Feel free to pick another website. quick google search brought up tons of them for hitler and religion. I don't believe Hitler identified himself as a christian. This appears to be our disagreement. You are reading a speech and see that he does to others in his speech. Contrary documents show the opposite and are not in the speech. One would believe it more reasonable to believe other documents over a public speech intended to sway public opinion. You have also not included all the things hitler said AGAINST religion. So you are only showing one side rather than a correct portrayal. And in your want to believe he must be a christian because he said god in speeches, you are throwing out the evidence of eugenics and social darwinsim. Beliefs not normally had by those of religions. Any religions. Social darwinism is not a religiously held view. In fact it goes against religious views. Hitler was big on it.
The pope...
- Thread starter Bruno@MT
- Start date
Feel free to pick another website. quick google search brought up tons of them for hitler and religion. I don't believe Hitler identified himself as a christian. This appears to be our disagreement. You are reading a speech and see that he does to others in his speech. Contrary documents show the opposite and are not in the speech. One would believe it more reasonable to believe other documents over a public speech intended to sway public opinion. You have also not included all the things hitler said AGAINST religion. So you are only showing one side rather than a correct portrayal. And in your want to believe he must be a christian because he said god in speeches, you are throwing out the evidence of eugenics and social darwinsim. Beliefs not normally had by those of religions. Any religions. Social darwinism is not a religiously held view. In fact it goes against religious views. Hitler was big on it.
Not putting much work into it. posting whatever comes up and figure if you want to disagree with it you have to do the research.....
Omar B
Senior Master
Not putting much work into it. posting whatever comes up and figure if you want to disagree with it you have to do the research.....
It's not my job to prove your point for you. For someone "not putting much work in" you seem quite eager to contribute.
As to the veracity of his being a christian or not, he said it in his book and speeches, the catholic church in Germany, it's cardinal and higher ups said it. If you wish to ignore those or the fact that religious devotion was apart of the morning routine of the Hitler Youth organization. Non christians don't usually want clubs in their name carrying out religious services as part of their daily routine.
No, I don't "want" to prove that Hitler is christian more than I "want" to prove that the earth is not flat, it just is.
Sure they may not be beliefs held by religions, doesn't mean individuals don't hold them. Christians have committed crimes, rapes, molested, robbed, broken all 10 commandments, all manner of evil, look at the prison population, many of them identify as christian no matter how vicious their crime. I didn't state that Hitler was a paragon of christian virtue, but he was a christian.
was that before or after he started executing the priests?:shock:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Quotes Establishing Hitler's Non-Christianity[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953). I have lifted the text of these from the soc.religion.christian newsgroup's [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Night of 11th-12th July, 1941[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]10th October, 1941, midday[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]14th October, 1941, midday[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Christianity <is> the liar....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]19th October, 1941, night[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]21st October, 1941, midday[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]13th December, 1941, midnight[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]14th December, 1941, midday[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]9th April, 1942, dinner[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]27th February, 1942, midday[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)[/FONT]
Omar B
Senior Master
"was that before or after he started executing the priests?" What, like no other person claiming to be christian has ever executed a priest? Just proves he killed someone. Middle ages European history is filled with such instances. As I've said before, there are many criminals including murderers who identify as christian.
Nice job cutting and pasting from other web sites. I hope you don't do your homework that way. By the way, those quotes have the earmarks of the French to English translation of the book which is quite faulty rather than the German original or German to English which gives a clearer picture of the issue at hand. If you read the book or the other one I've mentioned earlier in the trhead you'll find that Hitler never says an ill word reguarding god or Jesus, when he does speak ill it's usually of the Roman catholic church, but that's because he wanted a specifically German version of the church.
http://www.archive.org/stream/HitlersTableTalk#page/n0/mode/2up
Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used his doctrine to mobilize the criminal underworld and thus organize a proto-Bolsevism.
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 143] Hitler identifying with Jesus
The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him.
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 76] Hitler defending Jesus?
Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language!
-Table-Talk [p. 9] Hitler agreeing with Luther's Germanic version of the bible
We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.
Table-Talk [p. 6] Not something a person who's not religious would say
An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)...
Table-Talk [p. 59] Again, sounds like a person who sees the non religious as less than human.
Nice job cutting and pasting from other web sites. I hope you don't do your homework that way. By the way, those quotes have the earmarks of the French to English translation of the book which is quite faulty rather than the German original or German to English which gives a clearer picture of the issue at hand. If you read the book or the other one I've mentioned earlier in the trhead you'll find that Hitler never says an ill word reguarding god or Jesus, when he does speak ill it's usually of the Roman catholic church, but that's because he wanted a specifically German version of the church.
http://www.archive.org/stream/HitlersTableTalk#page/n0/mode/2up
Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used his doctrine to mobilize the criminal underworld and thus organize a proto-Bolsevism.
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 143] Hitler identifying with Jesus
The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him.
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 76] Hitler defending Jesus?
Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language!
-Table-Talk [p. 9] Hitler agreeing with Luther's Germanic version of the bible
We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.
Table-Talk [p. 6] Not something a person who's not religious would say
An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)...
Table-Talk [p. 59] Again, sounds like a person who sees the non religious as less than human.
nice. But i thought christians were supposed to believe in the bible? Hitler had it rewritten the way he wanted it.
Omar B
Senior Master
Hitler didnt have the bible rewritten! He was referring to Luther, you know, Martin Luther? It's the same bible. I'm sure you will get to him in history class.
Omar B
Senior Master
He wanted to, he did not in fact do it. There is a huge gulf between wish and action.
Rewriting the bible doesn't sound like something an atheist would do. I know I don't really give a hoot one way or another what's in there. Sounds more like a religious person's grab at power like King James. You made an excellent point about Hitler's christianity.
Rewriting the bible doesn't sound like something an atheist would do. I know I don't really give a hoot one way or another what's in there. Sounds more like a religious person's grab at power like King James. You made an excellent point about Hitler's christianity.
"
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.
When one looks at the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler and compares them to the teacher of universal love, Jesus of Nazareth, one might come to the immediate conclusion that the notion that Hitler was a Christian is absurd. Nevertheless, no small number of people hold such a view. Why do they think this, and is there any truth to it?
This question has been vexing me for years. I've done a lot of research, read a number of books, written a pretty large web site to try to get at the issue (which is by no means simple and clear cut). Frankly, this is an area where objectivity is a severe challenge. The argument has become one between the Christian apologists and the anti-Christian propagandists. That's not much of a formula for truth.
At this point (after years of debate) I believe that the question, as it is posed in the title of this page is meaningless. It is more a reflection of an individual's bias than an assertion of historical fact. I view Jesus as a gentle man who taught love of God and neighbor, who said to turn the other cheek and give of oneself sacrificially. If that belief is "Christian", then no one--not the staunchest anti-Christian -- could claim Hitler was a Christian. If on the other hand, one classifies Christianity as any view which is derived from the Christian story, no matter how faithful or how perverted--however logical or illogical (or pathological), then Hitler did consider himself an admirer of Jesus (perverted though his view was), although the religion we popularly call Christianity disgusted him.
If then the question is not a historical question but a reflection of the bias of the one who asks, what is the value of the question? In a word, the answer is "propaganda". To assert the statement (using an iconoclastic definition of "Christian") serves to denigrate Christianity through "guilt by association". To deny the statement is to defend Christianity's "good name" by refusing to let Hitler's twisted view of Jesus to be associated with Christian "main stream" views.
So what started as an apologists answer to the question "Was Hitler a Christian?", is now an exploration of Hitler's religions thinking and the issue of Christian anti-Semitism in general. But if you want an answer to the question, then mine is: Not any kind we would call "Christian" today."
"gets worn away before the advances of science....Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches, and that why they're heading for ruin—for science is bound to win. [Hitler's Table Talk, pp. 59-61]"
http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html
pretty much back where we started. A rediculous argument.
He would have believed in a different version of the bible, believed in no current church, a different version (non jewish) of christ. And i still say he was a naturalist/social darwinist/materialist with a sick fascination for practicing eugenics...
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.
When one looks at the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler and compares them to the teacher of universal love, Jesus of Nazareth, one might come to the immediate conclusion that the notion that Hitler was a Christian is absurd. Nevertheless, no small number of people hold such a view. Why do they think this, and is there any truth to it?
This question has been vexing me for years. I've done a lot of research, read a number of books, written a pretty large web site to try to get at the issue (which is by no means simple and clear cut). Frankly, this is an area where objectivity is a severe challenge. The argument has become one between the Christian apologists and the anti-Christian propagandists. That's not much of a formula for truth.
At this point (after years of debate) I believe that the question, as it is posed in the title of this page is meaningless. It is more a reflection of an individual's bias than an assertion of historical fact. I view Jesus as a gentle man who taught love of God and neighbor, who said to turn the other cheek and give of oneself sacrificially. If that belief is "Christian", then no one--not the staunchest anti-Christian -- could claim Hitler was a Christian. If on the other hand, one classifies Christianity as any view which is derived from the Christian story, no matter how faithful or how perverted--however logical or illogical (or pathological), then Hitler did consider himself an admirer of Jesus (perverted though his view was), although the religion we popularly call Christianity disgusted him.
If then the question is not a historical question but a reflection of the bias of the one who asks, what is the value of the question? In a word, the answer is "propaganda". To assert the statement (using an iconoclastic definition of "Christian") serves to denigrate Christianity through "guilt by association". To deny the statement is to defend Christianity's "good name" by refusing to let Hitler's twisted view of Jesus to be associated with Christian "main stream" views.
So what started as an apologists answer to the question "Was Hitler a Christian?", is now an exploration of Hitler's religions thinking and the issue of Christian anti-Semitism in general. But if you want an answer to the question, then mine is: Not any kind we would call "Christian" today."
"gets worn away before the advances of science....Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches, and that why they're heading for ruin—for science is bound to win. [Hitler's Table Talk, pp. 59-61]"
http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html
pretty much back where we started. A rediculous argument.
He would have believed in a different version of the bible, believed in no current church, a different version (non jewish) of christ. And i still say he was a naturalist/social darwinist/materialist with a sick fascination for practicing eugenics...
Omar B
Senior Master
Ok, a half answer that does not take into account that he considered himself a christian ... which in most cases is the basis of identifying someone as a christian, self identification. Like people who don't go to church and call themselves christian, they are, because they say so. Nicely cut and pasted though.
His being a christian does not reflect upon you or your church or whoever. I'm quite sure you are not a mass murdering psychopath so shooing Hitler away is not even necessary. Just like some priests touching boys does not mean they all do. I don't expect any other christian to be held responsible for his actions. Crazy is crazy.
His being a christian does not reflect upon you or your church or whoever. I'm quite sure you are not a mass murdering psychopath so shooing Hitler away is not even necessary. Just like some priests touching boys does not mean they all do. I don't expect any other christian to be held responsible for his actions. Crazy is crazy.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Both of Marx's parents were converted Jews. Which has nothing to do with materialism or social darwinism.
So am I. You will find that doesn't explain much.
Darwin was religious for a large portion of his life. Later on, he described himself as an agnostic.
No he wasn't. Did Darwin invent neo-Darwinism, even though it was invented after his death? Others came up with the concept based on his work on biological evolution. His name being in the title proves nothing. Darwin himself was against ranking races of man by evolutionary pedigree. He was against the appropriation and mistreatment of native peoples. He thought social policy should not be guided by the concept of struggle and survival in nature. You tell me if that sounds like a social darwinist. Of course, it's pretty clear you are just throwing around emotionally loaded catchphrases without a true understanding of the history and how they do or do not apply.
Blade96
Senior Master
You dont know much about darwin do you. He was a naturalist, whose work was with animals and nature. It was later people who applied his work to humans. While he was interested in work about diseases being inherited and such, he had preblems with applying it to humans. He said that if we did, we would not get the benefits of natural selection, but we had the danger of people losing sympathy for each other in the process and not helping the weak and the downtrodden.
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
Producing this quote as an "example of Benedict's "fundamentalism" only demonstrates one thing: you equate holding homosexual acts as being inherently disordered with being a fundamentalist. Of course, this is not the case since it reduces fundamentalism to not accepting the sexual mores of liberalism.
So, in a discussion about whether or not Benedict is a "fundamentalist" which has touched on the anti-Catholicism present in the U.K. (and at least one of our posters from there) you provide a quote from ... Reuters. And it's not even a posting of the pope's address in toto it's a quote from the tenth paragraph of a 12 paragraph address on a variety of subjects. And yet Reuters leads with it in heir article. Well, I'm surprised. Or something. They also fail to point out that at this point in the address, Benedict had moved from addressing the issue of the environment and creation in general to how specific creatures can be effected in various way through a variety of means. His comments on legalizing gay "marriage" was an example of this in the case of man.
That's hardly fundamentalism but rather a conclusion drawn from the belief that homosexual acts are inherntly disordered.
Since you're obviously interested in what the pope has to say on this subject you can read his entire address at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ben-xvi_spe_20100111_diplomatic-corps_en.html
Well, it's definitely on the "or something" end of the spectrum, which you would know if you bothered to read the Pope's addres itself instead of relying on an excerpt of the speech in a media outlet from a country that had outlawed Catholicism for quite some time and that still finds anti-Catholic sentiment acceptable.
Again, not an example of fundamentalism. You can argue about whether Naziism is properly called "atheistic" but you can't argue that this is an example of fundamentalism (not least of which because you haven't actually argued anything but merely produced a few partial quotes from Benedict and then stated your conclusion by fiat).
Well, he's "hardly the worst" because he simply doesn't qualify. And you didn't even produce any argumentation for your position so the "indefensible" part certainly fails.
Pax,
Chris
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Yep.
Not "liberalism", but simple reason and evidence. On the reason side, there is no evidence or argument to believe that homosexuality is immoral without recourse to a religious argument. On the evidence side, it is clear that homosexuality has biological roots, and cannot in any sense be considered a moral disorder. Even a certain percentage of animals display same sex orientated bonding and sexual behavior, and you can hardly claim that animals are morally disordered.
When you must accept the mandates of your religion against all other evidence, that is fundamentalism.
Is the quote inaccurate? Attacking the motivation of the source is a logical fallacy. Typical apologist behavior.
The plain claim of the quoted text is that man is "endangered" from the "attack" of anti-discrimination laws which "strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes." The only potential basis for the claim that man is under attack from such laws is an unsupportable religious claim, hence fundamentalism. You would do well to address that instead of obfuscating the point with red herring arguments.
I'm curious how you define "fundamentalism" if this doesn't count. Holding someone as inherently morally disordered based on a biological sexual orientation over which they have no control solely based on an argument from religious scripture is the sine qua non of fundamentalism.
Nazism was the example, not the point. Benedict's argument was that the loss of religion in society leads to "a truncated vision of man and society." The argument extends far beyond Nazism, but of course you are pretending the argument is only about Nazis. The belief that man and society can only be good or complete with religion is also a mark of fundamentalism.
Arrant nonsense. I put forward 3 pieces of evidence. You may disagree or claim they mean something else, but it's patently false to claim that I didn't put forward anything at all.
For someone who comes across with such a sneering, smug sense of contempt and superiority, you have a remarkable inability to back it up by addressing the actual argument put forward. Such a remarkable human being as yourself shouldn't have any problems disposing with my arguments logically. If you ever bothered to engage them.
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
Pray tell, what do you expect people to think when you call a visit of the head of one state to the head of your own country? Here in the real world, that's known as a sate visit. But you refered to it as a "fiction."
But the real crux of the matter, as you well know, was your statement: "Why they agreed to this I don't know and I certainly don't want this man or what he represents in my country; we have enough religious fundamentalists as it is without adding or encouraging more."
What "that man" represents is 1) a sovereign nation, and 2) the religion of over 1,000,000,000 people. Your statement makes it clearthat you're a bigot when it comes to Catholicism. It also shows you don't have any actual idea what relgious fundamentalism entails.
No, I understood what you meant. Which was why I specifically askeoto provide information on what books of Benedict's you have read and where you found evidence of his so-called "fundamentalism" in them. You refused to do so every time I made my requst. People who have so much as cracked a book written by the person they're insulting usually don't go to such lengths to ignore a simple request. Unless they actualy have no idea what they're talking about and were caught in a lie, that is.
I produced a list of books by Benedict which I have read that were published over the course of his life (excluding official Church documents he either authored or oversaw when head of the CDF and his papal writings as including these would have made the list even longer). It had over a dozen works on it and it wasn't even the total of his corpus. Despite requests you produced ... well, nothing.
Yes, it is always the other guy. Or, alternately, when that other guy calls you out for 1) your bigotry, or 2) your glaringly obvious lie you have to deal with "a spiral of despair." It's a good thing you never exaggerate!
How I phrase things? Why, was I going on about not wanting what someone represents in my country? Or was I talking about having enough of a certian kind of people in my country? Or was I caught labelling someone with a derogatory term based not on what I ad read of his scholarly works but on my own bigotry? Or did I say I liked how a certain tyrannical king dealt with a certain group of people when they refused to go against their consciences and say he was the head of the Church?
Yes, if I had sid any of those things I'd definitely think moderation in my posts was called for.
But I wasn't the one who posted any of that.
You have a question about what I mean, feel free to ask. I'll tell you. Like when I said "Man up and tell me what you've read by Benedict that qualifies you to call him a fundamentalist. If you have the stones to honestly do so." By that I meant I think you haven't read one thing Benedict has read on your own and rely on the media for your biased idea of what he says. Additionally, I mean that I don't think you're man enough to admit that.
I think that's pretty clear but if you need further help let me know.
Well, I don't know about that. I think our interaction on this thread has been constructive in at least one way; it's demonstarted that you don't know what you're talking about and are simply bigottedwhen it comes to the Church.
Pax,
Chris
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
Actually, what "that Chris person" did was show that at a time later than his writing of Mein Kampf Hitler repudiated Christianity. I thought that was pretty obvious. I mean, if you write something about religion at one point and then ten years or so later you make repeated remarks at odds with your previous comments it generally means your initial position has changed.
I also would've figured that when I pointed out Hitler's reaction to Mit Brennender Sorge it illustrated what he thought of Christianity in general and the Church in particular.
If Hitler identified himself as a Christian throughout his life then why was he so adamant that Christianity was antithetical to National Socialism? You know, Naziism. I'm pretty sure Hitler considered himself a Nazi and never repudiated that position.
Now those are some questions maybe "that Omar person" could answer.
Pax,
Chris
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
I think someone should have called Goodwin on this thread about 3 pages back is what I think.
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
And so everyone who sees homosexual acts as disordered is a religious fundamentalists. Sorry, it fails on its face.
Actually, you can obviously make the argument that homosexual acts are disordered without reference to religion. Freud did so.
But, regardless of that, even if you rely on a religious argument, so what? Religious arguments themselves are not therefore irrational.
As for having a biological basis and so therefore not immoral, there are biological factors related to alcoholism but drinking to excess is still immoral.
Boy, do I know a lot of atheist fundamentalists, then :lol:
Simply put, Catholics at least have no such mandate.
Did you bother to read the address itself? I provided you the link for it. It's pretty obvious the way it was presented in Reuters wasn't how the pope intended it to be taken. This is especially true giev your comment about gay "marriage" being bad for the environment
FWIW, apologetics is simply giving an explanation for a certain position. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Anyone who explains their position to someone who attacks it is an apologist.
OK, so you haven't read the pope's address. Got it. No big deal. Unless you wat to have an actual discussion about it.
Your definition of religious fundamentalism is still overly general; you're really coming rather close to an Enlightenment conception of knowledge.
No, that certainly is not the sine qua non of fundamentalism. Except for you, apparently. So, anyone can believe anything but if they also believe homosexual acts are immoral they're fundamentalists. It's laughable.
Fundamentalism is properlly applied to a Protestant Christian movement that had its roots in the early 20th century that holds not only to the "fundamentals of the faith" (such as the divinity of Christ) but also, and more to the point, a method of interpreting the Bible marked by a disregard for the type of literature to which a particular book belongs. It is this aspect of having a particular style of exegesis that marks fudamentalism for what it is. If you have read anything by Benedict dealing with exegesis you would see how untenable the claim that he is a fundamentalist is.
But it failed to even be an example.
No, I'm not "pretending" that at all.
The pope mentioned Naziism as an example of what he was talking about. It was within the context of him praising the citizens of the UK for the examples of them fighting for human dignity throughout their history. Along with a list of other examples, he mentioned Britians stand against Naziism. Then he says not to forget the lessons of atheist extremism. Considering the body count of the 20th century at the hands of such people I think it's a good thing to recall as a warning of what can happen when you exclude "God, religion, and virtue from public life."
Maybe. But it's certainly not a mark of Catholicism and the last time I checked the pope was Catholic.
No, you put forth three quotes. You didn't make any argumentation whatsoever. You equate fundamentalism with not embracing homosexual acts. That's false on its face. Coupled with a lack of argumenttion of how what Benedict said qualifies as fundamentalism some other way means your position is simply untenable.
Dude, you haven't made any arguments. You've basically said fundamentalism is any position that doesn't think homosexual acts are OK. The pope doesn't think homosexual acts are OK. Ergo he's a fudamentalist. But acceptance of homosexual acts isn't the mark of not being a fundamentalist any more than rejection of the moral parity between homosexual acts and sexual congress between a man and a woman is the mark of being a fundamentalist. In other words, the premise for your argument is faulty. It's a nice bit of petitio principii, really.
As for coming off as being smug, you might also want to take a gander in your own mirror when denouncing me for that
Pax,
Chris
Omar B
Senior Master
Am I expected to answer to a crazy person referring to himself as a christian? It's not as if he's the first christian who's committed mass murder, or spoken out against the church and other christians, nor is it somehow a statement about how all christians act. He refereed to himself as a christian, that's usually enough for any other person to be deemed a christian. The Cardinal in Germany always had glowing things to say about him. Sure you can willfully ignore the fact that he is, but it would be the same as my asserting that say, you are not a christian based upon the fact that I've never seen you in a church.
I don't see christianity as antithetical to socialism. Christianity seems centered on sharing, the meek inheriting the earth, socialism seems quite in line with that taking from the rich, redistributing and such.
Last edited:
Similar threads
