Originally posted by knightmeisterHitler was a christian.
If you are a Atheist then no , but to a Christian God's holiness and love are as real as granite , infact more so , because without God granite would not exist. I believe Hitler was bad just in the same way i believe he had a moustache - it's an objective fact.
I have been arguing logically based on what I perceive the Atheist's position on morals ...[text shortened]... tally brutal ammoral universe is not one of them. This is an Atheist struggle entirely.
Originally posted by knightmeisterAnd you've been repeatedly told you are wrong - the lack of a God does not mean that there are no "objective morals". And Nature need not be construed as "brutal".
If you are a Atheist then no , but to a Christian God's holiness and love are as real as granite , infact more so , because without God granite would not exist. I believe Hitler was bad just in the same way i believe he had a moustache - it's an objective fact.
I have been arguing logically based on what I perceive the Atheist's position on morals ...[text shortened]... tally brutal ammoral universe is not one of them. This is an Atheist struggle entirely.
it is quite amusing to see rabid theists like yourself stumble around and pretend that you have any knowledge of other people's belief systems. It is quite obvious that your personal fanaticism makes it impossible for you to look at other's beliefs with any kind of objective reasoning.
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs Ian points out, Hitler was a Christian - and He fervently believed that what he was doing was God's work. Surely, two Christians could not have a different point of view about what is right and what is wrong if God's rule is absolute, and his rules are "real as granite" (which of course, you cannot prove the reality of, Cogito ergo sum and all that).
If you are a Atheist then no , but to a Christian God's holiness and love are as real as granite
No, no, Knight, you can only accept that even within Christendom, morality is relative. Perhaps I should point out all the "good" bad things done by the church over the years?
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow from "Hitler was a Christian" do you conclude, "he fervently believed that he was doing God's work"?
As Ian points out, Hitler was a Christian - and He fervently believed that what he was doing was God's work. Surely, two Christians could not have a different point of view about what is right and what is wrong if God's rule is absolute, and his rules are "real as granite" (which of course, you cannot prove the reality of, Cogito ergo sum and al ...[text shortened]... . Perhaps I should point out all the "good" bad things done by the church over the years?
And anyway, of course two Christians can have a different view about what is right and wrong. That does not negate the existence of the absolute, it just means that there is a relative interpretation (and Hitler didn't seem to have any abolsute in mind. It seems his Christianity was an attempt to secure diplomatic ties. Much like how some politicians declare themselves Christians in order to gain votes.)
"Cogito ergo sum"? My, my, not only are you now the sceptical scientist, but the ardent solipsist. Shame the two are contradictory.
Originally posted by Conrau KRABID FUNDY ALERT!!!!
How from "Hitler was a Christian" do you conclude, "he fervently believed that he was doing God's work"?
And anyway, of course two Christians can have a different view about what is right and wrong. That does not negate the existence of the absolute, it just means that there is a relative interpretation (and Hitler didn't seem to have any abolsute in mi ...[text shortened]... now the sceptical scientist, but the ardent solipsist. Shame the two are contradictory.
Well, if he wasn't a Christian, and he didn't believe he was doing God's work (quite why God doesn't do his own work is anyone's guess) why did he write
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." (Mein Kampf)
Or why did he say
""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
Perhaps you could explain? Alternatively, you could slink off the way all fundies do when they are proven to be talking out of their hole.
As for the "cogito ergo sum" bit, there is absolutely nothing contradictory between that and me being a scientist. One can simply say "If the universe truly exists, and the evidence is that it does, then science is the best tool we have for unpacking it". Indeed, one can go further and say "even if this is only an internally consistent illusion, science is still the best way we have of rationalising it"
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI was merely pointing out that from thet statement "Hitler was a Christian" it does not follow that "he fervently believed he was doing God's work". I am not saying that he did not believe this, only that it didn't follow. And as I argued before, Hitler was probably using Christianity to promote his own ideological leanings. Either that, or he was a fanatic (very likely).
RABID FUNDY ALERT!!!!
Well, if he wasn't a Christian, and he didn't believe he was doing God's work (quite why God doesn't do his own work is anyone's guess) why did he write
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." (Mein Kam consistent illusion, science is still the best way we have of rationalising it"
Why do you even assume that I'm a theist, let alone a fundy? It begs the question, which one of us is really rabid?
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, Hitler WAS a Christian, and whilst it may not have been his primary motivation, he certainly did think he was doing God's work. He certainly believed it. Likewise, I could mention the actions of the medieval church, the inquisition, or the crusades. The Christian church has so much blood in its hands, there is no way anyone could call Christianity "moral".
I was merely pointing out that from thet statement "Hitler was a Christian" it does not follow that "he fervently believed he was doing God's work". I am not saying that he did not believe this, only that it didn't follow. And as I argued before, Hitler was probably using Christianity to promote his own ideological leanings. Either that, or he was a fanatic ...[text shortened]... t I'm a theist, let alone a fundy? It begs the question, which one of us is really rabid?
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell, Christianity, being highly evangelical in its nature, has no exclusivity for admittance. You will find amoral and immoral people, as well as lunatics among congregations. Certainly, Christians are not in totality "moral", but Christianity is moral.
Well, Hitler WAS a Christian, and whilst it may not have been his primary motivation, he certainly did think he was doing God's work. He certainly believed it. Likewise, I could mention the actions of the medieval church, the inquisition, or the crusades. The Christian church has so much blood in its hands, there is no way anyone could call Christianity "moral".
You can capitilize the word "was" and shout "Hitler WAS a Christian" all you want. But that does not dismiss my argument that Hitler was attempting to secure Christian support for political gain (though he did outlaw Christian parties, and broke up the Christian union, thereby disbanding Christianity all together).
I am not so convinced that religion is the sole cause of the crusades or the inquisitions, either.
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KI was merely pointing out that from thet statement "Hitler was a Christian" it does not follow that "he fervently believed he was doing God's work".
I was merely pointing out that from thet statement "Hitler was a Christian" it does not follow that "he fervently believed he was doing God's work". I am not saying that he did not believe this, only that it didn't follow. And as I argued before, Hitler was probably using Christianity to promote his own ideological leanings. Either that, or he was a fanatic ...[text shortened]... t I'm a theist, let alone a fundy? It begs the question, which one of us is really rabid?
What exactly did you actually hope to achieve through this post?... Scottishinz wasn't making the statement:
Hitler was a Christian implies He fervently believed that what he was doing was God's work.
he made the different statement:
Hitler was a Christian - and He fervently believed that what he was doing was God's work.
Originally posted by AgergThis was Scottishinz's assertion that I took issues with:
[b]I was merely pointing out that from thet statement "Hitler was a Christian" it does not follow that "he fervently believed he was doing God's work".
What exactly did you actually hope to achieve through this post?... Scottishinz wasn't making the statement:
Hitler was a Christian implies He fervently believed that what he was doing was God ...[text shortened]... Christian - and He fervently believed that what he was doing was God's work.[/b]
As Ian points out, Hitler was a Christian - and He fervently believed that what he was doing was God's work.
But when I look back, Ian68 only says, "Hitler was a Christian". I wondered how from that one statement he infers that "he fervently believed that what he was doing was God's work".
Many people are Christians, but do not arrogate that what they are doing is God's work. They will bandy around a word called "sin" which is contrary to "God's work".
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KThe bit that Ian pointed out was that "Hitler was a Christian". Then I put a hyphen to show I was separating two pieces of information. I then pointed out Hitler fervently believed himself to be doing God's work. YOU believe Hitler was sinning, he did not. Irrespective of whether he was or not, the point remains that Christians cannot claim that Christian's morals are absolute whilst atheists are not.
This was Scottishinz's assertion that I took issues with:
As Ian points out, Hitler was a Christian - and He fervently believed that what he was doing was God's work.
But when I look back, Ian68 only says, "Hitler was a Christian". I wondered how from that one statement he infers that "he fervently believed that what he was doing was God's wor work. They will bandy around a word called "sin" which is contrary to "God's work".
[edit; neither groups morals are absolute]
5 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KI'm well aware of what bit you are referring to; but for your counter-post that asks why doing God's work follows from being a Christian to have been accurate...it would have been necessary that scottishinz had actually made a P -> Q statement in the first place...not a P & Q statement!.
This was Scottishinz's assertion that I took issues with:
As Ian points out, Hitler was a Christian - and He fervently believed that what he was doing was God's work.
But when I look back, Ian68 only says, "Hitler was a Christian". I wondered how from that one statement he infers that "he fervently believed that what he was doing was God's wor work. They will bandy around a word called "sin" which is contrary to "God's work".
(to clarify my point: let's say that a certain thing is red and round...I'm not saying that round follows from being red, simply that a certain object is red and round!)
Call me pedantic (or whatever) but too many valid points here and elsewhere are un-justly steam-rolled/ evaded by the type of rebuttal you have made here.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am not saying that Hitler thought he was sinning, I am merely demonstrating that being Christian does not mean doing God's works.
The bit that Ian pointed out was that "Hitler was a Christian". Then I put a hyphen to show I was separating two pieces of information. I then pointed out Hitler fervently believed himself to be doing God's work. YOU believe Hitler was sinning, he did not. Irrespective of whether he was or not, the point remains that Christians cannot claim that Chr ...[text shortened]... s morals are absolute whilst atheists are not.
[edit; neither groups morals are absolute]
And hyphens do not function to separate pieces of information. They normally indicate a parenthesis, which implied that you were making an inference from the initial statement. If not, then support your statement with evidence. Though, my objection still remains, Hitler could have been lying about his Christianity to gain public support, or was a lunatic. I think it wrong to label him Christian when he disbanded most Christian organizations.
Now I agree with you on morality and absolutes. Morality in the scripture is not unreasonable (or rather, wasn't at its time), if it were unreasonable, it wouldn't have survived. So morality is obviously something approachable through reason.
Originally posted by AgergNo, he tacked on an extra bit of information to Ian68's comment. Now either that piece of information is a non sequitur, or somehow logically follows.
I'm well aware of what bit you are referring to; but for your counter-post that asks why doing God's work [b]follows from being a Christian to have been accurate...it would have been necessary that scottishinz had actually made a P -> Q statement in the first place...not a P & Q statement!.
[i](to clarify my point: let's say that a certain thing is red ...[text shortened]... and elsewhere are un-justly steam-rolled/ evaded by the type of rebuttal you have made here.[/b]