An apology and concession to Derby X
RUEZ @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:03 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
It’s not an opinion – historians label him as such.
And christians say he wasn't. So who are we to believe? People who know the religion? Or people who study History. I'd put my money on those that know the religion. Sorry boys.
DerbyX @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:12 am
$1:
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.
Keep dreaming moron. A persons beliefs are governed by what they believe and their belief system.
I am an Atheists because I do not believe in god(s). Hitler was a Xtian because he believed in christ. The rest is just moral Xtian apologetic crap and circular logic. All Xtians are moral becasue any one who is not leading a moral life is not Xtian. That is your whole twisted logic.
You will find that "Accepting jesus christ as the lord" is pretty much the standard Xtian doctrine and the standard definition. All your crying and double-talk about someones actions invalidating their own beliefs is just apologetic crap.
$1:
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.
Prove he exterminated a singlke jew. Prove it was his orders that did it. Prove that the nazis were not just misinterpreting his wishes. I'' jsut disregard all your evidence as you disregard ours.
Whether Hitler (or anyone else for that matter) was a good person has no bearing on his beliefs. He believed and accepted jesus christ as the lord. That alone makes him Xtian. The rest of his actions are up to your god to judge. Was he an impefect Xtian, yes. Was he a bad Xtian, yes. Was he Xtian, yes.
The belief-king analogy is just bullshit. A person who does not believe in god(s) is an Atheist. A person who believes in god(s) is a diest. A person who believes in jesus christ as the lord is a Xtian. What he does and how he acts deterimine what kind of person (and what kind of Xtian) he is, but he is still a Xtian. Ergo, Hitler was a Xtian. Simple logic.
DerbyX @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:35 am
$1:
Earlier, Dayseed tried to discredit a website, labelling it a Christian apologist site. Yet he had no word against DerbyX's Sceptic's Annotated Bible site. Is that not an atheist's apologist site?
Gee, it quotes the bible word for word. Does that qualify as debunking the bible when you use its own words against itself?
$1:
Derby - you're still basing your claim merely on Hitler's say-so that he was a Christian. And we all know that if nothing else, ol' Adolph was an honest man.
His mountains of writings, his speeches, his public statements to that affect. History shows quite clearly Hitlers beleifs and yet you would dismiss the evidence?
We only have your word that you believe in god eh? For a we know you are an avowed satanist. We have evidence to back up our claims of Hitlers religion. You have only a moral based judgement about his actions to invalidate (in your opinion) his stated religion.
I thought you said the final word on who is and is not Xtian is your god? All you can really say is that Hitler did not act
how you perceive a Xtian should act. Whether he was a Xtian or not is up to your god isn't? I think that you are making the judgement becasue deep down you know their is no god to judge Hitler so you have to eh?
DerbyX @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:38 am
$1:
Why do you boys hate religion? Jebus loves you.
Why do you persist in believing in a false god? You outgrew the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and santa claus. Out grow your childish god belief as well.
RUEZ RUEZ:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
It’s not an opinion – historians label him as such.
And christians say he wasn't. So who are we to believe? People who know the religion? Or people who study History. I'd put my money on those that know the religion. Sorry boys.
Good one – a declaration of anti-intellectualism! History bad. Religion good. I guess only religious laypeople should conduct historical inquiries. I’ll call the universities this minute and let them know that the thousand-year-old cornerstone of classical education has been muddling up studies and that from now on the discipline of history is bunk. The University of Toronto, Western and McGill will all be grateful for your astute, carefully articulated conclusion.
What a complete, laughable, intellectually shallow piece of trash! Historians don’t know history?

Damn. What a complete joke!
deneb @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:49 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
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.
I surely don't want to doubt about the importance of history. I'm still having the same concern however : In which history book did you find the unique definition of christianity?
Mustang1 Mustang1:
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).
Once again, if the only rule to be a christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, you are right. However, I don't see where people (myself included) are wrong when they affirm that there is more than this.
mustang1 mustang1:
$1:
�think we all know that Hitler was "technically" a christian.�
True. But I don�t think everyone here shares that conclusion
Judging from his papers on a legal standpoint, he was christian. But was he truly one? Isn't it a requirement to be Christian to at least respect other human beings? Now you can accuse me to throw moral in the mix but separate moral from religion is almost an impossible task.
mustang1 mustang1:
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 would have been the same thing if the debate was around those people you named. If they commited acts of violence like you described... they did not respect the heart of christianity thus claiming they are christians or not relates to anyone's perception. It depends of what is your favorite christian definition.
mustang1 mustang1:
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?
Like I said earlier, the same thing could be said about them. I won't repeat what I repeat every time because I feel I'm going to annoy some people... but you get the point.
What is the historians' definition of the word "Christian" ?
Dayseed @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:59 am
deneb deneb:
RUEZ RUEZ:
Deneb that's how they argue, when in doubt, insult.

Yeah, to me they are the child-king generation. They never accept other ideas because they never had to when they were younger (or maybe they're still young).
So when confronted to the real world, they have problems dealing with ideas and opinions they don't like so they become pissed and throw insults to everyone not on their side.
When confronted in the real world? THIS from the kid who wrote "Look at that fucking retard?" "No honey, that's Dayseed?" Jesus Christ!
Secondly, when you're talking about not accepting ideas, perhaps you should look no further than the person in the mirror. You've yet to establish a SINGLE point of evidence of what makes a Christian, aside from your own malinformed opinion. Have you addressed the origins of belief as faith by either Luther or Galatians? No?
When you dismiss sowing for the Spirit to reap benefits from the Spirit, then we'll talk. 'Till then, I guess all you've got is your hypocrisy. And litany of wrong answers.
Take care and let's see if you respond on point. I doubt it.
RUEZ @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:00 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
RUEZ RUEZ:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
It’s not an opinion – historians label him as such.
And christians say he wasn't. So who are we to believe? People who know the religion? Or people who study History. I'd put my money on those that know the religion. Sorry boys.
Good one – a declaration of anti-intellectualism! History bad. Religion good. I guess only religious laypeople should conduct historical inquiries. I’ll call the universities this minute and let them know that the thousand-year-old cornerstone of classical education has been muddling up studies and that from now on the discipline of history is bunk. The University of Toronto, Western and McGill will all be grateful for your astute, carefully articulated conclusion.
What a complete, laughable, intellectually shallow piece of trash! Historians don’t know history?

Damn. What a complete joke!
Your funny.
Dayseed @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:08 am
lily lily:
This thread is about Hitler, though. If you wish to discuss the others, start a new thread about them. You're merely trying to confuse the argument.
Actually, this thread is an apology to DerbyX, idiot. We're ALL off-topic.
$1:
Earlier, Dayseed tried to discredit a website, labelling it a Christian apologist site. Yet he had no word against DerbyX's Sceptic's Annotated Bible site. Is that not an atheist's apologist site?
Here's the welfare mother showing off her fact-checking skills. I discredited a website? Really? Which one? Go back and quote me doing it fatty.
$1:
Derby - you're still basing your claim merely on Hitler's say-so that he was a Christian. And we all know that if nothing else, ol' Adolph was an honest man.

You're basing your claim on YOUR interpretation of God's word. Have you yet shown a SCRIPTURAL basis for God choosing who and who isn't a Christian? No? Have you yet discredited the 5th Chapter of Galatians about the origins of thought as belief?
Seems that the bible is against you. I doubt you'll post anything to refute Galatians OR support your own theory. Hell, if RUEZ can dismiss the ENTIRE DISCIPLINE OF HISTORY to suit his arguments, perhaps you can also just dismiss the BIBLE to prop up your arguments of Christianity.
Also, still too cowardly to start a new thread huh?
deneb deneb:
I surely don't want to doubt about the importance of history. I'm still having the same concern however : In which history book did you find the unique definition of christianity?
Michael Burliegh, “The Third Reich” - he calls Hitler a Catholic. Unless you can find fault with his label, I won’t get dragged into an argument about semantics – the onus is on you, not me, to provide the evidence that seriously calls into question the scholarly model. Of course, I’d be willing to entertain the issue if you addressed my question sequence, “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?”
I’d love to know if Roderigo Borgia or Leo X were Christians – instead of merely posing questions, why not answer one?
$1:
“Once again, if the only rule to be a christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, you are right. However, I don't see where people (myself included) are wrong when they affirm that there is more than this.”
I didn’t know your personal endorsement was required to be deemed a Christian. Why not articulate your idea of a Christian and we’ll see if Hitler, or Borgia, or Luther meets that criterion?
$1:
“It would have been the same thing if the debate was around those people you named. If they commited acts of violence like you described... they did not respect the heart of christianity thus claiming they are christians or not relates to anyone's perception”
But it is part of the debate – it goes to the historical heart of matter as to how one qualifies as Christian. Is it based on contemporary cultural/temporal milieu? Is it based on theological elements? I noticed how you shifted away from this relevant historical challenge as it does illustrate the irrelevance in meeting one’s personal verification regarding another’s religious conviction.
$1:
“What is the historians' definition of the word "Christian" ?”
Which historian? Argumentative fallacy aside, how does it change their labelling criteria? Why don’t you demonstrate (I’m assuming you’ve read the relevant texts on the topic) how these historians’s moniker application is somehow erroneous? How has it resulted in a serous miscarriage of historical justice? That is the relevant issue or simply present your “definition” of a Christian let’s see if historical Popes, clergy, theologians, religious leaders, defenders of the faith stand up to scrutiny.
deneb @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:10 am
Dayseed Dayseed:
When confronted in the real world? THIS from the kid who wrote "Look at that fucking retard?" "No honey, that's Dayseed?" Jesus Christ!
Ok, maybe this comment was inappropriate (even though I doubt it because you truly deserved it). I just felt the need to back up Lily against your unjustified childish insults. Remember calling her a fat-ass welfare? You started everything, kid.
Dayseed Dayseed:
Secondly, when you're talking about not accepting ideas, perhaps you should look no further than the person in the mirror. You've yet to establish a SINGLE point of evidence of what makes a Christian, aside from your own malinformed opinion. Have you addressed the origins of belief as faith by either Luther or Galatians? No?
How is my opinion malinformed? You still didn't prove that there was only one definition of christianity. All I'm saying here in this thread is that It's a matter of opinion.. you guys claim it's a matter of fact.
dayseed dayseed:
When you dismiss sowing for the Spirit to reap benefits from the Spirit, then we'll talk. 'Till then, I guess all you've got is your hypocrisy. And litany of wrong answers.
Arrogant ass... not man enough to say that you just don't agree with me hmm? You prefer the "I am right, you are wrong" approach. Well, got a secret for you, this approach only works when we're arguing about facts. Right now, in my mind it's clear that no one here knows the holy truth about the issue.
RUEZ @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:12 am
Interesting I found another site that had this same argument, seems the Hitler was a christian camp lost over there too. Read
DerbyX @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:18 am
$1:
How is my opinion malinformed? You still didn't prove that there was only one definition of christianity. All I'm saying here in this thread is that It's a matter of opinion.. you guys claim it's a matter of fact.
Is an apple an apple? We are using a literal definition. The others are using a moral based qualifyer. In addition to it being circular logic they cannot produce rational evidence that allows them to make that moral justification.
A Xtian: A person who believes in the godhood of jesus christ. It is very sound logic to make this statement.
When you add "and follows the teachings of JC" you now have left the door wide open for everyone to interpret JC's teachings as they see fit. Who has the final word on just what exactly are his teachings?
Dayseed @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:23 am
deneb deneb:
Ok, maybe this comment was inappropriate (even though I doubt it because you truly deserved it). I just felt the need to back up Lily against your unjustified childish insults. Remember calling her a fat-ass welfare? You started everything, kid.
Ah, so now we can decide who is deserving of insults? Well, then simply put, you're a revenge oriented retard who doesn't understand his ass from a hole in the ground. I doubt this is inappropriate because you truly deseve it.

$1:
How is my opinion malinformed? You still didn't prove that there was only one definition of christianity. All I'm saying here in this thread is that It's a matter of opinion.. you guys claim it's a matter of fact.
NOTE TO IDIOT DENEB: That is exactly how your opinion is malinformed. See below too...
$1:
Arrogant ass... not man enough to say that you just don't agree with me hmm? You prefer the "I am right, you are wrong" approach. Well, got a secret for you, this approach only works when we're arguing about facts. Right now, in my mind it's clear that no one here knows the holy truth about the issue.
Oh, in your mind it's also clear to insult somebody while decrying them for doing it too. Nice one kid. Secondly, let's see how you react to what makes a Christian according to John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
Remember, this IS a factual argument of is Hitler a Christian. If you've offered your opinion and that's the extent of your argument, you're done. Bother some other thread. Go to bed now kid, the adults are continuing the argument.
DerbyX @ Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:24 am
$1:
Interesting I found another site that had this same argument, seems the Hitler was a christian camp lost over there too. Read
I don't see it that way.
$1:
Mein Kampf
It is widely acknowledged that the most authoritative statement on Hitler's beliefs and plans was his infamous book "Mein Kampf". Yet while this book is known worldwide for its hateful nature, few have ever read it and fewer still have identified the voluminous statements within that clearly mark Adolf Hitler as a Christian. There are many such statements, and they reveal a great deal about his motivations:
"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."2 (Hitler admired religious figures).
"I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided."3 (Hitler believed in Heaven).
"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party ... The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times ... How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."4 (Hitler was inspired to become a radical anti-Semite by the Viennese Christian Social movement, whose attitudes are almost identical to the far-right American Christian fundamentalist movement today).
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."5 (Hitler obviously believed in a supreme being).
"Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be 'discovered' by an election"6 (Hitler was fond of paraphrasing the Bible (Mark 10:25 in this case), and he does this many, many times elsewhere in the book).
"The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schonerer's opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality."7 (affirming that Hitler's only real problem with his childhood religion was the fact that its power base was not in Germany).
"I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."8 (the "divine court of the eternal judge" seems a rather strange idea from anyone but a Judeo-Christian, since Pagan and Eastern religions generally lack any such divine judgemental entity, to say nothing of atheism)
"Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image."9
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."10 (recalling World War I).
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."11 (it would appear that Hitler agreed with modern "intelligent design" creationists on the existence of a Creator).
"Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth ... Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world ..."12 (Jerry Falwell? Is that you?)
"But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God"13 (note that when he says "images of God", he refers to racially pure Aryans; this sentence comes in the context of a diatribe against racial intermixing).
"While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply so their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."14 (Hitler agrees with George W. Bush that religion and morality are intertwined).
"Also noteworthy is the increasingly violent struggle against the dogmatic foundations of the various churches without which in this human world the practical existence of a religious faith is not conceivable ... The attack against dogmas as such, therefore, strongly resembles the struggle against the general legal foundations of a state, and, as the latter would end in a total anarchy of the state, the former would end in a worthless religious nihilism."15 (Hitler, trying to equate criticism of dogma to an assault on civilization)
"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."16 (Hitler tries to define racial intermarriage as defiance of God's will, in exactly the way modern racists do, particularly in the southern American states; indeed, 40% of Alabama voters voted to keep interracial marriage illegal in November 2000)
"And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."17 (Hitler believes in the afterlife, and he agrees with modern Christian fundamentalists about the importance of religious matters over material matters)
"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."18 (Hitler demonstrates the common anti-Semitic view that Jesus was an Aryan rather than a Jew, and glowingly described him as "the great founder of the new doctrine".
"The Jew almost never marries a Christian woman; it is the Christian who marries a Jewess ... The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew ... With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people."19 (Hitler echoes Martin Luther's thoughts on Satan and Jewry; note that Hitler openly admired Luther, who wrote the virulent anti-Semitic screed "On Jews And Their Lies", and the infamous Kristallnacht was committed on Luther's birthday. Also note that he reiterates his hatred of intermarriage, but this time on religious rather than racial grounds. He tends to use the terms "German" and "Christian" interchangeably, which makes sense since he believed that Jesus was an Aryan and that true Christianity recognized the supremacy of the Aryan race).
"The future of a movement is conditioned by the fanaticism, yes, the intolerance, with which its adherents uphold it as the sole correct movement, and push it past other formations of a similar sort ... absolute intolerance also provides long growth ... The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."20 (Hitler explains why he thinks religious intolerance is good, agreeing in principle with modern right-wing Christian fundamentalists who bemoan that if they are not intolerant of diversity, their belief system will have no future).
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."21
"The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack."22 (Hitler's own words demonstrate clearly that despite the common myth that the religion of Nazism was Nordic paganism, he actually regarded the Nordic pagan revival movement with nothing but contempt and derision, and Rosenberg was obviously charting his own path).
"A man who knows a thing, who is aware of a given danger, and sees the possibility of a remedy with his own eyes, has the duty and obligation, by God, not to work 'silently,' but to stand up before the whole public against the evil and for its cure."23 (isn't it interesting that you could easily imagine many of these quotes coming from the mouth of a modern-day preacher?)
"By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious-dogmatic principles-- or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles-- by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence."24 (Hitler equates religious dogma to ethics and morality, again just like modern right-wing intolerant Christians)
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."25 (Hitler believes in the Genesis story of expulsion from Paradise).
"The task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission."26
"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."27 (Hitler believed that Aryans are holy and were created in God's "image", while other races evolved from apes, hence his hatred for racial mixing because it diluted God's image).
"It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."28 (Hitler outlines some of his eugenics ideas; note that he described black humans as "Negroes" and white humans as "European humanity". Like the medieval European Christian conquerors, he obviously thought of black people as sub-human, and he often described Czechs as "sub-humans" as well)
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"29 (Hitler believes that racial mixing is an extension of "original sin")
"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."30 (again, he repeats his belief that Aryans come from God while other races evolved from apes).
"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god"31 (just for fun, try asking people whether quotes like this came from Jerry Falwell or Adolf Hitler).
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."32 (again Hitler repeats his belief that the Aryan race was created by God, and that it would be a sin to dilute it through racial intermixing with inferior races which evolved naturally).
"If the German nation wants to end a state of affairs that threatens its extermination in Europe, it must not fall into the error of the pre-War period and make enemies of God and the world; it must recognize the most dangerous enemy and strike at him with all its concentrated power. And if this victory is obtained through sacrifices elsewhere, the coming generations of our people will not condemn us."33 (he seems to have learned the lessons of the Biblical Old Testament well: God punishes the people when they disobey him, so they must not make an enemy of God)
"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'"34
"we National Socialists must hold unflinchingly to our aim in foreign policy, namely to secure for the German people the land and soil to which they are entitled on this earth. And this action is the only one which, before God and or German posterity, would make any sacrifice of blood seem justified: before God, since we have been put on this earth with the mission of eternal struggle for our daily bread..."35 (again, Hitler tries to justify his actions as the will of God, as countless Christians have done before him).
"And so he advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven-stormer back to Lucifer. Germany is today the next great war aim of Bolshevism. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent..."36 (Hitler explaining that the German people must send the "heaven-stormer" back to Hell).
Can there be any serious doubt that the person who wrote this document was a Christian, albeit a deranged byproduct of its anti-Semitic and creationist subgroups?