler’s religious sincerity (as complex, paradoxical and hypocritical as it appeared) then you are faced with a problem: how do you address the myriad of other historical figures that were equally monstrous and yet, considered Christian?

   

Previous  1 ... 14  15  16  17  18  19  20 ... 23  Next