The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Hitler, his wars, and his huge armies and his long worldly speeches should be enough for you realize, but I guess its not.
Saying someone did not follow what Jesus taught, and therefore is not a Christian, is NOT a NTSF. Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No IMMORAL (HITLER), impure, or greedy(THE POPE) person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God!!.... Hitler did not profess Jesus as his Lord and savior, he was a greedy and WORLDLY man, no doubt about that.. Read what Jesus actually said!
Worryingly others appear to agree with you. Extract from a militant Israeli website: "The Torah is clear – we are to destroy such people. We must make them disappear one by one. Now that the blessed SEALS of the US Armed Forces successfully eradicated the Senior Amalekite Osama Bin Laden, they’ve now got more work to do. We have to wipe them all out. Sometimes you just can’t and shouldn’t make peace with certain types of people." I see where you get your inspiration.
@mikelheron20 There is nothing evil in what these so-called militant Israelis say on their website. All the are saying is that they must defend themselves against those that see it as the duty to murder them. They may have put it dramatic biblical terms, but from their above quotes, they have said nothing about killing truly innocent people--that is people that want no conflict with them. Maybe you hate them and their dramatic quotes because you hate the bible. However, I totally agree w/ them.
@shahriar5252 Despite what you probably believe, I am not a pacifist. I believe that people have a right to defend themselves - individually and collectively. However, If you've read the website you will know that it goes waaaay beyond this. Yes, I do hate the Bible - or large parts of it - because people use it to justify immoral actions. I feel the same way about the Qu'ran and any text people follow slavishly without thinking.
@mikelheron20 It is illogical for you to say that you hate the bible because people use it to justify immoral action. Blame the bible if it actually commands people to commit immoral unjustifiable non-self-defensive action, but don't blame the bible for others' stupidity. The Catholic church committed many crimes throughout the centuries, but it would be immoral to blame Jesus for it because not only did he not command it but specifically and consistently preached against it.
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:...Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;..And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deut 21:18-21
@shahriar5252 In the passage quoted "God" specifies the crimes that justify killing your son: "stubbornness, gluttony, rebelliousness and drunkenness". Lucky for teenagers that we don't follow the commands of God anymore, wouldn't you say? Please provide me with the moral or self-defence justification for God's injunction. I look forward to it.
@mikelheron20 Fair question. Drunkenness and gluttony by themselves are not a crime; otherwise, Noah should have been executed when he got drunk and his son sexually abused him. The bible (Deut. 12:20) also permits eating as much meat as you like, so gluttony would be not be eligible for a death sentence. But gluttony itself may eventually become a death sentence by diseases such as atheroscelerosis. Cont...
@mikelheron20 Deut 21:18-21 gives society's judges, not parents, the ability to impose death on a rebellious and stubborn son as requested by both parents, but what the verse does not say is what rebellion and stubbornness merits such death sentence. It leaves that up to society to determine. It requires that the rebellion and stubbornness be combined with drunkenness and gluttony to limit the application of such law to the extremes of society. Cont...
@mikelheron20 In today's society, it would be the equivalent of letting parents Charles Manson or Philip Garrido to ask for death against their rebellious sons when those sons decided to use LSD and other mind altering drugs to damage their brains and make them psychopaths. Cont...
@shahriar5252 Right. Just so that I'm clear, the penalty for "getting stoned" is that you should be stoned for real? Because, obviously, anyone who ever smoked a joint or used LSD will go on to become a murdering, raping psychopath. As for gluttons, don't get me started! That's how cannibalism began. It starts with an extra potato and you end by eating your dad. My sister took away my Action Man when I was a kid. Sadly, she wasn't stoned to death and now, she's a psychopathic kidnapper.
@mikelheron20 I've replied facetiously because I can't take you seriously.Apart from the fact that you're rewriting Deuteronomy to suit your own purposes, your lack of logic is staggering.Your argument is tantamount to saying that if Alois Hitler had strangled Adolf the first time he said "Nein" to a parental command, World War II could have been prevented.I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt in case you eventually say something sensible but I'm afraid you just get sillier and sillier.
@mikelheron20 Yes, I can interpret Deut 21:18-21 to suit my purposes b/c the law is vague and leaves it up to society to define rebellion and stubbornness that deserves death. From my investigation, I have never come across any historic accounts in the bible (OT or NT) or in latter rabbinical or church writings in which someone was actually sentenced to death under this law. It seems that the law was enacted to strike fear into the heart of a potential criminal rebel.
@mikelheron20 No, the law does not give Alois Hitler the power to pronounce death sentence on her children. She along with the father can only present a case to society and society has the power to pronounce such a sentence according to what society deems a legitimate rebellion or stubbornness that deserves death. Deut 21:18-21 gives this option to society and its vagueness leaves it up to society (i.e., judges and legislators) to decide its application, not to individuals.
@mikelheron20 I wrote that Deut 21:18-21 does not state what rebellion & stubbornness merits such death sentence. The passage limits its use by requiring other things such as drunkenness and gluttony in addition to rebellion & stubbornness. Society must decide if the self-inflicted brain-damaged LSD rebel is thinking & serious about harming others and then impose the death sentence to stop such a person pre-emptively. I don't understand what the 2nd portion of you last comment means. Re-explain.
@shahriar5252 So now you're advocating pre-emptive death sentences - just in case someone becomes a murderer etc.? My friend you haven't so much lost the plot as never had the plot. I don't really know what it is you don't understand. It seems quite clear to me. The last thing I said was that your comments are become very silly. I know that lays me open to another "ad hominem" charge but so be it. I only continued this discussion out of courtesy but it is becoming too ridiculous for words. Sorry
@mikelheron20 So now you're are implicitly admitting that Deut 21:18-21 does not impose the death sentence for gluttony and drunkenness as I proved to you by biblical cases. Now you are inditing my application of this law, but no longer the passage! A small victory for the bible. I will propose my case for what rebellion or stubbornness deserves death sentence here as well as others, and society will decide on it by legislation.
@mikelheron20 As for pre-emptive death sentences: Please read my responses carefully and don't distort or trivialize what I say. Quote a specific part of what I said and objectively specify what you see wrong. Here is specific case where I would apply the law: If a son chooses to damage his brain as Philip Garrido did w/ LSD and if I catch him planning to or attempting to kidnap a girl, I would ask society to impose the death sentence to prevent harm to others. It's fair.
@shahriar5252 Dear Shahriar This correspondence has been going onm for some time now. I could simply not reply to you but I don't want to be rude. I'll do you the courtesy of believing you actually mean the things you say. However, (1) many of them are based on a premiss that I don't accept - that there is a God (2) I find it unprofitable to argue at such a level - your points are juvenile and frankly embarrassing. If I ignore them it is because they don't merit a response. I'm used to debating
@shahriar5252 with people who, though they don't share my views, are able to argue intelligently. You think you're scoring points but in fact you're simply making yourself appear stupid. I remember having arguments like this at school - when I was 13. I'm sure you will interpret this reply as some sort of admission that I can't match your arguments. That's fine with me. I'm more than happy for you to have the last word. But please make it the last. In any event, I shan't be replying.
@mikelheron20 If Philip Garrido's parents had asked for such punishment against their evil, rebellious and stubborn son and society was wise enough to have done it, Philip Garrido would not have been able to kidnap and rape his first victim and then be let out by a foolish society to kidnapp, rape, and imprison another innocent girl for 18 years. So the bible lets parents and society destroy evil sons by pre-emptive action but society must be wise in use of such law.
@mikelheron20 You presented the best of that website here and called those statements as evil, and I pointed out that your criticism was not objective. You just did not like their use of dramatic biblical terms to describe evil people like Osama. You have presented nothing from that site so far that shows they are bad. By the way, in the bible (Proverbs 24:17), it say that you are not to joy from the fall and destruction of your enemy. Osama chose evil and doom, and there is no joy in that.
And Hitler was not a practicing atheist, although a few atheists did support him, like writers and phony "philosophers" and "intellectuals" Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Alfred Rosenberg. His "God", or "providence" was only a gimmick to fool people. Get your records STRAIGHT, idiots!
@mikelheron20 there two types of atheists: one theoritical [like Christopher Hitchens], and one who "thinks" he might believe in "God" but never go to church, never pray and never gives thoughts on spirituality. I bet most people are like that everywhere.
@Bruno53ification All atheists are "theoretical" in the sense that God is a theoretical construct. Hitchens described himself as an anti-theist. So do I. The other person you described is no more an atheist than a theist. It is someone who hasn't given the matter sufficient thought to have an opinion.
@mikelheron20 don't be so dogamtic. What do want: a fanatic believer i some "God", or just someone who "thinks" there is some "God" but doesn't give a damn. I rather be with the second one. One thing I criticize Mr Hitchens and Dr Dawkins, and I understand their atheism, is how "dogmatic" they can be. Let us not lower ourselves to the Christian fundamentalists, please. And I admit having some of them as friends, despite my religious skepticism.
@Bruno53ification It's got nothing to do with being dogmatic. It's about the correct use of language. I think it's important. I couldn't give a flying fuck what other people believe. Most of the people I know believe in some sort of God. Accusing Hitchens of dogmatism demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about what he had to say. He was passionate and was prepared to say things that people didn't like to hear. But his position was simple. Give me evidence. If that's dogmatism so be it.
@mikelheron20 He maintained that religion poisons everything and provided plenty of evidence to support his position. He refused to be intimidated by, or give special, obsequious, consideration and respect, to religion. We need more people like him. Dawkins is not in the same league as a polemicist. And sometimes I find him too abrasive - but rarely is he as rude or aggressive as the people he argues against.
Hitler was no more "Christian" as so many people claim to be "Christians', but rarely practice what Jesus Christ taught. Don't confuse one thing with another. USA a "Christian" country? Baloney! Most "Christian" megachurches are plain phony. The same happened in Germany during Hitler's time. One thing is to call yourself "Christian", another is being "one".
So what? Ancient churches are everywhere in Europe. He was no atheist. But his "christianity" was vague and not sincere. Source: "Hitler's Tabletalk", edited by Trevor Roper. And "The God Delusional" by Dr Richard Dawkins. Another good source of Hitler's "christianity": "The 12 Years Reich" by Richard Grunberger. Hitler called himself "christian", but he never went to church. And never was seen praying. He just used Christianity as a "gimmick".
Hitler was an atheist in his beliefs. At some point, he stopped paying church taxes and left the Catholic church. It's true that the Catholic church was heavily anti-Semitic and Hitler may have harvested those hateful ideologies. But Hitler was not a Christian b/c he did not believe in the biblical Jesus. He did not like Jesus' being an Eastern man (i.e.,a Jew), so he wanted the church to change the gospels and make Jesus into an Aryan white man whom the evil Eastern men (i.e. the Jews) killed.
@shahriar5252 How does that make him any more atheistic in his beliefs? The question is did he believe in "a" god? Doesn't matter if it's the biblical one or not, as long as he believed in some god, he was a theist.
@flensdude He was an atheist in his beliefs and was a megalomania too because he pretended to be a christ whose kingdom would last a 1000 years--his way of mocking the promised 1000 year reign of the New Testament. So Hitler is definitely an atheist.
@shahriar5252 ... That is not the definition of being an atheist! You are an atheist if and only if you do not believe in some kind of a god.
Sure, he might have disagreed with Christianity. So what? Muslims disagree with Christianity as well! Are they atheists?
The question is not whether he was a megalomania (lol, what about the pope?) who pretended to be a messiah, but whether he genuinely believed in a god of any shape or form of existence.
@flensdude Hitler converted to atheism at least at some point in his life. Yes, he did bring up the topic of god in his propaganda book and speeches, but he did not believe in god or any other deity. Hitler's mention of God in his early propagandas was only to consolidate power through lies. He was a committed social Darwinist, an atheistic believe system that believes survival of the fittest is the destiny of the stronger humans. Search YouTube for "Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not."
@shahriar5252 What? You find YouTube vidoes to be of high credibility? I am certain I could find a lot of vidoes that say he was indeed a Christian, others stating he was a believer in some god, and some saying he was an atheist. Do you have any credible sources than just "search on YouTube"?
If you know an historian on YouTube, I might believe him, but just randomly searching on YouTube is stupid.
Also, being a believer in social Darwinism isn't a guarantee for being an atheist.
@flensdude I pointed out the YouTube video as a reference for you. The maker of the video does list the sources of his quotes either in the video or in the descriptions via a link, so get a hold of the sources and read the quotes there if you like. Social Darwinism was Hitler's inspiration and the cause of genocide during WWII. Social Darwinism is definitely an atheist ideology. Don't try to weasel out of it!
@shahriar5252 Social Darwinism is an atheistic ideology? You're pissing against the wind now. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Atheism at all. It may not be a part of Christianity since Christianity "promotes" solidarity and compassion, but hey, Christianity doesn't hold a world monopoly for defining religion, you know.
Social Darwinism is a lifestance that can be adopted by atheists and religious people alike, just as Humanism. Saying otherwise is a lame attack against Atheism.
@flensdude Social Darwinism and humanism are two atheistic approaches to life. But they are both atheistic ideas. I hope that atheist choose humanism instead of Hitler's embrace of social Darwinism. The problem with humanism is that it assumes that humans are innately good, but my life experiences has shown me the contrary. Most humans have to be taught the golden rule: love your neighbor as you love yourself. And most people don't follow the golden rule b/c they don't believe in accountability.
@shahriar5252 Let me stress this for you: Many religious persons are humanists as well.
The assumption that being a humanist implies that you're an atheist is wrong. There exist within Christendom people who are Christian humanists, but religious humanism isn't limited to Christianity only.
Social Darwinism is a lifestance--you're free to adopt it for a religious, non-religious or anti-religious purpose, whatever suits you the most. It isn't linked with atheism exclusively.
@flensdude Not true. humanism is a secular movement. To claim to be a religious humanist is like saying you're a meat eating vegetarian. Don't confuse modern humanism with the humanism of the Renaissance. Not all atheists are humanists but all humanists are atheist or agnostic. Of course, you're entitled to call yourself anything you like but that doesn't make it true.
@mikelheron20 I'm not confusing anything. If I am, than I've been taught a lie by the Norwegian public school--I highly doubt this. Moreover, I've been taught a lie by my teacher in the public school who was in fact a humanist (she's a member of the Norwegian Humanist Association whose members are all atheists).
Perhaps there's a variation in terms of how Norwegians utilise the word humanist compared to the English language?
@flensdude I am aware that some people try to divide humanism into two varieties - secular and religious. To do so is, in my view, to completely misunderstand what humanism is. But as I said, people can call themselves whatever they choose.
@mikelheron20 There is a term used in Norwegian: "Livssynshumanisme", which in English would rougly translate to "Lifestance Humanism" or "Humanism as a worldview". These are atheists and agnostics who have humanism as a worldview.
However, the term humanism in Norwegian is to some extent secular, but not entirely so.
I thought the same distinction was present in the English language, but appearently it isn't so.
@flensdude Allow me to quote from "Humanism by Peter Cave".who puts it better than I: " Some religious believers Jews, Christians, Muslims and others, speak of themselves as humanists. According to mainstream humanists though, belief in Yaweh, God or Allah, if the belief is suitably tepid or humanized, at best adds nothing of value to godless humanism: if the belief is stringent and literal, it is highly dangerous to both reason and morality."
@mikelheron20 Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean belief in some god isn't compatible with humanism. You could perfectly be some theist and be a humanist if for example your god or goddess doesn't meddle much with our world, nor do they give us moral standards. Buddhism is kinda close to this kind of view.
But to exclude all religious views from humanism, no matter how small they are, is kind drawing a line of a place which hasn't been fully explored yet.
@flensdude I'm afraid I do think belief in god is incompatible with humanism unless you're using the word "humanism" in a watered down sense that implies little more than respecting other people and being nice to them. There's nothing wrong with that but it's not what I mean by "humanism" which is "Understanding and giving sense to the world without God." In my view, even deism elevates belief over reason (supported by scientific evidence) and is counter to what humanism stands for.
@flensdude No, the humanism that you associate with religion, i.e., Christianity, is really a different philosophy based on charity, forgiveness, and the golden rule (love your neighbor as you love yourself). Atheist that were unhappy w/ the idea that being good meant that you should be good because God is good and loves goodness came up w/ humanism based on the idea that humans are innately good, an idea that is rejected by Christianity based on man's innate rebellious nature and original sin.
@flensdude As for social Darwinism, have you ever seen a religious social Darwinist? By religious, I mean someone that is truly God loving and believes in the fundamental precepts of the Judeo-Christian bible. Social Darwinism is the exact opposite of the biblical concepts of charity and the golden rule (love your neighbor as you love yourself). Instead of charity and the golden rule, both hated by Hitler (YouTube: Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not.), social Darwinism says exterminate them.
@shahriar5252 Your interpretation of the "fundamental precepts" of the Judaeo-Christian Bible is highly selective. The God of the Old Testament has very little in common with "gentle Jesus meek and mild". Yaweh was much more interested in being worshipped, giving detailed instructions for the construction of tabernacles, mass slaughter, and enforcing rules about diet and sexual activity, than he was about "the golden rule". When it comes to genocide, compared to God, Hitler was an amateur.
@mikelheron20 Not true. The bible has many fundamental precepts, and I mentioned the relevant ones here, so I am not being selective. Please make your argument based on those precepts as they appear in the bible. Both the God of the Old Testament and Jesus stated and re-stated the golden rule: Love your neighbor as you love yourself and don't mistreat strangers among you because you were strangers once in Egypt.
@mikelheron20 God's command of worshipping him alone and his orders to exterminate or drive out the Canaanites, Amalekites, or a tribe of Mideanites was to prevent murder or to destroy the human sacrificers and their culture. That command is just even for our time as was the carpet bombings that leveled German cities and its civilians and the two nukes on Japan that broke the back of the emperor and his generals and that evil culture: emperor worship, sacrifice, and mass murder of neighbors.
@mikelheron20 I agree that we have different standards of morality. And I have a different concept of self-defense and you don't agree with what God did in the bible regarding the human sacrificers. I hope we never have to adhere to your way of dealing with such people because it may result in our own destruction. And unlike you, I don't think that discussing thing w/ you is pointless if you are willing to accept a logical resolution to the problems, one that does not result in our destruction.
@shahriar5252 In the first place I don't believe in God so what he "did" in the Bible is without meaning. Non-existent beings don't do anything. But what is alarming is that many people (you are one of them) find these Biblical stories appealing and seek to defend or even emulate God's actions. I don't know if you are a literalist but the Flood is a case in point. We read that God destroyed his creation - apart from Noah and his family. God demands death for almost every human transgression.
@mikelheron20 For the sake of argument, assume that God does exist and did order all those things. Yes, I take the bible literally--as plainly as it is written unless the verses clearly tell you it's a metaphor. Regarding the flood, it was a regional flood that destroyed the civilized world, not the globe. Not enough space here to explain it, but you can message me regarding the flood. In the flood God destroyed those that did not want to change. Otherwise, Noah warned them for 100 years.
@shahriar5252 "God destroyed those that did not want to change." Great message to mankind isn't it? Then God has the gall to say "Thou shalt not kill"! There should be an 11th Commandment: "Do as I say - not as I do." Thank God (irony intended) we don't base our morality on what God does.
@shahriar5252 God's solution to everything appears to be wipe em out and start again. Show no mercy- kill anything that stands in your way. The New Testament is no better. (Believe or burn!) Shame he didn't give a better lead.He could have told the Jews and Amalekites to sit down and resolve their differences peacefully.Shown them how to negotiate Find me an example in the Bible where God encourages negotiation.No wonder you think carpet bombing and nuking is the answer to the world's problems.
@mikelheron20 In the harsh Sinai desert (which is in northern Saudi Arabia) and the surrounding regions, the rule was kill or be killed. No time for negotiations. You cannot demand that God tell the Israelites sit down and negotiate with their enemies. By the way, just to make you happy, they did attempt negotiations with some other people to no avails. Amalekites would not listen to God to want to negotiate. Can you negotiate with Hitler or Bin Laden? Bombs can! I don't like it but no choice.
@shahriar5252 You're missing the point. If God is omnipotent (parting the Red Sea, Pillars of Fire, destroying the world by flood blah blah) it shouldn't be beyond his capacity to force the warring sides to negotiate and show them how to do it. But that thought never seems to enter his omniscient brain. Men had to figure that out all for themselves - once they stopped worrying about dietary prohibitions and building tabernacles.
@mikelheron20 God has power over nature and the laws of physics. But he has given man the power to choose for himself. Therefore, He has given man power to disobey Him no matter the appeasement or the punishment. So by choice of His will, He created man to be rebellious enough to reject peace no matter what. In such cases, negotiations will be fruitless. To change man's mind, God has gone about changing man's culture and to empower good cultures to check man's evil nature in this world.
@shahriar5252 Yeah. I was waiting for the "Free will" argument. "He has created man to be rebellious enough to reject peace no matter what." In other words God's creation is flawed. This has been summarised as "God made us sick and commands us to be well." Ok. We've reached that point in this dialogue (which has been fun) where the differences that separate us make discussion pointless. Everything you say is predicated upon the idea of God, whom I believe to be a fiction. Have a nice life.
@mikelheron20 Argue objectively based on what you logically see as flawed w/ the argument instead of resorting to ad hominem talk by poking fun at the "free will" argument. You labeled God's creation as flawed. I say it's perfect because God said "...that it was good." That is, it was adequate. God has free will, and he wanted his creation to have the same instead of being automatons that you implicitly called perfect. I would prefer to debate my differences with you rather than give up on you.
@shahriar5252 There was no ad hominem intended. I have taken part in enough discussions of this sort to know that they run to a pattern. It's rather like a game of chess. The free will "move" was predictable. that's all. The notion that God - who after all makes the rules of the game - should choose to make creatures who can decide to be unhappy is morally unsound.He even goes out of his way e.g. Job, Abraham to test his creatures to breaking point - just to see what they will do.
@mikelheron20 By the way, you might want to think about your use of phrases like "rather than give up on you". Some people might find them slightly patronising. I have read widely and deeply and given all these matters considerable thought over many years. I know the Bible better than most Christians of my acquaintance. I haven't heard an original argument about God from a believer of any kind for many years That's why, as I said, these discussions reach the point of futility. No offence.
@mikelheron20 You are again defending your ad hominem attack on the "free will" answer that I gave you. Just because others have brought up to you attention, it does not become a wrong answer. God has given us free will to choose right or wrong, and this argument will be brought up to you attention and the attention of others forever; it will never become a cliche unless you are willing to be illogical in your arguments. You are angry at the free will argument b/c it has debunked your arguments.
@mikelheron20 Well, don't be bored by it. Instead, think of better logical counter arguments. However, do leave room that if you found your logic to be wrong, that you admit defeat and change your philosophy. It's happened to me many times. At some point after learning about evolution, I dismissed the claims of the bible, but believe it or not, that very science and logical arguments, both proved my previous and and classical allegorical interpretation of the bible wrong as well as evolution.
@shahriar5252 I've thought deeply for years & studied secular & religious philosophy including theodicy.I know the arguments theologians cite about free will.I can tell you what thinkers from Augustine to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and John Stuart Mill had to say.I can quote you C.S. Lewis.There's nothing new to be said.The Free will argument entails logical fallacies which believers ignore or side step.I repeat,I simply don't believe in God so these points have no meaning for me.
@mikelheron20 I am glad that you have studied the thinking of all these philosophers. But do understand that our best philosophers may be wrong because they come up withe their ideas based on the best that we know, not based on all that there and need to be known before finding the correct conclusion. You belief in God for the purposes of these arguments is irrelevant. In your arguments you have used certain accounts of the bible to be bad and evil and I have used the context to prove you wrong.
@shahriar5252 The Free will argument fails in so many ways. But let me just give you one. God is omniscient. He knows everything that is going to happen before it happens. God is incapable of being wrong. If God already knows what you are going to do before you do it there is nothing you can do to alter it. It's childishly obvious. The theist response (see CS Lewis) "Ah, but God exists outside of time and so the rules don't apply." Ok. You win - if it makes you happy.
@mikelheron20 I asked a question similar to what you asked from my theological teacher in the third grade: if God knows what we will all do, then why doesn't he just send all the good people to heaven and all the bad ones to hell and cut this bad middle part, i.e., the earth? Of course, that teacher struggled to answer it and ultimately could not. He was a bit embarrassed. I have pondered on this question myself, and regardless of my answer, we will all find the correct answer from God one day.
@mikelheron20 But I will give you my take on your point but you need to be open minded. From the perspective of this space and time, we can change the future and are always doing that. In Isaiah 46:9-10, God says He alone can tell you the end before it happens. In eternity, God chose a timeline for this universe to satisfy all that He wants. His prophecies to us are a chance for repentance to avoid the outcome of doom as the king and people of Ninevah did in Book of Jonah.
@mikelheron20 How is it "morally unsound" for God to make creatures who can decide to be unhappy? It is not a matter of morality; it's matter of design. Would you have rather been created to be an perfect automaton? God tested Abraham but through that test he told humanity that he rejects human sacrifice. Don't murder yourselves as sacrifice even for Him.
@mikelheron20 God let Satan test Job to tell this world that misfortunes can happen to even good people because He has not graced this world w/ immunity against all evil. He had created another world for the angles in heaven, but as stated in Isaiah 14:12-17 (yes, other interpretations exist), Satan decided to be ungrateful. Satan wanted to be placed above God's throne. So this world, in my opinion, is a demonstration for eternity for why God privileges us by being our ultimate king forever.
@shahriar5252 Does it not strike you as somewhat absurd for you to be defending the actions of God when you know that I don't believe in the existence of God? I don't believe in angels, Satan, and quotations from the Bible are completely irrelevant to me. That's why I described this discussion as pointless. I could spend time telling you why I consider the actions of "God" immoral. I also consider the core belief of Christians - the atonement - absurd and immoral.
@mikelheron20 Well, you are playing it both ways. First you bring up the actions of God in the Bible and say that you object to them, but then when I defend His actions, you say that you don't believe in the story. As I said before, for the sake of argument, assume the accounts written in the bible are true and then based on those accounts try to come up with fair criticism. Then, the discussion will not be pointless. I use the same strategy and criticize their core arguments.
@shahriar5252 You are completely missing the point. Since I don't believe in God, clearly I don't believe that "God" did the things he is said to have done. However, many people do believe these things. That wouldn't matter were it not for the fact that they model their own attitudes and behaviour upon them. Fortunately most people are not literalists and don't stone their children for disobedience but the Bible still sets the moral tone.
@shahriar5252 Assume the accounts in the Bible are true? Ok.but I am not going to repeat all the criticisms and give references for all the crimes that are laid at "God's" door. Just read through the Books of Moses - especially Leviticus & Deuteronomy. Read the book of Job, with an open mind, as if you were coming to those texts for the first time. You'll conclude he's a tyrrant who, were he a head of state, would be hanged for crimes against humanity. He makes Saddam Hussain seem like a saint.
@shahriar5252 But nothing I say to you will alter your views in the slightest - which is fine by me. I have no desire to convert you to my position even if I could. We differ so fundamentally that there is absolutely no possibility of a meeting of minds. I won't be returning to this correspondence but I wish you well.
@mikelheron20 It's your choice to debate further or not, but I hope that our debates have made you think more critically about your view points. I have learned a lot from debating you by thinking critically about my view point to be able to answer your criticism. And no, you can alter my views points if you present facts and come up with an arguments that debunks my arguments definitively. But you must be open to this happening to your arguments too. I wish you well too.
@shahriar5252 You really think bombs are the answer don't you. Unfortunately so does the other side. Pakistan and Iran now have nukes. How much longer do you think we can rely upon Mutual Assured Destruction. It's a miracle (don't take that literally) we haven't gone up in a puff of cosmic smoke before.
@mikelheron20 True: the other side wants world domination by swords, bombs, etc. We want bombs or adequate weapons that neutralizes the other sides power and schemes out of necessity. If the other side, i.e., that other evil culture did not exist, we wouldn't want any bombs. In such a case, I would rather put the money into more research for curing diseases or feeding the poor. It's sad, but so much of our money MUST BE "wasted" on defense or we will be wasted by the enemy. Pray for evil's end.
@shahriar5252 why don't you read the books I mentioned and get the point I am trying to explain? Hitler used Christianity just to fool the German public. He wasn't sincere. He quit going to mass a kid. Whether you can call yourself "Catholic" [and never really quit] means nothing. And guess what? Alfred Rosenberg, a "self proclaim atheist" supported the Nazis. Dr Goebbels also quit going to Catholic mass, but his belief was probably just deistic, or indifferent.
@Bruno53ification I think you were trying to send this reply for someone else but you accidentally clicked on my name. I totally agree that Hitler was not a Christian and was only using Christianity and references to God for propaganda.
Another video associating Hitler with this or that.
Let's see...Hitler was a Nazi...Hitler liked women...51% of ALL Americans are women...therefore, 51% of ALL AMERICANS ARE NAZIS!
I just blew your mind...NOT!
Your logic is even more faulty than mine.
Next time, just keep your idiocy to yourself. Read a book, take a class, do anything but post videos as if you've discovered something new when all you've discovered is how dumb you are...
Yes, again majority of people in Germany were still Christians... even in the Wehrmacht.. Not allot of Christians in the SS though or Hitlers inner circle. Remember, the Pine Tree is a German tradition before becoming associated with Christmas. The Cross, isn't only a christian symbol as well, it is used in a variety of religions, cultures.
There was even a Muslim Volunteer SS division. Muslims were't considered Aryan, or Germanic, it was just a Volunteer division.
Those Wehrmacht crosses don't prove anything really lol. Try looking at the Pagan, occult roots of the SS. In fact, at the end of the war, crosses were replaced with the ancient Germanic runic symbol for life ( weird, perhaps thinking of life after death ) on soldiers grave sites.
" I swear by God " Is a 2nd Reich era slogan not a Third Reich one. Hitler had plans to disband Christianity in Nazi Germany entirely after the war but those plans never were fulfilled.
He couldn't disband it all together, because that would shock the populace who are predominantly christian. Much like the Romans did to integrate Christianity into it's mostly Pagan populace. They slowly did it, making the change not so extreme so they still worshiped on the 25st of December, just for Christ.
Yeah senior church officials such as Arch dukes payed homage to Hitler more out of fear and met to discuss the Church's future within the Nazi State .That dose't mean Hitler is de facto a Christian.
In the 1930's, the word " Christmas " is banned from all books. Majority of the clergy in Poland was rounded up along with Jews. The ones that collaborated were not killed.
And the German Christians were only a pressure group within Protestantism, that isn't true chritianity, it was Nazism integrated into the Protestant faith so the two could be compatible ( Not Hitlers idea). It was a way of securing Nazi support from ( A minority) Christians, the way the SA was to secure working class support.
You have his head down, that does not mean he was praying to Christ or even praying at all for that matter. He could have been praying to the flying fucking spaghetti monster, or just having a moment silence before addressing an audience.
You have him attending a Wedding, which would be considered rude if he refused, it's common courtesy to attend, even if you don't believe in the Bible. And that looks like Rudolph Hess ( Probably not but it does bear a shocking close resemblance even though he was married in the 1920's), one of Hitlers major allies.
You have him at a rally saluting in front of a church... coincidence that a church has a large enough area in front of the street were the parade is.
Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No IMMORAL (HITLER), impure, or greedy(THE POPE) person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God!!!!
Not christians! but only hypocrites! Obama said he was a Christian too, and we know now that he is not. Are you then going to believe hitler, or the pope with his giant property, living a rich life? Atheists its time you put this ignorance behind you, its not convincing anyone expect those that hate religion
Hitler's "Jewish problem" was identical, point for point, to Martin Luther's "Jewish problem." The holocaust was the offspring of German Protestantism. Case closed.Whether Hitler and Goebels waffled on their Christianity later in the Reich is irrelevant. They came to power by using the Christianity of the German masses...and the hatred of Jews came right down from the founder of protestantism, and continued through all the great christain leaders, not the least of which were Spurgeon and Calvin
In order for you to believe Adolf Hitler was a christian, you have to ignore all of the anti-christian quotes he made as well as all of the Pagan symbolism he used. Adolf Hitler stated christian things to get the majority of people on his side, because he knew most of Germany at the time was christian. "Satan is the value-setting and value-increasing principle ...Satan is the fertilizing, destroying/constructing warrior." - Adolf Hitler
I really don't understand the comments of this video. We can't determinate the truth of a view of the world just because people who believe in this vision makes things inconsistent with their vision, act against their vision.What happens then with Islam with atheism?. If a say: I'm Christian and then I rape and kill a little girl, does this make such religion false? I don't think that is the case.
Ok, so the "Hitler=Christian=evil" soundbite no longer works, so we go to "Hitler=Christian-and-was-still-evil-therefore-Christianity-doesn't-work" soundbite. This one isn't quite so catchy as the other, which makes it problematic for a New Atheist, but maybe Richard Dawkins can hone it down to the standard 15 second N/A attention span.
hitler banned atheists ive seen pictures of him younger as a choir type boy anyone can prove he was christian with a laptop. why you asamed. church doctrine says he is in heaven. so dont waste time lying and saying he was not . the people can google it and see for themselves this man in xtian heaven with his transexual dress and harp playing in clouds for eternity.
christians say they are all forgiven already . the greater the sin the greater the redemption. that is why they all rape kids. ppl like jimmy swaggert , anis shorrosh cos of this IMMORAL BIBLE teaching of dont have to do good deeds . so they say hitler is in heaven . this is what church has told world for centuries were already forgiven no wonder they brutally killed millions in europe
@Dabhach1 I think this warrants a response. Sajakram1 has picked up an early Christian heresy which was judged outside orthodoxy about 1800 years ago. Mohammed picked up the same heresy and put it into the Qu'ran totally misrepresenting Christianity. This is a typical Islamic response based on limited or no understanding of the position they are criticising. Hitler was no more Christian than Mohammed (and the similarities don't end there sadly).
If Hitler was a Christian, presumably the atheist argument is that Christianity is evil because one of its followers committed mass murder; meanwhile, just over the Soviet border, an atheist named Stalin was doing the same in the name of atheism. Does this mean atheism is evil, or Stalin was evil? If the latter, then may we infer it was Hitler who was evil, not Christianity? Or does the evil man/evil philosophy continuum only count when we're sticking it to Christians?
That's not the argument atheists are making. The argument is that christians can't claim that christianity prevents evil from taking place, that faith is the source of morality and that only atheists can do monstrous acts; because hitler ( along with other dictators like Musolini, Franco, Pinochet, Perón etc) and most of his followers were christian.
We are not saying that if Hitler : Christian --> Christian = evil. that would be an "ad hominem" falacy.
@Dabhach1 The fact is that Christians bring up Hitler all the time as an example of atheists lack of moral, and the facts that his army was Christian and supported by the catholic church is just a response to that since we have had enough of Christian lies by now.
How do you think it's possible to control peoples in the name of atheism?
If you open your eyes you can see religious groups make a war to a book like Harry Potter for example, building hate is easy with "Gods words"
@lonovik People keep debating whether Hitler was a Christian or an atheist of some sort. Personally, the evidence seems to suggest that he was neither. He acknowledged some sort of god (so long as that god agreed with him), so that means that he wasn't an atheist. Still, from what information we have, I think that it's safe to say that he pretty much just made up his own religion.
Hitler doesn't fit in with atheism OR Christianity.
Tonight on Brad Metzler's Decoded, "The Spear of Destiny". Let's try a little logic here. If H/tler was after the Spear of Destiny for it's special power, that means H/tler would have to believe JESUS WAS THE SON OF GOD! Otherwise the spear is a piece of metal with no value whatsoever. And why was he after the spear....because he was a Christian!
maybe lonovik is confused about the meaning of christianity? We could call Pol Pot a catholic too if we were so inclined. After all, he attended catholic school.
We don't need proof because everyone knows he was a Roman Catholic (even though some idiots say he was atheist) but anyway it was obvious by posters and speeches of his that mentioned god or quoted the bible, I cant tell all of them are or aren't (I'm not a nazi supporter) but do know from the ones I've seen here and there that he very clearly believed in a god.
While this is not proof, I still don't like to think of Christians as victims. Christians just like to say that they're discriminated against so that they won't have to feel guilty about the Christocentric society we live in. If Hitler wanted to do away with Chrisianity it was so he could be the new Christ.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
My goodness this is not proof, it's some pictures. Any reading of statements of Hitler and his philosophical advisers readily shows he planned to rid his Reich of Xtianity completely! The Nazi's persecuted priests to no end. I mean, come on, an elementary understanding of politics tells all but the most dense that Hitler had to appeal to a majority Xtian populace to succeed to power, but his real philosophical basis was a cocktail of darwinist materialism and nietschean atheism("God is dead")
@metanosis Bullshit. He was born and baptized as a Catholic. He had ties with the Vatican. He mentions his belief in the "Lord" in Mein Kamf. How convenient of you bible thumpers to just dismiss all of that evidence as "propaganda". The misinformation that you spread about Hitler's faith is propaganda. Why do you think he had such a focus on Jews? Catholic vs Jews? Ring a bell? Besides, the personal belief of one person does not represent the whole. Get your head out of your ass.
@iz2sicc Born Catholic? Mentions the "Lord", not sure how these abrogate Hitler's many documented writings of his desire was to rid his Reich of Xtianity?, or his many documented actions taken against Catholic priests,Xtians in general,many ended up in the camps, executed! Sure, his focus on the Jews was cultural, but his actions to commit genocide was clearly based on his darwinist/neitschean naturalism, he continually referred to Jews as a bacillus, in need of extermination.
@metanosis Hmmm... well documented writings? Let's see your references then. I have a feeling you pulled that information from the Table Talk book which has no substantiated evidence to back it up. It's merely hearsay. The Catholic Church did not even denounce Hitler until after his death. That's because Hitler kept ties with them throughout the Nazi era. So again, provide your sources. I have already given you mine which came from Hitler's very own book which he himself authored.
@iz2sicc Good lord man, just wiki it...Catholic Church would have loved to denounce Hitler, except if would have cost many their lives, ...in the end it did anyway, many many priests murdered....they were between a rock and a hard place, they erred on the side of preserving lives.....
@metanosis But let's get back to the point. Say he was Atheist. What does that prove? Because Hitler was Atheist, all Atheists are immoral? Because I can play that same game with Christianity. Crusades? Inquisition? Burning people at the stake?
@iz2sicc proves ideas have consequences, comes down to rule of law, or rule of man,atheist dictators heed no rule of law, only themselves, Hitler had the army swear personal fealty to him, not the country or constitution. BIG difference, Xtianity's sins were result of NOT following Christ,( no surprise here, original sin, man is inherently sinful, power hungry, selfish),
whilst Hitler's were a direct result of his worldview,"When there is no God, everything is permitted", Doesteovsky
There is no proof in this video. Hitler and the Nazis always tried to keep a facade of being Christian, so as to get the people on board.
bacabu30 6 hours ago
Judge a tree by its fruit,
and not by the color of its leaves
or the shape of its branches...
"This, tastes good".
johnnytoogood007 5 days ago
It is written, The Lord knows who are his.
Wherefore satanists can "go to church", may call themselves
"christian" but that does not (will not) make it so... Likewise,
a Christian might call himself a satanist, but that does not (will
not) make it so... When (if) a Christian does that, I merely assume
"I guess he knows what he is doing".
johnnytoogood007 5 days ago
Is this music from...Soul Reaver? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
SecularWolf 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
James 2:17
In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead
JesusisLord685 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Any argument that Hitler believed in Jesus is out of ignorance. You think this because you have no spiritual understanding whatsoever.
Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Hitler, his wars, and his huge armies and his long worldly speeches should be enough for you realize, but I guess its not.
JesusisLord685 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Saying someone did not follow what Jesus taught, and therefore is not a Christian, is NOT a NTSF. Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No IMMORAL (HITLER), impure, or greedy(THE POPE) person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God!!.... Hitler did not profess Jesus as his Lord and savior, he was a greedy and WORLDLY man, no doubt about that.. Read what Jesus actually said!
JesusisLord685 3 weeks ago
Worryingly others appear to agree with you. Extract from a militant Israeli website: "The Torah is clear – we are to destroy such people. We must make them disappear one by one. Now that the blessed SEALS of the US Armed Forces successfully eradicated the Senior Amalekite Osama Bin Laden, they’ve now got more work to do. We have to wipe them all out. Sometimes you just can’t and shouldn’t make peace with certain types of people." I see where you get your inspiration.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 There is nothing evil in what these so-called militant Israelis say on their website. All the are saying is that they must defend themselves against those that see it as the duty to murder them. They may have put it dramatic biblical terms, but from their above quotes, they have said nothing about killing truly innocent people--that is people that want no conflict with them. Maybe you hate them and their dramatic quotes because you hate the bible. However, I totally agree w/ them.
shahriar5252 4 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 Despite what you probably believe, I am not a pacifist. I believe that people have a right to defend themselves - individually and collectively. However, If you've read the website you will know that it goes waaaay beyond this. Yes, I do hate the Bible - or large parts of it - because people use it to justify immoral actions. I feel the same way about the Qu'ran and any text people follow slavishly without thinking.
mikelheron20 4 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 It is illogical for you to say that you hate the bible because people use it to justify immoral action. Blame the bible if it actually commands people to commit immoral unjustifiable non-self-defensive action, but don't blame the bible for others' stupidity. The Catholic church committed many crimes throughout the centuries, but it would be immoral to blame Jesus for it because not only did he not command it but specifically and consistently preached against it.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:...Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;..And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deut 21:18-21
mikelheron20 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 In the passage quoted "God" specifies the crimes that justify killing your son: "stubbornness, gluttony, rebelliousness and drunkenness". Lucky for teenagers that we don't follow the commands of God anymore, wouldn't you say? Please provide me with the moral or self-defence justification for God's injunction. I look forward to it.
mikelheron20 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 Fair question. Drunkenness and gluttony by themselves are not a crime; otherwise, Noah should have been executed when he got drunk and his son sexually abused him. The bible (Deut. 12:20) also permits eating as much meat as you like, so gluttony would be not be eligible for a death sentence. But gluttony itself may eventually become a death sentence by diseases such as atheroscelerosis. Cont...
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 Deut 21:18-21 gives society's judges, not parents, the ability to impose death on a rebellious and stubborn son as requested by both parents, but what the verse does not say is what rebellion and stubbornness merits such death sentence. It leaves that up to society to determine. It requires that the rebellion and stubbornness be combined with drunkenness and gluttony to limit the application of such law to the extremes of society. Cont...
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 In today's society, it would be the equivalent of letting parents Charles Manson or Philip Garrido to ask for death against their rebellious sons when those sons decided to use LSD and other mind altering drugs to damage their brains and make them psychopaths. Cont...
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 Right. Just so that I'm clear, the penalty for "getting stoned" is that you should be stoned for real? Because, obviously, anyone who ever smoked a joint or used LSD will go on to become a murdering, raping psychopath. As for gluttons, don't get me started! That's how cannibalism began. It starts with an extra potato and you end by eating your dad. My sister took away my Action Man when I was a kid. Sadly, she wasn't stoned to death and now, she's a psychopathic kidnapper.
mikelheron20 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 I've replied facetiously because I can't take you seriously.Apart from the fact that you're rewriting Deuteronomy to suit your own purposes, your lack of logic is staggering.Your argument is tantamount to saying that if Alois Hitler had strangled Adolf the first time he said "Nein" to a parental command, World War II could have been prevented.I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt in case you eventually say something sensible but I'm afraid you just get sillier and sillier.
mikelheron20 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 Yes, I can interpret Deut 21:18-21 to suit my purposes b/c the law is vague and leaves it up to society to define rebellion and stubbornness that deserves death. From my investigation, I have never come across any historic accounts in the bible (OT or NT) or in latter rabbinical or church writings in which someone was actually sentenced to death under this law. It seems that the law was enacted to strike fear into the heart of a potential criminal rebel.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 No, the law does not give Alois Hitler the power to pronounce death sentence on her children. She along with the father can only present a case to society and society has the power to pronounce such a sentence according to what society deems a legitimate rebellion or stubbornness that deserves death. Deut 21:18-21 gives this option to society and its vagueness leaves it up to society (i.e., judges and legislators) to decide its application, not to individuals.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 I wrote that Deut 21:18-21 does not state what rebellion & stubbornness merits such death sentence. The passage limits its use by requiring other things such as drunkenness and gluttony in addition to rebellion & stubbornness. Society must decide if the self-inflicted brain-damaged LSD rebel is thinking & serious about harming others and then impose the death sentence to stop such a person pre-emptively. I don't understand what the 2nd portion of you last comment means. Re-explain.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 So now you're advocating pre-emptive death sentences - just in case someone becomes a murderer etc.? My friend you haven't so much lost the plot as never had the plot. I don't really know what it is you don't understand. It seems quite clear to me. The last thing I said was that your comments are become very silly. I know that lays me open to another "ad hominem" charge but so be it. I only continued this discussion out of courtesy but it is becoming too ridiculous for words. Sorry
mikelheron20 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 So now you're are implicitly admitting that Deut 21:18-21 does not impose the death sentence for gluttony and drunkenness as I proved to you by biblical cases. Now you are inditing my application of this law, but no longer the passage! A small victory for the bible. I will propose my case for what rebellion or stubbornness deserves death sentence here as well as others, and society will decide on it by legislation.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 As for pre-emptive death sentences: Please read my responses carefully and don't distort or trivialize what I say. Quote a specific part of what I said and objectively specify what you see wrong. Here is specific case where I would apply the law: If a son chooses to damage his brain as Philip Garrido did w/ LSD and if I catch him planning to or attempting to kidnap a girl, I would ask society to impose the death sentence to prevent harm to others. It's fair.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shahriar5252 Dear Shahriar This correspondence has been going onm for some time now. I could simply not reply to you but I don't want to be rude. I'll do you the courtesy of believing you actually mean the things you say. However, (1) many of them are based on a premiss that I don't accept - that there is a God (2) I find it unprofitable to argue at such a level - your points are juvenile and frankly embarrassing. If I ignore them it is because they don't merit a response. I'm used to debating
mikelheron20 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shahriar5252 with people who, though they don't share my views, are able to argue intelligently. You think you're scoring points but in fact you're simply making yourself appear stupid. I remember having arguments like this at school - when I was 13. I'm sure you will interpret this reply as some sort of admission that I can't match your arguments. That's fine with me. I'm more than happy for you to have the last word. But please make it the last. In any event, I shan't be replying.
mikelheron20 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 If Philip Garrido's parents had asked for such punishment against their evil, rebellious and stubborn son and society was wise enough to have done it, Philip Garrido would not have been able to kidnap and rape his first victim and then be let out by a foolish society to kidnapp, rape, and imprison another innocent girl for 18 years. So the bible lets parents and society destroy evil sons by pre-emptive action but society must be wise in use of such law.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 You presented the best of that website here and called those statements as evil, and I pointed out that your criticism was not objective. You just did not like their use of dramatic biblical terms to describe evil people like Osama. You have presented nothing from that site so far that shows they are bad. By the way, in the bible (Proverbs 24:17), it say that you are not to joy from the fall and destruction of your enemy. Osama chose evil and doom, and there is no joy in that.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
And Hitler was not a practicing atheist, although a few atheists did support him, like writers and phony "philosophers" and "intellectuals" Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Alfred Rosenberg. His "God", or "providence" was only a gimmick to fool people. Get your records STRAIGHT, idiots!
Bruno53ification 1 month ago
@Bruno53ification A "practicing atheist"? What exactly do you think atheists practice?
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 there two types of atheists: one theoritical [like Christopher Hitchens], and one who "thinks" he might believe in "God" but never go to church, never pray and never gives thoughts on spirituality. I bet most people are like that everywhere.
Bruno53ification 1 month ago
@Bruno53ification All atheists are "theoretical" in the sense that God is a theoretical construct. Hitchens described himself as an anti-theist. So do I. The other person you described is no more an atheist than a theist. It is someone who hasn't given the matter sufficient thought to have an opinion.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 don't be so dogamtic. What do want: a fanatic believer i some "God", or just someone who "thinks" there is some "God" but doesn't give a damn. I rather be with the second one. One thing I criticize Mr Hitchens and Dr Dawkins, and I understand their atheism, is how "dogmatic" they can be. Let us not lower ourselves to the Christian fundamentalists, please. And I admit having some of them as friends, despite my religious skepticism.
Bruno53ification 1 month ago
@Bruno53ification It's got nothing to do with being dogmatic. It's about the correct use of language. I think it's important. I couldn't give a flying fuck what other people believe. Most of the people I know believe in some sort of God. Accusing Hitchens of dogmatism demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about what he had to say. He was passionate and was prepared to say things that people didn't like to hear. But his position was simple. Give me evidence. If that's dogmatism so be it.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 He maintained that religion poisons everything and provided plenty of evidence to support his position. He refused to be intimidated by, or give special, obsequious, consideration and respect, to religion. We need more people like him. Dawkins is not in the same league as a polemicist. And sometimes I find him too abrasive - but rarely is he as rude or aggressive as the people he argues against.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 well, at least Mr Hitchens was honest about it.
Bruno53ification 1 month ago
@Bruno53ification Not sure what that comment refers to.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
Hitler was no more "Christian" as so many people claim to be "Christians', but rarely practice what Jesus Christ taught. Don't confuse one thing with another. USA a "Christian" country? Baloney! Most "Christian" megachurches are plain phony. The same happened in Germany during Hitler's time. One thing is to call yourself "Christian", another is being "one".
Bruno53ification 1 month ago
So what? Ancient churches are everywhere in Europe. He was no atheist. But his "christianity" was vague and not sincere. Source: "Hitler's Tabletalk", edited by Trevor Roper. And "The God Delusional" by Dr Richard Dawkins. Another good source of Hitler's "christianity": "The 12 Years Reich" by Richard Grunberger. Hitler called himself "christian", but he never went to church. And never was seen praying. He just used Christianity as a "gimmick".
Bruno53ification 1 month ago
Hitler was an atheist in his beliefs. At some point, he stopped paying church taxes and left the Catholic church. It's true that the Catholic church was heavily anti-Semitic and Hitler may have harvested those hateful ideologies. But Hitler was not a Christian b/c he did not believe in the biblical Jesus. He did not like Jesus' being an Eastern man (i.e.,a Jew), so he wanted the church to change the gospels and make Jesus into an Aryan white man whom the evil Eastern men (i.e. the Jews) killed.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 How does that make him any more atheistic in his beliefs? The question is did he believe in "a" god? Doesn't matter if it's the biblical one or not, as long as he believed in some god, he was a theist.
flensdude 1 month ago
@flensdude He was an atheist in his beliefs and was a megalomania too because he pretended to be a christ whose kingdom would last a 1000 years--his way of mocking the promised 1000 year reign of the New Testament. So Hitler is definitely an atheist.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 ... That is not the definition of being an atheist! You are an atheist if and only if you do not believe in some kind of a god.
Sure, he might have disagreed with Christianity. So what? Muslims disagree with Christianity as well! Are they atheists?
The question is not whether he was a megalomania (lol, what about the pope?) who pretended to be a messiah, but whether he genuinely believed in a god of any shape or form of existence.
You dig?
flensdude 1 month ago
@flensdude Hitler converted to atheism at least at some point in his life. Yes, he did bring up the topic of god in his propaganda book and speeches, but he did not believe in god or any other deity. Hitler's mention of God in his early propagandas was only to consolidate power through lies. He was a committed social Darwinist, an atheistic believe system that believes survival of the fittest is the destiny of the stronger humans. Search YouTube for "Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not."
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 What? You find YouTube vidoes to be of high credibility? I am certain I could find a lot of vidoes that say he was indeed a Christian, others stating he was a believer in some god, and some saying he was an atheist. Do you have any credible sources than just "search on YouTube"?
If you know an historian on YouTube, I might believe him, but just randomly searching on YouTube is stupid.
Also, being a believer in social Darwinism isn't a guarantee for being an atheist.
flensdude 1 month ago
@flensdude I pointed out the YouTube video as a reference for you. The maker of the video does list the sources of his quotes either in the video or in the descriptions via a link, so get a hold of the sources and read the quotes there if you like. Social Darwinism was Hitler's inspiration and the cause of genocide during WWII. Social Darwinism is definitely an atheist ideology. Don't try to weasel out of it!
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 Social Darwinism is an atheistic ideology? You're pissing against the wind now. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Atheism at all. It may not be a part of Christianity since Christianity "promotes" solidarity and compassion, but hey, Christianity doesn't hold a world monopoly for defining religion, you know.
Social Darwinism is a lifestance that can be adopted by atheists and religious people alike, just as Humanism. Saying otherwise is a lame attack against Atheism.
flensdude 1 month ago
@flensdude Social Darwinism and humanism are two atheistic approaches to life. But they are both atheistic ideas. I hope that atheist choose humanism instead of Hitler's embrace of social Darwinism. The problem with humanism is that it assumes that humans are innately good, but my life experiences has shown me the contrary. Most humans have to be taught the golden rule: love your neighbor as you love yourself. And most people don't follow the golden rule b/c they don't believe in accountability.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 Let me stress this for you: Many religious persons are humanists as well.
The assumption that being a humanist implies that you're an atheist is wrong. There exist within Christendom people who are Christian humanists, but religious humanism isn't limited to Christianity only.
Social Darwinism is a lifestance--you're free to adopt it for a religious, non-religious or anti-religious purpose, whatever suits you the most. It isn't linked with atheism exclusively.
flensdude 1 month ago
@flensdude Not true. humanism is a secular movement. To claim to be a religious humanist is like saying you're a meat eating vegetarian. Don't confuse modern humanism with the humanism of the Renaissance. Not all atheists are humanists but all humanists are atheist or agnostic. Of course, you're entitled to call yourself anything you like but that doesn't make it true.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 I'm not confusing anything. If I am, than I've been taught a lie by the Norwegian public school--I highly doubt this. Moreover, I've been taught a lie by my teacher in the public school who was in fact a humanist (she's a member of the Norwegian Humanist Association whose members are all atheists).
Perhaps there's a variation in terms of how Norwegians utilise the word humanist compared to the English language?
flensdude 1 month ago
@flensdude I am aware that some people try to divide humanism into two varieties - secular and religious. To do so is, in my view, to completely misunderstand what humanism is. But as I said, people can call themselves whatever they choose.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 There is a term used in Norwegian: "Livssynshumanisme", which in English would rougly translate to "Lifestance Humanism" or "Humanism as a worldview". These are atheists and agnostics who have humanism as a worldview.
However, the term humanism in Norwegian is to some extent secular, but not entirely so.
I thought the same distinction was present in the English language, but appearently it isn't so.
flensdude 1 month ago
@flensdude Allow me to quote from "Humanism by Peter Cave".who puts it better than I: " Some religious believers Jews, Christians, Muslims and others, speak of themselves as humanists. According to mainstream humanists though, belief in Yaweh, God or Allah, if the belief is suitably tepid or humanized, at best adds nothing of value to godless humanism: if the belief is stringent and literal, it is highly dangerous to both reason and morality."
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean belief in some god isn't compatible with humanism. You could perfectly be some theist and be a humanist if for example your god or goddess doesn't meddle much with our world, nor do they give us moral standards. Buddhism is kinda close to this kind of view.
But to exclude all religious views from humanism, no matter how small they are, is kind drawing a line of a place which hasn't been fully explored yet.
flensdude 1 month ago
@flensdude I'm afraid I do think belief in god is incompatible with humanism unless you're using the word "humanism" in a watered down sense that implies little more than respecting other people and being nice to them. There's nothing wrong with that but it's not what I mean by "humanism" which is "Understanding and giving sense to the world without God." In my view, even deism elevates belief over reason (supported by scientific evidence) and is counter to what humanism stands for.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@flensdude No, the humanism that you associate with religion, i.e., Christianity, is really a different philosophy based on charity, forgiveness, and the golden rule (love your neighbor as you love yourself). Atheist that were unhappy w/ the idea that being good meant that you should be good because God is good and loves goodness came up w/ humanism based on the idea that humans are innately good, an idea that is rejected by Christianity based on man's innate rebellious nature and original sin.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@flensdude As for social Darwinism, have you ever seen a religious social Darwinist? By religious, I mean someone that is truly God loving and believes in the fundamental precepts of the Judeo-Christian bible. Social Darwinism is the exact opposite of the biblical concepts of charity and the golden rule (love your neighbor as you love yourself). Instead of charity and the golden rule, both hated by Hitler (YouTube: Was Hitler a Christian? No, he was not.), social Darwinism says exterminate them.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
Comment removed
mikelheron20 1 month ago
Comment removed
mikelheron20 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shahriar5252 Your interpretation of the "fundamental precepts" of the Judaeo-Christian Bible is highly selective. The God of the Old Testament has very little in common with "gentle Jesus meek and mild". Yaweh was much more interested in being worshipped, giving detailed instructions for the construction of tabernacles, mass slaughter, and enforcing rules about diet and sexual activity, than he was about "the golden rule". When it comes to genocide, compared to God, Hitler was an amateur.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 Not true. The bible has many fundamental precepts, and I mentioned the relevant ones here, so I am not being selective. Please make your argument based on those precepts as they appear in the bible. Both the God of the Old Testament and Jesus stated and re-stated the golden rule: Love your neighbor as you love yourself and don't mistreat strangers among you because you were strangers once in Egypt.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 God's command of worshipping him alone and his orders to exterminate or drive out the Canaanites, Amalekites, or a tribe of Mideanites was to prevent murder or to destroy the human sacrificers and their culture. That command is just even for our time as was the carpet bombings that leveled German cities and its civilians and the two nukes on Japan that broke the back of the emperor and his generals and that evil culture: emperor worship, sacrifice, and mass murder of neighbors.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 You and I clearly have very different standards of morality. Any further discussion between us would be pointless.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 I agree that we have different standards of morality. And I have a different concept of self-defense and you don't agree with what God did in the bible regarding the human sacrificers. I hope we never have to adhere to your way of dealing with such people because it may result in our own destruction. And unlike you, I don't think that discussing thing w/ you is pointless if you are willing to accept a logical resolution to the problems, one that does not result in our destruction.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 In the first place I don't believe in God so what he "did" in the Bible is without meaning. Non-existent beings don't do anything. But what is alarming is that many people (you are one of them) find these Biblical stories appealing and seek to defend or even emulate God's actions. I don't know if you are a literalist but the Flood is a case in point. We read that God destroyed his creation - apart from Noah and his family. God demands death for almost every human transgression.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 For the sake of argument, assume that God does exist and did order all those things. Yes, I take the bible literally--as plainly as it is written unless the verses clearly tell you it's a metaphor. Regarding the flood, it was a regional flood that destroyed the civilized world, not the globe. Not enough space here to explain it, but you can message me regarding the flood. In the flood God destroyed those that did not want to change. Otherwise, Noah warned them for 100 years.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 "God destroyed those that did not want to change." Great message to mankind isn't it? Then God has the gall to say "Thou shalt not kill"! There should be an 11th Commandment: "Do as I say - not as I do." Thank God (irony intended) we don't base our morality on what God does.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 God's solution to everything appears to be wipe em out and start again. Show no mercy- kill anything that stands in your way. The New Testament is no better. (Believe or burn!) Shame he didn't give a better lead.He could have told the Jews and Amalekites to sit down and resolve their differences peacefully.Shown them how to negotiate Find me an example in the Bible where God encourages negotiation.No wonder you think carpet bombing and nuking is the answer to the world's problems.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 In the harsh Sinai desert (which is in northern Saudi Arabia) and the surrounding regions, the rule was kill or be killed. No time for negotiations. You cannot demand that God tell the Israelites sit down and negotiate with their enemies. By the way, just to make you happy, they did attempt negotiations with some other people to no avails. Amalekites would not listen to God to want to negotiate. Can you negotiate with Hitler or Bin Laden? Bombs can! I don't like it but no choice.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 You're missing the point. If God is omnipotent (parting the Red Sea, Pillars of Fire, destroying the world by flood blah blah) it shouldn't be beyond his capacity to force the warring sides to negotiate and show them how to do it. But that thought never seems to enter his omniscient brain. Men had to figure that out all for themselves - once they stopped worrying about dietary prohibitions and building tabernacles.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 God has power over nature and the laws of physics. But he has given man the power to choose for himself. Therefore, He has given man power to disobey Him no matter the appeasement or the punishment. So by choice of His will, He created man to be rebellious enough to reject peace no matter what. In such cases, negotiations will be fruitless. To change man's mind, God has gone about changing man's culture and to empower good cultures to check man's evil nature in this world.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shahriar5252 Yeah. I was waiting for the "Free will" argument. "He has created man to be rebellious enough to reject peace no matter what." In other words God's creation is flawed. This has been summarised as "God made us sick and commands us to be well." Ok. We've reached that point in this dialogue (which has been fun) where the differences that separate us make discussion pointless. Everything you say is predicated upon the idea of God, whom I believe to be a fiction. Have a nice life.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 Argue objectively based on what you logically see as flawed w/ the argument instead of resorting to ad hominem talk by poking fun at the "free will" argument. You labeled God's creation as flawed. I say it's perfect because God said "...that it was good." That is, it was adequate. God has free will, and he wanted his creation to have the same instead of being automatons that you implicitly called perfect. I would prefer to debate my differences with you rather than give up on you.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 There was no ad hominem intended. I have taken part in enough discussions of this sort to know that they run to a pattern. It's rather like a game of chess. The free will "move" was predictable. that's all. The notion that God - who after all makes the rules of the game - should choose to make creatures who can decide to be unhappy is morally unsound.He even goes out of his way e.g. Job, Abraham to test his creatures to breaking point - just to see what they will do.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 By the way, you might want to think about your use of phrases like "rather than give up on you". Some people might find them slightly patronising. I have read widely and deeply and given all these matters considerable thought over many years. I know the Bible better than most Christians of my acquaintance. I haven't heard an original argument about God from a believer of any kind for many years That's why, as I said, these discussions reach the point of futility. No offence.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 You are again defending your ad hominem attack on the "free will" answer that I gave you. Just because others have brought up to you attention, it does not become a wrong answer. God has given us free will to choose right or wrong, and this argument will be brought up to you attention and the attention of others forever; it will never become a cliche unless you are willing to be illogical in your arguments. You are angry at the free will argument b/c it has debunked your arguments.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 I'm not angry with the Free will argument - I'm bored by it.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 Well, don't be bored by it. Instead, think of better logical counter arguments. However, do leave room that if you found your logic to be wrong, that you admit defeat and change your philosophy. It's happened to me many times. At some point after learning about evolution, I dismissed the claims of the bible, but believe it or not, that very science and logical arguments, both proved my previous and and classical allegorical interpretation of the bible wrong as well as evolution.
shahriar5252 4 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 I've thought deeply for years & studied secular & religious philosophy including theodicy.I know the arguments theologians cite about free will.I can tell you what thinkers from Augustine to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and John Stuart Mill had to say.I can quote you C.S. Lewis.There's nothing new to be said.The Free will argument entails logical fallacies which believers ignore or side step.I repeat,I simply don't believe in God so these points have no meaning for me.
mikelheron20 4 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 I am glad that you have studied the thinking of all these philosophers. But do understand that our best philosophers may be wrong because they come up withe their ideas based on the best that we know, not based on all that there and need to be known before finding the correct conclusion. You belief in God for the purposes of these arguments is irrelevant. In your arguments you have used certain accounts of the bible to be bad and evil and I have used the context to prove you wrong.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 The Free will argument fails in so many ways. But let me just give you one. God is omniscient. He knows everything that is going to happen before it happens. God is incapable of being wrong. If God already knows what you are going to do before you do it there is nothing you can do to alter it. It's childishly obvious. The theist response (see CS Lewis) "Ah, but God exists outside of time and so the rules don't apply." Ok. You win - if it makes you happy.
mikelheron20 4 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 I asked a question similar to what you asked from my theological teacher in the third grade: if God knows what we will all do, then why doesn't he just send all the good people to heaven and all the bad ones to hell and cut this bad middle part, i.e., the earth? Of course, that teacher struggled to answer it and ultimately could not. He was a bit embarrassed. I have pondered on this question myself, and regardless of my answer, we will all find the correct answer from God one day.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 But I will give you my take on your point but you need to be open minded. From the perspective of this space and time, we can change the future and are always doing that. In Isaiah 46:9-10, God says He alone can tell you the end before it happens. In eternity, God chose a timeline for this universe to satisfy all that He wants. His prophecies to us are a chance for repentance to avoid the outcome of doom as the king and people of Ninevah did in Book of Jonah.
shahriar5252 3 weeks ago
@mikelheron20 How is it "morally unsound" for God to make creatures who can decide to be unhappy? It is not a matter of morality; it's matter of design. Would you have rather been created to be an perfect automaton? God tested Abraham but through that test he told humanity that he rejects human sacrifice. Don't murder yourselves as sacrifice even for Him.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 God let Satan test Job to tell this world that misfortunes can happen to even good people because He has not graced this world w/ immunity against all evil. He had created another world for the angles in heaven, but as stated in Isaiah 14:12-17 (yes, other interpretations exist), Satan decided to be ungrateful. Satan wanted to be placed above God's throne. So this world, in my opinion, is a demonstration for eternity for why God privileges us by being our ultimate king forever.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 Does it not strike you as somewhat absurd for you to be defending the actions of God when you know that I don't believe in the existence of God? I don't believe in angels, Satan, and quotations from the Bible are completely irrelevant to me. That's why I described this discussion as pointless. I could spend time telling you why I consider the actions of "God" immoral. I also consider the core belief of Christians - the atonement - absurd and immoral.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 Well, you are playing it both ways. First you bring up the actions of God in the Bible and say that you object to them, but then when I defend His actions, you say that you don't believe in the story. As I said before, for the sake of argument, assume the accounts written in the bible are true and then based on those accounts try to come up with fair criticism. Then, the discussion will not be pointless. I use the same strategy and criticize their core arguments.
shahriar5252 4 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 You are completely missing the point. Since I don't believe in God, clearly I don't believe that "God" did the things he is said to have done. However, many people do believe these things. That wouldn't matter were it not for the fact that they model their own attitudes and behaviour upon them. Fortunately most people are not literalists and don't stone their children for disobedience but the Bible still sets the moral tone.
mikelheron20 4 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 Assume the accounts in the Bible are true? Ok.but I am not going to repeat all the criticisms and give references for all the crimes that are laid at "God's" door. Just read through the Books of Moses - especially Leviticus & Deuteronomy. Read the book of Job, with an open mind, as if you were coming to those texts for the first time. You'll conclude he's a tyrrant who, were he a head of state, would be hanged for crimes against humanity. He makes Saddam Hussain seem like a saint.
mikelheron20 4 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 But nothing I say to you will alter your views in the slightest - which is fine by me. I have no desire to convert you to my position even if I could. We differ so fundamentally that there is absolutely no possibility of a meeting of minds. I won't be returning to this correspondence but I wish you well.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 It's your choice to debate further or not, but I hope that our debates have made you think more critically about your view points. I have learned a lot from debating you by thinking critically about my view point to be able to answer your criticism. And no, you can alter my views points if you present facts and come up with an arguments that debunks my arguments definitively. But you must be open to this happening to your arguments too. I wish you well too.
shahriar5252 4 weeks ago
@shahriar5252 You really think bombs are the answer don't you. Unfortunately so does the other side. Pakistan and Iran now have nukes. How much longer do you think we can rely upon Mutual Assured Destruction. It's a miracle (don't take that literally) we haven't gone up in a puff of cosmic smoke before.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 True: the other side wants world domination by swords, bombs, etc. We want bombs or adequate weapons that neutralizes the other sides power and schemes out of necessity. If the other side, i.e., that other evil culture did not exist, we wouldn't want any bombs. In such a case, I would rather put the money into more research for curing diseases or feeding the poor. It's sad, but so much of our money MUST BE "wasted" on defense or we will be wasted by the enemy. Pray for evil's end.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 ahem: too many people never go to church, and usually they are skeptics, deists, atheists and agnostics. Don't generalize.
Bruno53ification 1 month ago
@Bruno53ification Don't generalize what? Please explain your point.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 why don't you read the books I mentioned and get the point I am trying to explain? Hitler used Christianity just to fool the German public. He wasn't sincere. He quit going to mass a kid. Whether you can call yourself "Catholic" [and never really quit] means nothing. And guess what? Alfred Rosenberg, a "self proclaim atheist" supported the Nazis. Dr Goebbels also quit going to Catholic mass, but his belief was probably just deistic, or indifferent.
Bruno53ification 1 month ago
@Bruno53ification I think you were trying to send this reply for someone else but you accidentally clicked on my name. I totally agree that Hitler was not a Christian and was only using Christianity and references to God for propaganda.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 OF COURSE! You get the point!
Bruno53ification 1 month ago
Oh, vey!
Another video associating Hitler with this or that.
Let's see...Hitler was a Nazi...Hitler liked women...51% of ALL Americans are women...therefore, 51% of ALL AMERICANS ARE NAZIS!
I just blew your mind...NOT!
Your logic is even more faulty than mine.
Next time, just keep your idiocy to yourself. Read a book, take a class, do anything but post videos as if you've discovered something new when all you've discovered is how dumb you are...
gardner90125 1 month ago
@gardner90125 Well hitler was a religious person andd no one knew he was religious since the Dark crimes he did.
xxcupxx1 1 month ago
Comment removed
sanik00 1 month ago
Yes, again majority of people in Germany were still Christians... even in the Wehrmacht.. Not allot of Christians in the SS though or Hitlers inner circle. Remember, the Pine Tree is a German tradition before becoming associated with Christmas. The Cross, isn't only a christian symbol as well, it is used in a variety of religions, cultures.
There was even a Muslim Volunteer SS division. Muslims were't considered Aryan, or Germanic, it was just a Volunteer division.
sanik00 1 month ago
Again, you have SA members, who remmeber were purged during Night of the Long Knives, outside a mass looking for support for the NSDAP.
sanik00 1 month ago
Those Wehrmacht crosses don't prove anything really lol. Try looking at the Pagan, occult roots of the SS. In fact, at the end of the war, crosses were replaced with the ancient Germanic runic symbol for life ( weird, perhaps thinking of life after death ) on soldiers grave sites.
sanik00 1 month ago
" I swear by God " Is a 2nd Reich era slogan not a Third Reich one. Hitler had plans to disband Christianity in Nazi Germany entirely after the war but those plans never were fulfilled.
He couldn't disband it all together, because that would shock the populace who are predominantly christian. Much like the Romans did to integrate Christianity into it's mostly Pagan populace. They slowly did it, making the change not so extreme so they still worshiped on the 25st of December, just for Christ.
sanik00 1 month ago
Yeah senior church officials such as Arch dukes payed homage to Hitler more out of fear and met to discuss the Church's future within the Nazi State .That dose't mean Hitler is de facto a Christian.
In the 1930's, the word " Christmas " is banned from all books. Majority of the clergy in Poland was rounded up along with Jews. The ones that collaborated were not killed.
sanik00 1 month ago
And the German Christians were only a pressure group within Protestantism, that isn't true chritianity, it was Nazism integrated into the Protestant faith so the two could be compatible ( Not Hitlers idea). It was a way of securing Nazi support from ( A minority) Christians, the way the SA was to secure working class support.
sanik00 1 month ago
You have his head down, that does not mean he was praying to Christ or even praying at all for that matter. He could have been praying to the flying fucking spaghetti monster, or just having a moment silence before addressing an audience.
sanik00 1 month ago
He was wasn't a Christian...
You have him attending a Wedding, which would be considered rude if he refused, it's common courtesy to attend, even if you don't believe in the Bible. And that looks like Rudolph Hess ( Probably not but it does bear a shocking close resemblance even though he was married in the 1920's), one of Hitlers major allies.
You have him at a rally saluting in front of a church... coincidence that a church has a large enough area in front of the street were the parade is.
sanik00 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What about Jack the Ripper, .. . I now want to know whether HE was atheist or christian?? SHIT!! FUCKIN IDIOTS!!! WHO GIVES A RATS FUCK??!!!!!!
Skulldini 1 month ago
lies.look at my account to refute his proof
Andytheantiathiest 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." -Adolf Hitler
Assassinate4u 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No IMMORAL (HITLER), impure, or greedy(THE POPE) person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God!!!!
Not christians! but only hypocrites! Obama said he was a Christian too, and we know now that he is not. Are you then going to believe hitler, or the pope with his giant property, living a rich life? Atheists its time you put this ignorance behind you, its not convincing anyone expect those that hate religion
JesusisLord685 1 month ago
Adolf Hitler was a true christian. R.I.P Adolf Hitler
88suckadicknohomo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitler's "Jewish problem" was identical, point for point, to Martin Luther's "Jewish problem." The holocaust was the offspring of German Protestantism. Case closed.Whether Hitler and Goebels waffled on their Christianity later in the Reich is irrelevant. They came to power by using the Christianity of the German masses...and the hatred of Jews came right down from the founder of protestantism, and continued through all the great christain leaders, not the least of which were Spurgeon and Calvin
pastafarianprophet 1 month ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 1 month ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 1 month ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 1 month ago
So the Jews got nearly exterminated by the christian world, when is it the muslim turn?
Barerra1 2 months ago
In order for you to believe Adolf Hitler was a christian, you have to ignore all of the anti-christian quotes he made as well as all of the Pagan symbolism he used. Adolf Hitler stated christian things to get the majority of people on his side, because he knew most of Germany at the time was christian. "Satan is the value-setting and value-increasing principle ...Satan is the fertilizing, destroying/constructing warrior." - Adolf Hitler
ExposingXianity666 2 months ago
Hitler was a Christian but I still believe he died in went to hell because he wasn't doing his job right as Christian.
R.I.P Adolf Hitler
88suckadicknohomo 2 months ago
If Hitler was Christian then you are a Maoist
utis144000 2 months ago
PROOF: HITLER WAS CATHOLIC... Catholicism is not Christianism... LOL
utis144000 2 months ago
@utis144000 The Catholic Church is THE church founded by Paul... the original.
bradjbourgeois73 2 months ago
I really don't understand the comments of this video. We can't determinate the truth of a view of the world just because people who believe in this vision makes things inconsistent with their vision, act against their vision.What happens then with Islam with atheism?. If a say: I'm Christian and then I rape and kill a little girl, does this make such religion false? I don't think that is the case.
NomiVoluntad 2 months ago
Ok, so the "Hitler=Christian=evil" soundbite no longer works, so we go to "Hitler=Christian-and-was-still-evil-therefore-Christianity-doesn't-work" soundbite. This one isn't quite so catchy as the other, which makes it problematic for a New Atheist, but maybe Richard Dawkins can hone it down to the standard 15 second N/A attention span.
Dabhach1 2 months ago
hitler banned atheists ive seen pictures of him younger as a choir type boy anyone can prove he was christian with a laptop. why you asamed. church doctrine says he is in heaven. so dont waste time lying and saying he was not . the people can google it and see for themselves this man in xtian heaven with his transexual dress and harp playing in clouds for eternity.
sajakram1 2 months ago
he was not a catholic he used relgion to gain power later he discriminated againts the church
knightofjustic 2 months ago
christians say they are all forgiven already . the greater the sin the greater the redemption. that is why they all rape kids. ppl like jimmy swaggert , anis shorrosh cos of this IMMORAL BIBLE teaching of dont have to do good deeds . so they say hitler is in heaven . this is what church has told world for centuries were already forgiven no wonder they brutally killed millions in europe
sajakram1 2 months ago
@sajakram1 Err...does anyone - even atheists - actually think this contribution merits a reply?
Dabhach1 2 months ago
@Dabhach1 I think this warrants a response. Sajakram1 has picked up an early Christian heresy which was judged outside orthodoxy about 1800 years ago. Mohammed picked up the same heresy and put it into the Qu'ran totally misrepresenting Christianity. This is a typical Islamic response based on limited or no understanding of the position they are criticising. Hitler was no more Christian than Mohammed (and the similarities don't end there sadly).
ParaguayanTree 2 months ago
If Hitler was a Christian, presumably the atheist argument is that Christianity is evil because one of its followers committed mass murder; meanwhile, just over the Soviet border, an atheist named Stalin was doing the same in the name of atheism. Does this mean atheism is evil, or Stalin was evil? If the latter, then may we infer it was Hitler who was evil, not Christianity? Or does the evil man/evil philosophy continuum only count when we're sticking it to Christians?
Dabhach1 2 months ago
@Dabhach1 he was atheist hitler used the church
knightofjustic 2 months ago
@Dabhach1
That's not the argument atheists are making. The argument is that christians can't claim that christianity prevents evil from taking place, that faith is the source of morality and that only atheists can do monstrous acts; because hitler ( along with other dictators like Musolini, Franco, Pinochet, Perón etc) and most of his followers were christian.
We are not saying that if Hitler : Christian --> Christian = evil. that would be an "ad hominem" falacy.
Peace.
iluan666 2 months ago
@Dabhach1 The fact is that Christians bring up Hitler all the time as an example of atheists lack of moral, and the facts that his army was Christian and supported by the catholic church is just a response to that since we have had enough of Christian lies by now.
How do you think it's possible to control peoples in the name of atheism?
If you open your eyes you can see religious groups make a war to a book like Harry Potter for example, building hate is easy with "Gods words"
ytbabbler 2 months ago 2
@lonovik People keep debating whether Hitler was a Christian or an atheist of some sort. Personally, the evidence seems to suggest that he was neither. He acknowledged some sort of god (so long as that god agreed with him), so that means that he wasn't an atheist. Still, from what information we have, I think that it's safe to say that he pretty much just made up his own religion.
Hitler doesn't fit in with atheism OR Christianity.
Patience1138 2 months ago
So hItler believed in a fairytale? so what are you trying to prove other then you are naive and immature
gottselig2004 3 months ago
Let's round up all the Christians and gas them :-D
Lunabeam1 3 months ago
Hitler was Catholic. Roman Catholicism has nothing to do with Jesus. Like Islam, it is pagan babylonian sun worship. Apostasy.
clarkewi 3 months ago
i have read on wikipedia that according to the censorship, in germany there were most protestants, it may be true, remenber lutero
cinefilterman 3 months ago
Tonight on Brad Metzler's Decoded, "The Spear of Destiny". Let's try a little logic here. If H/tler was after the Spear of Destiny for it's special power, that means H/tler would have to believe JESUS WAS THE SON OF GOD! Otherwise the spear is a piece of metal with no value whatsoever. And why was he after the spear....because he was a Christian!
TheFedupcitizen 3 months ago
ehm im quite sure most germans hwere catholics at the time. i guess Hitler agreed there is a creator, he just thought he had God on his side.
MrOlekul 3 months ago
Well, Stalin was an atheist. And Hitler was just using the Church, because people at that time in Germany were very faithful.
3SRBIJACCCC 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
To suggest Hitler was a Christian is to suggest also that he believed in and Worshipped a Jewish carpenter from Nazereth. Not.
Any christ he may have confessed was not the true Christ Jesus... but some evil counterfiet from hell that Jesus warned would arise in latter days.
blesseddisciple 3 months ago
maybe lonovik is confused about the meaning of christianity? We could call Pol Pot a catholic too if we were so inclined. After all, he attended catholic school.
LettuceReason 3 months ago
We don't need proof because everyone knows he was a Roman Catholic (even though some idiots say he was atheist) but anyway it was obvious by posters and speeches of his that mentioned god or quoted the bible, I cant tell all of them are or aren't (I'm not a nazi supporter) but do know from the ones I've seen here and there that he very clearly believed in a god.
Cratorman 4 months ago
While this is not proof, I still don't like to think of Christians as victims. Christians just like to say that they're discriminated against so that they won't have to feel guilty about the Christocentric society we live in. If Hitler wanted to do away with Chrisianity it was so he could be the new Christ.
Shockwave474 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
The crusades said they were Christians too..
GKSixtyEight 4 months ago
My goodness this is not proof, it's some pictures. Any reading of statements of Hitler and his philosophical advisers readily shows he planned to rid his Reich of Xtianity completely! The Nazi's persecuted priests to no end. I mean, come on, an elementary understanding of politics tells all but the most dense that Hitler had to appeal to a majority Xtian populace to succeed to power, but his real philosophical basis was a cocktail of darwinist materialism and nietschean atheism("God is dead")
metanosis 4 months ago
@metanosis Bullshit. He was born and baptized as a Catholic. He had ties with the Vatican. He mentions his belief in the "Lord" in Mein Kamf. How convenient of you bible thumpers to just dismiss all of that evidence as "propaganda". The misinformation that you spread about Hitler's faith is propaganda. Why do you think he had such a focus on Jews? Catholic vs Jews? Ring a bell? Besides, the personal belief of one person does not represent the whole. Get your head out of your ass.
iz2sicc 4 months ago
@iz2sicc Born Catholic? Mentions the "Lord", not sure how these abrogate Hitler's many documented writings of his desire was to rid his Reich of Xtianity?, or his many documented actions taken against Catholic priests,Xtians in general,many ended up in the camps, executed! Sure, his focus on the Jews was cultural, but his actions to commit genocide was clearly based on his darwinist/neitschean naturalism, he continually referred to Jews as a bacillus, in need of extermination.
metanosis 4 months ago
@metanosis Hmmm... well documented writings? Let's see your references then. I have a feeling you pulled that information from the Table Talk book which has no substantiated evidence to back it up. It's merely hearsay. The Catholic Church did not even denounce Hitler until after his death. That's because Hitler kept ties with them throughout the Nazi era. So again, provide your sources. I have already given you mine which came from Hitler's very own book which he himself authored.
iz2sicc 4 months ago
@iz2sicc Good lord man, just wiki it...Catholic Church would have loved to denounce Hitler, except if would have cost many their lives, ...in the end it did anyway, many many priests murdered....they were between a rock and a hard place, they erred on the side of preserving lives.....
metanosis 1 month ago
@metanosis But let's get back to the point. Say he was Atheist. What does that prove? Because Hitler was Atheist, all Atheists are immoral? Because I can play that same game with Christianity. Crusades? Inquisition? Burning people at the stake?
iz2sicc 4 months ago
@iz2sicc proves ideas have consequences, comes down to rule of law, or rule of man,atheist dictators heed no rule of law, only themselves, Hitler had the army swear personal fealty to him, not the country or constitution. BIG difference, Xtianity's sins were result of NOT following Christ,( no surprise here, original sin, man is inherently sinful, power hungry, selfish),
whilst Hitler's were a direct result of his worldview,"When there is no God, everything is permitted", Doesteovsky
metanosis 1 month ago
@jon62thebaptist Christianity is all the same. It's all pure hot dog shit. Fre your mind from religion. Embrace rational thought.
BlameRepublicans 5 months ago