Which quote?

My Lewis Black quote or Joseph Conrad?

Hitler was many things - a German, a man, etc. His religious beliefs, whatever they were, were not to "blame" for his actions. He was... period.

in red....kinda like you blaming christianity for Hitler.

Hitler was many things - a German, a man, etc. His religious beliefs, whatever they were, were not to "blame" for his actions. He was... period.


To the best of my knowledge, Hitler is the only one whose Christianity I've disputed. And so far as I know, no-one has disputed my Christianity... other than maybe you, just now.


Until I see you say something that would make me question your morals, I would assume you have them.

So far so good.

Ok... my point still stands. Do we blame his Austrian roots for his evils?

I'm not a Catholic. I was raised in the United Church, and now attend the Lutheran Church.

I disagree. If that were truly the case, then why were we fighting so ahrd against the Holocaust? Jesus never advocated mass genocide.... so how is He to blame for Hitler's actions?

Mohammed isn't to blame for the extremists yet people still kill in his name.

Hitler himself could tell Derby otherwise and it still wouldn't convince him. This is a lost cause. On other matters he's quite logical, but when it comes to organized religion he turns from a mild mannered ferret into a rabid wolverine. We'll just have to accept this.

I see you didn't bother to read the perfectly logical explanation in which I show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hitler was a christian.

Ok. I guess you have no idea you're saying what I've been saying all along.

The fact is that *men* were involved in the holocaust

As previously stated the argument against Hitler's christianity falls into 2 categories:

1) Hitler lied about all his beliefs.

2) Hitler couldn't have been a christian because he wasn't a moral person and all christians are moral.

Shep adds a red-herring fallacy by even mentioning Atheism so I'll deal with that first.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). Nothing more. It has no moral, political, or supernatural conditions, strictures, or commands. Theism is the belief in god(s). Same thing. Its just a simple statement of belief.

Below that are levels of beliefs called religions which include strictures, conditions, commandments, whatever. Humanism, agnostism, christianity, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, etc. These are more then just simple beliefs. They attach more specific levels of belief and attempt to have that belief form a way of life. Some are just spiritual while some take a far more active role in political makeup. Its a means of control.

Now political beliefs such as marxism, communism, fascism, capitalism, parlimentarianism, may embrace religious ideology for whatever reason. Usually this reason is control. Stalin didn't attack the faith but the control of the corresponding religion. He did this in the name of maxism and communism because those political ideolgies require absolute power to the state and the power and influence held by religion was a threat. Ditto Hitler. He did attack churches but he didn't attack the faith or belief system. He wanted control over the church. So did kings before him. Can't get a divorce? Simply take over the church and shape it to what you want. Consequently catholics have been fighting protestants ever since and although both are attacking "the church" or each others organized religions neither are attacking the faith, ie belief in JC & his god.

Hitler attacked the faith of judaism. He didn't just want to control them or remold their faith in a germanic flavour. He wanted them destroyed because (among other things) he felt they were the killers of JC and racially seperate and inferior. That belief was part of christian churchs and was part of European society during that time period. A cop-out defence that the bible doesn't explicitly say "kill jews" is no defence against the reality that those calling themselves christians and following a christian oriented faith held anti-semetic beliefs.

This leads into argument #1 from above, Hitler lied.

Nothing less then an emotional argument with no basis in fact and without a shred of proof.

Quote:
But just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that Hitler really did pretend his Christianity; that his sole aim went to politically winning over German Christians so that he could gain their confidence. How in the world does that improve your argument in protecting Christianity from Hitler? If that proved the case, then who should get the blame, Hitler or the gullible Christian German citizens who believed him? And what does that say for the integrity of Christianity if the most Christianized country in the world could not distinguish a member of their own belief system? Think about it. If the most pious Christians and clergymen could not tell if Hitler practiced false or "real" Christianity, then how in the world could anyone tell? I submit that the only way to tell comes from the very words from those who make the claim. Indeed, this constitutes the very flaw of any religion because there never has existed a testable way to determine the truthfulness of a belief in the supernatural. And if you cannot tell by the words of your fellow Christians, then anyone with minimal acting talent can deceive anyone, including monks, bishops, or popes. In fact, monks, bishops and popes themselves, could fall prey to falsehood. I submit to you that a false Christian and a real Christian makes absolutely no difference. Why? Because if I have it right (and I think I do) then Christianity never represented reality, thus an honest believing Christian and a dishonest believing Christian fall on equal turf: they both have it wrong, and they both practice falsehoods!

The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim. And since Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly, we can only rely on his claim, regardless of whether he actually believed in Christ or not. False Christianity has as just much validity as any claim to Christianity, even if you could prove dishonesty.

But regardless of how you view a person's claim to their religion, to say Hitler used Christianity only for political forces has absolutely no historical basis to back it up. To simply rely on belief or opinion says absolutely nothing about historical fact.


Even if you absolutely categorically "prove" Hitler was lying and in fact didn't believe a word about christianity you are still left with the inescable fact that he was not alone in his guilt. Where all the nazi's "lying". Did the entire German population throw away their beliefs for Hitler. The fact is that the horrors of the holocaust where happening and "christians" were participating in it or at the very least turning a blind eye to it. That doesn't mean they all were. Some christians fought against it. So what. So did Atheists. That doesn't excuse or erase the fact that others of their faith were on the opposite side nor does it erase the fact of anti-semetism surrounding religious groups, churchs, and institutions calling themselves christian.

This segways into argument #2. The 2nd worst circular argument of them all (the worst being the creationist one).

Hitler wasn't a christian because he wasn't a moral person and all christians are moral. Why intelligent people cannot see the failure in logic behind this let alone the disturbing implications is simply beyond me.

Then again they all seem to be invalidating the christianity of others. Bart's a catholic and a christian. biblical_christian says Bart isn't a christian because he's a catholic. Shep has problems with the catholic church (I believe I heard Orange men) but thats politically based and not theologially based. The catholics seem to think they and their pope are the "official" spokesmen for all of christianity and Lily is on record saying that the mormons and jehova witness are little more then cults and aren't true christians either. Thats to say nothing about mennonites, amish, latvian orthodox, luteranism, baptists, adventists, ..........

Each group calls themselves "christian". Each group says they are worshipping as "their" god intended. What makes "them" christian. What makes "you" christian.

We've heard alot about "following the teachings of JC". Sounds good until you realize that they all think they are the only ones doing just that. "Jesus christ church of latter day saints" are essentially mormons and previously Lily has said they aren't "true christians" and compared them to a cult (which they pretty much are). They have his name right in their title. Think they don't believe they are following JC's teachings? They think they do. Do you think Hitler didn't believe he was also?.

The logic seems almost inescapable that no-one is a christian because somebody, somewhere, doesn't think they are. Hitler thought he was a christian. His friends did. High ranking clergy did.

Now does ones actions invalidate ones christianity. They would have you believe so.

"A christian follows the teachings of JC". Really? Where does it say that?

Where does it say that a "christian" is defined as "one who follows the teachings of JC"?

Dose it say it in the bible? Find the verse for me please. Perhaps you'll quote exodus.

(hey Gerry, thats old testament too!)

So what? Where does it say "a christian is defined as ......." anywhere in the bible?

"But by following the bible you are following the teachings of JC"......

Without getting into another massive debate about how you have to pick and choose from the bible in order to lead a good life from it and ignoring all of gerry's OT bad stuff (but keeping the good stuff) I'll just point this out.

If the bible is "the teachings of JC" and nowhere in the bible does it actually say "a christian is defined as ......" and christians the world over follow the bible to differing degrees by picking and choosing what to follow ...... Explain this.

Quote:
Although some might counter that Hitler's admission to Christianity, by itself, does not make one a Christian, how else can an individual convey to another his religion except from their own confession? One of the tenants of Christian belief, indeed the definition of a Christian, comes from the Pauline epistiles in regards to faith in Jesus:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

-Galatians 2:16


To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

-Romans 3:26-28

Paul, by declaring faith in Jesus over law, effectively separated Christianity from Judaism. It came from these Pauline declarations that first defined Christianity. Belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. Christianity does not require adhering to Old Testament laws or membership to any Church or abstaining from evil deeds. One need only have faith in Jesus for its justification, period.


What more needs to be said.

and you don't get it......( how somebody could be sooooooooooooooostupid and still have the ability to type is beyond me)............ just because some moron does something "in the name of Christ or God" doesn't actually make Christ, God, or the teachings of the same at fault.



We'll go back to Genesis....idiot....God gave man free will.... you know what that means? It means we can think for ourselves and do as we want....this means people can twist and pervert Christs message..... It means that we, humans, are NOT perfect and as such make mistakes.....REALLY BIG ONES at times..... but only an IDIOT would blame Christianity for Hitler, or even the Inquisition.

Christianity is the label man has given to those that follow Christs teachings....... anybody can label themselves a Christian, doesn't mean they are.......