Ebola - God cured me!

[mumkin 10]

I think whatever the creed or colour , faith or way of life respect is the key

 

Yep, I'm full of respect for Boko Harem, Islamic state etc etc.....after all, it's just a way of life (or death if you wish)

[Ryedo40 10]

Ryedo40- there is no causal link to suggest Hitler's childhood exposure to Christianity (by the way I am not Christian) was a basis for his actions. That is like saying Ted Bundy’s childhood Boy Scout membership caused him to kill!

 

I never stated his childhood exposure to Christianity was the basis of his actions. His hatred for the Jew stemmed from his Christian culture(anti-Semitism/Judaism was rife in Europe) and the influence of his Christian associates. Hitler also stated how his disdain for the Jew came about in Mein Kampf:

 

"At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party. When I arrived in Vienna, I was hostile to both of them. The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgement in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgement turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times...

 

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all." - Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Chapter 2.

 

The nazis were virulently anti-Christian and had plans to destroy the German Christian church- it is pretty certain by the time of Hitler's death he was most likely atheist.

 

The Nazis were hardly anti-Christian(that's pretty much a modern myth). They, themselves, mostly identified as Christian. Hitler did criticise Christianity though - and he also criticised the corrupt Church and fighting between the multiple denominations.

 

Hitler's views on Christianity were nuanced and complex, but he considered himself a Christian. His plans were to replace many of the current variants of Christianity with their own uniform variant of Christianity - one that was purified of its "corrupt" Jewish roots. Hitler believed Jesus was Aryan and that Paul, being a Jew, corrupted Jesus' original message: corrupting Christianity. When Hitler criticises Christianity, he's not criticising his own.

 

When the claim is made that Hitler planned to destroy Christianity, it's omitting the fact that he planned to replace it with a new, although far removed, variant of it.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that Hitler was an atheist. And there's certainly no evidence to suggest he became an atheist towards the end of his life. Not once did he have anything positive to say about atheism - and heavily criticised it. Even in the much disputed Table-talk, he states:

 

“The most marvellous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.”

 

“An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)”.

 

He also claims Jesus was an Aryan in Table-talk.

 

Throughout his life and political career, he stated his beliefs in God and stressed the importance of God belief.

 

Just going back to Hitler for now (as I want to shed some more light on his belief) to hold he was Christian and therefore his actions somehow place a shadow over Christianity can be discounted from certain sources.

 

This is nothing to do with placing a shadow over Christianity. It's about pointing out the facts. And the fact is the Nazi racial ideology was rooted in theology & religion. And the justification for their actions - including the use of eugenics - stemmed from that.

 

The Nazis killed anyone and everyone who they did not feel was worthy to pass on their genes. It seemed to them perfectly justifiable to kill any survival machines with what they perceived to be undesirable genes.

 

Yes. According to Nazi Racial ideology, the Aryans were created in God's perfect image. Jews, and other races, were blamed for corrupting the pure Adamite line(Nazis believed Adam and Eve were the origin of the white race). And the corruption led to their expulsion from paradise[Eden]. Using eugenics and other means, they attempted to purify and maintain the Aryan race to prevent further degeneration.

 

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.” - Hitler

 

“Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures [Aryans] would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.” - Hitler

 

"Blood sin and desecration of the race are the original sin in this world and the end of a humanity which surrenders to it." - Hitler

 

"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:

(a) Lowering of the level of the higher race;

(b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence

the ......beginning of a slowly but surely

progressing sickness.

 

"To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator." - Hitler

 

The justification for the Nazi regime's actions against the Jew didn't come from Darwinism(another myth), but from the theological and religious premises they held. It's clearly nonsense to suggest religion had nothing to do with WW2.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Ryedo40

[apelike 10]

Mumkin post 625 wrote:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by apelike

I think whatever the creed or colour , faith or way of life respect is the key

 

Something wrong with the quotes as that's not one of mine

[hauxwell 244]

If god did cure him he also had a helping hand from the hard working tax payers of this country.

 

I thought all of Africa was going to be wiped out by the virus because of the amount of money government sent to help stop it.

[redwhine 10]

you and snailboy have shown your true colours and ignorance for why ? its not the questions , its the non respectful attitude , you have insulted people of faith , yes constructive criticism by all means but using terms like penis is going to far along with all the rest you have said .

Penis! You have a problem with the use of the word 'penis'?

 

penis pe·nis (pē'nĭs)

n. pl. pe·nis·es or pe·nes (-nēz)

The male organ of copulation and of urinary excretion, formed by three columns of erectile tissue, two arranged laterally on the dorsum and one medianly below; the extremity is formed by an expansion of the corpus spongiosum, covered by a free fold of skin.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penis

 

God is constantly being referred to as 'he' on this thread. If 'it' does not have a penis, then why not 'she' or 'it' instead? I cannot imagine why and how a non-corporeal being would/could have a penis. Asking questions is not a sign of 'obvious lack of intelligence'. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

Do you know why? If not, you are also ignorant.

 

I think you have to understand the difference between faith and religion ! learn some respect for others views without ignorant statements of your obvious lack of intelligence.

Faith is believing stuff without evidence. Religion is is acting out 'rituals' (...not necessarily to do with faith... "He walked the dog religiously before breakfast ever day." for instance.)

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2015 at 06:30 ----------

 

Peoples views deserve respect out of common decency

No they don't.

 

you have all mocked Teeny and kingdom , well guess what that fact has made me think there is some truth in what they are talking about

:hihi:

 

they speak from their hearts

If they could do that, they would be dead. (The heart is a muscle which pumps blood.)

 

in simple language, complicating issues that you have actually made more of a distraction so as to confuse , disguise what they are saying ,

They all appear to be English words, but they form no coherent sentence(s).

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2015 at 06:37 ----------

 

which have been answered just not to your satisfaction ? or do you just not understand the simple message of the gospel ? this is my final comment. I don't wish to be embroiled into your game , which you love playing , especially as you have repeated it so many times in different threads.

Shaker's Law

 

Shaker's Law states that:

“Those who egregiously announce their imminent departure from an Internet discussion forum almost never actually leave."

 

In other words, contributors who made a considerable public song and dance about their exit from such a forum rarely leave and remain after all, thriving on the attention they receive. It is thus an example of hypocrisy.

 

Like Godwin's Law and Poe's Law on which it is modeled, it can be considered a deliberate exercise in memetics.

 

Shaker's Law is an adage formulated by a Richard Dawkins forum contributor known as Shaker in 2006/7. Shaker's Law subsequently became popularised via several related atheist internet forums including Thinking Aloud, Rationalia and Rational Skepticism.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Internet_law

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2015 at 06:59 ----------

 

Careful here because one can also say atheists use a form of special pleading.

 

If I quote from Rational Wiki what special pleading is, it states:

 

===========

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but from my experience talking face to face with atheists (and in a very nuanced approach and amicable manner from both sides), I have asked questions of how life emerged from non-living matter.

Nothing to do with atheism. That's abiogenesis, I 'believe'.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

 

I have had responses like 'we don't know yet' or 'science doesn't know but it will one day'...I mean, come on! Is that not special pleading?!

 

What really stretches me is that either some atheists are totally oblivious to the language code and DNA or are just ignorant.

 

I have heard some say to me that natural events can (in the right conditions) create X.

 

Really? Nautral laws do not create anything! So to hear that these natural laws/events can make X happen is amusing to say the least.

 

Can a natural event write the DNA code? Seriously, do you believe that?? It would be just as absurd to assert that mindless chemical or physical processes could write a newspaper article!

 

A quote by Bill Gates comes to me. He said: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any we’ve ever created.”

 

In order to suppose that a code or language could be produced by an unintelligent natural process, atheists must receive a special exemption from the rule which states that abstract, substitutive, symbolic representation (language or code) can only result from intelligence...and that my friend just isn't the case and science does not support it either.

 

Hence it is my view that those atheists who deny this are simply materialists and naturalists-they follow what they believe is science but it isn't. This is what conflicts with pure SCIENCE.

 

To throw an example, physicist Paul Davies point out that 'the phenomenon of the genetic code mediating information between the two languages of life (proteins and nucleic acids) provides a mystery: How can mindless processes set up codes and languages?

 

I honestly think if some of you on here took an open mind and really looked at the evidences from a scientific point of view and an understanding of the philosophy of science - you may hold different views.

 

All this talk about evidence for god etc may in itself become pointless when one really examines things a bit more closer.

 

Suffice to say, there are many evidences for an Intelligent Being, and one example (as brief as it is) is in what I pointed out.

 

You have argument from conscience, morality, fine tuning- yes some of these gets covered and few like to throw their views, but in all fairness, many of you have made up your mind about God before conversations even begin!

 

On top (my last point) there is the emotional baggage few of you bring to the table- emotional arguments serve no real purpose in these type of discussions.

 

I will end it here but wish you all well and hope you find what you may be looking for.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all.

 

Atheists can believe that the Earth is flat or/and that the Moon is made of green cheese if they so desire, but Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

The nazis were virulently anti-Christian and had plans to destroy the German Christian church

Utterly false. He allied with the Catholic Church in Rome and protestant churches in the north of Germany. I wouldn't argue that Hitler was a Christian, he was far too invested in his pagan aryan-blood myth, but you've over stretched the point a little.

[SnailyBoy 10]

Utterly false. He allied with the Catholic Church in Rome and protestant churches in the north of Germany. I wouldn't argue that Hitler was a Christian, he was far too invested in his pagan aryan-blood myth, but you've over stretched the point a little.

 

If Hitler felt Christian he was Christian. Who's to say he wasn't without falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[harvey19 541]

[quote=redwhine;11037122

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all.

 

Here we go again for another several pages probably !

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

If Hitler felt Christian he was Christian. Who's to say he wasn't ...

I shall expand, because I wouldn't argue that he wasn't a Christian either. Hitler's religious views are obscure, contradictory, and more than that - endlessly tied to his politics. Was it true religious belief or pragmatic political posture? Who knows.

 

His acts speak for themselves however. He only persecuted Christians when they stood against his political aims, or had other traits that he condemned them such as being slavic. He never persecuted the Church per se, just de-politicised it, and he also used religion to unite people to the Nazi party.

 

I went to Dachau recently and saw the Priest Barracks. Hitler's anti-clericalism is mixed with the odd history of the Vatican's support for his work, and even more - their assistance to help Nazis escape after the war.

 

A truly complex history, the role of the Catholic Church in WW2.

[SnailyBoy 10]

I shall expand, because I wouldn't argue that he wasn't a Christian either. Hitler's religious views are obscure, contradictory, and more than that - endlessly tied to his politics. Was it true religious belief or pragmatic political posture? Who knows.

 

His acts speak for themselves however. He only persecuted Christians when they stood against his political aims, or had other traits that he condemned them such as being slavic. He never persecuted the Church per se, just de-politicised it, and he also used religion to unite people to the Nazi party.

 

I went to Dachau recently and saw the Priest Barracks. Hitler's anti-clericalism is mixed with the odd history of the Vatican's support for his work, and even more - their assistance to help Nazis escape after the war.

 

A truly complex history, the role of the Catholic Church in WW2.

 

I agree.. ,it certainly isn't a simple as applying a label. I need to do some further research.

 

Do you have any recommendations?

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

There's a very interesting book called Hitler's Pope, but do bare in mind that the author changed some of his views later on. It's open to criticism but it does give an outline of the case.

 

It's difficult history also because the Vatican still guards it's own paperwork on the subject closely. Time will tell.

 

---

 

It is also worthy to note that fascism existed in Italy before Germany, and didn't have the same brutality or virulent anti-semitism. While Catholic Italians may not have been enamoured by the Jews, it certainly never crossed their minds to put them into camps.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Chris_Sleeps

[SnailyBoy 10]

There's a very interesting book called Hitler's Pope, but do bare in mind that the author changed some of his views later on. It's open to criticism but it does give an outline of the case.

 

It's difficult history also because the Vatican still guards it's own paperwork on the subject closely. Time will tell.

 

Yeah, not the most open and honest organisation are they?