Totally speechless

---

No...but I take it seriously.

Quote:nd grew to have a contempt for any and all organized religions "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"-Adolf Hitler circ 1941"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work"-Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

Originally Posted By: unsupervised  Quote:nd grew to have a contempt for any and all organized religions "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"-Adolf Hitler circ 1941As I said, used it to his own benefit. Quote:"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work"-Adolf Hitler in Mein KampfYep. I never said he didn't believe in a God...just not Christian.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler: _________________________________________________________________Night of 11th-12th July, 1941: National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7) 10th October, 1941, midday: Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43) 14th October, 1941, midday: The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52) 19th October, 1941, night: The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. 21st October, 1941, midday: Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65) 13th December, 1941, midnight: Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119) 14th December, 1941, midday: Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120) 9th April, 1942, dinner: There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339) 27th February, 1942, midday: It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278) _________________________________________________________________The source: Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953

funny you should choose Hitler's Secret Conversations aka Hitlers table Talk. There is much contraversy about highly inaccurate translations from the original notes. But, being so scholarly, I'm sure you've heard this before as have I.

One of many examples cited by Richard Carrier...

Quote:

"But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery" (Stevens and Cameron's English, again matching Genoud's French verbatim). But the original German says, "Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly." The difference in meaning here is radical, and again shows how Genoud (hence the Trevor-Roper translation) has distorted Hitler's criticism of one form of Christianity (which implies he believed there was a true Christianity) into a thoroughly anti-Christian sentiment.

hey, look up this phrase... "GOTT MIT UNS"

Originally Posted By: Rad You might be able to separate the zebras from the ostriches, but you can't so easily separate the evangelicals from the republicans. You're being ridiculous. If you can't see the difference between John McCain and James Dobson, then you're beyond help.Actually, I think you can but you just don't want to.Which makes this discussion pointless.

Ironic you guys are all jumping on Thor now. Before no one had a problem with his views and now it's a completely different story. Seeing where people side on certain issues and if they will actually speak up without being looked upon as a certain way. shruggy shrug shrugbtw, that wasn't directed towards you dami. Just something to be said in general.

I do. I'm talking about something recent but never mind it. I'm bringing up something unnecessarily.

I missed you, papi! :wink:

Catholic is Christian.

You act the same way in a thread when its something you feel strongly about.

Not even what I'm talking about.I usually keep my mouth shut about religion no matter how much it's being sucker punched. Race is a completely different story. But you feel entirely different about that nor would you even begin to understand. So it doesn't matter. Please continue on with your gay marriage and Christianity debate.

The remark was not intended to be condescending, but the control of its effect on you lays in your hands more than mine, at this point. Based on the statement you made, it seems there are certain portions of the Bible you apparently missed or have forgetten. You could always dig into it again and find them...maybe when you have more of a mood to.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: CiderOf course, it would be far easier for one to go through the old textbooks that you say are superior and cite many many examples of omissions. One easy example is the Sand Creek Massacre. Yes it would be. But my point is that they've taken out that which shows the Christian heritage of this country...specifically, any references to God. We'll start here:That is an example, but from what I've read of some of the Philosophers of Europe and how they are very well mirrored within the Constitution, it seems to me that, in writing, the founding fathers didn't base as much on Christianity as they did on the aforementioned ideas, though obviously there were many ways that they intersected because Europe was Christian, so these Philosophers would be bound to have some Christian beliefs within their own ideas, whether they were considered fairly radical or not. Also, as far as one aspect of religion in History education goes, my school, which is located in one of the most liberal, if not the most, cities in my state, put a very large emphasis on the First and Second Great Awakenings of the United States. Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: CiderAlso, from what I've read of your posts, it seems to me that you don't have anything wrong with same-sex couples getting the same rights as those who are married. Is this correct? Correct...I think. As far as I know, they already have the same rights. I think you're talking about financial benefits of married couples. If so, then yes, let them have that if they want. Let them have civil unions if they want. But don't call it marriage...that's not what marriage is no matter how many laws you try to change. I don't think I can really argue against this, though it is, in my eyes, essentially being politically correct by not wanting to offend Christians (just look at the fact that both candidates and their running mates stated this stance during the election). And I think everyone has misinterpreted what Thor has been saying. He's not saying that any other religion can't have marriage, but that, in his opinion, gays can't have a Christian marriage. However, one counterpoint to the argument that making a new sect of Christianity that has parts of it that goes against the Bible in some way is not Christianity is the essence of the founding of the Anglican Church. Basically, the Catholic Church wouldn't let Henry VIII get a divorce, so he separated the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church and allowed divorce. However, divorce is something that is not allowed in the Bible (there was a post on this previously), so, by your definition, Anglicans shouldn't be considered Christians but a different religion. Originally Posted By: thorWe already have AIDS...isn't that enough? Look at what happened to Soddom and Gamorah (you did say you were Christian, didn't you?)I think you can see why so many people would take offense to this comment. It strongly implies, whether you like it or not, that AIDS is something that came about because of gays. Originally Posted By: thorSo maybe a gay man brought it to the US, and maybe not...but the gays are most responsible for spreading it, even if it is largely amongst themselves. I consider them as part of the human population...don't you? As mentioned earlier, this was because gay people who had sex did not use condoms as often, so they were far more likely to contract the disease than straight people, who had a chance of pregnancy. Another factor is that anal sex can have tearing, which drastically increases the chances of AIDS being transferred from one person to another. And I'm pretty sure that the fact that they spread it the most primarily pertains to the past, as someone else mentioned earlier. I don't have any statistics on me about this, so I can't entirely back this up. Originally Posted By: thorCommitted by socialists! Do yourself a favor and get a real education. Find out what NAZI stands for and then come back and talk to me. That is not correct at all. It was committed by Fascists, completely on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Where Socialism and Communism place the emphasis on the individual, Fascism places the emphasis on the nation. Everything must be done for the country without regard to the individual. Fascism is a result of the threat of Communism, World War One, and Realpolitik, which had its start in Germany under Otto von Bismarck. National Socialism is a misnomer when applied to the "party" ruled by Hitler. This is illustrated by the quote, "One nation. One people. One leader," by Hitler.

Originally Posted By: Cider Originally Posted By: thorCommitted by socialists! Do yourself a favor and get a real education. Find out what NAZI stands for and then come back and talk to me. That is not correct at all. It was committed by Fascists, completely on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Where Socialism and Communism place the emphasis on the individual, Fascism places the emphasis on the nation. Everything must be done for the country without regard to the individual. Fascism is a result of the threat of Communism, World War One, and Realpolitik, which had its start in Germany under Otto von Bismarck. National Socialism is a misnomer when applied to the "party" ruled by Hitler. This is illustrated by the quote, "One nation. One people. One leader," by Hitler. The Nazis were socialists...that's how they rose to power. There is very little difference between the way in which Stalin ran the USSR and Hitler ran Germany. Look at the methods used...not the ideaology. In each case, the government both took care of and controlled the people. Hitler had his death camps...Stalin had his gulags. In both cases, one man rose to the top and didn't stop much short of trying to play God. But my point was that Hitler was no Christian by that time...if indeed he ever really was. The ironic thing is that, while many an athiest/liberal will attempt to pin Christianity in some fashion or form on anybody in history who's done wrong, they will turn around and help put a man in the position of president of the US who's own personal idealogy is closer to that of both Hitler and Stalin than any other US president in the history of this country.

Originally Posted By: RadI see who supports the republican ticket. Doesn't that speak for itself? That's certainly true. I would just add something: the more significant point is the way in which republicans invariably pander to the evangelicals, because they do contribute huge amounts of money and are a big block of votes. George Bush jr., in that he himself is a true believer, is an exception to what I'm saying here. A lot of republicans like Reagan and Bush sr., in my opinion, didn't really buy into the evangelical ideologies. Note for example that both had supported abortion rights before running for president. But they invariably pretended to support that group and took on their agendas for financial and political reasons, which just shows what sleazy, hypocrits they really were. There seems to be a sense among most republicans that they need to pander to these people to have any chance at all of winning elections. And frankly, they are probably right. I am mentionning this in regard to Damien's point. He can say there is a big difference between McCain and/or mainstream republicans from the wacko religious right. I just think that's irrelevant and misses the point. I'll believe it when a republican stands up and vehemently refutes the evangelicals. This was one of the saddest elements of McCain's campaign. Remember in 2000 he referred to these nuts, Falwell specifically, as "agents of intolerance." Then when he planned to run in 2008 he started pandering to them. I just find that sad; McCain enormously diminished himself in this election.What I'm saying to Damien is this: you can make the distinction between these (mythical?) moderate republicans and the religous nuts, but what you say doesn't matter. It is up to the republican candidate to publicly refute these people and set himself/herself apart from them. And few will do it, because that group represents such a large republican constituency that most republicans consider it political suicide to go after them.

thor, authoritarianism is not the same as socialism. In the nineteenth century the word 'socialism' referred to the abolition of the concept of private property for the individual, but in the twentieth it was used of any political system that aimed to ensure a more even distribution of wealth. Communist nations (which, after some initial experiments, retained the concept of private property but nationalised most industry and most employment) use the term of themselves, but it is also used by non-communist parties that favour the less drastic means of redistribution through progressive taxation scales and social support.Though any of these require an active and strong government to be carried out on a national scale, they do not require a dictator. On a small scale, indeed, they may occur by mutual consent, as in the early church (Acts 2:44-45).Under Hitler, the National Socialist Party was socialist only in name. He had effectively taken the party and turned it into a vehicle for his own domination.The left-right political axis is often combined with an orthogonal authoritarian-libertarian axis to represent different political styles, though I think this is still too simplistic. You're kicking own goals at the moment.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleThe left-right political axis is often combined with an orthogonal authoritarian-libertarian axis to represent different political styles, though I think this is still too simplistic. Clearly how people define their opposition relates to how you define yourself. As a staunch free-market liberal, I naturally define my enemies in opposite terms; authoritarian and collectivist. This will account for socialists, social-conservatives, nationalists, and fascists. Same shit different excuses. Like ya say the left-right axis doesnt work as theres no point reffering to social-conservatives as left-wing, even though their statism is as disgusting as that of social-democrats.I can understand Thors position though, hes sees statist tyranny from Hitler, and statist tyranny from Stalin. I would advise attacking Statism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism, because if you use words like "socialism" and "fascism" people start to dance around terms; "oh it wasnt really socialism" bleh bleh, it IS statism though and is thus in need of being stamped out.

Originally Posted By: Thoughtful Originally Posted By: RadI see who supports the republican ticket. Doesn't that speak for itself? That's certainly true. I would just add something: the more significant point is the way in which republicans invariably pander to the evangelicals, because they do contribute huge amounts of money and are a big block of votes. George Bush jr., in that he himself is a true believer, is an exception to what I'm saying here. A lot of republicans like Reagan and Bush sr., in my opinion, didn't really buy into the evangelical ideologies. Note for example that both had supported abortion rights before running for president. But they invariably pretended to support that group and took on their agendas for financial and political reasons, which just shows what sleazy, hypocrits they really were. There seems to be a sense among most republicans that they need to pander to these people to have any chance at all of winning elections. And frankly, they are probably right. But thats just a natural result of democracy. Barack Obama will pander to different groups aswell because of the need to win elections, indeed has very explicitly said that the Democrat party needs to start reaching out to none other than...evangelicals. Thats why they all talk so much about being the president of "everybody", they have to appeal to a large cross-section of people. Its not an inherently bad thing for them to look to the concerns of varying groups. I'm an atheist but I would definately have voted for Ronald Reagon, because he appeals to the free-marketeer and anti-communist in me. So what if evangelicalls like him aswell? There are democrats I could vote for aswell. Now these democrats may appeal somewhat to the horribly growing number of socialist Americans. Thats a shame but if on balance this man represents my views I would still vote for him. "sleazy, hypocrites" taking on board the wishes of the elctorate (or parts of it)? Common man, this is democracy.On a side note Bush has been accused of not paying anywhere near as much attention to christians in practice as he does in rhetoric. I you think over-estimate their influence in comparison with all the other lobby groups you have an America (this lobbying culture a pecularily American phenoman I might add).

Originally Posted By: Ineligible

Under Hitler, the National Socialist Party was socialist only in name. He had effectively taken the party and turned it into a vehicle for his own domination.

Ultimately he did this, yes. That's my point. As I said, look at the methods...not the ideaology. Every time you start with socialism, that's what happens! Hitler...Stalin...who else would you like to add to the list of totalitarian regimes that started under the banner of socialism?

Originally Posted By: Rad

I see who supports the republican ticket. Doesn't that speak for itself?

And I see who supports the democratic ticket. Does that speak for itself. Now, according to your logic, I get to say there is no difference between the Democratic party and atheists.

Oh wait...I wouldn't do that because I know how to THINK RATIONALLY.