Originally posted by whodeyYes. Whether he was acting in the name of "God" or not is irrelevant. It matters whether he believes he was acting in said name. Al-Qaeda acts in the name of a God too, but that doesn't change the fact that the Qur'an condemns those who do so. So what if the Bible has passages about this or that or what Jesus supposedly said ... Hitler believed he was acting in the name of God, unless you want me to classify a religion based on a minority that does bad things in the name of that religion.
Apparently you are not hearing what I am saying. If your words and actions do not correlate it is called hypocrisy and, in fact, Christ was very good as sniffing it out and calling people on it as I recall. That is why Christ hated it so much. People are going around doing things in the name of God when, in reality, it is all for their own purposes. All i ...[text shortened]... when, in fact, he had NOTHING to do with their actions and in the process hurt innocent people.
Originally posted by Nordlys'The problem of saying "Hitler was a Christian" when by "Christian" is meant something totally different from normal usage and historical context, is that the sentence ceases to mean anything. One might as well have said "Hitler was a Zorb" because the last word is meaningless. The only "value" in saying "Hitler was a Christian" with an iconoclastic meaning for "Christian" is as a tool of anti-Christian propaganda towards the end of misleading people.'
Did you read the article?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes, but you miss the point.
'The problem of saying "Hitler was a Christian" when by "Christian" is meant something totally different from normal usage and historical context, is that the sentence ceases to mean anything. One might as well have said "Hitler was a Zorb" because the last word is meaningless. The only "value" in saying "Hitler was a Christian" with an iconoclastic me ...[text shortened]... " is as a tool of anti-Christian propaganda towards the end of misleading people.'
I agree with you completely on this issue. Whether he was Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Hindu is irrelevant. Hitler was Christian, yes. But Sharon was Jewish; bin Laden is Muslim; the dude who killed Gandhi was Hindu; Stalin was raised Christian but his policies were atheist. But whether one commits acts in the name of ones religion becomes significant. All of the above except Sharon killed people in the name of their religion (Sharon killed people based on ethnicity, not religion).
Concerning the article: anything can be biased, myself included. What matters are primary sources, such as quotes.
Originally posted by scherzoYou said, "The sick brains thing doesn't mean anything, considering that describes der Fuhrer perfectly."
Concerning the article: anything can be biased, myself included. What matters are primary sources, such as quotes.
So, presumably you get to judge which quotes are relevant and which not.
Originally posted by scherzoExcept you, of course??!
No. History does. But no one on this site can.
And, by the way, who or what is "History"? Aren't we all a part of history, when we reflect on the past, or when someone in the future reflects on us reflecting on the past etc etc? "History" is not absolute, but profoundly relative!
For example, as we speak the history of South Africa is being rewritten entirely! It all depends on ones point of view...
Originally posted by CalJustTrue. Good point. Yet we are not history. We are actors in this small world, which is nothing more than a ... well, pardon the cliche, but a stage.
Except you, of course??!
And, by the way, who or what is "History"? Aren't we all a part of history, when we reflect on the past, or when someone in the future reflects on us reflecting on the past etc etc? "History" is not absolute, but profoundly relative!
For example, as we speak the history of South Africa is being rewritten entirely! It all depends on ones point of view...
So we don't judge who's right. Once we all cool down from a war, then we can decide. But the Zionists are trying to rewrite history too (quite literally) and, well, what can we do but be dogmatic revolutionaries?